HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS038_UPPER NEWPORT BAY RESTORATION PROJECT IlUllll IIII III IIIII IIIIIII Ilnl �IIII All III IIII
15038
1 .
1
1 INITIAL STUDY
1
1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY
RESTORATION PROJECT
1
1
1
1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1 1984
1 •
of
1
1 �
11
INITIAL STUDY
RESTORATION PROJECT, UPPER NEWPORT BAY
ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
I _ .
Project Proponent: Prepared For:
PORT OF LONG BEACH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. Box 570 3300 W. Newport Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90801 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Contact Person: Dr. Geraldine Knatz Contact Person: Pat Temple
(213) 437-0041; ext. 283 Environmental Coordinator
(714) 640-2197
Prepared By:
CULBERTSON, ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
' 26141 Marguerite Parkway, Suite C
Mission Viejo, CA 92692
(714) 643-1622
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
H. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
IV. AREAS OF POTENTIAL IMPACT, MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Biology
B. Noise
C. Landform and Grading
V. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
VI. APPENDIX
A. Environmental Information Form and Checklist
B. Letter, Port of Long Beach Memorandum
of Understanding
I. INTRODUCTION
I '
II �
1
I. INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with Section 15063 of the CEQA
Guidelines, which requires that an agency conduct an Initial Study on a project to
determine whether the project may have an impact on the environment, and if any
impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level.
The project described in Chapter III herein is a component mitigation program of
the overall objectives of the Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control
Plan for San Diego Creek (hereinafter 11208 Plan") designed for protection of the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (hereinafter "UNBER"). The evaluation of
this project in the Initial Study is focussed on those items marked "Yes" or
"Maybe" in the Environmental Checklist Form and Environmental Information
NForm, which appear in Appendix A.
Two major EIR's have been certified on sedimentation control plans for the
UNBER. These are:
1. Environmental Impact Report, Newport Bay Watershed - San Diego Creek
Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan; Early Action &
Interim Plan (EA & IP); prepared by Culbertson, Adams and Associates for
the City of Newport Beach, 1981.
1 2. Environmental Impact Report, San Diego Creek Stormwater Sedimentation
I Control Plan; prepared by Michael Brandman Associates for the City of
Newport Beach and SCAG, 1983.
iBoth of these EIR's are incorporated into this Initial Study by reference, and are
summarized in the appropriate analytical sections. Of the two EIR's, the EA and
IP EIR provides the most detailed assessment of sedimentation basins in the
UNBER, and is, therefore, substantially relied upon in the analysis herein.
I-1
B: BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
1
1
1
i
1
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY
The Upper Newport Bay has had a history of changing complexions and
conditions: Formed by an ancestor to the Santa Ana River during the early
PleistocenL period, the Bay began to take on an estuarine condition
approximately 10-12,000 years ago. Marshes and sandbars began to form, fed
by alluvium contributed by the Santa Ana River and erosion from the
surrounding bluffs. The Santa Ana River historically flowed into the Upper
Newport Bay, fed by a number of tributaries, among them San Diego Creek.
The Santa Ana River, 'however, changed course several times, sometimes
i flowing to Alamitos Bay, sometimes to the Upper Newport Bay. By 1770 the
river had cut a new channel between Newport and Huntington Beach mesas,
approximately along its current alignment, returning to Alamitos Bay during
large floods. The river never returned to Upper Newport Bay. Between 1825
and 1828, generally, a sandspit formed down the coast from the Santa Ana
River mouth turning flows southeast, through what became the Lower Bay,
and is now Newport Harbor.
In 1933, the Upper Bay was transformed into a saltworks, which was
destroyed in 1969 by winter storms. In 1975, the State of California acquired
the Upper Bay and' created the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The
Department of Fish and Game administers operations in the Reserve, and is
currently, preparing a pilot program for restoration of the marsh.
Sedimentation in the Upper Newport Bay is a result of several factors. The
combination of the course change in the Santa Ana River and the creation
of the sandspit have had a dramatic effect on the Bay's ability to "wash out"
sediment. The future of the Bay would be highly uncertain if left
unattended. This would, of course, occur over a much longer period than
under current conditions. The rapidity, however, of the Bay sedimentation
infill will insure its transition to another, non-saltwater marsh- form in the
near future unless action is taken to control the influx of sediment.
' II-1
~ B. THE 208 PLAN
208 Plans are developed in accordance with PL 92-500, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972. Federal regulations, promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 C.F.R. 131.11) specify the
content of 208 Plans and provide guidelines for meeting the Clean Water Act
' goal of "fishable, swimmable" waters by 1983. The number 11208" re�ers to
Section 208 of PL 92-500 which establishes a framework for study, planning
and control of the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. In
connection with this goal, the EPA has designated sediment as a pollutant for
purposes of 208 planning. Therefore, the principal challenge to the vitality
of the Upper Newport Bay can be addressed through a set of comprehensive
management and restoration strategies currently, or to be, a part of the
ultimate 208 Plan.
The institutional framework for the 208 approval involves local governmental,
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and EPA approval. Because
of the complexity of the preparation and coordination of such a plan, the
joint powers agency of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) was designated by the SWRCB as the management agency for the
South Coast region. In turn, SCAG cooperated with eight jurisdictions in the
region to generate the 208 Plan. One of the agencies, Newport-Irvine Waste
Management Agency (NIWA) participated as a joint powers association with
jurisdiction in the San Diego Creek watershed, the principal watershed to the
Bay. NIWA prepared numerous plans and technical studies between 1976 and
1979 to support the findings and conclusions in the 208 Plan.
' The 208 Plan was drafted .in two phases. Phase I consisted of the assembly
of data, identification of problems, and establishment of priorities. Phase II-
accomplished major tasks in comprehensive policy identification, early action
plans, priority action plans and items for continuing planning and action. One
such item was the call for a sediment control plan for the San Diego Creek
watershed. This has resulted in the formation of the San Diego Creek
Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan (CSWSCP). A joint
powers agreement has been entered into by the cities of Newport Beach and
w II-2
Irvine, in cooperation with SCAG and the County of Orange, to prepare and
process this plan. This plan has been further divided into three parts:
Part I - Early Action and Interim Plan
Part II - Sedimentation Analysis
Part III - Comprehensive Storm Flow Sedimentation Plan
The studies for all three parts are now complete. The facilities contem-
plated in the EA and IP, Part I are installed and operational. The facilities
proposed for the Comprehensive Storm Flow Sedimentation Plan are
1 anticipated to be installed by 1988.
1 This Initial Study is designed to evaluate the impacts resulting from the
implementation of a restoration project in the UNBER proposed by the Port
of Long Beach.
T
II-3
1 .
i
IIL PROJECT DESCREMON
r
r
i
i
1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. LOCATION
' The proposed' excavation areas are located in the uppermost portion of the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (UNBER) in the City of Newport
Beach (Exhibits 1 and 2). The project extends the existing sedimentation
basin in the UNBER in order to continue the UNBER enhancement program.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Port of Long Beach proposes to restore tidal influence to a predomin-
ately barren, sublittoral area in the 'old salt ponds" region of the State of
California Department of Fish and Game Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve located in the City of Newport Beach, as shown on Exhibit 3. This
plan was developed in conjunction with the recommendations and require-
ments of the Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries
' Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The restoration project site is
divided into two areas, A and B.
