Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCASTAWAYS_MARINA_DEIR_VOL_111111111111111111111111111111111111111 lill III *NEW FILE* CASTAWAYS_MARI NA D E I R V OL 1 MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES LIBRARY Castaways Marina . 0-EKFo-ID[1ElEK 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report VOLUMF. I OF II CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 1991 CASTAWAYS MARINA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME I OF II #88081016 State Clearinghouse Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225 1 Contact: Patricia L. Temple Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Carnegie Centre 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 250-5555 Contact: Beverly Bruesch, AICP rAugust 1991 I I I ITABLE OF CONTENTS ' Section Pave 1 ESELTJTIVE SUMMARY ................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Description Summary ........... :................ 1-1 1.2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................ 1-2 1.3 Summary of Alternatives . 1-3 1.4 Areas of Controversy ............................... 1-10 1.5 Issues to Be Resolved ............................... 1-11 2 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 2-1 2.1 General Purpose....... 2-1 ' 2.2 Environmental Procedures ............................. 2-1 2.3 EIR Focus ...................................... 2-2 2.4 Effects Found Not to Be Significant ....................... 2-2 2.5 Project Sponsors and Key Contact Persons ................... 2-5 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................. 3-1 3.1 Project Location ................................... 3-1 3.2 Project Characteristics ............................... 3-1 3.3 Project Phasing ................................... 3-5 3.4 Project Objectives . 3-5 3.5 Responsible Agencies and Discretionary Actions and Permits Required ................................. 3-6 4 LOCAL AND REGIONAL SETTING ......................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...................4-1 4.2 Regional Setting ...... ......... ............. .. 4-1 4.3 Local Setting ..................................... 4-2 4.4 Approved and Committed Projects ........................ 4-2 4.5 Planned Roadway Improvements . 4-3 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................ 5.1-1 5.1 Land Uses and Land Use Plans ......................... 5.1-1 5.2 Earth Resources ...... 5.2-1 I 5.3 Hydrology/Sedimentation ........................ .. 5.3-1 5.4 Water Quality ................................... 5.4-1 5.5 Marine Biological Resources .......................... 5.5-1 5.6 Terrestrial Biological Resources . 5.6-1 5.7 Cultural and Scientific Resources ....................... 5.7-1 5.8 Traffic/Circulation................................ 5.8-1 5.9 Harbor Circulation ' 5.9-1 5.10 Air Quality ................................ 5.10-1 rB2/006 ILTOC i I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 1 Section EW , 5.11 Noise .............................. 5.11-1 I ......... 5.12 Public Services and Utilities ........................... 5.12-1 6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6-1 ................ 6.1 No Project Alternative . .. ..................... 6-1 6.2 Lower Number of Boat Slips Alternatives ... 6-2 6.3 Alternative Project Site Location(s) ....................... 6-8 6.4 Alternative Haul Road/Long-Term Site Access Design ........... 6-9 7 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....... 7-1 7.1 Relationships Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity .............................. 7-1 7.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ................ 7-1 7.3 Growth IDducing Impacts ............................. 7 2 8 SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS IF PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ............................. 8-1 9 SUMMARY OF CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENT'S ........... 9-1 10 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ..................... 10.1 11 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REPORT ............ 11-1 12 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED DURING PREPARATION OF THE REPORT .......................... 12-1 13 REFERENCES ........................................ 13-1 Apt (Volume I) A Notice of Preparation, Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and Distribution List 1, August 1988 2. March 1990 B Responses to Notice of Preparation 1. August 1988 2. March 1990 C Castaways Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan i raimo6W11.T0C ii , I I I d I 1 G I l I I 1 I I I 11 1 Appendices (continued) D E F G H I J K L M TABLE OF CONTENTS (continuer]) Soils and Geology Studies Hydrology Study Marine Sediment and Water Quality Data Marine Resources Data Floral and Faunal Compendium Cultural and Scientific Resources Reports Traffic Report Air Quality Data Noise Assessment Calculations Public Services and Utilities Correspondence LIST OF TABLES Table iM 1.2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................... 1-12 4-1 Proposed or Approved Marina Facilities in Orange County .............. 