Mitigated Negative Declaration for Supplemental Water … · Negative Declaration ... Mitigated Negative Declaration ... SMWD is responsible for providing domestic and non-domestic

Mitigated Negative Declaration for

S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1

Santa Margarita Water District26111 Antonio Parkway

Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688

P R E P A R E D F O R :

605 Third StreetEncinitas, CA 92024

P R E P A R E D B Y :

Supplemental Water Lease

DRAFT

DRAFT

Supplemental Water Lease

Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared for:

Santa Margarita Water District 26111 Antonio Parkway

Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688 Contact: Daniel R. Ferons

Prepared by:

605 Third Street

Encinitas, California 92024

Contact: Elizabeth Doalson

SEPTEMBER 2011

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Supplemental Water Lease Mitigated Negative Declaration

7010 i September 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... III

1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Authority to prepare a

Negative Declaration .............................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Incorporation by Reference......................................................................... 2

1.3 Content and Format of Mitigated Negative Declaration......................................... 2

1.4 Public Review Process ............................................................................................ 3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................5

2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Project Description.................................................................................................. 5

2.2.1 Background ................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Project Characteristics .......................................................................................... 11

2.3.1 Project Construction.................................................................................. 15

2.3.2 Discretionary Actions ............................................................................... 17

3.0 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................19

4.0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...............................................23

I. Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 35

II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ......................................................................... 37

III. Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 41

IV. Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 46

V. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 53

VI. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 55

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 57

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 59

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 60

X. Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 64

XI. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 67

XII. Noise ..................................................................................................................... 68

XIII. Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 70

XIV. Public Services ...................................................................................................... 71

XV. Recreation ............................................................................................................. 72

XVI. Transportation and Traffic .................................................................................... 72


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page No.

7010 ii September 2011

XVII. Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................ 74

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 76

5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................79

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................85

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Regional Map .......................................................................................................................7

2 Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................9

3 Mutual Water Company Water Lease Infrastructure Components ....................................13

4 Important Farmland Designations......................................................................................39

5 MWC Water Lease Infrastructure Components with NCCP .............................................49

6 FEMA 100-year Floodplain ...............................................................................................65

LIST OF TABLES

1 Lease Amount of Supplemental Water (Riparian) by RMV for SMWD ..........................12

2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality

Significance Thresholds .....................................................................................................43


7010 iii September 2011

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym or Abbreviation Definition

Af/yr acre-feet of water per year

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

ATCM Airborne Toxics Control Measure

BRCP Biological Resources Construction Plan

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

CARB California Air Resources Board

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CO carbon monoxide

CRM Cultural Resources Management

CWRP Chiquita Water Reclamation Plant

CWTP Chiquita Water Treatment Plant

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report

GHG greenhouse gas emissions

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

HOA Home Owners Association

Lbs Pound

LOS level of service

MND Mitigated Negative Declaration

MSAA Master Streambed Alteration Agreement

MWC Mutual Water Company

NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan

NOx oxides of nitrogen

O3 ozone

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns

RMV Rancho Mission Viejo LLC

SAMP Special Area Management Plan

SCAB South Coast Air Basin

SCAG Southern California Association of Governments

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SMWD Santa Margarita Water District

SOx sulfur oxides

TAC toxic air contaminant

UWMP Urban Water Management Plan

VOCs volatile organic compounds

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan


7010 iv September 2011

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


7010 1 September 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Rancho Mission Viejo LLC (RMV) is forming a Mutual Water Company (MWC) to protect and

maintain the right of RMV land owners to use their riparian water following the subdivision of

riparian lands in the San Juan Watershed. The MWC will hold the riparian water rights of the

landowners and the landowners will have the right to take their proportionate share of the water

for their own use or to assign their allocation of water for use on riparian lands within the San

Juan Watershed. Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) desires to contract with RMV (acting

as agent of the landowner members of the MWC) for obtaining supplemental supply for certain

non-domestic water uses, primarily for irrigation on parcels. A portion of the leased water could

also be used during grading and construction activities for dust control, trench backfill, and

similar uses within the watershed.

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Authority to prepare a Negative Declaration

SMWD is the lead California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) agency for the review and

approval of the proposed project. Based on the findings of the Initial Study/Environmental

Checklist, the District has made the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)

is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA. As

provided for by CEQA Section 21064.5, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to

CEQA when an Initial Study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but

(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the Applicant before the

proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the

effects or mitigate the effects to appoint where clearly no significant effect on the environment

would occur; and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the

public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.

This draft MND has been prepared by the SMWD as the lead agency and is in conformance with

Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of the MND and the Initial Study

Checklist/Environmental Evaluation is to determine any potentially significant impacts associated

with the proposed project and to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design.



1.2.1 Incorporation by Reference

The following are incorporated by reference in this document according to the CEQA

Guidelines, Section 15150:

Ranch Plan Program EIR No. 589, County of Orange, November 8, 2004, SCH No.

2003021141 (FEIR No. 589)

Addendum No.1 to FEIR 589 – PA1 (PA06-0023), approved July 26, 2006.

Addendum to FEIR 584 and 589 of the Ranch Plan for Cow Camp Road and Ancillary

Infrastructure Improvements, IP 08-388, approved November 2008

Natural Community Conservation Plan/Master Streambed Alteration Agreement/

Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/MSAA/HCP) Joint Programmatic EIR/EIS, September

2006, SCH No. 2006061140

NCCP/MSAA/HCP and SAMP Guidelines and Procedures Manual for the Santa

Margarita Water District, July 2007.

These documents are available for review at SMWD Office, located at 26111 Antonio Parkway,

Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688.

Information from the Ranch Plan FEIR No. 589 relevant to the analysis in this MND includes

the discussion of the environmental setting and impacts associated with each of the

environmental issues discussed in Chapters 3 and 5. Information from the addendum relevant

to this MND includes the environmental setting and impacts associated with Cow Camp Road.

The NCCP/MSAA/HCP Joint Programmatic EIR/EIS is applicable to the proposed project in

relation to the existing conditions and environmental impact analysis associated with

Alternative B-12 (i.e., the Ranch Plan alternative finally adopted by the County and the basis

for current development planning). In addition, the NCCP/MSAA/HCP provided guidance for

reducing potential impacts to biological resources.

1.3 Content and Format of Mitigated Negative Declaration

This MND includes the following:

Section 1.0 Introduction: Provides an introduction to the MND.

Section 2.0 Project Description: Provides a detailed description of the proposed project

evaluated in this MND. This section also includes project location, project background, project

characteristics, construction, project design features, and discretionary actions.



Section 3.0 Findings: Provides findings that the project will not have a significant effect on

the environment and rationale supporting this finding.

Section 4.0 Initial Study Environmental Checklist: Provides an analysis of environmental

issues and concerns surrounding the project.

Section 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Provides a list and responsibility

assignments for all mitigation measures. This section also describes timing considerations for

each mitigation measure.

Section 6.0 References: Provides bibliographic information related to resources utilized

during document preparation.

1.4 Public Review Process

In accordance with CEQA, a good faith effort has been made during the preparation of this MND

to contact affected agencies, organization and persons who may have an interest in this project.

In reviewing the MND and Initial Study, affected public should focus on the sufficiency of the

document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in

which the significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided or mitigated.

Comments may be made on the MND in writing before the end of the comment period.

Following the close of public comment period, SMWD will consider this MND and comments

thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project.

Written comments on the MND should be sent to the following address by 5:00 p.m.,

October 7, 2011.

Daniel R. Ferons, Chief Engineer

Santa Margarita Water District

P.O. Box 7005

Mission Viejo, California 92690-7005

Phone: 949.459.6590

Fax: 949.459.6463

Approval and certification of this CEQA document will occur by the SMWD Board of Directors.

Date and time information on the meeting where this document will be considered can be

determined by contacting Daniel Ferons.






2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location

The project is located in southeastern Orange County, California. The site is generally located

east of San Juan Capistrano and Interstate 5 (I-5) and along Ortega Highway (State Route 74)

(Figures 1 and 2), within the San Juan Watershed. The project site is also defined as being

located east of Antonio Parkway within, within Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Ranch

Plan and the SMWD service area.

2.2 Project Description

2.2.1 Background

SMWD is responsible for providing domestic and non-domestic water services for the SMWD

service area, which encompasses approximately 62,674 acres of land in southeastern Orange County,

California. RMV is the agent and manager for the landowners of certain lands in the San Juan

Watershed in southeastern Orange County, California. These lands are a portion of the historic

Rancho Mission Viejo (the Ranch), and are located within the SMWD service area (Figures 1 and 2).

Historically, the Ranch has been used for agricultural uses such as citrus, row-crops, bean fields,

tenant uses such as nurseries and industrial operations, and domestic uses for residences on the

Ranch, and cattle grazing. RMV has riparian water rights through their ownership of riparian

land in the San Juan Watershed. Based on these rights, RMV has historically diverted and used

an average of 3,500 acre-feet of riparian water per year (af/yr) in support of the existing uses

both domestic and non-domestic. The quantity of future diversions and usage depends upon the

hydrology in the watershed. Since the water is riparian, the landowners can divert and/or pump

in excess of 3,500 af/yr as long as the water is appropriately and beneficially used on riparian

lands within the San Juan Watershed.

RMV is currently implementing a comprehensive open space preservation, management, and

development plan for the Ranch (commonly referred to as the Ranch Plan). The Ranch Plan

Program Environmental Impact Report (General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (PA 01-114)

Program EIR No. 589) was certified by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in November

2004. The Ranch Plan Program EIR proposed to convert some of the existing land uses to a

planned development with a biological preserve surrounding the planned developments. As the

land is developed pursuant to the Ranch Plan, water use on portions of the Ranch and subsequent

Ranch Plan development areas will change from existing agricultural irrigation use to non-

domestic municipal irrigation use. The first area of the Ranch Plan which will be developed is

referred to as Planning Area 1 (PA-1). Subsequent planning areas to be developed within the San



Juan Watershed portion of the Ranch Plan include PA-2, PA-3, PA-4, and PA-5 (in no particular

order). As the Ranch Plan planning areas are developed they will contain common areas that will

be owned by one or more homeowners associations (HOAs) and certain investment properties

which will continue to be owned by RMV-related entities. The parcels owned by the HOAs and

the investment properties will require water service from SMWD for non-domestic municipal

irrigation use and it is expected that the riparian water can be used as supplemental water to

offset in part the new water demand generated by the HOA parcels and investment properties.

In 2006, a NCCP/MSAA/HCP Joint Programmatic Environmental Impact Report/

Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) (FEIR No. 584) was prepared to analyze the

conservation strategy detailed in the NCCP/MSAA/HCP, including establishment of a Habitat

Reserve, a Habitat Reserve Management and Monitoring Program and funding; and the State

and Federal regulatory authorizations and provisions for the Covered Activities identified for

the County of Orange, RMV, and SMWD. The EIR (FEIR No. 584) was certified by the

County of Orange on October 24, 2006. The EIS was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service on January 10, 2007. One of the Covered Activities addressed in this joint EIR/EIS

was the planned construction of an infrastructure corridor along Cow Camp Road.

