Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-28-1995 - Item #16
T r . 14cl 7F (�IEW1'QrJ SEA AUG ? 81995 0 August 28, 1995 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 16 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT - STATUS REPORT RECOMMENDATION: For information. DISCUSSION: IRWD has proposed a 2 -year demonstration project to circulate treated reclaimed water through 67 acres of duck ponds adjacent to their Michelson Reclamation Plant with discharge into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. The project requires an NPDES Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and proposes the discharge during fall and winter months (October 1 to April 1) when demand for reclaimed water is low. When a Negative Declaration for the proposed project was circulated in 1994, Newport Beach responded with concern for possible adverse effects to the water quality in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. Staff recommended that 1) a focused EIR should be prepared for the project; 2) a plan to monitor water quality in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay should be implemented; and 3) consideration should be given to a structure in San Diego Creek, which could divert summer low flows through the adjacent marsh in order to reduce the amount of nutrients and other pollutants entering the Bay as mitigation. IRWD has now completed the Focused EIR. Utilities/Public Works Council Committee Members Jean Watt and Jan Debay and Cooperative Projects Engineer John Wolter met with IRWD representatives at the Michelson Plant to discuss their revised proposal. As a result of the additional environmental work IRWD now proposes 1) to discharge 1/5 the nutrient loading as previously proposed; 2) implement a monitoring program to test water quality in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay during the demonstration project and if adverse effects are observed, to stop discharge; and 3) IRWD has submitted a grant application to State Water Resources Control Board for funds to construct a diversion structure. Construction of the structure is included in a City of Irvine EIR currently being prepared for development of the San Joaquin Marsh. �Evv PO SCI FpRN� August 2, 1995 f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 Mr. James Hyde Environmental Compliance Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District PO Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 RE: DEIR for 1RWD Wetlands Water Supply Project Dear Jim, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR for this project. As you know, the City has a high level of interest and concern for this project due to its potential for impacts to Upper Newport Bay. The City's primary concern is with the possible adverse effects caused by the addition of nutrients to San Diego Creek and the bay. We are pleased that the proposed concentrations of nutrient loading to be discharged into San Diego Creek has been reduced. With the reduced nutrient discharge and the mitigation monitoring program described in the DEK we believe that this concern will be adequately addressed. However, the City also believes that the construction of a diversion structure to bypass summer low flows from San Diego Creek into the wetlands is critical to the long-term maintenance of water quality in Newport Bay. Therefore the City supports the demonstration project contingent on IRWD's concurrence that the project will not extend beyond 2 years unless a summer low -flow diversion structure is implemented. If you have any questions, please John Wolter (644-3326) or me (644-3230). PLANNING DEPARTMENT KENNETH J. DELINO; Assistant City Manager - Planning and Building By: _ ohn H. DgJ&AICP onmrdinator cc: Councr7rnernber Jean Wats Camcilmeinber Jan Debey Kevin Murphy, City Manager Don Webb, Public Works DaDdor John Wolter, Cooperative Projects Engines Tony Melum, Marine Director 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Volume I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Irvine stanch Water District F i Wetlands Water Supply Project IRvI'NL RANCH WATER DISTRICT Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Irvine Ranch Water District Wetlands Water Supply Project State Clearinghouse No. 95011047 Lead Agency: Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, CA 92718 Contact: Mr. Jim Hyde, Environmental Compliance Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District 714/453-5866 June 1995 Prepared by: OW HILL 2510 Red Hill Avenue P.O. Box 15960 Santa Ana, CA 92735 714/250-1900 sco17aws.wr5 Contents Section Preface Page 1 Executive Summary ................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background Summary ......................... 1-1 1.2 Project Description Summary ......................... 1-1 1.3 Areas of Controversy or Expressed Concern ................ 1-2 1.4 Impact and Mitigation Summary ....................... 1-3 1.5 Alternatives Evaluated ........ .................... . 1-7 2 Project Description ................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting ................ 2-1 2.2 Project Background ............................... 2-1 2.3 Historical Use of the Migratory Waterfowl Ponds ............ 2-4 2.4 San Joaquin Marsh Planning Efforts ..................... 2-5 2.5 Project Objectives ................................ 2-6 2.6 Project Characteristics ............................. 2-8 2.6.1 Phase 1 and Phase 2 .......................... 2-8 2.6.2 Reclaimed Water Quality ....................... 2-13 3.6 2.6.3 Proposed Monitoring Program .................... 2-14 2.7 Required Regulatory Approvals ........................ 2-14 2.8 Uses of this EIR................................. 2-18 3 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation ................ 3-1 3.1 Land Use and Planning ............................. 3-1 3.2 Sedimentation ................................... 3-7 3.3 Water Quality .............................. ... . 3-15 3.4 Biological Resources .............................. 3-51 3.5 Other Issues Raised During Scoping ..................... 3-65 3.5.1 Energy Consumption .......................... 3-65 3.5.2 Hazards (Public Health and Safety) ................. 3-66 3.5.3 Public Services ............................. 3-68 3.6 Additional Insignificant Effects ........................ 3-68 3.6.1 Geologic Conditions .......................... 3-68 3.6.2 Air Quality ............................... 3-69 3.6.3 Transportation/Circulation ..................... .3-69 3.6.4 Noise...................................3-69 3.6.5 Cultural Resources ........................... 3-70 3.6.6 Aesthetics ............................... .3-70 3.6.7 Recreation ............ ....................3-70 SC017AAC AT5 i Contents 3.7 Summary of Changes in Impacts between Phase 1 and P70se 2 .... 3-70 4 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed and Related Projects .......... 4-1 4.1 Related Projects ................................. 4-1 4.2 Cumulative Effects ............................... 4-7 5 Alternatives Evaluated ................................. 5-1 5.1 No Project .................................... 5-2 5.2 Reduced Flow .................................. 5-3 5.3 Recirculation of Reclaimed Water ...................... 5-4 5.4 Alternative Location ............................... 5-6 5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................... 5-8 6 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Commitment Resources ......................................... 6-1 7 Growth -Inducing Impacts ............................... 7-1 8 CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Requirements ................... 8-1 9 References ......................................... 9-1 10 Individuals and Agencies Consulted ........................ 10-1 11 Report Preparation...................................11-1 12 Glossary of Abbreviations...............................12-1 SCO17AAC. WP5 ii Contents Appendix A. Notice of Preparation (NOP) Appendix B. NOP Comment Letters; Scoping Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes; Public Review and Record Distribution List Appendix C. Wetlands Demonstration Project Negative Declaration Comment Letters Appendix D. Michelson Water Reclamation Plant Effluent Data Appendix E. Wetlands Nitrogen Removal Analysis Appendix F. External Monitoring Committee Meeting Minutes and Comment Letters Appendix G. Water Quality Modeling Tables Number Page 1.3-1 Areas of Expressed Concern ... ... .............. ......... 1-3 1.4-1 Impact and Mitigation Summary ........................... 1-4 2.6-1 Project Features ...................... ...... .........2-12 2.6-2 Internal Monitoring Plan ................................ 2-15 2.6-3 External Monitoring Plan ............................... 2-17 3.2-1 Average Annual Sediment Budget and Delivery and Upper Newport Bay 3-10 3.2-2 Flood Flows and Sediment Reduction Resulting from SCO17AAC. WP5 iii In -Channel Basin Operation .... ... ...................... . 3-10 3.3-1 San Diego Creek Characteristic Flows ....................... 3-17 3.3-2 Important Elements of Water and Nutrient Budgets ............... 3-27 3.3-3 Mean Monthly Winter Flows in San Diego Creek ................ 3-28 3.3-4 Summary of Nitrate Measurements in Upper Newport Bay ........ ..... ............... ........... 3-30 3.3-5 Existing Toxic Constituents in Upper Newport Bay ............... 3-32 3.3-6 Examples of Conductivity Variations with Flow from San Diego Creek ... 3-35 3.3-7 Newport Bay Nitrate Concentrations Results of Model Simulation ...... 3-40 SCO17AAC. WP5 iii Contents 3.3-8 Newport Bay Nitrate Concentrations Results of Model Simulation ...... 3-41 3.3-9 Newport Bay Salinities Results of Model Simulation .... ........... 3-50 3.4-1 Upper Newport Bay Above Main Dike: Estimated Volumes of Tidal Prism Versus San Diego Creek Winter Discharge ................ 3-60 3.4-2 Average Nitrate -Nitrogen Concentrations ...................... 3-61 3.4-3 Upper Newport Bay Salinity Ranges ........................ 3-62 5-1 Alternatives Comparison Mix ............................. 5-9 Figures Number Page 2.1-1 Site Location ....................................... 2-2 2.1-2 San Joaquin Marsh ................................... 2-3 2.6-1 Migratory Waterfowl Pond Area ........................... 2-9 2.6-2 Pond Flow Scheme...................................2-11 2.6-3 Monitoring Locations. for Internal Monitoring Plan ................ 2-16 3.1-1 City of Irvine Planning Areas ............................. 3-2 3.1-2 Land Use Map ...................................... 3-3 3.2-1 San Diego Creek In -Channel Sediment Basins ................... 3-11 3.3-1 Newport Bay ....................................... 3-16 3.3-2 Typical Concentration vs. Growth Rate Curve .................. 3-21 3.3-3 Simplified Representation of Nitrogen Cycle .................... 3-23 3.3-4 Elements of the Water/Nutrient Budget ....................... 3-26 3.3-5 Segments Used for Water Quality Analyses .................... 3-42 3.3-6 Schematic Comparison of Riverine Loading and Concentrations of Nitrate in Newport Bay for Winter Dry Weather Conditions .......... 3-44 3.3-7 Schematic Comparison of Riverine Loading and Concentrations of Nitrate in Newport Bay for Winter Average Conditions ............. 3-45 3.4-1 Biological Communities and Associations ..................... 3-52 3.4-2 Upper Newport Bay Above the Main Dike ..................... 3-53 4.1-1 Upper Newport Bay Dredging Projects (Units 1 and 3) ............. 4-4 4.1-2 Newport Bay Dredging Projects ........................... 4-6 sco17aac.wr5 iv Preface This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed Wetlands Water Supply Project ("Project"). The Project is sponsored by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). The purpose of the project is to supply migratory waterfowl ponds of the San Joaquin Marsh with tertiary -treated reclaimed water during the migratory waterfowl season. The discussions in the EIR are concentrated primarily on the review of those environmental impacts that have been identified through the initial study process to be either areas of potential concern to persons and reviewing agencies, or where impacts have been identified that could potentially affect the environment. These areas are given in-depth treatment,_ with other parts of the EIR being more brief. This is based on the general directive of the State's CEQA Guidelines that focusing of an EIR is one of the purposes of the initial study process. (See State CEQA Guidelines 15063; 15143.) The Project has been divided into two phases. Phase 1 is a 2 -year demonstration period, during which data will be collected, allowing more detailed subsequent analysis of the long-term continuation of the Project in Phase 2. Given the two-part phasing of the Project, with each requiring separate discretionary approvals, this EIR has been prepared as a Staged EIR (Section 15167 CEQA Guidelines). The Staged EIR evaluates the project for Phase 1 in detail, and provides an analysis of the environmental impacts of the entire project (Phase 1 and 2) to the extent that detailed data is as yet avialable for analysis of the long-term operation of the project. Subsequent environmental review will be conducted when the other discretionary approvals for Phase 2 are sought. The IRWD is the Lead Agency for this EIR, and has supervised its preparation. The primary purposes of this document are to: (1) disclose to the IRWD, other agencies and the general public the potential significant environmental effects of the proposed project, if any, (2) identify ways to avoid or reduce significant adverse environmental impacts, and (3) identify mitigation measures and/or alternatives that would reduce any significant effects to a level of insignificance. sCo17AAC.wP5 v r r r r r L Chapter 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Background Summary The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) is a California water district formed for the purposes of collecting and treating municipal wastewater, and distributing water for domestic and non-domestic purposes. The IRWD, acting in the public interest, has the jurisdiction to authorize the proposed Project and other public works construction projects on its own initiative, with its own funding, and in accordance with its overall system of existing and planned improvements. The IRWD held a public meeting on October 11, 1994, to consider a Negative Declaration for the original 2 -year demonstration project referred to as the Wetlands Demonstration Project. Agency and public comments were received at that meeting regarding the potential downstream effects in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. On December 19, 1994, IRWD staff presented its response to these concerns and concluded that no significant adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of the Project. The IRWD Board determined that despite no adverse environmental effects, a focused environmental impact report (EIR) should be prepared, given the public controversy over the Project. The Board directed that the EIR address the three major areas of concern: sedimentation, water quality and biological effects to Newport Bay. Further, it was decided that the Project would be analyzed in two phases; a 2 -year demonstration phase (Phase 1) followed by the permanent discharge into San Diego Creek (Phase 2). Because of the two-part phasing, the EIR is to be prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines Section 15167 for a Staged EIR. Subsequent environmental review will be completed at the end of Phase 1 and prior to Phase 2, the long-term discharge. 1.2 Project Description Summary Phase 1 of the Project, the 2 -year demonstration phase, is designed to evaluate the use of reclaimed water as an economically viable, sustainable water supply for the existing migratory waterfowl ponds in the San Joaquin Marsh. Phase 2 is to implement the long- term operation of the migratory waterfowl ponds under conditions determined during the demonstration phase.. The Project would result in a "flow-through" system in the existing migratory waterfowl ponds of up to 5 million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water that meets all criteria specified in California Administrative Code Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3. The ponds would be filled with reclaimed water from the IRWD's Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) beginning October 1. Discharge from the ponds to San Diego Creek would begin about October 21 and end on March 31. The Project would evaluate SCO17AC9.WP5 1-1 nitrogen removal from reclaimed water under various migratory waterfowl pond operating conditions. Proposed monitoring consists of effluent monitoring from MWRP outfall into the ponds, and discharge monitoring from the ponds to San Diego Creek. An external monitoring program developed in coordination with local and state resource agencies has been proposed to measure effects of the Project discharge on San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. The EIR is intended to provide environmental documentation for the following regulatory requirements: a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement; a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) encroachment permits for work performed in flood control channels; and any other permits as needed. Historically, the migratory waterfowl ponds were sustained by reclaimed water and discharged to the University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS) Marsh. However, the UCNRS trustees have requested that IRWD cease discharge into the UCNRS Marsh. The remaining option is for the Project discharge to enter San Diego Creek. Without the proposed Project including the proposed discharge to San Diego Creek, IRWD would not distribute reclaimed water or groundwater in the winter period to the existing migratory waterfowl ponds. As a result, the existing open water habitat at the site would cease to exist. 1.3 Areas of Controversy or Expressed Concern The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15123(b)(2)) require the summary section of an EIR to identify areas of controversy or expressed concern known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. The issues raised by the agencies were identified through scoping meetings held for this project on February 9, 1995, and through written responses received by the Lead Agency following issuance of the Expanded Notice of Preparation (NOP) §21080.6 Public Resources Code. The Expanded Notice of Preparation is contained in this EIR as Appendix A. A public hearing on the NOP was held on February 14. Comment letters received on the NOP are contained in Appendix B, along with scoping meeting and public hearing minutes, and the public review and record distribution list. Areas of concern raised in the scoping meetings and NOP response letters are summarized in Table 1.3-1. The corresponding EIR section is provided in the table as a reference for the reader. SCO 17AC9. WP5 1-2 Table 1.3-1 Areas of Expressed Concern Area of Concern Discussion in EIR Effect of additional nitrate loading to Upper and Lower Section 3.3.2.2 Newport Bay Extent of nitrate uptake by algae Section 3.3.1.2 Effect of additional flow on sediment transport to Upper Sections 3.2.2.2 and Newport Bay 3.2.2.3 Effect of additional freshwater flow on the habitats of Section 3.3.2.5 Upper Newport Bay Effect of other water quality parameters (phosphorus, Sections 3.3.2.3 and dissolved oxygen, and constituents of reclaimed water) on 3.3.2.4 Upper Newport Bay Agreement on the data to be used in the EIR water quality Resolved at External and sedimentation analysis Monitoring Committee Meeting Effect of reclaimed water on wildlife using the Project Section 3.4.2.4 ponds Cumulative effects of the proposed Project and related Section 4.2 projects proposed for Newport Bay, San Diego Creek, and San Joaquin Marsh Perceived omission of a Project objective - to dispose of Section 2.5 winter season reclaimed water Consistency with local land use plans and elements Section 3.1.2 Amount of energy consumed to operate the Project Section 3.5.1 Potential increase in mosquito production Section 3.5.2.1 Suggestions for alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR Chapter 5, Introduction 1.4 Impact and Mitigation Summary Table 1-4.1 summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed Project, as well as proposed mitigation measures in each affected environmental category. Impacts in environmental categories not shown on the table were found to be insignificant, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIR. SCO17AC9. WP5 1-3 M 0 p = -6 V= 'b V = 'b i A b cd C ?+, Q ?+. cd cd rA NA Z 0 0 0 0 O O N zz �, 0 O u z b o N U 0 0�� 0z 0 h ti 0 cd C." u � b b O N O -z:cd N bA� OU A pci O c 1.0 0 p b 0 Ocd ,0 z ¢.cda, z ¢w z cd O {.44 0 tr cn L" b ° 3 p" 0 �" o o t 3 •� ami o `� o ti cd W 0 rA U z a> v� '~ 'b b oA = E 0= O 'b CL Cd cd u U A, = w a� ,+ tz p p� 0 �. ed U cam, Cd Cd cd p cd 0 0 0 c> P4 o o cd +� o p, o �? �" y OCd p, b o3��q(D °..', b O w °C w cd p z SU ° .0 ��a��� ., a ,; �' z v a" o ani b �, a c°�i pa a g o aocd uw c r-pGA 4 GA 0Q °' oC i�, � U o cull p E cvU �:70= 3 0 c; bO .� Cd CII'o cuw , on u .- ti 0> CO P. 64 "mcl . � o � a°)Cd 4)izd �.�. v z 0 0 0 oyw v a o a, a Cd M �. N O pip • Cd 0 w ? a 1pA zz o z ° z �cis Eob 0a o 4)Cd i+ 00 7 ocd (L)ami .d wCd clA p a—�i 5 'o o o '- ;� a� id o�oio N Cv),� ti p..: o N p>w >, & cd " CD c. a3i co a ami UO' o CS $. o wb 4° o 7> w cu b (1) ° .o o ww b az o 34 w Gn 0 y b C eek �.o > � b � o] �� �+,� a ocl � v?+; °'0 b °��' o cd v C a GL w 0 c� U cn p W Z �, N mi p > c a - y ap ti GL U �z U G b ¢, y cd cd Z toG 3 .� W = °w U Cd O > v °wpN Cd N iC i z dz 3 o M �. O y ,; M V CC cd ?U z 95 Cd uy o O cz COD w ti O O O 'U N y .> N W -ed r' -- 4Com. O Cd o ° 3 to 3 'Cd at O O oO o V Vi > Q 4r , W 0 • • • • • N U O H bQ F cfs O afi Cz'C,� 04 C C c o ,u O w O U C •to'C c«eff C� y w3o�C� to 0 ami 0 a, (U 'o p .� ami p Z E v U � � C W � 1.5 Alternatives Evaluated In accordance with Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, several alternatives to the Project are evaluated in this EIR. The alternatives evaluation is contained in Chapter 5 and addresses the following: • No Project Alternative • Reduced Flow • Recirculation of Reclaimed Water • Alternative Site • Environmentally Superior Alternative SCO17AC9. WP5 1-7 a w 0 11 Chapter 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) proposes to develop a water supply for the migratory waterfowl ponds in the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh. The proposed Project, referred to as the Wetlands Water Supply Project, is located in Orange County, California, and within the City of Irvine, approximately 1 mile southwest of the San Diego Freeway (I-405). The migratory waterfowl pond project site is located within the 580 -acre San Joaquin Marsh, and bounded by Campus Drive to the west and north, the IRWD Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) to the northeast, and San Diego Creek to the south and east. Access to the migratory waterfowl ponds is provided off Michelson Drive. Figure 2.1-1 shows the Project location. A mixture of urban runoff, brackish groundwater and well water enters San Joaquin Marsh from the east, exits into San Diego Creek and eventually discharges into Upper Newport Bay to the west. At present, the San Joaquin Marsh contains a variety of habitats, consisting of riparian woodlands, seasonally wet meadows, managed migratory waterfowl ponds, freshwater marsh, upland habitat, a wastewater treatment plant, and areas slated for future residential development. These uses conform to current zoning. The ownership of the San Joaquin Marsh is currently divided between The Irvine Company, the IRWD, and the UCNRS. The migratory waterfowl pond area is composed of 11 Irvine Company ponds and 5 IRWD ponds. Of the 5 IRWD ponds, 3 are deep ponds (Ponds A, B and C) which have been operated for waterfowl habitat, and 2 are shallow ponds (Ponds D and E) which are operated as shorebird habitat. Figure 2.1-2 shows the San Joaquin Marsh and the Project ponds. 2.2 Project Background The IRWD held a public meeting on October 11, 1994, to consider a Negative Declaration for the original 2 -year demonstration project, referred to as the Wetlands Demonstration Project. Agency and public comments were received at that meeting regarding potential downstream effects in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. (Appendix C contains copies of written comments received on the Negative Declaration). The Board directed staff to address the concerns raised at the meeting and discuss them on November 21, 1994. The November meeting was continued until December 19, 1994. On December 19, 1994, staff presented its response to the concerns raised at the October 11, 1994 meeting and other issues found in its review of Newport Bay environmental concerns. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements SC017ACB.WP5 2-1 ."R ervoir el 4 well 4f 4 A, 20 F 41 Wei 4k an VVY Vi i r t r -7— t. ... . ....... Project 4# Boundary r, -Z AM 0 SA14" 3 0� N O's, V. ..Yviow Al V.nCa cm P !b V J. Ev-por to TL 'CH TICY A W 0 00. Y A 1000 0 Iwo 2(00 3000 4000 9000 ww 7000 FEET N Figure 2.1-1 Site Location Source: Tustin Quadrangle IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project SM3802579.04tvicinity map 3/95 0 300 600 FEET NORTH MUM3802539.04 marsh 3/95 Figure 2.1-2 - San Joaquin Marsh IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project - Drain ,hOutlet, w \ •� •�� ,. r. -.�'-ins �a 0 300 600 FEET NORTH MUM3802539.04 marsh 3/95 Figure 2.1-2 - San Joaquin Marsh IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project - and options for the Wetlands Demonstration Project were reviewed and the following issues were discussed in detail at that meeting: • The effect of additional nitrate loading to Newport Bay contributed by the Wetlands Demonstration Project. The effect of sediment transport caused by the increased flow in San Diego Creek resulting from the Wetlands Demonstration Project. • The effect of increased freshwater flow on Upper Newport Bay as a result of the Wetlands Demonstration Project. The Initial Study concluded that the Project would cause no significant adverse environmental effects and, therefore, a Negative Declaration was recommended. Since the Project does not involve federal funding or require federal permitting, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is neither required nor appropriate. Although CEQA states that serious public controversy over environmental effects does not mandate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the IRWD Board of Directors can take any controversy into consideration in making its determination. The Board determined that despite no anticipated adverse environmental effects, an EIR should be prepared for the Project that focuses on the issues described above. Further, it was decided that the Project would be analyzed in two phases: a 2 -year demonstration phase (Phase 1) followed by the permanent seasonal discharge into San Diego Creek (Phase 2). Because of the two part phasing, the EIR was to be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15167 for a Staged EIR. Subsequent environmental review will be provided prior to implementation of Phase 2. The two-phase Project would be developed over 2 to 3 year period, and each phase would require discretionary approvals from the IRWD Board of Directors and the Santa Ana RWQCB. A streambed alteration agreement from the CDFG would be required to construct an outfall to San Diego Creek for the Phase 1 operation. During the demonstration phase of the Project, information would be collected to determine the characteristics of wetlands treatment and quality of the discharge necessary for the long- term operation. Subsequent environmental review would be conducted for Phase 2 using the new information produced during Phase 1 operations. 2.3 Historical Use of the Migratory Waterfowl Ponds The San Joaquin Marsh contains remnant areas that were operated by two duck clubs, which were in operation when the IRWD constructed the MWRP in 1966. Both the Rinker-McHone and Old San Joaquin Duck Clubs operated until 1988 under permit from the CDFG and a City of Irvine firearms permit. The Rinker-McHone Duck Club, located east of Campus Drive, was leased from The Irvine Company, and the Old San SCO17ACB. WP5 2-4 Joaquin Duck Club, located West of Campus Drive, was leased from the University of California. Both Duck Clubs followed the same operating procedures. Approximately 1 month prior to the opening of duck season, the ponds were filled with up to 2 feet of reclaimed water. The water level in the ponds was maintained throughout duck season. After duck season, the ponds were drained through existing drains into the UCNRS Marsh and ultimately into San Diego Creek. Prior to refilling the ponds, emergent vegetation was mowed or disked to encourage an open water habitat. Since the Duck Clubs used large volumes of reclaimed water, they were required by the RWQCB to obtain "Primary User" permits. Under these permits, the Duck Clubs had to report the quantity and quality of reclaimed water used on a monthly basis. However, the Duck Clubs were not restricted to using disinfected reclaimed water, and on occasion, the Rinker-McHone Duck Club pumped water from San Diego Creek and used secondary effluent from MWRP to fill its ponds. The only source of water for the Old San Joaquin Duck Club was reclaimed water. When the IRWD took over operation of the ponds, the ponds were kept filled with reclaimed water and groundwater past the normal drain down time to demonstrate a shallow water habitat for numerous visitors and school children at the San Joaquin Marsh. When the water was finally discharged to the UCNRS Marsh, the water was stagnant, odorous and rich in nutrients. The UCNRS trustees strongly objected to the annual draining because of the poor quality of the water and requested that the ponds be managed in a way that eliminated annual draining. Note that even if only groundwater were used to fill the ponds, and left in the ponds past the historical winter season, the quality of the groundwater would also deteriorate. Since the UCNRS trustees requested that IRWD cease discharge into the UCNRS Marsh, the remaining viable option for the proposed Project is to discharge to San Diego Creek. Without the proposed Project, including the proposed discharge to San Diego Creek, IRWD would not distribute reclaimed water or groundwater during the winter to the existing migratory waterfowl ponds. As a result, the present open water habitat at the site would cease to exist. 2.4 San Joaquin Marsh Planning Efforts In October 1985, the City of Irvine and The Irvine Company initiated a cooperative study to evaluate the natural resources within the City's planning areas. After extensive public review and hearings, General Plan Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element amendments were proposed. The San Joaquin Marsh was prioritized as the number one open space area in the City. sc017ACBMP5 2-5 The City of Irvine submitted the General Plan amendment for the San Joaquin Marsh to the voters, and the initiative was approved in June 1988. Subsequently, the City of Irvine and The Irvine Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and the City revised the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in October 1988 to accommodate changes in land -use and conservation and open -space designations. The City of Irvine initiated formation of the San Joaquin Marsh Working Group to coordinate maintenance, preservation and enhancement activities in the San Joaquin Marsh area. In 1989, the City of Irvine, in collaboration with the California State Coastal Conservancy, authorized a study to provide an overview of proposed marsh habitats and management practices. This study proposed a comprehensive plan for enhancement and future management of the San Joaquin Marsh, incorporating previous studies and recreational goals that might be consistent with biological enhancement objectives. The San Joaquin Marsh Management Committee, comprising the City of Irvine, the California State Coastal Conservancy, and the University of California was established to monitor and supervise the progress of the study. The San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan continues to evolve. Concurrently with development of the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan, the City of Irvine is the lead agency preparing an EIR examining plan alternatives. The Draft EIR is expected to be released for review in the fall of 1995. As the options in the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan unfold, it is becoming clear that a reliable supply of water is key to its success. The primary water source under consideration is well water, but San Diego Creek water and reclaimed water are being evaluated as alternate sources. In addition to permanent wetlands, seasonal migratory waterfowl ponds are featured in the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan. The San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan and EIR identify the Project as an alternative water source, but the Project itself is not part of the Plan and EIR. The Project is designed to collect data to be used to identify the parameters affecting the successful operation of the San Joaquin Marsh. As such, the Project and its CEQA review precede the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan. The data collected during the Project would be directly applicable to operation of the seasonal migratory waterfowl ponds featured in the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan in Phase 2. 2.5 Project Objectives The IRWD has identified the following objectives for the Wetlands Water Supply Project, and has determined that complete or partial fulfillment of the project objectives are in the public interest. sco17Acs.wP5 2-6 Phase 1 • Provide a beneficial use of reclaimed water during the winter season. • Develop the appropriate operating criteria to eliminate or minimize potential water quality impacts for long-term water supply and plant operations. • Provide an economically viable and sustainable water supply for the migratory waterfowl ponds and the San Joaquin Marsh. • Provide a flow-through system. • Sustain existing biological habitats. • Maintain the local and regional recreational/educational use of the migratory waterfowl ponds. • Provide information on the effectiveness of wetlands treatment and success of vector control measures for use in the San Joaquin Marsh planning efforts. Phase 2 • Provide a long-term beneficial use of reclaimed water during the winter season. • Implement long-term operation of the seasonal wetlands under conditions determined in the demonstration phase. • Provide a sustainable long-term water supply for the migratory waterfowl ponds. The Wetlands Water Supply Project is proposed by IRWD as a new beneficial use for reclaimed water, rather than as a means to conserve downstream sewage treatment capacity at the County Sanitation District of Orange County (CSDOC). During the winter season, IRWD has more raw sewage available for treatment than it has customers for its reclaimed water. To balance reclaimed water demand to supply, IRWD diverts its excess raw sewage to CSDOC. At the present time, IRWD is not fully utilizing its 15 mgd purchased capacity at CSDOC and its 15 mgd capacity at MWRP. In the future, IRWD would purchase additional treatment capacity at CSDOC or increase the capacity of MWRP depending on the total and seasonal demands for reclaimed water. The reduction in winter time flows to CSDOC as a result of the Project has no effect on the IRWD capacity. sco17ACB. WPs 2-7 2.6 Project Characteristics 2.6.1 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Phase 1 of the Project, the 2 -year demonstration phase, is designed to evaluate use of reclaimed water as an economically -viable, sustainable water supply for the 67 acres of seasonal migratory waterfowl ponds in the San Joaquin Marsh (Ponds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, A, and B). Phase 2 is to implement long-term seasonal operation of the migratory waterfowl ponds under conditions determined during the demonstration phase. It is not known at this time if there would be any physical changes to the pond system between the demonstration phase and the long-term operational phase. Any changes would be determined after studying the results from the demonstration phase. Additional environmental permits for the long-term seasonal operation would be sought at that time. The Project would result in a flow-through system in the existing migratory waterfowl ponds of up to 5 mgd of reclaimed water. The reclaimed water would meet all requirements of Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 Reclamation Criteria, of the California Administrative Code. The ponds would be filled beginning October 1; discharge from the ponds to San Diego Creek would begin about October 21. Discharge from the ponds would cease on March 31, and the water remaining in the ponds would be directed into MWRP and reclaimed water distribution system. The Project would evaluate nitrogen removal from reclaimed water, under various migratory waterfowl pond operating conditions. The Project would also serve to sustain waterfowl and wildlife habitat within the ponds by making water available to create habitat. Figure 2.6-1 shows the migratory waterfowl pond area in detail. Under typical operating conditions, filling would commence on October 1, and be completed within approximately 3 weeks. The ponds would be filled slowly to allow waterfowl to feed on grubs, worms, soil fauna, avoiding the advancing water. At the end of the waterfowl season, March 31, the water supply would be cut off and the water remaining in the ponds would be returned to the MWRP to be used as a short-term supply of reclaimed water. Typically, it would take 3 weeks to empty the ponds. The lowest pond (Pond 11 in Figure 2.6-1) would occasionally be flood irrigated in the dry season to sustain vegetation. Discharge of water into San Diego Creek under typical operating conditions would occur between the last week of October through the end of March. Some ponds would likely be operated through the end of the school year (end of June) to accommodate visits by school children. This remaining pond water would then be discharged to MWRP. Minor improvements are required to implement the Project, some of which have already been completed to allow IRWD to internally re -circulate water more efficiently. These improvements include a series of weirs, a pump, and an on-site pipeline system. These improvements were reviewed under CEQA and found to be categorically exempt (Section 15304, CEQA Guidelines). The remaining improvement, still to be constructed, is the sco17ACB.wP5 2-8 '-�SAN DIEGO CREEK CHANNEL 0 300 600 FEET NORTH Figure 2.6-1 Duck Pond Area IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project mSCW38025.T7 /Fig2 4/95 outlet to San Diego Creek. This outfall will not be constructed until this EIR is certified and required regulatory permits are secured. The pond weirs are required to improve hydraulic characteristics, maximize contact area and residence times, and minimize stagnation within the ponds. The weirs are fitted with gates so that the water level in each pond can be adjusted. Two parallel pond trains would be established to compare changes in water quality under different flow and vegetation conditions. Both pond trains would discharge into a shallow forebay before being pumped through the 18 -inch pipeline into San Diego Creek. Figure 2.6-2 depicts the flow scheme through the ponds, the weir locations, and the pipeline and proposed outlet structure to San Diego Creek. Figure 2.6-2 also shows the reclaimed water pipeline from the MWRP to the pond system. The highest ponds are adjacent to San Diego Creek and the water flows northwest towards Carlson Drive. The pump has been installed in the lowest pond (Pond 11) to pump the water into San Diego Creek. Turnouts are provided on the discharge line to allow water to be returned to either the MWRP or into the highest pond. The ability to recirculate water through the ponds permits multiple -pass treatment, if needed, to meet water quality criteria. In addition, recirculation maintains higher flow through the ponds to optimize treatment capability of the wetlands system and minimize stagnation. The pump can also return wetlands -treated water back into the MWRP, where it would be mixed with secondary effluent, filtered, and chlorinated for reuse in the distribution system. Continuous flow through the migratory waterfowl ponds and the new system of weirs along with the ability to recirculate are designed into the Project to minimize stagnation. Stagnant water is the preferred environment for mosquito breeding. In addition to water recirculation, vegetation removal and seasonal drying of the migratory waterfowl ponds interrupts the mosquito breeding cycle. During the first year of Phase 1 operation, all ponds would be devoid of vegetation, except for Pond 11, to minimize mosquito -breeding and potential for health hazards associated with mosquitos. Pond 11 would have some vegetation to determine water quality effects and to monitor effects of vegetation on mosquito abundance. Additional cells may be vegetated during the second year of Phase 1 operation if it can be shown that sufficient vector control was maintained in Pond 11. Many of the features described in this section have been incorporated into the pond system design to mitigate or eliminate potential environmental impacts. Table 2.6-1 summarizes these Project features. The Project requires the cooperation of a variety of public agencies, nonprofit organizations and landowners. A Technical Advisory Committee composed of experts in wetlands management and hydraulics was formed to help formulate and evaluate the Project and would remain involved throughout Phase 1 of the Project. IRWD would seek an encroachment permit from The Irvine Company for use of their lands. scot CBMP5 2-10 18" Reclaimed Water Discharge Line ` SAN DIEGO CREEK CHANNEL Construct Outlet Structure 24" Reclaimed Supply Line 0 300 600 FEET NORTH LEGEND = Proposed Culvert —13101 Proposed Flow Path © Weir Number 001 MWRP Discharge Outlet to Ponds 002 Proposed Outlet to San Diego Creek mSCW38025.T9.04 pond 3/95 Figure 2.6-2 Pond Flow Scheme IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project Flow Line — Emerencv Storagg Poc d 0 o own oyn � °c d :o -c b °= -o 0 o c .. U N Q U vi W 3 C CL O CC y .b C G w N 6 N cC E O N U � 3 V) 04 z .. N Y .� U �.0 w -� X z °� •o p w x o 0 3 95 o E G a� u Y y C " 3 U O -0 0 N 0 64 ❑ (Yi cC t, w O 0 a� w N b 0 _ � °a�• Q z3�o°y4. ami c w a a cr O sY C4) y E •° o 4. clsd a U cc o ''o n ° •:� N c 0 0 a> c Cd 2 a� a� a i :o b o y b rn C iw b ^O W b G A N H �p N R; N v w N � ani -d ° o o ° ami acrd .N � �Ui v .N E .� `z v 'oV•c c a.A'a o oaw aha �aavado ¢ W Q Q �nIx O w O U 20 A. G cz o P. a' Cd o a Q v 'cz o � o cz o ar 3 r b (na cn a� o •� U i U o o ca o a� y; c p h cz w w a) 0 14 FU„ '� 04 y es o a a w 0 O0:U A 0 > 4 vi \° h 00 C\ 2.6.2 Reclaimed Water Quality Because of its quality and availability, reclaimed water is the preferred water source for this Project. For decades, reclaimed water has been used to fill and maintain water levels in the migratory waterfowl ponds. Reclaimed water is consistent in both quality and quantity. The quality of reclaimed water is extensively monitored daily to guarantee that it meets proposed State of California standards for reclaimed water as stipulated in Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 of the California Administrative Code specifying criteria for reclaimed water. The quantity of reclaimed water is consistent because the supply of wastewater is consistent. In addition, the IRWD has the option of diverting wastewater to CSDOC for treatment and disposal. The constancy of supply and quality and flexibility of disposal options designed into the Project, guarantee a high level of reliability that the water leaving the migratory waterfowl ponds would meet discharge criteria imposed on the Project. The water supply for the Project would be reclaimed water produced at the MWRP, and delivered from the reclaimed water distribution system. The MWRP would be operated to convert or "nitrify" ammonia to nitrate. The process of converting ammonia to nitrate and subsequent denitrification would reduce the inorganic nitrogen content of reclaimed water. The term "nitrate" assumes substantial conversion of ammonia to nitrate. For the period December 15, 1994 - April 12, 1995, the MWRP produced reclaimed water with an average nitrate concentration below 5 mg N/L, as shown in Appendix D. The average phosphorous concentration of 2.3 mg P/L is expected to be conserved in the plant treatment process. MWRP effluent metal concentrations and organic priority pollutants are well below United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Gold Book water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and would not be of concern during the study. The wetlands system (specifically Ponds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, A, and B, totalling 67 acres of open surface water) would be operated to further reduce the inorganic nitrogen content by reducing some of the nitrate to nitrogen gas at the water - sediment interface, and reduce the inorganic nitrogen through uptake by the wetlands system. This process is achieved by bacterial denitrification. In a wetland or wet area of any kind of soil, many kinds of bacteria, naturally present in the system, will uptake nitrate, and transform it into nitrogen gas (denitrification). The nitrogen gas is then rapidly released to the atmosphere. After this process, it is predicted that the discharge from the wetlands system to San Diego Creek would have a nitrate concentration between less than 1 and 3.1 mg N/L (milligrams nitrogen per liter). See Appendix E for a detailed analysis of the predicted wetlands nitrogen removal. SCO 17ACB. WP5 2-13 2.6.3 Proposed Monitoring Program The NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit application submitted for the Project proposes two outfalls. Each outfall would meet specific RWQCB water quality criteria or guidelines. Outfall 001 (shown in Figure 2.6-2) discharges to the ponds, and would be measured for current MWRP effluent water quality criteria necessary to meet Title 22 requirements for reclaimed water. The data would be reported based on Order 94-22, recently adopted by the RWQCB. Outfall 002 (also shown in Figure 2.6-2) would be the discharge point into San Diego Creek. Water quality monitoring requirements for this discharge would be determined through the NPDES permit application process. In addition to these outfalls, the RWQCB may require additional monitoring stations to ensure compliance with permit conditions. In addition to permit compliance monitoring, an extensive internal monitoring program is incorporated in the operations plan for the Project. The monitoring plan includes the elements shown in Table 2.6-2. The monitoring locations associated with the internal monitoring plan are shown in Figure 2.6-3. The internal monitoring plan for the Project is more extensive than the typical plan which monitors the operation of a wetlands system. This is necessary because the data collected from the internal monitoring plan would be used to validate the effectiveness of wetlands treatment, success of vector control measures, and maintenance of the biological resources in the migratory waterfowl ponds. This information would be used to design successful enhancement projects for the marsh in the proposed San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan. In addition to the internal monitoring plan, IRWD has proposed an extensive off-site monitoring program in coordination with the RWQCB, OCEMA, UCNRS, CDFG, and the City of Newport Beach. This monitoring program involves the sampling of San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, receiving waters of the proposed discharge. Details of the proposed external monitoring program are provided in Table 2.6-3. Appendix F contains copies of meeting minutes from the External Monitoring Committee meetings as well as comment letters received on the proposed monitoring program from the committee members. 2.7 Required Regulatory Approvals Because the Project sustains nonjurisdictional wetlands, is located in an area near jurisdictional wetlands, and has a discharge into inland surface waters, the need for various environmental permits was considered. sco17ACB. WPs 2-14 U N h b •�, n tC0 4+ b •�.J. tO ►: C 7 Y p; 0 C O C Qa 3 H O hb LT 7tn`� 7 d o [ .. ;2 a C b -o � c c eo O a abi o a 3 U '0 > Y o i i i i C O J R7 p 0 Uo_y oo y .SUA o N J a C � O d W, 1>1 w4,4 0 7 R. p CL, 0. aC7w Q 4 w o e� r U > 5 S ^ wcli8 zzz c 8'a"i•N E ? E 3 a' O O P. U �OO'a.", zZZFH A yid O tNO c'CIV ,C tyd ar; \ oU TUU12 epq z Q U Q u y G 4�i 4 W N CR .S z F t w F M -�" tF' E- fV 0 z.o cn OM td z G .pC tiL a 0 ... N y .r 'y O N <l J2, y .N-. •O OOq `in Z A Z 6 .� iii U h VI iii Gam, v 'O h C K o z o x N' o K c o N U Z r. .� � d .o roi p p^ qq Fp C G ani v? code �Zaya ? c 6 c o tll� o o U o❑" "J Uvoic 3p UUc 830 bF. ?C U Cd CO JO rycn UO aN U� O E.U O N ti0 w Q z Q Q a c O a CC c o N aEn Open Marsh �— 'CARLSO Berm ---iC c7 Pump Station 18" Reclaimed Water Discharge Line Return Flow Line CAE mer enc Storag Pond Michelson Water z Reclamation 2 1 (1) * Plant E o 1002 _ SAN DIEGO CREEK CHANNEL s �-� Construct Structure 24" Reclaimed Water Supply Line 0 300 600 FEET NORTH LEGEND O Proposed Culvert -40, Proposed Flow Path © Monitoring Location 001 MWRP Discharge Outlet to Ponds 002 Proposed Outlet to San Diego Creek mSGW38025.T9.05 monlocs 5/95 Figure 2.6-3 - Monitoring Locations for Internal Monitoring Program IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project - U G O 3 C N C N N to 0 O', to C O ° 0 •^ °' x da.aa yo H °„ 4 o Q tea, •5 � .043 c a W �0 to >, T td W z' 0 C N N N .3 ,.� '' J a ty ° N W G O c 0 �aA 'O w E c� 'd bA a) m 5 w O N Z E.3 °�'� _5yZ 3 °w m33 z '� O C n° 3 d y a o co�'Hai zX �cdi cM cy ZN � a U o tea07:ou ° 7y 3a' �o c F5 E�� Oo 0 y 3b `°�rc°g G o �i� °wdcE 10 cd a 5 a ao 'Y ^ Ei I�r ^ �%,� 0 a°qi?°'� ° 6i oa a�cxiE '�Cd M co W� Q w ti o.aa Vi z .o•> z w wa�rr f� LV Q.a �h N N 'O to) z0z a_ 0 � a) bA G cV C E m •°� d °' 3 ° o w o Y _, M w 0 _y a 2 o N O 0 0 y C rj a a � 5 0 0 m a En eo F Im, bey 5 E `-° z U x x c ° ti S jzi 5 U a a a A i0 x as lel o F" Cil ro ro A a 0 '5 0 d W x x Cq PO 0.1 PO �q A 5 a c U o 0 0 0 0 o C R •d L� c w a U Q. 3 bo A ° z zz z � za z¢ roxa¢ 0 Cd E.,0 ; Q c A o^ c a Hca ;ria a z a z d� 3 z Gm a z "Zu co ca co oa oa .,0 oa Cda v� per. in �� �� a°Od a��aa eco F a _� •3 c d 0 cc d x0 c 00 � aai sr, � E CIS 4 CdN U a a) J t Y G1. •� y y � O •� 'O �.. a UUUwzQNF>Fv� .0 •., bAid 'O �. a ,a ..• c UUUfs zN d a °' Sd o �� y Q y 0b a O c Al c ? H au oo zzz �0 0 pzzz �0K vaa 06U o OOx�^ Y' b amNcn a 3 0 AWA U ORZZ Hen oox v� FzzzFQv�v�a W > a The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), which has jurisdiction over projects occurring in tidal and wetland areas, reviewed the Project to determine if it was in a wetland area under their jurisdiction. The COE determined that the ponds are nonjurisdictional, and that a 404 Permit is not required. The COE similarly determined that a 404 permit was not required for the San Diego Creek discharge. (See letter from COE in Appendix Q. The OCEMA manages San Diego Creek and requires encroachment permits for work performed in flood control channels. The discharge outfall to San Diego Creek would be constructed to County standards, and a permit to construct will be requested following appropriate CEQA analysis. The CDFG requires a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement to construct the outlet in San Diego Creek. One of the requirements of the Agreement application is submittal of the certified CEQA document prepared for the Project. The Agreement will be requested following appropriate CEQA analysis. The RWQCB requires an NPDES permit which would set numerical standards for the discharge from the migratory waterfowl ponds into San Diego Creek in accordance with the Santa Ana Basin Plan and other criteria. To ensure compliance with permit conditions, the NPDES permit would stipulate a detailed monitoring and reporting program. An NPDES permit application has been submitted to the RWQCB. 2.8 Uses of this EIR This EIR assesses the potential impacts of the proposed Project described in this chapter. A subsequent environmental review of Phase 2 would be required, under the CEQA guidelines for a Staged EIR. IRWD is the lead agency for this EIR, and has supervised its preparation. This document has the following specific uses: • To comply with CEQA • To provide public notice to other interested or affected parties regarding the proposed Project • To provide an administrative forum of public comment regarding any real or perceived environmental impact related to the proposed Project • To provide the required environmental documentation for applicable environmental permitting processes including an NPDES Permit, an encroachment permit, a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement and any other permits, as needed. sco17ACB.wP5 2-18 Chapter 3 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation 3.1 Land Use and Planning 3.1.1 Environmental Setting The Wetlands Water Supply Project site is located within the City of Irvine, and regulated under the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The migratory waterfowl pond area is owned by IRWD and The Irvine Company. 3.1.1.1 City of Irvine The City of Irvine General Plan provides short-term and long-term guidance for development within the City. Land use development is guided by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Land Use Element categorizes the IRWD migratory waterfowl pond area as Conservation and Open Space, and specifically designates this area under the "Preservation Area" subcategory. Preservation Areas are defined as "lands that contain visually significant ridgelines, biotic communities of high significance, geologic constraints, and cultural resources. " According to the Land Use Element, these lands have been judged desirable for permanent preservation in a natural state with little or no modification. Habitat enhancement is among the various permitted uses in the Preservation Area. The migratory waterfowl pond area is located within Planning Area 23 of the City of Irvine Zoning Ordinance (see Figure 3.1-1). The migratory waterfowl pond area is zoned "Conservation Open Space/Reserve," as shown in Figure 3.1-2, and is consistent with the City of Irvine General Plan land use designation. The Conservation Open Space Element of the Irvine General Plan provides for the concept of "development of conservation and open space areas which result in the preservation of natural and man-made resources. " This Element cites as an example the San Diego Creek riparian community and the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands; these "have been designated for preservation because of their valuable biotic resources. " An Implementing Action under Objective L-2 Biotic Resources and Objective L-7 Preservation Area states: "Maintain significant riparian areas in Preservation Areas as natural corridors and sources of shelter, water and food for wildlife ... " Another Implementing Action under Objective L-2 is "Maintain and preserve the habitat components essential to the Canadian Geese. " The Waste Management Element of the Irvine General Plan encourages the use of recycled water to the extent feasible. sco17a,cc.wr5 3-1 Source: City of Irvine General Plan SCW38025.T9.04/Planning Areas 3/95 MY BOUNDARY w Figure 3.1-1 - City of Irvine Planning Areas IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project �c _o V 8cc8 cc `ooi E F-- U) cc 8 w 009z1-100 g a rm LU 111000000 c. •C m N r cVgD> r d � C Mvo`� u.�E3 co D n 3.1.1.2 City of Newport Beach No portion of the project site is located within the City of Newport Beach. However, the discharge to San Diego Creek drains to Upper Newport Bay which is included in the Eastbay planning area of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The City of Newport Beach Land Use Element states that uses consistent with the Upper Bay Management Plan (Newport Bay Watershed/San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan) are permitted. The Recreation and Open Space Element states as a goal: "Recreation and open space system which meets both the active and passive recreation needs of the citizens of Newport Beach and which maintains and enhances the unique recreational and environmental resources of the City of Newport Beach. " This element designates Upper Newport Bay "ER, " (Upper Newport Beach Ecological Reserve), and calls for the "maintenance and enhancement of environmental resources." (Objective 4). Policy 4.2 requires the City of Newport Beach to coordinate with other agencies to implement the Newport Bay Watershed/San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan. This includes additional excavation in Upper Newport Bay and the narrows; channel stabilization in San Diego Creek; and maintenance of in -bay and in -channel basins to remove accumulated materials (Program 4.2.1). In the City's Conservation of Natural Resources Element (adopted by the City of Newport Beach City Council in January 1974), the City Council has shown recognition of the natural resource value of Newport Bay and encouraged scientific study to identify the relative importance of water pollutants, so that efforts can be made to control the most detrimental pollutants and their sources. The Element requires that an EIR be prepared and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated for any project within the City which may have an adverse effect on ocean or bay water quality. The City of Newport Beach has also adopted a Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan in accordance with the Coastal Act of 1976. This Plan was certified by the California Coastal Commission in January 1990. The Land Use designations correspond to those of the City's Land Use Element described previously. In this Plan, Upper Newport Bay is designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area which "shall be preserved and protected. " The Plan outlines a variety of policies designed to protect the habitat from development. The policies are "not intended to prohibit public infrastructure when the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. " The Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan also calls for the City of Newport Beach to coordinate with other agencies to achieve a solution to sedimentation problems in Upper Newport Bay, and aid in the implementation of measures designed to maintain the tidal currents within the bay. A series of policies related to dredging, diking and filling in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve are outlined. In addition, a series of water quality policies are provided which are aimed at minimizing the potential for the SCO17ACC. WPS 3-4 discharge of human waste into the bay from commercial operations and residents aboard vessels in assigned moorings installed over City tidelands. 3.1.1.3 Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Management Plan The CDFG prepared the draft Management Plan for Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (1988). Although this Management Plan has never been finalized, the CDFG uses it for guidance in managing Newport Bay's ecological resources (Troy Kelly, CDFG, personal communication, March, 1995). The primary objective of the reserve as stated in the Management Plan is "Restoration and Maintenance for the People of the State of California, now and in the future, of a Saltwater Marsh Ecosystem. " The Management Plan includes a set of management goals and enhancement goals for the following features of Newport Bay: wetland habitats; shorebirds; waterfowl; threatened and endangered species; fishery; other non -game species; and public use. According to the Management Plan, it has been the intent of the CDFG to restore the bay to a condition somewhat similar to that which existed in the 1870s, which is the earliest date for which accurate mapping of Newport Bay is available. The Management Plan states that "the ultimate configuration of the wetlands of the Upper Bay will be the result of present and future restoration/sediment management and maintenance activities. Restoration of Newport Bay will be aimed at recreating its historic habitat composition, subject to modification to conform with funding, environmental and physical restraints". Management of Zone 1, the uppermost portion of Upper Newport Bay, includes: maintenance of 1985 marsh restoration projects (which included dredging to enhance sediment deposition and maintain deep water habitat); expand marine and littoral habitat; maintenance and enhancement of peripheral freshwater marsh and riparian vegetation, if possible. The Management Plan recognizes sedimentation as the main management problem affecting the tidal wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, and thus includes a set of sediment management measures most of which correspond with the Newport Bay Watershed/San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan. The Water Quality section of the Management Plan recognizes that sedimentation is the major water quality problem facing the Reserve. The Plan states that while there is an influx of nutrient runoff which will continue, "eutrophication of the Upper Bay does not appear to be a significant problem. " Also, the Management Plan notes that "the substantial year-round freshwater inflow affects the estuarine character of the Bay", and "the Department should discourage, when possible, increased freshwater discharges to San Diego Creek and the Bay". This broad policy is not interpreted to mean that the CDFG can or would prohibit or discourage all freshwater increases, particularly when environmental analysis predicts that no significant impacts to San Diego Creek and Newport Bay will be caused by the freshwater increases. SCO17ACC.WP5 3-5 3.1.2 Environmental Impacts The Project would implement, and not amend, all applicable land use and zoning regulations governing development and use of the Project area. In addition, the Project would not result in changes either to the Project area, land use and planning regulations, or to the land use and planning regulations of adjacent or nearby properties. The Short-term demonstration and long-term operation of the Project would not conflict with the current land use policies of the Cities of Irvine or Newport Beach. The proposed Project would create and maintain a water supply for migratory wildfowl habitat enhancement. Habitat enhancement is a permitted use in the "Preservation Area" of the Irvine General Plan. In addition, the Project would meet the objectives of the Conservation Open Space Element. The Project similarly would not conflict with the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element and Conservation of Natural Resources Element. The 2 -year demonstration phase and long-term operation of the Project would not be expected to create sedimentation, water quality or biological resource impacts to San Diego Creek or Upper Newport Bay (see Sections 3.2.2, 3.3.2, and 3.4.2 of this EIR), although monitoring of the substrate salinities and vegetation response to freshwater increases is proposed to confirm that no long-term impacts to biological resources occur (see Section 3.4.3). The 2 -year demonstration phase and long-term operation of the Project would be consistent with the City of Newport Beach's Land Use Element since no conflicts with the uses or management programs outlined in the Newport Bay Watershed/San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan (see also Section 4.2, Cumulative Effects). The Project would not conflict with the Land Use Element's goal of preserving and protecting Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. The Project would not result in land development of an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. The Project's short-term and long-term discharge into Newport Bay would not be expected to create water quality, sedimentation or biological resource impacts. However, vegetation and salinity substrate monitoring is proposed to confirm that no changes in biological resources in Upper Newport Bay occurs as a result of the discharge. The Project would not conflict with the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for the short-term or long-term operation of the Project since no sedimentation impacts are predicted, and no conflicts would exist with the sediment control measures currently designed to maintain tidal currents within the bay (see also Section 4.2, Cumulative Effects). This Project would not conflict with current efforts to minimize potential discharge of human waste in the bay such as those associated with boating use. This Project would result in a discharge of reclaimed water which is tertiary -treated, and which meets all purity requirements of Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. sco17Acc.wP5 3-6 The short-term demonstration phase of the Project would not conflict with the restoration and maintenance goals outlined in the CDFG's draft Management Plan for Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the Project is not predicted to increase sedimentation to Upper Newport Bay, nor affect sediment management measures, as discussed in Section 4.2, Cumulative Effects. The Project discharge is not predicted to affect the current efforts to expand marine and littoral habitat of the Upper Bay; since the freshwater increases are within the normal range of variation experienced during the winter season. (See Section 3.4). Similarly, the Project is not predicted to contribute measurably to the enhancement of peripheral freshwater marsh and riparian vegetation. The Project is not predicted to enhance eutrophication of Upper Newport Bay since the concentration of nutrients would actually decrease with the freshwater increase (See discussion in Section 3.3.2.2). Although the Management Plan discourages freshwater increases, no significant impacts are predicted from the Project's short-term (Phase 1) or and long-term (Phase 2) seasonal discharge of freshwater to Newport Bay. However, vegetation response within the Upper Newport Bay would be monitored annually to confirm that no discharge -related habitat changes occur (See Section 3.4.3). It is concluded that there would be no environmental impacts of a land use and planning nature, and that all potential effects of the Project are discussed in the remaining EIR sections. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures Because no impacts of a planning/land use nature will result, no planning/land use -related mitigation measures are recommended. See discussion Section 3.4.3, Biological Resources for description of mitigation measures pertaining to biological resources. 3.1.4 Significance After Mitigation As noted, no significant environmental effects of a planning/land use nature will result, either before or after mitigation. 3.2 Sedimentation Sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay has long been a community concern and has been the subject of a significant amount of analysis, planning, and implementation of sediment and flood control measures. Rapid sedimentation of Upper Newport Bay was observed especially after storms in 1969, 1978, and 1980 (John M. Tettemer, 1994). In 1981, the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, in cooperation with the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG), applied to use water quality planning funds available under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for sediment control planning (SCAG, 1983, v). sco17Acc.wP5 3-7 A Section 208 Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan was developed and now is in various stages of implementation, with the Upper Bay Executive Committee overseeing the progress. The Executive Committee is represented by the CDFG, OCEMA, the cities of Irvine, Tustin and Newport Beach, and The Irvine Company, although many more federal and state agencies and citizen advisory panels have participated in the planning process and plan review. Monitoring and maintenance of the sediment control measures are conducted by the OCEMA. 3.2.1 Environmental Setting The watershed of Newport Bay is about 154 square miles, of which about 77 percent is drained by San Diego Creek and 12 percent is drained by the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel which enter the extreme upper reach of Upper Newport Bay. Urbanization in the watershed has been intense and has exacerbated the storm water and sediment flows into Upper Newport Bay. The San Diego Creek watershed is composed of foothills, alluvial plain, and coastal plain. The foothill area is characterized by steep slopes and, in some portions, severe erosion. The alluvial plain is characterized by mild slopes and moderate erosion (except during severe storms). The climate is typically semi -arid with average annual rainfall of about 17 inches in the foothills and 13 inches on the plains. This climate, and the geological characteristics of the region, tend to produce relatively large quantities of coarse grain sediments. Since the rainfall is highly variable, with single storms often accounting for large fractions of the annual rainfall, sediment transport is dominated by severe storm events. The alluvial plain acts as a sink for fine sediments, and becomes a source for those sediments during high runoff events. Flows from San Diego Creek are quite variable. Dry weather flows are in the range of 16 cubic feet per second (cfs) (winter) or less. Annual average flows are in the range of 20 to 35 cfs (Collacott et al, 1989) excluding storm events. Peak discharges (shown in Table 3.2-2) range up to 19,000 cfs for the 100 year return period event. Flows are discussed in more detail in Section 3.3 of this EIR. 3.2.1.1 Sediment Sources The source for sediment transported to Upper Newport Bay is soil erosion from land use activities in upslope areas and channel erosion in the Newport Bay Watershed. The pre- dominant type of erosion was previously thought to be from upslope areas (Boyle Engineering, Inc. 1983) but more recent analysis indicates that channel erosion is the pre- dominant source (Trimble, 1992). The volume partitioning between these two sources appears to be independent of the annual average sediment delivery to Upper Newport Bay. Boyle Engineering's sediment report (1983) acknowledged that the future refinement and reallocation of the sediment production to different sources will not change the estimated sco17acc.wr5 3-8 total average annual amounts of sediment transported to downstream channel reaches. The average annual sediment delivered to the channel scour areas is estimated at 60,500 tons (Boyle Engineering, 1983) accounting for annual average removal of 25,000 tons by In -Channel Basins 1 and 2. Trimble (1993) estimates the annual volume of sediment that is available for transport as 70,000 tons, but does not estimate the removal efficiency of the in -channel basins described below. Future refinement of the volumes transported will be available upon completion of a watershed sediment budget being conducted by Trimble for the OCEMA. Sediment that is available for transport to Upper Newport Bay is that which is in the scour areas of the fluvial system. The scour areas are located in the Peters Canyon Wash from I-5 to San Diego Creek and in San Diego Creek from Jeffrey Road to MacArthur Boulevard. Table 3.2-1 shows the distribution and estimated annual volumes of the types of material available for transport to Upper Newport Bay. (This sediment budget does not account for removal resulting from a third in -channel basin, Basin 3 in the description below, an operation which would presumably decrease the amount shown as delivered to the bay). The largest amounts of the material are transported and delivered to Upper Newport Bay during high flows. Table 3.2-2 shows the volume of sediment that could potentially be delivered during flood flows of different intensities along with the trapping efficiency of the in -channel sediment basins. 3.2.1.2 Sediment Control The approach to sediment control has been to employ the use of sediment traps by the construction of in -channel basins in San Diego Creek and in -bay sediment traps in Upper Newport Bay. Other watershed sediment control measures include channel bank stabilization, construction of foothill sediment traps and employment of watershed sediment control best management practices for agriculture and construction. Two in -bay sediment traps have been built in the upper most reaches of Upper Newport Bay along with a channel deepening project. A third in -bay project is currently being de- signed to provide extensive deep water habitat. Watershed sediment control projects are also in progress. To date, three out of five San Diego Creek in -stream sediment traps have been built and maintained. The farthest downstream sediment basin referred to as In -Channel Basin 1 is located between MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. In -Channel Basin 2 is located between Campus Drive and the proximity of University Drive and the Sand Canyon Channel. In -Channel Basin 3 is located between Sand Canyon Channel and San Joaquin Channel. These basins are shown in Figure 3.2-1. 3.2.1.3 Sediment Transport The sand size material is predominantly transported along the bottom of the channel and moves as bed load. Fine sands are the most easily eroded, mobilized, and available for transport under higher flow conditions. The silt material is transported as suspended load and will stay in suspension until the flow diminishes and the silt particles drop out to the SCO17ACC.WP5 3-9 Table 3.2-2 Average Annual Sediment Budget and Delivery to Upper Newport Bay' Sediment Source Volume (1,000 tons)Z Coarse Sand M Fine Sand M Silt M Clay M Total Sediment Produced 157 12 38 26 24 Deposited in Channels 50 29 71 < 1 0 Deposited in Sediment Basins 47 6 48 46 0 Delivered to Upper Newport Bay 60 1 4 33 62 'From Boyle Engineering (1982, 73) 2One ton of sediment approximately equals one cubic yard of sediment Table 3.2-3 Flood Flows and Sediment Reduction Resulting From In -Channel Basin Operation Sediment Yields Flood Flows (1,000 tons) Return Peak Sediment Sand/Fine Total Period Discharge Available' Sand Silt/Clay Sediment (years) (cfs) Trappe& Trapped Delivered' 2 3,100 15 7 7 1 5 6,600 59 29 21 9 10 9,300 109 57 24 28 25 13,000 185 99 32 54 50 15,900 334 183 44 107 100 19,0004 422 234 49 139 'Sediment available for transport based on sediment produced minus sediment deposited in channels based on USGS data (Boyle Engineering, 1982, 38) 2Sediment trapping efficiency based on the two in -channel sediment basins 1 and 2 (Boyle Engineering, 1982, 60) 'Total sediment delivered to Newport Bay is 100 percent silt/clay based on high trapping efficiency for sand 4100 -year return flood exceeded in January 1995 SCO17AA6. WP5 J _J 2 WARNER AVE O Z,j k, F 5 F09 BARRANC his- -Y Z Cr Cr U x Cr UJ S§' w' c ; m '� r %la AN a� - ,� NEL A-1 f _ Y IN—CELANNEL Source: Orange County Environmental Management Agency, 1995 SCW38025.T9.04/SD creek 3195 IRVINE 1_�J SACT DIEGO PKWY. IN—CHANNEL BASIN 1 NITA a CREE FRWY. CHANNEL Miles 0 1 0 2640 5280 Feet Figure 3.2-1 ® - San Diego Creek In -Channel Sediment Basins IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project - BASE —� 4 371. W CD _: IN—CHANNEL BAS IN 2 o: a 0- d a a: F01.. " r Q u¢i 1��r bJb UPPER m W a n� '.• NEV TORT F.. '.. BAY r.:r. m p - Q w s 7 o� 6 « J Source: Orange County Environmental Management Agency, 1995 SCW38025.T9.04/SD creek 3195 IRVINE 1_�J SACT DIEGO PKWY. IN—CHANNEL BASIN 1 NITA a CREE FRWY. CHANNEL Miles 0 1 0 2640 5280 Feet Figure 3.2-1 ® - San Diego Creek In -Channel Sediment Basins IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project - channel bottom. The clay particles stay in suspension the longest and most of this por- tion of the load will reach Upper Newport Bay, regardless of the presence of sediment traps. Deposition of the silt and clay that does enter Newport Bay depends on variables including tidal currents, water temperature, and salinity. Coarse sediments. As described above, coarse grained sediments are generally transported along the channel bottom as bed load. The positioning of the in -channel basins downstream of the major sediment sources in the watershed is predicted to effectively trap all of the coarse grained sands. The assumption in the trapping efficiency calculations for the in -channel basins is that this material is 100 percent removed in the basin under all flow conditions including floods. The San Diego Creek flood control channel is designed to accommodate the 100 -year flood. If the channel banks overflow during floods of smaller probability, such as the 500 -year flood, this assumption would not hold and sand material would be transported as sheet flow, some of which would be deposited on land areas adjoining the channel and some of which could be transported to Upper Newport Bay. Fine Sediments. Fine grained sediments are readily transported to Upper Newport Bay under most flow conditions. During normal flow conditions the estimated transport of these sediments to Newport Bay is about 61,000 tons per year. The transport of fine grained sediments under flood conditions is much higher due to the increased flow and the decrease in the trapping efficiency of the in -channel basins. Fine-grained sediment, silt and clay, transported to Upper Newport Bay is monitored on a regular basis by the OCEMA. The fluvial sediment sampling entails measuring suspended sediments in San Diego Creek and at five stations in Upper and Lower Newport Bay. General trends in the suspended sediment data indicate that with storm flows, the suspended sediment levels are elevated throughout the bay with a temporal pattern of tapering off within 4 to 5 days of the storm event. This could be a reflection of the flushing rates of the bay. Some of the data shows a spatial decrease in suspended sediments from the San Diego Creek discharge towards the ocean but the analysis of suspended sediments in the Bay has been inconclusive and cannot be used to make conclusions about sediment deposition patterns in the bay (OCEMA, 1994, 8-12). Without modeling and a sediment budget, the sediment deposition patterns will remain inconclusive. 3.2.1.4 Sediment Quality Lead, copper, zinc, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic occur at detectable levels in Newport Bay water and sediments. Trace metals have been found at elevated levels at mussel watch stations (through 1988) in Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek (including copper, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, and tin). PCBs and pesticides and organic contaminants in the water and sediments of Newport Bay have been found to be low or below detection limits. Freshwater mussels in San Diego Creek have shown an accumulation of pesticides, particularly diazinon, endosulphan, and DDT. sco17Acc.wP5 3-12 Sediments also act as a sink for organic detritus and nutrients. There is little or no data on this role of the sediments in Upper Newport Bay. However, the sediments can alternately act as a source or sink of nutrients depending on the nutrient concentration, productivity, and delivery rate of detritus in the overlying water column. 