3:00 P.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2016 (OPEN SESSION MEETING ... · F. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54956.8: Agency negotiator: Assistant General

Page 1 of 3

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 4040 PARAMOUNT BOULEVARD, LAKEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90712

3:00 P.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2016 (OPEN SESSION MEETING AT 3:15 P.M.)

AGENDA Each item on the agenda, no matter how described, shall be deemed to include any appropriate motion, whether to adopt a minute motion, resolution, payment of any bill, approval of any matter or action, or any other action. Items listed as “For Information” or “For Discussion” may also be the subject of an “action” taken by the Board or a Committee at the same meeting.

1. DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

2. PUBLIC COMMENT Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3.

3. CLOSED SESSION 3:00-3:15 P.M.

A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to

Government Code § 54956.9

Name of Case: Tesoro Refining v. Water Replenishment District,

LASC Case No. BS134239

B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to

Government Code §54956.9

Name of Case: LAUSD v County of Los Angeles, et al.,


C. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Govt. Code Section

54956.8:

Agency negotiator: Assistant General Manager

Property: APN: 7149-004-009

D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to


Name of Case: Albert Robles v. Water Replenishment District,

No Case No.

OPEN SESSION MEETING 3:15 P.M.

4. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

Page 2 of 3

5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

6. INVOCATION

7. PUBLIC COMMENT

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3.

8. ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO THE AGENDA

Determine the need to add items to the agenda. In order for the Board to add an

item to the agenda it must make a determination that: (i) The item came to the

attention of the Board after the posting of the agenda; (ii) That there is a need for

immediate action to be taken by the Board. If these two tests are met, the Board

may add the item in question to the agenda for consideration consistent with the

provisions of the Brown Act.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2016 AND MAY 19, 2016

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board approve the minutes as

submitted.

B. DIRECTOR’S COMPENSATION

Administrative Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommends

the Board approve Resolution 16-1037 for revisions to the Administrative

Code.

10. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (USBR) CONTRIBUTED

FUNDS AGREEMENT FOR GROUNDWATER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM (GRIP) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

Capital Improvement Projects Committee Recommendation: The Committee will

meet on June 23, 2016 and make a recommendation at the Board meeting.

11. AMENDMENT NO.1 TO KINDEL GAGAN, INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT FOR STRATEGIC SUPPORT SERVICES



12. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) AND RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE

Page 3 of 3

GROUNDWATER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (GRIP)

SUPPLEMENTAL RECHARGE WELLS PROJECT


meet on June 23, 2016 and make a recommendation at the Board Meeting.

13. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND

DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA) SYSTEM INTEGRATOR TO PROVIDE

SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES



14. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

WRD AND THE CITY OF TORRANCE FOR GOLDSWORTHY DESALTER



15. DISTRICT COUNSEL’S REPORT

16. AB 1234 COMPLIANCE REPORTS AND DIRECTORS' REPORTS

17. WRD BOARD MEETING DATES

A. July 7, 2016 – 12:00 p.m. – Regular Board of Directors Meeting

B. July 21, 2016 – 12:00 p.m. – Regular Board of Directors Meeting

C. August 4, 2016 – 12:00 p.m. – Regular Board of Directors Meeting

D. August 18, 2016 12:00 p.m. – Regular Board of Directors Meeting

18. ADJOURNMENT

The Board will adjourn to the next regular Board of Directors meeting currently

scheduled for July 7, 2016 at 12:00 p.m.

Agenda posted by Scott M. Ota, Chief Financial Officer June 22, 2016. In compliance with ADA requirements, this document can be made available in alternative formats upon request.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if special assistance is needed to participate in the Board meeting, please contact the Chief Financial Officer at (562) 921-5521 for assistance to enable the District to make reasonable accommodations. All public records relating to an agenda item on this agenda are available for public inspection at the time the record is distributed to all, or a majority of all, members of the Board. Such records shall be available at the District office located at 4040 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712. Agendas and minutes are available at the District’s website. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES – If you challenge a District action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Chief Financial Officer at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any written correspondence delivered to the Chief Financial Officer before the District’s final action on a matter will become a part of the administrative record.

1

MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2016 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA A special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California was held on Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 12:15 P.M., at the District Office, 4040 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712. President Willard H. Murray, Jr. called the meeting to order and presided thereafter. Acting Deputy Secretary Sherri Brown recorded the minutes.


President Murray declared that a quorum of Directors was present, which, in

addition to himself, included Directors Rob Katherman, John D. S. Allen,

Sergio Calderon and Albert Robles.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3

None.


A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation, pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (b), Two Cases

B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to


Name of Case: Water Replenishment District v. Tesoro Refining,

LASC Case No. BC493914

C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to


Name of Case: Tesoro Refining v. Water Replenishment District,


D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to


Name of Case: Tesoro Refining v. Water Replenishment District v Water

Replenishment District (Tesoro II), LASC Case No. BS139830

E. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to


Name of Case: LAUSD v County of Los Angeles, et al.,


2

F. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Govt. Code Section

54956.8:

Agency negotiator: Assistant General Manager

Property: APN: 7149-004-009



The Board reconvened in Open Session at 1:41 P.M.

Interim District Counsel H. Francisco Leal stated that for Closed

Session, there was no report and that the Board would reconvene to

Closed Session after the Board meeting.


Mr. Anthony Misetich led the Pledge of Allegiance.

6. INVOCATION

Director Sergio Calderon gave the Invocation.

7. PUBLIC COMMENT

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3.

None.


None.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WECK LABORATORIES INC. FOR

THE TITLE 22 MONITORING PROGRAM

Upon a motion duly made by Director Robles, seconded by Vice President Katherman and unanimously approved it was

RESOLVED: The Board approved the contract amendment with WECK Laboratories Inc. for the Title 22 Monitoring Program.

10. FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 DRAFT BUDGET

3

President Murray introduced Chief Financial Officer Scott Ota to make the 11th

budget presentation. Mr. Ota began by stating that the District has received 17

budget and 11 financial reports awards. He provided information regarding the

Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) stating that the BAC is comprised of seven

members of the pumping community who are elected by their peers;

responsible for reviewing the District’s annual budget including the reserve

funds maintained by the District.

Mr. Ota stated that the primary mitigating factors in the 2016-17 budget were

as follows:

1. Conclusion of the Proposition 218 litigation decreased expenses by

$4.02 million from the prior year;

2. Increased imported water rates from the Metropolitan Water District;

3. The District’s 2016-17 projection last year, in May 2015, was based on

244,000 acre-feet of production. Based on the current year’s production

from the Basins, the updated projection in this year’s Engineering Survey

and Report (ESR) is closer to 231,000.

The draft 2016-17 budget without the use of any rate stabilization would result

in a Cost to Provide Service of $71.47 million.

The changes from the prior year’s projection of water costs included the

following:

1. Water costs increased $5.83 million from the 2015-16 projection due to

an increase of $0.69 million in recycled water costs from the Los

Angeles County Sanitation District;

2. West Coast Barrier water expenses increased by a total of $2.41

million;

3. Dominguez Gap Barrier will be using increased imported water and

decreased recycled water costing an additional net $0.90 million in

2016-17;

4. The District used banked water with the City of Long Beach to subsidize

imported water costs at the Alamitos Barrier, 2016-17 includes an

increased $0.88 million to imported water costs.

4

Mr. Ota stated that the annual debt service of $13,232,000 reflected a lowering

of total interest costs due to the refinancing of the 2004, 2008 and 2011

Certificates of Participation.

In order to subsidize the 2016-17 replenishment assessment of 9.1% or $309

per acre-foot, three scenarios were developed for presentation and

consideration by the Board of Directors. The Water Resources Committee

had a split recommendation from the two Board of Director members.

1. Scenario 1 assumed the use of $2.80 million from the Water Purchase

Carryover Fund as rate stabilization for a proposed replenishment

assessment of $297.00 per acre-foot or a 5.0% increase;







Mr. Ota presented the District’s estimated June 30, 2016 reserve fund

balances and then proceeded to discuss the District’s five year replenishment

assessment forecast which included both pumping estimates and reserve fund

estimates over the five year period.

The general assumptions used in the forecast model were as follows:

Revenue assumptions included increased pumping from 231,000 to

244,000 acre-feet over the five-year period;

Expense assumptions were comprised of a 5% increase in water costs

starting in 2017-18 with untreated Tier 1 water purchases stopping after

fiscal year 2018-19 and Groundwater Reliability Improvement Project

Advanced Water Treatment Facility operating costs starting in fiscal year

2019-20. All other expenses increasing at a rate of 2% per year.

The District’s reserve assumption was that the District would return to a

$10 million reserve level over five years.

The Water Resources Committee members provided a split recommendation

5

and the recommendations from the Water Resources Committee, the

Finance/Audit Committee and the Budget Advisory Committee were as

follows:

Water Resources and the Budget Advisory Committees recommended

Scenario 1 – an increase of the replenishment assessment to $297 per acre-

foot or a 5.0% increase;

Water Resource Committee recommendation #2 was for an increase of the

replenishment assessment to $306 per acre-foot or an 8.1% increase;

Finance/Audit Committee recommendation was for an increase of the

replenishment assessment to $299.50 per acre-foot or a 5.8% increase.

11. CONTINUE AND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-

2017 PROPOSED REPLENISHMENT ASSESSMENT PER WATER CODE

§60306

President Murray stated that the Public Hearing on the fiscal year 2016-17

replenishment assessment as required by California Water Code Section

60306 that was opened at the Board meetings of April 7, 2016 and April 21,

2016 is being continued today. He said this hearing is required by California

Water Code Section 60306 and is intended to receive public input on the

proposed replenishment assessment for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016

through June 30, 2017.

He continued with his statement that WRD has provided information related to

the proposed 2016-17 replenishment assessment at meetings of the

Finance/Audit Committee held February 23rd, April 11th, the Board meetings of

March 3rd, April 7th, and April 21st, meetings of the District’s Budget Advisory

Committee on February 25th, March 8th, March 22nd and April 19th, the meeting

of the Water Resources Committee on March 30th and during the previous

agenda item regarding the budget.

He stated that in a moment he would invite the public to provide any

comments on the proposed 2016-17 replenishment assessment, the

Engineering Survey and Report, the Cost of Service Report, or any other

matters relating to the replenishment assessment; and that Water Code

6

Section 60307 requires that the Public Hearing be closed no later than the first

Tuesday in May. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Public Hearing will be

closed after all public comments are received today.

President Murray stated that a separate Public Hearing, known as the

Proposition 218 Public Hearing, regarding any matters related to the proposed

replenishment assessment will be held later in this meeting. The record of the

Water Code Hearing will also be entered into the Proposition 218 Record.

He continued that after all comments are received, the Board will close the

Proposition 218 Public Hearing and act on the replenishment assessment in

accordance with applicable law, including Water Code Section 60315 requiring

that the replenishment assessment be set no later than the second Tuesday in

May.

President Murray then asked for any comments from the Board, staff or public,

of which there were none. He asked for comments from District Counsel.

Interim District Counsel H. Francisco Leal addressed President Murray by

stating that he, the Board President and the Assistant General Manager would

like to make closing comments to provide an administrative record of the

proceedings and to allow evidence to be accepted into the record. Mr. Leal

noted that after the closing comments are made, the Public Hearing would be

closed.

With no requests for comment from the Board or the public, President Murray asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing.

Upon a motion duly made by Director Robles and seconded by Director Allen, unanimously approved with a roll call vote it was

RESOLVED: The Board approved to continue and close the Public Hearing on the fiscal year 2016-2017 proposed replenishment assessment per Water Code Section 60306.

12. PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII D, SECTION 6(a)(2) OF

THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (PROPOSITION 218) REGARDING

PROPOSED REPLENISHMENT ASSESSMENT

7

President Murray stated that this was the hearing pursuant to Article XIII D,

Section 6(a)(2) of the California Constitution with respect to the replenishment

assessment proposed to go into effect on July 1, 2016.

Assistant General Manager Ken Ortega described for the record the notice

that was given of the hearing and the types of testimony that had been

received.

Mr. Ortega stated that notice of the hearing was mailed to the holders of

adjudicated pumping rights in the Central and West Coast Water Basins on

March 14, 2016 and included all information required by Article XIII D, Section

6(A)(1) of the California Constitution. Mr. Ortega noted that since the notice

was mailed, staff has been accepting written testimony and protests via US

mail and hand delivery to the District office; and that all written testimony and

protests that had been received had been provided to the Board of Directors

and would be entered into the record.

Interim District Counsel H. Francisco Leal stated that he, the Board President

and the Assistant General Manager will be making comments and allowing

evidence to be accepted to provide an administrative record of the

proceedings. Mr. Leal entered into the administrative record documents and

written testimony received by the District in connection with the Public Hearing,

and materials submitted by members of the public and WRD staff.

President Murray opened the floor for public comment. Hearing none, he

asked for a motion to close the Proposition 218 Public Hearing.

At this time, he closed the Water Code Public Hearing on the 2016-17

replenishment assessment and entertained a motion to close the public

testimony portion of the Public Hearing.

Upon a motion duly made by Director Robles; and seconded by

Director Allen, and unanimously approved with a roll call vote it

was

RESOLVED: With no further comments from the

public, the Proposition 218 Public Hearing was

closed.

8

13. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 16-1032 - A RESOLUTION OF

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT

DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LEVYING A REPLENISHMENT

ASSESSMENT ON THE PRODUCTION OF GROUNDWATER FROM THE

GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT DURING THE FISCAL

YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2016 AND ENDING ON JUNE 30, 2017 AS

PROVIDED IN SECTION 60317 OF CALIFORNIA WATER CODE AND

MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING SAID

ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 60315 AND 60316 OF

THE WATER CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Upon a motion duly made by Director Robles, seconded by Director Katherman, discussion followed.

AYES: Director Robles, Vice President Katherman NOES: President Murray, Directors Allen and

Calderon ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None

Upon not having a majority with a roll call vote, the motion failed.

President Murray stated that this item be put over to the Board of Directors

next meeting of May 5, 2016. Discussion followed.

14. ADOPT FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 BUDGET

President Murray put this item over to the Board of Directors next meeting of

May 5, 2016.

15. SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM – APPROVAL OF NEW PROJECTS

& AGREEMENTS WITH CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK, CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN WATER AND CITY OF LYNWOOD

Director Robles provided the report.

Upon a motion duly made by Director Robles, seconded by Director Allen, and unanimously approved with a roll call vote it was

RESOLVED: The Board approved the Safe Drinking Water Program new projects and agreements for the City of Huntington Park, California American Water and the City of

9

Lynwood for an amount not to exceed $3,400,000.

16. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR MINOR OFFICE RENOVATIONS AT THE

WRD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING



RESOLVED: The Board approved the professional services contract with Gillis & Panichapan Architects for minor office renovations at the WRD Administration building for an amount not to exceed $25,000.