Subsequent to the certification of Final EIR (FEIR) No. 584 and in response to ongoing

coordination with USFWS and CDFG regarding minimization of impacts to biological

resources, the Orange County Board of Supervisors selected an alignment for Cow Camp Road

that was slightly modified from the alignment shown in FEIR 589. Addendum No 1 to the

Ranch Plan FEIR 589 – PA-1 (PA 06-0023) was prepared to analyze the potential differences

between the impacts evaluated in FEIR 589 and those that would be associated with the

development of PA-1, including the approximately 1,500-foot segment of Cow Camp Road

east of Antonio Parkway and other infrastructure improvements. Addendum No.1 was

approved by the Orange County Planning Commission on July 26, 2006.

In addition, Addendum to FEIRs 589 and 584 Cow Camp Road and Ancillary Infrastructure

Improvements (IP08-388) was prepared to analyze the modified alignment of Cow Camp Road

from Antonio Parkway to the eastern boundary of PA-2, located 7,000 feet east of Antonio

Parkway (also referred to as Segment 1 of Cow Camp Road in this Addendum), and other

infrastructure improvements ancillary to the development of the approved land uses for the

Ranch Plan. Addendum to FEIR No.’s 589 and 584 was approved in November 2008.

SanClemente

DanaPoint

San JuanCapistrano

LagunaNiguel

AlisoViejo

LagunaBeach

LagunaHills Coto De

Caza

RanchoSanta Margarita

NewportBeach Mission

Viejo

TrabucoHighlands

ElToro

El ToroStationCosta

MesaIrvine

HuntingtonBeach

Tustin

SantaAna

SealBeach

TustinFoothills

GardenGrove

LosAlamitos

Orange

AnaheimBuenaPark

Placentia Yorba LindaFullerton

Brea

Corona

Norco

PedleyMira

LomaRubidoux

GlenAvon

LakewoodCerritos

BellflowerNorwalk

Downey Santa FeSprings

HaciendaHeights

DiamondBar

IndustryWalnut

PomonaWest

Covina

ChinoHills

Chino

BloomingtonOntarioMontclair

FountainValley

Westminster

Cypress

LaHabra

La Mirada

SouthWhittier

La HabraHeights

RowlandHeightsWhittier

Pico Rivera

Montebello

MontereyPark

Rosemead Park

Orange CountyLos Angeles County

Riverside County

Orange County

Orange

County

San Diego

CountyP a c i f i c

O c e a n

57

22

72

90

55

73

39

91

19

74

1

60

241

142

133

83

71

10

15

405

5

FIGURE 1Regional Map

7010-01Supplemental Water Lease MND

0 105Miles

Project Site




Project Sites

241

74

5

FIGURE 2Vicinity Map

7010-01Supplemental Water Lease MND

SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle Huitt-zollars 2011

0 1.50.75Miles

Rancho Mission Viejo BoundarySanta Margarita Water District






Potential environmental impacts have been analyzed for the use of and supporting infrastructure for

riparian water. FEIR No. 589 for the Ranch Plan approved November 2004 covers activities for

supply, distribution, and use of non-domestic water. The Addendum to FEIR No.’s 584 and 589 of

the Ranch Plan for Cow Camp Road and Ancillary Infrastructure Improvements IP 08-388 approved

November 2008 covers activities along Segment 1 of Cow Camp Road for construction of water

pipelines and other infrastructure needed for the supply and distribution of non-domestic water.

2.3 Project Characteristics

Mutual Water Company

RMV is forming a MWC to protect and maintain RMV’s riparian water rights following the

subdivision of riparian lands in the San Juan Watershed. The MWC will hold the riparian water

rights of the landowners and the landowners will have the right to take their proportionate share

of the water for their own use or to assign their allocation of water for use on riparian lands

within the San Juan Watershed.

SMWD desires to contract with RMV (acting as agent of the landowner members of the MWC)

for obtaining supply for certain non-domestic water uses, primarily for irrigation on parcels

within the watershed. RMV is proposing to lease a portion of the riparian water allocations

pertaining to the landowner members of the MWC to SMWD for use as supplemental water to

offset in part the non-domestic new water demand generated by the HOA parcels and RMV

related investment properties. SMWD is proposing to commit to using the leased water in

providing non-domestic irrigation water to the HOA parcels and to the RMV related investment

properties during such periods that recycled water is not available due to the construction

schedule for facilities or for other reasons. A portion of the leased water could also be used

during grading and construction activities for dust control, trench backfill and similar uses. RMV

would deliver, and SMWD would receive up to 400 acre feet of water annually to meet the

projected irrigation needs for the build out of PA-1.

The quantity of water to be delivered would be increased as development of other planning areas in

the San Juan Watershed occurs. The maximum quantity of water per the lease agreement is 2,500

af/yr of RMV– riparian water delivered to SMWD. Additional water could be available if SMWD

and RMV mutually agree and the amount is available. This is a portion of the historical use of the

3,500 af/yr or more used by RMV for agricultural and other purposes. RMV riparian water to be used

by SMWD would not exceed existing and historical RMV usage. Table 1 shows the gross

development area of each Planning Area, and the anticipated supplemental water supply to be

delivered and used pursuant to the lease agreement for each.



Table 1

Lease Amount of Supplemental Water (Riparian) by RMV for SMWD

Planning Area Gross Development Area (Acres) Water Supply (af/yr)

1 577 400

2 895 416

3 and 4 2,721 1,131

5 1,191 553

Total 5,384 2,500

The anticipated delivery and use of the water pursuant to the water lease agreement is consistent

with the Ranch Plan in that riparian water rights will not be severed from those lands to remain

as open space, and the habitat and other natural resource values associated with the open space

lands will not be adversely affected. While water would be leased for use by SMWD, there

would still be adequate water available to support existing riparian habitats, since no increase in

water use is involved, and because the existing uses of riparian water for agricultural purposes is

compatible with maintaining riparian systems.

Project Location

The water would be delivered to SMWD at certain mutually agreed upon locations (RMV Service

Locations) as follows: (i) in or along future Cow Camp Road between Antonio Parkway and

Ortega Highway (Figure 3), which are near SMWD transmission facilities and RMV delivery

facilities and at the SMWD hydraulic grade line for pressure zone B, (ii) at SMWD’s Chiquita

Water Treatment Plant (CWTP), or (iii) in other locations to which the parties may mutually agree.

The water would be pumped from among 12 existing RMV wells as shown in Figure 3. These are:

1. Antonio Parkway Bridge well

2. Well 2

3. Well 3/50

4. Well 6

5. Well 8

6. Well 9

7. Well 12

8. Well 18

9. Well 23

10. Well 27

11 Well 28

12. Verdugo Well

Proposed Pump Station

Antonio Pkwy

Ortega Hwy

Cow Camp Rd

Well 2

AntonioPkwy BridgeWell Casing

Well 3/50

Well 28

Well 25

Well 23

Well 18

Well 7

Well 6 Well 27

Well 8

Well 12

NicholsWell

Well 9Well 9

(Domestic)

VerdugoWell

PA 1

PA 1

PA 2

PA 3

PA 4

PA 5

FIGURE 3

Mutual Water Company Water Lease Infrastructure ComponentsSupplemental Water Lease MND

SOURCE: Digital Globe 2008 Huitt-Zollars 2011 NCCP 2007

7010-01

0 1,500750Feet

Cow Camp Road Alignment Limits of Grading

Cow Camp Road Conceptual Alignment

Proposed Pipeline

Proposed Powerline

WellsIncluded in MWC Agreement

Not Included in MWC Agreement

Existing RMV Water System

Existing Gobernadora Reservoir

Planning Areas (PA)

Rancho Mission Viejo Boundary






Water would be stored and conveyed in existing SMWD facilities. SMWD would construct tie-ins

to existing Ranch water lines along Cow Camp Road. A total of 13 tie-ins are proposed to connect

the future water line planned for construction along and within Cow Camp Road (in accordance

with the FEIR No. 589 and its Addendum IP 08-338) to intercept existing Ranch water lines

(which travel north/south from the existing wells). Each tie-in would be 8 to 16 inches in diameter

and would vary in length, up to 200 feet.

In conjunction with the above tie-ins, the project proposes to construct a temporary above ground

pipeline and an associated temporary pump station. The temporary pipeline would be up to 16

inches in diameter and would be placed above ground. The pipeline would begin at an existing

Ranch agricultural reservoir and travel west within the northern boundary of PA-2 to the existing

Chiquita Water Treatment Plant (CWTP). Booster pumps would be constructed at the

Gobernadora reservoir, within a 25-foot by 25-foot area of the southeastern portion of the

reservoir. If a portion of the pipeline can be constructed as a gravity operation that portion of the

pipeline would be constructed underground and would eliminate the need for the booster pumps.

Above ground power lines would follow the pipeline alignment to power the booster pumps. The

alignment of the proposed temporary pipeline and power line may be adjusted within the PA-2

boundary area to coincide with the approved future development within PA-2. These temporary

facilities would be active until the approved reservoirs in PA-2 are constructed and put in

operation; which is anticipated to occur in 2013.

2.3.1 Project Construction

Construction activities would be limited to construction of the proposed well tie-in valves and

the temporary pipeline and pump station. Construction is anticipated to commence in June 2012

and would extend up to 24 months. Water deliveries would increase over time as development of

other planning areas in the San Juan Watershed occurs. To reduce impacts during construction

SMWD has including the following project features:

Best available control measures shall be used during construction to reduce particulate

emissions and reduce soil erosion and trackout, through the following project features:

o Construction staff will cover or water, as needed, any on-site stockpiles of debris,

dirt, or other dusty material.

o Construction staff will use adequate water and/or other dust palliatives on all

disturbed areas in order to avoid particle blow-off.

o Construction staff will wash down or sweep paved streets as necessary to control

track out or fugitive dust.



o Construction staff will cover or tarp all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roads

if sufficient freeboard is not available to prevent material blow-off during transport.

o Construction staff will use gravel bags and catch basins during ground-

disturbing operations.

o Construction staff will erect temporary wind breaks to mitigate wind erosion.

o Construction staff will maintain appropriate soil moisture, apply soil binders,

and plant stabilizing vegetation.

During construction equipment emissions will be reduced through the following

project features:

o Construction staff will properly tune and maintain construction equipment.

o Construction management staff shall encourage carpooling by all construction workers.

o Any necessary lane closures will be limited to off-peak travel periods.

o Construction staff will park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.

o Construction management will encourage receipt of materials during non-peak

traffic hours.

The following standard conditions and regulations shall be incorporated from FEIR No.

589 to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources:

o SMWD shall retain a County certified paleontologist to observe grading activities and

salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the

pre-grade conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resources

surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the contractor, procedures for

temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and

evaluation of the fossils. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant,

the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the

contractor, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.