4-2 4-2 City of Newport Beach Approved and Committed Projects .............. 4.4 5.1-1 Newport Harbor Lutheran Church Regularly Scheduled Services and Activities ................................... 5.1-7 5.3-1 Tide Data —Los Angeles Harbor . . . . { 5.3 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3-2 Estimation of Current Velocity Suspended Load and Bed Load Depositions ........ 4 .......................... 5.3-10 5.4-1 California Administrative Code, Title 22 Total Threshold Toxicity Limit Concentrations for Hazardous Wastes ... 4 ............. 5.4-8 5.5-1 Benthic Community Composition —Castaways Marina Site ...... 4 ....... 5.5-5 5.5-2 Dominant Infaunal Species, Castaways Marina Site .................. 5.5 7 .5.5-3 Marine Organisms Observed During Castaways Marina Site Reconnaissance Survey .... . .............................. 5.5-9 5.5-4 Castaways Marina Project Existing Habitats, Acreage, Expected Marine Biological Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation Measures ............... 5.5-17 5.8-1 Trip Generation Summary ............................. 5.8-4 5.8-2 Approved Project Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8-6 . . . . 5.8-3 Summary of One Percent Analysis With Proposed Site Access Design ...... 5.8-7 5.10-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................. 5.10-5 5.10-2 Summary of Air Quality Data —Costa Mesa Air Quality Monitoring Station ..................................... 5.10-7 5.10-3 Dredging Equipment —Estimated Daily and Total Emissions......................... 5.10-9 ............... 5.10-4 Disposal Operations —Option 1, 100 Percent Disposal to Coyote Canyon Landfill Alternative —Estimated Daily and Total Emissions .................................... 5.10-10 na/00610011.TOC iv LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table Page 5.10-5 Disposal Operations --Option 2: 100 Percent Disposal to Ocean Estimated Daily and Total Emissions ..................... 5.10-11 5.10-6 Disposal Operations —Option 3: Combined Landfill and Ocean Disposal —Estimated Daily and Total Emissions ............... 5.10-12 5.10-7 Facility Installation Operations —Estimated Daily and Total Emissions ....................................... 5.10-14 5.11-1 Existing Acoustical Setting ................................ 5.11-3 5.11-2 Calculated Existing Roadway Noise Levels ...................... 5.11-4 5.11-3 Noise Levels for Hydraulic Dredge ........................... 5.11-5 5.11-4 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment.......................................... 5.11-6 6-1 Estimated Dredging Requirements, and Halibut and Mudflat Impacts for Alternative Marina Designs ..................... 6-4 6-2 Summary of One Percent Analysis With Alternative Site Access at Dover Drive/Cliff Drive Intersection .......................... 6-11 n V00640ou.TOC v Fouows ExWbit _Eage 3-1 Regional Location Map .................................... 3-2 3 2 Project Vicinity Map ...................................... 3 2 3-3 Proposed Marina Concept Layout .............................. 3 2 3-4 Preliminary Landscape Plan ................................. 3 2 3 5 Proposed Dredge Operation Plan .............................. 3 2 3-6 Excavation/Dredging Cross -Section A -A ......................... 3 2 3 7 Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives .......................... 3-4 3-8 Proposed Temporary Haul Road Preliminary Grading Plan .............. 3-4 4-1 Committed and Approved Projects ............................. 4-5 5.1-1 Existing Land Uses ...................................... 5.12 5.12 Existing General Plan Land Use Element Map ..................... 5.12 5.1-3 Existing Zoning ........................................ 5.1-6 5.2-1 Topography .......................................... 5.2 2 5.3-1 Bathymetry Survey ...................................... 5.3 2 5.3-2 Existing Ebb Current Pattern ................................ 5.3-4 5.3-3 Existing Flood Current Pattern .............................. 5.3-4 5.3-4 Ebb Current Pattern with Project .............................. 5.3-8 5.3-5 Flood Current Pattern with Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 5.3-8 5.3-6 Bed Load Sediment Transport Pattern .......................... 5.3-8 5.5-1 Existing Marine Habitats .................................. 5.5 2 5.5 2 Marine Habitats Impact Area ............................... 5.5-14 5.5-3 Post -Construction Marine Habitats ........................... 5.5-14 5.6-1 Existing Terrestrial Plant Communities ......................... 5.6-2 n 2/006400lt.•roc vi LIST OF EKMBffS (continued) Follows Exhibit Page 5.8-1 Estimated Traffic Distribution ............................... 5.8-6 5.10-1 SCAQMD Air Monitoring Network .......................... 5.10-4 5.10-2 Relative Odor Impact —Dredging Operations with Disposal Options 1, 2, and 3 .............................. 5.10-20 5.10-3 Relative Odor Impact Dredging Operations with Disposal Options 2 and 3................................ 5.10-20 5.11-1 Typical Noise Levels ................................... 5.11-2 5.112 Typical Noise Compatibility Land Uses ........................ 