RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_04_03_D_Border_Issues_Status_ReportCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:CAROLYNN PETRU,AICP,DEPUTY CITY MANAGER~
DATE:APRIL 3,2012
SUBJECT:BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT /,n
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER CiY-
Project Manager:Kit Fox,AICP,Senior Administrative Analyst@
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This month's report includes:
• A brief update on recent legal action related to the proposal for stadium lights at
Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates;
•An update on recent issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane storage
facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro);and,
• A report on the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (DEIS/EIR)for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts'
Clearwater Program in the City's Eastview area and in Los Angeles (San Pedro).
BACKGROUND
The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border Issues"
potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.The complete text of the
current status report is available for review on the City's website at:
http://pa/osverdes.com/rpv/planninglborder issuesl2012120120403 Borderlssues StatusRpt.cfm
D-1
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
April 3, 2012
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Proposal, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School
District/Rolling Hills Estates
On February 9, 2012, the Peninsula News reported that the Peninsula Stadium Lights
Steering Committee had filed suit against the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School
District, seeking to recover roughly $200,000 in damages due to the District’s decision to
terminate its authorization to raise funds for the stadium lighting project last November (see
attachments). Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
The following events have transpired since the last Border Issues update on this facility in
early February 2012:
• On February 28, 2012, the Daily Breeze reported that LAUSD Board Vice President
Richard Vladovic had sent a letter to Governor Brown asking for further
investigations into the Rancho LPG facility (see attachments);
• On March 8, 2012, Staff received an e-mail and photographs from Jody James (see
attachments) after a collision between a truck and a train just outside the Rancho
LPG facility at Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive;
• On March 12, 2012, Staff received another e-mail from Jody James (see
attachments) announcing that the Board of Harbor Commissioners would be
discussing the Rancho LPG facility at its meeting on March 15, 2012; and,
• On March 13, 2012, Staff received an e-mail from Jeanne Lacombe (see
attachments) regarding the Los Angeles City Attorney’s review of the Rancho LPG
facility.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
New Border Issues
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts’ Clearwater Program, Eastview Area and Los
Angeles (San Pedro)
Staff has been aware of (and informally monitoring) the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts' (LACSD) “Clearwater Program” since about 2006. Currently, effluent from the
LACSD treatment plant in Carson passes through a pair of 6-mile-long tunnels under the
Eastview area of the City. An access shaft for the tunnels is located in the City's Eastview
Park (which is actually leased from LACSD). The tunnels were constructed in 1937 and
D-2
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
April 3, 2012
Page 3
1958, but have not been inspected since being put into service more than fifty (50) years
ago. The tunnels cannot be inspected or repaired because they provide the only ocean
outfall for the LACSD treatment plant.
In order to increase facility capacity and allow maintenance and repair of the existing
tunnels, LACSD is proposing the Clearwater Program to construct an additional tunnel and
ocean outfall. One of the four (4) alternative alignments for the new tunnel ("Alignment 4")
would pass along the southeasterly edge of the City's Eastview area, several hundred feet
below Western Avenue. This project is expected to be completed by 2022.
On February 10, 2012, LACSD released the Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment/Environmental lmpact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the Clearwater Program (see attached
Notices of Availability and Executive Summary). Alignment 4 is the preferred alternative for
the project. Although there would be no surface excavation within the City under this
alternative, there would be an access shaft constructed at Royal Palms Beach in San
Pedro near the foot of Western Avenue. An article about the project was published in the
Daily Breeze on February 16, 2012 (see attachments). The 60-day public comment period
for the DEIS/EIR is scheduled to end on April 10, 2012, and three (3) public meetings were
held in March 2012 to receive public comments.
On February 28, 2012, the Port Committee and Planning and Land Use Committee of the
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council met jointly to discuss this project (see
attached agenda). The Committee members in attendance discussed the project and
expressed some concerns about the selection of Alternative 4 as the preferred project
alternative, primarily due to localized construction-related impacts surrounding the
proposed shaft site at Royal Palms Beach.
On March 8, 2012, LACSD hosted the third (and final) in a series of public hearings to
solicit comments on the DEIS/EIR at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in San Pedro (see attached
agenda). LACSD and Army Corps of Engineers staff members presented an overview of
the project and the assessment of its environmental impacts. It was noted that most of the
project’s impacts would be temporary and construction-related (i.e., air quality, aesthetics
and greenhouse gas emissions). Roughly fifty (50) people attended the hearing, and ten
(10) provided oral comments. Speakers raised a variety of issues, including:
• The stability of the bluff at the proposed shaft site at Royal Palms Beach;
• The location of alternate access shaft sites in the Port of Los Angeles;
• Errors in the traffic impact analysis;
• Impacts (i.e., settling, vibration, etc.) upon homes near the tunnel alignment;
• Potential conflicts of the proposed tunneling with dredging activity in Machado Lake
in Harbor City
• Proximity of the proposed tunnel to the Rancho LPG butane storage facility; and,
• Tunneling across the Palos Verdes fault zone.
D-3
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
April 3, 2012
Page 4
Additional information and electronic copies of relevant documents are available for public
review at the project website, http://www.ClearwaterProgram.org. Staff intends to submit
comments on the DEIS/EIR prior to the 60-day comment deadline, and will continue to
monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Attachments:
• PV News article regarding lawsuit against PVPUSD over denial of stadium lights
proposal (published 2/9/12)
• Daily Breeze article regarding letter by LAUSD Boardmember Vladovic about
Rancho LPG facility (published 2/28/12)
• E-mail and photographs from Jody James regarding truck/train collision near
Rancho LPG facility (dated 3/8/12)
• E-mail from Jody James regarding Board of Harbor Commissioner’s discussion of
Rancho LPG facility (dated 3/12/12)
• E-mail from Jeanne Lacombe regarding Rancho LPG facility (dated 3/13/12)
• Notices of Availability for Clearwater Program Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (dated 2/10/12)
• Executive Summary from Clearwater Program Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (dated 2/10/12)
• Daily Breeze article regarding Clearwater Program (published 2/16/12)
• NWSPNC Joint Port and Planning & Land Use Committees’ agenda regarding
Clearwater Program (dated 2/28/12)
• Agenda for Clearwater Program public hearing in San Pedro (dated 3/8/12)
M:\Border Issues\Staff Reports\20120403_BorderIssues_StaffRpt.doc
D-4
PV News article regarding lawsuit against PVPUSD
over denial of stadium lights proposal
D-5
Lights committee seeks damages
By Mary Scott, Peninsula News
Thursday, February 9, 2012 3:06 PM PST
The Peninsula Stadium Lights Steering Committee filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate/Complaint against the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and the Board of Education on Jan. 31. The steering
committee brought the action against the board and district for “failure and refusal to engage in and
complete the process they represented and promised they would engage in to determine the viability of
installing lights at Peninsula High School.”
The steering committee seeks to recover the value of work and services provided by a law firm and
architectural consultants, which is estimated to be nearly $150,000, and out-of-pocket capital campaign
expenses and other expenses, including geotechnical investigation services, estimated at roughly $50,000.
The services (legal and engineering) were provided free of charge based on the belief that the school district
was proceeding in good faith and that it would undertake the environmental assessment for the installation
of stadium lights that it promised it would, said Martha Doty, legal counsel for the steering committee.
Doty’s firm is working on the lawsuit pro bono.
“The complaint does seek to recover the value of those services because of what we’ve alleged to be the
misrepresentations made by the board and the district,” Doty said.
There are many issues regarding the environmental assessment that needed to be researched, Doty added.
Nina MacLeay, chair of the steering committee, and her law firm spent a number of hours throughout the
yearlong campaign researching those issues as well as the assessment for California Environmental Quality
Act.
“The law allows someone who has provided valuable services to seek to recover the value of the services
where the facts are as they were alleged to be,” Doty said.
The school district was served on Feb. 1 but to date has not had time to study the claim or to consult with its
legal counsel or the board.
“Right now we need to have the time to share this with the Board of Education and with our legal counsel
about what it all means,” Superintendent Walker Williams told the News.
A hearing is tentatively set for May in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in downtown Los Angeles.
The claim
The steering committee formed in February 2010 to pursue the installation of four 80-foot-tall stadium lights
on the Peninsula High School campus. According to court documents, the committee claims it received
support from the district and board members, even stating that one board member guided and advised the
committee from its inception through its July 22, 2010, presentation to the rest of the board.
The committee further claims that district officials and board members continued to advise the committee,
even prepping members before city council meetings, knowing the community opposition to the project.
However, according to the complaint, the committee says its members were prevented from responding to
the opposition regarding the usage of the lights, as the district would decide that after an environmental
assessment.
Print Page
Page 1 of 2Print Version
2/9/2012http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2012/02/09/local_news/news1.prt
D-6
The board created a sub-committee in late summer of 2010 and met regularly with steering committee
members about the project. During these meetings, the district allegedly promised the environmental
assessment would move forward provided the committee could establish that it had $250,000 in the bank by
July 10, 2011.
The complaint also alleges that the district pulled its support following “threats” from community members
that it would not support the district’s upcoming parcel tax election if the district allowed the project to
progress any further. (The board had voted to place the renewal of parcel taxes, measures P and V, on the
November 2011 ballot.)
The committee claims that before the deadline ended, the district pulled its support, stating in a letter that
“‘it does not appear’ that the steering committee had reached its target ‘by the July 1, 2011, deadline’” and
that “the district ‘must graciously decline’ any further efforts on the project.”
According to the complaint, the committee had raised money in excess of $250,000 and presented bank
statements reflecting those donations on July 6, 11 and 14.
The committee claims it was led to believe they would have a chance to prove it had the money at the July
14, 2011, board meeting. Instead the board voted to end the project based on recommendations by the
superintendent and legal counsel. (The board voted a second time in November 2011, again shooting down
the environmental assessment.)
The committee claims the district and board misled them, the public and donors that it could move forward
with an environmental impact report if the committee collected $250,000, and that the two parties “blatantly
and unjustifiably reneged on their promises and commitment to the steering committee and the donating
public.”
The committee filed a claim pursuant to Government Code, asking for reimbursement in September 2011.
The district rejected the claim as “unmeritorious.”
mscott@pvnews.com
www.Twitter.com/PVNewsEditor
Page 2 of 2Print Version
2/9/2012http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2012/02/09/local_news/news1.prt
D-7
Daily Breeze article regarding letter by
LAUSD Boardmember Vladovic about Rancho LPG facility
D-8
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20056462
Page 1 of 1 21/03/2012 09:31 AM
Vladovic asks Brown to probe gas facility near San Pedro school
By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:DailyBreeze.com
Los Angeles school board Vice President Richard Vladovic has written a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown asking the state
to investigate a liquid petroleum gas facility near a San Pedro elementary school.
Rancho LPG - formerly Petrolane - was investigated in 1977 by the first Brown administration.
"The report from the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) and other agencies revealed several concerns about the
safety for the surrounding community," Vladovic wrote in his Feb. 10 letter to the governor. "It is now 35 years later,
the equipment is now 35 years older, and still nothing has been done about this issue."
The facility's storage tanks, at 2110 N. Gaffey St., have long been a target of homeowners who say they pose a
danger to the community.
Vladovic, who represents the Harbor Area on the school board, wrote the letter at the request of the Northwest San
Pedro Neighborhood Council and San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners Association.
- Donna Littlejohn
D-9
E-mail and photographs from Jody James
regarding truck/train collision near Rancho LPG facility
D-10
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
From:Jody James Oody.james@sbcglobal.net]
Sent:Thursday,March 08,2012 3:30 PM
To:kitf@rpv.com
Subject:LPGITRAIN/TRUCK collision in San Pedro
At 2:00 pm a semi truck and an LPG train with 4 black cars was hit at the
interesction of Westmont and Gaffey 81.(it's still there)This is a busy interesction
and school busses loaded with children from the nearby Taper Ave.Elementary
School were just making the tum at the interesction.The huge,Rancho LPG twin
Butane tanks (25 MILLION gallons)and Propane containers (300,000 gallons)
occupy the comer of Westmont and Gaffey on the northeast and have been a big
concern to residents.The homes and schools (l,000 ft away)PRE-existed these
tanks and the danger the LPG facility might pose has been a source of friction
between the residents and City of LA and Port of LA.
3/2112012 D-11
Truck Train Collision near Rancho LPG Facility, March 8, 2012
(Photos provided by Jody James)
.I--=-~--~··eidf
D-12
D-13
E-mail from Jody James regarding
Board of Harbor Commissioner’s discussion of Rancho LPG facility
D-14
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
From:Jody James Uody.james@sbcglobal.net]
Sent:Monday,March 12.201212:06 PM
To:kitf@rpv.com;John Kelly;Linda Krammes;kristina smith;mandm8602@att.net;Andrew Mardesich;
Nancy Castiglione;Tom Politeo;rborden959@cox.net;Robertjaybryant@aol.com;Paul Rosenberg;
stefanb39@aol.com
Subject:thursday SHC meeting/Rancho LPG
Hi all,This thursday,March 15th at 8:30 am at the Port building --the Board of
Harbor Commissioners meeting!Last meeting was the 1st of March and the BHC
asked the City Attorney to give them an answer to what they can do about the
Rancho LPG facility.
The community cares about this --let LA City Attorney,Trutanich and City
Councilman,Joe Buscaino know it's important to us!!!!
Japan's disaster was in the category "high consequence/low probabilityll.But it
HAPPENED and 20,000 of their citizens were killed.Nature does not care how
many regulations and permits Rancho has,neither do terrorists.PLEASE come
and bring your neighbors!!!The Public Comment section is first.Just fill the seats
even if you don't plan on speaking!!! J ody James
3/21/2012 D-15
E-mail from Jeanne Lacombe regarding Rancho LPG facility
D-16
Page 1 of3
Kit Fox
From:Lacombe [chateau4us@att.net]
Sent:Tuesday,March 13,20124:41 PM
To:susanbrooks01@yahoo.com;kitf@rpv.com;B Campbell
Subject:Rancho LPG facility
Hi!
This is just for your information and not any request to act.
I just wanted to forward this email of messages going back and forth between Janet Gunter who I have
worked with on the Rancho issue and Tom Russell who works with Carmen Trutanich and in some way
the Port of LA.We met with Tom Russell during the same meeting we met with Canmen Trutanich.
On a side note,Steve Cooley's District Attorney's office in the environmental unit suggested we obtain
another risk anaylsis report from either Cal-tech or JPL.I have contacted about a dozen professors an I
received a rather terse response from their media relations department that none of the professors have
the time or resources to devote to this issue.
These messages are a sample of what local homeowers have run up against for years.
Jeanne Lacombe
-----Original Message -----
From:Janet Gunter
To:TRussell@portla.org
Cc:sally.maqnani@doj.ca.gov ;brianhembacherdag@doLca.qov ;raul.delarosa@qov.ca.qov ;
weslinq.mary@epamail.epa.gov ;IVIrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net
Sent:Tuesday,March 13,20124:04 PM
SUbject:Re:Rancho ...Public Records Act Request info
Hi Tom-
The public records act requests seem to get more complicated.Reason being most of the documents
are both unfound and/or missing.When you say ..."please see responsive documents
attached"....generally,there is nothing relevant to the request.For instance,the request for the public
notices for the EIR.There is nothing that responds to that other than a statement in City of LA
documents that "there was a 30 day public notice and that all comments are included in the draft report".
Any documentation to substantiate that is missing.
Also,the information in the Governor's report from the PUC is from "after"the project was in
operation ....so,what we are looking for is the documentation that preceded the development.The same
applies to 3's 6,7 &8.
The earthquake engineering investigation prepared for Petrolane in May of 1972 ...should have been a
part of the original EIR and included in the port's documents.Why not?I still haven't tried the Converse
Professional Group ...as this item got buried in the "pile"of research that we are trying to get done.But,I
will get to it soon.Also,the issue with the Storm Permit.I spoke to Ms.OHDE and have submitted the
request for information.She,however,feels that it is the City of LA that will have any relative
documentation not the County.
Tom,I believe that you are doing your best but,unfortunately,the documents that are requested are still
MIA.It is imperative to set the stage for this facility and how it was implemented.It serves no purpose to
read about the declarations made after it was installed.I appreciate the time that you have invested in
this but hope that you will continue to search for the requested documents.This is all very troubling.The
hazard of this facility is not only of import to the local residents,but also of great significance to the Port
and City of LA.For everyone's sake,we must address this problem to ensure the safety of us all.
Thanks for your efforts thus far.Please keep trying.
Best regards,
3/21/2012 D-17
Page 2 of3
Janet G
-----Original Message-----
From:Russell,Thomas <TRussell@portla.org>
To:Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:Fri,Jan 6,2012 2:12 pm
Subject:Rancho
HiJanet,
It was good seeing you yesterday.As I indicated,we have continued digging through the historical records at
various locations,a difficult and time consuming process.We recently discovered some additional responsive
documents,copies of which are attached.
Here's the current status of our responses to your document requests:
1)The request for the Earthquake Engineering Investigation (EEl)prepared for Petrolane in May of 1972
that is referenced on page 39 ofthe Petrolane EIR:
a.This document was not found.If the document does exist it is likely held by Rancho LPG,its
parent company Plains LPG Services,or the Converse Professional Group (the company that
originally prepared the report,formerly known as Converse,Davis,and Associates).
b.I know you are aware ofthe contact information for both Rancho LGP and Plains LPG Services.
The Converse Professional Group has the follOWing contact information:
i.222 East Huntington Drive
Suite 211
Monrovia,CA 91016
Phone 626 930-1200
c.Responsive information about earthquake safety can be found in the attached California Public
Utilities Commission Report (1977).
2)In regard to your request for the Los Angeles County Storm Drain Permit for the Rancho LPG facility no
responsive documents were found.However,Los Angeles County Storm Drain Permit information can
be obtained from:
a.Mary-Elizabeth Ohde
626458-7091
3)Information regarding "...moving the Petrolane matter to the Board of Referred Powers ...."
a.Please find responsive documents attached.
4)Public Notices for the EIR process
a.Please find responsive documents attached.
5)A timeline of the project until the closure ofthe wharf and pipeline.
a.Please find a copy of Executive Director Geraldine Knatz'October 4,2011 Informational
Memorandum to the Board of Harbor Commissioners on the subject attached.
6)"As per the LA the LA Building and Safety certification of tanks in 1978,there is a clear notation from the
inspector that the process was to 'legalize tanks built in 1973 without permits'.How was construction
moved forward on tanks without approval of the EIR in 19767"
a.Responsive documents are attached.
7)"Is there an EIR of the rail line?"
3/21/2012 D-18
Page 3 of3
a.No responsive documents found.
8)"We have now become aware that the tanks and pipeline from Rancho LPG are in an 'Earthquake
Rupture Zone'.Did the Port know this when the facility and pipelines were built?Are the tanks and rail
built to withstand an earthquake rupture of up to 1 yd?"
a.Responsive documents are attached.
Please let me know if we've overlooked responding to any document requests.
Best reg a rds,
Tom
3/21/2012 D-19
Notices of Availability for Clearwater Program
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
D-20
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1955 Workman Mill Road,Whittier,CA 90601-1400
Mailing Address:P.O.Box 4998,Whittier,CA 90607-4998
Telephone:(562)699-7411,FAX:(562)699-5422
www.lacsd.org
STEPHEN R.MAGUIN
Chief Engineer and General Manager
PUBLIC NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
CLEARWATER PROGRAM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
To:
Lead Agency:
State Clearinghouse Number:
Project Title:
Project Location:
1.0 Introduction
Mailing List
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
2008101074
Clearwater Program Master Facilities Plan
Los Angeles County
The Clearwater Program is a comprehensive planning effort undertaken by the Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts).Its purpose is to develop a long-range
Master Facilities Plan (MFP)for the Joint Outfall System (JOS),a regional wastewater
management system serving approximately 4.8 million people in 73 cities and unincorporated
areas in Los Angeles County.The Clearwater Program MFP includes an evaluation of
infrastructure needs and will serve to guide the management and development ofthe JOS through
the year 2050.As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),the Sanitation
Districts have prepared a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)to assess the potential
environmental impacts of the MFP.