17. LEO J. VANDER LANS WATER TREATMENT FACILITY HYDRAULIC

ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES ALTERNATIVES STUDY



RESOLVED: The Board approved staff to negotiate scope, schedule and fee with RMC to conduct the Leo J. Vander Lans Water Treatment Facility Hydraulic Analysis and Operation Efficiencies Alternatives Study.

18. RESCISSION OF LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE LAW

OFFICES OF WILLOUGHBY & ASSOCIATES

This item was removed from the agenda.

19. DISTRICT COUNSEL'S REPORT

None.

20. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT

None.


Vice President Katherman and Director Robles stated they would submit their

10

reports in writing. Director Calderon had submitted his report in writing. There

were no other reports.


WRD Board meeting dates were not discussed.

The Board of Directors recessed to Closed Session at 2:54 P.M. The Board of

Directors reconvened in Open Session at 3:10 P.M.

Interim District Counsel H. Francisco Leal reported the following: for Agenda

Item A, the two specific litigation cases, briefing and status reports were

provided by counsel with no action taken. For items B, C and D a briefing was

provided by staff and counsel with no action taken. Agenda Item E was not

discussed. Agenda Item F the Board of Directors instructed the Assistant

General Manager, Mr. Ken Ortega, to continue with the transaction.

23. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, a motion was duly

made by Director Allen and seconded by Director Katherman to adjourn the

meeting at 3:12 P.M.

_____________________________ Chair ATTEST: ___________________________

Member

Approved in minutes of:

Page 1 of 4

MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2016 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA A meeting of the Board of Directors of the Water Replenishment District of Southern

California was held on Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 12:30 P.M., at the District Office,

4040 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712. President Willard H. Murray,

Jr. called the meeting to order and presided thereafter. Acting Deputy Secretary Sherri

Brown recorded the minutes.


President Murray declared that a quorum of Directors was present, which, in

addition to himself, included Directors John D. S. Allen, Sergio Calderon,

Robert Katherman and Albert Robles.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3

None


A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation, pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (b), Two Cases

B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 Name of Case: Water Replenishment District v. Tesoro Refining, LASC Case No. BC493914

C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9 Name of Case: Tesoro Refining v. Water Replenishment District, LASC Case No. BS134239

D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 Name of Case: Tesoro Refining v. Water Replenishment District v Water Replenishment District (Tesoro II), LASC Case No. BS139830

E. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 Name of Case: LAUSD v County of Los Angeles, et al., LASC Case No. BS108180

F. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54956.8: Agency negotiator: Assistant General Manager Property: APN: 7149-004-009

Page 2 of 4



The Board reconvened in open session at 1:30P.M. Interim District Counsel

H. Francisco Leal stated that Agenda Items A and E were not discussed;

status reports were provided for Items B, C, D and E by counsel and staff

with no formal action taken by the Board.


Director Robles led the Pledge of Allegiance.

6. INVOCATION

Director Calderon gave the Invocation.

7. PUBLIC COMMENT Pursuant To Government Code Section 54954.3.

None


None

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 16-1030 – A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 18 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MIRADA AS SUCCESSOR OF INTEREST TO THE LA MIRADA-SOUTHEAST RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWALK AS SUCCESSOR OF INTEREST TO THE NORWALK-SOUTHEAST RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT, AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA APPROVING AND ACCEPTING THE NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES RESULTING FROM ANNEXATION OF L 054-2015 TO COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1687

B. CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 WITH RUTH VILLALOBOS & ASSOCIATES FOR WHITTIER NARROWS DAM DEVIATION REQUEST PACKAGE

C. AMENDMENT TO RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RELATED

Page 3 of 4

TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GROUNDWATER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY (GRIP AWTF)

Upon a motion duly made by Director Katherman, seconded by Director Allen, and

unanimously approved it was

RESOLVED: That the Board approves the Consent Calendar of May 19, 2016 as submitted.

10. LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Manager of Communications and Education Services Pete Brown introduced Bob

Reeb of Reeb Government Relations in Sacramento via videoconference to report

on the legislative bills. Mr. Reeb described the three bills that are to be heard in

committee, when the legislative committees resume on June 6th, that have potential

implications for WRD. Discussion followed.

Upon a motion duly made by Director Katherman, seconded by Director Allen, and

unanimously approved with a roll call vote, it was

RESOLVED: That the Board approves writing letters in support of the three bills: AB 1882 – Oil and gas: groundwater monitoring; SB 995 – Well standards, and; SB 1328 – Stormwater capture and treatment projects: funding.

11. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

Assistant General Manager Ken Ortega provided a live webcam view of the GRIP

site. He explained the remaining processes of the deconstruction and offered a

rolling snapshot view of the last three months.

Mr. Ortega reminded everyone of the Groundwater Festival taking place on

Saturday, May 21st at 10:00 A.M.

12. DISTRICT COUNSEL'S REPORT

None


Director Katherman stated that he attended the Contract Cities Conference in Indian

Wells and will submit his complete report in writing. He also reported that he

attended the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Commissioner’s Meeting

Page 4 of 4

on Tuesday where WRD received the Recycled Water Customer of the Year Award

from the City of Los Angeles. Director Allen commented that he would like to see a

discussion regarding installing a trophy case at 4040 Paramount Blvd. location

added to the next Board of Directors meeting agenda. President Murray concurred.

Directors Robles and Calderon stated that they had attended the Contract Cities

Conference and will submit their reports in writing.

There were no other reports.


A. June 2, 2016 – 12:00 p.m. – Regular Board of Directors Meeting

B. June 16, 2016 – 12:00 p.m. – Regular Board of Directors Meeting

C. July 7, 2016 – 12:00 p.m. – Regular Board of Directors Meeting

D. July 21, 2016 – 12:00 p.m. – Regular Board of Directors Meeting

15. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, upon a motion duly made by Director Allen,

seconded by Director Katherman, and unanimously approved, the meeting

was adjourned at 1:50 P.M.

_____________________________ Chair ATTEST: ___________________________

Member

Approved in minutes of:

Page 1 of 1

MEMORANDUM

ITEM NO. 9.B.

DATE: JUNE 23, 2016

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: ROBB WHITAKER, GENERAL MANAGER

SUBJECT: DIRECTORS COMPENSATION

SUMMARY The Administrative Committee met on June 15, 2016, a quorum was present. The Committee Chair reviewed and recommended the following changes to the District’s Administrative Code:

(1) Eliminate the disparity between the transportation allowance received by the Board President and the other directors;

(2) Increase the transportation allowance from $308 per month for Directors and $400

per month for the President to $500 per month for all Directors; (3) Increase the communications allowance from $300 per month to $450 per month; (4) Apply an annual consumer price index (CPI) to the transportation allowance and

communications allowance effective January 1, 2016. CPI allowance calculated annually by the United States Department of Labor;

(5) Apply all changes retroactively effective January 1, 2016.

FISCAL IMPACT Monthly fiscal impact of approximately $442 per Director. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution 16-1037 for revisions to the Administrative Code.

Page 1 of 1

MEMORANDUM

ITEM NO. 10

DATE: JUNE 23, 2016



SUBJECT: UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (USBR) CONTRIBUTED FUNDS AGREEMENT FOR GROUNDWATER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (GRIP) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

SUMMARY As part of the environmental compliance associated with the State Water Board State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding for the GRIP AWTF project, the District prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program (GRIP) AWTF project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the qualifications for funding, the District must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). On May 1, 2013, the District Board approved a Contributed Funds Agreement (CFA) with USBR for review of the EIR and conducting the necessary work for NEPA compliance. The CFA was previously extended in March 2104. The current agreement with the USBR will expire on June 30, 2016. Due to delays associated with the completion of the SRF funding agreement the term of the CFA will need to be extended by 6 months (to December 31, 2016) in order to allow sufficient time for preparation of NEPA documents. No additional funds are required. FISCAL IMPACT None. CIP RECOMMENDATION The CIP Committee will meet on June 23, 2016 and make a recommendation at the Board Meeting.

Page 1 of 1

MEMORANDUM

ITEM NO. 11

DATE: JUNE 23, 2016



SUBJECT: AMENDMENT NO.1 TO KINDEL GAGAN, INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR STRATEGIC SUPPORT SERVICES

SUMMARY On August 6, 2015 the District’s Board approved a Professional Services Agreement (contract) with Kindel Gagan, Inc. (firm) for strategic support services which will expire on June 30, 2016. The firm serves as a policy advisor to the District, providing assistance in developing and implementing District plans, programs and policy initiatives, which include but are not limited to the Strategic Plan, Basin Master Plan, Water Independence Now (WIN) program, the Groundwater Reliability Improvement Project (GRIP), storm water capture, and groundwater storage related projects. Kindel Gagan, Inc. continues to be instrumental in advising the District on various legislative analysis and strategic initiatives. In order to ensure seamless continuance of strategic support services, District staff recommends extending the current contract term for an additional year and adjusting the contract amount accordingly to cover the additional one year cost of strategic support services. FISCAL IMPACT The projected fiscal impact for additional strategic support services with Kindel Gagan, Inc. is for an amount not to exceed $120,000. Sufficient funds exist in the District’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for continuance of these strategic support services. CIP COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The CIP Committee will meet on June 23, 2016 and make a recommendation at the Board Meeting.

Page 1 of 23

MEMORANDUM

ITEM NO. 12

DATE: JUNE 23, 2016



SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) AND RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE GROUNDWATER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (GRIP) SUPPLEMENTAL RECHARGE WELLS PROJECT

SUMMARY On June 18, 2015, the WRD Board of Directors certified and approved the Final EIR for the Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program (GRIP) Recycled Water Project advanced water treatment facility (AWTF), which is the cornerstone of the District’s Water Independence Now (WIN) program to develop local and sustainable sources of water for groundwater replenishment. Once completed, GRIP will allow WRD to offset the current use of imported water with a combined total of 21,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of both tertiary treated (11,000 AFY) and advanced water treatment (AWT) (10,000 AFY) recycled water for groundwater replenishment of the Central Groundwater Basin via the Montebello Forebay. The District developed the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project (“Project”) as a new component of the GRIP Recycled Water Project. The proposed project would construct three storage wells at the GRIP AWTF site and three monitoring wells at and near the AWTF site. Implementation of the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project will allow WRD to continue to operate the AWTF at a constant (minimum) rate by injecting approximately 1.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of Full Advanced Treated recycled water at each well during periods when the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds (MFSG) are unavailable. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the District retained the services of ESA to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project. The District field a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Clerk’s office on February 29, 2016, to notify agencies and interested parties that it was preparing to circulate the Draft SEIR for the proposed Project. The NOP was published in the local newspaper, the Whittier Daily News, distributed to approximately 41 public agencies, and made available in three public libraries in proximity to the new alternative project site. During the 30-day public review and comment period, the District received six comments on the NOP, which were considered in determining the scope of the issues to be addressed in the Draft SEIR.

Page 2 of 23

The Draft SEIR was circulated for review and comment for a 45-day period in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines, beginning on April 13, 2016 and ending on May 27, 2016. Concurrently, the District filed a Notice of Availability (NOA) with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Clerk’s office. In addition, the NOA was published in the local newspaper, the Whittier Daily News, distributed to approximately 41 public agencies, and made available in five public libraries in proximity to the new alternative project site. Four comment letters on the Draft SEIR were received during the public review period. The Final SEIR includes written responses to the four comment letters received on the Draft EIR. The District reviewed all comments and determined that none of the comments received necessitated any significant revisions or changes to the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR reflects the District’s independent judgment and analysis and finds that, on the basis of the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures. FISCAL IMPACT None. CIP COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The CIP Committee will meet on June 23, 2016 and make a recommendation at the Board meeting. Attachments: Exhibit A- Draft SEIR Comments and Responses Exhibit B- Draft Resolution No. 16-1036

Page 3 of 23

EXHIBIT A

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES During the public review period for the Draft SEIR, four comment letters were received. The following four agencies submitted comments on the Draft SEIR:

1 Gabrieleño Band Of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation April 23, 2016

2 County of Los Angeles, Fire Department May 5, 2016

3 City of Pico Rivera May 26, 2016

4 California Department of Transportation May 27, 2016

The letters have been marked with brackets that delineate comments pertaining to environmental issues and the information and analysis contained in the Draft SEIR. None of the responses to comments resulted in significant changes to the text or analysis of the Final SEIR for the Project. The Final SEIR includes written response to each of these comment letters and includes the Draft SEIR. A copy of the full Final SEIR has been provided to the Directors on a CD.

Page 4 of 23

Comment Letters:

Page 5 of 23

Page 6 of 23

Page 7 of 23

Page 8 of 23

Page 9 of 23

Page 10 of 23

Page 11 of 23

Page 12 of 23

Page 13 of 23

Page 14 of 23

Responses to Comments The comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR are included in Chapter 10 of the Final SEIR. In Chapter 11 of the Final SEIR, the Water Replenishment District (WRD) provides individual responses to the bracketed comments in each letter. In some instances, in response to the comment, WRD has made additions or deletions to the text of Draft EIR; additions are included as underlined text and deletions as stricken text.

Letter 1: Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Comment KIZH-1

The comment states that the letter is in response to WRD’s request for consultation, dated April 13, 2016. The comment states that the project area lies within the Ancestral territories of the Kizh (Kitc) Gabrieleño villages.

Response KIZH-1

As stated in Section 3.3, Cultural Resources, of the Draft SEIR (pages 3.3-9 and 3.3-10), WRD completed the AB52 tribal consultation process for the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project, prior to issuing the Notice of Preparation on February 29, 2016. On April 13, 2016, WRD issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft SEIR, which requested comments from interested parties, such as the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe), on the analysis and content in the Draft SEIR.

On page 3.3-4 of the Draft SEIR, WRD acknowledges the previous consultation with the Tribe and the concern regarding the general cultural resources sensitivity of the project area given its proximity to the San Gabriel River and traditional villages.

Comment KIZH-2

The comment provides background regarding the Ancestral territories of the Kizh Gabrieleño villages during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric periods. The comment refers to the Kizh Gabrieleño as the most influential Native American group in southern California and centered in the Los Angeles Basin. The comment explains where their homeland was; how their villages were based on clan or lineage groups; and that their home/base sites are marked by midden deposits often with bedrock mortars. Lastly, the comment states that during their seasonal migration, their gathering strategies left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders at the locations of resources.

Response KIZH-2

The comment does not provide information of specific known Tribal cultural resources in the project area. On page 3.3-4 of the Draft SEIR, WRD acknowledges the general cultural resources sensitivity of the project area in accordance with the information provided in the comment.