Prior to the release of any grading bond, the contractor shall submit the

paleontologist’s follow up report for approval by the County Manager, and OC Parks

(formerly known as Harbor, Beaches, and Parks (HBP)/Coastal and Historical

Facilities). The contractor shall prepare excavated material to the point of

identification. The contractor shall offer excavated finds for curatorial purposes to the

County of Orange, or its designee, on the first-refusal basis. These actions, as well as

final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to approval by OC

Parks. The contractor shall pay curatorial fees if an applicable fee program is in effect



at the time of presentation of the materials to the County of Orange or its designee, all

in a manner meeting the approval of the County Manager, and OC Parks. (County of

Orange Standard Condition of Approval, A07)

The following mitigation measure shall be incorporated from FEIR No. 589, to reduce

potential impacts to human remains.

o In accordance with California Health and safety Code Section 7050.5, if human

remains are found, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area

reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner

has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. The

County Coroner shall make such determination within two working days of

notification of discovery. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or

believed to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native

American Heritage Commission in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage

Commission must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely

descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their

inspection within 24 hours of notification. The designated Native American

representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the

disposition of the human remains.

2.3.2 Discretionary Actions

The following discretionary actions are required for the proposed project:

Approval of this MND by SMWD

Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by SMWD

Approval of the MWC Water Lease agreement by SMWD.






3.0 FINDINGS

SMWD finds that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment based

on the results of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Environmental

Impacts (see Section 4.0). Some potentially significant effects have been identified and mitigation

measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that these effects remain at less than

significant levels. An MND is, therefore, proposed to satisfy the requirements of CEQA (PRC

210000 et.seq. 14 Cal. Code Regs 15000 et.seq.). This conclusion is supported by the following:

Findings

1. Aesthetics: The project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista or

substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site. See Section 4, item I

Aesthetics for additional information.

2. Agricultural Resources: The project would not result in impacts to prime, unique, or

farmland of statewide importance. See Section 4, item II Agricultural Resources for

additional information.

3. Air Quality: Short-term construction related impacts are anticipated to occur due to

fugitive dust and emissions from vehicles. To reduce the project’s potential for

contribution to regional air quality problems, project design features have been

incorporated into the project. The operational phase of the project would not result in a

substantial increase in emission, and impacts would be less than significant. See Section

4, item III Air Quality for additional information.

4. Biological Resources: The proposed interim above ground water pipeline and power line

may result in impacts to coastal sage scrub. Potential indirect impact to bird species may

result during the construction phase of the project on the adjacent habitat reserve lands.

Mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Impacts to wildlife corridors would be less than significant. See Section 4, item IV

Biological Resources for additional information.

5. Cultural Resources: The project would not result in any new impacts to cultural

resources; however, construction activities may occur prior to the previously approved

development for the project area. Incorporation of mitigation measures from FEIR No.

589 would ensure potential impacts to cultural resources would remain below a level of

significance. See Section 4 item V Cultural Resources for additional information.



6. Geology and Soils: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to

adverse risk associated geologic or soil conditions. Incorporation of mitigation measures

from FEIR No. 589 would ensure potential impacts would remain below a level of

significance. See Section 4, item VI Geology and Soils for additional information.

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The proposed project would result in minimal construction

related emissions. During the operational phase, the project would decrease the amount of

water to be transported to the project site from state water resources, thereby reducing the

amount of energy needs of the project. Impacts would be less than significant. See

Section 4, item VII Greenhouse Gas Emissions for additional information.

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The proposed project would not introduce

significant hazardous materials to people or the environment. Therefore, impacts would

be less than significant. See Section 4, item VIII Hazards and Hazardous Materials for


9. Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would be constructed in compliance with the

Water Quality Management Plan prepared for FEIR No. 589. In addition, the project

would incorporate best available control measures to reduce construction erosion.

Impacts would be less than significant. See Section 4, item IX Hydrology and Water

Quality for additional information.

10. Land Use and Planning: With mitigation, the proposed project would not result in a

significant impact to land use and planning. See Section 4, X Land Use and Planning for

more information.

11. Mineral Resources: The proposed project would not have an impact on mineral

resources. See Section 4, item XI Mineral Resources for more information.

12. Noise: The project would not impact sensitive receptors during construction or operation

of the proposed project. Refer to Section 4 item XII, Noise for more information.

13. Population and Housing: The project would not have an impact on population and

housing as discussed in Section 4 item XIII, Population and Housing for more information.

14. Public Services: The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to

public services. See Section 4, item XIV Public Service for additional information.

15. Recreation: The project would not result in impacts to recreation. See Section 4, item XV

Recreation for more information.



16. Transportation and Traffic: During construction, traffic would be generated by

equipment delivery, and construction worker transport. No road closures would result

from the proposed project. See Section 4, item XVI Transportation and Traffic for


17. Utilities and Service Systems: The proposed project would not have a significant impact

to utilities and service systems. In addition, the project would not generate the need for

additional utilities and service systems. See Section 4, item XVII Utilities and Service

Systems for additional information.

18. Mandatory Findings of Significance: The proposed project would result in less than

significant impacts with implementation of the project design features and mitigation

measures proposed. See Section 4, item XVIII, Mandatory Findings of Significance for

more information.






4.0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Project title: Mutual Water Company Water Lease Project

2. Lead agency name and address: Santa Margarita Water District

3. Contact person and phone number: Dan Ferons 949.459.6590

4. Project location: The project is located in Orange County California, east of San Juan

Capistrano; north of Ortega Highway and east of I-5 (Figures 1 and 2).

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Santa Margarita Water District P.O. Box 7005,

Mission Viejo, California 92693-7005 and Rancho Mission Viejo, P.O. Box 9, San Juan

Capistrano, California 92693

6. General plan designation: Suburban Residential, Urban Activity Center, Open Space,

and Open Space Preserve (County of Orange General Plan Land Use Element Map 2005a)

7. Zoning: Planned Community – Ranch Plan and General Agriculture (County of Orange

Zoning Map 2005)

8. Description of project: RMV is forming a MWC to protect and maintain RMV’s right to

use its water following the subdivision of riparian lands in the San Juan Watershed.

SMWD desires to contract with the MWC for obtaining a supplemental water supply for

certain non-domestic water uses, primarily for irrigation on parcels within the watershed.

RMV is proposing to lease a portion of the riparian water allocations pertaining to the

landowner members of the MWC to SMWD for use as supplemental water to offset in part

the non-domestic water demand generated by the HOA parcels and RMV related

investment properties. SMWD is proposing to commit to using the leased water in

providing non-domestic irrigation water to the HOA parcels and to the RMV-related

investment properties during such periods that recycled water is not available due to the

construction schedule for facilities or for other reasons. A portion of the leased water could

also be used during grading and construction activities for dust control, trench backfill and

similar uses. RMV would deliver, and SMWD would receive an amount up to 400 acre feet

of water annually to meet the projected irrigation need for the build out of PA-1.

The quantity of water to be delivered would be increased as development of other

Planning Areas in the San Juan Watershed occurs. The maximum quantity of water per

the lease agreement is 2,500 af/yr of RMV– riparian water to SMWD. Additional water

could be available if SMWD and RMV mutually agree and the amount is available. This



is a portion of the historical use of the 3,500 af/yr or more used by RMV for agricultural

and other purposes. RMV riparian water to be used by SMWD would not exceed existing

and historical RMV usage.

Water would be stored and conveyed in existing SMWD facilities. RMV would construct

tie-ins to existing Ranch water lines along Cow Camp Road. Approximately 13 tie-ins are

proposed to connect the future water line planned for construction along and within Cow

Camp Road (in accordance with the FEIR No 589 and its Addendum IP 08-338) to

intercept existing Ranch water lines (which travel north/south from the existing wells). In

conjunction with the above tie-ins, the project proposes to construct an interim temporary

above ground pipeline, an associated temporary pump station, and power line.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site and its surroundings are currently

undeveloped; however, the project site is within an area that has been approved for a

planned community (in accordance with FEIR No. 589 and the County of Orange

General Plan Land Use Map (County of Orange 2005a). Adjacent to the proposed

pipeline and power line facilities, land uses consist of undeveloped land, agricultural

lands, and public facilities.

10. Other public agencies whose approval may be required (e.g., permits, financing

approval, or participation agreement): Building permit from County of Orange.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,

involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the

checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and

Forestry Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Hazards and

Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water

Quality

Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise



EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are

adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses

following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced

information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one

involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer

should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general

standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a

project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as

on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as

well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then

the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than

significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is

appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are

one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an

EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where

the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant

Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation

measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level

(mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA

process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063I(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist

were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant

to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by

mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation

Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were

incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they

address site-specific conditions for the project.



6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information

sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a

previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference

to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used

or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;

however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are

relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

I. AESTHETICS – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?




Impact




Impact No Impact

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?




Impact




Impact No Impact

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?




Impact




Impact No Impact

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?




Impact




Impact No Impact

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?




Impact




Impact No Impact

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

XII. NOISE – Would the project:

a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?




Impact




Impact No Impact

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:

a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

XV. RECREATION –

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?




Impact




Impact No Impact

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle baths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?




Impact




Impact No Impact

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

I. Aesthetics

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The County of Orange General Plan, Transportation

Element discusses the County’s Scenic Highway Plan (County of Orange 2005b). The

County has two scenic highway categories: viewscape corridors and landscape corridors.

The County of Orange designates road rests and vista points along viewscape corridors.

Ortega Highway east of Antonio Parkway is classified as a landscape corridor. A

landscape corridor transverses developed or developing areas and has been designated for

special treatment to provide a pleasant driving environment as well as community



enhancement. As recommended in the Scenic Highway Plan, development within the

corridor should complement the scenic highway.

The project proposes the lease of riparian water from the Ranch landowners to SMWD.

The lease of water would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The

proposed construction activities associated with the lease would be limited to the

installation of tie-in valves, below the surface area, from the existing RMV pipelines to an

approved pipeline along Cow Camp Road. Construction activities along Cow Camp Road

may be visible from some locations along Ortega Highway, however, the impact associated

with the construction of the underground tie-in valves would be less than significant.

The proposed interim aboveground pipeline, pump station, and power line would be

constructed from within the northwestern boundary of the Chiquita Water Reclamation Plant

(CWRP) to the eastern boundary of PA-2; see Figure 3. The proposed pipeline, pump station

and power line would be constructed as interim facilities until the approved water reservoirs

in PA-2 are constructed and operational. These interim facilities would be located at least

5,100 feet (1 mile) north of Cow Camp Road and approximately 7,660 feet (1.5 miles) north

of Ortega Highway. Due to the distance, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to,

trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation

Scenic Highway Mapping System (Caltrans 2007), Ortega highway (also called State

Route 74) is identified as being eligible for designation, but not officially designated. There

are no officially designated state scenic highways within the project area. The project site is

located to the north of Ortega Highway. Cow Camp Road is an approved roadway, planned

for construction, and is not designated as a scenic highway. The project proposes the lease

of riparian water, with construction activities limited to the installation of tie-in valves from

the existing RMV pipelines to the previously approved pipeline along Cow Camp Road.

The lease of water and construction of the proposed tie-in valves (within previously

approved development areas) would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources

such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Therefore, impacts would be less

than significant.