3.2.2 Environmental Impacts Project flows will be added to the main channel flow in In -Channel Basin 2. The wetlands discharge will carry no new sediment to the system and the change in flow velocity will be small, particularly for flood events. The issue of potential sedimentation impacts from the Project is based on concerns about the potential for the increase in discharge flows resulting in increased sediment transport to Upper Newport Bay. The concerns regarding sedimentation relate to both coarse-grained and fine-grained material potentially mobilized by the discharge flow in the vicinity of the discharge pipe and carried downstream under the higher flow contribution from the Project. 3.2.2.1 Significance Criteria Impacts associated with sediment transport to Upper Newport Bay could be considered potentially significant if a measurable increase in sediment delivery to the bay is attributable to: [1] sediment derived from the Project, or [2] because of enhanced sediment mobilization caused by the increase in flow in San Diego Creek from the Project. Impacts associated with sediment quality could be considered potentially significant if contaminants from the Project discharge are above water quality criteria set for chronic or acute effects on the health of aquatic life. 3.2.2.2 Transport of Coarse Material As described above, the increased flow of up to 5 mgd from the Project will increase the flow of freshwater to the bay. The in -channel sediment basins are approximately 850 feet wide in cross-section. Average winter flows are approximately 40 cfs (if large flow events are removed from the record) and the increase attributable to wetland discharge will bring this to under 50 cfs. This results in an average channel flow speed of about 0.06 feet/second (including the additional flow from the wetland which is equivalent to a speed of 0.01 feet/second) which is insufficient to resuspend any size material that has settled in the sediment traps. In addition, the travel time through the basins, which extend about 5,500 feet from the proposed wetland discharge point to the downstream end, will be decreased from 32 hours for the average winter flow to 26 hours when the wetland discharge is added. Considering typical settling speeds of sand size material, this will not affect the trapping efficiency of the basins. Therefore, the Project flows will not cause additional coarse sediment to be transported to Upper Newport Bay primarily because the in -channel sediment basins effectively trap sand -sized material. sco17Acc.wP5 3-13 3.2.2.3 Transport of Fine Material The drainage from the Project will not contain suspended sediments, so there will be no addition of fine-grained sediments to the system due to Project discharges. The discharge pipe position will not cause the resuspension of fine grained material previously deposited in In -Channel Basin No. 2, as the pipe will enter San Diego Creek through a concrete and riprap outlet structure. Therefore, the Project discharge flow will not contribute to fine-grained sediment delivery to the bay as the Project does not result in any additions of sediment or result in resuspension of any sediment. The additional Project flows will add to the water -to -sediment ratio, thereby decreasing the suspended sediment concentrations. The Project flows will have a beneficial effect of providing increased flushing in the bay which acts to prevent sediment deposition and en- hances the removal of suspended sediments from the system. The increase in average channel flow of 0.06 feet/second is not enough to resuspend fine materials or clay materials which have been deposited in the in -channel basins. The Project flows will not cause additional fine sediments to be transported to the bay nor cause the resuspension and transport of fine sediments deposited earlier in the in -channel basins. 3.2.2.4 Impacts on Sediment Quality The discharge from the Project will meet all federal (EPA) and state water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Therefore, any impacts on sediment quality, such as the introduction of contaminants that will adsorb to fine sediment grains, will not affect aquatic life, and thus are considered insignificant. In addition, the Project flows are expected to result in a decrease in nitrogen concentrations in the Newport Bay and will not increase sediment nutrient storage (See Section 3.3). 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures There is no potential for the increased flow from San Diego Creek to enhance mobili- zation or transport of either the coarse fraction or the fine fraction of sediment to Upper Newport Bay. There is a calculable, but probably unmeasurable, beneficial effect of increased flushing in the bay which would prevent deposition and enhance the removal of very fine sediments from the system. Therefore, no adverse impact is expected and no mitigation is recommended. 3.2.4 Significance After Mitigation None. sco 17Acc. WP5 3-14 3.3 Water Quality Upper Newport Bay is a tidal system, connected to the ocean through the lower bay. The bay receives, and conveys to the ocean, upland derived flows (Figure 3.3-1). Most of the 154 square -mile watershed drains into the upper end of Upper Newport Bay through San Diego Creek. Water quality in the bay depends on the rate of input of dissolved and suspended constituents and the effectiveness of flushing to the ocean. Dissolved and suspended inputs to the bay of terrestrial origin are eventually flushed, at least in part, into the ocean. Nonconservative substances may be transformed during conveyance through the system. Some substances may be removed and stored in the system (for example sediments and nutrients). Stored substances may be re -mobilized from the reservoir built up in the bay (for example nutrients stored in organic detritus). The storage and re -mobilization of such substances will eventually reach a steady state condition, other factors remaining the same. 3.3.1 Environmental Setting Newport Bay is a tidal estuary that encompasses two distinct bodies of water, Upper and Lower Newport Bay connected by a narrow channel. Upper Newport Bay was formed as a drowned river valley and extends 3.5 miles in a north -south direction. Upper Newport Bay is surrounded by high bluffs and is primarily a marine salt marsh with freshwater flows from San Diego Creek, the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel, small springs, and overland runoff. Lower Newport Bay was formed as a coastal lagoon and trends northwest to southeast for a distance of 3 miles. The mouth of Newport Bay is located at the east end of the barrier spit that separates Lower Newport Bay from the Pacific Ocean. Lower Newport Bay is a marine dominated system. 7 des. Tidal action results in the movement of water into and out of the bay and changes the geometry (volume and surface area) of the bay over a tidal cycle. On a rising tide (flood tidal currents) water moves up the bay and the fraction of marine water (and thus salinity) at any given point generally increases. Conversely, on a falling tide (ebb tidal currents) water leaves the bay and freshwater moves down the axis of the bay resulting in lower salinity and higher river water fraction at any given point. The tides in Upper Newport Bay are semidiurnal mixed tides with a diurnal range of about 5.3 feet, a mean range of about 3.8 feet, and a pronounced fortnightly ebb -spring cycle (tidal datums from John Tettemer, 1994b). Riverine Flows. Freshwater flows from San Diego Creek vary considerably. Annual average base flows, excluding flood events, are in the range of 20 to 35 cfs. Annual average flows are in the range of 25 to 80 cfs (OCEMA, 1994, Table 15). Winter flows are typically from about 21 cfs to over 100 cfs as described in more detail below. Flood flows range from about 3,000 to 19,000 cfs (peak discharge) as described in Section 3.2 above. San Diego Creek flow characteristics are summarized in Table 3.3-1. sco17Acc.WP5 3-15 ptopostd wed=ds ' Discb2tV • - - • • ' .;�..San 01020 Crook Santa Ana—*fill cllahaaj� - ;.j• -_�;_• .•.. AM UNJBSbC CW - - _ --�. 3hailrasxet- latan� • UNB • • • • • • • •. �::1 ••,I,' •moi UN, 'ry}DS •�•_ . _• ..-PCH•DrfCQ' •' UNBCHB LNBTU -.t - • - `• .:•;r-�� - LNBHIR LNBTRI -"'- •~' LNBHAR LNBRIN Legend Is OCEMA Water Quality Monitoring Stations SCW38025.T9.04/Newport Bay 3/95 0 Figure 3.3-1 - Newport Bay IRWD Wetlands �• Water Supply Project - Table 3.3-1 San Diego Creek Characteristic Flows Flow Description Flow (cfs) Reference Annual Average Base (Excludes Flood Events) 20-35 Collacott et al, 1989 Annual Average 25-80 OCEMA, 1994 Winter Average (October -April) 58 Table 3.3-3 Winter Base (Excludes Flood Events) < 45 Table 3.3-3 Winter Dry Weather = 16 OCEMA Summer Average Base (Excludes Flood Events) < 16 Various Peak Flood Flow 3000-19,000 Table 3.2-2 Prior to 1990, a number of nurseries that had been discharging to San Diego Creek began recycling their wastewater. As a result, flow was reduced about 3.6 cfs, based on information from Blodgett (1989). Geometry. The geometry of the system can provide site specific influences on marine and river water distributions. For example, narrow channels that increase current speeds can result in effective mixing of fresh and marine water. As the geometric character of a system changes with tidal elevation, the water column density distributions can change in response, resulting in enhanced or suppressed mixing. It is noted that under conditions of low or no upland flows and high evaporation (dry season summer conditions), flushing in the bay will be inhibited and, under extreme conditions, there will exist a net inflow in Upper Newport Bay from the ocean. Salinity. The salinity in a coastal lagoon or estuary varies in both time and space in response to a variety of factors including freshwater flow, tidal action, wind induced cur- rents and mixing, and the site specific geometry of the system. Saline ocean water is denser than freshwater, which may lead to pronounced vertical variations in salinity. Upper Newport Bay has a fairly classical system geometry with the source of freshwater at one end and the source of saline ocean water at the other end. San Diego Creek and the Santa Ana Delhi Channel, draining about 90 percent of the watershed, are the major sources of freshwater and enter the bay at the north end. Ocean water is delivered through Lower Newport Bay at the south end of Upper Newport Bay. Figure 3.3-1 above provides an overview of the system geometry. Characteristics of each of the primary factors controlling salinity distribution are described below, and provide a background for the analyses of existing conditions and impacts that are presented below. sco 17Acc.wP5 3-17 3.3.1.1 Physical Processes The fate and transport processes in Upper Newport Bay are typical of estuarine systems. There are three mechanisms involved in flushing and determining salinity structure. For clarity it is easier to consider these mechanisms separately (and think of them as being superimposed to determine the total flushing). The mechanisms are tidal flushing, riverine flushing, and transport by dispersion/diffusion which are described as follows: • Tidal flushing is a bidirectional phenomenon where ocean water enters a bay on flood tidal conditions, mixes with the bay water, and then exits to the ocean carrying some of the bay water with it and leaving some ocean water introduced behind. During this process some of the dissolved and suspended constituents in the bay water are removed (flushed) to the ocean. Since the ocean is very large compared to the bay, a portion (usually a large fraction) of the removed material can be considered permanently lost from the bay. It is noted that in this case Upper Newport Bay is flushed through Lower Newport Bay and then to the ocean. • Riverine flushing is a unidirectional process where fresh water flows into the bay, mixes with the bay water and the mixture flows out of the bay to the ocean. Under some conditions the freshwater flow can induce a secondary circulation that causes ocean water to flow into the system beneath the freshwater and then mix with river water before flowing out of the system. This condition can enhance the flushing action of river flows and may occur in Newport Bay under high freshwater flow conditions. In both cases some of the dissolved and suspended constituents in the bay water are removed (flushed) to the ocean. Virtually all of the removed material can be considered permanently removed. As above, it is noted that Upper Newport Bay is flushed through the lower portion of the bay. • Dispersion and Diffusion are processes that move material from areas of higher concentration to lower concentration. These processes act to provide flushing even in the absence of currents. Dispersion often enhances the mixing and concomitant flushing by tidal currents. A good first approximation can be obtained with the mechanisms described above con- sidered as independent (uncoupled). The changes in river flow resulting from the pro- posed discharge can be considered as if there were no tidal influence, neglecting dispersion, and the results will often be adequate for the analysis of impacts and will be conservative (underestimated) in estimating flushing. 3.3.1.2 Nutrient Algal Dynamics The trophic state of a water body is a measure of the water's ability to sustain life. Eutrophication is any process that increases the trophic state of a water body. This sco17Acc.WP5 3-18 increase is usually measured by an increase in the biological productivity of the water body. Eutrophication is a natural process, but the rate at which it occurs can be influenced by human activity. Eutrophication is often caused or accelerated by the addition of inorganic nutrients stemming from human influences. Eutrophic conditions occur when biological growth in a system is stimulated to a point where dying and decaying material depresses dissolved oxygen (DO) levels to a point which is detrimental or lethal to resident faunal communities. Fish kills are the most dramatic and obvious effects of such conditions. Aesthetic (visual and odor) impacts are often associated with the results of eutrophic conditions. Excessive concentrations of nutrients in the water column are one of the causes of eutrophic conditions. Thus, increased inputs of nutrients may lead to increased eutrophication. However this is not always the case and, as described below, other factors must also be considered. The existence of "eutrophic" conditions is not necessarily well defined. DO depletion attributable to excessive and repeated algal growth events certainly indicates serious eutrophication. If such conditions are the result of anthropogenic (human activity) causes or exacerbation, the underlying causes can be addressed and corrected. However, the existence of perceived nuisance conditions may not indicate serious pollution and may, in some cases, be ecologically natural and healthy. There are, of course, a wide range of conditions between these two extremes and there appears to be scientific and popular disagreement as to the extent, seriousness, and underlying causes of conditions in Newport Bay. Eutrophic waters are often distinguished by high algae concentrations. Problems associated with high algae concentrations include large daily fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels, visual problems (floating algae mats, high turbidity), and odor problems. Since the rate of eutrophication can be controlled by human influences, it can be slowed down and even reversed by the management of nutrient inflows into a system. Reduction in nutrient inflows can lead to lower algal production, less turbid water, and smaller daily fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels as the reduction in nutrient inflow results in lower nutrient concentrations. Daily fluctuations in the dissolved oxygen content in a water body are due to the algal growth cycle. During the daylight hours, the algae grow in the presence of solar radiation. A byproduct of the photosynthetic process is the production of oxygen, which becomes dissolved in the water upon release from the algae. This dissolved oxygen is used in the respiration process, but not in the quantity in which it is produced. In the absence of light, the plants cease to produce oxygen. However, the respiration process continues through the night, depleting the water of valuable dissolved oxygen. If the daily fluctuations in dissolved oxygen are large enough to remove all dissolved oxygen from the bottom waters, dangerous situations may occur regarding habitat for fish and other organisms. Algal kinetics is the central system in the eutrophication process. All other systems (nutrient cycles, dissolved oxygen) are affected by this system. The algal concentration sco17ncc.wr5 3-19 changes with time as a function of the growth rate, the death rate, and the settling rate. Equation 1 shows this relationship, where C is the algal concentration, Rg is the growth rate constant, Rd is the death rate constant, and RS is the settling rate constant. 7C —(RS +Rd+Rs)C at (1) The growth of algae is controlled by such parameters as available nutrient concentrations, solar radiation, temperature, and the present amount of algae currently in the system. Equation 2 shows the dependence of the growth rate constant (Rg) on these parameters, where k1c is the maximum 20° C growth rate at optimum light and nutrients, XRT is the temperature adjustment factor, XRI is the light limitation factor, and XRN is the nutrient limitation factor. Rg = k1cXRTXRIXRN (2) As a first approximation to the effect of nutrient concentration on the growth rate, it is assumed that the algal population in question follows Monod growth kinetics with respect to the important nutrients. This relationship is presented in Figure 3.3-2. The relation- ship shows that for an adequate level of substrate concentration, the growth rate proceeds at the maximum rate for the ambient light and temperature conditions present nearly independent of nutrient concentrations. At low substrate concentration, the growth rate is a linearly proportional to the substrate concentration. The equation describing such growth is as follows, where µ is the growth rate, µMAx is the maximum growth rate, S is the substrate (nutrient) concentration, and KS is the half saturation constant (the substrate concentration at which the growth rate is half of the maximum growth rate). PMAXS µ KS+s (3) Only one factor can limit the growth rate of an algal cell at any one instant. This limiting -factor concept is called Leibig's Law. This limiting factor can be a nutrient, light, temperature, or the cells' maximum growth rate. Nutrients often serve as the limiting factor in temperate climates, due to the abundance of available solar radiation and moderate temperatures. The concept that a nutrient is the limiting growth factor in an algal population means that all of the available nutrient in the system is present in the algal biomass. Any further addition of a particular nutrient, as long as concentrations are below saturation, will lead to an increase in algal biomass. In many aquatic systems, it is possible for more than one nutrient to be limiting. Usually, the two limiting nutrients in such systems are nitrogen and phosphorous. These nutrients are often present in elevated concentrations in anthropogenic discharges to receiving waters. Algal growth requires nitrogen and phosphorus in a specific ratio, thus either one can limit growth at any given time regardless of adequate supplies of the other. SCO17ACC.WP5 3-20 oFz :.E cE U o C O U O Oi C C6 «S N L O U (c L E3 oc Qo Q� O o0 f� CO C7 N T O O O O O O O o O O O (awil pun aad suOisinip 1180) 91LIH glMOaE) 0 0 T 8 0 N E O c O i O CL O cz E C 0 c� c a� U C O U N C O � d r m 0 L) o L N 04) (L C;V WE C. d ea�3� Nitrogen is the element that is required in greatest quantity, next to carbon and oxygen, for most organisms. Nitrogen is an important element in proteins and nucleic acids. Living matter contains about 5 percent nitrogen by dry weight. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the forms of nitrate or ammonia is utilized by algae. Ammonia nitrogen is the preferred form of nitrogen for algae growth, since it is the most easily converted to the amino group. The conversion of nitrate requires additional enzymes. As algae grow, dissolved inorganic nitrogen is taken up and incorporated into biomass. As the algae respire and die, both inorganic and organic nitrogen are returned to the surroundings. The organic nitrogen is then converted to usable inorganic nitrogen by bacterial decompo- sition. Figure 3.3-3 is a simplified description of the nitrogen cycle. Like the nitrogen cycle, phosphorus in the environment cycles between inorganic and organic forms. Organic compounds containing phosphorus are found in all living matter. As algae grow, dissolved inorganic phosphorus is taken up, stored, and incorporated into biomass. As algae respire and die, the phosphorous is returned to the surroundings in both inorganic and organic form. The organic phosphorus must be converted to inorgan- ic phosphorus by bacterial decomposition before it can be again used by algae. Algal death can result from grazing, consumption by other organisms, endogenous respiration, or parasitization. The endogenous respiration rate is the rate at which the algae oxidize their organic carbon to carbon dioxide per unit weight of algal organic carbon. Respiration is the reverse of the photosynthesis process and contributes to the reduction in the biomass of the algae. If the respiration rate of the algae as a whole is greater than the growth rate, there is a net loss of algal carbon or biomass. The total biomass reduction rate is expressed in the following equation (4), where k1R (T) is the temperature corrected respiration rate, k1D is the death rate (from parasitization, infection, or toxic materials), k1g is the grazing rate on algae per unit herbivore population, and Z(T) is the herbivore population grazing on algae. Rd= k1R(T) + k1D + k1cZ(T) (4) The final governing parameter in the algal kinetic equation is the settling term, or the rate at which the algal biomass sinks below the water depth receiving sufficient sunlight to sustain growth. Algal settling is an important contribution to the overall mortality of the algal population. Also, the settling of algae can contribute nutrients to the bottom waters and sea bed, thus playing an important role in sediment oxygen demand. The algal settling rate is presented in Equation 5, where v is the net settling velocity of algae, and D is the depth of the area under analysis. Rv S D (5) sco 17Acc. WP5 3-22 a c am O c E a a u a d N a a 0 vi O E cL c o p a N •.. O Y � O O Q N C V3 V Q L y 0 �N N c O C O iU� Q m O 0 -C Oda �______ I _ __ 0 E Q - MMS 1 O is O E is I H N_ M=Zd I °moo 0 V s in o rn rn �I 0m Q� C f � a Q ° H >, o 0-0 „][ _ O E V - o 0 �o i so QE of C V ! N C O O N0 O O O 0 0 o Q -C a c O -O XO 0_ d Q 0 d O O O O 0 0 a L 0 O v Q Z co Z Z c rnZ��--- c v O •- a — O,0 j0i O p >• E Z c o° ca CO 0 -a c 0 c Z o Q c v 0 -o m — w ° N O -0 w Z Z 4 O E E Z -0 ° Z c = .o O O cn Q a Z EE E O g Q a a o Cl. C c LL c Qj c i I -- O c � c m e; 3 U U 3.3.1.3 Nutrients The issue of potential water quality impacts caused by the Project is primarily based on concerns about increased nutrient loadings that would be introduced by the discharge from the Project. The specific concerns are generally about increased nitrogen loads and the concomitant potential for eutrophication and the adverse affects of stimulated biological productivity in Upper Newport Bay. Whether Upper Newport Bay is seriously impacted by anthropogenic nutrient loadings remains a matter of controversy and uncertainty. In 1980 the OCEMA prepared a report concluding that nutrients from the San Diego Creek Watershed "adversely impacted Newport Bay by depressing dissolved oxygen levels and promoting the growth of algae. " In a later report OCEMA (1986) recommended establishment of nitrate water column objectives for Newport Bay. The CDFG, on the other hand, indicates that "existing levels (of nutrients) do not appear to threaten the bay with excessive eutrophication. i1 Nitrogen: Increased loading of nitrogen has two potential impacts on the overall nitrogen budget that could be of concern in the context of eutrophication: [1] Increased nitrogen loadings could result in increased productivity, possibly leading to eutrophication, if this loading results in increased concentrations of nitrogen in the water column of Upper Newport Bay. This condition would be considered a short term immediate impact. [2] Increased nitrogen loadings could result in increased storage of nitrogen in the biomass and sedimentary detrital matter in Upper Newport Bay. The system has the potential for acting as a sink which could store increased amounts of nutrients in response to increased nutrient loading to the system. Subsequent release of the stored nitrogen to the water column over time could result in stimulated productivity leading to eutrophic con- ditions in the future. This condition would be considered an extended long term impact over time. Whether such impacts result from the proposed discharge depends on a number of factors including not only the increased loading but also the relative concentrations and changes in transport characteristics (flushing) associated with the discharge. These factors are considered in detail below. Phosphate: Phosphate is the other major nutrient that could stimulate eutrophic condi- tions. In general, the coastal lagoons of southern California are considered nitrogen limited (Fong, et al., 1987). This means that algal growth is controlled by nitrogen concentrations in the water column and the addition of phosphorus will not increase algal 1 Department of Fish and Game, 1989. Draft Management Plan for Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. March 1989. (cited in Blodgett et al., 1989) SCO17ACC.WP5 3-24 growth rates. It is generally accepted that Newport Bay is nitrogen limited' so that any addition of phosphates from the wetlands discharge will not lead to increased eutrophic conditions. The existing phosphate loadings from San Diego Creek range from less than 1 to nearly 10 mg PO4 (as P) with mean values for the last few years of about 2.3 mg-P/L (Data from Station SDMFO5, San Diego Creek at Campus Drive, for 6/91 through 6/94; data supplied by OCEMA). The wetlands discharge is expected to have total phosphorous concentrations of 1.5 to 2 mg-P/L. 3.3.1.4 Nutrient Budget To determine the impacts of the Project on nitrogen concentration, the important elements of both the water budget and the nitrogen budget must be considered. Figure 3.3-4 pro- vides a schematic diagram of the major elements that must.be considered for a first approximation of the impact of nutrient loading from the proposed Project discharge on the nutrient budget of Upper Newport Bay. As discussed above, for this analysis the total nitrate budget is considered the most important part of the complete nutrient budget of Newport Bay. The elements of the budgets to be considered are described in Table 3.3-2 where the letter designations are the same as in Figure 3.3-4. As an example of riverine flushing, since the change caused by the Project under consideration is a constant unidirectional flow, an example considering nitrate is described below. As indicated above the riverine and tidal processes are coupled, but considering only the riverine flow component will lead to conservative estimates, since tidal mixing and flushing are not included. The elimination of CT will result in an underestimate of flushing due to increased flows from San Diego Creek. A question was raised concerning the contribution of nitrates to San Diego Creek from storm overflows from IRWD's Sand Canyon Reservoir located upstream of the project. Available storm water overflow data from 1991 though 1993 indicate that concentrations average 2.0 mg-N/L. This is well below the Basin Plan objective of 13 mg-N/L. However, these overflows occur during storms when concentrations are about 41 percent of dry weather nitrate concentrations. Recent data indicates that dry weather nitrate concentrations average 15.4 mg-N/L, which means storm flow concentrations are over 6 mg-N/L. Thus, the 2.0 mg-N/L average nitrate concentration from the reservoir overflows is less than one-third of the typical storm flow concentration. The net effect of these overflows is to reduce the background concentrations, as well as increase flushing. ' Department of Fish and Game, 1989. Draft Management Plan for Upper Newport Bay. March 1989. (cited in Blodgett et al., 1989) sco17acc.wP5 3-25 2 ..................... ■ a: vA Wa`�o Vd, N.z ark r' t S. }� k� '.1 y .............. :::. ro� h • { w ri 03 A� • <Vx s w ww r�A• ad K<tix:o • : • • %Yd . • • v yht wh F zfi%v' ✓ , h • :21�Y ..Dx. • nP Kw R S c i y�� t ' ?_'. r M1� S ¢: • ydti • v�+mac+ i.K Fd s i ErrE. J :..dy. ............... .rte } ai ::.::: .. • Table 3.3-2 Important Elements of Water and Nutrient Budgets Element Figure 3.3-4 Description Included in Water Budget Included in Nitrate Budget Al Input from San Diego Creek (A' +B) YES YES B Input from Wetland Project YES YES C2 Input/Output from Lower Bay Unidirectional (Riverine) Flows YES YES CT Input/Output by Tidal Flows YES YES D Input from Other Point Sources YES YES E Input from Nonpoint Runoff YES YES F Precipitation & Evaporation YES NO G Groundwater Exchange YES NO H Detrital Nitrate Cycling NO YES I 1 Water Level Changes YES NO 1 (A) = (A' + B) where (A) is the input from San Diego Creek without the dis- charge from the wetland project z (C) = (C' + B) where (C') is the output to the lower bay without the discharge from the wetland project accounted for With the possible exception of (H), which will be discussed in more detail below, the only elements changed by the addition of the Project's wetlands discharge (B) in either budget are (A) and (C). The addition of (B) adds nitrate to Upper Newport Bay and the total contribution of the flow from San Diego Creek to the bay is: where Ni.' = Q(A') - CN(A') Ni. = Q(A') - CN(A') + Q(B) - CN(B) Q = flow rate CN = concentration of nitrate (A) and (B) are as defined in Table 3.3-2 sco 17Acc. WPs 3-27 without wetlands discharge with wetlands discharge The average flows in San Diego Creek from October to April are given in Table 3.3-3 (OCEMA, flow records for 1978 through 1992). The average winter flow is about 58.2 cubic feet per second (cfs), but if the higher flows are removed the average is lower and value of about 40 cfs is a more representative (and conservative) estimate that does not include extreme events. The data in Table 3.3-3 indicates about 45 cfs; the use of 40 cfs provides an additional degree of conservatism in the following analysis. As discussed in more detail below, dry weather flows are considerably smaller, at about 16 cfs during the winter months. Data from June 1991 through June 1994 indicates that typical nitrate concentrations in San Diego Creek are above the Basin Plan Objective of 13 mg-N/L (OCEMA data). Using a value of 13 mg-N/L will result in a conservative estimate (relatively greater adverse impact than actually predicted) for the impact of the additional loading from the wetland discharge. The predicted flow from the wetland will be 5 million gallons per day (mgd) with associated nitrate levels of 1 to 5 mg-N/L. Using 5 mgd (7.7 cfs) results in a conservative estimate of impacts, considering the range of potential nitrate concentrations. Table 3.3-3 Mean monthly Winter Flows in San Diego Creek Month Flow',' (cfs) Flow 1990-94 October 21.6 15.3 November 29.6 17.3 December 45.4 40.6 January 90.7 (61.1) 119.5 (37.4) February 105.2 (68.7) 175.4 (110.9) March 86.4 (61.4) 104.3 (38.7) April 28.6 19.6 Average 58.2 (45.2) 70.3 (40.0) ' Flows from OCEMA flow records for 1978-79 through 1992-93 water years for San Diego Creek Campus Drive OCEMA Gaging Station (1979-80, 1882-83,1983-84, and 1984-85 are not available and are not included). 2 Flows in parenthesis exclude the extremely high flow months of January 1993, February 1992 and 1993, March 1991 and 1992. sco17ncc.wr5 3-28 Using the estimates shown above for values of flow and nitrate loading, the total nitrate input to Upper Newport Bay from San Diego Creek is calculated to be: Ni.' _ (40 - 8.6 - 2.8 • 105) • (13 - 2.2 • 106) = 2,800 pounds per day without the wetland discharge, and as a worst case: Nin = 2,800 + (7.7 - 8.6 - 2.8 • 105) • (NL • 2.2 • 10-6) 2,800 + 41 (NO 2840 pounds per day 3,000 pounds per day for NL = 1 mg-N/L for 'NL = 5 mg-N/L The nitrate discharge from the wetland is predicted to be closer to 1 mg/L, in which case the total discharge will be 2,840 lbs/day. This represents a 1.4 percent increase in input based on mean flow and mean nitrate concentration conditions, variability in these parameters is described in more detail below. However, available records (OCEMA data) indicate that the loading of nitrate from San Diego creek varies by a factor of at least 4 under normal or low flow conditions. The expected increase in loading is minus- cule compared to the existing variability, and it is unrealistic to predict a measurable or significant difference in the nitrate budget or algal production caused by increased loading resulting from the Project. In addition to the Project's small increase in nitrate loading, the Project also will cause an increase in nitrate unloading from Upper Newport Bay. This will happen since, considering only the riverine flushing process described above, as the flow from San Diego Creek is increased, the flow out of the bay will have to increase by the same amount. This flow will carry nitrate out of the bay. To estimate the unloading, the loading (water and nitrate) from San Diego Creek is assumed to be completely mixed in the bay. This is a reasonable assumption, since the residence time of water in the bay is at least on the order of days (3 to 4 days according to Marine Biological Consultants, 1980). Using the method in Fischer et al, 1979, and the observed salinity distributions, or complete replacement of bay water, flushing times on the order of 10 to 15 days are calculated. This is consistent with observed salinity recovery times after large floods. Unloading nitrate from Upper Newport Bay is given by: NM' = Q(C') • CN(C') without wetlands discharge Nout = Q(C') • CN(C) + Q(B) • CN(C) with wetlands discharge where Q and CN are as defined above and (A) and (C) are as defined in Table 3.3-2. sco17Acc. WPs 3-29 Because of tidal flushing, turbulent diffusion processes, and nitrate utilization and remobilization there is a gradient of nitrate concentrations along the longitudinal axis of the bay (these effects are considered in more detail below). Available data indicates that average nitrate concentrations in Upper Newport Bay as a whole are approximately 3.1 to 3.7 mg-N/L as shown in Table 3.3-4 (Collacott et al., 1989 and recent OCEMA data). Table 3.3-4 Summary of Nitrate Measurements in Upper Newport Bay Station' Nitrate Concentrations as mg-NO3/L 1976-19842a 1985-19892b 6/91-6/94 3 UNBJAM - - 42.5 UNBSDC 24.8 18.4 27.2 UNBBCW 18.6 15.8 18.1 UNBNSB 11.5 11.5 12.8 UNBNDB 7.0 7.6 11.9 UNBCHB 7.8 15.7 12.4 Average for Upper Newport Bay 13.94 13.85 16.56 Stations 1 Station Locations as shown on Figure 3.3-1 2a Source is Collacott et al., 1989 data appears to be in terms of mg/L NO3 21 Source (Collacott et al., 1989) lists data as " 1986 -Present"; report is dated June 1989. 3 Source is data set supplied by OCEMA (assumed to be reported in mg-N/L, and converted to NO3 for this table). 4 Average concentration is 3.2 mg-N/L 5 Average concentration is 3.1 mg-N/L, however concentration for UNBCHB may be suspicious based on other data listed in the source. 6 Calculated without station UNBJAM; Corresponds to an average concentration of 3.7 mg-N/L. San Diego Creek Inputs: The average concentrations of nitrate to the bay from San Diego Creek for the same time periods shown above is reported as 52.9 mg-NO3/L (12 mg-N/L) for 1976-84, 63.8 mg-NO3/L (14.5 mg-N/L) for 1985-89, and 68.7 mg-NO3/L (15.4 mg-N/L) for June 91 through June 94 (same sources as cited above). sco17ncc.wP5 3-30 As a first approximation, the unloading of nitrate from Upper Newport Bay can be calcu- lated assuming that this value will not change with the increased loading (this again results in a conservative estimate). The difference between the two equations above gives the net change in nitrate being flushed from the system because of the increased flow of 5 mgd (using 3.1 mg-N/L); Nout - NoutI = Q(B) - CN(C) (7.7 • 8.6 - 2.8 • 105) • (3.1 • 2.2 • 10-6) 124 lbs/day For the worst case where the wetland discharge has a nitrate concentration of 5 mg-N/L, the net increase in loading will be about 74 lbs/day, or an increase of 2.6 percent for the San Diego Creek source input. If the wetland treatment performs as predicted, with a nitrate concentration of 1 mg-N/L, then there will be a net unloading of Upper Newport Bay nitrate of about 80 lbs per day. At wetland discharge concentrations of about 3 mg-N/L the loading and unloading would balance based on the simple riverine flushing model. In reality the flushing would include tidal flushing and riverine-tidal interactions which would enhance flushing. For this reason, the estimates described above are considered conservative. Of course, net unloading would only occur until a new balance is reached and the concentrations throughout the bay become lower. The result would be that concentrations would be permanently lowered throughout the bay. More detailed and complete considerations of nitrate impacts are considered below. It may appear counter -intuitive that the project can result in the lower concentrations of nitrate while increasing the nitrate loading. However, the increased flows, resulting in increased flushing, more than balance the increased loading. This point is considered in more detail in Section 3.3.2.2. 3.3.1.4 Other Water Quality Parameters Water quality monitoring studies conducted by the OCEMA since 1976 have identified the presence of contamination in the form of metals and organics such as petroleum hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. Table 3.3-5 indicates some of the constituents that either occur at detectable levels or are at elevated levels. SCO17ACC. WP5 3-31 Table 3.3-5 Existing Toxic Constituents in Upper Newport Bay from State Mussel Watch Program' Station Highway 1 Newport Dunes MacArthur Bridge Water Quality Concern Bridge Beach Trace metals exceeding MIS' Cadmium Cadmium (MIS levels in ppm wet weight) Selenium Cadmium = 1.0 Selenium = 0.3 Organics exceeding EDL? Chlordane Chlordane EDL 85: (ppb, wet weight) Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos chlordane = 21.9 Diazinon chlorpyrifos = < detect limit Dacthal Dacthal Dacthal = 0.7 DDT Diazinon = unavailable 0,P' -DDT 0,P' -DDT 0,P' -DDT = 2.3 P,P'-DDT P,P'-DDT = 7.7 Endosulphan Endosulphan Endosulphan Endosulphan (total) = 1.8 Endosulphan 1 Endosulphan 1 Endosulphan 1 Endosulphan 1 = 1.3 HCH Gamma HCH Gamma HCH Gamma = 0.4 Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide = unavailable Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide Toxaphene = < detect limit Epoxide Toxaphene ' Reference: Blodgett, 1989. ' Median International Standards ? Elevated Data Level (calculated by RWQCB staff by seeing if a value is in the top 5 percent (EDL 95) or top 15 percent (EDL 85) of all state mussel watch program results for each species and type). Trace metals that occur at detectable levels in Newport Bay water and sediment include lead, copper, zinc, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic. Trace metals that have been found at elevated levels at mussel watch stations (through 1988) in Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek include copper, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, and tin. PCBs and pesticides organic contaminants in the water and sediments of Newport Bay have been found to be low or below detection limits. Freshwater mussels in San Diego Creek have shown the accumulation of pesticides particularly diazinon, endosulphan, and DDT.3 3DDT was used extensively on farmlands prior to its ban in 1972. sco17ACC.wP5 3-32 These contaminants are subject to regular monitoring and would not be allowed to exceed current levels in the water entering the Project pond system. Since these materials will not be increased once within the Project, the Project will not add to current levels of the foregoing contaminants in Newport Bay. The concentration of unionized ammonia depends on the total concentration of ammonia, pH and salinity of the waterbody. The amount of ammonia discharged from the MWRP to the ponds will be less than 1/mg/L. It is anticipated that all of this ammonia will be converted to nitrate in the pond system. Therefore, ammonia and its un -ionized form will be well below the water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life. 3.3.1.5 Dissolved Oxygen A low concentration of DO (dissolved oxygen) in the water column is the principal indicator of seriously degraded and eutrophic conditions. High levels of DO ( > 5 mg/L) are observed throughout the Upper Newport Bay throughout the year (Blodgett et al., 1989). The channels in the extreme western portion of Lower Newport Bay exhibit low DO concentrations in the bottom portion of the water column in the summer and fall (Blodgett et al., 1989. This condition is probably due to poor circulation and flushing. Problems in Upper Bay appear to be more nuisance conditions related to detached algal mats that are concentrated and trapped in some locations by the prevailing wind. 3.3.1.6 Pathogens Coliform bacteria and fecal streptococci are routinely monitored by the Orange County Health Care Agency. During most months of the year the California Ocean Plan water contact recreation standards are exceeded in Upper Newport Bay, thereby closing this area to water contact sports. Lower Newport Bay does not have as many violations of the water -contact recreation standards except in areas where recreational boaters dis- charge sewage wastes from boats illegally. Clam tissue samples in all locations generally pass bacteriological screening. Sources of pathogens are thought to be from watershed runoff and avian and animal sources (COE, 1993). 3.3.1.7 Freshwater Flows The existing data indicate that the salinity distribution (vertical and horizontal) under low flow conditions is largely controlled by tidal action. Significant differences in vertical distributions have been noted as a function of tide with a well mixed condition (nearly constant salinity with depth) at high water and definite stratification in the upper portion of the bay at other tidal conditions (Collacott et al., 1989). The vertical distribution of salinity is, overall, a function of the relative strengths of river versus tidal flows. For relatively weak tidal flows the water column will be well mixed (constant salinity with depth). As river flows increase in strength relative to tidal flows the water column sco17acc.wr5 3-33 becomes increasingly stratified (fresher water on the surface, more saline water at depth). For very strong freshwater flows a distinct saline wedge may form with freshwater flowing out of the bay as a surface layer. A gradient of salinity along the axis of the bay exists regardless of the flow condition. A stronger gradient is observed under high flow conditions. The strength of the longi- tudinal gradient is variable and differences range from >_ 30 parts per thousand (%o) be- tween the two ends of the bay to <_5 %o over the same distance (Marine Biological Con- sultants, 1980). The same source indicates that the overall salinity of the bay responds to tides, with higher salinities associated with high tide, as expected. The mean gradient of salinity along the axis is indicated by data for conductivity pre- sented by Collacott et al. (1989). It is shown that the gradient represents a decrease of about 1/4 of the maximum value, with maximum value at the south end of the bay of about 47 mmhos/cm or approximately 31 %o .4 Thus, there appears to be, approximate- ly, an overall variation in mean salinity along the bay of approximately 8 %o . The data also indicates that variability in salinity at a particular place along the bay is described by a standard deviation that is larger than the change in average salinity along the bay. It would be expected that the variability during a tidal cycle at any particular point in the bay will be about the same size. During high river inflows the gradient along the bay and the vertical gradients in salinity both become extreme. The salinity in the upper layer of most of the bay becomes strongly depressed. But the lower portion of the water column becomes significantly depressed only at the extreme upper end of the bay. This is the phenomenon referred to herein as a salinity "wedge". Table 3.3-6 presents some data that illustrate some of the points discussed above con- cerning the distribution of salinity along the axis of the bay. This table lists conductivity, which is a measure of salinity, and flow on the date of the conductivity reading. As a first approximation the conductivity can be used to approximate, qualitatively, the fraction of freshwater and sea water present. The data is shown for the two stations in the upper end of Upper Newport Bay. a Inquiries to OCEMA staff indicate that conductivities are typically measured to a reference temperature of 25°C. This allows conversion of conductivity to salinity. Calculations of salinity are based on the assumption of this reference temperature throughout this section of the report. sco17Acc. WP5 3-34 Table 3.3-6 Examples of Conductivity Variations with Flow from San Diego Creek Date Flow' (cfs) Conductivity' (mmhos/cm) Station UNBJAM3 Station UNBSDC3 22 July 92 10 40 43 27 Aug 92 9.5 48 50 24 Sept 92 12 47 48 29 Oct 92 24 48 48 18 Nov 92 6.6 40 44 7 Jan 93 1750 0.29 0.6 9 Jan 93 91 0.77 2.5 11 Jan 93 38 8.5 17 19 Feb 93 1400 0.46 3.2 21 Feb 93 75 5.1 2.4 23 Feb 93 420 20 30 18 Mar 93 17 14 28 22 Apr 93 18 43 44 1 Flows from OCEMA, 1994, Table 14 ' Conductivity from data provided by OCEMA 3 Stations shown in Figure 3.3-1 Table 3.3-6, although limited, indicates some important information about the salinity response of Upper Newport Bay to freshwater flows, as follows: • The first five readings in Table 3.3-6 indicate that there is no direct rela- tionship between flow and salinity. In fact, lower flows are associated with lower salinities which is opposite to the expected relationship. The observed values are most likely due to the stage of the tide at which the data were collected. (Examination of the flow records reveals that flows were consistent for a number of days prior to the date of the data given.) More detailed examination of the available recent water quality data from OCEMA indicate that the salinity varies, under low flow conditions, SCO17ACC. WP5 3-35 between 23 and 31 %o at the upper end of the bay and between about 29 to 34 %,o at the lower end of the bay. • The data following the first five rows in Table 3.3-6 provide an example of the effect of high freshwater inflows. Of particular interest is the indica- tion that recovery time after a high flow event is not rapid and salinities remain depressed for an extended time, consistent with lower flushing rates than reported in previous documents. • The last two data points show a similar effect to that described for the first five above; flows were nearly constant for at least 2 weeks prior to the conductivity readings, yet the readings vary by about a factor of 2. This is attributable to a combination of the two effects listed above: the March reading followed a series of storms during the last week in February and the April reading followed a smaller storm during the last week in March. Based on the data presented above, it is clear that variations in salinity in the upper portion of Newport Bay are relatively large due to both tidal effects and variations in freshwater input and depressed salinities are quite persistent after large storm events. 3.3.2 Environmental Impacts 3.3.2.1 Significance Criteria Impacts due to nutrient loading can be considered significant if algal growth increases because of increased nutrient loadings, leading to more nutrients available for algal growth. In the case where nutrient concentrations are at saturation, increases in concentration might be considered significant if the spatial or temporal extent of saturated conditions is extended. Impacts due to increased freshwater can be considered significant if salinity changes are sufficient to change the habitat and biological communities. 3.3.2.2 Nutrients The discussions below focus on the impacts of nitrogen since this nutrient is generally considered to be the limiting nutrient in the Upper Newport Bay system (Blodgett, 1989, 62). Nitrate is the form in which most of the nitrogen in the system is found, and the discussions below therefore are focused on this constituent. The impacts of nitrogen loading, as it affects eutrophication, are ultimately based on nitrogen concentrations in the water column. The kinetics of nutrient utilization are a function of water column concentrations, and the absolute loadings of nutrients to a system are important only as they affect the concentrations in the system. It is important to remember that Upper Newport Bay is an open system and nutrients are "unloaded" from the bay to the ocean as well as loaded to the bay from the watershed. The analysis below clearly indicates sco17ncc.wP5 3-36 that the proposed Project discharge will not stimulate or increase eutrophic conditions in Newport Bay. The discharge will reduce the nitrogen concentrations and storage in Upper Newport Bay, resulting in a beneficial impact. Nitrogen. If the wetlands nitrogen discharge concentrations are as predicted at about 1 mg-N/L of nitrate, the effect on Upper Newport Bay will be a calculable net unloading of nitrate and reduction of concentration in the system as described in the nutrient budget section above. It is unlikely that such an effect will be measurable as a reduction of nitrate concentrations in the bay without extensive and long-term sampling. This is because of the following factors: [1] The variability in measured nitrate concentrations at all stations in Newport Bay is between one to two orders of magnitude (factors of 10 to 100) and the change in loading/unloading is relatively quite small. [2] The tidal flow of Upper Newport Bay is about two orders of magnitude larger than the Project's maximum daily discharge. [3] The release of stored nitrogen from sediments and detrital material would increase for some time if concentrations were lowered in the water column, but would not raise nitrogen above previous concentration levels. If the Project's wetlands discharge concentrations are significantly higher than predicted, the effect on Upper Newport Bay could be a calculable net loading of nitrate from the system. It is unlikely that such an effect will be measurable as an increase of nitrate concentrations in the bay without extensive and long-term sampling for the same reasons given above. For a worst case scenario of wetland discharge of 5 mg-N/L, the calculated net increase in loading is 2.6 percent over about 60 percent of the year. As shown above, annual loadings vary by an order of magnitude more than that. In addition, eutro- phic impacts are most pronounced in the late summer and early fall and the increased loadings would occur at other times of the year. The use of average flow rates and nitrate loadings done for the simplified nutrient budget above is a simplification. However, the values chosen result in useful and acceptable estimates for the following reasons: • The net loading -unloading value is based only on the flow from the Project's wetlands discharge and NO3 concentrations in the bay. San Diego Creek flows are not included in this calculation. Thus, overall results for the cases where loading is less than unloading are unaffected by the use of average flow rates and concentrations. sco17acc.wP5 3-37 • In considering the relative impacts of wetlands discharge for nitrate con- centrations higher than about 3 mg-N/L (in which condition unloading is less than loading) using an average is appropriate since the response and recovery time of the bay is relatively slow compared to the time scale of variability in the input of water and nitrogen from San Diego Creek, as evidenced by the flushing times. • The average flow rate chosen (40 cfs) provides a good long-term estimate of impacts. This can be shown by the following calculations (using data taken from a letter from K. A. Rigoni of OCEMA to C. W. Spangenberg of IRWD): - For 1988 to 1993 (October 1 through April 30) the average daily flow was 69 cfs with 97 of the days at flow rates above 69 cfs and the remaining 964 days averaging 16 cfs For 1989 to 1994 (October through April) the average dry weather nitrate loading (as NO3) was 4,870 lbs/day (or 54.6 mg-NO3/L at 16 cfs) The wet weather nitrate concentrations in San Diego Creek flows are about 41 percent of the dry weather concentrations (as reported by OCEMA, 1986) or an average of 74,360 lbs per day for the 97 wet weather days Using the above data, straightforward calculations illustrate that an average flow of 36 cfs at a nitrate concentration of 56.4 mg-NO3/L will provide a total loading the same as the sum of the wet and dry weather loadings described in the letter referenced above The analysis done above to evaluate impacts used an average flow of 40 cfs with a concentration of 57.2 mg-NO3/L. This estimate was based on a different data set but is remarkably close to the estimate calculated above and is considered representative of the system. Model Simulation. To check the relatively simple calculations described above, and to develop a more detailed description of the expected nitrogen distribution in Newport Bay, a 16 -segment model was developed. This model was also used to assess salinity impacts as described below. The model is a finite difference, one-dimensional, branched tidal channel model that has the capability of simulating hydrodynamics (water levels and flows) and pollutant transport (as well as salinity distributions) . The model (TC 111) has been applied to numerous estuarine system throughout the United States. A detailed technical description of the model and its application to Newport Bay is provided in Appendix G. sco17Acc.wP5 3-38 The hydrodynamic element of the model was calibrated using observed values of water level elevations reported by the Corps of Engineers. The dispersion/diffusion element of the model was calibrated using the observed salinity data described above. The nutrient transport was incorporated by adding a removal term (as a first order decay term) to account for nutrient uptake by algae in a bulk fashion. The decay term was calibrated based on observed values of nitrogen input and concentrations in Upper Newport Bay (thus concentrations predicted for Lower Newport Bay may be over estimated). Tables 3.3-7 and 3.3-8 summarize the results of the model. Figure 3.3-5 provides a diagram of the segments defined for the model. Table 3.3-7 provides a generic description of nitrate concentrations throughout the bay in terms of the percentage of the total input concentration. Table 3.3-8 used the values of Table 3.3-7 to estimate the nitrate concentrations for values of 13 mg-N/L from San Diego Creek and 1 mg-N/L from the wetland project discharge. The simulations were done for typical dry weather flow (16 cfs) and typical winter flow (45.2 cfs) as described in Table 3.3-1. Each of these flows has the maximum expected Project flows superimposed (7.7 cfs). Note that the predicted concentrations for the winter flow are in good agreement with the data presented above. Phosphate. Assuming that all of the phosphorous discharge is in the form of phosphate, the increase in loading will be about 50 percent of the existing San Diego Creek loading. It is not predicted that this increase in loading will be sufficient to shift the balance of the system to being phosphorus limited and therefore the increase will have no stimulatory effect on biological growth. Summary. A review and analysis of the available data indicates that the predicted effect of the proposed discharge from the wetland Project will result in a net decrease in nitrate concentration in Upper Newport Bay. This impact will probably remain too small and too variable within the Bay to measure. However, the result should be considered a beneficial impact, since the decrease in concentration can be demonstrated by calculation. A similar impact, for the same reasons would be realized for Newport Bay as a whole, including Lower Newport Bay. If the concentrations of nitrate in the Project's wetlands discharge are higher than expected the impacts are different. The upper reaches of Upper Newport bay would experience the same beneficial impact as described above, a net unloading of nitrates. The lower portions of Upper Newport Bay could experience a net increase in loading. However, this increase would be two orders of magnitude smaller than the existing variability in nitrate loading and would occur during the time of the year when impacts associated with eutrophication would be minimum. The impacts would be insignificant. sco17ncc.wr5 3-39 Table 3.3-7 NEWPORT BAY NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS RESULTS OF MODEL SIMULATION (As a percent of inflow concentration) Model Segment Flow (cfs) Number Winter D Weather Winter Avera e Flow without Project Flow with Project Flow without Project Flow with Project 16.0 23.7 45.2 52.9 Nitrate Concentrations as Percent of In ut Concentration 1 tow 51 3.8 5.3 8.7 9.7 52 4.8 6.6 10.9 12.1 53 5.8 8.0 13.2 14.7 54 7.0 9.6 15.8 17.6 55 8.3 11.5 18.9 21.1 56 10.0 13.8 22.5 25.1 57 11.3 15.7 25.6 28.5 58 12.1 16.7 27.4 30.5 51 6.8 9.5 15.6 17.3 52 8.4 11.7 19.2 21.4 53 9.7 13.4 22.0 24.5 54 10.6 14.7 24.1 26.8 55 11.4 15.8 25.7 28.6 56 13.5 18.6 30.1 33.4 57 16.6 22.9 36.6 40.4 58 21.6 29.5 46.2 50.6 ::v`:::�y!4.T•Ycfi::::�.rY..: .. '.:;`.M.'!!S: ;:Mi��R:::N1rl..::•F•�1:::•:li.::lt,.: :��ii: ii:; 10 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 20 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.2 30 1.0 1.4 2.4 2.6 40 1.9 2.6 4.2 4.7 50 2.9 4.1 6.6 7.3 60 3.2 4.5 7.5 8.3 70 3.5 4.8 7.9 8.8 80 3.5 4.9 8.0 8.9 10 2.5 3.5 5.8 6.5 20 3.3 4.6 7.6 8.4 30 3.8 5.4 8.8 9.8 40 4.3 6.0 10.0 11.1 50 4.9 6.8 11.2 12.5 60 4.4 6.1 10.1 11.3 70 4.2 5.9 9.6 10.7 80 4.1 5.8 9.5 10.6 (1) San Diego Creek concentration at 13 mg-N/I and project concentration at 1 m -N/I SCO10017884.XLS Table 3.3-8 NEWPORT BAY NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS RESULTS OF MODEL SIMULATION (Inflow of 13 mg-N/l and Effluent of 1 mg -N/1) Model Segment Flow (cfs) Number Winter D Weather Winter Averaqe Flow Flow without Flow with without Flow with Project Project Proiect Project 1 16.0 23.7 45.2 52.9 Nitrate Concentrations as mg -N/1(1) wwr% ... ........ . I i * 11*, 111. , I * - - - , * , " ............. x ............ 51 0% 0.48 1.13 1.09 52 0.62 0.60 1.42 1.37 53 0.75 0.73 1.72 1.65 54 0.91 0.88 2.05 1.98 55 1.08 1.05 2.46 2.37 56 1.30 1.26 2.93 2.82 57 1.47 1.43 3.33 3.21 58 1.57 1.52 3.56 3.43 53, 17 -1 -MM, 51 0.88 0.87 2.03 1.95 52 1.09 1.07 2.50 2.41 53 1.26 1.22 2.86 2.75 54 1.38 1.34 3.13 3.02 55 1.48 1.44 3.34 3.22 56 1.76 1.70 3.91 3.76 57 2.16 2.08 4.76 4.55 58 2.81 2.68 6.01 5.69 AINW016 . 10 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04 20 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.14 30 0.13 0.13 0.31 0.30 40 0.25 0.24 0.55 0.53 50 0.38 0.37 0.86 0.83 60 0.42 0.41 0.98 0.94 70 0.46 0.44 1.03 0.99 80 0.46 0.45 1.04 1.00 10 0.33 0.32 0.75 0.73 20 0.43 0.42 0.99 0.95 30 0.49 0.49 1.14 1.10 40 0.56 0.55 1.30 1.25 50 0.64 0.62 1.46 1.41 60 0.57 0.56 1.31 1.27 70 0.55 0.53 1.25 1.20 80 0.53 0.52 1.24 1.19 (1) San Diego Creek concentration at 13 mg-N/l and project concentration at 1 mg-N/I Figure 3.3-5 Segments Used for Water Quality Analyses IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project mSM3802579.04/segments 10/95vjh Figure 3.3-6 illustrates the relationship between riverine loading and concentration of nitrate in Newport Bay. The figure is representative of steady state conditions for low flow conditions with and without the Project at a flow of 5 mgd and nitrate concentration of 1 mg-N/L from the wetland. Note that there is a decrease in concentration even though there is an increase in loading. This is directly attributable to increased flushing. Figure 3.3-7 is similar to 3.3-6, but for average winter flows. It should be noted that both figures represent only the riverine components of loading. Tidal flushing, diffusion - dispersion and nitrate uptake and storage must be considered as well, in order to predict a mass balance. Based on projected discharge concentrations and using available data, we conclude that, although nitrate loadings will increase from San Diego Creek, the Project's overall effect will be a net unloading of nitrate from the bay and a concomitant decrease in nitrate concentration. This impact is calculable, but will probably not be measurable. This result should be considered a beneficial impact, even though it is minor. 3.3.2.3 Other Water Quality Parameters There is no indication that the Project's wetlands discharge will increase concentrations of metals or pesticides. The proposed discharge will have no impact on water temperature. The proposed discharge will have no impact on dissolved oxygen in the water. 3.3.2.4 Pathogens The input to the freshwater marsh is from waste water that has been treated through a tertiary (3 -stage) treatment system. All pathogens are removed via treatment and disinfection processes. The discharge from the freshwater marsh may contain bacteriological contamination from avian or wildlife sources due to habitat use of the marsh. Swimming, wading, and other human uses of the Project ponds will be prohibited. Since the input to the freshwater marsh is free of human pathogens it can be reasonably predicted that the discharge from the marsh also will be free of human pathogens. 3.3.2.5 Freshwater Flows The issue of freshwater flow impacts is based on concerns about changes in salinity leading to changes in habitat and biological communities that would be caused by the dis- charge from the Project. The specific concerns are generally about long term changes sco17Acc.wP5 3-43 Y N O J O J N c� >. a N =m m m oo 00. ac •Y W Yd N 'Cl CO d -._ ON a J cc w C O O ZU OOd .': y t NNa Q O ami . SRI- cod V V i G�a0a AM =mv O R Y � � O) Y O O U M Ltd o o E i 0 y 0 m CZ O O V ( C rr�^ O vI _V -cc C • �"70 O (� fC C c E TW W E 5Z O cu i = oEn�iz • Q • Q � o oC .� 2 a (D a co c m `u� QCm � co O E =Oz C _T -0 Co tv O N co N f0 R _N 2 fi E 5 -S x U W n ca Y V cm \a IV% m � 1 o\ e�am o IDE -3c CZtm .Y it1 Y LV c mmc JJ , ,•-..... oz G Kr2 t L OCC d 'i MOCD o »- > 0.r_ L) e s� C1i U. Cl)ea w f Y � � Y � cc r d. r rn� ca E E O o c c,� o i V Q�j ccC o N Y E N 00 0 o c c c4 ���ca •E m 3 • cu'EoE W LLJ E a) ? o as oE�Z - a o • a c co 0 o c • W > W ' > c m d o a Q ' • Q � o �'c cc LU W o a c E ` cu O T Z 3 w _Z o— yZ o co c 2 cC cuo) o .co o ctS ami N U • • • brought about by the addition of a continuous flow and short term impacts associated with enhanced storm flows. Whether such impacts would result from the proposed Project discharge depends on a number of factors including not only the increased freshwater flows, but also the size of these flows relative to existing flows (both freshwater and tidal sea water flows), the size of the existing and additional flows relative to the volume of the bay, and the variability in existing flows. The analysis below demonstrates that the proposed discharge will not substantially or significantly change the environmental conditions in Upper Newport Bay. The increase in fresh water flow will have an effect on the salinity of Upper Newport Bay. The question is whether the expected changes in salinity, relative to the existing temporal and spatial variability, will significantly modify the environmental conditions or habitat. Based on the geometry and hydrodynamics of the system there appear to be three areas of impact for consideration. Each of these areas is discussed below: Tidal River Channel. The reach of San Diego Creek from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard defines the current extent of tidal action in San Diego Creek. Construction of the sediment trapping basins above MacArthur Boulevard effectively limits the region of tidal influence to this reach. The reach is about 2,000 feet long and the thalweg (the line of lowest elevation at each section along the channel) of the low flow channel is at or above mean lower low water (MLLW) (Simons, Li & Associates, 1986, Plate 2). This means that once a day (on average) the only water in the channel is essentially the freshwater flow from San Diego Creek. At higher tidal elevations there will be intrusion of sea water. However, simple calculations show that under normal winter flow conditions, this channel will generally be a fresh to brackish water body as follows: • Between MLLW and extreme high tide, the width of the channel is about 150 feet (Simons, Li & Associates, 1986, plate 2) • The area of the channel is roughly 150 feet by 2,000 feet or 0.3 million square feet • The volume of the channel between MLLW and mean higher high water (MHHW) for the diurnal range of 5.3 feet given above is 1.6 million cubic feet (0.3 - 5.3) • For an average winter flow of 45 cfs, the volume of water discharged over one half tidal cycle (6.21 hours, approximately) is 1.0 million cubic feet (45 - 6.21 • 3600) • For a typical dry weather flow of about 16 cfs, the volume of water discharged over one-half tidal cycle is about 0.4 million cubic feet Thus, the flow from San Diego Creek will account for about one-fourth to two-thirds of the volume in this reach of the channel for most tidal conditions sco17Acc.wP5 3-46 Obviously there will be some mixing, but the conditions in the channel will vary between freshwater and about two-thirds bay water during normal winter flows. The addition of up to 5 mgd (7.7 cfs) from the Project will increase the volume discharged from the creek over a half tidal cycle by about 0.2 million cubic feet. Assuming the bay water has the range of salinities described above, the effects of the increased flows can be summarized as follows: For average winter flows (45 cfs) the salinities in the channel will vary from freshwater at low tide to 9 to 13 %o at high tide without the addi- tional flow, and from freshwater at low tide 7 to 8 %o at high tide with the additional flow from the Project. • For dry condition flows (assume 16 cfs) the salinities in the channel will vary from freshwater at low tide to 17 to 23 %o at high tide without the additional flow, and from freshwater at low tide 14 to 20 %o at high tide with the additional flow from the Project. The salinities calculated above are average for the tidal reach of San Diego Creek. There will be a gradient along the Creek and for dry condition flows it is estimated that salinities at the northern end of the tidal reach (at Campus Drive) will be about 8 to 13 %o with the wetlands flow included. This habitat area is inhabited by organisms adapted to extreme and highly variable fluctuations in salinity. Current, pre -Project fluctuations are far greater than the salinity variations predicted to occur from the Project discharge. The water will get fresher as a result of Project flows, but the changes in the environmental conditions will not be dra- matic and will be extremely unlikely to result in any change in the biological values of the established habitat. Furthermore, during high flow events, which occur on an annual basis, the channel is and will continue to be completely flushed with freshwater for continuous periods of up to a few days. Therefore, it does not appear that the increased flows will have any significant effects on the existing channel habitat values or biological communities. Upper Newport Bay. It is not possible to provide a detailed prediction of the effect of increased flows on salinity at specific points under a variety of tidal conditions without using a relatively complex numerical model. However, general trends can be predicted based on the available data and applying accepted principles and judgement based on experience in many other tidal estuaries. These general trends can then be compared to the existing trends and variability in order to make an assessment about impacts to habitat and biological communities. Additional detail is provided by the 16 -segment model described above. Results of this model for salinity responses are provided below. However, an overall analysis of Upper Newport Bay is first described below: Based on the observed mean gradient in conductivity between the two ends of the bay discussed above, the existing conditions appear to depress salinity by about 8 %o at the upper end of the bay relative to the connec- SCO17ACC. WP5 3-47 tion to Lower Newport Bay (this represents approximately a 25 percent decrease in salinity at the north end of the bay compared to the south end) The mean winter flow is assumed to be about 45 cfs • Change in the gradient of a conservative substance along the axis of the bay will respond in a linear fashion to relatively small changes in loading (this appears to be a reasonable assumption and is, in fact, verified based on experience with predictions for systems where more extensive data sets and/or models have been applied) The condition at the lower end of the bay is fixed (this is a reasonable "boundary condition" since this area is dominated by marine input of saline water) The result of a prediction based on the above assumptions is that, if a flow of 45 cfs results in a relative gradient from one end of the bay to the other that depresses salinity by about 25 percent then a flow of about 53 cfs will result in a gradient that depresses salinity by about 29 percent. The predicted change at the north end of the bay will be depressed an additional 2 percent. Since the oceanward end is assumed to remain the same, the overall depression in salinity averaged through the bay is thus estimated to be about 1 %o . It is recognized that this will intensify the longitudinal gradient of salinity, which will tend to reduce the changes just determined. Thus, 1 %o should be considered an upper bound of potential change. Since the natural variability, as discussed above is an order of magnitude higher than the projected average change, it is unlikely that any environmental or habitat changes will be induced through the main part of Upper Newport Bay. If typical dry condition salinity gradient and flows are used, the result is essentially the same as calculated above. The percentage change in flow is higher (increase of about 50 percent) but the gradient is weaker (9 percent decrease). And the result is still about 1 to 2 %o depression at the north end of the bay. Upper Newport Bay Near San Diego Creek. The northernmost portion of the bay will see the most change. As described above, an average change of less than 2 %o (approxi- mately 7 percent of the maximum salinity observed in the area) is expected in the area adjacent to where San Diego Creek enters the bay. Salinities in the northern portion of the bay under dry conditions are estimated to be 23 to 31 %o and would be depressed to about 21 to 29 9oo with the addition of the wetlands project discharge. As described above, this change is relatively small compared to the natural variability in salinity. Changes of 10 to 20 percent are observed for low flow conditions apparently in response to tidal action. (There is also the possibility that some of the variability is because of small variations in sampling location.) It was also noted above that recovery time of salinity (depressed because of high flows) can be on the order of many days. The area being considered is an estuarine habitat which supports communities that are adapted to a wide range and extreme variability of salinity. It does not appear that the physical sco17Acc.wP5 3-48 changes described will result in any significant changes to the biological communities. The addition of a constant winter base flow will provide a mechanism that will tend to maintain estuarine conditions in the area of the creek mouth. Although the average level of salinity will drop, the variability will not be as extreme and conditions will be somewhat more stable. Model Predictions. To further investigate the relationship between flow and salinity in Newport Bay, the 16 -segment model described above was used. The segments are as defined in Figure 3.3-5. Technical details about the model are provided in Appendix G. The model was run for typical dry weather flow (16 cfs) and typical winter flow (45.2 cfs) from San Diego Creek. The maximum expected Project flow (7.7 cfs) was added to each of these flows. Table 3.3-9 summarizes the results for both Upper and bower Newport Bay. The table indicates the expected salinities (high and low values in the tidal cycle) for an ocean salinity set at 34 %. The predictions are consistent for long-term flow at the indicated level, and average tidal conditions. In reality, flows and tides are continually varying. Therefore, the model results are for long term average steady-state conditions. The predicted effects of the wetland discharge on salinity are essentially as described above for the analysis of overall trends. Summary of Freshwater Flow Impacts. The addition of up to 5 mgd of flow from the Project to San Diego Creek and subsequently to Upper Newport Bay will have an insignificant effect on short-term and long-term environmental conditions of an already established estuarine habitat. Changes in the salinity structure in the bay will be small compared to natural variability, with a decrease in long term average salinity at the head of the bay. All three areas considered will see some small change in salinity, and the change will decrease from the head of the bay toward the lower bay. This is the existing trend in salinity structure, and the current variability in salinity is more extreme near the head of the bay as well. The predicted depression in salinity is not considered an adverse effect since it is not expected to change the existing environmental conditions or the existing habitat types. Based on existing information, the addition of up to 5 mgd of flow from San Diego Creek to Upper Newport Bay will have a small (but not significant) effect on short term environmental conditions of an already established estuarine habitat. Changes in the salinity structure in the bay will be small compared to natural variability, with a decrease in short-term average salinity at the head of the bay during the 2 -year demonstration phase of the Project. This depression in salinity is not necessarily an adverse effect. One aspect of the impact of increased flows will be to increase the stability of salinity conditions at the head of the bay. Again, while these changes can be calculated and predicted, in reality they are very small and occur under natural conditions. sco17acc.wr5 3-49 Table 3.3-9 NEWPORT BAY SALINITIES RESULTS OF MODEL SIMULATION Model Segment Flow (cfs) Number Winter DrV Weather Winter Avera e ow Flow with Flow with without without Project Project Project Project 16.0 23.7 1 45.2 52.9 Average Segment Salinity - parts per thousand 51 31.7 30.9 28.8 28.2 52 31.2 30.1 27.6 26.9 53 30.8 29.6 26.7 25.8 54 30.5 29.1 25.9 25.0 55 30.2 28.7 25.4 24.4 56 29.5 27.8 23.9 22.7 57 28.4 26.3 21.7 20.4 58 26.7 24.1 18.4 16.9 : F` i 51 32.8 32.3 31.1 30.8 52 32.4 31.8 30.4 29.9 53 32.1 31.4 29.6 29.1 54 31.7 30.8 28.7 28.1 55 31.2 30.2 27.7 27.0 56 30.7 29.5 26.5 25.7 57 30.2 28.7 25.4 24.5 58 30.0 28.4 24.8 23.8 10 33.2 32.9 32.1 31.9 20 32.9 32.5 31.5 31.3 30 32.7 32.3 31.1 30.8 40 32.6 32.0 30.1 30.2 50 32.4 31.7 30.3 29.9 60 32.6 32.0 30.7 30.3 70 32.6 32.0 30.8 30.5 80 32.6 32.1 30.9 30.5 10 34.0 33.9 33.9 33.9 20 33.8 33.8 33.6 33.6 30 33.7 33.5 33.2 33.1 40 33.4 33.2 32.6 32.4 50 33.1 32.7 31.8 31.6 60 32.9 32.5 31.5 31.3 70 32.9 32.4 31.4 31.1 80 32.9 32.4 31.4 30.2 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures No impacts are predicted from the Project thus no mitigation is recommended. However, to assure that no impacts occur, a monitoring program is proposed to verify that the dis- charge has no impacts. 3.3.4 Significance After Mitigation None. 3.4 Biological Resources The biological resources of Newport Bay have been extensively studied. Late 19th Century marine biologists documented the distribution and ecology of the native oyster (Ostrea lurida) in efforts to evaluate its potential for a new Pacific Coast oyster growing industry. Gilbert (1889), referring to Upper Newport Bay as San Joaquin Bay described the main channel as muddy, soft in places—quote: "... but with many banks of native oysters, which reach a large size." He also noted a small but constant flow of freshwater from springs at the head of the bay. (At Alamitos Bay, to the north, Gilbert found oysters abundant in "side creeks" that received freshwater inflow, but not in the main, marine, tidal channel.) Another .early contribution (MacGinitie, 1939) documented freshwater storm flows as causing high mortality among benthic organisms in Newport Bay. Historical changes in Bay ecology that reflected the shifting course of the Santa Ana River (and San Diego Creek) have also been documented (Stevenson and Emery, 1958; Macdonald, 1991). Recent general accounts of the ecology of Upper Newport Bay are provided by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG, 1988) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE, 1993). The benthic invertebrate assemblages of the Upper Bay are described by Seapy (1981) and the fish assemblages by Allen (1982, 1994) and Horn and Allen (1985). Other biological communities and associations of Upper Newport Bay, including both saltmarsh and adjacent upland habitats, are described by Marsh (1990, in EDAW, 1990) and Beauchamp (1991, in Culbertson, Adams and Associates, 1993), and shown in Figure 3.4-1. 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Prior to 1969, the uppermost portion of Upper Newport Bay contained salt evaporation ponds and was separated from the rest of the bay by an earth dike (Figure 3.4-2, Main Dike). Heavy storm runoff destroyed the salt ponds and breached the dike in 1969. Subsequent sedimentation events in 1978 and 1980 caused shallowing of the upper bay; intertidal saltmarsh vegetation became established and expanded rapidly (COE, 1993). sco 17Acc. WP5 3-51 LEGEND 15 Alkaline Marsh � 0 Pampas Gross 16 Emergent Wetlands, not separated turf 1 1� 1 Horticultural Planting or Escape 17 Upper Emergent Wetlands 1 13 28 14 2 Weeds 18 Lower Emergent Wetlands t 1.13 3 Hydromulch of Miscellaneous 19 Wet Meadow 1� 24 4 (Native/NonNotive Spp.) 20 Freshwater Aquatic 16 4 Bore, Disturbed 21 Seasonal Wetland 1'3 - 4 5 Adventive Annual Grassland 22 Alkaline Transition Zone _ trail 6 Native Perennial Grassland (Mesembryonthemum/Atriplex) ,t6 1,3 1 28 16 7 Coastal Sage Scrub 23 Upper Intertidal Salt Marsh 1 8 Maritime Desert Scrub 24 Middle Intertidal Salt Marsh 9 Coastal Chaparral 24 D 25 Nonclassified Intertidal 1,3 10 Mexican Elderberry Woodland/Forest 26 Lower Intertidal Salt Marsh 23 4 11 Xeric Barren 27 Mudflats turf j 12 Mesic Barren/Cliff Face 28 Estuary Marine Aquatic 1 13 q 13 Scrub Shrub Wetland 3 1 (Boccharis/NonNotives) 4 Santa Ana Heights Trail 14 Forested Wetland (Salix/Populus/ o / 5 1 NonNotive Trees) 5- 5 13 24 25 5 73 24 20 - 14 22 13 5 45 1 14 5.7 lq 24 7 9• 14 7,8- 25 16. 