Comment KIZH-3

The comment states that the project area is located within a highly sensitive area for cultural resources and requests that all ground disturbing activities be monitored by an archeologist and a Native American Monitor. Ground disturbing activities could include: pavement removal, post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching. The comment supports this request by stating that while the property has been previously developed, there is a possibility that unknown, yet significant cultural resources could be encountered during ground disturbing activities. The comment notes that if cultural resources have not been listed with the NAHC, it does not mean resources are not within the project boundary.

Page 15 of 23

Response KIZH-3

As stated in Section 3.3, Cultural Resources, of the Draft SEIR (page 3.3-9), the Initial Study determined that potential impacts to archaeological resources was adequately addressed in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project (refer to Appendix B of the Draft SEIR). The Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project included Mitigation Measures CR-A and CR-B related to archaeological resources, which require a qualified archaeological monitor and Native American monitor, if Native American materials are encountered, along with the proper protocol in the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered. Mitigation Measures CR-A and CR-B would also be implemented during the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project and would reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level.

In addition, in a letter to the Tribe dated February 12, 2016, WRD confirmed that in accordance with Mitigation Measure CR-A, Native American monitoring of all ground-disturbing will be required for the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project, and WRD would contact the Tribe to arrange for a tribal monitor to observe ground disturbing work.

Comment KIZH-4

The comment states that AB52 dictates that lead agencies consult with Native American Tribes who can prove and document traditional and cultural affiliation with the area of proposed projects in order to protect cultural resources. The comment states that the Kizh Gabrieleño is connected Ancestrally to the project location area and provides a link to a site that defines “Ancestral.” The comment concludes by stating that the Kizh Gabrieleño’s priorities are to protect cultural and biological resources and avoid delay or conflict so that resources can benefit and educate future generations.

Response KIZH-4

As stated in Section 3.3, Cultural Resources, of the Draft SEIR (pages 3.3-9 and 3.3-10), WRD completed the AB52 tribal consultation process for the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project. No Tribal resources as defined by Section 21074 were identified.

Letter 2: County of Los Angeles Fire Department Comment LACFD-1

The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) Planning Division has no comments at this time.

Response LACFD-1

The comment is noted.

Comment LACFD-2

The comment states that the LACFD Land Development Unit has no additional comments at this time and has no objection to the proposed project.

Response LACFD-2


Comment LACFD-3

The comment states that the LACFD’s Forestry Division is responsible for erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance.

Page 16 of 23

Response LACFD-3

This comment does not address directly the content or analysis in the Draft SEIR. The comment is noted.

Comment LACFD-4

The Health Hazardous Materials Division has no comment at this time.

Response LACFD-4


Letter 3: City of Pico Rivera Comment Pico Rivera-1

The comment states the maximum allowable exterior and interior noise levels for residential properties as measured from the property line, as included in the Pico River General Plan Noise Element. The comment states that due to project-related drilling activities occurring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7), and the lengthy project construction schedule, construction and drilling related noise emissions should be mitigated to a levels that do not exceed the General Plan noise levels. The comment states that mitigation measures proposed in the Draft SEIR to reduce the project’s construction noise impact are not sufficient to protect adjacent single-family residences from an increase in noise. Additionally, the comment requests that the following mitigation measures be automatically implemented prior to the construction and drilling throughout the entire length of construction and drilling activities:

Portable acoustic panels shall be installed between the construction zone and sensitive land uses; and

Drilling areas shall be surrounded by 10-foot walls constructed of acoustic panels that are capable of reducing construction noise by at least 26 dBA.

Response Pico Rivera-1

In response to the comment, the two mitigation measures stated above have been removed from the conditional measures based on a community noise complaint and moved to the list of best management practices measures within mitigation measure NOI-A. These minor revisions do not constitute significant new information pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure NOI-A will be revised as follows in the Executive Summary and Section 3.7, Noise, within the Final SEIR:

NOI-A: A Noise Control Plan shall be developed and implemented prior to construction that includes the following best management practices to minimize exposure to high levels of noise and ensure compliance with the Los Angeles County Noise Ordinance and/or City of Pico Rivera General Plan Noise Element, where applicable. Best management practices shall include, at a minimum, the following:

The construction contractor shall establish a public liaison for project construction that shall be responsible for addressing public concerns about construction activities, including excessive noise.

The Noise Control Plan shall depict the location of construction equipment storage and maintenance areas.

The construction contractor shall keep equipment properly maintained and outfitted with mufflers and other suitable noise attenuation devices.

Page 17 of 23

The construction contractor shall limit construction operations to exempt hours, except when necessary for drilling.

The construction contractor shall use rubber-tired equipment rather than track equipment, when construction activities and scheduling allow.

The construction contractor shall turn off noise-generating equipment when not in use.

The construction contractor shall ensure that all stockpiling and vehicle staging areas are located away from noise-sensitive land uses.

The construction contractor shall 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 all equipment shall be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation.

The construction contractor shall develop a construction schedule to ensure that activity shall be completed quickly to minimize the time noise-sensitive land uses that would be exposed to construction noise.

The construction contractor shall prohibit gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust.

The construction contractor shall use electric- and hydraulic-powered rather than diesel and pneumatic powered equipment when power requirements can be equally obtained.

Prior to construction work, residences, businesses, and other properties located along the pipeline alignment in proximity to the project site shall be notified of the location and dates of construction.

Haul routes shall be on major arterial roads within non-residential areas.

Portable acoustic panels shall be installed between the construction zone and sensitive land uses, including at least a 6-foot sound wall along the perimeter of the project site along San Gabriel River Parkway.

Drilling areas shall be surrounded by at least 10-foot walls constructed of acoustic panels that are capable of reducing construction noise by at least 26 dBA.

If there is a community noise complaint, construction activity shall be halted and ambient noise levels at the potentially impacted land use shall be recorded with and without construction activity. Those required BMPs should reduce construction noise to no more than 5 dBA over ambient noise levels without construction activity. If the ambient noise level increases are not reduced to that level, additional noise control measures shall be implemented. Additional noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Portable acoustic panels shall be installed between the construction zone and sensitive land uses.

Additional equipment muffling beyond standard mufflers shall be implemented on all construction equipment.

Drilling areas shall be surrounded by 10-foot walls constructed of acoustic panels that are capable of reducing construction noise by at least 26 dBA.

Noise monitoring at affected sensitive land uses shall be completed with and without construction activity to demonstrate that construction activity would increase ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA.

Page 18 of 23

Comment Pico Rivera-2

The comment states that there was previous conversation with the City of Pico Rivera indicating that WRD will be installing a 6-foot sound wall along the perimeter of the project site adjacent to the single-family homes across San Gabriel River Parkway. The comment requests that the 6-foot sound wall be a mitigation measure to be implemented prior to the commencement of construction and drilling. Additionally, the comment requests that details be included about the reduction in dBA of construction and drilling noise that the 6-foot wall will be capable of providing when used in conjunction with the 10-foot wall constructed of acoustic panels.


Based on previous conversation with the City of Pico Rivera, WRD has committed to implementing at least a 6-foot sound wall along the perimeter of the project site adjacent to the single family homes across San Gabriel Parkway, to reduce noise emissions during construction of the GRIP Recycled Water Project. This requirement has been added to Mitigation Measures NOI-A as shown above in Response Pico Rivera-1. In addition, WRD has committed to constructing at least 10-foot acoustic panels around the monitoring and storage well locations to reduce construction noise by 26 dBA, and this requirement also has been added to Mitigation Measures NOI-A as shown above in Response Pico Rivera-1. The 6-foot sound wall is not required to reduce noise emissions associated with the construction and drilling of the monitoring and storage wells. However, since the construction period for both projects would occur simultaneously, both sound walls would be implemented concurrently and would further reduce any construction or drilling noise levels experienced off-site. Both mitigation measures are sufficient for each project individually to reduced noise emissions to less-than-significant levels, and would further reduce noise impacts when implemented concurrently. In addition, Mitigation Measure NOI-A states that WRD will implement additional noise control measures in the event of a community noise complaint, by using BMPs to reduce construction noise to no more than 5 dBA over ambient noise levels. The calculation of dBA reductions associated with both sound walls is not required.

Comment Pico Rivera-3

The comment summarizes the analysis of vibration impacts during construction and drilling of the storage and monitoring wells from the Draft SEIR. The comment requests that a mitigation measure be included in the event there is a community complaint regarding vibration, and for vibration levels to be measured at the site to determine if levels are within the significance threshold. The comment states the mitigation measure should include vibration control measures to be enacted if vibration levels exceed 72 Vdb to either control vibration at the source, control the transmission of the vibration, and/or control vibration at the impacted receptor.


As stated in Section 3.7, Noise, construction and drilling activities associated with the proposed project would not generate vibrational levels that would exceed the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) vibration threshold and impacts would be less than significant. Although vibrational impacts have been determined to be less than significant, in response to this comment WRD will include a conditional mitigation measure in the event a community complaint occurs associated with project-generated vibration levels. Mitigation Measure NOI-B as follows will be added to the Executive Summary and Section 3.7, Noise, within the Final SEIR:

NOI-B: If a community complaint regarding vibration levels generated from construction and drilling activities is received, vibration monitoring will be conducted during drilling of the storage and monitoring wells within 500 feet of sensitive receptors to determine if the vibration threshold of 72 Vdb has been exceeded. In the event the threshold has been exceeded, WRD will explore other drilling methods or other vibration control measures.

Page 19 of 23

Letter 4: Department of Transportation Comment Caltrans-1

The comment refers to Figure ES-2 and states that there is a proposed recycled water pipeline which will cross beneath Route 105. The comment requests that WRD examines the availability of utilizing the Caltrans pumped groundwater to be injected into the proposed recycled water pipeline to fulfill the beneficial re-use of the pumped groundwater as this would likely increase replenishment.

Response Caltrans-1

Figure ES-2 shows an alternative to the proposed project, which was determined to not be the environmentally superior alternative as explained in the Draft SEIR on pages ES-9 and ES-10. This alternative would result in greater environmental impacts relative to the proposed project, as explained further in the Draft SEIR on page 6-5. The GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project does not include pumped groundwater as source water for replenishment. The comment is noted.

Comment Caltrans-2

The comment expresses concern with the change in groundwater elevation in the Central Basin as a result of the proposed groundwater projects and management strategies. The comment states that the change in groundwater elevation will impact existing structures such as the pavement of I-105, bridges, and existing rail facilities. The comment then states that geotechnical hazards associated with rise in groundwater elevation are liquefaction, settlement, and inundation.

Response Caltrans-2

The potential for liquefaction, settlement, and inundation to occur as a result of rising groundwater levels during project operation is evaluated in the Draft SEIR in Chapter 3.4, Geology, Seismicity and Soils. As stated on page 3.4-6: “WRD replenishes groundwater to support the adjudicated rights of groundwater pumpers. In the Central Basin, groundwater replenishment is balanced with pumping in general, so that groundwater levels are maintained or at least do not decrease.” Thus, the proposed project would not result in geotechnical hazards associated with rise in groundwater elevation.

Comment Caltrans-3

The comment refers to the hydrographs presented in Appendix E and explains that they represent changes in groundwater elevation at River Observation points. The comment states that River Observation #3 is down gradient and located furthest to the south, approximately 7 miles north of the I-105 pumping gallery. The comment requests that impacts to I-105 and Caltrans pumping gallery be determined before choosing the preferred alternative.

Response Caltrans-3

As stated on page 3.4-6 of the Draft SEIR: “WRD replenishes groundwater to support the adjudicated rights of groundwater pumpers. In the Central Basin, groundwater replenishment is balanced with pumping in general, so that groundwater levels are maintained or at least do not decrease.” In addition, as part of the GRIP Recycled Water Project, the proposed project would allow for recycled water to be used for replenishment instead of imported water, resulting in no net increase in groundwater replenishment (see Draft SEIR, page 1-2). As such, the proposed project would not affect the Caltrans pumping gallery at I-105.

Page 20 of 23

Comment Caltrans-4

The comment states that the Draft SEIR fails to demonstrate how the injection wells and additional groundwater recharge at the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel spreading grounds will change groundwater elevation throughout the Central Basin. The comment requests that WRD analyze the nine scenarios in the modeling with observation points that are further south and west from the AWTF to characterize the impacts on Caltrans structures along I-105.

Response Caltrans-4

The proposed project will not result in changes to groundwater elevation throughout the Central Basin. As stated on page 1-2 of the Draft SEIR, “[t]he GRIP Recycled Water Project will allow WRD to offset the current use of imported water for groundwater replenishment in the Central Basin via the Montebello Forebay with approximately 21,000 AFY of recycled water.” As part of the GRIP Recycled Water Project, the proposed project would allow for recycled water to be used for replenishment instead of imported water, resulting in no net increase in groundwater replenishment.

Comment Caltrans-5

The comment states that the MFADS should evaluate the results of the modeling and analysis present in Appendix E of the Draft SEIR. The comment states that Caltrans cannot quantify the impact to I-105 from the GRIP project based on information provided in the Draft SEIR.

Response Caltrans-5

As stated above in Response Caltrans-3, the proposed project would have no effect on I-105.

Comment Caltrans-6

The comment asks where the recycled water comes from and about the recycled water source.

Response Caltrans-6

As stated on page 1-1 of the Draft SEIR, the recycled water would be produced at the GRIP Advanced Water Treatment Facility.

Comment Caltrans-7

The comment asks which area within the Central Basin the proposed wells will benefit.

Response Caltrans-7

The location of the proposed wells are the area to be affected by the proposed project are shown in Figure 2-1.

Comment Caltrans-8

The comment asks how far down the downgradient will the monitor wells monitor.

Response Caltrans-8

As explained on page 2-7 of the Draft SEIR, based on preliminary groundwater modeling, the proposed monitoring well locations have been selected in between the storage wells and the nearest production wells to allow WRD to monitor and report on LARWQCB and DDW requirements, including a minimum retention time in the aquifer before water recharged via the proposed storage wells reaches the nearest downgradient production well. Preliminary calculations indicate that there would be at least 6 months of retention time in the aquifer for the proposed project before AWTF recycled water would reach the nearest production well (Todd Groundwater, 2016).

Page 21 of 23

Monitoring well MW-1 would be located at a distance from the storage wells that represents a travel time of approximately 2 weeks to 6 months through the aquifer, depending on injection rates and the aquifer zones selected for recharge (GSI, 2016). The location for MW-2 was selected because it would be directly downgradient of storage wells SRW-A and SRW-B. Based on preliminary groundwater modeling, MW-2 would be approximately 6 to 7 months of travel time downgradient from SRW-A or SRW-B and approximately 3 to 4 months upgradient from the nearest production well, Pico 10 (GSI, 2016).

Comment Caltrans-9

The comment asks what the effects will be on the existing infrastructure and Route 105 freeway with the inclusion of the proposed wells.

Response Caltrans-9

As stated above in Response Caltrans-3, the proposed project would have no effect on I-105.