In area A, the Port will excavate an intertidal/subtidal area of 21.021 acres
to mean sea level (+2.8 feet MLLW) and an intertidal area of 1.13 acres
I , between mean sea level and mean high water (0 to +2.6 feet MSL). One-third
acre will be graded at the periphery of the intertidal area (above +2.6 feet
MSL) to existing slopes. In addition, within one year from the date of
execution of the attached Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix B)
between federal and state wildlife agencies, the Port will excavate area B,
or 7.06 acres to below mean sea level and 0.32 acres between mean sea level
and mean higher high water. The periphery of area B (0.1 acre above mean
higher high water) will also be graded into existing slopes (Exhibit 4). A 3.32
acre portion of area will remain as .an island to serve as a nesting site
for Least Terns. A channel, cut to -3 feet mean sea level, will surround the
island created.
In area A, 199,679 cubic yards of sediment will be removed by a hydraulic
backhoe with a five cubic yard capacity and trucked under Jamboree Road
III-1
1
w
cc i il�0• !-�i \
1 LL J IJ
Z
O < O
a o
w za
Z OJO1 13 7 W
J
W J S
W
V C �
+•- O
W U++
2 0
v'
O
e Zm
.�
1(Mj jJ MiN,
zz
' W
O
i Z
4i N
' J ADO i
J �
LL
/J
Culbertson FIGURE
1 Adams & Vicinity Map 1
Associates
1
Wesfi 8ay,ilAk � I 1
1, \\ ter'oi
Upper Newport Bay
Q AREA •B• /
BACK GpuNi F
SAN Q
UAREA `A•� EXISTING BASIN REA � �W
REA
t:t:::;::•:;.:•: :::::::::: :: U 1 AREA .A.. ;7..-.:•..•....•.:::::::::: ::
Aq
�`""I\ ��— lam••• � �
®RIVE ®
Eastbluff
I
R
I SCALE
10 400 a00
_ = Culbertson FIGURE
Adams & 2
...�., Associates
1
iE::•;::.,•�::"�•:z::� `••;� AREAS TO BE EXCAVATED !..•.;•:;i:y;i:•i;;:,.:•;.
.�
`oo
a�
SAN DIEQO CREEK.
W
R
EXISTING BASIN
�� ':?1' %:.•`.. :::♦.'• •;:5 .: section 'A' :i•!:::i••:.:::
........:. 1
::f.•'•:t ::�::::'r::• '
AREA• A
sA0 ��'�i:'•i}i�:t':'•.''':: •••• ::,,.:::•.:••.;:; •. OPT
M8L=0.00' '
MARINE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION IN UPPER 'I
' 'WWPORT BAY FOR PORT OF LONG BEACH EXPANSIM
COUNTY'OF ORANGE,3TATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPLICATION BY PORT OF LONG BEACH
DATE: JAN. INK;
NORTH
SCALE: 1'-4W,
PROPOSED EXCAVATION AREA
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Culbertson,Adams
& Associates
��— Planning Ca ltants
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS - 1
Horizontal Scale,1'-100' Vwtical4cala 1'-2u:1
Existing Elevitions
Design,Elevation*
SECTION"'A' AREA 'B'.
•t7,o }B.o
•. . 3
1
oo TOTAL AREA BETWEEN
-3.0 t :CONTOURS,0"8 -W1
' AREA 'A' 2t.0211•AMS
AREA 'B" 7=73•Acres
' SECTION''A' AREA.-A'
}6,8 }7.5 +%0
.00 7771171.77!'•+:!^.......�:-.
... CUBIC YARDS.REMOVED
•:i r'.•: a;'.•+:'+'i:a:.:i:�:�.•i' �• 00
AREA 'A' 199;979
-ao t AREA *W 81,419
TOTAL 281.098
SECTION''8' AREA 'A'
}6.0 ISLAND •I.6.0 }6.0 +7.0
3
3 3 \:: v'i•i:
7
1
t
r
1
—3.0 1 3.0 —3.0
' SECTION 'C' •AREA 'A'
}5.5 +6'2 4-5.6
2.0
0.0
—3.0
MaLro:oo'
' MARINE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION IN UPPER
NEWPORT BAY FOR PORT OF LONG BEACH
EXPANSION COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
' CALIFORNIA:APPLICATION BY PORT OF LONG-BEACH
DATE:.JAN., 1964
CROSS-SECTIONS OF EXCAVATION
' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH- Culbertson,Adams
& Associates
Vemo~ Planning Consultants
4
I •
1
1 _ CREEK -
�
1
01
m
a. .......................
1 ...... SIT ;
1
1
1 =;
1 W
W a
O d
1 a �
1
1
NORTH
SCALE:.V-400'
1
DISPOSAL SITE
1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Culbertson,Adams
& Associates
Planning Consultants
. -- 5
M to disposal Site A shown on Exhibit 5 or to a site directly adjacent to the
south side of Site A. Disposal site A is on Irvine Company property and is
the site where recent spoils were disposed of when the "Early Action Plan"
was undertaken in 1982-83. Spoils will be dewatered and compacted at the
disposal site.
In the area, B, 81,419 cubic yards of sediment will be excavated in the same
manner as described above for area A.
' Construction activities will be scheduled so as not to interfere with the
nesting activities of the California Least Tern unless specifically authorized
' by the State Department of Fish and Game.
' In order to be fully effective the Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan
calls for in-bay basins to be excavated to a depth of -4 feet MSL with 10:1
slopes. The basins proposed herein are.not excavated to that depth. The
Port of Long Beach has stated* that insufficient funds exist to excavate the
basins to the depth contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. The
establishment of the basins alone, however, is considered by the City of
Newport Beach and the Port to be of paramount concern in providing
continuing mitigation to the Bay. It is anticipated that, in the future, depth
will be added to these established basins.
Habitat Mitigation Bank
' This restoration project will create a habitat mitigation bank of credits which
will be used for the following two projects:
' 1) Baxter Slip Fill - ACE Permit #79-133 and
2) Pier A Container Terminal - ACE Permit #87-20HB, and any future
projects, if sufficient credits exist.
' The restoration of area A will yield 31.53 acres of credits. The restoration
*(Personal communication, Dr. Geraldine Knatz and Andi Adams, Culbertson,
Adams and Assoc., 2/28/84).
III-6
of area B will yield 10.59 acres of credits.
For specific guidelines on how the mitigation credits may be used or the
environmental safeguards recommended, by state and federal wildlife agen-
cies, please see the attached MOU.