Certain elements of the Clearwater Program MFP will require federal permits from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).Consequently,the Sanitation Districts partnered with the
Corps in preparing a joint environmental document -the Clearwater Program Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIRIEIS)-to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the plan recommended in the MFP and its alternatives.The Sanitation
Districts are the lead agency for the EIR under CEQA,and the Corps is the federal lead agency
for the EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The Corps has prepared a
separate Notice of Availability (NOA)for the draft EIS.
2.0 Background
The Sanitation Districts,a regional public agency,consist of23 independent special districts that
operate under a partnership agreement,sharing staff and administration,with the purpose of
serving the wastewater and solid waste management needs of over 5.4 million people in Los
Angeles County.The Sanitation Districts'service area covers approximately 820 square miles,
encompassing 78 cities and unincorporated territory within the county.The Joint Administrative
Office for the Sanitation Districts is located in the city of Whittier.
.....
Recycled Paper "'~
DOC #2133711D-21
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Notice of Availability
The JOS is a regional wastewater management system shared by 17 ofthe 23 Sanitation Districts
under a partnership agreement,which provides for a combined investment to maintain and
operate the conveyance system and treatment facilities.The JOS spans approximately 660 square
miles (Figure 1).Wastewater from city-and county-owned local sewers flows,mainly by
gravity,into large trunk sewers.The 1,230 miles of trunk sewers in the JOS are interconnected to
seven wastewater treatment plants with a combined treatment capacity of 593 million gallons per
day (MGD).Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six water
reclamation plants (WRPs),where high-quality recycled water is produced that is either
beneficially reused (e.g.,landscape irrigation and groundwater recharge)or discharged to rivers
and streams.The remaining two-thirds is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
(JWPCP)located in the city of Carson.The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment
process are returned to the trunk sewers to be centrally processed at the JWPCP.
After the wastewater undergoes full secondary treatment at the JWPCP,it meets all regulatory
standards for ocean discharge.From the JWPCP,the treated water (effluent)is transported by
two 6-mile long tunnels under the Palos Verdes Peninsula to Royal Palms Beach,where an
underground manifold structure connects the tunnels to four ocean outfalls.The outfalls consist
of seafloor pipelines that extend up to one-and-one-half miles offshore and reach a depth of
200 feet.The treated effluent exits the outfall pipes through a series of diffuser portholes.
3.0 Clearwater Program Purpose and Needs
The overall goal ofthe Clearwater Program is to identify a plan that is protective of public health
and best meets the needs of the JOS through the year 2050 in a cost-effective and
environmentally sound manner.Specifically,the Clearwater Program has the following four
objectives:
•Provide adequate system capacity to meet the needs of the growing population.
•Provide for overall system reliability by allowing for the inspection,maintenance,repair,
and replacement of aging infrastructure.
•Provide support for emerging recycled water reuse and biosolids beneficial use
opportunities.
•Provide a long-term solution for meeting water quality requirements set forth by
regulatory agencies.
One particular area of concern emerged during the planning process.Currently,the Sanitation
Districts rely on two onshore tunnels and four offshore ocean outfall structures to convey effluent
from the JWPCP,in the city of Carson,to the Pacific Ocean.The two tunnels were constructed
in 1937 and 1958 and have not been inspected for over 50 years.Inspection of the tunnels is not
possible due to their overall length,limited access,interconnections between the tunnels,and
continuous flow through the tunnels.Furthermore,in January 1995,the JOS service area was
inundated by two major back-to-back storm events.The resulting peak wastewater flows in the
sewerage system from these storm events nearly exceeded the capacity of the JWPCP ocean
discharge system.If the tunnels were to be damaged or the capacity of the ocean discharge
system exceeded,treated JWPCP effluent would need to be bypassed into the Wilmington Drain,
a stormwater channel that flows through Harbor Regional Park.If sufficient capacity were not
available in the Wilmington Drain,the sewers tributary to the JWPCP could overflow and
untreated wastewater could enter various water courses,such as the Dominguez Channel and the
Los Angeles River.The project purpose and needs are to inspect and upgrade the aging ocean
2 D-22
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Notice of Availability
discharge system,to provide sufficient capacity in the JOS to accommodate the estimated 2050
peak wastewater flows,and to comply with all applicable water quality standards,including
regulations prohibiting sewer overflows.To meet these needs,the Clearwater Program MFP
evaluates both modifying the existing ocean discharge system and constructing a new ocean
discharge system.
4.0 Recommended Plan
The Clearwater Program MFP makes the following recommendations for the JOS:
4.1 JWPCP Effluent Management
The existing JWPCP ocean discharge system would be modified to accommodate
projected flows and allow for the dewatering,inspection,and any necessary
repairs/rehabilitation of the two existing effluent tunnels.A new tunnel would be
constructed to convey effluent from the JWPCP to the existing ocean outfalls.Under the
recommended plan,new ocean outfalls would not be required,but the existing outfalls
would need to be rehabilitated (i.e.,re-ballasting,joint repairs,and cathodic protection).
The proposed tunnel alignment (Figure 2)would begin at the JWPCP West shaft site,
continue approximately 2,600 feet south under Figueroa Street,6,000 feet southwest
under Harbor Regional Park,8,000 feet south under North Gaffey Street,5,300 feet
southwest under Capitol Drive,5,200 feet south under Western Avenue,4,000 feet south
under South Dodson Avenue,and 5,500 feet southwest under Western Avenue to the
Royal Palms shaft site for a total distance of approximately 36,600 feet,or 6.9 miles.The
tunnel would range from approximately 70 to 450 feet below ground surface,except at its
connection to the existing outfalls,where it would be approximately 30 feet below
ground surface.The tunnel would have an external diameter of about 22 feet and an
internal finished diameter of about 18 feet.
The tunnel would be constructed with a tunnel boring machine (TBM),which would be
placed underground at the JWPCP West shaft site,located near the corner of Lomita
Boulevard and Figueroa Street.The TBM would be capable of excavating soil/rock and
installing a pre-fabricated concrete tunnel liner as it advances.The excavated material
would be removed at the JWPCP West shaft site for disposal or,where possible,
beneficial use.Upon completion of tunnel construction,the TBM would be removed at
the Royal Palms shaft site,which is located primarily on property owned by the
Sanitation Districts at Royal Palms Beach.The beach parking area would be restored to
its original configuration.There would be no permanent aboveground facilities at the
shaft site,except ground-level access to the shaft and new manifold structure,vent pipes,
and access lids.
4.2 Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
Additional treatment plant capacity is required for the JOS by the 2050 planning horizon.
The San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (SJCWRP),located at 1965 Workman Mill
Road near the city of Whittier,is the most suitable location for a treatment plant
expansion.An expansion at the SJCWRP would make more recycled water available
where demand for it is greatest.Therefore,it is recommended that the SJCWRP be
expanded from its current permitted capacity of 100 MGD to 125 MGD.The
unprecedented amount of water conservation being experienced in the JOS service area
offsets the projected population growth such that it likely expansion of the SJCWRP will
3 D-23
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Notice of Availability
not be necessary for another 30 years.The current SJCWRP property is large enough to
accommodate the recommended expansion.
Process optimization (e.g.flow equalization)is recommended at the SJCWRP,Pomona
Water Reclamation Plant (POWRP),Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (LCWRP),
and Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant (LBWRP).The POWRP is located at 295
Humane Way on a 14-acre site in the city of Pomona,the LCWRP is located at 16515
Piuma Avenue in the city of Cerritos,and the LBWRP is located at 7400 East Willow
Street on a 17 -acre site within the city of Long Beach.The current plant properties are
large enough to accommodate the recommended process optimization facilities.
Consequently,construction of the facilities would not require acquisition of additional
land.Flow equalization facilities at the LCWRP can be built under the existing driving
range for the Iron-Wood Nine Golf Course and thus not impact its long-term use.
Based on the projected wastewater flows for the year 2050 and a 25-MGD expansion at
the SJCWRP,approximately 33 miles of Joint Outfall trunk sewers will require some
type of relief (addition of parallel pipes for increased capacity).The Sanitation Districts
would continue to closely monitor the JOS conveyance system throughout the planning
period to determine actual relief needs.The future conveyance system improvement
projects would be implemented on an as-needed basis.
4.3 Solids Processing
One byproduct of wastewater treatment and purification is residual solids,often referred
to as sludge.It is recommended that solids processing continue to be centralized at the
JWPCP using existing systems.Additional sludge stabilization capacity consisting of six
new anaerobic digesters will be required at the JWPCP by 2050.The current JWPCP
property is large enough to accommodate the additional digesters,so additional land
would not be required.The timing for digester construction is dependent on future
trending of sludge production at the JWPCP.
The JWPCP currently produces enough electricity from the biogas produced in the
anaerobic digesters to be self-sufficient.Additional gas resulting from an increased
number of digesters would be managed by the existing steam boilers and gas turbines.
The turbines are currently supplemented with natural gas.As digester gas increases,it
would be used in lieu of natural gas.
The capacity of the existing sludge dewatering system is anticipated to be sufficient to
meet the projected quantities through 2050.Therefore,no additional sludge dewatering
facilities would be required throughout the planning period.During this time,the
Sanitation Districts would continue the current program of replacing aging centrifuges as
needed.
4.4 Biosolids Management
Once stabilized and dewatered,the residual solids are converted into a material called
biosolids that can be beneficially used.It is projected that the JOS biosolids generation
rate will increase nearly 30 percent during the planning period.The continuation of the
current biosolids management practices is recommended.The Sanitation Districts have a
robust and diverse system in place that can handle the projected increase.
4 D-24
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Notice of Availability
The Sanitation Districts currently co-dispose biosolids in landfills,but this option will be
lost with the scheduled closure of the Puente Hills Landfill (near the city of Whittier)in
2013.However,the Westlake Farms Composting Facility (Kings County)should begin
operations by the same year,and can be expanded in phases if and when future needs
arise.Therefore,it is anticipated that there is no additional physical infrastructure
required to accommodate future biosolids management.The Sanitation Districts will
continue to explore options that provide for additional biosolids management diversity
and further optimize the beneficial use of this material.
4.5 WRP Effluent Management
The continuation of current practices for WRP effluent management is recommended.
The existing effluent management system effectively allows the Sanitation Districts to
meet current reuse demands and discharge any excess recycled water to surface
waterways.While the amount of reuse is likely to increase in the future,surface water
discharge capabilities would be retained.The Sanitation Districts will continue to work
cooperatively with water supply agencies to help them expand reuse.In addition,flow
equalization at the SJCWRP,POWRP,LCWRP,and LBWRP may facilitate increased
reuse by making more recycled water available during periods of the day when demands
are greatest.
5.0 Potential Significant Environmental Effects
The draft EIR assesses environmental impacts for both the construction and operational elements
of the recommended plan and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the significant
impacts.The recommended plan would cause four significant and unavoidable impacts:
•
•
•
•
Aesthetics impacts due to 20-foot high walls or barriers that would be temporarily
erected at the JWPCP West and Royal Palms shaft sites to reduce noise impacts
during construction.
Air quality impacts due to construction-related equipment and vehicle exhaust.
Greenhouse gas impacts due to construction-related equipment and vehicle exhaust.
Cultural resource impacts due to the potential of disturbing or destroying unique
paleontological resources or geological features during tunneling and shaft
construction.
6.0 Public Review and Public Hearing
Pursuant to Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code,the draft EIR for the Clearwater
Program MFP will be available for public review during an extended 60-day review period
beginning on February 10,2012 and closing on April 10,2012.Comments on the draft EIR
should be sent to the following address:
Steven W.Highter
Supervising Engineer,Planning Section
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier,CA 90601
shighter~lacsd.org
5 .D-25
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Notice of Availability
The draft EIR will be available for review online at www.ClearwaterProgram.org.Hardcopies
will be available for review at the following locations:
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier,California
Los Angeles Public Library
San Pedro Branch
921 South Gaffey
San Pedro,California
Carson Regional Library
151 East Carson Street
Carson,California
Los Angeles Public Library
Wilmington Branch
1300 North Avalon
Wilmington,California
The Sanitation Districts and the Corps will be conducting a joint public hearing to receive
comments on both the draft EIR and draft EIS on:
Thursday,March 8,2012,at 6:30 pm
Crowne Plaza Los Angeles Harbor Hotel
601 South Palos Verdes Street
San Pedro,California
The Sanitation Districts will also be conducting two additional public hearings to receive
comments on the draft EIR on:
Tuesday,March 6,2012,at 6:30 pm
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier,California
Wednesday,March 7,2012,at 6:30 pm
Carson Community Center
801 East Carson Street
Carson,California
Please share this notice with anyone else you feel may be interested.
Date:
Charles E.Boehmke
Assistant Head,Facilities Planning Department
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
6 D-26
FIGURE 1
Existing Joint Outfall System
Source: Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 2011, Thomas Bros 2011, ESRI 2011
IÄ
!"^#
?Ý
%&o'
%&d'
%&l'!"`#
A»
!"^#
%&q'
!"^#?Ý
%&g'
?Õ
Aà
%&g'
!"`#
?q!"`#
%&e'
IÄ
!"^#
%&l'
?ê
Aä?Ý
AØ
?ÝAä
?l A£
!!5
!!21
!!15
!!2
!!22
!!18
!!3
!!1
!!16
!!8
!!19
!!17
!!28
!!34
!!23
¿¿SBC !!29
S A N G
A
B R I E L M O U N T A I N S
S ANTA MONIC
A B
A
Y
S A N P E D R O B A Y
S A N T A M O N I C AM O U N T A I N S
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
ORANGE COUNTY
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
RI
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
SA
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
LO
S
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
C
O
U
N
T
Y
SA
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
O
R
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
LOS ANGELES
LONG BEACH
GLENDALE
MALIBU
POMONA
CARSON
PASADENA
TORRANCE
BURBANK
WHITTIER
SANDIMAS
DOWNEY
MONROVIA
ARCADIA
WEST COVINA
CLAREMONT
CALABASAS
COMPTON
WALNUT
DIAMOND BAR
COVINA
NORWALK
ELMONTE
LA VERNE
IRWINDALE
LAKEWOOD
INGLEWOOD
ALHAMBRA
PICORIVERA
GARDENA
SANTAMONICA
BELL
LYNWOODHAWTHORNE
BELLFLOWER
BALDWINPARK
EL SEGUNDO
PARAMOUNT
SAN MARINO
CITY OF INDUSTRY
MONTEBELLO
VERNON
SOUTHGATE
RANCHOPALOS VERDES
SANTA FESPRINGS
MONTEREYPARK
CULVERCITY
BEVERLYHILLS
LA CANADAFLINTRIDGE
REDONDOBEACH
CITY OFCOMMERCE
SANGABRIEL
LA PUENTE
LOMITA
ROLLINGHILLS
MANHATTAN BEACH
SIERRAMADRE
PALOSVERDESESTATES
ARTESIA
SOUTHPASADENA
SIGNALHILL
LAWNDALE
BRADBURY
BELL GARDENS
S. ELMONTE
HUNTINGTON PARK
ROLLINGHILLSESTATES
CUDAHY
MAYWOOD
WESTHOLLYWOOD
HERMOSA BEACH
HAWAIIANGARDENS
CERRITOS
LA MIRADA
~
JOINT ADMINISTRATIONOFFICEWHITTIERNARROWS WRP
SAN JOSE CREEKWRP
POMONAWRP
LOS COYOTESWRP
LONG BEACHWRPJWPCP
LA CAÑADAWRP
Ocean Outfalls
LEGEND
!(2 Sanitation District
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Joint Outfall Trunk Sewers
³
0 63
Miles
CLEARWATER
Program
D
-
2
7
!(
!(
Torrance Carson
JWPCPWEST
JWPCP
ROLLING HILLS
ROLLING HILLSESTATES
RANCHOPALOS VERDES
LOMITA
Port ofLos Angeles
SAN PEDRO
WILMINGTON
%&e(
G
a
f
f
e
y
S
t
W
i
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
B
l
v
d
Anaheim St
Harry Bridges Blvd
Sepulveda Blvd
Lomita Blvd
We
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
ROYALPALMS
F
i
g
u
e
r
o
a
S
t
Capitol D
r
CARSON
LOSANGELES
TORRANCE
Weste
r
n
A
v
e
Do
d
s
o
n
A
v
e
HarborRegionalPark
LONGBEACH
8' T
u
n
n
e
l
12'
T
u
n
n
e
l
90"
O
u
t
f
a
l
l
60"
O
u
t
f
a
l
l
72"
O
u
t
f
a
l
l
12
0
"
O
u
t
f
a
l
l
!(3
!(5
!(8
!(9
FIGURE 2
Recommended Tunnel Alignment
³
0 10.5
Miles
Source: Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 2011, Thomas Bros 2011, ESRI 2011
LEGEND
!(2 Sanitation District
!(Shaft Sites
Existing Ocean Discharge System
Tunnel Alignment
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
CLEARWATER
Program
..--j--------,--\.:.,1----__---....\
D-28
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
___________________________________________________________________________________________
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUILDING STRONG®
February 10, 2012
CLEARWATER PROGRAM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (Corps) in conjunction with the Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Clearwater Program. The Clearwater Program is a comprehensive planning effort
undertaken by the Sanitation Districts. Its purpose is to develop a long-range Master Facilities Plan for the Joint
Outfall System, a regional wastewater management system serving approximately 4.8 million people in 73 cities
and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County. A major component of the Clearwater Program is the evaluation
of alternatives for new ocean outfalls and rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. Both activities would entail
discharge of dredged and fill material in waters of the United States, work in navigable waters of the United States,
and the transport of dredged material for ocean disposal. These activities would require authorization from the
Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 103
of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, respectively.
Questions or comments concerning the Draft EIS/EIR should be directed to Dr. Aaron O. Allen, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division, Ventura Field Office, 2151 Alessandro Drive, Suite 110,
Ventura, CA 93001, (805) 585-2148.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: The Draft EIS/EIR is available for a 60-day review period from February 10,
2012 through April 10, 2012. The document is accessible via the World-Wide Web at
www.ClearwaterProgram.org. Alternatively, printed copies are available at the following locations: Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County, 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California; Carson Regional Library, 151 East
Carson Street, Carson, California; Los Angeles Public Library, San Pedro Branch, 921 South Gaffey Street, San
Pedro, California; Los Angeles Public Library, Wilmington Branch, 1300 North Avalon, Wilmington, California.
PUBLIC MEETING: The Sanitation Districts and the Corps will jointly hold a public hearing to receive public
comments regarding the Draft EIS/EIR on March 8, 2012, 6:30 p.m., at the Crowne Plaza Hotel Los Angeles
Harbor Hotel, 601 South Palos Verdes Street, San Pedro, California. Written comments will be accepted until the
close of public review on April 10, 2012.
Regulatory Program Goals:
To provide strong protection of the nation's aquatic environment, including wetlands.
To ensure the Corps provides the regulated public with fair and reasonable decisions.
To enhance the efficiency of the Corps’ administration of its regulatory program.
__________________________________________________________________________
D-29
Executive Summary from Clearwater Program
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
D-30
CLEARWATER PROGRAM
Executive Summary
DRAFT
SCH# 2008101074
January 2012
D-31
CLEARWATER PROGRAM
Executive Summary
DRAFT
Prepared By:
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Facilities Planning Department
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90601
Contact: Steven Highter, P.E.
Supervising Engineer, Planning Section
(562) 908-4288 x2711
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
Regulatory Branch
915 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Contact: Aaron O. Allen, Ph.D.
Chief, North Coast Branch
(213) 452-3290
State Clearinghouse Number: 2008101074
January 2012
Also Available At:
www.ClearwaterProgram.org
D-32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Background 2
Clearwater Program Goals 7
Planning Process 9
Program-Wide Alternatives Analysis and Recommendations 9
Project-Specific Alternatives Analysis and Recommendations 13
Environmental Review 24
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Program-Wide) 30
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 34
CLEARWATER PROGRAM
Executive Summary
D-33
1
CLEARWATER PROGRAM
Executive Summary
“The Clearwater
Program facilities plan
is unquestionably
important. It is
directly connected to
maintaining the public
health and safety of
millions of people in
Los Angeles County
and to protecting the
environment.”