Comment Caltrans-10

The comment asks where the results of the initial study can be obtained to quantify the opinion that the Draft SEIR does not need to further analyze hazard/hazardous materials and traffic/transportation facilities.

Response Caltrans-10

As stated within the Draft SEIR, please refer to Appendix B of the Draft SEIR for the Initial Study prepared for the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project.

Comment Caltrans-11

The comment asks how frequently the groundwater levels, recycled water, and groundwater quality will be monitored.


As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, WRD would monitor groundwater levels and recycled water and groundwater quality as required by the GRRP regulations (Title 22, CCR Section 60320). GRIP recycled water and groundwater quality monitoring requirements are set forth in various Section 60320 subsections. Please refer to Section 2.5, Monitoring, Operating and Reporting, of the Draft SEIR for detailed monitoring methods that will be implemented by WRD.

Comment Caltrans-12

The comment asks if the proposed recycled water pipeline (shown on ES-2) has been approved and if so, when it was approved. The comment also asks when it will be constructed.


The proposed recycled water pipeline shown on ES-2 is not part of the proposed project, was not approved, and will not be constructed. Please refer to Response Caltrans-1.

Comment Caltrans-13

The comment refers to ES-2 and states that Caltrans owns portions of the Lakewood Blvd. and Rosemead Blvd. The comment states that proper permits will need to be obtained from Caltrans and notifications should be submitted accordingly.

Page 22 of 23


Refer to Response Caltrans-12.

Comment Caltrans-14

The comment requests that an estimated timeline for the implementation of the proposed wells be provided.


As stated in Section 2.4, Project Construction and Testing, of Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the construction of the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project would occur in three phases starting in summer of 2016, with all three phases completed by the end of calendar year 2017. Please refer to Section 2.4, Project Construction and Testing, of Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR for the detailed construction timeline for the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project.

Comment Caltrans-15

The comment asks if the GBMP PEIR needs to be approved prior to implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, the comment asks how the proposed project is related to the GBMP.


The Groundwater Basins Master Plan (GBMP) PEIR does not need to be approved prior to implementation of the proposed project. In general, individual projects that are already approved or built can be included in plans or programs that are evaluated programmatically under CEQA. The GRIP Recycled Water Project is one of the projects included in the GBMP and as such is included in the programmatic analyses in the GBMP Draft PEIR. The GBMP Draft PEIR also evaluates the use of storage wells for groundwater replenishment at a programmatic level. Although WRD has not yet certified the GBMP Final PEIR, the GRIP Recycled Water Project was evaluated at a project-level in the June 2015 Final EIR; and the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project is evaluated at a project-level in this Final SEIR. Upon certification of this project-level Final SEIR the proposed project can be implemented.

Comment Caltrans-16

The comment states that installation of the proposed recycled water pipeline will have impacts on the existing utilities on Route 19 from Imperial Highway to Beverly Blvd. The comment states that Caltrans will need additional detailed information about the alignment and depth of the proposed line installation so that the impacts on the existing utilities will be better known.


The proposed project does not include a recycled water pipeline.

Comment Caltrans-17

The comment states that the proposed recycled water pipeline will cross Route 5 and should cross on a line generally normal to and +/- 30 degrees from the freeway longitudinal alignment.



Comment Caltrans-18

The comment states that any reclaimed water installations crossing Caltrans R/W are encroachments and must have approval from Caltrans and Office of Projects Support (Headquarters).

Page 23 of 23



Comment Caltrans-19

The comment asks why the Draft SEIR is a supplemental EIR and asks what the document is supplementing.


The GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project is a supplemental action undertaken by WRD under the GRIP Recycled Water Project. Thus, the SEIR for the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project is a supplemental CEQA document to the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project. Please refer to Section 1.4, Previous Documentation, and Section 1.5, CEQA Documentation: Supplemental EIR, of Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR for further explanation.

Exhibit A

CEQA Findings of Fact

Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program (GRIP)

Supplemental Recharge Wells Project

State Clearinghouse No. 2013021042

i

Water Replenishment District of Southern California GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project CEQA Findings of Fact

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Previous Documentation ....................................................................................... 1

2.0 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Project Location and Site Conditions .................................................................... 2

3.0 Findings of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Supporting Facts Required Under CEQA................................................................................................. 3 3.1 CEQA Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. 3 3.2 Procedural Findings .............................................................................................. 4 3.3 Record of Proceedings ......................................................................................... 5 3.4 Findings of Proposed Project’s Impacts ................................................................ 6

3.4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................. 6 3.4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 8 3.4.3 Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 12 3.4.4 Geology and Soils .................................................................................... 15 3.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy ................................................. 17 3.4.6 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater ............................................ 20 3.4.7 Noise 24

3.5 Other CEQA Findings ......................................................................................... 30 3.5.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ....................................... 30 3.5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ......................................................................... 30 3.5.2.1 Removal of an Impediment to Growth ........................................ 30 3.5.2.2 Population Growth ...................................................................... 31 3.5.2.3 Economic Growth ....................................................................... 31

3.6 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................. 31 3.6.1 Proposed Project Alternatives .................................................................. 32 3.6.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ....................................................... 33

1 Water Replenishment District of Southern California GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project CEQA Findings of Fact

1.0 Summary

The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (“WRD”) proposes to approve the Groundwater Reliability Improvement Project (“GRIP”) Supplemental Recharge Wells Project as a new component of the GRIP Recycled Water Project, which is part of WRD’s Water Independence Now (WIN) program. The project would construct three storage wells at the GRIP Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF) site and three monitoring wells at and near the AWTF site. A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Draft SEIR”) and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Final SEIR”) were prepared for WRD to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. WRD is identified as the lead agency to approve the proposed project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (California Pub. Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).

The Final EIR identifies no significant impacts for the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level.

1.1 Previous Documentation

The Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project was certified by WRD Board of Directors in June 2015 (State Clearinghouse No. 2013021042). The Final EIR evaluates the use of recycled water for groundwater replenishment at the existing Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds. The project described and evaluated in the Final EIR does not include groundwater replenishment using the proposed storage wells. However, the use of storage wells for groundwater replenishment is discussed and analyzed at a program level in the recently-released Draft Program EIR for WRD’s Groundwater Basins Master Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2012091035).

Further, the Final EIR discussed an Administrative Learning Center with associated grounds and parking lot areas as a component of the GRIP Recycled Water Project. However, the Final EIR only analyzed the Administrative Learning Center as a high-level conceptual component. Therefore, in addition to the Final EIR, the City of Pico Rivera, as the lead agency pursuant to CEQA, is prepared an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Draft Initial Study/MND) for the Administrative Learning Center Project as a supporting environmental document for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application package to allow administrative uses on the project site. The Draft Initial Study/MND also provides a project-level analysis for the Administrative Learning Center Project, which will be supplemental to the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project. The Draft Initial Study/MND was released for public review simultaneously with the Draft SEIR and incorporates the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project. The Draft Initial Study/MND includes the proposed wells in the analyses of all environmental resource topics as being another component of the GRIP Recycled Water Project.

In accordance with Section 15163(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a supplemental EIR need only include the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. Therefore, the Draft and Final SEIR for the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project focuses only on the resource topics to which the Project would result in new environmental impacts not previously analyzed in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project. An Initial Study was prepared to identify such potential impacts and is included as an appendix to the Draft SEIR. The intent of the Draft SEIR is to provide additional analysis to the


Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project to adequately disclose the environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the storage wells and monitoring wells.

2.0 Project Description

2.1 Project Overview

The GRIP Recycled Water Project includes an AWTF that will be designed to produce up to 11.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of Full Advanced Treated recycled water, to be used to offset the use of imported water as a source for groundwater replenishment within the Central Basin. Under normal operating conditions, the recycled water from the AWTF will be blended with disinfected tertiary recycled water from the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (SJCWRP) and then discharged to the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds (MFSG) for infiltration into the groundwater basin. Under certain conditions, the MFSG may not be available to accept the recycled water from the AWTF, such as during wet periods when the spreading basins’ capacities are needed to hold local stormwater or due to other operating criteria that may restrict recharge with recycled water. Under such conditions, WRD would need alternate recharge facilities to receive the recycled water produced at the AWTF. Implementation of the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project would allow WRD to continue to operate the AWTF at a constant (minimum) rate by injecting approximately 1.5 mgd of Full Advanced Treated recycled water at each well during periods when the MFSG are unavailable.

The proposed project would consist of three storage wells and three monitoring wells. For the proposed project, “storage wells” refers to the use of a well to recharge (inject) and store Full Advanced Treated recycled water. Installation of the storage wells and monitoring wells would be coordinated with other site demolition and construction activities associated with the GRIP Recycled Water Project. It is assumed that construction of the proposed GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project would occur simultaneously with construction of the GRIP Recycled Water Project, which includes the Administrative Learning Center. Approximately three to five additional workers would be required to be onsite during construction to implement the proposed GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project. The construction of the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project would occur in three phases starting in summer of 2016, with all three phases completed by the end of calendar year 2017.

2.2 Project Location and Site Conditions

The proposed project would be located primarily at the AWTF site, which is comprised of three adjacent parcels: 4320, 4330, and 4334 San Gabriel River Parkway, within the city of Pico Rivera, California. The GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project is located within the Montebello Forebay of the Central Basin. The proposed project would include three proposed storage wells and two monitoring wells located at the AWTF site and one monitoring well located approximately 300 feet south of the AWTF site, within the public right-of-way at the northwest corner of San Gabriel River Parkway and Beverly Boulevard. Project Objectives

WRD is seeking to eliminate dependence on imported water as part of its WIN program. The overall purpose of the GRIP Recycled Water Project is to offset the current use of imported water for groundwater replenishment in the Central Basin via the Montebello Forebay with


approximately 21,000 AFY of recycled water. The objectives of the GRIP Recycled Water Project are as follows:

1. Provide a sustainable and reliable source of recycled water for groundwater basin replenishment via the Montebello Forebay.

2. Implement a cost-effective and environmentally compliant project.

3. Protect the groundwater quality of the basin.

4. Comply with regulatory requirements employing an institutionally feasible approach.

5. Provide up to 21,000 AFY of recycled water for groundwater replenishment consistent with current and future needs.

3.0 Findings of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Supporting Facts Required Under CEQA

3.1 CEQA Regulatory Framework

After preparation of the Final SEIR, Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require a public agency to make findings supported by substantial evidence concerning all of the proposed project’s potential significant effects. Those findings must correspond to every environmental impact and alternative analyzed in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR. Within those findings, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states that the public agency can determine either: (1) mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project’s significant environmental effects; (2) changes or alterations that are required to substantially lessen the project’s significant environmental effects are the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency; or (3) specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 provides that no agency shall approve a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either: (1) the project approved will not have a significant effect on the environment; or (2) the agency has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects where feasible and determined that any remaining unavoidable significant effects on the environment are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

The Final SEIR identifies no significant impacts for the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. WRD’s Board of Directors has imposed all feasible mitigation measures as incorporated into the proposed project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) to mitigate any remaining significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no statement of overriding considerations is required for the proposed project.


3.2 Procedural Findings

The decision-making body, the WRD Board of Directors, finds as follows:

1. Based on the nature and scope of the proposed recharge wells and monitoring wells, the WRD Board of Directors determined, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and prepared an SEIR for the proposed project. The SEIR was prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in full compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), as follows:

a) A Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an SEIR for review and comment by the public, responsible, and reviewing agencies, was circulated by WRD to approximately 34 public agencies including the State Clearinghouse on February 29, 2016. The comment period on the NOP ended March 29, 2016.

b) A Notice of Availability (“NOA”) and copies of the Draft SEIR were circulated for review and comment on April 13, 2016 to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, or which exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the project, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law. The comments of such persons and agencies and the general public were sought on the Draft SEIR for a 45-day review period from April 13, 2016 to May 27, 2016.

c) The NOA stated that WRD had completed the Draft SEIR and that copies were available at: http://www.wrd.org/ and at:

WRD, 4040 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712

Rivera Library, 7828 S. Serapis Avenue, Pico Rivera, CA 90660

South El Monte Library, 1430 N. Central Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733

Sunkist Library, 840 N. Puente Avenue, La Puente, CA 91746

2. Following closure of the public comment period, all comments received on the Draft SEIR during the comment period, WRD’s written responses to the significant environmental points raised in those comments, and additional information added by WRD were added to the Draft SEIR to produce the Final SEIR.

3. In light of the entire administrative record for the proposed project, WRD determines that there is no significant new information within the meaning of CEQA that would require recirculation of sections or of the entire Draft SEIR or Final SEIR.

4. WRD has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these findings, concerning the proposed project’s environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR.


5. The MMRP includes the mitigation measures included in the Final SEIR and has been designed to ensure compliance with those mitigation measures during construction and implementation of the proposed project. The complete MMRP provides the means to ensure that the proposed project’s mitigation measures are fully enforceable.

6. The environmental review of the proposed project under CEQA and the findings contained herein reflect the independent judgment of WRD’s Board of Directors.

7. The custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which WRD’s decision is based is WRD, located at 4040 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712.

3.3 Record of Proceedings

For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before WRD includes the following:

1. The Draft SEIR and all appendices of the Draft SEIR;

2. The Final SEIR and all appendices to the Final SEIR;

3. The MMRP;

5. All notices required by CEQA, staff reports, and presentation materials related to the proposed project;

6. All studies conducted for the Project and contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the Draft SEIR, or the Final SEIR;

7. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for WRD and other agencies;

8. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings, study sessions, and workshops and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the Project and the Final SEIR;

9. For documentary and informational purposes, all locally adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans and ordinances, master plans together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area;

10. The Final EIR, MMRP and Findings of Fact for the GRIP Recycled Water project; and

11. Any additional items not included above if otherwise required by law.

The Final SEIR is incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, and the comparative analysis of alternatives.


3.4 Findings of Proposed Project’s Impacts

WRD, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR, finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which would mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following potential significant effects identified in the Final SEIR. The basis for the finding for each impact is set forth below.

3.4.1 Aesthetics

3.4.1.1 Light or Glare

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures. Lighting for 24/7 drilling of the wells would be required for all nighttime construction activities which could potentially create light or glare impacts to surrounding land uses. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-A would require lighting best management practices during construction of the wells to minimize light impacts. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AES-A, impacts related to nighttime light and glare would be reduced to a less than significant level.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The proposed project is located in an urban area, which currently has a high level of ambient lighting. Lighting for 24/7 drilling of the wells would be required for all nighttime construction activities which could potentially create light or glare impacts to surrounding land uses. While these impacts would be temporary and limited to the area immediately surrounding the active well site, bright construction lighting would have the potential to disturb the adjacent residences along San Gabriel River Parkway during nighttime hours. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-A would require lighting best management practices during construction to minimize light impacts at the residential properties along San Gabriel River Parkway. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AES-A, impacts related to nighttime light and glare would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Additionally, the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project included analyses of light and glare impacts. Both projects would not include nighttime construction activities and, as such, would not require the use of nighttime lighting. Further, the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project concluded that impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant during construction.

