Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout212-97_NEWPORT DUNES*NEW FILE* AIC212=97 APPLICATION AL IN CONCEPT" CITY OF NEWPORd'ACE NO-4 FEE: 3 G zz-- APPROVAL IN COMMT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - As required for permit application to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to California Administrative Code, Section 13210 and 13211. GenerODescription'bfProposedDewelopment 1glA Atlek 0-1 Ll,i i fU &4. "t'Cl" flid � IJ["t�!/r aFti'ti:c kc,i;��,_s�,v/lo/1�ih rcCet� n/�<C Legal Description: Der; A/ • Ld YL 1 �/ Applicant: L_!./i,, Y / J (; �.Jd,N ii/, � J �jy)�M� ii it 1 �ir�/i A, .- Applicant's Telephone DO NOT CrOMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE The I have reviewed the plans for the foregoing development including: and find 1. The general site plan, including any roads and public access to the shoreline. 2. The grading plan, if any. 3. The general uses and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered in the application They comply with the current adopted City of Newport Beach General Man, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and any applicable specific or precise plans or has been approved and is final A copy of any variance, site plan review, resubdivision, use permit, or other issued permit is attached together with all conditions of approval and all approved plans including approved tentative tract » On the basis of this finding, these plans are approved in concept, and said approval has been written open site plans, signed and dated. Should this City adopt an ordinance deleting, amending, or adding to the Zoning Ordinance or other regulations in any manner that would affect the use of the property or the design of a project located thereon, this approval in concept shall become null and void as of the effective date of this said ordinance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and state and local guidelines adopted thereunder, this development: XHas received a final Exemption Declaration or final Negative Declaration (copy attached). • Has been determined to be ministerial or categorically exempt. • Has received a final Environmental Impact Report (copy Attached). All discretionary approval legally required of this City prior to issuance of a building permit have been given anO are final. The development is not subject to rejection in principal by this City unless a substantial change in it is proposed. This concept approval in no way excuses the applicant from complying with all applicable policies, ordinances, codes, and regulations of this City. Date: '2 ' l ! "f i PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attachments: JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director /NrrJ * . k ?ypy Nca Arivc Tact . « PAID NOTE: No building permit will be issued until a �reodveWdfromC.C.C. FEB 131997 w1?51\rLMN1N0\unxLenanFowa8wex1c0mmDoc I OF NEWPf9p" State of California, George Deukmejian, Governor Date: March 15, 1985 California Coastal Commission' SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 PERMIT AUTHORIZATION California Dept. of Fish and Game Fred Worthiltey Jr. 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350 Lohg Beach, CA 90802 Permit No. 5-85-31 DHP:sjl Please be advised that you are hereby authorized to proceed with development of your project, permit number 5— , which was reported to the Commission on March 13. _ 1�. Development of your project is subject to compliance with all e ms andcconditioons specified in the Administrative Permit which was sent to you on February 25, 18 85 Should you have any questions please contact our office. MICHAEL L. FISCHER Executive Director o by. r U m 0 State of California, George Deukmejian, Governor Page I Of 2 Date: February 25, 1985 California Coastal Commission SOUTH COAST DISTRICT Permit Application No. 5-85-31 DHP:sj1 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT - -- (213) 590-5071 APPLICANT: California Department of Fish and Game PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restoration of Big Canyon Marsh including dike' repair, construction of overflow structures and repairing of of existing parking lot. PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Backbay Drive and Jamboree Road in the fXECln1IYE D1RENOrfiSBD�fEh�(I`1�f(�Ical Reserve. Pursuant to PRC Section 30624, the Executive Director hereby determines that the proposed development, subject to Standard and Special Conditions as attached, is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976, will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a Local Coastal Program that is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3. and wilt not have any significant impacts on the environment within the Weaning of the Cal- ifornia Environmental Quality Act. Any development located between the near- est public road and the sea is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3. Additional reasons for this determination, and for any special conditions. may be discussed on the reverse (Page 2). NOTE: The Commission's Regulations provide that this permit shall be reported to the Commission at its next meeting. If one-third or more of the appointed membership of the Commission so request, a permit will not be issued for this permit application. Instead, the application will be removed from the admin- istrative calendar and set for public hearing at a subsequent Commission meet- ting. Our office will notify you if such removal occurs. This permit will be reported to the Commission at the following time and place: Wednesday, March 13, 1985 at 9:00 a.m. Shelter Island Marina Inn, 2051 Shelter Island Drive, San Diego IMPORTANT - Before ,You may proceed with development the following must occur: For this permit to become effective you must sign Page 2 of the enclosed duplicate acknowledging the permit's receipt and accepting its contents, including all Conditions, and return it to our office. Following the Com- mission's meeting, and once we have received the signed acknowledgment and evidence of compliance with all special conditions, we will.'send you an authorization to proceed with development. MICHAEL L. FISCHER Executive Dire r by: .. �eJ�.�✓ Page 2r of �2 Permit Application No. 5-85-31 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Lies of hheeitt and ANanowldteftnt. The porno, is not valid and developrart ohell mot eomeenec 1wnt11 a copy of the paredt, signed by she poramoo or authorized agent, aelmowledeing'reeeipt of the permit and acceptance of the terns and eoditioaa, fa returned to the Commission office. 2. ftpJnt!on. If development has rot soomenced, the permit rill sspirs two years tree tbo date this pe�raportd to the Commission. Development shall be puraud In a diligent sernfr and mom. d}ileted in a reasonable period of ties. Application for extension of the permit oast be made pri;r to the axpirmtion date. 3. Comullanee. All developemrt must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as sat forth in the application for permit, subject to any special sond-Wons set forth bolaw. Any deviation from the approved plane must be reviewed end app.a. by the staff and any require Commission approval. A. nte. retat on. Any questions of intent or irterprotation or any condition will be resolved by the la*cguirs Director or the Commission. s. Ing"etions. The Commission staff $hall be ailed to import the site and the project during its rvelopmenL$ subject to ZA-four adwnes esotiee. 6. si eerrThe permit my be assigned to any qualiried person, provided sasignnes files with the +anion . an affidavit accepting all terns and ooditions of the permit, ?. jenss and Conditions Itun with the Ludt Thus torus and conditions stall be perpatualo and it is the intention of the C<oodlsion and the pandttea to bird all future owrare and possaxsarm or the subject property to the terms and eomditioso EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S DETEP14INATION (continued): The development is a part of the ongoing restoration of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve being executed under the Department of Fish and Game restoration plan. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: none ACkNOWLEDGEMENT Of PERMIT RECEIPT/ACCEPTANCE Of CONTENTS: I/We acknowledge that I/we have received a copy of this permit and have accepted its contents including all conditions. . Applicant's Signature Date of signing i mcil panla.21 T 13,. "J =:l :..L Still;" ".IRs`io; ui• uj lil rr • j . . MSL DATUM 15 — 10 MEAN LOWER LEVEL WATER (-2.73) 5 0 —5 —10 EL =14 263' FUTURE EXCAVATED SLOPEE(20:1) EL —14 340' 9.5' 30' SECTION A -A SCALE V-20' 0 20 10 40 FEET 527 EXISTING JAMBOREE ROAD BRIDGE 10' 20 EL 3.0 PROPOSED INVERT vr-- EXISTING INVERT (VARIES) Eto' L —7 ,V GROUTED RIP —RAP WITH 1/2 TON STONE 20' 1 20' 40' PLACE GEOFABRIC ON SUBGRADE UPPER NEWPORT BAY •�- CONCEPT PLAN FOR JAMBOREE ROAD corm K TETTuim& A55L<wm Ln 7�s.�+wavnen,e 5momt ICox aCciiw�aBM26 STABILIZER STRUCTURE II DATE 12-95 SH E 2ET OF 2 fbIA I 1 I 1 1 DATE POSTED October 23, 1996 DATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 300 N. FLOWER STREET P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-4048 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 In accordance with Orange County Board of Supervisor's policies regarding implementation of the Caldomia Environmental Quality Act, the County of Orange has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the following project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment and on the basis of that study hereby finds: ' ❑ The proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, it does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the reverse side of this sheet have been added to the project. An Environmental Impact Report is therefore rat required. The environmental documents which constitute the Initial Study and provide the basis and reasons forthis determination are attached and hereby made a part of this document, PROJECT: Title: ironer Newport Say Unit III Sediment Control and Fmhancenazt Project ,File No: IP 96-157 Location: Upper Newport Bay and adjacent on- and off -shore areas' Newport Beach California _ Description: - intm=rp eIPA-idm *he Project Proponent: County of Ore a and MY of Newport Beach Divislon/Department Responsible for Proposed Project: Fnvirormenral 5 Project Plarmin^ DivisiolRoom No. 321 Address: 300 N. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Contact Person: Cheryl Vind Telephone: (714) 834-5095 NOTICE: This document and supporting attachments are provided for review by the general public. This is an information document about environmental effects only. Supplemental information is on file and may be reviewed in the office listed above.The decision -making body will review this document and potentially many other sources of information before considering the proposed project. This Negative Declaration may become final unlesswritten comments oran appeal is received bythe office listed above by 430 p.m. on Nnvpmhpr 22,1996 . It you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, address your written comments to our finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment: (1) identify the environmental effect(s), why they would occur, and why they would be significant, and (2) suggest any mitigation measures which you believe would eliminate or reduce the effect to an acceptable level. Regarding item (1) above, explain the basis for your comments and submit any supporting data or references. Dated: z-/7-,2a Public Projects Section -+ F0250.275.4 (n5l>73J t t I I I I I I I I I I Volume I Draf l Initial Study Volume I Draft Initial Study IP-96-157 October 23,1996 Prepared For. County of Orange Environmental and Project Planning Division 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Prepared by: ® ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC. 8100 La Mesa Boulevard, Sufte.290 La Mesa, California 91941.6476 M = M M M M M M M ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGENCY P.U. BOX 4048 INITIAL STUDY 11 IP 96-157 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-40,18 Upper Newport Bay t'ItOJECI' ItEF. Unit III ' INITIAL STUDY I. PROJECT TITLE: Upper Newport Bay Unit III PROJECT NUMBER: 2. LEAD AGENCY: Sedimeenttt DRtrpmen a anagetneni7ll EnhgD%ment Pr �tect IP 96-157 OrangeCoun y nv rongency LEAD DIVISION: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. County Harbors, Beaches, and Parks 3. CEQA CONTACT PERSON: Mr. Gary Medeiros-Orange County PHONE NUMBER: (714) 834-2448 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Ms. Patricia Temple -City of Newport Beach Upper Newport Bay and. adjacent (714) 644-3200 on- and off -shore areas 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME: City of Newport Beach ADDRESS: County of Orange 3300 Newport Blvd. 300 N. Flower 6. CENEItAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space —Water 7. ZUNINC;Newport Beach, CA 92659 Santa Ana, CA Unzoned S. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (Describe the whole acilon involved) Refer to Section III of the Initial Study Text 9. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: (Numbered) Refer to attached "Sources of Information" sheet and Section VI of the Initial Study Text to. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: California Coastal Conservancy *California Reg. Water Qlty. Control Board *US Army Corps of Engineers *US Environmental Protection Agency *California Coastal Commission *US Coast Guard *US Fish and Wildlife Service *California State Lands CommissionUS National Marine Fisheritis Service *California De artment of Fish and Gam The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least ouc impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." as indicated on the attached Environmental Analysis Checklist. X Land Use & planning X Air Quality —X_ Recreation Population & (lousing X Noise Energy & Mineral Resources Geophysical Biological Resources • X hazards X Water t' Aesthetics _ Public Services X Transportation/Circulation _ Cultural/Sciculi6c Resources _, Utilities &Service Systems ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESST►IAN SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT NO IMPACT MITIGATED IMPACT IMPAI A. POTENTIAL. TO fjF.rf�AD6: Does Use project havethe potential to degrade the quality of Ibc environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop bclovr self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal cunuuunily, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animml, or climinale important examples of tic major periods of California history or prehistory? D. SHORT TERM: Does the project have the potential to achieve short -tent, to the disadvantage or X long-term, environmental goals? — C. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable means that tine increnheutal effects or project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, line effects of x other current projects, and die effects of probable future projects.) — I D .....FB5E 1Mp & f ER ON HUMANS; Does to project have environmental effects which will I cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x DETERNMATION Lat to proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on to envirommcnt, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I rind that although tine proposed project COULD have a significant effect on alit cnvironment, there will not be a significant effect in this cue because Mitigation Measures have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Y 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect ern the environment which has not been analyzed previously. T hcrefure, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTisrcquired. I rind that although file proposed project could have significant eflect(s) on the environnnun, all project impacts have been adequately analyzed and mitigated in 2 PREVIOUS CEQA DOCUMENT prepared and apprnvedlcertifncd pursuant to Slate and County CL'QA Guidelines. 1 find that although lie proposed project has been analyzed and mitigated as part of all earlier document prepared and approvcd/certificd pursuant to State and County CEQA Guidelines, minor additions midlor clarifications arc needed to make file previous docuinentatiun adequate to cover -the project. Therefore, an ADDENDUM will be preparul for the proposed project. (1h" U;(K October 23 1996 Ml ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Ion tact r hnL ftit led Impact Ion is g n r 1. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the proposal: -r a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning X (source N(s): ) — b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policy of agencies with jurisdiction over the project? t — x— — — c) Affect agricultural resources or nperations(e.g., rmparas to soil or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land X uses)? ( ) — — — d) Dismpplar divide the ph sical arrangement ofan esbbl'shed community (such as a low-income or minorityconununity)7 ( ) x e) Conflict with adjacent, existing or plamcd, land uses? ( 1) — 2. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would project: a) Cumulatively exceed adopted regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial grorsllu in an area directly or indirectly through project in an undeveloped area orexlcnsnm of major infrastructure? e) Displace existing housing?( ) 3. GEOPHYSICAL Would project result in or expose people to impacts invoving: a) local fault rupture? ( ) — b) Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction?( ) — e) Seismic.seicheortsunami? ( ) _ d) Landslidaormudslides? ( ) _ e) plosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? ( ) — 1) Subsidence of the land? g) Expansive soils? ( ) — h) Unique geologic or physical features?( ) — 4. WATER. Would the proposal result fm: a) Changes in absorption rates, drain -age paticm; m — • the rate and amount of surface runoti? t b) Exposure ofpeopfe r properly to water related hazards such as (boding? ( ) ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Impaa 4. WATER(Coni'd) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (lcmpmlure, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?( ) — d) Changes in die amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) _ e) Changes in currents or Elie worse or direction of water movements?( ) — () Change in the quantity of ground water,either tiuough direct additions or withdrawals, or Uuougb lteroe don of an aquifcrby cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction orrate offlow ofgroundwater?( )_ h) Impacts to groundwater quality?( ) — 5. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion beyond adopted policies and/or forecasts? ( ) — b) Safely hazards from design features (e.g. shag, curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) — c) Inadequale emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) _ d) buuffrciwtparkingwpacityon-silcorolfsite?( ) — e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?( ) Q Conflicts with adopted policies supporting allemativebans�artation(mg.bustumouls, bicycle racks)? ( ) — g) Rail, waterborne orair traffic fmpac6?( ) — 6. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any SCAQMD standard orcontribute to air qqualit deterioration beyond projections of SCAIQMD? ( ) — b) Expose sensitive ppoopulation groups to pollutants in excess orateeptable levels? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) CrwteobjecUonabteodors? ( ) Page t No Potential Sipafca1. LessThu SigurcaL llakss SigafcaL ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Impact Mligaed impact 7. NOISE Would the proposal: a) lncaase existing main levels? ( } — b) Expose pm* to nolu kvcb esccang adopted Cmntystamlydr?( ) — IG DIOLGOICALRESOURCES Would PnjedImpact: ') or their haEbBav�ihalingb�utno we specks Iaalikfi* Insects, enimals and bkds)?( ) — b) LoealiydeslPphatedSpecies(e.g.hcritogetrm)?( ) — e) Locally designased numal mmnhwdties (ate oak tcrea6Comm houst.elm)?( ) — d) p etbo hab6; (e.g.mamh, ripmim&ndvemm — e) WiolredisperWormigntionconidon?( ) — I) AdVW RCo ��twph)a?( ndpmic; (e.g. — 9. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) AIlcctasanievimaorview oprnbthe public? b) ARectadesignatedxenichighway? ( ) — e) ResuhtiaanoiftulveacsdkGceRecN ) — d) Create; Ught or Slam beyond the physical limits of the Project site?( ) if. CULTURAUSCIEh nFIC RESOURCES. Would the Project: a) Disturbpokoresourees?( ) — b) Disturb uclu co resources? ( ) — e) Aged hlslor(cal «soucw? ( ) — d) ITave the polemial to true a�Itysical c ange which would sDcct unique ethnic Collura►Values? ( ) — c) Restrict existing religious orsavai use within the potential Impact aces ( ) — 11. RECREATION. Would Prapa sh a) Increase demand for local orregional parks mother recreuional facilities? ( ) — b) AfrectesistingreacmionlopportunUks?( ) — e) conflict with adopted me euional plan and policies? — X X X X —_.. potential S(palca4lessThan No Sigafcal. Uakas Sigurcat. No Impact ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Impart Mligted Impact Impact 12. ENERGY&MINERALRESOURCES. Would .project. s) ConfliciwkhadopledencWcrosmationptans?( )— — b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasleful and '— Inefficient numim?( ) — 17. HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve: a) AriskoracciderstalexPinionormkaseofhararfous substrrhm (nc�hding, but not limitallo• oil, — pesticides. chemical. gm or radiation)?( ) . y - - b) Possibie inierkrence with an ecmmeerrggenry, response Plan oremergencyevacuaionplan7( ) . y - - e) The ecemion crony idauified beallh hazard? ( ) — X — d) Eposureo fpkb X _ X )eopexWingsourcesonccmlh — — - - e) increased rite bused indesignated high rite hat"d x Kegs (e.g.nnnmoblebnl*grsss.orirces)?( ) — N. PURW CSERVICES. Would Project result in ncd(s) for newhitered government services in: X a) Fireprowtion?( ) —X — b) Policeprotection ?( ') X — —JL — e) Schools?( ) X — d) Maimenanceorpublktadlitim indudingtoWs?( )— _X_ — e) Othagovemmentmsmiees?( ) X Is. Ur11aTiES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. World Project mule in needs fur neworsuhstsot(a) alteration: — X a) Powerornmuntgas?( ) X — X b) Cmnmunicmionssysmms?( ) X — —X— e) I.ocsi or regional watertreaunem or distribution X fadlilics7( ) - - --X— d) Sewerorsegielanks?( ) Y_ e) Solid Come disposm7( ) CONS 11.T_pn X Pr•RSONSIAGENCIPS Refer to Section VI of the Initial Study Text. H ' SOURCES OF INFORMATION Coastal Plan 1. City of Newport Beach General Plan and Local (LCP). 2. County of Orange General Plan. 3. Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Management Plan. 4. California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, 1994. ' S. Biological and Water Quality Impact Assessment of the Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Enhancement Project, Prepared by Merkel & Associates, September 3, 1996. 6. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin,1995. ' 7. American Public Work Association Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH), Eighth Edition. ' 8. Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement Project, Prepared by Giroux & Associates, September 4, 1996. 9. Noise Impact Analysis for the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement Project, Prepared by Giroux & Associates, August 28, 1996. 10. Memorandum from John Wolter of the City of Newport Beach to Fred Worthley of the ' CDFG Regarding Responses to Questions From Resource Agency Representatives, November 23, 1994. 11. San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan: Early Action & ' Interim Plan (EAIP) EIR (SCH No. 81012960). 12. EAIP EIR Addendum: Unit I Sediment Management and Restoration Program (SCH No. 81012960). 13. Upper Newport Bay Unit R Enhancement/Sediment Management Project EIR (SCH No. ' 85091819). 14. EIR for the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Proposed Discharge of Reclaimed Effluent into San Diego Creek, September 1995. ' 15. Toxicity and Chemical Evaluation of Two Sediments From the Vicinity of the LA3 Ocean Disposal Site and of One Sediment From the Unit I Basin, Upper Newport Bay, Prepared by ToxScan, Inc., August 1996. 16. Dredging of the Upper Newport Bay: Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project and the Dover Shores Residential Community, Prepared by John M. Tettemer & Associates, ' Ltd., January 1996. 17. Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program: Unit II - A Report on the Methods, Costs Implementing Unit II Work, Prepared by M.H. Cheney, August 1985. ' and Feasibility of 1 Upper Newport Bay Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project Initial Study Table of Contents Section Title EM 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................1 II. PROJECT HISTORY/PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION.............................................................1 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................... :.............. 3 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.........................................10 V. FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE: .............................................. 37 VI. REFERENCES...................................................................38 VII. PREPARERS.....................................................................39 Attachments MIS A. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY i List of Figures Figure N-QI Title 1 Regional Location Map...................................................................1 2 Project Vicinity Map......................................................................1 3 Project Site Map...........................................................................1 4 Aerial Photo of Stabilizer Structure Vicinity ........................................... 9 5 Plan View of Proposed Satbilizer Structure...........................................10 List of Tables Table Tltlg Follows ' EM ' On or ' Follows EM 1 Equipment List for Clamshell Dredging Operations in Upper Newport Bay ...... 7 2 Equipment List for Hydraulic Dredging Operations in Upper Newport Bay ...... 9 it 11 11 11 I' It 1 11 LN la 0 au 1 The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department and County of Orange are proposing to implement a sediment control and enhancement project in portions of Upper Newport Bay and adjacent on- and offshore areas located in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project would entail dredging between approximately 725,000 and 825,000 cubic yards (cy) of accumulated material from portions of the upper bay and main access channel, disposal of dredged material in an existing and approved offshore disposal site, and repair/modification of the Jamboree Road stabilizer structure located at the Upper Newport BaylSan Diego Creek interface. The project site has been subject to a number of previous dredging/erosion control projects and associated environmental analyses, with these efforts described below in Section II. This discussion is followed by a detailed project description in Section III, and explanatory text for the CEQA Initial Study Checklist in Section IV. H. PROTECT HISTORYIPREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTA • DOCUMENTATION A. PROJECT HISTORY ' The proposed project site incorporates portions of Upper Newport Bay and adjacent up- and downstream areas in west -central Orange County (Figures 1 and 2). Upper Newport Bay is a marine estuary receiving runoff from four principle sources: San Diego Creek, Santa Ana -Delhi ' Channel, Santa Isabela Channel and Big Canyon Wash. Of these four, San Diego Creek is the principle contributor of both runoff and sediment, accounting for approximately 94 percent of sediment delivered to Newport Bay (California Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] 1995). San Diego Creek has a watershed of approximately 118 square miles, with this area encompassing varied land uses including open space, agriculture, residential and commercial development, as well as a number of sites currently under construction. Natural and accelerated erosion within this watershed (i.e., in association with factors such as grading, agriculture and increased runoff generation) has resulted in substantial siltation in the bay, with the continued influx of sediment threatening established resources and uses such as marine fisheries, native habitats (e.g., salt marsh) and navigation. A number of sediment control and removal projects have been implemented in Upper Newport Bay and the San Diego Creek watershed to address this situation. Specifically, these include several previous dredging projects within the bay, as well as attempts to contain and/or reduce the amount of upstream sediment generation and transport. t 1 L� 11 Dredging to remove accumulated sediment has occurred within Upper Newport Bay over the past several decades, beginning in 1956. Since that time, over a dozen separate dredging projects have been conducted within the bay to remove sediment, maintain or enhance marine habitat, and accommodate navigation/recreational use. The most recent of these efforts involved development of the Upper Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Sediment Control Program, with three related projects to construct sediment control basins in Upper Newport Bay. The fast project, known as the Early Action Interim Control Plan, excavated approximately 500,000 cy of sediment from the area immediately downstream of Jamboree Road (Figure 3) in 1982. The Unit I Sediment Control and Enhancement project (known as the Unit I in -bay Basin) enlarged the Early Action Interim Control Plan Basin with the excavation of 940,000 cy of sediment in 1985. In 1988, the Unit II in -bay Basin was excavated downstream of the Unit I in -bay Basin approximately one mile below the jamboree Road bridge, and just below the old saltworks dike (Figure 3). The Unit H project also included dredging a 100 foot wide access channel from the Unit II Basin extending downstream from the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge, with approximately 1.2 million cy of sediment removed from the Unit II Basia and access channel. Upper Newport Bay Unit 111 Project MM October 23, 1996 I I AM Project Vicinity Map HELIX . • . ENVIRONMENTAL! UPPER PLANNING, INC_ STABILIZER JAMBOREE ROAD BRIDGE ) !STRUCTURE ob ei 1. i f LIMITS OF PROPOSED UNIT III , : -A ) ! DEEP WATER HABITAT AND w > •� i SEDIMENT BASIN t ,. nx All y • . _ • • __ Y- - - f ' .. •;F\fit •�E•r`'f'+ fi... •{.�� - •L_�.• •'YYI!^)rr ,-L--y1 y� ,}2�'•I �-y'F'. �__ [y' j•,j���y�[ � 3' •••'y1665.CA . �qllEI O•F P•H.O. 70Cf1V Y♦•V.•.� 93Ymay:. '• r.�„- yiTr�t•+ 7 --��'(1 ��'' '. �-•` ���,•�.�•L.h• - { UPPI �SEDIMEN' LIMITS OF UNIT I SEDIMENT BASIN AND CHANNEL LIMITS OF UNIT 11 SEDIMENT BASIN AND CHANNEL Y DOVER SHORES LIMITS OF DREDGING 110 DREDGING STAGING AREA 41 c ::?••rx.a�.• :7!'.;raPii_i/. i.I,rt�XYMIX"500EF.nt3'Y�9[�1Jf.'f%�7fe" s. Project Site Map UPPER NEWPORT BAY Figure 3 7 1 ' The described Unit I and Unit II Basins were designed to trap sediment in a low -velocity marine environment. These facilities have generally performed as planned and require periodic maintenance to remove and dispose of accumulated sediment. The in -bay basins represent the end (i.e., the most downstream) facilities of a sediment control system extending throughout the San ' Diego Creek watershed. This system includes upstream measures such as in -channel basins, channel stabilization, channel lining, implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for construction and agricultural activities, foothill sediment and debris basins, and an annual sediment ' control monitoring program administered by Orange Couaty. The noted hannel basins are estimated to collect approximately 17,000 cY of sediment annually. Current BMPs are enforced by City and County ordinances within the watershed, and include approval of erosion control and siltation control plans on development projects in the watershed which require landscaping, ' sediment barriers (i.e., sandbags), desilting basins and general site maintenance to control sediment. The most effective elements are the foothill basins, which collect debris and sediment from the steep undeveloped foothills before stormflows enter the San Diego Creek Storm Channel ' system. An additional element of the described sediment control system is the rock stabilizer structure located at the junction of San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, beneath the Jamboree Road bridge (Figures 3 and 4). This structure was originally built in 1982 as part of the described Newport Bay Early Action Plan facilities, and was designed to reduce erosion.at the creek/bay interface during high storm flows. The existing stabilizer is constructed from 0.5-ton loose rock (with a grouted, 20-foot wide low -flow channel), and measures approximately 340 feet long (i.e., between bridge abutments), 84 feet wide (i.e., in plan view) and 5 feet thick. B. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION As described above under Project History, a number of dredging efforts have been conducted in Newport Bay, with the most recent of these consisting of three separate projects completed since These were subject to environmental evaluation under CEQA, as summarized ' 1982. projects below: • San Diego Creek CoirJyrehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, Early Action & Interim Plan (EA_IP) EIR (SCH No. 810129601- This 1981 EIR evaluated the environmental ' effects from the proposed excavation and disposal of approximately 350,000 cy of material in San Diego Creek to create two in -channel silt basins, as well as the removal and disposal of 500,000 cy of sediment in Upper Newport Bay (immediately downstream of Jamboree Road) to construct the Early Action in -bay basin and habitat island. Proposed basin construction downstream of Jamboree Road also included placement of the rock stabilizer structure at the Jamboree Road bridge (as described above). All materials excavated for this project were proposed to be deposited in several identified onshore disposal sites located adjacent to San Diego Creek. Potentially significant impacts were identified for several issues, including soils/geology, biology, hydrology/water quality, air quality, traffic circulation and aesthetics. With the exception of water quality and related biological effects from sedimentation if ' dredging activities were to occur during the winter months, mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts below a level of significance. ' . FAIP EIR Addendum Unit I Sediment Manage r and Restoration Program (SCH No. 81012960)- The 1984 Unit I Addendum to the Early Action & Interim Plan EIR evaluated the excavation of approximately 800,000 cy of material from portions of Upper Newport Bay and the access channel extending from Jamboree Road to a point approximately one mile Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 2 downstream (west). The excavation adjacent to Jamboree Road entailed enlarging (both vertically and laterally) the Early Action m-bay Basin evaluated in the 1981 EIR, as well as removing the island at the mouth of San Diego Creek and creating least tern nesting islands in the southern portion of the expanded basin. Proposed disposal of excavated material was in sar locations as described above for the project evaluated in the 1981 EIR. Potential environmental effects from khe Unit I project were determined to be "substantially the same as those covered m the EAIP Mitigation measures were identified in the Unit I EAIP EIR Addendum to reduce all potential impacts below a level of significance. g5091819) --The 1986 Unit II EIR evaluated the excavation of approximately 500,000 to 1.15 million cy of material from portions of Upper Newport Bay, the main access channel and creation of a new side channel. All of this proposed dredging was to occur downstream of the Unit I Basin, with excavation in the access channel extending from the Unit II Basin to downstream of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge, The Unit II EIR evaluated two alternative scenarios for material dredging, including the use of a barge -mounted clamshell dredge and a hydraulic dredge and pipeline. All dredged material in both.alternative scenarios was proposed for disposal in an approved offshore location (LA-3 disposal site), with disposal methodology involving the use of scows and tugboats (as well as pipeline transport in the upper bay for the hydraulic option) to haul material through Newport Bay and to the noted offshore disposal site. This activity also entailed establishing a marshalling site near the Pacific Coast Highway bridge for the staging and mooring of tugboats, scows and related equipment Potentially significant environmental effects were idennfed for the Unit II project in the areas of biology, water quality, noise, aesthetics and harbor circulation. Mitigation measures were identified in the Unit II E1R to reduce all potential impacts except aesthetics below a level of significance. Mitigation for adverse aesthetic impacts was not considered feasible due to the required presence of dredging and disposal equipment, although these effects were short-term and completely eliminated upon completion of project dredging. An additional EIR has recently (September 1995) been certified by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) for the proposed discharge of reclaimed effluent into San Diego Creek upstream from the Unit III project area. This project isnotdirectly related to and will not affect the proposed Unit III operations, although applicable background data regarding nutrient loading in Upper Newport Bay compiled in association with the IRWD EIR have been incorporated into the analysis of water quality for the Unit III project. n :aao 1 -,4 Irt a ►j A. PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project encompasses portions of Newport Bay and adjacent areas, as well as offshore transport routes associated with proposed ocean disposal of dredged material. Newport Bay is located within the City of Newport Beach (City) in west -central Orange County (County), approximately 40 miles southeast of Los Angeles and 70 miles northwest of San Diego (Figures 1 and 2). Specific project areas within and adjacent to the bay include reconstruction/modification of the Jamboree Road bridge stabilizer structure, excavation of the Unit III Basin immediately downstream of Jamboree Road, maintenance dredging in the access channel from the Unit III Basin to an area downstream of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge, dredging in the Dover Shores residential community inlet, establishment of a project marshalling area downstream of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge, and the noted tugboat/scow access route through Newport Bay and offshore to the LA-3 ocean disposal site (Figure 3). Upper Newport Bay Unit In Project October 23, 1996 7 B. PROJECT' NEED AND PURPOSE The primary objective of the proposed dredging project is to remove accumulated sediment in Upper Newport Bay and improve/protect local manse habitats (i.e., deep water and salt marsh), ' navigation and recreational opportunities. Additional objectives and benefits associated with proposed dredging include removing accumulated sediment from the Dover Shores bay inlet, enhancing tidal exchange (and water quality) within the bay, improving salinity levels and reducing the effects of freshwater inflow on marine ecosystems. Proposed dredging would also create additional deep water marine habitat within the bay. Depending on authorization from applicable federal and state resource agencies, the City and County intend to make this new habitat available for purchase as mitigation credit for impacts to marine habitat associated with other (off -site) projects. The proceeds from selling mitigation credits related to proposed habitat creation would also be used to generate an annuity fund to offset the costs of future maintenance dredging of the in -bay basins. ' Principle objectives associated with the proposed repair and modification of the Jamboree Road stabilizer structure include erosion control, protection of the Jamboree Road bridge and maintenance of local water quality. This structure has been damaged by high storm flows over the past several years, with two sections of rock washed out. Repairs are currently necessary to allow this structure to perform as originally intended. In addition, the existing stabilizer structure would require modification to accommodate the proposed deepening of the Unit III Basin. C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ' The proposed project would involve dredging within various portions of Upper Newport Bay, ocean disposal of dredged material, and repair/modification of the Jamboree Road bridge stabilizer structure, as described below. Project contract specifications would include requirements for a pre -construction meeting at the project site between the project applicant; project engineers and ' biologists; the County of Orange Environmental & Project Planning Division and Harbors, Beaches and Parks; other appropriate regulatory agency personnel, and all applicable contractors. The purpose of this meeting is to clarify proposed project activities and objectives in the field, as well as to establish authority and responsibility for -implementing design elements, mitigation measures, and project oversight, as described in this Initial Study. Prior to project implementation, written notice describing proposed activities and schedules would be provided by the CEQA Co - Lead Agencies (see Section III) to applicable local residents, businesses, and regulatory agencies. This notice would be intended to provide advance notification of proposed activities to affected parties, as well as to provide an opportunity for public input prior to and during dredging operations. ' Dredging and Ocean Disposal ' Upper Newport Bay Proposed dredging activities within the bay would include the Unit III Basin downstream from Jamboree Road, as well as the access channel extending from the Unit III Basin to approximately 2,000feet downstream of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge (Figure 3). Estimated sediment removal in these areas would be between approximately 650,000 and 750,000 cy, with final volumes to be determined after completion of detailed topographic surveys. Additional dredging is ' proposed in the Dover Shores area as described below in this section. Dredging within the Unit III Basin and main channel is anticipated to be conducted by either a barge -mounted clamshell dredge ' Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 4 or a hydraulic dredge. Specific equipment needs and methodologies for both options are described below in this section. The Unit III Basin site was originally dredged as part of the EAIP and Unit I projects, with Unit I Basin dimensions including an invert elevation of -4.0 feet mean sea level (MSL) and side slopes of 10:1 (horizontal to vertical). The Unit I Basin has since accumulated substantial quantities of sediment and now consists primarily of mudflats ranging in elevation from -1.0 to +1.0 feet MSL. The proposed Unit III Basin would be dredged to an elevation of -14.0 feet MSL, with side slopes ranging between 20:1 and 25:1 in most areas. Dredging within the access channel downstream of the Unit III Basin would also extend to an elevation of -14.0 MSL to accommodate project dredging and sediment disposal vessels, as well as general navigation in the bay. In the transitional area between the Unit III Basin and the noted downstream channel, the side slopes would vary between approximately 3:1 and 10:1 to create a 100-foot wide passage for project vessels and to avoid excavation of the surrounding marsh areas. Side slopes in the remainder of the existing downstream access channel (i.e., to a point approximately 2,000 feet past the Pacific Coast Highway bridge) would be excavated with side slope ratios of up to 3:1 to avoid impacting the adjacent salt marsh. The determination of appropriate side slopes in the access channel will be made by the project engineer, biologist and contractor, based on protection of salt marsh habitat and provision of adequate slope stability to preclude slumping (and associated impacts to adjacent habitat). Accordingly, all proposed dredging activities within the channel would be confined -to areas previously dredged during Unit II operations. Recent surveys indicate that only minor sediment accumulation (from slumping or other causes) has occurred in the access channel since the Unit II dredging activities. All future maintenance dredging associated with the proposed project facilities would also be conducted to avoid impacting adjacent marsh areas, and would return the project area to the above -described configuration (i.e., elevations and side slopes). Dredging associated with future maintenance requirements for the Unit III Basin and Dover Shores community (described below) is projected to range between approximately 250,000 and 300,000 cy, with this activity anticipated to occur at the end of years 3, 6, 11 and 22, as well as every 13 years thereafter (depending on the amount of significant rainfall, Wolter 1994). Sediment yield from the watershed will decrease as buildout occurs and the elements of the Sediment Control Plan are completed. All sediment removed by the described dredging would be disposed of at the authorized ocean disposal site known as LA-3. The LA-3 site is located approximately three miles south-southwest of the Newport Harbor entrance, with disposal to be conducted by appropriate scow and tug vessels (as described below in this section). Dover Shores The Dover Shores residential community is located along the north side of Upper Newport Bay, beginning approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge (Figure 3). The community is proposing to participate in the Upper Newport Bay project by facilitating dredging in the private waterways and adjacent portion of the access channel. Specifically, the Dover Shores community will provide "fair share" funding for applicable technical investigation (e.g., bioassay surveys) and dredging activities. The proposed dredging at Dover Shores includes private waterfront access and docks which have been subject to sedimentation affecting local navigation. Dredging within the private waterways would begin at the residential bulkheads, extend to an elevation of -10.0 feet MSL (from the current elevation of -4.0 to -6.0 feet MSL) and incorporate side slope ratios of 3:1. The -10.0-foot MSL elevation would be extended approximately 40 feet Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 29. 1996 I I LJ I �I I II II beyond the end of the residential docks (i.e., into the bay), at which point the elevation and side slopes would transition into the access channel dredging. Based on cross sections developed in 1993, it is estimated that up to approximately 75,000 cy of sediment would be removed by the described dredging in Dover Shores. Dredging within the Dover Shores site would be conducted with a hydraulic dredge, due to space limitations associated with the presence of residential slips and related facilities. Disposal of dredged material from the Dover Shores site would occur at the previously described LA-3 site, with additional discussion of dredging and disposal equipment and methodologies provided below. Dredging/Disposal Methodology, Equipment and Schedule Proposed dredging in the Unit III Basin and main harbor access channel may be conducted using either a clamshell dredge mounted on a floating barge, or a hydraulic dredge and pipeline. Both options would involve ocean disposal of dredged material, with specific equipment and methodologies described below. Dredging in the Dover Shores area would be conducted with a hydraulic dredge, as noted above. The proposed repair and modification of the Jamboree Road stabilizer structure would be the same under either dredging scenario, and is described separately following the discussion of dredging options. Proposed dredging in the Unit III Basin and main harbor access channel under this option would be conducted by a floating barge and crane equipped with a 3 to 10 cy clamshell bucket. Dredged material would be loaded directly from the clamshell dredge into 1,000 or 3,000 cy bottom -dump stows. After reaching capacity, loaded scows would be moved aside by an in -bay tugboat, replaced by an empty scow, and hauled to the project marshalling area located approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge (Figure 3). The marshalling area would consist of anchors and buoys to secure the project scows. From the marshalling area, loaded scows would be transported by an ocean-going tugboat to the proposed LA-3 disposal area, emptied, and returned to the marshalling area. Within the bay, movement of the loaded scows would require 2 tugs, one pushing and one pulling, to ensure control of the scows under tow. A guide boat would accompany the scows and tugs as they proceed through Newport Bay, to provide a buffer between project vessels and other traffic (e.g., recreational craft). A total of three scows would be required to facilitate continuous operations, with a summary of proposed equipment provided in Table 1. Proposed dredging within the bay (except for Dover Shores, as described below) would commence at the marshalling area and proceed upstream toward the Unit III Basin. This phasing methodology is based largely on the fact that a minimum elevation of -14.0 feet MSL is required in the channel to accommodate the proposed dredging and disposal equipment. As previously noted, surveys indicate that very little sediment has been trapped in the access channel, so progress up - channel is expected to move quickly, minimizing impacts to nearby residents. The total estimated time to complete dredging operations for all proposed project elements under this scenario is approximately 35 to 40 weeks. This schedule is based on the dredging methodology and equipment described above, as well as the following assumptions: 24 hours er and 6 The normal k (Mondwork ay througdule for h project dredging Based on experience erations would with the Unit H dredging Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 II project, it is anticipated that normal project operation would involve two scow trips per day to the LA-3 disposal site. • A total of 5 weeks contingency is -assumed to allow for inclement weather or other delays, and 2 to 4 weeks is assumed to mobilize operations, with a total projected project duration of approximately 35 to 40 weeks. • Dredging in the Dover Shores community would require approximately two weeks to complete and would be concurrent with dredging in the Unit III Basin and main access channel. Dredging at Dover Shores would be conducted with hydraulic equipment due to space limitations, with associated additional equipment needs including an 8- to 12-inch hydraulic dredge and associated pipeline and scows (as described below). Table 1 Equipment List for Clamshell Dredging Operations in Upper Newport Bayl Number Equipment Tyne i2imensions2 Syecifications of Pieces Clamshell Dredge 110 by 50 Feet 3-10 cy Bucket 1 on Deck Barge 1,000 hp3 Engine Bottom -Dump Scow 150 by 35 Feet 1,000 cy Capacity 34 260 by 45 Feet 3,000 cy Capacity 34 In -Bay Tugboat 40 by 18 Feet 1,000 hp3 Engine 1 Ocean -Going Tugboat 70 by 25 Feet 3,000 hp3 Engine 1 Scow Guide Boat 30 by 10 Feet 50 hp3 Engine 1 Marshalling Area 400 by 30 Feet -- 1 1. Excluding hydraulic dredging in Dover Shores, equipment needs for this activity are described below under Hydraulic Dredging and in Table 2. 2. Length by width. 3. Horse power. 4. A total of 3 scows would be required for continuous disposal material generated by clamshell dredging, with appropriate sizes to be determined by the project contractor. Hydraulic dredging for the proposed project would be assumed to require similar equipment as evaluated in the 1986 Unit 11 M with a summary description provided in Table 2. Upper Newport Bay Unit ill Project October 23, 1996 7 _J ' Dredging activities under this option would commence at the Unit III Basin and proceed downstream towards the marshalling area, with the Dover Shores site dredged with an 8- to 12- inch diameter dredge. The marshalling area for hydraulic dredging would consist of a secured in - place composite barge measuring approximately 400 by 30 feet. The total estimated time to complete dredging operations for all proposed project elements under this scenario is also ' approximately 35 to 40 weeks. This schedule is based on the dredging methodology and equipment described above, as well as the following assumptions: • Dredging in the Dover Shores community would be conducted in sequence with dredging activities proceeding downstream from the Unit III Basin and main harbor channel. Accordingly, a total of approximately 725,000 to 825,000 cy of hydraulic dredging would be required. r The normal work schedule for project dredging operations would be 24 hours per day and 6 days per week (Monday through Saturday). • A total of 5 weeks contingency is assumed to allow for inclement weather or other delays, and 2 to 4 weeks is assumed to mobilize equipment, with a total projected dredging duration of approximately 35 to 40 weeks. Because dredged material under this scenario would be mixed with water for hydraulic transport through a pipeline, solid content in the slurry mixture would be limited to approximately 15 to 20 ' percent. Accordingly, the use of hydraulic dredging would require up to five tunes as many scow trips to and from the offshore disposal site as the clamshell dredging option, which generally encompasses a solid content of nearly 100 percent for excavated materials. ' Repair/Modification of the Jamboree Road Bridge Stabilizer Structure Proposed repair/modification of the stabilizer structure would generally entail adding rock to damaged portion's of the structure and extending the structure further into the bay to interface with the proposed Unit III Basin. This work is required to repair damage to the structure from recent storms and to accommodate the increased seven feet of depth proposed in the Unit III Basin (-14 ' MSL) from the Unit I Basin (-7 MSL). The stabilizer would be extended approximately 30 feet further west into the bay to accommodate this design. The 0.5-ton rock to be used in the proposed structure would be placed on top of geo-fabric and grouted into place (unlike the existing structure), to provide improved stability and erosion/undermirim protection. Because of this design element, the thickness of the modified portions of the structure would be reduced to four feet (compared to five feet for the existing structure). A geotechnical analysis of the proposed stabilizer structure will be conducted prior to final design and construction to ensure that proposed activities are technically adequate. Following is a summary of the proposed stabilizer structure repair/modification activities and schedule. The initial task involved in repairing the stabilizer structure would be to construct a coffer dam immediately downstream of the site to allow dewatering of the work area. Approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cy of material would be required to construct the coffer dam, with this material proposed to be derived from excavation for the stabilizer modifications (as described below). If needed, ' additional material can be derived from an adjacent shoreline area to the north, where a large amount of fill was placed for construction of an access road in association with the construction of the Unit I project. The noted fill deposit does not support any native vegetation, wildlife use, or habitat, and would be replaced after completion of the proposed stabilizer repair/modification. After the coffer dam is in place, small portable pumps would be used to dewater the construction ' UPPer Newport Bay Unit HI Project October 23, 1996 I area. The stabilizer (and coffer dam) may be constructed in two phases to allow the natural creek flow to continue uninterrupted. Table 2 Equipment List for Hydraulic Dredging Operations in Upper Newport Bayl Number Equipment Type Dimensions Specifications of Pieces Hydraulic Dredges --2 3,000 hp3 pump4 1 8-12-inch diameters 500 hp3 pump 1 200 hp. cutter Slurry Pipelines 16-inch diameter 23,000 feet long6 1 Bottom -Dump Scow 260 by 45 Feet 3,000 cy Capacity 3.46 Ocean -Going Tugboat 70 by 25 Feet 3,000 hp3 Engine 3 Scow Guide Boat 30 by 10 Feet 50 hp3 Engine 1 Marshalling Composite Barge 400 by 30 Feet -- 1 1. Including the Unit III Basin, main access channel and Dover Shores. 2. For use in Upper Newport Bay, dredge size is variable. 3. Horse power. 4. Assumes worst case scenario, actual engine size of pump could range from 1,000 to 3,000 hp. 5. For use in Dover Shores, dredged material may be delivered to stows either at the access channel or the marshalling area 6. For use in both Unit III Basidaccess channel and Dover Shores operations, pipeline length is approximate maximum distance between the Unit M Basin and the marshalling area Approximately 10,000 to 12,000 cy of material would be excavated with a land -based backhoe from areas in and around the existing stabilizer structure. This material would be removed to accommodate placement of new rock and, if not used for the coffer dam construction, would be stockpiled in previously disturbed areas on and adjacent to the existing stabilizer structure. During this excavation activity, rock would be brought to a stockpiling area located just north of San Diego Creek and east of Jamboree Road (Figure 4). Rock delivery trucks would access this site from Upper Newport Bay Unit III protect October 23, 1996 I 11 11 P1 11 6 lg 5. I .,G r lr powwow ' �• r �� , fi \ *at\' ,.'-� � ism' ����; � -`�. C+D 1 `• :yllt V� 4ya - t +fir .� ✓,�R�'!'. • • ■ - • b `, �es�.1„� •��,+,' •::• .i .. �1i'ay'\3`.•,��SS ^.iY!:"�-T^s+�'r:. lf^7v—. �. ' "''?' k _ T_ _ _ _ems• _ � _ 8i�7Nsf1F�.lt+!� i` `- • • is /! _ _ T�Y ! ll 64 •Rl - i� i• Gi 1 •. ID ��Sixy r � '�'��� �r!'� "3+�• ,''":�` ..1 .� ,T%a' y~r� �j�� 'y r:..i •' r .y rruum� r•K�AG� f� � �,.� - 13 �•,-�� It I d-: _ -7'f �� '/ � jL� " �-, ^ �i a�� ♦ .••Lh{-M �� t.,.- + � - *C- a ST a�V ��� ,yJ� •��rM,` �-��r'v■',�%fay�.��.L' .•. sj� '� �•,,.*���',"++�4�4� � � L ,yf •,�.p1.�.'•I' ^1`1Gi�,•�"•r /If 4 f�> r� �•�[,, `' y�i.,` � ! Crf..�• Q y .: � yam• ': T � HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC. Jamboree Road, via a dedicated lane and tum-off just north of the Jamboree Road bridge. After excavation is complete, a front-end loader would be used to transport stockpiled rock to the stabilizer site, by crossing under the Jamboree Road bridge along the north side of San Diego Creek (Figures 4 and 5). This route would encompass an existing equestrian trail and/or the creek bed while crossing under the Jamboree Road bridge. The rock would be delivered to the - dewatered work area, where a crane or backhoe would be used to place it in the structure (after placement of geo-fabric). As construction of the stabilizer proceeds, the crane or backhoe would move along the completed structure. it is anticipated that some of the excavated material would be reused for the stabilizer structure, with up to approximately 10,000 cy of excess material being produced. This material would either be removed by the noted front-end loader and hauled by truck to an approved off -site disposal location, or used to restore the dike along the north edge of the river outlet. Excavation and placement of material along the dike area would be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Marsh Manager. After placement of the rock and material is complete, grout would be delivered to the work area along the same route described for the rock, and placed in appropriate areas to secure the completed structure. The coffer dam and all related equipment would then be removed, with fill material used for the coffer dam to be replaced along the northern shore and/or hauled out to an approved disposal location (as noted above). Approximately 5,400 cy of imported rock and 1,600 cy of grout would be used for stabilizer repair and modification, along with the following equipment: one front-end loader, one crane, approximately three 10-ton dump trucks and four 6-ton grout delivery trucks. Construction activities for the described stabilizer repair/modification would require approximately six weeks, with this activity to be conducted concurrently with dredging for the Unit III Basin. Construction activities associated with the stabilizer structure would be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. D. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS In addition to approval of the proposed project by the City and County as Co -Lead Agencies, discretionary authorizations may be required by a number of regulatory agencies, as outlined below: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Coast Guard • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service • California Coastal Commission • California Coastal Conservancy • California State Lands Commission • Calhfornia Department of Fish and Game • California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana River Basin Lim ►\/ 1: ►lu 1 ►Y113 a V.411Y A. BACKGROUND/METHODOLOGY The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code § 21000-21177) and associated implementation guidelines (California Administrative Code § 15000 et seq.) require that Upper Newport Bay Unit Project October 23, 1996 10 GROUTED RI RAP 03 O m —"� rn c� O PROPOSED STABILIZER STRUCTURE 4.1 ► I \\ AT JAMBOREE ROAD \ 0 •� el 10 „1 I ' 10 o 100 50 200 FEET Plan View of Proposed Stabilizer Structure Figure UPPER NEWPORT BAY 5 public agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects they carry out or approve. The CEQA Guidelines also require that approved projects avoid actions that will cause significant environmental effects when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are available to substantially lessen these significant effects. To this end, the City and County have prepared the following Initial Study in accordance with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines to determine the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The City and County are Co -Lead Agencies for the proposed project, pursuant to Sections 15050 and 15051 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following Initial Study provides a basis for the City and County to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review for the Unit III project, with the assessment of project -related CEQA documentation requirements provided below in Section V, Finding of Significance. Project implementation may require discretionary approval and/or review by a number of additional regulatory agencies, as outlined above in Section III, Project Description. As described in Section II, Project History/Previous Environmental Documentation, three previous CEQA documents have been certified for dredging and related activities in Upper Newport Bay and adjacent areas. Specifically, these include the 1981 San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan - Early Action 8a Interim Plan (EAIP) EIR (SCH No. 81012960); the 1984 EAIP EIR Addendum - Unit I Sediment Management and Restoration Program (SCH No. 81012960); and the 1986 Upper Newport Bay Unit II Enhancement/Sediment Management Project EIR (SCH No. 85091819). These documents are described above in Section II and, pursuant to Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, are hereby incorporated by reference. Copies of these documents are available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92659-1768. The following evaluation is focused on identifying the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed Unit III project, as well as recommending mitigation measures and/or changes to the proposed project description to reduce impact levels below a level of significance where appropriate. Mitigation measures adopted as part of the three previously noted CEQA documents incorporated by reference were also reviewed to determine their applicability to potential impacts associated with the proposed Unit III project. The review of mitigation measures from previous CEQA documents was considered especially appropriate for the Unit II EIR, due to the similarity of dredging activities in that effort and the proposed project, as well as the fact that Unit II dredging was successfully completed without major environmental effects. A complete list of all mitigation measures contained in the three referenced CEQA documents is provided in the Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary included as Attachment A of this Initial Study (refer to Sections A-1 and A-2 separately). Additional technical studies were also conducted for the proposed Unit III project in the areas of biology/water quality, air quality and noise. These studies were prepared to ensure that the following analysis reflects current conditions and concerns in the project site and vicinity, and are included in this Initial Study as separately bound Attachments B, C and D, respectively. B. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS 1, land Use And Planning. Would the proposal., A. Conflict with General Plan designation or zoning? No Impact. The project site is designated as Open Space - Water in the City of Newport Beach General Plan (December 1995), and is unzoned. The proposed project Upper Newport Bay Unit IB Project October 23, 1996 11 n LI would entail short-term (i.e., construction -related) activities in the bay and adjacent on - and offshore areas, as well as modification of the existing stabilizer structure at the Jamboree Road bridge. The project would therefore not conflict with existing General Plan designation and zoning categories within the project site and vicinity. ' b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies of agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Significant Unless Mitigated. Project implementation would result in a number of ' potentially significant short-term impacts to adopted resource management plans and policies in the CDFG Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Specifically, these potential impacts are related to potential degradation of local water quality and biological ' resources from proposed dredging and construction activities. These potential impacts are addressed below in the applicable sections of this Initial Study. As described in these discussions, all identified impacts are expected to be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through identified design and/or mitigation measures. These ' measures may include requirements identified in the three previous CEQA documents incorporated by reference (i.e., the EAIP, Unit I and Unit II documents, see Section II), as well as additional items specific to the proposed Unit III project. Identified impacts related to the noted environmental plans or policies would thus be avoided or reduced below a level of significance, with no additional mitigation required. �I I� L II II II II II The proposed project is in conformance with the policies contained in applicable elements of the City's General Plan and amended Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Land Use Plan (January 1990). The mitigation policies contained in the LCP have been considered and incorporated into the Unit III project description, with no additional mitigation required. c. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soil or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. Proposed project activities would be located entirely within Newport Bay and adjacent offshore or developed areas, and would not affect any areas with agricultural activity or potential for such activities. d. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (such as a low-income or minority community)? No Impact. Proposed project activities would be short-term in nature and located entirely within Newport Bay and adjacent offshore or developed areas (i.e., the stabilizer site and staging area on Shellmaker Island). Accordingly, project implementation would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any established community. e. Conflict with adjacent, existing or planned, land uses? Significant Unless Mitigated. Project implementation would result in a number of potentially significant short-term and indirect impacts to existing and planned land uses in surrounding areas. Specifically, these potential impacts include interruption of waterborne traffic in the bay from the movements of dredging and disposal vessels, noise effects to local residential and commercial properties, disruption of circulation on local roadways from construction -related truck traffic, and degradation of local water Upper Newport Bay Unit BI Project October 23, 1996 12 quality and biological resources (including pordons,of the CDFG Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve) from proposed dredging and construction activities. These potential impacts are addressed below in the applicable sections of this Initial Study. As described in these discussions, all identified impacts are expected to be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through identified design and/or mitigation measures. These measures may include requirements identified in the three previous CEQA documents incorporated by reference (i.e., the EAIP, Unit I and Unit II documents, see Section Il), as well as additional items specific to the proposed Unit III project All identified impacts to existing or planned land uses from the proposed project would thus be avoided or reduced below a level of significance, with no additional mitigation required. 2. Population and Housing. Would the project: a. Cumulatively exceed adopted regional or local population projections? No Impact. The proposed Unit III project consists of short-term dredging and construction activities, and would not generate or induce any additional population growth or cumulatively exceed any adopted growth projections. Accordingly, no mitigation measures related to population and growth projections would be required. b. Induce substantial growth in anarea directly or indirectly through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new housing, long-term employment opportunities or extension of infrastructure, and would therefore not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. c . Displace existing housing? No Impact. The proposed project consists of dredging, disposal and construction related activities located within Newport Bay and adjacent areas, with no existing or planned residential structures located within the project site. Accordingly, project implementation would not displace any existing housing units. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. 3. Geophysical. Would the project result in or expose people to impacts involving: a. Local fault rupture? No Impact. No known active faults are located within the project site (Jennings 1994), with potential impacts related to fault rupture therefore not expected. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. b. Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed Unit III dredging activities would involve the removal and ocean disposal of accumulated sediment within Upper Newport Bay, and would not be subject to impacts related to seismically induced ground shaking Upper Newport Bay Unit M Project October 23, 1996 13 I ' or liquefaction. The proposed stabilizer structure could potentially be subject to significant impacts related to seismicity, including ground shaking and liquefaction. The ' proposed project design incorporates a number of engineering measures to avoid these potential effects, however (e.g., placement of geo-fabric beneath the modified structure and the use of grout to secure the rock in place). In addition (as described in Section III, Project Description), the structure will be subject to a site -specific geotechnical analysis prior to construction. The results of this analysis will be incorporated into the final structure design to ensure adequate consideration of seismic loading factors. Specifically, this may include measures such as the use of applicable Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards. Accordingly, no additional mitigation related to seismic groundshaking or liquefaction would be required for the proposed Unit III project. c . Seismic: seiche or tsunami? Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed Unit III dredging activities would involve the removal and ocean disposal of accumulated sediment within Upper Newport ' Bay, and would not be subject to impacts related to seismically induced seiches or tsunamis. The proposed stabilizer structure could potentially be subject to significant impacts related to seismic seiches or tsunamis. As noted above for item 3a, however, final structure design will incorporate measures (including the results of site -specific ' geotechnical analysis and applicable UBC standards) to avoid or reduce potential impacts below a level of significance. Accordingly, no mitigation related to seismic seiches or tsunamis would be required for the proposed Unit III project. ' d.' Landslides or mudslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed Unit III- dredging activities would entail ' excavation of side slopes along the basins and access channel which could potentially be subject to slumping. Due to their design and location, however (i.e., generally shallow slopes located within the bay), as well as the fact that no major slumping has been impacts ' observed in association with previous dredging projects, no significant are anticipated. The proposed stabilizer structure includes design measures (i.e., grouting) that would avoid potential slope failure impacts. Because no significant impacts related to landslides or mudslides were identified, no associated mitigation measures are required. e. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of proposed Unit III dredging ' activities would not entail impacts related to erosion, topographic alteration or unstable soils, other than those described above for item 3d. The proposed stabilizer structure includes a number of design measures (i.e., grouting and use of geo-fabric) that would avoid or reduce potential erosion and instability impacts below a level of significance. ' Accordingly, no mitigation measures related to topographic alteration or soil stability would be required for the proposed Unit III project. ' Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project MM October 23, 1996 14 f. Subsidence of the land? No Impact. The proposed project would not be expected to induce or expose people to subsidence impacts due to its nature and location. Because no significant impacts were identified, associated mitigation measures are not required. g . Expansive soils? No Impact. Proposed dredging activities would not involve the placement of any structures that could potentially be affected by expansive soils. The proposed stabilizer structure would be located in previously filled areas (i.e., for the existing stabilizer), and would be subject to site -specific geotechnical investigation prior to construction (as described above): Accordingly, no impacts related to expansive soils are anticipated, with associated mitigation measures not required. h. Unique geologic or physical features? No Impact. Neither the proposed dredging activities or stabilizer construction encompass any unique geologic or physical features, with associated impacts therefore not expected. Because no significant impacts were identified, associated mitigation measures are not required. 4. Water. Would the project result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? No. Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would entail dredging and disposal activities within the bay and offshore areas, as well as construction and related staging operations in previously disturbed or developed sites. These activities would not encompass any alteration of drainage patterns or construction of new impervious surfaces, and would therefore not impact existing absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff. Because no significant impacts were identified, mitigation measures are not required. b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? No Impact. As noted above in item 4a, tiie proposed project would not affect existing rrtiang; epflse people or property to water related hazards, including flooding. Because no significant impacts were identified, mitigation measures are not required c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? significant Unless Mitigated. A Biological and Water Quality Technical Report was prepared for the proposed Unit III project and is included as Attachment B of this Initial Study (bound separately). As described in this technical report, the proposed project would potentially result in a number of significant short-term impacts to local Upper Newport Bay Unit III pMJect October 23, 1"6 is J 1 i P J 1 1 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 water quality in association with dredging -related sedimentation, turbidity and nutrient loading (and related effects to intertidal species). These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures listed below. These measures include requirements from the referenced three previous CEQA documents, as well as mitigation which is specific to the Unit III project (see Attachment A). It should also be noted that the proposed project is expected to result in an overall improvement in long-term water quality in the bay, as a result of increased tidal flushing, improved water turnover, and stabilization of salinity and nutrient levels in the upper bay (see Attachment B). 1. All conditions imposed by RWQCB and CDFG will be incorporated into the project design. 2. RWQCB and Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) monitoring program results will be observed during excavation. Appropriate steps will be taken, pursuant to Lead Agency and RWQCB direction, if elevated levels of target pollutants are detected. 3. Project operations will require that scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. 4. All construction limits are to be staked and flagged to clearly identify the limits of work. 5. Silt fencing will be installed adjacent to any marshlands which lie down gradient from ground disturbing work. At present, this is believed to be limited to an existing disturbed dike area near the Port of Long Beach mitigation site where the stabilizer coffer dam work would be conducted. 6. Work on the stabilizer structure will be conducted, outside of the rainy season and the temporary coffer dam will be removed prior to the rainy season to avoid potential sediment redirection into marshlands north of the existing Unit I basin. Alternatively, if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director and County Director of Planning and Development Services that the final coffer dam design would not result in potential storm flow spills to the north into the Long Beach mitigation site, this tuning constraint may be administratively lifted. d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Less Than *Significant Impact. Proposed dredging would substantially deepen portions of Upper Newport Bay, thereby increasing the associated volume of water in that body. This change is identified as a project objective, and is considered beneficial to the continued operation of the bay as deep water marine habitat and a navigable water body. Based on this anticipated beneficial effect, no significant adverse impacts related to the quantity of water within the bay are anticipated from project implementation. Because no significant impacts were identified; mitigation measures are not -required. Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project am October 23, 1996 1 1 5 e. Changes in currents, or the course and direction of water movements? Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed dredging would alter the movement of water within the bay by creating deeper marine basins and channels, increasing tidal flushing and reducing the effects of freshwater influx. These changes are identified as project objectives and are considered beneficial to the continued operation of the bay as deep water marine habitat and a navigable water body. Accordingly, no significant impacts are expected in relation to currents or water movements, with associated mitigation measures not required. f . Changes in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation? No Impact. The proposed project would not entail any addition to, withdrawal from, or intersection of groundwater aquifers, with no associated impacts. Accordingly, no mitigation measures related to groundwater are required. g . Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact. As noted above for item 4f, the proposed project would not intersect or affect any groundwater aquifers, with no associated impacts to groundwater rate or flow anticipated. Because no significant impacts were identified, mitigation measures are not required. h. Impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. As noted above for item 4f, the proposed project would not intersect or affect any groundwater aquifers, with no associated impacts to groundwater quality anticipated. Because no significant impacts were identified, mitigation measures are not required. Transportation/Circulation, Would the proposal result in: a. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion beyond adopted policies or forecasts? Significant Unless Mitigated. Proposed activities associated with both dredging operations and construction of the stabilizer structure at Jamboree Road would generate short-term traffic effects, as outlined below. Construction -related vehicle traffic associated with the proposed Unit III Basin and Dover Shores dredging operations would be limited to passenger vehicles for employee access and minor truck traffic for equipment deliveries. Specifically, truck traffic would include an average of approximately two truck trips per day for the first month of the project to deliver dredging facilities (e.g., the clamshell bucket and other pieces of the dredge to be assembled on a floating barge) and related equipment, and one trip per day thereafter for activities such as fuel delivery. Employee parking and equipment storage would be located at Shellmaker Island, with access obtained via a number of local roadways Upper Newport Bay UNt III Project October 23, 1996 17 . J ' including Pacific Coast Highway, Jamboree Road and Backbay Drive (see Figures 2 and 3). Employee access and material deliveries associated with the noted dredging ' operations are expected to generate less than 100 daily vehicle trips, with these trips not expected to result in significant impacts to local traffic levels or congestion. This conclusion is based on the small number and short-term duration of projected trips, the ' location of described traffic generation, and the nature of the local roadway system. Stabilizer Structure Vehicular Traffic Construction -related vehicle traffic associated with the proposed Jamboree Road bridge ' stabilizer structure would include one-time ingress and egress for excavation and rock placement equipment, truck trips associated with rock and grout import, and employee vehicle access. Based on the equipment and methodology discussed above in Section III (Project Description), construction activities associated with the proposed stabilizer are expected to generate approximately 120 vehicle trips per day. All construction -related equipment/material storage and vehicle parking would occur in previously disturbed areas within or adjacent to the proposed stabilizer site. Access to the stabilizer site would be provided through a number of local roadways including Interstate 405, State Highway 73 and Jamboree Road. ' The above described vehicle trip generation associated with stabilizer construction would generally not be expected to significantly affect local roadway capacities, based on the relatively small number and short-term duration of projected daily trips. Approximately however (i.e., 50 trips ' 40 percent of the daily vehicle trip generation described above, per day), would be truck trips associated with the import of rock and grout. Because of the site location, these trucks would be required to access the construction area directly from Jamboree Road, which consists of a divided highway with three travel lanes in each ' direction in the project vicinity. Direct access for project truck traffic is proposed to occur from the No. 3 northbound lane on Jamboree Road (refer to Figure 4), and would entail ' deceleration by these vehicles on Jamboree Road to allow safe turning speeds. Egress from the site by empty rock and grout trucks would entail merging directly onto the No. 3 northbound lane of Jamboree Road. Both of these conditions would result in potentially significant impacts to traffic movements and congestion on Jamboree Road. The No. 3 northbound lane on Jamboree Road in the project vicinity is currently dedicated to ' construction traffic associated with several ongomg projects to the east. Maintaining this lane configuration during applicable periods (i.e., when project -related truck traffic is accessing the stabilizer site), along with the additional mitigation measures described below, would reduce identified potential traffic impacts below a level of significance by allowing adequate deceleration and acceleration areas for project -related truck traffic. ' Mitigation Measures 1. Project -related truck traffic will be scheduled to avoid peak traffic periods on Jamboree Road to the maximum extent feasible. 2. The project applicant and contractor will coordinate with the City of Newport ' Beach Traffic Engineering Department to request maintaining the existing lane configuration along Jamboree Road in the project vicinity (i.e., temporary closure of the No. 3 northbound lane in the immediate project vicinity to accommodate project truck traffic access). Such temporary closures could be ' accomplished by using traffic barriers (such as cones) to route through, traffic Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23. 1996 18 into the two remaining through lanes. Pursuant to the above mitigation measure, project truck traffic will avoid peak hours to allow the noted lane configuration to occur during times of low traffic volumes to the maximum extent feasible. 3. A traffic control plan will be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department to delineate all proposed traffic control and safety measures associated with construction of the proposed stabilizer structure. These measures will include (but not be limited to) all applicable requirements of the City, as well as applicable measures identified in the American Public Works Association Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (1996) pursuant to direction by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department. , this may involve techniques such as appropriate warning, Specifically guidance and traffic control methodologies; including the use of warning signs and/or lights, pavement markings, delineators (e.g., traffic cones), barricades, and flaggers to alert motorists and accommodate merging by project truck traffic. 4. Prior to commencement of construction on the stabilizer structure, a draft haul route access plan developed by the contractor will be submitted to the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine (if required by these cities) and OCEMA1Transportation for review and approval to ensure impacts to surrounding uses are minimized. The plan will include access routes on public streets for heavy equipment and construction materials. The plan will also show staging area(s) for storage of equipment and materials, and parking of construction employee personal vehicles. b. Safety hazards from design features (e.g., -sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Significant Unless Mitigated. Proposed construction traffic access along Jamboree related to the stabilizer structure (as described above in item 5a) would generate potentially significant safety hazards associated with vehicle traffic and merging trucks along that roadway. These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the identified mitigation measures. Refer to mitigation measures 1 through 4 in item 5a, above. c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Significant Unless Mitigated. Proposed construction traffic along Jamboree Road related to the stabilizer structure (as described above in item 5a) would generate potentially significant impacts associated with emergency vehicle access along that roadway. These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measure outlined below. Upper NewpotGBayUnit M PrOJM October 23, 1996 19 Mitigation Measure ' 1. The project contractor will notify local emergency agencies (including the Newport Beach and Orange County Police and Fire departments) of proposed ' project activiti6s, schedules and traffic control plans prior to project implementation. d. Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Construction -related parking for proposed dredging activities (e.g., dredging crews and delivery vehicles) would be located at the proposed ' staging area on Shellmaker Island (see figure 3), while parking associated with the proposed stabilizer structure would occur in nearby disturbed areas to the east associated with unrelated construction activities (see Figure 4). No significant impacts to local parking capacities are expected from project implementation, due to the relatively small ' number of anticipated construction employees and deliveries, and the fact that areas proposed for construction parking are not available for public parking. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation is required. e . Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Significant Unless Mitigated. Proposed construction activities at the Jamboree Road stabilizer structure would completely avoid local dedicated pedestrian and bicycle pathways, and would therefore not adversely affect associated traffic. Construction equipment access under the Jamboree Road Bridge (e.g., front-end loaders to deliver ' rock to the stabilizer site) would require occasional access along and/or crossings of the existing equestrian trail adjacent to San Diego Creek, however, and could result in potentially significant short-term safety hazards to associated uses (winch may include ' pedestrian and bicycle traffic). This potential impact would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures identified below. No impacts associated with hazards or barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists would occur in relation to proposed dredging and related onshore activities (i.e., vehicle traffic). This conclusion is based on ' the small number of vehicle trips associated with proposed dredging, as well as the fact that project traffic would not conflict with designated pedestrian or bicycle pathways. ' Mitigation Measures 1. Warning signs will be placed in clear view along the existing equestrian trail at both ends of the Jamboree Road stabilizer construction zone to alert users of ' the potential presence of project equipment and vehicles. 2. All project -related equipment or vehicle access and crossings of the noted ' equestrian trail will be accompanied by a construction employee escort on foot to avoid conflicts with trail users. ' Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 20 f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts or bicycle racks)? No Impact. None of the proposed on- or offshore activities would affect any policies or facilities (existing or planned) related to alternative transportation. Accordingly, no mitigation measures are required. g . Rail, waterborne or air traffle impacts? Significant Unless Mitigated. None of the proposed on- or offshore activities would affect any sites or facilities (existing or planned) related to rail or air traffic. Proposed dredging activities, however, would result in potentially significant impacts to waterborne traffic in Newport Bay, as described below. Proposed dredging operations would entail an intensive use schedule (i.e., 24 hours per day, Monday through Saturday) involving access by large slow -moving vessels within Newport Bay and adjacent offshore areas (refer to Section III, Project Description). Such activity would result in potentially significant impacts to waterborne traffic in the bay; including recreational uses (e.g., pleasure boating, sailing and kayaking), commercial vessels (i.e., ferries), and access by emergency or law enforcement craft such as coast guard vessels or fireboats. The nature of these potential impacts would include access delays or restrictions for individual or organized recreational uses, associated public safety hazards, and interference with emergency craft access and operation. These impacts would be most likely to occur during weekends and holidays (particularly during the summer months) when harbor traffic volumes would be highest. In addition, some public anchorage may require temporary closure to accommodate both the proposed marshalling area and dredging equipment mooring during periods of non - operation. It is anticipated that the above described impacts to waterborne access and activities within Newport Bay would be reduced below a level of significance through implementation of similar mitigation measures as identified in the 1986 Unit II EIR for waterborne traffic impacts (as identified below). This conclusion is based on -the similar nature of proposed dredging and related impacts for both projects, as well as the fact that the Unit II project was successfully completed without major conflicts or impacts related to waterborne traffic in the bay. 1. Lookout personnel equipped with megaphones and radios will be used on project stows to notify boaters and tug operators of potential hazards. 2. Guideboats will be used to escort project stows and maintain a safe distance between stows and other vessels in the bay. 3. All project vessels will be provided with adequate and compatible communication equipment, and all project contractors and vessel operators will meet prior to project implementation (and subsequently if necessary) to ensure satisfactory operation of project -related communication systems. Upper Newport Hay Unit III Project October 23. 1996 21 4. Potential project tug/barge configurations (i.e., composite and individual ' vessels) will be evaluated prior to project implementation to identify the safest and most efficient equipment operating methodology that can be feasibly implemented. ' 5. Written notification will be provided to the Newport Bay Harbormaster, U.S. Coast Guard, and Orange County Sheriff and Fire Departments (along with other applicable agencies) regarding proposed dredging and disposal ' equipment types, operation methodologies and schedules. This written notification will be provided prior to both project implementation and any proposed modification of project activities, with confirmation by telephone also to be conducted prior to any change in proposed operations. 6. Project tug operators will be granted authority to cease operations during appropriate conditions, such as periods of heavy waterborne traffic in the bay ' or inclement weather. 6. Air Ouality. Would the proposal. a. Violate any SCAQMD standard or contribute to air quality deterioration ' beyond projections of the SCAQMD? Significant Unless Mitigated. An Air Quality Technical Report was prepared for the proposed Unit III project and is included as Attachment C to this Initial Study (bound separately). A number of potentially significant impacts related to emissions generation and air quality standards would occur in association with project dredging/disposal and ' construction activities, as described below. ' Dredging Activities Project -related vessels would produce amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic compounds (ROCS) that are below the South Coast Air Quality Management Distiict's.(SCAQMD) significance thresholds, with no associated significant impacts. ' The proposed 24-hour operation of diesel -fueled dredges and their support equipment, however, would result in sso�nificant levels of nitrogen oxide (NOS emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD standards. Specifically, project -generated NOx emission levels would ' exceed current SCAQMD significance thresholds by approximately 850 percent based on It the analysis in Attachment C, and would constitute a significant air quality impact. should be noted that the evaluation of potential air quality impacts provided in Attachment ' C consists of a "worst -case" analysis. That is, the project air quality evaluation assumes conditions such as continuous 24-hour operation of project dredging equipment (i.e., no down time) and emission generation factors based on equipment specifications and air quality analyses conducted for the Unit H dredging project (with newer equipment exhibiting lower emission rates). Accordingly, it is expected that actual emission levels ' for Unit III activities would be somewhat less than the conservative figures identified in Attachment C, although significant impacts from NOx emissions would still occur. ' The Unit H EIR referenced above concluded that less than significant regional air quality impacts would occur in association with dredging activities similar to the proposed Unit This was based on the low ratio of project -generated to overall ' III project. conclusion regional emissions. Subsequent court decisions, however, have stated that such a ratio is t Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 22 an insufficient basis to support a finding of no significant impact (see Attachment Q. Accordingly, project -related NOX emissions are considered to represent a significant short-term air quality impact, Three potential mitigation options are identified in Attachment C to reduce dredging -related air quality impacts below a level of significance. Specifically, these include reducing the hours of daily operation (and therefore daily emission levels), reducing emission generation rates for project equipment, and purchasing air quality mitigation credits. The first option of reducing the hours of operation would extend the project schedule beyond a reasonable timeframe, and is therefore not considered feasible (see Attachment Q. The second and third options can be used in concert to reduce identified potential project air quality impacts below alevel of significance, as described below under Mitigation Measures. Landside construction -related equipment (e.g., backhoes, bulldozers, pumps, graders and a crane) used in the development of the stabilizer structure and coffer dam would create air pollution emissions. Emissions generated by landside construction equipment would vary daily depending on the tyke of equipment used and the job being performed (see Attachment C). Landside activities (e:g., off -road equipment use, on -road trucking and employee corumutiug) would be individually below the SCAQMD significance thresholds, although such activities me re expected to occur simultaneously with dredging in the bay and would therefore add to the protected significant rogional air quality impact incurred from dredging equipment NOX emissions (with total project emissions exceeding SCAQMD NOX standards by approximately 940 percent, see Attachment Q. This combined impact to NOX standards from dredging and landside construction activities would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation requirements identified below in -this section. The proposed project would be consistent with the South Coast Air Basin portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) if it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Annual emissions are less than a specified de minimus level, or 2. Emissions are specifically accounted for in the SIP, or 3. Emissions are fully offset through enforceable measures in the SIP, or 4. Emissions of ROC or NOX are determined to be within the available emissions budget for the airshed. The de minimus level for NOx in an "extreme" non -attainment area is ten tons per year (40 CFR Part 93, Section 93.153). The proposed project is expected to generate ten tons of NOX in approximately 25 days of activity and therefore would not meet the first criterion listed above. Therefore, any federal agencies involved in issuing permits that require a consistency finding must base their decisions upon the remaining criteria. Dredging is not specifically accounted for in the SIP, so the proposed pproject would not meet the second criterion. Clean Air Act consistency attainment for rile duration of the upper Newport Bay unit III Project October 23. 19% 23 k J I LJ I I project would be feasible via the offset purchase criterion in Item No. 3 (as described above and in Attachment C). NOx emission levels may also be lowering on a region - wide basis. If this is the case, a consistency finding under Item No. 4 may be made at the commencement of dredging by the appropriate federal agencies with discretionary permit authority for this project. Due to -the fact that the project may meet the criteria stated above for Item Nos. 3 and 4, air quality impacts associated with this project (although significant under CEQA) may be less than significant under federal standards, and would be subject to effective mitigation if required (as described below). 1. Project contractor specifications will include requirements to reduce dredging, disposal, construction and related equipment emissions generation to the maximum extent feasible. Depending on the availability and feasibility of using specific equipment types and/or modifications, this may entail techniques such as the use of electric dredges or diesel -powered vessels equipped with catalytic converters. 2. The project applicant and/or contractors will purchase air quality mitigation credits sufficient to achieve conformance with applicable significance standards for the South Coast Air Basin. This would occur by purchasing emission offsets on the open market (e.g., RECLAIM market -based emission trading systems,,see Attachment Q. The amount of credits required to be purchased in association with the proposed project will consist of the difference between the SCAQMD standards and the level of emission generation for all project -related equipment achieved after implementing the above mitigation measure. b . Expose sensitive population groups to pollutants in excess of acceptable levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Project -related emissions, while exceeding SCAQMD NOx standards as described above in item 6a, would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants in excess of acceptable levels. This conclusion is based on several factors including the relatively short-term duration and mobile nature of project activities, the extremely low levels of toxic pollutants in engine emissions, the fact that prevailing winds in the project vicinity are generally parallel to the bay (and would thus tend to move pollutants away from nearby sensitive receptors), and the intervening distance (and related pollutant dispersal) to the closest sensitive receptors (i.e., residential structures approximately 500 feet from the Unit III Basin and access channel activities, a hotel structure approximately 700 feet from the stabilizer site, and residential structures approximately 100 feet from activities at Dover,Shores). Because no significant impacts were identified, mitigation measures are not required. c. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? No Impact. The proposed project consists of short-term dredging, disposal and construction activities that would not measurably affect air movement, moisture, temperature or climate. Because no significant impacts were identified, mitigation measures are not required: ' Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 24 I d. Create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impact. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed project include dredged materials (i.e., from decay of organic material in an ' anaerobic environment) and equipment exhaust (particularly diesel equipment). As described in Attachment C, the Umt lI Air Quality analysis included a comprehensive assessment of potential odor generation from dredged materials. Specifically, the Unit Il assessment concluded that no significant odor impacts were expected, due to the assumptions on odor dispersal and the intervening distance to sensitive receptors. The proposed project includes generally identical conditions as Unit II in terms of the location of dredging operations and sensitive receptors. Based on the Unit H assessment ' and subsequent observations during Unit II dredging (during which no odor complaints were logged), potential odor generation impacts from dredged material for the proposed project are considered less than significant (refer to Attachment C). Potential odor impacts related to equipment emissions are also considered less than significant, due to , the short-term and mobile nature of proposed activities, as well as the intervening distance to sensitive receptors. Because no significant impacts were identified, mitigation measures are not required. ' 7. Noise • Would the proposal. a. Increase existing noise levels? Significant Unless Ntigated. A Noise Technical Report was prepared for the proposed Unit M project and is included as Attachment D to this Initial Study (bound ' separately). This analysis encompassed a review of previous noise studies for dredging activities within Upper Newport Bay, focusing particularly on the Unit II EIR noise investigation. The Unit III -noise study involved baseline noise monitoring (including 24 ' hour monitoring at two locations), characterization of local noise environments, assessment of applicable regulatory guidelines (i.e., the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Orange County Noise Ordinance), and assessment of potential project -related noise impacts and mitigation requirements. Based on noise , measurements and local regulatory criteria, the project vicinity is characterized as exhibiting generally low nocturnal noise levels, and a daytime noise environment that is moderately degraded. Both day and nighttime noise settings, however, include peak , noise events associated with aircraft noise from nearby John Wayne Airport. The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is described in detail in Attachment D. The assessment of potential project -related noise impacts and mitigation requirements is ' summarized below, with a detailed description provided in Attachment D. The evaluation of project noise impacts was based predominantly on conformance with the Orange County Noise Ordinance standards (as described above for the Unit II EIR), although it ' was recognized that other factors (e.g., time of occu once) may influence the level of I mpact for noise generation even if regulatory standards are met. Noise impact analyses for the Unit III project included consideration of clamshell and hydraulic dredging t options in the Unit III Basin and main access channel, hydraulic dredging in Dover Shores, hauling of dredged material to the proposed offshore disposal site, and construction activities at the Jamboree Road bridge stabilizer structure. The assessment of impacts identified the closest sensitive receptors to project activities as residential ' structures approximately 500 feet from the Unit III Basin and main access channel; Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1"6 25 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I residential structures approximately 100 feet from the Dover Shores dredging area; and a large hotel approximately 700 feet from the Jamboree Road bridge stabilizer structure. Noise generation for project activities was based on worst -case conditions, including sustained operation at maximum power, equipment oriented along the peak noise axis (i.e., oriented for maximum noise exposure to the closest sensitive receptors), and operation with uncovered and/or open engine compartments. Based on the above conditions, it was concluded that potentially significant short-term noise impacts to local residents could occur in association with dredging activities in the bay and access channel (under either operating scenario) and at Dover Shores, especially during nighttime hours. Specifically, the 55 A -weighted decibel (dB(A)) contour would extend to approximate distances of 560 feet and 1,000 feet for clamshell and hydraulic dredging (respectively) in the bay and access channel. Accordingly, residents within these distances would be subject to noise levels in excess of regulatory standards. The 50 dB(A) contour (i.e., the nighttime standard) would extend to distances of approximately 1,000 and 1,775 feet for clamshell and hydraulic dredging in the bay and channel, respectively. As seen from these figures, a number of nearby residents would be exposed to noise levels in excess of regulatory standards under either dredging method, especially at night. Potentially significant impacts were also identified for hydraulic dredging activities at Dover Shores. Specifically, the smaller dredging equipment proposed for use in this area would result in a 55 dB(A) contour of approximately 400 feet and a 50 dB(A) contour of approximately 700 feet. Accordingly, a number of residents in this community would be exposed to noise levels exceeding regulatory standards, especially at night. Identified potentially significant noise impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures identified below in this section, which include noise mitigation identified in the 1986 Unit II EIR. No significant impacts were identified for project noise generation associated with hauling of dredged material for offshore disposal or construction activities at the Jamboree Road Bridge stabilizer structure. For hauling activities, this conclusion was based on the generally low level of noise generation (approximately 60 dB(A) pursuant to the Unit II EIR noise study) and mobile nature of tag/scow operation. That is, while passing tugs may result in minor disturbances to some receptors, these effects will fade quickly as the tugs move out of range. Noise generation at the stabilizer structure would result from the operation of construction equipment (e:g., loaders and cranes), as well as from truck traffic associated with rock and grout deliveries. Truck traffic would be expected to result in an increase in baseline noise levels of less than one dB(A) at 50 feet from the Jamboree Road (or other local roadways) centerline, due to high ambient noise levels. Changes of less than one dB(A) are imperceptible to the human ear and would not result in significant project -related noise impacts. Norse associated with equipment operations may result in noise levels of up to 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Assuming a 6 dB(A) reduction for every doubling of distance, exterior noise levels of approximately 70 dB(A) would be expected at the closest sensitive receptor (i.e., the hotel located approximately 700 feet to the northwest). Because construction operations at the stabilizer structure would be limited to daytime hours and noise attenuation of approximately 20 dB(A) is achieved through closing windows, interior noise levels at the noted hotel structure are expected to conform with applicable regulatory guidelines. Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 II 26 1. Dredging equipment engine compartments will be closed during operation, or will be draped with lead curtains in applicable areas of the bay to provide maximum noise attenuation. Such measures would be expected to reduce engine -related noise levels by a minimum of 10 to 15 dB(A), and would adequately mitigate noise impacts associated with dredging activities in the bay and access channel. 2. Dredging activities in the Dover Shores private channel will be subject to appropriate time constraints (in addition to the measure noted above) to allow noise generation to conform with applicable regulatory standards. Based on the noise generation and attenuation factor; described above, it is anticipated that regulatory standards could be met by limiting dredging activities at Dover Shores to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Limiting dredging to these hours would slightly extend the projected two -week dredging schedule in this area. Additional noise -related mitigation may be required by the City or County, based on observations of project activities and associated noise generation, and public input. The public notice referenced in the Project Description (see Section III of this Initial Study) will include a telephone number to allow notification by the public of noise -related effects associated with the proposed project. b . Expose people to noise levels exceeding adopted County standards? Significant Unless Mitigated. As described above in item 7a, anticipated noise generation associated with proposed dredging activities would result in noise levels which exceed adopted regulatory standards at a number of sensitive receptor (i.e., residential) sites. Mitigation measures identified above for item 7a would allow conformance with applicable noise standards, and would therefor reduce associated impacts below a level of significance. U ,•:,., a r. Refer to mitigation measures i through 3 in item 7a, above. 8. Biological Resources. "Would the project impact. a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? Significant Unless Mitigated. A Biological and Water Quality Technical Report It been prepared for the proposed Unit lII project and is included as Attachment B (bound separately). A number of 1lotentially significant impacts were identified from project implementation in association with short-term water quality effects to marine habitats and species (as described above for Issue No. 4, Water), as well as the following effects to sensitive species using bay area habitats for nesting, foraging and related activities: Upper Newport Bay Unit 1H Project October 23, 1"6 27 • Disruption of breeding activity, for the state list Threatened and federally Protected California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) during the July. period of early March through early • Disruption of breeding activity for the federally listed Endangered and state listed Threatened light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) during the period of early March through mid -June. • Reduction of habitat and behavior disturbance for the federally listed Threatened and state listed Species of Special Concern western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). • Disruption of breeding, foraging, loafing and roosting activities for the federally and state listed Endangered California least tern (Sterna antilla rum l 5 through September brown) during the period of April • Disruption of breeding activity for the state listed Endangered Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) during the period of mid -March through early July. Additional potentially significant impacts would be associated with the possible loss of eelgrass habitat in association with proposed dredging activities in the main access channel. Mitieation Measures The above described impacts would be reduced below a level of significance by the mitigation measures identified above for Issue No. 4, Water, as well as implementing the following mitigation measures (additional discussion of mitigation requirements is provided in Attachment B): 1. All construction limits will be staked and flagged to clearly demarcate the limits limits will be inspected and field adjusted by,the project of work. These engineer and a biologist at the time of project construction to minimize adverse effects while ensuring project objectives are achieved. 2. Site access to and from the construction area will be limited to routes along the central access channel or alternative access as directed by the CDFG. 3. Dredging within the Unit III basin will be precluded from occurring during the seasons for the California least tern, light-footed clapper rail, Belding's• nesting savannah sparrow and California black rail. This would result in a cumulative within the sediment basin from March 1 through September 1. closure Alternatively, if it is determined by the City Planning Director and County Director of Planning and Development Services (in conjunction with the CDFG and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) that substitute measures may provide adequate protection of these sensitive species, then such substitute measures could be applied in lieu of a full timing restriction. Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 28 4. If it is determined by the City Planning Director and County Director of Planning and Development Services (in conjunction with the CDFG and USFWS) that adequate measures can be provided to protect the light-footed clapper rail, Belding's savannah sparrow and California black rail in the Unit III channel (i.e., from the Unit II to Unit III basin), then proposed dredging activities may be conducted in this area during the cumulative nesting seasons of the noted species (i.e., from March 1 through July 1). Alternatively, dredging within the described -area will be precluded from occurring during the period of March 1 through July 1. 5. All construction activities will be closely coordinated with the CDFG Reserve Manager to ensure that sensitive resources are adequately protected and that project work does hot interfere with reserve management activities. 6. Informal consultation between the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), City, County, CDFG and USFWS will be conducted to ensure that measures addressed above are adequate to provide protection necessary to ensure the continued health of Upper Newport Bay's threatened and endangered species populations. 7. Prior to implementation of dredging within the access channel, a pre - construction survey for eelgrass habitat will be conducted. If any eelgrass is identified, the sites will be marked and avoided. Subsequent to and within 30 days of completing project dredging activities, a post -construction survey will be performed to verify that any eelgrass previously identified has not been impacted. b. Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? Less than Significant Impact. A number of locally designated sensitive species may be impacted by proposed project activities, including the mudflat tiger beetle (Cicindela trifasciata sigmoidea), California killfish (Fundulus parvipinnis) and striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), all of which are designated as locally rare by the County of Orange. As described in Attachment B, potential impacts to these and other locally designated species are not considered significant, based on the short-term duration and localized nature of project activities, the mobile nature of many species (i.e., fish), and their generally low sensitivity. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Significant Unless Mitigated. Implementation of the proposed project could generate significant impacts to locally designated natural communities including eel grass and salt marsh, as described above for items 4c and $a (see also Attachment B). These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures identified for the noted items. Refer to mitigation measures 1 through 6 in item 4c, and 1 through 7 in item ga, above. Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 29 I I I 11 I 11 u u I 1, I II II �I d. Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Significant Unless Mitigated. As described above for items 4c, 8a and 8c, the proposed project could potentially result in significant impacts to wetland habitat. These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures identified for the noted items. Refer to mitigation measures 1 through 6 in item 4c, and 1 through 7 in item 8a, above. e . Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project entails short-term, localized dredging, disposal and construction activities within Newport Bay and adjacent on- and offshore areas, and is not expected to significantly affect wildlife dispersal or migration (see Attachment B). Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. f . Adopted conservation plans or policies (e.g., Resource Management Plan)? Significant Unless Mitigated. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially result in significant impacts to conservation plans and policies associated with the CDFG Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Specifically, such impacts would be associated with potential effects to local water quality, habitats and sensitive species, which are designated for protection and management within the reserve. These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures identified above for items 4c and 8a. Mitivation Measures Refer to mitigation measures 1 through 6 in item 4c, and 1 through 7 in item.8a, above. 9. Aesthetics. Would the Proposal. a. Affect a scenic vista or view open to the public? Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed dredging and construction activities would be visible from most areas within and adjacent to the bay, including a number of residential, recreational (e.g., passive use parks, jogging(bicycle trails and boating areas) and visitor commercial sites (e.g., hotels and restaurants). Project activities would temporarily impact existing views from these areas, many of which encompass scenic vistas associated with the bay and adjacent open space (e.g., coastal bluffs, salt marsh and native upland habitat). The proposed project duration is expected to range between approximately 35 and 40 weeks, after which time the project area would be essentially unchanged visually from pre -project conditions. The only exception to this conclusion would be the modified stabilizer structure, although visible changes to this facility would not be significant Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 01 (because most modified areas would be submerged in the bay). As a result of these conditions, no significant long -tern impacts to aesthetic resources would occur from the proposed project. Short-term visual impacts related to the proposed project would result from both stationary and mobile activities. Stationary activities would include ongoing operations at the marshalling area, construction, of the described stabilizer stricture, and dredging at the Unit III Basin (which would technically be mobile in nature, but would entail operating in the Unit III Basin area for an extended period) and Dover Shores area. Operations at the marshalling area would extend throughout the duration of project activities (i.e., 35 to 40 weeks),while operations related to the stabilizer structure would require approximately 6 weeks. Dredging at Dover Shores would be expected to require approximately two weeks, while dredging at the Unit M Basin could entail up to seven months. Dredging and disposal activities in the main channel (i.e., downstream of the Unit M Basin) would be mobile in nature, although equipment would regularly be visible in much of the project area over the 35 to 40 week construction period, due to the nature and schedule of proposed tug/scow traffic. All of the described short-term project activities would generate adverse visual impacts, due to the industrial/constmction character of proposed operations and the sensitive nature of some surrounding visual receptors (as described above). These potential impacts are considered less than significant, however, due to their short-term duration, the mobile nature of activities in most areas of the bay, and the fact that existing views would be essentially unchanged after project completion. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation is required. b . Affect a designated scenic highway? Less Than SIgnificant Impact. One designated scenic highway and two scenic drives are located in the vicinity of the proposed project. Specifically, Pacific Coast Highway (which crosses the western and of the upper bay) is designated as a scenic' highway, while Backbay Drive, (located immediately east of the bay), and Galaxy Drive (located west of the bay in the Dover Shores residential area) are designated as scenic drives (see Figure 3). While a number of project -related activities would be visible from these roadways, associated potential aesthetic impacts are considered less than significant due to the short-term and/or mobile nature of dredging operations. Additionally, as described above in item 9a, existing views from designated scenic roadways would be unchanged from existing conditions after project completion. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation is required. c. Result in an offensive aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed pro ect would result in a number of short-term, adverse visual effects, as desenbed Zove in items 9a and 9b. The classification of visual impacts as offensive is somewhat subjective, depending on the perspective of the viewers involved and the duration of views. The principal viewers in the project area include local residents, recreational users and hotel guests. These types of viewers would experience the longest duration views of project activities, although such viewers typically value the long-term aesthetic and recreational benefits of a deep water bay (i.e., as opposed to extensive intertidal or niudflat areas). Accordingly, it is expected that many of the local principal viewers would support the project objectives, and would therefore not classify the proposed project as visually offensive. Additional viewers, such as non-resident motorists on local roadways, would be more likely to Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23. 1996 31 consider the project activities visually offensive, although such views are generally incremental in duration. Based on these considerations, the temporary nature of proposed activities and the fact that local views would be essentially unchanged from existing conditions after project completion, potential offensive aesthetic effects from project implementation are not considered significant. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation is required. Id. Create light or glare beyond the physical limits of the project site? Significant Unless Mitigated. Proposed dredging and disposal activities would be conducted on a 24-hour, 6 day per week schedule (refer to Section II, Project Description). Accordingly, operations would -continue •throughout -the nighttime hours, and would require lighting to accommodate logistical and safety needs. The use of such lighting could result in potentially significant short-term impacts to local residents, certain commercial uses (e.g., hotels) and wildlife. These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance (although not avoided) through the mitigation measures described below. *Ei igation Measures 1. Project -related lighting will be limited to the minimum amount and intensity necessary for safe and efficient operation. 2. The project contractor will submit a lighting plan to the County and City for review and approval prior to commencing nighttime construction. Based on this review and associated direction, the project contractor will implement appropriate techniques for directing, shading and screening project -related lights to minimize effects in off -site areas. 3. The public notice referenced in the Project Description (see Section III of this Initial Study) will include a telephone number to allow notification by the public of lighting -related effects associated with the proposed project. 10. Cultural/Scientific Resources, Would the Proposal. a. Disturb paleontological resources? No Impact. Proposed dredging and stabilizer construction activities would be conducted in previously excavated and/or filled portions of Newport Bay and adjacent areas, while disposal of dredged material would be limited to an approved offshore location. Accordingly, project dredging, construction and disposal activities would not result in potential impacts to paleontological resources. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. ' b. Disturb archaeological resources? No Impact. Proposed dredging and stabilizer construction activities would be conducted in previously excavated and/or filled portions of Newport Bay and adjacent areas, while disposal of dredged material would be limited to an approved offshore location. Accordingly, project dredging, construction and disposal activities would not Upper Newport Bay Unit BI Project October 23, 1996 32 result in potential impacts to archaeological resources. Because no significant impacts were identified, no -mitigation measures are required. e. Affect historical resources? No Impact. Proposed dredging and stabilizer construction activities would be conducted in previously excavated and/or filled portions of Newport Bay and adjacent areas, while disposal of dredged material would be limited to an approved offshore location. Accordmgly,,project dredging, construction and disposal activities would not result in potential impacts to historical resources. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? No Impact. Proposed dredging and stabilizer construction activities would be short- term in nature and conducted in previously excavated and/or filled portions of Newport Bay and adjacent areas, while disposal of dredged material would be limited to an approved offshore location. Accordingly, project dredging, construction and disposal activities would not result in potential impacts to unique ethnic cultural values. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within .the potential impact area? No Impact. Proposed dredging and stabilizer construction activities would be conducted in previously excavated and/or filled portions of Newport Bay and adjacent areas, while disposal of dredged material would be limited to an approved offshore location. Accordingly, project dredging, construction and disposal activities would not result in potential impacts to existing religious or sacred uses in the potential impact area. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. 11. Recreation. Would the Proposal. a. Increase demand for local or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase local population or housing, and would therefore not result in additional demand for local or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project would result in potentially E ificantimpaexitinretional opwithinthebayand vicinity, ugh intemiption of existing harbor cun/usepatternsand disruestrian trail near the Jamboree Road stabilizer structure. As descrilxd above under Issue No. 5 (Transportatian/Circulation), it is expected that such potential short-term Impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through identified mitigation Upper Newport Bay Unit Bt PMJeot MW October 23. 1996 33 II I' I 11 measures. No significant impacts to local recreational fishing would be expected from the proposed project, as discussed in Attachment B of this Initial Study. Refer to mitigation measures 1 and 2 in item 5e, and 1 through 6 in item 5g, above. c . Conflict with existing recreational plans and policies? Significant Unless Mitigated. Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to recreational uses witiun.the bay.and adjacent.areas, as described above in item ila These areas are identified for recreational use by a number of policies and programs in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element (1985). Accordingly, the noted.effects to recreational use would also comprise potentially significant impacts to recreational plans and policies. These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures identified above in Issue No. 5 (Transportation/Circulation). Refer to mitigation measures 1 and 2 in item 5e, and 1 through 6 in item 5g, above. 12. FFnergy and Mineral Resources. Would the Project. a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The proposed project would involve the use of standard dredging and construction methods and equipment, and would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. b . Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? No Impact. The proposed project would involve the use of standard dredging and construction methods and equipment, and would not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. 13. Hazards. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical, gas or radiation)? Significant Unless Mitigated. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially result in the accidental release of fuels, oils or other hazardous materials related to project construction. The accidental release of such materials during project construction could generate significant health hazard impacts to humans and wildlife in association with the degradation of water quality in the bay. These potential impacts would be reduced below' a level of significance through the mitigation measure identified below. Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 I 34 1. The project contractor will implement spill prevention and containment techniques for vehicle/vessel fueling and maintenance activities. Specifically, this will entail methods such as the use of locking hose couplings for equipment refueling (particularly for waterborne equipment); designation of specified areas for equipment maintenance; use of containment facilities in applicable fueling, maintenance and spill sites (e.g., berms, ditches or floating booms); preparation of emergency response plans; and coordination of hazardous material storage, spill prevention and containment procedures with construction employees (i.e., through training programs) and applicable regulatory agencies (including the RWQCB, Newport Bay Harbormaster, City of Newport Beach and County of Orange). b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Significant Unless Mitigated. Project implementation would potentially result in significant effects to emergency response plans through interference with emergency vessel traffic in Newport Bay. These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures described above for Issue No. 5, Transportation/Circulation. Refer to mitigation measures 1 in item 5c, and 1 through 6 in item 5g, above. c. The creation of any identified health hazard? Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project would result in potential health hazards associated with a number of issues, including water quality, traffic safety in Newport Bay and along applicable portions of Jamboree Road, and conflicts with the existing equestrian trail near the Jamboree Road bridge. These potential impacts would be reduced below a level of significance through the mitigation measures identified above for Issue Nos. 4 (Water), 5 (Transportation/Circulation) and 13 (Hazards). Mitloation Measures Refer to mitigation measures 1 through 6 in item 4c,1 through 4 in item 5a,1 and 2 in item 5e,1 through 6 initem5g, and i in item 13a, above. d. Exposure of people to existing sources of health hazards? No Impact. The proposed project would entail standard dredging, disposal, and construction techniques, and would not expose people to any existing sources of health hazards. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required. Upper Newport Bay Unit Project Mmil October 23, 1996 35 I e. Increased fire hazard in designated high fire hazard areas (e.g., flammable brush, grass or trees)? No Impact. Proposed project activities are located within Newport Bay and adjacent offshore and developed onshore sites, and do not encompass any designated high fire hazard areas. Accordingly, no significant impacts related to increased fire hazards would occur from the proposed project, and no associated mitigation measures are required 14. Public Services. Would the project result in need(s) for new/altered government services in: a. Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any facilities or circumstances for which new or altered fire protection service would be required. Accordingly, no significant impacts related to fire protection services would occur from the proposed project, and no associated mitigation measures are required. b . Police protection? . No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any facilities or circumstances for which new or altered police protection service would be required. Accordingly, no impacts related to protection services would occur from the proposed significant police project, and no associated mitigation measures are required. -�` c. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any facilities or circumstances for which new or altered schools would be required. Accordingly, no significant impacts related to schools would occur from the proposed project, and no associated mitigation measures are required. d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project may incrementally increase maintenance requirements along applicable local roadways as a result of wear and tear associated with project construction vehicles. These potential impacts are considered less than significant, however, due to the low level and short- term nature of anticipated project -related construction traffic. Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are required e . Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any facilities or circumstances for which new or altered other government services would be required. Accordingly, no significant impacts related to such services would occur from the proposed project, and no associated mitigation measures are required 1 Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23, 1996 36 I I I 15. Utilities & Service Systems. Would the project result in needs for new or substantial alterations to: 1 a. Power or natural gas? 'project in facilities w No Impact. The proposed would not result any or circumstances for which new or substantially altered power or natural gas systems would be required. Accordingly, no significant impacts related to power or natural gas would occur from the proposed project, and no associated mitigation measures are required. b. Communications systems? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any facilities or circumstances for which new or substantially altered communications systems would be required. Accordingly, no significant impacts related to communication would occur from the proposed project, and no associated mitigation measures are required. c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any facilities or circumstances for which new or substantially altered water treatment or distribution facilities would be required. Accordingly, no significant impacts related to water treatment or distribution would occur from the proposed project, and no associated mitigation measures are required. d. Sewer or septic tank? I, No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any facilities or circumstances for which new or substantially altered sewer or septic systems would be required. Accordingly, no significant impacts related to sewer or septic systems would occur and no associated mitigation measures are required. from the proposed project, e . Solid waste disposal? j No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any facilities or circumstances for which new or substantially altered solid waste disposal systems would be required. Accordingly, no significant impacts related to solid waste disposal systems would occur from the proposed project, and no associated mitigation measures are required. Q1Lew) :► to) M A. The proposed project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered species. As described in Section 1V.B of this Initial Study, the noted impacts involve a number of issues including water quality, biological resources and air quality. A number of design and mitigation measures havabeen identified, however, that would reduce all potential impacts below a level of significance. B . The proposed project has the potential to achieve short -tern environmental goals at the expense of long-term environmental goals. Specifically, these potential impacts are related to water quality and biological resources which could be adversely affected during project dredging and Upper Newport Bay Unit III ProJed October 23, 1996 37 I 1 I 1 r1 1 I I II r I1, construction activities. A number of design and mitigation measures have been identified, however, that would reduce all potential impacts below a level of significance. In addition, it should be noted that the project would result in numerous long-term benefits to local water quality, wildlife habitats/species, and navigation/recreational uses through the creation of deep water marine habitat and improved water circulation in the bay. C. The proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. This conclusion is based on the short-term nature of proposed activities and the fact that project implementation would result in a number of long-term beneficial effects (as noted above in item V.B). D. The proposed project could potentially result in adverse effects to humans in association with identified noise and water quality concerns. As described in Section IV.B of this Initial Study, however, design and mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce all potential impacts below a level of significance. CEQA allows that a Negative Declaration may be issued in reliance upon an existing EIR prepared for an earlier project, if the project for which the Negative Declaration is prepared will not cause any significant effects or in the case of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, no effects which cannot be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15070, Subd.(b) and 15153, Subd.(c).) This Initial Study analyzes the proposed dredging of the Upper Newport Bay Unit III Basin and the proposed improvements related to the stabilizer structure located near the Jamboree Road bridge. This analysis was based on information contained in the previously certified 1981 San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan: Early Action & Interim 'Plan (EAIP) EIR (SCH No. 81012960), the approved 1984 EAIP EIR Addendum: Unit I Sediment Management and Restoration Program (SCH No. 81012960), the certified 1986 Upper Newport Bay Unit II Enhancement/Sediment Management Project EIR (SCH No. 85091819), and new information which has become available regarding the proposed Unit III project. The assumptions and conclusions of the three CEQA certified documents listed above have been found to be generally valid and appropriate for use in evaluating the current proposal. This Initial Study, however, has identified a number of potentially significant impacts in addition to those described in the previous CEQA documents. Design and mitigation measures have been identified in this Initial Study that would reduce all potentially significant impacts below a level of significance. Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is considered the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project, pursuant to Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. American Public Works Association 1996 Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH), Eighth Edition. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 1995 Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (8), Approved on January 24. Upper Newport Bay Unit BI Project October 23. 1996 38 City of Newport Beach 1995 Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Incorporates amendments approved through December 1995. 1990 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, Certified by the Coastal Commission on January 9,1990 (included Amendment No. 1-34). 1985 Recreation and Open Space Element of Newport Beach General Plan, February 11. Jennings, Charles W. 1994 Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology Geologic data Map No. 6. Wolter, John 1994 Memorandum to Fred Worthley regarding responses to questions'raised by resource agency representatives at the November 7,1994 meeting regarding Upper Newport Bay Unit M Sediment Control and Enhancement Project. November 23. HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. • David W. Claycomb, AICP; B.S. Botany, M.S. Natural Resources Management • Dennis R. Marcin; B.S. Geology • Lisa K. Capper, J.D., B.A. Anthropology, J.D. • Jameson R. Paine; B.S. Community Development • Greg Mason; B.S. Natural Resource management and Interpretation Giroux & Associates • Hans Giroux; B.S. Meteorology, M.S. Meteorology Merkel & Associates • Keith Merkel; B.S. Biology • David Mayer B.A. Aquatic Biology, M.S. Biology Upper Newport Bay Unit III Project October 23. 1996 39 r 7 I I I I I I i r II u II I It 1W 101 IM W-A = l.- = r Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY Introduction As was detailed in the accompanying CEQA Initial Study for the current upper Newport Bay Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement project, a number of previous sediment control and removal projects have been implemented in Upper Newport Bay and the San Diego Creek watershed to address siltation in the bay. The most recent effort resulted in development of the Upper Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Sediment Control Program, with two related projects to construct sediment control basins in the upper portion of the bay. These projects include the Early Action Interim Control Plan (EAIP, for which an EIR was prepared), the Unit I Sediment Management and Restoration Program (Unit I, for which an EIR Addendum was prepared), and the Unit II Enhancement/Sediment Management Project (Unit H, for which an EIR was prepared). A fourth related project is the Unit III program, addressed in the current Initial Study, and for which a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is included as Attachment A-2. All of the three earlier projects involved dredging in Newport Bay, all have associated maintenance programs, and all identified mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with their implementation. In accordance with the CEQA environmental document tiering process, the Unit III effort assumes incorporation by reference of the prior analyses and mitigation measures into the current project, where appropriate. The table below reiterates, or (where appropriate), provides a summary of each of the mitigation measures identified in the earlier documents. Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAYPROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) or San Diego Creek Addendum to Early Action & Upper Newport Bay Unit II Comprehensive Storm Water Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Enhancement /Sediment Sedimentation Control Plan Comprehensive Storm Water Management Project EIR Early Action & Interim Plan Draft Sedimentation Control Plan, (March 1986) EIR (May 1981) Unit I (June 1984) Mitigation Priortothe preparation of final construction TheAddendum relied on the EAIPEIR. No Geology/Soils issues were not addressed Measure plans, asoilsand geotechnical investigation additional geology/soils mitigation in this document. will be prepared. All recommendations in measures were identified in this document. that reportwill be complied with in design and construction, with special attention to those measures enhancing -slope stability. Mitigation A30' bench will beretained adjacent tothe TheAddendumrelied ontheEAiPEIR. No Geology/Soils issues were not addressed Measure creek channel levees to ensure stability. additional geology/soils mitigation in this document. Engineering study recommendations will be measures were identified in this documerl incorporated into the final design. r No mitigation measure regarding debris Mitigation Debris basin construction within the San TheAddendumrelied onthe EAIPEIR. No Measure Diego Creek Channel [shall] be completed additional mitigation measures were basin construction was identified in this prior or concurrent to Upper Bay dredging identified for debris basin construction. document. to minimize sediment intrusion into the bay. Mitigation Plan configuration along die northern edge This documentreiterated the portions of the Dredging and spoils disposal must be Measure of the Upper Bay excavated basin will be EAIP EIR mitigation measure which planned and carried out to avoid significant carefully determined to ensure that high addressed excavation encmachmentaslittle disruption to marine and wildlife habitats velocity runoff entering from San Diego as possible into existing freshwater/ and water circulation. Creek would not damage or scour establishing salt marsh vegetation. brackish marsh areas. Work will be planned as much as possible Excavation will encroach as little as possible to affect mudflat areas which would be upon existing brackish marsh areas. These converted to salt marsh through succession areas will serve as an important sources (0.5 mean sea level). marsh expansion into the restored areas. Excavation will extend into the disturbed tidal flats on the south as needed. 2 r M go IM` M' low low am M =1 li ow MF its » !r ow M " r i M M»= 1• 1=1 i Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan Early Action & Interim Plan Draft EIR (May 1981) Addendum to Early Action & Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, Unit I (June 1984) Upper Newport Bay Unit II Enhancement /Sediment Management Project EIR (March 1986) c� Mitigation Transplanting of Sparrina to the perimeter This document reworded the mitigation No mitigation measure regarding Sparlina Measure of the completed Upper Bay basin is measure specified in the EAIP EIR. was identified in this document. recommended to accelerate the establishment of salt marsh habitat. Mitigation Upstream maintenance operations will be This document reworded the mitigation This document reiterated the Unit I Measure emphasized to reduce the frequency of measure specified in the EAIP EIR. mitigation measure forreduction in wildlife downstream or bay maintenance for an harassment. overall reduction in wildlife harassment. Mitigation Construction activities in the Upper Since nesting patterns of endangered The mitigation measure specified in the Measure Newport Bay will be carefully scheduled species can vary in location in this portion Unit I document was reiterated. to avoid nesting seasons. of the bay, monitoring by the CDFG will be necessary. This monitoring will take place between April 15 and July 31 in the areas of the project affected by construction activities. If the CDFG determines that nesting activities will be disrupted by excavation activities, they shall immediately notify the City of Newport Beach, which may restrict operations to avoid interference with nesting activities. Mitigation Transplanting of willow plants or cuttings No additional mitigation measure was No additional mitigation measure was Measure to the 30-foot vegetation strips along the identified for impacts to willows in this identified for impacts to willows in this debris basins will occur to quickly document. document. reestablish desirable vegetation and would aid in slope stabilization. Seeding or interplanting with other desirable species will be considered. Some short term (one Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan EarlyAction & InterimPlan Draft EIR (May 1981) Addendum to Early Action. & Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, Unit I (June 1984) Upper Newport Bay Unit II Enhancement ]Sediment Management Project EIR (March 1986) to two years) supplemental watering may be necessary to ensure establishment. In 7 areas that will be undisturbed during excavation, planting will be done immediately to take advantage of existing ground water. Mitigation Construction schedules will be revised, if The mitigation measure specified in the The mitigation measure specified in the Measure necessary, to mitigate the impacts of winter EAIP EIR was not addressed in this EAIP EIR was not addressed in this construction. The schedule could be document. document. revised to a period between May 1 and October, generally. Mitigation No mitigation measure regarding use of No mitigation measure regarding use of Dredged spoils shall not be used to fill Measure dredged spoils as fill was included in this dredged spoils as fill was included in this riparian areas, marshes or natural canyons. document. document. Mitigation No mitigation measure directly assessing No mitigation measure directly assessing The projeces long-term "wetlands habitat Measure habitat value rates was included in this habitat value rates was included in this value" of the lands involved (including document. document, projects and mitigation lands) must not be less after project completion than the combined "wetlands habitat value" that exists under pre -project conditions. Mitigation Upon completion of detailed engineering The mitigation measure specified in the The mitigation measure specified in the Measure drawings for the specific location and EAIPEIR was reiterated inthis document. EAIPEIRwas reiterated inthis document. configuration of proposed facilities, the CDFG and USFWS will be consulted for additional mitigation measures, if necessary. Such consultation is required M an No 1m Mi a 1l a an 'aw 1l M M ill•1 r r FJ r 11101 r so r 11110111101 r ilirl Irw Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan Early Action & Interim Plan Draft EIR (May 1981) Addendum to Early Action & Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, Unit I (June 1984) Upper Newport Bay Unit II Enhancement /Sediment Management Project EIR (March 1986) by State and Federal law, under the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1601) and Clean Water Act (Section 404), respectively. Mitigation No mitigation measure addressing mudflat No mitigation measure addressing mudflat Efforts will be made to ensure that the side Measure topography was included in this document. topography was included in this document. slopes of the dredged area are as flat as possible to maximize the amount of lower inter -tidal habitat (mudflat) available for foraging shorebirds. Proposed Future The following measures were recommended None of the measures additionally No additional mitigation recommendations Mitigation though not required to offset the identified recommended in the EAIP were reiterated. were proposed in this document. Measures significant impacts: The Unit I document, however did state that high marsh and maritime areas exist within • Small channel dredging or diking in the the project area which are not used by the remaining salt flat areas could occur to increase and enhance salt -marsh areas. Dredging spoils Belding's savannah sparrow. The document could be used to maintain a least tern nesting noted that these areas could be enhanced to island. provide habitat for this species. • Opportunities would exist to incorporate comprehensive and coordinated planting and use designs above and along the upper channel sites. For example, development and use of greenbelt areas for recreation and wildlife are compatible uses. • After establishment of a viable saltmarsh around the Upper Bay excavation basin, seeds or plants of salt marsh birds beak (Cordylatthus maritimus maritimus) could be introduced in an attempt to expand its range and, thus, assist in the recovery of this species. Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan Early Action & Interim Plan Draft EIR (May 1981) Addendum to Early Action & Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek ' Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, Unit I (June 1984) Upper Newport Bay Unit II Enhancement /Sediment Management Project EIR (March 1980 The Addendum relied on the EAIP EIR. No mitigation measure addressing Mitigation Upper Newport Bay excavation shall be Measure accomplished by a hydraulic dredge and No additional hydrology/water quality movement of dredged materials was drag line and transported to Site A. The measures were identified in this document. identified in this document. excavated materials will be hauled to Site A by truck under Jamboree Bridge for the excavation phase using a drag line. A pipeline from the hydraulic dredge to Site A will be used to excavate the remaining materials. Mitigation Dewatering ofdredged materials shall meet The Addendum relied on the EAlP EIR. No mitigation measure addressing Measure the requirements of the RWQCB. This No additional hydrology/water quality dewatering of dredged materials was me.asure will ensure that discharged waters measures were identified in this document. identified in this document. will not have a significanteffect on the bay. Mitigation Engineering plans will provide for The Addendum relied on the EAIP EIR. No mitigation measure addressing low Measure accommodation of low flows -through the No additional hydrology/water quality flows was identified in this document. drop structures and weirs so that standing measures were identified in this document. water will not collect in the basins. Mitigation The City will cooperate with the CDFG in The Addendum relied on the EAIP EIR. No mitigation measure addressing plant Measure the incorporation of replacement plant No additional hydrology/water quality speciestmarsh restoration was identified in species and compatibility with any marsh measures were identified in this document. the water quality discussion of this restoration plans. document. Mitigation All conditions imposed by the RWQCB on The Addendum relied on the EAIP EIR. The mitigation measure identified in the Measure the CDFG will be incorporated into the No additional hydrology/water quality EAiPEIR was reiterated inthis document. project. measures were identified in this document. no 0111 lMl 'm sib 1MI 1 so =F '1=1 M M! !o s No =1 OW rliifir Mir M 1=1 1=1 M M==1 1MM W i M M Wl an M. M. Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Addendum to Early Action & Upper Newport Bay Unit II Comprehensive Storm Water Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Enhancement /Sediment Sedimentation Control Plan Comprehensive Storm Water Management Project EIR Early Action & Interim Plan Draft Sedimentation Control Plan, (March 1986) (May 1981) Unit I (June 1984) QEIR � �-dOi fliR..�l•dLC0.Yi t3rY � ? • 124?. P _ ,E �. Mitigation Basins #1 and #2 will be completed first to The Addendum relied on the EAIP EIR. No mitigation measure related to Basins Measure ensure that sediment contribution is reduced No additional hydrology/water quality #1 or#2 were included in this document. at the earliest possible point in time. measures were identified in this document. Mitigation Review of RWQCB and OCEMA Review of RWQCB and OCEMA The RWQCB and OCEMA monitoring Measure monitoring results was not included in this monitoring results was not included in this • program results will be reviewed by the document. document. City during the excavation program. Appropriate steps will be taken if elevated levels of target pollutants are detected. Mitigation Requirement of scow door closure was not Requirement of scow door closure was not Project operations will require that the Measure included in this document. included in this document. scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. Mitigation Water excavation area as needed. The addendum relied on the EAIPEIR. No No significant impacts were assessed and Measure additional air quality mitigation measures no air quality mitigation measures were were identified in this document. proposed for the project. Mitigation Use larger haul trucks to reduce the number The addendum relied on the EA1PEIR.No No significant impacts were assessed and Measure of trips required and thus reduce the additional air quality mitigation measures no air quality mitigation measures were emissions generated. were identified in this document. proposed for the project. Mitigation Prior to the commencement of grading The addendum relied on the EAIPEIR. No The issue of cultural resources was not Measure operations, the following persons and additional cultural resources mitigation addressed in this document. organizations shall be notified and measures were identified in this document. permitted to examine dredged and excavated materials on Site A and the San 7 AttachmentA-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan Early Action & Interim Plan Draft EIR (May 1981) Addendum to Early Action & Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, Unit I (June 1984) Upper Newport Bay Unit II Enhancement /Sediment Management Project EIR (March 1986) Diego Creek for artifact and fossil remains: •Aqualitied archaeologist •Aqualified paleontologist • The Natural History Foundation of Orange County • Public Antiquities Salvage Team of Cal State University, Fullerton •City of Irvine- Historical, Archaeological and Paleontological Advisory Committee -County of Orange - Ad Hoc Archaeological and Paleontological Advisory Committee The issue of roadway circulation was not Mitigation Restrict access to the Campus Drive and This access road was not addressed in this Measure Michelson Drive creek access points. document. addressed in this document. Mitigation At Campus Drive, just west of University This access road was not addressed in this The issue of roadway circulation was not Measure Drive, restrict access points to right -turn document. addressed in this document. Project traffic exiting on Campus Drive should only proceed southeasterly to University Drive. Mitigation Project traffic exiting on Campus Drive This accessroad was not addressed in this The issue of roadway circulation was not Measure should only proceed southeasterly to document addressed in this document. University Drive Mitigation A flagman should be utilized on -Campus The mitigation measure specified in the The issue of roadway circulation was not Measure Drive whenever the Campus Drive access EAIP EIR was reiterated. addressed in this document. points are utilized. 1• 1.1 r i■irf i +t r ! M ill! M1 r '1M li N01 r am it � an = 1111• 9= M r Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Addendum to Early Action & Upper Newport Bay Unit II Comprehensive Storm Water Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Enhancement /Sediment Sedimentation Control Plan Comprehensive Storm Water Management Project EIR Early Action & Interim Plan Draft Sedimentation Control Plan, (March 1986) EIR (May 1981) Unit I (June 1984) MAN Mitigation Project traffic should only use University Haul route permits shall consider the The issue of roadway circulation was not Measure Drive between MacArthur and Campus sensitivity of intersections on MacArthur, addressed in this document. Drive due to truck route restrictions. Jamboree and Bristol to avoid peak hour conflicts. Mitigation All truck queuing, when entering or The mitigation measure specified in the The issue of roadway circulation was not Measure exiting, should occur on site and not on a EAIP EIR was reiterated. addressed in this document. public street. No truck should be stopped within 10 feet of a travel lane. Mitigation At Michelson, just west of the creek, This intersection was not addressed in this The issue of roadway circulation was not Measure restrict traffic ingress to right ram only and document. addressed in this document. allow right on left turn egress. Mitigation This intersection is not addressed in this Trucks should enter Jamboree on the The issue of roadway circulation was not Measure document. easterly side only, to prevent right turn addressed in this document. traffic from traveling past the residences of East Bluff. Mitigation The issue of harbor circulation was not The issue of harbor circulation was not A "lookout" on the scow bow, or a Measure addressed in this document. addressed in this document. guideboat, will be utilized which is provided with two-way communication with the tug operators to minimize potential adverse incidents. Mitigation The issue of harbor circulation was not The issue of harbor circulation was not Contractor shall meet with ferry operators Measure addressed in this document. addressed in this document. before beginning operations to develop a mutually acceptable communications system. 6 Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORTBAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Addendum to Early Action & UpperNewport Bay Unit H Comprehensive Storm Water Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Enhancement /Sediment Sedimentation Control Plan Comprehensive Storm Water Management Project EIR Early Action & Interim Plan Draft Sedimentation Control Plan, (March 1986) EIR (May 1981) Unit I (June 1984) Events involving children or small boats issue ofharbor circulation was not The issue of harbor circulation was not 7Mi�fi.gafionThe addressed by this document. addressed by this document. may be required by the Harbor Master to relocate away from dredging operations. gaton The issue of harbor circulation was not The issue of harbor circulation was not Tug operators will be allowed ultimate Measure addressed by this document. addressed by this document. discretion to cease operations during periods of extreme harbor activity. Mitigation The issue of harbor circulation was not The issue of harbor circulation was not Consideration for the use of a Composite Measure addressed by this document. addressed by this document. Tbg and Barge Unit should be given. Such a unit would allow for greater control and stability while operating in the harbor. s�R MORW Mitigation Special care shall be exercised in San Existing land use issues were not addressed No mitigation measure regarding the Measure Joaquin Marsh excavation operations so in this document. drainage pipe was identified in this that the marsh drainage pipe will not be document. impacted byconstnrction. The short -nature of the construction ensures that no significant effects will occur. Mitigation Bicycle and equestrian trail access by Existing land use issues were not addressed No mitigation measure addressing trails Measure contractors participating in the excavation in this document. was identified in this document. will be controlled by supervisory staff who will ensure safe ingress and egress from the excavation sites. 10 i +. M M 1NI r s M w om ! M M a M1 fill lid im m = i S = = M i � = r M M = =1 =1 ow Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan Early Action & Interim Plan Draft EIR (May 1981) Addendum to Early Action & Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, Unit I (June 1984) Upper Newport Bay Unit II Enhancement /Sediment Management Project EIR (March 1986) Mitigationimpacts under the California This document relied on theEAIPEIR. No No mitigation measures addressing CCA MeasureCCA) and the City's adopted mignificant additional mitigation measures were consistency were proposed in this al Program (LCP), dredging identified. document. isposal must be planned and o avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Mitigation To mitigate impacts associated with the This document relied on the EAT EIR. No No mitigation measures addressing CCA Measure CCA and LCP, maintenance dredging in addressed mitigation measures were consistency were proposed in this Newport Bay shall be encouraged, and the identified, document. material dredged shall be used to restore or replace natural sandy sloping beaches in order to retain the current profiles of Newport Bay. Maintenance dredging activity shall have the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and, where applicable, standards set by the EPA. Mitigation To mitigate impacts under the CCA and This document relied on the EAIPEIR. No No mitigation measures addressing CCA Measure LCP, dredged material not suitable for addressed mitigation measures were consistency were proposed in this beach replenishment shall be disposed of identified. document. at a designated EPA disposal site. Mitigation To mitigate impacts under the CCA and This document relied on theEAIPEIR. No No mitigation measures addressing CCA Measure LCP, temporary dewatering of dredged addressed mitigation measures were consistency were proposed in this spoils may be authorized within the bay's identified. document. drainage if adequate erosion controls are provided and the spoils are removed. A bond or a contractual arrangement shall be Attachment -A- UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan EarlyAction & Interim Plan Draft EIR (May 1991) Addendum to Early Action & Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, Unit I (June 1994) Upper Newport Bay Unit H Enhancement /Sediment Management Project EIR (March 1986) precondition to dredging of the material and final disposal of the dewatered material on the approved dump site shall be accomplished within the time period specified in the permit. Mitigation To mitigate impacts under the CCA and This document relied on the EAIP EIR. No mitigation measures addressing CCA Measure LCP, dredged spoils shall not be used to No addressed mitigation measures were consistency were proposed in this fill riparian areas, marshes, or natural identified. document. canyons. Mitigation To mitigate impacts under the CCA and This document relied on the EAIP EIR. No mitigation measures addressing CCA Measure LCP, other mitigation measures may No addressed mitigation measures were consistency were proposed in this include opening areas to tidal action, identified. document. removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, or other restoration measures. Mitigation To mitigate impacts under the CCA and This document relied on the EAIP EIR. No mitigation measures addressing CCA Measure LCP, if a project includes diking or filling No addressed mitigation measures were consistency were proposed in this of a wetland area, an appropriate identified. document. restoration site shall be acquired and an equivalent area opened to tidal action or greater biological productivity. Mitigation To mitigate impacts under the CCA and This document relied on the EAIP OR. No mitigation measures addressing CCA Measure LCP, the combined long-term "wetlands No addressed mitigation measures were consistency were proposed in this habitat value" of the lands involved identified. document. (including projects and mitigation lands) must not be less after project completion than the combined "wetlands habitatvalue' that exists under pre -project conditions. � 1tl>f Ir i>• flit' M M s r 1M1 �=1 =1 r m M .7i sir .wo = M r = s= M� I1 M=1 IM M M Attachment A-1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECTS MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY (Continued) San Diego Creek Addendum to Early Action & Upper Newport Bay Unit II Comprehensive Storm Water Interim Plan EIR, San Diego Creek Enhancement /Sediment Sedimentation Control Plan Comprehensive Storm Water Management Project EIR Early Action & Interim Plan Draft Sedimentation Control Plan, (March 1986) EIR (May 1981) Unit I (June 1984) Mitigation The use of a hydraulic dredge, or even a This document relied on the EAIP EIR. The issue of truck noise was not addressed Measure drag line operation, can be considered a No additional mitigation measures were in this document. mitigation to the noise impact of trucks proposed. hauling the dredge spoil to Site A or elsewhere on public streets. The combined use of a dredge, drag line and a pipeline to SiteA reduces any potential noise impacts. Mitigation The issue of excavation equipment noise The issue of excavation equipment noise At the time of the letting of the construction Measure was not addressed in this document. was not addressed in this document. contract, it shall be demonstrated that engine noise from excavation equipment shall be mitigated by keeping engine doors closed during equipment operation. For equipment that cannot be enclosed behind doors, lead curtains shall be used to attenuate noise. Ae }, a.S. Mitigation Revegetation of various areas. The issue of aesthetics was not addressed No feasible mitigation measures were Measure in this document. identified in the document to reduce identified impacts. 13 � M M = IM 11 M Attachment A-2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROLAND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Introduction and MMRP Requirements State Assembly Bill (AB) 3180 and CEQA require public agencies to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for approved EIRs and Mitigated Negative Declarations. Such programs are designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures, verify that required measures effectively mitigate identified impacts, and provide guidance for future actions. This MMRP was prepared for the City of Newport Beach (City) and County of Orange (County), in conjunction with the proposed Upper Newport Bay Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement project. The proposed project has been evaluated in an Initial Study (IS) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The IS incorporates by reference, where applicable, the analyses contained in several prior CEQA-compliance documents for Upper Newport Bay dredging projects (see Attachment A-1). The relevant mitigation measures contained in these prior documents, in addition to those identified in the current project's IS, have been incor- porated into this MMRP to offset identified impacts of the proposed project. The MMRP provides overall mitigation monitoring program requirements for the proposed project. This includes identifying mitigation measures, proposed monitoring activities and timing, as well as determining responsibility for monitoring and reporting. As Co -Lead Agencies under CEQA, the City and County will identify mitigation compliance coordinators (MCCs) to oversee implementation of the MMRP, including such duties as ensuring that all measures contained in this plan are implemented in a timely fashion, assigning qualified personnel for specific monitoring tasks and ensuring adequate documentation of findings. As joint CEQA lead agencies, the City and County share ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all measures have been followed. The MCCs will be ultimately responsible for verifying the implementation of required mitigation measures, although he/she may utilize existing materials and review processes toavoidduplication of effort. Specifically, this may include using documents such as plan check review files, construction progress reports or activity logs to document mitigation compliance. If authorized to do so by the City/County (and to the extent that such actions do not conflict with enforcement activities or regulatory guidelines of other applicable agencies), the MCCs will also enforce the implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring activities in the field. This may entail interrupting construction activities to resolve conflicts over compliance issues. Attachment"- MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT HI SEDIMENT CONTROLAND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Documentation of specific monitoring activities will utilize a checklist type format, with additional narrative attached on separate sheets if required. A sample monitoring report form is attached to this MMRP, with the final format to be approved by the City and County. If requested by the City/County, a summary mitigation monitoring report will also be prepared by the MCCs following the completion of project construction and restoration activities. Such a report will describe all monitoring activities conducted during applicable periods, the success of associated mitigation measures, and any recommendations for future mitigation measures and MMRP actions. Project Description Summary The projectsite is located primarily within Upper Newport Bay between the Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway bridges. Additional project activities would involve construction access just upstream of the Jamboree Road bridge, as well as access by tugboattscow vessels through Lower Newport Bay and the ocean to reach an offshore disposal area for dredged material. The proposed project would involve dredging approximately 725,000 to 825,000 cubic yards (cy) of material from various portions of Upper Newport Bay, ocean disposal of dredged material, and repair/modification of the Jamboree Road bridge stabilizer structure. Proposed dredging activities would include deepening the main upperbay channel to accommodate project equipment and general navigation, removing accumulated sediment from the Unit III Basin in the upper bay to improve and protect local marine habitats, and removing accumulated sediment from the Dover Shores community bay inlet to improve local navigation. SpecificMMRP Elements The UpperNewport Bay Unit Ill Sediment Control and Enhancement Project MMRP includes the following elements: • Mitigation measures identified in the IS • Mitigation -monitoring and reporting/verification activities • Timing of monitoring and verification activities • Allocation of responsibility for monitoring and reporting These elements of the MMRP are identified and explained below. All documentation of mitigation monitoring noted in the following table will be on file in the City office located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA, and/or the County office located at 300 N. Flower Street, Third Floor, Santa Ana, CA. ilk � r l� r >• ]lr• lirtlr +t til2 Attachment A-2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROLAND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person Hydrology and Water Quality 1. All conditions imposed by Regional Water Condition of Approval RWQCB and CDFG Prior to project design Monitoring to be the Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) and California review and approval of approval. responsibility of the Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) will be project designs. City or County MCC. incorporated into the project design. 2. RWQCB and OCEMA monitoring program Condition of Approval Field inspection and During excavation Monitoring to be the results will be observed during excavation. filing of documentation operations. responsibility of the Appropriate steps pursuant to Lead Agency and at the City and County. City or County MCC. RWQCB direction will be taken if elevated levels of target pollutants are detected. 3. Project operations will require that scow doors Condition of Approval Field inspection and Inspection to take place Monitoring to be the used to release dredged material remain closed and incorporation into • filing of documentation during excavation and responsibility of the until the scows are towed to the disposal site. contract specifications. at the City and County. material removal City or County MCC. activities. 4. All construction limits are to be staked and Condition of Approval Field inspection and Prior to excavation Monitoring to be the flagged to clearly identify the limits of work. and incorporation into filing of documentation activities. responsibility of the contract specifications, at the City and County. City or County MCC. 5. Silt fencing will be installed adjacent to any Condition of Approval Field inspection and Prior to and during Monitoring to be the marshlands, which lie down gradient from ground and incorporation into filing of documentation excavation activities. responsibility of the disturbing work. At present, this is believed to be contract specifications. at the City and County. City or County MCC. limited to an existing disturbed dike area near the Port of Long Beach -mitigation site where the stabilizer coffer dam work would be conducted. Monitoring to be the 6. Work on the stabilizer structure will be con- Condition of Approval Field inspection and Prior to and during responsibility of the ducted outside of the rainy season and all of the filing of documentation construction of stabi- City or County MCC. temporary coffer dam will be removed prior to the at the City and County. lizer structure. rainy season in order to avoid potential sediment r? AttachmentA-2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person redirection into marshlands north of the existing Unit I basin. Alternatively, if it can be demon- strated to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director and County Director of Planning and Development Services that the final coffer dam design would not result in potential storm flow spills into the Long Beach mitigation site, this timing constraint may be administratively, lifted. Roadway Circulation 7. Project -related truck traffic will be scheduled to Condition of Approval Field inspection Inspection to take place Monitoring to be the avoid peak traffic periods on Jamboree Road to and incorporation of at peak traffic periods responsibility of the the maximum extent feasible. measure into contract during excavation City or County MCC. specifications. operations. 8.The project applicant and contractor will Condition of Approval Field inspection Prior to excavation The City Traffic coordinate with the City of Newport Beach Traffic and incorporation of activities. Engineering Dept. will Engineering Department to request maintaining measure into contract make the decision the existing lane configuration along Jamboree specifications. concerning Jamboree Road in the project vicinity. Road. 9. A traffic control plan will be submitted to the Condition of Approval Review of plan and Plan review to take Preparation of the plan City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering and incorporation of field inspection of place prior to project will be the responsibil- Department to delineate all proposed traffic measure into contract incorporated traffic implementation; Field ity of the project control and safety measures associated with specifications. control and safety inspections to be contractor and will be construction of the proposed stabilizer structure. measures. carried out during approved by the City excavation activities. Traffic Engineering Dept.; Plan review and field inspection will be conducted by the City or County ' MCC. 4 Attachment A-2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROLAND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person 10. Priorto commencement of construction on Condition of Approval Review of plan and Plan review to take Preparation of the plan the stabilizer structure, a draft haul route access and incorporation of field inspection of place prior to project will be the responsibil- plan developed by the contractor will be submit- measure into contract incorporated haul route. implementation; field ity of the project ted to the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine (if specifications. inspections to be contractor and will be required by these cities) and OCEMAfrransporta- carried out during approved by the noted tion for review and approval to ensure impacts to construction activities. cities; plan review and surrounding uses are minimized. The plan will field inspection will be include access routes on public streets for heavy conducted by the City equipment -and construction materials. The plan or County of MCC. will also show staging area(s) for storage of equipment, materials and parking of construction employee personal vehicles. 11. The project contractor will notify local emer- Condition of Approval MCC to contact emer- Prior to project imple- The City or County gency agencies (including Newport Beach and and incorporation of gency agencies to verify mentation. MCC will ensure that Orange County Police and Fire departments) of measure into contract receipt of notice. emergency agency proposed project activities, schedules and traffic specifications. notification is received control plans prior to project implementation. prior to project imple- mentation. 12. Warning signs will be placed in clear view Condition of Approval Field inspection of During excavation The City or County along the existing equestrian trail at both ends of and incorporation of signage. activities. MCC will ensure that the stabilizer construction zone to alert users of measure into contract proper signage is the potential presence of project equipment and specifications. posted and clearly vehicles. visible. 13. All -project -related equipment or vehicular Condition of Approval Field inspection of During excavation and The City or County access and crossings of the noted equestrian trail and incorporation of vehicular crossings of project related activi- MCC will ensure that will be accompanied by a construction employee measure into contract equestrian trails, ties. equestrian trail cross - escort on foot to avoid conflicts with trail users. specifications. ing measures are incorporated. 5 Attachment A-2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROLAND ENHANUEM PI FKVJEl:r Implementing Method of Timing of Responsible Mitigation Measure Action Verification Verification Person Harbor Circulation 14. Lookout personnel equipped with megaphones Condition of Approval Field inspection of During dredging, The City or County and radios will be used on project stows to notify and incorporation of harbor operations. excavation and other MCC will ensure that boaters and tug operators of potential hazards. measure into contract project related activi- lookouts are used and specifications. ties involving the will coordinate aetiv'y- operation of vessels. ties with the Harbormaster. 15. Guideboats will be used to escort project Condition of Approval Field verification of During excavation The City or County stows and maintain a safe distance between and incorporation of guideboat use. activities. MCC, in coordination stows and other vessels in the bay. measure into contract with the Harbormaster specifications. will ensure the use of guideboats. 16. All project vessels will be provided with Condition of Approval The Harbormaster will Prior to and during The City or County adequate and compatible communication equip- and incorporation of mflify that all vessels project implement- MCC in coordination ment, and all project contractors and vessel measure into contract 3re equipped with tion. with the Harbormaster, operators will meet prior to project implements specifications. functioning communi- will ensure continuing tion (and subsequently if necessary) to ensure ration equipment. operation of the satisfactory operation of project -related communi- communication cation systems. system. 17. Potential project tugibarge configurations (i.e., Condition of Approval Evaluation of potential Prior to excavation The City, County and composite and individual vessels) will be evalu- and incorporation of ulg1barge configure- activities. Harbormaster will ated prior to project implementation to identify measure into contract (ions. work together to the safest and most efficient equipment operating specifications. determine equipment methodology that can be feasibly implemented. to be used. 18. Written notification will be provided to the Condition of Approval Copies of the notifyca- Prior to both project The City or County Newport Bay Harbom(aster, U.S. Coast Guard, and incorporation of tion and all responses implementation and MCC will be respon- and Orange County Sheriff and Fire Departments measure into contract received will be kept on any proposed modify- sible for verifying (along with other applicable agencies) regarding specifications. file and available for cations. written notification. review. "I lit � illy l' Ilt (i i� lllt il• fi � ili•1 ll♦ � fi � � !♦ � Attachment A-2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person proposed dredging and disposal equipment types, operation methodologies and schedules. This written notification will be provided prior to both project implementation and any proposed modifi- cation of project activities, with confirmation by telephone also to be conducted prior to any change in proposed operations. 19. Project tug operators will be granted authority Condition of Approval Field observation of During excavation The City or County to cease operations during appropriate conditions, and incorporation of prevailing conditions. activities. MCC and the such as periods of heavy waterbome traffic in the measure into contract Harbormaster will bay or inclement weather. specifications. ensure compliance with tug operator Air Onality decisions. 20. Project contractor specifications will include Condition of Approval Documentation of Prior to and during The City or County requirements to reduce dredging, disposal, con- and incorporation of contract specifications excavation activities. MCC will ensure that struction and related equipment emissions genera- measure into contract and field inspection. equipment complies tion to the maximum extent feasible. Depending specifications. with contract specift- on the availability and feasibility of using specific cations. equipment types and/or modifications, this may entail techniques such as the use of electric dredges or diesel -powered vessels equipped with catalytic converters. 21. The project applicant and/or contractors will Condition of Approval' The project MCC will Prior to excavation The City or County purchase air quality mitigation credits sufficient to and incorporation of document purchase of activities. MCC will file docu- achieve conformance with applicable significance measure into contract air quality mitigation mentation of air standards for the South Coast Air Basin. This specifications. credits. quality mitigation would occur by purchasing emission offsets on the credit purchase with open market (e.g., RECLAIM market -based the City and County. emission trading systems, see Attachment Q. The amount of credits required to be purchased in 7 Attachment A-2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person association with the proposed project will consist of the difference between the SCAQMD standards and the -level of emission generation for all project -related -equipment achieved after imple- menting the above mitigation measure. 22. Dredging equipment engine compartments Condition of Approval Inspection of engine During dredging Inspection of facilities will be closed during operation, or will be draped and incorporation of compartments. activities. will be the responsi- with lead curtains in applicable areas of the bay to measure into contract bility of -the City or provide maximum noise attenuation. specifications. County MCC. 23. Dredging activities in the Dover Shores Condition of Approval Review of construction Prior to and during Inspection of facilities private channel will be subject to appropriate time and incorporation of documents and field dredging. will be the responsi- constraints to allow noise generation to conform measure into contract inspection of operation. -bility of the City or with applicable regulatory standards. specifications. County MCC. 24. Additional -noise -related mitigation may be Applicable observa- Field inspection and During construction City or County MCC required by the City or County, based on observa- tions during construc- written verification of activities. tions of project activities and associated noise tion activities and/or public notice distribu- generation, and public input. The public notice receipt of public input. tion and content. referenced in the Project Description -(see section III of this Initial Study) will include a telephone number to allow notification by the public of noise -related effects associated with the proposed project. 255.. All construction limits will be staked and Condition of Approval Feld inspection Prior to and during City or County MCC. flagged to clearly demarcate the limits of work. and incorporation of construction activities. These limits will be inspected and field adjusted measure into contract by the project engineer and a biologist at the time specifications. of project construction to minimize adverse 8 � i• f• f• � � � t• � � i• i• i• i• t• f• t• � i•-- Attachment A-2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROLAND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method of Verification Verificationrson Timing ofrHarbormnaster nsible effects while ensuring project objectives are achieved. 26. Site access to and from the construction area Condition of Approval Field inspection During excavationr County will be limited to routes along the central access and incorporation of activities. channel or alternative access as directed by the measure into contract ster willCDFG. specifications. ess routee.27. Dredging within the Unit III basin will be Condition of Approval Field inspection Between March I andyr County precluded -from occurring during the nesting and incorporation of September 1. MCC will ensure that seasons for the California least tern, light-footed measure into contract dredging within the clapper rail, Belding's savannah sparrow and specifications. Unit III basin will not California black rail. This would result in a occur during the cumulative closure within the sediment basin from nesting seasons stated. March I through September 1. Alternatively, if it is determined by the City Planning Director and County Director of Planning and Development Services (in conjunction with the CDFG and USFWS) that substitute measures may provide adequate protection of these sensitive species, then such substitute measures could be applied in lieu of a full timing restriction. 28. If it is determined by the City Planning Condition of Approval Field inspection Between March i and 77ie City or County Director and County Director of Planning and and incorporation of July I MCC will ensure that Development Services (in conjunction with the measure into contract dredging within the CDFG and USFWS) that adequate measures can specifications. noted area will not be provided to protect the light-footed clapper rail, occur during the Belding's savannah sparrow and California black nesting season stated. rail in the Unit -III channel, then proposed dredg- ing activities may be conducted in this area during the period of March 1 through July 1. Altema- Attachment A 2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROLAND ENHANCEMENTPROJECT Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person tively, dredging within this area will be precluded between March I and July 1. 29. All construction activities will be closely Condition of Approval !field inspection During construction The City or County coordinated with the CDFG Reserve Manger to activities. MCC will document ensure that sensitive resources arc adequately coordination with the protected and that project work does not interfere CDFG Reserve with reserve management activities. Manager. 30. Informal consultation between the Army Condition of Approval Documentation of Prior to project con- The City or County Corps of Engineers (ACOE), City, County, CDFG meeting struction. MCC will file docu- and USFWS will be conducted to ensure that mentation of consulta- measures addressed above are adequate to provide tion with the City and protection necessary to ensure the continued County. health of Upper -Newport Bay's threatened and endangered species populations. 