- Stephen R. Maguin
Chief Engineer and
General Manager
INTRODUCTION
The Clearwater Program is a comprehensive planning effort undertaken by the
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts). Its purpose is to
develop a long-range Master Facilities Plan (MFP) for the Joint Outfall System
(JOS), a regional wastewater management system serving over 5 million people
in 73 cities and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The Clearwater
Program MFP includes an evaluation of infrastructure needs and will serve to
guide the management and development of the JOS through the year 2050.
Certain elements of the Clearwater Program MFP would require federal permits
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Consequently, the Sanitation
Districts partnered with the Corps in preparing a joint environmental document –
the Clearwater Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement (EIR/EIS) – to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the
plan recommended in the MFP and its alternatives. The Sanitation Districts are
the lead agency for the EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and the Corps is the federal lead agency for the EIS under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
D-34
2
In support of the
Clearwater Program,
the Sanitation Districts
conducted over 500
public outreach
meetings beginning in
2006.
In developing a plan that meets the future needs of the communities and
businesses served by the JOS, the Sanitation Districts felt it was important to
involve the public from the onset. Since 2006, the Sanitation Districts have held
over 500 public outreach meetings with public officials; civic and community
groups; businesses; environmental organizations; news media; and various local,
state, and federal agencies. Their input provided valuable guidance during the
alternatives analysis and environmental review processes.
A disc containing a digital copy of the Clearwater Program MFP and EIR/EIS is
provided in the interior pocket on the back cover of this Executive Summary. In
addition, all of the documents can be accessed at www.ClearwaterProgram.org.
BACKGROUND
SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
After World War I, when Los Angeles County’s population began expanding at a
rapid rate, the need for a regional sewerage system was recognized. In 1923,
the state legislature passed the County Sanitation District Act, allowing for the
formation of the initial districts that same year.
Today the Sanitation Districts consist of 23 independent special districts that
operate under a Joint Administration Agreement, sharing staff headquartered
near Whittier, CA, with the purpose of serving the wastewater and solid waste
management needs of over 5.4 million people in Los Angeles County.
Each district is a separate political entity with its own revenues, expenses, and
board of directors. The boards consist of the mayors of each of the cities and the
chair of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for the unincorporated
areas within the district. District boundaries are generally established by
watersheds to take advantage of gravity in transporting wastewater.
Consequently, a city may lie in more than one district.
The Sanitation Districts’ service area covers approximately 820 square miles,
encompassing 78 cities and unincorporated county areas. The Sanitation
Districts manage about half of the wastewater in Los Angeles County utilizing
1,400 miles of main trunk sewers and 11 wastewater treatment plants with a
total permitted capacity of 650 million gallons per day (MGD). In 2010, the
Sanitation Districts’ ten water reclamation plants (WRPs) produced
approximately 165 MGD of high-quality recycled water, of which 84 MGD was
beneficially reused at 640 sites throughout Los Angeles County.
The Sanitation Districts also own and operate solid waste management facilities
that meet about one-third of the countywide solid waste management needs.
The Sanitation Districts operate three sanitary landfills, four landfill energy
recovery facilities, two recycle centers, and three materials recovery/transfer
facilities and participate in the operation of two refuse-to-energy facilities.
A foldout figure with tables containing additional information about the Sanitation
Districts is included at the end of this document.
Sanitation Districts’
Mission Statement:
“To protect public
health and the
environment through
innovative and
cost-effective
wastewater and solid
waste management,
and in doing so
convert waste into
resources such as
recycled water,
energy, and recycled
materials.”
D-35
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
3
JOINT OUTFALL SYSTEM
The JOS is a regional, interconnected wastewater management system shared
by 17 of the 23 Sanitation Districts under a partnership agreement, which
provides for a combined investment to maintain and operate the conveyance
system and the treatment facilities. The JOS serves approximately 4.8 million
people in 73 cities and unincorporated county areas, and spans 660 square
miles.
The JOS is located in the central, southern, and eastern portions of Los Angeles
County. Its boundaries extend from the San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the
Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, and from San Bernardino and
Orange Counties to the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles and to Santa Monica
Bay.
The wastewater from homes and businesses flows into local sewers, which are
owned and operated by individual cities or the county. From the local sewers,
the wastewater flows, mainly by gravity, through a 1,230-mile network of larger
Sanitation Districts-owned trunk sewers to seven wastewater treatment plants
with a combined permitted capacity of 593 MGD.
In the 1960s, the
Sanitation Districts
adopted a visionary
plan to build a system
of WRPs to efficiently
provide wastewater
treatment services
while simultaneously
effecting future water
quality preservation
and enhancement;
this plan became the
foundation of the
modern JOS.
Joint Outfall System (JOS)
LEGEND
o Sanitation District
o wastewate T_r reatment Plant
__OCean Discharge System
JOint Outfall Trunk Sewers
SAIV
GA.R I E
/
D-36
4
Approximately one-third of the wastewater in the JOS system is treated at six
WRPs, which produce high-quality recycled water that is beneficially reused
(e.g., landscape irrigation and groundwater recharge) or discharged to rivers and
streams. The remaining two-thirds, which includes saltier industrial wastewater
that is expensive to reclaim, is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
(JWPCP) in Carson, CA. The solids removed at the WRPs during the treatment
process are returned to the trunk sewers to be cost-effectively processed at the
JWPCP.
After the wastewater undergoes full secondary treatment at the JWPCP, it meets
all regulatory standards for ocean discharge. From the JWPCP, the treated
water (effluent) is transported by two 6-mile-long tunnels under the Palos Verdes
Peninsula to Royal Palms Beach, where an underground concrete manifold
structure connects the tunnels to four ocean outfalls. The outfalls consist of
seafloor pipelines that extend up to one-and-one-half miles offshore and reach a
depth of 200 feet. The treated effluent exits the outfall pipes through a series of
diffuser portholes.
Joint Outfall System Wastewater Treatment Plants
San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant
The San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (SJCWRP) is located on a
51-acre site at 1965 Workman Mill Road near Whittier, CA. The SJCWRP
started operation in 1971 and is the Sanitation Districts’ largest WRP with a
permitted treatment capacity of 100 MGD. In 2010, the plant provided
tertiary-level treatment to an average daily flow of 77 MGD, and 42 MGD of
the recycled water produced was reused at 84 individual sites, with the
majority (37 MGD) used for groundwater recharge.
Pomona Water Reclamation Plant
The Pomona Water Reclamation Plant (POWRP) is located on a 14-acre site
located at 295 Humane Way in Pomona, CA. The POWRP started operation
in 1926 and currently has a permitted treatment capacity of 15 MGD. In
2010, the plant provided tertiary-level treatment to an average daily flow of
9 MGD, and 8 MGD of the recycled water produced was beneficially reused
at 192 individual sites for irrigation, landscaping, and industrial applications.
The remaining recycled water is discharged to San Jose Creek, either
percolating into the groundwater or flowing to the ocean.
Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant
The Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WNWRP) is located on a
27-acre site, leased from the Corps, at 301 North Rosemead Boulevard near
South El Monte, CA. Placed into operation in 1962, the WNWRP was the
first reclamation plant built by the Sanitation Districts for the purpose of
demonstrating the feasibility of large-scale water recycling. The plant has a
permitted treatment capacity of 15 MGD. In 2010, the WNWRP provided
tertiary-level treatment to an average daily flow of 7 MGD, and essentially all
of the recycled water produced was reused for groundwater recharge and
irrigation at three individual reuse sites.
FIGURE – WNWRP
Whittier Narrows WRP
The Sanitation
Districts own and
operate one of the
largest wastewater
recycling systems in
the world.
San Jose Creek WRP
Pomona WRP
D-37
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
5
Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant
The Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (LCWRP) is located on a 34-acre
site at 16515 Piuma Avenue in Cerritos, CA. The treatment facilities occupy
14 acres on the southwest corner of the site. The remaining 20 acres are
leased to the city of Cerritos for use at the Iron-Wood Nine Golf Course. The
LCWRP started operation in 1970 and currently has a permitted treatment
capacity of 37.5 MGD. In 2010, the plant provided tertiary-level treatment to
an average daily flow of 27 MGD, and 5 MGD of the recycled water produced
was beneficially reused at 273 individual sites. The remaining recycled water
is discharged into the San Gabriel River, which flows directly to the Pacific
Ocean.
Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant
The Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant (LBWRP) is located on a 17-acre
site at 7400 East Willow Street in Long Beach, CA. The LBWRP started
operation in 1973 and currently has a permitted treatment capacity of
25 MGD. In 2010, the plant provided tertiary-level treatment to an average
daily flow of 18 MGD, and 6 MGD of the recycled water produced was
beneficially reused at 56 individual sites. Approximately 2 MGD was sent to
the Leo J. Vander Lans Advanced Water Treatment Facility, owned by the
Water Replenishment District of Southern California, for further treatment
and ultimately used to protect the Central Groundwater Basin from seawater
intrusion.
La Cañada Water Reclamation Plant
The La Cañada Water Reclamation Plant (LACAWRP) is located on a
0.3-acre site within the grounds of the La Cañada Flintridge Country Club
golf course at 533 Meadow View Drive in La Cañada Flintridge, CA. The
LACAWRP started operation in 1962 and currently has a permitted treatment
capacity of 0.2 MGD. In 2010, the plant provided extended aeration
treatment to an average daily flow of nearly 0.1 MGD, and all of the recycled
water produced flows into irrigation system impoundments on the 105-acre
golf course.
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
The JWPCP is located on a 420-acre site at 24501 South Figueroa Street in
Carson, CA. Approximately 200 acres of the site are used as a buffer area
between the operational process areas and the surrounding residential
areas. The JWPCP, first operating in 1928, is now the largest facility in the
JOS with a permitted treatment capacity of 400 MGD. It is located
hydraulically downstream of the WRPs and receives all JOS flows not treated
by the WRPs. The wastewater undergoes full secondary treatment and is
then safely discharged to the ocean. In 2010, the JWPCP discharged an
average daily flow of approximately 280 MGD to the ocean. The JWPCP is
the only JOS treatment plant that provides solids processing and energy
recovery. The resulting product, called biosolids, can be beneficially used,
typically as a composted soil amendment.
Los Coyotes WRP
Long Beach WRP
La Cañada WRP
Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant
D-38
6
Ocean Discharge System
The ocean discharge system is designed to safely convey and discharge treated
effluent from the JWPCP into deep ocean waters. It consists of two onshore
tunnels, a manifold structure, and four ocean outfalls as described below.
Onshore Tunnels
Two 6-mile-long tunnels convey effluent from the JWPCP to a manifold
structure located at Royal Palms Beach, near White Point on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula. The first tunnel was completed in 1937 and is 8 feet in
diameter. The second tunnel was completed in 1958 and is 12 feet in
diameter. Because both tunnels are always in service and flow full every
day, neither has been inspected nor repaired for over 50 years.
Manifold Structure
The manifold structure is an underground reinforced concrete vault, located
on Sanitation Districts’ property at Royal Palms Beach, where the effluent
transitions from two tunnels to four ocean outfalls. A system of valves
controls which of the four outfalls are active at any given time.
Ocean Outfalls
The four ocean outfalls extend up to one-and-one-half miles offshore from
the manifold structure and reach a depth of approximately 200 feet. At about
1,400 feet offshore, the ocean outfalls transition from being underground
pipelines to pipelines that sit on the seafloor. The first outfall was
constructed in 1937. As wastewater flows increased, three additional outfalls
were built between 1947 and 1966.
Ocean Outfall Year Completed
60-inch diameter 1937
72-inch diameter 1947
90-inch diameter 1957
120-inch diameter 1966
8-foot Tunnel
(1937)
12-foot Tunnel
(1958)
Ocean Outfalls
D-39
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
7
CLEARWATER PROGRAM GOALS
OBJECTIVES
The Clearwater Program has the following objectives:
Provide adequate system capacity to meet the needs of the growing
population.
Provide for overall system reliability by allowing for the inspection,
maintenance, repair, and replacement of aging infrastructure.
Provide support for emerging recycled water reuse and biosolids beneficial
use opportunities.
Provide a long-term solution for meeting water quality requirements set forth
by regulatory agencies.
System Capacity
JOS wastewater flow projections are evaluated in the MFP. The Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) provided the Sanitation Districts
with population forecasts through the year 2050, which served as the basis for
the flow projections. SCAG’s population forecasts indicate the JOS service area
population will increase to approximately 6.3 million by 2050. A geographic
information system (GIS) model was used to derive flow projections from the
population data. The population increase would result in an average wastewater
flow of about 612 MGD in the year 2050. Based on these projections, the JOS
system would experience a treatment capacity shortfall of approximately 20 MGD
by 2050.
Aging Infrastructure
The Sanitation Districts’ philosophy is to design, construct, and maintain reliable
systems that have sufficient capacity and redundancy to provide the highest level
of public safety and environmental protection. These systems are maintained
with routine inspection, repair, and/or replacement as required. However, one
critical component of the JOS, the onshore tunnels for the existing ocean
discharge system, has not been inspected for over 50 years. Both tunnels cross
the active Palos Verdes Fault, which is an additional area of concern. While the
Sanitation Districts have no reason to believe serious problems exist with the
tunnels, it is imperative that they be properly inspected. Addressing aging
infrastructure is an important objective of the Clearwater Program.
The overall goal of the
Clearwater Program is
to identify a plan that
is protective of public
health and best meets
the needs of the JOS
through the year 2050
in a cost-effective and
environmentally sound
manner.
D-40
8
Emerging Reuse/Use Opportunities
Over 50 percent of recycled water produced by the six WRPs is reused at
various sites throughout the local region, reducing the demand on potable
freshwater sources, which in turn minimizes the need to import water. In
addition, during the treatment process at the JWPCP, solids are digested,
producing a biogas that is converted to electricity or used for process heating.
As a result, the JWPCP is electrically self-sufficient, and excess electricity is
supplied to the power grid. The Sanitation Districts also participate in a wide
range of biosolids management programs that promote beneficial use of this
wastewater byproduct. Biosolids are beneficially used as a soil amendment for
agriculture, in the production of high quality compost, in conversion to renewable
fuels, and to help reduce emissions from cement kilns. Environmental benefits
associated with these biosolids management programs include a reduction in the
consumption of energy and raw materials that would otherwise be required in the
production of new materials. The Sanitation Districts are committed to continue
supporting emerging recycled water reuse and biosolids beneficial use
opportunities.
Water Quality Requirements
The Sanitation Districts maintain a strong record of compliance with water quality
regulations and permit requirements. They have also assisted in the drafting
and/or review of future requirements. The Sanitation Districts strive to continue
providing long-term engineering solutions that meet the constantly evolving and
increasingly stringent water quality requirements in a cost-effective and
environmentally sound manner.
PURPOSE AND NEEDS
Currently, the Sanitation Districts rely on two onshore tunnels and four offshore
ocean outfall structures to convey effluent from the JWPCP, in the city of Carson,
to the Pacific Ocean. The two tunnels were constructed in 1937 and 1958 and
have not been inspected for over 50 years. Inspection of the tunnels is not
possible due to their overall length, limited access, interconnections between the
tunnels, and continuous flow through the tunnels. Furthermore, in January 1995,
the JOS service area was inundated by two major back-to-back storm events.
The resulting peak wastewater flows in the sewerage system from these storm
events nearly exceeded the capacity of the JWPCP ocean discharge system. If
the tunnels were to be damaged or the capacity of the ocean discharge system
exceeded, treated JWPCP effluent would need to be bypassed into the
Wilmington Drain, a stormwater channel that flows through Harbor Regional
Park. If sufficient capacity were not available in the Wilmington Drain, the sewers
tributary to the JWPCP could overflow and untreated wastewater could enter
various water courses, such as the Dominguez Channel and the Los Angeles
River. The project purpose and needs are to inspect and upgrade the aging
ocean discharge system, to provide sufficient capacity in the JOS to
accommodate the estimated 2050 peak wastewater flows, and to comply with all
applicable water quality standards, including regulations prohibiting sewer
overflows. To meet these needs, the Clearwater Program evaluates both
modifying the existing ocean discharge system and constructing a new ocean
discharge system.
One of the most
important outcomes
of the Clearwater
Program planning
process was
identifying the need
for a new or modified
ocean discharge
system.
D-41
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
9
PLANNING PROCESS
The Clearwater Program MFP and the associated EIR/EIS provide both
program-wide and project-specific alternatives analyses.
The term program is used in reference to options or alternatives that would be
implemented over a long period of time and currently do not have a high level of
detail. The planning horizon for the MFP is the year 2050. Because of long-term
uncertainties, it would be too speculative to consider specific projects that may
not be required for decades to come. Furthermore, the JOS is hydraulically
interconnected, and changes to one component of the system could have
ramifications on the rest of the system. Therefore, due to the uncertainties
associated with a long-term planning horizon and the complex interrelationship
between the elements of the JOS, the MFP and associated EIR/EIS include a
comprehensive, program-wide alternatives analysis that evaluates the entire
system.
The term project is used to describe a specific component of the comprehensive
program. A project would be implemented in the near term; therefore, a greater
level of detail is available for analysis in the MFP and the associated EIR/EIS.
The term recommended plan is used to describe a combination of the top-ranked
program-wide alternative and the top-ranked project-specific alternative.
PROGRAM-WIDE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOINT OUTFALL SYSTEM COMPONENT AREAS
For the purposes of developing and evaluating program-wide alternatives, the
JOS was divided into the following five component areas based on primary
functionality:
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
WRP Effluent Management
Solids Processing
Biosolids Management
JWPCP Effluent Management
For each component area, conceptual options were developed and screened to
determine if they would meet the long-term needs of that portion of the JOS
infrastructure.
The Clearwater
Program planning
process involved the
evaluation and
screening of program-
wide and project-
specific alternatives,
and combining the
top-ranked of each to
arrive at a
recommended plan.
D-42
10
PROGRAM-WIDE SCREENING PROCESS
The same multi-step screening process was used to evaluate each of the five
component areas.
Level 1 Screening: Conceptual Options
The conceptual options represent a reasonable range of options available to the
Sanitation Districts for providing comprehensive wastewater management
services within each of the five component areas. The criteria used to screen the
conceptual options were derived from the goals and objectives of the Clearwater
Program.
Each conceptual option was evaluated based on several screening criteria, such
as environmental impacts, cost, and the ability to accommodate future
wastewater flows and emerging water recycling opportunities. The highest
ranked conceptual options were carried forward to the second level of screening.
Level 2 Screening: Preliminary Options
The options that emerged from the Level 1 screening process were called
preliminary options. The Level 2 screening process applied more rigorous
criteria than Level 1. The preliminary options were qualitatively scored with
respect to meeting each of the Level 2 screening criteria.
Level 3 Screening: Viable Options
The options that emerged from the Level 2 screening process were considered to
be viable options. The Level 3 screening process included an evaluation of the
viable options using a multi-criteria decision support software tool that provided
the flexibility to investigate a wide range of evaluation approaches and allowed
for a sensitivity analysis of outcomes. Each screening criterion was weighted
and defined to allow for quantitative scoring.
Feasible Options
The highest scoring options to emerge from the Level 3 screening process were
deemed feasible options. The top-ranked feasible options from each of the five
component areas were combined, resulting in the recommended program
alternative.
For each of the five
component areas, a
multi-step screening
process was used to
select a recommended
program alternative.