As discussed in response to item I.a above. The proposed interim water pipeline, power

line and pump station improvements would be located at least 7,660 feet north of Ortega

Highway within the previously approved development area for PA-2 and the CWRP. Due

to the distance of these facilities, impacts would be less than significant.



c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the

site and its surroundings?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to responses I.a and I.b above. Installation of the

proposed facilities would generally be predominantly underground with minimal above

ground facilities. Once construction is complete no changes to the existing visual

character or quality would occur from the proposed construction activities. In addition,

the proposed lease of water, for purposes of irrigating the landscaped areas of the

approved Ranch Plan development would not change the visual character or quality of

the site and its surrounding. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed interim above ground pipeline, power line and pump station would be

constructed within the approved development area of PA-2, within the existing CWRP

site and the existing Rancho Mission Viejo Gobernadora Reservoir. In addition, these

facilities would be removed once the approved water reservoirs within PA-2 are

operating. Given the short-term nature and size of these facilities, they would not

substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its

surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

No Impact. The proposed lease of water and associated infrastructure improvements

would not result in any new sources of light or glare. Therefore day or nighttime views in

the project area would not be impacted.

II. Agriculture and Forest Resources

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of

Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to

non-agricultural use?

No Impact. According to the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland

Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation 2008), the

project site along the Cow Camp Road alignment is designated as grazing land, other

land, unique farmland and farmland of statewide importance (Figure 4). The Ranch Plan

Program EIR (FEIR No. 589) assessed the impacts of converting Prime Farmland,

Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance within the entire Ranch Plan

Boundary, which included a conceptual alignment for Cow Camp Road from Antonio



Parkway to PA-4. In addition, the Cow Camp Road and Ancillary Infrastructure

Improvement Addendum assessed impacts associated with a modified alignment for the

Cow Camp Road (and ancillary infrastructure improvements) from Antonio Parkway

through PA-2. Since the Ranch water lines are an existing feature, and the proposed water

tie-ins valves would occur within the previously assessed boundary of the PA’s and Cow

Camp Road, no new impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of

Statewide Importance would result from this project.

The proposed pipeline and power line improvements would be constructed within the

CWRP site and the approved development area for PA-2 of the Ranch Plan. The

Important Farmland Mapping Program designated land within the CWRP and this portion

of PA-2 as Grazing Land (State of California 2008) (Figure 4). As mentioned above, the

potential impacts to farmlands within PA-2 were addressed in the FEIR No 589 and the

Addendum to FEIR No.’s 589 and 584. In addition, the land within the CWRP is used for

public utilities, and no grazing activities exist on the site. No new impacts to Prime

Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur.

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson

Act contract?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The approved development area for PA-2 is zoned as

Planned Community – Ranch Plan (PC-Ranch Plan). However, the parcel of land that

encompasses the CWRP is zoned as General Agriculture (A1). The purpose of the A1 zone

is to provide for agriculture, outdoor recreational uses, and those low intensity uses which

have a predominately open space character. It is also intended as an interim zone in those

areas which the General Plan may designate more intensive urban uses in the future.” Per

zoning regulations Section 7-9-55.3.h principal uses permitted with a site development

permit include public/private utility buildings and structures. The western portion of the

proposed above ground pipeline would be constructed along the northern boundary of the

CFWRP, and no agricultural production occurs within this parcel of land. Therefore, with

implementation of a site development permit, impacts would be less than significant. The

proposed water lease would support the non-domestic water needs of the Planned

Community. The construction of the proposed tie-in valves would occur within the

previously approved alignment for Cow Camp Road and, therefore, the project would not

conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract.


Antonio Pkwy

Ortega Hwy

Cow Camp Rd

Well 2


Well 3/50

Well 28

Well 25

Well 23

Well 18

Well 7

Well 6 Well 27

Well 8

Well 12

NicholsWell

Well 9Well 9

(Domestic)

VerdugoWell

PA 1

PA 1

PA 2

PA 3

PA 4

PA 5

FIGURE 4

Important Farmland DesignationsSupplemental Water Lease MND

SOURCE: Digital Globe 2008 Huitt-Zollars 2011 California Department of Conservation 2008

7010-01

0 1,500750Feet

FMMP DesignationFarmland of Statewide Importance

Grazing Land

Other Land

Prime Farmland

Unique Farmland

Urban and Built-Up Land



Proposed Pipeline

Proposed Powerline

Wells

Included in MWC Agreement




Planning Areas (PA)







c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land

(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by

Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as

defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact. Refer to response to item II.b above. The majority of the project area is zoned for

PC-Ranch Plan (County of Orange 2005b). While a portion of the proposed pipeline and

power line facilities would be constructed within zone A1; there are no areas within or

adjacent to the project site that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland

production. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the existing zoning for these uses.

d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-

forest use?

No Impact. Refer to response to item II.c above. No forest lands are located within or

adjacent to the proposed project locations; and therefore, the project would not result in

the loss or conversion of forest lands to non-forest uses. No impacts would result.

e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to

their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural

use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. Refer to response to items II.c and II.d. The project would not result in the

conversion of Farmland or forestland to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. Therefore, no

impacts would result.

III. Air Quality

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air

quality plan?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for comprehensive air pollution control

in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the urban

portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. SCAQMD develops

rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects

sources, and enforces measures through educational programs or fines when necessary.

The applicable air quality plan for the SCAB is the Air Quality Management Plan

(AQMP). The AQMP is based on Southern California Association of Governments

(SCAG) growth forecast for the region, and it incorporate measures to meet state and

federal requirements. Significance of air quality impacts is based on the degree to which



the project is consistent with SCAG’s growth forecasts. If a project is consistent with

growth forecasts, its resulting impacts were anticipated in the AQMP and are considered

to be less than significant. Growth forecast in the AQMP is based on approved general

plans, community plans, and redevelopment plans.

The proposed project is consistent with the approved general plan and zoning designations of

the Ranch Plan Program EIR and Addendum to FEIR No.’s 589 and 584. The installation of

tie-in valves along the Cow Camp Road alignment would not conflict with the SCAB’s

AQMP, as installation does not result in a change in land use or an increase in population or

emissions. Projects that propose development consistent with growth anticipated by

applicable general plans are consistent with the AQMP and State Implementation Plan. The

project does not propose any features that would result in additional population growth. The

water leased from the MWC to SMWD would be used to offset the non-domestic water

demand generated by the approved HOA areas of the Ranch Plan development area.

Construction of the proposed tie-in valves would be incorporated into the construction

activities associated with the approved water pipeline along Cow Camp Road and would

incorporate best available control measures as identified in the project description. Therefore,

the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality

plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

The water pipeline, power line and pump station would be constructed above grade.

Construction activities would follow established guidelines and implement best available

control measures as listed in the project description to reduce construction related air pollution

emissions consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an

existing or projected air quality violation?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Air quality impacts are usually considered in terms of

short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts are usually the result of construction

or grading operations. Long-term impacts are associated with the build out (operational)

conditions of the project. The project would provide local non-domestic water to

supplement the water needs of the approved Ranch Plan development. Implementation of

this project would be incorporated into the construction activities previously approved for

water facilities within Cow Camp Road and would not necessitate additional grading

activities. Therefore, the project would not result major earthwork or a significant increase

in vehicle emission, and impacts to air quality from construction emissions of the project

would be less than significant. In addition, there would be no long-term operational impacts

generated by the installation of the water tie-in valves, and therefore, the operational phase

of the project would not result in the generation of air quality emissions.



The proposed water pipeline, power line and pump station would be constructed above

existing grades, and therefore, would not result in major grading or other major earth

moving activities. However, the construction of the proposed pump station may result in

the need to grade a 20 foot by 20 foot area provide a level surface. This minor grading

activity would result in a temporary, short-term addition of pollutants to the local airshed

caused by soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-

site construction equipment. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to

day, depending on the local of activity, the specific type of operation, and, for dust, the

prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately

estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts.

Fugitive dust (particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter less

than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)) emissions would primarily result from minor grading and site

preparation activities. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions

would primarily result from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles.

SCAQMD sets forth quantitative emission significance thresholds below which a project

would not have a significant impact on ambient air quality. Project-related air quality

impacts estimated in this environmental analysis would be considered significant if any

of the applicable significance thresholds presented in Table 2 are exceeded.

Table 2

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

Air Quality Significance Thresholds

Criteria Pollutant Construction Mass Daily Thresholds

VOC 75 lbs/day

NOx 100 lbs/day

CO 550 lbs/day

SOx 150 lbs/day

PM10 150 lbs/day

PM2.5 55 lbs/day

Lead 3 lbs/day

Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) Revised March 2011 VOC – volatile organic compounds NOx – oxides of nitrogen CO – carbon monoxide SOx – sulfur oxides PM10 – particulate matter less than 10 microns PM2.5 – particulate matter less than 2.5 microns lbs – pound



For these pollutants, if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 2, the project

could have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these

pollutants and thus could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality.

Construction emissions would come from heavy equipment exhaust, construction-related

trips by workers, material-hauling trucks, and associated fugitive dust generation from

clearing and grading activities. The principal pollutants would be CO, volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), NOx and PM10. VOCs and NOx are precursors of ozone (O3). Due to

the small project footprint, construction emissions are expected to be below SCAQMD

significance thresholds. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to violate any air quality

standard or contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, and impacts would

be less than significant.

c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria

pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or

state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed

quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. In analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed

project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project’s contribution to the cumulative

increase in pollutants for which the SCAB is listed as nonattainment for the California

Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). If the project does not exceed thresholds and

is determined to have less-than-significant project-specific impacts, it may still have a

cumulatively considerable impact on air quality of the emissions from the project, in

combination with the emissions from other proposed or reasonable foreseeable future

projects, are in excess of established thresholds. However, the project would only be

considered to have a cumulative impact if the project’s contribution accounts for a

significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions.

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with construction generally result in near-term

impacts. As discussed earlier, the emissions of all criteria pollutants, including PM10 and

PM2.5, are expected to be well below the significance thresholds. Construction would be

short-term. Consistent with the size and scale of the proposed project, construction

activities would be considered minor and not intensive.

With regard to cumulative impacts associated with O3 precursors, in general, if a project

is consistent with the community and general plans, it has been accounted for in the O3

attainment demonstration contained within the State Implementation Plan. The project



would not conflict with any land use designations, and would, therefore, not cause a

cumulatively significant impact on the ambient air quality for O3.

Operation of the proposed booster pump station would not result in a substantial increase

in greenhouse gas or air pollutant emissions. All equipment to be used at the site,

including the pump, meets existing California state standards and would be powered by

an existing power sub-station located on the CWRP.

Additionally the project would include project design features that would reduce

construction-generated particulate matter emissions through dust abatement procedures

and reduce construction-generated CO, O3, and NOx through proper maintenance of

construction vehicles and traffic management (refer to Section 5). As a result,

implementation for the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable

impacts to air quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant (TAC)

emissions during construction would be diesel particulate emissions from heavy

equipment operations, heavy-duty trucks, and the associated health impacts to sensitive

receptors. The project would not require the extensive use of heavy-duty construction

equipment, which is subject to a California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne

Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for in-use diesel construction equipment to reduce

diesel particulate emissions, and it would not involve extensive use of diesel trucks,

which are also subject to an ATCM. Construction of the proposed project would be a

temporary short-term activity, after which project related TAC emissions would cease. In

addition, no sensitive receptors are located within the project area. Therefore, impacts

would be less than significant.

e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Odors would be generated from vehicles and/or

equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the proposed project. Odors

produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned

hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment. Such odors are temporary and

generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. The

operational phase of the project (including the proposed water lease and pipeline, power

line and pump station facilities) would not result in the generation of objectionable odors.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.