5.11-2 5.11-3 Noise Monitoring Stations ................................ .5.11-4 6-1 121-Boat Marina Alternative ................................. 6-2 6-2 121-Boat Marina Alternative: Halibut Nursery Impacts ................ 6-4 6-3 121-Boat Marina Alternative: Juvenile Halibut Impacts ................ 6-4 6-4 84-Boat Marina Alternative .................................. 6.6 6-5 50-Boat Marina Alternative —Without New Marina Basin ............... 6-6 6-6 Alternative Marina Locations ................................ 6-8 0-7 Alternative Site Access Road Design ............................ 6-10 6-8 Alternative Site Access Road Cross Sections ....................... 6-10 MV006"ILTOC vii I I 1 [1 J I n I I I I I I SECTION 1 1aY 4111MWI D11,111JI 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SU1141�1ARY The proposed Castaways Marina site is located in the City of Newport Beach on the "Lower Castaways" site. The site is immediately north of the Coast Highway Bridge at the intersection of Dover Drive and Coast Highway. Automobile access to the site is from Dover Drive. Boats will pass under Coast Highway Bridge to travel between Lower Newport Bay and the proposed marina. The proposed marina will consist of floating, pile -supported, and land based facilities. The facilities will include restrooms, showers, trash and storage containers, utilities, and two onsite fire hydrants. A sanitary pumpout station is also located on the site. A public viewing area and 106 parking spaces will be provided along the west and north sides of the basin. As proposed, the marina will consist of up to 125 slips of four different sizes. A walkway 880 feet in length will be constructed and consist of pressure treated wood framing with concrete pile supports. This walkway will provide 64 slips or side tie-up locations. Two floating walkways will provide access to the 61 marina basin slips and side tie-ups. Construction of the marina will occur in three phases. The first phase will require the replacement of the old bulkhead wail. The next phase consists of the dredging of approximately 80,000 cubic yards of material to create the marina basin and access channel to the floating pier and slips. Marina and guide pile construction will follow the dredge operation. Landside improvements will be constructed concurrent with the marina construction. Paving of the parking areas and landscaping will occur during this final phase. Three options for disposal of the dredged materials are being considered. The first option is 100 percent disposal at the Coyote Canyon Landfill, which requires additional fill material for closure activities. The dredged material would be dried at the Lower Castaways site, and then transported to the disposal site. Approximately 4,000 truckloads of material would be transported to the disposal site. The truck route to and from the landfill is proposed to include the following streets: 16th Street, Dover Drive, Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, Bison Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Bonita Canyon Road, and Coyote Canyon Road. JWJ00640011.1 1-1 Haul trucks for the dredged material would enter the site from the northbound Dover Drive. To provide an exit route for the loaded trucks a temporary (dirt) haul road through Upper Castaways Is proposed. Preparation of this temporary haul road, all on private property, would require grading along approximately half its length. As proposal, it would be designed for one-way traffic only, and would avoid areas of sensitive habitat on the Upper Castaways site. Another option is 100 percent disposal to an approved ocean site. Disposal at the ocean site Is dependent on a formal bioassay and approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ocean disposal could include as few as 25 and as many as 80 barge (or scow) loads of material, depending on the contractor's equipment and methods. These methods are yet to be determined, but may include the use of tugs and barges to transport the dredged material under the Coast Highway Bridge to a Scow marshalling area in Newport Bay. Filled scows would be exchanged for empty ones and ocean going tugboats would transport the material to the approved ocean disposal site. The final option is combined landfill and ocean disposal. If an ocean disposal site Is approved, a combination of the two alternatives is likely. This would include some truck loads (1,250 to 3,000 Is estimated) and some barge loads (eight to 50 is estimated). ' Upon approval of all required discretionary actions and permits, construction of the proposed marina Is expected to occur over a 10- to 12-month period. A preliminary estimate of the timing of each phase Is presented below. Removal of old bulkhead wall 2 - 3 months and installation of the new wall • Dredge operation 3 - 4 months • Guide piles and marina construction months 5 months Y1tilti:_:. *: lvl': h!h ;_�Le u_eM.4 M • u�'_;__'11; Table 1.2-1 at the end of this section, presents a summary of the potential environmental effects of the project, measures to mitigate project impacts to the extent feasible, and the expected status of effects