Conceptual Options
Level 1
Screening
PreliminaryOptions
Level 2
Screening
Viable Options
Level 3
Screening
Feasible Options
Combine Top-Ranked
FeasibleOptions
Recommended
Program Alternative
D-43
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
11
PROGRAM-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant – Expansion and Process
Optimization
Approximately 20 MGD of additional treatment plant capacity is required for
the JOS by the 2050 planning horizon. The SJCWRP is the most suitable
location for a treatment plant expansion. Therefore, it is recommended that
the SJCWRP be expanded from its current permitted capacity of 100 MGD to
125 MGD.
The current SJCWRP property is large enough to accommodate the
recommended expansion (shown in yellow). Consequently, construction of
the facilities would not require acquisition of additional land. Based on
wastewater flow projections, the SJCWRP expansion would likely be
implemented between 2040 and 2050.
In addition to a 25-MGD expansion, the SJCWRP would be upgraded to
include flow equalization of the primary effluent (shown in blue). The
recommended flow equalization volume for the SJCWRP is approximately
31 million gallons (MG), which is 25 percent of the plant’s expanded daily
permitted flow.
The current SJCWRP property is large enough to accommodate the process
optimization facilities, so additional land would not be required. Process
optimization would likely be implemented between 2018 and 2028,
depending on future flows, recycled water demands, regulatory
requirements, and funding considerations.
Pomona, Los Coyotes, and Long Beach Water Reclamation Plants –
Process Optimization
The POWRP, LCWRP, and LBWRP would be upgraded to include flow
equalization of the primary effluent (shown in blue). The recommended flow
equalization volume for the POWRP is 3 MG (approximately 20 percent of
the plant’s daily permitted flow). The recommended flow equalization volume
for the LCWRP is 7.5 MG (approximately 20 percent of the plant’s daily
permitted flow). The recommended flow equalization volume for the LBWRP
is 5 MG (approximately 20 percent of the plant’s daily permitted flow).
The current POWRP, LCWRP, and LBWRP properties are large enough to
accommodate the process optimization facilities, so additional land would not
be required. Flow equalization facilities at the LCWRP could be built under
the existing driving range for the Iron-Wood Nine Golf Course and thus not
impact its long-term use. Process optimization would be implemented in the
future depending on future flows, recycled water demands, regulatory
requirements, and funding considerations.
Pomona WRP
Los Coyotes WRP
San Jose Creek WRP
Long Beach WRP
D-44
12
Conveyance System – Relief
Based on the projected wastewater flows for the year 2050 and a 25-MGD
expansion at the SJCWRP, approximately 33 miles of Joint Outfall (JO) trunk
sewers would require some type of relief (addition of parallel pipes for
increased capacity). The Sanitation Districts would continue to closely
monitor the JOS conveyance system throughout the planning period to
determine actual relief needs. The future conveyance system improvement
projects would be implemented on an as-needed basis.
Solids Processing
One byproduct of wastewater treatment and purification is residual solids, often
referred to as sludge. It is recommended that solids processing continue to be
centralized at the JWPCP using existing systems.
Additional sludge stabilization capacity consisting of six new anaerobic digesters
would be required at the JWPCP by 2050 (shown in blue). The current JWPCP
property is large enough to accommodate the additional digesters so additional
land would not be required. The timing for digester construction is dependent on
future trending of sludge production at the JWPCP.
The JWPCP currently produces enough electricity from the biogas produced in
the anaerobic digesters to be self-sufficient. Additional gas resulting from an
increased number of digesters would be managed by the existing steam boilers
and gas turbines. The turbines are currently supplemented with natural gas. As
digester gas increases, it would be used in lieu of natural gas.
The capacity of the existing sludge dewatering system is anticipated to be
sufficient to meet the projected quantities through 2050. Therefore, no additional
sludge dewatering facilities would be required throughout the planning period.
During this time, the Sanitation Districts would continue the current program of
replacing aging centrifuges as needed.
Biosolids Management
Once stabilized and dewatered, the residual solids are converted into a material
called biosolids that can be beneficially used. It is projected that the JOS
biosolids generation rate will increase nearly 30 percent during the planning
period. The continuation of the current biosolids management practices is
recommended. The Sanitation Districts have a robust and diverse system in
place that can handle the projected increase. The Sanitation Districts currently
co-dispose biosolids in landfills, but this option will be lost with the scheduled
closure of the Puente Hills Landfill (Whittier, CA) in 2013. However, the
Westlake Farms Composting Facility (Kings County) should begin operations by
the same year, and can be expanded in phases if and when future needs arise.
Therefore, it is anticipated that there is no additional physical infrastructure
required to accommodate future biosolids management. The Sanitation Districts
will continue to explore options that provide for additional biosolids management
diversity and further optimize the beneficial use of this material.
Sewer Construction
Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant
Agricultural Use of
Composted Biosolids
D-45
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
13
WRP Effluent Management
The continuation of current practices for WRP effluent management is
recommended. The existing effluent management system effectively allows the
Sanitation Districts to meet current reuse demands and discharge any excess
recycled water to surface waterways. While the amount of reuse is likely to
increase in the future, surface water discharge capabilities would be retained.
The Sanitation Districts will continue to work cooperatively with water supply
agencies to help them expand reuse. In addition, flow equalization at the
SJCWRP, POWRP, LCWRP, and LBWRP may facilitate increased reuse by
making more recycled water available during periods of the day when demands
are greatest.
JWPCP Effluent Management
The program-wide alternatives analysis process demonstrated an immediate
need to address JWPCP effluent management at a project-specific level. Two
possible approaches were identified:
New Ocean Discharge System: Construction of a new tunnel and ocean
outfall between the JWPCP and a new discharge location. The new ocean
discharge system would be hydraulically independent of the existing system.
Modified Ocean Discharge System: Construction of a new tunnel between
the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfalls. The new tunnel could be
hydraulically separated from the existing tunnels and would rely on the
existing outfalls for ocean discharge. This option is viable because recent
inspections and physical testing determined that the outfalls have the
structural integrity to last well beyond 2050.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCEAN DISCHARGE SYSTEM PROJECT ELEMENTS
For the purposes of developing and evaluating project-specific alternatives, the
ocean discharge system project was divided into the following five elements
based on primary functionality:
JWPCP Shaft Site
Onshore Tunnel Alignment
Intermediate Shaft Site
Offshore Alignment
Diffuser Area
Recycled Water
JWPCP
Intermediate Shaft
Sea level Diffuser Area Shaft Site Site...t.,
I I
""..,.........~
Offshore Tunnel Onshore Tunnel•• ••
D-46
14
JWPCP Shaft Site
For all alternatives, the project would originate at the JWPCP, where a working
shaft would be constructed to facilitate construction of an onshore tunnel that
would convey effluent for ocean discharge. The JWPCP shaft site would require
sufficient access and area to permit the insertion of a tunnel boring machine
(TBM), ancillary equipment, tunnel segments, and personnel, as well as the
continuous removal of materials excavated during the tunneling process.
Tunneling would take place over a period of years during which time the JWPCP
shaft site would be an active construction site. Ultimately, the shaft would
function to connect existing plant facilities with the new onshore tunnel.
Onshore Tunnel Alignment
The onshore tunnel alignment would begin at the JWPCP and end near the
coast. The onshore alignment would be approximately 6 to 7 miles in length,
ranging in depth from approximately 70 to 450 feet below ground level. Due to
the highly urbanized setting and the required depths of excavation, open-cut
trenching for the onshore alignment was deemed infeasible. Therefore, the
onshore alignment would be constructed as an 18-foot internal diameter tunnel
using a TBM. This approach would avoid the complications of open-cut
trenching, including traffic and business disruptions as well as impacts on
existing utilities and other underground facilities.
Intermediate Shaft Site
An intermediate shaft site would be developed as a working, access, or exit shaft
depending on available area, access, and project requirements.
Working Shaft: A working shaft site would be used for approximately 4 to
8 years as the aboveground staging area for the tunneling construction and
support system activities. The working shaft would serve as the entry point
for construction workers and as the exit point for all excavated material.
Access Shaft: An access shaft site would be used primarily for supplemental
ventilation during tunnel construction. It would also be available as an entry
and exit point for construction workers, TBM maintenance, and removal of
salvageable portions of the TBM at the project’s conclusion. The access shaft
site would have a land requirement of approximately 0.5 to 3 acres.
Exit Shaft: An exit shaft site would be used for the removal of the TBM. The
exit shaft would have a land requirement of approximately 1 to 4 acres.
Offshore Alignment
The offshore alignment would connect to the onshore tunnel alignment at an
intermediate shaft site and extend into the ocean where it would connect to the
diffuser. The alignment could consist of a tunnel or a combination of a tunnel
and a seafloor pipeline.
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM)
Working Shaft Site
D-47
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
15
Diffuser Area
The diffuser area is where treated effluent would be discharged to the ocean.
The length of the diffuser would be approximately 8,000 feet (two 4,000-foot
legs). A fundamental requirement for the proposed diffuser is that it should
perform as well as the existing diffusers. To meet this requirement, key
parameters such as distance from shore, discharge depth, and slope of seafloor
were established. In addition, the diffuser area must be geotechnically stable.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC SCREENING PROCESS
The approach used in the MFP to evaluate the ocean discharge system project is
similar to the multi-step screening process undertaken for the program-wide
assessment of the JOS.
Level 1: Conceptual Study Area
The initial step in the alternatives analysis for the project was to develop a study
area representing the conceptual boundary within which elements of a new or
modified ocean discharge system could be sited. Four criteria were used to
establish the 90-square-mile study area:
Minimize interferences with discharges from other nearby ocean outfalls,
namely the city of Los Angeles’ Hyperion outfalls to the north and Orange
County Sanitation District’s outfalls to the south.
Stay within the edge of the continental shelf – either the San Pedro Shelf
(SP Shelf) or Palos Verdes Shelf (PV Shelf).
Use a direct route as practicable between the JWPCP and the end of the
ocean outfalls (diffuser areas).
Avoid state Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
INGLEWOOD
~ELSEGUNDO
City of Los Angeles
OCean Outfalls MANHArrAZ
BEACH
HIRMOSA
BEACH
REDONDO
BEACH
TORRANCE
WHfTT/ER HEIGHTS
LAMIfADA
D-48
16
Level 2: Preliminary Options
Preliminary project options were developed by applying a set of screening criteria
unique to each element. For example, the following criteria were used for the
onshore tunnel alignment:
Use existing easements or public rights-of-way to the maximum extent
practicable.
Allow a sufficient turning radius for the TBM (approximately 800 to 1,000 feet).
Minimize the overall length of the alignment.
On this basis, 22 preliminary options for the onshore tunnel alignment were
identified. Similarly, 2 preliminary options were identified for the JWPCP shaft
site, 11 for intermediate shaft sites, and 4 for the diffuser area. Because the
offshore alignment is dependent on the locations of the intermediate shaft site
and the diffuser area, preliminary options for the offshore alignment were
established after the viable options for the intermediate shaft sites and diffuser
area were determined.
Level 3: Viable Options and Alternatives
Viable project options were developed by applying a set of screening criteria,
unique to each element, to the preliminary options. For example, the following
criteria were used for the onshore tunnel alignment:
Minimize exposure when crossing major geotechnical faults.
Ensure compatibility (e.g., proximity) with intermediate shaft site locations.
Reduce the number of easements required.
For alignments that partially overlap, favor those with shorter overall lengths.
On this basis, the 22 preliminary options for an onshore tunnel alignment were
reduced to 8 viable options. Similarly, 2 viable options were identified for the
JWPCP shaft site, 3 for intermediate shaft sites, and 3 for the diffuser area. With
viable options established for the intermediate shaft site and diffuser area,
12 preliminary options for the offshore alignment, including tunnels and seafloor
pipelines, were identified. Applying Level 3 screening criteria, these preliminary
options were reduced to 3 viable options for the offshore tunnel alignment.
These viable options for each project element were logically combined into
10 comprehensive viable alternatives for a new or modified ocean discharge
system.
The Sanitation
Districts and the Corps
conducted over
500 public outreach
and agency scoping
meetings to solicit
valuable input early
on in the planning
process, well before
any decisions were
made regarding the
alternatives analysis.
D-49
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
17
Level 4: Feasible Alternatives
The final step in the MFP project-specific alternatives analysis was the rigorous
evaluation of the viable alternatives and determination of ranked feasible
alternatives to carry forward for detailed environmental analysis in the associated
EIR/EIS. A multi-criteria decision support software tool was utilized to facilitate
the overall assessment effort. Screening criteria included:
Environmental Impacts
Public Input
Operational Considerations
Constructability
Long-Term Uncertainty
Cost Effectiveness
On the basis of the analysis performed, four viable alternatives were determined
to be feasible (shown on the next page). Each would require rehabilitation of the
existing ocean outfalls. The feasible project-specific alternatives for a new or
modified ocean discharge system, ranked from highest to lowest, are:
Alternative 4: Begin at the JWPCP West shaft site (working shaft); then
beneath Figueroa Street, Harbor Regional Park, North Gaffey Street, Capitol
Drive, and Western Avenue (through Dodson Avenue); to the Royal Palms
shaft site (exit shaft) for a total tunnel length of 6.9 miles; and interconnect to
the existing ocean outfalls at the manifold structure. Construction would take
approximately 6.5 years at an estimated cost of $550 million.
Alternative 1: Begin at the JWPCP East shaft site (working shaft); then
beneath Wilmington Boulevard to the Port of Los Angeles (access shaft at
the Trans Pacific Container Service Corporation [TraPac] site and working
and/or exit shaft at the former Los Angeles Export Terminal [LAXT] site);
through the Southwest Marine shaft site (access shaft); and to the SP Shelf
diffuser area approximately 10 miles offshore at a depth of 200 feet for a total
tunnel length of 14.4 miles. Construction would take approximately 8 years
at an estimated cost of $1,360 million.
Alternative 3: Begin at the JWPCP West shaft site (working shaft); then
beneath Figueroa Street and South Gaffey Street to the Angels Gate shaft
site (access shaft); and to the PV Shelf diffuser area approximately 2 miles
offshore at a depth of 175 feet for a total tunnel length of 8.6 miles.
Construction would take approximately 6.5 years at an estimated cost of
$910 million.
Alternative 2: Begin at the JWPCP East shaft site (working shaft); then
beneath Wilmington Boulevard to the Port of Los Angeles (access shaft at
TraPac; construction shaft at LAXT); through the Southwest Marine shaft site
(access shaft); and to the PV Shelf riser/diffuser area approximately 2 miles
offshore at a depth of 175 feet for a total tunnel length of 9.2 miles.
Construction would take approximately 6.5 years at an estimated cost of
$980 million.
Alternative 4 achieves
all of the project goals
and objectives at the
lowest cost, with the
fewest environmental
impacts, and least
amount of
construction risk.
D-50
18
JWPCP West
Royal Palms
Angels Gate
Southwest Marine
LAXT
TraPac
JWPCP East
Feasible Project Alternatives
REDONDO
BEACH
TORRANCE
f.O;q .
Ifq
l:J1v.(y
ROLLING
HILLS
LEGEND
o Shaft Sites
-Alternatives (Project)
-Existing Ocean Discharge System
_Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
CARSON
Sepulveda Blvd
WILMINGTON
Anaheim St
PACFIC OCEAN
N
I
D-51
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
19
PROJECT-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternative 4, which would modify the existing ocean discharge system, was the
highest-ranked feasible alternative and thus is the recommended project. The
new onshore tunnel, when connected to the existing ocean outfalls, would have a
maximum hydraulic capacity of approximately 1,080 MGD, which could
accommodate the peak wastewater flows of 927 MGD projected for the year
2050. Therefore, upon completion of the recommended project, the two existing
effluent tunnels could be dewatered, inspected, and repaired and/or rehabilitated
as necessary.
Project Elements
Project elements include a working shaft site at the JWPCP, an onshore tunnel
between the JWPCP and the existing ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal
Palms Beach near White Point, an exit shaft site at Royal Palms Beach, and the
rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls.
JWPCP West Shaft Site
The JWPCP West shaft site (shown outlined in red) would be located mostly
within the JWPCP property boundary on approximately 18 acres to the south
and 1 acre to the north of Lomita Boulevard near Figueroa Street and
adjacent to the Harbor Freeway in the cities of Los Angeles and Carson.
The JWPCP West shaft site would function as a working shaft site and
would be used throughout the duration of the project for site preparation,
mobilization, shaft construction, staging and support for tunnel
construction, and connecting to the existing JWPCP effluent force main.
The shaft would serve as the entry/exit point for construction workers,
tunnel materials (e.g., liner segments), and equipment as well as the exit
point for all excavated material. Where needed, an approximately
20-foot-tall noise barrier would be erected between the major sources of
noise at the shaft site and nearby sensitive receptors. It is anticipated
that the shaft itself would be constructed in the northern half of the
18-acre portion of the site. Access to the shaft site would likely occur
from Figueroa Street via Lomita Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway, or
Sepulveda Boulevard.
The shaft depth would be approximately 140 feet below ground surface, and
the shaft diameter would be about 40 to 60 feet. Shaft construction would
take about 10 to 12 months. During construction of the shaft, an average of
30 trucks per day (about 65 trucks per day maximum) would be required for
delivery of supplies and removal of excavated material. During tunneling, an
average of 57 trucks per day (about 111 trucks per day maximum) would be
required to remove excavated material. Upon completion of the tunneling
activities, the shaft would be converted into a drop structure and connected
to the existing JWPCP effluent force main, located within the 1-acre portion
of the site. This connection would likely either be tunneled or jacked under
Lomita Boulevard. Approximately 0.5 acre would be required at the shaft site
for permanent aboveground facilities, which would include a ground-level
concrete lid over the shaft, a surge tower, vent pipes, access lids, and
possibly a pumping plant.
JWPCP West Shaft Site
D-52
20
Onshore Tunnel Alignment
The recommended tunnel alignment (shown in green) would begin at the
JWPCP West shaft site, continue approximately 2,600 feet south under
Figueroa Street, 6,000 feet southwest under Harbor Regional Park,
8,000 feet south under North Gaffey Street, 5,300 feet southwest under
Capitol Drive, 5,200 feet south under Western Avenue, 4,000 feet south
under South Dodson Avenue, and 5,500 feet southwest under Western
Avenue to the Royal Palms shaft site for a total distance of approximately
36,600 feet, or 6.9 miles. The tunnel would terminate adjacent to the existing
ocean outfall manifold structure at Royal Palms Beach.
The tunnel would be constructed with a TBM, which would be placed
underground at the JWPCP West shaft site. The TBM would be capable of
excavating soil/rock and installing a concrete tunnel liner as it advances. The
excavated material would be removed for disposal or, where possible,
beneficial use. Tunneling, which would occur 20 to 24 hours per day, is
expected to advance at an average rate of 35 feet per day through soil and
an average rate of 40 feet per day through rock. Tunnel construction for this
alignment would take approximately 4 years.
The tunnel would range from approximately 70 to 450 feet below ground
surface, except at its connection to the Royal Palms shaft, where it would be
approximately 30 feet below ground surface. The tunnel would have an
external diameter of about 22 feet and an internal finished diameter of about
18 feet. The tunnel would be constructed of pre-fabricated, steel reinforced
concrete liner segments with watertight gaskets.
Tunnel construction would require mobilization of various support equipment
for activities such as assembly of the TBM; operation of the tunnel ventilation
system; and movement of workers, materials, and equipment between the
ground surface and the bottom of the shaft.
Either an earth-pressure balance (EPB) TBM or a slurry TBM would be
utilized on this project. The primary difference between the two TBM types is
how the excavated material generated from the tunneling operation is
removed. With an EPB TBM, specialized locomotives would convey the
excavated material in rail cars back through the constructed portion of the
tunnel to the JWPCP West shaft for removal by crane. The excavated
material would be retained at the surface to allow any water to separate
before removal. With a slurry TBM, the excavated material would be blended
with a slurry mixture (such as bentonite clay and water) and pumped back
through the constructed portion of the tunnel to the ground surface at the
JWPCP West shaft and up to the surface through pipes. The excavated
material and slurry mixture would be processed at a temporary slurry
separation plant, located at the shaft site, which extracts the slurry for reuse.
The type of TBM would not be specified until completion of final design.