C. PERMITS REQUIRED
Permits and/or approvals will be necessary from the following agencies prior
' to construction:
Coastal Zone Conservation Coastal Development Permit
Commission
' State Lands Commission Permission
Department of Fish & Game 1601 Permit
Regional Water Quality NPDES (waiver issued)
Control Board
' Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit
O.C. Environmental Permission to grade in
Management Agency Flood Control Facility
(Encroachment Permit)
City of Newport Beach Grading Permit
' In addition to these permits, the permission has been secured
from The Irvine Company for the use of the disposal site.
' III-7
1
1
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
' IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
' A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
' Overview
There have been numerous artificial alterations in Upper Newport Bay. The
most significant of these occurred in the 1920's and 1930's including the
construction of a salt evaporation operation in the uppermost part of the bay
' in 1934. These operations involved the construction of a complex series of
earthen dikes and evaporation ponds. In 1969, storms damaged the operation
beyond repair, and it was abandoned. During much the same period of time
there has been widespread alteration of San Diego Creek and its watershed
for urbanization and flood control. One net effect of these activities has
' been a gradual increase in sediments being transported to the bay (Pomeroy,
Johnston and Bailey, 1977). During operation of the salt evaporation ponds,
flows entering the bay from San Diego Creek were deflected to the northern
shore, thereby causing sediments to drop out and limiting their movement
into the bay. Since the abandonment of these operations, however, siltation
has been increasing in the Upper Bay (University of California, 1978). As a
result of increased sedimentation, the area of exposed mudflats in Upper
Newport Bay appears to be increasing, and the area of open water at low tide
decreasing. The deposition of sediments near Jamboree Road was so great
' prior to the new sedimentation basin that is was no longer considered a part
of the intertidal system (University of California, 1978). There have been
equally substantial changes elsewhere in the Upper Bay as well.
' Vegetation
The proposed basins are located in the upper-most portions of the Bay within
the abandoned salt works area, and the San Diego Creek Flood Control
Channel. These areas are totally altered from their native conditions; they
were once covered by a variety of saltmarsh, freshwater marsh and riparian
' vegetation associations under a combination of tidal influence and freshwater
flows from San Diego Creek (University of California, 1978). Nonetheless,
these areas today support components of these and other types of vegetation,
which have re-established themselves due to the abandonment of the salt
IV-1
operation in'1969 and the establishment of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Resource in 1975. A complete inventory of vegetation is found in the EIR
' for the Early Action and Interim Plan (supra).
' Vegetation within and around the proposed desilting basin, located in the
uppermost portions of the Bay, consists of a complex of tidal mudflats,
' coastal saltmarsh, coastal brackish marsh thickets, and disturbed tidal flats
(Exhibit 6). Tidal mudflats are areas of saturated silt deposits alternatively
exposed and submerged by quiet shallow water as the result of tidal action.
They are often expansive, including tens, sometimes hundreds of acres, at the
margins of bays and inlets where they grade into coastal saltmarsh on their
inland boundaries.
Wildlife
The expansive mudflats, marshlands, and adjacent uplands support large
aggregations of birds, including 159 species (Frey et.al., 1970). For most of
these species, particularly migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, the Upper Bay
' serves as a critical resting and foraging habitat. For species of some
shorebirds, the time spent in migration and on wintering grounds makes up
three quarters of the year. A census conducted in 1967 and 1968 by the
California Department of Fish and Game revealed an estimated 4,000,000
bird use days for Upper Newport Bay.
Several species of reptiles, amphibians and mammals are also found within
Upper Newport Bay; however, suitable freshwater and terrestrial habitats for
these are limited to tributary canyons, adjacent bluffs and the uppermost
' reaches of the Bay (Thompson, 1978).
Upper Newport Bay serves as habitat for three Rare and Endangered species.
These include three bird species - the California least tern, light-footed
clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow.
' Fish
Upper Newport Bay serves as spawning and nursery habitat for many coastal
fish species and as a year-round or seasonal feeding habitat for others. A
` total of 78 species of fish have been recorded from the Bay as a whole
(Allen, 1976).
' IV-2
'�r''••:ti:l`.;y.:r.�s. '_•"•:-'~'��✓,� '�i"Y!e...�:l�` ��^_- _ •r''n.y.y� ` Y1esl BL1� .�' �v{ fi/ j''-•� :� �..i %
,ti M`.;" •1^'4_-..yy;Mm:^x�:...'` w+• •-•Y�r..,`t .... ,•+• uV. .:�'l:•'.�f ,v f
=3`ICriowri'ind'�'ossibl6 .,.. w t`._ wy:'� .Jk• `''`•' ; 1 S`M'•'� ,.\' '
',£xtent of Lig `• ` u' -�
-r._.,_ .,;��:=�CleRper,Rgil llakltat .72,- �..1,••..;:.m�•.; �.Aw •�
5
w:.T'I„j•.�{,li ;.1� 'a. •.,,t`r. �� : j,..�• 0
:i'�-.Y-s!G-'` iY...�d: uj`yT`-��^i'!%Y'`�•'`"_i��i:'�^;•-'1,l �w ?4•.ar..�.. ,� Qt r 11�{j�}�'�/�/�/
'•wV��4+" •� =��^•Y-+�•' �..�•'.y-rv. •v. ,L. •Yyv! / ,.•4.•..0..V.v .• 1 t .14�v`".+Y .14 n r �/
ca
f - � � _ ')r:\ri:��-,i'=w�-�+�- �a Wes.y,Y �J ..r... .+L hti^.4 y..tk T4 M•.+v...Jvs .v. •�.uyww... ��/ f
•oh^•�'i,r...•/. �.,,/• Y f i .- .u;,w,yv ..mom w�, ✓,y .a r. a4..•u ,v....arw :. r
�{���.��.J����({ � -� 1: �.:'O�_�• /.,,i •e^I4.. r .IL^�w .4 J4. h •• .Y IO. nh tl •• 4••K WW - � r !.
'.i�l:,. Div=.,. „ ` •.. ' "v-lri= "4. 'tlW
.... � �' ` "•` `nu�.4• ,ay"',,,,` _— _'emu_—_�`�"�__'� � .a..tly•
.L+ '•` A.ti i:'.Y". - '� ''.y+�^„Si�ti_ ,..+u..4 `�4 .•t•. f�' "v` ' . _ ` C 1
4: w� .9yr .� •:•� 1'43 Y"� .,tlf r ?L , ,`, 1� 'fir�_
•..... w=� .yY�.tli .. ��:�♦^-•�!`, v. _n'n +n �r �1 J'v� �f 'r` .1� /`
.� .i*:`V+•�( _ ,r, ,y I. ..,L.-��y .i.u�. W PW+� Y:,:Y i�lt.,:.�lr , �1._t�r ,
�.4`;.\".j±'--','•�� •�:-= .Y` fr.\+' f�`•r`'u-r.\:�T:.. �'� .l;^:�� .,�.=•'-'•-:.T ti •�N "�... •.w....i r..-1`.I.r'i_,�,• s:':"'i �,�. —i.= \ !