2 (cordoon) Qg 4 4 _ t 5,7 7 4 18 •✓ - -- 14 24 9 v 75 7 tu ) I ........ 26 25 5 26 5 26 14 r. 25 7 Backboy Drive 0 ry�h � n ltiN _ �o 26 4 J,en 7 8 14 27oEios)-� 24 26 .-'._. 74"tIT 1 euccaa 2 7 /. 1 13 C• t 5 28 26 9 q 14 114 � 28 2 �•.. 7 27 23 ALKALINE 5 SPOROBOLUS 7 (mesic, springs)- Y57,8 4; . \ 26 8 24 ` 7\ 23 J i 4 86: .. ' Ila 23 27 16 NORTH -' `� 14 � 18 >' 5 418,21 0,2T 16 1507 19 11,7 25 0 �n100 400 J' = 0 200 800 feet 18.21 Source: EDAW, 1990 SC W38025.T9.O4/Fig3.4-1 /Biological 5/94 Figure 3.4-1 Biological Communities & Associations IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project - Santa Ana—Delhi Channel&'_� Jamboree Road Main Dike,-, 25 50 / ( 7 El( +s Source: Upper Newport Bay Reconnaissance Report U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993 SCW38025.T9.04/Fig3A-1/Upper 5/95 Figure 3.4-2 - Upper Newport Bay Above the Main Dike IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project - In 1985, 85 acres of the upper bay were dredged out to create the Unit I Sediment Control Basin (depths -3 to -7 feet MSL, Figure 3.4-2). A second dredging project in 1988 created the 37 -acre Unit II Sediment Control Basin, just south of the Main Dike (depth -14 feet MSL). Both basins have worked well, collecting large volumes of coarser grained sediment from periodic flood runoff, principally down San Diego Creek. Present plans call for maintenance dredging, deepening and enhancement of the Unit I Basin to create the Unit III Deep Water Habitat and Sediment Control Project (COE, 1993; Tettemer, 1994). The uppermost portion of Newport Bay is thus already a substantially man -modified, managed, environment. A recent survey of the biological resources of the upper bay above the Main Dike (EDAW 190, Figure 19, Unit I area) confirms that open water estuary/marine aquatic habitats predominate. The present shoreline includes scattered bare and disturbed areas, extensive intertidal saltmarsh with both cordgrass and pickleweed, and small fringing areas of willow/mulefat scrub wetland. 3.4.1.1 Salinity and Nutrient Variability Southern California's dry Mediterranean climate and highly variable winter rainfall limit natural perennial streamflow. Tidally influenced estuaries and coastal lagoons are predominantly marine systems (Macdonald 1977; Zedler 1982). Physical environmental variables fluctuate continuously reflecting tidal action. Bradshaw (1968) documented this variability—in temperatures, salinities, pH, turbidity, dissolved nutrients, oxygen, and chlorophyll'a'—at Mission Bay Marsh in San Diego, for a salt marsh/tidal channel system with no freshwater supply. Macdonald (1971) documented even greater variability at Goleta Slough, Santa Barbara, for a marsh system that receives freshwater runoff year- round from both natural and agricultural drainage. Both vertical stratification (more saline tidal inflow below, freshwater outflow above) and upchannel, tide -dependent salinity gradients (neap tides: 2-34 ppt; spring tides: 20-34 ppt) were noted at Goleta Slough, despite its relatively shallow (3-8 ft) channels. Strong stormwater outflows resulted in all main channels being flushed with freshwater. Protected side channels maintained some saltwater influence and within a few days the system returned to pre -storm conditions. Both the Mission Bay and Goleta Slough sites yielded diverse assemblages of fish and benthic invertebrates—confirming the tolerance of such estuarine species for these highly variable environments. Prior studies of physical conditions and biological resources in Upper Newport Bay also confirm a picture of significant tidal, seasonal, and annual variability. Early studies of salinity characteristics (predredging; Dixon and Scherfig, 1978) indicate that during peak storms the uppermost part of the Upper Newport Bay was characterized by a well mixed, freshwater water column. During lesser flows, salinity stratification was noted in the lower part of Upper Newport Bay, with freshwater overlying slightly diluted seawater. sco17Acc.wP5 3-54 During the "dry" low flow season stratification was absent and salinity throughout Upper Newport Bay varied between 17 and 30 parts per thousand (ppt) depending on the relative state of the tide. Plant nutrients reached their highest concentrations in Upper Newport Bay during winter storm runoff conditions reflecting drainage from agricultural lands. Concentrations typically declined down -bay throughout the year and showed a strong tidal correlation, with maximum values noted during low tide (outflow) conditions. Dixon and Scherfig (1978) found that phytoplankton standing stock was low in Upper Newport Bay in winter, increased rapidly in spring reflecting a classic spring diatom bloom, and stabilized during mid -summer. 3.4.1.2 Marsh Vegetation Detailed studies of Upper Newport Bay marsh vegetation include those of Stevenson and Emery (1958) and Vogl (1966). Three species groupings are apparent: cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), which dominates lower marsh elevations; and pickleweed (Salicornia virginica)—Batis (B. maritima) and shoregrass (Monanthochloe littoralis)—California seablite (Suaeda fruticosa) associations, which broadly overlap across higher marsh elevations. Tidal inundation patterns, soil salinity distributions and competitive interactions among plant species all play important roles in determining these vegetation distribution patterns. Gerstenberg (CDFG, 1988) notes that fresh/brackish-water marshes and riparian habitats have developed along the periphery of the upper bay, reflecting the influence of freshwater runoff. Stands of bulrush (Scirpus), rush (Juncus), cattails (Typha), and sedges (Carex) are all noted, along with limited stands of willows. Zedler et al. (e.g., Zedler, Koenigs, and Magdych, 1984; Zedler and Nordby, 1986) have developed an extensive body of data on the potential impacts of freshwater influx and nutrient modifications on southern California coastal saltmarsh vegetation. The impacts of freshwater input on saltmarshes vary with both the season and duration of input (Zedler, 1985, 1986). High freshwater discharges in winter and early spring reduce soil -salinities and can result in increased marsh plant height and density. Cordgrass seedling establishment and plant height—important for light-footed clapper rail nesting habitat (Zedler, 1993)—respond positively to freshwater runoff and a "low salinity gap" in early spring (Zedler and Beare, 1986). Prolonged periods of freshwater input and reduced soil salinity, however—particularly during the summer months—allow the invasion of freshwater species, such as cattails, into otherwise saline marshes. Once established, the rhizomatous cattails can persist for several years, vigorously reemerging whenever soil salinities are depressed again (Beare and Zedler, 1987). In a comparable Newport Bay example, heavy winter runoff in 1982-83 allowed alkali bulrush (Scirpus robustus), a brackish -water species, to invade sco 17Acc. WPs 3-55 low saltmarsh habitat near the Main Dike (CDFG, 1988). It is not known if the species persisted at this particular location. The salinity responses noted by Zedler et al., indicate that— rop vided increased freshwater release is limited in duration between late fall and early spring—it will not harm saltmarsh habitats around Upper Newport Bay. Indeed, modest soil salinity reduction may increase establishment and growth rates for cordgrass. Where cattails are already present, they can be expected to continue their expansion, but provided freshwater release is cut back in early spring, they will not invade saltmarsh habitats. 3.4.1.3 Invertebrates The benthic invertebrate fauna found in Upper Newport Bay is numerically dominated by polychaete worms. These worms provide seasonally important food sources for both fish (spring through early fall [Allen, 1982]) and migratory shorebirds (October through June [Seapy, 1981]). General benthic invertebrate distribution patterns are summarized by Culbertson, Adams and Associates (1986) as follows: "The benthic community of Upper Newport Bay has been examined by Seapy (1981) and Marine Biological Consultants (1980). The results of both investigations show that the density, species richness and species diversity of benthic organisms decreased from the lower end of the bay to the upper end. Seasonal patterns of reduced densities, species richness and diversity associated with winter rainfall and reduced salinities were also observed. These reductions are followed by a rapid recovery during the spring and summer. Both studies indicate that the benthic community recovers quickly even following major disruption. " Seapy (1981) hypothesizes that seasonal and year-to-year differences in invertebrate abun- dance and species richness (which correlate with rainfall patterns) reflect yearly differences in the degree and duration of salinity reduction. Analysis of faunal similarity by bottom depth of the sample also suggests "strong vertical separations resulting from vertical differences in the impact of the freshwater influx into the Upper Bay (Seapy, 1981). " Under existing conditions, the benthic communities in Upper Newport Bay exhibit pro- nounced spatial and seasonal variability. The most important cause of this variability appears to be the degree and persistence of periods of markedly lowered salinity due to storm water runoff. The invertebrate populations are very resilient, however, rapidly increasing from their winter lows when marine salinities return in the spring and primary production begins to rise. sco 17Acc. WP5 3-56 3.4.1.4 Fish The fish fauna of Upper Newport Bay has been extensively studied (Allen, 1982; Horn and Allen, 1981) and shares the characteristics of other southern California bays and estuaries (Horn and Allen, 1976). A characteristic group of species is resident year- round, with different species associated with shallow versus deep channels and bay bot- tom versus water column. Production is high. Juveniles of noncommercial species are common and represent important forage fishes for commercial species. Seasonal mi- grants that move into the bay in spring and summer substantially increase the overall diversity and abundance of the fish fauna. As with the benthic invertebrates, the abundance, diversity and productivity of fish in Upper Newport Bay is highly seasonal. In fall and winter, the fish assemblage is com- posed of small numbers of resident species. In spring and summer, the abundances of resident species increases dramatically with the onset of spring algal productivity. Topsmelt and striped mullet, dominant species, both feed heavily on macroalgae, algal detritus, and pennate diatoms. Also during the spring bloom, a variety of "periodic species" (seasonal migrants) join the residents in the shallows of the upper bay. In early fall, many of the residents, as well as the periodic species move out of the upper bay and overall fish abundance returns to low winter levels. Surveys in 1974-75, 1978, and 1986-87 all shared broadly similar patterns of species and abundance but annual variability was high. Horn and Allen (1981, 1985) attribute these differences to variability in reproductive and recruitment success related to oceanographic conditions and to "in bay" variability in temperature, low salinity, sedimentation, and nutrient loads related to the sporadic occurrence of major storms. Allen (1982) found that water temperature and salinity differences alone—because of heavy rainfall in 1978— could explain 83 percent of the variation in species abundances among Upper Newport Bay littoral fishes. This clearly underscores the importance of temperature and salinity patterns in determining the abundance of Newport Bay fish populations. This again confirms the highly variable nature of the present natural environment in Upper Newport Bay, and the resilience of the fish populations that live there. While winter freshwater outflows cause marked population declines, a return to higher -salinity conditions and the onset of spring algae production is reflected in rapid increases in fish populations. 3.4.1.5 Migratory Waterfowl Ponds The Biological Resources section of this EIR focuses on the fish and benthic fauna of Newport Bay. However, waterfowl use of the Project ponds was raised as an issue during the public scoping meetings, and thus is addressed in the Biological Resources section of the EIR. sco17,acc.wr5 3-57 Historically, the diked wetland ponds were managed by a private duck club to provide habitat for ducks during the late fall and winter season. The shallow ponds provided excellent shorebird habitat as well. When the IRWD began managing the ponds in 1992, more deep water habitat for ducks was provided, thus reducing the overall shallow pond habitat for shorebirds. The draft San Joaquin Marsh Freshwater Marsh Enhancement Plan (June, 1994) notes that the IRWD ponds have always provided good habitat for waterfowl in late fall, winter and spring. Species observed at the ponds include Canada geese, many species of duck, great blue heron, white-faced ibis, Bonaparte's, California and ring -billed gulls, and Forster's terns. Nesting ducks found at the ponds include gadwall (rare), mallard, cinnamon teal and ruddy duck, pied -billed grebe, common moorhen and American coot. 3.4.2 Environmental Impacts 3.4.2.1 Impact Significance Criteria The Public Resources Code (CEQA, Section 21001(c)) establishes that it is the policy of the state to: "Prevent the elimination offish or wildlife species due to man's activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities... " Impacts to the biological resources of Upper Newport Bay would therefore be considered significant if any of the following conditions resulted from implementation of the proposed Project: (1) Direct loss of individuals of State/Federal listed Threatened/Endangered Species; (2) Substantial effect on a species or native plant/animal community; (3) Substantial effect on a sensitive habitat, and (4) Substantial effect on the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife. "Sensitive habitat" refers to habitat for plants and animals (1) which plays a special role in perpetuating species utilizing the habitat on the project site, and (2) without which there would be substantial danger that the population of that species would drop below self-perpetuating levels. "Substantial effect" means significant loss or harm of a magnitude which, based on current scientific data and knowledge, (1) would cause a species or a native plant or animal community to drop below self-perpetuating level on a statewide or regional basis or (2) would cause a species to become threatened or endangered. sco17acc.wP5 3-58 For Upper Newport Bay, a significant impact could occur if the proposed Project discharge causes a substantial change in: (1) the season, duration, or magnitude of freshwater discharge; (2) the types and locations of existing habitats; and (3) the total acreages of specific habitat types now present. 3.4.2.1 Perspective on the Proposed Project Discharge Previous sections of this report have focused on how salinity and nutrient concentrations and gradients within the Newport Bay system can be expected to change as a result of the proposed additional freshwater discharge. Generally speaking, the model predictions provide very useful "broad -brush" representations of future "average" bay conditions (COE, 1993). Plants and animals, however, tend to respond to the timing, duration, and severity of extreme events (e.g., major storms, floods, droughts) rather than more benign "average" conditions. Given the natural variability of both tidal estuarine environments and year-to-year local rainfall and runoff totals, additional perspective on the potential significance of the proposed Project discharge can be gained by comparing the proposed discharge volume with related Upper Newport Bay tidal prism and stormwater runoff volumes. The present shape and form of uppermost Newport Bay suggest that any biological impacts from the proposed discharge are likely to be most pronounced above the Main Dike (Figure 3.4-2). San Diego Creek discharges beneath Jamboree Road directly into the dredged Unit I (sediment retention) Basin. Basin outflow then follows a narrow tidal channel between broad fringing saltmarshes, through a breach in the Main Dike, into the Unit II basin. Lowered salinities—and thus potential habitat impacts—are most likely to occur within the lower tidal reach of San Diego Creek and in the Unit I Basin channel. Modeling results indicate that mixing increases substantially below the Main Dike (Tables 3.3-7 and 3.3-9). Further, the Main Dike may act to temporarily impound stormwater flows that spread across the saltmarshes upstream of the dike during high tides. The magnitude of these possible effects can be estimated by comparing the bay's tidal prism above the Main Dike with various San Diego Creek discharge volumes (Table 3.4-1). sco17acc.wP5 3-59 Table 3.4-1 Upper Newport Bay Above Main Dike: Estimated Volumes of Tidal Prism Versus San Diego Creek Winter Discharge (acre-feet) Acre-feet Tidal Prism' Spring tides (0 to +6 ft, MLLW) 440 Neap tides (+1 to +5 ft, MLLW) 300 San Diego Creek Winter Discharge2 2 -year return period storm flow (3,100 cfs) 1,591 Typical wet weather flow (45.2 cfs) 23.2 Typical dry weather flow (16 cfs) 8.2 Proposed Project Discharge Discharge 5 mgd (7.7 cfs) 4.0 ' Approximations, based on planimetry of bathymetry data presented in Figure 3.4-2; and tidal elevations presented in COE (1993) Appendix B, Table 2. Bottom slopes between adjacent contours assumed to be uniform. 2 Volume discharged during one-half of the tidal cycle (6.2 hours); discharge rates from Section 3.3.1.4 and Tables 3.2-2 and 3.3-3. The bay's tidal prism above the Main Dike is estimated to range from approximately 300 acre-feet (ac -ft) under neap tide conditions to approximately 440 ac -ft under spring tide conditions. Stream discharge volumes during the same tide cycle period (6.2 hours) vary from 8.2 to 23.2 ac -ft for typical dry and wet weather flows, respectively. The proposed Project discharge would contribute about 4 ac -ft to the upper bay—less than half the volume of typical dry weather stream flow, and less than 2 percent of the tidal prism volume. In contrast to the small proposed Project discharge (4 ac -ft), runoff from a 2 -year return period storm over the same tidecycle timeframe (6.2 hours) would result in a 1,591 ac -ft discharge—three to five times the tidal prism volume, and clearly enough to completely flush out the upper bay above the Main Dike. 3.4.2.2 Nutrients The analysis presented in Section 3.3.2.2 confirms that as long as nitrate -nitrogen concentrations in the proposed discharge are lower than ambient concentrations in the water flowing down San Diego Creek (see Table 3.4-2), then nitrate concentrations sco17ACC.wP5 3-60 throughout the Newport Bay system will be reduced, not increased. No significant changes in, or impacts to, the system are expected to result from this very minor decline in nutrient concentrations. Table 3.4-2 Average Nitrate -Nitrogen Concentrations Period Upper Newport Bay San Diego Creek Proposed Discharge 1976-84 3.2 mg-N/L 12 mg-N/L -- 1985-89 3.1 mg-N/L 14.5 mg-N/L -- 1991-94 3.7 mg-N/L 15.4 mg-N/L -- Proposed -- -- 1 to 5 mg-N/L Summarized from Table 3.3-4. 7 As noted above, mixing of the San Diego Creek discharge and tidal inflow is likely to be less complete than suggested by the "smoothed" modeling results (COE, 1993). Local changes in nutrient concentrations that reflect variability in flow rates and mixing can be expected to cause small incremental increases, if higher—or declines, if lower—in phytoplankton, attached algae, and emergent marsh plant productivity in Upper Newport Bay. Nutrient uptake tends to be rapid, but impacts are short-lived. There is some evidence that nutrient -rich marsh plant growth may be preferentially grazed by herbivorous insects (Zedler and Nordby, 1986; Covin and Zedler, 1988; Gibson et al., 1994). 3.4.2.3 Salinity The analysis of salinity data presented in Section 3.3.2.5 (summarized in Table 3.4-3) and the results of the model simulation (Table 3.3-9) confirm a pattern of highly variable salinity values characteristic of other southern California tidal estuarine environments. As can be seen from Table 3.4-3, present salinity variations in Upper Newport Bay (cf. Dixon and Scherfig, 1978) will not be significantly altered by the addition of the proposed Project winter (wet season) discharge. sco17ncc.wn5 3-61 Table 3.4-3 Upper Newport Bay Salinity Ranges (ppt) Present Conditions With Discharge Location Discharge Outlet 0 0 (07.74 cfs) San Diego Ck Outlet • Low tide/Storm flow 0 0 • High tide, low flow 19-25 16.5-21.5 Unit 1, Mid Basin • Storm flow < 5 < 5 • Low flow 23-31 21-29 The Narrows • Storm flow - 5 =5 • Low flow 25-33 24-32 ppt = parts per thousand. Low flow = 8-16 cubic feet per second (cfs); storm flow = 1000s cfs. Summarized from Section 3.3.2.5. While the proposed discharge will slightly lower average salinities in Upper Newport Bay, any salinity variations due to the new discharge will be much smaller than present variability due to high tide/low tide and low flow/storm flow variations. Provided the duration of the additional freshwater discharge is restricted between late fall and early spring, no significant impacts to present Upper Bay habitats or biota are anticipated. The more specific assessments of biological impact described below are based on two broad conclusions regarding project -related salinity changes in the Upper Bay: • The Unit I Basin and the tidal reach of San Diego Creek will both experience salinities in the 16-20 ppt range during most high tides, under both typical winter wet and dry weather conditions (Table 3.4-1). • Continuous periods (up to several days) of predominantly freshwater discharge will only occur when stormwater runoff is sufficient to overcome regular tidal incursions into the Upper Bay and San Diego Creek. Marsh Vegetation—Beare and Zedler (1987) concluded from field and laboratory studies conducted on Cattail (Typha domingensis), populations in the lower San Diego River sco17ncc.wr5 3-62 Flood Control Channel (San Diego County) that invasion into salt marshes is restricted by the seedling's requirement for low soil salinities. A 2- to 3 -month period of soil salinities of zero to 5 ppt, between February and August, appears necessary for cattail seedlings to germinate, develop rhizomes, and become sufficiently salt -tolerant to survive in salt marsh habitats. Preliminary studies (Zedler, Koenigs, and Magdych, 1984) suggest that exposure of estuarine algal mats to brief periods of lowered water salinity can reduce productivity. More prolonged freshwater influx allows invasion of low -salinity -tolerant species, and can lead to increases in the abundance of Enteromorpha ssp and Ulva spp. Except during periods of heavy storm water runoff—which typically lasts days, not months—regular tidal incursions into the San Diego Creek channel will frequently raise water salinity levels well above 5 ppt (Table 3.4-3). It is therefore highly unlikely, even with the proposed freshwater discharge, that soil salinity levels could be maintained low enough, long enough, for freshwater marsh plants to invade presently salt marsh habitats. A similar situation presently exists where Rose Canyon Creek, which experiences modest freshwater flows year-round, discharges into tidal saltwater habitats in north Mission Bay. The drier and presumably more saline creek -bank soils are colonized by saltmarsh plants, particularly pickleweed, while the less saline creek bed is occupied by cattail and bulrush. These more brackish and freshwater species rapidly drop out where the tides regularly flood the creek mouth with more saline water. Invertebrates. Zedler, Koenigs and Magdych (1984) provide an excellent overview of the freshwater tolerance of southern California estuarine benthic invertebrates. While the available data are limited, freshwater tolerance clearly varies substantially among different estuarine species. Several local species may be able to tolerate brief periods of brackish water conditions—e.g., 1-2 weeks at 15-20 ppt; but almost all would be killed by exposure to similar periods of freshwater (0 ppt) conditions. Seapy's (1981) work in Upper Newport Bay clearly confirms the role of winter rainfall and reduced salinities in limiting benthic populations, a conclusion that confirms earlier observations by MacGinitie (1939). These and other authors also confirm that the invertebrate populations are very resilient, however, rapidly increasing in abundance again when marine salinities return. Since the impact of the proposed Project discharge on Upper Bay salinities will be small, relative to natural tidal exchange and stormwater flows, no significant incremental impact to estuarine invertebrates is expected. Fish. Extensive studies of Upper Newport Bay fish populations (Horn and Allen, 1981, 1985; Allen 1994), as well as Zedler et al.'s (1984) overview of species' freshwater tolerance, both confirm the importance of seasonal salinity patterns in determining population composition and abundance. The fish species that utilize the Upper Bay SCO17ACC. WP5 3-63 represent resilient local populations adapted to highly variable estuarine environments, or mobile species that move in and out of the area as conditions change. As with the invertebrate populations, the minor salinity changes attributable to the proposed Project discharge will not significantly impact fish populations in the Upper Bay. A southern San Francisco Bay case study (Kitting et al., 1994) in which brackish (10 ppt salinity) wastewater marsh effluent mixed with bay water (30 ppt) year round found that population densities of young, post -larval fishes increased at lower salinity sites. This was in contrast with the authors' pre -project projection that local fish populations might decline in response to the added low -salinity effluent discharge. Fish abundance was also higher in flooded vegetation (pickleweed) rather than on open mud bottoms. 3.4.2.4 Migratory Waterfowl Use of Project Ponds The proposed Project would result in the continuation of water supply to the migratory waterfowl ponds. The reclaimed water supplied to the ponds would meet all criteria for reclaimed water as specified in California Administrative Code, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3. No change in the operation of the ponds would occur, although more reclaimed water would flow through the system, and discharge would be into San Diego Creek. Draining would begin April 1, as at present; however some of the ponds would likely remain in operation through June (to accomodate visits by school children). At the end of June, remaining water would be discharged to MWRP for distribution in IRWD's reclaimed water distribution system. The reclaimed water ponds have successfully sustained migratory waterfowl for the past three years. Since no substantial changes to the operation of the ponds would occur, no changes to the types, number and health of migratory waterfowl species using the ponds is predicted. Although it is possible that trace amounts of heavy metals from reclaimed water may accumulate in pond sediments, a similar wetland pond system in Arcata, California, supplied by reclaimed water, has provided a healthy habitat for migratory waterfowl for the past 10 years. According to Bob Gearheart, Environmental Engineering Department at Humboldt State University, no known migratory waterfowl health problems are known to exist at these wetlands (personal communication, Bob Gearheart, May, 1995). In addition, most waterfowl present at the ponds are non- residents, and are using the ponds as a temporary rest stop on their path of migration. Thus, the waterfowl are not exposed to the pond system for a substantial time period, and substantial uptake of toxic constituents is not predicted. Since the reclaimed water has been used successfully in many constructed wetland pond systems, and that the majority of waterfowl use of the ponds is temporary, no short- or long-term impacts on the health and abundance of migratory waterfowl species are predicted. The proposed Internal Monitoring Plan (Section 2.6-3, Table 2.6-2) focuses on waterfowl use of the ponds, and includes an inventory of species and abundance, which would help document the beneficial use of the ponds. sco 17Acc.wPs 3-64 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures The minor incremental changes in dissolved nutrients and salinity attributable to the proposed wet season Project discharge are not predicted to cause significant impacts to the natural resources (marsh vegetation, invertebrates or fish) of Upper Newport Bay. Therefore no mitigation measures are recommended. The natural variability and complexity of estuarine habitats such as Upper Newport Bay makes them difficult to model (cf. Macdonald and Williams, 1985; Brenchley -Jackson et al., 1987). Because of this, an external field monitoring program has been proposed to confirm that no significant discharge -related habitat changes occur. This external monitoring program is discussed in Section 2.6.3 and outlined in Table 2.6-3. Annual trends in substrate salinities and vegetation response within the tidal reach, and around the mouth of San Diego Creek and the Unit I Basin are proposed as part of this monitoring program. If unexpected/undesirable impacts are recorded, then the discharge should cease and appropriate mitigation measures be developed in subsequent environmental review documents before long-term operation of the Project. 3.4.4 Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the monitoring program and any future mitigation measures developed in subsequent environmental analysis required for Phase 2, no significant impacts are predicted. 3.5 Other Issues Raised During Scoping This EIR focuses in detail on environmental issues that were raised during the public comment period and hearings on the original Negative Declaration for this Project held in the fall of 1994. This focused approach follows CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063 and 15143. Additional issues were raised during the public scoping meetings and public hearings on the EIR held February 9, 1995 and February 14, 1995, respectively. In an effort to address all concerns, and to provide a full -disclosure EIR document, responses to each of these comments are provided below. 3.5.1 Energy Consumption Equipment used for construction of the outfall would consume a limited amount of diesel fuel. A minor increase in the use of electricity would occur from operation of the 100 horse -power pump used to pump water from the forebay to the pipeline for discharge to San Diego Creek. Operation of the pump would occur from October through March only, and would require a total of approximately 322,000 kWh annually. This increase is less than two percent of the total electrical energy used to operate MWRP, and an SCO17ACC. WP5 3-65 insiginficant amount compared to Southern California Edison's 20,000 MW generating capacity. Thus, no significant impacts to nonrenewable energy resources or air quality are predicted. 3.5.2 Hazards (Public Health and Safety) 3.5.2.1 Mosquitos The increased coverage and duration of water in the migratory waterfowl ponds could provide increased habitat for mosquitos. Culex tarsalis is the primary vector of Western and St. Louis Encephalitis viruses in Southern California. This mosquito species is commonly found in and around the area of the proposed Wetland Water Supply Project. According to the Orange County Vector Control District (OCVCD), wild birds collected at the Audubon House in 1994 tested positive for the St. Louis Encephalitis viruses. Visitors to the ponds as well as residents living nearby are potentially susceptible to this virus which can be transmitted to humans. Mosquitos generally exhibit population increases from mid-September to mid-October and in spring. It is likely that the mosquito population countywide will be greater during this year's mosquito season given the above average rainfall conditions experienced in January and March 1995. Operations associated with the migratory waterfowl ponds are designed to minimize mos- quito habitat, and thus reduce the potential health hazards associated with mosquitos. These operations include (1) increased flows; (2) improvement of flow distribution; (3) separation of flow pathways; and (4) removal of vegetation in all ponds (with the exception of Pond 11). These operational changes would help eliminate stagnant water which provides prime mosquito breeding habitat. The open water would allow access of predators to mosquito larvae as well. Mosquito monitoring will be conducted to determine the need for any vector control activities. The separation of pathways would allow for some ponds to be dried out if significant mosquito populations develop that cannot be controlled by vector control activities. (Pond 11 would be drained in July following bird nesting, so the potential for mosquito production in this vegetated pond would be significantly reduced.) Further, the current proposal to discharge the treated water from the ponds to San Diego Creek instead of to the UCNRS Marsh, as originally proposed, avoids increasing potential mosquito breeding habitat within the UCNRS marsh. IRWD, in consultation with OCVCD, would monitor the migratory waterfowl ponds on a weekly basis, or as needed, to determine vector control requirements. If needed, a biorational insecticide (Bti) would be applied, or other appropriate measures taken. Thus, given the operational characteristics of the migratory waterfowl ponds, the proposed monitoring, and other available control methods, no significant public health hazards are anticipated. sc017a,cc.wP5 3-66 3.5.2.2 Health Effects of Reclaimed Water The health effects of reclaimed water have been studied extensively. Reclaimed water has been used successfully in many constructed wetlands systems, including the existing ponds. In addition, a healthy wetland pond system in Arcata, California, supplied by reclaimed water, has been providing habitat to wildlife for over 10 years. All water reclamation plants operate under permitting requirements, including Title 22 of the California Administrative Code and EPA Gold Book, which pose strict water quality standards for reclaimed water. The standards are designed to protect public health from possible exposure to pathogens as well as organic and inorganic contaminants. Title 22 Chapter 3, Division 4, entitled Wastewater Reclamation Criteria, specifies criteria for the use of reclaimed water in applications including landscape irrigation, recreational impoundments and groundwater recharge. Each potential reclaimed water project is evaluated by the RWQCB. The MWRP effluent currently meet all criteria and permit requirements of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the RWQCB. A specific NPDES permit would be issued by the RWQCB prior to Project discharge into San Diego Creek. The permit would require that the discharge to San Diego Creek meet all criteria in the Santa Ana Basin Plan and any other adopted water quality control plans for California bays and estuaries. The permit requirements would also include monitoring for a variety of constituents including metals and toxicity. The monitoring plan will ensure that all water entering the ponds from MWRP and all water discharging into San Diego Creek will meet the NPDES permit requirements. The Project includes an internal monitoring program, outlined in Table 2.6-2 of this EIR. This extensive monitoring program would be used to validate the effectiveness of wetlands treatment and enhancement of the biological resources in the migratory waterfowl ponds. The external monitoring program outlined in Table 2.6-3, is designed to monitor water quality of San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. Given that all permitting standards and requirements are met, that the extensive monitoring program is adhered to, and that the Project retains the ability to identify and correct problems, and terminate Project activities which cause persistent problems, no significant health risks from reclaimed water are predicted. 3.5.2.3 Increase Risk from Sewage Intrusion The proposed Project would have no effect on the risk of sewage intrusion into San Diego Creek or the UCNRS Marsh. The migratory waterfowl ponds would receive up to 5 mgd of tertiary -treated reclaimed water from the MWRP reclaimed water distribution system, utilizing the same operational parameters as are used to provide a consistent high quality of reclaimed water used for landscape and agricultural irrigation. During the October -March migratory waterfowl pond operation period, additional raw sewage beyond the 5 mgd would bypass the MWRP and be sent to CSDOC. However, should sco 17Acc. WP5 3-67 MWRP experience some malfunction, the plant would be shut down, and discharge to the ponds would cease. Since the residence time in the ponds is at least 7 days, pond water could be re -circulated back to the plant to ensure that all pond water was thoroughly treated. Thus, the Project includes adequate mechanical and operational safeguards which ensure that no increased risk of sewage intrusion to surrounding receiving water and marsh systems could occur. 3.5.3 Public Services Concern was raised during scoping over the potential increase in algae production and resulting public services needed to remove algae from the bay. As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the proposed Project will not to increase concentrations of nitrate to the Upper Newport Bay which could result in increased algae production. Therefore, no increase need in public or private services would result. It should be noted that algae removal from Newport Bay is not a specific task performed by any of the local agencies. The City of Newport Beach with support from OCEMA removes floating materials from the bay on an as -needed basis, particularly after storms (Rossmiller, personal communication, March 1995). However, no specific public agency actions are taken for removal of algae blooms. The Newport Dunes Marina, a privately operated facility, does remove algae build-up in the Newport Dunes area of Lower Newport Bay. However, since the discharge from this Project is not expected to increase the potential for algae production, no increase in public or private services is anticipated. 3.6 Additional Insignificant Effects Other issues, in addition to those raised during the scoping process and described in Section 3.4, were considered by the lead agency in the initial study process, but were determined to have insignificant effects on the environment. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063 and 15143 for a focused approach to the EIR, these other issues are not discussed in detail but are discussed briefly in this section to explain why these Project effects will be insignificant. Information to support the conclusions is provided. 3.6.1 Geological Conditions (Erosion) The ponds would initially be filled slowly to minimize erosion of soils. Water depths in the shallow ponds would be less than 3 feet. Water from the ponds would be discharged through an outlet structure along the northerly bank of San Diego Creek. No erosion of the channel bank is anticipated, since the outlet structure would consist of a concrete and rip rap splash pad, and would conform to the requirements of the Orange County Management Standards Plan 1326. Thus, no significant impact from erosion of soils is expected. sco 17Acc. WPs 3-68 As discussed in Section 3.2.2, because of the small incremental increase in stream flow, and discharge pipe designs, the discharge pipe position will not cause resuspension of fine grained material previously deposited in the in -channel sediment basin. For the same reasons, there is no potential for the Project discharge to enhance mobilization of the coarse fraction of sediments in San Diego Creek. 3.6.2 Air Quality Prior to 1988, filling the migratory waterfowl ponds caused a rapid decomposition of plant matter, which generated low but noticeable levels of hydrogen sulfide. The odor was noticed periodically over a 3 -week period, until decomposition was complete. Recent experience at the ponds has shown that devegetated ponds, which are filled slowly, do not create objectionable odors. All the migratory waterfowl ponds would be devegetated annually except for Pond 11. Pond 11 would be selectively devegetated. For the long-term Project, the degree of devegetation would be based on the results of the demonstration phase of the Project. As a design feature, all ponds would be filled slowly to avoid creating hydrogen sulfide. Thus, no air quality impacts is expected. 3.6.3 Transportation/Circulation No substantial increase in vehicle trips would occur since the Project would not generate an increase in employees at the IRWD Michelson Water Reclamation Plant. Approximately, one additional vehicle trip per month would be added to local area streets in the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach as a result of the external monitoring required at Newport Bay. Project construction and operation would be contained onsite, and would not affect the circulation system in the City of Irvine. Schools and the Audubon Society would continue their existing level of use of the site for educational/recreational purposes. Thus, no impacts would occur. 3.6.4 Noise A minor, short-term noise increase would be expected during the construction of the outfall. Construction would be confined to daylight hours and construction noise would not violate existing noise standards. No increases in noise would occur from operation of the pump in the forebay for Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the Project since this pump would be submerged under water when in operation. No difference in plant operations over existing conditions is expected. The rest of the Project is silent, and migratory bird noises are predicted to remain within current patterns and levels. Thus, no significant noise impacts would occur. sco17Acc. WP5 3-69 3.6.5 Cultural Resources Previous archaeological site investigations have revealed no archaeological sites in the migratory waterfowl pond and pipeline area, and the San Diego Creek bed. In addition, the creek bank is already severely disturbed by existing sediment control projects. If any archaeological resources are encountered during construction of the outfall, appropriate archaeological authorities would be notified to determine the nature and extent of the resources. Thus, no impacts on archaeological resources are anticipated, and will be addressed appropriately if discovered. 3.6.6 Aesthetics The Project would provide short-term and long-term water supply to the existing migratory waterfowl pond area from October through March. The pond area is intermittently visible from surrounding streets, bike paths and some multi -family residences. The migratory waterfowl ponds likely will be considered an aesthetic amenity to the community, and thus, no negative aesthetic effects are anticipated. 3.6.7 Recreation The Project would increase recreational opportunities in the area. As a result of the Project, more waterfowl would be present at the migratory waterfowl ponds, thus increasing the bird -watching opportunities for local Audubon Society members, other interested citizens and regional school programs that currently provide field trips to the existing migratory waterfowl ponds for educational purposes. 3.7 Summary of Changes in Impacts between Phase 1 and Phase 2 The primary difference in potential impacts between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Project is on biological resources. As discussed in Section 3.4.2, no significant biological resource impacts from the freshwater increases are predicted for the short-term demonstration phase (Phase 1). It is possible, although not believed to be likely, that continuing the Project discharge every winter over many years might incrementally lower substrate salinities in San Diego Creek or near its mouth. This could be reflected in changes to the vegetation and benthic community. Subsequent environmental review will be required after the Phase 1 demonstration project, and prior to the long-term discharge under Phase 2. At this time, potential effects will be reviewed further, based on the field monitoring program, and mitigation measures developed as appropriate. None of the remaining environmental effects discussed in Chapter 3 are predicted to be different between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Project. sco 17Acc. WP5 3-70 Chapter 4 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed and Related Projects Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR include a list of projects contributing to cumulative impacts, an identification of the expected effects of those projects with reference to additional information, where that information is available, and a reasonable analysis of cumulative impacts of the relevant projects together with the proposed Project. 4.1 Related Projects The following related projects have been analyzed together with the proposed Project to determine cumulative effects. The discussion of cumulative effects is discussed in Section 4.2 following. 4.1.1 San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan The current proposal for the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan encompasses portions of the San Joaquin Marsh from Campus Drive on the southwest to Michelson Drive on the northeast, between Harvard and Carlson Avenue. The portion of the San Joaquin Marsh south of Campus Drive owned by the UCNRS has recently been excluded from the current plan, upon request of the UCNRS. The Draft EIR for the Enhancement Plan is being revised to reflect this change in the project area. The objectives of the proposed San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan are: 1) to create a natural habitat that is as close to self-sustaining as is possible; 2) to extend the rich wildlife habitat ecosystem of Upper Newport Bay; 3) to enhance the Marsh's value as an important refuge along the Pacific migratory bird route; and 4) to provide habitat enhancement for rare, endangered and otherwise sensitive species. The San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan includes the following tentative actions: • Excavation and grading of portions of the existing freshwater marsh, seasonal ponds, wet meadow habitat and upland to provide for a greater area of open water and circulatory channels • Establishment of a circulation system of channels, flap gates and levees to manage and direct water within specific habitat types • Construction of a temporary irrigation and permanent water distribution system for pumped groundwater • Construction of a first flush basin for urban nonpoint source pollutant control sco 17A,Bo.wPs 4-1 • Revegetation program for woodland and transitional wetlands vegetation • Maintenance program for invasive weed and vector control • Creation of public access trails, perimeter bicycle trails, viewing areas and interpretive centers • Creation of barrier fencing in limited areas and berms along the east side of Campus Drive to shield light and noise • Construction of a low flow diversion facility for San Diego Creek as an optional water source • Widening of the Michelson Drive bridge at San Diego Creek • Construction of a light and sound barrier on the east side of Campus Drive • Creation of a Marsh Water Management and Monitoring Program According to the City of Irvine, the Draft EIR for the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan is expected to be circulated for public review in the Fall of 1995. 4.1.2 San Diego Creek In -Channel Sedimentation Basins In -channel sedimentation basins in San Diego Creek are maintained by OCEMA. Figure 3.2-1 shows the locations of these in -channel basins. OCEMA has been involved in dredging these basins, as discussed below, to regain sediment trapping capacity. In -Channel Basin 1 extends from MacArthur Boulevard to Campus Drive, and has a design capacity of 210,000 cubic yards. This basin was dredged to 92 percent capacity during the summer of 1994, but the heavy storms in January, 1995 contributed new sediment loads. The current capacity is 85 percent as estimated by OCEMA, Public Works Department (Dillon, personal communication, March 1995). No additional dredging is anticipated at this time. In -Channel Basin 2 extends from Campus Drive south to the siphon crossing of the IRWD's MWRP, and has a design capacity of 73,000 cubic yards. Remaining capacity is estimated .at 30 percent. (Dillon, personal communication, March 1995). Dredging is scheduled for Spring 1995, and will result in 100 percent available capacity. In -Channel Basin 3 is located between Sand Canyon Channel and San Joaquin Channel. The design capacity of this basin in 78,000 cubic yards; however, the basin was never fully excavated to perform to capacity. At present, there are no plans to complete work on the basin, and thus, is considered nonfunctional (Dillon, personal communication, March 1995). sco PAao.wPS 4-2 4.1.3 Upper Newport Bay Sediment Basins—Unit I and III (Jamboree Road to the Main Dike) Unit I Basin is located in Upper Newport Bay and has a sediment storage capacity of 300,000 cubic yards when filled to MLLW (mean lower low water) datum elevation. Currently, no significant storage capacity remains in the Unit I Basin. The City of Newport Beach has proposed to dredge this basin to create the new Unit III Basin which would be located between the Main Dike and Jamboree Road. The purpose of the sediment basin dredging is to create additional storage capacity to trap sediment flowing into upper Newport Bay, as well as create deep water habitat for marine species. Figure 4.1-1 shows the Unit I and proposed Unit III Basins. The Unit III basin is essentially maintenance and enhancement to the existing Unit I basin, and would result in the removal of approximately 630,000 cubic yards of sediment to a maximum depth of -14 mean sea level (MSL) including an access channel from the Unit I Basin to the access channel above the Unit II Basin. The project would restore the original capacity of 300,000 cubic yards while simultaneously establishing and maintaining a deepwater habitat area within the Basin. The dredged material would be barged to an EPA -approved ocean disposal site (LA -3) via the Main access channel. The Main access channel (between Unit II Basin and the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge) requires the removal of an additional 50,000 cubic yards of accumulated sediment. The total quantity of sediment to be removed from the Unit I Basin together with the two access channels is 680,000 cubic yards. The estimated completion date for this project is October 1996. (Rossmiller, personal communication, February 1995). 4.1.4 Other Newport Bay Dredging Projects (COE/OCEMA) The other major Newport Bay dredging project is being proposed by the OCEMA Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to restore habitat, and promote navigation and recreation. This project incorporates dredging of the Unit I and II Basins and additional environmental restoration projects'. This project's four components are as follows: • Channel deepening on the east side of Shellmaker Island to a depth of -3 feet (MLLW) and a bottom width of 20 feet for the 3,220 -foot -long channel resulting in total removal of 30,000 cubic yards of sediment; This proposal includes the dredging of the Unit I Basin, similar to the project being proposed by the City of Newport Beach and Orange County. If the funding source for the Unit I Basin dredging is approved, as currently being pursued by the City of Newport Beach, then the COE will drop the Unit I Basin dredging from this project, but all other project components will remain as described herein. sc017. BOMPs 4-3 CV) C N Dm `% AN M O: C Y}� O U)CL c p fi! %7}.i}k:$$t �}:i: •{ r,^y:Lv?:tk'{'n`PtVY42inv:}`�}Y,v,:ji:9T-ww?:Y.%ac l'f .}: n.-•'fkr: f� %^:iGif: •:mom ..v%`}},}vk.`};.jvv ',`:•\:} ,%.Rv'F.}ri✓AG%• '{ VI •:!%{•..; •}'n.. } -k%%}i%f:: •...`:: :::5%.%:k�;c::ff..t �..••f •..3.iS9 i :•;i 'F,:f;?{ .vin ti'}.-$:tk�?'i<$x'�.'i }:::%}i:v:%?: v} r: ,. .:.7:.y..f r n.,.0 - $ •::% •.:}k:-i:ky,::: •. ,: a•7:.��`,, •} .>,.c:,y.•$�!�!�r:?ii4�r... ...i;.j•:in:;:. ,,, : ,<f�k•; 2dty;;}.,j kr ,•?'• '?%k,$,:'•.:;,�::;}•:!: .>:.f:;ji`h }>,. ;'jt {%$},;; ~�yr,'uy n•.n„ ;}q't'2��z�:',.S .t ,t`,: •:{�•"•yE...: Y r.. h�,�a%.,,�h• Cry:...., •�% .}:..%{.<,}}}kCv{":'k•\''r.;'{}Tvi::'•�}'�h> iM1$¢A���•`4'',CJ, 4\•t, :}-{. -:�u:�..,. :i .r }S,:r•: i:;•'�;y�; S?.�,v:'.�yh}.'7`;-'.}'�C'x`\�::v�}w�h.cy 'a}Mc`�o'Eoa\.,v'��'�a • M•�i'�$ 0 Q� � ;;:ti: }f ck :...it<;i$:, ` an;• �,f\f$`,fi ffmY9'ti�caif�' L:r1 <R":• '••5.:,s'.a`{:��n�~r,,,•`.::•. n',, tit,C}.epC•Sva, •. •ate' JL�ic�. '0 C '}`$7'.........�..5•{::r i4' .�`�`7,{�'Ti� �}., MS>.. 7:y7�• �..a•:}. k � Lr R•y,:;. � i •},Y•r ;k•, R::..a,, Ear;cft•:?' �?yc� � � `' :•;}.:RiG:\^ ''",Gy` u'$y o''u,}+Cf` .$ut$:rk;4Q"5}n,-: mg M rEM •.h.d. `2%v}Y •k' f 7:Y a` �s�itd.'CY3iF3y\+ �r d :4%tf`. vey+• '4}:,• :N•SrC �l•YY•�':.. •Ykl`�. L• }Vi1 •Q �k}, 't-}�., rty' 4;�'^'^s"''•• ".'tia�ry%ar%fr;� .,+ t''>�". r f`vtf O i •.�;ik •ryka. tini:,,kJ \Aj `•`wigs$$. Y�•\: K7ttk••`` �t�n..k{<$. .�,n{ r2�. �,k`.':fiy,•'y�.:,,•-'`,:,>\•rrw. }�'��,•�•-.\y CL 41d ':'t'i;- ,wt .hR.ta, tJ}• •'�'�,;,,, < }nkjRjt;y!s 3'.)' � : Z, sb.,>+ ;.•.r kiQc. '} ti ';' �S �;'4ai lT Z `+,:1b>d• C `-i;$ "'' •' .(w vyy,,','�v +• w Qi 3 . 6R''•/,:: .., .; \f ` :1'.: ��• A4:? :+{ n Q4 wt`�t$,�$ ci L V a} . s$ %:•° a:6.`$n'�$2.. : f ,it,57cx. '^t p Q••. -.p � • ;;}`:6}w•r'•Zi'� dr'yp Cv.. •kY <K' ,�.R O M C. L � l0 ` '•�k�.$''.> \�»r ,yam �Ye%: '•�Y• a • o- LL. � a � %� • "'n:f.��}'n�s gifieK��n }' tm�.Of�l�.l4 ' . �:J,•� C f ' % quaa ai C a.Yh7:. �\1 Z� .ak• mk} • 'Ctv''v}i ti � • , f A• a��jj 7w•:4?jCh• _v?'y'�``vp;itik{?CvR "•nv�,}•v) wk:• sxQ'vk x�Y',#.'' yy t Frt f>' x:nys .: is {tt:•: 'tea• i"y�•k. tin`$'"r :i. ....l, v A \ i!, ?I cacc 00 m m .0 .0 D D V C C1 J • Channel deepening on the west side of Middle Island to a depth of -3 feet (MLLW) and bottom width of 20 feet for the 2,800 -foot -long channel resulting in a total removal of 18,000 cubic yards; • Wetlands creation at Northstar Beach on constructed islands totalling 1.5 acres at elevation 4.5 feet (MLLW), and surrounded by shallow channels having widths of 25 to 50 feet and depths of -5 feet (MLLW), with total excavation of 68,000 cubic yards; and • Maintenance dredging of Unit I and II Basins for a total excavated volume of 1.1 to 1.5 million cubic yards, with maintenance dredging required once every 10 years thereafter. Figure 4.1-2 shows the proposed project components. The estimated completion date for this project is 1998 (Rossmiller, personal communication, February 1995). 4.1.5 Dover Shores Dredging Project—Upper Newport Bay This project, proposed by the Dover Shores Community Association, involves dredging in the channel areas adjoining the Dover Shores community, and would excavate to a depth of -8 feet (MLLW). Total estimated sediment removed would be 56,000 cubic yards to be disposed of at the EPA -approved ocean disposal site (LA -3). This project is expected to be completed by October 1996. (Rossmiller, personal communication, February 1995). 4.1.6 Newport Dunes Marina Dredging Project—Lower Newport Bay This project, proposed by the City of Newport Beach, involves maintenance dredging in the vicinity of the Newport Dunes Marina in Lower Newport Bay. Project depth is proposed at -8 feet (MLLW) at the small boat docks, and -7 feet (MLLW) in the basin near the boat launch ramp and the UC Irvine crew dock. Approximately 75,000 cubic yards of sediment would be removed and disposed of at the EPA -approved ocean disposal site (LA -3). This project is expected to be completed by October 1996. (Rossmiller, personal communication, February 1995). 4.1.7 Upper Newport Bay Regional Park The OCEMA Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department has proposed a Draft General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan for the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The facilities proposed for the park include a 10,000 -square -foot Interpretive Center to be located within 500 feet from the centerline of University Drive, east of Irvine Avenue; associated parking and access controls; and a network of hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails (essentially consolidation and improvement of existing, informal trails in the Upper Back Bay area). The project also includes stabilization of sc017A,ao.wP5 4-5 De PCH Figure 4.1-2 Newport Bay Dredging Source: Upper Newport Bay Reconnaissance Report Projects U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993 IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project - SCW38025.T9.04/newport dredge 3/95 erodible, bare areas; and enhancement of habitat with native vegetation in place of existing invasive populations. In addition, University Drive east of Irvine Avenue will be widened, and park entrance improvements and a cul-de-sac will be developed at the end of the street. This project was approved by the Coastal Commission in June 1994 and is currently on -hold due to the recent Orange County bankruptcy. 4.2 Cumulative Effects The proposed Upper Newport Bay dredging projects (Related Projects 4.1.2, 4.1.3, and 4.1.4) would produce a change in the salinity and vertical salinity structure in Upper Newport Bay. These projects could create increased tidal flushing and a concurrent increase in salinity (probably small). Once sediments in the upper bay are dredged, the Project discharge would have a smaller effect on salinity structure than that of the Project discharge under present upper bay conditions, as described in Section 3.3.2. Over time, as the bay basins refill with sediment, salinity characteristics would return to pre -Project conditions. A similar response would be expected for nutrients. With the proposed Upper Newport Bay dredging projects, any increased tidal flushing would effectively lower the concentration of nutrients. Thus, the cumulative effect of these related projects, with the proposed project freshwater discharge would produce a lower nutrient concentration in Upper Newport Bay. The diversion of San Diego Creek water to the San Joaquin Marsh and the construction of a first flush basin, as tentatively proposed in Related Project 4.1.1, would also further reduce the insignificant effect of the proposed Project discharge. With this diversion and first -flush basin, slightly less freshwater and associated nutrients from the watershed, under the low flow conditions, would be conveyed into Upper Newport Bay. Although salinity decreases would be slightly less without direct discharge of San Diego Creek water, salinity would still be dominated (increased) by the increased tidal flushing created by the dredging projects. Since the cumulative effect of the proposed Project and related projects is to further reduce the insignificant effects of the proposed Project, cumulative effects on biological resources is also predicted to be reduced. Biological habitats and bay fish and benthic species would experience less variability from freshwater increases, since the upper bay would be dominated by increased salinity created by the dredging projects. The widening of the Michelson Drive bridge at Campus Drive could potentially contribute sediment into San Diego Creek during grading and construction. However, erosion control measures would likely be implemented to control erosion and sedimentation from this project. In addition, the existing in -channel sediment basins in sc017ABo.wr5 4-7 San Diego Creek are available to trap the uncontrolled sediment. Thus, no cumulative sedimentation impacts from this project and the Proposed project are predicted. The enhancement of wetland habitats and associated recreational/public access features proposed in the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan, together with the seasonal wetland ponds of the proposed project would provide cumulative beneficial impacts to the wildlife and recreational resources in the area. In addition, the proposed San Joaquin Marsh maintenance program for vector control would provide cumulative beneficial effects to the vector control activities of the proposed project. Coordination of these programs would reduce mosquito production in the project area. In summary, the proposed Project and related projects are not expected to produce cumulative significant adverse impacts. The cumulative effects are predicted to reduce already insignificant effects and enhance overall beneficial impacts. sco17Aso.wP5 4-8 Chapter 5 Alternatives Evaluated Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the Draft EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project or to the location of a project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The specific alternative of "No Project" must be evaluated. The discussion of alternatives should focus on alternatives capable of eliminating significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance. The potentially significant effects of the alternatives are discussed below, but in less detail than the significant effects of the Project as proposed. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the "rule of reason," which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The discussion of alternatives should foster informed decision-making and informed public participation. An EIR need not consider an alternative the effect of which cannot be reasonably ascertained and the implementation of which is remote and speculative. The following alternatives are discussed in this section of the EIR: • No Project Alternative • Reduced Flow • Recirculation • Alternative Location • Environmentally Superior Alternative During the public scoping meetings, two additional alternatives were suggested, but have not been evaluated in the EIR because they do not meet the project objectives outlined in Section 2.5. The first is use of San Diego Creek water as a source for the migratory waterfowl ponds. While this alternative would sustain water in the ponds, it would not result in a beneficial use for reclaimed water during the winter season, which is a primary objective of the proposed Project. The cost of building a diversion structure is prohibitive. In addition, water quality in San Diego Creek wet season flows can include high sediment and nutrient concentrations as well as some toxics. The inconsistent quality of the San Diego Creek source water could create impacts on the pond system, unlike the controlled water quality that would be entering from the MWRP with the proposed Project. The second suggested alternative focuses on a different beneficial use for the reclaimed water. The suggestion was to inject the reclaimed water into the local groundwater basin for storage. However, this alternative would not meet the project objectives of creating a long-term water supply for the migratory waterfowl ponds. Under this alternative water, would be injected into the groundwater basin, instead of supplying water to the migratory waterfowl ponds. Injection of the reclaimed water after circulation through the pond SCO17ACD. WP5 5-1 system is not feasible however, because the water would need to be treated a second time. The cost of re -treatment as well as the costs associated with developing and operating a groundwater injection project would be economically infeasible. Therefore, since these alternatives do not meet the objectives of the project, they have not been considered further in this EIR. The following text provides detailed descriptions and analysis of impacts of the alternatives listed previously. 5.1 No Project Under this alternative, the proposed short-term demonstration phase and long-term phase of the Project would not be implemented. No reclaimed water would be supplied to the ponds. No beneficial uses of reclaimed water would occur including the creation of wintertime migratory waterfowl habitat and the opportunity to document wetland nutrient removal capabilities for use in the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement planning efforts. The No Project alternative would essentially eliminate (dry up) the existing wetland habitat which has been sustained by IRWD's reclaimed water and groundwater for decades. In the past, when the ponds were managed as migratory waterfowl ponds and filled with reclaimed water, the ponds were drained at the end of the season to the UCNRS marsh. The UCNRS has now prohibited this management practice. Therefore, the ponds cannot be operated as in the past. Under the No Project alternative, the gates between the ponds would be left open allowing any rainfall associated runoff to follow the natural watercourse through the UCNRS marsh. This runoff would exacerbate the current Campus Drive flooding problems. This poses a negative environmental impact. An alternative is to recirculate the water as discussed in Section 5.3, below. Since no discharge to San Diego Creek would occur, no beneficial impacts from increased freshwater flow into Upper Newport Bay would occur (Le, flushing of fine sediments from the bay; net unloading of nitrate and net decrease in nitrate concentration). However, any potential impacts to salt marsh habitats from long-term freshwater increases would be eliminated. Mosquito production would likely increase because the ponds would revegetate and retain water in a manner similar to the surrounding marsh. The land use would change from open -water ponds to seasonal marsh. This alternative has been rejected because it would not result in a beneficial use of reclaimed water during the winter season. In addition, without the project, the existing open water habitat would cease to exist. SCO17ACD. WP5 5-2 5.2 Reduced Flow The Reduced Flow Alternative would result in the same project components except the overall amount of treated reclaimed water sent to the ponds from the MWRP would be reduced from a maximum of 5 mgd to a maximum of 3 mgd, and hence a reduction from 5 mgd to 3 mgd of discharge to San Diego Creek. Other alternative amounts of reclaimed water flow less than 5 mgd would have proportionate effects analogous to those described for the 3 mgd alternative described herein. No changes to the pond configuration or pump system would occur under the 3 mgd Reduced Flow Alternative; however, adjustment of the weir boards would be required to maintain the water surface elevations. In addition, the retention time of water in the migratory waterfowl ponds would approximately double from 7 to 14 days. The pipeline and outfall to San Diego Creek would be the same as the proposed Project. Changes in Impacts as Compared to the Proposed Project Land Use and Planning. No changes in land use would occur with this alternative. Thus, as with the proposed Project, no impacts to the City of Irvine General Plan are anticipated. Because the volume of freshwater increases is slightly reduced under this alternative, potential conflicts, if any, with the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element that call for the protection of environmentally -sensitive habitat would be minimized. Sedimentation. Under this alternative, the additional flow of 3 mgd to San Diego Creek would not create additional transport of sediment to Upper Newport Bay, especially since the velocity would be even smaller than that of the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, no significant adverse impacts would occur, and no significant change over the proposed Project would be anticipated. Water Quality. This alternative would produce 2 mgd less discharge to San Diego Creek. While the nitrate load to Upper and Lower Newport Bay would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project, no measurable effect would occur, similar to the proposed Project; this alternative would also result in a net unloading of nitrates and a net decrease in nitrate concentration in the bay as a result of the increase in freshwater flow. Similarly, no impacts associated with the other water quality parameters would be anticipated. Under this alternative, less freshwater would enter Upper Newport Bay, which would allow a slightly higher average salinity (at the bottom of Upper Newport Bay) to be maintained as compared to the proposed Project. The beneficial effects of increased flushing would be slightly reduced, however. As with the proposed Project, no significant impacts would be anticipated. SCO17ACD.WP5 5-3 Pond water quality would be expected to deteriorate because the longer detention time would create the potential for algal growth. Biological Resources. Less freshwater would be discharged into San Diego Creek and into Upper Newport Bay. This reduction in freshwater increases would result in a slightly higher average salinity in Upper Newport Bay as compared to the proposed Project. Potential biological effects, if any, would be slightly reduced. Energy Resources. Energy consumption would be similar to the proposed Project, since the pump would be the same as that used for the proposed Project. Under this alternative, some water would be pumped and recirculated internally within the ponds, so that the pump capacity and operation would essentially remain unchanged, but the ultimate discharge rate to San Diego Creek would be reduced. Hazards (Public Health and Safety). No change in hazards from mosquito production would be expected under the reduced flow alternative, since this alternative would still result in open surface water ponds, and would be operated over the same time period as the proposed Project. If this alternative resulted in less open water flow within the ponds, and an increase in stagnant water, mosquito breeding habitat would be enhanced. Other Impact Categories. As with Energy Resources and Hazards, none of the other insignificant impact issues are expected to change with this reduced flow alternative as compared to the proposed Project. This alternative has been rejected because of the negative water quality effects that would occur in the Project ponds. Based on past experience with operating the ponds under varying flows, IRWD has found that a detention time beyond 7 days causes algae growth and odors. As the water quality degrades, it becomes unacceptable for discharge to San Diego Creek and re -treatment at MWRP. 5.3 Recirculation of Reclaimed Water Under a Recirculation Alternative, a total of approximately 50 mgd of reclaimed water would be produced at MWRP to fill the ponds during the late fall. A flow through system would not be created, since no discharge to San Diego Creek would occur. The ponds would only be filled once, and at the end of the season water in the ponds would be discharged to CSDOC. Under the Recirculation of Reclaimed Water Alternative less reclaimed water would be put to a beneficial use. By the end of the approximately 6 -month-long waterfowl season, the water in the migratory waterfowl ponds would increase dramatically in salt content to render it unacceptable for use as reclaimed water. The advantage of using wetlands treatment to effectively remove nutrients from a large volume of water (5 mgd for 6 months (approximately 900 million gallons total) would be lost on retreating the SCO17ACD.WP5 5-4 approximately 50 million gallons stored in the migratory waterfowl ponds. The only remaining disposal option would be to pump the water to CSDOC for treatment and ocean discharge. Changes in Impacts as Compared to the Proposed Project Land Use and Planning. No changes in land use would occur with this alternative. Thus, as with the proposed Project, no conflicts to the City of Irvine General Plan are anticipated. No conflicts with the City of Newport Beach General Plan would be anticipated since no discharge to San Diego Creek, and hence to Newport Bay would be expected. Sedimentation. Since there would be no discharge to San Diego Creek, no potential for increased sedimentation exists, but no additional flows would be available to prevent deposition of sediment and enhance removal of fine sediments in the bay. As with the proposed Project, no significant adverse impacts would be anticipated. Water Quality. Under this alternative, no additional nutrients would enter Upper or Lower Newport Bay, but no additional freshwater would be available to produce a net unloading of nitrates and concomitant net reduction in nitrate concentration. Thus, as compared to the proposed Project, no beneficial effects on bay water quality would be expected. Biological Resources. Since no discharge to San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay would occur under this alternative, no changes to biological resources would be anticipated. Energy Resources. Energy consumption would increase slightly in comparison to the proposed Project. Greater energy would be required at CSDOC to treat the sewage that would be bypassed at MWRP. Hazards (Public Health and Safety). This alternative would result in more stagnant water in the migratory waterfowl ponds, creating prime habitat for mosquito breeding. Potential impacts associated with mosquitos would therefore be greater with this alternative. Also, the potential for increased avian disease would occur. Other ]Impact Categories. Remaining insignificant impact issues would remain unchanged compared to the proposed Project. This alternative has been rejected because it results in an inefficient use of resources. This alternative requires double treatment of the same water (without re -use). It would be treated initially at the MWRP before discharge into the ponds and then would require treatment at CSDOC after the water had been drained at the end of the season. The water could not be re -treated at MWRP and reused in the reclaimed water system because of the build-up of salts in the water and the demand for treatment at that time of year; it SCO17ACD. WP5 5-5 would have to be sent to CSDOC at the end -of the season where it would eventually be discharged to the ocean. In addition, under this alternative, algae, odor and vector problems would likely occur at the ponds, creating a variety of impacts in the immediate area. 5.4 Alternative Location An alternative location considered by the IRWD, The Irvine Company and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is Quail Hill, a parcel of vacant land owned by The Irvine Company. This property is located south of University Drive between William R. Mason Regional Park on the southwest and the San Diego Freeway on the northeast, approximately 3 miles from the existing IRWD MWRP facilities. The property is currently undeveloped open space. No major new infrastructure would be required to bring reclaimed water to the site. Tie-in pipelines to the existing pipelines downstream of the Sand Canyon Reservoir area could be installed. Discharge from the ponds would likely enter the Sand Canyon Wash, which is tributary to San Diego Creek. Ultimately, the discharge would be conveyed to Upper Newport Bay, similar to the proposed Project. Use of this property for the Wetlands Water Supply Project poses a variety of economic challenges for IRWD. The property would have to be purchased or leased from The Irvine Company, and a series of wetland waterfowl ponds would have to be developed on the alternative site. In addition, costs to convey the MWRP reclaimed water to the site would be high due to the high pressure pumping that would be required, and the possible need for a new high-capacity pump. These factors would make that alternative site economically infeasible. Under this alternative, the existing migratory waterfowl ponds and habitat at the existing site would have no water source and would essentially dry -up and be eliminated as discussed in Section 5. 