There would be no need for additional permanent operational lighting for either the monitoring or storage wells relative to what has already been described as part of the GRIP Recycled Water Project in the Final and Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project. New lighting at the proposed AWTF site would be similar to the existing lighting onsite and would be installed in accordance with applicable specifications of Los Angeles County and the Pico Rivera Municipal Code, with the appropriate lighting levels, fixtures, mounting heights, and shielding, to prevent light from


spilling over onto any light-sensitive uses, including residential uses. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to light and glare.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since the proposed project would require lighting for 24 hour drilling, nighttime lighting could potentially disturb adjacent residences along San Gabriel Parkway during nighttime hours. Mitigation Measure AES-1 shall be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level:

AES-A Nighttime Lighting Measures. For all construction activities that occur at between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the construction contractor shall implement the following lighting best management practices to minimize light spillover or glare on nearby residential properties:

1. All lighting shall be oriented away from residential development and directed downward. No lighting equipment shall shine directly toward any residential building.

2. All construction lighting shall be shielded so that lighting spillover is contained within the project site boundaries for the five on-site wells and within the public right-of-way for the one off-site well.

3. Light fixtures shall be placed behind and below required noise barriers (see Mitigation Measure NOI-A) in order to shield the maximum amount of light possible.

3.4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project, in conjunction with the related projects, would not have significant cumulative impacts associated with aesthetics.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The proposed project would require nighttime lighting for 24/7 drilling activities for all six proposed wells, which would result in potentially significant lighting impacts to the residences along San Gabriel River Parkway. However, Mitigation Measure AES-A would reduce adverse impacts associated with nighttime lighting to a less than significant level. There are no other known projects in the vicinity that also would require construction over a 24 hour period. Similar to the proposed project, all development projects would be required to comply with the light standards from the City’s Municipal Code as well as the design standards within the City’s General Plan. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact to nighttime lighting due to other related projects in the vicinity of the AWTF site. As such, the effects of proposed project would not contribute to any significant cumulative impact to nighttime lighting. The proposed project’s impacts to aesthetics would not be cumulatively considerable.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required as no significant cumulative impacts associated with aesthetics have been identified.


3.4.2 Air Quality

3.4.2.1 Air Quality Plans

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The impact would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) adopted the most recent air quality management plan (“AQMP”) applicable to the proposed project in December 2012. Consistency with the AQMP is based on whether the proposed project would exceed the estimated air basin emissions used as the basis of the AQMP. Assumptions for off-road equipment emissions in the 2012 AQMP were developed based on hours of activity and equipment population reported to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) for compliance. Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. However, the proposed project would not increase the assumptions of off-road equipment use in the AQMP. Additionally, the estimated air basin emissions used as the basis of the plan are also based in part on projections of population and vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). The proposed project does not involve any uses that would increase population beyond that considered in the City of Pico Rivera General Plan. The proposed project involves minor increases in operational motor vehicle activity and would not substantially increase mobile source emissions. Further, since the AQMP takes into account all projects within the Basin, and since the proposed project, GRIP Recycled Water Project, and Administrative Learning Center Project all would not result in conflicts with the AQMP, there would be no incremental effect related to constructing all three components concurrently.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required as no significant impacts associated with air quality management plan conflicts or obstructions have been identified.

3.4.2.2 Air Quality Violations

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures. Construction of the project could potentially cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-C, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Operation of the proposed project would not cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of criteria pollutant emissions. CalEEMod was utilized to produce estimates of daily and annual air pollutant emissions that would be generated by well installation activities. Drilling and development would be concurrent with construction of the ATWF and the Administrative Learning Center; therefore, it is appropriate to assess the emissions from the proposed project in combination with the emissions that were previously assessed in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project. The air quality mitigation


measures included in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project have been incorporated into the baseline modeling for the proposed project’s air quality analysis, specifically Mitigation Measures AQ-A through AQ-G.

Localized emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were assessed in accordance with SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (“LST”) guidance. For projects less than five acres, such as the proposed project, the SCAQMD has developed look-up tables showing the maximum emissions that would not cause an exceedance of any LST. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod for comparison to applicable LST values for a 5-acre site within Source Receptor Area 11, South San Gabriel Valley subregion, consistent with the analysis presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project.

Maximum daily regional and localized emissions associated with the proposed project in conjunction with the GRIP Recycled Water Project and Administrative Learning Center Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds of significance for air pollutant emissions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-C the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality violations during project construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-C was previously adopted by WRD in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project.

The wells would not necessitate additional WRD employees onsite at the AWTF, and thus there would be no emissions associated with employee commuter vehicle trips. The wells also would not necessitate chemical or other material deliveries. Similar to the analyses presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project, operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since the proposed project’s construction emissions could violate an ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing violation, Mitigation Measures AQ-A through AQ-G, as previously adopted, would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. In particular, Mitigation Measure AQ-C was included in the CalEEMod modeling for the proposed project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level:

AQ-C. The construction contractor shall use off-road construction diesel engines that have a rating of 50 horsepower (hp) or more, that meet, at a minimum, the Tier 3 California Emissions Standards, unless such an engine is not available for a particulate item of equipment. Tier 2 engines will be allowed on a case-by-case basis when the contractor has documented that no Tier 3 equipment or emissions equivalent retrofit equipment is available for a particular equipment type that must be used to complete construction. Documentation shall consist of signed written statements from at least two construction equipment rental firms.


3.4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts for Criteria Pollutants

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The Basin is considered in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and lead by both State and federal thresholds. Therefore, there is an existing regional cumulative impact associated with these four pollutants in the Basin. However, an individual project can emit these pollutants without significantly contributing to this cumulative impact depending on the magnitude of emissions. This magnitude is determined by the project-level significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Emissions associated with construction of the proposed GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project would not exceed the project-level SCAQMD regional or localized significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Further, emissions from the proposed project in conjunction with emissions from the AWTF and Administrative Learning Center projects would also not exceed the project-level SCAQMD regional or localized significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Thus, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in construction emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the analyses presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project, the proposed project would be operated at a minimum three months of the year and would not result in a significant impact during operation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is considered to be in nonattainment, specifically ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and lead.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since the proposed project’s construction emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions, no mitigation is required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

3.4.2.4 Sensitive Receptors

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures. Construction of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations that would result in a health risk for the residents. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-H, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the proposed project are single-family residences located approximately 50 feet to the west of the AWTF site. While the duration of constructing the storage and monitoring wells will be relatively short and not extend the total length of the full project build-out, the addition of the well drilling equipment would result in a temporary increase in daily toxic air contaminants


(“TAC”) emissions from diesel exhaust for the nine week installation period. As a conservative estimate, the wells installation would result in an incremental cancer risk increase of approximately 0.8 in one million, resulting in a maximum exposure of approximately 10.6 in one million. Therefore, construction of the proposed project in conjunction with the construction of the AWTF and Administrative Learning Center would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and impacts would be potentially significant. However, implementation of mitigation measure AQ-H would ensure that the sensitive receptors would not be exposed to a maximum possible cancer risk greater than 10 in one million by specifically requiring utilization of equipment with engines meeting Tier 4 emissions standards.

The incremental increase in TAC emissions from the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project was also assessed with regards to exposing sensitive receptors to acute and chronic non-carcinogenic hazards. SCAQMD has a Maximum Acute Hazard Index (HI) threshold for sensitive receptors of 1.0. The Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project determined that the Maximum Acute HI for a sensitive receptor was 0.21 for the GRIP Recycled Water Project, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 1.0. By applying the same extrapolation using the mitigated emissions from installation of the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project, the total DPM emissions associated with construction of the proposed project would incrementally increase by less than half of a percent and the resulting effect on the Maximum Acute HI would be negligible. Therefore, impacts associated with exposure of air quality hazards to sensitive receptors would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure AQ-H incorporated.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since the proposed project’s construction emissions could expose sensitive receptors to air pollutant emissions, Mitigation Measure AQ-H shall be required to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level:

AQ-H: For the installation of monitoring and storage wells, the construction contractor shall use off-road construction diesel engines that have a rating of 50 horsepower (hp) or more that meets, at a minimum, the Tier 4 California Emissions Standards, unless such an engine is not available for a particulate item of equipment. Diesel particulate filters (DPFs) will be implemented on a case-by-case basis when the contractor has documented that no Tier 4 equipment or emissions equivalent retrofit equipment is available for a particular equipment type that must be used to complete construction. Documentation shall consist of signed written statements from at least two construction equipment rental firms.


A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project’s cumulative impacts associated with air quality are less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The SCAQMD cumulative analysis focused on whether a specific project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of emissions to the region. Because the proposed project would be a supplemental action under the GRIP Recycled Water Project, the air quality mitigation measures included in the Final EIR for


the GRIP Recycled Water Project have been incorporated into the baseline modeling for the proposed project’s air quality analysis. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the proposed project would not exceed localized or regional emission threshold and therefore, would not contribute a cumulatively considerable contribution to the existing regional cumulative impact within the Basin. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact related to air quality violations and criteria pollutants would not occur.

Additionally, construction of the proposed project in conjunction with the construction of the AWTF and Administrative Learning Center Project on the project site could result potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors. If other cumulative projects were to be constructed at the same time as the proposed project and the AWTF and Administrative Learning Center, the incremental effects of construction emissions could result in a potentially significant cumulative impact to sensitive receptors as TACs levels could exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of significance. However, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-H, which requires that the proposed project utilize construction equipment that meet Tier 4 California Emission Standards or DPFs if Tier 4 standards cannot be met, to reduce TACs levels below SCAQMD’s threshold of significance. Therefore, while a cumulative impact to sensitive receptors could occur dependent on the construction timelines of other future projects, the contribution of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since the proposed project would not have cumulative impacts associated with air quality, no mitigation is required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

3.4.3 Cultural Resources

3.4.3.1 Paleontological Resources

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures. The proposed project could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a paleontological resource during project construction. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure CR-F, impacts would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. No fossils have been previously recorded within the project area and the project area is underlain by Quaternary younger gravels (Qg) and Quaternary alluvium (Qa), which has a low paleontological sensitivity. These younger Quaternary deposits do not typically contain fossils. However, older Quaternary deposits (Qoa, Qae), which have a moderate paleontological sensitivity, may underlay the younger Quaternary deposits at varying depths and could contain significant vertebrate fossils. Excavations into the older Quaternary alluvium and Puente and Fernando formations could result in a significant impact to unique paleontological resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-F impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

In addition, the construction of the proposed project in conjunction with the construction of the AWTF and the Administrative Learning Center would not result in combined effects to paleontological resources due to the nature of fossils being located randomly within the underlying formations and the varying excavation depths associated with the AWTF and


Administrative Learning Center relative to the proposed storage and monitoring wells. The deeper borings associated with the proposed project are more likely to impact significant paleontological resources, whereas the shallower excavations associated with the AWTF and the Administrative Learning Center were determined unlikely to impact significant paleontological resources. Therefore, while the proposed project would have potential impacts to paleontological resources, when considering together all three components under the GRIP Recycled Water Project at and around the AWTF site, there would be no incremental impact that would be cumulatively considerable.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since the proposed project’s construction could impact paleontological resources, the following Mitigation Measure CR-F shall be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level:

CR-F: Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program: Excavations for the storage wells and monitoring wells below 5 feet shall be spot-checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the SVP Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of significant paleontological resources. Based on observations of the qualified paleontologist, further spot-checks at specified depth intervals shall be determined, or if the geological unit has the potential to contain significant paleontological resources, full-time paleontological resources monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall inspect the soil cuttings and stockpiles for the presence of fossils and note the sedimentological and stratigraphical characteristics of excavations. If sedimentological and/or biological features such as mudstones, carbonate-rich paleosols, mollusks, or plant debris are noted by the qualified paleontologist, a test sample of up to 200 pounds (approximately four 5-gallon-buckets) shall be collected and screened for microfossils on or offsite. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low.

Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Discoveries shall be documented with GPS coordinates, depths below surface, cardinal directions, and detailed sedimentological and taphonomical data prior to collection. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report that details the methods; applicable laws, regulations, and standards; records search results; geological and paleontological literature and map review results; field survey results (if applicable); monitoring results; and further recommendations. The report shall be submitted to WRD and filed with the local repository.


3.4.3.2 Tribal Cultural Resources

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. This impact would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) requires lead agencies to consider the effects of projects on tribal cultural resources for projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) is filed on or after July 1, 2015. The Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project considered the project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources but did not engage in the AB52 consultation process as the project’s NOP was filed on February 19, 2013. However, the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project is subject to the AB52 tribal consultation process because the proposed project’s NOP was filed after July 1, 2015. Tribal consultation conducted for this project did not result in the identification of known Tribal resources as defined in Section 21074. Therefore, no impact would occur.

In addition, the construction of the proposed project in conjunction with the construction of the AWTF and the Administrative Learning Center would not result in combined cumulative effects to tribal resources. These components under the GRIP Recycled Water Project would all be located at the same AWTF site, with the exception of one off-site monitoring well. Tribal consultation conducted for the proposed project did not identify any known Tribal resources at the AWTF site. Therefore, concurrent construction of the three GRIP Recycled Water Project components at the AWTF site would not result in an incremental impact that would be cumulatively considerable.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since the proposed project’s construction would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, no mitigation measures are required.


A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project, in conjunction with related projects, would not result in significant cumulative cultural resources impacts.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. Due to the high sensitivity of the deeper formations below and around the project site, deep excavation activities associated with other future projects would also have the potential to impact unknown paleontological resources. Thus, a potentially significant cumulative impact could occur. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-F would reduce any impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level by requiring a paleontological mitigation and monitoring program. Further, all future projects would be required to comply with all applicable state, federal, and local regulations related to cultural resources. Prior to issuance of a building and/or grading permit, other future development projects will be required to demonstrate that the project includes adequate measures to mitigate potentially significant impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental effect, together with the effects of related projects, would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.


A potentially significant cumulative impact to Tribal cultural resources would occur if other future projects would impact known and/or unknown Tribal cultural resources during project construction. Tribal consultation was conducted for the proposed project and no known Tribal resources were identified. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental effect, together with the effects of related projects, would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts to Tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no significant cumulative impacts associated with cultural resources have been identified.

3.4.4 Geology and Soils

3.4.4.1 Ground Failure

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving seismic and non-seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, subsidence, or collapse. This impact would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The proposed project site and surrounding area are developed and characterized by flat topography. In addition, according to the Seismic Hazard Zone Map, the proposed project site and vicinity are not designated as a potential earthquake-induced landslide area. Therefore, no impact from on- or off-site landslides would occur.