.�� r\Sy,A" Yam,:: •.irj u.7..'�*"\,i` /� •• � l�rc l` ,.1" �` 1' � '`!4'���� _—�,. - �/[��
•a:ea w.. ••�Y•� �.%� =* =Y� ^Z.\'�`';:,.:?. — •.r•-. •- i tit�.^.. u^• .: ••
On
!t•y... ' �y� t
-j�'"'�'�'+ ^, y a `-� •:,::•.�,,:.. . : ,ramUj
,• ;J��.J��,e-opJ?J. .�1 's::.�� SJ —"'_••�:y�F��,+',•,'i±�. .t �.• �.�w.,,•:.. l '":�r y'.,�. .`.t' �. `
' •ya•]i ,'.7�."yy 'T' WS.��a t ti•L~ y.•„^'..:-.. . :��,•,.. _t , „'_Tl•�/�...•.:.i:k:':. -{.1'`1.S _ •r .:,•`'...ri'� ,.Y � •`� ! {
y` p 3J •; u9{= "- '! • ,: v- :�.:i.'. �!,`.��"`:.'..:t.., r ,o +t { ..•i'4 4w,,,,. y r''` py�/.•�a 1
i �j•X'-••�Jja•1i3 �.7.lsj"a: � �- � --�i .n. ,i•�,�'...�- v 6)..L
_ Grp-` —+vr._ .v -l:',� ����;•'�` u:f3[ � ...-'. L orb
' ; i '•�\ T• �M+Y� : f '3-;P-. r+e�`� say
AREArA' EXISTING BASIN
to
1 \ _ i •e J) !azi
\ '' Sr`a'v-.-• =��r,_ r +,.ow., K r�,x w. .w x a.:� .j•T'J. '
•f . _ g- .4,j.. ..•-. Wx or."'Y.+.v Lbet ' Ti•-ty-
��.r>, .'+'•�_ AREA rA' ..'.� ';;..."•.:,"xn.1 .r -,e.o�>�.p°•£'.ti�i'%-�`
' �- !` c.'``•i•_:i 'yam �1 � .•✓w nw-r r.�.+,..y„y`� r.w 4y 'ft cs• ewa T•3+,4"^:
.x%•h .+ n fie o. t
� � � ;,,L�.^•..�:.:� -- _ :�;•�ISPO§i►L,SIS2•: :;..�a..'�4 ,. "`'";�=•„�-x -r•...tl``^-`...::.,.� .�'a•?a, e' , -r
(� 1 ) ,�,mac:: .��_ {u- "`. r..�X.w. .•r.?r _'Y w mix n-'�" �,�{B��a,;p_a_ -`. _
") - - �F.1I1 '�•'.h... h +:•.vy "av�' x .v v.'u"` v -'wn Q4 FZ
f \ ,(- -' •�^ :i '"•:w,.-...r.'tl.is:,�. `n"'.^+. ''�"uw'`4..."` r. '�a fl�„tf.:N•,o.e`oq�.G.-\
I"a _ j}� .•,:,- x.wx ..`...-•..r ._ .'°.,r x .uW`,•v,�, +c `"-v'.�.u, �. +R ot?
nC-
� I ' DRIVE '� max.-•,,K„�� � S °>-� ,h"...�.''• -�i
a bluff
, y SAN 'JOAQUIN HILLS i� �• `J
-- ----- I LEGEND -
iVEGETATION / OTHER SYMBOLS -
Disturbed Bluff Scrub ,1%r,: Coastal Saltmarsh r(Study Area
o'a• lr,o-_ EHI
Flood Channel Riparian Introduced Grasslands +� Wildlife Exchange Patterns
i Riparian Thickets Coastal Brackish Marsh Wildlife Habltats(rara and endangered)
NORTH
' Disturbed Tidal Fiats - SCALE
Tidal Mudflats
0 400 8 J
Culbertson . FIGURE
Adams & Vegetation And Wildlife Habitats 6
Associates
i
Impacts
Excavation of Upper Bay Desilting Basins
Excavation of Areas A and B in Upper Newport Bay would result in the
removal of disturbed tidal flats and coastal brackish marsh vegetation
adjacent to the current sedimentation basin. The wildlife habitats associated
' with this vegetation would also be removed. While no Endangered species are
thought to nest in these specific areas, the area may serve as a foraging area
for the lightfooted clapper rail. Disturbed tidal flats would also be removed
' from those areas dredged for the basin. This would directly reduce habitat
and nesting sites for the California least tern. Dredging operations would
' also temporarily disturb least tern activities which have re-established in the
vicinity of the existing sedimentation basin. Several other shorebirds, which
also nest here, would similarly lose nesting habitat.
Wildlife and shorebird species displaced to adjacent habitat areas will crowd
and disrupt local populations until natural competition and predation return
populations to habitat carrying capacity levels.
Beneficial impacts expected from the excavation of this basin would include
an increase in saltmarsh areas at the edges of the new basin. Wildlife and
shorebird habitats would also increase accordingly. Of particular importance
would be increased potential foraging and nesting habitats for the light-
footed clapper rail. This species would be expected to expand its distribution
into restored saltmarsh areas just the same as it has since the main dike was
breached. California least tern can also be expected to forage in the Lagoon.
Any restoration of Salicornia marsh would be of benefit to Belding's savannah
sparrow. This Endangered species occurs almost exclusively in Salicornia
marsh and is found in most coastal areas where this plant dominates the
' vegetation. Foraging, loafing and nesting habitats would increase for many
other shorebirds and waterfowl as well.
Increased tidal exchange capacities associated with the new expanded basin
would not only further enhance the saltwater marshes, but would generate
' increases in benthic organism habitats. Although possibly limited in
' IV-4
comparison to "downstream" areas, both shore bird and fish populations
should benefit, nevertheless, since both feed on the benthic community.
' Reduced water quality from sediment churning during construction would
temporarily reduce the benthic population in the basin but rapid recovery
would be expected. Since heavy sediment deposition associated with storm
run-off adversely affects the benthic populations now, anticipated trapping of
sediments in the basin should result in improved benthic habitat throughout
Upper Newport Bay.
The spoils disposal site, Site A, is not expected to experience any adverse
impacts, since it has already been utilized as a spoils disposal site for the
existing basin.
Mitigation Measures
L If willows are removed or cannot be sustained, compensating measures
will be taken in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Game.
2. If necessary, construction schedules will be revised to avoid impacts of
winter construction.
3. Construction will not take place during nesting seasons without the
permission of the Department of Fish and Game.
4. The permit issued by the Regional Coastal Commission will incorporate
the conditions and objectives of the several participating agencies with
' jurisdiction over, and interest in, the resources of the Bay and the San
Diego Creek.
' IV-5
B. NOISE
Ii—
A five cubic yard hydraulic backhoe will be used to excavate the basins. The
nearest residential use to the proposed dredging,operation is in the Santa-Ana
Heights area at a distance of approximately 750 feet. The EA and IP EIR
found that dredge and drag line operations, which have much higher
operational noise levels, did not have any adverse effect on residences.
i
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
C. LANDFORM AND GRADING
' Impacts
The project will remove 199,679 cubic yards of material in Area A,• and
81,419 cubic yards in Area B. Basin side slopes will be 3:1 to match side
slopes in the existing basin.