Recommended Alignment
ROLLING
HILLS
CARSON
Sepulveda Blvd
~Lomita Blvd
iii
2 WILMINGTON
go
.~}>
~qj'
Harry Bridges
Port of
Long Beach
D-53
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
21
Royal Palms Shaft Site
The Royal Palms shaft site (shown outlined in red) would be located mostly
within Sanitation Districts-owned property surrounding the existing ocean
outfall manifold structure on approximately 1 acre at Royal Palms Beach
near the access road off of West Paseo Del Mar. The Royal Palms shaft
site would function as an exit shaft site for removal of the TBM upon
tunnel completion. The shaft site would also be used to connect the new
tunnel to the existing ocean outfalls at the manifold structure.
The shaft depth would be approximately 50 feet below ground surface,
and the shaft diameter would be about 25 to 35 feet. Shaft construction
would take approximately 6 to 9 months. A noise barrier, approximately
20 feet in height, would be erected between the major sources of noise at
the shaft site and nearby sensitive receptors.
A new underground manifold structure would be constructed next to the
shaft to facilitate connecting the tunnel to the existing ocean outfalls.
Valves would be installed to control the amount of effluent flow to each of
the outfalls and to allow for isolation of the new tunnel between the Royal
Palms and JWPCP West shaft sites. The interconnection work would take
approximately 1.5 years.
During the shaft construction and the interconnection work, an average of
10 trucks per day (about 40 trucks per day maximum) would be required for
delivery of supplies and removal of excavated material. Up to about
17 parking spaces may be affected at certain points during the project, but
impacts on parking would be minimal during the peak beach season
(Memorial Day through Labor Day).
After construction, the beach parking area would be restored to its original
configuration. There would be no permanent aboveground facilities at the
shaft site, except ground-level access to the shaft and new manifold
structure, vent pipes, and access lids. A permanent access easement of
approximately 0.1 acre would be obtained for future operation and
maintenance activities.
Existing Ocean Oufalls Rehabilitation
Under the recommended project, JWPCP effluent would continue to be
discharged through the existing ocean outfalls. The recommended plan
would include rehabilitation of the three largest existing ocean outfalls and
abandonment of the 60-inch outfall. Re-ballasting work would occur on the
existing 72-, 90-, and 120-inch outfalls in ocean depths ranging from
approximately 20 to 50 feet. Joint repairs would involve temporarily
removing some of the existing ballast rock from around the outfalls to fully
expose the joint being repaired. A coupling would be installed around the
joint and the annular space filled with concrete, and the ballast rock would
be replaced around the pipe. Cathodic protection would be restored or
added as necessary. Overall, the rehabilitation work, including mobilization,
construction, and demobilization, would take approximately 9 months. Once
rehabilitated, it is anticipated that the three existing ocean outfalls would
have a remaining service life that extends well beyond the 2050 planning
horizon.
Outfall Re-Ballasting
Royal Palms Shaft Site
D-54
22
Project Implementation Schedule
The estimated implementation schedule for the recommended project is shown
below. The actual schedule could vary depending on permitting, right-of-way and
land acquisition, final design, funding, and construction considerations.
Project Costs
The total capital cost and equivalent annual capital cost for the modified ocean
discharge system are presented below. Although the project cost would be
incurred over multiple years in the future, all amounts shown are in 2011 dollars
and include design, construction, and project management. The anticipated total
project cost in 2021 dollars (at the end of construction) is approximately
$740,000,000.
Project Element Total (2011 Dollars)
JWPCP West Shaft Site $33,000,000
Tunnel $478,000,000
Royal Palms Shaft Site $24,000,000
Existing Ocean Outfalls Rehabilitation $15,000,000
Total Capital Costs $550,000,000
Upgrade and Expansion Costs
The capital cost of the recommended project has been split into two
subcategories: upgrade and expansion. Upgrade portions of the project benefit
existing users by addressing needed improvements or existing deficiencies
without providing additional capacity. Expansion portions of the project benefit
new users by providing increased capacity to accommodate their discharge. Of
the recommended project’s $550,000,000 total estimated capital cost,
$416,250,000 is attributable to upgrade and $133,750,000 is attributable to
expansion. The existing users of the JOS would pay for the upgrade portion
through an increase in their annual service charge, and new users would pay for
the expansion portion through their connection fees.
Activity 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Permitting and Easement/Land Acquisition
Final Design, Advertise, Bid, and Award
Submittals and TBM Fabrication
JWPCP West Shaft Construction
Site Preparation/TBM Assembly
Tunneling
Royal Palms Shaft Construction and Interconnection
Existing Ocean Outfalls Rehabilitation
D-55
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
23
Project Financing
The Sanitation Districts would try to obtain state and federal grants to the
maximum extent possible to finance the project. However, there is no assurance
that any grant funding would be available. Therefore, the plan for financing the
project assumes no state or federal grant funding.
There are generally two sources of long-term financing available for wastewater
agencies: low-interest State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans and revenue bonds. In
some respects, these two sources are very similar in that they both provide
project funding with an extended repayment period at a fixed interest rate.
In the case of SRF loans, the repayment period is 20 years, beginning 1 year
after the completion of construction at an interest rate equal to one-half of the
most current state of California general obligation bond rate. Currently, there is
an annual cap of $50 million per agency on SRF loans.
In the case of revenue bonds, the repayment period is typically 30 years with
repayment beginning as soon as the bonds are issued. Interest rates are
dependent on market conditions on the date the bonds are issued and the
financial strength of the Joint Outfall Districts. There are various ways to
structure revenue bonds, and the details of the bond financing and repayment
would be determined in the future based on the conditions that exist at that time.
Impact on Rates
Because of the current cap on SRF loans, the funding for the recommended
project is expected to be a combination of SRF loans and revenue bonds. The
expansion-related portions of the recommended project would likely be funded
utilizing previously accumulated connection fees currently held in the Joint Outfall
Districts’ Capital Improvement Fund.
Based on the best available financing assumptions and escalation of construction
costs, the recommended project would result in a service charge rate impact of
approximately $20 per year per sewage unit (or equivalent single-family home) in
2021 dollars (when construction would be completed). For comparison, the
current JOS average annual service charge rate is $146 per sewage unit. It is
anticipated that the recommended project would not result in a connection fee
rate increase.
The Joint Outfall
Districts currently have
some of the lowest user
rates in the entire
country, and the
Clearwater Program
recommendations will
help ensure this trend
continues well into the
future.
D-56
24
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In conformance with CEQA and NEPA, a joint EIR/EIS was prepared to assess
the environmental impacts of the recommended plan (Alternative 4) and three
alternatives identified in the Clearwater Program MFP. Both program-wide and
project-specific recommendations comprise each alternative.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA requires public agency decision makers to consider and document the
environmental effects of their actions. CEQA applies to projects proposed to be
undertaken, or requiring approval, by state and local government agencies.
Proposed projects undergo an environmental review process to determine
whether there may be any environmental impacts.
When a proposed project could result in significant environmental effects, an EIR
is prepared. CEQA requires that the EIR evaluate the impacts of the project on
the environmental resources of the state and identify ways to mitigate or avoid
significant impacts. In instances where significant impacts cannot be mitigated or
avoided, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved if the lead
agency finds that economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits
outweigh the unavoidable significant environmental effects.
CEQA Scope of Analysis
The EIR for the Clearwater Program provides a program-level environmental
assessment of the following program elements: conveyance improvements,
plant expansion, process optimization, WRP effluent management, solids
processing, and biosolids management. Because these elements would not be
implemented in the near future and/or the actual construction locations are
unknown (e.g., sewer relief projects), the project specifics are too speculative for
a detailed analysis. Prior to approval of any future projects related to the
program elements, the environmental impacts would be reassessed, and
appropriate environmental documentation would be prepared at that time.
The EIR for the Clearwater Program provides a project-level environmental
assessment of the JWPCP effluent management project alternatives. The
alternatives are divided into the following project elements for analysis: onshore
tunnel alignment, offshore tunnel alignment, JWPCP shaft site, intermediate shaft
site, and diffuser area.
No-Project Alternative
Pursuant to CEQA, an EIR must evaluate a no-project alternative. A no-project
alternative describes the no-build scenario and what would be reasonably
expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. The
No-Project Alternative for the Clearwater Program is Alternative 5. Under
Alternative 5, the Sanitation Districts would continue to expand, upgrade, and
operate the JOS in accordance with the JOS 2010 Master Facilities Plan
(2010 Plan), which was prepared in 1995.
The Sanitation
Districts are the lead
agency under CEQA
and are responsible
for preparing the
Environmental Impact
Report.
D-57
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
25
The following related projects and reasonably foreseeable actions as
recommended by the 2010 Plan could occur if the Clearwater Program were not
approved and implemented:
Expand the SJCWRP to a treatment capacity of 125 MGD.
Upgrade and provide relief for the existing conveyance system.
Continue current WRP effluent management practices.
Construct additional solids processing facilities.
Continue current biosolids management practices and identify new practices.
Continue use of existing ocean discharge system.
Under Alternative 5, the existing ocean discharge system would be insufficient to
convey projected peak wastewater flows. Additionally, if the tunnels were to
become inoperable or partially obstructed (e.g., due to earthquake damage),
flows would need to be discharged to another location. If there were available
capacity in the Wilmington Drain, secondary effluent could be bypassed into the
Wilmington Drain just north of Lomita Boulevard. If sufficient capacity were not
available in the Wilmington Drain, the sewers tributary to the JWPCP could
overflow and untreated wastewater could enter various water courses, such as
the Dominguez Channel and the Los Angeles River.
CEQA Environmental Baseline
To determine if there would be significant impacts, conditions that would occur
under the recommended plan or its alternatives are compared to baseline
conditions. In an EIR, the baseline is generally defined as the physical
environmental conditions in the vicinity of a proposed project that exist at the time
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published (October 2008). The lead
agency may also consider a baseline condition that better reflects fluctuations
resulting from cyclical trends, such as drought and wet weather. Because
wastewater flows are subject to such variances, the baseline conditions for the
JOS are representative of aggregate data collected from recent years prior to the
release of the NOP.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
NEPA requires federal agencies to document and consider the environmental
effects of federal actions. When a federal agency determines that a proposed
project could result in significant environmental effects, an EIS is required. The
purpose of an EIS is to provide full and fair discussion of anticipated
environmental impacts, including significant impacts. The EIS must also inform
decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives that would avoid or
minimize significant impacts or would enhance the quality of the human
environment. An EIS is both a disclosure document and a tool used by federal
officials in conjunction with other relevant material to plan actions and make
decisions.
The Corps is the
federal lead agency
under NEPA and is
responsible for
preparing the
Environmental Impact
Statement.
D-58
26
NEPA Scope of Analysis
In contrast to the EIR, the EIS for the Clearwater Program does not include an
assessment of the program elements because there is not sufficient federal
control and responsibility for the program elements. Therefore, the Corps’ NEPA
scope of analysis includes only the recommended project and its alternatives,
consisting of both onshore and offshore construction activities. Offshore
construction activities include regulated activities within the Corps’ geographic
jurisdiction (i.e., the marine environment) that would require permits from the
Corps. As such, all environmental effects associated with offshore construction
activities are considered direct impacts in the EIS. Environmental effects
associated with onshore construction activities, as well as those effects
associated with project operations, would not require a Corps permit and thus are
considered indirect impacts in the EIS.
No-Federal-Action-Alternative
Pursuant to NEPA, an EIS must evaluate a no-federal-action alternative. The
No-Federal-Action Alternative for the Clearwater Program is Alternative 6.
Alternative 6 consists of the activities that the Sanitation Districts would perform
without the issuance of the Corps’ permits. The Corps’ permits would be
required for the construction of an offshore tunnel, construction of a riser and
diffuser, rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls, and ocean disposal of
dredged material. Without the Corps’ permits for the offshore work, the
Sanitation Districts would not construct the onshore tunnel and shaft sites and
would not rehabilitate the existing ocean outfalls. Therefore, none of the project
elements would be constructed under Alternative 6, and the Sanitation Districts
would continue to use the existing ocean discharge system, which could result in
emergency discharges and/or sewer overflows to various water courses.
NEPA Environmental Baseline
In analyzing a proposed project in a joint CEQA/NEPA format, the Corps must
distinguish the scientific and analytical basis for its decisions from the CEQA lead
agency’s decision. The NEPA baseline condition for determining significance of
impacts is generally determined by examining the full range of construction and
operational activities the Sanitation Districts could implement, and are likely to
implement, absent a Corps permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. Therefore, in general, the NEPA
baseline is identical to baseline conditions associated with the No-Federal-Action
Alternative.
Unlike the CEQA baseline, which is typically defined by environmental conditions
at a point in time, the NEPA baseline is not restricted to a “no-growth” scenario.
For the Clearwater Program EIS, the NEPA baseline represents anticipated
conditions at the year when construction of project elements is expected to
conclude. Whenever possible, the Corps and the Sanitation Districts have relied
on empirical data and best professional judgment to identify future conditions.
For resources in which future conditions are identified, the NEPA baseline
encompasses the No-Federal-Action Alternative and any identified conditions.
For resources in which future conditions are not identified, the NEPA baseline is
identical to the No-Federal-Action Alternative.
D-59
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
27
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Threshold of Significance
The threshold of significance for a given environmental effect is the level at which
the Sanitation Districts and/or the Corps find an effect of the recommended plan
and its alternatives to be significant. A threshold of significance can be defined
as a “quantitative or qualitative standard or set of criteria, pursuant to which
significance of a given environmental effect may be determined” (CEQA
Guidelines). The thresholds of significance provided in the CEQA Guidelines
have been used as the basis of the environmental impact analysis for this
EIR/EIS. Some thresholds or criteria have been adapted to the specific
circumstances of the recommended plan and its alternatives. The Corps has
generally adopted the CEQA thresholds presented in this document to meet its
NEPA responsibilities.
Mitigation Measures
The EIR/EIS considers feasible mitigation measures to reduce a significant
environmental impact to less than significant. To reduce significant effects,
mitigation measures must avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or
compensate for a given impact. After the EIR/EIS is certified, a mitigation
monitoring program would be adopted to ensure that the mitigation measures are
fully implemented.
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The following sections, organized by resource area, summarize the significant
unavoidable impacts of Alternative 4 (recommended alternative) and
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. A significant unavoidable impact results if, even with
mitigation, the impact cannot be reduced to less than significant, or if no feasible
mitigation exists.
Alternative 5 (No Project) and Alternative 6 (No Federal Action) have significant
operational impacts. Both Alternatives 5 and 6 could result in an emergency
discharge of secondary effluent to the Wilmington Drain or overflow of untreated
wastewater that would enter various water courses. Significant impacts include
impacts on water quality (freshwater and marine), geology and soils through
erosion if the release resulted in large amounts of fast-moving water, recreation
at the harbor because of degraded water quality, and utilities because existing
wastewater systems would not be able to accommodate the flows.
The difference
between an
alternative and the
environmental
baseline is compared
to a threshold to
determine if an impact
is significant.
D-60
28
Aesthetic Resources
Significant and unavoidable impacts on aesthetic resources would occur
during construction of Alternatives 1 through 4 because work would occur
adjacent to the coast, a highly valued scenic area protected by local plans to
preserve the scenic integrity of coastal views. Rehabilitation of the existing
ocean outfalls, which is included in Alternatives 1 through 4, would involve
significant aesthetic impacts on land-based views of the ocean during
construction. Aesthetic impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 are related to
construction at the Angels Gate and Royal Palms shaft sites, which are both
coastal sites close to residential and recreational areas. Under Alternatives 1
and 2, construction activities and the associated noise barrier would degrade
visual quality for residents adjacent to the JWPCP East shaft site. Overall,
Alternatives 1 through 4 would have significant unavoidable aesthetic
impacts during construction associated with a shaft site and rehabilitation of
the existing ocean outfalls.
Air Quality
Significant and unavoidable peak day air quality impacts would occur at a
regional level during construction Alternatives 1 through 4. Each alternative
would exceed the Southern California Air Quality Management District daily
significance thresholds for construction-related emissions before mitigation.
Specifically, Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would exceed thresholds for volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), and Alternative 2
would exceed thresholds for VOC, carbon monoxide (CO), and NOX.
Although mitigation would reduce emissions, impacts would remain
significant for NOX for all alternatives. The magnitude of the significance is
directly related to the length of the alignment, the duration of construction,
and the overlap of elements during construction with Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
having greater emissions than Alternative 4. Alternative 4 has the smallest
emissions contribution of the four alternatives and would be the preferred
alternative based on air emissions.
Cultural Resources
Significant and unavoidable impacts on paleontological resources would
occur during construction of Alternatives 1 through 4. The rock face being
removed during onshore and offshore tunnel construction could not be
observed for the presence of paleontological resources; thus, if present,
paleontological resources would be destroyed by the TBM. Likewise, at a
certain depth, paleontological resources may be encountered during
construction at the shaft sites; these resources could not be observed and, if
present, would also be destroyed. Impacts are relatively equal across the
alternatives, but it is likely that more paleontological resources would be
encountered in the longer alignments; thus, Alternatives 3 and 4 are
preferred over Alternatives 1 and 2 based on alignment length. Alternative 4
would be the preferred alternative with regard to paleontological resources
based on alignment length.
D-61
CLEARWATER PROGRAM Executive Summary
29
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under CEQA, significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts
would occur during construction of Alternatives 1 through 4. The magnitude
of the significance is directly related to the length of the alignment and the
duration of construction. Estimates of total metric tons of carbon
dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) emissions range from largest (Alternative 1) to
smallest (Alternative 4). Alternative 4 has the smallest GHG contribution of
the four alternatives and would be the preferred alternative based on GHG
emissions.
Employment, Housing, Socioeconomics, and Environmental Justice
Under NEPA, significant and unavoidable environmental justice impacts
would occur during construction of Alternatives 1 and 2. Work at the JWPCP
East shaft site would result in environmental impacts that are
disproportionately high and adverse on minority and low-income populations.
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED AND SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 4 (recommended alternative) is the environmentally preferred and
superior alternative. Impacts would be reduced for Alternative 4 when compared
to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Alternative 4 has only two shaft sites, the shortest
overall tunneling distance, the fewest number of truck trips, and the shortest
construction duration. Alternative 4 would not result in significant and
unavoidable environmental impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse
on minority and low-income populations. Furthermore, in-water construction
activities would be reduced for Alternative 4, which utilizes the existing ocean
outfalls and would not require offshore tunneling or new construction of a riser
and diffuser. Alternative 4 would reduce the amount of marine vessel activity,
eliminate the need for dredge material disposal, reduce the duration of in-water
construction, and reduce the amount of air quality impacts and GHG emissions
when compared to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.
Alternative 4 is the
environmentally
preferred and superior
alternative.
D-62
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Program-Wide)
30
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (PROGRAM-WIDE)
LTS/M – Less than significant impact after mitigation
SU – Impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE PROGRAM ELEMENT
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-2. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 exceed the SCAQMD
daily significance thresholds for
construction- and/or operation-
related emissions?1
MM AQ-2a. All on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks used
during construction with a gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 26,000 pounds will include a particulate
matter trap or have a 2007 model year engine or newer.
MM AQ-2b. All off-road diesel-powered equipment used
during construction will be equipped with a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 engine,
except for specialized construction equipment in which an
EPA Tier 3 engine is not available, and a diesel particulate
matter trap.
MM AQ-2c. Fully cover trucks hauling loose material, such
as debris or fill, while operating off site.
MM AQ-2d. Commercially available construction
equipment and heavy-duty trucks that use alternative fuels
will be evaluated for use during construction, provided that
they will be available prior to commencing construction
and proven reliable.
MM AQ-2e. Route construction trucks away from
congested streets or sensitive receptor areas as feasible.
Clearwater Program would result in
significant and unavoidable regional
impacts.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-2. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in direct or
indirect take of a federally listed,
threatened, or endangered plant
or wildlife species?