31. Prior to implementation of dredging within the Condition ofApproval Documentation of field Prior to and after The City or Courtty access channel, a pre -construction survey for and incorporation of surveys construction activities. MCC will file docu- eelgrass habitat will be conducted. If any eelgrass measure into contract mentation of the is identified, the sites will be marked and avoided. specifications. eelgrass surveys with Subsequent to and within 30 days of completing the City and County. project dredging activities, apost-construction survey will be performed to verify that any eelgrass previously identified has not been im- pacted. Aesthetics 32. Project -related lighting will be the minimum Condition of Approval Review of lighting Nighttime hours during Inspection of facilities amount and intensity necessary for safe and and incorporation of plans and field inspec- project operation. will be the responsi- efficient operation. measure into contract tion of operations. bility of the City or specifications. County MCC. 10 i• � � � r i• fi i• � r• � i• i• i• � i• � i >• Attachment A-2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT el Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person 33. The project contractor will submit a lighting Condition of Approval Review of lighting Prior to and during Inspection of facilities plan to the County and City for review and and incorporation of plans and field nighttime hours during will be the responsibil- approval prior to commencing nighttime con- measure into contract inspection of opera- project operation. ity of the City or struction. Based on this review and associated specifications. tions. County MCC. direction, the project contractor will implement appropriate techniques for directing, shading and screening project -related lights to minimize effects in off -site areas. 34. The public notice referenced in the Project Condition of Approval Written verification of During construction City or County MCC Description (see Section III of this Initial Study) and incorporation of public notice distribu- activity. will include a telephone number to allow notifica- measure into contract tion and content. tion by the public of lighting -related effects specifications. associated with the proposed project. 11 City of Newport Beach/County of Orange MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT [) Compliance Upper Newport Bay Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project Q Noncompliance DATE: REPORT NUMBER: MONITOR: WEATHER CONDITIONS: PROJECTILOCATION: DISCIPLINE: Q Hydrology/Water Quality Q Roadway Circulation Q Hatbor Circulation Q Air Quality O Noise O Biology Q Aesthetics MONITORING PLAN NO.: MITIGATION MEASURE: COMPLIANCE: OAcceptable O Unacceptable O Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS: BY PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION (RV): REPORT APPROVAL (MCC): RECEIPT BY: Signature: City/County Engineer Date: Time: COMMENTSIACTIONS: COPY ISSUED: O MCC (3 CITY/COUNTY ENGINEER l7 CONTRACTOR O OTHER: 0 2 J A Gl U 9LIFOg� NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET, ROOM 121 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 FROM: EMA SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in of the Public Resources Code jectMe: Upper Newport Bay Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement State Cleadrigh 96101065 tact Person: Cheryl Vind (If Submitted To State Project Location: Upper Newport Bay, Newport Beach UNTY CLERK L-MNTY OF ORANGE 1996 108 or 21152 ND No. IP 96-157 P/0 4 E D �■Ilil,� f Project Description: Dredging approximately 725,000 to kt•L.),000 cuDIC yaras oz accumulated material from portions of the upper bay and main access channel, disposal of dredged material, and repair/modification of the Jamboree Road stabilizer structure located at the Upper Newport Bay/San Diego Creek interface., Notice is hereby given that the of Cu )EMA Planning x . (Wd AgWXY-EA4l GSA Et) turf Dw= tMs4n. somm Fx.) L N has made the following determination on the ibove-described pro)ect: 12/3/96•• 08 1. The pro)ectwasapproved by B/Supv. on ,� O terswv. Sbw can. Mg. dmm. ZA. Ea) told) lY 2. The project ❑ will have a signdkam effect on the environmeaL ,T+ EX will not > ; ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this propct V A pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. m - ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant .0 to the provisions of CEQA. J 3. Mitigation MeasureM were incorporated into the project through •Ci L ❑ were not 'O Id conditions of approval and project design. w O 4. For'this project a Statement of Overriding considerations was adopted. E IL not adopted. 5. A copy of the EIR or Negative Declaration and the record of the project apprrovnatl is on fib and may be eitamined at the Environmental Management Ag¢nty,ironm is t,n of a da'Proj ect •33L1 Mu Planning Room Santa Ana. California. 92702-4048. Division (714) 834- 5550 , Date: ion-9-QfO vnso-rza �r er, OWN ttti;r- CIA tti m asa m m 0000, r n C to m ea m v of In Co e)N u).- m U) WCO co N eaiiloixla tl I.' I 1 '. WA Il�l.i, . 1JY,fIIGLI►J(Ti1f(����1%�'%jl.� 14 Project Applicant (checkappropriate box): Local Public Agency School District ❑ Other Special District State Agency ❑ Private Entity ❑ CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: • - () Environmental Impact Report $859.00 $ Negative Declaration $1.o0 $ t) • Application -Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control ardOnly)-$BW.00 -$ • ( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regul ry gram $B50. $ County Administrative Fee $ Project that is exempt from fees I %��O EKED $ WHO Signature and IiNe of person receiving paymen FIRST COPY•PROIEOTAPPUCANT SECOND COFY•OFG/FASa _ THIRDCO ENOY_.. FOUMH COPYCOUNTY/STATEAGENCYOF RUNG ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTE ORDER Ike dd&a- tS a aae" ta& *Pay tke b'oaad 4 SaAvwt mw ow ya&xderc 3, 1956, APPROVED AS OTHER ❑ Unanimous ■ (1) Stanton (2) Silva (3) Saltarelli (4) Steiner (5) Vacant Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=No; A=Abstain; X=Excused, B.O. =Board Order Documents accompanying this matter: ■ Resolution(s) R-96-841 ❑ Ordinances(s) ❑ Contract(s) SubmittingAgenQ&Mgpartment: Environmental Management Agency Tonic: Adopt Resolution making California Environmental Quality Act findings for Upper Newport Bay Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project; approve Conceptual Plan and authorize Environmental Management Agency to seek California Coastal Conservancy grant funding - District 5 File No. Item No. Special Notes: Copies sent to: LC=O I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, State of California. DARLENE ]. BLOOM, Clerk of the Board By: Deputy RECEIVED DEC 2 6 1996 c:\user\rninordnnd.doc EMA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 3, 1996 On motion of Supervisor Stanton duly seconded and carried, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the County of Orange, in cooperation with the City of Newport Beach, is proposing to implement a sediment control and enhancement project in portions of Upper Newport Bay and adjacent on- and offshore areas; and WHEREAS, a Conceptual Plan with preliminary engineering design and hydrographic survey plans has been prepared to identify the specific dredging and repairs/modifications to the bridge stabilizer for long-term protection and management of Upper Newport Bay; and WHEREAS, the project entails dredging approximately 725,000 to 825,000 cubic yards of accumulated sediment materials from portions of the upper bay and main access channel, disposal of dredged material in an existing and approved offshore disposal site, and repair/modification of the Jamboree Road stabilizer structure located at the Upper Newport Bay/San Diego Creek interface; and WHEREAS, since 1956, over a dozen separate dredging projects have been conducted within Upper Newport Bay to remove sediment, maintain or enhance marine habitat, and accommodate navigation/recreational use; and 28 CMD:i k II Resolution No. 96-841 1. Upper Newport Bay -Conceptual Plan Approval -Negative Dec. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, previous dredging efforts within Upper Newport Bay were conducted by the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the Upper Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Sediment Control Program and involved the construction of sediment control basins; and WHEREAS, previous environmental documentation related to subject project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) included: 1) 1981 San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan: Early Action & Interim Plan (EAIP) EIR; 2) 1984 EAIP EIR Addendum: Unit I Sediment Management and Restoration Program; and 3) 1986 Upper Newport Bay Unit II Enhancement/Sediment Management Project EIR; and WHEREAS, the County and City of Newport Beach, in accordance with Cost Sharing Agreement No. 96-105, acted as Co -Lead Agencies and conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and mitigation measures incorporated into the project, it was determined that a Negative Declaration (ND) would adequately address the environmental impacts associated with the project, and that all impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, ND No. IP 96-157 for the Unit III Project was prepared and posted for a 30-day public review period beginning on October 23, 1996 and ending on November 22, 1996; and WHEREAS, six letters of comment on the ND were received during the public review period; and WHEREAS, none of the letters raised new significant environmental issues causing the ND to be inadequate; and R C DFe RFD . z s 199s 2. FMA Is 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, the six letters and the County's responses to the letters are part of the ND as Attachment B; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT in accordance with Section 21080 (c) of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, Negative Declaration No. IP 96-157, which reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, satisfies the requirements of CEQA and is approved for the proposed project based on the following findings: a. The Negative Declaration IP 96-157 and comment letters received during the public review process were considered, and the Negative Declaration was found adequate in addressing the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. b. There is no substantial evidence that the proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, which are included in the Negative Declaration, will have a significant effect on the environment. C. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Attachment A to the ND) is adopted. d. Find that pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, this project is subject to the required fees as it has been determined that potential adverse impacts to wildlife resources may result from the project. e. Find, that the proposed project will not have a significant unmitigated impact upon Coastal sage Scrub habitat, and is consistent with the provisions of the Central/Coastal Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) 3. a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on April 16, 1996. The project is also consistent with the associated NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement executed by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors on July 17, 1996. n� ' 1 2I 3I 4I 5 6 7 8 9 10 12' 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 N 26 N N 27 LL NM SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD ATTEST &M /a�- , DARLENE J. BLOOM Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California Q L, �_ t � AYES: SUPERVISORS JROGER R. STANTONr AMES W. SILVDJ. ELLI, Ar WILLIAMG. STEINER NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, DARLENE J. BLOOM, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at the regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of December, 1996, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 3rd day of December, 1996- ATTEST U " _ DARLENE J. BLOOMI IQ Clerk of the Board of Supervisor of Orange County, California JAN-10-97 FRI 04:53 PM CA ST LANDS COMM-SCR/BAY FAX NO, 9165741925 Qo" STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON. Govemor CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION ROBERT C. HIGHT, Executive Officer 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South (916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810 Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 California Relay Service From TDD Phone 1-800-735.2922 I from Voice Phone 1400.735.2929 Contact Phone: (916) 574.1892 Contact FAX (916) 574-1926 December 31, 1996 Ms. Maureen Gorseen General Counsel The Resources Agency 1020 Ninth Street, Third Floor Sacramento CA 95814 Attention: Nadell Gayou Ms. Cheryl Vind County of Orange P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Dear Ms. Gorseen and Ms. Vind: File Ref: PRC 5091 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Upper Newport Bay Unit IR Sediment Control and Enhancement Project, Orange County, SCH 96101065 Staff of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has reviewed the subject document. We apologize for the lateness of our comments and would appreciate their consideration by the County. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County is.the Lead Agency and the CSLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and all projects which could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public easement in navigable waters. The SLC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers, sloughs, lakes, etc. (e.g. Public Resources Code §6301.) All tide and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable rivers, sloughs, etc., are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust. The Public Trust is a sovereign public property right held by the State or its delegated trustee for the benefit of all the people. This right limits the uses of these lands to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, open space, recreation, or other recognized Public Trust purposes. A lease from the Commission is required for any portion of a project extending onto State-owned lands which are under its exclusive jurisdiction. t JAIL-10-97 FRI 04:54 PM CA ST LANDS COMM-SCR/BAY FAX NO. 9165741925 P. 02/02 The proposed project will include dredging approximately 725,000 and 825,000 cubic yards of material from portions of the upper bay and main access channel with deposition at an existing offshore disposal site. Previous sediment control projects have been conducted in the past in this area. The project will include both lands acquired by the State Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and sovereign lands under the jurisdiction of the CSLC leased to DFG (PRC 5091) . As this project is similar to past projects and is being carried out for the DFG to maintain the ecological reserve, CSLC staff believe the project is consistent with the terms and conditions of Lease PRC 5091. As such, no further authorization from the CSLC is required. If you have any questions, please contact Jane E. Smith, Public Land Management Specialist, at (916) 574-1892. cc: Patricia Wolf, Regional Manager Department of Fish and Game 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach CA 90802 Dwight E. Sanders Jane E. Smith OPR Sincerely, MARY GGS Environm ntal Services Division of Environmental Planning and Management Letters of Comment and Responses The Draft Upper Newport Bay Unit III Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day public review beginning on October 23, 1996. The noted public review period ended on November 22, 1996, with six letters of comment received from the following sources: U.S. Department of Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard Eleventh District 2. U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IX 4. California Coastal Commission - South Coast Area California Department of Transportation - District 12 U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service These six letters contain 19 separate comments which are addressed individually in the following responses. The noted comments and responses are numbered sequentially and displayed in a column format on the following pages. COMMENTS RESPONSES LLS. OepMmen(Camander IPow-z) Blds. 5 -6 a( Aff Elevsst► Coast Gvaed DLserict toast Daord Island Alameda CA 94501-5100 United Slates Phone, jj510)) 437-J5g14 Coast Guard Fat: (510) 437-5a36 5410 Sees U621-96 October 31, 1996 Ns. Charyl vind Environmental t Project Planning Division County of Orange Environmental Management Agency P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Subji Upper Newport Bay Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project, File No. IP 96-157 Dear Ms. Vind: The Coast Guard has reviewed this negative declaration and has the following ccmments: a. Thank you for specifying that the Contractor must notify the Coast Guard. SpecLfically, we request you or your contractor notify us at the address above, in writing, at least 2 week before construction begins. This will give us time to notify the maritime community of activities aftecting navigation. The Information we need for our Local Notice to Mariners is: • Name and telephone number of project manager. • Size and placement of any floating construction equipment. • Radio telephone frequencies and call signs of any marine equipment. • Start and finish dates. b. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) of Los Mgeles/Long Beach may modify the deployment of ' marina construction equipment or mooring systems to safeguard navigetion 2 i during the project. Upon receipt of tha notification to start work, we will send a copy of the applicant's letter to the C.71P for review. By phone today, we requested that you send a copy of the negative dec. to the COTP. C. The "marshalling area" for marina equipment was not defined sufficiently to determine whether It eoLncidod with Anchorage Areas (for recreational vassals and other smell craft) or Anchorage Grounds (for commercial vessels). If it: is within one of those designated sites, the contractor must comply with O the federal regulations governing them, 33 CFR 120.95 or 210.212 as appropriate. Copies of those regulations are attached. if tha marshalling area is not within those designated sites, the Navigation Rules apply, specifically regarding anchor lights. I recommend you or your contractor contact the COTP to discuss use of the marshalling area or any requirements that the COTP may have to impose for the safety of navigation. O Comment noted. A requirement and process for notifying the Coast Guard at least two woeks prior to project commencement will be included in the contract 1 specifications for the Unit Ill project. Comment noted. A copy of the project CEQA document was sent to COTP per the O Coast Guard's request. All applicable requirements regarding marine construction equipment and mooring systems will be incorporated into the contract specifications for the Unit 31t project. OBased on current project design. it is not anticipated that any Anchorage Areas or Anchorage Grounds would be Impacted by proposed dredging or marshalling activities. The Project contract specifications will require, however. that the appropriate regulations (i.e.. either 33 CPR or the Navigation Rules) will be implemented during proposed dredging and marshalling activities. COMMENTS RESPONSES d. This placement of mooring buoys is subject to rcast Guard approval. You or your contractor ..at obtain a Pr LVLta Aida to O! Navigation Permit prior to placing mooring buoys. An application 4 form is enclosed. Please contact Ms. Jan Fenton of this office at (510) 437-2983 if you have any questions concerning private aids to navigation. e. Your project will generate a substantial amount of commercial marine traffic upstream of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. The bridge provides 100 feet horizontal clearance between piers, but only 20 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Hater, which will be quite restrictive for tugs and dredges. The bridge Is equipped with navigation lights and vertical clearance gauges. The bridge was net designed with a fender system to protect it from damage from large vessels. The 5 horizontal clearance should be sufficient to provide for the Passage of tugs and barges, however, if accidents occur, we may require the installation of temporary protective dolphins at the bridge. If your contractor voluntarily elects to install such ,1 dolphins, we would give favorable consideration to such installation - with the consent of the bridge owner. If you have questions concerning the roast Guard bridge program, please contact Ms. Susan Norderi at (510) 437-3561. f. When utilizing the ocean disporal site Newport OCach, O (LA-3), the contractor shall dispose dredged material within a 6 circular area of radius 1000 yards, with center located at latitude 33• 31' 42" N and longitude 1171 5:' ae^ W. The contractor, shall also radio the Vessel Traffic In£o=a-Lon Service on channel la five minutes before departure. g. The contractor should send a post -dredge survey to tt.a .f National Ocean Service for chart updating: NOAA/Notional Ocean Service, Map and Chart Branch, (Attentions N/CG2211), SSMC3, Room 6211, 1315 East-Wast•Highway, Silver Spring, 14D 20910. If you or your contractor have questions or desire to discuss federal aids to navigation or the Local Notice to Mariners, please call us at (Sig) 437-2976. Questions Concerning equipment placement, lighting and mcorlrg should be directed to the COTP at (310) 980-4454. Sincerel-n er ,m S. Coast Guard Chief, Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch By direction of the District Commander Copy: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach 92659-1768 USCG Marine Safety Office Los Angeles/Long Beach, 165 N. Pico Avenue, tong Beach, CA 90802, Attn: IT Kip Whiteman Caltrans District 7, Los Angeles. ®Comment noted. All applicable permit requirements will be met by the project contractor prior to project implementation. OComment noted. The project contractor will be advised or the opportunity for voluntary Installation of temporary bridge dolphins at Pacific Coast Highway, and will be encouraged to contact your office regarding this matter. ©Comment noted. Tha project contract specifications will require that disposal or dredged material it ilia LA-3 site conform with all applicable regulatory requirements. OComment noted. The contract specifications will include a requirement to submit the - noted post -dredge survey to NOAA. COMMENTS RESPONSES f YOC� I UNMO STATEN ORPAPTMCNT OF dOMl1EAdH ,'W{ p N.tlerrl Owanb end Atmaep+.rro Adninletr.klon J I N4TXl.W1 MAANf FaaaFAE96ERVCE �•w"�A 6euthwnl Rooks ful wul Oceur Seulevsr4, 6uae 42ao Long aeecb. Gatunle s0e024210 _ TEL (710) 91a4000; PAX (310) 910J018 MY 15 r/SNO21SR511 Ns. Cheryl Vind Environmental and Project Planning Division EnvlrotrmsntaL Management Agency County of orange P.O. Box 4049 Santa Ann, California 92702-4049 Dear Me. Vind: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Negative Declaration for the Upper Ilewport Bay Unit III Sedinant Control and Enhancement Project. The National Marine FLaberies Services supports the proposed renoval of accumulated sediment in Upper Newport any. P.awuvar, it should be noted that a decision regarding the amount of habitat credits that might be derived from this dredging project hen not bass made. Thorofare, it would appear to be promature to assume that the selling of habitat credits would generate sufficient funds to offset the coats of this proposed dredging as' •well as future maintenance dredging needs. Should you have any questions; plans* contact Hr. Robert Roffman at (210) 940-4043. • Sincerely, Hilda Diaz-Soltero Regional Administrator cc: USFNS - Carlsbad (Jack rancher) CDFO - Long Beach (Richard Nitsos) EPA -"San Francisco (Brian Ross) ..�J 2,MTIeea.�.r,a Ply[, As noted in Section 111.111 (Page 4) of the project Initial Study/Miligated Negative Declaration. it is underslnal that lire proposed creation or mitigation credits from ®project dredging (Including any decisions on the amount of habitat credits) would be subject to authorization from applicable regulatory agencies. Accordingly, the determination of whether associated funds would be adequate to accommodate future maintenance dredging would depend on the amount and disposition of habitat credits associated with proposed project dredging. I O COMMENTS .er0a5 V km tistrfEOETATER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY al0iellet 74 Hawthorne ttreat Ears Pranetaae, CA E11OM101 November 20, 1996 Cheryl Vlad enaKwerraw Environmental Management Agency Orange County 300 N. Flower Street P.O. pox 404E Solt Ana. California 92702.401E Subject; Upper Newport Bay Unit W Sedlmenl Conhnl and Enhancement ProJset (Negative Declaration) .DesrMs Vlnd. 1Yohave reviewed the Negative Declaration for the Upper Newport pay Unit Ill Sediment Central and Enhancement Projcet. 711e Upper Newpatt Day Unit I8 project proposes audabacian , dredging of the ea(sfuig "Cut channels, and deepening the sMialmtegon bulnwithlathe original Unit I=&flomIts euantlyauthorized depthof-4feet MSLta•14fcetMll,W.Upto825,00Dli alatda of taedg:d smlaiat would be activated by the project, and it is proposed east tale rise al would be dlrchagad at she l.A-3 lnter`.in neean disposal aL'm EPA's concerns about the Id risedprojeci eeoter amuad the suitability of she dredged sediments for gain disposal at the LA Interim mean disposalsite, and the Countyt proposal that d:edging of sed(meatulan host wilhht Upper Newport Bcould geaemie marketable Rddgslion credits for other southam Calitooda prajeetL ay Before an acear, dsunpin9 permit may bo Issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA must concur All slier_ is it need for ocean disposal, and that my ptopoud dtedgcd material Is suitable flu each disposal. To this end, wo have been eootdinating with Oriole County oR Be dim a➢IlwItsse for thisaidslated ptojeets over the lastsevael months. This rating bu Included evaluation oftwo sepuate sediment layas(upper and Iowan) in Ibis atgpropucd to be dredged. At this time, evaluedon of the suitability of Iliac sediments for disciu zo at the LA-3 interim site has act been festally determined.soluble for Pmlimiaaty ounlysis offal rmulb sugEnt tsar ody she upper layeotsedimert may as ct proposed forr Oia redmaining (lowaa layer) dimen . unle� e C n teats m dredge ave to be only she upper sediments and leave the Iowa uaim,wts In place. (We aobihnt sptxlaliced eyutpmeat capable of dredging In shallow waters is In fact Available, so slut dredging ody the upper leyer should be pneliable.) If the County elate to temove thelowasedlment Ilya to some alternative dbposdrite. die environmental Impact; assoclated with Ouch disposal will have to be evaluated (the present Negative DMIL'allon would not be an adequate basis forpamitdng). However, l(ody Oie upper layer of sediment is dredged, additional sad'tmell quality lKonmtlon wnuldprub■bty not henerla a BPA expects to maker a llral asdbnwt svltnbiiity determita0on In the non Nitua. AI.YJw+r„ rftlwr RESPONSES Pursuant to previous and on -going discussions between the project applicant and the EPA, additional sediment testing has been conducted within the lower layers to ensure aenfennanCe with applicable regulatory requirements for disposal ordredged Omaterial. These tests confrrm(in the opinion ofibe applicant) that the noted disposal 9 requirements will be met and the results of this ndditionnl testing have been forwarded to EI'A for review and concurrence. The need for EPA confirmation is understood, and we note that EPA will soon snake a determination on sediment suitability. As noted above in Response No. 6, she contract specifications will require that disposal of dodged ninterial at the LA-3 sire eom nfus with ail applicable requirements. COMMENTS RESPONSES we would site like to eaudan the proposed dredging project appear, and ndims didoa basins to tbdrpnr Width from is thermals sediment toyer Is removed)would eonsil apurely a maintenance idlvlty end wouldnot neiult In any act gain utaquodc habitat values In Upper Newport Bay. TlureforAt would not be appropriate to gentratemitlpsdoncad(lifromeuchworlc Some MY minor rnhencementtnaybe asaoclated with comtructioa of a new sedimentation built In Uppat H"ort Bay, to a depth of 4 feet. Huwover, uduncementwould only exist to the extent that resulting overall habitat quality exesads shut of ire existing aces. Including mudRat habitat [wblch comtiMa a Special Aquatic Site under the 44(b)(i) OrddeBna)Wtimaybeafrectedbythe dredging. Similerly,weemddwddiratethat itbed surly very minor overall habitat enhancement potential may be usocitted wish deepadng the channels and aedhpeaiatlae Was to d fret We ttate that a variety arother opporlun(du exist In the SAM Diego Creak wtlershed Wet oouii poscnSallY teat in true enhancement of aquatic habitat vducs. For exunple, We ptopoicd pto)ect includes reconstrtcdon of this ripnp and eonerete waterconuol structure m¢ ohs Jamboree Road bridge. Rather than ebulld dais structure, the County could eamldcr temoving it 6o as to allowmore lidat sotlon and emanate conditions to extend fwther upmlteem from the bridge. This, coupled wilhupsleam wetland and riparian anchancanrnta, could potentially seeulf In the gantntion of muk6table trddgation credits. Other waten died rnsoagement•bged appornmlties may also exist. EPA is interested In working with the County sa help Identify and implement such opportunities. Thankyou for the opportunity to provide these armaments. Any questions about sedlin:ri sullabBttyendoceandisposalmattersshoaldbedirectedtoStavinJohnat(213)452.3806. Questions about➢PAS watenlied manaieruent efforts III Isle Son Diego Creek watasbcd;Irould be diremtd to Paul htlehtl al (415) 744-1999. Sincerely, n // 4�n �vnlsat�• Brian D. Rose, Trim Lender Dredging k Sediment Management Team cm USACB NMFS USFWS CDF&O CCC @ Comment noted, please refer to Response No. 8. As noted in Section 111.13 Declaration, rise principal c erosion control and simctui removal or the existing s Oconsidered a feasible optic Road bridge structure. In channel in the stabilizer sin three feet lower in elevniio, therefore not be impeded bl The usher opportunities I watershed are noted. ge 4) of the project Initial Study/Miligated Negative ctive or the Proposed stabilizer structure is to provide >rolection of ire Jamboree Road bridge. Accordingly, :cure (in lieu of the proposed modifications) is not see to the resultant potential impacts to the Jamboree dilion, it should be noted that the existing low -Row ere (which is proposed to be retained) is approximately an San Diego Creek. Tidal Rows into the creek would her tine existing or proposed stabilizer structure design. habitat enhancement within llte Son Diego Creek COMMENTS RESPONSES stale or GlracW—TM[ arraurrn lam" fire WSW. ao,mw CALIFORNIACOASTAL COMMISSION savor coasra IA eN w. AUMA Ax. nL all v1 w4 lax n-Mca. totaling wIll rnrarl November 21, 1996 Cheryl Vind County of Orange Environmental 6 Project Planning Division 300 N. Flower Strait Santa Are, CA 92702-4048 Ho: Hegel'" Oscillation File No. 1P 96-157 Upper Newport Day Unit III Sedlnent Control end Enhancement Project Over Hs. Vind, Thank you for the opportunity to review and consent on the above y 726,000 v, .4'.cca approximately and 625,000 cubic Yet, or accumulated ma trial from portions of Upper Newport Bay and its main access channel, disposal of the dredged notarial at in existing and approved offshore disposal slit, and ripalr/modtIII cations or DI goamboree Creek Interfacehtieoastalructure Caanlsslonated stiff histthepfollowingtconst Its. Wpasal of Dr die watartal ive 12 suitabletfor usedeclaration beachdais roplenlsMtnt ot state whether the Coastal Actrthe Vireferred eltertnNvs for suitable dredge disposal Is beach should be explored: replenishment.shment. This option Htttgartan Banking The negative declaration states that It it the City's and County's Intent to make the deep water habitat created by the Proposed project available for 13 porch 91 as mitigation credit. Miitigation E131ng 1s not part of the proposed inyjeresultingpfrom thisars to bprojecti43 In Issue whichtWof illmneedatoobeeaddressedf at a later date. ' Stahlll_ z�r crroe (1tCE . A rip -rap structure is already In Plata approximately B6o het upstream from 1: the pprojact stablllzor structure. The exsstlntupstream rip -rap structure was put In pplace by the:Hatropalitan•Hater•DlstrlcI1e101 to protect a potable water plpelins that crosss.San Diego and Bonita Crooks. Now will the two rip -rep structures tntersetl Can the stabilizer structure be reduced or eltminatad bscausa of the existing upstream HHD rip -rap structure? 12 Comment noted. The material proposed for dredging and disposal as part of the Unit Ilf project consists predominantly of silt- and clay -size panicles, and would therefore not be suitable for use as beach replenishment. 3 Comment noted, please refer to Response No. 8. Clnunent soled, please nftr to ResPunse No. i I. Rccaust ILt noted bIWD rip-mla srnu:wre is loenred npProxinramly 8i0 fear upstream of the Jmnbonro Runt bridge, u latect does not provide erosiun and suuduml pnneulion inr the hdJge, and wouJoanld therefore iare lr% stabilizer Inn'turcc stated nnolv6e reduced or IminattN I'll" he basis of the exis ng hllVD structure. In addition, because rite p'PoseJ stabilizer strucrarx would not impede upstream tiJrrl Rows, Here will essentially be'no interaction between the two rip•mp strucurres (i.e., neither will Provide protection at the other sitei. COMMENTS RESPONSES Upper Newport day Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project Negative Declaration Page 2 The proposed project will require approval it a coastal development permit by the Coastal Come ssion. In addition to the Items listed In the application form, the following items should be submltted-with the coastal development Permit application. Approval from the California Department of Fiih and Came. Approval from the California Regional Hater Quality Control Board. All technical studies prepared for the project, including but not limited to the studies referred to in the negative diclaratlan as Appendix A Biology/Hater QQjaltty. Appendix R Air Quality, and Appendix C NOW (the appendices were not Included In the negative declaration sent for review). Any previously certified CEQA documents used as a basis for approving the project. An assessment.or the proposed project's consistency with the Upper Newport Beyy Ecological Reserve Hanagement Plan. Is the proposed project antlelpated and/or described in the plan? Hould the proposed project have any Impact on the California gnatcatcher which has been observed In the vicinity? Studies assessing the quality of the dredge material for use as beach replenishment. A detailed description of the benefits expected from the proposed project and an analysis of what the consequences would he without the project. A detailed description of the existing habitat and the habitat resulting from the proposed project. An alternatives analysts. The Coastal Act provides clear policies that allow for the regulation of d4villOimls0ln or affecting wetlands. Among Sldtdn3233Or the coastal Act Idntifssihtallowable uses, rey4ulrss that the proposed project be the least enviromeentally damaging altarnative, and where applicable, requires fusible and appropriate mltigation. Section 30233(b) further states: Dredyying and $polls tiltpposal shall be planned ad carried out to avoid signlfictnt disruption to marine and wlldtlfs habltats and water circulation. Dredge spells suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate batches or Into suitable long shore current systems. In addition. Coastal Act Sections 30230 and 30231 require the protection of marine and biological application is scaly d and rhis been tdoomed e the rcomplete, oastal rCommissionestaff will O5Comment noted. The contract specifications will include a requirement to confom$ with all applicable Consint Development Permit requirements, including the list of required attachments outlined in lilt Coastal ConuniWoA comment letter. Upper Newport as) Nagativa Geelarot Page 3 analyze the Dropc a racomendatlan act an the permll Thank you for prc Should you have c Sincerely, �aua Heg Via n s Staff Analyst cc: Patricia Ter Gary Hadeirc 6076F COMMENTS RESPONSES erAn a e11r'oGAI— Aanaa And naNroeiatpx aae,er ItR W Wµ aw,1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION piano DEPArt Sol "JAW driRr 4"A." rani November 22, 1996 Cheryl Vind File: IOR/CBQA P.nvlroammtd Management Agency SCH N 9610106S 300 Nosds Flower Street Sao4Ant, CA. 92702 Subjat Lipper Newport Bay Dredii ag Dear bit. Vlnd: Tbtnk you for the opportord to review and eo amens on the Negative Dtclutiloa far dra Upper Newport Bay Unit IIISedlmtnt Control Bud Bubsaeemeat Project. The �proposed , project would Involve dredging within vuious pottiaos of Upper Newport Bay, attars dispotd 1 of dredged material add sepatdmodification of the Jamboree toad bridge stabilizer slnttture. Gloms Dirdot 12 13 a reviewing agency for this project however, If any part of the project emroethes on Cdtam Right of Way Dud our status wIR ba that of a rerpamible agdccy and as onomlahment perch wiii be roqulmd. We have the foBuMing comments for your camldernl on. C11401113 Is eoncern:d with bow life project Va strut Pacific Coast Highway, bridge 17 to •6.0 fat pietwaB faundetiona. Structure, Pieutprovide a plan tuate exp osure OfsWctmal footings sad a plan to midgate ddat toour ufsttucturat elements by dredging. Tit curried be of Codtieg olera0ons Is•S.0 We eppreoiale the apportu Ity to eotmtmt oa fit" document. If you have any qutsdom concerning there eommt ki please dW Alleon Kenatdy on (714) 726.2239. Sincerely, . Robert F. J C to •Advance PI Branch act Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HOQTRS Planning Tom persons. HDQTRS Turtle operadon, Roger Kto, Hydraulics SiacLjr Wmg, Stmctaes ' James Burk Area Bridge Matnte amet Bagldear Comment noted. The contract specifications will include a requirement to confomr with oil applicable Caltmns pennilting requirements. The tidal volumes and velocities assmiuted Willi proposed Unit III dredging will not exceed those that resulted from previous dredging projects in Upppeer Newport Bay, 17 Accordingly, tidal action and associated scour potential at the Pact in Coast Highway bridge will not exceed entrant conditions, with no associated significant effects anticipated. Related mitigation is therefore not proposed in the project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. COMMENTS RESPONSES I8 i9 C United States Department of the Interior FISH AND W11.111sm311RVICE Rsmylnl ]rnlr.a , CeAaedRnll(lme, ]77al.oterAwru,gtst CuhbJ.tA/nwL OtMa Nowmber]1, 1096 Chary! Vint Environmental Memgemant Agency 300 N. nuwvr Huoet Sara Asa, California 92701.4049 Re: Nrguim Deduiion for the Upper Newport DAY Unit 111 Scdunent Contact and Enhaneament Project Deer bla. Vlod: The pith and Wildlife Service (Service) her reviewed the above ieferonced Nagttiye Deeleradon for the Upper Newport Day Unit RC Sediment Control and Enhencemant Project within Newport Dry is the County of Orange end is providing Ih, following comments hued on our krmwlyden of semitivs and declining habitat types and speclu In Orange County. The Service her the lcgd ulpunildfity for the welfare of all migratory btrdi, tcadremout flit; end endangereJ rniunds end Plants occurdne in lhaUrlled States The Servicubo her responsibilities under the Clean Water Am and the Eitdangutd Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) The proposed project is to dredgo appro,lmalely 630,000 cubic yards ofmaterid tram the proposed Uclt In bads and 750,000 mble yards limit the main channel. Along with llw diodghrg oflhe Unit II arm is the related mdntsnmba dredging of the Dover Shorn residential community Frluwhlchwillbetpproadmrately73,000cubic yardt. The dredged material w•ruldbedisposed ulahce, at the dnlgnatsd LAI costs disposal area The Seevice Is aonetmed with the potential Impacts this project may have un it, adjecatt silt rricshand Inlertiddlittle urrmedingthe project area, Orly thourut*At at. currently tubtidtl should be included in the propmed dredging area. liistodca0y, bank Won bat boss the rcrult of mdateesnce dredging and hit requited miligtllm to ord:r to prover lids,:hr dntien nrlha proposed dredging should malritin 00910un svlich would pmcludebank failure and .void ImPtcta to ddtd mudflatt end rottmwnh. A:ry hayreu lu tuWtiJslmmigAs w a,llmeal. wuutd re require !mitt ado . s With d ars 9 9 to the to odd •o Nnd s Y Ih o, r d P P than hthe sal•o i'• I P 1 f tr at on 8 m d ereaY, the sur ee I rllonswhaharlherewauldbe Roc enough rrld trier cr edits red! legenerated 8tofhad she project. Tick has heen no deredon tenehxl rnOtrding slum ennnnt n(hahkwr r+edin Ihst might be derived Dom ride project. The Service approchim the cppertonEty to cofmnim on this dumnn:at Rid is willing to wwl will$ tilt applicants to detnnins Lou, credits eecid be Assessed.. Comment noted. As described in Section IILC of the project Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Pnge 5), side slopes associated with proposed Unit IN basin dredging will be primarily butaveen 20;I and 25:1, with little or no associated potential for failure. While slopes as steep as 3:l arc proposed in other areas (i.e., the main access 8 ehmmel) to avoid impacting adjacent sntt marsh habitn6 the discussion in Section lI1.0 outlines proposed site -specific evaluation oC IM1ese slopes by the proJJ'ect mtginecr, biologist and ennlmctur w doer mine apppropriate side slopes d on Prot -coon of salt marsh babiuu and Provision of adequate slope stability to preclude slumping in and associated ice eels to ad'ncem M1abitat i Tlt t drscutsio 0 8 ( n es on to P ) P J B note that a oseddredging d ' r ire m m the main access channel would be confined P P 8 8 n meal to areas �rrcviously dredged during Unit 11 acivitiec• and that recent survey -data indicate that ...mils ..nor s.' m'Lni nm:o...o tj an (from slumping of otM:r causes) has occurred in the access channel since rite Unit 11 dodging antvntes." 19 Comment noted, please refer to Response No. 8. DL. Cheryl Ymd Ityal have any qunGam cancemiaS 1h41eRu, pleae wolad Sum lvm of my Itaffa (619) 47(•9440. J s� . � OaO Kobclicb Feld Supervisor cc: CD?G (Attn: Richud Nf(eoa) NWS (a0re Robert HoMma) �F Of nAwt%, e. ��tate of California GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 0£ °•,....,. aC7,a d 1400 TENTH STREET PETE WILSON SACRAMENTO 95814 LEEGRISSOM DIRECTOR GOVERNOR November 25, 1996 CHERYL VIND COUNTY OF ORANGE 300 N. FLOWER STREET PO BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 Subject: UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III SEDIMENT CONTROL/ENHANCEMENT SCH #: 96101065 Dear CHERYL VIND: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. 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 call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse Volume II Initial study Technical Appendices (IP 96157) ® ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC. 1 Volume II Initial Study Technical Appendices p-157 ) ' October 23,1996 For: Prepared ' County of Orange Environmental and Project Planning Division 300 N. Flower Street ' Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 ' Prepared by: ' ®-ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNINGJNC. 8100 La Mesa Boulevard, Suite 290 La Mesa, California 91941.076 ,1 Upper Newport Bay Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project Volume II Initial Study Technical Appendices Table of Contents BIOLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (Attachment B) BIOASSAY STUDY AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS (Attachment C) NOISE DAPACT ANALYSIS (Attachment D) i (Attachment B) I 1 1 1 BIOLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY IM[FACT ASSESSMENT OF THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, UNIT III DREDGING PROGRAM Prepared for Helix Environmental 7777 Alvarado Road, Suite 319 San Diego, California 91941-3649 Ph: (619) 462-1515 Fx: (619) 462-0552 Prepared by Merkel & Associates, Inc. 4455 Murphy Canyon Road Suite 120 San Diego, California 92123 Ph: (619) 560-5465 Fx: (619) 573-0069 September 3, 1996 M&A # 95-042-01 MdcA# 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................................................1 PROJECTBACKGROUND ...........................................1 PROJECTDESCRJFI1ON............................................ SUMMARY OF PRO= OBJECTIVES ................................... 4 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................8 INFORMATIONSOURCES...........................................8 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT..........................................8 Water Quality ............................................ 8 Sedimentation and Turbidity .............................. 9 NutrientLoadine..................................... 9 Bacterial Contaminants ................................ 10 ToxicSubstances .................................... 10 Trashand Debris .................................... 12 Water Physical Che isttV .............................. 12 Sediment Physical and Chemical Conditions ....................... 13 Sediment Grain Size and Chemictry ........................ 14 Sediment ................................... 14 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 15 Regional Biological Setting ................................. 15 Biological Communities of the Project Area ........................ 15 Bare Disturbed Lands .................. 19 Forested Wetlands ................................... 19 Alkaline Transition Zone ............................... 21 j�per Intertidal Salt Marsh ............................. 21 Middle Intertidal Salt Marsh ............................. 21 Nonclassified Intertidal ................................ 21 Lower Intertidal Salt Marsh ............................. 21 ............................................... 21 lets......................................... 22 Intertidal Mudflat ............................... 22 Algal Beds ................................... 22 Estuarine Marine AguatiC .............................. 22 OpenWater .................................. 22 Subtidal Bay Bottom ............................. 23 Fish Communities .............................. 23 SensitiveSpecies ......................................... 24 Mudfiat Tigcr Beetle (Cicindela trifacciata sigmoidea) ........... 28 hf mic Tryonia (California Brackish Water Snail) (Trvonia imitator) ... 28 Tidewater Gojly(EuQgvbiu_c newberryt) .................. 28 California Killifish (Fundulus panvpinnic�) .................... 29 Striped Mullet (Mugil =halus) .......................... 29 lifornia Brow^ Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) ...... 29 Opan�y (Pandlon haliaetus) ............................. 29 Califo is Black Rail (Laterallus i a sir coturniculus) ......... 30 Ught-footed Clapper Rail (Rally 1=1rosMs 19*es) ............ 30 September 3, 1996 1 M&AN 95-042-01 Merkel & Assoclates, Inc. Wes ern Snoa Plover (Charadrius alc=d inuc nivost_c) ......... 30 Long -billed Curlew (Numerius americanus) ................... 31 Bl aka 4_ k-immr,_($(lynchaas nicer) ......................... 31 California Last Tern (Sterna ani larum browml ............... 31 raa' =ian Tam (Sterw Carina) ............................ 32 sII nt T &M elegant) ............................ 32 Forster's Tern (Sterna farsten) .. . ....................... 32 Black Tern (Chl(donias nicer) ..... .... .... 33 BRldin_g's Savannah ,Sparrow (Patsercidus sarsawlchertris bdd!U l .... 33 Tmrve-billed Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwk Wis rastMaW , , 33 EXPECTED PROJECT EFFECTS ...................................... 34 WATER QuALrrY............................................. 34 ConstructionPeriod ....................................... 34 ........................... 34 Nutrient LoadinQ................................. 35 Aaate 'al Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Toxic Su stances .................................... 36 Trash am Debris................................36 Water P ysi 'i ChemWa .............................. 36 Long-term Effects ........................................ 36 BI!)waicALCommuNrms........................................37 Construction Period . ..................... 37 Turbidily mW Other Water tm ity F. .ff�tc ................... 37 Wildlife Disturbance .................................. 37 Long-term Effects ........................................ 38 Habitat Conversions .................................. 38 anaeS in Habitat Quality ............................. 38 SENSMVESPECIES............................................ 39 Construction Period ........................ ........... 39 M udL flat'jiger B=etie (�icindela Trifasciata siYn�oidea) ........... 39 Mimic T=pia Q11farm2 Brackish Wa er Snail) (mania imitator) ... 39 Tidewater Goby (EUMIoWbius newbc= ... . ............... 39 life is iitifia1l ( d.i�rAa�rypinnlsl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 striRW Mullet (Mugil coha at) .......................... 39 California Brow Pelican (Pelecanus occidewaUs catifornicus) ...... 39 Osprey (Pandion haliaetas) .. .. .................. 40 ralifornla B arjr Rail (nterallus janu_aicensis coturniculLr) ......... 40 Light-footed Cln=r Rail (Mims lonpirostris levlprs) ............ 40 Wecterrn,Snnowv Plover (Charaddur aleradrinat nlvotr%t) ...... , .. 40 I ong-billed Curlew (Numeric americantt_t) ................... 40 81ank Skimmer t Pt dW6 ........ 40 r+atifornia Twat Tern (Sterna antillarnrtt brow W . . ............. 40 ralpian Terri (Scent_^ ar_,RW ............................ 41 T:legant Tern (Sterna elegam) ............................ 41 Forster's Tern (SS ema forstenl ........................... 41 Alark Tern (Chiidaniat nicer) ........... ......... 41 Bel�i's Savannah Sparrow (P rrercul= sandwich is beLin¢l; .... 41 1,raebilled Savannah Sparrow (Pasrerculus tandwicheas rortratut) .. 41 September 3, 1996 II ' ' M&Ak 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. Long-term Effects ........................................ 41 FUTURE MAINTENANCE DREDGING IMPACTS ............................. 41 RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE ADVERSE EFFECTS ................... 42 WATER QUALITY ....................................... 42 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNMEs AND SENsmvE SPECIPS ....... 43 ' REFERENCES................................................... 45 ' FIGURES ' Figure 1. Project Location Map ..... ....................................... 2 Figure 2. Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Facilities: Units I, II, and III...... 3 ' Figure 3. Unit III: Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Enhancement Project .. 5 Figure 4. Upper Newport Bay Concept Plan for Jamboree Stabilizer Structure ...... 7 Figure S. Existing Vegetation- Upper Newport Bay Regional Park .............. 20 ' TABLES I 1 Table 1. Ecological Communities Represented within Upper Newport Bay ........ 15 Table 2. Sensitive Species OccurringWithin Upper Newport Bay .. .. 24 September 3, IW6 In ' M&AN 95-W2-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. BIOLOGICAL AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY ' SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, UNIT III DREDGING PROGRAM ' Merkel & Associates, Inc. September 4, 1996 ' INTRODUCTION PROJECT BACKGROUND The Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Enhancement Project is a multi -element program for ' the protection of commercial, recreational, and environmental resources of Newport Bay, Orange County, California (Figure 1). This plan was prepared and adopted as a part of a comprehensive watershed management program developed under Section 208 Plan under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and is often referred to as the 208 Plan. Of particular focus in this plan is the conservation of existing ecological resources within Upper Newport Bay and restoration of water quality and marine fisheries within this back bay system. The project is a multiple agency effort which ' takes a watershed -wide approach to existing and past bay siltation problem. It calls for implementing agricultural and construction best management practices (BMPs) to limit erosion and protect watershed soils in place, development of in -channel sediment and debris basins and channel stabilization projects, and finally, the plan calls for sediment removal from Upper Newport Bay. The comprehensive 1 program for sediment control is summarized in prior documents and most recently within a Unit III project presentation document entitled Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Enhancement Project (Tettemer & Associates 1994b). As a result of the magnitude of the overall project, implementation of the sediment management plan has been phased over the past 15 years with various efforts being undertaken by a host of cooperative lead agencies. Along with this phased project implementation has been phased completion of detailed project planning and environmental review. Past environmental analyses addressing work specifically dealing with Upper Newport Bay includes an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Early Action & Interim Plan: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan (Culbertson, Adams and Associates, 1981), an addendum to the Early Action and Interim Plan EIR to address Unit I dredging within the upper end of the bay (Culbertson, Adams and Associates, 1984), and an EIR addressing Unit II dredging which created an in -bay sedimentation basin at the downstream end of Unit I and extended a deepened channel upstream to this basin from Lower Newport Bay below Pacific Coast Highway (Culbertson, Adams and Associates, 1986). The in -bay project work which has been completed and which is currently proposed is illustrated on Figure 2. Currently the environmental impacts and potential benefits of the proposed Unit III dredging within ' Upper Newport Bay are being considered in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Given that this -work is, in minor part, a maintenance dredging of portions of Units I and II, and in all instances restricted to the footprint of work addressed in the prior documents (Figure 2), much of the present impact assessment draws from prior technical evaluations. However, this work has been updated in consideration of changes in site conditions, environmental regulations, and resource sensitivity levels which have occurred over the past decade. 1 September 3, 199t1 1 m m! m m m w m m m m t m m m m m m m •f , 1 A. S�. P P w.9. �t ♦ J Saner.1t+1m M.Tatmu&A, m..Ltd1994 is scab: V-2650' UP SEDIME UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES: Units I, II, and III 2 I M&AN 95-042-01 Figure 2 Merkel & Associates, Inc. M&A# 95442-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The currently proposed Unit III of the Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Enhancement Project would include the re -excavation and, deepening of the northern portion of the substantially infilled Unit I sediment catch basin. Excavation would remove sediments from an existing infilled depth of as shallow as + 1.0 foot MSL to a final basin depth of -14 feet MSL, beyond the original Unit I design depth of approximately -7 feet MSL. Excavation would be limited to the open water and mudfiats existing to the north of two avian habitat islands created during the Unit I project work (Figure 3). Another element of the Unit III work is to deepen the existing main channel from the Unit III Basin down to the lower end of the Unit II Sediment Basin with a 100 foot wide pilot channel extending from the Unit H basin down to a point approximately 2,000 feet below the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. In effect, this channel would return the central section of the Unit II basin to its design depth of -14 feet MSL (Figure 2). Side slopes for the proposed Unit III basin would be variable between 20:1 and 25:1. Channel side slopes would range from as steep as 3:1 where fringing marshlands preclude shallower slopes, to slopes of 10:1 where space allows. The determination of appropriate side slopes within the main channel will be made by the project engineer, project biologist, and contractor to ensure that salt marsh habitat is adequately protected against direct impacts and channel side slumping. As with Units I and II, the Unit III sediment basin is, by design, anticipated to require maintenance dredging on an as -needed basis dictated both by storm frequency and intensity, and the effectiveness of upstream watershed management programs. The basins and channel would be allowed to accumulate sediment until it reached -7 feet MSL, at which time maintenance dredging would again remove sediments to -14 fat MSL. At the present time, maintenance is anticipated to be required on a recurring basis with gradually less frequent maintenance being required as best management practices become enacted throughout the San Diego Creek watershed. Based on estimates of storm frequencies, rates of urbanization of the San Diego Creek watershed, and implementation of upstream sediment control measures, the City of Newport Beach has estimated basin cleanout to be required at the end of years 3, 6, 11, and 22 with maintenance dredging being required every 13 years thereafter to remove accumulated sediments (Wolter 1994). The project plan anticipates this recurring maintenance need through the 'identification of a maintenance annuity requirement for the project work. Dredging for Unit III is proposed to be completed by either clamshell or hydraulic means. These differing approaches to the dredging work are dealt with as alternatives within this document. In either case, materials would be loaded into barges and hauled out to sea for ocean disposal. At the present time, neither clamshell dredging nor hydraulic dredging contemplate decanting excess water prior to hauling materials to sea; however, this analysis has been conducted so as not to preclude dewatering of materials to minimize hauling costs. In total, the proposed Unit M basin and main channel dredging would excavate between approximately 650,000 and 750,000 cubic yards of material to be disposed of at the designated LA3 ocean disposal area. Necessary sediment testing has been completed and has demonstrated materials to be suitable for ocean disposal (ToxScan 1996). Results of sediment grain size investigation and chemical analyses are reviewed in this document relative to water quality issues. Along with the dredging of the Unit III area is the related maintenance dredging of the Dover Shores residential community inlet. This dredging accounts for approximately, 75,000 additional cubic yards of sediment removal and would be conducted via hydraulic dredging means due to the impracticality of conducting clamshell dredging around existing docks. As with the Unit III dredging, materials to be dredged from Dover Shores would be disposed of at the LA3 ocean disposal site. September 3. 1996 4 m m m m r m m ml m m m r m� m m m m m UNIT III UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. , L . _. r.. .ice! L�P._•..��y.. �..r ...rr. .. .. .. CYMLML.GC[v- � ._ r_r� Sa .Jahn M. Tet,.m& Atwtluet. 4d 1994 M&A8 95-042-01 OAYVEW UNIT III: UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL Figure �e1'-AM� AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 3 $50 Merkel & Associates, Inc. M&AN 95442-01 Merkel & Associates. Inc. As a part of the proposed work, flood damage to the existing Jamboree Road Bridge stabilizer structure is to be repaired and the structure is to be modified to accommodate the deeper excavation depths proposed within the Unit BI Basin. This work would be completed within the footprint of the existing structure plus an approximately 30-foot (plan view) extension to the west to extend the stabilizer to the new -14 foot Unit III Basin depth (Figure 4.). Work is to be conducted through the construction of a temporary coffer dam to allow dewatering of the work area and placement of geo-fabric and half -ton grouted rip rap. Dewatering effluent would be directed back to the dredge area of Unit III within Upper Newport Bay. Low flows of San Diego Creek would either be pumped around the project area or diverted through the project area using a bypass channel or culvert. Access will be taken under the Jamboree Road Bridge using an existing access. The completion of stabilizer work is anticipated to require approximately 6 weeks. The project has a funding requirement of several million dollars. Because the project would have an anticipated long-term benefit to marine resources of Upper Newport Bay, the City is seeking possible financing of the project through the sale of mitigation credits to others. This funding concept has been explored with resource agencies as well as those potentially in need of mitigation credits. To date, no specific projects have been identified for which mitigation may be used, nor have credit values been established. As this is only one possible funding mechanism, it has not been considered as a part of this project. Should mitigation financing ultimately be determined to be appropriate for the project, an assessment of the specific exchanges would be made a part of the environmental assessment of the project requiring the mitigation credits. As a result, this issue is not addressed in this analysis. SUMMARY OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The proposed Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project and the Dover Shores Residential Community Marina Maintenance Dredging project has several distinct objectives outlined as follows: 1. Removal of approximately 650,000 to 750,000 cubic yards of accumulated sediment to create new deep water marine habitat from shallow water and mudflat habitats and to restore a deep water channel from below Pacific Coast Highway up to the Unit III basin; 2. Improve tidal flushing of the Upper Newport Bay, thereby stabilizing salinities, increasing water turnover, and improving habitat quality for marine fish species; 3. Provide perpetual maintenance financing for the as -needed cleanout of the Unit III sediment basin through the establishment of an annuity fund. This would allow the removal of approximately 250,000 to 300,000 cubic yards of sediment to re-establish the project depths of -14 ft MSL from a maintenance trigger depth of 7 ft MSL; 4. Repair and improve the stabilization structure on San Diego Creek located beneath Jamboree Road to prevent continued degradation and to meet Unit III project depth design conditions; and, 5. Improve access and navigability around the Dover Shores community docks and waterways and improve general Upper Newport Bay water circulation through the maintenance dredging removal of approximately 75,000 cubic yards of accumulated sediments. September 3, 1996 6 M&AA' 95-042-01 t r ur,i Q M&A/ 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SOURCES The Upper Newport Bay region has been well studied and documented over the past two plus decades. Much of this previous work has been conducted to advance resouroe management capabilities, in the interest of ensuring public health and safety as well as bay water quality, for the sake of basic research or education, and still more has been developed in relation to project specific environmental reviews. The long history of study within the Bay provides both a detailed account of the region's resources as well as a unique opportunity to examine historic changes in the system. Because of this extensive database, the current analysis relies heavily on prior work and provides supplemental information when necessary to update, clarify, or expand prior efforts. For the current work, Merkel & Associates staff conducted a limited field reconnaissance to confirm the existing conditions within the specific project area. In addition, the same staff members previously have conducted more extensive field work within the UNBER and UNBRP during 1991(Merkel and Reiser 1991a, 1991b). Also serving as key references for the current analyses were several resource management plans (Gerstenberg 1989), ecological assessments (Hardy 1970; MBC 1985; Allen 1976, 1982, 1994; Bane and Robinson 1970; Fronk 1969; Horn and Allen 1981, Heath 1980; Usui 1981, Marsh 1990; Zembal and Massey 1985; Nagano 1982), and water and sediment quality investigations for the area (Dixon and Scherfig 1981; Santa Ana RWQCB 1985; Smythe 1990; O.C.E.M.A 1994; NBC 1985; ToxScan 1995, 1996), as well as prior environmental documents for similar or related project work (Culbertson Adams & Associates 1981, 1984, 1986; Mitech 1990). In many instances, physical environment information was extracted from project related documents (Wolter 1994; Tettemer & Associates 1994a, 1994b) and related engineering documents (Cheney 1985). PHYSICAL ENvIRONNENT Upper Newport Bay consists of approximately 1,300 acres of mixed estuarine and surrounding upland habitats. Of this system, 752 acres of the estuary and adjacent upland habitats are managed by the California Department of Fish & Game as an ecological reserve. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (UNBER) is a true multiple use reserve which integrates with additional conservation lands of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park (UNBRP) under the management of the County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks. Among the relevant physical environment factors of issue to the proposed work are water and sediment quality, and bay hydrology and circulation. These factors are substantive in their own right; however, they have been consolidated in this report with the biological analyses in that the physical and biological environments are inextricably linked within the Upper Newport Bay system. Water Quality Newport Bay presently receives freshwater input from San Diego Creek, the Santa Ana Delhi Channel, the Santa Isabella Channel, and Big Canyon Wash, as well as from a number of smaller storm drains and minor canyons carrying local urban run-off. Of these sources, San Diego Creek is the largest contributor of both water and sediment into the bay. As a result of the highly urbanized and agricultural watershed surrounding the bay, a number of non -point source contaminants enter the bay both associated with non -seasonal nuisance flows as well as during seasonal stormwater flows. Seprember 3, 1996 8 M&A# 95.042-01 Merkel do Associates, Inc. Supporting multiple uses, including an ecological reserve, body contact recreation, sport fishing, and recreational and commercial boating, maintaining the water quality of Newport Bay has been an on- going concern of the public and local agencies. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have been monitoring the water quality of Newport Bay and have issued numerous reports addressing such issues as siltation, nutrient loading, bacterial contamination, and toxic substances. Much of the earlier investigations of water quality were the impetus of the preparation and adoption of the umbrella Section 208 Plan. Other studies have been discussed in the original Early Action and Interim Plan EIR (Culbertson Adams and Associates 1981), the Addendum to that EIR for the addition of the Unit I dredging (Culbertson Adams and Associates 1984), and the EIR for the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement/Sediment Management Project (Culbertson Adams and Associates 1986). The greatest contributions of contaminants to Upper Newport Bay comes from the 118 sq. mile San Diego Creek watershed (Culbertson Adams and Associates 1981). Within this watershed, the most substantial undesirable addition to Upper Newport Bay comes in the form of erosion derived sediment. It,has been estimated that the San Diego Creek watershed erodes at a rate of approximately 180,000 tons annually with open lands and agricultural areas yielding approximately 83% of this loss, construction areas producing approximately 15% of the total, and urban areas yielding the remaining 2% of the total loss (Wolter 1994 memorandum to Fred Worthley, CDFG). Currently it is estimated that 167,000 tons of sediment enter the bay annually. The comprehensive sediment management plan anticipates this annual load to be reduced to 31,000 tons with full program implementation (Wolter, 1994 memorandum to Fred Worthley, CDFG). The effects of this sediment load are a resultant increase in bay water turbidity, shallowing of the open water of Upper Newport Bay, and a decrease in water circulation within the bay. As the upper end of the bay shallows, it also results in a gradual conversion of open bay habitat through successional stages of mudflats and marshlands, eventually resulting in the development of disturbed uplands and freshwater riparian habitats. Further down the bay, this sedimentation results in a- loss of navigability. As sediment accumulates and the bay shallows, fine sediment resuspension by wind, tidal circulation, storm scouring and, to a lesser extent, boat wakes increases the ambient turbidity levels of the water column. This sediment resuspension results in a decrease in light penetration. In its present state, much of Upper Newport Bay remains highly turbid throughout the year, although it is anticipated that waters are generally more turbid in the afternoons when on -shore breezes resuspend sediments in shallow waters. During high storm flows, an increase in chemical oxygen demand (COD) resulting from the scouring and suspension of anaerobic sediments may significantly reduce oxygen levels within the Bay. The current watershed -based program to reduce sediment erosion and discharge, capture and remove sediment from within the watershed, and to create and maintain sedimentation basins and bathymetric conditions of Upper Newport Bay has had positive results in reducing the sediment load. As discussed ' in the project description, the proposed work is an element of this overall program, and is expected to further this sedimentation and turbidity control on a long-term scale. Nutrient i oading In addition to sediments, other major contaminant inputs to Upper Newport Bay include nutrient rich ' run-off, predominantly of agricultural and nursery origin. During the years of 1990, 1991, and 1993, ' 9 September 3, 1996 M&AN 95-M2-01 Merkel do Associates. Inc. investigations of the nitrate nitrogen loading of Upper Newport Bay were conducted by the Orange County EMA and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Smythe 1990, Orange County EMA 1994). These studies indicated that while nitrate levels were significantly lower than those measured by the Regional Board in 1987 anti 1988, and there has been improvement in the watershed, nitrates entering the Bay remain substantial. Notably, in 1993 the daily contribution of nitrate nitrogen to the Bay from San Diego Creek dwarfed all other measured sources with a contribution of 1570 lbs/day, with the Santa Ana Delhi Channel contributing only 22 lbs/day over the same period (Orange County EMA 1994). This difference in nitrate contribution is the result of both differences in watershed size and land -uses. The 1993 measured nitrate nitrogen concentration at the San Diego Creek/Campus Drive monitoring station, upstreath of the Bay was 16.0 mg/1 and exceeds the 13.0 mg/1 Basin Plan objective for this constituent and adds significantly to the algal blooms within Newport Bay. Nutrient loading and non- seasonal freshwater input to Upper Newport Bay stimulates the growth of both macro -algae and phytoplankton. The poorly circulated, warm, shallow waters are an ideal location for the proliferation of such algal blooms. At times, phytoplankton blooms can turn the waters of Upper Newport Bay a pea green color and anchored and free floating sheet macroalgae, predominantly Ulva spp., is excessively abundant (Merkel, pets. obs.). This exceptional productivity of the Upper Bay is not well flushed and, as a result, eutrophication of the system is occurring. As is the case for sediment erosion, the vast field agricultural uses of the San Diego Creek watershed, result in considerable nitrate loading which must be addressed through a combination of actions. These include improved watershed management practices to control sources and release of nitrates prior to entering the drainage system, and improved methods to strip nitrates from the run-off water or expel nitrates once they have entered the Bay. The Santa Ana RWQCB'completed a comprehensive study of water quality within Newport Bay to evaluate various contaminant inputs and sources and to make recommendations for controls where appropriate. This report identified high levels of total and fecal coliform bacteria within portions of Newport Bay. This bacterial input was preliminarily linked with illicit sewage waste disposal from vessels in the bay rather than a latent sediment contamination (RWQCB, Santa Ana Region 1985). Recent investigations of similar high levels of total coliform within Agua Hedionda Lagoon suggest a link between -the eoliform levels and fecal wastes of large aggregations of waterbirds (Greig Peters, RWQCB, San Diego Region, pers. comm.). In either case, coliform contamination is typically considered to be a waterborne human health hazard which is not conserved long-term in the sediment. As a result, the proposed project would be expected to neither consume nor expose the Bay waters to an increased coliform bacterial load. As such, this water quality constituent is not discussed further in this document. As discussed earlier, Upper Newport Bay receives freshwater flows from expansive urban and agricultural watersheds. These watersheds contribute the anticipated chemical contaminants including metals, oil and grease, and other organic chemicals associated with the land and water uses present in the region. Perhaps the greatest non-agricultural sources of chemical contaminants is associated with paved surface run-off carrying emissions and drippings from automobiles. Similarly, the thousands of watercrafts present within Lower Newport Bay contribute incrementally to the presence of oils, September 3, 1996 10 ' M&AM 95-N2-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. ' grease, and metals in the water column and ultimately sediments. ' In general, urban contaminants such as metals, oil and grease, detergents, and other organic and inorganic chemicals are expected to result in localized (if at all recognizable) effects on water quality. In high concentrations or with persistent exposure, these compounds may result in lethal or sub -lethal ' toxicity to marine organisms. However, because the input of such contaminants is generally pulsed into the system during the first rains following a dry period, "first -flush", or as a result of sporadic non -seasonal flows, such as those resulting from overwatering or car washing, it is difficult to characterize the quality of bay waters on either spatial or temporal -scales. However, as might be expected contaminant levels tend to be higher near the mouths of creeks and drains, and tear marinas. ' Within areas of poor surface circulation such as the more protected areas of the various marinas, marine fuels and oil sheens may develop and persist for extended periods, creating a barrier to atmospherelwater gas exchange resulting in locally depressed oxygen levels. Because these thin oil and fuel sheens are typically of low solubility and are exposed to considerable sunlight degradation and ' atmospheric evaporation, the most toxic volatile fractions are rapidly dissipated and rarely create significant waterborne toxicity when present in normal quantities. While not particularly toxic to fish, the less volatile, heavy fraction hydrocarbons which remain as a sheen on the water surface can result ' in a number of minor to moderate hazards to exposed avian species. Toxic substances associated with the run-off from agricultural activities include herbicides, pesticides, ' and mineral soil conditioners. For the most part, bioaccumulating or persistent chemicals have been banned from use in agriculture within the United States. Further, recent agricultural practices have been towards developing more efficient strategic uses of herbicides, pesticides, and other amendments. As a result, persistent toxins are rarely released in appreciable quantities from the agricultural uses. Spraying of herbicide to control drainage, channel blockage has recently been common practice within the agricultural portions of the Santa Ana Delhi Channel watershed (Merkel, pers. obs. 1987) and are likely also practiced in the San Diego Creek drainage; however, applied chemicals appear to have little effect on vegetation outside of the area of initial application. They are believed to be of a rapidly degrading form approved for use.by the EPA.in or near aquatic systems. While present agricultural ' chemical applications are anticipated to result in the addition of few, if any, toxic substances in toxic amounts, historic rises of chemicals in agriculture were not so benign and have left long-term indicators of there prior use. Pesticides such as DDT, while no longer identifiable in the water column, have ' been noted in past sampling efforts to be a constituent of the sediments. These chemicals are discussed in the sediment section of this report. ' Mineral amendments and irrigation practices within agricultural areas can result in ionic exchange and enhanced leaching of naturally occurring contaminants from the soils. Among those of greatest concern are metals such as selenium, arsenic, and zinc. In an extreme case, not known within the local area, agricultural leaching has resulted in poisoning of wildlife resulting in both chronic and acute toxicity, egg -shell thinning, developmental deformity, and death. Many of the contaminants associated with mineral leaching are bioaccumulated and effects can be magnified through the food chain. It is ' believed that the current levels of leachate contaminants normally found within the water column are low and there is no evidence to suggest that any mineral bioaccumulation problems exist within the Upper Newport Bay system. However, due to the region's heavy historic agricultural use, .the ' concentration of such metals within the project dredging area sediments are of high interest. Not typically considered in a discussion of toxics, hydrogen sulfide is naturally produced in saturated sediments by the anaerobic digestion of organic materials by microbial action. Sulfides are highly toxic September 3. 1IM 11 1 M&AN 95.042-01 McAel & Associates, Inc. to aerobic microbes and vascular plants (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). This is especially true in saltwater wetlands where ambient concentration of sulfate is high, thus limiting sulfur transformation and ensuring prolonged presence of sulfur in the sulfide state. The toxic effects of sulfides on plants have been attributed to direct toxicity of sulfides on plant roots, as well as a reduced availability of required free sulfur and the immobilization of required zinc and copper by sulfide precipitation. Microbial effects are less understood but appear to be more immediate. The fates of waterborne contaminants are highly variable. As discussed above, some materials are naturally degraded to non -toxic derivatives, some materials dissipate to the atmosphere or are flushed out of the system to the Pacific Ocean, while other components are incorporated into the bottom sediments. Because many contaminants including particulate metals, oils and grease often adhere to silt and clay sized sediment particles prior to settling out of the water; increased ambient turbidity frequently results in Bmater incorporation of contaminants into the local sediments. This relationship of contaminant settling to water turbidity and fine sediment affinity is important when considering the distribution of contaminants and handling of dredged materials, as discussed later. Along with substantial sediment, the extensive watershed for Upper Newport Bay feeds significant amounts of trash and organic debris into the Bay during high seasonal flows (R. Hoffman, pers. comm,). During the storms of 1994 and 1995, substantial terrestrial and marsh organic debris was washed into the marinas and coves of Lower Newport Bay from the high storm flows of San Diego Creek. In areas, this material covered the bay floor in thick mats in the shallow subtidai (Merkel, pers. obs.). Along with the organic debris, the urbanized areas of the watershed contribute paper trash, plastics of all kinds, and aluminum as well as steel cans. Much of this is deposited on the bay floor and eventually incorporated into the sediments. Other trash is washed to shore or out to sea. Annually, the clean-up of trash and debris from Newport Harbor and the region's beaches requires a major economic and manpower commitment on the part of Orange County and various private property owners, and volunteer organizations (J, Wolter, pers, comm.), Recently, the Upper Newport Bay Coordinating Council has instituted a program to enlist the help of•large trash generators (principally fast-food restaurants) in educating the public on appropriate trash disposal, the Council has also implemented a pilot project to capture low -flow and first flush debris using a modified containment berm design which incorporates a mesh collector and an automatic release system for high flows. This system, dubbed a Bourdeau Boom has been employed in the Santa Ana Delhi Channel and has proven to be very effective thus far. Additional booms are being considered for deployment in other areas. In addition, the regionally implemented NPDES General Stormwater Permit requires pre -rainy season clean -out of stormdrain basins and sumps, detension basins, and other trash and contaminant collectors. These upstream debris basins and the continuing development of BMPs within the urban watershed are anticipated to curb much of the trash inputs. The bathymetry, circulation and tidal exchange patterns, and freshwater inputs which characterize Upper Newport Bay play an important role in dictating the way in which contaminants are distributed in the system or purged from the bay. Further, these physical factors combined with regional weather patterns play an important role in dictating the physical and chemical characteristics of the ambient waters. The Upper Newport Bay system is best characterized as an area of high variability and wide fluctuations in the physical environment. Cyclic patterns as well as stochastic fluxes in salinity, temperature, and oxygen levels can have a profound effect on the biological potential of the area and September 3, 1996 12 ' M&AN 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. can be directly traced to the physical conditions and nutrient and sediment inputs of the system. ' The salinity profile and fluxes of Upper Newport Bay have been of considerable interest in evaluating the potential biological benefits of the proposed Unit III dredging. In July 1994, it was predicted that increased depth would result in an increased salinity of the back bay environment and would support ' an increase in the.marine fisheries in this area (Allen 1994). In a November 7, '1994 memorandum, John Tettemer discussed the predicted results of proposed project dredging on the long-term salinity trends of the basin (Tettemer & Associates, 1994a). This evaluation relied on an examination of ' existing O.C.E.M.A. water quality monitoring data for the period April 1991 through July 1993, a consideration of the effects on salinity profiles of dredging in Unit 11, and flow conditions of San Diego Creek. These investigations were generally predictive in nature but also provided clear factual evidence that the back bay portions of Upper Newport Bay experience fluctuations ranging from freshwater conditions to hypersalinity throughout the entire water column. High flows in San Diego Creek and shallow water environments result in freshwater conditions which are unsuitable for the persistence of stenohaline marine species. As a result, mobile species which cannot exist in freshwater are driven out of the back bay for a matter of days following major storm events, while sessile organisms may be killed or precluded from establishment in the area. ' Currently, the shallow water conditions of the back bay are conducive to high thermal flux resulting from solar warming during the day and atmospheric cooling at night. During the summer months, it is anticipated that daytime shallow back bay waters reach temperatures well above 80 degrees ' Fahrenheit. Furthering these natural thermal warming effects, dark mudflats and bay bottom sediments, and high turbidity increases radiant heat absorption. During the winter, cool freshwater flows of winter storm run-off and atmospheric cooling may lower water temperatures below those of ' the more stable oceanic system. Dissolved oxygen within the back bay environment is expected to be strongly driven by the ' photosynthetic and respiratory activity of the massive algal blooms exhibited in the Upper Newport Bay system. Along with the high primary productivity is a resulting instability of the dissolved oxygen level within the water column. During daylight hours, oxygen levels become supersaturated as a result of high levels of photosynthetic activity. During dark periods, respiration of the abundant plankton adds to the overall oxygen demand driving oxygen levels down. As nutrient sources are depleted in the later summer months, a die -off of algae fuels a continued oxygen demand associated with bacterial ' growth and organic decay. Infrequent seasonal storm flows result in a scouting of the mudflats and bay bottom, resuspending anaerobic sediments. During these periods, hydrogen sulfide generated by anaerobic bacteria is released to the water. Through the process of oxidation of sulfide to sulfate, both ' the available dissolved oxygen and pH of the water are lowered. During such events, oxygen levels in the system may crash to near zero levels, but later recover as sulfides -are finally removed from the system, converted, or resettle and are buried under anaerobic conditions. Sediment Physical and Chemical Conditions ' Recent analyses of the sediment consistency, chemistry, and toxicity were completed by ToxScan, Inc. (1996) to determine the suitability of materials for ocean disposal. These studies were conducted in 1995 and 1996 using standard testing protocols. Irl u September_3, 1996 13 M&AN 93-042-01 Merkel & Associates. Inc. Sediments within the proposed dredging areas were found to be dominated by fine grain materials with silt and clay fractions accounting for a combined total of 86,48% of the total sediment by dry weight (ToxScan 1996). Sediments were found to be 65% solids with a 0.5% Total Organic Carbon (TOC) content. Interestingly, concentration of oil and grease as well as total petroleum hydrocarbons were non - detectible. This suggests that sediment loading from the watershed greatly exceeds that of hydrocarbon inputs or hydrocarbons are pulsed through the system rather than being captured in the sediments. Alternatively, sediment deposition within the sampled strata may have occurred many years earlier when oil and grease inputs were reduced and/or sufficient titre has elapsed to allow for natural degradation. Metal concentrations in the sediments are comparable to the concentrations found in reference sediments and sediments at the proposed LA3 disposal site (ToxStan 1996). Concentrations of selenium, zinc, and arsenic were higher than those found in reference sediments as would be expected given the agricultural origins of much of the Unit III materials. Sulfide concentrations were found to be extremely low (0.1 ppm, dry weight) in the tested sediment (ToxScan 1996). Agricultural organochlorine products and pesticides including PCBs, Aroclor, Lindane, Endrin, Heptaclor epoxide as well as DDT and its breakdown derivatives DDD and DDE, have been previously identified within Upper Newport Bay sediments (Dixon and Scherfig 1981, ToxScan 1995). Dixon and Scherfig (1981) have suggested that high concentrations of DDT in surface sediments may be related to continued illicituse in the region, although Rappaport et al. (1984) postulates that continuing inputs of DDT are occurring by atmospheric transport from Central America where it is still in use. These chemicals, while significantly reduced from those observed in the region prior to a ban on their sale and use, are persistent in the environment and are expected to be found in ever diminishing amounts in the bay for several decades. Prior investigations of the surface sediments of the Early Action and Interim Plan and Unit I dredging area revealed high concentrations of chlorinated pesticides collectively totalling as high as 396.3 ppb at the 31 to 42 cm below surface stratum (Dixon and Scherfig 1981), chlorinated compounds significantly decreased in lower strata. Recent sediment testing for maintenance dredging of the Newport Dunes Marina found multiple chlorinated pesticides with DDT derivatives at levels of 140.2 ppb in even coarser grained sediments than found within the Unit III Basin Area. Of some surprise, recent testing of the bulk sediments from the top of Unit M indicated fairly low concentrations of DDD (1lppb, dry weight) and DDE 6.6 ppb with bottom sediments revealing no chlorinated pesticides of any kind (ToxScan 1996). This would suggest that the bottom sediments in the Unit III basin may lie below strata deposited during the era of chlorinated pesticide use within the San Diego Creek watershed. Testing for toxicity of sediments was completed using standard EPA protocols for solid phase bioassay. Testing involved quantification of the lethal and sub -lethal effects of sediments on two species of amphipods, Rhepoxynfus and Ampelisca, relative to comparisons of the effects observed in control sediments and those of reference stations which are selected to reflect conditions of the disposal area. Similarity between the tested dredged sediments and the reference is used to determine compatibility of sediments with ocean disposal. In the case of the present investigations, extremely low survival of test animals within reference sediments of the LA3 disposal area prompted EPA to suggest alternative September 3, 1996 14 M&A# 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates. Inc. reference sediments which were collected and provided by EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey. The results of all of the toxicity tests conducted indicate that ocean disposal of project area dredged materials at LA3 would not exceed the Limiting Permissible Conclusion (LPC) and would be compatible with sediment quality standards for LA3 (ToxScan 1996). ' BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Regional Biological Setting ' Upper Newport Bay is located in the midst of a truly urban setting. Completely surrounded by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Heights region of the County of Orange, the 1,300 acre complex ' of coastal wetlands as well as native and disturbed wetlands is a regionally rich and critically important ecological area of the southern California coastline. The system- is linked to other natural habitats only through a marine connection to the Pacific Ocean and the disturbed and channelized San Diego Creek ' connection to the rapidly urbanizing open agricultural areas of the coastal plain. While geographically isolated, the large size, tremendous habitat diversity, and protection afforded the area by both active management and a substantial buffer of uplands and wetlands, along with a reduction of similar areas, ' makes this coastal reserve and passive parkland a critical resource to migratory and resident coastal birds, coastal fishes, and an extensive assemblage of other vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants. Upper Newport Bay supports a number of rare, threatened, and endangered species as well as ' important examples of highly diminished coastal communities. Biological Communities of the Project Area ' A detailed mapping of vegetation was completed within Upper Newport Bay by Marsh (1990) and was subsequently revised in 1991 by the project biologists (Merkel and Reiser 1991b). This mapping has ' been used for the purposes of describing the existing habitats within the project area (Figure 5). Because the Unit III project is limited to the central core of the Upper Newport Bay system, not all of the habitats illustrated as occurring within the area are particularly relevant to the current resource ' assessment. As a result, the habitats identified in Figure 5 are only briefly discussed within Table I and those communities with particular relevance to the proposed project (identified by bullets) are discussed in more detail in the following sections. II II II II II Table 1. Ecological Communities Represented within Upper Newport Bay # COMMUNITY TYPE DESCRIPTION Pampas Grass Large monotypic stands of Pampas Grass (Cortaderia jubata) occurs within canyons fringing portions of the UNBER and UNBRP. Horticulnual/Esoaped Exotics A number of escaped horticultural exotic species occur in the residential neighborhoods along the southern edge and northeastern corner portion of the UNBRP. Weeds Mixed weeds dominated by Bassia, Salsola, and Bromus, and other common exotics occur at scattered locations around the UNBRP. 3 Hydromulch Misc. Various fill slopes adjacent to and within the UNBRP have been hydroseeded with non-native as well as native seed mixes. IL September 3, 1996 15 MAAN 95-Of2.01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. ' • 4 Bare, Disturbed A number of clearings and highly disturbed slopes, tralls, and fields lack substantial vegetatim in may instances, these areas are highly saline fills or areas of continued pedestrian or vehicle ' trampling. Two dredged material islands were created in the Unit I project area to serve a IA= Tea treating sites. These islands continue to support only sparse vegetation and are used ' by terms as well a American Avocets and Black -necked Stilts as nesting sites. S Adventive Annual Grassland Expansive areas of annual grmalaWs dominated by Bromus spp. , and Avena barbata as well as Erodium spp. occur on the north side of the Upper Newport Bay complex. 6 Native Perennial Grassland Nasella lepida and'N. pufchra occur within a small native , grassland southwest of Mesa Drive. 7 Coastal Sage Scrub Relictual stands of coastal sage scrub dominated by Arremesia caltfondca and Eriogonum fascicuku m and supporting ' California Gnatcatchers (Polioptita califorrdca) occur on steep slopes and within small side canyons both north and south of the Bay's wetlands. , 8 Maritime Desert Scrub This community is dominated by an a typical mix of maritime succulent scrub and desert species naturalized in the area from prior slope seed mixes. This is primarily found along Backbay ' Drive. 9 Coastal Chaparral More appropriately considered the more mesic woody form of Coastal Sage Scrub, this habitat, found on the north facing ' slopes along the southern side of the UNBRP, is dominated by Mw huegriifoila and Malosma laurina ' 10 Elderberry Woodland Large stands of dense Mexican Elderberry (Sambucus maicanus) occur at various locations on the slopes around the Bay. ' 11 Xeric Barren Areas of highly erosive soils, dry cliff faces, and areas which are regularly denuded of vegetation by trampling characterize these sites. Opportunistic annual' species may persist for short periods within these disturbed areas. ' 12 Mesic Barren Cliff -Fax Steep and highly erosive cliff faces with regular seeps occur at isolated locations above Backbay Drive. , 13 Scrub -shrub Wetland This community consists of a mix of Baccharis app., exotic trees including Schbw and Myoporum within sandy freshwater outwash fans predominantly located to the south of Backbay Drive, and also occurring below the Santa Ana Heights development. • 14 Forested Wetland This habitat type consists of a mix of willows (Salix W.) and cottonwood (Popuba fremontil) as well as larger non-native trees. This riparian community is best represented south of Backbay Drive and in isolated pockets along the Santa Ana ' Heights Trail. An interesting occurrence in the recent past was the presence of an endangered Least Bell's Vireo within a stand of willows along the SAH Trail in 1992. This bird was not believed to be nesting. ' September 3, 1996 16 ' M&A# 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. ' 15 Alkaline Marsh This habitat, dominated by Distrchlrs spicata and Anemopsis cnlffbrnica, also supports such species as luncus amw and Hemizonia ausualis. Alkaline marsh is found immediately south ' of the end of Mesa Drive within the relictual channel of the Santa Ana Delhi Channel. ' 16 Undiff. Emergent Wetland This wetland habitat occurs along the north side of the UNBRP at the mouths of a number of minor storm drain channels and above the salt marsh habitats. ' 17 Upper Emergent Wetland This habitat is characterized by the presence of high marsh species such as Rumex. It is located predominantly adjacent to the south side of Backbay Drive. ' • 18 Lower Emergent Wetland Similar to the upper emergent wetlands this habitat is located predominately along Backbay Drive within a long, narrow drainage channel and is dominated by such species as T ypha and ' Carer. 19 Wet Meadow This community is most extant along the west side of the UNBRP in a broad barranca. This habitat is characterized by ' such species as Picris, Distidia, Rumen, and gnadon. 20 Freshwater Aquatic This habitat comprises the open water drainages which enter Upper Newport Bay. This habitat is most extensive along Santa ' Ana Delhi Channel and San Diego Creek upstream of Jamboree. 21 Seasonal Wetland These wetland communities occur predominantly on the north side of Newport Bay and are characterized by their intermittent ' flooding during the rainy season. These low swales are characterized by a mixture of upland grasses and opportunistic facultative wetland elements. Potentially representing historic ' vernal pools, these areas no longer support an endemic species assemblage. II II II II U • 22 Alkaline Transition Zone This zone is dominated by saline -tolerant weeds including Crystal Ice plant, (Mesembryamhemun) as well as a number of species of Saltbush, (Atriplex spp)• • 23 Upper Intertidal Salt Marsh This community is infrequently inundated by extreme tides and supports a mixture of typical halophytes found in salt marshes. included in this assemblage are Distichlis, Sueada, Salicornia subteminalis, and Cre=. This marsh is predominantly located along the western fringe of the intertidal marsblands. • 24 Middle Intertidal Salt Marsh This community is inundated by most higher high tides and is dominated by Sallconda virginica. Also well -represented are Frankema sauna, Baru mandma, Limomum califormcum and 7) igiochin. This marsh community is widespread within Upper Newport Bay and is the preferred habitat of the State -endangered Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passercub a sandMchensis beOngt). '1 September 3, 1996 17 M&AN 95-W2-01 Merkel do Associates. Inc. • 25 Non -classified Intertidal A large portion of Upper Newport Bay supports marshland communities which are intermixed with mudflats. As a result of recent sediment deposition and storm disturbance, these areas have yet to establish a clear pattern of typical marsh zonation although they an anticipated to ultimately transition to lower and middle intertidal marswan ds. They are predominately located at the extreme tipper end of Backbay Drive. • 26 Lower Intertidal Salt Marsh This community is inundated by most high tides and is heavily dominated by Cordgrus, (Sparrina foltosa). Present in less abundance is Sahcorma virginica and Batts maritima. Also occurring in considerable abundance are macroalgae dominated by Sea Lettuce (Ulva sp.) and diatom and blue-green algae films or mats. This marshland is the most abundant of the intertidal communities and is the preferential habitat for the endangered Light-footed Clapper Rail (Ralltts longtrostris levipes). • 27 Mudflats Thew unvegetated intertidal habitats lie between the lower limits of Cordgrass growth and lowest low tide elevation. In some instances mudflats support attached macroalgae beds dominated by tllva and Enteromotpha. Mudflats extend along much of the central channel in the region of Unit 1I. In addition, recently established mudflats (not present in 1991), occur in Unit I and within portions of the Unit III dredging area. • 28 Estuarine Marine Aquatic open water dominates the central core of Upper Newport Bay and tidally expands and contracts to intermittently -expose and submerge mudflats and marshlands. Due to the intermittently high input of fresh water from San Diego Creek and other drainages, large variability in water salinity may occur. These waters support a community of fish characteristic of enclosed estuary communities, The subtidal benthic communities of Upper Newport Bay predominantly are characterized by species adapted to soft sediments and high levels of turbidity as well as wide fluctuations in temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity. As a result, these areas are less diverse and more ephemeral than communities found in more stable environments. • 29 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation The water quality within Upper Newport Bay is such that eelgrass has not been observed regularly for nearly 3 decades. However, recent expansions of eelgrass (Zostera marina) throughout southern California and the moderately recent location of eelgrass at the Castaway Site North of the PCH Bridge crossing would suggest that expansion of this species in the futon may be possible. Also Iikely to exist within Upper Newport Bay is the dimunitive Ditchgmu (Ruppla maritima). This species Is typically found under conditions of slightly higher turbidity and less consolidated sediment than is eelgrass. Neither eelgrass, nor Ditchgrau are presently (mown to occur in the upper dredging areas and both would be benefitted by improved water quality. September 3,1996 18 I M"# 95-N2-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. 11 J Within the specific area of the proposed project work, bare and disturbed lands occur at the Jamboree Road Stabilizer structure and on the two nesting islands located adjacent to the south of the Unit III dredging area within Unit I (Figure 5). As indicated, these barren areas generally lack substantial vegetative cover and support variable values to wildlife. In the flatter saline flats located adjacent to the marine wetlands, these areas are important nesting, night roosting, and high tide loafing areas for shorebirds, terns, grills, and waterfowl. The islands serve as significant nesting sites for Least Terns as well as shorebirds, and may be considered an important refuge from most mammalian predators. Other disturbed lands support a mixed use by opportunistic upland species. Along the stabilizer edge, evidence of California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyt), Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubont), Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Botta's Pocket Gopher (77tomomys bottae) was observed. Larger mammalian predators including Coyote (Canis latrans) and Gray Fox (Urocyan cinereoargenteus) are also regularly observed within the marshland fringe at Upper Newport Bay. Riparian woodlands are found upstream of the Jamboree Road stabilizer structure and are represented by the intermittent and sparse growth of willows regularly scoured by San Diego Creek storm flows. While not within the immediate footprint of the proposed work, these poorly developed and quite ephemeral willow scrublands may be expected to exist adjacent to the access haul road for the repair and expansion of the -stabilizer structure. As a result of the poor development of woodland structure within the immediate vicinity of the project work, a well established woodland faunal community is not present. Species occurring in this area include those associated with the adjacent emergent freshwater marshlands, transient avifauna, and species common to a wide range of habitats such as Lesser Goldfinch (CardelWs psaltria), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Emergent freshwater wetlands occur upstream of the Jamboree stabilizer structure and within sediments deposited on the structure itself. These habitats are extremely ephemeral and are scoured out on an annual basis by the flows from San Diego Creek. Represented in this habitat are opportunistic species such as Soft -flag Cat -tail (Typha Wfolia), Watercress (Nasturtium qfficinale), Umbrella Sedge (Cyperus altendfolius), and Rabbitfoot Grass (Polypogon manspeliensis). Occasional shrubs of Mule Fat (Baccharis salicifolia) are also present. Wildlife species occurring within and around this marsh assemblage and the stabilizer structure include Mosquito fish (Gambusia a}finis), Pacific Chorus Frog (Pseudacris regilla), Black Phoebe (Sayorna nigrans), Killdeer (Caradrius vociferus), and Cliff Swallows (Hirundo pyrrhonata). Reptiles are fairly limited but include the Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporas occidentalis) and Common Kingsnake (Larnpropeltis getulus), and may also include the sensitive Two -striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis,hammondi). September 3, 1996 19 --.... .... __................ .—. COUNTY OF ORANGE >JARRORS—BEA6HE5—&—PARK-S- . 1 EUAW. Inc. hxfgrr we AlCINOC/VO A Pk twg /I NM IeO, IAIA A/C✓1C chl" NcmecNe Penoo a .env KU Mm A$SWJClel Traffic Enpu,eemp LEGEND o❑ Pampas Grass 7❑ Coastal Sage Scrub 18 Alkaline Marsh 22 Alkaline Transition Zone (Mesembryanthemum/AMplex) QHorticultural Planting or Escape 8❑ Maritime Desert Scrub 1e Emergent Wetlands, not separated 28 Upper Intertidal Salt Marsh nWeeds i] Coastal Chaparral 17 Upper Emergent Wetlands 24 Middle Intenidal Salt Marsh OHvdromulch of Miscellaneous (tNJative/NonNative Spp.) 10 Mexican Elderberry Woodland/Forest 18 Lower Emergent Wetlands 28 Nondassfied Intertidal aBare, Disturbed 11 Xeric Barren 10 Wet Meadow 2(1 Laver Intertidal Salt Marsh aAdventive Annual Grassland 12 Mesic Barren Clif Face / 20 Freshwater Aquatic 27 Mudllats an Native Perennial Grassland 18 Scrub Shrub Wetland (Baccharis/NonNatives) 21 Seasonal Wetland 28 Estuary Marine Aquatic 14 Forested Welland (Salix/Populus/ NonNalr✓e Treesl M&A# 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. ' Alkaline Transition Zone ' Alkaline Transition Zone has been used to describe the fringe of weedy vegetation dominated by halophytic opportunistic weeds which becomes established in disturbed areas above the high tide line or on deposited saline soils. Within the immediate project area, minor amounts of this vegetation occur near the Jamboree Road stabilizer structure, along the narrow uplands bordering the north side of the ' access channel dredging, near the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge, and on the primary saltworks dike defining the upper limits of dredging within the Unit H basin. ' This habitat is dominated by various ice plants (Mesembranthemum crystallinum, M. nonflorum), saltbush (Amplasemibaccata,•A. triangularis, and A.•lindleyt), and•Bassia hyssopifolia. Wildlife present in these areas is generally reflective of the opportunistic field species as intermittent use by passerine marsh species such as the Belding's Savannah Sparrow. Un; Pr Intertidal Salt M rsh ' Middle Intertidal Salt Marsh 13onclassified Intertidal Lower Intertidal Salt Marsh P n I_ �I LI' �I The above four vegetation categories have been lumped together for the purposes of this discussion. Marshlands of Upper Newport Bay support an extensive suite of vascular plantsincluding most native species occurring in such communities within southern California. Occurring in a tidally driven zonal distribution, the Newport Bay marshlands are more complex than would be expected from a similarly sized undisturbed system. This is due to the region's history of diking, filling, and flooding which has created a diverse topography which interdigitates the various marsh zones with each other.' Notable species of importance include Pacific Cordgrass, forming the lowest vegetated zone of the salt marsh and serving as an important habitat for the state and federally listed Light-footed Clapper Rail. Also of importance is the occurrence of a diverse middle marsh flora dominated by perennial Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), but also including such elements as Batis maritima, Triglochin, Limonium californicum, and Jdumea carnosa. This middle marsh zone is especially favored by the state endangered Belding's Savannah Sparrow. Other common components of the higher marsh include Alkali Heath (Frankenia saliva), Saltwort (Batis maritima), Shoregrass (Monanthochloe littoralis), and Sea Blite (Suaeda califomica). In general, the quality of salt marsh habitat in Upper Newport Bay is extremely high; few of the outlying areas show sign of human disturbance. Flood damage and siltation in the Unit I area have resulted in a mix of mudflats and marshlands which, at present, result in a high quality avian community. However, with continued sedimentation, it is recognized that this area will succeed into communities characteristic of higher elevations and ultimately be dominated by weedy riparian or upland species. Upper Newport Bay is perhaps best known for the large number anddiversity of resident and migratory waterbirds. Large numbers of shorebirds including the Long -billed Curlew (Numentus americanus), Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa), and Willet (Catoptrophonts semipabnatus) are regularly observed in the marshlands and on adjacent mudflats. Stalking aquatic prey in the shallow tidal channels and bay waters are common wading species such as the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Great Egret (Casmerodius albus), and Snowy Egret (Egretta thula). Banks of the numerous tidal channels support Fiddler Crab (Uca crenulata) and Yellow Shore Crab (Hemigrapsus oregonensis), while tidal flats and the sediment surface within the marsh support abundant California Horn Snails (Cerithidea califomica) and an abundance of amphipods and harpacticoid copepods. September 3, 1996 21 M&AM 95-W2-01 Merkel & Assodates, Inc. Intertidal Mudfllat Mudflats are areas of mud bottom which are regularly covered and exposed with the tide cycle. During flood tide, the sediment -dwelling species (clams, burrowing crustaceans, gobies, many filter -feeding polychaetes, etc.) either actively seek prey or generate a water current to capture food particles. At this time a number of fish forage on the above species. As sediments become exposed during ebb tide, avian predators scrape and probe the surface of this highly productive habitat. The importance of intertidal mudflats as foraging and loafing area for a very large number and diversity of waterbirds cannot be overstated. This importance has increased dramatically over the last several decades as southern California's coastal lagoons have been dredged, filled, and cut-off from regular tidal influence. Species which can be regularly found in high numbers include the American Avocet (Recurvirostra americans), Black -bellied Plover (Pluvarius squatarola), Marbled Godwit, Willer, Dowitcher (Limnadromus sp.), Western Sandpiper (Calidris maun), and many others. These species feed on a wide variety of invertebrate prey including a diversity of polychaete worms, clams (Macoma, Laevicardium, Saxidomas, Tagelus), and crustaceans such as the Ghost Shrimp (Callianassa aff tnis). Algal Beds Marine and brackish water macroaigal communities within the study area are dominated by a few highly opportunistic species of algae which are capable of responding quickly to the tremendous fluctuations in freshwater flows and the high levels of available nutrients. Upper bay communities are dominated by the green alga, Sea Lettuce (Ulva sp.). Also present are Enteromorpha and Chaetomorpha linum. At the lower and of the study area, brown and red algae become more prevalent and include such species as Ceramia flaccidium, Gracilaria lemaneformis, Dasya sincola, and Polysiphonia sp. These shallow water algab beds are highly integrated with shallow mud -bottom habitat, and along with the abundant plankton, are the base of a highly productive system. Conspicuous invertebrates of this community are the herbivorous California Bubble Snail (Bulla gouldiana) and the predatory Navanax (Navanax inermis), though benthic crustaceans (harpacticoid copepods, amphipods, etc.) or nematodes can be numerically dominant. Open Water The open water of the relatively warm and shallow Upper Newport Bay provides ideal habitat to a rich planktonic community, evidenced by a seasonally thick algal bloom. Microscopic plants and animals are in turn fed upon by larger planktonic and benthic invertebrates, which are ultimately fed upon by fishes and birds. The surface waters of Upper Newport Bay also support an abundance of waterfowl including the Northern Pintail- (Anal acuta), Northern Shoveler (Anal clypeata), American Wigeon (Anal amercana), Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis), Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspiciliata), Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), Pared Grebe (Podiceps nigricoilis), and Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis). While some of these species are fish foragers, others consume the abundant macroalgae of Upper Newport Bay. September 3,1996 22 M"# 95-042-01 Merkel do Associates. Inc. ' Subtidal Bay Bottom Subtidal, benthic communities are a direct reflection of the energy level of the waters moving with the ' tides, surface run-off, and winds. Where stronger (higher energy) currents produce a re -suspension of fine sized particles, comparatively sandy substrate conditions will predominate. This tends to occur within comparatively larger channels and at the mouths of storm drains. Conversely, broad expanses ' of bay bottom which primarily receive energy from overlying, tidal driven water movement allows settlement of small particles of muds and silts. Such areas tend to be veryunstable due to the ease with which sediments are re -suspended. Rooted vegetation as well as organisms dependent upon a more ' firm sediment base of support do very poorly under such conditions. This latter condition of comparatively fluidy. sediments is the -more dominant subtidal habitat type in Upper Newport Bay. These muddier subtidal areas are dominated by an assemblage of polychaete worms such as Capitella, ' Mediomastus, Lumbrineris, and many others. Eelgrass and ditchgrass may occur in isolated patches within the lower portions of the project channel ' maintenance areas. Eelgrass has recently been identified along the shores at the Castaway Site upbay from the PCH Bridge and recent habitat expansions in Newport Bay would suggest that potential exists for new beds to be found in the future. No eelgrass or ditchgrass habitat is expected to occur within ' the direct footprint of the proposed Unit III project. Fish Communities ' Fish species of Upper Newport Bay have received a great deal of investigation over the last approximately 25 years (Allen 1976, 1982, 1994; Bane and Robinson 1970; Fronk 1969; Hom and ' Allen 1981; Heath 1980; Usui 1981). The following information is primarily taken from Allen (1994) who specifically reviewed the fishes -of Upper Newport Bay in relation to the proposed project. The Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) has been observed over the course of several studies to be the numerically dominant fish species, as well as a substantial contributor in terms of productivity and biomass, in Upper Newport Bay. The Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus) may also contribute a large ' portion of the biomass. Other'common fish include the California Killifish (Fundulus parvipinnis), Arrow Goby (Clevelandia ios), Deepbody Anchovy (Anchoa compressa), Slough Anchovy (Anchoa delicatissima), and Shifter Surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata). Occurring in much lower abundance ' are the Striped Bass (Moron s=dlis) (introduced), Spotted Sand Bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciatus), Yellowfm Croaker (Umbrina roncador), and California Halibut (Paralichthys californicus). 1 '1 Allen (1994) identified two groups of fish based upon their preference for either shallow water or comparatively deeper channel habitat. Topsmelt, California Killifish, various species of gobies, Shiner Surfperch, and the Staghorn Sculpin (Leptocottus atmatus) were primarily associated with shallow habitat, while the Striped Mullet, anchovies, California Halibut, Spotted Sand Bass, Diamond Turbot (Hypsopsetta gumdata), Yellowfin Croaker, and Round Stingray (Urolophus hallen) were identified as being more associated with channel environments. A few fish species associated with freshwater environments may occasionally be found in Upper Newport Bay following extended periods of storm run-off. Species which may be encountered under such conditions are the Common Carp (Cyprituts carpio), Mosquitofrsh, Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides). September 3, 1996 23 M&A# 93-012-01 Merkel do Associates, Inc. The role of marine water influence on the distribution of different fish species in Upper Newport Bay was also discussed by Allen (1994). Many fishes show an affinity to predominantly marine or lower saline water; thus, the distribution of many fish species with Upper Newport Bay is, in part, a reflection of both tidal and freshwater run-off influences (Allen 1994). Fish species which have shown a distribution dependent upon marine influence in Upper Newport Bay include the California Halibut (PamUchthys californicus), Topsmelt, Spotted Sand Bass, Diamond Turbot, Shiner Surfperch, and Round Stingray (Allen 1994). This is particularly relevant to the proposed project as current conditions in the back bay (poor water quality, circulation, water exchange, lack of marine influence, and algal blooms) are not favorable to utilization by fish species of commercial importance. Implementation of the proposed project is expected to significantly improve water conditions for marine influenced, benthic species (eg., California Halibut, Spotted Sand Bass, Yellowfm Croaker) and mid -water channel species (eg., Slough Anchovy, Deepbody Anchovy, Striped Bass) (Allen 1994). Not only are the numbers of these commercially important predatory species expected to increase, but larger and more stable populations of forage species (Topsmelt, anchovies, Arrow Goby) are also expected (Allen 1994). Sensitive Species While the UMBER and UNBRP are recognized for their importance to sensitive plant and animal species, only a small number of sensitive species are known or expected to occur in proximity to the proposed Unit III project work. For the sake of completeness, all sensitive species known or expected to occur within the project vicinity are identified in Table 2. However, only those occurring within the project area or which may be affected by the project are discussed in detail below. These are identified by use of a bullet within Table 2. Table 2. Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring WIthin Upper Newport Bay SPECIES LISTING STATUS LOCAL DISTRIBUTION Plants t ordytamhus maririmus (Salt Marsh Birds's Beak) Federally Growing in areas of high Endangered marsh by Back Bay Drive Eleodwris parvula (Small Spikerush) RED Code 1-1-1 One unconfirmed report Hemizonla partyl up. ausnalls (Southern Tarplam) RED Code M-3 Scattered sites in upland grasslands at marsh periphery Suaeda esteroa (Estuary Sea-blite) RED Code 1-2-1 Uncommon in high marsh Suaeda taxljolia (woolly Seablite) RED Code 1-2-1 Localized in high marsh laim atwus asp. WpoldiI (Southwestern Spiny RED Code 1-2-2 Occasional in brackish Rush) marshes Invertebrates I H H U n r u September 3, 1996 24 ' II M"# 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. Assiminea it Jima (Badwater Snail) Panogrdna errata (Salt Marsh Skipper) Cielndela gabbii (Gabb's Tiger Beetle) Cicindela h0 icoAisgravida (Barrier Beach Tiger Beetle) Cicindela latesignata obUviosa (Oblivious Tiger Beetle) Cidndela senilis frosti (Frosts Tiger Beetle) • Cicindefa trifasciata sigmoidea (Mudflat Tiger Beetle) • TYyonia imauaror (Brackish Water Snail) Terilla murabihs (Wandering Sponge) Vertebrates Fish • Eucycloglobius newberryi (Tidewater Goby) • Fundulus parvipinnis (California Killifish) • Mugil cephalus (Striped Mullet) Reptiles and Amphibians Awdella nigra argemea (Silvery Legless Lizard) Clemmys marmorata pallida (Southwestern Pond Turtle) Cnemidophorus hyperythms (Orangethroat Whiptail) Phrynosoma coronatum bkinWUei (San Diego Horned Lizard) Thammphis hammona (Two -striped Garter Snake) Birds FWS former C2 Stams Unknown CNDDB Special Animal Saltgrass in high marsh California Species of Status Unknown Special Concern CNDDB Special Animal Status Unknown California Species of Status Unknown Special Concern CNDDB Special Animal Status Unknown Orange County Higher mudflats around locally rare the Bay FWS former C2 Common in Upper Bay FWS former C2 Common in Lower Bay Federally Not currently present Endangered Orange County Locally common in Bay locally rare Orange County Locally common in Bay locally rare FWS former Potentially present in Category 2 sandy areas of upland near the marsh periphery California Species of Potentially present at San Special Concern Diego Creek California Species of Potentially present in sage Special Concern scrub on periphery of marsh California Species of Potentially present in Special Concern upland areas on the periphery of the marsh California Species of Potentially present in Special Concern areas of brackish and freshwater marsh September 3, 1996 25 M&AN 95442-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. • Pelecams occidmtalis calljornicus (California Federally Regular non -breeding bird Brown Pelican) Endangered near beaches State Endangered bwbrychus edUr hesperis (Western Least Bittem) California Species of Uncommon to rue in Special Concern areas of brackish marsh Pkgadis chin! (White-faced Ibis) California Species of Uncommon foraging at Special Concern periphery of mash and in uplands Circus ryaneus (Northern Harrier) California Species of Occasional in winter Special Concern Elanus kucurus (White-tailed (Kite) Federally Protected Occaaional•throughout the year • Pandion haliaaus (Osprey) California Species of Occasional in winter Special Concern Falco peregrinus anotutn (American Peregrine Federally Uncommon to rare Falcon) Endangered throughout the year • Lateralhis jamaicensis coturnicuhts (California State Threatened Rare year-round in salt Black Rail) Federally Protected and brackish marsh • Ralha tongirostris IMpes (Light-footed Clapper Federally Occasional year-round in Rail) Endangered salt and brackish mash State Threatened • O taralrius ak=ndrbw nivosus (Western Snowy Federally Threatened Occasional on sandy Plover) California Species of beaches and tidal flats Special Concern Charadrius motuanus (Mountain Plover) California Species of Uncommon to rare on Special Concern grassland periphery of marsh • Numenius americam; (Long -billed Curlew) California Species of Regular fall and winter Special Concern visitor to tidal flats and mash • Rhynchops niger (Black Skimmer) California Species of Uncommon year-round in Special Concern lagoon over areas of open water and loafing on sand - spit • Sterna andUarum browd (California Least Tom) Federally Occasional on bay and Endangered loafing on smd-spits. State Endangered Nests on avian islands • Sterna caspla (Caspian Tem) California Species of Occasional on bay and Special Concern loafing on sand -spits • Sterna elegans (Elegant Tern) California Species of Uncommon on bay and Special Concern loafing on sand -spits September 3, 1996 26 Merkel & Associates, Inc. M"# 95-W2-01 • Sterna forsteti (Forster's Tetra) California Species of Common in bay over open Special Concern water and loafing on sand - spits • pdidonias niger (Black Tetra) California Species of Uncommon visitors to Special Concern marshlands Asio flammeus (Short -eared Owl) California Species of Uncommon foraging over Special Concern marsh and peripheral uplands Speoryto cunicularia hypugea (Western Burrowing California Species of Uncommon nesting in Owl) Special Concern uplands new marsh Eremophila aipestris actia (California Homed Lark) California Species of Seasonally common ' Special Concern during migration and uncommon at other times Lanius lucoviclanus (Loggerhead Shrike) California Species of Occasional in limited Special Concern numbers in open areas of upland around the bay Polioptila calffornica califomica (Coastal California Federally Threatened Uncommon nesting in Gnatcatcher) sage scrub on periphery of the marsh ' Agelaius tricolor (Tricolored Blackbird) California Species of Occasional in brackish Special Concern marsh Ammodramus savannarutn (Grasshopper Sparrow) Orange County Uncommon in grasslands Locally Rare at periphery of marsh • Passercuha sandwichensis beldingi (Belding,s State Endangered Regular in salt marsh Savannah Sparrow • Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus (Large -billed California Species of Uncommon to rare at l Savannah Sparrow) Special Concern upper elevations of salt marsh r Mammals Sores omatus sallcorrucus (Southern California Salt California Species of Status Unknown Marsh Shrew) Special Concern Perognathus longimembris paciftaa (Pacific Little Federally May no longer be extant Pocket Mouse) Endangered near Bay Reithrodontomys megalons Gmicola (Southern FWS former Problems concerning Marsh Harvest Mouse) Category 3b taxonomic integrity of species Mustela frenata (L.ongtail Weasel) Orange County Uncommon to rare in locally rare uplands around the marsh periphery September 3, 1W 27 M&AM 95-0I2.01 Merkel h Associates, Inc. Mudflat Tiger Beetle (Glcinikla tr/fasclata sigmnideal Listing: Orange County - locally rare, Nagano (1982) species of concern Distribution: Coastal lagoons along the salt marsh fringe and on mudflats Habitat: Forages both during the day and night on insects (predominantly kelp flies) which aggregate on detritus deposited at low tides. This species is a roving beetle which lives in dry burrows during high tides. Status: Present status unknown. Occurs in limited numbers where habitat has had little disturbance. Salt marsh and mudflat loss and continued degradation of existing estuaries of southern California threaten this species. Site: This species is known to occur in Upper Newport Bay and is not as uncommon as many of its closely related congeners, many which are already extirpated from the Bay. Mimic Listing: jZorua (California Brackish Water Snail) (romia itnuararl USFWS (1991) - formerly Category 2 Distribution: Coastal lagoons and salt marshes from Sonoma County south to San Diego County. Habitat: Lives subtidai, inhabiting a variety of sediment types; can withstand a wide range of salinity. Abundant in silty sediments of the inner Salicornia marsh where salinities range from 4 ppt to as 44 ppt. Status: Unknown. Occurring in limited numbers where salt marsh habitat has had little disturbance. Salt marsh loss and continued degradation of existing marshes of southern California threaten this species. Site: The Brackish Water Snail is reported to be common within Upper Newport Bay (IvIBC 1980 as cited in CDFG 1988), being associated with lower channels in the bay. It is also expected to occur in the salt marsh and brackish marsh areas of the upper bay. This species is considered to be widespread within coastal salt and brackish marsh wetlands; however, such habitats continue to dwindle, thus creating the recognized concern (M. Kellogg 1991, pers. comm.). Tidewater Listing: Goby QQT(or, obius newberrvtl USFWS (1994) - Endangered CDFG (1992d) - Species of Special Concern Distribution: From the Smith River in Del Norte County southward to Agua Hedionda in San Diego County, California. Habitat: Restricted to low -salinity waters in the upper portions of coastal lagoons and estuaries. This fish is typically found within shallow coastal brackish waters where salinities do not exceed 10 parts per thousand (USFWS 1994). Status: M fish has disappeared from.nearly 50 percent of the coastal lagoons within its historic range since 1900. The causes for this extensive decline include dredging of waterways for navigation and harbors, stream charmelization, upstream water diversions, groundwater depletion through over -pumping, siltation and other impacts from livestock and feral pigs, agricultural runoff, sewage discharges, and possibly predation by non-native fishes. Site: The Tidewater Goby has been systematically and extensively sought throughout Upper Newport Bay and has not been located (Cameron Swift, 1991, pers. comm.). Frequently high salinities within the main basin may preclude this species occurrence in this area. As a result, it is not expected to occur within the area even if it is ultimately found farther up the freshwater drainages. September 3, 1996 -- - 28 I I I ,I II II II II F M&AM 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. California Killifish (Fundulus paE*innisl Listing: Orange County - locally rare Distribution: Almejas Bay, Baja California to Morro Bay, California. Habitat: This fish is abundant in southern California estuaries of reduced salinities and within tidal channels of coastal salt marshes. It has also been regularly collected in small numbers within full seawater salinities in coastal bays. Status: California Killifish are common where suitable habitat exists and it is considered to be an extremely hardy species of coastal embayments. Site: This fish is a common constituent of the fish community within Upper Newport Bay and is undoubtedly a major forage fish for a number of the piscivorous birds of the marshlands. Striped Mullet (Aftil =halusl Listing: Orange County - locally rare Distribution: Warm water marine embayments, estuaries, and coastal waters throughout the warm temperate and cool tropics. Habitat: This species is a facultative omnivore specializing in macroalgal herbivory as an adult. It spends most of its subadult life in shallow warm water estuaries. Adults are common species of coastal embayments in southern California and return to the open ocean to spawn. Status: This fish is a common commercial food fish and is harvested in most areas in which it occurs in large numbers. It is very common in areas in which suitable habitat exists. Site: The Striped Mullet is a common species of Upper Newport Bay. This species has been reported as a major contributor to the fish biomass of Upper Newport Bay in almost every study conducted in the area over the last 25 years. California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis cQfami ic). Listing: USFWS (1993a) - Endangered (Date listed: 13 October 1970) CDFG (1993) - Endangered (Date listed: 27 June 1971) Distribution: This is a marine bird along both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States south into Central America. P.o. californicus, the west coast subspecies, does not breed north of Monterey, California and is limited in its U.S. breeding to colonies on off -shore islands. Uncommon inland at the Salton Sea. Habitat: Marine littoral to offshore. Status: Population density tends to fluctuate with various environmental conditions, such as water temperature and fish abundance. In the 1960's there was a drastic decline along the California and Gulf coasts due primarily to eggshell thinning caused by DDT. Populations have been increasing in southern California. Site: Brown Pelicans are regular visitors to Upper Newport Bay and forage within the open water portions of the project area. These birds are migratory as well as non -breeding residents within the Newport Bay system. ORprev (Pandion haliaetus) Listing: CDFG (1992d) - Species of Special Concern Distribution: Widely distributed throughout the Old and New Worlds near aquatic September 3, 1996 29 11 M&,4# 95.042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. environments. Habitat: Sea coasts, bays, rivers, and lakes where fish are common. Status: Uncommon winter species; some individuals remain in southern California through breeding season. Site: The Osprey regularly forages in the open waters of the bay and is a regular user of established perch sites within the Bay. This species is reasonably opportunistic in its foraging, specializing on larger fish found near the surface or in shallow waters. It is expected to forage over wide areas of Newport Bay. California Black Rail (Lterallus j¢maicensis cotcrnicalul Listing: USFWS formerly Category 2 CDFG (1993) - Threatened Species Distribution: In southern California, limited to marshlands on the Salton Sea and Lower Colorado River, Newport Bay, and recent intermittent reports within Los Penasquitos Lagoon and the Tijuana River Valley in San Diego County (M. Kenney, pens. comm. 1996). Habitat: Restricted to tidal, freshwater, and brackish marshes. Status: Declining throughout its range, likely as a result of habitat loss and increased predation by domestic animals or native species which are more tolerant to fragmentation of wetland habitats. This species was never considered to be common in coastal Southern California. Site: Upper Newport Bay is one of the only areas in which Black Rails are regularly reported, although by no means is detection of this species a certainty at any given time. Light-footed Clapper Rail (Rallas lonnirostrie Ja4a el Listing: USFWS (1993a) - Endangered (Date listed: 13 October 1970) CDFG (1993) - Endangeted (Date listed: 27 June 1971) CDFG (1991a) - Fully Protected Distribution: This subspecies ranges from Carpinteria Marsh in Santa Barbara County south to San Quintfn, Baja California, Mexico. Habitat: Restricted to coastal salt marshes with a predominance of Spat#na. Status: Stable/declining. The Light-footed Clapper Rail is one of the most endangered birds in the United States with only'235 pairs found in California marshes in 1991 (CDFG 1992a). Site: Upper Newport Bay is by far the strongest holdout for this species with as much as 71 % of the entire U.S. population having been represented in this marsh during a single season (Zembal 1992). In 1991, Upper Newport Bay supported 128 pairs of rails out of the total 235 pairs counted in the U.S., preadamong 11 total marshes (Zembal 1992). Widespread among the middle and low salt marshes of the UMBER, this species is a focus of reserve management efforts and the success of rails within Upper Newport Bay is critical to the long-term survival of this species. Western Snowy Player (Charadtius algrandrinos nivosus) Listing: USFWS (1993a) - Threatened (Date Listed; 3 March 1993) CDFG (1992d) - Species of Special Concern Distribution: Southern Washington to southern Baja California as well as interior in the states September 3. 