following implementation of the mitigation measures. A more detailed evaluation of these issues is presented in Section 5. In Table 1.2-1, the significance of each impact before mitigation is JB2100wcotta 1-2 ' indicated by the following abbreviations that parenthetically follow the summary description of impact: B = beneficial impact; S = significant impact, as defined by the California Eirvirormental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15382;.and NS = impact that is not significant according to the State CEQA Guidelines. "(CP)" follows City policies and requirements and "(NM" follows mitigation Imeasures. ' 1.3 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Section 6 of this EIR presents a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, and evaluates the comparative merits of the•altematives. These alternatives focus on alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. ' 1.3.1 NO -PROJECT ALTERNATIVE In this case, the no project alternative assumes no development of the proposed marina or alternative uses at the proposed project site, and would allow the Lower and Upper Castaways sites, and the ' Upper Newport Bay to ri main in their current conditions. Also, no temporary haul road would be developed through Upper Castaways with this alternative. ' This alternative would eliminate the short-term (but mitigable) disturbances and increased turbidity ' which may affect endangered birds which forage in this part of Upper Newport Bay; particularly the California least tem which nests in the Upper Bay. (It should be noted that these short-term impacts could also be eliminated by the proper scheduling of the proposed project's dredging and construction activities to avoid,the breeding season of this bird.) Ia addition, this alternative would eliminate the ' long-term loss of open space, mudflat habitat, halibut nursery habitat, and foraging area for birds. The no -project alternative would eliminate the project's potential to contribute to water quality problems within the bay. Even though the project would represent a small, increment of the marina uses in Newport Bay as whole, it could contribute to existing cumulatively significant water quality problems. This alternative would eliminate the short-term, significant air contaminant and dust emissions associated with the proposed dredging and marina construction activities. In addition, it would eliminate the truck traffic which could cause potentially significant short-term traffic impacts and ' disturbances to the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church (assuming the temporary haul road is used). rB2JO0640011.1 1-3 This alternative would not meet the project objectives to provide land uses consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element which identifies the site to be used for "Recreational and Marina Uses." Nor would it allow for public access to the part of Newport Bay next to the site. In summary, this alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, and is under consideration by the City of Newport Beach. It would eliminate the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. However, as noted above, it would not meet the land use and public access objectives for the project property (as identified later in Section 3.4 of this EIR). 13.2 LOWER NUMBER-0F BOAT -SLIPS ALTERNATIVES Alternative marina designs are considered in an attempt to reduce environmental impacts associated with the project, and create a design best suited to the conditions of the site. Three conceptual alternatives smaller than the proposed project are evaluated, both with and without excavation of a new marina basin. 71717411 This alternative is similar to the proposed project, but is primarily designed to reduce the project's expected impacts on the existing mudilat and halibut habitats near the shore. To accomplish this, three slips at the end of the pier are removed, and a side tie on the inside base of the pier is removed. In addition, the end of the pier is angled gently away from the shore by a few feet to further reduce near shore dredging requirements. For the majority of potential impact areas, the reduction of the number of boat slips and side ties from 125 to 121 (a 3 percent reduction) would not alter the impacts associated with the proposed project, or would only slightly reduce the impacts. For the following topical areas, the environmental effects of this alternative would be expected to be the same as for the proposed project: land uses and land use plans, terrestrial biology, and cultural resources. The magnitude of the long-term (operational) impacts from this alternative on water quality, traffic, harbor circulation, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities would be expected to be approximately 3 percent less by virtue of the fewer number of boat slips and side ties. Most likely, this reduction would not be noticeable, r I I i 382/0064Mtt.t 1-4 I I I I I However, due to the alterations described in the first paragraph, this alternative design would reduce the amount of bay,or "wet" material that would need to be dredged (from approximately 24,000 cubic yards (cy) for the proposed project to approximately 11,000 cy with this alternative) by 54 percent. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to result in substantially reduced short-term impacts associated with the dredging operation. Not only would potential short-term impacts to water quality, sedimentation, turbidity, benthic organisms, fishes, and bird foraging patterns be reduced, butpotentiai short-term impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, and harbor circulation associated with disposal of the dredged material would be reduced. A major benefit of this alternative, would be the reduction of impacts to mudflat and halibut habitats. As a result of reduced mudflat habitat and halibut nursery impacts, less of these habitats would need to be replaced (at another location in Newport Bay) as a part of the mitigation program. According to the applicant, the reduction in the total number of boat slips and side ties from 125 to 121 would not substantially reducethe economic viability of the proposed marina (Power, pers. comm., 818/91). In addition, it would meet all the project objectives (identified later in Section 3.4 of this FJR), and would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative is under consideration by the City of Newport Beach. 84Boat-Slips Alternative This alternative would provide 84 boat slips —or 41 fewer boat slips than the proposed project, and proposes an alternative basin and pier design. As conceptualized, this alternative would have the same marina basin size and location as the proposed project, and therefore, would require the same dredging activity to create the marina basin as the proposed project. However, due to a smaller pier structure, less dredging of bay "wet" material would be required. For the following topical areas, the environmental effects of this alternative would be expected to be the same as for the proposed project: land uses and land use plans, terrestrial biology, and cultural resources. The magnitude of the long-term (operational) impacts from this alternative on water quality, traffic, harbor circulation, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities would be expected to be substantially less —approximately two-thirds of those posed by the proposed project —by virtue of the 41 fewer of boat slips. ra100640011.1 1-5 Also, due to the smaller pier structure and its conceptualized configuration, this alternative marina design would reduce the amount of bay or "wet" material that would need to be dredged (from approximately 24,000 cy for the proposed project to approximately 11,000 cy with this Alternative) , by 54 percent. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to result in substantially reduced short-term. impacts associated with the dredging operation. Not only would potential short-term impacts to water quality, ' sedimentation, turbidity, benthic organisms, fishes, and bird foraging patterns be reduced, but potential short-term impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, and harbor circulation associated with disposal of the dredged material would be reduced. However, due to the configuration of this alternative, it would result in approximately the same level of impact on both the mudilat and halibut habitats. Therefore, this alternative would not demonstrate , a significant reduction of impacts to these habitats compared the proposed project, and would require a similarly scoped mitigation program for the replacement of these habitats. Because of the reduced amount of dredging required for this alternative, this alternative would-be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. In addition, it would meet the City's r objectives, (as identified later in Section 3.4 of this EIR). However, the development of an 84 boat slip marina is not considered economically feasible by the applicant (Power, pets. comm., 8/8/91). Therefore, this alternative is not being pursued by the project applicant. 1.3.3 50-BOAT-SLIPS ALTERNATIVE —WITHOUT NEW MARINA BASIN This alternative would provide 50 boat slips-75 fewer boat slips than the proposed project, and ' proposes an alternative basin and pier design. As conceptualized, this alternative would not create a new marina basin, but would provide a pier structure into Newport Bay in approximately the same location as the one proposed for the project. As conceptualized, this alternative would extend boat slips and a new pier structure from a reconfigured bulkhead in approximately the same location as the existing bulkhead. For the following topical areas, the environmental effects of this alternative would be expected to be the same as for the proposed project: land uses and land use plans and cultural resources. It Is possible that this alternative would have less impact on flora and fauna on the Lower Castaways site. However, this would be dependent on how the balance of the Lower Castaways site was treated or , n► /OD6 oll.1 1-6 1 I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 i 1 1 1 1 I I altered. The magnitude of the long-term (operational) impacts from this alternative on water quality, traffic, harbor