MM BIO-2. To avoid indirect impacts of construction on
nesting least Bell’s vireo, construction activities within
300 feet of riparian vegetation will be timed to avoid the
season when nests may be active (April 1 to July 31). If
avoidance of construction within this time period is not
feasible, a focused survey for least Bell’s vireo will be
conducted in the season prior to initiation of construction
activities to determine their presence or absence within
300 feet. The focused survey will consist of eight site visits
conducted 10 days apart during the period of April 10 to
July 31. If occupied habitat and/or nesting individuals are
determined to occur within 300 feet of construction,
measures to avoid take of least Bell’s vireo and occupied
habitat will be implemented. These avoidance measures
will include conducting a clearance and nest survey within
30 days prior to construction activities to determine the
location of nests within 300 feet of construction.
Measures, such as erecting a temporary barrier with
stacked hay bales, will be implemented to reduce the
amount of construction noise and motion in proximity to
active nests. In addition, a biologist familiar with least
Bell’s vireo will periodically monitor construction activities
to confirm the least Bell’s vireo is not affected by the
construction and to ensure avoidance measures remain
intact and functional. Night construction within 300 feet of
occupied least Bell’s vireo nests will not occur unless
authorized by the California Department of Fish and Game
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
SJCWRP Plant Expansion – LTS/M
Impact BIO-3. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in direct or
indirect take of a state-listed,
threatened, or endangered plant
or wildlife species?
MM BIO-3 (Same as MM BIO-2) SJCWRP Plant Expansion – LTS/M
D-63
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Program-Wide) 31
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE PROGRAM ELEMENT
Impact BIO-5. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in direct or
indirect impacts on any CDFG
wildlife species of special concern?
MM BIO-5a. To avoid indirect impacts of construction on
nesting yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat,
construction activities within 100 feet of riparian
vegetation will be timed to occur outside the season when
nests may be active (April 1 to July 31). If avoidance of
construction within this time period is not feasible, a
preconstruction nesting survey for yellow warbler and
yellow-breasted chat will be conducted 7 days prior to
initiation of construction to determine the presence or
absence of nests within 100 feet. If nesting individuals are
determined to occur within 100 feet of construction,
avoidance and minimization measures will be
implemented. These could include erecting a temporary
barrier, such as stacked hay bales, adjacent to the nest
location to reduce the amount of construction noise and
motion entering the riparian habitat.
SJCWRP Plant Expansion – LTS/M
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-2. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
MM CUL-2. In the event that buried archaeological
resources are discovered during ground-disturbing
activities, work will stop in that area and within 30 feet of
the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the
significance of the find and, if necessary, develop
appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures
may include development of avoidance strategies, capping
with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data
recovery programs such as excavation or detailed
documentation. During cultural resources monitoring, if
the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments
being excavated are previously disturbed or unlikely to
contain significant cultural materials, the qualified
archaeologist can specify that monitoring be reduced or
eliminated.
SJCWRP Plant Expansion – LTS/M
SJCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
POWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LBWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
JWPCP Solids Processing – LTS/M
Impact CUL-3. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in disturbance
or destruction of a unique
paleontological resource or site or
a unique geologic feature?
MM CUL-3. In the event that potential paleontological
resources are discovered during ground-disturbing
activities, work will stop in that area and within 30 feet of
the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the
significance of the find and, if necessary, develop
appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures
may include monitoring by a qualified paleontologist during
construction-related ground-disturbing activities. The
monitor will retain the option to reduce monitoring if it is
determined that the sediments were previously disturbed.
Monitoring may also be reduced if potentially fossiliferous
units are not present or, if present, are determined to have
a low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor
will be equipped to salvage fossils and samples of
sediments as they are unearthed and will be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of
abundant or large specimens. Recovered specimens will be
prepared to a point of identification and permanent
preservation, including washing of sediments to recover
small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens will be
curated into a professional, accredited museum repository
with permanent retrievable storage. A report of findings,
with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, will be
prepared and will signify completion of the mitigation.
SJCWRP Plant Expansion – LTS/M
SJCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
POWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LBWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
JWPCP Solids Processing – LTS/M
D-64
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Program-Wide)
32
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE PROGRAM ELEMENT
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact GEO-1. Would
Alternatives 1 through 4 expose
people, structures, or property to
major geologic hazards such as
landslides, mudslides, or ground
failure?
MM GEO-1. Perform geotechnical investigations and
provide site-specific recommendations for stabilization of
temporary and permanent slopes and excavations to
reduce risks to structures and construction workers
associated with landslides, mudslides, or ground failure.
The geotechnical investigation will address the
requirements of local grading ordinances, as appropriate.
The geotechnical recommendations will be incorporated
into the final design and construction of new facilities, as
deemed appropriate by the project engineer.
POWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
Impact GEO-3. Would
Alternatives 1 through 4 expose
people or structures to a potential
substantially adverse effect,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic
ground shaking?
MM GEO-3. Perform geotechnical investigations and
provide site-specific recommendations for reducing the
adverse effects of seismic ground shaking on planned
facilities. The investigations and recommendations will be
conducted in accordance with current California Geological
Survey guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic
hazards in California, and will be in compliance with current
building codes, as applicable, to reduce the risk of seismic
shaking. The geotechnical recommendations will be
incorporated into the final design and construction of new
facilities, as deemed appropriate by the project engineer.
SJCWRP Plant Expansion – LTS/M
SJCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
POWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LBWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
JWPCP Solids Processing – LTS/M
Impact GEO-4. Would
Alternatives 1 through 4 expose
people or structures to a potential
substantially adverse effect
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving substrate
consisting of material that is
subject to liquefaction or other
secondary seismic hazards in the
event of ground shaking?
MM GEO-4. Perform geotechnical investigations and
provide site-specific recommendations to reduce the
impacts of liquefaction on planned facilities. The
investigations and recommendations will be conducted in
accordance with current California Geological Survey
guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in
California. The geotechnical recommendations will be
incorporated into the final design and construction of new
facilities, as deemed appropriate by the project engineer.
POWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LBWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
Impact GEO-7. Would
Alternatives 1 through 4 be
located in soil characterized by
shrink-swell potential that might
result in deformation of
foundations or damage to
structures?
MM GEO-7. Perform geotechnical investigations and
provide site-specific recommendations to reduce the risk of
adverse effects on structures due to shrink-swell soil
behavior. The investigations will include an analysis of soil
expansion potential (i.e., American Society for Testing and
Materials D-4829). Remediation may include expansive soil
removal, reinforced foundations, and/or special pavement
design. The geotechnical recommendations will be
incorporated into the final design and construction of new
facilities, as deemed appropriate by the project engineer.
SJCWRP Plant Expansion – LTS/M
SJCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
POWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LBWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
JWPCP Solids Processing – LTS/M
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1. Would
Alternatives 1 through 4 generate
GHG emissions that would have a
significant impact on the
environment?1
MM GHG-1a (same as MM AQ-2a)
MM GHG-1b (same as MM AQ-2b)
MM GHG-1c (same as MM AQ-2d)
Clearwater Program would result in
significant and unavoidable regional
impacts.
HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Impact HYD-11. Would
Alternatives 1 through 4 be
subject to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
MM HYD-11. During the final design process, perform a
geotechnical investigation. If it is determined that there is
a potential for mudflow during construction of process
optimization at the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant due
to risks associated with severe weather or the combination
of severe weather and post-burn conditions on Elephant
Hill, a construction safety plan will be developed prior to
construction activities and will include procedures to avoid
risks to workers during the construction period.
Procedures could include sandbagging and reseeding the
burned area immediately following a fire to reestablish
vegetation to buffer rainfall and promote a root system to
help secure soil in place. Additionally, weather patterns
will be monitored and construction will cease if weather
could contribute to mudflow conditions.
POWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
D-65
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Program-Wide) 33
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE PROGRAM ELEMENT
NOISE AND VIBRATIONS (TERRESTRIAL)
Impact NOI-4. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
MM NOI-4a. Employ noise-reducing construction practices
such that construction noise does not exceed levels
required by local standards. Measures that may be used to
limit construction noise include the following:
- Limit construction operations to exempt hours
- Locate equipment as far a practical from noise-sensitive
uses
- Require that all construction equipment powered by
gasoline or diesel engines have sound-control devices
that are at least as effective as those originally provided
by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated
and maintained to minimize noise generation.
- Prohibit gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled
exhaust
- Use noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating
equipment
- Construct additional barriers between noise sources and
noise-sensitive land uses or take advantage of existing
barrier features (e.g., terrain, structures) to block sound
transmission
MM NOI-4b. Prior to construction, initiate a
complaint/response tracking program. A construction
schedule will be made available to residents living in the
vicinity of the construction areas, and a noise disturbance
coordinator will be designated. The coordinator will be
responsible for responding to complaints regarding
construction noise, will determine the cause of the
complaint, and will ensure that reasonable measures are
implemented to correct the problem when feasible. A
contact telephone number for the noise disturbance
coordinator will be conspicuously posted on construction
site fences and will be included in the notification of the
construction schedule.
SJCWRP Plant Expansion – LTS/M
SJCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Impact TRT-1. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing a measure of
effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking
into account all modes of
transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant elements of the
circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
MM TRT-1. Prepare and implement a construction traffic
management plan. The plan will be submitted to the
appropriate local agency for review and approval prior to
the start of any construction work. This plan will include
such elements as the project schedule, the designation of
haul routes for construction-related trucks, the location of
access to the construction site, designated staging and
parking areas for workers and equipment, any driveway
turning movement restrictions, any temporary traffic
control devices or flagmen, and any travel time restrictions
for construction-related traffic to avoid peak travel periods
on selected roadways.
SJCWRP Plant Expansion – LTS/M
SJCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
POWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LCWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
LBWRP Process Optimization – LTS/M
JWPCP Solids Processing – LTS/M
1 Air quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions are regional in nature.
LTS/M – Less than significant impact after mitigation
SU – Impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation
D-66
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 34
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (PROJECT-SPECIFIC)
LTS/M – Less than significant impact after mitigation
SU – Impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
AESTHETICS
Impact AES-1. Would Alternatives 1
through 4 conflict with adopted
goals or policies that protect visual
quality of a designated scenic vista
or scenic resource, resulting in an
adverse aesthetic impact such as
obstruction of view or degradation
of visual character?
MM AES-1. Implement visual measures to
improve the aesthetic quality of the noise barrier
to ensure the design blends with the surrounding
environment. A mural or similar aesthetic
treatment will be applied to the sections of the
noise barrier prominently visible to nearby
residents and/or recreationists. Appropriate paint
type and surfacing materials will be selected to
ensure durability of the painted or treated
surfaces until the barrier is removed. Barriers will
have low-sheen and non-reflective surface
materials to reduce the potential for glare. The
paint color or aesthetic treatment will be
maintained and any graffiti will be removed in a
timely manner. During the final design process,
the input of residents and/or recreationists that
will be affected by the placement of the noise
barriers will be accepted. Their comments will be
evaluated for inclusion in the design to ensure the
final treatment meets expectations to the greatest
extent feasible.
Angels Gate
Shaft Site – SU
Royal Palms
Shaft Site – SU
No mitigation is feasible. Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Impact AES-3. Would Alternatives 1
through 4 substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality
of the site or its surroundings?
MM AES-3a (Same as MM AES-1) JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site – SU
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site – SU
MM AES-3b. Implement visual measures to
reduce the visibility of new structures by painting
prominent metal surfaces with colors that will
blend with the setting. Selected colors will be
shades that are slightly darker than the general
surrounding area to reduce contrast and promote
compositional harmony of architectural features.
An appropriate paint type will be selected for the
finished structures to ensure long-term durability
of the painted surfaces, and the finish will be
maintained over time.
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site – SU
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site – SU
No mitigation is feasible. Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
D-67
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 35
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
Impact AES-5. Would Alternatives 1
through 4 create a new source of
substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime
views of the area?
MM AES-5a (Same as MM AES-1)
MM AES-5b. Apply minimum lighting standards.
Lights will be installed at the lowest practicable
height and with the lowest practicable wattage.
Lights will be screened and directed downward to
the greatest degree possible. The number of
nighttime lights will be minimized.
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-2. Would Alternatives 1
through 4 exceed the SCAQMD daily
significance thresholds for
construction- and/or operation-
related emissions?1
MM AQ-2a. All on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks
used during construction with a gross vehicle
weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds will
include a particulate matter trap or have a
2007 model year engine or newer.
MM AQ-2b. All off-road diesel-powered
equipment used during construction will be
equipped with a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Tier 3 engine, except for specialized
construction equipment in which an EPA Tier 3
engine is not available, and a diesel particulate
matter trap.
MM AQ-2c. Fully cover trucks hauling loose
material, such as debris or fill, while operating off
site.
MM AQ-2d. Commercially available construction
equipment and heavy-duty trucks that use
alternative fuels will be evaluated for use during
construction, provided that they will be available
prior to commencing construction and proven
reliable.
MM AQ-2e. Route construction trucks away from
congested streets or sensitive receptor areas as
feasible.
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
TraPac Shaft
Site – SU
LAXT Shaft Site
– SU
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
TraPac Shaft
Site – SU
LAXT Shaft Site
– SU
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
JWPCP West
Shaft Site – SU
Angels Gate
Shaft Site – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
JWPCP West
Shaft Site – SU
Royal Palms
Shaft Site – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
MM AQ-2f. Use harbor craft with the cleanest
marine diesel engines available at the Port of Los
Angeles.
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
MM AQ-2g. Use a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Tier 4 engine to power the tunnel
locomotive.
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
D-68
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 36
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
Impact AQ-3. Would Alternatives 1
through 4 result in emissions in
excess of SCAQMD’s Localized
Significance Thresholds?
MM AQ-3a (Same as MM AQ-2a)
MM AQ-3b (Same as MM AQ-2b)
MM AQ-3c (Same as MM AQ-2c)
MM AQ-3d (Same as MM AQ-2d)
MM AQ-3e (Same as MM AQ-2e)
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
MM AQ-3g (Same as MM AQ-2g) Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-5. Would Alternatives 1
through 4 result in direct or indirect
impacts on any CDFG wildlife
species of special concern?
MM BIO-5b. A preconstruction survey for
burrowing owl will be conducted within 30 days
prior to initiation of construction at the Angels
Gate shaft site according to California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG) burrowing owl survey
protocol and mitigation guidelines. All suitable
habitat on the shaft site and within a 250-foot
buffer will be surveyed for burrowing owl and/or
evidence of burrowing owl. Mitigation for an
occupied burrow will include avoiding
construction within 250 feet of an active nest
burrow during the February 1 to August 31
nesting season, and 160 feet of an occupied
burrow from September 1 to January 31. If
construction timing cannot be adjusted to avoid
disturbance, or if an occupied burrow would be
physically disturbed by construction, the owls
would be relocated according to CDFG guidelines.
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
D-69
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 37
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-2. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
MM CUL-2. In the event that buried
archaeological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that
area and within 30 feet of the find until a qualified
archaeologist can assess the significance of the
find and, if necessary, develop appropriate
treatment measures. Treatment measures may
include development of avoidance strategies,
capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts
through data recovery programs such as
excavation or detailed documentation. During
cultural resources monitoring, if the qualified
archaeologist determines that the sediments
being excavated are previously disturbed or
unlikely to contain significant cultural materials,
the qualified archaeologist can specify that
monitoring be reduced or eliminated.
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Impact CUL-3. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in disturbance or
destruction of a unique
paleontological resource or site or a
unique geologic feature?
MM CUL-3. In the event that potential
paleontological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that
area and within 30 feet of the find until a qualified
paleontologist can assess the significance of the
find and, if necessary, develop appropriate
treatment measures. Treatment measures may
include monitoring by a qualified paleontologist
during construction-related ground-disturbing
activities. The monitor will retain the option to
reduce monitoring if it is determined that the
sediments were previously disturbed. Monitoring
may also be reduced if potentially fossiliferous
units are not present or, if present, are
determined to have a low potential to contain
fossil resources. The monitor will be equipped to
salvage fossils and samples of sediments as they
are unearthed and will be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow
removal of abundant or large specimens.
Recovered specimens will be prepared to a point
of identification and permanent preservation,
including washing of sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens will be
curated into a professional, accredited museum
repository with permanent retrievable storage. A
report of findings, with an appended itemized
inventory of specimens, will be prepared and will
signify completion of the mitigation.
JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
TraPac Shaft
Site – SU
LAXT Shaft Site
– SU
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – SU
JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
TraPac Shaft
Site – SU
LAXT Shaft Site
– SU
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – SU
JWPCP West
Shaft Site – SU
Angels Gate
Shaft Site – SU
JWPCP West
Shaft Site – SU
Royal Palms
Shaft Site – SU
No mitigation is feasible. Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
D-70
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 38
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
Impact CUL-5. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in direct or
indirect damage or removal of a
significant submerged marine
cultural resource or result in
alteration or cause change to stable
environmental conditions for a
significant submerged marine
cultural resource(s)?
MM CUL-5. In the event that potentially historic
resources, such as shipwrecks, are encountered in
the project area during construction activities,
work will stop immediately until a qualified
archaeologist can assess the significance of the
resource and, if necessary, enact appropriate
management measures. This may include the
initiation of avoidance or buffer zones, or a data
recovery program that may include excavation or
documentation of the resource.
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact GEO-1. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 expose people,
structures, or property to major
geologic hazards such as landslides,
mudslides, or ground failure?
MM GEO-1. Perform geotechnical investigations
and provide site-specific recommendations for
stabilization of temporary and permanent slopes
and excavations to reduce risks to structures and
construction workers associated with landslides,
mudslides, or ground failure. The geotechnical
investigation will address the requirements of
local grading ordinances, as appropriate. The
geotechnical recommendations will be
incorporated into the final design and
construction of new facilities, as deemed
appropriate by the project engineer.
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Impact GEO-2. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 expose people or
structures to a potential
substantially adverse effect,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault?
MM GEO-2. Perform site-specific fault hazard
investigations to minimize fault rupture damage
and facilitate repair of structures damaged as a
result of fault movement. The investigations will
be conducted in accordance with current
California Geological Survey guidelines for
evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in
California. Geologic evaluations of fault crossings
will include information to define fault location,
fault slip, angle of intersection at the crossing,
type of fault slip, width of disturbance, fault dip
angle, and design fault displacement.
Remediation measures may include engineered
backfill, special lining systems, and/or special
access provisions for repair. The geotechnical
recommendations will be incorporated into the
final design and construction of new facilities, as
deemed appropriate by the project engineer.
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
D-71
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 39
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
Impact GEO-3. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 expose people or
structures to a potential
substantially adverse effect,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic
ground shaking?
MM GEO-3. Perform geotechnical investigations
and provide site-specific recommendations for
reducing the adverse effects of seismic ground
shaking on planned facilities. The investigations
and recommendations will be conducted in
accordance with current California Geological
Survey guidelines for evaluating and mitigating
seismic hazards in California, and will be in
compliance with current building codes, as
applicable, to reduce the risk of seismic shaking.
The geotechnical recommendations will be
incorporated into the final design and
construction of new facilities, as deemed
appropriate by the project engineer.
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf –
LTS/M
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Impact GEO-4. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 expose people or
structures to a potential
substantially adverse effect
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving substrate consisting
of material that is subject to
liquefaction or other secondary
seismic hazards in the event of
ground shaking?
MM GEO-4. Perform geotechnical investigations
and provide site-specific recommendations to
reduce the impacts of liquefaction on planned
facilities. The investigations and
recommendations will be conducted in
accordance with current California Geological
Survey guidelines for evaluating and mitigating
seismic hazards in California. The geotechnical
recommendations will be incorporated into the
final design and construction of new facilities, as
deemed appropriate by the project engineer.
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf –
LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
D-72
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 40
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
Impact GEO-6. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in unstable earth
conditions or changes in geologic
substructure?
MM GEO-6a. During the final design process,
perform geotechnical investigations to provide
characterization of the subsurface conditions and
anticipated ground behavior along the selected
tunnel route and at the shaft sites. The objective
of these investigations will be to reduce the
potential impacts of shaft excavation instability
and ground settlement along the tunnel. The
investigation will address facilities at risk of
damage due to potential tunneling-induced
settlements or shaft instability. An appropriate
shaft excavation method that minimizes the risk
of excavation instability and ground settlement in
the vicinity of the shaft will be recommended.