Excavated material will be loaded into trucks which will follow a haul route
under Jamboree Bridge, along the San Diego Creek levee to Site A.
Area 8 excavations are proximate to the Jamboree Bridge and will require
careful evaluation at the grading permit stage to insure that Jamboree Bridge
foundations will be protected.
Mitigation Measures
5. Slope protection shall be installed at the upper end of the Area B to
protect the Jamboree Bridge foundations.
6. A soils and geotechnical investigation shall be completed prior to
preparation of final construction plans.
1 7. Excavation areas shall be watered as needed to control dust during
grading.
IV-6
8. Materials excavated from Upper Newport Bay will be transported to Site
PP P Y Po
A under the Jamboree Road bridge without utilizing public roadways.
IV-7
L
V. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
�1
i
Mitigation Measures
1. If willows are removed or cannot be sustained, compensating measures
will be taken in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Game.
2. If necessary, construction schedules will be revised to avoid impacts of
winter construction.
3. Construction will not take place during nesting seasons without the
permission of the Department of Fish and Game.
4. The permit issued by the Regional Coastal Commission will incorporate
the conditions and objectives of the several participating agencies with
jurisdiction over, and interest in, the resources of the Bay and the San
Diego Creek.
5. Slope protection shall be installed at the upper end of the Area B to
protect the Jamboree Bridge foundations.
g. A soils and geotechnical investigation shall be completed prior to
preparation of finil construction plans.
7. Excavation areas shall be watered as needed to control dust during
grading.
g. Materials excavated from Upper Newport Bay will be transported to Site
A under the Jamboree Road bridge without utilizing public roadways.
y_1
W. APPENDIX
II
A. Environmental Information Form and Checklist
HI
APPENDIX H
Date- Filed March 1 , 1114
Environmental Information Form
(To be completed by.applicant)
GENERAL aNFORMATION
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: port of Long
Raarh p P n Rnv S7n �T nng Raanh , CA 90RP 1.
2. Address of project:
Assessor's Block and Lot Number
3. Names address, and telephone number of person to be contacted
concerning this project: pat Temple, Environmental Coordinator
City of -Newport Beach, 29. ewpor v . , Newporte ,
4�A'Ind�i2ca%e num%p d271t`hle $4e�m3t9application for the project to
which this form pertains:
a an escr a any o er related permits and other. public
approvals required for this project, including those required by
city, regional,(sta e aand a II decal agencies:
6. Existing zoning district: R 3 B & "U"- Unclassified
1 7. Proposed
use
es of site
Control
ol hich this. form is filed):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
6. Site size. Approximately 22 acres
q. Square footage. N/A
10. Number of floors of construction. N/A
11. Amount of off-street parking provided. N/A
12. Attach plans.
13. Proposed scheduling.
111. Associated projecte.
15. Anticipated incremental development.
I
s2
16. If residential, include the number -of units, schedule of
unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household
size expected.
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city
or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading
facilities.
18.. If industrial-, indicate type, estimated employment per shift,
and loading facilities.
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated
employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities,
and community benefits to be derived from the project.
20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning
application, state this and Sndidate clearly why the application
it required.
Are the following items applicable to the project or. its effects?
Discuss below all items checked yea (attach additional sheets as
necessary) .
YES NO
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands,
beaches, lakes- or hills, or substantial alteration of
ground contours.
�.. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing
residential areas or public lauds or roads.
-N^ 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general
area of -project.
r 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or.litter.
. — 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in
vicinity.
1L __ 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water
quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage
patterns.
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration
levels in the vicinity.
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
_ 7_..�_ 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials,
such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
H3
YES NO
X 30. Substantial change.in demand for municipal services
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) .
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption
(electricity, oil, natural gas, etc. ) .
X _ 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of
projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
33. Describe the project site as it' exists before the project,
Including information on topography, soil stability, plants and
animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe
any existing structures. on the site, and the use of the' structures.
Attach photographs- of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will
be accepted.
34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information
on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic
aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial,
eta.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops,
department stores, etc.) , and scale of development (height,
frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc. ) . Attach photographs of the
vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
a ove an n the attached exhibits prese:,t the data and infer-
mation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my
ability, and that- the facts, statements, and information presented
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date March 1 , 1984 Pat Tem ' -Ceozdinator)
gna ure
For City_of Neyjport Reach ___
APPENDIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECFLIST FORM
Environmental Checklist Form
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent port of Long Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent P.O. Box 570
Lcig RAarh p rn 90801
+ + v n rasaldinw *t^atz
3. Date of Checklist, Submission March 1 , 1984
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Newport Beach
5. Name, of Proposal, if applicable Restoration Pro •mse to Upper Newport.
Day esrne-
II. Environmental Impacts •
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
_ a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? X
b. -Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?. X
d. The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features? X
e. Any increase •in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site? }X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a rivei or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or
lake? X _
73 .
YES MAYBE NO
g. Exposure of people or property to
geological hazards such as earth-
quakes, landslides, mudslides , ground
failure, or similar hazards? X
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deteri-
oration'of ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally? X
9. Water. Will the proposal result in:
�. a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates., drainage
patterna,• or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? X
c. Alterations to the course of flow of
flood waters? X_,
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? X
e. Discharge into surface waters or in
any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited,
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? X
I. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters? X—
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations? X
h. Substantial 'reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies? X_
i. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? X `
74
PPE-2A:22
YES MAYBE ND
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any 'species of plants ,
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, and aquatic plants)? :. X
�r b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants? X
c. Introduction of new species-of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of
existing species? . X
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? X
5. Animal Life. . Will the proposal result in:
�. ' a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
or if"teects)? , X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of ani-
mals into an area, or result in a
barrier to the migration or movement
of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat? . X_
1 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? $_
b. Exposure of,people to severe noise
levels? ..-X—
7. �ht and Clare- Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result.in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? X_
75
YFS MAYRE MQ
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources? _X
b. Substantial depletion of any non—
renewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? �.
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
�. rate of the human population of an area?'
12. Fou:sing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Ceneration of substantial additional
vehicular movement? _ X
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? _Y
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? X.
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? _
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon,, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
folio-wing areas: g
76
PPE-2Ae:24
YES MAYBE NO
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection? _
c: Schools? —
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? . X
f. other.governmental services? _
15. Energy Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy? - —
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of .
energy? —X-
16. Utilities. 'Will the proposal result in a
nead for new systems, or substantial
-alterations to the following utilities:.
a. Power or natural gas? Y__
b. Communications systems?
c. Water? —y
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal? .7L_
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? 1L_
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
8 77
YES MAYBE NO
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result
I � in an impact upon cbe quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities? _
20. Archeological/Historical. Will t),v
proposal result in an alteration of a
significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or building? X
21. 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 the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
abort-term impact on the• environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will -endure well into the
future.) X
c. Does• tbe project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each
resource is relatively small, but
I � where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is
significant.) -
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which- will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by' the Lead Agency)
` 78
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could .have a significant
effect 'on the environment, there will not be a significant,effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have .been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
Q I find the proposed project MAY have a significant -effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT- REPORT is required.