1, No Project Alternative. This alternative in effect would result in a combination of the No Project Alternative (for the Project site), and the Project itself, coupled with the negative effects of creating new ponds (at the alternative site). Changes in Impacts as Compared to the Proposed Project Land Use and Planning. The Quail Hill site is located in Planning Area 16 (see Figure 3.1-1) of the City of Irvine Zoning Ordinance, and is designated Conservation Open Space/Reserve, similar to the Project site. As with the proposed Project, no conflict with the City of Irvine's General Plan would be expected under this alternative. Similar to the proposed Project, potential biological effects from the long-term increases in freshwater would present similar potential conflict with policies in the City of Newport Beach Recreation and Open Space Element that call for the protection of environmentally - sensitive habitat. SCO17ACD.WP5 5-6 Sedimentation. As with the proposed Project, the additional flow would be of similar velocity such that resuspension of sediments would not be expected, and no increase in fine sediments would be expected in the discharge as with the proposed Project. This alternative, like the proposed Project, would produce a beneficial effect of preventing fine sediment deposition and enhancing fine sediment removal in Upper Newport Bay. Water Quality. In general, the effects on water quality would be about the same as with the proposed Project location, since the discharge from the alternative location would also enter Newport Bay via Sand Canyon Wash and San Diego Creek. A minor amount of nutrients could be taken up by vegetation along San Diego Creek or Sand Canyon Wash, but no measurable or observable effect would occur. Biological Resources. Since this alternative would result in a discharge to Sand Canyon Wash, which conveys water to San Diego Creek and ultimately to Upper Newport Bay, no changes in biological effects to Upper Newport Bay would be anticipated as compared to the proposed Project. Energy Resources. Energy consumption would increase slightly. This alternative would require additional construction equipment for developing the ponds, which would consume diesel fuel. The discharge from the ponds to Sand Canyon Wash would require similar amounts of electricity to operate the pump station. Hazards (Public Health and Safety). This alternative would result in some mosquito production in an area currently not subject to mosquitos, since the property currently has no open water surfaces. Overall, however, impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Geological Conditions. Some grading would be required to excavate the ponds and install a tie-in pipeline to the existing IRWD reclaimed water pipelines in the area. Assuming proper erosion control measures are implemented, no increase in soil erosion would be expected. Noise. Short-term construction noise impacts would be increased compared to the proposed Project, since more construction activity would be required to develop the ponds at the currently undeveloped site. Phase 1 and Phase 2 operation of the ponds would produce no increases in noise, similar to the proposed Project. Aesthetics. The currently undeveloped site would be replaced with a series of migratory waterfowl ponds. No views would be impacted, but the visual character would change. As with the proposed Project, no adverse impacts would be expected. Cultural Resources. Potential impacts to archaeological resources would be greater than those at the Project site, since the alternative site would require substantial grading to a relatively undisturbed site, compared to the proposed Project which is already graded and developed with ponds. If archaeological resources were encountered at the alternative site, appropriate measures would taken to minimize impacts and preserve resources. SCO17ACD. WP5 S-% Other Impact Categories. All remaining insignificant impact issues would remain unchanged compared to the proposed Project. This alternative has been rejected for the economic reasons discussed previously, and because this alternative would result in the elimination of the existing waterfowl habitat at the proposed Project site. 5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126(d)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. For the Project, the No Project Alternative is not the environmentally superior alternative because without the project, the migratory waterfowl ponds would have no water source and would dry up, thus eliminating long-term waterfowl habitat in the area. Among the other alternatives, the Project is the environmentally superior alternative, and the Reduced Flow alternative would be the next best alternative from an environmental perspective, since the beneficial impacts of increased flow to Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek (e.g. increased flushing of fine sediments, reduction in concentration of nitrates) would still occur, although reduced, and a water source would still be available for the migratory waterfowl ponds. In addition, any potential biological effects to Upper Newport Bay from the long-term increase in freshwater would be slightly reduced, and not significant, as with the proposed Project. Table 5-1 presents a summary matrix that compares each alternative to the proposed Project. SCO17ACD. WP5 5-8 Table 5-1 Alternatives Comparison Matrix Impact Alternative Category No Project Reduced Flow Recirculation Site Sedimentation (reduced insignificant (reduced insignificant (reduced insignificant impact, but no impact, but no impact, but no beneficial impact) beneficial impact) beneficial impact) Water Quality -/+ -/+ -/+ _ (reduced insignificant (reduced insignificant (reduced insignificant impact, but no impact, but no impact, but no beneficial impact) beneficial impact) beneficial impact) Biological -/+ - - _ Resources (reduced potential (reduced potential (reduced potential impact from impact from impact from freshwater increases; freshwater increases) freshwater increases) but loss of existing migratory waterfowl ponds) Energy + Consumption (more - _ + construction and pumping) Hazards Public Services (no effect) (no effect) (no effect) (no effect) Geological - _ - + Conditions (more excavation) Air Quality (no effect) (no effect) (no effect) (no effect) Transportation/ Circulation (no effect) (no effect) (no effect) (no effect) Noise - _ - + (more construction noise) Cultural - _ _ + Resources (more excavation) Aesthetics Recreation - (minus) = reduced effect as compared to proposed project + (plus) = increased effect as compared to proposed project = (equal) = same effect as the proposed project SCO17AA9. WP5 Chapter 6 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Commitment of Resources Significant irreversible environmental changes from the Project would be minimal. Operation of the pump in the migratory waterfowl pond area would result in nonrecoverable energy use; however the pump would operate only 7 months of the year, and represents an incremental use of energy. No significant commitment of energy resources would occur. The Project would result in a new outlet structure to San Diego Creek; however, this creek has numerous other outfalls and has been rerouted from its natural channel path to accommodate new development in the area and provide flood control. Thus, a new outlet designed to minimize channel erosion will not result in significant irreversible environmental changes, since the channel has already been highly modified over natural environmental conditions. No significant environmental changes are expected to occur from waterfowl use of the migratory waterfowl ponds. The reclaimed water meets or exceeds all California standards, and the Project would meet all NPDES discharge permit limitations. The minor incremental changes in nutrients and salinity attributed to the Project seasonal discharge are not predicted to cause significant impacts to the marsh vegetation, benthic invertebrates or fish of Upper Newport Bay. The minor decline in nutrient concentrations would not create significant impacts to the biological resources of Newport Bay. The freshwater increase from October to March would slightly decrease salinity at the head of Upper Newport Bay. However, this reduction in salinity would be well within the normal range of salinity variation experienced during the typical winter season. Monitoring of biological species and habitats in and around Newport Bay is proposed to confirm no significant changes attributable to the project would occur. Thus, no significant irreversible environmental changes from the freshwater discharge is predicted. The Project would reduce nitrate concentrations to Upper Newport Bay during the winter discharge period. This is expected to have an insignificant effect on Upper Newport Bay. In fact, it may provide a beneficial impact over the long term since this freshwater has an overall lower concentration of nutrients, and would help unload (flush) nutrients from the bay. sco17as2.wr5 6-1 Chapter 7 Growth Inducing Impacts The Project will not create growth -inducing impacts. The project objective is to utilize an existing but surplus supply of reclaimed water for maintenance of a seasonal flow through waterfowl habitat. Because the Project uses fully treated reclaimed water, no secondary effects related to population growth or other human activities are expected. The wetlands will further remove nutrients from the reclaimed water, making it acceptable for discharge into San Diego Creek, through Newport Bay, and ultimately into the ocean. During its residence in the wetlands treatment system, the reclaimed water provides a benefit to migrating waterfowl during winter migration. During the wintertime, IRWD has more raw sewage available for treatment than it has customers for its reclaimed water. To balance reclaimed water demand to supply, IRWD diverts its excess raw sewage to CSDOC for treatment and ocean disposal. At the present time IRWD is not utilizing its 15-mgd purchased capacity at CSDOC or its 15-mgd capacity at MWRP. In the future IRWD will purchase additional treatment capacity at CSDOC or increase the capacity of MWRP depending on the total and seasonal demands for reclaimed water. SCO17AB3. WP5 7-1 Chapter 8 CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Requirements AB 3180, which became effective in January 1989, and has been codified as Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, now requires that along with the adoption of the findings specified in an EIR, the lead agency also must adopt a mitigation monitoring/ reporting program to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures during project construction and implementation. The mitigation monitoring/reporting program for this project will be prepared once the Draft EIR has been reviewed and commented upon by the public, and when review of the proposed mitigation measures is completed by the IRWD. The mitigation monitoring/reporting program is separate from the internal and external monitoring programs purposed in this EIR; the mitigation monitoring/reporting program will ensure that all mitigation measures, which may include compliance with the internal and external monitoring programs, are implemented. A mitigation monitoring/ reporting program will be included in the Final EIR. sco174B4.wP5 8-1 Chapter 9 References Allen, L. G. 1994. The effect of the Deep Water and Sediment Control Project, Unit III, on the Fishes of Upper Newport Bay. Prepared for John M. Tettemer and Associates. July 1994. 27 pp. Plus Appendix I. Allen, L. G. 1982. Seasonal abundance, composition, and productivity of the littoral fish assemblage in upper Newport Bay, California. U.S. Fish Bull., 80(4):769-790. Andrews, D., W. Frossard, A.H. Plumber, and L.E. Mokry. 1994. Use of a constructed wetland to supplement and protect a North Texas water supply. Paper presented at the November 1994 meeting of the North American Lake Management Society, Orlando, Florida. Also personal communication from D. Andrews. Bachand P. & A.J. Horne. 1994a, 1994b. Nitrate removal in Prado wetland: Final studies using macrocosms to determine the effects of marsh age and water depth. Progress Reports #1 (May -July 1994) and #2 (August- October 1994) to Orange County Water District (California). Spring -Fall 1993. Bailey, Howard C., DiGiorgio, Carol, and Hinton, David E. 1993. Newport Bay Watershed Toxicity Study. School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis. Prepared for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Beare, Pamela A. and Joy B. Zedler. 1987. Cattail Invasion and Persistence in a Coastal Salt Marsh: The Role of Salinity Reduction. Estuarine Research Federation, 10:2:165-170. Beauchamp, R.M. 1991. Report of a Biological Assessment of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. Prepared for Culbertson, Adams and Associates, Inc., Aliso Viejo, CA. 36 pp. Bio Environmentalists Inc., 1992. Algal Turf Scrubbers. Altamonte Springs, Florida. Blodgett, Patricia L. (California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region), Orange County Health Care Agency, and Orange County Environmental Management Agency. 1989. Newport Bay Clean Water Strategy, A Report and Recommendation for Future Action. Prepared for the California State Senate as Requested by Senate Concurrent Resolution 88 (1988, Bergeson). Sept. 1989. Boyle Engineering Corporation. 1981. Sediment Transport in San Diego Creek. Technical Memorandum for the Irvine Ranch Water District. January 22, 1981. sco 17AB5.wP5 9-1 Boyle Engineering Corporation. 1982. Part III - Task III -E General Audience Report Stormflow Sedimentation Control Alternatives Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan. Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and the Southern California Association of Governments. October 1982 (as revised January 1983). Boyle Engineering Corporation. 1982. Final Phase II - Task II -C and II -D Technical Memorandum, Sediment Source Analysis and Sediment Delivery Analysis, Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sediment Control Plan. Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and the Southern California Association of Governments. October, 1982. Boyle Engineering Corporation. 1983. Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan, Orange County California. August, 1983. Boyle Engineering Corporation. 1984. Unit I Upper Newport Bay sediment Control and Restoration Project 1983-1984. Maps, 6 sheets, Scale 1" = 100'. City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. Boyle Engineering Corporation. 1984. Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Site Plan. Maps, 2 Sheets, Scale 1" = 500'. City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. Bradshaw, J.S. 1968. Environmental Parameters and Marsh Foraminifera. Limnology and Oceanography. 13(1):26-38. Brenchley -Jackson, J.L., T.C. Foin and J.B. Zedler. 1987. Modeling the effect of salinity and inundation on Spartina and Salicorna in Southern California. Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Seattle, WA. May 26-29, 1987. 6 pp. Butler, William G. Jr. 1988. Community Ecology of Benthic Polychaetes in Upper New- port Bay, California: Community Structure, Response to Disturbance and Life History Strategies. M.A. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton. California Department Fish and Game. 1988. Draft Management Plan Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Prepared by G. Gestenberg and R. Hein. 265 pp. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. 1993. Water Quality Control Plan Santa Ana River Basin (8). California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. 1994. Draft Water Quality Control Plan Santa Ana River Basin (8). CH2M HILL. 1994. Irvine Ranch Water District Wetland Demonstration Feasibility Study. August, 1994. sco17AB5.wP5 9-2 City of Irvine Planning Department. 1993. City of Irvine General Plan. City of Irvine Planning Department. 1994. Code of Ordinances, Title V, Division E, Zoning City of Irvine. (Through Supplement No. 47). City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 1974. Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 1988. Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach (incorporating General Plan Amendments through 1994). City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 1990. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. 1986. Unit II Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Project 1985-1986. Maps, 28 Sheets, Scales 1" = 600' and 1 " = 100'. Collacott, Robert, Lane Waldner, and Michael Chien. 1989. Water Quality Trends in Newport Bay. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, Califor- nia. June, 1989. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. 1980. Water Quality In Newport Bay and Its Watershed. Water Resources Section, Engineering Services Division. June, 1980. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. 1986. Nutrient Studies in Newport bay and Its Watershed. Environmental Resources Section. October, 1986. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. 1987. Sediment Monitoring An- nual Report 1986-1987. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. 1994. San Diego Creek Sediment Monitoring Program 1992-1993 Annual Report. May 12, 1994. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. 1994. San Diego Creek Sediment Monitoring Program 1993-1994 Annual Report. February, 1995. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Water Quality Data for Newport Bay and San Diego Creek 1991 through 1994. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Stream Discharge Data, Station 226, San Diego Creek at Campus, July 1978 through June 1993. Covin, J., and J. B. Zedler. 1988. Nitrogen effects of Sparlina foliosa and Salicornia virginica in the salt marsh at Tijuana Estuary, California. Wetlands 8:51-65. sco17as5.wP5 9-3 Culbertson, Adams and Associates, Inc. 1981. EIR Newport Bay Watershed - San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan Early Action and Interim Plan, Vol I and II. May 6, 1981. Culbertson, Adams and Associates, Inc. 1981. Addendum to EIR on Early Action and Interim Plan San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan. Addressing a Cooperative Project to Accomplish a Sediment Management and Upper New- port Bay Restoration Program, Unit I. City of Newport Beach. Culbertson, Adams and Associates, Inc. 1986. Environmental Impact Report Upper New- port Bay Enhancement/Sediment Management Project Unit II (E/SMP). City of Newport Beach. March 10, 1986. Culbertson, Adams and Associates, Inc. 1986. Environmental Impact Report Upper New- port Bay Enhancement/Sediment Management Project Unit II Technical Appendices. City of Newport Beach. March 10, 1986. Culbertson, Adams and Associates, Inc. 1993. Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 525, Upper Newport Bay Regional Park General Development Plan, County of Orange. July, 1993. Davido, R.L. & T.E. Conway, 1988. Nitrification and denitrification at the Iselin Marsh/Pond/Meadow facility. pp. 477-483 in D.A. Hammer, (ed.) Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural. Dixon, Peter, S. and J. Scherfig. 1978(?). The Occurrence of Heavy Metal, Pesticides and Algal Growth Stimulation in Upper Newport Bay. A Report to the State of California Department of Fish and Game. Water Resources Laboratory, School of Engineering, Uni- versity of California, Irvine , CA 92717. (samples taken in 1978, date of report unknown). EDAW Inc. 1990. Existing Conditions Report Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Harbor Beaches and Parks. May 30, 1990. Findalyson, C.M. and A.J. Chick. 1983. Testing the Potential of Aquatic Plants to Treat Abattoir Effluents. Water Res. 17:412-422. Fischer, H.B., et al. 1979. Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters. Academic Press, New York. Ford, Richard F. 1980. Potential Environmental Problems in Newport Bay. An Advisory Report Prepared for the Irvine Company. July, 1980. Fong, Peggy, Regina Rudnicki, Joy Zedler, and the San Diego Association of Governments. 1987. Algal Community Response to Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading in sco17AB5.wr5 9-4 Experimental Mesocosms: Management Recommendations for Southern California Lagoons. San Diego Association of Governments. June, 1987. Frey, Herbert W., and Robert D. Montgomery. 1970. Report on the Natural Resources of Upper Newport Bay and Recommendations Concerning the Bay's Development. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game. March, 1970. Gale, P.M., K.R. Reddy & D.A. Gratz. 1993. Nitrogen removal from reclaimed water applied to constructed wetlands and natural wetland microcosms. Res. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 65: 162-168. Gearheart, R.A., F. Klopp. & G. Allen. 1988. Constructed free surface wetlands to treat and receive wastewater: Pilot project to full scale. pp. 121-137 in D.A. Hammer, (ed.) Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural. Lewis. Gersberg, R.M., B.V. Elkins, & C. R. Goldman. 1983. Use of artificial wetlands to remove nitrogen from wastewater. J. Wat. Poll Cont. Fed 56:152-156. Gibson, K. D., J. B. Zedler, and R. Langis. Limited response of cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) to soil amendments in a constructed marsh. Ecological Applications. 4(4): 757-767. 1994. Gilbert, C.H. 1889. Report Upon Certain Investigations Relating to the Planting of Oysters in Southern California. Bulletin U.S. Fish Commission IX:95-99. Hammer, D.A. 1988. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural. Lewis, 831 pp. Hammer, D.A. 1993. Wetlands for wastewater treatment. Seeds of Change Conference on Bioremediation, The Exploratorium, San Francisco. October 15, 1993. Harmon, M. & E. Fustec. 1991. Laboratory and field study of an in situ groundwater denitrification reactor. Res. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 63: 942-949. Horne, A.J. & J.C. Roth. 1989. Selenium detoxification studies at Kesterson Reservoir wetlands: Depuration and biological population dynamics measured using an experimental mesocosm and pond 5 under permanently flooded conditions. University of California, Berkeley. Environmental Engineering & Health Sciences Laboratory Rept. No. 89-4. 107 p + Appendix (89 p). Horne, A.J. & P Bachand. 1994a. Studies on water quality and wildlife enhancement in experimental macrocosms in the Prado Wetlands: nitrate removal, phosphate removal, and invertebrate biomass and diversity in 1993. Progress Report to the national Water Research Foundation and Orange County Water District (California). Spring -Fall 1993. Horne, A.J. and CR. Goldman. 1994. Limnology. McGraw-Hill, New York. Second Edition, 627 pp. SCO17AB5. WP5 9-5 Horn, M. G. and L. G. Allen. 1976. Numbers and faunal resemblance of marine fishes in California bays and estuaries. Bull. So. Acad. Sci. 75(2):159-170. Horn, M. H. and L. G. Allen. 1981. Ecology of fishes in upper Newport Bay, California: seasonal dynamics and community structure. Calif. Fish Game Technical Report 45. 101 pp. Horn, M. H. and L. G. Allen. 1985. Fish community ecology in southern California bays and estuaries, Chapter 8:169-190. In: A. Yanez-Arancibia (ed.), Fish community ecology in estuaries and coastal lagoons; towards an ecosystem integration, DR (R) UNAM Press Mexico. 654 pp. Irvine Ranch Water District. 1994. Draft Negative Declaration, Irvine Ranch Water Dis- trict Wetland Demonstration Project. September 20, 1994. Kitting, C.L., C.C. Ouvemey and F. Canabal II. 1994. Small fishes concentrated during the first five years outside experimental wastewater marsh in San Francisco Bay. Pp. 90- 103, In D.M. Kent and J.J. Zentner (Eds.) Western Wetlands. Proceedings of the 1993 Conference of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Western Chapter. John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd. 1994a. Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Projects. City of Newport Beach. April, 1994. John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd. 1994b. Unit III Upper Newport Bay Deep Water Habitat and Sediment Control Project. Maps, Scale 1 " = 100'. Jones, Paul, of John Tettemer & Associates, Ltd. 1994. Memorandum to John Wolter, John Tettemer and Alan Swanson: Deep Water Habitat Salinity Issues. October, 1994. Kadlec, R.H. and S. Newman. 1992. Phosphorus removal in wetland treatment areas: Principles and data. South Florida Water Management District, Everglades Protection- Stormwater Treatment Area Design Support. July, 1992. Khan, Muhammal Nasrullah. 1983. Development of a Eutrophication Model and its Ap- plication to the Newport Bay Estuary, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cali- fornia Irvine. Laksham, G. An ecosystem approach to the treatment of wastewater. J. Envir. Qual. 8:353-361. Lowry Engineering -Science. 1971. A Preliminary Investigation of the Feasibility of Pro- viding Works of Improvement Within the San Diego Creek Watershed in Orange County, California. for the Orange County Flood Control District and San Juan Capistrano Soil Conservation District. May, 1971. sco17a,a5.wr5 9-6 ISA Associates, Inc. 1988. Draft Environmental Impact Report San Diego 'Creek Flood Control Master Plan, EIR No. 484. County of Orange Environmental Management Agen- cy. 12-19-88. LSA Associates, Inc. 1994. Preliminary San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Enhancement Plan. City of Irvine, California State Coastal Conservancy, University of California Natural Reserve System. June, 1994. Macdonald, K.B. 1971. Variations in the Physical Environment of a Coastal Slough Subject to Seasonal Closure. Abstract Volume, Second National Coastal and Shallow Water Research Conference. Office of Naval Research. p. 141. MacDonald, K.B. 1977. Coastal Salt Marsh. Pp. 263-294 In M.A. Barbour and J. Major, Terrestrial Vegetation of California. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. Macdonald, K.B. 1991. Some Paleoecological Implications of the Recent History of Newport Bay and the Orange County Coastal Plain. Prepared for the Keith Companies, Archaeological Division, Costa Mesa, CA. (Newport Coast Archaeological Project, Appendix B), 61 pp. Macdonald, K.B. and P.B. Williams. 1985. The effects of hydrologic factors on light- footed clapper rail and saltmarsh bird's beak habitat quality at Tijuana Estuary, San Diego, California: A conceptual management model. Prepared for Endangered Species Office, USFWS, Sacramento, CA. Contract No. 14-16-0001-84283 (NR). October 1985. 1004 pp. plus Appendices. MacGinitie, G.E. 1939. Some Effects of Fresh Water on the Fauna of a Marine Harbor. American Midland Naturalist 21:681-686. Marine Biological Consultants, Inc. and Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 1980. Irvine Ranch Water District Upper Newport Bay and Stream Augmentation Program Final Report October 1979 - August 1980. December 15, 1980. Marine Biological Consultants, Inc. 1981. NPDES Permit Studies Data Report and Special Investigation, November 1980 - January 1981, Irvine Ranch Water District Upper Newport Bay and Stream Augmentation Program. July 9, 1981. Michael Brandman Associates. 1983. Draft Environmental Impact Report Newport Bay Watershed; San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan. Southern California Association of Governments and City of Newport Beach. July 18, 1983. Mitsch, W.J. & J.G. Gosslink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. Nichols, D.S. 1983. Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients from wastewater. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed. 55:495-505. sco17AB5.wP5 9-7 Olson, Teresa, M., Martinez, Alicia. 1993. Newport Bay Basin Update Plan Study. Draft Final Report. Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine. Prepared for California Regional Water Quality Control Board, June, 1993. Orange County Flood Control District. 1973. Easements, Salt Water Intrusion, Island Filling and Sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay. July, 1973. Rigoni, K.A. 1994. Letter to C.W. Spangenberg, Irvine Ranch Water District from Orange County Environmental Management Agency on Draft ND for the Wetlands Demon- stration Project. November 21, 1994. Rogers, K.H., P.F. Breen & A.J. Chick. 1993. Nitrogen removal in experimental wetland treatment systems; evidence for the role of aquatic plants. Res. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 65: 934-941. Rossmiller, Tom. Coastal Facilities Operations, Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Personal Communication. February, 1995 and March, 1995. San Diego Association of Governments. 1984. Freshwater Release and Southern California Wetlands. August, 1984. Seapy, Roger R. 1981. Structure, Distribution, and Seasonal Dynamics of the Benthic Community in the Upper Newport Bay, CA. Marine Resources Technical Report No. 46, The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game. Simons, Li and Associates. 1985. Draft Report Phase I Hydrologic, Hydraulic and Sedimentation Study San Diego Creek Orange County, California. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. May 17, 1985. Simons, Li and Associates. 1986. Draft Report Phase II Flood Control Improvement and Sedimentation Control San Diego Creek Watershed Orange County, California. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. November, 1986. Smythe, Hope. 1990. San Diego Creek Watershed Nitrogen Study Final Report. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. November, 1990. Southern California Association of Governments. 1983. Draft 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan Phase III Amendment for the South Coast Planning Area Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan - Newport Bay Watershed. August, 1983. State Water Resources Control Board. 1972. Memorandum on Siltation Newport Bay to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. August 4, 1972. Stevenson, R.E. and K.O. Emery. 1958. Marshlands at Newport Bay. Allen Hancock Foundation Publications. Occasional Paper No. 20. Univ. So. Calif. Press, Los Angeles, Calif. sc017.eas.wr5 9-8 The Planning Center. 1985. Recreation and' Open Space Element, Newport Beach General Plan. City of Newport Beach Planning Department. February, 1985. Toxscan, Inc. 1994. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Chemical and Bioassay Evaluation of Sediments Proposed for Dredging at the Dover Shores Community, Upper Newport Bay, California. Prepared for John M. Tettemer and Associated, Ltd. November, 1994. Toxscan, Inc. 1994. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Chemical and Bioassay Evaluation of Sediments Proposed for Dredging at the Newport Dunes Marina, Upper Newport Bay, California. Prepared for John M. Tettemer and Associated, Ltd. November, 1994. Toxscan, Inc. 1994. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Chemical and Bioassay Evaluation of Sediments Proposed for Dredging at the Unit 1 Sediment Basin and Access Channel, Upper Newport Bay, California. Prepared for John M. Tettemer and Associated, Ltd. October, 1994. Trimble, Stanley W. 1985. A Tentative Sediment Budget for the San Diego Creek Basin. Unpublished Manuscript, March 6, 1985. Trimble, Stanley W. 1992. Field Research Report for San Diego Creek Channel Study. Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Fall, 1992. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1993. Upper Newport Bay Reconnaissance Report and Appendices. February, 1993. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Initial Project Management Plan, Upper Newport Bay, Draft. June, 1994. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1986. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Kesterson Program. Technical Background report. April, 1986. 170 p. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water (The Gold Book). Office of Water Regulations and Standards; Washington D.C.; EPA# 440/5-86- 001; U.S. GPO 955-002-50-8. Vogl, R. 1966. Salt marsh vegetation of Upper Newport Bay, California. Ecology 47:80- 87. Williams, Hayden R. and Wheeler J. North. 1970. Upper Newport Bay Hydrography. in A Study of Modified Bays in Southern California Progress Report March - July 1970. California Institute of Technology for the Irvine Company. July 15, 1970. WTB (Wetlands Treatment Base). 1994. North America Wetlands for Water Quality Treatment Database. Version 1.0 - June 1994 Disk 1 of 1. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati Ohio & Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. sco17Aa5.wP5 9-9 Zedler, J. 1985. Wastewater input to coastal wetlands: management concerns. In: P. J. Godfrey, et al. (eds) Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Van Nostrand Reinbold Co., New York. Zedler, J. B. 1982. The Ecology of Southern California Coastal Salt Marshes: A Community Profile. USFWS, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-81/S4. 110 pp. Zedler, J. B. 1983. Freshwater Impacts in Normally Hypersaline Marshes. Biology Department, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. unpublished manuscript. Zedler, J. 1986. Catastrophic flooding and distribution patterns of Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa Trin.). Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 85(2): 74-86. Zedler, J. 1993. Canopy architecture of natural and planted cordgrass marshes: selecting habitat evolution criteria. Ecological Applications. 3(1): 123-138. Zedler, J. B., and P. A. Beare. 1986. Temporal variability of salt marsh vegetation: the role of low -salinity gaps and environmental stress, p. 295-306. In: D. Wolfe (ed.), Estuarine Variability. Academic Press, New York. Zedler, J. B., J. Covin, C. Nordby, P. Williams, and J. Boland. 1986. Catastrophic events reveal the dynamic nature of salt marsh vegetation. Estuaries 9:75-80. Zedler, J. B., R. Koenigs, and W. P. Magdych. 1984. Review of salinity and predictions of estuarine responses to lowered salinity. State of California Water Resources Control Board, San Diego Association of Governments. 51 pp. Zedler, J. and C. S. Nordby. 1986. The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary, California: An estuarine profile. USFWS/California Sea Grant Program. Biological Report 85(7.5). 104 pp. scoNAs.wrs 9-10 Chapter 10 Individuals and Agencies Consulted Federal Agencies Army Corps of Engineers Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service State Agencies Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Department of Fish and Game Department of State Parks Department of Transportation Office of Planning and Research Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region University of California, Natural Reserve System Orange County Environmental Management Agency Department of Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department of Water Quality Department of Planning Department of Public Works Local Jurisdictions City of Costa Mesa City of Irvine City of Newport Beach Individuals Peter Bowler Nancy and Jack Skinner Technical Advisory Committee Tim Bradley, PhD Alex Horne, PhD George Tchobanoglous, PhD John Tettemer sco17a A7.wrs 10-1 Chapter 11 Report Preparation Lead Agency Irvine Ranch Water District 3512 Michelson Drive Irvine, California 92715 Mr. Ken Thompson Director of Water Quality Irvine Ranch Water District Consultants CH2M HILL 2510 Red Hill Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 Tom Peters, Project Administrator Jennifer Cohen, Project Manager Steve Costa, Water Resources/Coastal Engineer Keith Macdonald, Biologist Dawn Sanders, Wetlands Biologist Kathleen Higgins, Water Resources Engineer Subconsultants Alex Home and Associates (Wetlands Nitrate Removal) sco17AA8. WP5 11-1 Chapter 12 Glossary of Abbreviations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs cubic feet per second COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CSDOC County Sanitation Districts of Orange County DHS California Department of Health Services DO Dissolved Oxygen EDL Elevated Data Level EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District LNBHAR Lower Newport Bay at Harbor Entrance (Monitoring Location) LNBHIR Lower Newport Bay at Harbor Island Reach (Monitoring Location) m d million gallons per da MHHW Mean Higher High Water MIS Median Intemational Standards MLLW Mean Lower Low Water mmhos micromhos (measure of electrical conductivity) MSL Mean Sea Level MWRP Michelson Water Reclamation Plant NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NO Nitrate OCEMA Orange County Environmental Management Agency OCVCD Orange County Vector Control District PAHs Petroleum hydrocarbons PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAG Southem California Association of Governments UCNRS University of California Natural Reserve System UNBJAM Upper Newport Bay at Jamboree (Monitoring Location) UNBNSB Upper Newport Bay at North Star Beach (Monitoring Location) UNBCHB Upper Newport Bay at Coast Highway Bride (Monitoring Location) SCO17AAA.wP5 12-1 Volume li Appendixes to DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Irvine Ranch Water District Wetlands Water Supply Project '11' v IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project Appendixes to Draft EIR Contents Appendix A: Notice of Preparation Appendix B: Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Scoping Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes Public Review and Record Distribution List Appendix C: Wetlands Demonstration Project Negative Declaration Comment Letters Appendix D: Michelson Water Reclamation Plant Effluent Data Appendix E: Wetlands Nitrogen Removal Analysis Appendix F: External Monitoring Committee Minutes and Comment Letters Appendix G: Water Quality Monitoring SC010017ME. WP5 Appendix A Notice of Preparation SCO 10017A4E. WP5 A-1 Return to: Betty J. Wheeler, Secretary Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 IRWD File No. 33702 (Public0:0 . TO: Agencies, Organizations and Interested Persons FROM: Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 Project No.: 33702 Project Name: Wetlands Water Supply Project Project Location: The project area is bounded by Campus Drive to the west, an unnamed ditch that drains the San Joaquin Marsh under Campus Drive to the West and North, Irvine Ranch Water District Michelson Water Reclamation Plant to the Northeast, and San Diego Creek to the South and East. The Project area includes approximately 57 acres of shallow duck ponds (used interchangeably with wetlands) and approximately 5 acres of Michelson Water Reclamation Plant Ponds. Project Location: Irvine, Orange County A copy of a section of the U.S.G.S Tustin and Newport Beach Quadrangles which include the project area is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: The project is divided into two phases. The first phase is the demonstration phase, which is to determine the optimum operating strategy for using reclaimed water in the wetlands. The second phase is to implement the long term operation of the seasonal wetlands under conditions determined in the demonstration phase. The project will supply tertiary reclaimed water to existing seasonal duck ponds to sustain migrating waterfowl habitat from October through March. The duck ponds will reduce nitrogen as necessary from the reclaimed water before discharge into San Diego Creek, which is tributary to Newport Bay. The project provides benefits for migrating waterfowl, the flora and fauna in the San Joaquin Marsh, and Newport Bay. Beneficiaries of the project are: the Irvine Ranch Water District, the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary, and regional school programs. Additional project information is attached. Probable Environmental Effects of the Project: The project is unlikely to have any significant adverse environmental effect. The EIR will address: (1) the fate of nitrate in Newport Bay, (2) sediment transport from San Diego Creek into Newport Bay, and (3) the extent of freshwater influence in Upper Newport Bay, resulting EXHIBIT "H" R«. 09/92 - 1 - RETCEQAI.Doc DRAFT f— from the project. The EIR will briefly discuss insignificant effects on Geology, Air, Cry Transportation/Circulation, Noise, Cultural Resources, Aesthetics, Public Health and Safety, Energy Consumption, and Recreation. On December 19, 1994, the Irvine Ranch Water District (District), acting as Lead Agency, determined, that a focused EIR (State Guidelines § 15063 and § 15143) should be prepared for this project. A focused Staged EIR (State Guidelines § 15167) will be prepared for the project, since this project will be developed in two phases over a period of two to three years, and each phase will require discretionary approvals from the District and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The District has prepared an Expanded NOP for the project to enhance the scoping process. A public hearing and scoping session will be held on the Notice of Preparation on February 14, 1995, at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Irvine Ranch Water District, located at 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue, Irvine. On December 19, 1994, the District prepared an "Environmental Analysis Statement for the Wetlands Demonstration Project Negative Declaration" describing the nonsignificant environmental effects of the demonstration phase. An Initial Study was prepared for the demonstration phase. A separate Initial Study has been prepared for the focused Staged EIR and a copy of that Initial Study is attached. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. Copies of the Environmental Analysis Statement are available from the District Operations Headquarters at 3512 Michelson Drive, Irvine. For State agencies, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. In responding to this Expanded NOP, responsible agencies and other agencies, having jurisdiction over natural resources which may be affected by the project, are requested to provide detailed prescriptive and/or performance standards applicable to project activities, which will be subject to review and/or approval of the responding agency. This information will be used to assist in the evaluation of standards of significance and development of mitigation measures to address any significant impacts of the project identified by each agency (Public Resources Code §21081.6). Your agency will need to use the focused Staged EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to James Hyde, Environmental Compliance Specialist, at the Irvine Ranch Water District, P.O. Box 57000, Irvine, CA 92719-7000. We will need the name of the contact person in your agency. SecretwyfAssistant Secretary V/9Ii 5 Date Telephone Number EXHIBIT "H" Res. 09/92 - 2 - WETCEQAI.DOC DRAFT uj �\ f r ..Xpe U ic 03 •° V �� a ``,, �..`` jaw\;.< \\•` \ I ;\. rG it 21 .41 l• � �s �A� i O �r W /,�• \ �-'--s�J/ \ OnT +� ��Iu ""d�0� : ♦ HJv39 dOd.�3.1 �oo v�... 4•a11 .19 39 cc 10 \ ;may \: \ � .xh` ti. . J o ,��--. � r �♦ f c ( - _. — . ��— /\� �� � err �:�) }}}���%� ,{ (• d a � � ,. g- IN ...N o .c", d i/ i `,.� sem' �.- ✓ - ..r dd /-q \ •3�i'`-� -�_ - l �, _. WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROTECT 1.0 Summary of CEQA Review On October 11, 1994, the Irvine Ranch Water District held a public meeting to consider a Negative Declaration for the Wetlands Demonstration Project. Agency and public comments were received at that meeting regarding potential downstream effects in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. The Board directed staff to address the concerns raised at the meeting and discuss them on November 21, 1994. The November meeting was continued until December 19, 1994. On December 19, 1994, staff presented its response to the concerns raised at the October 11, 1994 meeting and other issues found in its review of Newport Bay environmental concerns. CEQA requirements and options for the Wetlands Demonstration Project were reviewed and the following issues were discussed in detail at that meeting: The effect of additional nitrate loading to Newport Bay contributed by the Wetlands Demonstration Project. • The effect of sediment transport caused by the increased flow in San Diego Creek resulting from the Wetlands Demonstration Project. • The effect of increased freshwater flow on Upper Newport bay as a result of the Wetlands Demonstration Project. The Initial Study did not indicate any significant environmental effects, and therefore, a Negative Declaration was recommended. Since the project does not involve federal funding nor require federal permitting, an EIS is neither required nor appropriate. Although CEQA states that serious public controversy over environmental effects does not mandate the preparation of an EIR, the Board can take any controversy into consideration in making its determination. The Board determined that despite no anticipated adverse environmental effects, a focused EIR be prepared for the project which includes a two-year demonstration phase followed by a permanent discharge into San Diego Creek. Because of the two part phasing, the EIR will be prepared under State Guidelines § 15167 as a focused Staged EIR and the project name is changed to the Wetlands Water Supply Project. Newport Bay has been the subject of numerous water quality studies and the creation of a substantial water quality database. Based on the expected wetlands discharge concentrations and using the available data, nitrate loading for San Diego Creek would increase. However, due to the increase in flow and exchange of water in the Bay, there will be a net unloading of nitrate from the Bay and concomitant decrease in concentration of nitrate in the bay. Using a simplified flow through model, the existing conditions could be maintained in Upper Newport Bay, if the discharge from the wetlands had a nitrate concentration of approximately 3.1 mg N/L. The wetdem07.doc wetlands is projected to reduce nitrate below 3.1 mg N/L, thereby reducing the concentration of E , nitrate in the bay. Sediment loading into Upper Newport Bay has been mitigated through County regulation of runoff and construction and maintenance of a series of desilting basins in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. The wetlands discharge will be clear and carry no sediment. It was determined that the incremental increase in flow velocity in San Diego Creek resulting from the wetlands discharge was far below the velocity needed to mobilize the coarse sediments below the discharge point. In addition, there was a calculable but probably immeasurable beneficial effect that the increased flushing from the project would enhance the transport of very fine sediment into the ocean. There exists a large body of information on the salinity fluctuations in Upper Newport Bay. Based on the existing information, changes in the salinity structure caused by the increase in freshwater flow will be small compared to natural variability, with a slight decrease in short term average salinity at the head of the bay. Salinity change resulting from increased San Diego Creek flow is well below the natural variation and the project will cause no significant alteration of the benthic community. Salinity responses noted in the literature indicate that where freshwater release is limited in duration between late Fall and early Spring, no harm will occur to existing saltmarsh habitats around Upper Newport Bay. The limited modest soil salinity reduction may increase establishment of and growth rates for cordgrass. Where cattails are already present, they can be expected to continue their expansion, but provided the additional freshwater release is cut back in early Spring, they will not invade saltmarsh habitats. Fish populations are low from late Fall through early Spring, consequently, the increased freshwater flow is unlikely to significantly affect fish species. Fish use Upper Newport Bay from late Spring through early Fall as a feeding and breeding area, when no discharge from the wetlands project will occur. Wetlands systems have been extensively studied for their ability to remove carbon from water, however, only recently have wetlands been studied for their ability to remove nitrogen from water. Based on data collected at the Prado Wetlands (Riverside County) and confirmed by independent studies in Iowa, wetlands systems are very efficient in removing nitrogen from carbon limited systems. Based on data collected at Prado, the denitrification rate ranges from 200 to 800 mg N/m2/day, with the rate increasing as the wetlands system ages. From these denitrification rates at a flow of 5 MGD and reclaimed water nitrate concentration of 12 mg N/L, the nitrogen removal efficiency will range from 30% to greater than 92%. Nitrogen removal can be increased by increasing the hydraulic retention time or by adding limited amounts of carbon to the system. The Wetlands Water Supply Project will be able to control both the water quality and hydraulic characteristics in the wetlands. Since the project will be operated as an intermittent wetlands, there will be no accumulation of nitrogen rich sludge available for release during the operational period of the wetlands. Consequently, the project is expected to meet water quality requirements placed on it with a high degree of reliability. wetd=07.doc DRAFT A focused Staged EIR (State Guidelines § 15167) will be prepared for the project, since this project will be developed in two phases over a period of two to three years, and each phase will require discretionary approvals from the District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The demonstration phase of the project will garner the information necessary to determine the characteristics of wetlands treatment and quality of the discharge. Subsequent environmental review will be conducted on any new information produced by the demonstration phase. 2.0 Environmental Setting The wetlands, commonly referred to as part of the San Joaquin Marsh, is located in the City of Irvine and bounded by San Diego Creek on the South and low coastal bluffs on the North as shown in Figure 1. A mixture of urban runoff, brackish groundwater and well water enters San Joaquin Marsh from the East and exits into San Diego Creek and eventually into Upper Newport Bay to the West. At present, the marsh comprises approximately 580 acres of a variety of habitats, consisting of riparian woodlands, seasonally wet meadows, managed duck ponds, freshwater marsh, upland habitat, a wastewater treatment plant, and areas slated for future residential development. These uses conform to current zoning. Currently, the ownership of the marsh is divided between The Irvine Company, the Irvine Ranch Water District, and the University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS). The Wetlands Water Supply Project will use approximately 57 acres of shallow duck ponds and 5 acres of deep Michelson Water Reclamation Plant ponds. 3.0 Historical Use The San Joaquin Marsh contains remnant areas that were operated by two duck clubs, which were in operation when the Irvine Ranch Water District constructed its Michelson Water Reclamation Plant in 1966. Both the Rinker-McHone and Old San Joaquin Duck Clubs operated until 1988 under permit from the Department of Fish and Game and a City of Irvine firearms permit. The Rinker-McHone Duck Club, located east of Campus Drive, was leased from The Irvine Company and the Old San Joaquin Duck Club, located West of Campus Drive, was leased from the University of California. Both Duck Clubs followed the same operating procedures. Approximately one month prior to the opening of duck season, the ponds were filled with up to two feet of reclaimed water. The water level in the ponds was maintained throughout duck season. After duck season, the ponds were drained through existing drains into the University of California Natural Reserve system and ultimately into San Diego Creek. Prior to refilling the ponds, emergent vegetation was mowed or disked to encourage an open water habitat. The UCNRS has strongly objected to the annual draining, because the water was stagnant, odorous, and rich in nutrients, and requested that the duck ponds be managed in a way which eliminated annual draining. Since the Duck Clubs used large volumes of reclaimed water, they were required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain `Primary User' permits. Under these permits, the Duck wetd=07.doc DRAFT 2 07405 � i p a Q. _ `.. � .-;`,Reservoir : , � •� ' ell 2 ♦� �\�4 ` Well t " 20 10 F CO W / /`�;� J r� •n .......... a o /�; I j ' ♦ % Wel. � / U1 i �1 / �� �► / ..s$. ,. l ' San Joaquin •T erol a...4 . Marsh.. ,126 / �'. ♦ ;-15 ♦ \♦��► .ti �. / ,.� ° `�' ,♦ a; �•� ,� ��� = Project 46 / / ;'-� Boundary i ' - � � h::. � �/• 0 SAN 3725 h 0%;�,�� ♦ aAd �' te i / � ♦ I � � � •r ` � Vii% I � F �J / „ ! i �o �► I , /°�� ��' �, v N.�' �--` ICL :' RE NAL 0� •Bayview \ I 1 i ;1 t \ •s9\\`�( ct \\ i �� �%\ O / 1 O• t�\ �� ' 3124 16 Dinfl It �.\, �.\ /moi l: 6' .:'� \ .` `'`�J �t' \ ,�/• „^ ` C J\ � � �a'UfY,,.�r:� \t � ��c� _ \\�\• Vii/ / `1 :'' i �` � \ min e, FO- •.,.�.` `rte � `P Evaporators;��\ :'\ �' •+ �. \ ... _ alt r rII •�-�`C.C�-Y.Y PD V!1 �I ��'` � \ ', .'i��1Nat� I"' � �.+, ;� � �IIY tTY`OFT�k i.Y: \` '1,-, ya{a��q �1,\ �•} i" ' pif\� Tank'. : ,' \``■ TBV' ■ fir,.. �� 3123 . °E " °°I 1��' �u \`,'JjJ ���y�� J •cb •,\. '.e. U�{ti �� \•' J Itl"•� \"� ���r) 150 i •� '��\\�\� 00 _ ter• .-_-. r • i � ' .:`o `tel 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 40W 5000 6000 7000 FEET Figure 1 N Tustin Quadrangle Irvine Ranch Water District Vicintiy Map Clubs had to report the quantity and quality of reclaimed water used on a monthly basis. However, the Duck Clubs were not restricted to using disinfected reclaimed water, and on occasion, the Rinker-McHone Duck Club pumped water from San Diego Creek and used secondary effluent from MWRP to fill its ponds. The only source of water for the Old San Joaquin Duck Club was reclaimed water. 4.0 San Joaquin Marsh Planning Efforts In October 1985, the City of Irvine and The Irvine Company initiated a cooperative study to evaluate the natural resources within the City's planning areas. After extensive public review and hearings regarding various alternative land -use and conservation and open -space options, General Plan Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element amendments were proposed. The San Joaquin Marsh was prioritized as the number one open space area in the City. The City of Irvine submitted the General Plan amendment for the San Joaquin Marsh to the voters, and the initiative was approved in June 1988. Subsequently, the City of Irvine and The Irvine Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and the City revised the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in October 1988 in order to accommodate changes in land -use and conservation and open -space designations. The City of Irvine initiated the formation of the San Joaquin Marsh Working Group to coordinate maintenance, preservation and enhancement activities in the San Joaquin Marsh area. In 1989, the City of Irvine, in collaboration with the California State Coastal Conservancy, authorized a study to provide an overview of proposed marsh habitats and management practices. This study proposed a comprehensive plan for the enhancement and future management of the San Joaquin Marsh, incorporating the previous studies and recreational goals that might be consistent with biological enhancement objectives. The San Joaquin Marsh Management Committee, comprising the City of Irvine, the California State Coastal Conservancy, and the University of California was established to monitor and supervise the progress of the study. The San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan continues to evolve. Concurrently with development of the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan, the City of Irvine is the lead agency preparing an Environmental Impact Report examining plan alternatives. The Draft EIR is expected to be released for review in Spring 1995. As the options in the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan unfold, it is becoming abundantly clear that a reliable supply of water is key to the success of the plan. The primary water source under consideration is well water, but San Diego Creek water and reclaimed water are being evaluated as alternate sources. In addition to a permanent wetlands, seasonal duck ponds are featured in the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan. The San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan and EIR identify the Wetlands Demonstration Project as an alternative water source, but the Wetlands Demonstration Project is not part of the Plan and EIR. The Wetlands Water Supply Project is designed to collect data to be used to identify the wetdem07.doc DRAFT 4 parameters affecting the successful operation of the San Joaquin Marsh. As such, the Wetlands Water Supply Project and its CEQA review precedes the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan. The data garnered during the Wetlands Water Supply Project will be directly applicable to the operation of the seasonal duck ponds featured in the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan. 5.0 Responsible and Trustee Agency Permitting Status Because the project creates wetlands habitat, is located in an area near jurisdictional wetlands, and has a discharge into inland surface waters, environmental permit requirements were reviewed. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over projects occurring in tidal and wetland areas, reviewed the project to determine if the project was in a wetland area under their jurisdiction. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) determined that the ponds are non jurisdictional, and that a 404 Permit is not required. The COE similarly determined that a 404 permit was not required for the San Diego Creek discharge. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency manages San Diego Creek and requires encroachment permits for work performed flood control channels. The discharge into San Diego Creek will be constructed to County standards, and a permit to construct the outfall has been secured. The California Department of Fish and Game requires a 1601 Streambed Alternation Agreement to construct the outlet in San Diego Creek. One of the requirements of the permit application is submittal of the certified CEQA document prepared for the project. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board requires an NPDES permit which will set numerical standards on the discharge from the duck ponds into San Diego Creek in accordance with Basin Plan criteria. To insure compliance with permit conditions, the NPDES permit will stipulate a detailed monitoring and reporting program. An NPDES permit application has been submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 6.0 Project Description 6.1 Wetlands Water Supply Project On December 19, 1994, the Irvine Ranch Water District (District), acting as Lead Agency, determined, that a focused EIR (State Guidelines § 15063 and § 15143) should be prepared for this project. A focused Staged EIR (State Guidelines § 15167) will be prepared for the project, since this project will be developed in two phases over a period of two to three years, and each phase will require discretionary approvals from the District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The first phase is the demonstration phase, which is to determine the optimum operating strategy for using reclaimed water in the wetlands. The second phase is to implement wetdem07.doc DRAFT the long term operation of the seasonal wetlands under conditions determined in the demonstration phase. The demonstration phase of the project is designed to evaluate the use of reclaimed water as an economically viable sustainable water supply for the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan, currently under development. The objective is to create a flow through system in the existing duck ponds of up to 5 MGD of reclaimed water meeting all the requirements of Title 22 in the California Administrative Code. The ponds will be filled beginning October 1 and discharge from the ponds would begin on October 21. Discharge from the ponds will cease on March 31 and the water remaining in the ponds will be directed into MWRP and reclaimed water distribution system. The project will evaluate nitrogen removal from reclaimed water, under various duck pond operating conditions. An equally important objective is to enhance waterfowl and wildlife habitat within the ponds. Under typical operating conditions, filling would commence on October 1 and it would take approximately three weeks to fill the duck ponds. The ponds are filled slowly to allow waterfowl to feed on grubs, worms, and other soil fauna as they flee from the advancing water. At the end of the waterfowl season, March 31, the water supply would be cut off and the water remaining in the ponds would be returned to the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant to be used as a short term supply of reclaimed water. Typically, it would take three weeks to empty the ponds. As in years past, the lowest ponds would be kept wet until early July to allow for nesting of clapper rails and other sensitive species. Discharge of water into San Diego Creek under typical operating conditions would occur between the last week of October through the end of March. Minor improvements would be required to implement the project. The duck ponds would need additional weirs to improve hydraulic characteristics, maximize contact area and residence times, and to minimize stagnation within the ponds. The weirs would be fitted with gates so that the water level in each pond could be adjusted. Two parallel pond trains will be established to compare changes in water quality under different flow and vegetation conditions. Both pond trains would discharge into a shallow forebay before being pumped into San Diego Creek. The highest ponds are adjacent to San Diego Creek and the water flows northwest towards Carlson Drive. A pump will be installed on the lowest ponds to pump the water into San Diego Creek. Turnouts are provided on the discharge line to return water to the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant and to return water into the highest pond. The ability to recirculate water through the duck ponds permits multiple pass treatment if it is needed to meet water quality criteria. In addition, recirculation maintains higher flow through the ponds to optimize treatment capabilities of the wetlands system and minimize stagnation. The pump will also be able to return wetlands treated water back into the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant, where it will be mixed with secondary effluent, filtered, and chlorinated for reuse in the distribution system. At the end of the waterfowl season the ponds will be drained into the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant to supplement the existing reclaimed water supply. wetdem0Tdoc DRAFr 6 rr1 Continuous flow through the duck ponds and the new system of weirs along with the ability to recirculate is designed into the project to minimize stagnation. Stagnant water is the preferred environment for mosquito breeding. In addition to water recirculation, vegetation removal and seasonal drying of the duck ponds interrupts the mosquito breeding cycle. The project has been reviewed by the Orange County Vector Control District (OCVCD), which found that the project will not exacerbate mosquito problems. The Wetlands Water Supply Project requires the cooperation of a variety of public agencies, non- profit organizations and landowners. A Technical Advisory Committee composed of experts in wetlands management and hydraulics was formed to help formulate the project and will remain involved throughout the Wetlands Water Supply Project. Since this project will occur on both public and private lands, agreements will be drafted to consent to the project, and copies of the agreements will be forwarded to the Regional Board upon signature. 6.2 Reclaimed Water Quality Because of its quality and availability, reclaimed water is the preferred water source for this project. For decades, reclaimed water has been used to fill and maintain water levels in the duck ponds. Reclaimed water is consistent in both quality and quantity. The quality of reclaimed water is extensively monitored daily to guarantee that it meets State of California standards for reclaimed water as stipulated in Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. The quantity of reclaimed water is consistent, because the supply of wastewater is consistent. In addition, Irvine Ranch Water District has the option of diverting wastewater to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County for treatment and disposal. The constancy of supply and quality, and flexibility of disposal options designed into the Wetlands Water Supply Project guarantees a high level of reliability that the water leaving the duck ponds will meet discharge criteria imposed on the project. The water supply for the Wetlands Water Supply Project will be reclaimed water delivered from the reclaimed water distribution system. Additional nitrate loading to Upper Newport Bay was identified as the primary concern of regulatory agencies and the general public, and the San Diego Creek watershed is by far the largest contributor of nitrate on both and concentration and mass basis. The MWRP will be operated in a nitrification mode. Conversion to nitrate will facilitate nitrogen removal in the duck ponds. The average phosphorous concentration of 2.3 mg P/L is expected to be conserved in the plant treatment process. MWRP effluent metal concentrations and organic priority pollutants are below EPA water quality criteria (Gold Book criteria) and will not be of concern during the study. 6.3 Proposed Research Monitoring Plan The NPDES permit application submitted for the Wetlands Water Supply Project proposes two outfalls, with each outfall meeting specific water quality criteria or guidelines. Outfall 001 will measure current MWRP effluent water quality criteria necessary to meet Title 22 requirements wetdemOTdoc DRAPr for reclaimed water and report the data based on Order 94-22, recently adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Outfall 002 will be the discharge into San Diego Creek. Water Quality monitoring requirements for this discharge will be determined through the NPDES permit application process. In addition to this outfall, the Regional Water Quality Control Board may require additional monitoring stations to insure compliance with permit conditions. In addition to permit compliance monitoring, an extensive internal monitoring program is incorporated in the operations plan for the Wetlands Water Supply Project. The monitoring plan will include the following elements. wetd=07.doc DRAFT Internal Monitoring Plan wetd=07.doc DRAFT 9 • Bacteria Water Phase Monitoring Total Coliform • Field Measurements Fecal Coliform Enterococcus Flows Dissolved Oxygen Sediment Monitoring Conductivity pH • Nutrients Temperature Nitrogen • Nutrients Phosphorous Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen • Cations Ammonia Nitrate Calcium Total and ortho-phosphate Magnesium Potassium • Anions/Cations Sodium Calcium • Metals Magnesium Potassium Cadmium Sodium Chromium Chloride Iron Fluoride Lead Sulfate Zinc • Metals Vegetation Monitoring Cadmium • Phenology Chromium • General Health Iron • Presence of Fungus or Insect Lead Pests Zinc • Presence of Other Plants • Presence and Percent Cover of • Other Parameters Algae Total Chlorine Residual Vector Control Total Suspended Solids Chlorophyll a • In Cooperation with OCVCD Alkalinity Wildlife Use • Birds and Their Distribution wetd=07.doc DRAFT 9 rn The internal monitoring plan for the Wetlands Water Supply Project is much more extensive than the typical plan which monitors the operation of a wetlands system. This is necessary because the data collected from the internal monitoring plan will be used to validate the effectiveness of wetlands treatment and enhancement of the biological resources in the duck ponds. In addition, the extensive internal monitoring plan will determine the performance characteristics of wetlands r systems in the San Joaquin Marsh and the proposed San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan will use this information to design successful enhancement projects for the marsh. 7.0 Project Objectives The District has determined the following objectives for the project: Phase I • Develop the appropriate operating criteria to minimize or eliminate potential water quality impacts for long term operations. • Provide a economically viable and sustainable water supply for the duck ponds and the San Joaquin Marsh. • Provide a flow through system. • Maintain or enhance biological habitats. Phase II • Implement the long term operation of the seasonal wetlands under conditions determined in the demonstration phase. 8.0 Focused Environmental Issues The District has determined that a focused Staged EIR be prepared for the project. This determination is based on responsible and trustee agency and public comments raised. The following is a list of environmental issues that will be analyzed in detail in the focused Staged EIR: • The effect of additional nitrate loading on Newport Bay • The effect of additional freshwater input on Upper Newport Bay • The effect on sediment transport of an increased base flow in San Diego Creek Other insignificant impacts will also be discussed briefly. wetd=07.doc DRAFT 10 9.0 Alternatives to be Addressed in the EIR The following alternatives were discussed during previous environmental review of the project and will be analyzed in the focused Staged EIR: • No project (no migratory waterfowl habitat, no wetlands, no biological enhancement) • Recirculating flow wetlands system • Reduced flow through the wetlands • Alternative project locations wetdem07.doc DRAFT 11 ATTACHMENT INITIAL STUDY Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Irvine Ranch Water District Wetland Water Supply Proiect 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 5700 Irvine, CA 92719-7000 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jim Hyde Phone: (714) 453-5866 4. Project Location: San Joaquin Marsh at Campus Drive City of Irvine County of Orange 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 5700 Irvine. CA 92719-7000 6. General Plan Designation: COS - Preservation 7. Zoning: Reserve -COS 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary). The project is divided into two phases. The first phase is the demonstration phase which is to determine the optimum operating strategy for using reclaimed water in the wetlands The second phase is to implement the lona term operation of the seasonal wetlands under conditions determined in the demonstration phase. The pro ject will supply tertiary reclaimed water to existing seasonal duck ponds to sustain migrating waterfowl habitat from October through March The duck ponds will reduce nitrogen as necessary from the reclaimed water before discharge into San Diego Creek, which is tributary to Newport Bay. The project provides benefits for migrating waterfowl, the flora and fauna in the San Joaquin Marsh and Newport Bay. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) The Wetlands Water Supply Project is located on property owned by the Irvine Ranch Water District in the City of Irvine and bounded by San Diego Creek on the south and low coastal bluffs on the north. The wetland area, commonly referred to as the San Joaquin Marsh comprises approximately 580 acres of a variety of habitats consisting of riparian woodlands seasonally wet meadows, managed duck ponds, freshwater marsh upland habitat a wastewater treatment lant and areas slated for future residential development Other land uses in the area include some multi family residential housino commercial office and retail development and the University of California. Irvine. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Rion - NPDES Permit to discharge to San Diego Creek. California Department of Fish and Game - Streambed Alteration Agreement 2 r L.. 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" or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Geophysical ❑ Water ❑ Air Quality Determination: ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hazards ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation 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. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at lease one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 3 U 0 a 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in i an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EM, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Date C9,wt Printed Name For f 4 L.. 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 cities 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) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless ;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 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 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. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. Sample Question: Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sianificant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1.6) ❑ ❑ ❑ (Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation). Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source #(s): ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community? ( ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, Tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) 2 Potentially Significant Impact ❑ Cl FE- ■❑ ❑■ Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated El ❑■ ■❑ ❑■ ❑■ Less Than Significant Impact El El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): i) Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? O e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater othenvise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) VL TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) 7 ❑ Negative ❑ ❑ Declaration: ❑ ❑ Potentially ❑ ❑ Significant ® ❑ Potentially Unless Less Than SignificantMitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish. insects. animals. and birds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest. coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh. riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) VIJL ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy consen-ation plans? ( ) b) Use non-rene«•able resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) Less Than Significant No Impact Impact E3 9 ❑ Negative ❑ Declaration: ❑ Potentially ❑ Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact E3 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards?( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?() X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels" ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise leccls? ( ) XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? O d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) rX Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 11 Z ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑CE ❑ Negative ❑ Declaration: ❑ Potentially ❑ Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 11 Z ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑CE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) - XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighbor hood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) XVL 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? 10 ❑ Negative ❑ Declaration: ❑ Potentially ❑ Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ►_� Less Than r _ Significant No Impact Impact El r' El E ❑ ® f- El r 11 ❑ ® i El f ►_� Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated c) Does the project have impacts that arc 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) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIL EARLIER ANALYSES. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ® ❑ Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(C)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. IdentiA- earlier analyses and state «here they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from [lie above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant tot lie applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by Mitigation measured based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that arc "Negative Declarations: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sit -specific conditions for the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County oftilendoctno, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoffv..WontereyBoard of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990) IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT WETLAND WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Discussion of Environmental Impacts III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Less Than Significant Impact Minor soil displacement will be required for: 1) installation of flow control structures in the embankments that separate the Duck Ponds, 2) construction of a forebay in Pond 11, and 3) installation of the 18 -inch underground pipe to carry water to San Diego Creek. Up to eleven of the ponds will be fitted with two weir structures each. Each flow control structure will consist of an 18 -inch pipe with a weir box (4 feet wide by two -to -five feet high) on the upstream side of the culvert pipe. Minor excavation involving temporary soil displacement will be required to install the weir box, culvert pipe and forebay; excavated soil will be replaced onto the embankments and compacted around the flow control structures. The soil movement required for the installation of the flow control structures, forebay and pipeline will not noticeably affect soil permeability or runoff. Water from the ponds will be discharged through an outlet structure along the northerly bank of San Diego Creek. No erosion of the channel bank is anticipated, since the outlet structure will consist of a concrete and rip rap splash pad, and will conform to the requirements of the Orange County Management Standards Plan 1326. In addition, the ponds will initially be filled slowly to minimize erosion of soils. Water depths in the shallow ponds will be less than 3 feet. No significant impact is expected. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact: There will be a change in the quantity and velocity, but not the direction, of water flowing through the Duck Ponds and into San Diego Creek. Typically, the Duck Pond areas receive 300,000 gallons per day from a shallow well used to control groundwater near the Michelsen Wastewater Reclamation Plant (MWRP). Water is furnished to the ponds in middle to late fall to establish a habitat for waterfowl. Throughout the winter, the depth of water is maintained between 6 and 24 inches by supplying additional water from the dewatering well to replace water lost by evapotranspiration. The ponds are drained in the spring. They are left dry during the spring and summer months. The exception to this operational scheme is the Oc) c:\irwd\isexp1.wp5 01/18/95 (Wednesday) 1 r-' Audubon Ponds, in the southeast portion of the Duck Pond area, which are full of water most of the year to provide a sanctuary for waterfowl. r^ The IRWD Wetland Water Supply Project will increase flow to the Duck Ponds from October 21 through March 31 by providing an average of 5 million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water (treated effluent) from the MWRP treatment plant. This effluent is currently disposed of through the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County treatment plant, located in Fountain Valley. The current flow of approximately 0.3 mgd of pumped groundwater will be redirected into San Diego Creek or into the Duck Ponds, depending on the operations plan requirements of the new NPDES permit. The treated effluent will be introduced into Pond IA, flow through the Duck Ponds in two parallel trains, and exit through the forebay in Pond 11 and into San Diego Creek via the 18 -inch pipeline. San Diego Creek has an average winter flow of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs) (equivalent to 25.9 mgd), excluding extreme storm events. Dry weather flows in the winter months average 16 cfs (10.3 mgd). With an average flow of 5 mgd (7.7 cfs), the average detention time within the Duck Ponds will be approximately 7.2 days. The 5 mgd is expected to flow into San Diego Creek, resulting in an increase in average flow from 40 cfs to 47.7 cfs during the October -to -March period, a relatively minor increase. During a large stormwater event, the reclaimed water will not be directed into the Duck Ponds, but instead will be sent (as at present) to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. The median flow in San Diego Creek is 14-16 cfs during the same period. In summary, the proposal will increase flows through the Duck Ponds and San Diego Creek during winter months for the two years of the demonstration project and throughout the long-term operation. Increased flows will reduce the stagnant water conditions within the pond system. The approximate 7.7 cfs increase flow to San Diego Creek is considered minor, and thus will not affect currents. b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? No Impact: During large storm events, reclaimed water will not be directed into the Duck Ponds, but instead will be sent (as at present) to the Orange County Sanitation District Plant (if necessary). c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposal will result in a discharge into surface waters, but will not adversely affect water quality. Extensive analysis has been conducted to determine the potential effects to nutrient concentrations, sediment transport, and additional freshwater flows (see Impacts Analysis Statement in the attachment). The conclusions of the analysis are as follows: Oc) cAirwd\isexp1.wp5 01/18/95 (Wednesday) 2 • Based on expected discharge concentrations and using available data, nitrate loadings will increase from San Diego Creek into Upper Newport Bay, but the overall effect will be a net unloading of nitrate from the Bay and a concomitant decrease in nitrate concentrations. This impact will probably not be measurable. • Based on existing information, the addition of up to a maximum of 6 mgd of flow from San Diego Creek to Upper Newport Bay will have a small (but not significant) effect on short term environmental conditions of an already established estuarine habitat. Changes in the salinity structure in the Bay will be small compared to natural variability, with a decrease in short term average salinity at the head of the Bay during the two-year demonstration project. This depression in salinity is not necessarily an adverse effect. One aspect of the impact of increased flows will be to increase stability of conditions at the head of the Bay. • There is no potential for the increased flow from San Diego Creek to enhance mobilization or transport of the coarse fraction of sediment to Upper Newport Bay. There is a calculable, but probably not measurable, beneficial effect of increased flushing in the Bay which would prevent deposition and enhance the removal of very fine sediments from the system. Based on the analysis, there is no demonstrable significant adverse impact of the project on Newport Bay. There is good evidence for a net beneficial effect when all factors are considered. During the course of Phase I (two-year wetland demonstration project), water quality will be monitored to verify that all applicable water, quality standards are met. Addi- tionally, monitoring of San Diego Creek will be conducted to evaluate background receiving water chemistry and stream assimilative capacity. Table 1 shows a comparison between the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan site-specific water quality objectives and the expected maximum Duck Pond discharge concentrations. Oc) c:\irwd\isexpl.wp5 01/18/95 (Wednesdav) 3 Table 1. Comparison of Basin Plan Site -Specific Water Quality Objectives to Ex- pected i'laximum Duck Pond Discharge Concentrations Parameter San Diego Creek Duck Pond Dis- Objectives charge Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 1500 "946 Total Inorganic Nitrogen (mg/L) 13 5 Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) 90 `40 at Maximum value from MWRP effluent; concentrations from the Duck Pond discharge expected to be less. d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Less Than Significant Impact: There will be an increase in flow to San Diego Creek and ultimately to Newport Bay. Flows from the Duck Ponds to San Diego Creek will occur between October and March, and will consist of approximately 5 mgd, representing a 19 percent increase over the average flow for this period. During large storms, reclaimed water for the Duck Ponds will be diverted to the Orange County Sanitation District Plant as necessary. No significant impacts from this increase in flow to San Diego Creek are anticipated. e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposal will result in a change in the quantity and velocity, but not the direction of water flowing through the Duck Ponds and into San Diego Creek. Increased flushing of Newport Bay will occur. No significant impacts are anticipated. See also discussion under IV.a V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Create objectionable odors? T_ r Less Than Significant Impact: Prior to 1988, filling the duck ponds caused a rapid decomposition of plant matter, which generated low but noticeable levels of hydrogen ' sulfide. The odor was noticed periodically over a 3 -week period, until decomposition was complete. Recent experience at the ponds has shown that devegetated ponds, which are filled slowly, do not create objectionable odors. Oc) cAirwd\iserp1.wp5 01/19/95 (Wednesday) 4 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish insects, animals, and birds)? Less Than Significant Impact: Implementation of Phase I and Phase II of the Wetland Water Supply Project will increase wetland vegetation abundance and diversity at the Duck Ponds, and is expected to provide habitat to a variety of waterfowl. Thus, a beneficial impact for species and their habitat is expected. No direct impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species is expected. However, the project may affect some biological resources of Upper Newport Bay based upon changes in water quality as discussed under IV.c. A biological study was conducted which examined the effect of nutrient loading, freshwater flow and sedimentation from the San Diego Creek discharge. This study is presented in the Environmental Analysis Statement available from the Irvine Ranch Water District. Key findings and conclusions of this study are include here: Recent surveys of Upper Newport Bay confirm that open water, estuary/marine, aquatic habitats predominate (EDAW 1994, Unit I area). The present shoreline includes extensive bare disturbed areas, non -classified intertidal saltmarsh (with both cordgrass and pickleweed). Prior studies of Upper Newport Bay confirm a picture of significant tidal, seasonal, and annual variabilities in salinity stratification (well mixed, freshwater column during peak storm events; salinity stratification during lesser flows; and no stratification during dry periods, with salinity varying with the tides). While the treated discharge will lower average salinities in Upper Newport Bay, any salinity variations due to the proposed discharge will be much smaller than present variability due to high tide/low tide and low flow/storm flow variations. Since the duration of the additional freshwater discharge from the project is restricted between late fall and early spring, no significant impacts to present Upper Newport Bay habitats or biota are anticipated. Nutrients reach their highest loadings during storm runoff. Concentrations of nitrogen typically decline down -bay throughout the year and show strong tidal correlation, with maximum values noted during low tide (outflow) conditions. Generally, when the concentrations of nutrients are high, increased productivity may result, possibility leading to eutrophic conditions in the bay. Since nitrate -nitrogen concentrations in the treated discharge will be lower than ambient concentrations in the water flowing down San Diego Creek, nitrate values throughout the Newport Bay system will be reduced, not increased. No significant impacts to the Oc) cAirwd\iserp1.wp5 01/18/95 (Wednesday) 5 biological system of Newport Bay are expected to result from this minor decline in nutrient concentrations. Since year to year variability in freshwater (storm water) discharge is an important component of the upper bay's present environment, the proposed discharge will not be extended beyond Phase I (two-year demonstration period) without a thorough analysis of the results of the discharge monitoring program. If unexpected, undesirable impacts are recorded, the discharge will cease and be modified accordingly. r c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Less Than Significant Impact: The uppermost portion of Newport Bay is already a substantially man -modified, managed environment. Following serious flooding and sedimentation in 1978 and 1980, 85 acres of the upper bay were dredged out to create t the Unit I Sediment Control Basin (depths -3 to -7 feet -MSL). A second dredging project in 1988 created the 37 -acre Unit H Sediment Control Basin. Both basins have worked well, collecting large volumes of coarser -grained sediment from periodic flood 1 _ runoff, principally down San Diego Creek. Present plans call for maintenance dredging, deepening and enhancement of the Unit I Basin to create the Unit III Deep Water Habitat and Sediment Control Project. 1 A recent survey of the biological resources of the uppermost portion of the Bay confirms that open water, estuary/marine, aquatic habitats predominate. The present shoreline includes extensive bare and disturbed areas, nonclassified intertidal saltmarsh (with both cordgrass and pickleweed), and small areas of willow/mulefat scrub wetland. While the treated discharge will lower average salinities in Upper Newport Bay, any salinity variations due to the new discharge will be much smaller than present variability due to high tide/low tide and low flow/storm variations. Provided the duration of the additional freshwater discharge is restricted between late fall and early spring, no significant impacts to present Upper Bay habitats or biota are anticipated. d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool) No impact: Implementation of Phase I and Phase H of the Wetland Water Supply Project will increase wetland vegetation abundance and diversity. With more water present in the Duck Ponds, and with higher levels of nutrients, vegetative growth is likely to increase in some of the ponds, particularly those that now receive little water and/or dry out most rapidly. Vegetation will consist primarily of emergent marsh plants, such as bulrush and cattails. Deeper water areas with faster -flowing water may stay clear, but shallower areas are likely to experience increased vegetation growth. Since the ponds will continue to be dried out and vegetation removed during the summer (as at present), growth will be seasonal and vegetation densities will be controlled. Oc) cAirwd\isexp1.wp5 01/18/95 (Wednesday) The wildlife species abundance and diversity are expected to increase slightly. Although the ponds have historically been managed for migrating waterfowl, not all the ponds are kept full during the October - March period. Under Phase I (two-year demonstration project), all the ponds will be kept full for this period, providing more habitat for waterfowl, wading birds, fish, benthic organisms, and insects. Use of the ponds by migrating and resident birds is expected to increase because of the increased duration of operation. Overall, the amount and diversity of plants occurring in the project area are likely to increase. The results of the wildlife and vegetation monitoring conducted as part of the two-year demonstration project will provide useful data for operating Phase 11, the long-term water supply to the Duck Ponds. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant: During installation of flow control structures in the pond embankments and construction of the forebay and pipeline, construction equipment such as a backhoe will consume a limited amount of diesel fuel. A minor increase in the use of electricity would occur from operation of the 100 horse -power pump used to pump water from the forebay to the pipeline for discharge to San Diego Creek. Operation of the pump would occur from October through March only. Both phases of the project (two-year wetland demonstration and long-term discharge) will require a total of approximately 322,000 Kwh annually. No significant impacts to non-renewable resources are anticipated. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact: The increased coverage and duration of water in the Duck Ponds may provide increased habitat for mosquitos. Culex tarsalis is the primary vector of Western and St. Louis Encephalitis viruses in Southern California. This mosquito species is commonly found in and around the area of the proposed Wetland Water Supply project. Mosquitos generally exhibit population increases from mid-Sep- tember to mid-October and in spring. Operations within the Duck Ponds are designed to minimize mosquito habitat. These include (1) increased flows; (2) improvement of flow distribution; (3) removal of vegetation in most areas; and (4) separation of pathways. These operational changes will help in eliminating the stagnant water which provides prime mosquito breeding habitat. The open water will allow access of predators to mosquito larvae as well. The separation of pathways will allow for some ponds to be dried out if significant mosquito populations develop that cannot be controlled by vector control activities. Oc) cAirwd\isexpl.wp5 01/18/95 (Wednesday) 7 t1r, The Orange County Vector Control District will monitor the Duck Ponds on a weekly basis, or as needed, to determine when vector control activities are needed. If needed, r a biorational insecticide (Bti) will be applied, or other appropriate measures taken. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact: There will be a short-term noise impact during the installation of flow control structures in the pond embankments and construction of the forebay. Heavy equipment such as backhoes may be used to help excavate the embankments and forebay. Construction will be confined to daylight hours and construction noise should not violate existing noise standards. No long-term increases in noise will occur from operation of the pump in the forebay for Phase I or Phase H of the project since this pump will be submerged under water when in operation. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? No Impact: The Wetlands Water Supply Project will result in the short-term and long- term water supply to the existing duck pond area from October through March. The pond area is intermittently visible from surrounding streets, bike paths and some multi- family residences. The Duck Ponds may be considered an aesthetic amenity to the community, and thus, no negative aesthetic effects are anticipated. XVI. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb archaeological resources? No Impact: Previous archaeological site investigations have revealed no archaeological sites in the duck pond, pipeline area, and San Diego Creek bed. Thus, no impacts on archaeological resources are anticipated. XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact: The project would increase recreational opportunities in the area. As a result of the project, more wildfowl will be present at the Duck Ponds, thus increasing the bird -watching opportunities for local Aububon Society members, other interested citizens and regional school programs which currently provide field trips to the existing Duck Ponds for educational purposes. Oc) cAirwd\isexp1.wp5 01/18/95 (Wednesday) 8 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. a) Earlier Analyses Used. Previous documents prepared include the following: • "Wetlands Demonstration Project Initial Study and Notice of Preparation" prepared for the previous Negative Declaration. • "Environmental Analysis Statement for the Wetlands Demonstration Project" prepared for the Negative Declaration. Both documents are available for inspection at the Irvine Ranch Water District Michelson Plant Operations Center, 3512 Michelson, Irvine, California (attention: Jim Hyde) . b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. The impacts of the project were addressed in the previous negative declaration and the Environmental Analysis Statement. The Irvine Ranch Water District Board has determined, however, that a focused staged EIR should be prepared to obtain additional review from agencies, cities and counties, and the general public. c) Mitigation Measures. Since all potential impacts were determined to be below the level of significance, no specific mitigation measures were determined to be necessary beyond those measures specifically included in the project design. Those measures are listed in the attached Table 2. Oc) cAirwd\isezp1.wp5 01/18/95 (Wednesday) 9 O Vf CS C ^ V1 r Vl — • fA ^ i y • L U � ` � � C Z y y r _ ^ ` U tn U U cm ej y ? r O eq .52 00 4% H U 'Q O y fC y N' V y CZ L. 3 C y y v O G G C!p] y Vi C N _ 7 y V � C o T 3 a. Y r� y U U 2:1 LL.I '1 C: J r+ C O 72 ¢ V ^ C � .^ y y •� U •^ r ^ C O — = T .7. ..+ N ��-J= N4 CAE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK Memorandum GARY L. GRANVILLE COUNTY CLERK' TELEPHONE: 7141034.2248 OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE 211 W. SANTA ANA BLVD. P.O. BOX 22013 SANTA ANA. CA 92702.2013 3-aS-9S SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of "Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3". The attached Notice received, filed, and a copy was posted on 1.�o/9S It remained posted for 30 (thirty) calendar days. Gary L. Granville County Clerk of the State of California in and for the County of Orange. By: o— Deputy Public Resource Code 21092.3 The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an evironmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county***in which the project will be located and shall remain pgsted for a period of 30 days. The notice reauired pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of 20 days unless otherwise required by law to be posted for 30 days The County Clerk shall post notices within 24 hours of receipt Public Resourse Code 21152(c) All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days ***. Thereafter, the clerk chall return the notice to the local lead agency *** with a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Addition or changes by underline: deletions by *** Appendix B Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Scoping Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes Public Review and Record Distribution List SCO10017A4E. WP5 B- I Notice of Preparation Comment Letters SCO10017A4E. WP5 w wspV6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 01 SANTA ANA REGION 110 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 100 WERSIDE, CA 92507-2409 e PHONE: (909) 782-4130 L"O. J FAX: (909) 781-6288 HAI ITV March 13, 1995 Mr. James Hyde Environmental Compliance Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 WATER Q LIAR 1 x-1995 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT FILE Z-4-76" WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT -- EXPANDED NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Mr. Hyde: We have reviewed the Expanded Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Wetlands Water Supply Project focused Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and offer the following comments. These comments were also presented to you in several meetings held between IRWD staff and Regional Board staff. As we stated in our comment letter dated October 27, 1994 on the draft Negative Declaration for this project, Newport Bay is a sensitive ecological habitat and any proposed discharge needs to be carefully evaluated to ensure protection of the Bay's water quality. As such, the FEIR should contain an evaluation of the following. The FEIR should demonstrate that the Bay's water quality will not be degraded as a result of the discharge. This demonstration should be made by reviewing existing literature on the relationship between estuaries and nutrient input and also by evaluating recent ambient water quality conditions in Newport Bay and San Diego Creek relative to the nutrient issue. 2. The issue of whether algae growth is dependent upon nutrient loads versus nutrient concentrations needs to be thoroughly evaluated and documented. 3. The baseline data selected for the nutrient evaluation should represent the most recent better water quality conditions. In July 1990, the Regional Board adopted waste discharge requirements for the three commercial nurseries in the San Diego Creek watershed which required the nurseries to reduce the discharge of nutrients to the Creek. As a result, we believe the water quality in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay has improved and algae growth in the Bay has been reduced. Using data after July 1990, will allow for the evaluation of the potential impact of the wetlands discharge on the improved Creek and Bay water quality. 4. The baseline data should be evaluated on a seasonal basis in order to determine the impact a winter discharge will have on water quality. This analysis should also determine if there will be increased algae growth as a result of the wetlands rr1 Mr. James Hyde page 2 Irvine Ranch Water District discharge even after the discharge ceases in the spring months. It is not enough to simply indicate that since the discharge will stop in March, there will be no contribution to algae growth during the summer months from the project. 5. The Negative Declaration for this project included analysis of Newport Bay water quality as one unit with an average nutrient concentration for the entire Bay. This is an over -simplification of Newport Bay. Water quality data from the Bay should be evaluated in greater detail. Analysis of discrete units or segments has been discussed and appears to have merit. 6. The FEIR should include an evaluation of the sediment/water column equilibrium relationship. The Negative Declaration indicates that the discharge from the wetlands into the Upper Bay will dilute the water column nutrient concentrations, however, the sediment/water column equilibrium may be upset by this dilution resulting in the reflux of nutrients back into the water column. 7. Algae growth is not solely dependent upon nutrient concentrations but can also be affected by other parameters such as dissolved oxygen and water temperature. In addition to nutrients, other water quality parameters may need to be evaluated to determine the overall impact on algae growth. 8. We agree that a detailed monitoring program should be included in the FEIR with the goal of evaluating the impacts of the proposed discharge on the Bay's water quality. Expanding the basic components of Orange County EMA's monitoring program to include algae biomass determination and sediment nutrient concentrations should enable IRWD staff and Regional Board staff to evaluate the impacts of the discharge. Furthermore, in order to obtain baseline data, the monitoring program should be well under way prior to any discharge from the wetlands. Should you have any questions about these comments, please feel free to give me a call at (909)782-4493. Sincerely, i, Hope A. Smythe, Chief Planning Section G ws?f Community Development Department City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92713 (714) 724-6000 WATER QUALITY MAR 0 31995 February 27, 1995 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Mr. James E. Hyde FILE- 3 11Q5v Environmental Compliance Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue P.O. 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT EIR Dear Mr. Hyde: The City of Irvine has reviewed the NOP for IRWD's proposed Wetlands Water Supply Project ("the Project") and is providing the following comments. Our concerns pertain primarily to the project's impact and relationship to on-going San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan project. 1. San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan: The Draft EIR for the Enhancement Plan will.be prepared concurrent with the Draft EIR for this project. We encourage close communication between City and IRWD staff, as well as consultant staff, to ensure compatibility and coordination of the two projects. Please note that the Wetlands Water Supply Project may serve as an essential component to the successful implementation of the Enhancement Plan. 2. Section 7.0, Prbject Objectives: The project objectives focus solely on the need to enhance the duck pond habitat. We suggest that the following objective, which we understand is a key objective of the project, be incorporated into the Draft EIR: "Provide for an alternative to the Orange County Sanitation District for the economical disposal of tertiary treated water during Winter months." 3. Section 9.0, Alternatives: The analysis of the "No Project" alternative should not assume "no migratory waterfowl habitat" or "no wetlands" as indicated in the NOP. It should be assumed that the No Project scenario includes the existing well water and other on-going IRWD management efforts. aP!% ED '?)N=�E�_-YCLF:u P6,PE�_-. Mr. James E. Hyde February 27, 1995 Page -2- 4. Environmental Checklist: We note that the impact categories on the Environmental Checklist vary somewhat from the previous Initial Study prepared in September 1994 for the Draft Negative Declaration. (a) Water: Impact categories a) (Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or rate and amount of surface runoff); c) (alteration of water quality); and d) r' (changes in the amount of surface water) should be checked as "Potentially Significant impact." The project may have a significant direct impact within these categories, and therefore, full water quality and hydrology analyses should be performed in the Draft EIR. (b) Biological Resources: Item d) (wetland habitat) should be checked as "Potentially Significant Impact." Although impacts are designed to be positive, impacts will occur nonetheless. (c) Hazards: Item c) (potential health hazards) should be checked as "Potentially Significant Impact." The Draft EIR should include a full analysis of any increase in the risk of sewage intrusion into San Diego Creek or the Marsh ("Risk of Upset") due to direct discharge of reclaimed water. (d) Mandatory Findings of Significance: We suggest that findings "a)" and "c)" be checked as Potentially Significant Impacts. It is unknown whether the project may "cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels," or whether the project may have impacts which are "cumulatively considerable." . i Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to reviewing the Draft EIR when it is available. If you have any questions regarding these comments, or regarding coordination with the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan, please contact Mark Tomich, Principal Planner, at 724-6411. Director of Community Development c: Peter Hersh, Manager of Policy Programs Mark Tomich, Principal Planner i W tu SP1 �t SEW PC) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n LU z P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 oft N�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 February 24, 1995 QUALITY James Hyde WATER QUAL Environmental Compliance Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District LIAR 0 31995 PO Box 57000 IRVINE RANCH Irvine, CA 92719-7000 WATER DISTRICT v RE: NOP Comments for Wetlands Water Supply Project EIR Dear Jim, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation. As you know, the City of Newport Beach has a high degree of concern regarding this proposal due to its potential for adverse impacts on Newport Bay. The City's main concerns that we would like to see addressed in the EIR are summarized below. 1. We believe the project description and project objectives have been defined too narrowly, which would result in an inadequate analysis of project alternatives. In addition to the creation of wetlands, we request that the project description and objectives be expanded to include the increase in the District's total wastewater treatment. capacity through the diversion of a portion of the treated effluent into San Diego Creek. 2. We request that the list of alternatives be expanded to include other methods of achieving an increase in the District's total treatment capacity such as groundwater injection or treatment plant expansion. 3. The analysis of water quality in Newport Bay should include an evaluation of recent conditions (Le., the past 5-6 years) in order to provide a baseline for comparison during the monitoring phase of the project. 4. The water quality monitoring program should be designed to ensure that there is no impact to water quality in either the upper or lower bays. We request that the City be consulted in the detailed formulation of the monitoring program. 5. There is no discussion in the NOP of the possibility of low flow diversion from San Diego Creek into the wetlands. This could serve as a mitigation measure by offsetting some of the additional nutrients introduced into the creek by the proposed project. We request that this option be addressed in the EIR. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Mr. James Hyde Page 2 We look forward to reviewing the Draft EIR when it is available. We would appreciate receiving three copies so that we can expedite our review by the affected City departments. If you have any questions in the meantime, please call me at 644-3225 or John Wolter at 644-3311. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWI R, Director r, By: Entient4 uglas, CP C ordinator cc: Councilmember Jean Watt Kevin Murphy, City Manager Don Webb, Public Works Director John Wolter, Cooperative Projects Engineer F:\.V4NDOWS\PLANNINGVOHN-D\NCL\IRWD\NOP\WETLANDS.DOC V W 4)5n Orange County Vector Control District DISTRICT OFFICE • 13001 GARDEN GROVE BLVD., GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643 MAILING ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 87, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE (714) 971-2421 • FAX (714) 971.3940 BOARD OF TRUSTEES • 7995 February 27, 1995 PRESIDENT - FRANK FRY, JR. VICE-PRESIDENT • KENNETH E CARR WATER QUALITY SECRETARY •FLORENCE CAVILEER ANAHEIM LEONARD J. LAWICKI BREA KARL H. FANNING KARL James Hyde E. IATR3 BUENA PARK Irvine Ranch Water District GERALD N. 'JERRY' SIGLER COSTA MESA Environmental Compliance Specialist ;IRS [* RAM WILLIAM BANDARUK CYPRESS 3512 Michelson DriveGAIL H KE DANA PO NTRRY FBI Irvine, California 92715 �FI,��.. 'L.- ROBERT D. CARR FOUNTAIN VALLEY LAURANNFRTO COOK Dear Mr. Hyde: FULLERTON FLORENCE CAVILEER GARDEN GROVE TONY INGEGNERI The following are comments regarding the Expanded Notice of Preparation HUNTINGTON BEACH DR. PETER GREEN for the Wetlands Water Supply Project, Irvine Ranch Water District Project IRVINE BARRY J. HAMMOND No. 33702. LAGUNA BEACH GRANT McCOMBS LACUNA HILLS DR. PHILIP D. HANF The comments follow the report in the approximate order in which they LAGUNA NIGUEL THOMAS W. WILSON appear. LA HABRA JAMES FLORA LAKE FOREST 6.1 - Wetlands Water Supply Project - Page 7 - top paragraph. HELEN WILSON LA PALMA LARRY A. HERMAN LOS ALAMITOS "The project has been reviewed by the Orange County Vector Control ALICE JEMPSA MISSION VIEJO District (OCVCD), which found that the project will not exacerbate SYD GORDON NEWPORT BEACH mosquito problems.„ NORMA J. GLOVER ORANGE FRED L.BARRERA OCVCD Comment: PLACENTIA NORMAN Z. ECKENRODE SAN CLEMENTE KENNETH E. CARR We have found that the proposed project will exacerbate mosquito SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO DAVID MSWERDLIN problems. It has been alluded to in this report IX. Hazards. #C. SANTA ANNA WILLIAM L. BOYNTON SEAL BEACH FRANK LASZLO "that vegetation will be removed in most areas. The word most is vague. In STANTON DON MARTINEZ previous reports, emergent vegetation had been planned for the entirety of TUSTIN FABIE KAY COMBS one pond. This practice will increase mosquito production within that VILLA PARK WILLIAM OLIVA k ucpond. Again, we ask that the pond bottoms and sides be kept clean dp g WESTMINSTER FRANK FRY, JR , of vegetation.” YORBA LINDA BARBARA W. KILEY COUNTY OF ORANGE Section XV. Recreation. LEO F KOHL DISTRICT MANAGER GILBERT L. CHALLET "...increasing the bird watching opportunities for local Audubon Society members, other interested citizens and regional school programs which Z�GE C06 currently provide field trips to the existing duck ponds for educational O purposes." OCVCD Comment: a 0�g The plans for more people to use the duck ponds for educational purposes C'p�,T,ROy9 will expose more people to mosquito bites. Mosquito adults are active just before dusk until just after dawn. They are also active on cloudy overcast days. The San Joaquin Marsh drainage is Orange County's single largest A vector is any insect or other arthropod, rodent or other animal of public health significance capable of causing human discomfort, injury, or capable of harboring or transmitting the causative agents of human disease. f� , Mr. James E. Hyde, February 27, 1995 Page - 2 mosquito habitat. Data over several years has shown very high adult mosquito numbers. St. Louis Encephalitis has been recovered in the wild birds collected next to the Audubon House. See enclosed data. . IX. Hazards. #C - The check list on page 9. The creation of any health hazards or potential health hazards? Less than r significant impact was checked. OCVCD Comment: The check list does not seriously address the health hazards associated with the high number of mosquitoes collected at the San Joaquin Marsh. People are at greater risk to be bitten by mosquitoes, therefore, the disease potential is of real concern. IX. Hazards. #D. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No impact was checked. OCVCD Comment: This question with reference to mosquitoes should reflect, possible significant impact for the reasons stated previously. The data included with these comments illustrates the high numbers of mosquitoes in the San Joaquin Marsh. Positive wild birds collected at the Audubon House was for the year 1994 and has been constant for several years. The proposal for more people to visit the duck ponds will increase the potential for St. Louis Encephalitis transmission to humans. The OCVCD would like to go on record to reflect our concerns with the proposed pond management practices, current areas conducive to mosquito production adjacent to the duck club, and the proposal of increased visitors. Previous area recommendations for adjacent projects, such as the Park Place Condominiums, have included in their CC & Rs to residents informing them of the mosquito problems and the disease potential associated with high mosquito populations. The current status of St. Louis Encephalitis activity was also included as justification of our strong recommendations referred to in the 1988 letter enclosed. Sincerely, �/7- Lawrence H. Shaw Vector Control Specialist LHS/cs Enc. Orange County vector Control District DISTRICT OFFICE • 13001 GARDEN GROVE BLVD, GARDEN GROVE. CA 92643 MAILING ADDRESS • P.O. SOX 97, SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE UREA CODE 714) 971.2421 Enclosed is a list of suggestions for mitigation. Please read it carefully and contact this office if you need clarification of the suggestions or you have any questions. Q�%GE COU7 pa �i ry trulyOb$ , T mes P. r. h.D. ctor Ecologist JPW/ j k r0nTR0'- Enc. cc: G. L. Challet, District Manager R. E. Elliott, District Foreman A vector is any insect or other arthropod, rodent or other animal of public health significance capable of causing human discomfort. Injury. or capable of harboring or transmitting the causative agents of human disease. April 13, 1988 BOARD OF TRUSTEES• 1968 PRESIDENT • Judie De Perry VICE-PRESIDENT • Paul Bernal SECRETARY • Dorothy Wedel Michael P. Laybourn, Assistant Planner ANAHEIM JUDIE DE PERRY LSA SREA DEAN F. MILLEN 1 Park Plaza, Suite 100 BUENA PARK KENNETH B. JONES Irvine, California 92714 COSTA MESA WILLIAM BANDARUK CYPRESS Re: Vector control evaluation and comments JOHN KANEL FOUNTAIN VALLEY on the Notice of Preparation for BARBARA A. BROWN the Jamboree/Camp us Mixed Center FULLERTON FRANCES R. WOOD E.I.R. GARDEN GROVE MILTON KRIEGER HUNTINGTON BEACH Dear Mr. Laybourn : PETER GREEN IRVINE MARY ANN GAIDO LAGUNA BEACH We have reviewed the above proposed project and wish to comment GRANT LA HABRAcCOMes regarding the Public Health and Safety Section of the E.I.R. DOROTHY WEDEL LA PALMA LARRY A. HERMAN St. Louis Encephalitis (SLE) and Western Equine Encephalitis (WEE) p q p LOS ALAMITOS PAUL BERNAL virus transmission was monitored for the past five years in and NEWPORT BEACH RUTHELYNPLUMMER around the San Joaquin Marsh (City of Irvine). During this time ORANGE period, at or nearby q the San Joaquin Marsh, three sentinel chickens FRED L BARRERA .ACENTIA seroconverted for SLE virus antibody and one for WEE virus antibody THEODORE C. RUSSELL SAN CLEMENTE (1984), two small birds (house finch and red -winged blackbird) KENNETH E. CARR SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO seroconverted for SLE virus antibody (1985) , seven pools of Culex JAROLE tarsalis (the ence halitiuittested positive for p s mosquito species)es ANA SANTAAANA WILLIAM L. BOYNTON SLE virus (1986) , and seven small birds (pigeons, red -winged blackbird, SEAL BEACH JOYCE A. RISNER , and white -crowned sparrow) seroconverted for SLE virus antibody STANTON EDWARD L. ALLEN (1987). These data suggest that there is a current legitimate 99 9 TUSTIN concern fora probabilityfactor of mosquito transmission of SLE `t URSULA E. KENNEDY VILLA PARK virus to the human population in nearby residential communities. WILLIAM OLIVA WESTMINSTER In addition to this concern, the San Joaquin Marsh is also a known FRANK FRY, JR. breeding habitat for Anopheles freeborni ( the western malaria mosquito). YORBA LINDA DAVID W. CROMWELL In 'light of the recent malarial outbreak in Carlsbad (1986; San COUNTY OF ORANGE LEO F. KOHL Diego County), the possibility of a similar outbreak resulting DISTRICT MANAGER GILBERT L. CHALLET from this population of vector species cannot be ruled out. Nuisance potential from at least two species (Cx. tarsalis and Culex er thro- thorax) must also be included at a significant level of probability. Enclosed is a list of suggestions for mitigation. Please read it carefully and contact this office if you need clarification of the suggestions or you have any questions. Q�%GE COU7 pa �i ry trulyOb$ , T mes P. r. h.D. ctor Ecologist JPW/ j k r0nTR0'- Enc. cc: G. L. Challet, District Manager R. E. Elliott, District Foreman A vector is any insect or other arthropod, rodent or other animal of public health significance capable of causing human discomfort. Injury. or capable of harboring or transmitting the causative agents of human disease. r - Orange County Vector Control District Vector Control Evaluation and Comments on the Notice of Preparation for the Jamboree/Campus Mixed Center E.I.R. SUGGESTIONS FOR MITIGATION r Source reduction of any vector or potential problem is always considered first to ascertain its feasibility because it is usually the most optional way of eliminating the problem. This method of vector abatement entails the removal or modification of the breedin or resting habitat of the vector species and may include (in this situation3 such action as complete drainage of a wetland, vegetation removal, channelization, etc. As it relates to the San Joaquin Marsh, two options exist: 1. Completely drain and fill the marsh and associated duck clubs. 2. Expedite the joint UCI/Irvine Company channelization project. In the event that source reduction efforts are not implemented or are only partially successful, then increased mosquito control operations are recommended. r In order to reduce the potential of mosquito breeding sites within the development sector, a strict assurance is required that the residential, recreational, and industrial sites have built-in mosquito control provisions (e.g., proper drainage facilities that do not drain into the marsh and associated wetlands). Furthermore, it is required that Facilities Associations (e.g., Homeowners Associations, Business Associations, etc.) provide periodic (semi-annual) notifications (flyers, pamphlets,; talks, etc.) to the occupants and residents regarding mosquito hazards, prevention, and control. Provision of warning notice by state and/or county public health agencies to buyers, renters, and lessees concerning the potential for mosquito -borne disease as well as nuisance levels until such time that mosquito populations can be reduced to an acceptable level. ' i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in o In o in o In C W C W o IQ o is o in O Wt sao.unosow do waswnN I_e _lie • isnond Alnr 3Nnr c co a AVW lldd`d HOUM AddnNvr N W O d Cl) N O N c CL Z a` D -- o U W Q Q 0 O 7 d > Z Q N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in o In o in o In C W C W o IQ o is o in O Wt sao.unosow do waswnN I_e _lie • isnond Alnr 3Nnr c co a AVW lldd`d HOUM AddnNvr � o i i o � ; r r i i I I I I I � I I I I I i � I I i I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in o In o in o In C W C W o IQ o is o in O Wt sao.unosow do waswnN I_e _lie • isnond Alnr 3Nnr c co a AVW lldd`d HOUM AddnNvr J tmatnmt days prior toCulax orythrothorax Both SAN JOAQUIN MARSH 1994 3:00 3600 3400 3200 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 or , 1800 a 1600 1400 E 1200 1000 800 Soo 400 200 0 1 2 3 4 6 4 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 If 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 23 29 30 31 22 33 36 35 36 37 34 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 44 47 " 40 50 SI 52 Month 0-- j F M A M i i A 9 0 N 0 Culex tarsalis 200 180 rn 160 CL I 9 140 0 120 100 0 80 E 60 z 40 MEN: 20 0 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 29 30 31 32 33 U 35 36 37 38 " 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 43 49 50 61 52 10 9 CL 8 7 ii 6 5 4 3 E z z 2 0 1 2 3 4 1 6 7 9 1 10 It 12 13 14 16 16 17 14 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 = 36 36 36 37 35 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 " 47 " 49 90 61 62 WMK Culex quinquefasciatus K Q D I- U 'z V/ W U- T J D J_ z a 0 7 z a O 01 co f- tD to a C* N r O r 31S aoi 3AIlISOd 1N33a3d r Z C < t� y V/ N e� � a N 7 Y N W 3 N cm N N W Q t2 n 2 O 01 co f- tD to a C* N r O r 31S aoi 3AIlISOd 1N33a3d r Z C < t� y N e� � a N 7 Y N W 3 N cm N N Of Q t2 LO m w z 61 O R a� N v z M W N D O Q> co 1- w to eT M N r O r 31S JO; 3AIlISOd 1N30a3d rn D n �a z v v O 0 m n N M LO m m a m N 7 Y N W LON N N n r a n I Gty40?4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA- BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -.DISTRICT 12 ?501 PULLMAN ST. SANTA ANA, CA 92705 Mr. James E. Hyde Environmental Compliance Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92719-7000 February 23, 1995 FFB 2 7 1995 IRVINE RANCH FILE A E TRI7 . File: IGR\CEQA Expanded NOP SCH # none Subject: Expanded Notice of Preparation for Wetlands Water Supply Project Irvine Ranch Water District Project No.33702 Dear Mr. Hyde: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Expanded Notice of Preparation for the Wetland Water Supply Project. The project is located at San Joaquin Marsh at Campus Drive, City of Irvine. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency regarding this project. At this time the District has no comment. Please continue to keep us informed on this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Tony Malayeri at 714 -756-4924. Thank you. Robert Josep hie f Advance Planning Branch cc: Tom Loftus, OPR. Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Tom Persons,HDQTRS Traffic Op. Pat 011ervides, Traffic OP. Praveen Gupta, Env. Ping. Raouf Moussa, Hydraulics. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE WVV ??fr Fit •S D •LOS E4 DA`o )p SANTA SARSMU • SANTA CROZ SSESffiDAMMVMANCELffi • RIVERSIDE •SAN g:CO AN APiCLS00 _ ��'• , _ {`?moo • •gee SAN JOAQUIN FRESHWATER MARSH RESERVE BURNS PWON RIDGE DESERT RESERVE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92717 9 February 1WATER QUALITY FEB 00 1995 James Hyde, Environmental Compliance Specialist IRVINE RANCH Irvine Ranch Water District TRIS P. O. Box 57000 FILE Irvine CA 92719-7000 Re: Expanded Notice of Preparation of an EIR, Project No. 33702, Wetlands Water Supply Project Dear Mr. Hyde: This letter is to provide you with the views of the University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS), a CEQA-designated Trustee Agency (State Guidelines 15386(d)), concerning the scope and content of the environmental information to be developed in the preparation of an EIR for Project No. 33702. UCNRS does not agree with the stated assumption that "the project is unlikely to have any significant adverse environmental effect." It is our view that the Initial Study and the Environmental Analysis Statement for the Wetlands Demonstration Project Negative Declaration, as well as the Initial Study for the proposed focused Staged EIR, are seriously flawed in their determinations that there would be no potentially significant impacts. The three topics being proposed as the focus of the EIR are inadequate for providing a meaningful analysis of the potential impacts from the project. UCNRS requests that the scope of the EIR be expanded to address and analyze the issues included on the attached list, "Significant issues requiring impact analysis." We look forward to elaborating and explaining to your staff and consultants the reasons for including all of these issues. Briefly, although there have been previous studies that provide some valuable information about the biological, chemical and hydrological characteristics of the creek and bay estuarine receiving waters, this body of information is not sufficient to provide an understanding of the impacts of the proposed project. In fact there are several studies which explicitly suggest that the natural esturarine community will be significantly altered by the conditions of the proposed project. Nitrate is not the only potential pollutant that should be considered, especially considering that the project has now been expanded in concept to become a permanent influence on the estuary and the San Joaquin Marsh duck ponds. Although the effluent use in the project may meet Title 22 requirements, there will be long-term cumulative deposition of low concentration pollutants (i.e., heavy metals) in the substrates of the duck ponds, and in the sediments of the creek and basy, and the potential for impacts on the health of native fauna must be considered. There appears to be no provision for monitoring impacts to the creek and bay habitats, as proposed for the duck ponds themselves. This type of monitoring must be expanded to include the estuarine habitats. UCNRS is concerned that inappropriate baseline conditions might be defined while considering the potential impacts of the proposed project. It must be recognized that the reach of San Diego Creek between Campus Drive bridge and MacArthur Avenue bridge includes habitats in the flood control channel easement that are legally and functionally part of the UCNRS San Joaquin Marsh Reserve. Attached is a copy of a letter dated 25 January 1995 to Mr. Stewart of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board documenting UCNRS concerns about operations of the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) shallow groundwater wellfield, and concerns about recent laterations of the surface waters of San Diego Creek. UCNRS asks that the analyses of the EIR recognize the historic and natural estuarine conditions of the San Diego Creek channel on its Reserve property, and that the actual impacts of MWRP wellfield operations also be considered. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope proposed EIR for Project 33702. Sincerely yours, William L. Bretz, Manager UCNRS San Joaquin Marsh Reserve Attachments Peter A. Bowler, Academic Coordinator UCNRS Significant issues requiring impact analysis in a CEQA-guided EIR and a corresponding NEPA directed EIS: TMDL concept for the estuary and upper bay for nitrate and orthophosphate Issue of adding any new freshwater to the estuary and bay system In terms of natural ionic mixes in the bay and estuary, would transforming a component of the Creek to reclaimed water shift from a more natural ionic condition to one more characteristic of artificial wetlands Fluctuation of the wedge and seasonal movement of salt within the interstitial column is not well known for Back Bay Different water year concerns: impacts would be different in very wet El Nino years as opposed to drought years or median precipitation years Different impacts due to fall and spring tidal regimes if reclaimed water addition were either extended later or begun earlier How does the proposal influence the Back Bay management plan This proposal would lock salt marsh and other bay/estuary elements to a current base level of habitat; since freshwater would be a limiting factor for restoration of expansion Typha replacement of Salicornia could be a concern; other longterm vegetational shifts could also occur Potential impacts to Belding's savannah sparrow, the light-footed clapper rail, and the California least tern The impacts of increased flows at different sedimentation levels (between dredgings) would vary What are the cumulative health impacts of reclaimed water upon wildlife ranging from bottom feeding shorebirds and waterfowl to other organisms within the TIC and IRWD ponds; tissue analysis and health evaluation might be needed What are the cumulative health impacts to wildlife in the estuary and bay Proposed summer diversion of San Diego Creek presumably to sustain artificial wetlands would mean streambed and flow alteration for the Creek unless the outfall were pumped back to point of diversion; would sediment from the treatment ponds (the old duck ponds) migrate into the creek, estuary and bay, and what would they contain (metals, etc.) Planned plant expansion will mean a greater watershed nonpoint source input of nitrate and phosphate rich pollution sources Would reclaimed water cause greater buildup of metals or any pollutant r (organic or inorganic) in bay sediments Planned plant expansion will mean a future desire to increase seasonal effluent flows into the Creek, estuary and bay; future plans and capacities need to be evaluated IRWD is already implementing some of the project; the TIC and IRWD ponds have reclaimed water in them this year, the pipeline has been installed to the creek, and so forth - has this been permitted through CEQA? r IRWD continues to divert water from the wetland hydrologic basin by spilling wellwater into San Diego Creek Sediment regimes and impacts to the creek and bay cannot be estimated while the present streambed altering drop structures are in place, thus new data must be collected in another year when they are removed Extending freshwater flows in the estuary might have an impact on use and extent to which bay fishes go upstream Impacts on interstitial and benthic invertebrates are unknown In IRWD's present permits, there are clauses allowing release of reclaimed water during certain conditions such as storm events, and so forth; how much water is actually released and how might that be extended by the project How would the project change the historic practice of raising herbaceous (higher plant) forage on a seasonal basis for the ducks (shallow ponds allowed to partially dry, then entirely dry out, so that forage plants develop, as in the old Duck Club days) be altered and what would the impacts of forage loss or alteration be to waterfowl ( the . ponds would be aquatic resting s::es but not primary forage sites, for example); to migratory shorebirds which historically also used these seasonally drying habitats - would this be a loss to wildlife through perennial open water for either waterfowl or shorebirds? The project must be recognized as a point source contributor UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 3ZVJ0M E1C • DAVIS • MV NZ • LOS ANGELE4 • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIF= • S" FRANaMW `o s SANTA DAMADA • SANTA CRITL w SAN JOAQUIN FRESHWATER MARSH RESERVE BURNS PINON RIDGE DESERT RESERVE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Gary D. Stewart, P.E. Senior WRC Engineer California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 2010 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92507-2409 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92717 �vD a 0 91995 25 January 1995 1 A ER STS W " FILE RE: Export of Groundwater from the San Joaquin Marsh and Alteration of the Tidal Reach of the San Diego Creek Flood Control Channel Dear Mr. Stewart: In previous meetings and correspondences with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS) has expressed its interests in and desire for more effective regulation of adverse impacts to the shallow groundwater aquifer underlying and sustaining the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands, and also of adverse impacts to the tidal reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel that occupies an easement over the UCNRS Sari Joaquin Marsh Reserve. I am writing this letter to inform the RWQCB about present conditions and recent changes at the San Joaquin Marsh and San Diego Creek to which the UCNRS objects, as these circumstances create. adverse impacts to the groundwater and surface water habitats of the UCNRS Reserve. Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) persists in utilizing Discharge Serial No. 001 for the discharge from the wellfield that pumps the shallow aquifer underlying both the Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plant (MWRP) and the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands. By choosing to use Discharge Serial No. 001 (into San Diego Creek) rather than Discharge Serial No. 002 (into the surface waters of the San Joaquin Marsh), IRWD is exporting Marsh groundwater that would otherwise be properly and naturally contributing to the wetlands system from which it is being withdrawn. IRWD does at times use Discharge Serial No. 002, but then only to direct this discharge of the Marsh groundwater into The Irvine Company's Duck Ponds, rather than into the unnamed ditch tributary to the Marsh. These ponds have sealed, essentially impermeable bottoms so there is no opportunity for return by 2 percolation of any of this groundwater to the parent wetlands system from these artificial impoundments. Use of the Marsh groundwater to fill artificial impoundments would commonly be considered a wetlands use, but the type of water management employed at TIC'S Duck Ponds results in an ultimate water , quality that UCNRS has been reluctant to receive as discharge into its Reserve. IRWD has stated its intent to discontinue any future discharge from TIC's Duck Ponds into the Marsh by instead pumping pond discharge to MWRP or to San Diego Creek. The effect of this type of management will be that the Marsh shallow groundwater that is withdrawn by the MWRP wellfield and discharged from Discharge Serial No. 002 into TIC's Duck Ponds will ultimately be exported from the wetlands, either via MWRP or by discharge into San Diego Creek. UCNRS requests that RWQCB direct IRWD to utilize Discharge Serial No. 002 for the routine discharge of the MWRP shallow groundwater wellfield into the unnamed ditch tributary to the Marsh, and that use of Discharge Serial No. 001 be reserved for MWRP stormwater runoff and emergency events only. If RWQCB lacks the immediate authority to specify management of this discharge in the mariner most beneficial to the public interest, then UCNRS requests that RWQCB provide its advice and assistance to UCNRS to remedy in some manner the adverse impacts of shallow groundwater export from the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands. A separate concern of UCNRS is the alteration of the surface waters of the tidal reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel between the MacArthur Avenue and Campus Drive bridges. Following the recent removal of sediment to restore function to the sediment'control basin maintained in this reach, a barrier of wooden flashboards was constructed in the low flow cement channel at the drop structure just upstream from MacArthur Avenue bridge. This has resulted in at least three distinct physical changes to surface waters and associated natural biological habitats from the pre-flashboard condition: 1) the surface elevation of the water surface maintained in this reach is a couple of feet higher and the depth of the water column is greater, 2) water now drains across the entire front of the rip -rap drop structure almost as an overland flow, rather than as a discrete stream in the cement low flow channel accessible to fishes for upstream travel, and 3) regular, periodic upstream tidal flow from Upper Newport Bay is now blocked from entering this reach, eliminating the natural, historic estuarine influences along this reach. UCNRS, as owner and CEQA-designated Trustee Agency steward of the biological habitats along this estuarine reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel, attaches the highest possible values to those habitats that exist as expression of the natural physical conditions (i.e., local topography, geology, hydrology, climate and meteorology, etc.) minimally impacted by artificial, anthropogenic alterations. Maintenance of a sediment control basin in the reach of San Diego Creek flood control channel that lies upon UCNRS property did not, until this recent installation of flashboards in the drop structure low flow channel, interfere with the co -existence of a vital, all -too -scarce estuarine habitat corridor between Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Habitat Preserve, administered by California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G), and the San Joaquin Marsh Reserve, administered by UCNRS. Between the infrequent times of dredging disruption to remove accumulated sediments and restore design function to the sediment control basin constructed in this reach of San Diego Creek, shallow sandbars of sediment deposits evolve that support specific estuarine communities of benthic invertebrates and predatory waterfowl; estuarine fish species such as mullet (Mugil cephalus Linnaeus) move upstream from Upper Newport Bay and utilize the habitats of the San Diego Creek flood control channel on the UCNRS Reserve; the federally -listed endangered Light- footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) can —and does —move along a continuous estuarine corridor to opportunistically utilize available habitat in the San Joaquin Marsh Reserve. These are examples of the irreplaceable, generally extinguished natural biotic components of Orange County's altered watersheds that still survive in a context of a controlled and managed flood control channel serving as the only remaining link between the regionally important natural habitat preserves of the Marsh and the Bay. The alteration of the San Diego Creek flood control habitats caused by this recent addition of obstructing flashboards to the concrete low -flow channel at the MacArthur Avenue bridge drop structure is unacceptable to the UCNRS, and we request the advice and assistance of the RWQCB to remedy this situation as soon as possible, to reestablish the historic, natural estuarine connections across the MacArthur Avenue bridge drop structure that have recently been eliminated. (An identical flashboard obstruction has been installed at the drop structure just upstream from the Campus Drive bridge, and this too has altered streambed habitats in a manner to which — as an interested downstream property owner and Trustee Agency — the UCNRS objects, although this is not also historically and naturally an estuarine reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel on UCNRS property.) Mr. Stewart, we request timely advice and assistance from the RWQCB to enable the UCNRS to fulfill its public trustee responsibilities as stewards of publically- owned, irreplaceable natural wetlands and estuarine habitats. UCNRS is committed to the prevention of further unneeded, anthropocentric alteration of habitats and further elimination of the surviving natural, native biotic elements that still survive at the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands and along the San Diego Creek flood control Channel. Sincerely yours, Dr. William L. Bretz, Manager San Joaquin Marsh Reserve .cc: UCNRS Director Elliott -Fisk Professor Bradley, UC Irvine Cheryl Heffly, CDF&G Richard Zembal, USFWS Dr. Peter A. Bowler, Academic Coordinator San Joaquin Marsh Reserve 3 Scoping Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes SCO 10017A4E. WP5 f.. -p INS nl � 1.2 t VA 60 o n c4 w M N � M � N p i 2 nl � 1.2 t VA Meeting;calli . Type of mee Ken Thompson, Director of Water Quality Environmental Impact Report Scoping Meeting 0 Agenda topics 9:30-9:35 AM . ......Introductions, 9:35-9:40 AM Project --Description, History, Proposed Moi 9:40-9:50 AM. CEQA--Proposed EIR'Format 9:50-9:55 AM EIR--Alternatives 9:55-10:10 AM Environmental Analysis Statement --Finding 10:10-10:20 Project Status --Reservoirs, Nitrification -Der. 10:20 -End Open Discussion Special notes: Morning Meeting for Cities 0 WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT TABLE OF DOCUMENTS • Wetlands Demonstration Project Feasibility Study • Wetlands Demonstration Project CEQA Negative Declaration • Wetlands Demonstration Project CEQA Initial Study • Wetlands Demonstration Project Environmental Analysis Statement • Wetlands Demonstration Project Draft Operations Plan • Wetlands Water Supply Project Expanded Notice of Preparation for focused Staged Environmental Impact Report • Wetlands Water Supply Project Initial Study 0 IRWD WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT CITIES SCOPING MEETING MINUTES (February 9, 1995, 9:30 AM, at IRWD Operation Center) The meeting began at 9:40 at the IRWD Michelson Treatment Plant Multi -Purpose Room. Attendees: Mark Tomich, City of Irvine John Douglas, City of Newport Beach John Wolter, City of Newport Beach Jean Watt, City of Newport Beach Nancy Skinner, Citizen's Harbor Quality Committee Lou Denger, IRWD Jim Hyde IRWD Carl Spangenberg, IRWD Ken Thompson, IRWD Ron Young, IRWD Jennifer Cohen, C112M HILL Steve Costa, CH2M HILL Tom Peters, C112M HILL Ken Thompson began the meeting with introductions. He stated that this is one of three scoping meetings for the project E1R, and that the purpose of the scoping meeting is to receive input and feedback on the project to ensure that all issues are incorporated into the EIR. He stated that the minutes will be available in a week, and requested any feedback on the minutes should be made in writing. Jim Hyde gave a brief history of the duck ponds and discussion of the project. The duck ponds were historically used by hunters for the limited hunting of ducks, and was a good place for ducks to rest and feed along the Pacific Flyway. The ponds were filled with water, and the ponds were drained to the UC Natural Reserve System Marsh at the end of the season. The proposed project is the development of seasonal wetlands and water supply for waterfowl habitat for the period between October through March. The ponds will be a flow through system of open water that further reduce nitrates from the Michelson Treatment Plant during the winter months when reclaimed water demand is low. IRWD proposes a discharge of up to 5 million gallons per day (mgd) to San Diego Creek during a two year demonstration project. Data collected from this two year period (Phase 1) will be used to refine a longer term wetlands water supply program (Phase Il). r Cities Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 2 John Douglas asked if devegetation of the duck ponds defeats the purpose of filtration. Jim Hyde and Ken Thompson noted that studies (including work by Dr. Alex Horne at Prado Dam who will be involved in the IRWD project), conclude that the majority of nutrient removal is through bacteria in the soil. Tom Peters added that the project will have two parallel treatment trains, one with vegetation and one without, to gain further data on the effectiveness of vegetation in nutrient removal at the ponds. Nancy Skinner asked why there is no mention that the primary purpose of the project is to discharge excess reclaimed water. Jim Hyde stated that first goal is to look for new and additional uses for reclaimed water; a side benefit is the disposal of the water. Nancy Skinner then asked why not just keep the 50 million gallons stored in the duck ponds all season and then send it back to the treatment plant. Jim Hyde stated that they can't have stagnant water, and it becomes a difficult water to treat at the end of the winter season, especially when demands for reclaimed water resume. Ken Thompson added that it would have to be fed back to the Michelson Plant in April, and used for reclamation at a time that is not acceptable under the IRWD reclaimed water operations. John Douglas suggested that a possible purpose for this method of disposal is to develop more capacity by avoiding discharge to County Sanitation District of Orange County (CSDOC). Ken Thompson stated this is not an effort to save capacity; IRWD has plenty of surplus capacity at the Sanitation Districts. Ron Young stated that the IRWD has been looking at a variety of beneficial uses for reclaimed water such as landscaping, commercial buildings, cooling water and environmental uses. This project fulfills IRWD's goal of using reclaimed water for an environmental use. He further stated that the need for habitat comes from the City of Irvine's plan for the open marsh area that has already been already started. A requirement for this plan is a source of water, which IRWD, as a water supply agency could provide. Ron Young agreed there is a benefit to IRWD, but that is a side benefit, not the primary purpose of the project. John Wolter stated that the list of alternatives including the No Project, will be addressed in the EIR. Ken Thompson described IRWD's proposed monitoring program. An internal (on-site) monitoring program will be conducted during the two-year demonstration project to determine the optimal operating criteria for the permanent duck ponds for meeting end of the pipe water quality objectives. An external (off-site) monitoring program is proposed to i_. Cities Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 3 evaluate the holistic response (including San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay) to ensure no impacts to the downstream resources. IRWD will develop the external monitoring program for the two-year demonstration phase during the Draft EIR process, and will be asking for input. IRWD suggested forming a monitoring committee composed of interested resource agencies and cities, and requested feedback as to who should be represented on the committee. John Wolter suggested monitoring San Diego Creek and Newport Bay during both phases of the project, and prior to the proposed discharge for comparison purposes. Tom Peters summarized the history of the project to date and mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project design. He then explained the Expanded Notice of Preparation (NOP) process. This process provides more information to the public and regulatory agencies by including a summary of preliminary environmental findings which help focus those impacts identified as potentially significant. A secondary purpose is to allow the lead agency to ask responsible agencies to define thresholds of significance for use in identifying the significance of impacts and defming mitigation. John Douglas asked why the Coastal Commission was not included in the NOP mailing list. Tom Peters stated that the project had been discussed with them earlier, but they have not indicated any issues or concerns. However, they will be included on the Draft EIR circulation list. John Wolter mentioned the Coastal Commission will circulate amended NPDES regulations for the coastal zone, and IRWD should look for them within the next 3 months. Tom Peters then discussed the IRWD Board's decision to prepare a Focused EIR. The EIR will be a "Focused, Staged EIR". A Focused EIR is encouraged when the issues have been reviewed and focused on potentially significant effects. For this project the focused issues are: 1) the fate of nitrates in Newport Bay, 2) sediment transport with the additional flow in the creek, and 3) impacts from increased freshwater flows. Tom Peters stated that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Staged EIR for projects scheduled to be built in phases, with each requiring its own set of multiple discretionary approvals. The Staged EIR will describe the impacts of the Phase I (demonstration project) in a detailed manner and will take into account in a more general way the impacts of the long term operation (Phase II). Additional environmental review will be required for Phase H. Cities Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 4 ' He concluded with a brief description of the alternatives to be addressed in the EIR, ' including the no project (not filling the ponds); recirculation of water (discharge back into the treatment plant); reduced flow; and alternative locations. I John Wolter asked whether the City of Irvine's San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan project could be considered a source of reclaimed water. Tom Peters replied that this is a separate project. Mark Tomich stated that the City's EIR is considering that alternative. John Wolter would like to see efforts made to work cooperatively with other agencies to develop a diversion structure for San Diego Creek water. He feels these projects are related, and the EIRs should address the diversion of low flows in San Diego Creek as a source of water to reduce nutrients. Mark Tomich mentioned that cost of the diversion structure is an issue. Nancy Skinner would like to see the diversion of San Diego Creek water or a combination of dewatering water and creek water as an alternative in the EIR. She stated that if the purpose of the project is to find a use for reclaimed water, then the EIR should consider other alternative uses such as spraying on hillsides. John Douglas noted that how the project objectives are defined becomes the basis for accepting or rejecting alternatives for the EIR. He would like the EIR to address 1) Land Use, since the City of Newport Beach General Plan has policies calling for the protection of Newport Bay; 2) Hazards, since there may be health hazards associated with reclaimed water; 3) Public Services, since there could be an increase public service burden to clean- up any increases in algae growth. He commented that in the Initial Study all questions on the checklist should have been answered. John Douglas asked if IRWD is anticipating receiving any mitigation credits for creating wetland habitat that can be sold to developers or other agencies needing mitigation credits. Ken Thompson said they had not held any formal meeting with the resource agencies regarding this. John Wolter discussed the City of Newport Beach's experience with wetland mitigation credits associated with some of the recent road projects. Ron Young stated that since the project is an open water project for duck habitat (not a riparian project), it is not considered for wetland mitigation credits. Nancy Skinner questioned whether the creation of a diversion structure for San Diego Creek would be considered a mitigation. Mark Tomich asked about the work already underway at the IRWD for this project, and suggested that it would be appropriate to defer activity until the EIR is completed. Tom L.. Cities Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 5 Peters stated that the work taking place is internal only, such as improvements of the weirs needed to develop the demonstration project. Ken Thompson added that this is internal plumbing work needed to make preliminary evaluations before the demonstration project. He added that at this time IRWD has a unique opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the system now for a 1-2 month period while IRWD's Rattlesnake Reservoir is empty. There will be no discharge to San Diego Creek. John Wolter stated that he would like to have monitoring of the entire Bay, not just the Upper Bay since water quality could be affected throughout the Bay including the lower bay. Steve Costa summarized the findings of the environmental analysis included in the NOP package. • Instream traps adequately handle the coarse load of sediment. There is no contribution of fine sediments from the discharge, and will slightly decrease the concentration of fine sediments due to the increase in flushing. • Nitrate concentration will decrease in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay from a combination of a decrease in input concentration and increase in flushing to the open bay system. This will result in a reduced tendency for eutrophication in the bay. • Changes in salinity will be negligible overall but will vary with location (slightly less salinity at the upper end of Upper Newport Bay). Existing estuarine conditions will not be disrupted. The changes will not be long enough to change vegetation, and may help cordgrass; benthic organisms and fish will experience variations within their normal expected range. Nancy Skinner suggested more analysis of the Lower Newport Bay. She expressed concern over mass loading impact to the Lower Bay. When there was 12,000 lbs per day of nitrogen coming from San Diego Creek, there was no impact to the Upper Bay; however impacts were seen in the Lower Bay. The dredging in the Upper Bay allowed more dilution in the Upper Bay. She stated that the peak was 12,000 lbs/day; it's now down to about 4,000 lbs/day. Steve Costa re -iterated that since the concentration in the Upper Bay will be lowered, a decrease in concentration will occur in the Lower Bay as well. Costa indicated that he did not study the Lower Bay, but suspected that to be the case. Cities Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 6 Nancy Skinner suggested that the EIR impact analysis be based on the permit application requests, essentially providing a worst-case analysis. Jim Hyde confirmed that the EIR analysis will be based on maximum case (worst-case) permit requests. Nancy Skinner clarified that the 12,000 lbs of nitrate is expressed as nitrate. Ken Thompson discussed the Michelson Treatment Plant's optimization in treating ammonium and nitrate. Effluent from the plant over the last month is now down to about 2-3 mg/1 nitrate and less than 0.5 mg/1 ammonium at a flow of 3 mgd. The numbers will go up a little with more flow. Nancy expressed concern over how much acreage of open surface water. She suggested the acreage be clarified. Dr. Horne made calculations using 80 acres. Jim Hyde stated there will be 57 acres of shallow ponds; 5 acres of deeper ponds (not in calculation). The acreage doesn't include areas between the ponds; just open surface water. Tom Peters stated that the acreage will be clarified in the EIR. Dr. Horne will re- work the analysis based on better data from the plant and more refined assumptions. Nancy Skinner questioned whether IRWD will amend their application to the RWQCB with correct figures. Jim Hyde stated that IRWD will send the RWQCB revised figures for NPDES application. Nancy asked how one can accurately monitor water quality effects on the bay. Can algae uptake be measured? If there is an effect, how can one pinpoint who's causing the effect? Ken Thompson stated the monitoring program will help with this, and there will be upstream measurements of the IRWD discharge. Nancy stated that as nitrate levels were historically lowered, algae growth in the bay decreased. Dredging also helped. Ms. Skinner questioned why anyone would add nitrate to the bay when efforts have been made for the past 10 years to lower nitrate input. i, Steve Costa re -iterated that when loading was decreased, concentration decreased, and dredging increased the flushing which also reduced the concentration. With the proposed project, the concentrations will be reduced further. Tidal flushing enhances the reduction in concentration. Nancy Skinner asked if the results can be seen with a dye as a tracer to help understand this concept. l_� Cities Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 7 Steve Costa said salinity can be used more cost-effectively as a "tracer". Nancy Skinner asked how algae uptake is calculated. Steve Costa stated that ambient levels were analyzed. There is excess in the water already, so analysis done so far is adequate. However, there are ways of looking at the dynamics and the uptake, and assessing how that will change. Bioassays with bay water can be conducted with the accepted relationships such as EPA's eutrophication models. Nancy Skinner asked why EPA now feels that mass loading is more important than concentration in looking at pollutants of all kinds. Steve Costa replied that mass loading is important in how it controls concentrations. EPA is doing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) studies which allocate the discharge of constituents among the various discharges and non -point source contributors. But loading is only important as it control concentrations since concentrations control the biological response. Nancy Skinner suggested IRWD abandon the project since the citizens of Newport Beach have worked for 10 years to control nitrate in the bay. Jean Watt noted that Nancy Skinner is a member of the City of Newport Beach's Harbor Quality Committee, and represents them to the City Council. Nancy Skinner added that the more expensive option of discharge to the Orange County Sanitation District is the cost of doing business. She feels it is not a big amount for the IRWD customers. Jim Hyde asked Nancy Skinner for reports of when nitrogen was considered toxic for the bay. She believes OCEMA has studies on that, and that the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) studies found levels at which toxicity occurs. Jim Hyde asked if OCEMA applied that data to Newport Bay. Nancy Skinner stated no; that the Skinners had applied the data to the bay. Ms. Skinner re -iterated that she would like to see San Diego Creek water diverted to the duck ponds for treatment. John Douglas asked if well injection was an option for disposing the water? Ken Thompson stated that IRWD has 15 mgd downstream capacity at CSDOC, based on average dry weather flow of 11 mgd. When reclaimed water cannot be used, IRWD rA Cities Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page S r, discharges to CSDOC. There is downstream capacity. Ken stated that it is no cheaper to treat it upstream than downstream at CSDOC. This project is to provide an economically viable source of water for the duck ponds. In looking at alternatives, IRWD has to look at what make sense economically. IRWD is looking at groundwater injection for additional seasonal storage to meet summer peaks. These are not options for the EIR, since the project is to create duck ponds. This project was originally directed by the IRWD Board because there wasn't enough groundwater to supply the marsh. IRWD staff told the Board that an NPDES permit to discharge would be required. There is only excess treatment water when it is treated. When it is not treated, it is sent to CSDOC. The Michelson Treatment Plant will be expanded when there is a need to provide for an additional demand of water. IRWD will not build a project that has a negative impact on the rate payers. John Douglas does not believe a negative impact on the rate payers should exclude something for consideration as an alternative. It should be evaluated and rejected as economically unfeasible. Ken Thompson said this will be evaluated from a variety of perspectives such as water quality and economics. John Douglas asked if an alternative analyzing groundwater injection was considered. Ken Thompson stated that groundwater injection would not fulfill the project objectives of creating a wetland project. John Douglas feels the project is being defined too narrowly, (just as a wetlands enhancement project), and that they see it as a broader capacity expansion project. Ken Thompson stated that the plant capacity with the RWQCB is 15 mgd; this will not change. All water from wetlands project has to go through full treatment. John Douglas stated that this project would preserve additional capacity at CSDOC. Ken re -iterated that this would be a potential side benefit of the project. Ken Thompson questioned whether the RWQCB would view any capacity/expansion of the treatment as fail-safe since they are currently under the RWQCB limit of 15 mgd treatment. IRWD is not asking the RWQCB for any additional capacity. When they go above 15 mgd, the RWQCB may ask if the wetlands are a reliable system for treatment. John Douglas re -iterated that as a result of the NOP process, IRWD should re-examine the definition of the project. Mark Tomich asked about CSDOC charges. Ken Thompson stated that there is a charge to buy capital capacity in the plant, and they are charged a treatment cost for every 1 mgd sent to CSDOC. IRWD Michelson Plant treatment costs are comparable to CSDOC. l Nancy Skinner said Peer Swan stated that the purchase price was $4-5 million to buy additional 1 mgd, which equates to a $50 one time charge to each Irvine household. Ken Cities Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 9 Thompson stated that to avoid buying additional capacity downstream in the future assumes the RWQCB will say they wetlands project is reliable and fail-safe. This issue has not ever been brought up to the RWQCB. John Douglas would like to see as an additional goal, to reduce nitrogen into the Bay. Pull other efforts together and work toward diverting San Diego Creek low flows to reduce nitrogen to the Bay. Marc Tomich commented on coordination with the City of Irvine's Enhancement Plan. Encourages close contact with LSA who is preparing the EIR. Wants a discussion of the relationships of the projects' viability and impacts. The two projects shouldn't be treated as exclusive of one another. John Douglas asked if wetlands treatment value could be enhanced by using other nearby wetlands for treatment. Mark Tomich stated that the UC Natural Reserve System marsh depends on existing flows from east of Campus, and they don't want these flows to change. They are looking at different flows, such as brackish water, but want no new freshwater flows. He stated that the San Joaquin Marsh EIR now excludes the UC Natural Reserve System Marsh. Tom Peters asked Nancy Skinner if she knows of any back-up data showing low concentrations of nitrate where there was high uptake in algae growth she had observed. She noted she had observed this in the 1985-86 winter, but did not correlate this with any data. Nancy then discussed these sources of nitrate including the IRWD Sand Canyon Plant, nurseries, and agricultural irrigation. These have all been addressed and improvements in nitrate concentrations levels have resulted. John Wolter asked whether IRWD is a partner in the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan. Ken Thompson said IRWD is participating in the project. John Douglas asked when the close of the public comment period is. Jim Hyde indicated February 24, 1995. John Douglas added that the public agencies have 10 days to review the Final EIR before certification. Ken Thompson asked John Wolter about the progress of the dredging project. John Wolter stated that they have established habitat value of the bay. They are now talking with Doug Wheeler, the main contact at California Department of Fish and Game. They are also negotiating with the various Port districts on how much credit they can get for mitigation. To become mitigation, there must be money for ongoing maintenance. They Cities Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 10 f estimate $6.5 - 7 million is for an interest payment to support ongoing maintenance. They need $11 million for the total project. They have completed plans for the bioassays, and are now waiting to formalize efforts with Fish and Game. If funding comes through, the project could start next October or November. They are still working with Army Corps of Engineers on another environmental project in the upper bay that could continue with this additional funding. They need to start dredging soon since the latest storms have filled the upper basin even more. Habitats in the bay could change if dredging doesn't begin soon. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon. 0— tr r � 4) 4) �O � L(n IL = >% I_ �. C .—M L tm �r cc 4) C4) U) G C C m .O 4 V rA fil. rJ N ri t I � 1 A4 a 00 h � I+ v t t ' ON OJ a CT � VN sy U �~ rA fil. rJ N ri t I � 1 A4 a 00 h � I+ a 0 � a 0 �► C a n IRWD WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AGENCY SCOPING MEETING MINUTES (February 9, 1995, 1:30 PM, at IRWD Operation Center) The meeting began at 1:40 at the IRWD Michelson Treatment Plant Multi -Purpose Room. Attendees: Chris Crompton, Orange County Environmental Management Agency Bruce Moore, Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) Tom Rossmiller, Orange County EMA (Harbors, Beaches and Parks) Troy Kelly, California Department of Fish and Game Scott Dawson, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Hope Smythe, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Joanne Schneider, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Peter Bowler, University of California Natural Reserve System Bill Bretz, University of California Natural Reserve System Adrian Wolf, State Parks (Crystal Cove) Lou Denger, IRWD Jim Hyde IRWD Carl Spangenberg, IRWD Ken Thompson, IRWD Ron Young, IRWD Jennifer Cohen, C112M HILL Steve Costa, CH2M HILL Tom Peters, CH2M HILL Ken Thompson began the meeting with introductions. He stated that this is one of three scoping meetings for the project EIR. He requested input and feedback on the project to ensure that all issues are incorporated into the EIR. He stated that the minutes will be available in a week, and requested any feedback on the minutes should be made in writing. Jim Hyde gave a brief history of the duck ponds and discussion of the project. The duck ponds were historically used by hunters for the limited hunting of ducks, and was a good place for ducks to rest and feed along the Pacific Flyway. The ponds have historically been were filled with water, and drained to the UC Natural Reserve System Marsh at the end of the season. The proposed project would develop seasonal wetlands and provide a water supply for waterfowl habitat for the period between October through March. The ponds will be a flow through system of open water that further reduces nitrates from reclaimed water from the Michelson Treatment Plant during the winter months when reclaimed water demand is f Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 2 low. IRWD proposes a discharge of up to 5 million gallons per day (mgd) to San Diego Creek during a two year demonstration project. Data collected from this two year period (Phase 1) will be used to refine a longer term wetlands water supply program (Phase II). Ken Thompson described IRWD's proposed monitoring program. An internal (on-site) monitoring program will be conducted during the two-year demonstration project to determine the optimal operating criteria for the permanent duck ponds for meeting end of the pipe water quality objectives. An external (off-site) monitoring program is proposed to evaluate the holistic response (including San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay) to ensure no impacts to the downstream resources. IRWD will develop the external monitoring program for the two-year demonstration phase during the Draft EIR process, and will be asking for input. IRWD suggested forming a monitoring committee composed of interested resource agencies and cities, and requested feedback as to who should be represented on the committee. Tom Peters summarized the history of the project to date and mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project as design features. He then explained the expanded Notice of Preparation (NOP) process. This process provides more information to the public and regulatory agencies by including a summary of preliminary environmental findings which help focus those impacts identified as potentially significant. A secondary purpose is to allow the lead agency to ask responsible agencies to define thresholds of significance for use in identifying the significance of impacts and defining mitigation. Tom Peters then discussed the IRWD Board's decision to prepare a Focused EIR. He explained that the EIR will be a "Focused, Staged EIR". A Focused EIR is encouraged when the issues have been reviewed and focused on potentially significant effects. For this project the focused issues are: 1) the fate of nitrates in Newport Bay, 2) sediment transport with the additional flow in the creek, and 3) impacts from increased freshwater flows. Tom Peters stated that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Staged EIR for projects scheduled to be built in phases, with each requiring its own set of multiple discretionary approvals. The Staged EIR will describe the impacts of the Phase I (demonstration project) in a detailed manner and will take into account in a more general way the impacts of the long term operation (Phase II). Additional environmental review will be required for Phase II. He concluded with a brief description of the alternatives to be addressed in the EIR. The , alternatives include "no project" (not filling the ponds); recirculation of water (discharge back into the treatment plant); reduced flow; and alternative location. i, L_, Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 3 Steve Costa summarized the findings of the environmental analysis included in the NOP package. • Instream traps adequately handle the coarse load of sediments. There is no contribution of fine sediments from the discharge, and will in fact decrease the concentration of fine sediments due to the increase in flushing. • Nitrate concentration will decrease in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay from a combination of a decrease in input concentration and increase in flushing to the open bay system. This will result in a reduced tendency for eutrophication. • Changes in salinity will be negligible overall but will vary with location (slightly less salinity at the upper end of Upper Newport Bay). Existing estuarine conditions will not be disrupted. The changes will not be long enough to change vegetation, and may help cordgrass; benthic organisms and fish will experience variations within their normal expected range. The following are brief descriptions of the comments provided: 1. Chris Crompton, Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Mr. Crompton stated that the County has no position on the project, but is in favor of a focused EIR that presents meaningful data to assess impacts to San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. Other comments by Mr. Crompton included: • Suggested sediment shouldn't be dismissed as insignificant; existing in - channel sediment basins have low -flow notches, whereby under low flow conditions, erosion occurs between the basins carrying sediment into the bay. It is more expensive to remove sediment from in -bay basins than from in -channel basins. • Stated that species migration with increased flushing may become an issue. Mentioned studies showing that after the Mississippi River floods, studies in the Gulf of Mexico showed that increased flushing resulted in some species migration. • Questioned the biological value of the proposed ponds, and whether the discharge to the ponds is chlorinated and if so, what impact this would have on the ponds. r Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 4 • Mentioned that the marsh, creek and bay have impairments recognized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and that the impairment issues must be examined. • Recommended the project be studied in relation to other endeavors such as flood control, University operation of its marsh, sediment control and creek enhancement projects. • Noted that data can be interpreted in many ways, and recommended that an agreement be drafted on how the data would be analyzed to avoid data interpretation becoming an issue in the EIR. Ken Thompson asked Mr. Crompton if he would be willing to participate on the monitoring committee. Mr. Crompton replied that he cannot commit, given the County's current financial circumstances, but he is interested in the outcome. 2. Hope Symthe, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB will be looking at potential impacts to the beneficial uses of Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek. • One of the RWQCB's issues is nutrients. Wants winter baseline data separated out from the summer data to see impacts, and help determine how the discharge affects algal growth in the summer months. Would like to see the variations in flow during the two seasons as well. • Questioned the notion that algae growth depends on concentration, not mass. Suggested this issue be studied in detail. Would like to see the effects of dissolved oxygen and temperature changes studied as well. Asked that past winter and summer data be examined to identify optimum conditions for algal growth. • Expressed interest in an extensive monitoring program. • Suggested sediment be studied from a water quality perspective (not just as a loading concern); wanted to know if there will be an influx of nutrients from sediments back into the water column if the discharge dilutes the water column concentration of the nutrients. Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 5 • Suggested the model used in the Negative Declaration analysis may be too simplistic. Instead, suggested the bay be modeled in segments to look at potential impacts in discrete sections. • Suggested the EIR analyze water quality before and after the permitting of nurseries under nitrogen limits (permitting began in 1988/1989). 4. Joanne Schneider - Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. • Suggested the concentration versus mass issue for nitrate be examined in more detail. • Stated that the Basin Plan established an objective of 13 milligrams per liter (mg/1) for nitrogen, but believes this number is highly questionable, and bears review. This objective should not be used as a basis of comparison when determining significance of impacts. • Re -iterated the RWQCB's opinion that the model used for the project study was too simplistic and should be segmented; needs to be convinced that the unloading is a reality in different parts of the bay, but is not sure how the bay should be segmented. Chris Crompton suggested keeping the Upper Bay as a separate segment given the proposed dredging projects. Ken Thompson asked what numbers should be used as an objective for the wetlands water supply discharge. Joanne Schneider stated that the RWQCB is not in a position to answer that. Peter Bowler (UC Natural Reserve System) stated that 0.01 mg/l is the lower limit for algae growth, but realizes this is not a realistic number. 4. Tom Rossmiller, Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks Tom Rossmiller stated that his agency is primarily interested in the dredging projects. • County has prepared a numerical model of the hydrodynamics of the Upper Newport Bay with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). • Anticipates that the Port of Long Beach can get mitigation credits for dredging of the Unit III Basin (below the Unit I Basin) of Upper Newport Bay. The depth must be 10 - 14 mean sea water level (msl) for deep water credits need by the Port of Long Beach. Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 6 • Also looking to the Corps to help with dredging of Unit II Basin and environmental enhancement work of Upper Newport Bay, although there is disagreement among the resource agencies over what this work should include. • The County, with the Corps, plans to refine the numerical model by adding sediment transport and water quality elements. Their "Initial Project Management Plan" for the Upper Newport Bay work has been submitted to Washington D.C. for approval, but there is no guarantee for this work will proceed. • Agrees with the RWQCB that mass loading versus concentration is a critical issue, and must be studied in depth. Suggested that macro and micronutrients be addressed with regard to changes in flushing characteristics. Suggested Professor Peter Dixon's studies of bioassay techniques of algae growth on the bay be reviewed and updated. Suggested phosphorus concentrations be examined in more detail. Tom Peters asked Mr. Rossmiller for more information regarding other related projects that may be considered in the cumulative effects analysis of the EIR. Mr. Rossmiller mentioned the following projects: • Newport Dunes Marina dredging project; • Dover Shores dredging project; • Unit I sediment basin dredging project; • Channel to be dredged from the Coast Highway bridge through Newport Bay to the Unit I basin to get barges in for Unit I basin dredging project; • Improvements around Shellmaker Island in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game; • OCEMA's evaluation of flushing of water in the Upper Newport Bay (they monitor velocity during a complete tidal cycle) at the Coast Highway bridge. Mr. Rossmiller mentioned that the Newport Dunes is showing signs of sediment accumulation in just three weeks after the heavy January, 1995 storms. He suspects the hydrodynamics of Newport Bay have changed in the past year. Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 7 Chris Crompton noted the record flows on San Diego Creek this year, something on the order of 20,000 cfs flow into the bay. Mr. Crompton mentioned the County's 3 in -channel basin dredging projects in San Diego Creek: • In -channel basin #1 (closest to the bay) had 60-80,000 cubic yards removed last year; • In -channel basin #2 (above Campus Drive) was full before the recent storm, and not yet dredged out; • In -channel basin #3 (near the IRWD Michelson Plant) had some construction work completed on the top and bottom, but the dredging is not yet completed because there has been some difficulty in getting rid of the material. Mr. Crompton also mentioned the Enhancement Plan for San Diego Creek is the subject of a grant application. This project is still in the planning phases. 5. Troy Kelly, California Department of Fish and Game Troy Kelly noted that his Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had met earlier with the IRWD, and posed lots of questions about the proposed project that need to be addressed. He mentioned the following points: • Dredging projects mean a commitment to keeping the Bay estuarine, not as a riparian corridor of freshwater that has occurred in the past without dredging projects. • No guarantee that dredging of the basins (both in the bay and in San Diego Creek) will occur now or in the future, given competition for funds; could be a mass shift back to riparian freshwater vegetation in the Upper Newport Bay without dredging projects. • Fluctuations in salinity affect cordgrass and pickleweed which could impact the endangered Light-footed Clapper Rail and Beldings Savannah Sparrow, and other impacts throughout the ecosystem. • Concerned about the cumulative long-term effects of nutrients as they drop out of the tidal system. Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 8 • Questioned the effectiveness of regrowing vegetation around the duck ponds each season; thinks it is more effective for nitrate removal to keep year round vegetation. • Would like to see San Diego Creek restored; prefers use of flashboards to prevent tidal influence up to the Campus Drive bridge. 6. Bill Bretz, U.C. Natural Reserve System • Would like to see agreement on the baseline data and consideration of micronutrients and micropollutants (metals and organic compounds). • Believes that ponds, creek channel and bay sediments are sinks and should be studied for cumulative loading of toxics. Concerned over the effect on the food web. 7. Peter Bowler, U.C. Natural Reserve System Mr. Bowler is concerned over anthropogenic influences, and stated that any further impact to freshwater is serious. Mr. Bowler then read from a list of issues and concerns (see attachment). 8. Adrian Wolf, California State Park Department (Crystal Cove) • Questioned how the draining of Pond 11 would affect Clapper Rail habitat. • Asked about the method of vegetation removal around the ponds. Ken Thompson stated that water will be kept in Pond 11 year round as open water migratory bird habitat. The meeting adjourned at 3:15 PM. Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 9 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE ynaasr - DAVU • MUM - L= ANCMU • =V=U=• saxnmco • wt rrAxcuoo YNiADAnsADA • iAMA cans SAN JOAQUIN FRESHWATER MARSH RESERVE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92717 BURNS FINON RIDGE DESERT RESERVE WATER Q�AL1-�y DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY 9 February 1 SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE FEB 00 1995 James Hyde, Environmental Compliance Specialist IRVINE R00 .� . Irvine Ranch Water DistrictEK P.O. Box 57000 Irvine CA 92719-7000 Re: Expanded Notice of Preparation of an EIR, Project No. 33702, Wetlands Water Supply Project Dear Mr. Hyde: This letter is to provide you with the views of the University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS), a CEQA-designated Trustee Agency (State Guidelines 15386(d)), concerning the scope and content of the environmental information to be developed in the preparation of an EIR for Project No. 33702. UCNRS does not agree with the stated assumption that "the project is unlikely to Have any significant adverse environmental effect." It is our view that the Initial Study and the Environmental Analysis Statement for the Wetlands Demonstration Project Negative Declaration, as well as the Initial Study for the proposed focused Staged EIR, are seriously flawed in their determinations that there would be no potentially significant impacts. The three topics being proposed as the focus of the EIR are inadequate for providing a meaningful analysis of the potential impacts from the project. UCNRS requests that the scope of the EIR be expanded to address and analyze the issues included on the attached list, "Significant issues requiring impact analysis." We look forward to elaborating and explaining to your staff and consultants the reasons for including all of these issues. Briefly, although there have been previous studies that provide some valuable information about the biological, chemical and hydrological characteristics of the creek and bay estuarine receiving waters, this body of information is not sufficient to provide an understanding of the impacts of the proposed project. In fact there are several studies which explicitly suggest that the natural esturarine community will be significantly altered by the conditions of the proposed project. Nitrate is not the only potential pollutant that should be considered, especially considerpermanentinfluenceinfluen a on the estuary and the San Joaquin Marsh duck ponds. Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 10 Although the effluent use in the project may meet Title 22 requirements, there will be long-term cumulative deposition of low concentration pollutants (i.e., heavy metals) in the substrates of the duck ponds, and in the sediments of the creek and basy, and the potential for impacts on the health of native fauna must be considered. There appears to be no provision for monitoring impacts to the creek and bay habitats, as proposed for the duck ponds themselves. This type of monitoring must be expanded to include the estuarine habitats. UCNRS is concerned that inappropriate baseline conditions might be defined while considering the potential impacts of the proposed project. It must be recognized that the reach of San Diego Creek between Campus Drive bridge and MacArthur Avenue bridge includes habitats in the flood control channel easement that are legally and functionally part of the UCNRS 995 ton Mr.Stewartart of Marshuin Reserve. Attached is a copy of a letter dated l5 January anu d documenting UCNRS the California Regional Water Quality concerns about operations of the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP) shallow groundwater wellfield, and concerns about recent laterations of the surface waters of San Diego Creek. UCNRS asks that the analyses of the EER recognize the historic and natural estuarine conditions of the San Diego Geek channel on its Reserve property, and that the actual impacts of MWRP wellfield operations also be considered. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope proposed EIR for Project 33702. Sincerely yours, a� —$— ✓ William L. Bretz, Manager Peter A. Bowler, Academic Coordinator UCNRS San Joaquin Marsh Reserve UCNRS Attachments Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 11 Significant issues requiring impact analysis in a CEQA-guided EIR and a corresponding NEPA directed EIS: TMDL concept for the estuary and upper bay for nitrate and orthophosphate Issue of adding any new freshwater to the estuary and bay system In terms of natural ionic mixes in the bay and estuary, would transforming a component of the Creel: to reclaimed water shift from a more natural ionic condition to one more characteristic of artificial wetlands Fluctuation of the wedge and seasonal movement of salt within the interstitial column is not well known for Back Bay Different water year concerns: impacts would be different in very wet EI Nino years as opposed to drought years or median precipitation years Different impacts due to fall and spring tidal regimes if reclaimed water addition were either extended later or begun earlier How does the proposal influence the Back Bay management plan This proposal would lock salt marsh and other bay/estuary elements to a current base level of habitat; since freshwater would be a limiting factor for restoration of expansion Typha replacement of Salicornia could be a concern; other longterm vegetational shifts could also occur Potential jmpacts to Belding's savannah sparrow, the light-footed clapper rail, and the California least tern The impacts of increased flows at different sedimentation levels (between dredgings) would vary — What are the cumulative health impacts of reclaimed water upon wildlife ranging from bottom feeding shorebirds and waterfowl to other organisms within the TIC and IRWD ponds; tissue analysis and health evaluation might be needed What are the cumulative health impacts to wildlife in the estuary and bay Proposed summer diversion of San Diego Creek presumably to sustain artificial wetlands would mean streambed and flow alteration for the Creek unless the outfall were pumped back to point of diversion; would sediment from the treatment ponds (the old duck ponds) migrate into the creek, estuary and bay, and what would they contain (metals, etc.) Planned plant expansion will mean a greater watershed nonpoint source input of nitrate and phosphate rich pollution sources Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 12 Would reclaimed water cause greater buildup of metals or any pollutant (organic or inorganic) in bay sediments Planned plant expansion will mean a future desire to increase seasonal effluent flows into the Creek, estuary and bay; future plans and capacities need to be evaluated IRWD is already implementing some of the project; the TIC and IRWD ponds have reclaimed water in them this year, the pipeline has been installed to the creek, and so forth - has this been permitted through CEQA? IRWD continues to divert water from the wetland hydrologic basin by spilling wellwater into San Diego Creek Sediment regimes and impacts to the creek and bay cannot be estimated while the present streambed altering drop structures are in place, thus new data must be collected in another year when they are removed Extending freshwater flows in the estuary might have an impact on use and extent to which bay fishes go upstream Impacts on interstitial and benthic invertebrates are unknown In IRWD's present permits, there are clauses allowing release of reclaimed water during certain conditions such as storm events, and so forth; how much water is actually released and how might that be extended by the project How would the project change the historic practice of raising herbaceous (higher plant) forage on a seasonal basis for the ducks (shallow ponds allowed to partially dry, then entirely dry out, so that forage plants develop, as in the old Duck Club days) be altered and what would the impacts of forage loss or alteration be to waterfowl (the ponds would be aquatic resting s;;es but not primary forage sites, for example); to migratory shorebirds which historically also used these seasonally drying habitats - would this be a loss to wildlife through perennial open water for either waterfowl or shorebirds? The project must be recognized as a point source contributor Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 13 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE i Gary D. Stewart, P.E. Senior WRC Engineer California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 2010 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92507-2409 RE: Export of Groundwater from the San Joaquin Marsh and Alteration of the Tidal Reach of the San Diego Creek Flood Control Channel Dear Mr. Stewart: In previous meetings and correspondences with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS) has expressed its interests in and desire for more effective regulation of adverse impacts to the shallow groundwater aquifer underlying and sustaining the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands, and also of adverse impacts to the tidal reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel that occupies an easement over the UCNRS San Joaquin Marsh Reserve. I am writing this letter to inform the RWQCB about present conditions and recent changes at the San Joaquin Marsh and San Diego Creek to which the UCNRS objects, as these circumstances create.adverse impacts to the groundwater and surface water habitats of the UCNRS Reserve. Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) persists in utilizing Discharge Serial No. 001 for the discharge from the wellfield that pumps the shallow aquifer underlying both the Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plant (MWRP) and the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands. By choosing to use Discharge Serial No. 001 (into San Diego Creek) rather than Discharge Serial No. 002 (into the surface waters of the San Joaquin Marsh), IRWD is exporting Marsh groundwater that would otherwise be properly and naturally contributing to the wetlands system from which it is being withdrawn. IRWD does at times use Discharge Serial No. 002, but then only to direct this discharge of the Marsh groundwater into The Irvine Company's Duck Ponds, rather than into the unnamed ditch tributary to the Marsh These ponds have sealed, essentially impermeable bottoms so there is no opportunity for return by s>rn» • DAVU • uvnM • cos W?XN rs • uN D=O • SAN IRMCM o "IM zAn" . • "NTA me waw Q� 50 NON IRVINE, CALffM ORA 97717 O� ERRESERVE BURNS P RIDGE DAESERT RTER FEB T OF ECOLOVGY AND DEPARTMENT �Ci7 SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 25 January 1995 1RVT4C��lppti�� _. Gary D. Stewart, P.E. Senior WRC Engineer California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 2010 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92507-2409 RE: Export of Groundwater from the San Joaquin Marsh and Alteration of the Tidal Reach of the San Diego Creek Flood Control Channel Dear Mr. Stewart: In previous meetings and correspondences with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS) has expressed its interests in and desire for more effective regulation of adverse impacts to the shallow groundwater aquifer underlying and sustaining the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands, and also of adverse impacts to the tidal reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel that occupies an easement over the UCNRS San Joaquin Marsh Reserve. I am writing this letter to inform the RWQCB about present conditions and recent changes at the San Joaquin Marsh and San Diego Creek to which the UCNRS objects, as these circumstances create.adverse impacts to the groundwater and surface water habitats of the UCNRS Reserve. Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) persists in utilizing Discharge Serial No. 001 for the discharge from the wellfield that pumps the shallow aquifer underlying both the Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plant (MWRP) and the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands. By choosing to use Discharge Serial No. 001 (into San Diego Creek) rather than Discharge Serial No. 002 (into the surface waters of the San Joaquin Marsh), IRWD is exporting Marsh groundwater that would otherwise be properly and naturally contributing to the wetlands system from which it is being withdrawn. IRWD does at times use Discharge Serial No. 002, but then only to direct this discharge of the Marsh groundwater into The Irvine Company's Duck Ponds, rather than into the unnamed ditch tributary to the Marsh These ponds have sealed, essentially impermeable bottoms so there is no opportunity for return by r' t� Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 14 percolation of any of this groundwater to the parent wetlands system from these artificial impoundments. Use of the Marsh groundwater to fill artificial impoundments would commonly be considered a wetlands use, but the type of water management employed at TIC's Duck Ponds results in an ultimate water quality that UCNRS has been reluctant to receive as discharge into its Reserve. IRWD has stated its intent to discontinue any future discharge MWRP or 's ban uck Ponds into the Marsh by instead pumping ponddischarge Diego Creek The effect of this type of management will be that the Marsh shallow groundwater that is withdrawn by the MWRP wel field and discharged from Discharge Serial No. 002 into TICS Duck Ponds will ultimately be exported from the wetlands, either via MWRP or by discharge into San Diego Creek UCNRS requests that RWQCB direct 1RWD to utilize Discharge Serial No. 002 for the routine discharge of the MWRP shallow groundwater welLfield into the unnamed ditch tributary to the Marsh, and that use of Discharge Serial No. 001 be reserved for MWRP stormwater runoff and emergencyeveof this discharge RWQCB lacks the immediate authority, to specify management in the manner most beneficial to the public interest, then UCNRS requests that RWQCB provide its advice and assistance to UCNRS to remedy in some manner the adverse impacts of shallow groundwater export from the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands. A separate concern of UCNRS is the alteration of the surface waters of the tidal reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel between the MacArthur Avenue and Campus Drive bridges. Following the recent removal of sediment to restore function to the sediment control basin maintained in this reach, a barrier of wooden flashboards was constructed in the low flow cement channel at the drop structure just upstream from MacArthur bridge.enue and associated natural in at least three distinct physical changes surface waters biological habitats from the pre-flashboard condition: l) the surface elevation of the water surface maintained in this reach is a couple of feet higher and the depth of the water column is greater, 2) water now drains across the entire front of the rip -rap drop structure almost as an overland flow, rather than as a discrete stream in the cement low flow channel accessible to fishes for upstream travel, and 3) regular, periodic upstream tidal flow from Upper Newport Bay is now blocked from entering this reach, eliminating the natural, historic estuarine influences along this reach UCNRS, as owner and CEQA-designated Trustee Agency steward of the biological habitats along this estuarine reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel, attaches the highest possible values to those habitats that exist as expression of the natural physical conditions (i.e., local topography, geology, hydrology, climate and meteorology, etc.) minimally impacted by artificial, anthropogenic alterations. Maintenance of a sediment control basin in the reach of San Diego Creek flood control channel that lies upon UCNRS property did .not, until this recent installation of flashboards in the drop structure low flow channel, interfere with the co -existence of a vital, all -too -scarce estuarine habitat corridor between Upper Newport Day state Fish and Gamecal (1tat Preserve, CDF&G), and the San administered by California Department L. Agency Scoping Meeting Minutes February 9, 1995 Page 15 Joaquin Marsh Reserve, administered by UCNRS. Between the infrequent times of dredging disruption to remove accumulated sediments and restore design function to the sediment control basin constructed in this reach of San Diego Creek, shallow sandbars of sediment deposits evolve that support specific estuarine communities of benthic invertebrates and predatory waterfowl; estuarine fish species such as mullet (Mugil Ophalus Linnaeus) move upstream from Upper Newport Bay and utilize the habitats of the San Diego Creek flood control channel on the UCNRS Reserve; the federally -listed endangered Light- footed Clapper Rail (&Bus longirostris leyi= can — and does — move along a continuous estuarine corridor to opportunistically utilize available habitat in the San Joaquin Marsh Reserve. These are examples of the irreplaceable, generally extinguished natural biotic components of orange County's altered watersheds that still survive in a context of a controlled and managed flood control channel serving as the only remaining link between the regionally important natural habitat preserves of the Marsh and the Bay. The alteration of the San Diego Creek flood control habitats caused by this recent addition of obstructing flashboards to the concrete low -flow channel at the MacArthur Avenue bridge drop structure is unacceptable to the UCNRS, and we request the advice and assistance of the RWQCB to remedy this situation as soon as possible, to reestablish the historic, natural estuarine connections across the MacArthur Avenue bridge drop structure that have recently been eliminated. (An identical flashboard obstruction has been installed at the drop structure just upstream from the Campus Drive bridge, and this too has altered streambed habitats in a manner to which -- as an interested downstream property owner and Trustee Agency — the UCNRS objects, although this is not also historically and naturally an estuarine reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel on UCNRS property.) Mr. Stewart, we request timely advice and assistance from the RWQCB to enable the UCNRS to fulfill its public trustee responsibilities as stewards of publically- owned, irreplaceable natural wetlands and estuarine habitats. UCNRS is committed to the prevention of further unneeded, anthropocentric alteration of habitats and further elimination of the surviving natural, native biotic elements that still survive at the San Joaquin Marsh wetlands and along the San Diego Creek flood control Channel. Sincerely yours, Dr. William L. Bretz, Manager Dr. Peter A. Bowler, Academic Coordinator San Joaquin Marsh Reserve San Joaquin Marsh Reserve .cc: UCNRS Director Elliott -Fisk Professor Bradley, UC Irvine Cheryl Heffiy, CDF&G Richard Zembal, USFWS IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT EXPANDED NOTICE OF PREPARATION PUBLIC HEARING February 14, 1995 CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM, Board Room, District Office 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue, Irvine, California PUBLIC HEARING WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Recommendation: Receive public input on the Environmental Impact Report being prepared for the Wetlands Water Supply Project, as required by the Expanded Notice of Preparation (Public Resources Code §21080.6). • Open Hearing --Introductions Peer Swan • Project --Description, History, Proposed Monitoring Plan Jim Hyde • CEQA--Proposed EIR Format Tom Peters • EIR--Alternatives Tom Peters • Environmental Analysis Statement --Findings Tom Peters • Scoping Meetings --Summary of Input Tom Peters • Project Status --Reservoirs, Nitrification -Denitrification Ken Thompson • Public Comment • Close Hearing Peer Swan Any person wishing to comment, is requested to complete a "Request to Speak" form available at the door. The completed form is to be submitted to the hearing officer prior to an individual being heard. There will be a time limitation of three (3) minutes per person, during public comment. Written comments may be submitted with or without a "Request to Speak". This Public Hearing is to afford the public the opportunity to comment early in the EIR process as required by the Expanded Notice ofPreparation. No action will be taken on any items raised during the Public Hearin IRWD WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING - EIR SCOPING MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1995, 6:00 IRWD BOARD ROOM, DISTRICT OFFICE A Public Hearing was conducted on February 14, 1995 to obtain input on the expanded Notice of Preparation (NOP) and scoping of environmental issues associated with the IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project. Peer Swan, Chairman of the IRWD Board of Directors, presided over the hearing and introduced staff. Jim Hyde, IRWD staff, summarized the proposed project. Tom Peters, CH2M HILL Project Manager, summarized the CEQA format, proposed alternatives, Environmental Analysis Statement findings, and agency/city scoping meeting comments. Ken Thompson, IRWD Water Quality Director, summarized the current treatment plant status. The following public comments were received: Brad Berger, PhD candidate - Atmospheric Fluid Mechanics, UC Irvine Suggested that the Environmental Impact Analysis Statement be expanded for EIR. Stated that the main flaw was that the study does not treat the system as live; emphasis is on concentration in/concentration out; but there is no accounting for biological uptake. He expressed confusion- over the purpose of the "No Project" alternative. Jeff Crane - Senior Biology major, UC Irvine Suggested continuing the project by recycling the reclaimed water on-site and conducting studies before discharging to the bay, as this would answer questions regarding substances such as phosphorus and viruses. Amy Schaumaker - Senior Biology major at UC Irvine Concerned over health impacts on migratory wildlife and bottom feeders using the ponds. Also concerned over freshwater effects such as increased cattails and other filter -type species, and their affect on salt water species. Pete Malley - Referenced statements saying that ponds are subject to differential water levels at different times; stated that there is a need for the ponds to be well contained, to keep pathogens from directly entering before products have been broken down. He also suggests the EIR address energy consumption of pumping, and energy cost to the community. He also expressed concern over phosphate concentrations through the marsh. r, i Public Hearing Scoping Meeting Minutes r February 14, 1995 Page 2 Tammy Stucker - Junior Social Ecology major at UC Irvine Suggested conducting outside experiments before discharging to the bay. Karen Lewis - Social Ecology major at UC Irvine Asked if there are other pollutants in the discharge other than nitrates/phosphates such as metals and synthetic organics. She expressed concern about the effects on wildlife feeding in the water, and accumulation in sediments which could affect bottom feeders, and others in the food chain. Tim Quinn, Newport Dunes General Manager Prefers to call reclaimed water "treated sewage effluent". He expressed concern over the perception to users of the Newport Dunes of an unattractive and unhealthy bay as a result of the discharge and potential increase in algae blooms. He believes the increased loads will increase the cost of keeping the bay free of algae. Mr. Quinn stated his opposition to the project, and suggested IRWD reconsider it. Peer Swan asked Mr. Quinn if there is a problem with algae now. Mr. Quinn responded that the algae bloom problem starts about April 1 and continues through October. Peer Swan asked Mr. Quinn if he realizes the IRWD project discharge is only scheduled to take place only in winter months. Mr. Quinn responded that he is concerned that the increased levels of nitrate will cause algae to bloom even during the summer because he believes the increased nitrate will be maintained in water during the winter, waiting for temperatures to warm. Jack Skinner, Newport Beach physician Concerned over mass loading versus concentration. He mentioned that the County Sanitation Districts and EPA use mass loading calculations. He referenced a SANDAG study on "Algae Community Response to Nitrogen Loading in Experimental Mesocosms: Management Recommendations for Southern California Coastal Lagoons". Mr. Skinner claimed that reasons for this study centered on the fact that many people felt nutrient discharge standards were too stringent, and that many lagoons would benefit from discharge especially Public Hearing Scoping Meeting Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 3 where lagoon nutrient concentrations exceeded those of wastewater being input to lagoons. Mr. Skinner believed this is analogous to the situation of the IRWD project. He referenced page 47 of this study which states: "We conclude that water column nutrients were poor predictors of algae biomass, and that total loading of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the lagoon appear to be the best predictor of algae response". Mr. Skinner stated he favors the argument for mass loading over concentration. Mr. Skinner questioned the timing of algal blooms. He first asked for clarification of the discharge dates, stating that there was a discrepancy with the official NPDES Permit application received by Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). (The application says the discharge will begin October 1 and terminate at the end of April). Mr. Skinner then referred to the SANDAG article (page. 23) which notes that "the complete effect of discharge in a lagoon may not be obvious for several months, which is especially important in assessing water quality after a sewage spill or treated wastewater discharge". He stated that even though nutrients will be discharged October through April, there could be algae blooms after discharges have discontinued up to several months. Mr. Skinner stated that he noticed blooms in 1986/87 around Balboa Island that began in March and continued through mid November. (A picture was passed, around of the Newport Dunes area in mid October, 1986 showing algae blooms). Mr. Skinner questioned the Environmental Impact Analysis Statement regarding the riverine concept of the bay, and the conclusion that the reclaimed water discharge will have a beneficial effect since there will be a net unloading of nitrates to the bay. He mentioned a review written by Pat Blodgett (SCR88) which summarized levels of nitrate found in four testing locations in the lower bay which showed nitrate -nitrogen levels (mg/1) measured between 1985-88 at 0.55, 0.50, 1.16, and 0.45 milligrams nitrate -nitrogen per liter. He believes these values raise, possibilities that the riverine effect does not apply to the bay as a whole. Mr. Skinner indicated that the more scientists study the bay, the more complicated they think it is. He referenced the 1986 Upper Bay study by Orange County Environmental Management Agency (referenced in the Environmental Analysis Statement bibliography) which discusses a study done in 1972; the study states "eddy regions found in the upper bay effectively trapped and held nutrients, and thus disturbed the typical floodflow model predicted by some researchers. Thus, some areas of upper bay are subject to excessively eutrophic conditions while other areas appear relatively non -affected". Mr. Skinner also referenced the Army Corps of Engineers model of bay (Unit 1 basin) that found there was not a simple flow through riverine phenomenon; apparently 30 percent of a tracer Public Hearing Scoping Meeting Minutes February 14, 1995 Page 4 dye was present at least two -days, and out to 5 days. Therefore he believes the riverine effect does not apply. Mr. Skinner further believes that the riverine effects especially do not apply to the lower bay given the variety of tidal movements and the movement of nutrients into compartments. Mr. Skinner also suggested clarifying the purpose of this project. His understanding is that this study is to find a way to dispose reclaimed water in the bay thereby obviating the cost of purchasing more capacity in the County Sanitation District sewer system. He referenced a statement on page 2 of IRWD's NPDES permit, granted by RWQCB in January, 1995, noting that IRWD plans to increase treatment capacity at the Michelson Treatment Plant from 15 million gallons per day (mgd) to 27 mgd to meet increased demand for reclaimed water. Mr. Skinner claimed that if this is an accurate statement, there will be an increasing need to dispose of increased volumes of reclaimed water to r the bay for years to come. He suggested ground storage for reclaimed water, and referenced the Green Acres project. He stated that water of this quality should not be lost by discharge to the bay. He stated it is better to store it. Mr. Skinner also asked clarification of the area of the water surface, which is important for calculations of nutrient removal. He stated that the RWQCB was presented with 80 acres of water surface, but more recent documents state 62 acres. He suggested the water surface area be separated from the total project area which includes other areas such as Pond 7 and roads, and that the total pond surface may be only 50 acres. Nancy Skinner Mrs. Skinner indicated that based on comments received from the City of Newport Beach planner at the city scoping meeting, she understands the value of project purpose when considering alternatives in the EIR. She also re -iterated the need for clarificAtion of the water surface area of the ponds. Public Review and Record Distribution List SCO10017A4E. WP5 Ms. Joanne Schneider California Regional Water Quality Control Board Mr. Chri s Crompton 2010 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100 EMA/Regulation Riverside, CA 92507 Storm Water Section 909-781-6288 10852 Douglass Road P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 567-6340 Mr. Mark Sudol U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch 300 N. Los Angeles Street Mr. Robert Fisher P.O. Box 2711 County of Orange Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 Harbors, Beaches, and Parks P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Mr. Sat Tamarabuci The Irvine Company P.O. Box 1 Mr. Troy Kelly Newport Beach, CA 92660 Department of Fish and Game 720-2450 Wildlife Management Division 600 Shellmaker Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 644-9938 Mr. Peter Hersh Community Development Department City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Mr. Jack Fancher Irvine, CA 92713-9575 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 619-431-9624 Ms. Kari Rigoni Environmental Management Agency Planning P.O. Box 4048 Mr. Lawrence Shaw Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Orange County 834-6132 Vector Control District 13001 Garden Grove Boulevard P.O. Box 87 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Erwin Haydock, Ph.D. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Mr. Scott Thomas Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Sea and Sage Audubon 962-2591 P.O. Box 25 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Mr. James VanHaun Orange County Water District 1 10500 Ellis Avenue Mr. John Wolter P.O. Box 8300 l City of Newport Beach Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300 Mr. James Lents 378-3373 . South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 W. Copley Drive Mr. William G. Butler, Jr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 Mr. Bradford W. Berger 2101 Palo Verde Road hark Tor i ch Irvine, CA 92715 1 Community Development Department 824-2249 Jack and Nancy Skinner 1724 Highland Drive Ms. Willa Bouwens-Killeen Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning and Development 724-6440 Mr. Tony Malayeri Department of Transportation, District 12 2501 Pullman Street Southern California Association of Santa Ana, CA 92705 Governments 756-4924 818 W. Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Mr. John Douglas City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Mr. William Bretz Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92717 Mr. James VanHaun Orange County Water District Mr. Thomas McDonough Trammel Crow Company Mr. John Wolter 3333 Micheson Drive, Suite 500 City of Newport Beach Irvine, CA 92715 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 644-3318 Mr. William G. Butler, Jr. 2946 Celon Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 hark Tor i ch Community Development Department City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Ms. Willa Bouwens-Killeen Irvine, CA 92713-9575 Planning and Development 724-6440 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Mr. James VanHaun Orange County Water District Ms. Deborah L. Elliott -Fisk Office of the President University of California 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-3560 Dr. Fritz Reid Ducks Unlimited 9823 Old Winery Place, Suite 16 Sacramento, CA 95827 Mr. David Pryor Orange Coast District California Parks Service 18331 Enterprise Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 848-1566 Mr. Adrian Wolf Crystal Cove State Park California Parks Service 8471 N. Coast Highway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 494-3539 Mr. Steve McHarris University of California, Irvine Campus and Environmental Planning Suite 360 Irvine, CA 92717 824-6316 Hope Smythe . California Regional Water Quality Control Board 2010 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92507 909-781-6288 Scott Dawson California Regional Water Quality Control Board 2010 Iowa Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92507 909-781-6288 Bill Paznokus C.D.E.G. 4949 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 Mr. Bob Hoffman National Marine Fisheries Service 501 W. Ocean Boulevard Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802 310-980-4041 Peter Bowler U. C. Irvine Irvine, CA 92717 Jean Watt City of Newport 4 Harbor Isle Newport Beach, Beach CA 92660 Tom Rossmiller Orange County EMA Harbors, Beaches and Parks Dept. 34551 Puerto Place Dana Point, CA 92629 Supervisor Marian Bergeson 140 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Assemblywoman Marilyn Breuer State Capitol P. 0. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 Evelyn Hart Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 W. SCO10017A4E. WP5 Appendix C Wetlands Demonstration Project Negative Declaration Comment Letters C-1 Wetlands Demonstration Project Negative Declaration Summary of Written Public Comments Date (1994) Agency Signature November 21 State Clearinghouse Michael Chiriatti, Jr. November 21 Personal letter Bradford Berger November 21 OCEMA Kari A. Rigoni November 17 Division of Safety of Dams Vernon H. Persson November 16 Department of Transportation Robert Joseph October 27 City of Newport Beach Clarence J. Turner October 27 Regional Board Gerard J. Thibeault October 19 OCEMA Kari A. Rigoni October 16 Personal letter William G. Butler, Jr. October 11 City of Irvine Robert C. Johnson October 11 Sea and Sage Audubon Scott Thomas October 11 UCNRS William L. Bretz October 11 UCI Peter A. Bowler, Ph.D. October 11 Department of Fish and Game Fred Worthley October 10 Trammell Crow Co. Thomas E. McDonough October 10 Personal letter John F. Skinner, MD October 7 O.C. Vector Control District Lawrence H. Shaw October 6 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Gail Robetich September 27 Army Corps of Engineers Mark Durham WETDEM05.DOC S >TE OF CALIFORNIA C JVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH TENTH STREET AMENTO, CA 95814 November 21, 1994 JAAMES HYDE IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT PO BOX 57000 IRVINE, CA 92719-7000 PETE WILSON, Govemor Subject: IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SCH 1: 94101037 Dear JAAMES HYDE: The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. -smember to refer to the project's eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so at we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency." Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Mark Goss at (916) 445- 0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. 4Si ce ely, .t Mic el ChiXatti,. I Chief, State Cleaeinghousea Enclosures cc: Resources Agency -- D. ver. L. ,.0 .0.:. - Notice of Completion Feem • J..AVO7Eb.4- MaU to: Stene Claw etRbatae. 1400 Tenth Surae; Sacra =w. to 95814 916/44S.0613 sett e 94 10 10 37 pe�setTrtfe4 Irvine Ranch Water District Wetlands Demonstration ProjM ��. Irvine Ranch Water District Co.t..p.a.= James Hyde Add, ..: P. 0. Box 57000 pyo 714 453-5866 _ r TrvinP_ Cly ml 92719-7000 (;,.mr Orange � Coteer Olaatl.w--------- Crry/Neareat Cammrmiq: Irvine ------------- range OMMStr.ea Mirhelcnn near University Drive zip code 92715 ToulAcr= so Aaset.alaFarecJNa D.M. 99-06,200-42 M484j&„:73 59 TWP.6 South R..c.: 9 West ;V-t&et2Miler Sc wHtvyk I-405: 73 w.., -ay.: San Dieao Creek A;,,: Orange County Ra;l, y,: ky„y,_ UC Irvine ----------------------------------------- U"arnent Type =GA. ❑ NOP O Suppk==WSubsequem 14EPA: Cl NOI Other: O Joint Doemmeat O Emily Cons ❑ Elk (Pr= SCH No.) Q EA ❑ Final DoMrAM U Nag Doc O Odw O Draft EIS ❑ Q Draft E R Q FONSI Y.acal &AI:Wn Type ❑ Cwwral Plan Updaw ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Reser [:3 t ----.^•n G.naral Plan Asamdnrent ❑Miner Fla ❑ Prezone O Redevalopmou Q Genal Plan Element Q Planwd Unit Oevclolan.nt ❑ Use Permit -• .O Coastal Permit L'7 Com mmity Plan C]Siu: Plan ❑ Laid Division (Subdivision. ®Other — — — — — — — — — — -.- — — — — — — — — — Psrcel Map, Trner Mop, etc.) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Cevolopownt Type ❑ R.sidandAL• Univ Avec ❑ 0U.. SqA. Acry Fsyloyec ❑ Coour"cW: Sift. Aver K-4doyers Q I1ldrttCial: Sq.4 Aoes Lwp/oye- l] Fducational rJ Reaeatinrtal ® Water FaeiL' Gas: Type Wetlands MGD 6 ❑ Trwupons iun: Type ❑ Mitring: Mimval ❑ Power. Type wa¢r ❑ WasuTrmunent Type ❑ Hwnbw Wash Type ❑Ovwr --------------------------------------- ct Issues Diacuaaed in Document 'I Aestheuc/Viwl 0 Apiculnual Lcnl Q Air Quality ❑ AtcbealogiuL'Historiea] 0 consul Zane Q DranatdAbtatpUo^ ❑ Ecanomic/Jobs 0 Fiscal © Flood PIaiNFlaoding ❑ Forew Lard/Fuc Hazard Geologic/Seimuc ❑ Mincr4s 5D Noise ❑ Populuwrvliouaing Dalanca Cj Public Ser-ic&s/FaLiikies p Ra -cion/Pcks ❑ Sehoo WUni-miuea ❑ Septic Systems ® Saver eapaeiry © Soil Erusion/Compac-dortlGrading ❑ Solid Waste ❑ TozicMLLx1lous ❑ Tnffic/Ciavladcn jj� veseuuon W.aa Quality Water Supply/Grourdwata Wetland/Ripannn Wildli(c ❑ Growth Lriducing ❑ Latdu.e ❑ Cuatvlau-c Effccts ❑ou-.-- ----------------------------------------- ►reaant LwW UsefZonina/Generel Plan Uae General Plan designated Open Space (preservation and Recreation); Commercial Recreation; -------------------------------las.LLLJ.tional irej.ct Llaseriptiew IRWO proposes to discharge up to 6 MGD of Title 22 water into an existing series of duck ponds from October 1 through Aprils 30 for 2 years to provide additional water quality treatment and enhance wildlife habitat in the ponds. Water from the ponds would be discharged via an .rrt>,6erarouCll�inellJ]e.Sa�SaO_Ili9AIl.LCeP1s�3dl�fRPZ.to .the, ponds.. CLEARINGHOUSE CONTACT: Mark room (916) 445-0613 CMT 8WT �lteeources STATE REVIEW BECANtC� - C I -� —Boating 910MMe1Coastal Conan DEPT R] N TO J►CENCYr )(- —Coastal Consv Rvr Rd AGENCY REV TO SCA t it - /� _Colorado 41MMMMIL Conservation Z� Fish L Came S SCH COKPLIANCE r (- �I Forestry VIMMMM Parks G Rec/OffP — —Reclamation BCDC J BOOM DWR PI MZ NOTE SCE NWffiER ON A►LL 00PUIENTS bus TraneP Biwa EL=I FORfQ►RD LATE COl4�tTS DIRECTLY _ CHP To THE I" AGENCT MLT '—IMm'-`a1tran■ It C. —Trans Planning _ el AQ..,o/A.PCD: _ (Resources: —Health G Welfare ___Drinkina H2O CAKP AIeT stats/Conwasr Svcs —General services —OLA (Schools) Cal/EPA — —ARB — —CA Waste )4ot Bd ——SWRCBt--Grants _ SWRCB:--Delta SWRCB:--Wtr Quality _SWACB:--Wtr Rights — t— Req. WQCB 0 — —DTSC/CTC 7th/Adlt Corrections — —Corrections Independent Cosa — —Energy Come — —NAHC — —PUC Santa Mn Mtne 'Emmu\State Lands Como _Tahoe Rgl Plan November 21, 1994 Bradford W. Berger 2101 Palo Verde Rd. Irvine, CA 92715 (714) 824 - 5779 (wk) (714) 856 - 2165 (hm) Internet: brad@cafws1.eng.uci.edu Mr. James E. Hyde Environmental Compliance Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7900 Dear Mr. Hyde: I wish to comment on the Irvine Ranch Water District's proposed negative declaration regarding the release of reclaimed sewage into the San Diego Creek, and thus, the Upper Newport Bay. The dumping of reclaimed sewage into the Upper Newport Bay will have numerous and serious impacts on the ecology of the Bay. This project would increase water flow into the Bay and increase nitrogen loading of the Bay. Considering the importance of the Bay to the light footed clapper rail and other sensitive species, it is critical that this project receive a thorough environmental analysis in the form of a full Environmental Impact Report. Only in this way can the impacts and alternatives be adequately surveyed. What may appear to the Irvine Ranch Water District as a simple solution to their need to dispose of millions of gallons of reclaimed water is a very complex and potentially dangerous experiment on one of the last remaining wetlands in Southern California. I must agree with the State Department of Fish and Game, and the University of California Natural Reserve System, who are opposed to the negative declaration, and I strongly recommend that a careful environmental analysis be done before such a project is initiated. y Please keep me informed as to the status of this issue and let me know of any public hearings that may be held with regard to it. Sincerely, Bradfo d W. Berger Carl W. Spangenberg Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue P. O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-1700 SUBJECT: Draft ND for the Wetlands Demonstration Project Dear Mr. Spangenberg: The above referenced item is a Draft Negative Declaration (ND) for the Irvine Ranch Water District. The proposal consists of a two-year demonstration project to assess the feasibility of discharging treated wastewater from the Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plant, through a series of existing ponds in the San Joaquin Marsh, Northeast of Campus Drive, and then to the San Diego Creek. The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft ND resulting in the following comments regarding water quality: The project, as proposed, would result in an increase in the nutrient loading to San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, thus running counter to a long-term watershed effort to reduce nutrient discharges from nurseries and other facilities. Many implications of the project are not assessed by the Negative Declaration (ND) including the relationship of the project to other enhancement and restoration projects in the Marsh, Creek and Bay, and the following specific issues "identified from the negative declaration discussion of environmental impacts: 1. Page 2, item 3a - The data provided on the flow impacts of 6 million gallons per day being released into San Diego Creek is misleading. Instead of averaging the release over a winter season, the impacts should be looked at separately in relation to storm and low flow conditions. EMA data indicates that from 1988 to 1993 the average daily flow in San Diego Creek from October 1 to April 30 was 69 cfs, yet flows above this figure were encountered on only 97 of 1,061 days. Non -storm daily flows during the remaining 964 days averaged 16 cfs. The addition of 9.3 cfs of discharge (6 million gallons per day) represents a 58o increase in the average base flow on these days. MICHAEL M. RUANE V TY O F DIRECTOR, EMA THOMAS B. MATHEWS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING N RAG E LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 300 N. FLOWER ST. THIRD FLOOR PLANNING SANTA ANA, CA MAILING ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 4048 Ae N O V 2 1 1994 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-404R TELEPHONE: (714)834-4643 FAX #: 834-2771 DPC: 834-4772 Carl W. Spangenberg Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue P. O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-1700 SUBJECT: Draft ND for the Wetlands Demonstration Project Dear Mr. Spangenberg: The above referenced item is a Draft Negative Declaration (ND) for the Irvine Ranch Water District. The proposal consists of a two-year demonstration project to assess the feasibility of discharging treated wastewater from the Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plant, through a series of existing ponds in the San Joaquin Marsh, Northeast of Campus Drive, and then to the San Diego Creek. The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft ND resulting in the following comments regarding water quality: The project, as proposed, would result in an increase in the nutrient loading to San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, thus running counter to a long-term watershed effort to reduce nutrient discharges from nurseries and other facilities. Many implications of the project are not assessed by the Negative Declaration (ND) including the relationship of the project to other enhancement and restoration projects in the Marsh, Creek and Bay, and the following specific issues "identified from the negative declaration discussion of environmental impacts: 1. Page 2, item 3a - The data provided on the flow impacts of 6 million gallons per day being released into San Diego Creek is misleading. Instead of averaging the release over a winter season, the impacts should be looked at separately in relation to storm and low flow conditions. EMA data indicates that from 1988 to 1993 the average daily flow in San Diego Creek from October 1 to April 30 was 69 cfs, yet flows above this figure were encountered on only 97 of 1,061 days. Non -storm daily flows during the remaining 964 days averaged 16 cfs. The addition of 9.3 cfs of discharge (6 million gallons per day) represents a 58o increase in the average base flow on these days. Mr. Spangenberg Page 2 2. Page 3, item 3e - It is unclear whether the data being cited as nitrate is NO3 or NO3-N. OCEMA data for the period 1989-1994 (October - April) shows an average dry weather nitrate (NO3) loading in San Diego Creek of 4,870 lbs/day. Assuming that the demonstration project discharges 6 million gallons per day with a nitrate (NO3) concentration of 22 mg/1 (assuming a worst case of 5 mg/1 NO3-N), the discharge would contribute approximately 1,000 lbs/day of nitrate to San Diego Creek (233,200 lbs of NO3 for the period October to April). This would represent an increase in nitrate load of approximately 23%. The ND states that the discharge will improve water quality slightly in the creek. The only discernible improvement may be in measured nitrate concentration. There is no evidence to support a finding that additional nitrate load is a beneficial water quality impact on San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. 3. Page 3, item 3e - The Analysis of impacts fails to note that the "Duck Ponds", as part of the San Joaquin Marsh, are a Receiving Water separate and distinct from San Diego Creek. This is clearly indicated in the referenced version of the Santa Ana River Region Basin Plan. Thus, the water quality analysis must look at two distinct discharges, one into the ponds as on Receiving Water, and one from the ponds into San Diego Creek. It is possible the quality of water entering the duck ponds will be degraded, especially compared to the ground water being used in late summer/fall, even as the quantity increases. 4. Page 3, item 3e - There is no basis in current law for use of dilution i "mixing zones" to claim impacts will be insignificant. Clearly, a 20 fold increase in phosphorus concentration in the discharge into San Diego Creek will have a significant impact over that geographic area where the concentration remains high. L.. Mr. Spangenberg Page 3 S. Page 3, item 3e - The analysis fails to note that San Diego Creek and Upper and Lower Newport Bays are already officially designated as impaired. The impact the project would have on the ability of San Diego Creek and the Bay to recover from that impairment should be considered. 6. Page 3, item 3e - The California Water Resources Board Non -degradation Policy has the force of administrative law; it could prohibit both 3. and 4. without specific findings of the Regional Water Quality Control Board acting on their behalf that the degradation is permissible. 7. Page 3, item 3e, Page 4, item 4a and Page 5, item 5a - The issue of trihalomethanes being formed in the Duck Ponds due to the chlorinated nature of the discharge needs to be considered. Similarly, the direct impact of free chlorine on biota is a potential issue given the designation of the Marsh as a Receiving Water. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft ND. This is our second comment letter due to the extension of the review period. (A copy of our October 19, 1994 letter is attached.) If you have questions, please call Kari Rigoni at (714) 834-2109. very truly yours, I Kari �ARigoni,jSrPla er For: Robert W. White, Manager EMA/Environmental Planning Division CH:sf 9051915511852 Attachment date of California The Resources. Agency Memorandum NOV 1 7 1994 1. Project Coordinator WATER r� Resources Agency QUALITY 2. Mr. Carl W. Spangenberg Irvine Ranch Water District NOV ",8 1994 Post Office Box 6025 Irvine, California 92716-6025 IRVINE EANCHT 1,0M Department of Water Resources MF WATER Subject SCH #94101037, Notice of Preparation of Negative Declaration, Irvine Ranch Water District, Wetland Demonstration Project, Orange County We have completed the review of the Notice of Preparation of Negative Declaration for the Irvine Ranch Water District's Wetland Demonstration Project. Based on the information provided, we could not determine if any of the existing 11 Irvine Company or five Irvine Ranch Water District Ponds are under the jurisdiction of the Division of Safety of Dams. Pursuant to Part 1 of Division 3 of the California Water Code, dams 25 feet or higher having a reservoir storage capacity of more than 15 acre-feet and dams higher than 6 feet having a capacity of 50 acre-feet or more would fall under State jurisdiction. If any of the existing ponds are under our jurisdiction, a construction application must be filed and all dam safety related issues resolved prior to approval of the application. Please provide us with the size dimensions (height of embankments and storage capacities) of the existing ponds so we can determine if they fall under State jurisdiction. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of preparation. N If you have any questions, contact Area Engineer Philip W. Lee at (916) 323-1115 or Regional Engineer Richard Sanchez at (916) 322-6206. 1 Vernon H. Persson, Chief Division of Safety of Dams (9 16) 445-7606 Attachment „TATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, 7EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ICT 12 PULLMAN STREET ,....STA ANA, G 92705 NMCLURS Mr. Carl W. Spangenberg Irvine Ranch Water District R\CEQA P.O. Box 6025 e Dec. Irvine, CA 92716-6025 94101037 Subject: Negative Declaration for Irvine Ranch Water District Wetland Demonstration Project Dear Aar Spanbenberg- Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration for Irvine Ranch Water District project which Proposes to discharge up to 6MGD of Title 22 water into an existing series of duck ponds from October 1 through April 30 for 2 years to provide additional water quality treatment and enhance wildlife habitat in the ponds. Water from the ponds would be discharged via an underground pipeline to San Diego Creek adjacent to the ponds. The project is located at San Joaquin Marsh at Campus Drive, City of Irvine. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency regarding this project. At this time the District has no comment. Please continue to keep us informed on this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Tonv Malaveri at 714 -756-4924. Thank vou. 4W Robert Josep , of Advance Planning Branch N cc: Tom Loftus, OPR. Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Tom Persons,HDQTRS Traffic Op. Pat 011ervides, Traffic OP. Praveen Gupta, Env. Ping. Raouf Moussa, Hydraulics. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 27, 1994 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 (714)644-3311 Mr. Peer Swan, President Board of Directors Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon P.O. Box 5700 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 AIL —'f OCT IRVINE WA ER DISTRICT FII.[' ICT Subject: Response to the Draft Negative Declaration for Wetland Demonstration Project, District Project No. 33701 Dear President Swan and Board Members: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) staff recently presented the proposed Wetland Demonstration Project to the City's Harbor Quality Committee (HOC). At the October 24, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council received the minutes from the September Harbor Quality Committee, a letter from Jack and Nancy Skinner and a report from the Public Works Department regarding the proposed Wetlands Demonstration Project. A copy of the letter and report are enclosed for your information. Jack and Nancy Skinner from the HQC, Joanne Schneider from the California Regional Quality Control Board, Charlie Gabbard from Corona del Mar, and City Staff presented their views on the proposed project and answered questions from the Council. During the discussion it was made clear that the City supports the production and use of reclaimed water and the development of the San Joaquin Marsh. It was also clear that there is concern that the proposed project could have a negative impact on the water quality in the Bay by increasing nitrate loading which encourages algae growth. The Draft Negative Declaration addresses impacts on the project site and on San Diego Creek, but does not consider impacts on the Bay. The Council was unanimous in their determination to preserve and enhance water quality in the Bay and therefore makes these comments in response to the Draft Negative Declaration for the Project. Wetlands Demonstration Project A. A focused EIR should be prepared to: Study the impacts and effects of the proposed reclaimed water discharge on water quality in Newport Bay. 2. Study alternates to discharging excess reclaimed water into the Bay. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach r B. If discharge of reclaimed water to the Bay is approved, the project should include the following provisions: r° 1. Monitor water quality down stream of thediNewport gage in San Diego Creek and at locations i Upper 2. If a significant increase in algae grogrowth isdischarge experienced reclaimed Upper Newport Bay, reduce or halt water into San Diego Creek until algae bloom subsides. II. Long Term Discharge of Treated Wastewater to Newport Bay A. Prepare a full environmental impact report. B. Study marsh operations and demonstrate effectiveness of ' wetland treatment in reducing nitrates and pollutants from San Diego Creek low flow and treated wastewater. C. Include facilities in San Diego Creek to by-pass a significant portion of the low -flow from San Diego Creek into the San Joaquin Marsh and duck ponds for wetland treatment. ' D. Insure that operation of the proposed project (the discharge of treated waste water in winter months and the bypass and wetland treatment of low -flows from San Diego Creek (particularly in summer months) results in a net reduction of total nitrates delivered to Upper Newport Bay. The City supports the District's efforts in reclaiming wastewater and developing San Joaquin Marsh, and I hope that these comments can assist in both the successful implementation of your project and the enhancement of water quality in Newport Bay. If you have questions regarding these commen 644 32ts or future questions '30 ng the project please, contact our Environmental Coordinator, John Douglas, at or John Wolter in the Public Works Department at 644-3326. Sincerely, i Clarence J. Mayor JW:so cc: Council Person Jean Watt N M City Manager Marine Director Public Works Director a ater Quality Control Bd., S.A. Region Joanne Schneider, Calif. Regional W Dr. and Mrs. Jack Skinner Ronald Young, General Manager, IRWD Carl Spangenberg, Project Manager, IRWD October 24, 1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO._________3_____ TO: City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: Harbor Quality Committee Minutes Item 3 - Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) "Wetlands Demonstration Project" Attached is a memo from John Wolter, our engineer that has represented the City on Upper Newport Bay dredging and water quality issues. His memo comments on the IRWD Wetlands Demonstration Project and their proposed negative declaration -environmental document. Also attached is a letter from ,Jack and Nancy Skinner expressing concern that the proposed demonstration project will increase current levels of nitrates being added to the Bay. At least one representative from the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be present at the afternoon session. The Board has not issued a permit for the demonstration project and their staff is still reviewing information concerning this project. John Wolter and the Skinners will be present at the afternoon session to answer questions concerning this item. Don Webb Public Works Director DW: kc Attachments CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Memorandum October 20, 1994 TO: City Manager FROM: Cooperative Projects Engineer SUBJECT: IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) "Wetlands Demonstration Project" The Irvine Ranch Water District has proposed a two-year demonstration project to assess feasibility of discharging treated waste water from the Michelson Waste Water Reclamation Plant through a series of ponds in the San Joaquin Marsh, northeast of Campus Drive, and then to the San Diego Creek from October 1 through April 30 each year. Recommendation: Direct staff to forward written comments regarding the proposed project to the Irvine Ranch Water District and the Santa Ana Region, Regional Water Quality Control Board as follows. The City of Newport Beach supports the production and use of reclaimed waste water and the development of the San Joaquin Marsh. The proposed discharge of treated waste water into San Diego Creek., however, will increase the nitrate loading to the Upper Newport Bay. Increased nitrate loading may encourage algae growth which negatively affects some beneficial uses of the Bay. In recent years, there has been a significant effort to reduce nitrate loading in San Diego Creek which has resulted in a reduction in the algae blooms in the Bay. The proposed wetlands demonstration project and future longterm project, if the wetland treatment proves effective, should include the following conditions to ensure protection of water quality within the Bay. 1. Increase water quality monitoring during the demonstration project to include: a.) A third station in San Diego Creek downstream of the proposed discharge at the outlet from the existing sediment basin, near the MacArthur Boulevard Bridge. b.) Monitor water quality and algae growth at several locations in Upper Newport Bay. r� 2. If a significant increase in algae growth is experienced in Upper Newport Bay, reduce or halt discharge of treated waste water into San Diego Creek until the algae bloom subsides. 