The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix F of the GRIP Recycled Water Project Final EIR) determined that the subsurface soils below the historic high groundwater of 5 feet below the ground surface are susceptible to liquefaction during an anticipated seismic event (Ninyo & Moore, 2014). Granular soil layers up to a depth of approximately 24 feet could liquefy during a seismic event. Liquefaction-induced ground settlement is estimated to be approximately 5.5 inches; differential settlement is estimated to be approximately 3 inches over a horizontal distance of 40 feet; and seismically-induced lateral spread is estimated to be approximately 4 feet. As a result, impacts associated with liquefaction-induced ground settlement and lateral spreading during a seismic event would be likely to occur.

The proposed project components would include three storage wells and three monitoring wells. Because wells are relatively narrow vertical structures, damage from the settling that could occur due to liquefaction or other ground failures would be minimal, if any. The settlement would be anticipated to occur in about the upper 24 feet, while the surface sanitary seal of the well would be to a depth of about 550 feet below the ground surface. The wells would have surface concrete well pads to protect the well head and provide access. In the event that liquefaction resulted in damage to the well pads, the damage would be surficial in nature and could easily be repaired or the pads replaced. The damage would not present risks to people or other structures. Therefore, impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.


The proposed project components would include about 750 feet of 36-inch-diameter water conveyance pipes that would be buried along the east and north portions of the property. In the event that seismically-induced liquefaction or other ground failures resulted in differential ground settlement that damaged or broke the pipes, the impact would cause a shutdown of the pumping system to the storage wells with a short-term loss of some treated water. However, the loss of treated water would be mostly to the subsurface with some possible minor onsite surface flooding. The repair of the pipes would be relatively easy, involving excavating around the pipes to find and replace damaged sections. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Further, development of the AWTF and the Administrative Learning Center on the project site would also be exposed to the same ground failure risks as the proposed project; however, the AWTF and the Administrative Learning Center would be constructed in compliance with the California Building Code and the Uniform Building Code to ensure all buildings are structurally sound. Therefore, all water infrastructure and buildings on the project site would be constructed in compliance with all applicable codes and incremental effects related to ground failure hazards on the proposed project site would be less than significant.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving seismic and non-seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, subsidence, or collapse, no mitigation measures are required.


A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project, in conjunction with the related projects, would not have a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. Geologic hazards are generally site specific and are not cumulative in nature. Potential impacts related to geologic hazards associated with the proposed project are not additive with other projects and are therefore not cumulatively significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to seismic and non-seismic ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, subsidence or collapse. Further, similar to the proposed project, all cumulative development projects would be required to comply with all applicable standards and regulations, including the Uniform Building Code and the California Building Code, to ensure all projects are structurally sound. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects, would not result in cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no significant cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils have been identified.


3.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy

3.4.5.1 Project Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly. The impact would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. Construction-related GHG emissions would be generated by vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, haul trips, material delivery trips, and construction worker drips. The SCAQMD recommends that construction-related GHG emissions be amortized and compared to the thresholds of significance with operational GHG emissions. Operational GHG emissions may be both direct and indirect and would be generated by area, mobile, and stationary sources. The GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project involves the use of electricity to operate the storage and monitoring wells, and therefore indirect GHG emissions could be generated by the proposed project. However, given that the storage wells would operate for a minimum of three months per year and would operate instead of the system that conveys recycled water to the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds, the change in operational energy use when considering the proposed project together with the GRIP Recycled Water Project and Administrative Learning Center Project would be negligible, if any. As a result, the proposed project would not change the operational emissions assessed in the GRIP Recycled Water Project Final EIR and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project.

Construction-generated GHG emissions for the proposed project were quantified using CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. The project-related amortized construction GHG emissions for the proposed project were estimated at 6 MT CO2e per year. When considered together with the GRIP Recycled Water Project and Administrative Learning Center Project, annual operational and amortized construction GHG emissions were estimated at 4,291 MT CO2e per year, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year. In addition, although electricity consumption rises as the complexity of the recycled water processes increases, the production and use of recycled water is more energy efficient than imported water. Similar to the analysis presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project, the proposed project would not generate significant GHG emissions. Therefore impacts would be less than significant. .

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no significant impacts associated with GHG emissions have been identified.

3.4.5.2 Consistency with an Applicable Air Quality Plan

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The impact would be less than significant.


B. Facts in Support of Finding. None of the measures listed in the AB 32 Scoping Plan relate directly to construction activities. The Scoping Plan includes some measures that would indirectly address GHG emissions levels associated with construction activity, such as the phasing in of cleaner technology for diesel engine fleets (including construction equipment) and the development of a low-carbon fuel standard. However, successful implementation of these measures depends primarily on the development of laws and policies at the State level. It is assumed that those policies formulated under the mandate of AB 32 that apply to construction-related activity, either directly or indirectly, would be implemented during construction of the proposed project, if those policies and laws were in fact developed and adopted before the start of proposed project construction. Similar to the proposed project, the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Administrative Learning Center Project would also be required to abide by policies formulated under the mandate of AB 32, if the policies and laws were adopted before project construction. Therefore when considering the proposed project as a supplemental action under the GRIP Recycled Water Project, along with the Administrative Learning Center Project, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Construction emissions would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

The GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project would result in a negligible increase in energy consumption, if any, and thus would not result in additional indirect operational emissions. The Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project include detailed discussion related to consistency with GHG reduction plans. Those documents concluded that there would not be significant impacts related to this issue. The proposed project would be operational for a minimum of three months a year and, due to the nature of this type of water infrastructure, there is no potential for the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project to generate direct operational emissions that would interfere with GHG reduction plans. Similar to the analysis presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. In addition, when considered together, the GRIP Recycled Water Project, Administrative Learning Center Project, and Supplemental Recharge Wells Project also would not result in cumulative impacts that would conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no significant impact associated with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions has been identified.

3.4.5.3 Energy Consumption

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The impact would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. During construction, the proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker


commute vehicles, construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. Despite the increase in energy demand during construction, adherence with local, state, and federal regulations, which limit engine idling times and require recycling of construction debris, would reduce short-term energy demand. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy and impacts would be less than significant.

As described in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project, although electricity consumption rises as the complexity of the recycled water processes increases, the local production and use of recycled water is more energy efficient than imported water. That is, the energy used to produce recycled water at the AWTF would be less than the energy required import the same amount of water. Given this net decrease in energy consumption associated with the production of recycled water at the AWTF, the small amount of energy required to operate the proposed storage wells would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Similar to the analyses presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project, the proposed project’s operational activity would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to energy consumption. Operation of all three projects together also would not result in cumulative energy consumption that would be wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no significant impacts associated with wasteful or inefficient energy consumption have been identified.


A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project, in conjunction with the related projects, would not result in a significant cumulative GHG or energy impact.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. GHG emissions and impacts to climate change due to energy use are inherently cumulative. GHG emissions affect global concentrations and the climate system and small contributions to this cumulative impact of global climate change may be potentially significant. Therefore, the analysis of the environmental effects of GHG emissions and energy use and conservation as a result of the proposed project is a cumulative impact analysis. Construction and operational GHG emissions of the proposed project and impacts related to energy use and conservation would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with the related cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant contribution to GHG emissions or energy impacts.

Additionally, the concurrent construction and operation of the GRIP Recycled Water Project components would not generate significant GHG emissions or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Further, the concurrent construction and operation of the GRIP Recycled Water Project components would not result in cumulative energy consumption that would be wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary. Therefore, construction and operation of the GRIP Recycled


Water Project would not result in incremental effects related to GHG emissions and energy that would be cumulatively considerable.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no significant cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions or energy impacts have been identified.

3.4.6 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Groundwater

3.4.6.1 Water Quality

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The impact would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The construction activities for well construction and pipe installation would be subject to the state Construction General Permit and the required NPDES permit and associated storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) requirements for the GRIP Recycled Water Project, resulting in a less than significant impact. Construction activities for the Administrative Learning Center also would be included in those requirements, resulting in less than significant incremental effects when considering all three components of the GRIP Recycled Water Project.

The drilling, development, and initial testing of the storage wells and monitoring wells would result in the generation of water. The inappropriate handling of this water could adversely impact water quality if released to waterways such as the nearby San Gabriel River. Water produced during drilling, development, and initial testing of the storage wells and monitoring wells would be discharged to temporary onsite settling tanks (Baker tanks). Once the solids have settled to acceptable levels, the water would be discharged to the San Gabriel River and would require an NPDES permit that would be required to comply with the water quality requirements of the Basin Plan. Water produced during routine testing and maintenance of the storage wells would be conveyed back to the GRIP AWTF for re-treatment. With this management of the water, the impact would be less than significant.

The proposed project would replenish groundwater supplies by injecting up to 1,260 AFY of Full Advanced Treated recycled water into the Silverado and Sunnyside Aquifers in the Central Basin. The proposed project does not include groundwater extraction. The addition of the injected water could change the existing groundwater quality and violate water quality standards by degrading the existing water quality of groundwater or adversely impacting the water quality of nearby production wells. The expected average concentrations of chemicals in the Full Advanced Treated recycled water are in most cases below laboratory reporting limits, and in all cases, lower than the minimum existing concentrations of chemicals in groundwater with the sole exception of boron. For boron, the expected average concentration of 0.28 mg/L of boron in the Full Advanced Treated recycled water is below the existing maximum boron concentration of 1.3 mg/L in groundwater and orders of magnitude below the Notification Level and RWQCB’s Basin Management Objective for the Central Basin of 1,000 mg/L. Therefore, the water quality


of the Full Advanced Treated recycled water would not adversely impact the water quality of the groundwater, and the impact would be less than significant.

The DDW requires that the travel (retention) time from the location of injected water to the nearest production wells within the same aquifer be a minimum of 2 months and provides the requirements for various retention time methods. The project model estimated retention times for potential operating scenarios to be 6 or more months. Applying the DDW retention time credit results in a conservative 3 month retention time, which would comply with the DDW minimum 2 month retention time; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

The State Recycled Water Policy requires local entities to develop a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan to support the permitting of new recycled water projects, while managing salts and nutrients basin-wide. Part of the purpose of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan is to identify sustainable measures to manage the salt and nutrient loading to the basin. The GRIP Recycled Water Project is specifically designed to improve the water quality of the basin. As listed in Table 3.6-5 of the Final SEIR, the water quality of the Fully Advanced Treated recycled water to be injected into the Silverado and Sunnyside Aquifers is better than the existing water quality of the groundwater. The project would enable the injection of this higher quality water into the basin during winter months that would otherwise be discharged to the river, resulting in a beneficial impact to basin groundwater.

When considered together with the GRIP Recycled Water Project and Administrative Learning Center, there would be no cumulative adverse impacts to water quality. Operation of the Administrative Learning Center would have no affect groundwater quality. Operation of the GRIP Recycled Water Project would similarly recharge the same Full Advanced Treated recycled water at the Montebello Forebay Spreading Ground. The recycled water quality would be better than the existing water quality of the groundwater, similar to the proposed project. Together the three component GRIP projects would have a beneficial impact to the water quality of the groundwater basin.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no significant impacts associated with water quality have been identified.

3.4.6.2 Groundwater Supply

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No impact would occur.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. Construction activities would require water for dust control during demolition, grading, and construction activities. This would be the case for the proposed project, the GRIP Recycled Water Project, and the Administrative Learning Center Project. Water for these activities would be supplied from existing water connections or would be transported in trucks from an offsite source. As such, there would


be no impact to local groundwater supplies, groundwater recharge, and groundwater levels during construction of the proposed project.

The project would replenish groundwater supplies by providing up to 1,260 AFY of Full Advanced Treated recycled water to the Silverado and Sunnyside Aquifers in the Central Basin. The project does not include groundwater extraction. Water levels and production rates in nearby wells would not decrease because groundwater is being added to the aquifers. Therefore, there would be no impact related to depletion of groundwater supplies or lowering of water levels.

When considering the project’s hardscaped well vaults, small size of the well vaults, and narrow underground piping; there would be no cumulative interference to recharge of subsurface aquifers due to the addition of impervious surfaces. The Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project concluded that there would be a net decrease of hardscape at the AWTF site, including the footprint of the Administrative Learning Center. The proposed project would not substantially change this conclusion. Therefore, the three component GRIP projects would not introduce new hardscape that would interfere with recharge of subsurface aquifers.

The project would consist of injecting 1,260 AFY of Full Advanced Treated recycled water into the Silverado and Sunnyside Aquifers. In the event that the water quality of the injected water is incompatible with the existing groundwater quality or aquifer materials, the injection of the treated water could result in the precipitation of new minerals that could reduce the permeability of the aquifer materials and interfere with aquifer recharge. As indicated by the water chemistry of the two aquifers, the Full Advanced Treated recycled water is less mineralized than the groundwater, having a pH range of 7 to 8 that is near neutral (7.0) and within the range of the existing groundwater quality. Therefore, it is unlikely that the recycled water would cause the precipitation of minerals that could clog the porosity of the aquifer materials, and therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

The same Full Advanced Treated recycled water would be recharged at the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds as part of the GRIP Recycled Water Project. Therefore, recharge of the same recycled water at the spreading grounds similarly would not clog the porosity of the aquifer materials. When considering together the recharge of Full Advanced Treated recycled water at both the spreading grounds and the storage wells, there would be no cumulative potential to interfere with groundwater recharge. The Administrative Learning Center would have no incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to groundwater recharge.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no significant impacts associated with groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge have been identified.


A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures. The proposed project, in conjunction with related projects, would not result in a cumulative hydrology, water quality, and groundwater impact with the incorporation of Mitigation


Measures GW-Q3 through GW-Q6 from WRD’s Groundwater Basin Master Plan Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to surface water quality is the San Gabriel River Watershed. Other related projects within the San Gabriel River Watershed could potentially discharge untreated stormwater into nearby receiving waters, which could increase the amount of pollutants within the watershed and cause a cumulative surface water quality impact. The proposed project would be required to comply with the state Construction General Permit and the NPDES permit and associated SWPPP requirements. These requirements include implementation of BMPs to minimize the release of sediment and pollutants from the project site. Further, the proposed project would retain water generated during well drilling activities in on-site settling tanks before discharging the water to the San Gabriel River. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to surface water quality. Similar to the proposed project, future projects would also be required to comply with the state Construction General Permit and the NPDES permit and associated SWPPP requirements, which requires the incorporation of BMPs. Therefore, a cumulative impact associated to surface water quality would not occur within the watershed, due to compliance with all applicable regulations and requirements related to storm water runoff.