circulation, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities would be expected to be substantially less —approximately two-thirds of those posed by the proposed project —by virtue of the 75 fewer of boat slips. Also, due to the smaller pier structure and its conceptualized configuration, this alternative marina design would substantially reduce both the amount of "dry" material dredging (behind the bulkhead) and the amount of "wet" material dredging (within the bay). The estimated amount of wet material to be dredged would be reduced from approximately 24,000 cy for the proposed project to approximately 13,000 cy with this alternative, or approximately 46 percent. In combination with the reduction in dredging behind the existing bulkhead (reduced from 56,000 cy to 3,500 cy), or 94 percent, the amount of dredging activity would be reduced by a total of 63,500 cy, or 79 percent less than that needed for the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to result in substantially reduced short-term impacts associated with the dredging operation. Not only would potential short-term impacts to water quality, sedimentation, turbidity, and bird foraging patterns be reduced, but potential short-term impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, and harbor circulation associated with disposal of the dredged material would be reduced. However, due to this alternative's configuration (see Exhibit 6.4) it would result in approximately the same magnitude of impact on both the mudflat and halibut nursery habitats. Therefore, this alternative would not demonstrate a substantial benefit to the mudflat and halibut nursery habitats compared to the proposed project, and would require a similarly scoped mitigation program for the replacement of these habitats. Also, with this alternative, the amount of juvenile halibut habitat created would be less than with the proposed project. Because of the reduced dredging material disposal requirements for this alternative, this alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. In addition, it would meet the City's objectives, (as identified later in Section 3.4 of this EIR). However, the development of a 50 boat slip marina is not considered economically feasible by the applicant (Power, pers. comm., 8/8/91). Therefore, this alternative is not being pursued by the project applicant. JMOD6400t1.1 1-7 1 0 1.3.4 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT SPPE LOCATIONS ' Due the sensitivity of certain intertidal habitats within the project site, and endangered species which forage and roost In the vicinity of the proposed project site, this alternative evaluates the possibility of relocating the project to another location to alleviate or reduce potential environmental effects on ' these Upper Bay resources. however, in investigating the potential for alternative locations for an additional marina within Orange County, itwas determined that no alternative sites are available which , would have less environmental effect (Rossmilier, pers. comm., 2114/90). The following sites were evaluated: Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, West Newport/Newport Shores, Dana Point, and Huntington/Sunset Harbor. No site specific comparison of an aiternativeproject site within Orange County to the proposed project site is possible due to the unavailability of feasible site alternatives. IM ALTERNATIVE HAUL ROAD/LONG-TERM SITE ACCESS DESIGN ' Ibis alternative would provide an alternative access to the site which could be used for both the short- term haul road activities and as a possibly safer, long-term access route for the proposed marina. As ' conceptualized, it would be a 2-lane, 2-way toad starting at the same point as the currently proposed temporary had road (the northwest corner of Lower Castaways), and would theaparallel Dover Drive ' within the property line until it curves westerly to intersect with Dover Drive directly across from Cliff Drive, thus forming a 4-way intersection. Ibis alternative assumes a traffic light would be ' installed at the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection. Ibis alternative foad/access design would alleviate the potential noise and dust impacts to the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church (these are considered short term and mitigable). Also, it could create less potential for short-term erosion impacts to the wetlands on the Upper Castaways site (another short- term, midgabie impact). This alternative would require more extensive and severe grading along Dover Drive than the ' temporary haul road and would require apermanent retaining wall or cribwall to support the hillside cut. It is assumed that excess cut material would be disposed of at the Coyote Canyon Landfill. Wo0640011.1 i-8 l.J I I[] fl I H As noted above, this alternative assumes that a traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of Dover Drive and Cliff Drive. Therefore, if this road were to be used for hauling of material to the Coyote Canyon Landfill, the trucks would exit the site at this intersection. This alternative may be perceived to have a significant aesthetic impact due to the large cut in the hill along Dover Drive. A 6- to 15-foot cribwall to support the hillside would be visible to local residents and drivers along this portion of Dover Drive. This could be mitigated with landscaping, but may continue to be perceived as a significant aesthetic impact. In addition, this alternative would require removal of approximately 0.84 acre of ruderal/disturbed vegetation. 