IV. Biological Resources

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat

modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status

species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California

Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation. The project site is located within the previously

analyzed project area for the Ranch Plan (The Ranch Plan Program FEIR) and the

NCCP/MSAA/HCP and associated Joint Programmatic FEIR/FEIS. Both the Ranch Plan

Final EIR, which was adopted in 2004, and the NCCP/MSAA/HCP and Final Joint

Programmatic EIR/EIS which were adopted in 2006 (EIR) and 2007 (EIS), analyze the

conversion of the project area from agricultural uses to a planned development and

included the conceptual alignment of Cow Camp Road and the construction of a water

pipeline along this roadway. The Addendum to FEIRs 589 and 584 analyzed the modified

alignment of Cow Camp Road and associated ancillary infrastructure improvements. The

MWC would ensure the water rights of the landowners would remain once the lease is

enacted. The proposed tie-in valves would be constructed within the previously analyzed

right-of-way for Cow Camp Road. No new impacts to plant and wildlife species

identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species would result as the limited

construction activities would occur in previously approved disturbance areas.

The eastern portion of the water pipeline, power lines and pump station would be located

within PA-2 and would be consistent with the above analysis. However, the western

portion of the water pipeline and power line would be constructed within the northern

boundary of the CWRP. The development within the CWRP was not addressed in the

FEIR No.’s 589 and 584 or the Addendum to FEIR No.’s 589 and 584. In addition, the

area within the CWRP was not specifically included in the NCCP/MSAA/HCP analysis

which identifies Covered Activities to be undertaken by the Participating Landowners,

including impacts to biological resources (Figure 5). However, the NCCP/MSAA/HCP

does allow for operation and maintenance of existing and future SMWD facilities,

including the CWRP. Appendix T, Santa Margarita Water District Covered Activities, to

the NCCP/MSAA/HCP includes as operation and maintenance “Replacement,

rehabilitation, retrofitting, and upgrading of plant and pipelines” at existing facilities

(Appendix T, p. T-1).

The proposed alignment for the 16-inch water pipeline and power line is conceptual at

this time and is anticipated to occur along the northern boundary of the CWRP. While the

alignment of water pipeline and power line are conceptual, based on a review of an aerial



photograph, the potential exists for temporary impacts to occur to coastal sage scrub.

Because impacts would occur within the CWRP boundary, there would be no direct

impact to the Habitat Reserve lands located north of the CRWP boundary and the impacts

would be consistent with the NCPP/MSAA/HCP analysis. However, Section 7.5.2.4 of

the NCCP/MSAA/HCP Implementation Agreement requires SMWD to implement

construction-related minimization measures consistent with those specified for RMV in

Appendix U, Avoidance and Minimization Measures. Implementation of mitigation

measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would minimize potential impacts to biological resources

consistent with Appendix U, and reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures

BIO-1. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, SMWD shall require

retention of a qualified biologist to survey the final alignment of the proposed water

pipeline and power line. If impacts to vegetation communities and potentially special-status

species would occur from the final alignment, SMWD shall require preparation and

implementation of a Biological Resources Construction Plan (BRCP) that provides for the

protection of the resource and establishes the monitoring requirements. The BRCP shall

incorporate the avoidance and minimization measures, as applicable to the on-site impacts,

described in Section 4.6, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, in the SMWD

NCCP/MSAA/HCP Guidelines and Procedures Manual (Dudek 2007). The BRCP may

include the following elements, as applicable to the project impacts: specific measures for

the protection of special-status species; identification and quantification of habitats to be

disturbed; delineation of project impact area with fencing, flagging, or tape, or other

marking; biological monitoring during construction for special-status wildlife such as

California gnatcatcher and cactus wren; Best Management Practices pertinent to erosion

and dust; and restoration of temporary impact areas to pre-construction or better conditions.

BIO-2. If construction occurs during the bird breeding season (typically March–August,

or as determined by a qualified biologist) SMWD shall require, within seven (7) days of

ground-disturbing activities, a pre-activity survey to be conducted by a qualified biologist

to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty

Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 are present in the disturbance zone

or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the disturbance zone. If ground-disturbing

activities are delayed, then additional pre-disturbance surveys shall be conducted such

that no more than seven (7) days will have elapsed between the survey and

ground-disturbing activities.



If active nests are found, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet

for raptors) shall be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the monitoring biologist.

Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with

flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and construction personnel shall be

instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The biologist shall serve as a construction

monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest

areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to these nests occur.

The specific details and guidelines for the nesting bird surveys shall be included in

the BRCP.

b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other

sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations,

or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response to comment IV.a above. The project

proposes the lease of riparian water to supplement the water needs of the approved

planned community analyzed in the Ranch Plan Program EIR. The leased water would

not exceed the amount of water that is currently being used and allowed by right. In

addition, construction of the proposed tie-in valves would occur within previously

approved development areas, and therefore, the project would not affect any riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural communities.

Based on the review of an aerial photo (2011), no riparian habitats are known to existing

within the northern portion of the proposed CWRP boundary. Therefore, implementation

of the proposed above ground water pipeline and power lines would not result in new

impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Impacts would be less

than significant.


Antonio Pkwy

Ortega Hwy

Cow Camp Rd

Well 2


Well 3/50

Well 28

Well 25

Well 23

Well 18

Well 7

Well 6 Well 27

Well 8

Well 12

NicholsWell

Well 9Well 9

(Domestic)

VerdugoWell

PA 1

PA 1

PA 2

PA 3

PA 4

PA 5

FIGURE 5

Mutual Water Company Water Lease Infrastructure Components with NCCPSupplemental Water Lease MND

SOURCE: Digital Globe 2008 Huitt-Zollars 2011 NCCP 2007

7010-01

0 1,500750Feet



Proposed Pipeline

Proposed Powerline

Habitat ReserveRMV Habitat Reserve Lands

County Habitat Reserve Lands

Future Development

Future Ranch Plan Development (Exact Location to be Detemined)

1,310 ft. Setback Areas

Existing Orchards

Wells





Planning Areas (PA)







c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as

defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,

vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or

other means?

No Impact. The Ranch Plan area was historically used for agricultural purposes, and has

been approved for a planned community. The lease of water for non-domestic uses within

the planned community would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected

wetlands. Construction of the proposed tie-in valves, water pipeline, power line and

pump station facilities would occur within previously approved development area for PA-

2 and Cow Camp Road. In addition to being addressed by the Ranch Plan EIR, potential

wetland impacts to these areas are also addressed by the MSAA element of the

NCCP/MSAA/HCP pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code and

by the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), completed in 2007, that provides the

framework for permitting under the Clean Water Act Section 404. In addition, a portion

of the proposed pipeline, and power line would occur within the northern boundary of

CWRP. The north boundary consists of a revegetated manufactured slope, and impacts to

federally protected wetlands would not occur in this area.

d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or

migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory

wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response to item IV.a above. The project would

occur in previously approved development areas as identified in the Ranch Plan Program

EIR and Addendum to FEIRs 589 and 584. The proposed lease of water would not

exceed the current and historical water use for the project area. Construction of the

proposed tie-in valves would occur within the previously approved development area for

Cow Camp Road and no new impacts would occur to any native resident or migratory

fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors

or native wildlife nursery sites (e.g., heron rookeries, bat maternal roosts, etc.). Potential

impacts to movement of native fish and wildlife species were analyzed in the

NCCP/MSAA/HCP and any impacts (e.g., along San Juan Creek) are compensated by

establishment of the Habitat Reserve and the associated monitoring and management

program. No impacts to fish or wildlife movement will occur within the proposed

delivery or use of water or construction of the proposed tie-in valves. No native nursery

sites would be affected by the project.



The proposed pipeline, power line and pump station would occur within the previously

approved development area for PA-2 and the existing CWRP (western portion of

pipeline). As a developed site, the CWRP does not provide for movement of native fish

or wildlife and does not support nursery sites. Therefore, these functions and resources

would not be impacted.

e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological

resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances

protecting biological resources, including a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation

Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or

state habitat conservation plan?

Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation. The project would occur within previously

approved development areas as identified in the Ranch Plan (FEIR 589), the

NCCP/MSAA/HCP, and Addendum to FEIRs 589 and 584. Therefore, the construction

of the tie-in valves and pump station, and the lease of water would not conflict with an

adopted HCP or MSAA. The NCCP was not permitted and currently is not active, and

therefore, the project would not conflict with an NCCP. Finally, the project would not

conflict with any other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.

The western portion of the proposed pipeline and power line would be constructed within

the CWRP boundary, which was not specifically a part of the NCCP/MSAA/HCP or the

Ranch Plan development area. Depending upon the final alignment of the proposed water

pipeline and power line, the potential for indirect impacts to biological resources within

the approved NCCP/MSAA/HCP area would result. However, the proposed pipeline and

power line facilities are a Covered Activity related to operation and maintenance of

existing facilities. Further, the incorporation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2

would reduce the potential temporary impacts associated with the construction of interim

water pipeline and power line facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant

with mitigation.



V. Cultural Resources

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical

resource as defined in §15064.5?

No Impact. The project area was historically used for agricultural purposes, and has been

approved for a planned community. All construction activities would occur within

previously approved development areas. In addition, the lease of water would not cause a

substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The proposed pipeline, power line and pump station facilities would occur along a

manufactured slope of the existing CWRP and the approved development areas of PA-2.

No impacts to historical resources would result.

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an

archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response V.a above. All construction activities

would occur within the previously approved development areas for PA-2 and Cow Camp

Road. In addition, the lease of water would not cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource. Therefore, no new impacts would result.

As mentioned above, the proposed pipeline, power line and pump station would be

constructed along a manufactured slope within the existing CWRP boundary and the

approved development area for PA-2. Since these project features would occur in areas that

have previously been disturbed or are approved for development, the proposed above ground

infrastructure improvements would not result in new impacts to archaeological resources.

c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or

site or unique geologic feature?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response to item V.b above. According to

FEIR No.589, paleontological resources anywhere in the study area have the potential

to be adversely impacted by ground disturbing activities, including brush clearing and

grading. The proposed tie-in valves would be incorporated into the construction

activities associated with the construction of the approved water line along Cow Camp

Road, and therefore, would be constructed in accordance with the standard conditions

and regulations outlines in FEIR No. 589. No new impacts to paleontological resources

would result.



Construction of the proposed pipeline, power line and pump station within PA-2 would

occur prior to the approved construction activities associated with the approved

development of PA-2. Therefore, these improvements have the potential to result in

impacts to paleontological resources. However, the project has implemented the

paleontological resources standard conditions and regulations outlined in the FEIR No.