1996 30 1 Md AM 95-042-01 Merkel h Associates, Inc. II U I I r LJ U L I I II of Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, north -central Texas, and recently in Arizona (USFWS 1993). The Pacific coast population is genetically isolated from populations breeding in the interior and is restricted to nesting near adjacent tidal waters. An estimated 28 coastal breeding sites are believed to exist as of 1993 (USFWS 1993). Habitati Sandy beaches, lagoons, tidal mudflats, and rarely in interior dry lakes and receding lake shores. This species nests on barren open beaches and less frequently on salt pannes with shallow access to beaches and mudflats where young flightless plovers forage. Status: Uncommon to declining on the coast as a nesting species. Site: This species is a regular user of Upper Newport Bay and is found on the mudflats along the Upper Bay as well as the sandier shorelines near Pacific Coast Highway. Long -billed Curlew (Numerius americanusl Listing: USFWS (1991) - Category 3c CDFG (1992d) - Species of Special Concern Distribution: Nests in both wet and dry uplands of the central western states; winters in coastal California and Texas south into Mexico. Also in some inland areas of California and Texas. Habitat: Beaches and mudflats in both fresh and saltwater habitats while wintering in southern California. Status: This species is considered down in numbers by many observers; however, it is still a fairly common wintering species along the coast in southern California. As a species, curlews are notably sensitive to approach and are frequently the first species to flush or avoid activity in an area. Site: Upper Newport Bay hosts a regular fall and winter occurrence of this species on the mudflats and within the tidal marshlands. Black Listing: Skimmer (ftncho sn nirer) CDFG (1992d) - Species of Special Concern Distribution: Occurs on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and south to Argentina; on Pacific coast from extreme southern California south to Chile with recent occurrences northward to Bodega Bay. In California, breeds in south San Diego Bay, Salton Sea, and in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Habitat: Requires shallow, calm water for foraging. Roosting and nesting occurs on sand bars, beaches, or dikes. Status: Human disturbances at nesting sites, loss of both nesting and foraging habitats, and rising water levels are main concerns. It is likely that this species will continue its natural expansion into California if nesting sites are available and protected (Remsen 1980). Site: Common species of Upper Newport Bay. This species is common on the avian islands adjacent to the Unit III Basin. California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum brownt) Listing:' USFWS (1993a) - Endangered (Date listed: 13 October 1970) CDFG (1993) - Endangered (Date listed: 27 June 1971) CDFG (1991a) - Fully Protected September 3, 1996 31 �t M&AM 95.042.01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. Distribution: Coastal breeder from San Francisco Bay south to San Quintla in Baja California, Mexico. Winters along Pacific Coast of Mexico to Central America, although little is known about their wintering grounds. Habitat: Generally, nests colonially on sandy areas with a high concentration of cnished shells, close to foraging areas. Shallow water along coastal shores are preferred foraging areas, where they feed on small fish, such as topsmelt and anchovy (Anchoa spp.), although some feeding has been observed on mudflats. Status: Declining, recently stable at t 1,200 pairs. Breeding colonies are limited in extent, and fledgling rates are highly variable and recently very low, primarily due to heavy predation from domestic cats, dogs, horses, ravens, crows, and small raptors. Off -road vehicles have also had deleterious effects bn the nesting areas. Site: California Least Terns breed on the habitat island just south of the proposed Unit III basin, and this species forages extensively in the waters of Upper Newport Bay. QVian_ Tern (Sterna ca ;nia) Listing: CDFG (1992d) - Special Animal Distribution: Breeds in scattered localities on all continents except South America and Antarctica. In California, fairly common along coast and at scattered inland bodies of water. Nesting colonies are located at south San Francisco Bay, San Diego Bay, and at scattered locations throughout California. Habitat: Coastal areas, bays, estuaries and inland bodies of water. Nests on isolated barren islands. Status: Still fairly common in California, considered sensitive at nesting colonies. Site: This species is common as a summer visitor to Upper Newport Bay. Elegant Tern (Sterna elegms) Listing: USFWS (1991) - formerly Category 2 CDFG (1992d) - Species of Special Concern Distribution: Pacific coast from south-central California to mainland Mexico. Strays farther north and south of main range. Habitat: Coastal marine waters and estuaries, breeds on barren islands and isolated levees. Status: Unknown. Currently maintains only two breeding colonies in the continental United States; population appears to be expanding. Nests at Western Salt Works, San Diego County, California and more recently expanded to the Bolsa Chita Ecological Reserve, Orange County, California. Site: Uncommon as a summer visitor to Upper Newport Bay. A good potential exists for establishment of a future nesting colony. Forster's Tern (, term forsterrl Listing: CDFG (1992d) - Special Animal Distribution: Widespread along the coasts of southern United States south into Mexico. In California, common along coast from Sonoma County southward, inland valleys, Salton Sea and northeastern plateau. September 3, 1996 32 M&All 95-M2-01 Merkel A Associates. Inc. �t II I.. Habitat: Common in marine subtidal and estuarine waters, common to uncommon in open lacustrine and riverme habitats. Nests on salt pond levees and low islands in wetlands and bays. Status: Common, considered sensitive at nesting colonies. Site: This species is common within Upper Newport Bay Black Tern (Ghlidonias nirerl Listing: USFWS (1991) - formerly Category 2 CDFG (1992d) - Species of Special Concern Audubon Blue List (Tate 1986) Distribution: Western population -breeds from central British - Columbia and central Saskatchewan, Canada, south to the Central Valley of California, eastward to Colorado. Winters in South America, migrates along coastal areas. Habitat: Brackish lagoons, estuaries, and freshwater marshes, lakes and ponds. Status: Declining Site: Uncommon visitor to Upper Newport Bay Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passercuhm candwichensis belfrretl Listing: USFWS (1991) - formerly Category 2 CDFG (1993) - Endangered (Date listed: 10 January 1974) Distribution: Southern California coastal lagoons with larger populations occurring in Mugu Lagoon, Tijuana Marsh, Upper Newport Bay, Sweetwater Marsh, Anaheim Bay, Santa Margarita River Estuary, Bolsa Chita Wetlands, and Penasquitos Lagoon. Habitat: Well developed salt marshes. Status: Generally stable since late 1970's; however, there is evidence of possible long- term population declines. Site: Upper Newport Bay supports one of the largest populations of Belding's Savannah Sparrow. They are expected to occur within salt marsh habitat within or adjacent to the study area. This species has a low tolerance to disturbance at nesting sites and could be highly susceptible to construction activities if performed during the nesting season. T Argo billed Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensic roctratcl Listing: USFWS (1991) - formerly Category 2 CDFG (1992d) - Species of Special Concern Distribution: This subspecies has one of the most unusual migration patterns of any North American passerine. It breeds in the marshes at the mouth of the Colorado River in Baja California, Mexico and migrates northwestward to its wintering grounds in southern California. Habitat: During its winter stay in California, this large, pale subspecies occurs in salt marshes and along the beachiine, often foraging on mudflats and along the water's edge. Status: Unknown. The Large -billed Sparrow has declined because of the destruction of its breeding habitat at the mouth -of the Colorado River in Mexico. Site: Large -billed Savannah Sparrows are likely to occur in low -to -moderate numbers in the winter season. This species is typically found in higher salt marsh areas but also regularly visits the fringing mudflats and lower marshlands. September 3, 1996 33 M&AN 95.042-01 Merkel do Associates, Inc. EXPECTED PROJECT This section summarizes the primary project effects on the water quality and biological resources of Upper Newport Bay and the project region. Assuming dredged materials are.suited to ocean disposal at LA3, the EIS for designation of this disposal site (Mitech 1990) is considered to adequately identify and address the water quality and biological effects of disposal at sea. Standard practices for handling, transporting, and disposal of materials at this site are specified by the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA. For the purposes of analysis, it is assumed that these standard procedures will be followed during ocean disposal operations. WATER QUALITY Construction Period The proposed work is expected to create a local increase in the sediment deposition within the extreme upper portions of Upper Newport Bay immediately below the stabilizer structure work. This sedimentation is associated with the construction of a temporary earthen coffer dam to allow for isolation and dewatering of the work area at the toe of the stabilizer. Material slumping and dike erosion are expected to expand the footprint of this dike to a size greatly in excess of the design footprint. Depending upon the materials handing, the north end toe of the coffer dam has the potential to enter coastal salt marsh habitats of the Long Beach mitigation area if not kept below the height of the existing dike which defines the mitigation area (Figure 4). While the intent is to tie into this dike to form the northern edge of the dam and an access for dam construction, both construction controls and silt control in this work area are considered critical to the protection of existing marshland resources. Further, should the construction of this berm occur during the rainy season, San Diego Creek storm flows could produce an overtopping, breaching, or erosion of the existing dike as a result of the dewatering impoundment. As a result potential impacts to marshlands in this area from sedimentation are considered significant and mitigable through construction control measures, seasonal timing of work, and contractor education and monitoring. Elsewhere along the dike, impacts would be realized within an area planned for Unit III dredging and thus would not result in any particularly greater impacts than would be anticipated from the basin dredging itself. As such, these impacts are not considered significant. All aspects of the proposed work, including the maintenance dredging of the access channel and Dover Shores, the dredging of the Unit III basin and channel, and the restoration and expansion of the Jamboree Drive stabilizer structure have the potential to cause a short term elevation of turbidity levels during the construction period. These effects are anticipated to be predominantly localized around the specific work areas; however, plumes may be extended by tidal and wind driven circulation as well as freshwater flows to various other portions of Upper Newport Bay and the central channel of Lower Newport Bay. Because this area is principally used for wildlife preservation, impacts of increased turbidity are reasonably well captured under discussions on biological resource effects. As a result, this water quality discussion focuses on water quality impacts which may violate Regional Board and State Water Quality Control Board standards for suspended solids or dissolved oxygen, affect human health and safety, or degrade other beneficial uses as specified under the Basin Plan. Applicable beneficial uses to the project area include boating, fishing, and body contact recreation. In order to protect existing beneficial uses, the RWQCB has regularly imposed conditions which require that turbidity at 100 feet from the dredging project be limited to an elevation of not greater than 20% over September 3, 1996 34 II M&A# 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. 11 I 11' I ambient conditions. Dissolved oxygen may not be depressed to a level below 5mg/1 as a result of dredging and shall not result in any further depression if ambient conditions fall below 5 mg/1 DO. Violation of these standards would be considered significant. Water turbidity would not impair existing navigability or boating uses of the Upper Newport Bay region, although aesthetics would be temporarily decreased in local areas. Fishing may be impaired due to local avoidance of highly turbid waters; however, several species actively forage at the edge of a turbidity plume to collect suspended benthic organisms or disoriented forage species, thus creating elevated numbers of feeding fish in some areas. In any case, these effects would be mobile with the dredging activities, fairly localized, and temporary; they are not considered significant. Upper Newport Bay is not heavily used for body contact recreation. Increased turbidity would have no anticipated impact on this use or other uses such as windsurfing. Swimming areas are generally located away from the proposed channel dredging and would not be anticipated to receive considerable drift turbidity. As a result, impacts to water contact recreational uses are not considered significant. As organic material is deposited within the sediments of the Bay, nitrogen is either stored, transformed in form, or released to the water and atmosphere. Phosphorus is typically stored in the sediments, although it may be transformed between molecular states. Disturbance of these sediments, such as through dredging, can result in a rapid release of nutrients and an oxygenation to readily usable forms by both micro and macro -flora. Thus, it is possible to trigger plankton or macroalgae blooms through dredging. Based on existing sediment testing, it is not possible to predict whether such a response will occur with the proposed dredging. Deep sediments are low in total organic carbon (TOC) which would suggest that nitrogen may also be reduced. Algal blooms are frequently short-lived and are quite dependent upon seasonal light and water conditions as well as a continuous feed of nutrients. The primary impact of these blooms is a potential increase in the diurnal fluxes in dissolved oxygen and the release of increased amounts of toxic ammonia upon plant die -off. Within the semi -enclosed system of the Unit III basin, this could result in some sessile organism die -off and avoidance by mobile species. In the better flushed channel, dredging impacts would be considered nominal and may not even be measurable. Since the Unit III area is proposed to be dredged and thus any sessile organisms in this area would be lost, irrespective of whether it was as a result of low DO and high ammonia or the dredging itself, these subtidal losses are not considered to be significant. However, since intertidal species not within the dredging area would also be subject to the same water, there is a potential for some additional impacts to these species. These potential effects are considered significant and mitigable through seasonal timing to focus Unit III dredging during fall -winter months when the freshwater bay flushing typically occurs, the highest oxygen levels exist, and greatest natural organism losses occur. The proposed dredging is not anticipated to introduce or resuspend any bacteria which are considered detrimental to human health. Most of the bacterial activity within the dredged sediments are anticipated to be related to the activities of anaerobic bacteria which are killed by exposure to air and are generally not considered to be pathogenic. Coliform bacteria are associated with fecal wastes and are not anticipated to be long-lived within the sediments. Further, there is currently no reason to suspect coliform contamination of sediments within the proposed dredging area. As a result of these conditions, no adverse bacterial contamination impacts are anticipated to result from the project. September 3, 1996 35 M&A► 95412-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. Prior EIR's for the Early Action and Interim Plan and Units I and II dredging have addressed concerns over the dredging creating a resuspension, and thus increased availability, of hazardous materials such as DDT and PCBs. Within surface sediments, bulk sediment chemistry investigations indicate that organic contaminants are limited to low levels of the DDT breakdown derivates DDD (11 ppb, dry weight) 9W DDE (6.6 ppb, dry weight). Current testing of bottom sediments failed to detect organic contaminants. This testing program would suggest that chemical contaminant release is not a substantial concern. The proposed dredging work would be expected to expose sulfides to the water from anaerobic sediments. Toxicity of sulfides to plants and microbes can be substantial, however, for vascular vegetation this toxicitg-typically occurs at the plant roots rather than with surface tissue exposure. As a result, the short-term nature of sulfide exposure is not expected to result in significant harm to vascular vegetation. Microbial toxicity may be acute and can result in a localized die -off of substantial portions of the microbial community within an area of direct exposure. However, since sediment testing failed to detect sulfides and since sulfides are considered to be a non -conserved toxic chemical which, in the presence of oxygen, is transformed into less toxic substances which are readily flushed from the system. Because of the short duration of work, anticipated localized effects, and the rapid recolonization of microbial communities, this is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts. With the exception of materials which are currently present within the dredge sediments and which will be redeposited at the LA3 ocean disposal site, the proposed work is not expected to have any substantial comsauction period effects on the accumulation, resuspension, or transportation of trash and debris. These effects are not anticipated to be significant. The construction period work has the potential to both expose significant quantities of reduced sediments as well as increased nutrients to the water column. These can result in a depiction of oxygen as a result of sulfide oxidation and increased dark period respiratory demand. This specific concern was previously discussed under "Nutrient Loading". For sessile species outside of the dredging footprint but occurring within the proximity of the Unit III basin, impacts are considered to be significant and mitigable through timing the upstream basin dredging for fall -winter period work. The project is not anticipated to have any adverse construction period impacts on water temperature or salinity conditions. Dredging is anticipated to result in a steady improvement of these factors. Long-term Effects Post project construction, there are anticipated improvements in nearly all aspects of water quality beyond those existing today. The goals of improved sediment capture and desiltation of the water, reduced turbidity, and increased flushing are anticipated to be met by the proposed work. Secondary effects of these changes would be an increased stability in DO, water temperature, and salinity, and an increase in light penetration as a result of increased flushing of nutrients, waterborne sediment September 3, 1996 36 _I M&AA' 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. particulates, and plankton. In effect, many of the short-term impacts are, to a degree, self -mitigating through the long-term improvement in water quality which are anticipated. rBIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES Biological communities may be adversely affected by either direct or secondary effects of construction. Under direct impacts, footprint effects of placing materials or dredging are anticipated to result in a complete loss of the community, either permanently, or for the period of construction and some period of recovery. For indirect or secondary effects, construction work may result in effects experienced by communities or organisms outside of the direct area of work. These can include a degradation or restriction on availability of an essential resource such as air or water, an interference with a particular biological function such as foraging or communications, or some other change in the environment caused by the project work at another area. Construction Period urbidily and Other Water Quality Fffec Under ambient conditions, turbidity levels within Upper Newport Bay are generally high and can become extremely high during winter storms. As a result, sedentary species present in the area are well adapted to either survival under high levels of pulsed turbidity, or rapid recolonization when turbidity drops to more tolerable conditions. Because the greatest effects of the generated turbidity plume are expected to be localized around the immediate dredging area and within the central channel, only limited impacts resulting in complete and prolonged sessile invertebrate community disturbance are anticipated. For this reason, impacts of the dredging on turbidity related damage to invertebrate communities are not considered to be significant. Turbidity may also result in modified behavior of fish and reduced foraging success by piscivorous birds. While not well documented, it is reasonable to assume that obscuring a sight forager's ability to see its prey would reduce a species' hunting capabilities. This being *stated, it is also necessary to recognize that fish foraging birds tend to be opportunistic and will generally hunt where they find prey and are able to successfully capture food. As a result, the project dredging may result in localized turbidity around the work area; however, the remaining waters would not be expected to be substantially impaired. The effects of turbidity on fish behavior, distribution, and avian foraging are considered to be adverse but not significant. Wildlife Disturbance The proposed work is anticipated to occur over an extended period of up to 40 weeks and would be conducted continuously by a contractor if practical to do so. Continuous construction activities within the areas occupied by wildlife can result in an increase in stress which may have substantial adverse effects depending upon the individual species, types of construction activities involved, ways in which species use the area, time of year, or other factors. In the worst situation, disturbance or harassment (intentional or otherwise) may result in failure to reproduce, increased risk of predation, region abandonment, or increased susceptibility to disease or injury. rAt Upper Newport Bay, the group of organisms which is of greatest concern and most susceptible to disturbance from the proposed work are the waterbirds and shorebirds. The least disruption would be expected to occur as a result of rhythmic construction activities with few people exposed to view. The September 3, 1996 37 M&1M 95.042-01 Merke[ & Associates, Inc. greatest impacts would occur when large numbers of individuals are present, and substantial equipment changes occur or small boats are in use. In general, the degree of disturbame an activity poses to buds increases along a behavioral gradient from flying, to foraging, to loafing, to roosting, to nesting. Further, the impact of a stimulus on the behavior of birds is inversely related to the frequency of the stimulus. As a result, where birds are regularly exposed to a particular activity, the degree to which the activity disturbs the birds is reduced. From these two generalities, it is possible to anticipate that disturbance impacts to birds would be least at the lower end of the dredging area where high amounts of boat traffic occur and the habitats are primarily used for foraging. Impacts would be greatest at the upper end of the project within Unit III where boats are almost never present and substantial loafing, roosting, and nesting occurs. As a result of the high level of nesting by shorebirds in the vicinity of the Unit III basin and channel, dredging within these areas during the spring and summer nesting seasons is anticipated to result in significant disruption to nest site use or increased nest failures by both sensitive as well as non -sensitive species. Long-term Effects The proposed Unit III dredging and associated maintenance dredging along the Unit lI channel and at Dover shores is expected to result in some transition between habitats of mudflats and shallow water to habitats of deeper water, This will result in an increase in marine influence in the far back bay reaches and is expected to change the character of the infaunal and fisheries communities of these areas. In addition, the removal of 50.0 acres of developing mudflats and extreme shallows will reduce the extent of these habitats currently available to shorebird avian and dabbling duck foraging use. On face value, this would appear to reflect a new habitat loss not accounted for in this assessment. However, it is important to recognize that the entire areas of the Unit III basin was originally dredged to a -7 foot MSL depth to create the Unit I sediment basin, with a recognized need for periodic maintenance dredging. As a part of this work, mitigation in the foam of habitat restoration and enhancement was undertaken by Orange County and the Department of Fish and Game. This mitigation was designed to both off -set the specific adverse effects of habitat loss at the time of project completion as well as to provide for future maintenance within this basin (Culbertson Adams & Associates 1984). As a result of this prior mitigation program, the appropriate assessment relative to habitat conversion impacts relates to a dredging depth increase from -7 feet MSL to -14 feet MSL, rather than the change from the present condition to the proposed -14 foot dredge depth. In this instance, the developed communities at depths of -7 or -14 feet MSL are not anticipated to be substantially different, discounting improved water quality with increased basin depth. Therefore, impacts associated with habitat conversion are not considered to be significant. The proposed work is anticipated to result in increased water quality and an improvement of habitat suitability for marine fisheries (Allen 1994) as well as invertebrates. The work would increase the tidal prism of Upper Newport Bay and would increase water turnover, thus resulting in more stable environmental conditions and an anticipated increase in water clarity. It is not immediately possible to quantify the full benefits to the marine community which may occur as a result of the project changes; however, these modifications are generally being considered positive with respect to long- term habitat values. In that anticipated quality changes are not considered to be adverse, these do not reflect significant impacts under CEQA. Ultimate quantification of increased habitat quality benefits may eventually be used in assessing mitigation credit values used to augment project funding. September 3, 1996 38 1 M&AM 95-042-01 Me?*el & Associates. Inc. I II 11 I If I11 J 11 11 II However, for the current analysis, establishing these values is not required. SENSITIVE SPECIES Construction Period As discussed above, the proposed project is anticipated to result in potential for direct habitat impacts as well as indirect effects to the adjacent areas and species occurring in these areas. For some sensitive species, impacts may result from direct loss of individuals from the population, while other species may be impacted by disturbance or reduction in foraging areas. The adverse effects to sensitive species which are expected to occur as a result of the proposed work are identified as follows. The proposed project work is anticipated to result in the removal of potential mudflat habitat and the prevention of expansion of mudflat habitats suitable for occupancy by this species. This work is currently approved by the allowance for Unit I maintenance dredging. As such, no additional losses are directly associated with the proposed work. Given this species' low status and prior approval for maintenance actions, this impact is not considered to be significant. The California Brackish water snail is believed to be widespread within the project area based on prior accounts. The proposed dredging would be expected to result in direct losses of a substantial portion of this species population within the Upper Bay. However, given this species low sensitivity status and an anticipated high recruitment rate, this loss is not anticipated to be significant. At the current time Tidewater Gobies are not believe to be present in or near the project area and are even believed to be absent from Newport Bay. No significant impacts to this species are anticipated. The proposed dredging may result in a temporary reduction of dissolved oxygen and an exclusion of some fish near the project work area. Given the low impact to this species and its low sensitivity status, this would not be considered a significant adverse effect. Striped Mullet, as with California Killifish distribution, may be adversely modified for the short tens during construction. This is not considered to be a significant adverse impact. Short term construction is not anticipated to result in a recognized change in the way California Brown Pelicans use the Upper Bay. Over the long-term, an increase in available forage fish may promote greater use by this species within the far back bay environment. September 3, 1996 39 M&Ax 95-042-01 Merkel do Associates, Inc. Changes in fish distribution patterns and localized increases in water turbidity during construction may result in a reduced ability for this species to capture prey in the immediate vicinity of project work. As a result of the opportunistic foraging exhibited by Osprey and the availability of alternative foraging areas, this impact is not considered significant. Long-term, an increase in available forage fish may promote greater activities by this species within the far back bay environment. The distribution and activity of this species within the marshlands of Upper Newport Bay are poorly documented and, therefore, it is difficult to assess the potential for adverse effects to this species. It can be assumed that activities in proximity to rails may result in some level- of disturbance which may lead to behavioral changes. This species, if breeding, would be most susceptible to disturbance during the period from early March through early July when birds would be nesting or with young fledglings. Construction period secondary disturbance impacts associated with work during this period may potentially be significant. As indicated, Upper Newport Bay is the greatest stronghold for endangered Light-footed Clapper Rails. As a result, concerns over protection of this species from impacts is of utmost priority. No direct impacts to clapper rails or their marshland habitats are anticipated to occur from the proposed work. Indirect disturbance associated with dredging construction activities may occur and could disturb the natural behavior of this species. Impacts which disturb breeding or have the potential to affect breading activities (early March through mid June) would be considered significant and midgable through timing constraints applied within project dredging areas adjacent to occupied rail habitats. Western Snowv Plover (Charadrius alerar drincs nivosu_c) This species makes use of the bay as a foraging and loafing area. - The project would reduce the available mudflat foraging area, as anticipated through authorized maintenance of the Unit I basin. In addition the project may result in some temporary behavioral changes (harassment) in the way this species uses mudflat habitats. These impacts would be considered significant as they would result in a "may effect" determination under the federal Endangered Species Act and may require at least informal consultation with the U,S. Fish and Wildlife regarding potential effects. The proposed work may result in disturbance of the foraging, roosting, and loafing behavior of this shorebird. These impacts would be temporary and localized and are not considered significant. The proposed work would potentially impact the foraging, loafing, and roosting activities of this species. These impacts would be temporary and localized and are not considered to be significant. The proposed work may be expected to impact the foraging, loafing, and roosting activities of this September 3, 1996 40 1 M&A# 95-N2-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. species. In addition, the work may also have an adverse effect on breeding success should work be conducted near the nesting islands adjacent to the Unit III basin during the breeding season of this species (April 15-September 1). As a result, project work which would occur within the Unit III basin during this period would be considered significant. CC=Jan Tern (Sterna C=ia) The proposed work would potentially impact the foraging, loafing, and roosting activities of this species. These impacts would be temporary and localized and are not considered to be significant. Elegant Tern (Sterna elegam) The proposed.work would potentially impact the foraging, loafing, and roosting activities of this species. These impacts would be temporary and localized and are not considered to be significant. -� Forster's Tern (Sterna forstenl The proposed work would potentially impact the foraging, loafing, and roosting activities of this species. These impacts would be temporary and localized and are not considered to be significant. Black Tern (Chlidonias nieerl The proposed work would potentially impact the foraging, loafing, and roosting activities of this species. These impacts would be temporary and localized and are not considered to be significant. Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus candwichencis beldinrfl The state -endangered Belding's Savannah Sparrows breed within the middle marsh area located in the vicinity of the Unit III dredging and the Unit II channel. This species is highly susceptible to disturbance near the nest site during the breeding season (mid -March through early July), and nest abandonment is regular if this species is disturbed during nesting. Therefore, activities conducted in proximity to nesting areas of this species during the breeding season would be considered significant. Large -billed Savannah Sparrow (P ccerculm candwichencic roctratusl The proposed work would potentially impact the foraging, loafing, and roosting activities of this species. These impacts would be temporary and localized and are not considered to be significant. Long-term Effects t Over the long-term, an improved marine fisheries forage base may be expected to have an incremental value in improving habitat values for piscivorous birds. The extent of this improvement remains unquantified at the present time; however, there are not anticipated to be any significant long-term adverse effects to the sensitive species of Upper Newport Bay from the proposed project work. FUTURE MAINTENANCE DREDGING IMPACTS The proposed project anticipates the needs for periodic removal of sediment from the desiltation basins and channels in order to maintain the benefits these facilities provide. As a result, it is necessary to September 3, 1996 41 1 M&AM 93.042-01 Merkel do Auodates Inc. consider this future maintenance in this environmental document. Future sediment conditions are anticipated to reflect those seen in the current project and the volume of material to be dredged on a recurring basis is expected to be approximately one third that of the current work. For these reasons, the footprint of the work is not expected to differ from the current project limits, maintenance period impacts may be anticipated to be similar but less extensive than those of the current proposed construction. Long-term conditions between maintenance dredging would be expected to follow those described as the long-term effects of the current proposed work. All of those impacts anticipated to be significant for the present work would be expected to be significant for future maintenance efforts. Similarly, impacts identified as not being significant for the present work would likewise be expected to not be significant under future maintenance dredging scenarios. However, through the course of the present work, or future maintenance, assumptions may be proven incorrect which could result in the need to change these assessments for subsequent work. In addition, since maintenance is anticipated to be required in perpetuity, some changes may be required to best address changes in environmental conditions, regulations, or technologies in order to implement required work. These advancements are anticipated and would be expected to be adequately addressed through future permitting and approval requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE ADVERSE EFFECTS All of the anticipated impacts identified to water quality and biological resources are considered to be mitigable through implementation of construction period safegaurds and timing controls, in combination with meeting requirements of project permit conditions for water quality, dredging, and ocean disposal of dredged materials. WATER QUALITY It is important to recognize that the project itself is a significant mitigation measure to a regional problem of sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay, as well as the restoration of the Bay to pre-1969 conditions. Measums which are required to adequately off -set potential adverse water quality effects of project construction and maintenance activities are identified as follows: 1. All conditions imposed by the ACoE, RWQCB and CDFG will be incorporated into project design. 2. RWQCB and OCEMA monitoring program results will be observed during excavation. Appropriate steps will be taken, pursuant to lead agency and RWQCB direction, if elevated levels of target pollutants or lowered levels of dissolved oxygen, below existing basin standards, are detected. 3. Project operations will require that the scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. 4. All construction limits are to be staked and flagged to clearly identify the limits of work. 5. Silt fencing shall be installed adjacent to any marshlands which lie down gradient from ground disturbing work. At present, this is believed to be limited to an existing disturbed dike area September 3, 1996 42 M&A# 95.042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. near the Port of Long Beach mitigation site where the stabilizer coffer dam work would be conducted. 6. Work on the stabilizer structure shall be conducted outside of the rainy season and all of the temporary coffer dam shall be removed prior to the rainy season in order to avoid potential sediment redirection into marshlands north of the Unit I basin. Alternatively, if it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director and Orange County Director of Planning and Development Services, that the final cofferdam design would not result in a ' potential for storm flows to spill into the Long Beach mitigation site, this timing constraint may be administratively lifted. BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 7. All construction limits are to be staked and flagged to clearly demarcate the limits of work. These limits are to be inspected and field adjusted by the project engineer and a biologist at the time of project construction in order to minimize adverse effects while ensuring project objectives are achieved. 8. Site access to and from the construction area shall be limited to routes along the central access channel or alternative access as directed by the California Department of Fish and Game. 9. Dredging within the Unit III basin shall be precluded from occurring during the nesting seasons for California Least Tern, Black Rail, Light-footed Clapper Rail, and Belding's Savannah Sparrow. This would result in a cumulative closure within the sediment basin from March 1 through September 1. Alternatively, if it is determined, by the City Planning Director and the Orange County Director of Planning and Development Services in conjunction with the California Department of Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, that substitute measures may provide adequate protection of these sensitive species then these could be applied in lieu of a full timing restriction. 10. Dredging within the Unit III channel from Unit Il to the basin shall be precluded from occurring during the nesting seasons for Black Rail, Light-footed Clapper Rail, and Belding's Savannah Sparrow. This would result in a cumulative closure within the sediment basin from March 1 through July 1. Alternatively, if it is determined, by the City Planning Director and the Orange County Director of Planning and Development Services in conjunction with the California Department of Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, that substitute measures may provide adequate protection of these sensitive species then these could be applied in lieu of a full timing restriction. 1 11. All construction activities shall be closely coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game Reserve Manager to ensure that sensitive resources are adequately protected and that project work does not interfere with management activities. 12. Informal consultation between the Army Corps of Engineers, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be conducted to ensure that measures addressed above are adequate to provide protection necessary to ensure the continued health of Upper Newport Bay's threatened and endangered species populations. 1 September 3, 1996 43 MdAN 95.0f2-01 Merkel do Associates. Inc. 13. Prior to initiation of maintenance dredging within the access channel, a pre -construction survey for eelgrass habitats shall be conducted. If any eeigrass is identified, the sites shall be marked and avoided. Subsequent to project completion and within 30-days, a post -construction survey shall be performed to verify that any eelgrass previously identified was not impacted. September 3. 1996 44 r M&A# 95-N2-01 Merkel & Associates. Inc. I I I I I 11 it Allen, L.G. 1976. Abundance, diversity, seasonality and community structure of fish populations in Newport Bay, California. M.A. Thesis. California State University, Fullerton. 108 p. Allen, Larry 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. Allen, Larry G. 1994. The Effect of the Deep Water and Sediment Control Project, Unit III, on the Fishes of Upper Newport Bay. Submitted to John M. Tettemer and Associates. July 1994. Bane, G.W. and M. Robinson. 1970. Studies on the shiner perch, Cymatogaswr aggregata Gibbons, in upper Newport Bay, California. Wasmann J. Biol. 28:259-268. California Department of Fish and Game. 1991a. Fish and Game Code of California. Gould Publications, Altamonte Springs, Florida. California Department of Fish and Game. 1991d. Special Animals. California Natural Diversity Data Base. August 1991. California Department of Fish and Game. 1992a. State and Federal Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Revised October 1992. California Department of Fish and Game. 1992d. Special Animals. California Natural Diversity Data Base. December 1992. California Department of Fish and Game. 1993. State and Federal Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. January 1993.. Cheney, M. H. 1985. Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program: Unit II — A Report on the Methods, Costs and Feasibility of Implementing Unit II Work. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. August 1985. Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 1981. Environmental impact Report: Newport Bay Watershed - San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, Early Action and Interim Plan. Prepared for City of Newport Beach. April 21, 1981. Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 1984. Addendum to Environmental Impact Report: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan; A Cooperative Project to Accomplish a Sediment Management and Upper Newport Bay Restoration Program, Unit I. Prepared for City of Newport Beach. Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 1986. Environmental Impact Report: Upper Newport Bay/Sediment Management Project. Prepared for City of Newport Beach. March 10, 1986. Dixon, P. S. and J. Scherfig. 1981. The Occurrence of Heavy Metals, Pesticides and Algal Growth Stimulation in Upper Newport Bay. UCI Water Resources Laboratory, School of Engineering. September 3, 1996 45 M&AM 95-042-01 Merkel & Assodares, Inc. EDAW, Inc. 1981. Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Project. Prepared for Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. May 5, 1981. Fronk, R.H. 1969. Biology of Atherinops affiinis littoralis Hubbs in Newport Bay. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Irvine. 109 p. Gerstenberg, G. 1989. Management Plan Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Prepared for the State of California, The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. Hardy, R. A. 1970. The Marine Environment in Upper Newport and Sunset Bays, Orange County, California. California Department of Fish and Game Report, MMR Reference No. 70-10. Heath, K.L. 1980. Comparative life histories of two species of anchovies, Anchoa compressa and A. delicatissima (F. Engraulidae) from Newport Bay, California. M.A. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 71 p. Horn, M.H. and L.G. Allen. 1981. Ecology of fishes in upper Newport Bay, California: seasonal dynamics and community structure. Calif. Fish Game, Tech. Rep., 45: 101 p. Marsh, K. G. 1990. Upper Newport Bay Regional Park Existing Biological Resources. Prepared for EDAW. May 9, 1990. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1985. Upper Newport Bay Dredge Bioassay. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game and The Irvine Company. March 1985. Merkel K. W. and C. H. Reiser. 1991a. Report of a Biological Assessment of the Delhi Channel, Upper Newport Bay, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 7 February 1991. ' Merkel K. W. and C. H. Reiser. 1991b. Report of a Biological Assessment of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 11 April 1991. Mitech. 1990. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for LA-3 Dredged Material Ocean Disposal Site Designation. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. January 1990. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselinlr. 1993. Wetlands, Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 722 p. Nagano, C. 1982. Population Status of the Tiger Beetles of the Genus Cicinela (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) Inhabiting the Marine Shoreline of Southern California. Atala. 82: 33-42. O.C.E.M.A. 1994. Phase III Nitrate Study for the San Diego Creek Watershed. April 1994. September 3, 1996 `� M&A# 95-042-01 Merkel do Associates, Inc. II Rappaport, R. A., N. R. Urban, P. D. Capel, J. B. Baker, B. Looney, and S. J. Eisenreich 1984. "New" DDT Inputs to North America: Atmospheric Delopsition. Chemosphere, 14:1167- 1173. Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1980. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 54 p. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1985. Newport Bay: Water Quality Issues and Recommendations. Smythe, H. 1990. San Diego Creek Watershed Nitrogen Study: Final Report. A cooperative study between: Orange County EMA and Santa Ana RWQCB. November 1990. Tate, James, Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds 40(2):227-236. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd. 1994a. Memorandum from John Tettemer to John Wolter regarding Upper Newport Bay - Deep Water Habitat Salinity Issues. November 7, 1994. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd. 1994b. Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Enhancement Project. Prepared for City of Newport Beach. December, 1994. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd. 1996. Memorandum from Mark Tettemer to David Ciaycomb regarding Upper Newport Bay Enhancement Project Data Requirements (with attachment: Dredging of the Upper Newport Bay: Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project and the Dover Shores Residential Community). January 10, 1996. ToxScan, Inc. 1995. Chemical Analysis and Toxicity Evaluation of Sediments Proposed for Dredging and Ocean Disposal: The Newport Dunes Marina, Upper Newport Bay, CA. Prepared for City of Newport Beach. October 1995. ToxScan, Inc. 1996. Toxicity and Chemical Evaluation of Two Sediments from the Vicinity of the LA3 Ocean Disposal Site and of One Sediment from the Unit I Sediment Basin, Upper Newport Bay, California. Prepared for City of Newport Beach. August 1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Part VIII, November 21, 1991. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Protection for 28 Animals and Plants Proposed During January -June 1992. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 17(3-8). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register 58(42). March 5, 1993. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Tidewater Goby. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register 59(24). February 4, 1994. MSeptember 3, 1996 47 1 `. M&AX 95-042-01 Merkel & Associates, Inc. Usui, C.A. 1981. Behavioral, metabolic and seasonal size comparisons of an introduced gobiid fish, Acanthogoblus fiaWhumas, and a native cottid, LeplocoMa amwWs, from upper Newport Bay, California. M.A. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 52 p. Williams, Daniel F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86-i. California Department of Fish and Game. June 1986. Wolter, J. 1994. Memorandum to Fred Worthley regarding Responses to Questions Raised by Resource Agency Representatives at November 7, 1994 Meeting Regarding Upper Newport Bay Unit III Sediment Control and Enhancement Project. November 23, 1994. Zembal R. and B. W. Massey. 1985. Distribution of the Light-footed Clapper Rail in California, 1980-1984. American Birds 39(2):135-137. Zembai R., B.W. Massey, and J.M. Fancher. Movements and Activity Patterns of the Light -Footed Clapper Rail. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(1):39-42. 48 September 3, 1996- I II I i 1 11 II u it II 1 1 i 1 11 Inc. 42 • Watsonville, CA 95076-2404 • (408) 724-4522 • FAX (408) 724-3188 TOXICITY AND CHEMICAL EVALUATION OF TWO SEDIMENTS FROM THE VICINITY OF THE LA3 OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE AND OF ONE SEDIMENT FROM THE UNIT I SEDIMENT BASIN, UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT Prepared for City of Newport Beach, CA Prepared by ToxScan, Inc Watsonville, California AUGUST 1996 I 1 II I I II 11 II '1 I IJ TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF TABLES...................................................................................................................iii 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 2.0 Background.....................................................................................................................1 3.0 Project Scope and Description...........................................................................................2 4.0 Methods...........................................................................................................................2 4.1 Sediment Collection.............................................................................................2 4.1.1 Vibracore Sampling ...............................................................................3 4.1.2 Reference Sediment Collection.............................................................3 4.2 Preparation of the Unit I Bottom for Bioassay Testing..............................................3 4.3 Solid Phase Static Bioassay(Amphipod)................................................................4 4.4 Sediment Chemical and Physical Analysis..............................................................5 5.0 Results............................................................................................................................8 5.1 Interstitial Salinity and Ammonia Data......................................................................8 5.2 Solid Phase Bioassays..........................................................................................8 5.3 Chemical and Physical Analyses..........................................................................10 6.0 Discussion..................................................................................................................... Tables.............................................................................................................................13-21 Figure..................................................................................................................................22 Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Summary of Vibracore Samples within Unit I, Upper Newport Bay. Second Resampling Effort ..................................................................................14 Table 2. Interstitial Salinity/ Ammonia Measurements..........................................................15 Table 3. Amphipod (R. abronfus) solid phase static bioassays, Unit I Bottom ........................16 Table 4. Amphipod (Ampelisca abdita) solid phase static bioassays, Unit I Bottom ................17 Table 5. Bulk Sediment Chemistry Summary: Newport Beach, Unit I Bottom..................18.19 Table6. Detection Limits and Analytes..............................................................................20 Table 7. Analytical Methods for Sediment Samples...........................................................21 FIGURE Figure 1. Vibracore sampling locations in the Unit 1 Sediment Basin, Newport, CA. SecondResampling Effort ..................................................................................22 F TOXICITY AND CHEMICAL EVALUATION OF TWO SEDIMENTS FROM THE VICINITY OF THE LA3 OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE AND OF ' ONE SEDIMENT FROM THE UNIT I SEDIMENT BASIN, UPPER I NEWPORT BAY, CALIFORNIA 1.0 Introduction Two recent bioassay evaluations of sediment collected from the lower stratum of the Unit I Sediment Basin in Upper Newport Bay showed that survival of the amphipod, Rhepoxynius abronius, was not statistically significantly lower in Unit I Bottom Sediment than in LA3 Reference Sediment and thus the LPC would not be exceeded by ocean disposal of Unit I Bottom Sediment Survival in LA3 Reference Sediment was lower than expected in both test events (65% and 32%), however, and EPA Region IX wished to evaluate chemical analyses and sediment toxicity at two other tlocations in the vicinity of the LA3 dumpsite. Because reference sediment at LA3 is generally fine-grained (>90% fines), EPA also wished to compare the bioassay performance of Rhepoxynius with that of Ampefisca abdita, a species which is known to be tolerant of fine-grained sediment. 2.0 Background During a chemistry/toxicity evaluation of several sediment samples from Upper Newport Bay in 1 June, 1995, the 65% survival of amphipods (Rhepoxynius abronius) in sediment from the designated LA3 reference site (33"31.47'N, 117°51.47WW, water depth 900 feet) was lower than would be expected in a ' "clean" reference sediment. The amphipod bioassay was repeated in November, 1995, on a newly 1 TOXSCAN, INC. T 13605 & 13470 Paaa 2 Beach collected sample of LA3 Reference Sediment; survival of Rhepoxynius in LA3 sediment was even lower (32%) than in the initial test Both testing episodes included the simultaneous toxicity evaluation of sediment from the bottom stratum in the Unit I Sediment Basin, and both results showed that amphipod survival in Unit I Bottom Sediment was not significantly less than in LA3 Reference Sediment, 3.0 Project Scope and Description Two additional sediment samples were provided to ToxScan by The United States Geological Service (USGS). These sediments were collected under EPA supervision from locations in the vicinity of the LA3 disposal site and were chemically and biologically tested simultaneously with the Unit I Bottom Sediment. Chemical evaluation consisted of analysis for the list of constituents recommended by EPA Region IX for ocean disposal testing. Biological testing consisted of 10-day bioassays with two amphipod species; Rhepoxynius abronfus was used to provide comparability with toxicity data from the first two test events, and Ampeiisca abdits was used to assess the contribution of fine-grained sediment to the apparent toxicity of the reference sediments. The resulting test data were used to re -assess the toxicity of the Unit I Bottom Sediment relative to that of the LA3 Reference Sediment, to evaluate grain size effects on Rhepoxynius survival, and to compare two different locations near the LA3 disposal site with the "officiar LA3 reference site. 4.0 Methods 4.1 Sediment Collection Figure 1 shows the proposed dredge area in detail and indicates the approximate location of the n I, it TOXSCAN,INC. Newport Beach T-13605 & 13470 Unit I Bottom Page 3 vibracore sites. One core was collected at each of three locations to provide sufficient sediment for testing. All three core samples were vertically divided, and the bottom portions composited to evaluate the bottom layer of the Unit I Basin. 4.1.1 Vibracore Sampling Vibracore sampling within the Unit I Basin was conducted on 6 June, 1996, from a 20 foot shallow -draft "mule barge". Three cores were collected from the Unit I Basin and each core sample was vertically divided at its midpoint into top and bottom subsamples. The three bottom subsamples were combined into one composite sample for chemical and limited biological testing. Details of the vibracore sampling are presented in Table 1, and sampling logs are included in Appendix B. 4.1.2 Reference Sediment Collection Reference sediment samples were collected with a stainless steel Van Veen grab sampler on 1 May, 1996, from the RN Yellowfin. Sample locations were selected by the USGS chief scientist with input and approval from EPA Region IX staff. The location for reference Station I was 33031.389'N, 117057.346'W (water depth = 1424'). The location for reference Station II was 33°31.508'N, 117°56.300'W (water depth=1362'). 4.2 Preparation of the Unit I Bottom Sediment for Bioassay Testing Because of our concerns over the interstitial environment of the Unit'l test sediments, manipulations were performed to assure that animals would be exposed,to salinity and ammonia levels during testing which would not prejudice their survival. TOXSCAN,INC. T-13605 ✓913470 Newport Beach Page 4 Unit I Bottom Salinity, pH and total ammonia measurements were made on sediment pore water as received. As expected, Unit I Bottom interstitial salinity was low (16%) and ammonia was moderately elevated (27 ppm). Sediments were sieved to remove potential predators, and aliquots were placed into their test containers. For the Rhepoxynlus test, two extra replicates of Unit I Bottom Sediment were prepared (in addition to five replicates used for the toxicity assessment). Before animals were added, the jars were filled with Water and the sediment layer was gently "perforated" in several locations with a glass rod to encourage water exchange between,the interstitial water and the overlying water. Care was taken to avoid any re -suspension of the test sediment. Vigorous aeration was established at this time. The overlying water was replaced twice daily and the sediment perforation was repeated daily for two days. After two days, one of the extra replicates was used to obtain pore water for evaluation of salinity/ammonia levels. Animals were not added until interstitial salinity was >_30% and interstitial ammonia was 15 ppm or lower. The second extra replicate was used to determine pore water ammonialsalinity values at the end of the 10-day test exposure. The Unit I Bottom sediments used in the Ampellsca bioassay were treated in an identical manner, except that the pre -test measurements of interstitial ammonia and salinity were not performed; our assumption was that identical treatment of two sets of Unit I Bottom Sediment had provided essentially similar adjustments of ammonia and salinity. No such manipulations were performed on either of the reference sediments or either of the control (home) sediments. 