March 1 , 1984 Pat Temple' (Environmental Coordinator
Signature
Date
For City of Newport Beach
II (Note: This- is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise
their own format for initial studies.)
/O 79
B. Letter, Port of Long Beach Memorandum
of Understanding
II
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH,
THE. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME,
THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, AND
THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
TO
ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR ADVANCE COMPENSATION
OF MARINE HABITAT LOSSES
INCURRED BY PORT DEVELOPMENT LANDFILLS
WITHIN THE HARBOR DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is entered into by
the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through the FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ( "FWS" ) ,
AND THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
( "NMFS"') , the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the DEPART-
MENT OF FISH AND GAME, RESOURCES AGENCY ( "CDFG" ) , and the CITY OF
LONG BEACH, acting by and through the BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS
( "Board" ) .
WHEREAS, the Board is mandated to foster the orderly and
necessary development of the Port of Long Beach, including the crea-
tion of new land in the Harbor District of the City of Long Beach
( "Harbor District" ) by landfill; and
WHEREAS, FWS and CDFG have as their primary mandate in
this matter the conservation, protection, and enhancement of
marine fish and migratory birds and their habitat, including the
i � planning of biological loss avoidance, the minimization of adverse
project impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and their habitat,
- 1 •
wand assuring full compensation for any unavoidable losses of fish and
wildlife and their habitat resulting from project construction and
operation; and NMFS has as its primary mandate, the conservation,
protection and enhancement of marine fishery resources, including
the planning of biological loss avoidance, minimization of adverse
project impacts, and assuring full compensation for any unavoidable
losses of fishery resources and their habitat; and
WHEREAS, port development landfills are subject to State
regulation pursuant to the California Coastal Act and Federal regula-
tion pursuant to the River and Harbor Act and Clean Water Act; and
WHEREAS, the Board contemplates imminent harbor developments
within the Harbor District, consisting of several small landfills,
totaling approximately 40 acres; and
WHEREAS, the contemplated harbor development landfills are
expected to be necessary and water-dependent port improvements, and
the minimum landfill to fulfill the purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Board has agreed, by approval of Corps of
Engineers Permit No. 79-133, to provide 1.6 acres of marine habitat
restoration in order to offset the habitat loss incurred by the com-
pleted landfill at Berth 83; and
WHEREAS, the landfill at Berth 83 has eliminated, and
future contemplated Harbor District landfills will eliminate marine
habitat value that FWS? CDFG, and NMFS want to be replaced; and
WHEREAS, delay in implementing port developments and their
mitigation measures serves no public interest and the parties would
like to facilitate permit processing for contemplated small landfills
which permanently eliminate marine habitat by providing habitat loss
2
compensation for the impacts on the marine environment in advance of
the habitat losses predicted for the contemplated small landfills ; and
WHEREAS, the parties concur that creation of appropriate
fish and wildlife habitat values could constitute a bank of habitat
credits ( "bank" ) which may be charged against the habitat debits or
losses incurred by future landfill developments in the Harbor District;
and
WHEREAS, the parties concur that the creation of new habitat
values within the Harbor District to offset habitat losses within the
Harbor District could render future, necessary harbor developments
more difficult; and
WHEREAS, shallow, estuarine coastal embayment habitat in
Southern California with its relatively high value to marine fish
and migratory birds has been reduced in area at a faster rate than
that of deep water habitat, NMFS , CDFG, and FWS judge that compensa-
tion for adverse project impacts upon the marine ecosystem should
emphasize the creation of shallow water, coastal embayment habitat
' (see Exhibit "A" ) ;
NOW, ' THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED THAT:
1. The Board, at its cost, shall restore tidal influence to
a predominately barren, supralittoral area in the "old salt ponds"
region of the CDFG Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve ( "UNBER" ) ,
located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange , California,
as shown as Area A on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference
made a part hereof. The restoration work in Area A shown on Exhibit
"B" will create intertidal/subtidal areas of 21.021 acres below the
elevation of mean sea level (+2. 8 feet Mean Lower Low Water) . In
3 .
I
addition, within one year fron the date of execution of this MOU by
the last party to sign, the Board may elect, at its cost, to restore
Area B consisting of 7. 06 acres shown on Exhibit "B" in accordance
with the provisions of this MOU.
2. The .Board shall be responsible for all aspects of the
restoration work including acquisition of permits and contractor
selection and supervision. FWS, CDFG and NMFS each agree to cooperate
with and assist the Board, procedurally, with the acquisition of per-
mits or approvals for the restoration work and for an appropriate
dredge spoil disposal site outside the UNBER.
3. All restoration work performed by the Board pursuant
to this MOU will be accomplished at sites within UNBER designated
by the CDFG.
4. The Board agrees that its work will be scheduled and con-
ducted so as not to incur significant habitat loss or degradation
elsewhere within the UNBER and so as not to adversely impact any State
' or Federal endangered species which utilizes the UNBER, including the
California Least Tern, the Light-footed Clapper Rail, Relding ' s
Savannah Sparrow, or Salt Marsh Bird 's Beak.
5. All parties agree that each acre of deep water substrate
(located at depths of minus 20. 0 feet MLLW or deeper ) within the Harbor
District lying either beneath the footprint of a landfill or beneath
a piling-supported wharf and more than 35 lineal feet back from the
wharf face shall be considered to have a habitat value rated at 1.0
habitat units.
6. All parties agree that each acre in the UNBER, after
being regularly influenced by tidal waters of the Pacific Ocean by
4
the restoration projects described in paragraph 1 and Exhibit "B" and
after certification and approval described in paragraph 10 shall be
considered to have a habitat value of 1.5 habitat units . Additional
rhabitat value credits totaling 10. 59 will accrue upon completion of
similar restoration work within Area B of the UNBER.
7. The Board may charge marine habitat losses resulting•
from port development landfills against the banked habitat unit
credits established at the UNBER in a manner consistent with the
relative habitat values stipulated in paragraphs 5 and 6.
8. All parties agree that the UNBER restoration work will
fulfill the existing special condition of Corps of Engineers Permit
No. 79-133, and will consume 1.6 habitat value credits from the
bank. Thus, the initial balance available for offsetting future
harbor development losses will be 29.93 habitat value credits,
unless the Board elects within the period provided in paragraph 1
to restore Area B, in which case, after restoration thereof, the
' number of habitat value credits remaining shall be 40.52.
9. All parties agree that credits remaining in the bank
created by this MOU shall be used to offset losses to the marine
habitats resulting from port development landfill projects within
the Harbor District that are shown to be necessary, the minimum
possible, and water dependent and port related. Such agreement shall
be indicated by all parties in an official and public manner, during
' completion of the environmental review process required under the
California Environmental Quality Act or the National Environmental
Policy Act, and/or of the regulatory process required under the Cali-
fornia Coastal Act, the River and Harbor Act or the Clean Water Act.