Geotechnical criteria for stabilization of shaft
excavations will be incorporated into the project
design to ensure the safety and stability of
excavations. Recommendations for control and
monitoring of the tunnel boring machine
excavation and proper installation of the tunnel
lining system to avoid excessive ground loss at the
tunnel heading and shield will be made. Project
design documents will also specify contingency
measures that will be implemented if excessive
settlement were to occur during construction.
MM GEO-6b. Develop a detailed plan for
construction monitoring that will minimize
potential ground surface settlements at the shafts
and along the onshore tunnel. The objective of
the plan will be to reduce the risk of construction
instability and to confirm that ground surface
settlement is kept to a level that avoids damage to
structures above or along the tunnel alignment.
The plan will describe the specific monitoring that
will be performed before, during, and after
construction. Instrumentation (e.g., survey
monuments, slope inclinometers, and/or
extensometers) may be used to accurately
quantify parameters of ground and structure
behaviors and to monitor the rate of change.
Contingent construction approaches will be
implemented if excessive settlement occurs. The
plan will address municipality, agency, and third
party settlement tolerance requirements as
appropriate for the shaft sites and tunnel
alignment. Geotechnical inspections will be
performed during construction to confirm the
encountered subsurface conditions and to provide
recommendations for alternate settlement
control approaches, if warranted. If the
construction monitoring program detects the
occurrence of excessive settlement and
alternative settlement control measures are
inadequate to meet settlement specifications,
then further excavation will cease until additional
ground support measures are implemented to
alleviate the settlement as directed by the project
engineer.
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel –
LTS/M
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
D-73
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 41
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
Impact GEO-7. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 be located in soil
characterized by shrink-swell
potential that might result in
deformation of foundations or
damage to structures?
MM GEO-7. Perform geotechnical investigations
and provide site-specific recommendations to
reduce the risk of adverse effects on structures
due to shrink-swell soil behavior. The
investigations will include an analysis of soil
expansion potential (i.e., American Society for
Testing and Materials D-4829). Remediation may
include expansive soil removal, reinforced
foundations, and/or special pavement design. The
geotechnical recommendations will be
incorporated into the final design and
construction of new facilities, as deemed
appropriate by the project engineer.
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
TraPac Shaft
Site – LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
JWPCP West
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS2
Impact GHG-1. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 generate GHG
emissions that would have a
significant impact on the
environment?1
MM GHG-1a (same as MM AQ-2a)
MM GHG-1b (same as MM AQ-2b)
MM GHG-1c (same as MM AQ-2d)
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
TraPac Shaft
Site – SU
LAXT Shaft Site
– SU
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
TraPac Shaft
Site – SU
LAXT Shaft Site
– SU
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
JWPCP West
Shaft Site – SU
Angels Gate
Shaft Site – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
JWPCP West
Shaft Site – SU
Royal Palms
Shaft Site – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
MM GHG-1d (same as MM AQ-2f) Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
Existing Ocean
Outfalls – SU
MM GHG-1e (same as MM AQ-2g) Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
SP Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Wilmington to
PV Shelf
(Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Offshore)
Tunnel – SU
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – SU
D-74
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 42
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact LU-2. Would Alternatives 1
through 4 conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to, a
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
MM LU-2. Prior to construction, the existing land
use designation and zoning will be amended as
required through a general plan amendment,
specific plan amendment, and/or zone change.
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
MARINE ENVIRONMENT (MARINE HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, NOISE, AND PUBLIC HEALTH)
Impact MAR-1. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 create pollution,
contamination, or nuisance, as
defined in Section 13050 of the
CWC; or cause regulatory standards
to be violated, as defined in the
applicable NPDES permit(s) or State
Water Quality Control Plan for
ocean waters for concentration and
emissions of discharge?
MM MAR-1a. During riser and diffuser
construction, analyses of contaminant
concentrations (i.e., metals,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT],
polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]) in waters near the
dredging operations will be required if the
contaminant levels in the dredged sediments are
known to be elevated and represent a potential
risk to beneficial uses. Monitoring data will be
used to demonstrate that water quality limits
specified in applicable state and federal permits
are not exceeded. Corrective or adaptive actions
consistent with state and federal permits will be
implemented if the monitoring data indicate that
water quality conditions outside the mixing zone
are above the permit-specified limits.
MM MAR-1b. Prepare and implement a
contaminated sediment management plan that is
consistent with practices outlined in the
Los Angeles Regional Contaminated Sediment
Task Force long-term management strategy if
contaminant levels in the dredged sediments are
known to be elevated and represent a potential
risk. At a minimum, the plan will include site-
specific best management practices at the
immediate work site to reduce the potential area
of exposure to contaminated sediments.
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
D-75
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 43
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
Impact MAR-3. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in the substantial
loss of individuals or the reduction
of existing habitat of a state- or
federally listed endangered,
threatened, rare, protected,
candidate, or sensitive plant or
animal species or a species of
special concern?
MM MAR-3a. Prepare and implement a collision
protection plan to address sensitive and protected
species. All construction personnel and boat
operators will receive protected species training.
The training will include review of the plan as well
as identification of animals, species, and habitats
potentially present in the project area.
MM MAR-3b. Restrict tugs, tugs with barges
under tow, and large work vessels to speeds of
12 knots (14 miles per hour [mph]) or less at all
times. Maneuverable single hull vessels such as
crew or supply boats may proceed at speeds of
20 knots (23 mph) or less under most conditions,
but will reduce speed to 12 knots or less when
whales or sea turtles are located or reported in
the project area.
MM MAR-3c. Immediately report all vessel
collisions with marine mammals or sea turtles to
the National Marine Fisheries Service.
MM MAR-3d. Limit the deployment of any
material that has the potential to entangle marine
mammals or sea turtles (e.g., anchor lines, cables,
rope, other construction debris) to only as long as
necessary.
MM MAR-e. Remove as much slack as possible
from any potentially entangling material to the
point of not jeopardizing construction operations.
MM MAR-3f. Position temporary mooring buoys
with heavy steel cables or chains to minimize
potential entanglements.
MM MAR-3g. In the event that a marine mammal
or sea turtle becomes entangled, immediately
seek guidance from the National Marine Fisheries
Service for safe disentanglement options.
MM MAR-3h. Implement a “soft start” method
for all pile driving by operating the hammer at less
than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to
60 percent energy levels) with no less than a
1-minute interval between each strike for a
5-minute period on initial driving for the day, or
after a delay of 15 minutes between strikes.
MM MAR-3i. Prepare and implement a pile
driving management plan. The plan will require
that a National Marine Fisheries Service-approved
observer be stationed on the work platform or
work vessel to monitor the presence of sensitive
marine species in the construction area on all days
when pile driving is taking place. The observer will
survey the project vicinity before pile driving is
started and give approval before such work
begins. The observer will continue to advise the
construction crew throughout the day to modify
or stop pile driving if a sensitive or protected
species travels within injury distances.
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
D-76
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 44
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
MM MAR-3j. Within 90 days prior to initiation of
the rehabilitation work, survey the existing ocean
outfall pipelines for black abalone at depths
between the 15- and 55-foot isobaths in areas
potentially affected by the work. The survey team
will include divers/biologists experienced in
locating abalone. If black abalone are determined
to be present, consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service to develop a black abalone
transplantation plan that includes the
identification of a suitable nearby transplant
location, temporary holding and transport
methods, and reporting requirements.
Implementation of the plan will occur no more
than 30 days preceding the in-water rehabilitation
activities and will be conducted by qualified
divers/biologists.
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Impact MAR-4. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in the substantial
loss, degradation, or disruption of
marine habitat or local biological
communities?
MM MAR-4a (Same as MM MAR-3h)
MM MAR-4b (Same as MM MAR-3i)
MM MAR-4c. Prepare and implement an
anchoring plan prior to in-water construction
activities in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers’ permitting requirements. The plan
will identify deployment methods for anchors,
lines, cables, and moorings to minimize damage to
hard-bottom substrate.
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Impact MAR-5. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 interfere with the
movement/ migration corridors of
marine biota?
MM MAR-5a (Same as MM MAR-3a)
MM MAR-5b (Same as MM MAR-3b)
MM MAR-5c (Same as MM MAR-3c)
MM MAR-5d (Same as MM MAR-3d)
MM MAR-5e (Same as MM MAR-3e)
MM MAR-5f (Same as MM MAR-3f)
MM MAR-5g (Same as MM MAR-3g)
MM MAR-5h (Same as MM MAR-3h)
MM MAR-5i (Same as MM MAR-3i)
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Impact MAR-7. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 impair beneficial uses
designated in the California Ocean
Plan?
MM MAR-7a (Same as MM MAR-3a)
MM MAR-7b (Same as MM MAR-3b)
MM MAR-7c (Same as MM MAR-3c)
MM MAR-7d (Same as MM MAR-3d)
MM MAR-7e (Same as MM MAR-3e)
MM MAR-7f (Same as MM MAR-3f)
MM MAR-7g (Same as MM MAR-3g)
MM MAR-7h (Same as MM MAR-3h)
MM MAR-7i (Same as MM MAR-3i)
MM MAR-7j (Same as MM MAR-4c)
Riser/Diffuser,
SP Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
Riser/Diffuser,
PV Shelf –
LTS/M
MM MAR-7k (Same as MM MAR-3j) Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
Existing Ocean
Outfalls –
LTS/M
MM MAR-7l (Same as MM AES-5b) Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
D-77
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 45
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
NOISE AND VIBRATIONS (TERRESTRIAL)
Impact NOI-1. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 expose persons to or
generate noise levels in excess of
standards established in a local
general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
MM NOI-1a. Employ noise-reducing construction
practices such that construction noise does not
exceed levels required by local standards.
Measures that may be used to limit construction
noise include the following:
- Limit construction operations to exempt hours
- Locate equipment as far a practical from
noise-sensitive uses
- Require that all construction equipment
powered by gasoline or diesel engines have
sound-control devices that are at least as
effective as those originally provided by the
manufacturer and that all equipment be
operated and maintained to minimize noise
generation
- Prohibit gasoline or diesel engines from having
unmuffled exhaust
- Use noise-reducing enclosures around
noise-generating equipment
- Construct additional barriers between noise
sources and noise-sensitive land uses or take
advantage of existing barrier features (e.g.,
terrain, structures) to block sound transmission
MM NOI-1b. Prior to construction, initiate a
complaint/response tracking program. A
construction schedule will be made available to
residents living in the vicinity of the construction
areas, and a noise disturbance coordinator will be
designated. The coordinator will be responsible
for responding to complaints regarding
construction noise, will determine the cause of
the complaint, and will ensure that reasonable
measures are implemented to correct the
problem when feasible. A contact telephone
number for the noise disturbance coordinator will
be conspicuously posted on construction site
fences and will be included in the notification of
the construction schedule.
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
D-78
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 46
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
Impact NOI-2. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 expose persons to or
generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
MM NOI-2a. Prepare and implement a rail
maintenance plan for reducing groundborne noise
caused by haul train activities. The plan will
include routine inspection and maintenance of
locomotives, especially those parts that affect the
wheel/rail interface to ensure there are no open
joints or discontinuities that would cause
excessive noise at the wheel/rail interface.
MM NOI-2b. Prepare and implement a vibration
control plan to reduce groundborne noise (and
vibration) levels. The plan will ensure that
groundborne noise levels from operation of
locomotives do not exceed the Federal Transit
Administration Guidance Manual’s threshold level
of 45 dBA (A-weighted decibels). The plan may
include measures such as the use of:
- Haul Train Speed Restrictions – Lower speed
limits for haul trains operating within 110
diagonal feet of vibration-sensitive buildings
- Ballast Mats – A ballast mat consisting of a pad
made of rubber or rubber-like material placed
on an asphalt or concrete base with the normal
ballast, ties, and rail on top
- Resilient Fasteners – Resilient fasteners for
reducing the amount of vibration energy that is
transferred into the track substructure and for
minimizing groundborne vibration in frequencies
above 30 hertz
Figueroa/
Gaffey to PV
Shelf (Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Figueroa/
Western to
Royal Palms
(Onshore)
Tunnel – LTS/M
Impact NOI-4. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
MM NOI-4a (Same as MM NOI-1a)
MM NOI-4b (Same as MM NOI-1b)
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
JWPCP East
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
LAXT Shaft Site
– LTS/M
Southwest
Marine Shaft
Site – LTS/M
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, SOCIOECONOMICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE2
Impact SOC-3. Would Alternatives
1 through 4 result in environmental
impacts that are disproportionately
high and adverse on minority and
low-income populations?3
MM AES-3a. Implement visual measures to
improve the aesthetic quality of the noise barrier
to ensure the design blends with the surrounding
environment. A mural or similar aesthetic
treatment will be applied to the sections of the
noise barrier prominently visible to nearby
residents and/or recreationists. Appropriate paint
type and surfacing materials will be selected to
ensure durability of the painted or treated
surfaces until the barrier is removed. Barriers will
have low-sheen and non-reflective surface
materials to reduce the potential for glare. The
paint color or aesthetic treatment will be
maintained and any graffiti will be removed in a
timely manner. During the final design process,
the input of residents and/or recreationists that
will be affected by the placement of the noise
barriers will be accepted. Their comments will be
evaluated for inclusion in the design to ensure the
final treatment meets expectations to the greatest
extent feasible.
JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
JWPCP East
Shaft Site – SU
D-79
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Project-Specific) 47
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 4
Recreation
Impact REC-1. Would Alternatives 1
through 4 result in substantial loss
or diminished quality of
recreational, educational, or visitor-
oriented opportunities, facilities, or
resources?
MM REC-1a (Same as MM NOI-1a)
MM REC-1b (Same as MM NOI-1b)
Angels Gate
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
Royal Palms
Shaft Site –
LTS/M
1 Air quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions are regional in nature.
2 The President’s Council on Environmental Quality issued draft guidance on how greenhouse gas emissions should be handled under NEPA. Based on this guidance,
the Corps will not make an impact determination under NEPA for greenhouse gas emissions but, instead, use a reference point above which they are required to
consider any additional environmental review. Consequently, the anticipated emissions for each project alternative are disclosed relative to the NEPA baseline without
expressing a judgment as to their significance.
3 Impact SOC-3 analyzes disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations as required under NEPA; therefore, there is no CEQA
analysis provided under Impact SOC 3.
LTS/M – Less than significant impact after mitigation
SU – Impact remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation
D-80
""
!!!
XY
!!!
XY
^_
^_
""
!!!
!!!
^_!!!
""
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
VENTURACOUNTY
S A N G A B R I E L M O U N T A I N
S
S ANTA MONIC
A
B
A
Y
S A N P E D R O B A Y
S A N T A M O N I C AM O U N T A I N S
ORAN
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
SA
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
LOS ANGELESLOS ANGELES
LONG BEACHLONG BEACH
GLENDALEGLENDALE
MALIBUMALIBU
POMONAPOMONA
CARSONCARSON
PASADENAPASADENA
TORRANCETORRANCE
BURBANKBURBANK
GLENDORAGLENDORA
WHITTIERWHITTIER
SANSANDIMASDIMAS
DOWNEYDOWNEY
AZUSAAZUSA
MONROVIAMONROVIA
ARCADIAARCADIA
WEST COVINAWEST COVINA
CLAREMONTCLAREMONT
CALABASASCALABASAS
COMPTONCOMPTON
WALNUTWALNUT
DIAMOND BARDIAMOND BAR
COVINACOVINA
NORWALKNORWALK
ELELMONTEMONTE
LA VERNELA VERNE
IRWINDALEIRWINDALE
DUARTEDUARTE
LAKEWOODLAKEWOOD
INGLEWOODINGLEWOOD
ALHAMBRAALHAMBRA
PICOPICORIVERARIVERA
GARDENAGARDENA
SANTASANTAMONICAMONICA
BELLBELL
LYNWOODLYNWOOD
LOS ANGELESLOS ANGELES
HAWTHORNEHAWTHORNE
BELLFLOWERBELLFLOWER
BALDWINBALDWINPARKPARK
ROSEMEADROSEMEAD
EL SEGUNDOEL SEGUNDO
PARAMOUNTPARAMOUNT
LA HABRALA HABRAHEIGHTSHEIGHTS
TEMPLETEMPLECITYCITY
SAN MARINOSAN MARINO
CITY OF INDUSTRYCITY OF INDUSTRY
MONTEBELLOMONTEBELLO
VERNONVERNON
SOUTHSOUTHGATEGATE
RANCHORANCHOPALOS VERDESPALOS VERDES
SANTA FESANTA FESPRINGSSPRINGS
MONTEREYMONTEREYPARKPARK
CULVERCULVERCITYCITY
BEVERLYBEVERLYHILLSHILLS
LA CANADALA CANADAFLINTRIDGEFLINTRIDGE
REDONDOREDONDOBEACHBEACH
CITY OFCITY OFCOMMERCECOMMERCE
SANSANGABRIELGABRIEL
LA PUENTELA PUENTE
LOMITALOMITA
ROLLINGROLLINGHILLSHILLS
MANHATTAN MANHATTAN BEACH BEACH
SIERRASIERRAMADREMADRE
PALOSPALOSVERDESVERDESESTATESESTATES
ARTESIAARTESIA
SOUTHSOUTHPASADENAPASADENA
SIGNALSIGNALHILLHILL
LAWNDALELAWNDALE
BRADBURYBRADBURY
BELLBELL GARDENS GARDENS
S. ELS. ELMONTEMONTE
HUNTINGTON PARKHUNTINGTON PARK
SAN FERNANDOSAN FERNANDO
ROLLINGROLLINGHILLSHILLSESTATESESTATES
CUDAHYCUDAHY
MAYWOODMAYWOOD
WESTWESTHOLLYWOODHOLLYWOOD
HERMOSA HERMOSA BEACH BEACH
HAWAIIANHAWAIIANGARDENSGARDENS
CERRITOSCERRITOS
LA MIRADALA MIRADA
South BaySouth BayCities DistrictCities District
~~
MA
I
N
VALLEY
PICO
WE
S
T
E
R
N
SUNSET
VICTORY
AV
A
L
O
N
ARROW
SLAUSON
3RD
FI
G
U
E
R
O
A
CR
E
N
S
H
A
W
VANOWEN
ALA
M
E
D
A
AT
L
A
N
T
I
C
OLYMP
I
C
DEL AMO
WILSHIRE
7TH
AMAR
ROSECRANS
SE
P
U
L
V
E
D
A
RO
S
E
M
E
A
D
BALDY
ANAHEIM
GA
R
F
I
E
L
D
PR
A
I
R
I
E
VE
R
M
O
N
T
PACIFIC COAST
WILLOW
CH
E
R
R
Y
TO
W
N
E
190TH
BA
L
B
O
A
BURBANK
GA
R
E
Y
PI
O
N
E
E
R
BEVERLY
PEC
K
CENTURY
BADILLO
GLE
N
D
A
L
E
OCEAN
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
MANCHESTER
EL SEGUNDO
GL
E
N
O
A
K
S
MISSION
AV
I
A
T
I
O
N
WO
O
D
M
A
N
LOMI
T
A
LA
K
E
SOUTH
CUL
V
E
R
2ND
VERNON
AN
Z
A
DUARTE
SHERMAN
MELROSE
NO
R
W
A
L
K
FA
I
R
F
A
X
MULHOLLAND
AL
L
E
N
JEFFERSON
CA
R
M
E
N
I
T
A
OLIVE
GARDENA
VI
N
E
L
A
N
D
S
A
N
F
E
R
N
A
N
D
O
NO
R
M
A
N
D
I
E
YORK
AL
T
A
D
E
N
A
CAMERON
CALIFORNIA
BONITA
WH
I
T
E
MOORPARK
C
H
I
N
O
H
I
L
L
S
LAS TUNAS
CH
E
V
Y
C
H
A
S
E
MY
R
T
L
E
CAR
B
O
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
DIA
M
O
N
D
BAR
ST
U
D
E
B
A
K
E
R
LA
M
I
R
A
D
A
TORRANCE
N
O
G
A
L
E
S
CO
M
P
T
O
N
WH
I
T
E
O
A
K
LOS FELIZ
BASELINE
RO
B
E
R
T
S
O
N
LA PUENTE
FA
I
R
O
A
K
S
ALV
A
R
A
D
O
BU
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
SIERRA MADRE
MANHATTAN BEACH
SAN VICENTE
FR
E
M
O
N
T
LIVE OAK
B
E
V
E
R
L
Y
G
L
E
N
LA TI
J
E
R
A
MA
L
I
B
U
C
A
N
Y
O
N
CA
N
A
D
A
CREST
CAH
U
E
N
G
A
HO
O
V
E
R
WILS
O
N
-
R
E
D
B
O
X
EXPOSITION
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
H
E
R
M
O
S
A
LA LO
M
A
ALHA
M
B
R
A
C
A
B
R
I
L
L
O
CO
L
D
W
A
T
E
R
C
A
N
Y
O
N
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
MISSI
O
N
FIGU
E
R
O
A
ARTESIA
SAN V
I
C
E
N
T
E
SEPULVEDA
SANTA MONICA
MAGNOLIA
7T
H
RIVERSIDE
GA
R
F
I
E
L
D
FOOTHILL
BONITA
CARSON
WASHIN
G
T
O
N
S
U
N
S
E
T
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
RAMONA
LIN
C
O
L
N
POMONA
MIL
L
S
FOOTHILL
NO
R
W
A
L
K
SE
P
U
L
V
E
D
A
CE
N
T
R
A
L
Puente HillsRecycle Center
Palos VerdesRecycle Center
Palos VerdesGas-To-EnergyFacility
Puente HillsGas-To-EnergyFacility
Spadra LandfillGas-To-EnergyFacility
CalabasasGas-To-EnergyFacility
JWPCPTotal Energy
!!5
!!21
!!15
!!2
!!22
!!18
!!3
!!1
!!16
!!8
!!19
!!17
!!28
!!34
!!23
¿¿SBC
!!29
!!4
!!27
!!9
JOINT ADMINISTRATIONOFFICE
PUENTE HILLSIMF & MR/TF
WHITTIERNARROWS WRP
SAN JOSE CREEKWRP
PUENTE HILLSLANDFILL
SPADRALANDFILL
POMONAWRP
DARTMR/TF
LOS COYOTESWRP
LONG BEACHWRP
SOUTHEAST RESOURCERECOVERY FACILITY (SERRF)
JWPCP
COMMERCEREFUSE-TO-ENERGY
SOUTH GATETF
COMPTONFIELD OFFICE
SCHOLL CANYONLANDFILLMISSION CANYONLANDFILL
CALABASASLANDFILL
PALOS VERDESLANDFILL
LA CANADAWRP
SAN GABRIEL VALLEYFIELD OFFICE
OceanDischargeSystem
Vicinity Map
£¤
%&'(
·|}þ
·|}þ
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
·|}þ
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(·|}þ
·|}þ
·|}þ
%&'(
!!5
!!15
!!2
!!18!!1
!!21
!!22
!!3
!!14
!!16
!!20
!!8¾¾SBC
!!19
!!17!!28
!!34
!!23
!!29
!!4
!!27
!!9
¾¾SCV
VenturaCounty
OrangeCounty
Los AngelesCounty
S
a
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Kern County
5
91
60
571010
14
210
710
118
405
105
605
210101
AntelopeValley
Santa ClaritaValley District
See reverse side fordetailed maps of SantaClarita Valley, AntelopeValley, and regional facilities.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY VICINITY MAP
The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the following owners supplied underlicense and may not be reproduced except as licensed by Digital Map Products; Thomas Bros. Maps.
Copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved
LEGEND
N 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Feet
0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles
06/25/2011
SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SouthBay CitiesDistrict
~
MAIN TRUNK SEWERS
SANITATION DISTRICT!!14
PUMPING PLANTS
!!!RECYCLE CENTERS
WATER RECLAMATION PLANTS (WRP) andJOINT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT (JWPCP)
CLOSED SANITARY LANDFILLS
ACTIVE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
INTERMODAL FACILITY (IMF) andMATERIALS RECOVERY (MR) / TRANSFER FACILITIES (TF)^_
RECYCLED WATER LINES
Joint OutfallSystem
!!!GAS-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES
REFUSE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIESXW
OUTFALLS AND EFFLUENT LINES
D
-
8
1
""
!!!
XY
!!!
XY
^_
^_
""
!!!
!!!
^_!!!
""
!!!
!!!
!!!
G STREET
F STREET
S
I
E
R
R
A
H
W
Y
50
T
H
60
T
H
T STREET
G
O
L
D
E
N
S
T
A
T
E
F
R
W
Y
(
5
)
J STREET
90
T
H
PALMDALE
ANGELES CREST
K STREET
H STREET
AN
T
E
L
O
P
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
F
R
W
Y
(
1
4
)
11
0
T
H
LAK
E
H
U
G
H
E
S
ELIZABET
H
L
A
K
E
BOU
Q
U
E
T
C
A
N
Y
O
N
PEARBLOSSOM
RONALD REAGAN
ANGE
L
E
S
F
O
R
E
S
T
LANCASTER
30
T
H
SOLEDAD CANYON
I STREET
PINE C
A
N
Y
O
N
17
0
T
H
VAL
Y
E
R
M
O
SAND
C
A
N
Y
O
N
HENRY
M
A
Y
O
LO
N
G
V
I
E
W
20
T
H
87
T
H
BA
L
B
O
A
AVE S
LITTL
E
T
U
J
U
N
G
A
JOHNSON
LYONS
K-8
COLUMBIA
W
AG
U
A
D
U
L
C
E
C
A
N
Y
O
N
VALENCIA
BIG T
U
J
U
N
G
A
C
A
N
Y
O
N
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
15
0
T
H
G
O
D
D
E
H
I
L
L
WIL
S
O
N
-
R
E
D
B
O
X
D STREET
RANCHO VISTA
LANCASTER
50
T
H
20
T
H
20
T
H
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
F
R
W
Y
(
2
1
0
)
90
T
H
30
T
H
ELIZABET
H
L
A
K
E
SOLEDAD C
A
N
Y
O
N
ANTEL
O
P
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
F
R
W
Y
(
1
4
)
60
T
H
D STREET
SIERRA
H
W
Y
L
O
S
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
C
O
U
N
T
Y
V
E
N
T
U
R
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
LOS ANGELES COUNTYKERN COUNTY
¿¿SCV
!!14
!!20 PALMDALEPALMDALE
LANCASTERLANCASTER
SANTA CLARITASANTA CLARITA
LOS ANGELESLOS ANGELES SAN FERNANDOSAN FERNANDO
Santa ClaritaSanta ClaritaValley DistrictValley District
~~
Lancaster WRPMicroturbine LANCASTER AGRICULTURALREUSE SITE
LANCASTER WRP andSTORAGE RESERVOIRS
PALMDALEWRP
VALENCIAWRP SAUGUSWRP
PALMDALE AGRICULTURALREUSE SITE (LEASED)ANTELOPE VALLEYFIELD OFFICE
FUTURE PALMDALEAGRICULTURALREUSE SITE
STORAGERESERVOIRS
Storage Tank
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
·|}þ
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
·|}þ
%&'(·|}þ
·|}þ
%&'(
INLAND EMPIRE REGIONALCOMPOSTING FACILITY
MESQUITEREGIONALLANDFILL / IMF
WESTLAKE FARMSCOMPOSTING FACILITY(UNDER CONSTRUCTION)
San BernardinoCounty
KernCounty
InyoCounty
RiversideCounty
ImperialCountySan DiegoCounty
FresnoCounty
Los AngelesCounty
VenturaCounty
Santa BarbaraCounty
Tulare County
San Luis ObispoCounty
KingsCountyMontereyCounty
OrangeCounty
5
8
5
5
15
40
15
15
10
99
14
101
101
REGIONAL FACILITIES
PacificOcean Arizona
Nevada
Mexico
AGRICULTURAL REUSE SITES
COMPOSTING FACILITIES
ACTIVE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
MAIN TRUNK SEWERS
PUMPING PLANTS
SANITATION DISTRICT !!14
OUTFALLS AND EFFLUENT LINES
RECYCLED WATER PIPELINES
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIESand FIELD OFFICES
Composting Facility
Inland Empire
Westlake Farms
Placed in Operation
4/16/2007
Under Construction
COMPOSTING FACILITIES
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Energy Facilities Placed in Operation
JWPCP Total Energy 12-20-85
Lancaster Microturbine 4-13-05 225 kW
Net Electricity Production
22 MW
Facility Placed in Operation Permitted Capacity
Miles of Outfalls / Effluent Lines
Area in Acres
JWPCP 2-4-28 400 mgd 18.9 381.1
Long Beach WRP 5-22-73 25 mgd 0 17.2
Los Coyotes WRP 10-14-70 37.5 mgd 0 35.8
Whittier Narrows WRP 7-27-62 15 mgd 1.5 26.7
San Jose Creek WRP 6-29-71 100 mgd 9.9 50.8
Pomona WRP 4-15-54 15 mgd 0 12.4
La Canada WRP 11-2-62 0.2 mgd 0 0.3
Valencia WRP 3-25-66 21.6 mgd 0.3 26.0
Saugus WRP 7-1-62 7 mgd 0.6 4.1
Palmdale WRP 11-28-52 12 mgd 3.8 278.4
Lancaster WRP 10-1-59 18 mgd 0 1391.8
LEGEND
District Date of Formation Placed in Operation Area (Sq. Miles)Population 2010
Cities/ Partial Cities
Miles of District Sewers
Pump Stations Wastewater Management
SBC 12-24-23 9-12-26 14.8 116,370 8 25.3 11 Joint Outfall System
1 11-17-24 2-13-28 41.6 566,108 11 104.6 1 Joint Outfall System
2 2-25-24 2-13-28 75.9 686,409 19 220.7 4 Joint Outfall System
3 5-19-24 5-20-48 52.1 503,422 4 74.4 6 Joint Outfall System
4 3-17-24 12-9-26 1.9 35,281 2 6.3 0 LA City Sewerage System
5 3-31-24 2-13-28 87.9 736,189 15 184.2 11 Joint Outfall System89-21-25 2-13-28 31.1 139,524 4 85.2 3 Joint Outfall System
9 8-16-26 5-10-27 0.2 2,428 1 0.0 0 LA City Sewerage System
14 8-31-38 12-2-41 46.2 194,066 2 71.9 0 Lancaster Sewerage System
15 1-2-45 2-27-48 77.6 580,064 20 142.9 2 Joint Outfall System
16 1-2-46 2-27-48 37.3 264,392 5 40.6 0 Joint Outfall System171-2-46 11-23-49 7.7 56,415 1 5.4 0 Joint Outfall System
18 11-23-48 7-1-50 60.1 337,157 11 84.7 3 Joint Outfall System
19 3-28-50 5-19-51 14.3 90,667 5 34.5 2 Joint Outfall System
20 8-7-51 9-8-52 32.4 125,155 1 41.8 0 Palmdale Sewerage System
21 11-13-51 8-21-54 82.0 405,673 9 85.6 4 Joint Outfall System229-22-53 12-6-54 62.9 327,555 12 100.6 0 Joint Outfall System
23 7-10-56 7-14-59 2.5 112 1 2.1 0 Joint Outfall System
SCV 1-2-61 5-10-62 57.4 245,968 1 41.7 1 Santa Clarita Valley Sewerage System
27 4-20-61 4-2-62 0.2 2,269 0 0.4 1 LA City Sewerage System
28 9-14-61 11-2-62 4.1 11,299 1 4.1 0 Joint Outfall System
29 9-20-62 11-12-64 2.2 11,072 1 37.4 3 Joint Outfall System
34 10-31-67 Inactive 3.9 7,620 1 0.0 0 Inactive
796.3 5,445,214 78 1394.3 52
Total
Sanitary Landfills Placed in Operation Area in Acres Status
Palos Verdes 5-15-57 288 Closed 12-31-80
Spadra 7-15-57 338 Closed 4-8-00
Mission Canyon 6-1-60 373 Closed 1-9-82
Scholl Canyon 3-22-61 431 Operating
Calabasas 2-14-61 500 Operating
Puente Hills 5-19-58 1368 Operating
Mesquite Operational 2009
Energy Facilities Operational
Puente Hills Gas Turbine 1-1-83
Commerce Refuse-To-Energy 1-1-87
Puente Hills Gas-To-Energy 1-1-87
Palos Verdes Gas-To-Energy 12-20-88
SERRF Refuse-To-Energy 12-1-88
Spadra Gas-To-Energy 4-5-91
Calabasas Gas-To-Energy 8-15-02
Puente Hills Engines 5-1-05
Net Electricity Production
9 MW
30 MW
6 MW
5.4 MW
1.4 MW
10 MW
46 MW
2.4 MW
Other Solid Waste Facilities
South Gate TF
Palos Verdes Recycle Center
Puente Hills Recycle Center
DART MR/TF
Puente Hills MR/TF
Puente Hills IMF
11-1-76
10-25-82
1-2-58
Operational
7-11-05
3-2-98
Under Construction0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Feet
0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles
N
DISTRICTS DATA
6 MW7-12-10
SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTYSANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
D
-
8
2
8.5”9.5”10”
8.5”
9.5”
10”
D-83
Daily Breeze article regarding Clearwater Program
D-84
Draft EIR recommends
sewage pipeline through
San Pedro to Royal
Palms
By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer
Posted: 02/15/2012 06:18:55 PM PST
Updated: 02/15/2012 07:10:25 PM PST
A draft EIR recommends a project that routes a new
underground pipeline ending at San Pedro's Royal
Palms beach. (Chuck Bennett / Staff Photographer)
After six years of preliminary study, sanitation
officials say an underground wastewater pipeline
route that travels through San Pedro to Royal
Palms Beach is the best - and most affordable -
way to replace aging lines.
But not everyone agrees.
The recommendation - the focus of a draft
environmental report on the so-called
Clearwater Program released this month - calls
for constructing a tunnel from the Carson
sewage treatment plant that would travel
beneath Machado Lake, North Gaffey Street,
Capitol Drive, Western Avenue and Dodson
Avenue. The underground tunnel, needed to
replace aging lines slightly to the west, will take
treated wastewater to the ocean.
As a 60-day public comment period just begins,
however, critics argue that two of the other four
alternatives explored offer a much better
solution. Those plans would create the end-of-
the-line shaft station and outflow site on
Terminal Island.
"Our first preference was to go through Terminal
Island," said June Burlingame Smith, president of
the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council.
High on the list of concerns is the November
landslide along Paseo del Mar, just east of the
Royal Palms area.
"For people in South Shores and the Palisades,
the latest slide has raised their apprehension
levels to 1,000 instead of 950," Smith said.
Engineers with the the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts said the Royal Palms site is
on a point that is 1,300 feet
to the west of the landslide and considered
stable.
That alternative, planning project manager Steve
advertisement
Page 1 of 4
2/16/2012http://www.dailybreeze.com/fdcp?unique=1329406645840
D-85
Highter said, makes the most sense for several
reasons.
"It's the least expensive, it's easiest to construct,
there's less construction risk associated with it,"
he said. "It's the shortest of the (proposed)
alignments and requires the least amount of
tunneling, and therefore the least amount of
excavation, (amounting to) less truck traffic and
fewer emissions.
"Probably most importantly, it's going to have the
least amount of marine impacts."
That's because the proposal would use the
existing four outfall lines that lie on the ocean
floor offshore at Royal Palms.
The cost of the recommended project is $550
million, compared to the most expensive
alternative that would cost $1.36 billion.
Who pays?
Property owners, with the recommended
alternative expected to boost the property tax
bills of single-family houses by about $20 a year.
With the design phase estimated to take three
years, construction would not begin until about
2015 or 2016.
Even its critics recognize the need for the
pipeline, which will replace aging infrastructure
that is vulnerable to a breach.
"The main driver is an aging infrastructure," said
Dave Haug, lead project engineer. "We do not
know the condition of the existing two tunnels
conveying all the treated wastewater."
The tunnels, built in 1937 and 1958, respectively,
"both flow full nearly every day."
The new line would last until 2050, engineers
said.
In addition to the landslide, concerns include
truck traffic along Western, Gaffey and possibly
25th Street during the construction period.
But the recommended alternative, authorities
said, will have the least amount of construction
impacts. Royal Palms Beach will not be closed
during construction, although some parking
spaces may have to be temporarily sacrificed.
Mark Wells of Rancho Palos Verdes, though, said
many of those in the area use a Los Angeles city
outfall system and not the one being rebuilt.
"The people who are going to be the most
inconvenienced by it do not use it," he said.
"Sometimes money is not the only consideration,"
Wells said of the recommendation's financial
pluses.
Smith said the issue will be on the neighborhood
council's March agenda, but the group previously
had voted to support one of the two Terminal
Island alternatives.
A comment period will last through April 10 and
three public hearings are scheduled to take
feedback on the recommendation.
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
advertisement
Page 2 of 4
2/16/2012http://www.dailybreeze.com/fdcp?unique=1329406645840
D-86
Follow Donna Littlejohn on Twitter at http:
//Twitter.com/donnalittlejohn
Find out more
What: Community hearings on draft report for
the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts'
Clearwater Program to replace aging
underground wastewater pipelines
Where: 6:30 p.m. March 6 (Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County, 1955 Workman Mill Road, W
hittier); March 7 (Carson Community Center,
801 E. Carson St., Carson); and March 8 (Crowne
Plaza Los Angeles Harbor Hotel, 601 S. Palos
Verdes St., San Pedro)
Information: www.clearwaterprogram.org
advertisement
Page 3 of 4
2/16/2012http://www.dailybreeze.com/fdcp?unique=1329406645840
D-87
NWSPNC Joint Port and Planning & Land Use Committees’
agenda regarding Clearwater Program
D-88
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Joint Planning and Port Committee Meeting Agenda
February 28, 2012
5:30 PM to 7:00pm
Location: San Pedro Municipal Building
638 S. Beacon Street
Room 452
Contact: Phil Nicolay, 310-469-4474
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Agenda, Public Comment
3. Discussion of LA Sanitation Clearwater Project and Preferred Alignment Recommend in
the Draft Environmental Impact Report
a. Development of possible motion, or recommendations for the NC Board
4. Discussion of Port of Los Angeles DEIR/DEIS for the USS Iowa Relocation to San Pedro
Bay
5. Port of Los Angeles Community Activities/Outreach/Update
a. SP Slip, San Pedro Water Cut, Fries Avenue Grade Crossing, Berth 200 Rail Yard
b. Update on upcoming projects requiring CEQA/NEPA Analysis
c. Update on City Dock One
d. Update on art project development
6. PCAC Issues / Appellant Group / Action Items if any
7. New Items, future projects, topics of concern to the NWSPNC Board
8. Adjournment - Next meeting March 27, 2012
To Contact us: www.nwsanpedro.org, board@nwsanpedro.org, or 310-732-4522
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not
discriminate on the basis of disability and upon request will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure
equal access to its programs, services, and activities. Sign language interpreters, assisted listening
devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided upon request. To ensure availability of
services please make your request at least 3 business days (72 hours) prior to the meeting by contacting
the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment at 213-485-1360.
D-89
Agenda for Clearwater Program public hearing in San Pedro
D-90
.-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.,....,.
",..',::::.-:-:.
.,.'..:.....
C LEA'Ii'WATE R......."
Program
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT EIR/EIS
~.r...r."'t..(\1,:I'"'!-.
",:,"","',,~,~r,:....""',,',~•.~,/'".:._","/,:,.\.J ;.l..
AGENDA
Welcome
Meeting Format &Introductions
Presentation
Public Comments
Adjourn Meeting
U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers
~.
SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
D-91
D-92