The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to groundwater quality and supply are the Silverado and Sunnyside Aquifers in the Central Basin. The related projects that affect cumulative groundwater quality and supply are described in WRD’s Groundwater Basins Master Plan (GBMP) and evaluated in the GBMP Draft Program EIR. The GRIP project has already been included in the assessment of cumulative effects to groundwater as part of the GBMP. In addition to the projects identified by WRD in the GBMP, other projects initiated by local agencies could be introduced that would alter groundwater quality or levels, such as storm water retention projects, or the increased use of recycled water, or localized land use changes that could change water demand patterns throughout the WRD service area. These local actions would contribute to cumulative impacts.

It was determined that implementation of Mitigation Measures GW-Q3 through GW-Q6 would ensure the GBMP (including GRIP) does not have a significant cumulative impact to groundwater quality. The proposed project has been designed to include a pre-operational monitoring program and tracer test, an operational monitoring program, and a reporting program to satisfy the requirements of Mitigation Measures GW-Q3, GW-Q4, GW-Q5, and GW-Q6 and the regulatory requirements for GRRPs. As a result, the proposed project would not have a significant impact to groundwater quality, and impacts to groundwater quality would not be cumulatively considerable.

C. Mitigation Measures. To ensure that the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project would not have a significant incrementally cumulative impact to groundwater quality, the following mitigation measures from the Draft Program EIR for the GBMP are applicable to the proposed project:


GW-Q3: In the event that groundwater monitoring detects elevated concentrations of TDS, wastewater indicator contaminants, naturally occurring contaminants, or other legacy contaminants, WRD and the Watermaster Storage Panel shall ensure that implementing agencies coordinate measures to protect drinking water quality that could include AWT system modifications, injection system modifications, production wellhead treatment, blending of injection water with other water sources, production well relocation, or provision of alternative water supplies to the affected water purveyor.

GW-Q4: WRD and the Watermaster Storage Panel shall ensure that implementing agencies monitor travel times between injection locations and production wells as required by the RWQCB. If monitoring determines that retention times are insufficient to meet permit requirements, WRD and the Watermaster Storage Panels shall coordinate with implementing agencies to inactivate affected wells until recharge activities can be managed to restore appropriate retention times.

GW-Q5: WRD shall continue to conduct groundwater quality monitoring near the MFSG and ABP. Monitored constituents shall include, but not be limited to, those required by the RWQCB recycled water permits including TDS, metals, and wastewater indicator constituents. The monitoring results will be made publically available.

GW-Q6: WRD and the Watermaster Storage Panel shall require that future groundwater recharge projects are designed with groundwater monitoring capabilities sufficient to evaluate water quality in proximity to the recharge areas. The groundwater monitoring program will be approved by the RWQCB or SWRCB DDW.

3.4.7 Noise

3.4.7.1 Compatibility with Noise Plans, Policies, or Ordinances

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures. Construction activity, although temporary, would expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of applicable standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-A, impacts would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between the noise source and receptor, and presence or absence of noise attenuation barriers. Construction of the proposed project would not occur during the most intensive phase of construction of the AWTF and the Administrative Learning Center, which is the site preparation phase, but rather would commence once the site preparation phase has been completed.


The primary source of noise associated with construction of the wells would be generated by the drill. Drilling associated with each well would not overlap, although drilling activity would occur concurrently with other construction activity associated with the GRIP Recycled Water Project and Administrative Learning Center Project. Daytime drilling activities associated with the proposed project would contribute to the unmitigated significant impact identified in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project. In addition, nighttime noise associated with drilling at the AWTF site and offsite monitoring well location would increase nighttime noise levels at nearby residential land uses, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the revised Mitigation Measure NOI-A would ensure that construction activity, including nighttime construction, would not increase noise levels by more than 5 dBA. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The proposed project includes operation of the supplemental storage and monitoring wells. WRD may perform additional sampling or analyses at its discretion to assess the effectiveness of its supplemental groundwater recharge operations. Similar to the analysis presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project, operational noise associated with implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the threshold established in the City’s Noise Element and impacts would be less than significant. Further, the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center determined that operational noise levels associated with those two components would not exceed noise thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, due to the nature of the type of infrastructure proposed for the project site, concurrent operation of the GRIP Recycled Water Project, Administrative Learning Center Project, and Supplemental Recharge Wells Project would not result in an incremental effect that would exceed noise thresholds.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since construction of the proposed project could lead to impacts associated with noise in excess of applicable standards, the following Mitigation Measure NOI-A shall be required to reduce those associated impacts to a less than significant level:

NOI-A: A Noise Control Plan shall be developed and implemented prior to construction that includes the following best management practices to minimize exposure to high levels of noise and ensure compliance with the Los Angeles County Noise Ordinance and/or City of Pico Rivera General Plan Noise Element, where applicable. Best management practices shall include, at a minimum, the following:

WRD shall establish a public liaison for project construction that shall be responsible for addressing public concerns about construction activities, including excessive noise.

The Noise Control Plan shall depict the location of construction equipment storage and maintenance areas.

The construction contractor shall keep equipment properly maintained and outfitted with mufflers and other suitable noise attenuation devices.


The construction contractor shall limit construction operations to exempt hours, except when necessary for drilling.

The construction contractor shall use rubber-tired equipment rather than track equipment, when construction activities and scheduling allow.

The construction contractor shall turn off noise-generating equipment when not in use.

The construction contractor shall ensure that all stockpiling and vehicle staging areas are located away from noise-sensitive land uses.

The construction contractor shall 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 all equipment shall be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation.

The construction contractor shall develop a construction schedule to ensure that activity shall be completed quickly to minimize the time noise-sensitive land uses that would be exposed to construction noise.

The construction contractor shall prohibit gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust.

The construction contractor shall use electric- and hydraulic-powered rather than diesel and pneumatic powered equipment when power requirements can be equally obtained.

Prior to construction work, residences, businesses, and other properties located in proximity to the project site shall be notified of the location and dates of construction.

Haul routes shall be on major arterial roads within non-residential areas.

Portable acoustic panels shall be installed between the construction zone and sensitive land uses, including at least a 6-foot sound wall along the perimeter of the project site along San Gabriel River Parkway.

Drilling areas shall be surrounded by at least 10-foot walls constructed of acoustic panels that are capable of reducing construction noise by at least 26 dBA.

If there is a community noise complaint, construction activity shall be halted and ambient noise levels at the potentially impacted land use shall be recorded with and


without construction activity. Those required BMPs should reduce construction noise to no more than 5 dBA over ambient noise levels without construction activity. If the ambient noise level increases are not reduced to that level, additional noise control measures shall be implemented. Additional noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Additional equipment muffling beyond standard mufflers shall be implemented on all construction equipment.

Noise monitoring at affected sensitive land uses shall be completed with and without construction activity to demonstrate that construction activity would increase ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA.

3.4.7.2 Exceed Vibration Levels

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not generate vibration levels that would expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The impact would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. Construction activity can generate varying degrees of vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, and to slight damage at the highest levels. Vibration dissipates rapidly with distance. The proposed project includes five drilling locations on the AWTF site and the one drilling location off-site. Drilling would generate vibration levels similar to a large bulldozer. Similar to the analysis presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project, vibration associated with construction of the proposed project would not exceed the FTA vibration threshold and impacts would be less than significant.

Long-term operation of the proposed project would include operation of the storage wells and periodic sampling at the monitoring wells to assess the effectiveness of its supplemental groundwater recharge operations. These activities would not use mechanical equipment that would generate substantial vibration. Similar to the analysis presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project, vibration levels associated with operation and maintenance would not be perceptible at the property line. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

C. Mitigation Measures. Although vibrational impacts have been determined to be less than significant, Mitigation Measure NOI-B would apply in the event of a community complaint related to vibration:

NOI-B: If a community complaint regarding vibration levels generated from construction and drilling activities is received, vibration monitoring will be conducted


during drilling of the storage and monitoring wells within 500 feet of sensitive receptors to determine if the vibration threshold of 72 Vdb has been exceeded. In the event the threshold has been exceeded, WRD will explore other drilling methods or other vibration control measures.

3.4.7.3 Increased Ambient Noise Levels

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. The impact would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The proposed project includes the operation of supplemental storage wells and periodic sampling at the monitoring wells. The storage wells would be operated using electric power and would not generate noise loud enough to be audible beyond the AWTF property boundary. WRD would perform water quality sampling at the monitoring wells to assess the effectiveness of its supplemental groundwater recharge operations. Sampling activities would not include mechanical equipment that would generate audible noise. Similar to the analysis presented in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project, operation of the proposed project would not exceed operational noise thresholds, even while operating concurrently with the GRIP Recycled Water Project and Administrative Learning Center Project; impacts would be less than significant.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no impacts associated with operational ambient noise levels have been identified.

3.4.7.4 Increased Temporary Noise Levels

A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures. Construction of the proposed project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-A, impacts would be less than significant.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. Drilling activities at the AWTF site and the off-site monitoring well would contribute additional noise to the unmitigated significant noise impact identified in the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center Project. In addition, nighttime noise associated with drilling at the AWTF site and off site monitoring well location would increase nighttime noise levels at nearby residential land uses by more than 5 dBA resulting in a potentially significant impact.

The revised Mitigation Measure NOI-A would account for and minimize daytime and nighttime noise levels associated with drilling activities. The revised mitigation measure would require the drilling areas to be surrounded by at least 10-foot walls constructed of acoustic panels that are capable of reducing construction noise by at least 26 dBA. Implementation of revised Mitigation Measure NOI-A would ensure that construction activity, including nighttime construction, would not increase noise levels by more than 5


dBA. Therefore, impacts related to temporary increases in existing ambient noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

C. Mitigation Measures. Since the proposed project could lead to impacts associated with construction-related ambient noise levels, Mitigation Measure NOI-A shall be required to reduce those associated impacts to a less than significant level.


A. Finding – Less Than Significant Impact. The project, in conjunction with related projects, would not lead to significant cumulative noise impacts.

B. Facts in Support of Finding. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts in regards to excessive noise levels include the approved or planned projects within the Cities of Pico Rivera, Montebello, Whittier, and Industry along with surrounding areas of Los Angeles County. These approved and planned projects would generate noise, which could increase ambient noise levels. Similar to the proposed project, all future development projects would be subject to state and local regulations related to noise and vibration. Construction of the proposed project, which includes nighttime construction, would increase day and nighttime noise levels by more than 5 dBA, which would result in potentially significant noise impacts. However, mitigation measure NOI-A from the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project has been revised to account for nighttime noise associated with the drilling activities of the wells. Implementation of NOI-A, which requires a Noise Control Plan, would reduce impacts associated with excess noise to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable contribution related to excess noise levels.

Further, the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center determined that operational noise levels associated with those two components would not exceed noise thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, due to the nature of the type of infrastructure proposed for the project site, concurrent operation of the AWTF, Administrative Learning Center Project, and Supplemental Recharge Wells Project would not result in an incremental effect that would be cumulatively considerable.

The geographic area of cumulative impacts that would be considered for vibration cumulative analysis would be limited to projects within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. Two cumulative projects are located within the proposed project site, which includes the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Administrative Learning Center Project, and will be constructed at the same time as the proposed project. While these projects will require heavy construction equipment, the Final EIR for the GRIP Recycled Water Project and the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Administrative Learning Center concluded that vibrational impacts during construction would be less than significant. However, with all three projects being constructed concurrently on the same site, a cumulative impact could occur if the proposed project, combined with the other two projects, would exceed the vibration significance criteria established by the FTA at existing sensitive receptors.


Construction of the proposed project would not exceed the FTA significance criteria for vibration at existing sensitive receptors. Construction of the proposed project would only occur at the six specific well locations spread out over the proposed project site. Therefore, it is unlikely that vibration from drilling activities and construction of the other two projects would be in close enough proximity to combine to exceed vibration criteria at the nearest sensitive receptor. Thus, no significant cumulative impact related to construction vibration would occur. The vibration impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.

C. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required, as no significant cumulative impacts associated with noise have been identified.

3.5 Other CEQA Findings

3.5.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes

The construction of the proposed project would result in the use of nonrenewable resources, including fossil fuels, natural gas, and building materials, such as concrete. However, the proposed project does not represent an uncommon construction project that uses an extraordinary amount of raw material in comparison to other development projects of similar scope and magnitude. The proposed project would incorporate energy efficiency features where feasible in accordance with Title 24 standards. The proposed project would operate a minimum of three months per year on average when the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds are operating at full capacity and are unavailable. Thus, the operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to consume substantial amounts of energy in a wasteful manner. No significant irreversible environmental changes would result from the proposed project.

3.5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts

3.5.2.1 Removal of an Impediment to Growth

The proposed project would not indirectly induce population growth in the region by removing an obstacle to growth, such as wastewater treatment capacity or water supply. As a component of the GRIP Recycled Water Project, the proposed project involves offsetting imported water supplies with recycled water supplies for groundwater replenishment. As an offset to replenishment supplies, the proposed project would not involve an increase in overall water supplies. The addition of the proposed storage wells does not affect the recharge capacity of the GRIP Recycled Water Project, but rather provides an alternative method for recharging the recycled water produced at the AWTF. The proposed project would allow for groundwater replenishment to support existing adjudicated pumping rights in the Central Basin and would not create new or additional water supplies in the basin.

Similar to conclusions regarding growth inducement for the GRIP Recycled Water Project (AECOM, 2015) and the Groundwater Basins Master Plan (ESA, 2015), the proposed project would not result in the removal of a physical impediment to growth and would not indirectly induce growth.


3.5.2.2 Population Growth

Project construction would provide demand for various construction trade skills and labor, which would require approximately three to five additional construction workers onsite to drill the storage wells and monitoring wells. Based on the size and duration of construction, it is anticipated that the proposed project would draw construction workers from the labor force within the region and would not require importation of a substantial number of workers that would cause an increased demand from temporary or permanent housing within the city. The proposed project does not propose to construct new housing and would not create significant additional employment opportunities within the city. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase population growth or demand for housing within the region.

3.5.2.3 Economic Growth

Construction of the proposed project would provide short-term employment opportunity for approximately three to five additional construction workers. Once constructed, WRD expects to operate the storage wells for a minimum of 3months per year on average, primarily during periods when AWTF product water cannot be recharged at the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds. It is anticipated that no additional WRD staff, relative the GRIP Recycled Water Project staff, would be required to operate and provide testing and maintenance for the storage and monitoring wells. Therefore, the proposed project would only generate short-term employment opportunities during construction. The additional economic activity during construction of the proposed project would be negligible compared to the economic growth of the greater Los Angeles region. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial economic growth.

3.6 Project Alternatives

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, alternatives to the proposed project were considered that could mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project while still achieving the primary objectives of the project. The proposed project was found to result in significant environmental impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, and noise during the construction phase and cumulative groundwater resources during the project operation. Yet impacts to all those issue areas would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed project’s objectives are to:

1. Provide a sustainable and reliable source of recycled water for groundwater basin replenishment via the Montebello Forebay.