5 '
1
10. Habitat value credits may not be charged and -the con-
templated landfills may not be placed until the UNBER restoration
work has been inspected and certified complete by the Chief Harbor
Engineer of the Harbor Department of the City of Long Beach and the
CDFG, and approved by .the CDFG, NMFS and FWS. The Board shall have
no responsibility for maintenance or monitoring of the UNBER restored
area following this inspection, certification, and approval.
11. The contemplated Board landfill projects likely to
consume the habitat value credits include:
' a. THUMS Consolidation at Pier J (15 acres) ;
b. Pier A Terminal Expansion ( 24 acres ) ;
Other Board landfill projects may be added or deleted with the written
consent of all parties.
12. All landfill projects outside the Harbor District
boundaries in effect on January 1, 1984 are excluded from consideration
under this MOU.
13. The Board, with the written consent of all parties may
allow the consumption of habitat value credits by others proposing a
landfill in the Harbor District with the prior approval of the Board
when the authorized person or entity is an applicant for a Corps of
Engineer's permit.
14. No contemplated landfill, considered under this MOU,
shall exceed in area the then remaining balance of habitat value credits.
15. This MOU shall remain valid until the balance of habitat
value credits has been consumed or until rescinded by written consent of
all parties. Nothing contained in this MOU shall be deemed or construed
as an agreement by any of the parties that the habitat values set forth
6
in paragraphs 5 and 6 shall be applicable to any port landfill project
other than those expressly described or referred to in paragraph 11.
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT
FROM THE DATE WHICH ALL PARTICIPANTS HAVE SIGNIFIED AGREEMENT BY
SIGNATURE- OF THE -DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.
CITY OF LONG BEACH, acting by and
through its Board of Harbor Commis-
sioners
1 By.:
James H. McJunkin, Date
Executive Director
THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
U.S: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Joseph R. Blum, Assistant Regional Date
Director, Region I
' THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OF
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
H. Donald Carper, Director Date
THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
E. C. Fullerton, Regional Director Date
ECP:ja
3-5-84
C-16
EXHIBIT A
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
OF THE PORT OF LONG BEACH AND UPPER NEWPORT BAY
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP
' Th.e Long Beach Harbor District occupies part of the 6000—acre
marine coastal embayment known As San Pedro Bay, which is semi—
enclosed by 9 miles of breakwater. Within Long Beach Harbor, a
major commercial port, the water depths are mostly greater than
twenty feet deep, most shoreline is protected, with rock or
bulkhead, and land uses are urban/ industrial in nature. The main
groups of public fish and wildlife resources of significance
relying on San Pedro Bay, are marine fishes and water-associated
migratory birds. Fish populations are diverse and abundant, with
130 species reported and 70 considered common in occurrence.
' Seven species rank high in abundance and are: white croaker,
queenfish, white seaperch, northern anchovy, tongueflsh, speckled
sanddab, and shiner perch. A ranking by biomass would usually
include: jacksmelt, white croaker, bat ray, brown smoothhound,
corbina, California halibut, and white seabass. The area also a
supports nursery function for a variety of coastal - marine fishes.
The migratory bird community of San Pedro Bay Is also large and
diverse, including about 150 spect•es. The most abundant birds are
water—associated and include several gull species, brown pelican,
surf scoter, cormorant species, grebe species, tern species,
scaups, sanderling, and willet. About 840,000 annual bird—use—
' days have been estimated.
The 741 —acre Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (UNBER) ,
mana-ged by the California Department of Fish and Game for the
benefit of fish and wildlife resources, occupies about half of
the rass and
pick Neweedrdominated salt. marsh,Within
i ter tidal mudflats'sa UNBER are cord nd shallow
subtidai estuarine channels. About 78 species of fish have been
reported and seven are numerically dominant: topsmelt, killifish,
mosquitofish deep body and slough anchovy, arrow goby, and
' shiner perch. A biomass ranking would usually include striped
,
mullet, topsmelt, yellow—fin croaker, deep body anchovy, diamond
turbot, striped bass, black perch, and shiner perch. The area
also supports a nursery function for a variety of coastal marine
fishes. The migratory bird community of Upper Newport Bay is also
large and diverse, including about 159 species: The most abundant
birds are shorebirds such as sandpipers, willet, dowitchers,
' marbled godwit, avocet, egrets and herons, and waterfowl such as
pintali , mallard, ruddy duck, wigeon, green—winged teal , northern
shoveler, as well as gull , cormorant and tern species. About 4
million annual bird—use—days have been estimated. Five State
and/or Federal endangered species make significant use of the
bay, as- well ,. and they are: The light—footed clapper rail ,
California least tern, California brown pelican, Belding's
' savann.ah sparrow, and salt marsh bird ' s beak.
' Southern California's highly productive, relatively shallow,
marine or estuarine, semi—enclosed, coastal embayments have been
modified and greatly diminished in extent during the last
century. In particular, about 90 percent of the area of river and
creek mouth lagoons and their wetlands in Los Angeles and Orange
Counties have been filled and developed. San Pedro Bay and
Newport Bay are each considered to provide high habitat value for
' their respective fish and wildlife resources and to be scarce in
extent In the region. (Both correspond to the Fish and W i I d I i fe
Service Mitigation• Policy Resource Category 2, • with a Mitigation
Goal of no net loss of in—kind habitat value. In—kind can be
described as : the substitute habitat is equal in value to fish
and wildlife resources which are physically and biologically the
same as or closely approximate to those impacted.) The distance
between Long Beach Harbor and the UNBER is about 25 miles and
they share many common bird and fish species, although the
population sizes and total species lists are somewhat different.
' In establishing the relative habitat value of the harbor waters
slated for filling versus the estuarine area to be restored, the
public fish and wildlife agency biologists (FWS,CDFG,NMFS) used
all available information. Such information included•: bird
(primarily waterfowl , rather than shorebirds) and fish (primarily
demersal , but also surface associated) sampling data for both
areas, shared species, common biological functions,
productivity, fish nursery function, ecosystem physiography and
areal extent. The data, references , and analysis for the
comparison had been summarized and presented in two lengthy
planning aid reports (dated June 1981 and Sept. 1983) prepared by
,• FWS for the Corps of . Engineers, Los Angeles Oistri•ct, as part of
the CE Los Angeles—Long Beach Harbor Long—Range Planning Project.
This MOU actually stems from a need of the Port to address, on a
more immediate and much smaller scale, the same biological
matters of the CE planning project which predicts about 2600
acres of new landfills over the next several decades within Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbors.