589; see Section 5 of this document. Implementation of this feature would ensure

potential impacts to paleontological resources remain below a level of significance.

d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of

formal cemeteries?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is not currently nor has it historically

been used as a cemetery. In addition, the project site has been disturbed from its historical

use of agricultural production. Therefore, it is not anticipated that human remains would

be discovered during the limited construction activities associated with this project. It is

further noted that the proposed construction area is located in a previously approved

construction area for the Ranch Plan development, and therefore, the potential for

disturbing any unknown human remains was previously addressed in the Ranch Plan

Program EIR and its Addendum for improvements along Cow Camp Road. No additional

unforeseen impacts would result.

Construction of the proposed pipeline, power line and pump station within PA-2 would

occur prior to the approved construction activities associated with the approved

development of PA-2. Therefore, these improvements have the potential to result in

impacts to unknown human remains. However, the project has incorporated mitigation

measures from FEIR No. 589, specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.11-3. Implementation

of this feature would ensure potential impacts to human remains would remain below a

level of significance.



VI. Geology and Soils

a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area

or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of

Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is located within seismically

active Southern California, an area where several faults and fault zones are

considered active by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Alquist-

Priolo earthquake fault zones have been established for the majority of these

faults and fault zones. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones is

to prohibit the location of structures on the traces of active faults, thereby

eliminating potential damage due to fault surface rupture. According to the CDC

Geological Survey, the project site is not located on a Alquist-Priolo earthquake

fault zone (CDC 2007). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. See response to VI.a-i above. The site is located in

seismically active southern California. The most significant seismic hazard at the

site is considered to be shaking caused by an earthquake occurring on a nearby or

distant active fault. The nearest active major fault is the Newport-Inglewood-Rose

Canyon fault zone (Dana Point Section) located approximately 9 miles west of the

project site. In addition, local faults such as the Forster, Christianitos, and Mission

Viejo faults run north-south in the project area. Since the project would be required

to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including the Standard

Specifications for Public Works Construction, the project would not expose people

or structures to significant effects related to strong ground shaking and impacts

would be less than significant. It is further noted that the proposed lease of water

would not result in impact associated with strong seismic ground shaking.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area that is

subject to liquefaction. However, the construction activities associated with the

proposed project (i.e., implementation of the tie-in valves and above ground



pipelines and pump) would be implemented in accordance with all applicable

laws and regulations, including the Standard Specifications for Public Works

Construction, the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code and Grading

Manual, and the County’s Building and Safety Code requirements. Therefore,

impacts would be less than significant.

iv) Landslides?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project may occur in areas susceptible to

earthquake induced landslides (State of California 2003). However, the

construction of the proposed tie-in valves, water pipeline, power line and pump

station improvements would be conducted in accordance with the Standard

Specifications for Public Works Construction, the Orange County Grading and

Excavation Code and Grading Manual, and the County’s Building and Safety

Code requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed lease of riparian water to supplement the

irrigation needs of the approved HOA areas of the Ranch Plan development would not

result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, the construction of the

proposed tie-in valves to connect the existing RMV water lines to the previously

approved water line along Cow Camp Road, would occur during the construction

activities of the approved water pipeline along Cow Camp Road. All previously approved

BMPs would be implemented to reduce soil erosion. During the operational phase of the

project, the project site would be paved and would not result in soil erosion. Therefore,


The proposed pipeline, power line and pump station would be constructed above grade and

would not result in major grading or other soils disturbing activities.However, the project

would implement best available control measures such as watering disturbed soils and

erosion control best management practices during and after construction (refer to Sections

2.3.1 and 5), which would ensure that potential construction related impacts remain below

a level of significance. During the operational phase of the interim improvements, the

project areas would be covered by the proposed water pipeline, power lines and pump

station, which would minimize the effects of erosion. Impacts would be less than

significant.



c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would

become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site

landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Geologic resources were addressed in the approved

Ranch Plan Program EIR and Addendum to FEIRs 589 and 584; both of which are

incorporated by reference. The project would not result in any additional geologic

impacts or modifications to any of the mitigation measures or other conditions approved

as part of the Program EIR and its Addendum. It is further noted that construction of the

proposed tie-in valves, water pipeline, power line and pump station would be

implemented in accordance the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction;

therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the

Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Soils in the project area consist of terrace deposits and

alluvium which are considered to have a medium expansive classification. However,

construction activities would be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and

regulations, including the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and

therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No impacts would result from the

lease of water.

e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks

or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the

disposal of waste water?

No Impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative

wastewater disposal. Therefore, impacts would not occur.

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a

significant impact on the environment?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. As per the California Global Warming Solutions Act of

2006 (assembly Bill 32), global warming is generally the result of greenhouse gas emissions

(GHGs) caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Those emissions are primarily caused by the

burning of fossil fuels such as vehicle emissions or increased energy consumption. During

the construction phase of the project, the transport of the tie-in valves to the project site may



result in one to three vehicle trips to the project area and would not result in a significant

amount of carbon dioxide emissions. The proposed lease of water to SMWD to supplement

the non-domestic water needs and provide local water for the purposes of irrigating the HOA

areas of the Ranch Plan development would reduce the amount of water needed to be

transported to the project site from state water resources, thereby reducing the amount of

energy needed to transport state water to the project area. The decrease in energy usage

would decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the approved Ranch

Plan development. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of

reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. AB 32 was passed in 2006 and requires that by 2020,

state emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by reducing GHG emissions from

significant sources via regulation, market mechanisms, and other actions.

SB 375 was passed in 2008. This bill links transportation and land use planning with

global warming. It requires the Air Resource Board to set regional targets for the purpose

of reducing GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. Under this law, if regions develop

integrated land use, housing, and transportation plants that meet SB 375 targets, new

projects in these regions can be relieved of certain review of requirements under CEQA.

To implement state mandates to address climate change in local land use planning, local

land use jurisdictions are generally preparing GHG emission inventories and reduction

plans and incorporating climate change policies into local General Plans to ensure

development is guided by a land use plan that reduces GHGs. Until local plans are

developed to address GHG emissions, such as a local sustainable communities strategies

and update General Plan policies, the project is evaluated to determine whether it would

impede the implementation of AB 32 GHG reduction targets.

As documented in Addendum to FEIR No.’s 589 and 584, the project would not result in

a conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of

GHGs. These include the fact that vehicle and operational emissions from energy

consumption have been addressed as part of both FEIRS (589 and 594). Additionally,

measures have been incorporated into the project that would serve to reduce GHG

emissions (refer to Section 5). Also, as discussed in the response VII.a above, the project

would not impede the implementation of AB 32 reduction targets. Therefore, the project

would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose

of reducing the emissions of GHGs.



VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through

the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The lease of water would not result in the routine

transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. During the construction period, standard

best management practices would be applied to ensure that all hazardous materials (i.e.,

construction equipment fuels) are stored properly and that no hazards occur during this

phase of the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through

reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of

hazardous materials into the environment?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project proposes the lease of riparian water for non-

domestic use within a previously approved planned development, and therefore, would

not result in a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition involving the release of

hazardous materials into the environment. During the construction phase, BMPs would

be applied to reduce potential concerns from accidental conditions. Impacts would be less

than significant.

c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely

hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or

proposed school?

No Impact. The project site is not location within one-quarter mile of an existing or

proposed school. In addition, the project would not emit or result in the handling of

hazardous materials or substances. Therefore, no impacts would result.

d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials

sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it

create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. According to the State of California Department of Toxic Substance

Controls EnviroStor database, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous

material sites (State of California 2011). Therefore, no impacts would result.



e) Would the project for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such

a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use

airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in

the project area?

No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within

two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, no impacts would result.

f) Would the project for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the

project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working

in the project area.

g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted

emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. There is no designated evacuation routes within the Ranch Plan boundaries

(County of Orange 2008), therefore, the project would not impair or physically interfere

with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan.

h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or

death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized

areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is currently located in a wildland area that

has been approved for an urban planned development. The lease of water for non-domestic

use within the HOA areas of the planned development, and the proposed water pipeline,

power line and pump station infrastructure improvements would provide the additional

water needed to support the non-domestic needs of the development. Therefore, impacts


IX. Hydrology and Water Quality

a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared

for the Ranch Plan analyzed potential impacts associated with the construction of Cow

Camp Road and associated utilities approved along and within its right-of-way. The



WQMP outlined the site design, source control and treatment systems that would provide

effective treatment for the approved Ranch Plan development. The proposed construction

of the tie-in valves would not increase the potential pollutant levels to a degree in which it

would result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. In

addition, the lease of water from MWC to SMWD is proposed to supplement the non-

domestic water needs of the HOA areas of the planned development. The use of local water

within the planned development would occur in compliance with the WQMP source

control and treatment measures and would not result in any changes to the water quality or

waste discharge requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

In addition to the above analysis, a portion of the proposed power line and 16-inch water

pipeline would occur within the existing CWRP. Construction of these facilities would

increase the potential for temporary erosion and sediment transport. However, during

construction, the project would implement best available control measures, such as watering

disturbed soils and construction of temporary erosion control devices, which would reduce

project-related soil erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially

with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or

a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing

nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned

uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. RMV is proposing to lease a portion of the riparian water

allocations pertaining to the landowner members of the MWC to SMWD for use as

supplemental water to offset in part the new water demand generated by the HOA parcels

and investment properties of the Ranch Plan. SMWD would use the leased water to

provide non-domestic water to the HOA parcels and to the RMV related investment

properties during such periods that recycled water is not available due to the construction

schedule for facilities or for other reasons. RMV would deliver, and SMWD would

receive up to 400 acre feet of water annually to meet the projected need for PA-1. The

quantity of water to be delivered would be increased as development of other planning

areas in the San Juan Watershed occurs. The maximum quantity of water per the lease

agreement is 2,500 af/yr of RMV– riparian water to SMWD without further agreement.

This is a portion of the historical use of the 3,500 af/yr or more used by RMV for

agricultural and other purposes. RMV riparian water to be used by SMWD would not

exceed existing and historical RMV usage. Since the water would be used within the same

watershed and would not exceed quantities historically used within the project area, the

project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with

groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.



The proposed power line, up to a 16-inch water pipeline, and a booster pump would be

constructed above ground. These facilities would not substantially reduce the amount of

impervious surface area and therefore would have a minimal impact on water recharge. In

addition, these facilities are temporary and would be removed once the previously

approved water reservoirs are constructed in PA-2. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which

would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed lease of water to supplement the water

needs of the approved planned community. The proposed water use would not

substantially alter the approved drainage pattern for the Ranch Plan (as previously

analyzed and approved in FEIR 589). In addition, the proposed water use would not

result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts would be less

than significant.

d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially

increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in

flooding on- or off-site?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response to item IX.b above. The drainage

system identified in the Ranch Plan Program EIR for the proposed development of the

planned community would be adequate to serve the project area. In addition, the project

does not propose any changes that would result in the alteration of a stream or river. The

proposed lease of water would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the

site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that

would result in flooding on or off-site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of

existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional

sources of polluted runoff?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed change in the source of water would not result

in changes to the approved stormwater drainage system for the Ranch Plan development. In

addition, the project would not result in an increase in water runoff generated in the project

area. The stormwater drainage system planned for the Ranch Plan remains adequate to

support the approved development. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.