4.3 Solid Phase Static Bioassay (Amphipod) Solid phase materials from the sites were bioassayed simultaneously with control and reference sediments. Control sediments for the Rhepoxynlus test, which provide data for quality assurance TOXSCAN,INC. ' Newport Beach T-13605 & 13470 Unit I Bottom Page 5 assessment purposes, were collected from the same area near Whidbey Island, Washington, where ' amphipods were collected. Control sediment for the Ampelisca bioassay was collected from the Narrow River, Rhode Island, the home area for these test organisms. Reference sediments were collected from ' the two EPA -designated sites near the LA3 disposal area described above (section 4.1.2). Bioassay tests followed procedures outlined by ASTM (1990). Five replicates of each station, reference and control treatment were randomly assigned to test jars. A 2-cm deep layer of appropriate sediment was added to each jar, and each was provided with aeration via pasteur pipet. The test was started by randomly assigning 20 amphipods to each jar. The test continued for 10 days with constant illumination and aeration. Daily observations were made of each container, and the number of animals which had appeared on the sediment surface was noted. At this time, environmental test conditions (temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen) were measured in each test container. At the end of the ten day exposure period, the contents of each jar were poured through a 0.5 mm sieve and the number of surviving amphipods counted. Survivors from each Rhepoxynius replicate were transferred into bowls containing control sediment and monitored for their ability to rebury within one hour. The reburial endpoint was not assessed for Ampelisca. The test data for each Rhepoxynius replicate therefore include number of survivors and number of survivors able to rebury; test data for Ampelisca are limited to the number of survivors in each replicate. Reference toxicant bioassays were performed for quality assurance purposes, to verify the health and sensitivity of the test organism populations. The test was a 96-hour, sediment -free static exposure; the reference toxicant used was cadmium chloride (CdCIZ) dissolved in laboratory seawater. 4.4 Sediment Chemical and Physical Analysis Chemical and physical analyses were performed on all three sediment samples collected for this I TOXSCAN,INC. T-13605 $ 13470 Beach ottom project. Samples were collected In glass containers; prior to analysis, they were stored in the laboratory at 4°C. Analyses performed were conducted according to the following methods: Sediment Grain Size was determined using the methods described in Plumb (1981). Interstitial Water Salinity, pH and Total Ammonia values were determined for centrifuge - extracted sediment pore waters by salinometer-calibrated refractometer (YSI Model 33 Conductivi- ty/Salinity Meter and Atago S-10 or 5-28 Hand Held Refractometer), and by pH meter/ ammonia probe (Fisher Accumet Model 925 with Orion Ammonia Electrode Model 95-12). One hundred to two hundred grams of sediment were centrifuged at 7,000 to 8,000 rpm until supernatant was clear (15 - 30 minutes). Total and Soluble Sulfides. This method was adapted from EPA Method 376.1 (EPA 1983) and Standar6 Method 4500-S*'-E (APHA 1992). Sediment samples were mixed with Orfree DIW, and treated in a manner similar to aqueous samples. Hydrogen sulfide present in aqueous samples was purged into a zinc acetate trap using nitrogen gas. The sample pH was adjusted to about 4 if total sulfide was to be determined, or left unadjusted for free sulfide determinations. The zinc sulfide precipitate in the trap was oxidized with a known and excess amount of Iodine, and the unreacted Iodine was back-titrated with thiosulfate. Oil and Grease, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon. Samples were acidified to a low pH and extracted with fluorocarbon-113 in a separatory funnel. The fluorocarbon layer was separated from each sample, passed over sodium sulfate and collected for analysis of Oil and Grease using an Infrared spectrophotometer scanning the wavelengths from 3200 to 2700 cm''. To determine Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, this above extract was passed through silica gel which extracts the vegetable oil fractions leaving the petroleum fraction which was then analyzed by Infrared spectrophotometric techniques as described below. Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Analysis for total organic carbon followed the method of Gaudette, TOXSCAN,INC. ' Newport Beach T-13605 & 13470 Unit I Bottom Page 7 et al. (1974). One -to -two grams of sediment were placed in a 500 ml flask to which 10 ml of potassium ' dichromate (K2CR2O7) had been added. Twenty ml of concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4) was then added while the flask was swirled. After 30 minutes, the sample was diluted to a volume of 200 ml with de -ionized water (DIV1/), and 10 ml of phosphoric acid (H3PO4) and 0.2 g of sodium fluoride (NaF) were added. After more swirling, 15 drops of-diphenylamine indicator was added and the sample was titrated with 0.5N ferrous ammonium sulfate. ' Metals. Analyses for metals utilized combinations of the following Varian spectrophotometers: ' SpectrAA 400P or 400Z with GTA 96 a Graphite Furnace and autosampler; or a SpectrAA 10 with VOA 76 hydride —cold vapor generator and flame autosamplers. Sample preparation prior to analysis by atomic absorption was accomplished by guidelines specified by Chapter 3, Sections 3.2 and 3.3, 7000 series (EPA 1986). Organotins. Organotin species analysis was by the method of Uhler and Durrel (1989). Speciation was done by a n-pentyl derivatization using a Gas Chromatograph with a Flame Photometric Detector. A sediment sample was mixed with 5 ml of hydrobromic acid (HBr), converting cationic butyltins ' to the bromide complexes, which were then extracted with a toluene-tropolone mixture. Following this ' extraction a n-pentylmagnesium bromide was used to convert the butyltins to the n-pentyl derivatives. This extract was cleaned by passing it through a Florisil/Silica chromatograph column and then injected into the Gas Chromatograph with a FPD detector where butyltins were quantified. Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs. Analyses for these constituents were determined by Method 8080 (EPA 1986). A solid sample was mixed with anhydrous sodium sulfate, placed in an extraction thimble and extracted using acetone and hexane in a Soxhlet extractor. The extract was then dried, concentrated and underwent a Florisil clean-up. The extract was analyzed by gas chromatograph with an electron capture detector. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Phthalates. Analyses for semivolatile compounds '1 TOXSCAN,INC. T 13605 & 13470 Newport Beach Page 8 Unit I Bottom were by GC -MS techniques, following Method 8270 (EPA 1986). A solid sample was mixed with anhydrous sodium sulfate and sonicated in methylene chloride. The extract was concentrated and then cleaned up by gel permeation chromatography. The extracted sample was analyzed by gas chromatograph/ mass spectroscopy. The EPA 8270 method was modified slightly by the use of Varian Selective Ion Storage technique which eliminates interfering ions from the sample spectrum. A summary, of constituents analyzed and their detection limits is presented in Table 6, and chemical/physical methods are summarized in Table 7. 5.0 Results 5.1 Interstitial Salinity and Ammonia Data Salinity, pH and total ammonia measurements were made on sediment interstitial water (pore water) as received and just prior to addition of test organisms at test initiation. A final pore water ammonia measurement was taken from.one replicate of each test sediment attest termination. Pore waters were extracted by centrifugation. interstitial water salinity was measured using a salinometer-calibrated refractometer. Interstitial water ammonia concentrations were measured with an ammonia probe calibrated to three concentration standards. Data are summarized in Table-2. 5.2 Solid Phase Bioassays The results of the Rhepoxynlus bioassays are presented in Table 3. Survival in home sediment was 97%, and 98% of the survivors were able to rebury in clean sediment within one hour. Survival of Rhepoxynius in Unit I Bottom Sediment was 65%, with 93% of the survivors showing reburial success. Reference I showed 71 % survival and 78% reburial, while Reference 11 showed 61 % survival with 63% ' TOXSCAN,INC. ' Newport Beach T-13605 & 13470 Unit 1 Bottom Page 9 ' reburial success. Survival of Rhepoxynius in Unit I Bottom sediment was not significantly different from ' survival in either of the two reference sediments. The Ampelisca bioassay results are presented in Table 4. Survival in home sediment was 89%. Survival in Unit I Bottom Sediment was 75%. Reference I Sediment showed 85% survival and Reference ' II Sediment showed 79% survival of Ampelisca. Again, survival in Unit I Bottom Sediment was not ' significantly different from survival in either Reference Sediment ' 5.3 Chemical and Physical Analyses Results of chemical and physical analyses of the three test sediments are summarized in Table 5. For purposes of discussion (below), data from June, 1995, describing the chemical and physical characteristics of sediment from the currently "official" LA3 Reference Site are included in this table (in the shaded column). ' All four sediments were fine-grained, with % fines ( silt and clay) ranging from 87% - 95%. Among the three sediments tested in the current project, the Station I Reference sample and the ' Unit I Bottom sample were quite similar with respect to metal content, while Station II Reference Sediment ' contained generally lower concentrations of metals. Station II Reference Sediment contained a significant concentration of tributyltin (22 ppb) with lesser amounts of dibutyltin (7.0 ppb) and monobutyltin (2.0 ppb). Organotins were not detected at either Unit I Bottom or Station I Reference. Among the organic constituents, Station I Reference sediment showed 0.86 ppb of Aldrin, 50 ppb TOXSCAN,INC. T 13605 313470 Pace 10 t Beach Bottom of DDT, 6.7 ppb of DDE, 48 ppb of PCB (as Aroclor 1254) and 57 ppb of total PAHs. Station II Reference sediment showed 1.1 ppb of DDT and 8.4 ppb of DDE; PCBs and PAHs were not -detected at Station II. Unit I Bottom sediment showed no detectable organic constituents. 6.0 Discussion The first two test events in the program showed that Unit I Bottom sediment supported survival of Rhepoxynius at a level which was slightly lower than survival in LA3 Reference sediment The differences were not statistically significant Survival in the reference sediment was lower than expected in the first test event (65%) and was markedly lower (32%) in the retest The present project produced Rhepoxynius results which were generally similar to those seen in events 1 and 2; survival in reference Station I was 71 % and at reference Station 11 was 61 %, while survival at Unit I Bottom was 65% (not significantly different from either of the two alternative reference sediments). The conclusion from this third test is, again, that disposal of Station I Bottom sediments at LA3 would not exceed the Limiting Permissible Conclusion (LPC). In the present project, Ampelisca bioassays were run in parallel with Rhepoxynius bioassays in an attempt to estimate the contribution of fine-grained sediment to Rhepoxynius mortality. As expected, Ampelisca survival was better than Rhepoxynius survival in all three test sediments. Reference Station I Ampelisca survival was 85% (a 14% improvement); Reference Station 11 Ampelisca survival was 79% (+18%); Unit I Bottom survival was 75% (+10%). As with Rhepoxynius, the difference in Ampelisca survival between Unit I Bottom and either of the alternative reference sediments was not significantly different and the LPC would not be exceed by disposal at LA3. EPA sponsored research has developed a predictive relationship between Rhepoxynius survival and.grain size in "clean" sediment (Dewitt, at. al., 1988). The equation predicts that 11-12% of the Rhepoxynius mortality observed in this study could be accounted for by grain size effects, and test data TOXSCAN, INC. ' Newport Beach T-13605 & 13470 Unit I Bottom Page 11 suggest that improved survival of Ampelisca in reference Station I and Unit i Bottom sediments was due to ' the grain size sensitivity of Rhepoxynius. Of the 18% improvement in survival in reference Station II sediment (Ampelisca vs. Rhepoxynius), about 11% can be theoretically attributed to grain size. As in the previous two test events, ammonia was almost certainly not a factor contributing to ' Rhepoxynius mortality. Table 2 shows that there was virtually no ammonia in the interstitial water of either of the two reference sediments at test initiation; Unit 1 Bottom sediment contained 15 ppm of total home for each ammonia on test day 0, and 8.3 ppm at test termination. Significantly, control sediments ' species contained more total ammonia at test initiation than Unit I Bottom sediment, and both controls showed better survival than the Unit I Bottom. The sediment chemistry data summarized in Table 5 suggest that reference Station I was ' somewhat more contaminated than reference Station 2, with levels of sulfides, oil and grease, petroleum ' hydrocarbons, metals and organic contaminants which exceed those at Reference Station 2. Levels of I Unit I metals at Reference Station 2 were generally lower than those found at both Reference Station and ' Bottom. There were no detectable organic constituents at Unit I Bottom, and relatively low organics at both Reference Stations. Reference Station 2 Sediment data were similar to those obtained for the "official" LA3 Reference Sediment in our original (June 1995) study in this series. The obvious difference among these four sediment samples is the presence of tributyltin (22 ppb) and of lesser amounts of dibutyltin and monobutyltin in Station 2 Reference Sediment. Based upon the overall chemical profile, test sediment from Reference Station 2 is the least contaminated among the three samples tested, and we might predict that toxicity would be lowest in that sediment, Toxicity data, however, show that Reference Station 2 is somewhat more toxic than Reference Station I to both Rhepoxynius and Ampelisca, and is more toxic to Rhepoxynius than Unit I Bottom Sediments. This suggests that the slight amphipod toxicity at Reference Station 2 may be attributable to TOXSCAN,INC. T-13605 & 13470 Pace 12 butyltin contamination. Beach ottoln In the larger context, however, there is no obvious explanation in the sediment chemistry data for the relatively low survival of amphipods in LA3 Reference Sediment. Cl I I I I� TOXSCAN,INC. ' Newport Beach T-13605 & 13470 Unit I Bottom Page 13 1 TABLES 1 '�J 1 J II II II 'I Table 1. Summary of vbracore Samples within Unit 1. Upper Newport Bay. Second Resampling Effort Station Date Location Seaf(oor Projected Pushed Length -Sampling Sample I.D. Time Elevation Length (feet) Recovered Interval N. Latitude W. Longitude (feet MLLW) (feet) (feet) (feet) U14 6 JUNE 33'38.9674' 117`52.340T -0.3 14.0 13.5 12.75 7.042.75 1358 U1-5 6 JUNE 33`39.0160' 117152.2151' -0.85 14.0 13.25 13.25 7.0-13.25 1449 U1-6 6 JUNE 3739.019T 117°52.0572' 4.2 14.0 i 14.5 14.5 7.0-14.0 I 1431 1 Sampling Met Interval Rejection (feet MLLW) 7 -7.3 to -13.05 YES -7.85 to -14.10 I NO -8.2 to -15.2 I NO n ' � -4 J s � X 0 ae z az O M I_ M M I_ 111111■ M I- M M M I- M IM M M M IM TOXSCAN,INC. Newport Beach T-13605 & 13470 ' Unit i Bottom Page 15 i J n I li II II Table 2. Interstitial Salinity/Ammonia Measurements. Identification Salinity (%) Total Ammonia (mg/L) As received: Unit I Bottom 16.0 27.3 Reference 1 34.5 1.8 Reference II 33.0 0.6 At test initiation: Unit I Bottom 32.0 15.0 Reference 1 33.0 0.75 Reference II 33.0 0.07 Rhepoxynius Control 33.0 23.0 Ampelisca Control 33.0 17.0 At test termination: Unit I Bottom 34.0 8.3 Reference 1 35.0 <4.0 Reference II 35.0 <4.0 Rhepoxynius Control 35.0 5.3 Ampelisca Control 35.0 8.3 II ToxScan, Inc. ' T-13470 Newport Beach Page 16 Unit 1 Bottom Table 3. Amphipod (R. abronius) solid phase static bioassays, Unit I Bottom. Rhepoxynius abronius , Solid Phase Static Bioassay Results Unit I Bottom NOW NUMBER OF SURVIVORS ' (Start n = 20) Rep# Home Newport Unit i Station 1 Ref Station 2 Ref 1 20 15 17 15 ■ 2 20 12 15 10 13 13 ' 3 19 13 4 19 16 14 13 5 19 9 12 10 ' Mean 19.4 13,0 14.2 12.2 SD 0.5 2.4 1.7 1.9 ' Mean•% Survival 97% 66% 71% 61% ' Mean % 98% 93% 78% 63% Reburial ' 1. Data PASS SHAPIRO-WILKS TEST for normality at P=0.01: W = 0,948 D = 63.600 Critical W = 0.835 2. Data PASS COCHRAN'S TEST for homogeneity of variance at a=0.01: ' Calculated G statistic = 0.4717 Table value Of 3, 5) = 0.83 3. ANOVA test shows no significant difference among sample means and disposal site reference: ' Critical F value = 3.892.21 (0.05, 2, 12) Calculated F value = 0.956 Calculated F < Critical F; Fail to reject Ho: all groups equal 4. DUNNETTS TEST (Mean Comparison Test) shows no decrease in survival between Newport Unit I and Station 1 & 2 References. Dunett's table value = 2.11 TOXSCAN, INC. Newport Beach T-13605 & 13470 Unit I Bottom Page 17 ' Table 4. Amphipod (Ampelisca abdita) solid phase static bioassays, Unit I Bottom. Ampelisca abdita Solid Phase Static Bioassay Results ' Unit I Bottom NUMBER OF SURVIVORS (Start n = 20) Rep# Home -Newport.Unit I _ Station 1 Ref Station 2 Ref 1 18 16 20 15 ' 2 18 13 18 17 3 18 16 18 13 4 19 13 19 16 5 16 17 10 18 Mean 17.8 15.0 17.0 15.8 SO 1.1 1.9 4.0 1.9 Mean c/ S irvival AA 75a/ R5% 79% 1. Data PASS SHAPIRO-WILKS TEST for normality at P=0.01: Critical W = 0.835 W = 0.852 D = 92.800 2. Data PASS COCHRAN'S TEST for homogeneity of variance at a=0.01: ' Calculated G statistic = 0.6897 Table value (df = 3, 5) = 0.83 3. ANOVA test shows no significant difference among sample means and disposal site ' references: Critical F value = 3.89 (0.05, 2, 12) Calculated F value = 0.655 Calculated F < Critical F; Fail to Reject Ha: all groups equal II F1 II 'I 4. DUNNETTS TEST (Mean rmmnarison Test) shows no decrease in survival between Newport Unit I and Station 1 & 2 refe ToxScan, Inc. T-13606 Newport Beach Page 18 Unit 1 Bottom Table 6. Bulk Sediment Chemistry Summary: Newport Beach, Unit I Bottom. Sampling Areas NzwPORTUNIT STATION01 STATION#2 LA3 D.L. Anelyte I BOTTOM REP REF REP (JUNE, 1995) GRAIN SIZE (%dry) Cane SorAYGrovel (0 4-1) Sand (-1 s 0 i 4) slh (5: o: e) Clay (0 x 9) INTERSTMAL WATER Salinity (%) PH TOW ammonia (Ppm) MISCELLANEOUS CHEMISTRIES Total suffidu (ppm, dry) Water soluble sultkles (ppm, dry) 0118 Grosse (ppm. dry) PeOdeum Hydrocarbons (ppm, dry) % SOWS (%) TOC (%) METALS (ppm, dry vn) Cadmium Chrondum Copper Lead Merwry Nickel Sok"um silver Zinc OROANOTINS (ppb, dryvreght) Monobutyltin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 13.51 5.03 12.92 0A7 - 37.70 e8.75 64.13 70.59 48.18 28.22 22.95 22.64 18.0 34.5 33.0 32.0 - 7.9 7.4 7A 7.8 - 27.3 1.8 0.00 1.47 0.1 180 8.9 4.2 0.1 No 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 No 88 27 57 20 No 48 No 25 20 e5 42 51 52 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.57 0.1 9.8 7.5 4.9 4.0 0.1 0.95 1.0 0.58 0.6 0.1 ad Be 52 55 0.1 33 35 23 25 0.1 12 is 9.8 17 0.1 0.04 0.14 0.06 0.30 0.02 32 34 2e 25 0.1 0.85 0.78 0.70 0.8 0.1 0.22 0.45 0.18 0.3 0.1 120 120 90 73 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 TOXSCAN, INC. Newport Beach T 13605 & 13470 Unit i Bottom Page 19 Table 5, continued. Bulk Sediment Chemistry Summary: Newport Beach, Unit I Bottom. Sampling Areas NEWPORTt1Nrr STATION#1 STATION#2 LA3 D.L. Analyte I BOTTOM REF REF REF (JUNE,1995) CHLORINATED PESTICIDES (ppb, dry weight) Alddn NO 0.86 ND ND 0.25-0.38 alpha-BHC NO ND ND ND 0.25-0.38 beta-BHC NO ND ND ND 0.25-0.38 delta-BHC ND ND ND NO 0.25.0.38 gamma-BHC (lindane) ND ND NO ND 0.25-0.38 alpha -Chlordane ND ND ND ND 2.5-3.8 gamma -Chlordane ND ND ND ND 2.5.3.8 4,4'-DDD ND 6.7 1.1 3.8 0.25-0.38 4,4'-DDE NO 50 8.4 37 0.25-0.38 4,4'-DDT NO ND NO NO 0.25-0.38 Dielddn ND ND ND ND 0.25-0.38 Endosulfan I ND ND NO ND 0.25-0.38 Endosulfan II NO NO ND NO 1.0.1.5 Endosultan sulfate ND ND NO ND 0.25-0.38 Enddn ND ND NO ND 5.0-7.7 Enddn Aldehyde ND ND ND ND 0.25-0.38 Enddn Ketone NO ND ND ND 0.25.0.38 Heptachlor NO NO ND NO 0.25.0.38 Heptachlor epoxide ND ND ND ND 0.25-0.38 Methoxychlor ND ND ND ND 5.0-7.7 Toxaphene ND ND ND ND 15.23 PCBs (ppb, dry weight) PCB 1242 ND ND ND No 10 PCB 1254 ND 48 ND ND 15 PCB 1260 ND ND ND ND 15 . total PCBs ND 48 ND NO 15 PAHs (ppb, dry wt) Naphthalene ND ND ND ND 7.5.12 2-Melhyinapthalene ND ND ND ND 7.5.12 2-Chloronapthalene ND ND ND ND 7.5-12 Acenaphthylene ND No ND ND 7.5-12 Acenaphlhene ND ND NO NO 7.5-12 Fluonme ND ND ND NO 7.5.12 Phenanthrene NO ND ND No 7.5-12 Anlhracene No ND ND No 7.5.12 Fluoranthene ND 26 NO 18 7.5.12 Pyrene NO 31 ND 21 7.5-12 Benzo(a)anthracens ND ND ND ND 7.5-12 Chrysene ND ND NO ND 7.5-12 Senzo(b)0uoranthene ND ND ND NO 7.5.12 Benzo(k)8uoranthene ND ND ND ND 7.5-12 Benzo(a)pyrene ND NO NO ND 7.5.12 Indeno[1,2,3-CD]pyrene ND ND ND 17 10-15 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene NO ND ND ND ND ND 10.15 10-15 Benzo[ghgperyiene ND ND total PAHs ND 57 ND 56 20 total phthalate eaters 140 450 320 ND 7.5-12 NI) = None W01eaeo Reporting limit raised due to matrix interference. See Appendix C for actual limits. Data acquired outside of 40 day extraction hold time. TOXSCAN, INC. T 13605 & 13470 Newport Beach ' Page 20 Unit I Bottom Table 6. Detection Limits and Analytes. ss��sssaa�ss, Anslyle Sediment wet wt (m91K9 or ppm) Arsenic 0.1 Cadmium 0.1 Chromium 0.1 Copper 0.1 Lead 0.1 Mercury 0.02 Nickel 0.1 Silver 0.1 Zinc 2.0 Selenium 0.1 Organotins 0.001 Aklrin 0.0005 Chlordane and related compounds 0.005 Oisidrin 010005 DDT & derivatives 0.0005 Endrin and derivatives 0.0005 Hexachlorocyclohexone isomers 0.0005 Toxaphene 0.03 Endosultan 1 0.002 EndosuHan II 0.0005 EndosuHan sulphate 0.01 Arochlor 1242 0.02 Arochlor 1254 0.02 Arochlor MO 0.02 Total PCBs 0,02 Total phenols 0.020-0.10 Aosnaphthene 0.02 Acedsphthylens 0.02 Anthrocom 0.02 Benzo(s)snthracene 0.02 Senzo(a,e)pyrens 0.02 Senzo(ghpperylens 0.02 Benzo(k)0uoranlhene 0.02 Serizo(b)fluoronlhsne 0.02 Fluor& ethane 0.02 Dibenzo(a,h)snthraesne 0.02 Naphthalene 0.02 Indsno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.02 Fluoreno 0.02 Chrysene 0.02 Phensnlhrans 0.02 Pyrens 0.02 Total Phthalates 0.01 Groin size - TOO 0.1 % Petroleum Hydrocarbons 20 Oil and Grease 20 Total sulfides 0.1 Water soluble suhldes 0.1 1 11 II TOXSCAN, INC. ' Newport Beach T-13605 & 13470 Unit I Bottom Page 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 'I Table 7. Analytical Methods for Sediment Samples. Analyte Sediments Arsenic EPA 7061 Cadmium EPA 7131 Chromium EPA 7191 Copper EPA 7211 Lead EPA 7421 Mercury EPA 7471 Nickel EPA 7520 Selenium EPA 7741 Silver EPA 7761 Zinc EPA 7950 Organotins (Butyltins) Uhler & Durell, 1989 Oil & Grease EPA 413.2 Sulfides EPA 9030 Ammonia EPA 350.3 Petroleum Hydrocarbons EPA 418.1 Pesticides EPA 8080 GC-ECD PCBs EPA 8080 GC-ECD PAHs, Phenols, Phthalates EPA 8270 GC -MS Total Organic Carbon Guadette, et al. 1974 1 tr . r Figure 1. Vihracore sampling locations (�) in the Unit 1 Sediment Basin, Newport, CA. Second Resampling Effort. w m m m m m m m m m m m m = = = m= m I I I I I i I ,n 1 I II II [1 (Attachment C) 1 I II II 1 1 Giroux & Associates i Environmental Consuhants ASR QUAL S TY SMPACT ANALYS S S UPPER NEWPORT BAY ENHANCE14ENT PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: HELIX Environmental Planning Attn: Dennis Narcin 7777 Alvarado Road, Suite 319 La Mesa, CA 91941-3647 Date: September 4, 1996 I 17744 Sky Park Circle. SWM 3/0. Inane, Cniildmia 92714 - ruone (/Iqj ax-oovr - Va (/.Y./ ��• ��� Meteorology/Climate The climate of Newport Beach is dominated by the strength and position of the semi -permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates the climate conditions typical of the Newport Beach area, including cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall, cool daytime sea breezes, and comfortable humidities and ample sunshine. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric processes that create this desirable living climate combine to restrict the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted in part by the climate. 'The Newport Beach area typically experiences very little of the unhealthful air quality found in some parts of the, Los Angeles basin, but the area is not completely immune from the intrusion of polluted air from more urbanized and industrialized portions of the regional airshed. Temperatures in Newport Beach average 620F annually. Temperatures range from the mid-180s during the summer months to around 40 degrees in winter. Peak summer temperatures are often delayed until August because thick coastal stratus clouds in June and often into July reduce the sunshine intensity in early summer. Daily and seasonal oscillations of temperature are small because of the moderating effects of •the nearby oceanic heat reservoir. In contrast to the steady temperature regime, rainfall is highly variable, and confined almost exclusively to the "rainy" period from early November to mid -April. Rainfall in Newport Beach averages 12 inches annually. Winds along the coastal area display several characteristic regimes. Daytime winds are generally from the southwest and west at 8-12 miles per hour. At night, typically, offshore winds of 3-5 miles per hour develop. During the morning hours as the offshore flow dies out, winds blow parallel to the coastline from the southeast until the onshore winds become re-established. One other important wind regime occurs when a high pressure center forms over the western United States and creates strong, hot, dry, gusty Santa Ana winds from the northeast and east across southeastern Orange County coastal areas. These winds are funneled and accelerated by local canyon terrain, except where vegetative or man-made obstructions reduce the wind velocity. Because the Upper Newport Bay is aligned parallel to the prevailing Santa Ana wind direction and acts as a natural funnel, strong winds down the middle of the bay are common during Santa Ana wind conditions. 1 Air Pollution Meteorology The low frequency of calms and adequate daytime ventilation speed does not allow for any significant daytime stagnation of air pollutants in the Newport Beach area. Except for regional intrusion of unhealthful air pollutants, air quality in the vicinity of the southeastern county coastal corridor is considered good. The moderate onshore breeze carries any locally generated emissions eastward across the •Lomas de Santiago Hills toward Riverside County. Daytime air quality problems occur mainly when winds shift far into the northwest and the daytime sea breeze is replaced by airflow across areas which generate substantial pollution, such as southwestern Los Angeles County and northern Orange County. These winds occasionally bring smog levels in excess of allowable standards into the City of Newport Beach during summer and early fall, Nighttime air quality problems occur when the slower nocturnal winds drift across Orange County out of Santa Ana Canyon and off the nearby hills, allowing for localized stagnation of pollution. Nocturnal airflow also brings elevated pollution levels of vehicular exhaust such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides into the coastal corridor. Monitoring has shown, however, that there is a distinct drop-off of such air pollutants with high CO levels near the Santa Ana River and steadily decreasing concentrations southeastward along the coastline. Air quality concerns along the coastal corridor thus center on the intrusion of air pollution from urbanized sources of the basin (mainly in summer), and from localized stagnation of vehicular pollutants near congested roadway sources during near calm wind conditions (mainly in winter). in addition to winds that govern the horizontal rate and trajectory of any air pollutants, Southern California experiences several characteristic temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants can be mixed. The daytime onshore flow of marine air is capped by a massive dome of warm air that acts like a giant lid over the basin. As the clean ocean air moves inland, pollutants are continually added from below without any dilution from above. As this layer slows down in inland valleys of the basin and undergoes photochemical transformations under abundant sunlight, it creates unhealthful levels of smog (mainly ozone). A second inversion forms at night as cool air pools in low elevations while the air aloft remains warm. Shallow radiation inversions are formed (especially in winter) that trap pollutants near intensive traffic sources such as freeways and shopping centers, and form localized violations of clean air standards called "hot spots." Although inversion are found during all !J U seasons of the year, the summertime regional capping inversion and the localized winter radiation inversions are, by far, the most dominant. The seasonal split in inversion intensity thus contributes significantly to the different air quality climates found in the summer and the winter in Newport Beach. Air Quality Setting Ambient Air Ouality Standards (AAQS): In order to assess the air quality impact of any proposed development such as the Back Bay Enhancement Project, that impact, together with baseline air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that distress or segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory infection, referred to as "sensitive receptors," such as asthmatics, the very young, the elderly, people weak from other illness or disease, or persons in heavy work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate periodic exposure to air pollution levels well above these standards before adverse health effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however that chronic exposure to ozone even at levels that just meet standards may nevertheless create adverse respiratory health effects. An additional margin of safety may therefore be needed if and when all clean air standards are California. ultimately reached in Southern The Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) of 1970 established national AAQS with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. Because California already had standards in existence before federal AAQS were established, and because of unique meteorological problems in the state, there is considerable diversity between state and federal standards currently in effect in California, as shown in Table 1. The deadline for attainment of national AAQS was set for 1977 by L the 1970,CAAA. The 1977 CAAA set 1982 as the revised attainment deadline with a possible extension to 1987 for some pollutants as long as reasonable further progress had been demonstrated by 1982. 1987 came and went with Southern California air quality improved, but still far from attainment. A new deadline of 2010 has now been established which recognizes that the combination of too many people and poor meteorology are a significant deterrent to any near -term expectations of meeting the standards in Table 1. Baseline Air Ouality: Existing and probable future levels of air quality in Newport Beach can be best inferred from ambient air 3 I Table 1 State of California Air Resources Board Ambient Air Quality Standards California Standards National Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Caleanhalbn Mehod Primary seeardry Method 0A9 Plan Ultravlolal 0.12 ppm Same as M. Ylono O2ene IHor (feo uWmo) Pholemelry ,(ns%wln3) Mknary Slit. Chamdunsnascanca COMMallour 9.0Pan (10 mgm0) Non•d4PereWa 9Plan (10mplmo) Non•disimrsrve Inflated Infrared Monoxide i NOW120 20 ppm Spectroscopy Specooscopy nW W) (NGin) (40 mpym0) (NUII)I ' Annual 0.050 ppm NW n Average Gas Phase (100 uWrn.1) Ou Phnsa I Haut 0.25 Dioxide Chemilumi• nesunu Punny S d Chonluinmesunco (470 uWm0) 0UVM Annaal 00 Up/Ma Average (OM pmd 24 Hour 0.04 PWn OGS uprm0 , Sullur lost n1O U111111,101e1 014 vpntl Dioxide Fkrotinios s, Parma}Vr1Ya10 IJOO UW1I13 0 Hour n G r ,m l ifuur a.P$ imps (645 aWre3) Suspended ArMW Poi wlale GeomeYb Mean 00 upim0 Sits, SNeeYve Insrual Matter Intel High SepaMaon (PM10) 24 How 50 uOrst Volume Sartipler l5o UWM3 and War Smmn as Grawnaloc Annual Grawmetrlo Primary Analysis Adlhnava Analysis 50 up7m0 Standard Mean SWAMs 24 Hour 25 upnn0 Turbicrtmk d IJrium SWIM 00 day 1,5 uphnp A wage Namk Momk Lead Mrarptbn Absorphon Calendar Same ns Ouster i.S uymJ Primary Sid. Hyrepan 1Fbr 0.03ppn CadMumHya- S41(we (42 uWm7) Oxide STnactan Vny1 Chlrkh 24 Htry 0.010 ppm Tedlr Will CdlacYon,Gaa . (ddaaWrw) (26 uprma) Chronwilogisphy e n01K In sulk4ont amount to peduu an eawlcYon "kitill of 0.20 pat kibmew due to nodud" (10 am b policies when the lelauve humidify is Wss PrYdas 6 pm, PS'� twin 70 parcenl. Measurement In accadrlw Win ARD Medrod V. ARB Fact Sheet 39; (revised 11/91) 7 L I! quality measurements conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at its Costa Mesa and E1 Toro monitoring stations. These stations measure both regional pollution levels such as dust (particulates) and smog, as well as primary vehicular pollution levels near busy roadways such as carbon monoxide. Newport Beach will typically have slightly better air quality than either Costa Mesa or E1 Toro because of a much lower traffic density and normally a very clean onshore flow, but there are no known data resources currently available through which these probable localized differences can be demonstrated. Table 2 summarizes the last six years of published data from a composite of gaseous species monitored at Costa Mesa and particulates at E1 Toro (there are no particulate data available from Costa Mesa). The following conclusions can be drawn from these data: 1. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels sometimes exceed standards by a wide margin. The frequency of first stage smog episodes, as evidence of extremely degraded air quality, is, however, very low in southeastern Orange County with the last first - stage smog alert as far back as 1985. 3. I1 iI Annual maximum ozone levels tend to reflect some annual variations in dispersion patterns that cause concentrated airflow from more developed areas of the air basin to be carried into the coastal area during some years, while only the fringe of the basinwide "urban plume" reaches the coastal corridor in others. However, except for the partial data year in 1989 when there were no ozone measurements that summer and fall while the monitoring station was being relocated, annual ozone maxima have stayed within a narrow range of 0.12 - 0.17 ppm for the peak one -hour reading. This represents an "excess" of 0-40 percent the federal standard and 20-70 percent above the hourly state standard for ozone, the principal ingredient in photochemical smog. Nevertheless, Costa Mesa, and by inference Newport Beach, are not that far from attaining the federal standard. One violation of the standard per year averaged over three years is allowed. From 1992 - 1994, there were four days exceeding the federal ozone standard. This is one day over the allowable limit in three years of data. Given that 1995 was the "cleanest" ozone year on record in the air basin, Costa Mesa/Newport Beach may now actually be an attainment sub -area for the federal ozone standard. Measurements of carbon monoxide at the Costa Mesa station reflect the history of nocturnal air mass which has passed II TABLE 2 )IEMPORT BUCK AREA AIR QUALITY MOMITORW SUM UY (1989 - 1994) (Number of days standards were exceeded, and saximm levels during such violations) 1442' 12�4 3491 3442 1423 1924 1-Hour >0.10 ppa 2 12 23 21 10 3 1-Hour >0.12 ppa 0 3 5 3 1 0 1-Hour >_0.20 ppa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppa) 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 Carbon Monoxide: 1-Hour >20. ppa 0 0 0 0 0 0 8-flour > 9, ppa 1 4 0 1 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Cone. (ppz) 13. 13. 10. 13. 10. 10. Max. 8-Hour COAC. (ppz) 9.7 10.4 8.1 9.1 7.3 7.9 Mitrocen Dioxide: 1-Hour )0.25 ppi 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppz) 0.22 0,20 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.16 Particulate Sulfate: 24-Hour > 25. pg/z3 0/61 0/30 --- --- --- --- Max. 24-1r, Conc. (pg/13) 16.5 13.4 --- --- --- --- Inhalable Particulates (PM-10): 24-1r. > 50 pg/13 20/60 16/55 9/57 5/60 7/61 7/59 24-1r. >150 Pg/11 0/60 0/55 0/51 0/60 0/61 0/59 Max. 24-1r. Conc, (pg/13) 88. 88. 94. 83, 115. 91. Source: South Coast Air Quality Managesent District, Costa Mesa Station for gaseous species, El Toro Station for particulate pollutants. �-- = no data or no zeasurezents during that year. = station relocated, no data froz April - Deceaber. Mote: Entries shown as ratios - sasples exceeding standards/sasples taken. 11 h, II It I1 r 11 II II I I over intensively developed areas in Central orange County before following the Santa Ana River drainage toward the ocean. In Newport Beach area, the incoming air during periods of high CO levels comes from an area of lower urbanized and. motorized intensity. The occasional violations of the 8-hour CO standard seen in the Costa Mesa CO data therefore are not fully representative of the Newport Beach area. Measurements by Caltrans along Coast Highway, and one month of continuous CO monitoring at Bayside/Coast Highway before the bridge was widened, showed CO levels well within allowable limits even during worst -case traffic conditions, while levels at the Costa Mesa AQMD station sometimes exceeded standards. 4. PM-10 levels as measured at E1 Toro, periodically exceed the state standard, but no measurements in excess of the national particulate standard has been recorded in the last six years. with more of the air having a marine origin in Newport Beach than in El Toro, the frequency of violations of the PM-10 standard near the proposed project site is likely to be lower than that suggested in Table 2. Air oual ty Management Planning (AQMP): The continued violation of the federal ozone standard and federal standards for several other pollutants requires that regional planning and air pollution control agencies prepare a regional AQMP as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The AQMP must outline the measures by which both stationary and mobile sources will be controlled in order to achieve all standards within the Clean Air Act deadlines. For the South Coast Air Basin (SOCAB), which includes all of Orange County, the AQMP and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) developed a plan in 1978 that did predict clean air throughout the basin by 1987. It soon became apparent, however, that the economic, social and technological constraints were too prohibitive, and the AQMP update prepared in 1982 anticipated continued progress toward attainment, but recognized that the basin will continue to experience violations of the standard for photochemical smog until well beyond the year 2000. Another AQMP revision was adopted by SCAG and the SCAQMD on March 17, 1989. The 1989 AQMP projected attainment of all national standards by the year 2007. The 1989 AQMP was approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARS) but was not approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for incorporation in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) because the 2007 deadline for compliance was not approvable under the 1977 Clean Air Act. The 1989 AQMP relied in part on technology which had not yet been invented to meet its year 2007 target. It called for stricter controls on automobiles, paints and coatings, new industries, and 7 I transportation usage. The plan was divided into three tiers, with Tier I representing measures which were available for immediate implementation, Tier II consisting of measures that needed further development but were based on known technology, and Tier III representing emission reduction measures that were dependent on the development of new technology, including heavy reliance on clean fueled vehicles. In 1988, the California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA amended the enabling authority for air pollution control districts in California. The legislature gave these districts, including the SCAQMD, broad new authority through the CCAA to regulate motor vehicle use with indirect source controls in areas that have not met national or state ambient air quality standards. In July 1991, the SCAQMD adopted a new AQMP which was prepared to meet the CCAA requirements. Although the 1991 AQMP deferred the attainment date to 2010, consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act, it contained fewer Tier III measurements, relying on the adoption of new motor vehicle controls by the California Air Resources Board which will result in cars by 2003 which are 80 percent cleaner than those sold in 1990. In accordance with requirements of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments, a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) was submitted in November,'1994 comprised of local elements for all airsheds with "serious" or worse ozone non -attainment problems. The SCAQMD plan requires a reduction of 85% of VOC emissions and 59% reduction in NO from the 1990 baseline inventory. About 40% of the required reductions will come from existing programs. Other reductions will come from market -based pollution reduction incentive programs. New federal, state and local measures are required to achieve the additional necessary reduction. A number of reductions are anticipated from advanced control technologies that have not yet been fully developed such that some uncertainty exists in the rate of progress toward a year 2010 attainment schedule. A marine habitat enhancement program such as the Back Bay project relates to the air quality plan in two ways. Emissions sources such as a dredge generally must have an SCAQMD permit to operate which insures that best available control technology (BACT) is used to minimize equipment emissions. Permits and their associated regulations are part of the AQMP. A second relationship between the proposed project and the AQMP occurs through section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. This section requires that no federal agency may undertake any action without first insuring that such action is I consistent with the AQMP/SIP. Thus, any permits issued by federal agencies such as USFWS or -the Corps of Engineers must first be evaluated in terms of project consistency with the SIP. Only those actions determined to be consistent may be permitted. 1 I 11 11 I 1 I II II II 11 PI I 2h R QUAL=Z'Y SMPACT ANALYS=S Significance Criteria Ambient air quality impacts are significant if: 1. they create a violation of federal or state ambient air quality standards, 2. they cause an exacerbation of an existing violation, or, 3. they entail emissions of materials for which no safe exposure levels exist (such as toxic air contaminants). Many pollutants require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their incremental regional impact is thus minute on an individual basis and can not be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is thus based on a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions into a corresponding ambient air quality impact. Projects in the South Coast Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds should be considered to be significant: 55 lbs per day of ROC ( 75 lbs per day during construction) 55 lbs per day of NO. (100 lbs per day during construction) 550 lbs per day of CO 150 lbs per day of PM-10 150 lbs per day of SO, Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. Because the Back Bay Enhancement Project is a construction activity, the 75 pound/day ROC and 100 pound/day NO, thresholds are presumed to apply. 10 i Additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows: a Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. G Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that ' projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the projectes build -out year. C Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. I1 LJ It II II II I Project could cause odor, dust or other airborne nuisance to be released. Except possibly for nuisance dust created during stabilizer construction activities, none of these secondary significance screening criteria are presumed to be triggered because of the project activities and the nearest sensitive receptor population. Dredging Activity Impacts Air' emissions from marine project operations were calculated by combining estimated fuel consumption with appropriate emission factors for marine diesel equipment. Emissions factors from the Unit II air quality environmental documentation were used because the USEPA "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) has not been substantially changed since the Unit II calculations were performed. The duration of operations under full power for guide and tug boats was modified from the Unit II analysis to reflect that these vessels do not operate under full power throughout the workday like dredges do. Emission factors used in the emissions calculations reflect engine technology representative of national average engine performance from perhaps 20 years ago. A number of dredges, particularly those working in California, have new modern engines or older retrofitted engines with highly advanced pollution controls. Emission levels calculated using historical factors thus represent worst -case estimates that do not necessarily reflect the enhanced pollution control environment in California, particularly in the South Coast Air Basin. 11 Calculated fuel use and the resulting worst -case emissions from dredging operations are summarized in Table 3 for carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), and nitrogen oxides (No,). CO and ROC emissions from marine -based vessels are well below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. NO, emissions, however, exceed the thresholds by a wide margin. The previous Unit II analysis had demonstrated that the project represented a miniscule fraction of all Orange County air pollution emissions as a basis for a finding of a less than significant regional air quality impact. Later court decisions have stated that the ratio of project to regional emissions is an insufficient basis to support a finding of no significant impact. Thus, although refined calculations for Unit III marine operations show less emissions than for the Unit II project, NO, emissions are now to be considered as having a potentially temporary significant impact. The Unit II analysis of dredging activity impacts contained a comprehensive analysis of odors from dredged materials. When biologic materials decay in an oxygen -deficient (anaerobic) environment, odors may be created. The experience during Unit I dredging, the analysis for Unit II, and the subsequent experience during Unit II dredging operations, showed odors to be mainly non - detectable at adjacent sensitive receptors. Odors from sediment piled onto barges or scows were faint at worst. There are no unique features of the Unit III project that would alter the expected finding that odors from Unit III operations will similarly be less than significant. Landside Construction Impacts Construction of the stabilizer and coffer dam, as well as various support activities (fuel delivery maintenance, surveying, etc.) will create air pollution emissions from on -road vehicles and off - road construction equipment. These emissions will vary from day to day and from one contractor to another, depending upon choice of equipment used. For purposes of analysis, stabilizer construction was assumed to entail a mixture of backhoes, dozers, graders and a crane. Ten pieces of equipment were assumed to expend an average of 100 horsepower per hour during an 8-hour day. On road trucks hauling rock, grout or other material were assumed driven by 4 drivers, each covering 150 miles per day on Orange County roadways. Employee commuting, including the marine equipment crews, were assumed to generate approximately 70 daily non -truck trips at a worst -case of 50 miles per trip. Landside activity air pollution emissions are shown in Table 4. Landside emissions are individually below the SCAQMD significance threshold. If any such activities occur jointly with dredging, then they would incrementally exacerbate the significant impact from dredging equipment emissions. 12 TABLE 3 MARINE OPERATIONS AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS Fuel consumption on Daily Consumption Hours (hr/day) Fuel Use (gal/hr) (gal/day) Clamshell Dredge 24 40 960 Hydraulic Dredge 24 20 480 Tugs 12 40 480 Guide Boats 12 20 240 Air pollution Emissions (pounds/day) Dredges Guide SCAQMD pollutant & Tugs Boat Total Threshold CO 150.3 14.4 164.7 550 ROC 32.2 5.4 37.6 75 NO, 752.1 100.7 852.8 100 Note: source: I Major dredging was assumed by a clamshell with a smaller hydraulic dredge operating around Dover Shores. Use of a large hydraulic dredge for work in the main channel would generate slightly greater daily emissions, but would be completed somewhat faster than via clamshell dredge. Unit II emissions factors for marine operations (does not incorporate emissions control technology found in many modern marine engines). R"ABZ.E 4 LANDSIDE ACTIVITY AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS (pounds/day) Off -Road Equipment 15.2 4.8 68.8 On -Road Trucks 14.7 3.8 16.4 Employee Commuting 58.2 3.3 5.2 TOTAL LANDSIDE 88.1 11.9 90.4 SCAQMD Threshold 550. 75. 100. Source: SCAQMD Handbook (1993), Table A9-3-A (off -road) California ARB EMFAC7FV1.1 Computer Model (On -road) 1 1 1 1 1 Combined Emissions Impacts Combined landside and marine activity impacts, if they were to occur simultaneously at maximum intensity, will not modify any conclusions regarding impact significance, seen as follows: source Worst -Case Marine Activity Co 164.7 ROC 37.6 NOx 852.8 Landside Operations 88.1 11.9 90.4 TOTAL' 252.8 49.5 943.2 SCAQMD Threshold 550. 75. 100. If maximum landside (stabilizer) construction and peak daily dredging occur simultaneously. Clean Air Act Consistency The proposed project will be consistent with the South Coast Air Basin portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) if it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Annual emissions are less than a specified de minimus level, or 2. Emissions are specifically accounted for in the SIP, or 3. Emissions are fully offset through enforceable measures in the SIP, or, 4. Emissions of ROC or NOy are determined to be within the available emissions budget for the airshed. The de minimus level for NO in an "extreme" non -attainment area is 10 tons per year (40 CFR Part 93, Section 93.153). The proposed project will generate 10 tons of NO in approximately 25 days of activity. Criterion 1 above will not be met and any federal agencies involved in issuing permits that require a consistency finding must base their decisions upon Criteria 2 through 4 above. Dredging is not listed as a separate source category in the basin air quality plan/SIP such that Criterion 2, specific accounting of 15 11 1 this project, is unlikely. Emission offsets are available on the open market, particularly under the RECLAIM market based emissions trading system. Purchase of emission offsets (Criterion 3) for the duration of the program is feasible as a means of attaining Clean Air Act consistency. Overall NO emissions reductions may also be occurring somewhat faster than initially forecast. If that situation were to be the case when dredging is proposed to be initiated, a consistency finding under Criterion 4 could also be made by the appropriate federal agencies with discretionary permit authority for this project. Consistency may therefore be achieved through the purchase of emissions offsets or through a finding that current emission reduction trends are exceeding the rate of progress forecast in the preparation of the SIP. 16 I M= T =GAT = ON from the 24-hour Significant levels of NO emissions will result operation of diesel -driven dredges and dredging support equipment. Worst -case emission levels of 943 percent of the SCAQMD ' significance threshold are forecast using "default marine vessel emissions data and assuming simultaneous peak marine and landside activities. Emissions reductions to a less than significant level can be achieved by three principal mechanisms as follows: 1. Extend the construction schedule to curtail the number of hours ' of operations per day, 2. Use less polluting equipment such as electric -powered dredges or catalyst controlled engines, 3. Purchase offsets from the emissions trading market under the RECLAIM program. Each measure individually may not be sufficient to meet the daily NO threshold. A combination of measures, however, may be a feasible means to achieve a less than significant emissions level. The following mitigation measure will thus be implemented: Emissions of No, will be controlled as much as practical through the use of low -emissions equipment and any feasible adjustment of construction schedules. Any residual excess, if any, between controlled levels and the SCAQMD significance ' threshold will be reduced through the purchase of sufficient emissions offsets from authorized No trading brokers to achieve a less than significant emission level. I I I 17 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 i 1 II II II II '1 (Attachment D) 11 Girona & Associates Environmental Consultants i • I NO 2 S E 2MPACT ANALY S= S UPPER NEWPORT BAY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ' Prepared for: HELIX Environmental Planning Attn: Dennis Marcin 7777 Alvarado Road, Ste. 319 La Mesa, CA 91941-3647 ' Date: August 28, 1996 17744 SLY Park LVde, Suite 210, k me, Callfomta 92714 - PLooe (714) 8514609 - Fax (714) 851-8612 I IN0 2 S E SETTING ' Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure ' level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Because sound pressure can vary millionfold within the range of human hearing, the dB scale is a logarithmic progression very similar to the Richter Scale used for earthquake magnitude. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum human sensitivity more heavily (middle A and its higher harmonics) in a process called "A -weighting", written as dB(A). Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state noise level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Ldn (day -night) or the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL metric has gradually replaced the Ldn factor, but the two descriptors are essentially identical. An interior CNEL of 45 dB(A) has been required by the State noise insulation standards (Titles 24 and 25 of the California Code of Regulations) for all multiple family dwelling units and hotel/motel rooms since 1974. In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission recommended that this standard be expanded to include all habitable rooms, including single family or low density residential uses. All development in close proximity to automotive traffic, rail or industrial noise sources with baseline levels exceeding 60 dB CNEL to which Titles 24/25 apply must undergo an analysis to verify that the 45 dB interior standard is attainable. ' Exterior to interior attenuation is typically 20 dB with all windows closed, slightly less for some windows open. A 65 dB CNEL ' exterior noise exposure generally allows the interior standard to be met as long as windows can normally be closed to shut out the noise. A level of 65 dB is also the threshold where noise begins to intrude significantly into normal activities such as having a conversation. Although people may express annoyance if 1 traffic noise levels in usable exterior space such as yards, patios, porches, etc. are below 65 dB, the percentage of "highly annoyed" people increases dramatically when noise exceeds 65 dB. Noise/land use compatibility standards for various classes of land uses are generally expressed in the Noise Element of the General Plan to insure that noise exposure is considered in any development decisions. Local noise suitability criteria are based on state model guidelines shown in Figure 1. The City of Newport Beach has incorporated specific components of these guidelines into city noise exposure standards. In Newport Beach, no new residential development is allowed in areas of 65 dB CNEL or greater unless sound levels in outdoor living areas can be attenuated to 65 dB CNEL or less and interior sound levels (with windows closed are attenuated to 45 dB CNEL. The corresponding interior sound level standard for commercial uses is 55 dB CNEL with no exterior standard, since commercial facilities generally do not have exterior uses where quiet is a prerequisite. Land use compatibility standards generally apply to discretionary actions such as development approval. They are designed to protect various land uses from sources of noise preempted from local control such as cars, aircraft, ships, trains, etc. Sources of noise within the jurisdiction of local government are typically regulated by the noise ordinance as part of the municipal code. The City of Newport Beach, however, has no specific noise ordinance beyond a general prohibition against "nuisance" noise. orange County does have a county ordinance with specific numerical noise exposure standards for noise -sensitive land uses. For purposes of judging noise impact significance, it was presumed that the County standards would be an appropriate measure even if the City does not have a similarly prescriptive standard. The County's standards are expressed in terms of a baseline standard of 55 dB by day and 50 dB at night with some allowable excursions above that standard. The greater the excursion, the less the allowable time period for such levels up to a maximum of 20 dB. The County of orange noise ordinance limits considered acceptable for the proposed project are as follows: I FIGURE 1 — NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY LAND USE CATEGORY COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Le, or CNEL, dBA 55 Go 65 70 75 so RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES ,,;t•• • , RESIDENTIAL - MULTI FAMILY TRANSIENT LODGING - MOTELS, HOTELS SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES :s ,—q �T�� ,• „>,. ,>p AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT 14ALLS AMPHITHEATERS SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS "' ' ''' -"•° `' GOLF COURSES, RIDING STABLES, WATER RECREATION, CEMETERIES r ;, , E .„!:: , •,• ,<, :;. ;; :; ; ;'e;1-.:> "h i;, `• ?' 'r< OFFICE BUILDINGS BUSINESS COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL ;A :: ;>:r::•• INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING UTILITIES, AGRICULTURE :- '<••'•'•:!•.:•:-<•''%'•%',° :77.77 ,_ Q NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use Is aslitdactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise Insulation requirements. ® CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only alter a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement Is made and needed noise Insulation features are Included In the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction of development should generally be discouraged. It new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement must he made and needed noise Insulation Mature* Included In the design. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE ' New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. ' Source: Office of Noise Control, California Dept. of I'Iealth, Feb. 1976. County of orange Noise ordinance Standards Noise Level Not to be Exceeded Maximum Allowable Duration of Exposure Daytime Hours (7 AM - 10 PM) 55 dB(A) 30 minutes/hour 60 dB(A) 15 minutes/hour 65 dB(A) 5 minutes/hour 70 dB(A) 1 minute/hour 75 dB(A) For any period of time Nighttime Hours (10 PM - 7 AM) 50 dB(A) 30 minutes/hour 55 dB(A) 15 minutes/hour 60 dB(A) 5 minutes/hour 65 dB(A) 1 minute/hour 70 dB(A) For any period of time In order to characterize typical noise exposures at various sensitive land uses in the project vicinity, noise measurements were conducted on five (5) days in mid -October, 1995 at various locations possibly affected by project -related noise. Although the readings were generally short-term (15 minutes per site), two sites were monitored for 24+ hours to assess possible noise implications of possible 24-hour dredging operations. Long term (24+ hour) measurements were made at the two locations shown in Figure 2. Although the two sites were due north -south, they are labeled "East Side" and "West Side" to reflect the access from East Bluff (East) versus Santa Ana Heights (West). Figure 3 shows the 24-hour measurement detail. variations at night were small, especially on the west side. Daytime variations, however, were very large from aircraft, recreational use and other human activities. Table 1 summarizes the noise measurements from the two 24-hour locations. Noise characteristics of the two locations were almost identical. Hourly summaries (averages, peaks and statistics) are included in Appendix A. Both sites experienced peak one -hour averages of 60 dB LEQ in the afternoon with individual single -event peaks of 80 dB. Late night minima were in the upper-30 dB range. 4 FIGURE r LONG-TERM NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS ' 2 b L•' c I t: L S (X100) 0.0- 10:00 100CL95 00:00 16:00 190cL95 00:00 170cL95 16:00 Back Day - Cast Side SIN 197 1.0- D L•' c All at I 11 0.5' C L S (X100) 12:00 16:00 20:00 200cL•95 04:00 00:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 190cL•95 12:00 Back Day - West Side SIN 190 HUUHE 24-HOUR NOISE MEASUREMENT DETAIL 1 3 TABLE 1 UPPER BAY 24-HOUR NOISE MONITORING RESULTS Parameter Peak Hour LEQ = When = MAX 1-SEC LEQ = When = Quietest Hour LEQ = When = MIN 1-SEC LEQ = When = 24-Hour CNEL - and other hours West Side 60.2 dB 15-16 PDT 80.4 dB 12-13 PDT 37.1 dB 04-05 PDT 36.3 dB 01-02' PDT 56.0 dB East Side 60.3 16-17 PDT 80.4 dB 16-17 PDT 38.2 dB 03-04 PDT 37.2 dB 02-03' PDT 57.4 dB Nocturnal minima may have been somewhat less than shown, but electronic "noise" in the microphone amplifiers of the sound level meters creates a "noise floor" below which monitoring accuracy diminishes sharply. Because human ears are sensitive to very low noise levels, the amount of "quiet" at night is an important consideration in possible nocturnal dredging operations. Measured noise levels of 56 and 57 dB CNEL at the two long-term sites are generally consistent with the level that would be expected primarily with John Wayne Airport (SNA) aircraft activity (mainly westward takeoffs). Figure 4 shows the monitoring locations relative to the SNA noise "footprint." Although the aircraft noise plots stop at 60 dB CNEL, the two long-term monitoring sites are not far outside that contour. The "West Side" monitor is actually closer to the 60 dB CNEL contour, while the "East Side" location is farther away. The eastern side, however, probably had some residual traffic noise from Eastbluff Drive such that the combined background traffic plus aircraft noise at that location created a slightly higher exposure than the western monitoring location which resulted almost exclusively from SNA air traffic. Figure 4 shows that the 60 dB CNEL contour extends down the bay almost to Dover Shores. Any project -related noise impact will thus be superimposed upon an elevated baseline. Typically, already elevated levels mask the effects of new sources. However, because the aircraft contribution is comprised of a number of loud single events while project activities will be semi -continuous, little masking of the project by the baseline is likely to occur. To supplement the long-term readings, 14 locations were monitored for 15 minutes each on two days from just after noon until around 4:30 p.m. The long-term (24-hour) data showed that average afternoon levels were 0-2 dB higher than the 24-hour CNEL. The data at the locations shown in Figure 5 are summarized in Table 2. The characteristics of each individual measurement site, as well as any uniquely perceptible noise sources, are detailed in Appendix B. All sites along the upper bay had high LEQs. The least noisy site had an LEQ of almost 58 dB which certainly is moderately noisy. The "noisiness" of many of the sites was attributable to a large number of very substantial single events such as aircraft take -offs superimposed upon a relatively quiet baseline. Because noise levels add logarithmically, a few very loud single events can significantly increase the average even above a very quiet baseline. 