2. Implement a cost-effective and environmentally compliant project.

3. Protect the groundwater quality of the basin.

4. Comply with regulatory requirements employing an institutionally feasible approach.

5. Provide up to 21,000 AFY of recycled water for groundwater replenishment consistent with current and future needs.


3.6.1 Proposed Project Alternatives

The Groundwater Basin Master Plan (GBMP) includes twelve replenishment projects in the Central Basin, including three projects that would use new storage wells at the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds (MFSG) for recharge of recycled water. The programmatic analysis of these three injection well projects provides a range of possible alternatives to the proposed project as they would also accomplish the primary objective of providing alternative water infrastructure to inject recycled water into the groundwater aquifer. However, Project C8 was identified as the appropriate alternative to the proposed project as Project C8 would also use recycled water produced at the San Jose Creek WRP while other projects would use recycled water produced at the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant. Therefore, Project C8 and the No Project Alternative were considered in detail as reasonable alternatives to the proposed project.

3.6.1.1 Location Alternative- GBMP Project C8

Project C8 as described in the GBMP is similar to the proposed GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project, albeit conceptualized at a programmatic level. Project C8 includes new advanced treatment facilities at or around the San Jose Creek WRP to produce up to 8,690 AFY of advanced treated recycled water that would be conveyed through existing pipelines to new storage wells in the vicinity of the MFSG. The potential preliminary locations of these wells were shown along Rosemead Boulevard in the city of Pico Rivera, between the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel spreading grounds (which together comprise the MFSG). The storage wells associated with the proposed project would be located approximately 1.6 miles to the northeast.

This alternative Project C8 would allow WRD to meet the objectives of the GRIP Recycled Water Project as described above. However, locating the storage wells along Rosemead Boulevard would require the acquisition of new property or easements somewhere in between the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel spreading grounds. Construction of wells in this area would result in additional construction-related impacts to noise, traffic, aesthetics, biological resources and cultural resources, among others. By co-locating the storage wells at the GRIP AWTF site, potential environmental impacts to such resources are reduced because the footprint of disturbance associated with the new wells is reduced. Therefore, alternative injection well locations such as those proposed under Project C8 would result in greater environmental impacts relative to the proposed project.

3.6.1.2 No Project Alternative

The No Project Alternative assumes that WRD would still implement the approved GRIP Recycled Water Project on the project site without the addition of the storage wells. Under the No Project Alternative, WRD would rely solely on conveying recycled water produced at the AWTF to the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds for infiltration into the groundwater basin. Further, if the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds would become unavailable to receive the recycled water produced at the AWTF, then the AWTF would have to scale back operations until the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds became available again. Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts related to cultural resources and geology and soils, as the proposed project as the construction of the other components of the GRIP Recycled Water Projects would still occur on the proposed project site and have the same potential to affect those resources. Additionally, implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in similar


impacts to hydrology and water quality as the same recycled water would be recharged into the groundwater basin with only the method of recharge changed (injection versus infiltration). Further, since the proposed project would not require significant operational activity or energy use, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts related to GHG and energy.

However, implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, and noise as the construction of the proposed storage wells would not occur. The proposed project would include nighttime construction activities, which would create nuisance nighttime light and noise impacts to surrounding residential land uses; however, without including construction activities associated with the storage and monitoring wells, the other components of the GRIP Recycled Water Project would not require nighttime construction. Thus, impacts would be reduced under the No Project Alternative.

With construction of the different components of the GRIP Recycled Project occurring concurrently on the same project site, the addition of the 24/7 drilling activities associated with the proposed project would cause WRD to utilize construction equipment that meets at least Tier 4 standards to mitigate a significant air quality impact. However, without the GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project, all other construction equipment would only be required to meet at least a Tier 3 to reduce air quality impacts. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative air quality impacts would be reduced.

While the No Project Alternative would achieve the majority of the Project Objectives, the No Project Alternative would only partially meet objective three as it would be less cost effective for WRD to scale back operation of the AWTF when the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds are not available. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not achieve all the project objectives.

3.6.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative

In accordance with CEQA, an environmentally superior alternative shall be identified. The No Project Alternative would meet most of the project objectives and would result in slightly fewer impacts as compared to the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not provide alternate water infrastructure to inject the recycled water produced at the AWTF into the groundwater aquifer when the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds are not available. Further, under the No Project Alternative, the GRIP Recycled Water Project would not be operating at the highest cost efficiency, and the AWTF operations would have to be scaled back at times when the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds were unavailable. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not achieve all project objectives. Nevertheless, the No Project Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because it would result in reduced impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, and noise.

As mentioned in Section 6.1.2, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Thus, WRD has determined that the proposed GRIP Supplemental Recharge Wells Project is the environmentally superior and preferred alternative, since the Location Alternative would result in slightly greater construction-related environmental impacts.


RESOLUTION NO. 16-1036

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE

GROUNDWATER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (GRIP) SUPPLEMENTAL RECHARGE WELLS PROJECT.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Water Code Section 60220 et seq., the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (“District”) may engage in any act necessary to replenish the groundwater, and to protect water quality; and

WHEREAS, the District desires to address current groundwater management

issues through development of solutions to more effectively manage the water supply in the groundwater basins; and

WHEREAS, reuse of recycled water would offset imported water use for

replenishment and mitigate long-term effects of over-pumping the groundwater basin; and

WHEREAS, the District’s Water Independence Now (WIN) initiative seeks to fully

eliminate the demand of replenishment water taken from Northern California and the Colorado River through the development of local resources of recycled water; stormwater capture and self-sustaining groundwater basins; and

WHEREAS, the Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program (GRIP) Recycled

Water Project is the cornerstone of the District’s WIN program, which consists of the construction and operation of a new advanced water treatment facility (AWTF); and

WHEREAS, the GRIP AWTF will offset the current use of 21,000 acre-feet per

year (AFY) of imported water with the combined use of 11,000 AFY of tertiary treated and 10,000 AFY of advanced water treatment recycled water for groundwater replenishment at the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds; and

WHEREAS, in June 2015 the District certified a Final Environmental Impact

Report for the GRIP AWTF, adopted findings concluding the GRIP AWTF would not lead to a significant effect on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures, and approved development and operation of the GRIP AWTF.

WHEREAS, the Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program (GRIP) Supplemental Recharge Wells Project (Project) is a component of the GRIP Recycled Water Project, which consists of the construction and operation of three storage wells and three monitoring wells at and near the GRIP Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF) site; and

WHEREAS, the Project will allow the District to continue to operate the GRIP

AWTF at a constant (minimum) rate by injecting approximately 1.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of Full Advanced Treated recycled water at each well during periods when the Montebello Forebay Spreading Grounds are unavailable; and

WHEREAS, the District is acting as the lead agency, which has the principal

responsibility for approving the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is responsible for the preparation of environmental documents. The District prepared the April 2016 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) in accordance with Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq. The Draft SEIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts that would occur as a result of the Project with implementation of mitigation measures; and

WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016 the District sent a Notice of Proposed Project Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (“AB 52”) to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation; and

WHEREAS, on February 29, 2016 the District filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP)

with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Clerk’s office, to notify agencies and interested parties that it was preparing to circulate the Draft SEIR for the proposed Project, thus initiating a 30-day public review and comment period; and

WHEREAS, the District distributed the NOP to approximately 31 public agencies, 45 surrounding residents and businesses and made available in three public libraries in proximity to the new alternative project site;

WHEREAS, the District received six comments on the NOP which were

considered in determining the scope of the issues to be addressed in the Draft SEIR; and

WHEREAS, on April 13, 2016, the District filed a Notice of Availability (NOA) with

the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Clerk’s office; accordingly, the Draft SEIR was circulated for review and comment for a 45-day period, beginning on April 13, 2016 and ending on May 27, 2016; in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines,

WHEREAS, the District published the NOA in the local newspaper, the Whittier

Daily News, distributed to approximately 31 public agencies, 45 surrounding residents and businesses and made available in three public libraries in proximity to the new alternative project site; and

WHEREAS, the District received and responded to four comments on the Draft

SEIR and determined that none of the comments received identified any issues that necessitated any significant change or revision to the Draft SEIR. Written responses to each of those comments were prepared and incorporated into the Final SEIR for the Project, which is comprised of the Draft SEIR and the responses to comments (Final SEIR) ; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WATER

REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The District finds that on the basis of the entire record that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures and adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit A; and

2. The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the District; and

3. The Final SEIR, on which the District’s decision is based, is available at the District’s office (4040 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712); and

4. The District considered all testimony and evidence concerning the Final SEIR

and the Project at a public meeting held on June 23, 2016, and, based on the entirety of the record, exercised its discretion to adopt the Final SEIR; and

5. The District adopts the Final SEIR for the Project and certifies that the Final SEIR

reflects proper assessment of environmental impacts of the Project, and that the environmental impacts of the Project will be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures; and

6. The District adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

described within the Final SEIR; and

7. The District will file a Notice of Determination with the Los Angeles County Clerk; and

8. The District approves the development and operation of the Project.

[RECORD OF THE VOTE AND SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd day of June 2016 by the following vote: AYES:

NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

__________________________ Willard H. Murray, J.R., President ATTEST: ____________________________ John D.S. Allen, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ H. Francisco Leal, Interim District Counsel

Page 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM

ITEM NO. 13

DATE: JUNE 23, 2016



SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA) SYSTEM INTEGRATOR TO PROVIDE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES

SUMMARY

Over the course of the past fifteen years, the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (“WRD”) has invested in the original Goldsworthy Desalter, and recently has completed the expansion of the Leo J. Vander Lans AWTF along with the construction of two new diversion structures at the San Gabriel Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds. The Goldsworthy Desalter is currently being expanded and is expected to be completed in early 2017. The Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program (GRIP) Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF) project is quickly accelerating following the recent award of the contract for design-build services to construct the AWTF facility. All of these facilities will be heavily dependent upon automation to reliably operate and monitor system performance. An extensive network of telemetering and instrumentation devices, and solid-state control system, including a human-machine-interface (HMI) will be designed, installed, and integrated as part of each of these projects. The term SCADA usually refers to centralized systems which monitor and control entire sites, or complexes of systems spread out over large areas. Most control actions are performed automatically by Remote Telemetering Units (RTUs) or by Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). For example, a PLC may control the flow of treated water through part of an advanced water treatment facility process, but the SCADA system may allow operators to change and/or monitor the set points for the flow, and enable alarm conditions, such as loss of flow and high pressure, to be displayed and recorded. The feedback control loop passes through the RTU or PLC, while the SCADA system monitors the overall performance of the loop. Data acquisition begins at the RTU or PLC level and includes meter readings and equipment status reports that are communicated to SCADA as required. Data is then compiled and formatted in such a way that a control room operator using the Human Machine Interface (HMI) can make supervisory decisions to adjust or override normal RTU (PLC) controls. Data may also be fed to a Historian, often built on a commodity Database Management System, to allow trending and other analytical auditing and/or reporting.

Page 2 of 2

The District has also recently embarked on the preparation of a SCADA system Master Plan effort to ensure that the expansion of the Goldsworthy Desalter and the SGCBSG diversion structures SCADA Systems were designed and integrated based upon a centralized master SCADA Control System standardized architecture. The Leo J. Vander Lans AWTF SCADA system will eventually be migrated into the new SCADA Control System architecture and centralized control strategy as will the GRIP AWTF. All of these SCADA systems will also be integrated/linked to the Centralized Information System being developed at the District’ offices in Lakewood The District now requires the services of a SCADA system integrator to provide technical expertise in provide ongoing assistance in the development, maintenance, and periodic upgrades and/or improvements to each of these SCADA systems. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. Following completion of the qualification based selection process, staff will return to the Capital Improvement Projects Committee and subsequently, the Board of Directors, with a SCADA system integrator (consultant) selection recommendation and negotiated scope of work, fee, and overall project schedule. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee will meet on June 23, 2016 and make a recommendation at the Board Meeting.

Page 1 of 1 Board Meeting, June 23, 2016

MEMORANDUM

ITEM NO. 14

DATE: JUNE 23, 2016



SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WRD AND THE CITY OF TORRANCE FOR GOLDSWORTHY DESALTER

SUMMARY On July 1, 2012, the District and the City of Torrance (City) entered into a Contract Services Agreement (Agreement) for the production of water by the Goldsworthy Desalter. The Agreement sets forth a pricing structure for the City to purchase product water from the District. The Agreement was for a two-year period through June 30, 2014 with an option, which was exercised, to extend the Agreement for two additional years through June 30, 2016.

The District and the City desire to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional year through June 30, 2017 by maintaining the current terms, conditions and water pricing structure of the Agreement. The term extension would allow sufficient time for the parties to develop a new pricing structure that reflects the true water production costs taking into accounts the operations and maintenance costs, the Desalter expansion project, water pumping rights, and District’s replenishment assessment fees. This item will be reviewed by the CIP Committee on June 23, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT None at this moment. CIP COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The CIP Committee will meet on June 23, 2016 and make a recommendation at the Board

meeting. Attachments: Amendment for time extension of Agreement.

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT

(C2016- 106) This Amendment to Agreement C2016-106 (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of July1, 2016 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF TORRANCE (“CITY”), a Municipal Corporation, and the WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a water replenishment district formed under division 18 of the California Water Code (“CONTRACTOR”) RECITALS:

A. The CITY and the CONTRACTOR entered into a Contract Services Agreement on July 1, 2012, whereby the CONTRACTOR agreed to provide the City with fully treated potable water derived from the Goldsworthy Desalter Project located the City Services Facility.

B. The Agreement was for a two year period of fiscal 2012-13 and fiscal 2013-14

with an option, which was exercised, to extend the Agreement for two additional years through June 30, 2016.

C. Both the CITY and the CONTRACTOR desire to extend the term of the Agreement through June 30, 2017 maintaining the current terms, conditions and water pricing structure of the Agreement.

AGREEMENT:

1. Paragraph 2, entitled “TERM” is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

2. TERM Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Paragraph 4 below, this Agreement will continue in full force and effect from the Effective Date through June 30, 2017 /// ///

2. In all respects the Agreement C2016-106 between the CITY and CONTRACTOR is ratified and reaffirmed as amended and remains in full force and effect.

CITY OF TORRNACE, WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT A municipal corporation OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA A Water Replenishment District formed

Under division 18 of the California Water Code

By: ______________________ By: __________________________ Patrick J. Furey, Mayor Willard H. Murray, Jr., President

Board of Directors ATTEST: By: __________________________ By: ________________________ Rebecca Poirier, MMC, City Clerk John D.S. Allen, Secretary Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM JOHN L. FELLOWS III City Attorney By: ________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM Leal Trejo APC Counsel to WRD By: ________________________

Documents

3:00 P.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2016 (OPEN SESSION MEETING ... · F. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54956.8: Agency negotiator: Assistant General