3. Prior to implementing any long term discharge of treated waste water into San Diego Creek, prepare a full environmental impact report which includes: , a.) An evaluation of the effectiveness of the wetland treatment which demonstrates reduction in nitrates. r b.) Include facilities in San Diego Creek to bypass a significant portion of the low -flow from San Diego Creek into the San Joaquin Marsh and duck F ponds used to treat the reclaimed waste water. This is to be used during the summer period when reclaimed water is used elsewhere. c.) Insure that operation of the proposed project (the discharge of treated waste water in winter months) and the bypass and wetland treatment of low -flows from San Diego Creek in summer months, results in a net reduction of total nitrates delivered to Upper Newport Bay for the year. Background: The Irvine Ranch Water District has proposed a draft Negative Declaration for a Wetland Demonstration Project which would circulate reclaimed waste water from the Michelson Waste Water Reclamation Plant through a series of existing ponds in the San Joaquin Marsh, northeast of Campus Drive and then to the San Diego Creek. The project proposes to increase waterfowl and wildlife habitat in the marsh and creek systems and discharge up to 6 million gallons per day of treated waste water into San Diego Creek from October 1 through April 30. The discharge to San Diego Creek is proposed during winter months when the demand for reclaimed irrigation water is low and the district would otherwise have to pipe the reclaimed water (as presently required) to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. The project proposes to demonstrate the development and enhancement of San Joaquin Marsh with reclaimed waste water and to quantify the effectiveness of wetland treatment in reducing nutrients from the water flow. The Negative Declaration will be considered for approval or disapproval by the Board of Directors of the District at its meeting to be held on November 21, 1994. If the Negative Declaration is approved, the District will then need to apply for an NPDES permit for the Demonstration Project from the Santa Ana Region, Regional Water Quality Control Board. If the Negative Declaration is approved by the IRWD Board of Directors in November, the NPDES permit application for the project would come before the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board some time after January 1, 1995. L, 2 I a, LLI 0 o.. ,.:OM : Pantsanic TAD/FAX PHONE NO. : Oct. 21 1994 00:57AM P? :kj Z. ! bi^z M 1��+ L � Ob � O O Q) V cy) op '�`' • q o IN :)I -I : Pan-ascri i c TAD; FAX pHot-;--:: t•10. : Oct. 21 1994 08:58AN-P4 It hDft.— Issues: 1. Nutrients a.) Dr. Skinner's letter to the IRWD Board of Directors dated October 10, 1994, describes recent county -wide efforts to reduce nitrate loading in San Diego Creek and the progress that has been made in reducing algae blooms in the Bay. While there has been a measurable reduction in nutrient loading to the Bay, Dr. Skinner points out that algae growth still is affecting some beneficial uses of the Bay and there is a continuing need to further reduce the nitrates entering the bay. b.) IRWD staff point out that algae blooms in the Bay are affected by tidal circulation, storm flows, water temperatures, etc... and not just nutrient loading. Their contention is that algae blooms are most frequently experienced in the warmer summer months when they will not be discharging reclaimant water into San Diego Creek and that algae blooms do not seem to be a problem in the cooler winter months when they propose to discharge reclaimed water. c.) Public Works Department staff have observed a significant decrease in algae blooms in the Bay since the Unit I and Unit II Upper Bay sediment control basins were dredged in 1985 and 1988. The increased tidal flow into Upper Newport Bay, which resulted from the 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment that were removed, and the significant reduction in nutrients being discharged from commercial nurseries into San Diego Creek combined to improve water clarity in the Bay, reduce algae blooms in Lower Bay and significantly reduce algae blooms in the Upper Bay. With all the work (to recirculate and treat irrigation water) completed by the commercial nurseries, nutrient loading in San Diego Creek has been greatly reduced. Nutrients from years of agricultural activity in the drainage area, however, will continue to enter San Diego Creek along with runoff from residential landscaping. Treatment to remove nutrients from the low -flow discharge in San Diego Creek would be beneficial in reducing the non -point source nutrients which are entering San Diego Creek. Peer Swan of IRWD has indicated that if the demonstration project can quantify the effective reduction of nutrients from reclaimed water passing through the marsh, that along with their proposal for long-term discharge of reclaimed water the District would propose to bypass low -flow from San Diego Creek into the marsh for treatment during summer months, May 1 to September 30. Operation of the low -flow bypass system would reduce nutrient loading to the Bay, during the warm summer months with the total nutrient loading in San Diego Creek over the entire year being at or below the current low -flow levels in the creek. 3 2. Currently maintenance of the San Diego Creek sediment control basins requires the trapped sediment from the basins to be stacked along the channel bank to drain before the material can be loaded into trucks for removal. A low -flow r bypass system, as proposed by IRWD, would provide for more efficient and economical maintenance of the sediment basins. r, Conclusion: 1. The "Wetlands Demonstration Project" should provide additional monitoring stations in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay to evaluate the impacts of the additional nitrates and discharge of the reclaimed water should be stopped if increase in algae blooms are observed in Upper Bay. 2. FL.II environmental impact report should be prepared prior to implementing any long-term program to discharge reclaimed water to San Diego Creek. 3. Proposed long-term project should include facilities in San Diego Creek to bypass a significant portion of the low -flow from San Diego Creek into the marsh for treatment during summer months. 4. Operations of the proposed project should: a.) Provide for reduced nutrient loading during summer months, May 1 through September 30. b.) Provide for a reduction in total nitrate loading from San Diego Creek over entire year. 5hn Wolter ooperative Projects Engineer JW -.kc 4 724 Highland Drive sport Beach, CA 92660 October 20, 1994 lewport Beach city Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Irvine Ranch Water District's Wetlands Demonstration Project Dear City Council Members: The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has applied for an permit from the Santa Arta Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) to discharge up to six million. gallons a day of treated wastewater from IRWD's Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plant. This flow would be routed through a series of existing duck ponds that are located near the treatment plant and then into San Diego Creek, a tributary of Upper Newport Bay. By IRWD's own studies, this will increase the nitrates entering Newport Bay by 27 percent. The permit, if' granted, would allow IRWD to discharge into the creek om October 1 to May 1 for a period of two years. However, the esident of the elected IRWD Board admits that in future years IRWD hopes they can continue to discharge their excess reclaimed water in order to save money. The Regional Board has requested that IRWD complete an environmental review of the project prior to taking the issue to the Regional Board for a decision. Therefore, IRWD has, prepared a draft Negative Declaration on what they call their "Wetlands Demonstration Project." The Negative Declaration was discussed at IRWD's Board meeting on October. 11, 1994, but a decision to approve or disapprove the Negative Declaration was postponed until November 21. The city of Newport Beach waiT not given notice of the original meeting but can still submit comments on the proposal if desired. Additional comments will be accepted by IRWD until November 11, 1994. We urge you to take one of two possible actions at this time. 1. Oppose the project outright, or 2. Request that IRWD prepare a complete EIR and disapprove the Negative Declaration (which only addresses impacts on the project site and San Diego Creek but fails to consider impacts on the bay). The EIR should include, 'but not be limited to, the fate of the nitrates in the bay. oppose this project because of the additional nitrates that will ter the bay from this new point source. It doesn't make sense to Increase the nitrates at a time when the bay is starting to show r Newport Beach City Council page two ictober 20, 1994 r improvement in water quality because of a reduction of nutrients . entering the bay from the San Diego Creek watershed. While the Lower Bay has visibly improved, the Upper Bay still shows the effects of excessive nitrates. Even now, in mid-October, at low tide one can see that the rud flats are covered with green algae and water recreational activities at the Newport Dunes are affected by mats of algae. pictures taken of these growths on October 19, 1994, will be presented to the City Council on October 24th. Nutrients can linger in the bay for months. Onelway that they can remain in the bay is through uptake by plant life which is then recycled when the organic material dies and subsequently.decomposes, resulting in release of nitrogen which is once again available for plant or algae regrowth. Historically, growth of algae oftentimes starts in late February or early March and lasts through the fail season. IRWD's proposal would allow reclaimed water to be discharged during these times. Adding nutrients to the bay water can only further promote unsightly algae growth. If IRWD wants to experiment with the nutrient removal efficiency of _unning reclaimed water through open duck ponds, they have the capability of doing this without discharging any water into San Diego Creek. They can pump the water back into the treatment plant while monitoring this project. The Regional Board, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and Senator Bergeson's office have worked hard to improve bay water quality. Many of us believe we are making progress. Why jeopardize this progress by allowing the discharge of reclaimed wastewater into Upper Newport Bay. L Sincerely, \ J Jack and Nancy Skinner a C) o �� a o LU --�-2 I LU 'P :T-- LU o cL j z Z Q z .� 1- 0 � Ld �u Z r z -�- LV �? LU W° Lvr o� LU UJ 12 ui J d . sowed lo a ouiaul Igltlwsuieii xs) pu12aq -III-190d f 5 ce a �U I Ca m C) V F WCD LO LV �- * z _ ATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON. Govemor rALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD `kTA ANA REGION )WA AVENUE. SUITE 100 .,IDE. CA 92507-2409 PHONE: (909) 782-4130 kX:(909) 781-6288 October 27, 1994 Mr. Ronald Young General Manager Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 OCT ./ -- ,?-4 IRVINE RANCH WATER D.ISTRiCT DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT PROJECT NO. 33701 Dear Mr. Young: This is to provide our comments concerning the draft Negative Declaration and associated environmental documentation for the proposed wetlands demonstration project. Based on our review of this documentation, we conclude that Irvine Ranch Water District has not adequately evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the project and that, therefore, the proposed negative declaration is inappropriate. Specifically, the District has not included any evaluation of the impacts of the project on the water quality and beneficial uses of Newport Bay, to which the proposed discharge would be tributary. The District is certainly aware of the significance of Newport Bay as an ecological and recreational resource, and of the concerted efforts by many agencies and parties, including the Regional Board, to address its water quality problems. In keeping with these efforts, and to fulfill your legal responsibilities under CEQA, we believe that the District must undertake a rigorous analysis of the potential i3npacts of the project on the water quality and beneficial uses of the Bay. At the very least, the District must conduct sufficient analysis to support a negative declaration. However, given the public controversy which has arisen concerning this project, as well as the project's sensitivity and potential significance, we believe that a focused EIR may be the most appropriate vehicle for this analysis. As we have previously advised the District, we cannot proceed with the Board's consideration of the District's waste discharge permit application for this project until CEQA compliance is achieved. Ronald Young 2 October 27, 1994 Irvine Ranch Water District - If you have any questions concerning these comments or the permit r application, please contact me at (909) 782-3284 or have your staff contact Joanne Schneider or Gary Stewart of my staff at (909) 782- 3287 and 782-4379, respectively. E, Sincerely, LGed J. Thibeault Executive Officer JES:irwd.wd cc: Regional Board Carl Spangenberg - Irvine Ranch Water District John Wolter - City of Newport Beach Jack and Nancy Skinner Jean Watt - Harbor Quality Committee Bill Bretz - U.C. Natural Reserve System, San Joaquin Marsh Reserve y Y OF N G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING Carl W. Spangenberg Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue P. O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-1700 OCT 1 91994 SUBJECT: Draft ND for the Wetland Demonstration Dear Mr. Spangenberg: MICHAEL M. RUANE DIRECTOR, EMA THOMAS B. MATHEWS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 300 N. FLOWER ST. THIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA, CA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 TELEPHONE: (714) 8344643 FAX #- 834-2771 DPC: 834-4772 The above referenced item is a Draft Negative Declaration (ND) for the Irvine' Ranch Water District. The proposal consists of a two-year demonstration project to assess the the feasibility of discharging treated wastewater from the Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plant, through a series of existing ponds in the San Joaquin Marsh, Northeast of Campus Drive,and then to the San Diego Creek. The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft ND resulting in the following comment regarding open space: Resources Element - Open Space Component: Upper Newport Bay Regional Park is downstream of the project and connected to it via San Diego Creek. Discharges from the project have the potential to impact Upper Newport Bay, especially if duck pond discharge concentrations exceed current San Diego Creek levels. As a component of the negative declaration, a mitigation measure should be provided so that during project operation, discharge concentrations are compared to upstream creek levels. They should not, on average, exceed those levels. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft ND. We realize our comment is late by}t hope it is still useful. If you have questions, please call Kari Rigoni at (714) 834-2109. Very trul urs, A Kari A. Rigoni, Sr. Planner For: Robert W. White, Manager EMA/Environmental Planning Division CH:sf 4102015321240 .� i October 16, 1994 Mr. James E. Hyde Environmental Compliance Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 Dear Mr. Hyde, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration of the Irvine Ranch Water District with regard to the discharge of reclaimed sewage water into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. I am a science teacher at University High School in Irvine, a Parks Commissioner in Costa Mesa, and a marine biologist who has done research on the benthic organisms of Upper Newport Bay [Butler, 1988]. From my perspective the proposed Negative Declaration fails to address the serious impacts that the dumping of nitrogen and phosphorus -rich water may have on the complex community of plants and animals that live in and around Upper Newport Bay. The addition of reclaimed water into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay will undoubtedly increase the total amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that already enters the bay. Increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus could trigger a series of events that would have far-reaching and unpredictable impacts. Increased algal growth, changes in community structure of the benthic fauna, changes in the food supply of migratory waterfowl, and alteration of the salt marsh plant community are all possibilities. Considering that Upper Newport Bay is home to the Light-footed Clapper Rail, Least Tern, and Brown Pelican, any possible changes to the environment should be thoroughly investigated before any new perturbations are deliberately introduced. The seasonal fluctuation of water entering Upper Newport Bay has been shown to alter the composition of benthic communities (polychaetes, crustaceans, mollusks, etc.) [Butler, 1988; MacGinite, 1938; and Seapy, 19811. Dumping reclaimed sewage water into the bay would decrease the number of species and alter natural population cycles. Because benthic organisms are the main food source of many fish and birds that live in the area, changes to the benthic community could have negative impacts throughout the complex food web of the bay. Combined with the effects of increased nutrient loads, tb:6se changes are potentially devastating to the ecosystem as a whole. Therefore, I believe that the best course of action would be to conduct a full Environmental Impact Analysis for the proposed experiment. Alternatives to the project should also be considered. Please include my comments in the Project record and include my name on the mailing list for public hearings regarding this issue. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, n William G. Butler Jr. 2946 Ceylon Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Bibliography Butler, W.G. , Jr. 1988. Community Ecology of Benthic Polychaetes in Upper Newport Bay, California: Community Structure, Response to Disturbance and Life History Strategies. Masters Thesis, California State University, Fullerton. MacGinite, G. E. 1938. Some effects of fresh water on the fauna of a marine harbor. Amer. Midl. Nat. 21:681-686. Seapy, R. R., 1981. Structure, distribution, and seasonal dynamics of the benthic community in the Upper Newport Bay, California. Marine Resources Technical Report No. 46, California Department of Fish and Game. 74 p. I October 11, 1994 Mr. Ron Young General Manager Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92718 SUBJECT: IRWD WETLAND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Dear Ron: Staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of Negative Declaration (ND) for the IRWD Wetland Demonstration Project. We received a copy of the ND at the end of last week. It would have been helpful to have received the ND well in advance of its consideration by the IRWD Board of Directors on October 11, so that our comments could have been incorporated. Based on our review of the ND, we recommend that the IRWD Board of Directors postpone consideration of it until staff's comments can be addressed, as well as those of other affected parties, assuming that the ND was distributed for comment. Generally, upon review of the impacts discussed in the ND, a mitigated ND would have been more appropriate. Additionally, it should be noted in the ND that any physical improvements in furtherance of the project would be subject to a 65402 determination by the City before any work is commenced. ,Our specific comments are noted below: 1. The Project Description should clarify where the discharge would enter San Diego Creek --adjacent to the Reclamation Plant or through the UCNRS portion of the San Joaquin Marsh. 2. "Tertiary treated effluent" and "Title 22" should be defined. 3. The effect of the Demonstration Project in reducing the inorganic nitrogen in the water should be stated as a mitigation measure. All mitigation measures should state the nature of the specific action, when it will be undertaken, who will perform the review and who will make a determination as to the mitigation measure having been satisfied. ,77 j(► Community Development Department c ac % r� r - _ City of !rvine. One Civic Center Plaza. PO Box 19575. Irvine, California 92713 (714) 724-6000 October 11, 1994 Mr. Ron Young General Manager Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92718 SUBJECT: IRWD WETLAND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Dear Ron: Staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of Negative Declaration (ND) for the IRWD Wetland Demonstration Project. We received a copy of the ND at the end of last week. It would have been helpful to have received the ND well in advance of its consideration by the IRWD Board of Directors on October 11, so that our comments could have been incorporated. Based on our review of the ND, we recommend that the IRWD Board of Directors postpone consideration of it until staff's comments can be addressed, as well as those of other affected parties, assuming that the ND was distributed for comment. Generally, upon review of the impacts discussed in the ND, a mitigated ND would have been more appropriate. Additionally, it should be noted in the ND that any physical improvements in furtherance of the project would be subject to a 65402 determination by the City before any work is commenced. ,Our specific comments are noted below: 1. The Project Description should clarify where the discharge would enter San Diego Creek --adjacent to the Reclamation Plant or through the UCNRS portion of the San Joaquin Marsh. 2. "Tertiary treated effluent" and "Title 22" should be defined. 3. The effect of the Demonstration Project in reducing the inorganic nitrogen in the water should be stated as a mitigation measure. All mitigation measures should state the nature of the specific action, when it will be undertaken, who will perform the review and who will make a determination as to the mitigation measure having been satisfied. Mr. Ron Young October 11, 1994 Page 2 4. Impact monitoring should be set out as a distinct mitigation measure, along with what will be monitored. This is particularly important as it pertains to the steps which will be taken if the project's water quality standards cannot be met as well as the project's cumulative impacts. �. 5. All environmental impact categories listed as "yes" should have a mitigation measure or an explanation should be provided as to why cne is not necessary. 6. The discussion of construction related project noise should include a mitigation measure providing assurances that construction activity will be confined to the daylight hours. The mitigation measure should also describe the noise standards to be enforced. 7. Vector Control monitoring should also be set out as a mitigation measure. 10 8. The discussion under "Risk of Upset" should be modified to include the possibility that less than tertiary treated effluent may be discharged into San Diego Creek if control systems fail. 9. The environmental impacts check list notations for if (Earth), 3f (Water) and 5d (Animal Life) should be changed to "maybe" because it is difficult to understand how there would be no impact. In the alternative, all categories checked "no" should also be explained. Staff would"be pleased to discuss these requested modifications with you. Any questions you may have should be directed to Peter Hersh, Manager of Land Use Policy Programs at 724-6456. Sinc r y, OBER C. JOHNSON _ Director of Community Development cc: Paul Brady, Jr., City Manager Allison Hart, Assistant City Manager Barry Hammond, City Councilmember Paula Werner, City Councilmember Peter Hersh, Manager of Land Use Policy Programs L L, 4ea age 09 P.O. BOX 25 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 �Iudubon Sea and Sage Audubon Conservation Committee October 11, 1994 Mr. Carl W. Spangenber Irvine Ranch Water District 3512 Michelson Drive Irving-, CP_. 92716 .- n•. ..ire WATER DISTRICT Comments Concerning Notice of Preparation of Negative Declaration Irvine Ranch Water District Project No. 33701 Dear Mr. Spangenber, Sea and Sage Audubon appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Wetland Demonstration Project. Sea and Sage regularly stays involved with the public process of reviewing and commenting on projects of environmental concern of many types in Orange County. As the Irvine Ranch Water District (I.R.W.D.) is aware the enhancement, quality of habitat and wildlife at the San Joaquin Marsh is of particularly great importance to us. We, as an environmental organization, do sometimes have to be cognizant of the broader view of environmental issues. Due to concerns over possible significant negative impacts of this project on Upper Newport Back Bay we feel that a Negative Declaration for the Wetlands Demonstration Project #33701 is in appropriate. Brieflyysome of our concerns are as follows: 1) Continuous flow and substantially increased fresh water volume into saltwater benthic communities may have detrimental effects in Upper Newport Back Bay. 2) Increased volume and continuous fresh water flows may have impacts and cause changes on plant communities in areas where the San Diego Creek meet Upper Newport Back Bay. Page 2 3) Increases in total volume of nitrates in Upper Newport Back Bay could have significant impacts on a system that may already be overwhelmed by agriculture and other man made sources of nitrogens and nitrates. f Our concerns are that Upper Newport Back Bay has already been so damaged and intruded on by development, �. agriculture and channeling of the San Diego Creek that further impacts could have significant biological consequences. r We feel that a responsible course of action calls for an Environmental Impact Report before a project of this magnitude is considered. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Scott Thomas Sea and Sage Conservation Committee I- M, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE "MEM s v • DAVE • MVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN MANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN FRESHWATER MARSH RESERVE BURNS PINON RIDGE DESERT RESERVE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES James E. Hyde, Environmental Compliance Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 San canyon Avenue P. O. Box 57000 Irvine CA 92619-7000 +� ! SAA'TA DARBARA • SANTA CRUZ ' , ne• j IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92717 11 October 1994 - Subject: Draft Negative Declaration for the Wetlands Demonstration Project, Irvine Ranch Water District Project No. 33701 Dear Mr. Hyde: As a University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS) steward and ecological scientist, I am entrusted with protecting the UCNRS San Joaquin Marsh Reserve, as well as any other remaining elements of the natural ecosystems that connect with and contribute to the biological richness of the UCNRS Reserve, which includes the estuarine reach of the San Diego Creek flood control channel between Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. Thus, the UCNRS — as a CEQA-designated Trustee Agency -- must provide its comments and concerns about potential impacts of IRWD Project No. 33701 to habitats of the San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, as well as the impacted portion of the UCNRS Reserve in San Diego Creek. By this letter of comment, I am informing the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) that the UCNRS -- as a Trustee Agency -- requests that a Negative Declaration not be approved and certified by the IRWD Board of Directors; rather, that a complete and thorough EIR should be required; and furthermore that, because of the potential adverse impacts to Upper Newport Bay and the habitats of San Diego Creek, a federal authority EIS process should likewise be required, due to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U. S. Army Corps historic and ongoing authority and investments benefiting the public estuarine receiving waters that would be impacted by the proposed project. I am attaching a copy of the Initial Study questionnaire from the Environmental Review Document for this project that I received for review as backup material accompanying the Notice of Preparation of Negative Declaration for Project No. 33701. I have altered the response columns of the checklist of potential impacts, adding my own marks to show my responses to the questions, answering as a professional ecological scientist, natural landscape planner and steward T_ 2 representing the interests of the UCNRS and the public. Please notice that I assert that many more "yes" and "maybe" responses are appropriate, considering the full range of probable direct and indirect project impacts off and on-site.-, In the Mandatory Findings of Significance section of the Environmental Review Document for Project No. 33701, none of the four basic, mandatory questions reasonably can be given a "no" response. Recognizing that the appropriate, realistic responses to these questions would be two "yes" and two "maybe"' the only reasonable and responsible Determination that the IRWD Board of Directors can make is that the proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment, and that an Environmental Impact Report (and a companion federal EIS) is required in this case. The UCNRS requests that a Negative Declaration not be approved and certified by the IRWD Board of Directors; and that an EIR/EIS scoping, preparation, public review and certification process be undertaken; and that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the UCNRS and other agencies be included as participants in the scoping process used to initiate the EIR/EIS documentation necessary for IRWD Project No. 33701. Sincerely yours, William L. Bretz, Steward and Manager UCNRS San Joaquin Marsh Reserve c: Dr. D. Elliott -Fisk, Director UCNRS L. Riddle, Associate Director UCNRS Dr. T. Bradley, Chairman UCNRS Advisory Committee J. Fancher, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service T. Kelly, California Department of Fish and Game J. Schneider, Regional Water Quality Control Board N U Ntp ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENT INITIAL STUDY A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Description Irvine Ranch Water District Wetland Demonstration Project 2. Project Location San Joaquin Marsh at Campus Drive, City of Irvine. County of Oranee 3. Project Applicant Irvine Ranch Water District 4. Address of Applicant P.O. Box 6025, Irvine, CA 92716-6025 (714) 453-5000 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Yes Mavbe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or covering of the soil? _ X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief featurts? _ _ X d. Tate destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X C. 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 river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? N _ X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _ X b. The creation of objectionable odors? -L/) 1L__ X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? / X _ _ C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ X CL Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X PDX1508F.WP5 1 e. f. 9- h. L J• � s aL -44— \A 7 yes Mavbe No Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? X — — f Change in the quality of groundwater, either through the downward migration of surface waters or through the direct discharge into the groundwater aquifer? = X Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwater? v _ X Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ — X Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — X Exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? t % 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change is the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including [tees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X— b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? — IL X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal ` / replenishment of existing species? C f e Lk—V �A ` X / d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? t'? Ahf t4 — l�) 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 insects)? X _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? — X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration ,y or movement of animals? X d Deterioration to existing fish orgwildlife habitat? �Y�t:v1b1'U i e ��-y �/C��v g ✓ X — ` T^IL 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X — — b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? — — X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light and glare? — — X 8. Land Use...,Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use X of an area? (�' i yt{� 7s— t `QQt !r -r,-,— re / Ux N (S ','04 — 1L L 9. Natural Resources.Will the proposal result in: V7 �� T_ I-)��_ 5�NY4 ) t/ a. Increases in the rate of use of any natural resour s'?� S ,' — X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: �substances a. A risk of an.explo Losl_n or the release of hazardous ([including, but not limited o' , esticides, chernicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible inter of rence with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? — — X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additioiw housing? X PDX 1508F. WP5 2 i= '&t'+zS 6JIlp-4ZIO, CN S c�KAA�,At Yes Maybe No 13. Transportation/Cuwlation. Will the proposal result in: PDX1508F.WP5 3 a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? — ✓ X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — — X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? — — X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? — — X C. Alterations to waterbome, rail or air traffic? — — X L Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? C�w.Q — X t 14. Public Services Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new ov r altered government services in any of the following at=: a. Fire protection? — — X b. Police protection? — — X C. Schools? X CL Parlor or other recreational facilities? UN 6'37 C>)� 5 ,— V X M Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? C—PA4 FlIbd ire, tom. \— X f. Other governmental services? V(('h-614" �bm jP,, YS — X /1 , 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — — X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? — — X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? — — X b. Communication systems? — — X C. Water? — — X d Sewer or septic tanks? — — X e. Stormwater drainage? — X f. Solid waste and disposal? — — X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Crearion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? — X — b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? — Y X 18. Aesthetics. Wkll 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? — — X 19. Recreation. Wkll the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing `/ LV) V recreational opportunities?,t ( X (� 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? — — X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physidal or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, s=cn=. or object? — _ X PDX1508F.WP5 3 yes Maybe No r, Q Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? — —' d, Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred rues within the potential impact area? — — C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. 4. Does the project have the potential to degrade the�u44y of thesav'mrient, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, anise a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining eve to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rats or endangered p ant or am - or Eliminate important examples of the major V", periods of California history or prehistory? — -- Does the project have the potential to achieve short -tern, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short -tura impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while the long-term impacts will endure well into the fuuae.) — — Does the project have impacts which ate individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact4 + nyo or mote separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, buiwhere the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) , L, f7 — Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ v ��- /) — DETERMINATION r ��'°�~ �" es�s On the basis of this Initial Study: X X X X [X ] 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 in the Initial Study have been added to the project. NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, d an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. (Date) (Signature) YQ Name (typed) Title PDX1548F.WP5 4 t!•1 Villi �.� '-• ._ , 0 October 10, 1994 WATE„ - Mr. James E. Hyde'. Environmental Compliance— Specialist Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 "Destroying or damaging a natural system is a reprehensible act. A badly damaged ecosystem is highly visible evidence of misplaced values. It proclaims not only ethical insensitivity of the society in which it occurs, but also poor management. After all, pollutants are merely misplaced resources. Nutrients added to lakes, rivers, and oceans are badly needed on our agriculture." John Cairns, Jr. (1982) "Prediction is difficult. Especially the future." Sam Goldwyn RE: Draft Negative Declaration for the Wetlands Demonstration Project, Irvine Ranch Water District Project No. 33701 Dear Mr. Hyde: I greatly appreciate the opportunity for public comment upon the proposed Negative Declaration of impact forwarded by the IRWD to directly discharge reclaimed sewage waters into the San Diego Creek at Campus Drive Bridge. Although I teach Limnology and Freshwater Biology, Restoration Ecology, and Environmental Ethics at the University of California, Irvine, in these comments I am representing myself as a professional aquatic ecologist and an indiN idual citizen. Tens of millions of the public's dollars have been expended to acquire, enhance, and preserve the Upper Back Bay as the mosaic of habitats now represented. ~Water quality is truly a significant player in the maintenance of salt marshes and endangered species which inhabit them in southern California. The Upper Back Bay Reserve is also important as a remnant or fragment of an historically more widely represented southern California bay habitat which still is linked with an interior oligohaline marsh (the San Joaquin Marsh). To propose a Negative Declaration under CEQA for introducing nitrogen and phosphorus rich water to the Bay in any season is unreasonable. A full CEQA compliant EIR is clearly needed, and it is possible an Environmental Impact Study under NEPA could be necessary considering the federal dollars expended to acquire, clean up, dredge, and restore the Bay in the past, and planned in the near future. Briefly stated, primary concerns include: - The immediate, cumulative, and longterm impacts of nitrogen and phosphorus loading upon the Upper Back Bay and the San Diego Creek estuary The concept that nitrogen and phosphorus enriched waters might dilute the unfortunately polluted conditions in San Diego Creek ("Discussion of Environmental Impacts," p. 3, para. 2) is embarrassing when forwarded by a special interest. The wistfully anachronistic adage that "dilution is the solution to pollution" was abandoned and federally rejected decades ago, and the modern framework of watershed analysis and management is in terms of TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads), point source control, and the more challenging issue of limiting non -point source pollution streams. A TMDL approach to the creek/estuary/Back Bay ecosystem is greatly needed, and it is probable that existing conditions already exceed the quality and nutrient loading restrictions required to sustain a healthy estuarine/bay ecosystem; "diluting" a polluted creek with a further pollution load is silly when one considers nutrient loading in the context of a total pollution budget (N and P), not just point -source concentration. Adding nutrient enriched water (nitrogen and phosphorus rich) to the creek significantly increases N and P budget total contributions to the Back Bay and estuary, and its effects require F evaluative analysis. Predictable outcomes might include simplification of the interstitial . community species richness and environment (organisms existing in the mud and sand flats which are a significant element of wading bird forage; at least ' eighty-four species of polychaetes alone are known from Shellmaker Island habitats in the Back Bay [Butler, 1988]), health of the salt marsh habitat (experiments by Zedler's lab on salt marsh restoration plots indicate increased growth due to N enrichment, but also dramatic susceptibility to insect predation and a subsequent collapse of the Spartina habitat in large patches), phytoplankton and algal increases, and other longer term potentials. Influences on fisheries are unknown, but could parallel broader ecosystem simplifications. The Upper Back Bay has been managed for biocentric goals for many years, and any predictable changes must be carefully examined in cases such as N and P loading during any season. Altering the hydrologic regime and its impact on the salt wedge and estuarine salinity regime is another unknown area of potential impact. The public has invested many millions of dollars to sustain an estuarine salt marsh habitat, among others, in the Upper Back ecosystem. The tiue public interest has been expressed in the management, enhancement and restoration of the Upper Back Bay ecosystem for the benefit of wildlife. Thanks to the efforts of agencies and local conservationists source point pollution from nurseries and other N and P contributors has been reduced. The increasing non -point source contribution to San Diego Creek and the Bay by diffuse runoffs of reclaimed sewage water is an ongoing concern, but to assert that substantive quantities of N and P from a reclaimed water outfall in San Diego Creek be introduced without full CEQA EIR examination is unacceptable. It is reasonable to anticipate changes in the invertebrate and broader community with increasing N and P loading, and these alterations i should be carefully examined in the context of an EIR. It should be reiterated that the public's large investment in sustaining the Upper Back Bay as a significant mosaic of saltmarsh, mudflat, and other habitats needs recognition and protection. L Therefore, I strongly recommend a full Environmental Impact Analysis for the proposed project, and a NEPA compliant EIS could be mandated by historic and ongoing federal expenditures might be necessary as well. The "Discussion of Environmental Impacts" section of the Draft Negative Declaration (pp. 1-6) is inadequate as it does not treat any of the potential impacts to the Back Bay, which isn't even mentioned, and discussion focuses in a superficial manner upon the project area. I am attaching a copy of the screencheck with impacts designated from an ecological viewpoint. These changes should be reflected in the Draft EIR and EIS. Alternatives to the proposed project, such as not expanding the Michelson plant capacity and instead sending the reclaimed sewage to the ocean by way of an outfall rather than the Back Bay should be fully examined in the DEIR. The Back Bay cannot be forwarded as a stealthy alternative to ocean disposal of reclaimed sewage without a full CEQA compliant EIR. Reclamation in itself is not the most frugal of approaches to water conservation, but should at the least not make downstream ecosystems endure its economic plight If an ocean outfall is what the IRWD requires, that is what it should apply for rather than put the Back Bay and other sensitive systems at potential risk. It should be remembered that this proposal directly influences sensitive ecological resources within the Coastal Zone, i.e. the state's Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, the San Diego Creek Estuary within the UCNRS San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve, and the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park (see EMA, 1992; Marsh, 1990). Thank you for your consideration. Please include these comments and the attachments in the Project record. I look forward to participating fully in a rigorous academic review and substantive contribution to the DEIR and DEIS. Respectfully, CQ,a��� Peter A. Bowler, Ph.D. Residence: 560 St. Ann's Drive Laguna Beach, CA 92651 N Professional address: Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California Irvine, CA 92717 cc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Troy Kelly, California Department of Dr. Gail Kobetich, U.S. Fish and Wildlife California Coastal Commission County of Orange Department of Beaches Irvine City Council Newport Beach Cite Council Fish and Game Service and Parks r Literature Cited Butler, W.G., Jr. 1988. Community Ecology of Benthic Polychaetes in Upper Newport Bay, California: Community Structure, Response to Disturbance and Life History Strategies. Masters Thesis, California State University, Fullerton. f, County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency. 1992. Upper Newport Bay Regional Park General Development Plan. Environmental Impact Report No. 525. State Clearinghouse No. 91051048. Marsh, K.G. 1990. Upper Newport Bay Regional Park Existing Biological Resources. Prepared for EDAW, May 9, 1990. f N ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENT INITIAL STUDY A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Description Irvine Ranch Water District Wetland Demonstration Proiect 2. Project Location San Joaquin Marsh at Campus Drive, City of Irvine, Countv of Orange 3. Project Applicant Irvine Ranch Water District 4. Address of Applicant P.O. Box 6025 Irvine, CA 92716-6025 (714) 453-5000 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PDX1508F.WP5 1 Yes Maybe No 1. Earth_ Will the proposal result in: a_ Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ — X b. Disruptions, displacements. compaction or covering of the soil? — X — C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ — X d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X C. 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 river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ X g_ Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? y — X 2 Air. Will the proposal result in: a Substantial air emissions or deterioration 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 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the r3tr. and amount of surface runoff? 5)—G X C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — — X d Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X — — PDX1508F.WP5 1 r� yes Ma be No C. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? X _ — f. Change in the quality of groundwater, either through the downward migration of surface waters or through the direct discharge into the groundwater aquifer? _ X g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by arts or excavations? X i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water f. supplies? — — X j. Exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X f' 4. Plant life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants ('including trees. l , shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? of X — ® X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, tare or endangered species plants? — Introduction of new species of plants into an arca, or result in a barrier to the normal C. replenishment of existing species? — X i CL Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? — — X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: w a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land I animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, bcnthic organisms or insects)? X — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, raze, or endangered species of animals? — X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration r or movement of animals? — X r d- Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? — X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X — — b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X — — t 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light and glare? 8. Land Use. ^Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use X l of an arca? — 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: ? a Increases in the rate of use of any natural resources? _0 X — l' 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited , a- to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? — X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? —1 X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X — — 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect e:.isting housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X L_ PDX1508F.WP5 ` L. PDX1508F.WP5 3 Yes Mavbe No 13. Translwrtation/Cuatiadon. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? — X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — — X a Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? — — X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? — — X C. Alterations to waterbome, rail or air traffic? _ X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? — X 14. Public Services Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? — — X b. Police protection? — — X a Schools? — I — d Parks or other recreational facilities? oj" ' X X U V C Maintenance of facilities, including roads? L—%4 X C. public f. Other governmental services? `J I- � � � _ X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — _ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? — — X 16. Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? — X b. Communication systems? — — X C. Water? — X d Sewer or septic tanks? b _ X C. Stormwetcr drainage? _ _ X f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human He3jth. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? — X _ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ X 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? — — X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? O _ X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ — X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ X PDX1508F.WP5 3 Yes Maybe No C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect X unique ethnic crltutal values? — — — d. will the proposal restrict existing religious or sawed uses within the potential impact X ama? — — C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. 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. redox the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major� X periods of California history or prehistory? — 2 Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term. to the disadvantage of long-te= environmental goals? (A short -tam impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while the long-term impacts will endure well into the X future.) — 3. Does the project have impacts which ate individually limited. but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or mote separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small. but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is (`(��('(/J\ X significant) 4 Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on directly or indirectly? — X human beings, either D. DETERNIINATION On the basis of this Initial Study: [X ] 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 in the Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ] I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and,,an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. (Date) (Signature) Name (typed) Title PDX 1508F.wP5 4 L� TATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY , + PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME! ' '^ GOLDEN SHORE, SUITE SO OCT BEACH, CA 90802 ._.vll 590-6113 WAITER DIS i [(IC T October 11, 1994 — . Mr. Carl W. Spangenberg Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 6025 Irvine, California 92716-6025 Dear Mr. Spangenberg: Negative Declaration for Irvine Ranch Water District Wetland Demonstration Project, Project No. 33701 County of Orange The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above referenced Negative Declaration and has the following comments that must be considered before the lead agency, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), considers adoption of the project. IRWD is proposing a two-year Wetland Demonstration Project to assess the feasibility of discharging treated wastewater from Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plant, through a series of existing ponds in the San Joaquin Marsh, northeast of Campus Drive, Irvine, California, and then into San Diego Creek. Up to six (6) million gallons per day (MGD) of treated wastewater will be discharged into San Diego Creek from October 1 through April 30. GENERAL COMMENTS As trustee agency for the State's fish and wildlife resources, the Department finds that the proposed project, as described in the negative declaration, will have significant impacts to state fish and wilt„ ife resources. It is inadequate for a public agency to submit little more than an initial study checklist to suffice for a negative declaration in support of a project experimental in nature. To claim that introducing 6 MGD of treated wastewater to a streambed and consequently to an adjacent State Ecological Reserve (i.e. Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve) could not have a significant effect on the environment is not appropriate. An experiment on this grand a scale is not feasible without supporting data to demonstrate a clear improvement to the State's fish and wildlife resources. A project as significant as proposed would demand at minimum an environmental impact report and possibly an environmental impact statement with both state and federal endangered species act consultations. Purposefully introducing a permanent source of water at 6 MGD of any quality would have a significant impact on fish and wildlife resources. Introducing a permanent source of Mr. Carl W. Spangenberg October 11, 1994 Page Two t nitrate and phosphorous to a wetlands ecosystem cannot responsibly be deemed a water quality improvement. The addition of excess levels of nutrients can result in the growth of noxious organisms (red tide), accelerated eutrophication, decreases in dissolved oxygen and water clarity which are not desirable. The study entitled "Algal Community Response to Nitrogen and phosphorous Loadings in Experimental Mesocosms: Management Recommendations for Southern California Coastal Lagoons," Fong et al. (1987) identified research where data was found that nutrient addition not only stimulates algal growth but also E alters community composition; in general, nutrient addition often lowers phytoplankton, periphyton or macroalgal species diversity. Upper Newport Bay receives elevated levels of nutrients carried by runoff from agricultural lands and landscaped areas in the San Diego Creek watershed. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and local municipalities and researches have identified point sources of these nutrients and through concerted efforts have worked diligently to rectify these deleterious inflows to San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. The Department will not consciously allow Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve to be used as an experimental sink for treated sewage effluent. The Department is not necessarily opposed to using reclaimed wastewater for the benefit of wildlife; however, the San Joaquin Marsh and Upper Newport Bay are extraordinarily valuable natural resources and as such are not appropriate for such experimentation. Notwithstanding, the major water quality problem facing Upper Newport Bay is sedimentation. A mechanism for dealing with this problem has been developed in the 208 Comprehensive Stormwater Sediment Control Plan for Upper Newport Bay. Implementation of the Plan has cost the Department, Newport Beach, Orange County, The Irvine Company, and local municipalities millions of dollars to date. The influx of 6 MGD of effluent into San Diego Creek during winter months will increase flows and sediment transport to Upper Newport Bay to the detriment of the resource and the 208 Plan. ADDITIONAL CDNDITIONS All project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall pay a filing fee for each proposed project pursuant to §711.4 of the Fish and Game Code of California. For projects found by the lead or certified regulatory program agency to be categorically exempt from CEQA, or found to be de minimis in their effect on fish and wildlife, no filing fee shall be paid. The proposed project as described does not provide enough data to accurately determine impacts to wildlife resources and therefore is not "de minimis" and is subject to the user fee pursuant to Fish and Game Code r §711.4. For a project with a negative declaration prepared pursuant to subdivision (c) of §21080 of the Public Resources Code, the filing fee in $1,250. For a project with an environmental impact report prepared pursuant to CEQA, the filing fee is $850. The filing ` L, Mr. Carl W. Spangenberg October 11, 1994 Page Three fee shall be paid to the County Clerk at the time of filing a Notice of Determination pursuant to §21152 of that code, as appropriate. In addition, any activity that would divert, obstruct, or affect the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require notification to the Department pursuant to Fish and Game Code §1600 et. seq. This notification (with fee) and the subsequent agreement must be completed prior to initiating any such changes. Notification should be made after the project is approved by the lead agency. The applicant should be aware that if mitigation measures are not provided in this document, the Department may require such mitigation measures through jurisdiction established under Fish and Game Code § 1600 et. seq. In summary, the Department finds that the draft Negative Declaration does not adequately identify, analyze, or mitigate significant project impacts to public trust resources. The Department requests that IRWD notify us immediately should approval of this project proceed. Furthermore, we request a copy of the Notice of Determination be mailed to the letterhead address and faxed to the Department within 24 hours of its issuance by IRWD. Please fax the Notice of Determination to Troy D. Kelly at (714) 644-9938 and Ms. Lilia I. Martinez at (310) 590-5192. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Troy D. Kelly, Associate Wildlife Biologist at (714) 644- 9612. Sincerely, y Fred Worthley Regional Manager Region 5 cc: See attached list I Mr. Carl W. Spangenberg October 11, 1994 Page Four cc: Mr. John Anderson Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Mr. Curt Taucher Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Mr. Troy Kelly Department of Fish and Game Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Mr. Jack Fancher U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California Mr. Mike Adackapara California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Riverside, California Mr. Peter Bowler, Ph.D. University of California, Irvine Irvine, California Mr. Bill Bretz, Ph.D. University of California Natural Reserve System Irvine, California N OCT OCT 11 '54 (;0' ' 4J.;'v ---u P. — TfrsRImw GOw carnwi 9392 Mic nt"n Drive 8u6 500 Irvine, CaMornia 92716 Vr11 _. 714/663.1e20 714/553.1154 Fax YIA FACSIMILE OCT October 10, 1994 WAT DISE ;;ICT Mr. Ron Young '- general Manager IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue P.O. Box 6025 Irvine, California 92716-6025 Re: Agenda Item #3 - Environmental Assessments Wetland Demonstration Project Dear Ron: on Saturday October 8, 1994 we received an agenda for the October 11 1994 Irvine Ranch Water District Board of Directors Regular Meeting. Item 93 - &V,ronmerAa AsspsSmonla recoamends adoption of a Negative Declaration for the Wetland Demonstration Pro3ect located within the San Joaquin Marsh at Caapus Drive in the City of Irvine. We are very interested in the project given our close proximity to the site. Your offices are closed today, Monday, October 10, 1994 and we are not able to contact your staff to obtain a copy of the proposed project. Therefore, we request that this item be continued to allow us to review the plan and the Negative Declaration. • Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, TRWELL CROW COMPANY Thomas E. McDoKo h Principal 'CEM: ld cc: Carl Spangenberg - Irvine Ranch water District TOTAL P,02 1724 Highland Drive Aewport Beach, CA 92660 October 10, 1994 Irvine Ranch Water District 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue - --- - P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, Ca 92619-7000 Attention: Board of Directors Re: Draft Negative Declaration for the Wetland Demonstration Project Dear Board Members: I have received notification that the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has prepared a draft Negative Declaration for your review regarding IRWD's Wetland Demonstration Project. I urge you to disapprove the Negative Declaration and to consider terminating this project. This plan, if adopted, will allow the discharge of approximately six .pillion gallons per day of treated wastewater from IRWD's Michelson Wastewater Reclamation Plant through a series of existing ponds in the San Joaquin Marsh, northeast of Campus Drive, and then into San Diego Creek. Recent correspondence from Mr. Ronald E. Young, General Manager of IRWD, dated October 7, 1994, stated, "It is the goal of the Wetlands Demonstration Project to reduce the nitrate to about 5 mg/liter of total nitrogen" [which equals 22 mg/L of nitrates]. This sentence referred to the level of nutrients that would be present in the treated wastewater at the point of discharge into San Diego Creek. According to my.,calculations, the release of six million gallons a day of treated wastewater with this level of total nitrogen would increase the nitrate load entering the bay by 1,095 lbs a day. The present nitrate load from San Diego Creek is approximately 4,000 lbs a day (EMA data, based on dry weather flows). Since the discharge is planned from October 1 through April 30, this would result in the release to the bay of approximately 1.26 billion gallons of treated wastewater and 231,000 lbs of nitrates a year from this point source. Many of these nutrients linger in the bay and would contribute to the ilgae growths that begin in February or March. Rainstorms cannot be ,ounted on to flush out the nutrients'in the deeper waters of the bay. During heavy rainstorms, high freshwater flows coming down San Diego Creek move over the surface of the bay's salt water like a lens f" i Irvine Ranch Water District page two f October 10, 1994 and exit the bay at the jetty. This phenomenon is created because fresh water has a lower density than salt water and floats on the surface. This results in a barrier that impedes the mixing of fresh water with the deeper layers of salt water. During the years of 1984 and 1985, there was visible deterioration of water quality in Newport Bay with diminished clarity because of persistent dinoflagellate blooms and the growth of mats of macroalgae on bay waters interfering with many recreational activities. Studies performed in the winter and spring of 1986 indicated that very high nitrate loads were entering Upper Newport Bay from San Diego Creek and they were responsible for these nuisance growths. A number of beneficial uses of the bay were affected: (See enclosed pictures) 1. Marine Habitat: Eutrophication with dieoff of the algae occurred in the lower bay around Newport Island in May of 1986. There was death of all marine life, and markedly diminished dissolved oxygen levels documented that the dieoff was secondary to eutrophication rather than from a toxic chemical. Since the bay serves as a nursery for small fish, future algae blooms resulting from nutrient overload could again threaten marine life. 2. Water Contact Recreation: The spring growth of macroalgae, primarily enteromorpha, resulted in mats of algae impacting swimming areas. Currently algae growth in the Newport Dunes area must be removed from swimming areas three times a week, since swimmers will not use the facilities if the algae growths are present. 3. Non -contact Water Recreation: At times the mats are so thick that recreational boats cannot maneuver. Rowing, canoeing, kayaking, sailing, and fishing are all adversely affected by these excessive growths. The mats of algae containing other marine organisms cover the beaches at low tide causing an aesthetic nuisance with beach users complaining of a terrible odor emanating from the detritus thereby �• discouraging recreational beach usage. 4. Wildlife Habitat: Presently, the mud flats in the upper bay are covered with ulva or sea lettuce that has created the appearance of a green golf course. This monoculture persists throughout much of the year, and may have some detrimental effect on marine life in the Ecological Reserve. ince 1986, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the irange County Environmental Management Agency, and Senator Marian Bergeson have worked together in an attempt to mitigate this problem. Two major point sources have been eliminated. The nurseries are now L.., Irvine Ranch Water District page three - recycling their runoff water resulting in a significant reduction in nitrate loading to the bay. IRWD now has a tie line to Orange County Sanitation Districts, and no longer needs to discharge reclaimed water during the winter months except during severe storm events. Because of these efforts there has been a reduction in the algae blooms in the bay with improvement of beneficial uses. The nutrient loading of the bay has been measurably reduced by these efforts. However, the algae growth still is affecting some beneficial uses of the bay. Therefore, there is a continuing need to further reduce the nitrates entering the bay. The present proposal will increase the nitrate loading to the bay and also will jeopardize the progress already made in reducing these nuisance growths. Since San Diego Creek is a tributary to Newport Bay, the impact on the beneficial uses of the bay cannot be ignored and must be considered when evaluating the impact of the project. Based on the above evidence, I urge the Board to disapprove the Negative Declaration and abandon the plans for this project. Sincerely, 6HN F. SKINNER, M.D. Enclosures cc: City of Newport Beach Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region OCEMA Senator Marian Bergeson Orange County Vector Control District_ DISTRICT OFFICE • 13001 GARDEN GROVE BLVD., GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643 MAIUNG ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 87, SANTA ANA, CAUFORNIA 92702 PHONE (714) 971-2421 . FAX (714) 971-3940 BOARD OF TRUSTEES - 1994 PRESIDENT -GRANT MCCOMBS VICE-PRESIDENT -FRANK FRY. JR _.__--. ,- - . •--• .r October 7, 1994.. SECRETARY - KENNETH E CARR _ ANAHEIM LEONARD J. LAWICKIBREA _ 0 G I KARL H. FANNING BUENA PARK KENNETH S. JONES MESA Carl W. S anenber gTA IRVi�J� R:.i CJS WILLIAM BANDARUK Project Manager WATER DISTRICT CYPRESS GAIL H. KERRY P. O. Box 57000 -• r r DANA POINT KAREN LLOREDA 00Irvine, California 92619-70 FOUNTAIN VALLEY LAURANN COOK FULLERTON FLORENCE CAVILEER GARDEN GROVE Dear Mr. S an : enber J. TILMAN WILLIAMS P g g HUNTINGTON BEACH DR VICTOR LEIPZIG IRVINE The comments below are in response to the Draft Negative Declaration for BARRY J. HAMMOND LAGUNA BEACH Wetlands Demonstration Project IRWD Project No. 33701, discussion of GRANT MCCOMBS LAGUNA HILLS Environmental Impacts found on pages 5-6. DR. PHILIP HANF LAGUNA NIGUEL THOMAS W. WILSON LA HABRA The considerations of mosquitoes as a potential problem have been well JAMESKE F FLORA LAKE FOREST thought out and discussed in the Health 17 summary, g ( ) ary, after consultation u,,,""`sG" betweeen Dawn Sanders and myself at CH2M Hill. 'RY A. HERMAN 1LAMtTOS .E JEMPSA The most important to in .-SION VIEJO aspects consider the management of mosquito P P g q SID GORDON production are habitat reduction. Keeping vegetation mowed from the bank NEWPORT BEACH and shoreline, as well as the removal or spraying of emergent vegetation, will OJAN ANGEBAY FRED L. BARRERA greatly limit mosquito larval production. Natural insect predators and the PLACENTIA NORMAN Z ECKENRODE introduction of mosquito fish (Gambusia affInis) will also keep mosquito SAN KE C`E"� KENNETH E. CARR breeding to a minimal level. SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO JAROLD B. COLE SANTA ANA WILL" L. BOYNTON We ask that if ponds are leaking through berms that these leaks be repaired to F� BEACH eliminate pond overflow or leakage. These areas are often major producers of gDONMARTINEZ mosquitoes if left untreated. TUSTIN FABIE KAY COMBS VILLA PARK ' .. The Irvine Ranch Water District has expressed an interest in the monitoring WILLIAM OLIVA WESTMINSTER and some control work on the duck ponds. This would be augmented by FRANK FRY. JR. YORBA LINDA Orange County Vector Control District staff if necessary. BARBARA W. KILEY COUNTY OF ORANGE LEO F. KOHL DISTRICT MANAGER GILBERT L. CHALLET Sincerely, E C pU�l. �P�\G O Lawrence H. Shaw Vector Control Specialist A LHS/tp ion T ROL .�.. A vector is any insect or other arthropod• rodent or other animal of public health significance capable of causing human discomfort. injury. or capable of harboring or transmitting the causative agents of human disease. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West October 6, 1,994 Carlsbad, California 92008 •ten— Mr. James Hyde Environmental Compliance Specialist ►rilii;;� Irvine Ranch Water district _ MATER' 1;j iii i P.O. Box 57000 15600 Sand Canyon Ave. Irvine, CA 92619-7000 Re: Draft Negative Declaration for Wetlands Demonstration Project No. 33701, San Joaquin Marsh Dear Mr. Hyde: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has examined the referenced document received September 27, 1994. The Service finds that some potentially severe environmental complications of the proposal to discharge 6 million gallons a day into ponds at San Joaquin Marsh have not been discussed in the draft Negative Declaration. Only about one mile downstream of the San Diego Creek discharge point is the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Additional nutrient loading may not be beneficial to that system. The additional and continuous nature of freshwater discharge to that system may also be detrimental. We recommend further discussion and documentation. The Service also questions whether the increased volume of discharges to the existing ponds would in any way enhance their biological values. We lastly question why the plant's dewatering water would or should be discharged directly to the creek rather than into the marsh where it had typically been done. Further discussion of these questions would be appreciated. As you may know, the Service is interested in working with the Irvine Ranch Water District on projects that would benefit wetland dependent species, especially birds, using reclaimed wastewater. We have previously expressed the view that the San Joaquin Marsh is not the best location to conduct such an experiment, but that other more appropriate localities within reach of your distribution lines l appear abundant The Service would be interested in pursuing this alternative site selection search. Nevertheless, it is suggested that the draft Negative Declaration should include some of the other potential sites considered. Feel free to contact us as appropriate. The Service representative remains Mr. Jack Fancher who may be reached at (619) 431-9440. incerel , ai obetich Field Supervisor tiT1T OF S1A7[S Q` P� P • • men Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch Irvine Ranch Water ATTN: John Walter P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, California Dear Mr. Walter: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325 September 27, 1994 V1' - OCT 0 3 IRVINE RANCH _ WATER DISTRICT District 92619-7000 Reference is made to a letter from your consultant of September 12, 1994 (No. 94 -00881 -00 -MFS) in which you inquired as to whether or not a Section 404 permit is required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct an outfall near San Diego Creek within the City of Irvine, Orange County, California. Based on the information furnished in your letter (referenced above), we have determined that your proposed project does not discharge dredged or fill material into a water of the United States or an adjacent wetland. Therefore, the project as described is not subject to our jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and no Section 404 permit is required from our office. The receipt of your letter is appreciated. If you have any questions please contact Mark F. Sudol of my staff at (213) 894-0353. Sincerely, N Mark Durham Chief, South Coast Section Regulatory Branch 0 a I Appendix D Michelson Water Reclamation Plant Effluent Data SCO10017A4E. WP5 D-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N N N N dE)kllBw 962 L/i= 96/0 L/ti 96/9/17 96/17/17 96/Z/tb 96/6Z/£ 96/LZ/E 96/£Z/£ WLZ/£ 96/6 LIE 96/9 LIE S6/E LIE 96/6/£ 96/L/£ 96/9/E 96/ LIE 96/LZ2 96/£Z/Z 96/ LZ/ -L 96/9 LIZ 96/17 LIZ 96/Z L2 96/9/Z 96/9/Z 96/Z/Z 96/ L£/ L 96/6Z/ L 96/9Z/ l 96/EZ/ L 96/6 L/ L 96/L L/ l 96/9 L/ L 96/ L W L 96/6/1 96/9/ l 96/E/ L b6/6Z/Z L 176/LZ2 L 176/ LZ2 L 176/6 UZ l 0 176/9 L/Z l O 10 Appendix E Wetlands Nitrogen Removal Analysis SCO10017A4E. WP5 E_ 1 REVISED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NITRATE REMOVAL: THE IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Report to CH2M-Hill, Santa Ana Office for The Irvine Ranch Water District by Alex J. Horne 16 March 1995 Alex Horne Associates, 867 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito, California, 94530 510-535-4433 2 SUMMARY Considerable nitrate removal should occur in the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) wetlands water supply project. The amount of nitrate removed was estimated based on experimental projects in southern California and elsewhere. The projected inflow volume to the wetlands is 5 MGD (7.5 cfs) of nitrified, secondarily -treated effluent containing 6 mg/L of nitrate -N flowing into 67 acres of free surface wetland which will be planted with vegetation and have some open water. Since recent studies have shown that the treatment plant can reduce nitrate to as low as 3 mg/L (nitrate -N) with a flow of 3 MGD, and the actual nitrate level at 5 MGD is unknown, it is appropriate to consider a range of inflowing nitrate concentrations (3, 6, 10 mg/L) as well as two discharge rates (3, 5 MGD). Data collected at the Prado Wetlands (Riverside County) over the last three years gives denitrification rates of 200 to 1,700 mg/m2/day with a working average of 800 mg/m2/day (approximates to 2 to 8 lb. N/acre/day). Unpublished data collected over a similar period in Iowa constructed wetlands supports these rates. From these loss rates it can be predicted that nitrate -N in the outflow from the wetlands to San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay will be between less than 1 and 3.1 mg/L nitrate -N (some of this uncertainty is due to lack of knowledge of the age of the marsh and the water temperature). In winter, some treatment wetlands in the southern US show very low rates (< 50 mg/m2/day) or even negative loss rates (i.e. increasing the outflow concentrations). I believe that this data is not applicable for the IRWD wetland which will not be used in the summer and thus not accumulate organic nitrogen to be released in winter. Most nitrate losses will occur from denitrification where nitrogen is lost as N2 gas to the atmosphere and thus will not accumulate as a N -rich sludge in the marsh sediments. Summary Table A. Calculated nitrate losses in the Irvine Ranch Water District wetlands water supply project using various scenarios of inflow and in -wetland denitrification rates. The most likely scenarios are shown in bold type. Inflow volume (MGD) Wetland nitrate removal rate (mg/m2/day) Inflow nitrate conc. (mg/L) Wetland nitrate removal rate (mg/L) Outflow nitrate conc. (mg/L) 5 800 3 11.4 < 1 5 200 3 2.9 <1 5 45 3 0.65 2.3 5 800 6 11.4 <1 5 200 6 2.9 3.1 5 45 6 0.65 5.3 5 800 10 11.4 <1 5 200 10 2.9 7.1 5 45 10 0.65 9.3 3 800 3 19 <1 3 800 6 4.8 1.2 3 800 10 1.1 8.9 3 OVERALL This short report provides a revised estimate of how much surface area and which type of vegetation cover will be needed to remove nitrate in the IRWD wetlands water supply project ponds which will process treated and nitrified secondary effluent from the 1RWD's Mitchellson Plant in Irvine, California. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS 1. At least 67 acres of "wetland" will be available for nitrate removal. Sixty acres of this wetland will be shallow (< 0.8 m or 2.6 feet), 7 acres at the head of the system will be deeper (about 2 m or > 6 feet). 