These proposed above ground pipeline, power line and pump station facilities would

not generate large quantities of runoff water, which would reduce the amount of

impervious surface area, and therefore, would have a minimal impact on water

recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.

f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. During construction activities the project would comply

with the site design measures of the WQMP prepared for the Ranch Plan. During the

operational phase of the project, no project features would contribute to the potential

degradation of water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a

federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard

delineation map?

No Impact. The project does not propose the construction or relocation of housing.

Therefore, the project would not result in the placement of housing within a 100-year

flood hazard area.

h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would

impede or redirect flood flows?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The alignment for Cow Camp Road would transverse

across areas that are designated as a 100-year floodplain (FEMA 2006) (Figure 6). While

the project proposes to construct the tie-in valves along Cow Camp Road, the proposed

valves would not be constructed within the floodplain areas, and would not impede or

redirect flood flows. The proposed water pipeline, power line and pump station would not

occur within a 100-year flood hazard area. Impacts would be less than significant.

i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or

death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project does not propose the construction of a levee

or dam to contain water flows. While the project would construct valves adjacent to flood

hazard areas, proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. Therefore, impacts would be less

than significant.



j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. San Juan Creek is located down slope of the project to

the south. In addition, the project site is located approximately 6.5 miles east of the

Pacific Ocean. No other bodies of water are located within the project site. Therefore the

project area is not prone to a seiche or tsunami. Grading in compliance with the Orange

County Grading Code and design standards would reduce the potential for mudflows to

less than significant.

X. Land Use and Planning

a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The proposed project would supplement the non-domestic water needs to

support the HOA parcels and RMV-related investment properties of the approved

planned community of the Ranch Plan. No aspect of the proposed project would

physically divide an established community.

b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of

an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general

plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the

purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The County of Orange General Plan Land Use

designation, for the area in which Cow Camp Road would transverse, consists of

Suburban Residential, Urban Activity Center, Open Space, and Open Space Preserve

(County of Orange 2005a). The County of Orange zoning designation for this area is

Planned Community. The proposed water lease would supplement the non-domestic

water needs of the Planned Community and would be consistent with the approved land

use and zoning designations for the project site. The proposed construction of the tie-in

valves would occur within the previously approved alignment for Cow Camp Road (per

the FEIR No.’s 589 and 584 and the Addendum to FEIR No.’s 589 and 584), and

therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


Antonio Pkwy

Ortega Hwy

Cow Camp Rd

Well 2


Well 3/50

Well 28

Well 25

Well 23

Well 18

Well 7

Well 6 Well 27

Well 8

Well 12

NicholsWell

Well 9Well 9

(Domestic)

VerdugoWell

PA 1

PA 1

PA 2

PA 3

PA 4

PA 5

FIGURE 6

FEMA 100-year FloodplainSupplemental Water Lease MND

SOURCE: Digital Globe 2008 Huitt-Zollars 2011 FEMA 2008

7010-01

0 1,500750Feet

100-Year Floodplain



Proposed Pipeline

Proposed Powerline

Wells





Planning Areas (PA)







The General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for the proposed pipeline, power

line and pump station areas within PA-2 consist of Suburban Residential and PC-Ranch

Plan, respectively. However, the parcel of land that encompasses the CWRP has a land

use designation of and Public Facilities (County of Orange 2005a), and is zoned as

General Agriculture (A1) (County of Orange 2005b). The proposed infrastructure

improvements would be consistent with the general plan designations and the PC-Ranch

Plan zoning designation. The purpose of the A1 zone is to provide for agriculture,

outdoor recreational uses, and those low intensity uses which have a predominately open

space character. It is also intended as an interim zone in those areas which the General

Plan may designate more intensive urban uses in the future. Per zoning regulation Section

7-9-55.3.h principal uses permitted with a site development permit include public/private

utility buildings and structures. The western portion of the proposed above ground

pipeline and power line would be constructed within the northern boundary of the

CWRP, and no agricultural production occurs within this parcel of land. Therefore,


c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural

community conservation plan?

Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation. Refer to response to item IV.f above. The

construction of the tie-in valves and pup station, and the lease of water would not conflict

with an adopted HCP or MSAA. The NCCP was not permitted and currently is not

active, and therefore, the project would not conflict with an NCCP.

Depending upon the final alignment of the water pipeline and power line, the potential

for indirect impacts to biological resources within the approved NCCP/MSAA/HCP

area would result. However, the incorporation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2

would reduce the potential temporary impacts associated with the construction of the

proposed water pipeline and power line. Therefore, impacts would be less than

significant with mitigation.

XI. Mineral Resources

a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that

would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. According to the Ranch Plan EIR the mineral resources within the Ranch

Plan project area were limited to PAs 5, 6, 7, and 13. The proposed project would occur

in areas that were previously approved for development; including PAs 1, 2, 3, and 4. In



addition, the western portion of the proposed water pipeline and power line facilities

would be constructed within the CWRP. Therefore, the proposed project would not result

in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.

b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral

resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land

use plan?

No Impact. Refer to response to item XI.a above.

XII. Noise

a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in

excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or

applicable standards of other agencies?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed tie-

in valves, water pipeline, power line and pump station would occur in accordance with

the Orange County Noise Ordinance Section 4-6-7; which permits construction activities

to occur between the hours of 7am and 8 pm. Compliance with the noise ordinance would

reduce potential construction related noise to less than significant. The operational phase

of the proposed project (i.e., the lease of riparian water) would not result in the generation

of noise. In addition, the operation of the proposed pipelines would not result in an

increase in operational noise levels. However, the proposed above ground booster pump

station would generate noise during the temporary operational period. The County’s

Noise Ordinance Section 4-6-5 Exterior Noise Levels identifies the exterior noise

threshold for residential uses as 55 dB(A) between the hours of 7am to 10 pm and 50

dB(A) between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. The closest existing residential property

line is located approximately 0.57 miles to the north of the proposed pump station. Noise

generated from the booster pump station at this location would be less than 40 dB(A).

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Would the project exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne

vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in the generation

of groundborne vibration. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.



c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in

the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response to item XII.a above. The proposed

lease of riparian water would not result in an increase to the ambient noise levels.

Therefore, no impacts would occur.

The proposed water pipeline and power line would not result in a permanent increase in

ambient noise levels. While the pump station would generate operational noise during its

interim use, the closest sensitive receptors are residential uses located approximately 0.57

mile north of the proposed station site. Noise generated from the booster pump station at

this location would be less than 40 dB(A) at the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore,


d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient

noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to response to item XII.a above. During

construction activities, construction noise is exempt from the noise threshold if activities

occur during the hours of 7am to 8 pm. Compliance with the noise ordinance would

reduce potential construction related noise to less than significant. In addition, the lease

of water would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

The interim pipeline, power line and pump station would not result in a substantial

temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. While the proposed pump station

would generate operational noise during its interim use, the closest sensitive receptors are

residential uses located approximately 0.57 mile north of the proposed pump station site,

and noise levels would be below the County’s threshold. Therefore, impacts would be

less than significant.

e) Would the project for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a

plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,

would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive

noise levels?

No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within

two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, no impacts would occur.



f) Would the project for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the

project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Therefore, no impacts would result.

XIII. Population and Housing

a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for

example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through

extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project proposes the lease of riparian water from the

property owners of the Ranch to SMWD to supplement the non-domestic irrigation water

needs of the HOA parcels and RMV-related investment properties of the approved Ranch

Plan development. The approved Water Supply Assessment for the Ranch Plan indicates

that adequate water supply is available for the project exclusive of the lease of riparian

water, therefore, the project would not result in an increase to the domestic water supply.

Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The proposed project would not require the removal of existing housing, and

therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The project would not result in the displacement of people; therefore, no

replacement housing would be required.



XIV. Public Services

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the

provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or

physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,

response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

No Impact. The proposed lease of riparian water would not result in an increase in fire

protection services or response times of such services. Therefore, no impacts would result.

Police protection?

No Impact. The proposed lease of riparian water would not result in an increase in police

protection services or response times of such services. Therefore, no impacts would result.

Schools?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in students or affect

existing or proposed schools. Since the project does not proposed housing, impacts to

existing schools or the need for additional schools would not result.

Parks?

No Impact. The proposed project would supplement the non-domestic water supply of

the planned community including the irrigation needs of the approved parks. However,

the project would not result in an increase in use of existing or planed parks. Therefore no

impacts would occur.

Other public facilities?

No Impact. No additional public facilities would be impacted by the proposed project.

No impact would result.



XV. Recreation

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or

other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility

would occur or be accelerated?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the increased use of existing parks

or other recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would result.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or

expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on

the environment?

No Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the

construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impacts would result.

XVI. Transportation and Traffic

a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy

establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation

system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and

non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including

but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and

bicycle baths, and mass transit?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. During the construction phase of the project, traffic would

be generated by construction crews and equipment traveling to and from the project site.

Due to the size of the project, a relatively small number of vehicles would be required to

implement the construction phase. Therefore, increased traffic from the construction phase

would be a short-term temporary and minimal increase and would not result in a conflict

with applicable plans, ordinances or policies of the circulation system. Therefore impacts

would be less than significant. The proposed lease of water, or the proposed water pipeline,

power line or pump station, would not result in any conflicts to the circulation system, and

therefore, no impacts would occur during this phase of the project.



b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program,

including, but not limited to level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand

measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency

for designated roads or highways?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The short-term and limited construction-related traffic

would not create a substantial impact on traffic volumes nor change traffic patterns in

such a way as to affect the LOS or vehicle to congestion ratio on study area roadways.

Long-term traffic associated with the lease of water, and the interim operation and

maintenance of the pipeline, power line and pump station, would not change the existing

or approved traffic conditions, and therefore, would have no impact to the LOS on study

area roadways.

c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase

in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The project does not propose any use which would result in a change in air

traffic patterns. Therefore, no impacts would result.

d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp

curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

No Impact. The proposed project does not include the development or redesign of any

roadways that would impose a hazardous threat due to a design feature. No impacts

would occur.

e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact. The project would not result in the closure of any surface streets that would

increase the response times for emergency services. Therefore, no impacts would result.

f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public

transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety

of such facilities?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. As addressed in the Ranch Plan Program EIR and

Addendum to FEIRs 589 and 584, a Class 1 Bikeway and a Regional Riding and Hiking

Trail has been approved along Cow Camp Road as part of the Ranch Plan development.

A Class 1 Bikeway trails is a paved off-road facility which is physically separated from a

roadway and designated primarily for the use of bicycles. The approved alignment for



these trails would generally run parallel, to the south of Cow Camp Road. The project

proposes to construct tie-in valves along the future Cow Camp Road alignment.