8 . 1( . tr .^y, 1q.iY • -'.— �., 19 !r III` e }�' Jh �Iv�•Yt' N •:•=• :, � ��`.. Ali � � �-- 3 `�- .''. .;4 .� �:sl��% S fir; � �. � : tTV. nfl ): v c ;.�c: � t,�ya�Y•,/ WL vie. '- �" •. •r; s-Y WEST MONITOR . 01 w.. ;` ��' EAST MONITOR vi FIGURE r I JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT CNEL CONTOURS - 4 FIGURE SHORT-TERM NOISE MONITORING *10"- 5 'TABLE 2 NOISE MONITORING RESULTS Site LEO Lmax Lain L10 L33 L50 L90 1 67.3 83.0 50.0 71.0 65.5 61.5 52.5 2 66.3 81.5 46.0 70.0 63.0 59.5 51.5 3 61.3 76.0 50.5 65.0 60.0 58.0 53.5 4 57.8 72.0 47.0 62.0 54.0 51.0 48.5 5 61.8 76.5 46.5 65.0 60.5 57.0 49.5 6 59.4 75.5 39.0 58.0 44.0 42.0 40.0 7 64.2 80.5 47.5 67.5 61.5 59.0 52.0 8 73.1 82.5 51.0 76.5 73.0 71.0 61.5 9 62.6 73.0 53.0 64.0 62.5 62.0 59.0 10 59.8 75.0 41.5 63.5 55.0 50.0 43.0 11 63.6 80.5 43.5 66.5 59.0 56.0 48.5 12 65.8 81.5 43.5 68.0 56.0 51.5 45.5 13 63.1 78.5 43.5 66.0 58.5 54.5 47.0 14 66.1 81.0 45.5 70.0 61.0 57.0 49.5 I 1 Baseline levels are best described by levels not exceeded over 50 or 90 percent of readings (called L50 or L90, respectively). However, ' except for one site, the L50 level (50% higher/50% lower) was 50 dB or more at all sites monitored. The daytime L50 standard in the Orange County Noise ordinance is 55 dB. Nine of the 14 monitoring sites had L50 levels that exceeded 55 dB. While nocturnal noise ' levels are very low, the daytime noise environment in the project area is moderately degraded. Nocturnal project activities, if they occur, may be quite noticeable above the quiet background. Daytime 1 activities, however, as evidenced from the above baseline monitoring, will be substantially masked by existing conditions. 1 11 1 I I 1 I J 1 12 1 11 F NO 2 S E SMPAC2' ANALYS = S 1 Standards of Significance Noise impacts are significant if they have the potential to exceed accepted standards or if they measurably worsen existing excessive noise levels. Noise standards are typically expressed in numerical ' levels (decibels). For the proposed project, the noise standard as derived from the Orange County Noise Ordinance, is 55 dB (L50) by day, and 50 dB (L50) at night at the nearest residential use. ' Noise, may, however, be a nuisance by virtue of its character, pitch, frequency, duration, time of occurrence or other parameters even if numerical thresholds are not exceeded. Meeting threshold levels is ' therefore to be considered as only a guideline where other factors also need to be considered. ' Noise Sources Four (4) types of project activities constitute potentially intrusive ' noise generation. These include: 1. Dredging, either by a clamshell or a large hydraulic dredge, including dredge propulsion/positioning, ' 2. Hydraulic dredge operations in the Dover Shores area, 3. Hauling of dredged material via tugs and barges from the excavation site to the ocean disposal location, 4. Construction of a stabilizer at the San Diego Creek entrance to the Upper Bay, including import of rock and grout to clad the proposed coffer dam. Secondary activities such as equipment marshalling, fueling, resupply, or construction worker travel/commuting will also occur. These activities will generally create limited noise of themselves, and most often will occur within an elevated noise environment where background levels will substantially mask any project increment. Dredging Noise Impacts Dredging may occur via either a clamshell or hydraulic dredge. For large open -channel dredging, a clamshell is more energy efficient/ cost effective. For operations in more confined areas where maneuverability is required, a small hydraulic dredge would most likely be used. 13 Clamshell Dredge Noise Impacts Clamshell dredging noise generation was estimated by Mestre Greve Associates (1985) for the Unit II Project. Clamshell dredge operation was estimated to generate a reference level noise of 70 dB (L50) at 100 feet from the source. Under normal atmospheric spreading losses (6 dB per doubling of distance), the L50 day and night standards are met at the following distances: Distance 1001 Noise 70 Level (L•50) dB 2001 64 dB 4001 58 dB 560t 55 dB (day std.) 800" 52 dB 1000t 50 dB (night std.) Daytime operations within 560 feet of a sensitive receiver could exceed the 55 dB (L50) standard. At night, the zone of possibly adverse impact extends to 1000 feet. This noise "envelope" represents worst -case conditions with the dredge motor enclosure fully open with continuous maximum power operations for one hour. This assumed reference value also is in the loudest observed direction. Because noise generation/propagation is not unidirectional, exposures away from the peak noise axis will be somewhat lower. The nearest residences to Unit III dredging operations are approximately 500 feet from the project site. Daytime Clamshell dredging operations may marginally exceed the noise standard at their closest point of approach, while nocturnal activities may exceed the standard by a wide margin. Noise impact reduction may be achieved by source control or by maintaining an adequate source/receiver separation, especially at night. Hydraulic Dredge Noise Impacts Hydraulic dredges are typically a noisier type of dredge if they remove comparable amounts as a clamshell. A hydraulic dredge includes both the primary motor as well as the pumps to convey the slurried cuttings, compared to a purely mechanical digging action such as a clamshell. Measured noise levels during operation of a large hydraulic dredge were reported in the Unit II environmental documentation as 75 dB (L50) at a lo0-foot reference level. Under normal spreading losses, 14 the following noise levels would result along the peak noise axis from the hydraulic dredge: Distance Noise Leve- (L50) 100, 75 dB 200' 69 dB 400' 63 dB 800' 57 dB 1000' 55 dB (day std.) 17751 50 dB (noct. std.) If a hydraulic dredge is used instead of a clamshell, and operating under worst case impact conditions (sustained operations at maximum power with the dredge oriented along the peak noise axis with an uncovered, open engine compartment), operations within 1000 feet of any homes would exceed the noise standard. From 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., operation within 1775 feet could exceed the standard under worst -case impact assumptions. For Dover Shores, a smaller dredge than the unit evaluated above would likely be used around the existing dock pilings because of mobility constraints. Dredge noise was assumed logarithmically proportional to engine size. Compared to the 75 dB (1,50) level for a 3000 H.P. dredge, the reference level for a smaller (500 H.P. ) hydraulic dredge likely to be used in the Dover Shores area would be as follows: L50 = 75 + 10 * log (500/3000) = 67 dB @ 100 feet Under spherical spreading losses from source to receiver propagation, noise levels near such a smaller dredge would be as follows: Distance Noise Level (L501 100, 67 dB 200' 61 dB 400' 55 dB (day std.) 710' 50 dB (night std.) 15 II 1' Because of the close proximity of residences to the Dover Shores area proposed for dredging, noise nuisance may occur even for the smaller 1 unit likely to be used for this project component. Dredged Materials Disposal Impacts Dredge material will be loaded into a barge. The barge will be pushed and towed by two tugboats to the marshalling area. From the marshalling area to the ocean disposal site, the barge would be pulled by only one tug. Noise levels in excess of 60 dB are reported in the Unit II project noise impact analysis to result from tugboat operations. These will occur several times per day, with two trips per day likely, and four trips per day as a maximum. Levels of 60 dB or more will occur during the interval when the two tugs are closest to any individual sensitive receiver. Within a few minutes, levels will fade as the tug(s) move(s) out of range. Because the noise standard is an L50 standard, i.e., the level exceeded for 30 minutes per hour, tug boat operations will not cause the noise standard to be exceeded. Audible noise levels from passing (tug(s) could be briefly intrusive, but not at levels that would likely annoy any significant number of people. Noise from nocturnal tugboat operations would have a potentially adverse impact, but at less than significant levels. stabilizer Construction Noise Impacts Stabilizer construction activities will create noise within the creek channel area, and may incrementally increase off -site noise from trucks hauling rock or grout to be used to clad the levee. The impact from these activities will be masked by elevated traffic or aircraft noise levels that exist near the structure or it access roads. Daily truck traffic for rock hauling has been estimated to average 24 trips per day (12 mi/12 out). Grout delivery may average 30 daily trips (15 in/15 out). Assuming a peak hourly rate of 6 vehicles per hour, the off -site truck haul noise level in close proximity (50 feet from centerline) to any adjacent roadways would be 58 dB LEQ. Baseline levels near Jamboree or other nearby major streets are 70+ dB at 50 feet from the centerline. The project increment during peak hauling periods would be +0.3 dB. Changes of less than one decibel are imperceptible to people even in a laboratory environment - much less under ambient conditions. Off -site truck noise impacts will be insignificant. F3_ A On site equipment operations will be the noisiest activity associated with the proposed project. EArth-moving equipment may create short- term noise exposure of 90 dB at 50 feet from the equipment. The mobility of the equipment and the intermittency of the duty cycle ' reduces the noise exposure at any individual receiver. Noise levels of 85 dB at a 50-foot reference distance are, however, not uncommon. With normal spreading losses, construction noise will attenuate to a typical daytime level of 65 dB found near the stabilizer construction site within 500 feet of the construction area. Construction noise has no numerical performance criteria in any ' appropriate noise ordinance. Construction activities are limited from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. as a means of insuring that equipment noise will not create a nuisance. Although dredging is theoretically a ' construction activity, the noise ordinance L50 limit was applied because dredging is proposed for 24 hours per day. Work on the stabilizer, however, will likely be restricted by permit conditions to less noise -sensitive (7 a.m.-7 p.m.) hours. Two noise sensitive receivers are located within the 500-foot radius of potentially elevated construction noise. The Marriott Suites on ' the side facing the bay have small balconies where people could be relaxing outdoors and hear stabilizer construction activities. The absence of any lounge chairs on the balconies suggests, however, only limited use of the balconies for recreational use. Some of the Baypointe Apartments nearing completion will be located very close to the construction site. It is not known if there will be individual porches or patios that could be exposed to project construction noise. Given the noise from Jamboree traffic and frequent aircraft takeoffs, it is doubtful that project construction would be perceived as excessively intrusive. The combination of time limits on construction equipment operation and the elevated noise background are expected to create a less than significant noise impact during stabilizer construction. 1 17 II M=T�GATZON MEAS'[J12ES Intrusive noise levels will be generated by dredging operations if they occur close to adjacent residential area. Three types of mitigation measures may be implemented, as follows: 1. Muffling/quieting the source, 2. Time limits on certain operations 3. Performance standards •., Noise generated by dredging equipment comes from a variety of sources including exhaust noise and mechanical or engine noise. The most significant of these sources is usually the engine noise. The engine noise can be quieted in several ways. The most obvious first step in quieting the engine noise is to close the engine compartment. The noise projections made were based on field measurements of a dredge in operation with its engine compartment open. The engine enclosures vary from boat to boat, but a minimum of a 5 dBA noise reduction could be achieved by closing the engine compartment. An additional 5 to 10 dBA could be attained by the use of lead curtains. Lead curtains are pieces of canvas cloth with lead sheets sown into the material. The lead curtains are usually hung around a piece of equipment to act as a temporary noise barrier. For the dredge operations the lead curtains could simply be draped over the engine compartment to provide additional soundproof material. This approach should be equally successful on either the hydraulic or clamshell dredges. YOW-wwq-Twa Time constraints can be imposed upon construction projects as a noise mitigation measure. The typical constraint would be to limit construction activities to daytime hours and to weekdays only. This constraint need not be a blanket restriction, however, because the maximum noise "envelope" for clamshell dredging was shown to be 1000 feet or less even for the most stringent nocturnal standard. The appropriate time limit would therefore be that dredging operations within 1000 feet of any residence should occur only from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Saturday if a clamshell is used. For hydraulic dredging, the nocturnal limitation distance would be 1775 feet with a daytime activity limit of 1,000 feet. Performance Standard! A performance condition may be imposed on the dredging operations. A performance condition would allow dredging operations to proceed as is I I I I U II it n II long as specified noise levels are not exceeded. The noise limits contained in the Orange County Noise Ordinance could be used as the criteria levels. This would allow dredging operations to proceed as long as equipment could be modified or operated in such a way that would result in acceptable noise levels in the adjacent residential area. Noise measurements would occur concurrently with dredging operations. Violations of the performance standard would be a sufficient condition to terminate operations until measures are implemented to preclude any further violations. 19 APP END = X A 24-HOUR NOISE MEASIIPMUNT DETAIL Project Name = backbay 'Location = east side Period = 10/17-18/95 a: - � e IL start = 20:00:03 end = 21:00:00 'leq = 52.13 Max = 64.7 Min = 46.1 L10 = 53.9 L33 = 50.0 L50 = 49.0 L90 = 47.0 'start = 21:00:03 leq = 54.29 Max L10 = 55.9 L33 = start = 22:00:03 Ileq = 49.21 Max L10 = 51.0 L33 = end = 22:00:00 69.6 Min = 45.1 49.0 L50 = 48.0 -end = 23:00:00 66.7 Min = 42.1 47.0 L50 = 46.1 start = 23:00:03 end = 0:00:00 leq = 46.57 Max = 65.7 Min = 40.2 L10 = 46.1 L33 = 43.1 L50 = 43.1 ' start = 0:00:03 end = 1:00:00 leq = 42.32 Max = 63.7 Min = 39.2 ' L10 = 42.1 L33 = 41.2 L50 = 41.2 (start = 1:00:03 end = 2:00:00 leq = 42.84 Max = 64.7 Min = 38.2 L10 = 43.1 L33 = 41.2 L50 = 40.2 ' start = 2:00:03 end = 3:00:00 leq = 41.74 Max = 60.8 Min = 37.2 ' L10 = 43.1 L33 = 41.2 L50 = 40.2 start = 3:00:03 ' end = 4:00:00 leq = 38.23 Max = 46.1 Min = 37.2 L10 = 39.2 L33 = 38.2 L50 = 38.2 L90 = 47.0 L90 = 43.1 L90 = 41.2 L90 = 40.2 L90 = 39.2 L90 = 38.2 L90 = 37.2 11 start = 4:00:03 end = 5:00:00 leg - 39.65 Max = 60.8 Min = 37.2 L10 = 40.2 L33 = 38.2 L50 = 38.2 L90 = 37.2 start = 5:00:03 end = 6:00:00 leg = 40.88 Max = 49.0 Min = 38.2 L10 = 42.1 L33 = 41.2 L50 - 40.2 L90 = 38.2 start - 6:00:03 end = 7:00:00 leg - 49.10 Max = 68.6 Min = 40.2 L10 - 50.0 L33 45.1 L50 = 43.1 L90 = 41.2 start = 7:00:03 end,= 8:00:00 leg = 57.31 Max 71.6 Min = 42.1 L10 = 61.8 L33 50.0 L50 = 47.0 L90 = 44.1 start = 8:00:03 end - 9:00:00 leg = 55.21 Max = 69.6 Min = 42.1 L10 = 58.8 L33 - 50.0 L50 = 48.0 L90 = 44.1 start - 9:00:03 end = 10:00:00 leg = 52.61 Max = 67.6 Min = 40.2 L10 = 55.9 L33 - 47.0 L50 - 45.1 L90 = 42.1 start - 10:00:03 end - 11:00:00 leg - 52.75 Max = 68.6 Min = 40.2 L10 = 56.8 L33 - 47.0 L50 - 45.1 L90 - 42.1 start = 11:00:03 end - 12:00:00 leg = 52.32 Max = 65.7 Min - 40.2 L10 = 57.8 L33 - 46.1 L50 - 44.1 L90 - 42.1 start = 12:00:03 end = 13:00:00 leg - 53.96 Max - 69.6 Min = 40.2 L10 = 55.9 L33 = 49.0 L50 - 47.0 L90 - 42.1 start = 13:00:03 end = 14:00:00 leg = 57.47 Max - 72.5 Min = 44.1 L10 = 61.8 L33 - 52.9 L50 - 50.0 L90 - 47.0 start = 14:00:03 end - 15:00:00 leg - 55.63 Max = 70.6 Min = 43.1 L10 - 58.8 L33 - 52.9 L50 - 51.0 L90 - 46.1 start = 15:00:03 end - 16:00:00 leg = 55.92 Max - 71.6 Min = 47.0 L10 = 58.8 L33 = 53.9 L50 - 51.9 L90 - 49.0 Start = 16:00:03 end = 17:00:00 q = 60.27 Max = 80.4 Min = 46.1 .,10 = 62.7 L33 = 55.9 L50 = 53.9 ,:tart = 17:00:03 end = 18:00:00 leq = 55.09 Max = 73.5 Min = 43.1 1vlo = 57.8 L33 = 51.9 L50 = 49.0 start = 18:00:03 end = 19:00:00 Leg = 53.39 Max = 69.6 Min = 41.2 10 = 55.9 L33 = 48.0 L50 = 46.1 13tart = 19:00:03 end — 20:00:00 leq = 54.19 Max = 71.6 Min = 40.2 1L10 = 55.9 L33 = 47.0 L50 = 44.1 IA II II II II �I L90 = 50.0 L90 = 45.1 L90 = 43.1 L90 = 41.2 Project Name = backbay Location = west side Period = start = 15:00:02 end = 15:59:59 leg - 60.22 Max = 76.5 Min = 47.0 L10 - 63.7 L33 = 54.9 L50 = 52.9 L90 = 49.0 start = 16:00:02 end - 16:59:59 leg - 58.07 Max = 75.5 Min = 46.1 L10 - 59.8 L33 = 52.9 L50 = 51.0 L90 = 48.0 start = 17:00:02 end'= 17:59:59 leg - 54.83 Max = 72.5 Min = 44.1 L10 - 56.8 L33 - 50.0 L50 = 49.0 L90 = 46.1 start - 18:00:02 end = 18:59:59 leg = 55.18 Max = 70.6 Min = 43.1 L10 = 57.8 L33 - 51.0 L50 - 48.0 L90 = 45.1 start = 19:00:02 end - 19:59:59 leg = 58.33 Max - 74.5 Min = 41.2 L10 = 57.8 L33 = 51.0 L50 - 48.0 L90 = 43.1 start a 20:00202 end - 20:59:59 leg = 51.96 Max - 69.6 Min = 41.2 L10 - 52.9 L33 - 46.1 L50 = 44.1 L90 = 42.1 start = 21:00:02 end = 21:59:59 leg - 54.53 Max = 73.5 Min = 40.2 L10 = 51.9 L33 - 43.1 L50 - 43.1 L90 - 41.2 start = 22:00:02 end = 22:59:59 leg - 48.90 Max 72.5 Min - 39.2 L10 - 46.1 L33 = 42.1 L50 - 42.1 L90 - 41.2 start = 23:00-:02 and = 23:59:59 leg = 47.63 Max = 72.5 Min = 38.2 L10 - 44.1 L33 41.2 L50 - 40.2 L90 - 39.2 start = 0:00:02 end = 0:59:59 leg = 42.97 Max 58.8 Min = 37.2 L10 - 45.1 L33 = 40.2 L50 - 39.2 L90 - 37.2 start = 1:00:02 end - 1:59:59 leg - 38.12 Max = 51.0 Min = 36.3 L10 = 38.2 L33 37.2 L50 - 37.2 L90 - 36.3 u start = 2:00:02 end = 2:59:59 'leg = 42.36 Max = 57.8 .Min = 36.3 L10 = 45.1 L33 = 38.2 L50 = 37.2 L90 = 36.3 ' start = 3:00:02 end = 3:59:59 leg = 36.65 Max = 40.2 Min = 36.3 ' L10 = 37.2 L33 = 37.2 L50 = 36.3 L90 = 36.3 start = 4:00:02 end = 4:59:59 'leg = 37.08 Max = 46.1 Min = 36.3 L10 = 38.2 L33 = 37.2 L50 = 37.2 L90 = 36.3 start = 5:00:02 end = 5:59:59 leg = 39.11 Max = 44.1 Min = 36.3 ' L10 = 40.2 L33 = 39.2 L50 = 39.2 L90 = 37.2 start = 6:00:02 end = 6:59:59 leg = 44.69 Max = 61.8 Min = 39.2 L10 = 45.1 L33 = 42.1 L50 = 42.1 L90 = 40.2 'start .= 7:00:02 end = 7:59:59 leg = 58.67 Max = 75.5 Min = 41.2 L10 = 62.7 L33 = 50.0 L50 = 46.1 L90 = 43.1 start = 8:00:02 end = 8:59:59 'leg = 57.42 Max = 75.5 Min = 43.1 L10 = 57.8 L33 = 48.0 L50 = 46.1 L90 = 44.1 start = 9:00:02 end = 9:59:59 leg = 54.47 Max = 71.6 Min = 42.1 L10 = 54.9 L33 = 47.0 L50 = 45.1 L90 = 44.1 ' start = 10:00:02 end = 10:59:59 leg = 55.40 Max = 74.5 Min = 43.1 ' L10 = 54.9 L33 = 49.0 L50 = 47.0 L90 = 45.1 start = 11:00:02 end = 11:59:59 leg = 57.56 Max = 76.5 Min = 44.1 L10 = 59.8 L33 = 50.0 L50 = 48.0 L90 = 45.1 ' start = 12:00:02 end = 12:59:59 leg = 59.63 Max = 80.4 Min = 43.1 L10 = 59.8 L33 = 49.0 L50 = 47.0 L90 = 44.1 'start = 13:00:02 end = 13:59:59 leg = 58.85 Max = 77.4 Min = 45.1 L10 = 61.8 L33 = 51.9 L50 = 50.0 L90 = 47.0 II start = 14:00:02 end = 14:59:59 leq = 58.92 Max = 76.5 Min = 44.1 L10 = 60.8 L33 51.0 L50 = 49.0 L90 = 46.1 start 5: EfO O 0 ' APPEND2X B ' SHORT-TERM NOISE MONITORING NOTES Site #1 Location: Westside of Bay Recreation/Trail area Time: 1308-1323 on bluffs, overlooking bay. Approx. 30 yds above Date: 10/13/95 water. Notes: Major noises: Jet and single -engine aircraft, constant low murmur due to taxiing jet aircraft, birds & wildlife Im Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 67.3 83.0 50.0 71.0 65.5 61.5 52.5 Site #2 Location: Westside of Bay directly behind the back fence of Time: 1337-1352 a large home which backs up to the bay approx. 40 Date: 10/13/95 yds to marshy area, approx. 100 yards to open water. Meter set approx. 20 yds. above water level. Notes: Major noises: Planes, jet and single - engine trees rustling in wind, birds. Q Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 66.3 81.5 46.0 70.0 63.0 59.5 51.5 Site #3 Location: Westside of Bay. Meter placed on south side of Time: 1404-1419 Bayview Way at its inter- section with entrance way Date: 10/13/95 to condos which are just west of Marriott Suites Hotel. Notes: Major noises: Constant traffic on Jamboree, trees/leaves rustling in wind. Jet and single -engine aircraft. Construction on SJHTC. They are using a very large pile driver. LM Lmax 61.6 76.0 Site #4 Time: 1434-1449 Date: 10/13/95 Lain US_ L32- L50 L90 50.5 65.0 60.0 58.0 53.5 Location: Eastside of Bay. Half way up hillside towards homes. overlooks Back Bay Drive just before it ascends to intersect with Eastblu£f. Notes: Major noises: Traffic from Jamboree, constant low murmur, planes. I= IAM Lain. Ll- L33 L50 L90 57.8 72.0 47.0 62.0 54.0 51.0 48.5 Site #5 Time: 1458-1513 Date: 10/13/95 Notes: Major noises: Planes, jet and single engine, birds & wild- life, construction noise from SJHTC. Location: Eastside of Bay, on hill, just behind houses, ap- prox. 30 yds. above water level. LM Imax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L2-0 61.8 76.5 46.5 65.0 60.5 57.0 49.5 Site #6 Location: Eastside of Bay. North side edge of gulley that Time: 1532-1547 leads down to canoe launch- ing ramp. Meter set back Date: 10/13/95 approx. 75 yds. from and 15 yds.above water level. Notes: Major noises: Birds and wildlife, jet & single -engine planes. Some type of power tool, possibly a leaf blower. 7LQ Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 59.4 75.5 39.0 58.0 44.0 42.0 40.0 Site N7 Location: Northeast corner of Back Bay Dr. & San Joaquin Time: 1600-1615 Hills Rd., at same level as water, set back from water Date: 10/13/95 approx. 40 yds., at base of cliff houses on top of cliff. Notes: Major noises: Birds, chirping bugs, ducks, some power tool being operated to N of meter. LEQ lam Lain L10 L3.3_ L50 L94_ 64.2 80.5 47.5 67.5 61.5 59.0 52.0 Site N8 Location: Eastside of Bay, west edge of small peninsula directly Time: 1013-1028 across from Dover Shores, next to UCI crew docks. Date: 02/05/96 Notes: Major noises: Planes, jets & single engine, birds, traffic on PCH, distant construc- tion noise. LEQ Laax Lain L10 L3.3_ LIQL L90 62.4 78.5 48.0 66.0 54.5 52.0 49.5 Note: Repeat of reading on 10/13/95 invalidated by excess wind noise. Site #9 Location: Westside of Bay on Bluffs overlooking Bay & Marina, Time: 1218-1233 approx. 50 yds above water level. Date: 10/16/95 Notes: Major noises: Traffic on PCH, jets on takeoff, wind noise. im 1max Lorin L10 L33 L50 1 0 62.6 73.0 53.0 64.0 62.5 62.0 59.0 Site #10 Time: 1243-1258 Date: 10/13/95 Notes: Major noises: Birds, light planes, traffic on PCH. Location: Within Dover Shores com- plex, on Eastside of Polaris Dr., between Morningstar Lane and Bvening Star Lane. SE4 Lmax Lain L10 L33 L50 L90 59.8 75.0 41.5 63.5 55.0 50.0 43.0 Site #11 Location: Within Dover Shores com- munity, at end of North Time: 1311-1326 Star Lane, approx. 40 yds. to water edge. Date: 10/16/95 Notes: Major noises: Birds, planes, trees/leaves rustling, power tool in use within Dover Shores. LB.Q lam Lain LIO L3.3— LIQ_ L90 63.6 80.5 43.5 66.5 59.0 56.0 48.5 Site #12 Location: Southeast corner of Galaxy Park, which is located Time: 1339-1354 at the T-intersection of Galaxy & Rigel Dr. , approx. Date: 10/16/95 50 yds. above water level. Notes: Major noises: Motorboat, wind, birds/wildlife, planes, jet & single -engine. Lffi L=c Lain LlJQ_ L23_ LOL L90 65.8 81.5 43.5 68.0 56.0 57.5 45.5 Site #13 Location: Westside of Bay at water level. Meter placed at Time: 1409-1424 east end of Mariners Dr. Galaxy & Rigel Dr., approx. Date: 10/16/95 at waters edge. Notes: Major noises: Helicopter, jets, lawn blower on Mariners Dr. to the W of meter. LE.4 Lmax Lain L10 L33 L50 L90 63.1 78.5 43.5 66.0 58.5 54.5 47.0 Site #14 Location: Westside of Bay at end of Constellation Dr. Time: 1433-1448 Date: 10/16/95 Notes: Major noises: Planes, jet & single engine, birds/wildlife, traffic from Irvine Blvd. L�4Lmax Iselin L10 L33 L50 L90 66.1 81.0 45.5 70.0 61.0 57.0 49.5 �. �� �. i i �, I I - � �,.Ipo .� ­--io ;_ _�_- I � � . - I � I . I - . - � I � . I , 0 1 1 - I . I � I I I . i . . � .. . I-: .. . I .."'.., - ­11­ 1. . 1. - I . � ,� I I �, . I . . ­� �. '' , , . �_n, _', . I , ­,0 e *;: I 1, I , 1 0?1 n is" ". "I - "�:, - * .,,`�,� nQ-, g.AW", § 1, Qn. �j 1 ,6 . ,a i " . 0. �. . .: I . ,,, , . ,' , , , � ., � � :.� . ::. , ':nlj��, .. '. � � : .� I . .. � , --:! :., :�:�, I : .: ". , ��`,.'_ �, .,�,,: , . . ,. , I. , I - , , m%',%.':',,�­� . , � .,,�..': �,*.:':: ; .: , : . � -.I.:-..'_ , '. i �_.Il li ... 4�.,�: ­:.., -, a, , % ". . I.: .. . . ., . ... ��. I.,, - � :1� I ,:..., .� . I�....�:,�,,,' I : , _ :,.\ l. I r.: � . .. q,_", I Y ,:�. - * .. In " , . I � . .. . - , , n ., ,.c A70i % , ".1 . 1. 1. , , ., ,, �P�, �. . ..� �� �i.,,.:, ..I 1 1. . I . ,.n-.�'11­ ..., 'O, ", �­ 11, . , 11"'..'. ", ;. . .: :,na�..',. :1 ...1. , I � , - ` ` "I . ,:i , . 1� ,�,.l , , j: . A , ... . lll�:....' . : , - 'V11, �! 1. 1.1; .. ; I. .*I : I I - 1". .. . . .. . . . I ,\I - . 1, . . .1 ...... � , . I , , ., I I �_,_ -a.: I � - �,::.. :.l. , ... . ., , - - - smum I , " . . 'T . ..... , ,I . , W, 400= I I ." - I , . _� . , 1:'i . . , 'k -� , � :,� . : .:.n �,::: " .,> ."n Z .10�12 � �"QQNT-". " - . !%,, _� - ,mlm�_,-_, 1'� . , , ii,,gg��l,:­ ; , � I ":��- �.� . , � . . I in .. ,W.:. K . 1�" I- ":.': ... , .., :iUn , . � - .: �`.l � , - - � , . . I. q:. ,� � .� ,��Ii T �V..,.� . r ­ &� ,".1111,11. ll.� ..",..., 1, ." �: � Kg,0 I -,, _,�.l ,,_� :_llm: � I�.�] jll�l ... ..n .. ., . . "&g . .g ,q"y p"nox-NZAS �A-Aqjf-i ­1 - , , . . - .:. ,nn . .. .. , ",,�� * , '. _., .17 -q � % . . l O."O" ,�jyjm 1, A111p, .Iin, I -:.�I� - . . . � : , , , "" I I ,, '''..il­ - "AN$$0 - - o".__ - - -, x_,`_0;Q yp��w --- a- - -- - 011-, l­` �:. J ::: . �. ,,, �,.::,�. , . l., . 1. �Ol I. pay 1 &, ", . � ", - ", " � -,��, %- "W"On . . I , I "ll- " I.,,;. ,.�� nQX% 'ViT. . _ . . , : . I ­ ­. I , I. W . ..; ., "... n. . . . , . I. ::� . a ­*,T 1:..I..:;.1. . .I.T ­_,iI­.,_ ., . � .'S . 'A �*.' i.,"::'i, , I g ,�, , ', , - ".. : ....I-, 11.;�,, �1.',,:-IO.l " l ­O � . :I �Aq" . ... 4 11 I 'l... ��TQQ .,..n..'__ . .. .1. 14" , \ ._ .,. '.., an.�. ".. , ­_ flic ,��i ,: � -,,11_1 g� , I , 1 n, k ­...., - 11 I— *'n ,0, - I ... , 7- 1 - X -MWW I Q-V ,_,: . .- , " * X . _Il "..:::�*mIll"', A �g,,,� ""R .I -0 , �,* . - " 11 :. ,�l�,�� . ,� . , ., I I I"A � I, - I 'a, ." I.. I ,,,, 0 - " .-In 1� , �A�:, .:,�,;,,i.i - _"", , - ".", �.l ", ,� -n.l"­,.,.l_..._ I .... I .:. ... - - ,,,,, , , -,.= . I . -, . .... .. , , d.,X -l�: - ,... .. ..�:-.,.,���..:.:i:.��i.:�,�I.N.M�:.:�,.::��. ...l. IT. YX f "GA114.1_ ". - 11,,, . , '. I ..... , - . XI, I "., , - - , .1'. ,.1. -in, I lni�-,; *_,� :� - , " . ", ,%'�� .... .. ,,n, �, ., I in, �. - .'�:."�.�::�1:1�otwmn;E=N,Q,,,,- X - ­_ . 1.1". I ., It �- � AMOV.- - 1, A." ". * I ., " � . An, ""4"�,l-Q,1W%"%"::, � 1wn, ", . I', ".., l"... - n­,,".". - ,n -AW,7._- .1; .1 I ; � �. � . I. , K� . I li.n.,�Ilng , ., : .. . ,:�:;�,:,: �: �.- �`,.,R': : �, :,� 211bog - my 0 A lyw& N-j"'Aff . - T, ,,�,�.-,� , : . . . . .. I . . I I . .., : . '� IV. l.I.- . . . I ..I �;NmIl:�,:", I: �X; ", . I-- , _ , , . :� , . " , , , ,, :I;,x ... 111 ll:­X1 l.::.., I:, �. Ill V-1 I I - — 11 . - ,�. . Ig" f:'.i.. :��.:.��.:,.,. , _­ " " $ ,-, I - - ..x: ':.:�i: . ..... ,......., , , , . l.. . : ,Yni,�i, , , ..,. ,::11 - -NA QQfr,­*A -V v O;0:l.I::::'1.'ini.� ::11"^ : . ,,I,, I ", � ,:.:, ,_ . . . . I . , ,* ,:,.: - :, . ,..i, �"........,"'.....1.1, ­I.nnl,.:�%x � � :�.;.',�.,� ... .... : , .1 � . I I % - - I � ,,%,`T&7� 1, -- . . .. . . - .1 . � 1-1 . A,___1+V, . I - -V,-11� __�,__,. . 1. . . .:. .. . � ::.:... ":. W - - fg, I , �. . ,�%11 I I , �­' I Mi- - -1 W - A V .&Aiin I 0 �. A` "A".40 � m .1 , I :" 1% a , . I . . . I . ., . , � . ., , . , , � ­ .� W10Q, �, jn"_ e �_....: �,, I '. ... -I, I ,,<I, .... 0. : I. .."': `�.'ila ,::.�i:,.,,I�n.,�, I . n"'.11. ".... 1. . . . 2 �,. ...: , ''.. ."'..', ". 11. -;;I ­�.. I ... 1. . ,,, ­11 " , , ,.:.� - . � 1-1, , I ��._ "'I".... ., 10nin.,�.-.%�,; ,, ,.� . �,�&� - W.": , I � I � _ %I, , ,,, l. : ,,, ''. ,,:' � ':,. , � , : I . . . � . . . .� . ., I I . I .1 I . , - � ,'I ,I�1­1' .I.Al ..". I- V,. - ii... , . .., - I .-I" . ,..." %., � � I . 1.11nO_ I �� al,' � . ." ��, ­ ,e� I , - "n" m .." 1% .n � '. I I - - . . . .. I .1 I �­.: I : U�ix I .� ;� - IQ, . W *Al ". .. " .,� .,. ,. .: �: ,.,.,. . . " ., _ , . . 1,X - , , I _ .. .i::'.l:i:Sl ." � ... ,,, '. - 'W':-, - :� . ", , .: III. .. t In: . T. -a ... ,­..:i�.,�. ,_ . ,:, 1 1 1 1 1 W.1n, 1. .1 I.- 1. I.. . "1`,,, ,,:,.:.;i" , ...: .. .,I, � .. .1 �I. . .1 1. . . . I ­� . ,'.�, , I. ," -I . .� . I.. '� I - ", I ..:.� � - �,,., � . :::;:: I I ,:­, ...''.. .,�� . . . X� ... 1. -, ,... I �I, i . ... I _.g�. II". �§ ., � ..., . n 0O::i.n1 , .. 1. ; �­ , ,'�:. .'­! G&m"g., . � : , �,, I: I %,, n ".11 1 . _� �,,,� ­,,­ . � h J� ry K. l wow ino up, - 11, I", I I., � 1, I I.- a - ,Q , ­,Q .0'". �,"W;:nw,�,. 11 _,, . 11 � , :4 Qnswil - -O"" - - .- � , _ ..­ . 11 �... , I .. n ., , "I .�';:�,k�.::: i�. �.::,l I I -- . -- . 11% AS ., . ... ... "", 1, - 11, . WAINY., I I . ,.. : � '', _ . ,:, ;j.,:i, ,: I W. 11,� :��`�::: I I'Tir": �,�:..��g� , 1.1.1111.1. ". . . . ::., �. 1.��, _'...".'.., . ,. � .0k, n' _. I ,,l . . .:. .1.1 I 1. I., , , � ... . � ., ; I ... . ... ... ,.. " ,. , % I ,. ,". I � , , .... ANLI� T h , , , . -Q. 4 ., 4 �.,i , . , ,Ail, I .�;:,� � :l', .:.,:. - � , " � - � ,WN — - ,I-i:,�, ,,�&�!,:Ii '.1 .1 - . .. . , '. .. ", , . . . � 13 I I 1 4. , 1% '11'iI ... � � .t., Mn'..'' - I R, , , .. A, :1. . �.::.:,:,.1;-x�:.:: ':� :Wj�"._:.K:�i­ $. _X.* I ::.k,_ .. W', , " InIU,'11 , " :.. �.:, ,�, .. ,, :, ,, ., . ,.. . g\��y\g� n . -- . ". ". : ,��_nahjm . ", .n ,. ,,�_, I,n.:�.�'.. :.N,; .."; I. Iln. .....p., :,V I'M. n. _ k., .'�., ::-.. �" Ax a �AWA--NWXT .�,X�n- &,4� 11.4i. 1� .�,, I I li�: ,.., � m I, - As , j-o� ", I '_ .: 'i .,� . , .. I .. .. .. 1. %.. .11,11. ..."..O., . ,� , �, -P..��% * I lm , "..,"n, ".'....I. ... �%:l:.l,7%x*m ,:� ­­r, .. ,.. : ., . "::. ..n.:. z k- , Al. , � .., 11 M�j al � . . . Y ...... I _ 11 _ , "Ev VAT W� "X 0 - m 4:1 %M: �T ,: il:�.,M .. I . . I, ,:, , '. I I :.. ,, , , .4. . n, , , . I , ��. .. �, . , I ­ '*:::::::::: ".. ": I., I , gl : " "�� ..: - , . - , - _,`_,..�,." _ . �' � - `:�% .; . :'. � i. . . . .... . AIn, - : . '. , I . . - � . .X\ , .. Anz -1." .".. In, . . . . , . ,�_ : ,l .. � �i. �­,.�%t: ..".. "' - , I - , ... - .9 . I ..., I.: - ��.",��,, . _� �.�. . . . , I , �.,."., , "I'll- - , 'InviNVANNAMA .nT I .1 . � ':-� " - , � .:. *� . . % ...... .., , ., I , I".. . li A .,n� ii: ..."..........�..., ,, I� ,. ., ­4 . al . l .1.1. - . .11 .. 1. I In �::.'�:I, .%:i",�',,. _,_, - -Z�:�,:".n,�,, I.,� , .---,: II, � I I 11 -, x1R. n , , - , JA , .. 1.­.....- \11' ,�. I. .11. ,. ,':,p,1 . . I ,111 T. Ili. �_m ., D:;�, '"' ._"­Xm_ .K&T."�.....,­ I , . .I.... n. I I . I . - .", gg., ...... 11�': . . . . . " ., ... . . , �,, . x". JACK 9. , - . I . ' 'Ell .:.k � , '.�'­'<�11 , I:. � I � ,,qq,.� I ,� .. : ,�_�I,,T,ti-,�`-.%� : . `il . 11 .111. ,��.,��:.�--,�",..�.',lSTAI:IIL.lg7 -1 j R� �_ .A." n ""��?. g�� 4 .:: ,:�' n,'�`, .`::-�*l` . ::�,,� IN �". � . ...".. - .. , "... -;:,.., ., �. I , .$ . I , , , , , , " , .­ , ,, ,"­: :�:"��":�,��:��:,.",�,,,,>�,�,�. ... � " ,­ . ,,, .$1, I 1.1­1.. '­11- 1. ". . _.a. .., "I'll ..a. I - "..., . ��,�., ,:::.l': a - ­­ . � ., , � , . .. n"'... \ '3'O', I�.I, TkI a'. .."..''X­.... .I,,. , , .... � -I- .1 - _ "-,-I; .nm. - - ng. 11�_ .n;n1l - ,ii:, �*?,�::_ ,�,,4..:....::: , :. -: '. __ '' I I �,e , ­&­ Am", ; ; 104 " ��.*,�,:nl ".� �i,N,� I.."...... '.,..'�z:.:,. p . �:*. "...."I.— , - "-.— n. _,. al, .1�11.. �, ,,�., \*.,,�R ��:j,,%�: '1� IX i:I,;i:!i:: '.. A,nl ; " I � . - : ,�.-,. -, � �. � �.,, ,ft%f .. ,�.*in.T ", . . , I., . .I. I f�;:X�l,� , . - elllix:� I .::A:.�.:.�. , . :�. x*=� WE flowl ,a,; I" .. : �O� � - ", `T% , Ali,, ..... V .1 ..".11. ': I . . , � .. ,, .....'. - , . I ,:.,C.K�.�� .. .I', . �.�xl�,:::`:, .I..'', m .W�i:.�.'g",��: � ... .. .. I :. � ....... - : ." � I -n�ij%. � ".. - . ,,in, I.. I, ., Ii ,� 1�:; -,.,,, - . I:, 0A...":'.. �: � 11 .�� ,. �_ ,,'... , 1-�::��:: I Om " g ."ll,". ,lIl........, . .�� I ., ,�.'.,%. ,::,. i", I "In'.: . . . . . . . . . . 1i A , 1 � .: : ....., ..; ... .. il..., - �n&`­ '14: ".'al.;01, A I ',Iln'." , 1,�, , �, 'm , " n, \4 .:::, :,: .::i,: nj:Ix: . ...... . .. .*::::n:.:�::.:j:,�l I �_k_* : '�Iyln.�.I. %I- ­ ";;, " ..:� . I... : � ::i .. .... ...I.. 1. ., . � ­:-�.:�:ii:--,� - " ,%,�� A . I. :, ii.;'fflA'g,,]-x­ ­­O,\,. �. - � ... . .... ... 11 '.... . , 1-1 � xavy 1 ��' 11 "" ­ - " ., :.:,:A:�, :,.::,:. 6 .. . ..... I.. , ` �'*, , '\W * *1 I I , , - . . I.l.. , % ,� , �,_, ,W:N�gk.::ni��.:::�6'1 . I. -A ", : ", ..., � . I I., k" .1.11 � . mma . n :'�.�;,�,`�,.::,�.. ". n� 1:': �. ::i '. 1_'­1.1glI 1­1 ." - .... . .... ... ­ ... ,­ . -g. :: - : \ ". "".. � :1.6_9,.��..::� ...... � A -A :­:1:l:bI.ni A, . I O... , "T . I ,I. I I .1 I a I.: ., . �.111 x � .:*: , * noten4tii9ii;tti!ai� ... . I _..._". IV '�% -.,M� - WQ : -,, ,..-: . A . � .1 � 1: ,,f K � " I . . � ... I 1. ­l:: �, . � n... � I ". ;.., ��n . , %S..t. I '..., .. , .1 -1 . 1k � I I ,n`�; li� & AzT*R:: , " �g,., ,iimn��'%i,n, .:: I : --,� _!: ..,. I l"..�,�; - I �:�;71 I I Z ­ .o, ... I , In Xl��, I,,�`:I-,. I 14 I IF ., :.: . :_­,� ,11 � I I '. . . : , _ . I. . I � , . � I�� T, !� �x,l g : '.'n3I �T, ,IIII,..... , InI . 11 .,-,:�,`. I.: .��i,.. fil vi... - ...:­%TIii, ": � I—_ ­­_,,1�1�n` ,..,.- . , " � � ''v." I.: ­ ,:��:�� , , in., Tyll Nmw�biQi�:::�i.j�:::,: IIAA, _'I, , �I,nnviii ?Mg;::�.:. �n.,,:_.:5.�,,,,: ., 1.1111, '. �� - .Ili . I , , l i, , ...III , , lan, *Aai��* i�i,`.,:j.:.,:::�:l.::m1 .. �4`, %:T,.4, - " '' - . , , � , N ,� , , ,.n,ii� _... , I, I. 0- �."'i,"n%': 1, " n . . M`i.um -.,. .1., � 011, 2. X 4 r . I, ". , , ­:i� ,,", i �..� OR * 11 'E .. W , �� ,:. . , ;: ,��`* �, ll %,. A __ �vl �� ,x,�, ,'-i%�. ,, 11-1. ... . . , T, -;'i., *::�14 N'. ., A-111.1.11 I ­11.1 - I " , I'i , I. -y ,. :::::anl-�,.:.,��li i, " I ::: 11* ,I.; - ­ ... 11 I 0 so. q ,:�i:,. ",;z T, - , , . . 1. 1, I � � I n W .",nk , - � � , .... ... ,4 X5 ,�.�, � ,�n . . IT, I ­.­ ., I.'�.*. - I- ., I". -_ "_ - , 11 _,n. _n, �: .,%x , V ,-.."\. .I, "" , I'll"... -I., r ,'a, " : " - ,., \. ... .... I � � ­­ . ., * ,I,. . '.. �T, ._ ,T,��i '� y2y's - " I -.mz� . . . ... ... .. W%,�, .,� I I___ ...., -1.1 O , ,I% ..... :,. .... I, �: �:iA:�n _ , ii . .11 1�.,'A " Ill, K.,.' ''AlA, ..,,,,,,:, Tp, a, - O, ., �::TQ� , ,Inlii n,,TO­�T ."'..in ,. . ... , . ...., , , � n� .. I I , ,­"�,,., ,,, ,,, � -, ." , l . , . 11 . . , .l­1., � , I .I, i, - \ M ., gg 0\ �:,.��,PS:*. n .: ... ... . A" O r r., I In. . .....' :1 k, I,.,,- , .,x , � , ­­ � -�m ..,II-M, r I 1- ,01 m .::.:,..� , ,:� . � "A' I, . . - .� . IT r-, I .A,- I__ ��.,:� � %:�:. . -:-­� � �.. - I " .1 � . , I I- 1% - * ,,, X .W A ,:*N-. : , .,. I- IV , . , , - *� ... X., ­,�. ".. ..", I . I I. *,"Opm, , - ".. :4x__ , '' %.,�`,, ,,n �� - , .I .. , - � .. '. .. ­1 I-, ..: ". :b , V ..'.�,g _ 'I - .. '. 1 A., .. . ..... . N :, � 'Oi 1'. , " W.0 � ­,k-, I ` I W la, �f� I , _v � i�n-. ,**::, ��l*,,,..�,%��:.�.i,.:�:.:::�:�I I . .. ,%.I, I I� ,�,��,�.t'.": -'� , ": , 1�11 ­ I ­.. .."'.. .. , A, . . I, � . n . - ",-Aj Qy,"A . _.T. . A, .. , F. ACT I A�:� ­%:-\v:-:::-:,�X.Tl% A : , ... � .1 .I'... lanlffll .. -1 I 11� I .... .,W�O,1' . ­ : , "I �*s�il,% , 11 .An I � .. . ... .,. : l " m- � --- n - , I N, - wn " nni, n. � , ..m .. : . . ..X: Q 10mv .. , ,:I.--* I�,,,A,n, ,, W, , n ". K .1 . , ,�. N. � 1-11.1al., . _ I—, -­__,,_ I E-�­�­� .AA N� n I . "� � WEpp . 4, ­� §i,% ,f�l'. I., 1, . ." .1 � - , � . _�ig,�.�, ,,��;�',�"�,:�k�*�,,�;�...;�KI.�.�. ... ,� I.. Inn T �._ T ,�,'_ I "­�I. , .." ,,�4 - ... _,.1"k I " !i.. . � _.. " a 4,11n I, ,I,. ,I � I 0 k ".11. ,*S. -.1,,111 ­_: 'In'. *g"\- TQN *K-i.,,% -,�: � '� I , .. - . . , . , . ff l\.a,,Ai.­,.,­-,,.W , ,1 n­­&.1W_ , ... ,\': :n.:� — ,!:... " ;%, . . ... ... I . . n 1�% fagx� ,.. kr "e"p—m- '-A, --1nl,-­1­'­n._ " NO-W, 1% ,� � I "' J� , -I,,,", - ­_ � y,, .qqg,,/? I I , , r. ".. ., .� I, � I . . . . ,\ �,in:�:�i."..�- �'. IT, 1: fb�..:.. .: I . I n, * �:.Z�,,� ", , �g .W. ::�-'�:** n'T' Inn of, . : i �In���: I �'.��. -11� �... �-,O "' �­�n',R . - . , :: .I. '.. :. � ,, T .�6n,:� � �. �.' " " 7RZ , , " �,, . , I �, � I , :i: � F 1�,*4.1'Iw'.IM*1111I­ - m\\.". n'' .,: A i:* � O .,_.".l. *0�11-1.1,1, - in"Il"pr 111111p - :1� I -.'�:::i, ,j . I 11 .. I , ,i...., -,��, IN . a V . : : , �: �,� " '.I , , \ .11, _.�G. g 09F �;.f, I*,,�n:,e,�*&W1,K,1':..: l!:1 / �� , � , , . on ,, 1',.::,: , , I ","..... .. I , - I , 'i. I. s- � ,A�.` I_I� :,*, ',*�.� ,,:�.e,.', ­.��� , , .\', 1%n 11 W , 7 �l ,�-*gl "4', . � I ,,, 1. .11 I ...; A .<�*,�tl�A I.',*,.�.�� ,;,, - .­­ ".1. XW �, -.. ,,g'l- l`.Vn1'.*%' ��� e ; ., " ­ Iio�..xp, - - _., , , _ '%*!,� "I.- ­_y<*�"nn .. 11.1 .1. I. " _ . "... ,I, a., !�.�i:i!�:� , � TZ ��, :1 ­ ., `,�%.­,II. -ng�'§,:,� K��­ _ _,.. �.1'1,10-:i:,:,�#. . , " I, ye , ", '' , ,, I 1­1 � W 0 k;, I � I - UK Ot NO - ,.,. - " , ,.,��,'aw T�, In %:Ii I :,:":#"�::�,::il.,."�,",.,�.',k%,',.:�: , T . , f : ', 4�1, ,Ilki'I" "W, immIn Oil , ". _4� ,n:,.111.­ , . <e %. ,:n"I'l e: � "� , / ::i�: ,. � _ K - - _ I., - .1 - I,, I .�- A-.�­, I � I I ,., , � ..— ". ,,, \,I I.- 1IIT,1- I-' .V "'.­,"�"a .. n .... - Vl.� �,:O. :N: :...111� .,� , " ,� n�, Ii`� I, I. " . V * *. �` IN IF X Ing . I . - . I e ,..,�. �nI.*­ " -$,�I� .. 'T I, �. � � ,"W" I ,;.z , �% ., :::,�. i:i� : K ... I ...1. � . �� . ". i� --ni, O, Ai. -, ­11 . ...... . " ­1 I'. ., .:...::, . , , I. .,,�,..,,�--,���,,..�:::=:%�-*,*i . .11 - -.11 I.. I, n": ,mk,�', %ix, - , ­-\, ,_ a ll��.;Il I l� 'I, ,., , I * I f: .."ll...; I" � "U111.1. _1 .. .... I 4 `�l ARM0 : . N:.�i��'.��.%..9!::,i:��:;:.�... %� :. i:*:,gj.,',&�y ; , . . -, m "I pe - : 0,00 �M� I �:1:.`..,..,l . i Ox,#i:.�4. - - , $, 1. � ` ��­ ", 'I- %,.. 1O_,u , ," ., , ",*j .. I n ..", . .� , , ,; -` 11" . f ., . m R I !R.:,�.: ,,..', l, ".1'. .. I* I �, 'R. , . � I n *�,�*� ITTIF �I 11 . . IF ... winm "....'.n. - *�- .-q � , I ...., - '. "'a-'m ..1. '�, iI '14�'..'�: %",:., �fI ,m,T��. ,n:�I, p.., � MI. r in , _ . , L .� ��_.i. �', . 1111"n I 'W �., I . m , � . , , -, , . , ".4" - ::�U:. W%�� ", . ": ��-,"� . � I I ,�. 0 .0 ... %�, "i, ..: .. - -m.,�-.AA,mnn'..::� ':,.j.. . �: . I , '%'I . . � ,.��, - I ". 'I" " , i, % , . V*:� l - . " ---a - .. ,,.� .., --,,�, e � ,� , 'i ��.�!,.�*�� �� , __ , I . ", & " �, I , �$ *;: xi� ,� . . . ,.. _ I - -�,& -., I., i I . I I .. _ I I . . � #,�.�!!!c.�" X .� ,�. '. " I,.- , � f � ��,�,* V. II, , A��*K .� -.1 .� _::.a,%� -11, , . ., V, KI, . *�' ',��i-', i ,., — W.& . I �11 . ., I Ill. 0:*�X . �\, �", 4 r 11. .11l ff .11 . . I 1. ­� ". , - . -­ .'a". , F* . r , , I .. AA1. . "I'l . �;".��:� , . � , Tn0::l,ft.l­,.,& ,8,� ""lli'N .,:,�:,% ,�:g .�� �*% � WN �� .. ­I-.1, ", ,,.nnI;,, , - . . , ,,.l;. I,:,: ,% .j . ,,, � k ,, ,A . . @:Wn,�,,:�:­:?,�l �Xr 'A, - . A f,,.� 'Nz,�i� , I ....'. , gll "I I . , � ..". I il. , .1."�: I I ` - I "*n.wn 3510 -An - m 11 . u ��i..11n a py I a.= A - - ,..:IAl. . WHO .."�, , - . . -- : - n � � mmw . " - ': , e , 1 M'-, , .1. � ,,�'�','. uv .., � \0 'M.k� na. In I . ,>i "In. ..". ,.. " '. . .. �� - �M.I,'�, .11 AF . I - . _ . -S � , T, f �_�. - ,­." �.' ,p.. . n,.,\,. a-, Ti,p.. I � 0 T`fQK Ra py TV ­.Ag�y:, . I " �,,� , i, � K�,.P; 'n ,� 14 Il.". I . an ,I ,10 -* ­wa' ,,f, ", 4 N f':i�:� �� . � " �� ,�, .11­1.11 - _"m, _.%�,�j. in__ ,"....."., ,�', � /I �.:. ":� , , I\ , I.C." :� MIN .� %l M14 .� � -a ,�q�.*.., � . . _, , , " � 'y" I'. .'�',.,:I. .,,�., �,n, .., k I "'A - � I *,%\,-%, 1,T11% � ni, _ 11....'RWS , I. ,� W� hj,4,'�:�.. I .. , I ., , K, I � .N 1 , �, ".. I ­ �,:,,-�: - - ,x lz.i::, , . _ � , . .." - �`g.V��: a . � -IT: � - ,:�,,-����",�..�,,�',��,�...'�.�� I -I, - , P: �1.*.,11&.,n`TW1 ,�l,,:E�, '�::.-,:.�O`,� .4.np�p,,�gl,k�, , ,� W n, l-�n .-�:�:.ii�g',-. �. ,.�4 ,K nk:.,kinn­��'..n ...'...", 7., �nnl �la "M K ,.!:n*�!�.,XT %,li v I �,;"� ". � '. n . �' sm 11, �` , nx. ,ft . .� - �,*�, I , ,� 10%. ��:� \ i:. � �::, �ft X:� ,,�J,,%,- I, - n, , A%, , ,a, I �,, . _ - AN I mam: /11.2 1&!v ,,, , 5 "I I r � clz� - � - . Nkm 0 �,> , �" . .m.., .Op"X<1 - � I.%" %,Ai , �: l:% 'an ,". . ". .cl - 11 , .. . , ",X. ,"I"", . ., 7.V -::"l , *�.l` � ". . _ . .,,,,.;&, "n a "An"la. A " .. `.,i��/ /.Iif,.�: _3._ . �, *�.,�� ��,,,�.::�:�� ,,�:iiii.:W:�:l - " ,��:�` O,,.,�'.." .1w pqp.ppy AS. " ­ 1, � I, ...... _Illl� .1� NQ,jj, , , .. gg, * 1­p�, `1 . I*' � 11 ........ . . ., f a .�,� . 1,I.:,X�"T '.,a.1, -, I .. . , -x -��",."i,!-q A% .1 , ,f,,� , .� , , ,.'. , a - F, , ,...I . k I � U. . II: , "J...-I, n�' A, , , , , - KT,i .a S:*, a , , , � :'N:t�T% !�:�: a % ,§� A, . .11 I � . . .% � I 'M �,,,,,.;, , A I " .1 . � R, - �,,,,�,��­ T "I'. . nl*:�* ".,.,ii:��' . Z� W... ". n , '. In I., *,�, ..", ........", � .f.. . ... � I. .., � . 4l, ��g ,� MI. . .�%. �,kt%.i ". ml­_­O,1v1 .�. A - 4p1T:,Z.gn­ , ,,­­ -A- I. � .. _m , ­­W. ­ ....... . ... ... . - .... ­m , ", -I<i� :1;g%...'�I�l 5., In"W " .. - 'qg,'.Ii.,,�, ", ,I, . ., ,.I.% ,;A. .1 1. I,, -1�1, ". ,., � I , .. l .. I - gw­ , U .� eft'.% A:A &M.FN%XRI,A��.;�.::;* m.. I, ­U, 'In ,��ffly,:., . ,�'_ .,.,,a,1.,,..­ I ­ . A, .u, �,,%". . a, . .... �a O, .. .. � 'w".I. ": na'm � ,nI. :�IrQ-" ,,%.�.��N,O: ON " �i'r,�� . , , . I �a �. _I' � ** �� - " "..., "".. \,:. . I . �%� r L'. ll" - � .. ,., . �� _I.­,%­­U'...1.,Z� .""N:.,�, I ll:.,�, N.S , "'.. inl.,,� n , , ­ , " "' K, .I'..- .... .1. � . - � , . 1; �Xftwl,,Uv, ,I I , ! i5n��,�::! � :­%�,, .. .I.A.1v - 'J� , z " � ..., . ,,, .., - 1.­,A­­ P� ,,",_,.:_�.: 'T; . I ....:; , I I - , ­­ I*, i �, . ln'A I 11, 0 . I .1, in a n ", I . , . �,�n , .1il I : - , :1 E, ,,,, . ­.. ...., " . ff *4 , .I . . , :, -,4 ..,i��n ,� A" - ..,,-,:*, 'A",... .� . ." . .... I, T�V, � vi, !:. �.,� n - .o,xi:.�_.-,�.. � �� ,11 - � " ;% , . . , ... A' . "'.., " , I % . * A ., - . ,Illl'�[, - , -0 , ,n,, * " � IF � � Ili W, , . . -N - .. -, � , .1 � . . , .��*����:��"",;:,,���,*�'.i��� AiKI". I� - ��_�.i.: � � - ... ,,T,'.�l , . I _ '. ��.: . , 'i.21,0 �.01�1'1 - .. II ; ._,­ :.., . T'.: � ..�." a ne . I S % - n , � I .. .. . - . .g A . . I � - _Iml ..... , * 11 a .. .1n, I.�. :.,. .,� V/ I .. \ ng" I_ *_11, m , I . � �. % ­11.­11, , ...., . ''. " . . ,,, I�*�., � , .. .. . ft I ,;3 1 i �.�:iIi,�%'*,*�I:n� . ... .. :-,,_n-,,,.'l,A, - * �,:M:,\'�,� � T I '%M.'� .. ,� ,.,%S '! . 07 . I .� I , : *_ , W. � ", .p. - ::T. � , &&_ �"�,:,: .i 11,� � I. �� ,;. � b, �.Xll%,; m . ..� . . ... n A::��:..:._. , I . �:. ­­., I . ,:.I % I I . gl '. - , 4.1.1 .�� - " � .r w ,11.W.-I-11 _;,Iw ..�.,. .I.." ...". - ,,; '. "a .; `O�*�,.:if.:,%c , n` * , " m— 0 - "I, .1; =��Tm NVA , 3 I 2" fN ., ::. , . '.. ',W �,;A '*\.% i:.: . :,. , I, !, sk :.. , ., . I , " I . - ­. I.- ­­....gT�** I, . . . 1- � - T I ,Q 11'.., I.W. I,:. � " ,�.gl � �11 � 2 0 - k�jll ", n � .,�,Ig.,.:�W � , i:., ,"..*, ,:, ,,�k T. _l. - t -, Ili, , I 'Im � . K, .— ..__ ­. — ­ I . .% , 1,11 ,x . . , , ,�, I e , A 11,111 I , . , �� , . . I-- .... .. - %� �_ - �",mi�',�* �*i;. T � " ��. * %, K! ., �,�� , � " g': l4_ , .i:,. -, - � ... �­ � - . ::':%��'* .'* �mI:�.a�g�.:.: ;" , _ � , .- � "Tn X * - � .., n ,.: v:., '. . g,� ", ". I; "; �, 11 1­ " �11 . .1 , l . ,., , .. ..,..;, .n . �x � ­ I I,.OA I, � " - �Zi%Vi. I., ; g., ., 1. ., �i: �7 , � kI �,`::�,.:.,:,�* ,;*,n,l�','%� '. 1 - T IPA"". �!, %. � - . _ ""', - I �` ,,% % 1*n - �, , `Z`�� " ­i A . , . ;:,%,:�,-.� In __ ., I , ', .. . I - � .'.11. �� I`I " I.-S, "' �' �_. A��l � P", , � 0: , , 1. , . le � - , , y-�: **­:,&-,�j '. " � . - % A,�, _":In._ . .*. W 1 � "ATT"A' , I ih . _.A . - - I I - - I, . .-A. . ..:, . _�,: -'�,_:Z��-,*U .� ,�g&,'..i - . . ,�, , - , - - ­ ,­ - - V , 6 . �l. ." - I�:. I:, X: , � , - I a 2W it r Z' , LI I OF'PROPOSED UNIT" ::­ �.Vi�: ,vI�.,Tr _�..,,� �OO,&r,:, . , _ �nA ­ '.., I I � � - .,nilz , ; I— - - �glk .", . .4_l::� __ . - I- - . ___1 ­ I . .- , _ �. t � ,� , .- -1 - ­ , �.% n , � ..'... - I ­ , ,', . 'l � I�?., �� %1O*,'z � �. ,M.� I ... . . :�^ - .T.�­, I �, � ,I_ .I �I�.. I, . :�.�g ,g- �*_ -�,',*l�,:�-T5'.g�.,_ .., , , � :.,�.� �. A . I�`,: . yg � �­ - -�� -.,� �, � . ;!�. � _­ ... I,_ � .,...., I ......... I ­' ­­1 . ., IV ,I: �­i­ ,%..��,-�e��-�-%�..,���,��,�.���.��.��,.�..���,�.,- _,�..'�'iIi. � WATER. HABITAT. ANL).,: " .I'-,- " _,_. - -�,,­­,­, ­.....I.I., T'T � ,,�O,", * n�. . ,� 1..�.. Z,, W., - � 'III .. All. ­­­ " � .I": 41V I * .;�3 � � � "'.�.,I,;, *�;;,_­Anu�.h�=, �vmmv WIO�,A!,�-,_& -"i'..... I 1� e� � zii. Z-._'. ,, . , ,.. I SM Y:w i, I -1 - I 11 __ � __ -n � , I i _ ,T '' I - ..�, I, ��,�,: ,­.y�,�n�:� Z:��.,','� _�%; I. , , IO.,'i','�l&ZT-4 �' it' '. 'O.. �. A " BAS IN' &,.,Ii: -, 'T .� - .n*�k� ,..A . � ...'.. , l,,,�. . ­ . '.1, I -.,:.�,��.,�,%"..,."",.�:���.,-:1�:�,��l�,:,,,�.*��.,..��,���"..:.�%.,,,-,, . ...... , , . . I ENT' i ��� I - �i"` ",.* '5­.�.:­ '.. '­ 1:,l­'nI-;.i:'1 "'.0., �'j A 1 , ,*,-i ..., . _.;,n, .�,, ,.�,*, _ �1* .." ,��,,,�-�-�."�,,,-;�..��,,�,-�-,-�,,�,,�.....'�. �`_n­ : iI�,_n�,"-,'�,T,A Any ATMA �n . I . . . . . . . . . . . �, .... i W I . . 'LNI�111,� n 1.-*7`g­.-v,1..X;. iQ'. I � 'WA, IAWTII�,e, I :, 11I.:n". ': . "., , I .. 11. . � .,.���"%i:.:�,��i,�:::;i:��;�i� AI i ni ii-Ni. I: I., .� _­ � , ��.,ii.$,'Z.�.,:,�?�!:! . i',�� .''. , 11.z � 1-1-11 11 �.," , . _ _ ...... ... , I ,:.:.,.:. . ,;, j % . ... ... ''. I .. I 11 , �,nx. , .::!: IM � j'jii _l,.l,._._..., �::::i"%:. I I .N. "... . -, I �: ... 11 I I ,�i: �::%, � ",.��,:,:i�:� lx:,:�: * v, I . . .11.1, I �� . i., ,I� W,11 xygy,: ,� i �:i:. . . ;� . .. I., . � ::.. : I .. :,:: . ., ".3. I 1,;. I.% - X, g �. . . ­� _:.x'I., : I - I Xi I � " 1*�:*,. ,-. I i, �� . .... . .:: ",ye, I ��: .. _ �� i�i i:: 1. : �X*i�i. 1, .1. 1.11 ... I .­I�_� ,Xi:�: i0 � ....... � . . 11 ,.X... ..." I I .. ...:���ln�x, . ,k,%.,. . , � . : .. .., I I �. , .:l,j.j�l: .1 ., i ::;n�:xi: ::�o ....:x, :::: .., Iii, � .I . . - _ ..." " � � � � � . . ,. . ': ., ", . :�:* - , I I ", 1; ,::, .. i. .i.! I I. : , . , 2 . I - � , , , � : , :� .K , �� ,,.n.." %::.", � I v I. ­... . � . . � � ** 11 1, X� X, ini � , . .�,������..'*. -*� '. . I , �� -.1 � , " .1 ­ I I. _ . :� I .�� .- � 2"ll,'. i.., 5, ­ -0 b,1. � : " ... ,_11001 :�. I ,.� - Z:.,i: _ 1� . , '_ n* . � . , TQQ 1 1 q. 1j; :�;. , ._� ....... - �Zzzzz : ­! . :: 1 Q: 1­1 � I'll, cl, I _ . " W, � a .,� . f A I P I z ln,_ .. .1 �11, , , , - - _ .. ,_ . I . . I I - ,, F V , ­; " � .� . :1 1 ­� � .. '. " . '�****** 1: 1 v 41, � il I I � " : I , I, - , a " " � � :��g n, I , W . a .., A, If I ; FAU,KA � . v 41 l , � I a , .I 'I , .. ` A I, I 11 i:� ......... � . . I I " .... � I, In: ... ............. . . . . . . ­ . ".. liXin::j.: .j.n.i "I'll, ........ la. "... ...... ...... ....... , .11,11''.... ... n, .. 'X :;�l �ij ... ­ . .....'... ­­ .. .x ,. , , . ". " , . :: A .�i .... :,.". ...$i��i,.: � .��i:._:�::!Ox _ I I .... ..... IT I "..I. . %:�,,%::nn:::,l. . ..l. : i,,:..::, * !I'.' I .... ;:�� . . . . . . -'ng:...::':_�� , ,. O . ..:, . . � . , � � . I *��li:al:�: I -nn:: 1, .. , i�� " ,.. I. . � . . ;.I::,1I.:nX­, . gN,:: ..�� ..._.%::.N, ,�::.,',:.I. . � ...: .: , X:. �. �'. �� I ,:.*:., ........ � ...." .. . i A .:::,:, -Il:::::ii1 . I­I�. I I, : ... . ... , ,:...,. i::ii,.:-­.. ..., , ,gg. gmfmm"W�_ I' . IS .,.!!! -..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..I, . I � . I �, � .." � 1% ,.... ,�,� I IN X� "I, �Ilinv, �%.:, ., \ . ­ - 'p " , .- ,U� � ,. , %,U:, �:p'.�g,,n. ­ � , \� 1..I..­_,.A ,­., .,'. I ,.,.i \,� I., ., , '.. . .n� .:n:.,� ", . ,.: . :-, a ", � ,i.%i 3� . 1l. � I -1. - . . "., *--.:i *�,� AniXXIik; :. ��. ­..� _.. .f. ,, '.. .. � . I.. � I � ?- Q .�% g� � :i::: -% . : I , - ..­ l N , � , "n , 7l'. : .*:., .A I *�.:,! 1 ,., %i,*'..-'.*:\ . , , ��11 A - . �. , -m-A-1 � ..... ,�A,-%M. .. , I.- ff I *Z3 ft A.,�� n� ., - Ift ,;7 I'M ". In . I, ME v 1 ,.z , k v 1. � n, N ** - f �`,**� _, � , .K A,,m. ,.Z:,: � .. � , , %�, , .. i: C , a . .. .y4. . k, � NN � I �,�.'U.�11::..,.. . " " "'L A 1g-1,ii-:f`ik*Pn- , "�g.` - I � " n - - , I . - A,, , ,X�n ., .—II&:­t � .m & - , A& " l0f ftli I-: . ­ .I...,il".'. ..�.�Q " * N.. *�'� � Pil.%% � :IOI ,g� .. .. " % .. � .....0, , ,T " J. , , �-�.:.::, ii k ... U %'.,,'�� A � * . , . I . , ,". n, I, n��k , ,: . b ., �.. n _ %, 3 , .: , i W, K . 1, , � , , � . , * I .111, .Sl .% . L . - ., .v , n Kj. �.<.:.:, � A % .. .". .." .All .. � .., I .. ,,, " . ­ ..... " A . - %�. I I .1 ­­ �:.:�.,% . , , v , - , , I , , , , ,.� " . .m.. W .. > �:-: �x g �`ii��,�.,:�, . IT ,J�:r " . TopmM W x on Agn, -_ -1 MIN :..A14 ,r - -�, .. ., .. � .n­ .. �m% '&, � ­­ 1. . �'.l % .*. , - _.xi, ....... % ... .1 . I I g� IX.R.I.a."' , ­ ']*:*,g` . _�'. . �.... - , i. .. ­�Il .... �,, "­ i� , � , �� .. A . - %k� � ­­'....., -1, M � g�';% : . � . . I n, , - .. I�a �mrll 11, I .1, I IT - im" Ag �� 'gg A "", " ,� - , ., '. MM�M.%"�', I .1. w gI­ . "I -l" , , ... 4 � \Aft­g,wl �, g ,�,.lgi , 'Am _A . On I ,j . � ., W ��:�..�Ii- *>.,' nn��,.; .ig� ,. li H& � 0 . . I � . kAO.__ I . .T,;�, ,�W Q A . � x �\ I, - A, m ­ . n:, ­ . .. � WOW On...", ,,,,." i ­ig� l" " I 'K � . . mn L ,� _1 . I ­',1l..:: .1 , ­­ ­..­ � 'i ­­­­` ­­ ­ - ,�'.. , - li�' W . I % , X _ .". , , , � � � :, �: i,.�*�.,.,_­%k ,I. . , �� .., , I',, _Y� In� : I . , . 01nw: *n �,%,, - -, �, ­­­ ­ ­;­ ..... - -% - �, � . �Ik �� I.I.: * nlvw :. wa, A ** * ZI., z , ., A�%.I!:��Ix , �, .., an, V, ,., � �, � . . .. I , I .,:.� . I_11, I— , I.O_ .. ­­.. � . . � � I. . AI_- . � .. .. ... ,.--- � - � . ., .: , ,-, .. . 0 & e �:�:Z��i�.::K. .4 x � ­... - l'::, M �. '.... . � �� ,!n �:" .n" V.,:;:, �� - - I . ml, 11.1"'..:`.Ill: ., , ..: '*­­. A::..�. . ,W I�. _4A - �% � - "I I A .1 ...; _. � -� . � * ��::_4 I I � I � ... ..� . � . � zi�, ,� Z I. � .. . �� v i & � , in �. .. . � .1 .. 1 y � g1n. . . . , T.n n .� , W - - - " , g 0 T . A. ,11 - .. , k. - pn:�,., . . , , * h 0 - W�_ . W A . n :Am. 11 , I R . -0 mv �11­, , � %'% % - "I 11 T ,e M4 In . 1*1 ::�..,�.��.::%..n- . ft . , . .nn ,ng.: I I M .. 1. I, &':." 1.:-�nl.... ,,., .� .. , I� ­1 ... - ". V-'\-- I, , W� .A,-\, &\ In-, ., , , ­ . ., ., ., ., � II;n ,� � IlTn. � , ... I ,., a, . . . . I�. Z N:MCg .: ��,��. TO, ... ,g�:, �:,� � ": li .. � m. ,� % I.- ...,....,.I ­,:.. , I . - .11.11.1'... � ..... , ". . '.. . � . ,; ra, a. " �a * A I I ,� .N 0, I � , ,I : ,,1 "....., 1­�,.lgl . . n, . '..".....,%, A. Oil " I � ;A I .�Ik �,ik . ., � I ... .. %. ii� c 1 N ill:zv NOW X401 of Arm , �5�i: ..... �::::: ..,..::! :::: :� ..:."Zii MIAMI � . . . . . . L �l . . . . - � , - , - � * - I . , - � I - � ­,,��, %. . ­.'� ­ . � .. . .. " I .., . � . , , I � . . . . . . . I.. I I., . .,�� ,..,* � ­....'.. .,­ 4.", , � p " % , " "I . , , � .. . � mumommmeb �. . . p ,O. .. ".. ,,"'.. . .l. ..., .. . - . , . :. . . :.: :: , , * * - - - , '' , , - — - - ,. - * % . 1. . . A g� , ..': I�, .:: �.:..:-: . ��.:,!� . �:_ Q, � Y 1"". A Im" " ,:.. ,:: . . .. _ i� . I . %%% , .,.:,��.,.,�,z..�, w1w I,*,:� I I 1� . .�, _,�.\'­"�-.,'-..-..-.,I. % % � % � % � % � % � % � %%%%%%% , � , , , , , . , � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � .� . . . . .__ � .. 0i: - .., 1 xlgll % ni .1 I. - _�A�� . . . . . �, - I I , ii� ,. .. . � I .l... '. I I . I UP ..I'.g`1�n1kU I'�1--i��,�,,�"..",."���."...I I . - - ­Z�',' , . ::l Z:' : : I'll I , _n_ 101%.�.: Y %ix:; ,,,�r,,���.,����....,�,�.�..-r�:�,,��,,,.�,,�,.?�,�,,����,�.,.,*,,,,-,,%-,,,,,:-",�.,-,',,,,,�,,�.�-��....'�.,.%', .2 11. '' �,%nir. ."_,.��_,, i .... " ln�pft � " .._._�� ­ .:.:!��:. I I . .: ,., �� '. : i. lz�, ..:,� . i _ 100140 ­ ,.S, I �l*,���,�:::"n.�,�:"�,�::�.,:�:!:�,�:: ji.l: i:il; ��.*,::�.!:i�.,:.,*,.. . ..,. ��!.J.��'�: ., 't".I.."OR i INIOR'11'� "I . I z . �n ,.­:,� :�'�. - ., �, .0'..: �,,:..i:i��., ,:4�1_ .�,Afpa __ — � - __ P,,=: . . � I � I � � I ,N�N il� ,� .. . %, - , ,�_� a% " - � " - 3 � , �i:i�,4.z:*,,tm�a�\��­*. ." n� I"., . M-Th - - AN -, " - 14 ,. I � ., � - I C1, I I l . . . . , l-1 1� - I_"_qn . -%..�' ,A � . ...... ..... .. . g 'k�.���M��..���,,�l,,.:",:����,'�:!:,.,.�,�.'.�:.����::::.�'.�,�,rr . � -, " . , . xAg`11T"NW �Igr'W',Tkll$.�n`N I. I � � I ' I.. '�. . ­1 - ... I �"_ ., . - ..... 1. �.N­, . I ".Y.. ,A . .1 � ­. "'...".­ ,_ �, O-nm -� ­.� ,\,k - - % .."".".."."... ,,,�. .. , I , I n.. . ­.­ . . ..... .. I 11 . ..�< '"n," ...".. ,I. , X. .1 I I .- %og, ,,, - I ., .1 I.I.: A I .. ... . . , n�­ �: . , - ,W, .. , .1,111.1''. . . � 11. . . . .... ­,'... I- ­­ ­ ­­,.: ­ -, � A�, - ,-,��. I �:" i �.� �,R, . .1 � -m " --- . " I: , T I �:.'..:::;: Q�:- t�': , 'an a �g - .. . .� . �� , ,, � , I, .:�.n.. k _n' '. . .. " " , . : I � 'T'.? - _. �� '. . . . It-- '.."I .�.�., A�% . - . I . � . � I ___1 .2 , - - "n ,i:*�-,'RT'� .,,,,� 11.1 , A .. I .�.�I:i: , , gg -.,.:. � , � . - I ... I 0;;A.. I..:: - a- . ­,,.. I jqi I�.. 4O..':. . � � 4, �'...., - ,-.1'. ...... n�111,..nw_p I I . �, - ".... ". , :;.. I� ,, I ­ � .1 - - I � �v , 'A�::, , �,:,'. il ,.il ,4 : i�5, "' ... fi I , ,� .; '4 -mmv v , n ji,ri I.. I .-1 Z, I� n I . - , 7, 0.1 . � :�.q-:��*��"..:, ': A:,j I - **' , , '1&­ , n,�� 11,:W,_`�,� , , . � . i � , O I ,.'��% " ��m I-- Ill �.I. r " I , ,� .Znn n . I I � I - " ' _ � , �.l . 3'. O .. 3� I �,Wl I I I - , . ­ I, I . . I . . 4 . I I � ,, ..Ii ., . � , ,? R .,\ 1. I..1.11�­­ , " I . mm-a JI.IW-my %me"Is i%c 1 Amf1j'al , . I I. I . 1; . I A?�,K%��<Tkl. n& inf , . .T..W . I ... 1'1�'. i�. .�, , . ..... . . . - I:.. I. , I. 4 . ... ­1 . . I . . W I i: : 1 ...... �. ­ I I, '�, 1. - - '��',� _:_ .'�. X: " , ,� , .,.,. � , " ", " I A! � *,�i, W'Mw OX -1: 1:.:�..MOT,1, .,.--,In1.l �.� j I , . I I I ! I I I !:Wn.." . ,..,. " W, " " .. . , I -mra". . WISA.4- � -. M, ., � � � 1 c � I , I I.. .:"., 4 &-.- ., \ Z`01 � 0 ­�. k , , , ,��,,,.- 1�1­ ... .... I : ,::1 . ., - - .., ", ,� I _ . :, i:: I I . . � �: * 1 :1-1: .",�:::::*. . . I I I I � , , I *., ,I 1:::-:­%'i:'.',�.'.:'1.n., - W q _x*WmV O" *_4 n, in , i , � . N I . n"K , u NEW P BAY- - -KW'.: � gj"Iw &.I. ,3, I. , 3 . , .� � .. , I ". . 'I".. '­- I In il, .g, . I ....... . I., " ­. 'v's . A p P E R � - . I 1'1� O � nT :�. .� . I � I - X"nA, 11T.I.Cm. IS , `21 : �ft:x x�,::�iA.,Z,nn 11 , I � T�., .. , I, " �, ., -.,I,,, .. - " - - , :,�.­.,�11 1:.:., I. , A., � M:,..%:�!!,:,�,:3. I. ; . I. ,1 I . . , "; I 1% . giggg, I , 1.� R.I. I- - li, , , " ni� V 11 AmInxi, � I �%. ,::r% .'. �'n*`", " - , mn,,.....� .,..'� g'n.T, , ,ni., ,* ,% ni U n ," .. .. - %14.� "..." 111. IT. ­:: � " *,*I::i;*T -.:,, , I " . - -- ",A, , -, - % % g� . 1QI: ffl�:.A� -� 'a,l� ,%: "'r."', M W, - n nama..ggm." ,��l 'A. ,I:- - - . �1' - , "I I,, I , �:",��: �,�,-,_ .., ,:g 1,15 �­ ,3,6. 4 , %._ � :."ni: X:1,g Qk .T:1. � 4� k.- M .10: n- 0 -, - "u". , �._ ,� . .1 ,: ", %I n IN .i 1. *l, il .1 A,1511,1::I*� �-. . ,:�.,:: ii��, m . .1 R '�,,,��.�, ':, ggck'*,�,�": SIMI & INC , -2-5- . I W - � � �.O'W%�A -n�:%_,.�,C*%., t :.� Q �:�.I. 5".-I.—, '%'n - " V, � _ ., --, ,Iz��w 'g: �,ln.+n,�Uv.:: �.* �.� �'. li�, I k&' Z IN 51 � I ., n ,� A , Rl`sFl!-%`� Ild"I'l � . . ".... I I .. A F�u . nlii�pn,:.f ,00� ""'W �7UWR�'�%,Wi.kM -.1 I ��4*�;.�Igj�� . , .n. ffi x . .&"...I X1.1,,,i, T 1. " ,V.:':�, =..w 111m. '.. � . n W­%.,An,�.', ., A?, , ­1 �- 1:,a?S, I nAe � an , I, � I �A�kg*,.,T F1 iW I li:�. gi".:: % a":, I Ir T QW --l"I.­�,X,ft -.,­v;.',, gl� -IO', I I .1 .11 'I 1 MI, * INS , c­_0 "A' � , a 9 N . . . . ,.1­1..Ai­W­1$1 1 .. ., . W - . .. I . � � , . . . - % - �� . -,,.:­­.­11;n,1..�_ �,�k � i,$�: -� i , I . I . ,k_,,g,�n,, Zn." - I IN :.,� . I � . 1% -'I.'.,- Ilk-,"' L4 , * ­ -A . . .... 11, ,,�,,On " : : 11 T, . I . . % , � I I � I - ­­ll,4 , � .1. I . . � L � . . I . . �..�...��-,-� . .. I I I 1. I K "i't �� % -i I . . K'a,%l:.� I, .... I''.. -In, � , 0 ,� Ls 11 . I I I I . � .& �q. ..va, - � , � I � .., . _ 1.1, 1". .11�� I.., I, � % . ,,, �. �, 11 . . I .. . � ", . � I .� I ��, ... .: -`g�,�- %�v�IIK. " ,A,�,'__,� I I �, I , _-, � , . . . . .— � I . . '' BE olowliolm�, I - 'I 11 � . � . � I ""II.Ap., '. ,g . . �I- I , � I m Rm'�,, .1., . . " :�­��,-: I �- , j - `� � ,,�, ­.' 1% ,`­T,'7�% '. . . .. . I .n - ", " I I � k , ,lI, l, - . I I - . *,. is� ­: , I', . , ,III . , I... . � - I , .�.. ,q�q. ;:��W. KO­,nR­n,�,�.4,N.A�� ". X, .. � I., 1�." �­.t I I I . . � �'.-,-, O�L,N�I 1'4% I'.'.':._::< I . 1-11 I � � T �_� _ _ I* �,i,�, , ,�.":�". k _:., ,.:. , .1 � 1:, , � I .. . : � I '. I - . . ,x ,�, I 11 -, - .1.1_ t MNX ''.�j m, Kn, I I � �.' I - I .I� W.A. , .01,11. , Nam.....A. ��.­,P., �I,k - - 0, , - . 11\ , I - ''. .11 . %, �, . '',­%, I'. I . I �%. 1, . . :_ � I I ­a::A%n,t-,j�, ",;.. _...... I 11 �� I � ACI LITIES �, Igig �... _na Ii a, S -,&SEDIMENT ,CONTROL/ F 11 I _. q .. , _ � . �,. . �� ,-,, I mn, . .. . I I "o., OO-a4k, aIm"_.-, -1\-�-.-.a­­l11I­1 � ­:O­ �1,1 1�,,,W Mn.A'.&'1111..1I­,... - - lq.`�',�'n,�A<,ik 11 v � W� I I I I ninT I. gill ." � - �� I_A��, I_, .. k"* %I 11- - k , .,..:,:i, ,,,:., - .11.13.gg ". I, nO, - , .. kum _� IWVI�l *�Iily:W_ _.. I I � �%N' OW, cm IT. .�.�l�.,xa ,'�� : . z n. ,.� �-.' .,� W" 1�� �:­�`,i � ­­% k .. Z�. '. ., I', q, A. ill O. A\ � S11 'a, , "R.-A. ­m .. ,­. '' ., 'Iink . ,..\ ­ " -1 ... ,W , a 1'�, * ,,MA�' AcninnI MOE . 'y' ." 1�, � ... ," ,,,� 111, ITZ:v1Z ..",JEA'd. �% " �`, %& -.;� 311 I . __�Wv 441\: ... jy � I 'A ."AIV _.%,61 , � ,,F>N7g---. 21 -,.,.,��i - 1�� 1W � �,"K`g?n� fo,�<,i::: .1", I ­1 l, wmli�, i, A -1 _11. " ..... m . ,�� -1 -1-.1-I.il � 0 '% � ". Aite.11 O."%" ;�- : :."l- _1: � 10-11 ,�,I,`.�,�*`.\� it , " :4 X. : In 0 A� F 111 "MI ., L In gg IN . . N'. . , *17� :" - , C I, K .1, 0 F, WaIl . , IT ,k".IA ­;­� -4,,'m';.IT, 11. .x , t%.l ,nI I n"y I UEM .�, I -I, " ��"G - � ��ll _0 sm"K a , i�� nm.'.&�� --,:5,kA:::g`:%: , ;0A" i-n n­,,--:z '1l:­'Innl;,N ­ I � 4 ZE �". ­� 1..%1�l1,A ft 'A- TAW, �O,.m m. � , I . Sam : -.0 U. ... . ... r _­­. I_ ., . L. m , . ,�...TTXW . ,-.. ___ "'i.Ign. W ��,�,�'., �,_: ... ... .. :1, 4�;R_ aWl. n, r 'Ill", I. \ ­ll, " % .. III, � .-�.� ... ,.'..:��'% � I-Al.l. .; � �.-V.�:*M,6,-!,�.fzx_ , . . I .Iii:.� ir* Im l. �, — :'l."�,:Z,1 I'linIn. .--:,: � . Al`_ . .. ..�IOI W, -1 - On r�! �:,fIml.l, ` , . .. -7 :.�,N ,I., ­, . ,,��:.. "... �. _ , - ­,1a_.'i . . ­_ .� JTAi ..14�.�..,:i::­.::'­ .7,...", . K,,'. �� .k - of a * IQ:., "I ... � I.., ��%K� ,.I:-,:aI ,A�,,,,IIX, � ­� ` -.,.�%. An�l N "'m '. ..A.I-1 , ,,, . , .I N , '', I - %,�, Ti �<�- ! , , - U, a ... � %�A:�,e_­,��ggg ­­,V­­�.I ��.,Z�,� 11 � :�:'.:�:�On .:;,:�', -.* 01,.. �T ..�,� , � � ­­. � � 'an'. ,\ . '�\n _ 111 .,,I,..- .� \ " I IN - IV � l:, a. : W., I. " py"y- " � ". Z, r - - IT' X _", I M "A �j I 1 .., � �X,j i � W "�Owa . � I 1. _ mic , I ­1. I, a I I m, I n'.-V .., � .- sm 1-1-M m%"1cm1 , , M - ;`,,i�:�i* I I, _n� ,`,., �m��..,% .,�. . . .". . nnn­..,....'� 30, -,.,11.-t-,.---, K,*,g�w..111n'\m-.,: , - , , - ­,*1 .k . A -.� I KA in� 'k ..:I:1 1011? .__:i1..1\W, O.I__ . I I wwv . , m" 1 n, ..: �. A m..g:],Ul,�!� �:.I*=.' "al: ... MV R - 11 - I. Ng... I -....,"I p ". �,. ,,,.�,ff Mi "UmQA, � I P!,nl%, �' , ,,.v%i'1,_,,:,,a:, ��`��-N@0.1_1 ,4 .I 11 ....l, � ,:,A" .. .,,n " , 0_1�:g` X.R. 11�.. .� . , ,_�, . ,"U 1�,%,.: ,�,_,�n IS ,� . ::� I, , ili:�:�i`:*?:i��;� Tii� - lT I. ...T., :, Ill. Ol 24 . I I, V , 6- �?"1A,,_*-R*".%1: � i, � m f 4 i , ."'A* . " . 1, % I'Qliqxm$�;.. , � H " . in ,ft-M; p . � , �.: �,:.��IT,. $,,Z_-..4g� , .a . nI ,,, A I 1 , I ::. NS 1'. ..; . "O - I , 17 W , � ... � N I I, "T. ,P�, n �m. , �� I Agi� , ..� . ... .. , M..M`� n,,.4. � , - \ ,kA vl,� \ .", '... �� 1, % , -."a - - - al;�::��,�.: - _m k Il!"' 0 �iam I 11� - . � 011 C A 1, jl_� _111- .... . I�Nft­­ .... !�� gk'vewml %, k. IS � , IA . I . � � R .k "M 11.0 I,n. .". k'�: *"i ,ld �:,g , .,x .:,. � ", , . ; '', *�*,p.,,� :_ . '.. l �:"-,il -i .In I , $t. _ - �.n. ,,��., .�I InA. 4 11 " 'A i.�,.& . ,'Z 1.�"i':,%* , �f Iny'.1. I g m , , ­ ­,�,.­, I . I ...x . . "I >L, I "''M -.,. "',:& L , , aw IF 't, ­LIS.pI:., , :in ; , "'.. ".. - � %R:: � . I .fb*,.�,:.._': .: ..�i:,f'.*.:..v, ,k,X%,', . . . . : � :��, - 3 of QN �!��. " 7 , . Iff I . �­IN i � ,;� 11 I 1�:::.&..n,- :. .�� . I 11.1 , Ift N: V I n " 1#1 L " .. "", ' � 'g, )�:' ""' "L"' I .x - , . . '. . , _fW v I I , ,§11T.k , �;��T P. 1 i I.- 'g," . ,p. ;, �:Wv- l:.,j�];X-:-n.i . .. 11.,.'W, : :: ,l� - . - - , K, %"'1,Tn;i � " '. �' ,��.. I t I � . . M.W%': j In ... . , l �nn;:��i::;,. Z�,.,,' -1 - I ,,Inan ,�� :. . I, .. . 'I - - , t4k§ I q ....... 1n.....4 . , N n ��" i * .T�- - , . I I ii 'A' � I "...nil. � .- . ..1* , a .. . ,� " : �,k , ;�, I I. __. .1 "I'll 1. ,A� --- � , ,Rgll.ank I ... I.... , - A I Il" I , , 1. ­ , .. . . : . innn Pi " , ." ill O I , .. A 9 . .., . - . �kl­l: - I*., ..I- IX4 7 ,.IT,,* ... l" - �,:�., T , --igg- Im�: , m,�v:'.��' , .N�4 , I. - W , n . .1 ,vig % �, % , gn M, �, v , ".. ., \1 2 *,*, A, , ,., . A 11 q � . — " , I I ` n"i, zz, , MI; � T� .,.:�.lsm, ., ,:* . 1:�::�:� g. . *.�:�,.!! �.��: X,M�3 . �iiiio.., n ng "'. , � An.\��,.�.:� I l, ,g.,,qg� # 'Ile K 1111.10 ml`g%� -� N *A%% I; � , " m. . . , . n. law, *.= IT,m - , 1, .r . ,",. r'.� � , , .�-:,,�`.�,.:�,.::��i;iig�:A� I � I .. " "I amom I .11 , ITS 'W' `N.��,.',Nn n, �l ll A % k '. Nk , ��' : 0 %. n` ,mmll , .�% .­ t - 1 1: � �\,\, ,�gm kr% . ?:., 1p - -- ,.:j: I _AT ........ .M, ... InI , IT W ". .. �X: A I Ngomp-q. . ,jkxj.,.:�.:;.1 In, U, - l" Mm "K, , �ma .. .,. In .g W n . @!� '�� i 0 � I -I,,,,- .'. . . i , Ill.. . � %,11M ���!;*��. \ " I , .. I k ��i:��-F,R,,'S *­ R 11 \� %aoi % I 1.0a ! Ell I I . . � : . . - Lff I : , , , I - . . . . . . . . , � .. I � .. % I 1. :. ,ii ,i: ii .::. . . . . . I; :: . ,Ziffn ,. �� , -'.',..­U1'1*."*'1v1� 1,4i'y A "' ...,1 4 iI a �_ ..." .. ,l .1i` in .......... . w . � - g I .... 4c. L ���l.'.'.�'ff'�ll"�*.."*"�,��l:,�*:,�y��. : n n:n,, ..in, I.Pffi - � �, I. I ,,.15, � N ., ­­­ ...... .... ­ Ji .1 ­1­1. - I . � S (,OF�.U,NIT_`II, � —E-1- -11 ­�,, — , ,,, A � L I '' � ,.AND�:.CHANNEL �T;,A_,,��,; �,- 1�1 _�_,� . ..... �'. , ". ­1.1�1., 1. ',ii I I,, . a� . , 1O.Z=_ ­­ �.­..�:..� ;In' i. 1:, I ,� . 1�.., . - , I . .* .,.,: . v �: "I ,�, .. .� : k I ' ' , . A to - � gn - *1­ pold .. NM OF; P - :!. 12 'A !�::!::i : I - d O-I.. � I �� �., -I,, , n 77 �, � � 1'-p �;�::i �K:i,f:::�:�I��ff,:: Ll / 3 / I I �. ��- I-:- . �jjqv :::iii��:",�� VMk'�::n. - ". I I ... .- : � I , I �yqv �l n , IN A. 'a� ��:!3 411.� - -.-..� "" - 1, : � , , ,% ��,%.i -1 .:,Q:i� � Ulnm:n -�: *n ", I'�.�:11��,�:�.,�:i�:::.r.,.,.,i���,,�,:r.* !: M , - . , :1'....!: ... I �.'P! �;.:�:,,,'�.,.I.�,.,.�,:.,.�;�.�',.��.*,,.�;.���.",���,;����..',.i ....... *i�� ������� I . . . . . . . . . � I - Is'.."l, in i:� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �.. � I ,..*, 'i'-f I.-M � . . ...... ,� .,.', . Mi,nill"I'll. .1.11" .. .. ......... I . ., � MR. I: �� �� 1:: Is ::::::1:.n,�;0 - , ::::::: Of 11 � ........ �,*. .. : .,I,:. .1, Il I I , "Tm. . IT �,:,.k� � �. In.-,.Q 0.1-51 "o % - .L" _ . . I . I . . I � . I - , , I . - - , , . I I - I � , , , - I I . .. , L I I I I I � ­ - I. I. - � ,� � I � . ­4 . : . .1 I I I . I I . I , . I " 11 .. , . . . � I , , - v, '... �; ,, . I '. - , :�_!,� , . . � I .. . I . � . - . ", .: ... , - .:� - I � , , . , . � , ": I , I " i , , ��,� , . ': . I ". I " - , � I .1 , ..; �, - �� � �- * � . ,; I k �� � �. , . . . . I I . �. I . '. . . . . I. � � I I -r I ; , , � I .: I - I I . 1. , , , , I � � , . - .1.1, , I � I . I I . - I . . , � _ '' , I I I . - I . I , � I ., 1. . . ." . ,,- , . - Q , . , - .. 1 , I - I . . � I I � ; �. �. - , I � � 1. '. 1. , % � � . I . I � . I I I , * I ,­ �i. - -� , `�, " . ` , , :� , -_ I . .. :�: � .( ,� - � -, I . . . . - I � - � I , I � ': " * � , �. . ,�. , " - , , I , -� � �,. __,�:, ,::t:��,,; - l_: I, �, I, � , � � "-., -, ,,, �,. P_ ,i ,,": .. ". - �, - . ::,�: - I �_�'. � �_:,� �,' -I,,,, x� , -_ -, , I . . � I , .� . . e .1 I '. . . . I 1. . � I I _. I . � I . I I � " ' L _' - , . , " " ,' � ' � , ' ' ': - : -, , .� - . , I- -� , ': ,'. " � , , ., . - � � - � I 1, : , � . , , , , -, � - -�, , ,, I . � . .1 � I � I i . , .. - I . . , , . . � " . .1 - . I I I . . . I I I ­ I., I � , 1� I F, L j,, 0 1 ' - , ' - i ., '' ! I I., 1 � " ", � , I - � � I ,� , � I.. I , . I I I I I I I I � � I . 11 - � I - ; . " � I � �. I - I I I - : I I I I 11 - , '.. I . I - 1 -i �� I , , , , , , , ,n� , , , , , , . , . , , I . I I . .1 � I � I - I . I .. I . . I -, �, )1. L. I., . . � ... .... 1� , � ,. . � - I .1 . � � . I � .: '' , . , . . " , I j , , ,. - � , . � � � ,�, I I,, �, I . . . I , - - ,. . � - . . 1 I I I � . . . I � � � I - I � - , - :,_ 1, -,�_- -, -, ". * I. "; . �. ; -,:, ." �, : , - '. .v � ,�' I . � '. - �,,� 'L : , I �' :� " -, , , - :_," , ., 1. ­ - I . " : . 1, �, 1� . � � � I L . I � I .. I � . � , I I - � � � : . I �, � �_ . � ,� � . , �: ,_ � ,�." _ " ." , . �. 1� : I .11 - & ,00 it � . - I /, �