The Newport Bay restoration site, a largely barren floodplain
area above the reach of the tides, presently provides minimal
' habitat value. (An existing least tern and avocet nesting area
would be improved, but is not considered as part of the
mitigation tradeoff. Further, a recent history of sediment
' loading is being remedied by a task force of State and local
agencies charged with that responsibility.) The fish and wildlife
agencies assisted the Port with the planning of the UNBER
project, including the configuration of the site, manner and
' timing of construction, so that adverse impacts to the UNBER
ecosystem and, particularly, the endangered species it supports,
would be avoided.
The fishery and waterfowl habitat improvement at the restoration
site would be virtually 100 percent. Similarly, the loss of
habitat value within the "footprint" of A port landfill would be
100 percent. The relative habitat value of the habitat to be
" lost" compared to the habitat to be "'gained" was formulated as
described above by professiohal public agency biologists. This
synthesis had been developed over several years of involvement
with other long-range or Port Master Plan efforts. (The Habitat
Evaluation Procedure promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Service
was not literally employed due to the absence of species models
for appropriate marine and estuarine species, unavallablity of
non-FWS HEP trained personnel , -and the lack of time or funds to
i garner• either of the former. An analogous evaluation process was
employed. )
It is worth noting that the habitat "tradeoff" formalized in this
MOU actually represents the fourth specific attempt by all
parties, over several years, to define and implement a suitable
habitat loss compensation measure for the completed landfill at
Long Beach Harbor Berth 83 and/or a mitigation bank for future
port developments. (As already mentioned, concurrent port
planning efforts with larger scopes or longer planning horizons
are in progress.)
The first attempt involved an effort by the Port to design
within-port projects which balanced cut and f111 such that the
net area of marine habitats remained unchanged. Such a balancing
of Port land/water- area has been practicable for only a few,
relatively small projects. Also, onsite or within-port loss
compensation measures are further complicated. Through
predictions of cargo throughput needs, the Port indicates that
land w-ill likely be the factor limiting the Port's functions and
that new landfills are necessary to increase the land area
available for them. Establishment of a mitigation area within a
' developing Port greatly increases the likelihood that the
compensation area may later be threatened with destruction by
future port landfills and/or could impede or prevent necessary
port development projects.
The second attempt focused on the restoration of tidal influence
to a 16-acre parcel of diked, historic coastal wetland in the
City of Huntington Beach, Orange County. The necessary change of
ownership, purchase, or easement which would allow the mltigatlon
work could not be accomplished, though.
' Thirdly, an artificial reef construction project in San Pedro Bay
was designed. However, uncertainty regarding the net biological
"improvement" offered by the artificial reef project caused it to
be considered impracticable, at that time.
Then , CDFG, NMFS, and FWS reanalyzed coastal wetland
"restorat•ion" a•s a. port mitigation measure, considering such
factors as nearness of the restorable site to the site of the
loss, technical feasibility of tidal restoration, willingness of
the land owner, and ecosystem and fish and wildlife resource
similarity. It was concluded that the Newport Bay site was most
' feasible, at that time.
1 EXHIBIT B
•1
y. .
:r!
AREAS TO BE EXCAVATED ,/ f':.> .....'..
- +40'• ' tY 11 � 1
iCR�K m t
SRK OIf10 II
N
-` PROPOSED DESIGN
SCALE:I'•40O' EBB • ::•%:�'•
61,
nrna• y. i /,
APRA
ram,::::•�' ,
:r i
.11fA •►• !! i
1 . ORANGE COUNTY
FOUNTAIN ♦ '"
� �
VALLEY Qom
MSL• 0.00'
BUNTINCTON UPPER SDI��FPO p
SEAON NEWPORT A9 IRVINE A, l
COSTA MESA LAY ITUOE
38'-550N
1
AE7PORt !EACH PROJECT LOCATION MARINE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION
NEWPORT
BAT
„ IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY FOR
PACIFIC OCEAN - PORT OF LONG BEACH EXPANSION
COUNTY OF ORANGE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 APPLICATION BY PORT OF LONG BEACH
VICINITY MAP N SHEET 1 OF -2 DATE' JAN., 1984
1 0 6
SCALE IN MILES
� i
EXHIBIT B
1 •
CgEEK \ \
p\E�0
I
b
' SCALE: I••400'
•- •PO sA •'SITE '•`:'' :`••~'::%:
W
J
O
m
O
• O �
� O
S
F�
s
s s
' s
i
' MARINE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION
IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY FOR
PORT OF LONG BEACH EXPANSION
COUNTY OF ORANGE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPLICATION BY PORT OF LONG BEACH
SHEET 2. OF 2' DATE: JAN., 1984
i
, Mq �
'STATE OF CALIFORNIA "' '�' ` ' 1 ' GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SANTA ANA REGION
6809 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 200 ':• .�j
RIVERSIDE, CALFORNIA 9ZS06 'd••e
PHONE: (714) 684-9330
gam`
1
March 13, 1984 8 p�Igo 8: 2
i At
Mr. James H. McJunkin
Executive Director _ I
The Port of Long Beach
P. 0. Box 570
Long Beach, CA 90801
Dear Mr. McJunkin:
Newport Bay Restoration- Project
We have reviewed your Newport Bay Restoration Project described in your
letter of February 28, 1984, and the US Army Corps of Engineers Public
Notice of Application for Permit No. 84-072-HB dated March 5, 1984.
Based on information given in your letter and the Corps of Engineers
Permit Notice, we find that an NPDES Permit will not be required for this
project.
This finding is conditioned on work proceeding as described in your proposal,
particularly the following:
1. Material excavation will be by large truck-mounted backhoe loading into
dump trucks;
' 2. A dike of material will be left in position separating excavation areas
from channel flow areas;
3. Areas to be excavated and spoil placement areas shall be only
those areas described in the two previously mentioned documents;
' 4. Spoil material will be hauled by truck to the fill area, spread,
dried, and compacted.
' In addition, the following conditions shall be complied with that were
not included in the above described documents:
1 . No spoil material shall be placed on the north side of the San Diego
Creek near the old landfill ;
2. Drainage. from the spoil material in the designated disposal area shall
not be allowed to enter San Diego Creek or Upper Newport Bay, nor
any other surface waters;
Mr. James H. McJunkin -2- March 13, 1984
I
3. Protection shall be provided to prevent any wash out from storm flow
of any material in the spoil disposal area.
4. This office shall be notified before any excavation work commences, and
notified before any significant change is proposed in any of the above
conditions.
Based on compliance with the above conditions, the proposed Restoration Project
' should not cause the discharge of any pollutants to any waters of the State.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Robert Nicklen of this office.
Sincerely,
- �7
'66�
,'�JAMES W. ANDERSON
' Executive Officer
cc: Environmental Protection Agency - Permits Branch
U. S. Army District, Los Angeles, Corps of Engineers
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State Water Resources Control Board, John Richards, Office of the
Chief Counsel
State Department of Water Resources
State Department of Fish and Game • Marine Resources Region (Rolf Mall)
State Department of Health Services - Santa Ana
State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, South Coast Region
Orange County Environmental Management Agency/Regulation,
Attention: Assistant Director
Orange County Health Department
Orange County Water District
City of Newport Beach
' RRN:kyb