Installation of the tie-in valves would be constructed during the installation of the

previously approved water line within Cow Camp Road. These infrastructure

improvements would occur prior to the opening of Cow Camp Road and the bikeway and

regional trails, and therefore, the implementation of the proposed tie-ins would not

conflict with these facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

XVII. Utilities and Service Systems

a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable

Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. During construction activities, the project would be

required to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s and the Ranch Plan

WQMP. No waste water would be generated during the operational phase of the project.


b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater

treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental effects?

Less-Than-Significant Impacts. RMV has historically diverted and used an average of

3,500 af/yr of riparian water. The proposed lease agreement would result in the lease of

up to a maximum of 2,500 af/yr of RMV-riparian water to SMWD without further

agreement. Additional water could be available if SMWD and RMV mutually agree and

the amount is available. The amount of water proposed to be withdrawn from the existing

wells and leased to SMWD, together with all other RMV withdrawals, would be less than

3,500 af/yr. Therefore, the project would not exceed the existing and historical use of

water in the project area.

The proposed lease of riparian water for non-domestic uses would not require or result in

the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of

existing facilities. A new water pipeline was previously approved along Cow Camp

Road. The project would only need to connect to this approved pipeline from the existing

RMV water lines that travel north/south from the existing wells located along San Juan

Creek. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The project would not generate new sources of wastewater, and therefore, no new or

expansion facilities would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant.



c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage

facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed lease of riparian water to supplement the

source of water for the irrigation of HOA parcels and RMV-related investment properties

of the approved Ranch Plan development and construction of interim pipeline and pump

station facilities would not require or result in a substantial increase to the storm water

runoff amounts analyzed in the Ranch Plan Program EIR. In addition, the construction

phase of the project would not increase the amount of storm water runoff that would

necessitate the need to construct new storm water drainage facilities. Therefore, impacts


d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from

existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. RMV has historically diverted and used an average of

3,500 af/yr of riparian water for agricultural and other purposes. The proposed lease

agreement would result in the lease of up to a maximum of 2,500 af/yr of RMV-riparian

water to SMWD without further agreement. The amount of water proposed to be

withdrawn from the existing wells and leased to SMWD, together with all other RMV

withdrawals, would be less than 3,500 af/yr. Therefore, there would still be adequate

water available to support existing riparian habitats, since no increase in water use is

involved, and because the existing uses of riparian water for agricultural purposes has

been compatible with maintaining riparian systems. Therefore, the project would not

exceed the existing and historical use of water in the project area, and no new or

expanded entitlements are required. Impacts would be less than significant.

e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,

which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the

project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project would not result in the need for additional

water or generate additional wastewater that what was predicted for the planned

development of the Ranch Plan. Therefore, the capacity of the wastewater treatment

provider would not be affected, and impacts would be less than significant.



f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to

accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. While some solid waste may be generated during the

construction phase of the project, the amount of waste would be minimal and would be

brought to the local landfill. This would be a short-term increase to the landfill and

impacts would be less than significant. No solid waste would be generated during the

operational phase of the proposed project.

g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related

to solid waste?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with federal, state

and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste during the construction phase.

The operational phase of the project would not generate solid waste. Therefore, impacts


XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife

population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal

community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant

or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history

or prehistory?

Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation. The proposed lease of water and construction

of the tie–in valves would occur within previously approved development areas. In

addition, construction activities would be conducted at the same time as the previously

approved infrastructure improvements along Cow Camp Road and no new impacts to

biological or cultural resources would result from the project.

The western portion of the off-water pipeline and power line facilities would be constructed

within the northern boundary of the CWRP and the eastern portion of these facilities would

be constructed within the previously approved development area for PA-2. While the

project sites for these facilities have been previous disturbed, the potential exists for

impacts to occur to coastal sage scrub and indirect impacts to migratory birds and the

NCCP/MSAA/HCP. However, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2

would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less-than-significant levels. In

addition, construction activities for the proposed pipeline, power line and pump station



facilities located within the PA-2 boundary would occur prior to the construction of the

approved Ranch Plan development, and therefore, the project has incorporated mitigation

measures from FEIR No. 589 to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a

project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the

effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed lease of water and

associated construction activities are proposed in support of the previously approved

Ranch Plan development. FEIR No 589 conducted a comprehensive cumulative impact

analysis which considered 74 specific projects, in addition to growth projects associated

with the adopted general plans for the local jurisdictions, and regional development

projects. Significant cumulative impacts identified in FEIR 589 were related to

agricultural resources, water resources, air quality, noise, aesthetics and visual resources,

mineral resources, traffic and circulation, and biological resources. In addition, a separate

project to transfer water from the CWRP to Cow Camp Road has been identified as a

foreseeable future project.

The proposed lease of water and construction of the proposed tie-in valves and pump

station would not result in impacts that would be cumulatively considerable. The

proposed pipeline and power line infrastructure improvements would have the potential

to result in impacts to biological resources. However, implementation of mitigation

measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to

less-than-significant levels in accordance with the approved HCP and MSAA. Therefore,

cumulative biological impacts would be less than significant.

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse

effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Based on the analysis of the above questions, it has been

determined that there would be no significant direct or indirect effect on human beings.







5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure

Time Frame of Mitigation

Monitoring Reporting Agency

Time Frame for Verification

Frequency to

Date of Completion

Date of Verification Planning

Pre-Const. During Const.

Post Const. Monitor Report

Project Design Features

Best available control measures shall be used during construction to reduce particulate emissions and reduce soil erosion and trackout, through the following project features:

Construction staff will cover or water daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material.

Construction staff will use adequate water and/or other dust palliatives on all disturbed areas in order to avoid particle blow-off.

Construction staff will wash down or sweep paved streets as necessary to control track out or fugitive dust.

Construction staff will cover or tarp all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roads if sufficient freeboard is not available to prevent material blow-off during transport.

Construction staff will use gravel bags and catch basins during ground-disturbing operations.

Construction staff will erect temporary wind breaks to mitigate wind erosion.

Construction staff will maintain appropriate soil moisture, apply soil

X SMWD



Mitigation Measure




Frequency to

Date of Completion




binders, and plant stabilizing vegetation.

During construction equipment emissions will be reduced through the following project features:

Construction staff will properly tune and maintain construction equipment.

Construction management staff shall encourage carpooling by all construction workers.

Any necessary lane closures will be limited to off-peak travel periods.

Construction staff will park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.

Construction management will encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours.

X SMWD

The following standard conditions and regulations, in regards to paleontological resources, shall be incorporated into the project:

SMWD shall retain a County certified paleontologist to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance, and shall

X X SMWD



Mitigation Measure




Frequency to

Date of Completion




establish, in cooperation with the contractor, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the contractor, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.

Prior to the release of any grading bond, the contractor shall submit the paleontologist’s follow up report for approval by the County Manager; and OC Parks. The contractor shall prepare excavated material to the point of identification. The contractor shall offer excavated finds for curatorial purposes to the County of Orange, or its designee, on the first-refusal basis. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to approval by OC Parks. The contractor shall pay curatorial fees if an applicable fee program is in effect at the time of presentation of the materials to the County of Orange or its designee, all in a manner meeting the approval of OC Parks. (County of Orange Standard Condition of Approval, A07)



Mitigation Measure




Frequency to

Date of Completion




The following mitigation measure shall be incorporated from FEIR No. 589, to reduce potential impacts to human remains.

In accordance with California Health and safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. The County Coroner shall make such determination within two working days of notification of discovery. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or believed to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage Commission must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection within 24 hours of

X SMWD



Mitigation Measure




Frequency to

Date of Completion




notification. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains.

Mitigation Measures

BIO-1. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, SMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to survey the final alignment of the proposed water pipeline and power line. If impacts to vegetation communities and potentially special-status species would occur from the final alignment, SMWD shall prepare and implement a Biological Resources Construction Plan (BRCP) that provides for the protection of the resource and establishes the monitoring requirements. The BRCP shall incorporate the avoidance and minimization measures, as applicable to the on-site impacts, described in Section 4.6, Avoidance and Minimization Measures, in the SMWD NCCP/MSAA/HCP Guidelines and Procedures Manual (Dudek 2007). The BRCP may include the following elements, as applicable to the project impacts: specific measures for the protection of special-status species; identification and quantification of habitats to be disturbed; delineation of project impact area with

X SMWD



Mitigation Measure




Frequency to

Date of Completion




fencing, flagging, or tape, or other marking; biological monitoring during construction for special-status wildlife such as California gnatcatcher and cactus wren; Best Management Practices pertinent to erosion and dust; and restoration of temporary impact areas to pre-construction or better conditions.

BIO-2. If construction occurs during the bird breeding season (typically March through August, or as determined by a qualified biologist), within seven (7) days of ground-disturbing activities a pre-activity survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 are present in the disturbance zone or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the disturbance zone. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed, then additional pre-disturbance surveys shall be conducted such that no more than seven (7) days will have elapsed between the survey and ground-disturbing activities.

X SMWD



6.0 REFERENCES

California Department of Conservation. 2007. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps.

Available at: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm. Viewed on June 27, 2011.

California Department of Conservation. 2008 . Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Important Farmlands.

California Department of Conservation. 2009. Williamson Act Contract Lands.

Caltrans 2007. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Updated 12-7-2007. Available at:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways. Viewed on June 30, 2011.

County of Orange. 2004. Program Environmental Impact Report No. 589. The Ranch Plan

General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (PA 01-114) (SCH No. 2003021141). Prepared

by Bonterra Consulting.

County of Orange. 2005a. General Plan Land Use Element Map. Adopted September 13.

County of Orange. 2005b. County of Orange General Plan. Available at:

http://www.ocplanning.net/GeneralPlan2005.aspx. Viewed on: June 21, 2011.

County of Orange. 2008. Addendum to Final EIR 584 (SCH 2006061140) and Final EIR 589

(SCH 2003021141). The Ranch Plan Cow Camp Road and Ancillary Infrastructure

Improvements IP 08-338. Prepared by Bonterra Consulting. September.

Dudek. 2007. NCCP/MSAA/HCP and SAMP Guidelines and Procedures Manual for the Santa

Margarita Water District.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Mapping Agency). 2006. Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011. CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD

1993) Revised March 2011. Accessed July 13, 2011. http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/

handbook/signthres.pdf.

State of California. 2003. California Geological Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones. Canada

Gobernadora Quadrangle. September 23. Available at: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/

download/pdf/ozn_canag.pdf. Viewed on June 27, 2011.



State of California. 2011. Department of Toxic Substance Control. EnviroStor Database.

Available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map.asp?global_id=&x=-

119.1357421875&y=37.82280243352756&zl=5&ms=640,480&mt=m&findaddress=Tru

e&city=&zip=&county=ORANGE&federal_superfund=true&state_response=true&volu

ntary_cleanup=true&school_cleanup=true&corrective_action=true&tiered_permit=true&

permit_site=true&permit_and_ca_site=true. Viewed on June 21, 2011.

Documents

Mitigated Negative Declaration for Supplemental Water … · Negative Declaration ... Mitigated Negative Declaration ... SMWD is responsible for providing domestic and non-domestic