2. A free surface wetland with patches of open water and planted stands of various macrophytes species (cattails, bulrush, etc.) will be constructed with the entire system divided into several separate ponds. Water will flow from the deepest down through the system with the ponds operated in series. BASIS FOR NITRATE REMOVAL Plant (and. algae) growth or bacterial denitrification are the only important pathways by which nitrate can be removed from terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems. Higher plants such as trees, cattails, grasses, or algae only take up as much nitrogen as they need to form proteins, other structural components, and the green pigment chlorophyll a. In the process of denitrification bacteria use nitrate (NOD when oxygen itself is unavailable and release nitrogen gas (ND as a waste product. Biomass Removal: From a waste treatment viewpoint, uptake of nitrogen into plants is not as desirable a process of nitrate removal as dentrification since the dead plants accumulate in the wetland. However, the most efficient method of removal of nitrate in biomass involves some kind of attached algae bed where nitrogen is taken up into the algal cells. An example is the 1,200 acre Kesterson Reservoir (a free surface wetland) where agricultural subsurface drainage containing up to 100 mg/L of nitrate nitrogen was reduced to less than 1 mg/L (USBR, 1988; Horne & Roth, 1988). At present commercial prototypes are available for systems that employ a fixed plastic bed reactor combined with a giant squeegee -device to remove the biomass (Bio Environmentalists Inc., 1992). Nitrate is also removed by growth of large wetland plants but, since most freshwater macrophytes have roots in the soil, they remove little nitrate from surface water. The main drawback with the uptake -for -growth system is the need to remove and dispose of the very large amount of biomass which will fill up the area. A second drawback is that the wetland will recycle nitrogen back into the system when decomposition occurs. Since all living things contain only 0.1 to 0.3 % nitrogen (as fresh weight), a forest of plants would need to grow each month in order to remove the amount of nitrate required to clean up wastewater discharges. For the IRWD wetlands water supply project, over a F r• L_' 4 100 tons of fresh vegetation would have to be removed per day when operated at full capacity. Nitrogen recycling occurs when particulate matter decomposes in the wetland and releases ammonia back into the water. Natural wetlands, as well as some constructed wetlands that receive particulate nitrogen, often release as much nitrogen as they receive on an annual basis. In such cases the wetland acts as a transformer and changes the timing of nutrient fluxes downstream but is not net sinks of nitrogen. The main advantage of nitrate removal into biomass is that no special conditions are required for plants to remove nitrate for growth. Bacterial denitrification: In contrast with biomass removal, in a wetland or wet area of any kind of soil, many kinds of bacteria naturally present in the system will transform nitrate into nitrogen gas - a process called denitrification. The nitrogen gas is rapidly released to the atmosphere and there is no buildup of sludge or biomass which must be removed. In addition, since the nitrogen is disposed of into the atmosphere as an inert gas, recycling is impossible. These advantages are so great that bacterial denitrification is the preferred method for nitrate removal from wastewater. However, the wastewater must be nitrified by additional treatment with air mixing or oxygen addition so that ammonia normally present in secondary effluent is converted to nitrate. Denitrification can only occur with nitrate as the bacterial substrate. Bacterial denitrification can be induced anywhere without seeding or planting if the appropriate conditions are supplied. These conditions are low oxygen levels, a physical site (dead leaves, decaying plant stems) where the bacteria attach, a supply of carbon food, and a supply of nitrate. However, these conditions are not easily attained in nature and most aquatic ecosystems, including natural wetlands, are often very inefficient at denitrification. Thus the design of the IRWD wetlands water supply project is crucial. The only efficient natural denitrifying sites are tidally -mixed estuaries and productive lakes with nitrate -rich groundwater supplies welling up through the sediments. At the IRWD wetlands water supply project the trick is to mimic and improve on nature at the lowest cost. In brief, a considerable amount of energy must be expended to mix nitrate into the anoxic (no oxygen) regions where it can be converted to nitrogen gas. Nitrate removal in free surface wetlands. The free surface wetland proposed for the IRWD wetlands water supply project will look like a shallow lake with clumps of reeds growing here and there. In a free surface wetland, the wind supplies the mixing energy, carbon is supplied by plants, and dead plant fragments provide a surface for the bacteria and the site of low oxygen is the ooze formed on the sediments by dead plant fragments. There are numerous studies that show nitrogen changes in wetlands. It is almost a textbook rule that wetlands act as transformers, converting soluble inorganic nutrients to the organic, particulate fraction and retaining them (Mitsch & Gosselink, 1993, Horne & Goldman, 1994, pp. 408-432). Three points must be made about this concept. First, the data on natural wetlands is based on natural concentrations of nutrients that are orders of magnitude less than in polluted waters. Second, recycling of nutrients in the non -flood seasons is often discounted. Third, most of the data on polluted waters was collected 5 incidentally to the main purpose of phosphorus or BOD removal (see edited volumes (Hammer, 1988), review by Kadlec and Newman (1992), and the USEPA Wetlands Treatment Database (WTB, June 1994). In addition, there is a controversy as to how much loss is via plant growth and how much via denitrification. Past literature on this subject gives mixed findings. (Gersberg et al., 1983; 1987; Findlayson et al 1983; Gearheart et al., 1988; Gale et al., 1993; Rogers et al., 1993). Most of the wetlands described in the literature were designed for BOD removal and are gravel bed wetlands which do not remove significant amounts of nitrogen (Hammer, 1988, 1993; WTD), although they often convert nitrogen from one fraction to another. For the IRWD wetlands water supply project, more efficient free surface wetlands rather than gravel bed (or sub -surface) wetlands are proposed. In past studies wetlands were often loaded at a very low rate (Kadlec & Newman, 1992; WTD, 1994) or were natural wetlands which are relatively inefficient at nitrate removal (Nichols, 1993). Some constructed wetlands are fed with most nitrogen in particulate from (e.g. effluent from algae ponds or algae -rich lakes. In this case total nitrogen (TN) removal is high, but the system may be inefficient over the long term. Recycling of TN occurs since the nitrogen is supplied in a reduced form (organic particles) and must by oxidized in the wetlands to nitrate before denitrification can occur. Oxygen is in short supply in wetlands and any reduced nitrogen produced in wetlands generally remains reduced at the outflow. Constructed wetlands designed for nitrogen removal have been operated for a few years and "typical" results are only now becoming available. Published studies on well- controlled experiments using constructed wetlands for nitrate removal are still very rare and that is the reason for my own studies in the Prado Basin (Horne & Bachand, 1993, 1994; Bachand & Horne, 1994a, b), although data from partially -controlled experiments (Andrews et al., 1994) and laboratory studies (Harmon & Fustec, 1991; Gale et al., 1993; Rogers et al., 1993, Crumpton, in press) may still be used with caution (see below). DESIGN CALCULATIONS Free surface wetlands. Data from the literature and on-going experiments and pilot -scale field tests will form the basis of the calculation of the amount nitrate that will be removed. The design criteria specified are: • Flow rate of up to 5 MGD (7.5 cfs) • Inflow nitrate -N values expected at 3-6 mg/L but could be up to 10 mg/L • Area of wetlands is 67 acres. The only variables needed to calculate the outflowing nitrate concentration given the above three design specifications are the specific denitrification rate and the hydraulic residence time. The rate of denitrification will be constant over a wide range of nitrate values since the concentrations in the IRWD Michelson Project winter nitrified outflow are well above the enzyme saturation rate. The rate of denitrification is thus the key design parameter. i.. Ii M The rates of denitrification and sources of information used for the 1RWD Wetlands Water Supply Project are shown in Table 1 and summarized in Table 2. Table 1. Rates of dentrification in natural and constructed wetlands. Visual observation of these wetlands confirms that they can all be described as "duck pond" type wetlands rather than full stands of unbroken vegetation (note that the 1994 Prado data includes a full cover as well as open water data). Table 2. Range of surface area of free surface wetlands needed to remove 5 mg/L of nitrate -N from 5 MGD (7.5 cfs) of water using various experimentally -derived denitrification rates. Range Rate (k) mg N m-2 day- I Wetland age ) Reference Kelly Farm, CA 350-650 1-3 Smith, 1990 Prado wetlands 1992 2000-5500 1 Horne & Bachand, 1994. Prado wetlands 1993 350-460 0.5 Bachand & Horne, 1994a ,b Prado wetlands 1994 600-1700 1.5 Bachand & Horne, un ubl. Idaho cattail marsh 2000-5000 3-5 Crum ton, pers. comm. Texas mixed marshes up to 786 0.5 Andrews et al., 1994 mean 1616 1.7 average minimum 883 1.2 average maximum 2349 2.2 Table 2. Range of surface area of free surface wetlands needed to remove 5 mg/L of nitrate -N from 5 MGD (7.5 cfs) of water using various experimentally -derived denitrification rates. Range Nitrate removal rate k (mg N m-2 day -1) Land required (acres) mean 1616 23 average minimum 883 49 average maximum 2349 15 The studies in the Prado Basin are the most rigorously controlled and measured system but for any wetland the following relationship can be made using a k value (nitrate removal rate in mg/m2 /day of about 800 (Bachand & Horne, 1994). This approximates to the average minimum found in Tables 1-2 and is as suitable an estimate as can be made for winter denitrification rates at this time. For the IRWD wetlands water supply project: Wetland Area (A) = 67 acres = 0.27 x 10^6 m2 = 2.7 x 10^9 cm2 Wetland Depth (z) = 20 inches = 50 cm = 0.5 m Wetland Volume (V) = 0.27 x 10^6 x 0.5 = 0.14 x 10^6 m3 =140 x 10^6 liters Loading volume = 0.212 m3/sec (5 MGD) x 60 x60 x 24 = 18.3 x 10^3 m3/day = 18.3 x 10^6 liters/day = 18.3 x 10^9 CM3 /day Hydraulic Loading Rate (HRT) = 18.3 x 10^9 (cm3/day )/ 2.7 x 10^9 (cm2) = 6.8 cm/day Hydraulic residence time (RT) = V/Q = 140 x 10^9/18.3 x 10^6 = 7.6 days All nitrate values are expressed as N (i. e. not nitrate). Mass N loading = 18.3 x10"6 (5 MGD)x 6 (mg/L NO3-N) = 0.11 x 10^9 mg N/day 7 r� A. MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS (average 1994 Prado nitrate loss rate) (a) Expected nitrate loss rate = 800 (k = mg/m2/day) x 0.27 x 10^6 (A in m) = 0.216 x 10^9 mg N/day Nitrate mass loading =0.11 x 10^9 mg N/day Since the rate of loss on nitrate is about twice as large as the supply: Outflow nitrate concentration will be = less than 1 mg/L For outflow concentration =1 mg/L (effectively zero for this process since the enzyme system may become undersaturated at < 1 mg/L and thus the kinetics measured at Prado Wetlands will not necessarily apply at these lowest nitrate levels) (b) Volumetric loss rate. The above loss rate can also be calculated on a volumetric basis using the revised estimate of wetlands available (67 acres of 140 x 10^6 i.e. 0.216 x 10^9 mg N/day per 140 x 10^6 liters(V) =1.5 mg/L/day Thus at the expected rate, the amount removed after 7.6 days of bacterial treatment in the wetlands will be: 1.5 (mg/L/day) x 7.6 (RT, days) =11.4 mg/L The inflowing concentration is = 6 mg/L Outflowing concentration = 6 minus 11.4 = less than 1 mg/L Since the removal rate of 11.4 mg/L is greater than the inflowing concentration of 6 mg/L, the outflow will be stripped of nitrate, or less than 1 mg/L for practical purposes (see above). B. WORST LIKELY CONDITIONS (lowest Prado nitrogen loss rate) At a loss rate of 200 mg/m2/day (lowest average value recorded at Prado wetlands), Loss rate = 200 (k = mg/m2/day) x 0.27 x 10^6 (m2) = 0.054 x 10^9 mg N/day or 0.39 mg/L/day Thus at this lower rate, the amount removed will be: 0.39 (mg/L/day) x 7.6 (HRT days) = 2.9 mg/L/day Thus (at lowest Prado removal rates) final outflow concentration will be: 6 - 2.9 = 3.1 mg/L M This value can be lowered by either increasing the residence time of the water in the wetland. For example, if only 2.5 MGD were added, the final concentration would be less than 1 mg/L [6 - (0.39 x 7.6 x 2)]. The outflow concentration could also be decreased by the addition of a carbon source such as chopped straw or sugar. This is typically carried out in constructed wetlands using gravel bed and underground flow regimes. The amount of reduction cannot be ascertained at present. C. WORST POSSIBLE CONDITIONS (EPA database values) Most of the published literature gives values that are much lower than those used above. For examples values from -230 to + 343 mg/m2 /day are shown for the most similar system in the EPA database (see Table 3). Averages for the autumn -winter -spring range from 32-57 mg/m2 /day (Table 3). If these low rates (average = 45 mg/m2/day) prevailed at the IRWD wetlands water supply project only about 0.65 mg/L of nitrate would be removed. With and inflow of 6 mg/L this would give and outflow concentration of 5.3 mg/L but with an inflow of 3 mg/L the outflowing nitrate level would be 2.3 mg/L, a more significant drop considering the background concentrations of about 3 mg/L in Newport Bay and the much higher values often found in urban runoff such as San Diego Creek. However, for several technical reasons, I think that the EPA 1994 WTD results are not applicable for the IRWD wetlands water supply project. This is not a reflection on the EPA database for most applications but the kinds of wetlands tests and data in the EPA database were rarely designed, gathered, or analyzed for nitrate removal, being more concerned with BOD removal, or ammonia transformation. The argument revolves around the fact that it requires a great deal more energy and thus wetland area to convert organic nitrogen (= BOD) or ammonia to nitrogen gas compared to the nitrate to nitrogen gas transformation. CONCLUSION It is predicted that almost all of the nitrate present in 5 MGD of nitrified secondarily - treated effluent from the IRWD wetlands water supply project can be removed by constructed 67 acre free surface marsh -type wetland. Under the worst likely conditions only about a third of the nitrate would be removed unless further actions were taken. Under the worst possible conditions about 10% of the nitrate would be removed. REFERENCES Andrews, D., W. Frossard, A. H. Plumber, and L. E. Mokry. 1994. Use of a constructed wetland to supplement and protect a North Texas water supply. Lake & Reservoir Management 9: 51 (abstract). Also personal communication from D. Andrews. Bachand P. & A. J. Horne. 1994a, 1994b. Nitrate removal in Prado Wetland: Final Studies using macrocosms to determine the effects of marsh age and water depth. Progress Reports # 1 (May -July 1994) and # 2 (August- October 1994) to Orange County Water District (California). Spring -Fall 1993 Bio Environmentalists Inc., 1992. Algal Turf Scrubbers. Altamonte Springs, Florida. M Davido, R. L. & T. E. Conway, 1988. Nitrification and denitrification at the Iselin Marsh/Pond/Meadow facility. pp. 477-483 in D. A. Hammer, (ed.) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: municipal, industrial, and agricultural Findlayson, C M. and A. J. Chick. 1983. Testing the potential of aquatic plants to treat abattoir effluents. Water Res. 17:412-422. Gale, P.M., K. R. Reddy & D. A. Gratz. 1993. Nitrogen removal from reclaimed water applied to r . constructed wetlands and natural wetland microcosms. Res. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 65: 162-168. Gearheart, R. A., F. Klopp, & G. Allen. 1988. Constructed free surface wetlands to treat and receive wastewater: Pilot project to full scale. pp. 121-137 in D. A. Hammer, (ed.) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: municipal, industrial, and agricultural. Lewis Press Boca Raton, Florida. Gersberg, R. M., B. V. Elkins, & C. R. Goldman. 1983. Use of artificial wetlands to remove nitrogen from wastewater. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed. 56:152-156. Hammer, D. A. 1988. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: municipal, industrial, and r agricultural. Lewis Press Boca Raton, Florida, 831 pp. Hammer, D. A. 1993. Wetlands for wastewater treatment. Seeds of Change Conference on Bioremediation, The Exploratorium, San Francisco. October 15 1993. Harmon, M. & E. Fustec. 1991. Laboratory and field study of an in situ groundwater denitrification reactor. Res. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 63: 942-949. Horne, A. J. & J. C. Roth. 1989. Selenium detoxification studies at Kesterson Reservoir wetlands: Depuration and biological population dynamics measured using an experimental mesocosm and pond 5 under permanently flooded conditions. University of California, Berkeley. Environmental Engineering & Health Sciences Laboratory Rept. No. 89-4. 107 p + Appendix (89 p.). Horne, A. J. & P. Bachand. 1994a. Studies on water quality and wildlife enhancement in experimental macrocosms in the Prado Wetlands: nitrate removal, phosphate removal, and invertebrate biomass and diversity in 1993. Progress Report to the National Water Research Foundation and Orange County Water District (California). Spring -Fall 1993. Horne, A. J. and C. R. Goldman. 1994. Limnology. 2nd. Ed., 627 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. Kadlec, R. H. and S. Newman. 1992. Phosphorus removal in wetland treatment areas: Principles and data. South Florida Water Management District, Everglades Protection-Stormwater Treatment Area Design Support. July 1992. Laksham, G. An ecosystem approach to the treatment of wastewater. J. Envir. Qual. 8:353-361. Mitsch, W. J. & J. G. Gosslink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. Nichols, D. S. 1983. Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients from wastewater. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed. 55: 495-505. Rogers, K. H., P. F. Breen & A. J. Chick. 1993. Nitrogen removal in experimental wetland treatment systems: evidence for the role of aquatic plants. Res. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 65: 934-941. Smith, D. W. 1990. Kelly Demonstration Wetland: Management Plan and monitoring results. Merritt -Smith Consulting (with CH2M-Hill), Lafayette CA. 26 pp. + Figs & Tables. US Bureau of Reclamation. 1986. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Kesterson Program. Technical Background report. April, 1986. 170 p. WTB (Wetlands treatment Base). 1994. North America Wetlands for Water Quality Treatment Database. Version 1.0 - June 1994 Disk 1 of 1. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati Ohio & Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. Appendix F External Monitoring Committee Meeting Minutes and Comment Letters SCO10017A4E. WP5 F-1 Meetingcalled. by: Ken Thompson Facilitator: Ken Thompson Note taker: To be Determined Timekeeper: To be Determined Agenda topics 10:00-10:15 AM Introductions Ken Thompson 10:15-10:20 AM Assignment of Duties Ken Thompson 10:20-10:35 AM Itemize Topics of Concern and Allocate Time. 1. Identification of Baseline Database 2. Criteria for Off -Site Monitoring 3. Other 10:35-11:40 AM Discussion 11:40-11:55 AM Summary of Action Items -11:55-12:00 PM Set Next Meeting Ken: Thompson 83/88/95 88:53:23 IRWD / 714-453-5588—> rill Leo %ion hightFA% Page 882 Minutes of the Wetlands Water Supply Project Off -Site Monitoring Meeting Irvine Ranch Water District Project 33702 This meeting was the result of the Scoping Meetings for the Wetlands Water Supply Project focused Staged Environmental Impact Report held on February 9, 1995. The subject meeting was held at the Irvine Ranch Water District Operations Center on February 23, 1995 from 10:00 am to 11:30 am. Those persons in attendance were: Hope Smythe, Regional Board Bruce Moore, OCEMA (for Chris Crompton and Tom Rossmiller) John Wolter, City of Newport Beach Jennifer Cohen, CH2M-Hill Ken Thompson, TRWD Jim Hyde, IRWD Those invited but not present: Troy Kelly, Department of Fish and Game (declined to attend) Bill Bretz, UCNRS (unable to attend) Louis Denger, IRWD (unable to attend) The purpose of the meeting was: 1) Identification of baseline database, and 2) Establishment of criteria for off-site monitoring. Identification of Baseline Database Use data collected after the Nurseries were put under NPDF.S discharge permits (approximately 1988) Smythe will provide the actual date. 2. The last dredging of the siltation basins in Upper Newport Bay was in 1988, and should not affect the baseline data period. John Wolter will verify the dates. The baseline data will start with the first October after the nurseries were put under permit and the dredging was completed, and continue to the present. 4. The baseline data reporting will be split into two periods: October through April and May through September. April was identified as the month when any residual winter freshwater would. be flushed out of the bay. Each season should be looked at on a monthly basis. UCI has some Mussel Watch data which might be beneficial. Storm events should be excluded from the data. wctsupUdoc 83/88/95 88:53:58 IRWD / 714-g5a .._ .�z Z58 4380 RightFAX Page 803 6. OCEMA indicated that the database from 1988 to 1991 was incomplete, however water quality data collected from 1991 on was collected on a monthly basis. 7. Mussel Watch results should be identified in the EIR. 8. OCEMA data is primarily the nitrogen series, total phosphorous, electrical conductivity, and metals. 9. Data collected under the monitoring program should be correlated to tide stage. 10. The key locations for study are, by OCEMA acronym,: UNBJAM High up as possible in the bay UNBSDC Marked by a leaning post in the bay UNBBCW Located adjacent to Big Canyon Wash UNBNSB Located at North Star Beach tT11-TFiNlDF3 Located near the Newport Dunes launch ramp UNRCT-M Located just upstream of the Coast Highway bridge LNBHIR Located in the Harbor Island reach LNBTUB Located in the turning basin LNBRIN Located in the Rhine Channel LNBTHE Located at the Newport Harbor entrance Samples are usually collected between 9 to 12 am, regardless of the tide stage. 11. All data collected by OCEMA was analyzed by BC Analytical using methods described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Future monitoring should follow Standard Methods protocols. 12. OCEMA has suspended its monthly monitoring. In May, OCEMA will sample for its dry weather sampling. OCEViA has two storm event samplings in its budget for this year. 13 Tettemer and Associates has baseline sediment data from 1982 to the present. Sediment samples were collected in May -June and October -November. Criteria for Off -Site Monitoring 1. It was suggested that chlorophyll a be added to the monitoring program as a measure of primary productivity response. 2. It was suggested that a ten-year time line be included in the EIR which identify significant events related to Newport Bay. 3. It was suggested that the baseline data collected as part of the EIR evaluation should drive the off-site monitoring program, to eliminate testing for those constituents determined to be of no concern. N 83/88/95 88:54:35 IRWD / 714-453-5588—> 714 258 4388 RightFA% Page 884 4. It was suggested that a reasonable way to evaluate benthic organisms be included in the monitoring program. It was suggested that IRWD should investigate supporting the Department of Fish and Game Mussel Watch program. 6. It was suggested that the EIR and monitoring program should reference other similar wildlife programs such as the Arcata Wetlands Project in Humbolt Bay, and efforts of Eastern Municipal Water District in Hemet. 7. It was suggested that wildlife data collected by Alex Horne at the Prado Wetlands be included in the evaluation. Each sampling event should be extensively photographed to create a photographic record of visual and aesthetic water quality related parameters. 9. Records of algae removal should be included in the ETR and monitoring program. 10. Sediments should be analyzed for nutrients, essentially phosphorous, to determine if there is a nutrient sink in the bay. It was generally agreed that nitrogen species are too mobile to be bound in the sediments to any significant extent. 11. A station should be added at or near the Jamboree bridge crossing over to Balboa Island. This station would have great public exposure and should be monitored for aesthetic parameters. 12. A monitoring station at the Campus Drive bridge should be added. Actions to be taken prior to the next meeting Smythe will determine when the nursery NPDES permits went into effect. Smythe will also compile Mussel Watch data from the Department of Fish and Game and other Water Quality Data from UCT from 1992. 2. CH2M-Hill should endeavor to collect data and reports produced by OCEMA, the Regional Board, and Tettemer and Associates, related to the project from 1988 to the present. IRWD should compile all Sand Canyon Reservoir overflow data from 1989 to the present. The next meeting will be scheduled in approximately two weeks at 9:00 am at the IRWD Operations Center. IRWD will contact all members of the committee to set up the meeting. Meeting minutes will be provided within one week, and the members can discuss the minutes at the following meeting. 02/22/1995 18:13 7146449338 TROY KELLY (CDFG) PAGE 01 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ,.Troy D. Kelly Coastal Ecological Reserve Manager—Region 5 600 Shellmaker Road Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 644-9612 (714) 644-9938 FAX Date: February 22, 1995 To: Jim Hyde IRWD From: Troy Kelly CDFG Total Pages: 01 wws-P'3 F A C 5 1 M I L E WATER QUALITY FFR 2 21995 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT FILE a :; Comments- I will not be able to attend the off-site monitoring plan meeting set for 2-7.3-95 at 1000 hrs at Michelson. Having such a meeting at this time may bb premature, considering that the NOP has just been sent out. A more appropriate time for such a meeting may be after the draft EIR has gcne public and the resource agencies have had a chance to review it. Thank you for including the resource agencies and the public in your process. , &..—:J IMN,, W01 NllEN IN�TRIIT MEW R a H IVITER DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Ave.. P.O. Box 57000. Irvine, CA 92619-7000. (714) 453-5300 March 22, 1995 SCW38025.T9.04 Mr. Troy Kelly California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Management Division 600 Shellmaker Road Newport Beach, CA 92627 Subject: IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project Dear Mr. Kelly: As we requested in both our expanded Notice of Preparation (NOP) and scoping session, we continue to seek input from CDF&G as a responsible agency concerning potential impact significance thresholds. Specifically, we have requested input concerning specific significance thresholds that you believe apply to the Upper Newport Bay area. Because of your expressed concerns about potential effects of the project, we are anxious to meet with you and other CDF&G representatives to ensure we understand and address the standards you believe apply to this project. IRWD also seeks CDF&G participation at the external monitoring committee meetings, which were specifically set up to address your monitoring concerns. We were disappointed you or a representative could not attend the first committee meeting held February 23, 1995. The meeting was attended by the RWQCB, OCEMA, and the City of Newport Beach. These meetings are an opportunity to review concerns of these agencies, and their interests in future monitoring of Newport Bay. The committee meets next on March 27 at 9:00 am., and we would sincerely appreciate attendance by you or a designated representative. If this meeting time is not convenient, let us know and we will try to accommodate your schedule. Participation and guidance from CDF&G, a Responsible Agency under the California._ Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is important to IRWD, the Lead Agency, in the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Wetlands Water Supply Project, and associated external monitoring program. CEQA Section 15096(c) states: "The Responsible Agency shall designate employees or representatives to attend meetings requested by the Lead Agency to Mr. Troy Kelly Page 1 March 22, 1995 SCW38025.T9.04 discuss the scope and content of the EIR." Asa responsible public agency with jurisdiction over the resources of concern, we would appreciate your continued participation and guidance. We therefore request that you or other staff from CDFG attend the second external monitoring committee meeting to be held on Monday March 27 at 9:00 AM. We also specifically request a meeting with you and Bill Paznokus of the CDFG to address standards, significance thresholds, and monitoring issues. Staff will be in touch with you soon to establish a meeting time for this speficic meeting. Sincerely, Irvine Ranch Water District Ken Thompson Director of Water Quality SCO 100173EE.DOC 1 RV ti E RANH WATER DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Ave.. P.O. Box 57000. Irvine, CA 92619-7000. (714) 453.5300 March 22, 1995 SCW38025.T9.04 Mr. William Bretz San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Natural Reserve Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California, Irvine, CA 92717 Subject: IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project Dear Mr. Bretz: As we requested in both our expanded Notice of Preparation (NOP) and scoping session, we continue to seek input from the University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS) regarding your concerns over the proposed project. IRWD further seeks UCNRS participation at the external monitoring committee meetings, which were specifically set up to address monitoring concerns. We were disappointed you or a representative could not attend the fust committee meeting held February 23, 1995. The meeting was attended by the RWQCB, OCEMA, and the City of Newport Beach. These meetings are an opportunity to review concerns of these agencies, and their interests in future monitoring of Newport Bay. The committee meets next on March 27 at 9:00 a.m., and we would sincerely appreciate attendance by you or a designated representative. If this meeting time is not convenient, let us know and we will try to accommodate your schedule. Participation and guidance from UCNRS is important to IRWD, the Lead Agency, in the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Wetlands Water Supply Project, and associated external monitoring program. Given the UCNRS status as a trustee agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15386, we would appreciate your continued participation and guidance. Sincerely, Irvine Ranch Water District Ken Thompson Director of Water Quality Minutes of the Wetlands Water Supply Project Off -Site Monitoring Meeting .l Irvine Ranch Water District March 27, 1995 This is the second meeting convened to discuss the Off -Site Monitoring program for the IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project. The meeting was held March 27, 1995 at the IRWD Operations Center. Attendees included: • Hope Smythe, Regional Board • Bruce Moore, OCEMA • Ken Thompson, IRWD • Tom Peters, CH2M HILL Those invited but not present: • Troy Kelly, California Department of Fish and Game • Bill Bretz, UCNRS • Louis Denger, IRWD The purposes of the meeting were to follow up on the previous meeting, begin discussing criteria for offsite monitoring, and review water quality data. 1. Water Quality and Other Data. Hope Smythe updated the group on data that has been collected. The Regional Board is still compiling Mussel Watch data. The database includes pesticide, herbicide, metals, and toxics. Fish samples are collected and tissues tested. 1990 will be the base year for the data because that is the year that permits were issued to the nurseries. Bruce Moore asked if there is water quality data available for the Sand Canyon overflow. Data will be provided by Jim Hyde. Tom Peters briefly summarized some of the data obtained from various sources through the EIR process. He will verify the database used for the sediment and water quality analyses, and provide a list of references to the group. 2. Monitoring Program. OCEMA continues to monitor in the Bay. Nutrients and some trace metals are the primary parameters sampled. They plan to continue some semi-annual sampling including sediments. Pesticides, herbicides, PAH's, trace metals, conductivity, pH, DO and temperature will be tested at about 10 locations (5-6 in the Upper Bay and 5 in the Lower Bay). OCEMA does not monitor algae blooms. Karen Ashby does the actual sampling. Newport Dunes indicated they would also begin some formal monitoring as they remove algae near their facilities. The County will continue its permit monitoring requirements, which includes monthly monitoring, semi-annual sediment monitoring, and monthly stormwater monitoring. Dr. Dixon may have some additional data that might be publicly available. " 3. EIR No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative for the Water Supply Project was briefly reviewed. The proposed no action is to cease discharges to the pond to meet >- UCNRS requests that pond water not be discharged to the UCNRS portion of the marsh in r" the spring. The Regional Board will be reviewing the project alternatives and may provide feedback prior to the issuance of the DEIR as part of the consultation process. 4. Next Meeting. The next meeting will focus on the preliminary components of the offsite monitoring plan. Ken Thompson indicated that IRWD will prepare a preliminary plan outline to frame the necessary elements. The next meeting will be held April 20th at 8:30 am. 5. Action Items. Action Items for the next meeting include: • Jim Hyde to provide overflow water quality data • Hope Smythe to provide Mussel Watch data • Tom Peters to provide references and database assumptions for the EIR • Ken Thompson/Jim Hyde to provide outline of monitoring plan 6. Did Well/Do Better. As part of the IRWD quality improvement process, the meeting was reviewed to summarize things done well and to identify items that could be done to improve the efficacy of future meetings. Done Well: • Kept to the time schedule • Presented good summary at the end of meeting/clear responsibilities and action items • Started nearly on time • Jim Hyde prepared excellent meeting minutes E Do Better: • Get our information and agendas earlier for review • Get better attendance • Start at agreed upon time L.. MEMORANDUM CWHILL TO: Troy Kelly/CDFG Bill Paznokus/CDFG Ken Thompson/IRWD COPIES: Jim Hyde/IRWD Carl Spangenberg/IRWD Tom Peters/CH2M HILL Steve Costa/CH2M HILL Keith Macdonald/CH2M HILL FROM: Jennifer Cohen/CH2M HILL DATE: April 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Meeting with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) PROJECT: SCW38025.T9.04 The following individuals met on April 11, 1995 to gather information from the CDFG on the IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project, significance thresholds for use in the EIR, and the proposed external monitoring program and associated meetings: CDFG: Troy Kelly, Bill Paznokus IRWD: Ken Thompson CH2M HILL: Jennifer Cohen Action Items: 1. CH2M HILL to add a discussion on un -ionized ammonia to the Draft EIR. 2. IRWD to check on whether there is chronic toxicity monitoring data of reclaimed water, and provide information to Bill Paznokus. 3. CH2M HILL to check with Hope Smythe of the RWQCB to see if Newport Bay has been identified in the federal regulations as limited for nutrients or other constituents. 4. CH2M HILL to investigate input from Joy Zedler on the project, as appropriate. 5. IRWD to add wildlife monitoring component to the internal monitoring program, and vegetation monitoring using aerial photos as appropriate. 6. CH2M HILL to add discussion in the EIR about nitrate contribution to San Diego Creek from Sand Canyon Reservoir overflows. cAirwd\minutes3. doc 3 MEMORANDUM Page 2 t April 11, 1995 SCW38025.T9.04 7. CDFG to attend next external monitoring committee meeting being held at IRWD Operations Center on April 20, 1995 at 8:30 AM. The following topics/issues were discussed: 1. Introduction and Project Background Ken Thompson began the meeting with introductions, and then described the proposed project. He also discussed the issues raised during the scoping meetings and public hearing The agency scoping meeting minutes were distributed. 2. General Discussion Various issues were raised and discussed as follows: Bill asked about what type of toxicity monitoring (acute and chronic) is conducted, and what species are monitored? Ken stated that acute toxicity is monitored, and will check on whether or not chronic toxicity is monitored. Effluent from the plant meets all EPA Gold Book standards and NPDES permit standards (existing NPDES permits for the pre-treatment program and for Sand Canyon Reservoir storm overflows). Bill asked what is the total nitrogen input to San Diego Creek from IRWD operations (including occasional Sand Canyon Reservoir storm water overflows)? Ken stated that San Diego Creek flows average about 16.5 mg/1 of nitrate; the project discharge is expected to be 1 mg/l nitrate. Sand Canyon Reservoir discharges are storm -driven resulting from overflows. Bill asked what phosphorus data is available? Jennifer stated that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient, but that phosphorus is being assessed in the EIR. Bill asked if there is testing for un -ionized ammonia, which is driven by pH and temperature? Ken stated that no un -ionized ammonia is produced as a result of the nitrification process; all ammonia is converted to nitrate. Bill would like to see a discussion of un -ionized ammonia in the EIR. Bill asked if the Regional Water Quality Control Board determined Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDL) for nutrients? Ken stated that the RWQCB has not set up TMDLs, but nutrient loads are being evaluated in the EIR. Bill asked if Upper Newport Bay is identified in the federal regulations as being limited for any particular water quality parameters? Ken stated that it does not appear to be, but will check with the RWQCB. cAirwd\minutes3.doc W MEMORANDUM Page 3 April 11, 1995 c SCW38025.T9.04 Bill asked if Joy Zedler had been contacted for her input on the project. Jennifer stated that much of her work has been reviewed and considered in the analysis of project impacts. Bill would like to see her input on the project. Troy Kelly asked if the ponds will be monitored for wildlife, given that the project has been characterized as beneficial for wildlife. Ken stated that the Audubon Society will be doing some bird monitoring. Troy suggested monitoring by a wildlife biologist to investigate bird nesting, use and foraging in the ponds. Bill asked if habitat would be created by project flows in the creek. Ken stated that the creek already has year round flows and established vegetation. Bill asked about average flows. Jennifer stated that the average winter flows excluding storm events is 40 cubic feet per second. Bill asked about sediment input to the creek. Ken stated that the outlet structure will be designed to diffuse flows, and no erosion to the creek is expected. Also the increase discharge of approximately 7 cfs will not cause sedimentation problems or affect the sediment basin trapping capacity, as discussed in the EIR. Bill asked about chlorine. Ken stated that there is no chlorine in the ponds. Bill asked about baseline data. Ken discussed the Orange County EMA monitoring program. Bill also asked if toxicity in sediments is monitored. Ken replied that Orange County EMA has not done such testing. Jennifer stated that the EIR includes a discussion of toxicity data from the state mussel watch program. Bill asked if the RWQCB had asked IRWD to look into site specific objectives. Ken stated they have not. He indicated that the break point for loading to the bay has been estimated to be 3.1 mg/1. Troy asked about expansion plans for the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant. Ken stated that the plant will not be expanded until 2010 (to 27 MGD; currently at 15 MGD capacity). Ken also stated that there are plans next year to upgrade the existing plant, but those upgrades will not change the capacity. The seasonal discharge volume from the ponds would be unaffected by either the upgrade or the future expansion. Bill reviewed the IRWD reclaimed water quality data and asked to see chronic toxicity. Troy asked if baseline monitoring of the ponds has been done and suggested monitoring vegetation before and after mowing, pond soil strata, and invertebrates. Jennifer asked Bill and Troy for their comments on thresholds of significance for use in the EIR, and if there are particular concerns with freshwater increases. Bill suggested the EIR evaluate changes in species distribution and compare with other similar types of cAirwd\minutes3.doc MEMORANDUM Page 4 April 11, 1995 SCW38025.T9.04 ecosystems, such as Tijuana Estuary. He suggested Joy Zedler be contacted for review and input. Ken discussed the external monitoring program. The minutes from the last external monitoring committee meeting were distributed. Ken asked if CDFG could attend the next meeting being held April 20. Bill agreed to attend. cAirwd\minutes3.doc 84/18/95 13:46:18 IRWD / 714-453-5588-> 714 258 4388 RightFAX Page 882 f + IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT ., TO: Ken Thompson MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20, 1995 FROM: Jim Hyde FILE NO.: wetsupl2.doc SUBJECT: First Draft of the Proposed Off -Site Monitoring Program for the Wetlands Water Supply Project The following Wetlands Water Supply Project Off -Site Monitoring Program has been prepared for discussion purposes, based on committee discussions to date. Items and concerns raised during staff review of the committee discussion are presented in italic. Monthly Water Column Monitoring 1. Locations Michelson Bridge NPDES Discharge Point Campus Bridge UNBJAM UNBNAR UNBCHB LNBHIR LNBHER 2. Constituents Depth (T)PO4-P EC TSS DO VSS Turbidity Cd Chlorophyll a Cr pH Cu NO3-N Pb NO2-N Ni NH3-N Ag TKN Zn 3. Each sampling run will begin at UNBJAM at high tide or lower -high tide and progress down the bay to the Harbor Entrance. T+' 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Samples will be collected at the top, middle, and bottom unless more sample stations are required. If more sample locations are required, sampling will be depth integrated. In situ measurements are preferred if the equipment is available. Staff recommends UV fluorescence in situ as a substitute for chlorophyll a in vitro. Sampling will be performed monthly and at least 3 -days past storm events. Sampling results will be faxed to committee members 30 days (nominal) after collection and the committee will review the data every 3 -months. Off-site sampling will be performed during the discharge period only. No Microbiological analyses will be performed beyond Title 22 requirements. Flow data will be obtained from OCEMA, and the flow at Michelson will be estimated by difference. Sediment Monitoring 11. Sediment monitoring will be performed semi-annually at the following locations. UNBJAM UNBNAR UNBCHB LNBHIR LNBHER 12. Constituents (T)PO4-P Pb Cd Ni Cr Ag Cu Zn 13. Nitrogen species will not be measured because they are not conserved in the sediments. 14. No Microbiological analyses will be performed on sediments. N N L N O N CL v CO EC=) _ o 0 0 0 U (V (D N O W U) CO c r r E U) " U) cn O co O ((n.-. (o N (D a) J r N C > .0 O m E m (D CSD IT 0) ( ND N V co M IT I— co M O CN O U o N W -L E v N (D N U7 co co (D .. vU-) V N U-) LO CD V U) U7 O N co CD ti I— O U-) N T N E(D C CD M N U7 CD CD C) O I C O J Cl) L O W O ao Q) N O to M N 00 00 O EE Q O M N •14' O N O Z U -- U) F- E in 0 ca v v v v v co (D CD O Z O cn v Cl) > �' LU O (A Z c W m (t IT LO aocov o Q1 Zto O N O O O J O O O O N Q) O O O Q Z U �- 0 LO M Co U) M N Z Z= O r C)— o O O C) Q O O U) =cn E mi U- Z --� a m O rn N cn E E rn c`o E a o E a� m ca cu E ca to E .E E (`o E E �, •� .E R cn a`) E x )"x cm o U) U-) Q Q 2 2 M Q :,.EZ N O N CL Katella Yard Fax:714-567-6340 Rpr.20 '95 15:b9 Comeents on the first draft of the offsite Monitoring Program Monthly Water Column Monitoring F. Ol/ui EMA's stations in the Newport Bay are designated by the following STORET codes. UNBJAM Upper Newport Bay near west and of Back Bay Drive UNBSDC Upper Newport Bay near navigation marker in the old ski zone UNBBCW Upper Newport Bay at the mouth of Big Canyon Wash UNBNSB Upper Newport Bay at North Star Beach UNBNDB Upper Newport Bay at the entrance to Newport Dunes Aquatic Park UNHCHB Upper Newport Bay beneath the Coast Highway Bridge LNBHIR Lower Newport Bay in Harbor Island Reach LNBTUB Lower Newport Bay in the Turning Basin LNBRIN Lower Newport Say in the Rhine Channel LNEMR Lower Newport Bay at the Harbor Entrance Monthly monitoring is normally conducted at the Upper Bay stations as part of the NPDES municipal Stormwater Quality Monitoring Program. Because of the bankruptcy, the program was temporarily suspended. A dry weather evaluation will be conducted in May in conjunction with semiannual sediment sampling. This sampling is the only visit scheduled before the end the County's fiscal year on June 30, 1995. The sampling in May will include measurement of physical properties (DO, Temp, EC, and pH) at 1 meter increments at all of the stations. Aqueous samples for nutrient analyses will be collected at the surface at UNBJAM, UNBSDC, UNBBCW, UNBNSB, UNBNDB, and LNBHIR. Sediment samples for metals and EPA 8080 analyses will be collected from UNBJAM, UNBSDC, UNBBCW, UNBNDB, LNBHIR, and LNBRIN. Sediment samples for phosphate and nitrogen analyses can be collected for IRWD, at this time - Post -it" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 gat w9es' To/o., From /Lt���-�� `-- OepL phone,# G67-(0 7 ( 7 Fu /-76 - t! t g1 Minutes of the Wetlands Water Supply Project Off -Site Monitoring Meeting Irvine Ranch Water District - April 20,1995 This was the third meeting convened to discuss the external monitoring program for the Wetlands Water Supply Project. The meeting was held on April 20, 1995 at the IRWD Operations Center. Attendees included: RWQCB: Hope Smythe, Scott Dawson CDFG: Troy Kelly City of Newport Beach: John Wolter, John Douglas UCNRS: Bill Bretz OCEMA: Bruce Moore IRWD: Ken Thompson, Lou Denger CH2M HILL: Jennifer Cohen The purposes of the meeting were to follow-up on the previous meeting, and to review a draft of the Proposed Off -Site Monitoring Program. The following issues/topics were discussed: 1. Current Status of the Wetlands Water Supply Project The Draft EIR is expected to be in circulation in May. An outline of the test program was distributed, as well as recent reclaimed water quality data from the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP). 2. Sand Canyon Reservoir Water Quality Data Sand Canyon Reservoir is IRWD's 850 acre-foot storage reservoir located below the Turtle Rock area. A hand-out was distributed showing water quality data from Sand Canyon Reservoir discharges that result from overflows during storm events. 3. Proposed Off -Site Monitoring Program A draft of the Proposed Off -Site Monitoring Program was distributed, and reviewed in detail. The proposed monitoring program is the same as OCEMA's before funding cuts, except that IRWD will also monitor chlorophyll a. Also, monitoring is proposed to be conducted during project discharge periods only for the two year demonstration phase. It was noted that OCEMA previously did monthly monitoring of the Upper Bay for nutrients. Now OCEMA is only doing monitoring for storm water discharges under the County's NPDES permit program; no sampling is conducted during non -storm water discharge periods. The NPDES storm water discharge monitoring program is expected to continue for at least the first half of the fiscal year. OCEMA will continue with its semi-annual nutrient cAirwd\ninutes3.doc Minutes Off -Site Monitoring Meeting -�. April 20, 1995 2 and sediment monitoring, and monthly sampling in San Diego Creek to Campus Drive will resume. Hope Smythe requested that monitoring be conducted one month before and one month after the discharge from the IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project, and that nitrogen species be monitored in sediments. Bruce Moore indicated that OCEMA can provide IRWD with a sample of sediment (to be taken during OCEMA's semi-annual sediment sampling this May), that IRWD can use for analyzing nutrients in sediments. It was noted that OCEMA's data was not correlated with tidal flows. IRWD will correlate, water quality data with the tidal flows as part of the proposed off-site monitoring program. Bill Bretz would like to see fauna sampling be conducted. John Wolter stated the bioassay work being conducted for the dredging projects will be completed in June or July, 1995. This is background testing required for ocean disposal of dredged material and will not contain fauna survey data. Ken Thompson noted that the research conducted by Butler showed a great deal of variability in the benthic polychaetes after storm events, and that it was difficult to reach conclusions. Bill Bretz suggested that other organisms be surveyed instead, and agreed to look into identifying other possible indicator species. Scott Dawson noted that the RWQCB looked at benthics in Newport Bay, but that data will not be available for some time. 4. Other Issues The Draft EIR for the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan is expected to be in circulation for public review by late August, according to the City of Irvine. Hope Smythe provided IRWD and CH2M HILL with State Mussel Watch data collected over the past 10 years. The state is now losing funding for this program. r-� Ken Thompson asked if IRWD should provide details on the sample collection methods in the proposed Monitoring Program. Hope Smythe indicated she would like to see methods for water chemistry. i, John Wolter suggested IRWD meet with the Upper Newport Bay Coordinating Council to discuss the Proposed Off -Site Monitoring Program. 1 Ken Thompson asked John Wolter how the proposed dredging projects may affect Upper Newport Bay water quality. John discussed how the previous dredging projects caused minor disruption, and resulted in increased tidal prism. John indicated that dredging could ti begin Oct/Nov 1995 and continue through spring. Funding may be provided by either the Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach or Port of San Diego. , cAirwdUninutes4doc Minutes Off -Site Monitoring Meeting April 20, 1995 5. Did Well/Do Better. 3 As part of IRWD's quality improvement process, the meeting was reviewed to identify things done well and items that could be done to improve efficiency of future meetings. Did Well: Do Better: Group Attendance Get data/agendas out sooner On-time Actions to be taken prior to the next meeting: 1. Ken Thompson to provide Hope Smythe with literature on UV fluorescence in situ as a substitute for chlorophyll a in vitro. 2. Bill Bretz to investigate other potential indicator species for monitoring salinity. 3. IRWD to investigate the potential date for release of Draft EIR for the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan for inclusion in these meeting minutes. (Late Summer, 1995) 4. All attendees to review the Draft of the Proposed Off -Site Monitoring Program and provide comments to IRWD in one-week. (Thursday, April 27) (SEE ATTACHED, REVISED MONITORING PLAN). 5. All attendees to review list of references and provide copies of any other relevant references to Jennifer Cohen for use in the water quality monitoring and water qualitylbiological resource analysis for the Wetlands Water Supply Project EIR. cAirwdVninutes4doc r '0 q O Z O " E U Ory C4a N C �3 •C � 3 0 •c� >� _� u •0 3 q GW u�— 'm 3a 5 u° ° W eo v W C .w m W .C' :: E •Jt q C q •D .Nr Y c .qC �•= 3 c C° o0 Yi `� W � c ° 3 •� 'o E a � � � oa � e e rr z e e u c M � x ;o � E•.3 � a E o •o � a r, 'E ^' ;� oo •5 � u e u � 3 W 'Q •p W 9" TJ z C C '3� � d��� xW a° ai oe vc •v000 e S N 7 d Z .O p, u G M z C •W E y W .O Li y y N d Z W N N 000: Y C E W d A 3 d w E i rnE uio < 'nom z�EE z'� wu e o ri a ri >, v m- E vi G c U U r 2! oo .00 a o a ba c 0 4) ~ O 0A C ;_; c. 2 �g'o � w U L U oO�o� m��xE!t pa� o > O �Ammmr�aaxa N se o W Z Z Z z z mmavoxx zzzzz 'O °Y' N �,a�,aaaaa aaaaa o F FU •3 � T W 33 rJ• � L ••2 W Y .qa rn W � U o � y a i e o a 2 °° c •� 'C Y 7 UUUiez<NF>FrA OQ C t UUUt�zN .q •� ° a A „ �5 c e 0 0 o a a e w 0wo ° 04 `' UL m U orU xO N M oz Ox C g u OOx eoAAu �o4 b 'r$ u a C�O. 3 w A F a z Grn m GZzz <m�n > _ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE HffiSLE = • DAVU • alvniz • LOS "GEL= • li MS= • SAN D=O • sex FW.NC=W : > o „ SAN JOAQUIN FRESHWATER MARSH RESERVE BURNS PINON RIDGE DESERT RESERVE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Ken Thompson Director of Water Quality Irvine Ranch Water District P. O. Box 57000 Irvine CA 92619-7000 sexre aenHenw • SAMA cavi IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92717 WATER QUALITY 25 May 1995 MAY 3 0 1995 IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT FILE Subject: IRWD Wetlands Water Supply Project Dear Ken: I am prompted to write this letter by recently receiving from CH2M Hill a transmittal of the 20 April 1995 Meeting Minutes of the Wetlands Water Supply Project and Revised Monitoring Plan. The minutes of this meeting do reflect that I urged that the off-site monitoring program for the Wetlands Water Supply Project be expanded to include some sort of sampling of the flora and fauna of the estuarine ecosystem of Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek downstream from the Campus Drive drop structures, in an attempt to detect whether the doubling of freshwater base flow into this estuarine system that would be caused by the project was producing any observable changes to the pre -project plant and animal communities of the Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Habitat Preserve or the University of California's San Joaquin Marsh Reserve. My rather broad concerns that the proposed monitoring program was not designed in a way to detect possible biological impacts was rather briefly summarized by noting that I "would like to see fauna sampling be conducted." The minutes further show that I agreed to look into identifying other possible indicator species. Unfortunately, given my primary responsibilities in my 50% position with the UC Natural Reserve System to serve the needs of UC students, researchers and faculty, I simply do not have the time available to contribute specific elements to help design an expanded ecological monitoring program. However, I can and will review and comment upon whatever monitoring program is ultimately designed by IRWD and its consultants. In this light, I must emphasize that the IRWD Project and associated monitoring fall far short of meeting ordinary standards of scientific experimentation and proof. An adequate pre -project baseline determination of ecological conditions in Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek does not exist; the project timeline is rushed and does not permit the establishment of such an adequate baseline; there is no 1 2 r way to determine whether ecological changes that might be observed are a result F-, of the project, or are a result of natural variation It is important that IRWD understand that my participation as an attendee in meetings related to the Wetlands Water Supply Project does not constitute UCNRS approval and acceptance of the validity, adequacy and completeness of the monitoring and mitigation that should be required to balance or offset the environmental impacts of the project. UCNRS reserves its rights to seek remedies for any adverse environmental impacts that might arise as a result of the project from the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Environmental Protection Agency, or elsewhere. The UCNRS does not support experimentation and manipulation of the natural habitats and public resources which it stewards as a Trustee Agency (San Diego Creek downstream from Campus Drive), nor of those stewarded by CDF&G in Upper Newport Bay, as proposed by IRWD. The UCNRS has serious reservations about the adequacy and validity of the off-site monitoring that is proposed for the Wetlands Water Supply Project, believing that it is unlikely to detect and prevent adverse ecological impacts before possible unacceptable alterations would have already occurred. Please continue to inform me of all meetings and materials (documents, scientific papers, proposals, etc.) that are available for my review, and I will do my best to provide IRWD with timely input that represents the UCNRS Trustee Agency position on these matters. Sincerely yours, 4� William L. Bretz UCNRS Manager of Reserves cc: Dr. Debbie Elliot -Fisk, UCNRS Dr. Peter Bowler, UCNRS Hope Smythe, RWQCB Troy Kelly, CDF&G f 0 SCO10017A4E. WP5 Appendix G Water Quality Monitoring G-1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM MWILL PREPARED FOR: IRWD PREPARED BY: Steve Costa/CH2M HILL DATE: 4 May 1995 SUBJECT: Branched Tidal Channel Model (TC111) for Newport Bay PROJECT: SCW38025.T9 PURPOSE AND APPROACH The purpose of this technical memorandum is to describe the model used to evaluate the impacts of nutrient loading and freshwater on Newport Bay. An explicit finite difference one dimensional horizontal (along -channel, single layer, unstratified flow) hydrodynamic model was used to evaluate the transport of nutrients and salinity in Newport Bay. The model simulation geometry is shown in Figures 1 and 2, and the geometric variables are given in Table 1. The two types of simulations were done in the following manner: • For simulations of salinity continuous freshwater flow (zero salinity) is introduced into the model at the location corresponding the discharge of San Diego Creek. Tidally varying water levels drive the model at its ocean end which corresponds to the entrance to Newport Bay. Salinity at this end is held constant to simulate conditions in the ocean. • For simulations of nutrient concentrations (nitrate) continuous flow (at 100 - percent relative concentration) is introduced into the model at the location corresponding the discharge of San Diego Creek. Tidally varying water levels drive the model at its ocean end which corresponds to the entrance to Newport Bay. Concentrations at this end are held at the observed boundary condition to simulate conditions in the ocean. A decay term us used to simulate nutrient removal within the system. The model was calibrated for both hydrodynamics (tidal response), salt transport, and nutrient transport using available data. The model source code has been previously verified. However, verification of model stability was conducted by running it at different time steps. The model was run for winter dry weather conditions with and without wetland project flow and nutrient contributions and for average winter conditions with and without project flow and nutrient contributions. Bathymetric conditions were based on available data representing 1992 conditions. Tides were taken as the average tidal conditions for a diurnal cycle, including the diurnal inequality observed. Variations in salinity and nutrient concentrations are calculated throughout the tidal cycle and are presented in terms of high and low values \irwd\modltm. wp5 a CELL No. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Figure 1. Upper Newport Bay Simulation at MHHW (scaled to represent relative widths and lengths) CELL No. 80 Figure 2 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Upper Newport Bay Simulation at MLLW (scaled to represent relative widths and lengths) L1 r f I 9 O In 0 0 0 0 N 0 Lo 00 Ln O Lo Lo CO N O N O M M O M N Lo O N N O O N O T T T T T T T T T v/ V V V V V O V V V V V V V V V 0) L .-. N r t\ f-� CD cO r-� r Ln M N M T N O CD QQ) N N T T T T T N T T T T T T T Q � Q v OLOOONOMM N r-MLOMONMO M O Ln M o T r T CD +. Cn p CV N to M r M T M M V 0 0 o a) M T N M V N T OCD o X 0) V�O)CO0000)1- T CD V V MNOrco T a( V<c d C] v O LLJ O� C OLnOONLn�CO �NOMONOCD M M M CO CD CO T Z o O pN — to O T t` M M V E r*- NCDCf) V Ma) 0 OCDTn V CDTN O N NCD LL U 0 0) fZ f\ N M N O CO f` 0 Ln CM O N Q .0 O r r CO N MN CO N 0 T N T r J H Q X S5 L (DGWM T 000000000 000000000 0-3O C) 0 0 0 LO CO CO 00 CO CO N cD to O t` Ln w L U CO O LO 0 0 0 00 CD V T o 00 0 0 O O " CLf CO a) T T CD r- CO N O O CO M N N CO LO C ca Cl r LO 0 0 0 0 0 f` N a) O co O Ln O rd O p ] U CO CD a) LO fl r LO N f`cD V oLC)N V Lo m r T CD CO (M a) V V a)NCOLnONCDa) v CO CO co CD f\ CD CD N M N T M r r'� cts m OOOo0000 00000000 00 LO 00000 O CD r- 000LO0 ~ O +� a)=V� CO cn M O r CD N V) N a) p '~ O COO CMD N COD CMO VO 000 Z N d O V O M M f` V CO Co V f` CD M O CO V V O 00 2 O p O Co CD Ln V N V r� Ln V CO Lo r- N r co m M T Tr� Ln V co a) CD co M CD N L 1'� D w >3: C) M M LO LO LO V LO V T r r C.O Na p �Z Oo 000 Ln V o V LO 00000 p 0000 CD�00N toCDrOOLnLnO Cp 30 CD N N 00 t\ 0) P- r 0) Ln N r- V N V f- M cocn U C) N P') CO N C) T CO O r Z T f- LO N T N LL!� .� U)a Q J r T N r N r N N a) r 4 ca a F- co LU 0 t\ CD N N r U-) N CD :) O co r, 00 CD r-, LO Ln W T r T r T r T r T � W fl T � p o p a� (� O LO o 0 0 0 N 0 Lo CD Ln 00000 ONLOLO00Lf) Cf) N LnONOOLOLOa L M CO 00 CD a) (D fl- M T 0) 00 M N CO T N W O 00 0 Ln 0 00 LO O 00 Ln LO O O M LO W L V V V O V Nrl- T V V 00 f- V N O 0) CD CD CD 00 CD N V Cl) N N N N N N N N CD (D 00 00 a) CD r-- 00 r N N N N N N N CU a) J v O 00000000 T N M V LOO NM T N M V M CD N M LO In In LLi LO LO 0 Ln O r f I 9 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCW38025. T9.04 4 May 1995 over a tidal cycle at locations along the longitudinal axis of both the Upper and Lower Bay. This technical memorandum presents the documentation for the modeling and an evaluation of the model predictions. A detailed description of the model and assumptions used are first presented. The model calibration and verification runs are described. An evaluation of the model results is presented in terms of the sensitivity to variations in forcing functions. Finally, the limitations of the model used and usefulness of the results are discussed. MODEL DESCRIPTION The numerical model used to describe the flow (sectionally averaged currents), water surface elevations, and the resulting salinity structure in Newport Bay is described in this below. The objective of the model was to simulate the salinity and nutrient structure of the Bay under a variety of conditions. As in any model, certain simplifying assumptions must be made. These assumptions should not mask the physical aspects of the system that are of interest. It is important that the nature of the assumptions be understood in order to evalu- ate the model results. The major assumptions are discussed below, as well as the details of model implementation to provide the technical background required to assess the applicability of the model predictions. Fundamental Assumptions There are a number of fundamental assumptions made in formulation of a model (as op- posed to those required in implementing a model). These assumptions, for the case con- sidered here, include: • One Dimensional System: The one dimensional case assumes that the important variations in hydrodynamic and hydrographic parameters are along the alignment of the channel (x -direction). Flow rates and salinities are taken as depth (z -direction) and cross-channel (y -direction) average values; no variation in the y and z directions is accounted for in such a model (water depth is allowed to vary from cell to cell and with time). Newport Bay is neither one-dimensional nor a single channel system. However, the use of the simplifications inherent in this assumption will provide a clear indication of the relative impacts of the various parameters controlling salinity. • Unstratified Flow: Ancillary to the one dimensional assumption is the acceptance of no stratification in the water column. It is possible to use a one-dimensional, two layer model for strongly stratified systems. However, Newport Bay does not appear to require such a model, for conditions of \irwd\modltm. wp5 2 r TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCW38025.T9.04� 4 May 1995 concern, based on available data. Therefore, the unstratified model is used ' for this study. • Bulk Formulation of Bottom Friction: Bottom friction is expressed as a non- linear function of flow strength and a constant friction coefficient. This assumption is not restrictive if model calibration is used to adjust the coefficient for the system under consideration. For Newport Bay, the friction factor was held constant throughout the system. The model will accommodate a variable coefficient, however, insufficient data are available to calibrate to this detail. Surface wind stress was not accounted for (the model has this capability but available data is not extensive enough to implement the option). The formulation of frictional effects used in the model is sophisticated enough to provide the information required from the model. • Salinity -Density Gradients: A longitudinal salinity gradient, as found in r Newport Bay and accounted for in the model, results in a density gradient. Such a situation provides a mechanism to induce density driven flows. However, it can be easily shown that the magnitude of this term is much less than the terms retained in the model formulation. This assumption appears to have placed no significant limitations on the required results from the model. There are numerous other simplifications and assumptions required in implementing and executing a numerical model which will be presented in the appropriate sections below (including the numerical formulation itself). The fundamental assumptions discussed above are most important in interpreting and evaluating the results. A model based on the above description is, purposefully, the most streamlined and least sophisticated formulation that can be expected to reproduce useful predictions. Basis of the Model A one-dimensional (branched) finite difference model was used to describe the response of salinity and nutrients in Newport Bay as a result of inflow from San Diego Creek. Figure 3 is a schematic of the model system used. The vertically averaged continuity and momentum equations used to describe the system are, for continuity: and for momentum: Sh/St + S(UH)/St = q SU/St + U - SU/Sx = -g - Sh/Sx - rl(a - H) \irwd\modltm. wp5 3 L_s h H = Depth below MLLW h = Tidal elevation (function of time and distance) Hm=H+h U = Velocity S,.= Salinity Qf = Freshwater inflow SWL = Still water level Figure 3. Model Variable Definitions r - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCW38025. T9.04' 4 May 1995 where: h = water surface elevation above still water datum U = depth averaged, x -directed velocity t = time H = water depth below still water datum q = introduced flow (i.e. effluent discharge) x = distance along longitudinal axis g = acceleration due to gravity ,r = boundary shear stress (friction) o = density The boundary stress term is evaluated as: T/Q=e-U• I U I -a where a is the friction coefficient. The salinity variation is described by the salinity con- servation equation given by: ES/St + S(U - S)/Sx = K • 62S/6x2 where K is the lateral diffusion coefficient of salt (or other dissolved constituents). Numerical Scheme The governing equations were approximated using an explicit finite difference scheme based on a staggered grid as described by Koutatis (1988). The time derivatives were forward i differenced using a Lax dissipative time difference. The spatial derivatives were center differenced. The calculation scheme is shown in Figures 4 and 5. All units in the model are in the MKS system, however, input and output variables are scaled by the program . calculations to allow convenient units as described in the sections below. Variations in flow velocity and salinity were assumed to occur instantaneously throughout the entire cell. Elevations and salinities are calculated for output at the cell centers and velocities are calculated at the cell edges. 0 Boundary Conditions The boundary conditions are prescribed at the mouth of the bay (ocean entrance), the end ' of the lower bay), and explicitly at points where fresh water inflow and nutrient loadings are introduced. i_. \irwd\modltm. wp5 4 L� Ui = Velocity at cell i Calculated at cell edge Calculated at time t + St Si = Salinity at cell i Calculated at cell edge Calculated at time t + 6t h. = Water surface elvation at cell i 1 Calculated at cell center Calculated at time t + �6t 6t = Time step for calculations Figure 4. Calculation Scheme Calculation order Time t Time t + At/2. Time t Time t + At/2 Time t Calculation Order Time t Time t + At/2 Time t Time t + At/2 Time t I I I I 1 I I I I Tr- - UI,k = Velocity at cell (ilk) Calculated at cell edge Calculated at time t + Ot Si,k = Salinity at cell (ilk) Calculated at cell edge Calculated at time t + At hi,k = Water surface elevation at cell ilk Calculated at cell center Calculated at time t + Qt/2 at = Time step for calculations Figure 5. Explicit Finite Difference Calculation Cells at Channel Junctions TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCW38025. T9.04 4 May 1995 At the harbor mouth (Cell #10) the model was tidally forced by prescribing the surface water elevations. The functional form of the tidal elevations is described below in the discussion on model input. Velocity was determined from continuity as: U(1) = U(2) + dt/dx • [(H+h(2))-(H+h(1))] where (1) and (2) indicate grid boundaries as shown in Figures 1 and 2, dt is the calculation time step, and dx is the calculation space step. Salinity at the mouth was held constant at the value chosen to represent the bay ocean. At the end of Lower Newport Bay (Cell #80, the landward and closed end) the specified boundary conditions were: U(im) = 0 h(im) = h(im-1) S(im) = S(im-1) where im-1 is the end cell in the model grid (number 80). At the cell with inflow (Cell #58) where discharge into the bay was assumed to take place the condition was specified by: h(i) = h(i)' + q • dt/((H+h(i)) • W(i)) where (i) is the cell number and h(i)' is the water elevation after the initial calculation scan of the system that is then adjusted for inflow prior to the next calculation scan for velocities and used to calculate cell salinity. An arbitrary number of cells can receive discharge including the last (closed end) cell of the model grid (i = im-1). Model Geometry The model geometry was developed to simulate Newport Bay from the ocean to the mouth of San Diego Creek. The model uses a rectangular shaped channel cross-section along an x -directed channel for the entire bay. The bay was divided into cells of equal length. Each cell was 2770 feet long. Each model cell was assigned a unique width (at MHHW and MLLW) and depth (at MLLW), which were evaluated from the actual location of the cell along the longitudinal axis of the bay, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The width of each cell was taken to produce an equivalent rectangular cross-sectional area using the depth of the main portion of the channel. The average depth at the center of each cell was estimated from the 1992 available data. Geometric characteristics are listed in Table 1. \irwd\modltm. wp5 5 r TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCW38025.T9.04 r-' 4 May 1995 Forcing Functions The salinity structure and nutrient transport is controlled by the input of water of different salinities and nutrient concentrations at various locations in the bay and the movement of water throughout the bay. The most important source of freshwater and nutrients are considered to be introduced from San Diego Creek. Advective and turbulent diffusive process are primarily in response to tidal action. Other potentially important processes (wind stress, evaporation, precipitation, groundwater flow, and smaller point and nonpoint freshwater runoff sources) have much less influence than the tides and San Diego Creek inflows and are not considered in the model as used for Newport Bay. Tidal forcing was based on synthetic tides developed to force the model at the ocean end of the system. The tides are approximated as mixed semi -diurnal tides with a period of 24.8 hours, and subsequent highs and lows separated by 6.2 hours. The tides at the ocean end of the model were approximated using the published tidal information. Since a synthetic tide was used to drive the model, calculated flow velocities and resulting variations in salinity represent average conditions. It is realized that actual condition will vary due to periodic changes in tidal prisms (spring and neap tides), and fluctuations in stream and effluent flows. For the purpose of the modeling the salinity in the ocean was assumed constant at the ocean end of the model grid. The model is configured to accept freshwater discharges and nutrient loadings at the mouth of San Diego Creek. The flow rates used were for winter dry weather, winter average (excluding high flow months), and these two flows with project j flows of 5 mgd superimposed. Model Input and Execution For the space step used, a time step of 69 seconds was chosen. Smaller time steps were also used to investigate the model's stability and time step sensitivity. No appreciable differences in model generated velocities and salinities were noticed between results based on the various time steps. The model can be run from a "cold start" or from a previously saved set of conditions at a particular time. When run in a cold start mode the water surface elevation is level throughout the system and the salinity is either set constant or is assumed to correspond to a linear lapse rate. The model results include a transient period as it "spins up". After a number of tidal cycles the model will be in a dynamic steady state; that is, the results for subsequent identical tidal forcing cycles, freshwater inflows, and nutrient loadings will be identical. For the dynamic \irwd\modltm. wp5 6 L. LJ TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCW38025. T9.04 4 May 1995 variables, velocity and water surface elevation, the model will spin up quickly, in less than one cycle. However, in the case of salinity or input constituent loadings, it takes considerably longer for the model to pass through the transient stage - in the case of this system 10 or more diurnal cycles (24.8 hours/cycle) for an initial constant salinity, and somewhat faster for an initial linear distribution of salinity. To minimize run time the model results (elevation, velocity, salinity) at each cell can be saved and the model then started "hot" from that condition with any desired changes to input parameters. MODEL CALIBRATION AND EVALUATION The model was calibrated in three steps using known differences in tidal elevations and lag times, measured salinity structure, and measured nutrient levels in Newport Bay. Using 1992 bathymetry the model was run with no freshwater inflow and the boundary friction factor (Cf) was adjusted until the tidal response of the model corresponded to the tidal differences between the mouth and available interior stations. A value of 0.025 for Manning's n was selected and is in agreement with values in the literature. This value was used throughout the model grid. Sensitivity to changes in friction factor was investigated. The model is not overly sensitive to the value used for friction factor, which is a desirable condition for a model of this kind. The model was then run for two periods of relatively constant stream flow and observed salinity to calibrate the longitudinal diffusion coefficient (KS). The diffusion coefficient was varied until the model reproduced the salinity gradient observed in the bay. Finally, using the selected diffusion coefficient, nitrate loadings were introduced into the model and the decay constant was varied until the observed and predicted values were in agreement. The salinities and nitrate concentrations used in the calibration/validation procedure are averages of readings taken at various times and depths during particular months. More detailed data would provide the means for more detailed calibration of the model. However, for the purposes of this investigation, determining relative effects of controlling parameters, the procedure used is adequate for defining the free parameters of the model. The model was found to be moderately sensitive to the value of K5, which is a desirable model characteristic in this case. Model Sensitivity The model simulations were all run with simplified inputs in terms of tidal variations (synthetic average semi -diurnal tidal curve), ocean salinity (constant), freshwater and nutrient discharges (constant). The sensitivity of the results to these functions is of interest, particularly in terms of the variability of salinity within the system. The transport of salt, as described by the conservation of salt equation used in the model, depends on the velocity and the gradient of salt along the dimension of the system. Each of the forcing functions \irwd\modltm. wp5 7 r`' TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCW38025. T9.04 f 4 May 1995 will change one or both of these physical attributes of the system. The potential importance of each of the forcing functions is discussed briefly below. Tides. An average representation of the tide was used throughout the modeling. This synthetic diurnal cycle will reproduce a large portion of the expected range of the velocities and inputs of ocean water expected in the system. The model was run at a time step that should provide realistic responses to velocity structure. The fact that the results do not change appreciably when the time step is reduced supports this conclusion. The effect of a wider range of tidal conditions (amplitudes and phases) would be expected to show some variability in the extremes of salinity (highest and lowest) but probably would not change the averages enough to effect the results or conclusions. Freshwater Discharges. The freshwater discharges and nutrient loadings were held constant to simulate average conditions for the winter stream and wetlands discharge flows. Daily, seasonal, and storm event flows will have an effect on the salinity structure of the system. More detailed data are required to asses the magnitude of such effects. However, average conditions are well represented and are sufficient for the analyses to be done. Ocean Salinity. The model was run constant ocean salinities. Ocean salinity variations will result in variations of bay salinity. Although the absolute values of salinities change under different conditions, the model cell salinities remain nearly the same relative to the boundary salinity condition for a specified discharge and bathymetry. ' E Limitations of the Model Although the model employed is more sophisticated than the previously used analytical approach, there are still limitations to its predictive ability because of necessary assumptions and simplifications. The more important limitations include those discussed below: • Geometric Formulation: One of the most obvious simplifications is the geometric description and associated one dimensional treatment. Such a model cannot account for the lateral changes in depth or the longitudinal changes in boundary orientation. In particular the extensive mud flats that become dry during very low tides are only approximated. In order to account for a more complex geometry a modified one dimensional model or a two dimensional formulation would be required. i, • Stratification: The assumption was made that the system is unstratified at all times. If this is not the case then this assumption creates limitations on the models predictive ability. A more complex model would be necessary to account for stratified flows in the study region. However, the available field observations do not provide the necessary detail to fully assess this assump- tion. \irwd\modltm. wp5 8 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCW38025.T9.04 4 May 1995 • Friction and Transport Coefficients: The friction factor and eddy diffusivity for salt are held constant with location in the model. However, these coefficients are known to vary with environmental and hydrodynamic conditions. A slightly more complex model formulation is required to allow such variation. The model used could be modified to provide this ability. However, sufficient detailed field observations to calibrate such a model is not available. • Forcing Functions: The driving forces of the modeled processes are time varying. These variations have not been fully incorporated. However, the use of an average diurnal tidal cycle, average bay salinities, and average discharge rates do produce a good overall description of the system. The average salinity and normal range of salinity predicted by the model is well described. • Extent of Simulation: The model was constructed to simulate only the major portion of the system. Tidal flows into and out of the smaller sloughs were neglected. The model calibration should account for some of the differences between model and prototype, as long as the forcing functions applied to the model are similar in value to those used for calibration. Although the model represents an appreciable simplification of the prototype' system it is believed that the model predictions accurately reflect the behavior of the system and correctly characterize both qualitatively and quantitatively the effect of bathymetric and freshwater flows on the salinity structure and nutrient distributions of Newport Bay as average winter conditions. \irwd\modltm. wp5 9