'Ibis would not be considered a significant impact due to this habitat's lack of sensitive and native species. The most prominent long-term benefits of this alternative site access design are expected to be: (1) the ability to directly enter the proposed marina from southbound Dover Drive via a left turn, (2) the ability to make a left turn directly from the site onto southbound Dover Drive, and (3) the provision of greater distance between the site access point and the Dover Drive/Coast Highway intersection. All of the above are considered to improve the safety of the proposed project's ingress and egress movements. In addition, according to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, existing traffic conditions at the intersection of Dover Drive and Cliff Drive (even without the proposed project) warrant a traffic signal (Webb, pers. comm., 8/8/91). There is known sensitivity in the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights communities as to the potential for traffic shifts to occur as a result of added signalization at the Dover/Cliff intersection. Although not anticipated, there is the potential for traffic increases on Cliff Drive as a result of the new signalization. Therefore, if this alternative site access is adopted, the following mitigation measure will be implemented by the City of Newport Beach. A-1. The City shall conduct a baseline traffic study on Cliff Drive, prior to installation of the traffic signal at Dover Drive/Cliff Drive. The City shall monitor traffic along Cliff Drive, and if a significant amount of traffic results, the City will install new traffic control devices, such as stop signs, to make Cliff Drive less attractive to use than Coast Highway. FiG?Si61 1-9 The city's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)1 percent analysis was conducted for this alternative, and resulted in the finding that no further analysis would be required if this alternative is selected since each of the five intersections analyzed passed the 1 percent criterion. i Although this alternative site access design may be perceived to have greater aesthetic impacts, it is considered environmentally superior overall due to its potential improvements to the safety of the project's ingress and egress movements. Therefore, this alternative is under consideration by the City of Newport Beach. , 1.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY In accordance with Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this summary identifies areas of potential controversy imown to the City of Newport Beach or raised by comments received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) review periods. The complete set of NOP responses is provided in Appendix B. A summary of the major issues raised is presented below In random order, and these issues are addressed in the appropriate sections of this document. (The list below does not constitute ' a complete list of issues addressed in this document.) • The potential for increased noise, air pollution, and traffic disruption along city streets with the option of hauling dredged material to the Coyote Canyon Landfill. ' • The potential for site access problems both during the construction phase and during the life of the project. • The potential for impacts on the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and endangered bird species. , • The potential for increased water quality contamination due to possible spills or leaks of hazardous materials, boat cleaning/maintenance wastes, and sanitary waste discharges. • The potential for harbor circulation hazards due to the dredging/barge operations and the narrowing of the channel. ' • The potential for a significant alteration in the water currents in the bay. • The potential for a public waterway to be converted to a private use. i • The potential for soil erosion into Newport Bay. ' JEM06+ ILI 1-10 ' n I I 1 I I I I I Y i �iTij3�i7oCY• i �► In accordance with Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines, issues to be resolved at the time of the draft EIR distribution are listed below. • The method of dredged material disposal —ocean disposal, landfill disposal, and/or a combination of the two alternatives (to be resolved by the Army Corps of Engineers [ACOE] and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] prior to issuance of the dredging permit). • The method and location of mudflat habitat replacement (to be resolved through consultation with the ACOE prior to issuance of the dredging permit). • The method and location of halibut nursery replacement (to be resolved through consultation with the ACOE prior to issuance of the dredging permit). • The exact methods and types of equipment to be used for marina dredging and for pile driving for pier construction. ra210064WI .t 1-11 TABLE 1.2-1 SUMMARY OF ItMPACTS, CITY POLICIES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES CITY POLICIES (CP) AND IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES M" LAND USES AND LAND USE PLANS The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Code policies assuming that the appropriate use, grading, and building permits are acquired, and the Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan are adopted. (NS) Short-term dust, noise, and traffic impacts upon the weekday, daytime activities of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church could occur if the landfill disposal method for dredged materials is selected using the temporary haul road would be graded through the Upper Castaways site and around the back of the church to allow loaded trucks to exit the site at the pith Street/Dover Drive traffic signal. (S) Prior to issuance of a building permit, signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works departments. (CP) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. This plan shall be approved by the directors of the Planning, Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation departments. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance - with the approved plan. (CP) To mitigate potential short-term impacts to church activities, the project applicant, or its designated representative, shall coordinate/ communicate with officials of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church to establish a schedule of haul road preparation and use that will minimize disruption of scheduled church activities. Written evidence of this coordination effort shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of the grading permit. (MM) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CTTY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant. Not significant after mitigation. M M M» M� m i m i A M M M M r M M M IM =1 M M M =1 =1 M M M M M= MM! M! M r IMPACTS EARTH RESOURCES The proposed marina will be exposed to hazards associated with earthquakes in the region. All structures shall meet applicable seismic building code requirements; therefore, no significant seismic -related impacts are anticipated. (NS) The project will permanently alter existing landforms on the Lower Castaways site through: dredging of approximately 56,000 cubic yards (cy) of surface material from the Lower Castaways site bringing it to a depth of 10 feet below mean sea level. Also, approximately 24,000 cy of material will be dredged from the bottom of Upper Newport Bay adjacent to the Castaways site, thus altering the contours of the bay bottom at this location. The resulting landform changes are not significant. (NS) TABLE 1.2-1 (continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning departments. The application for a grading permit is to be accompanied by the grading plan and specifications, and supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports required by the building official. (CP) Grading operations and drainage requirements shall meet the standards set forth in the City's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 70 - Excavation and Grading, Sections 7001-7019) and the Building Department's General Grading Specifications. (CP) The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and a watering program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. (CP) An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department (prior to approval of the grading permit). A copy shall be forwarded to the California EPA/Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. (CP) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant. Not significant. TABLE 12,1(continued) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER CITY POLICIES OR IMPACTS N MGATION MEASURES (MM) MITIGATION MEASURES EARTH RESOURCES (continued) However, as described below in the appropriate sections, a number of adverse impacts are associated with the dredging operation due to its magnitude (e.g., short-term increases in road and harbor traffic, dust, turbidity, and noise and removal of marine biological resources). All or part of dredged materials for development of the marina may be disposed of in the Coyote Canyon Landfill, should the "landfill method" be selected (versus ocean disposal). With this option, a disposal haul road would be provided through a.portion of Upper Castaways, requiring excavation of approximately 500 cy of material and creating the potential for significant erosion into an adjacent wetland. (S) Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer incorporating the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completionof a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department prior to issuance of building permits. (CP) To reduce the potential for erosion into the wetlands area on the Upper Castaways site, the applicant shall design the road to drain to the east, and shall provide a swale along the eastern side of the temporary haul road to carry runoff from the road onto the Lower Castaways site. 0." To reduce erosion from the temporary haul road, the road shall be hydroseeded with compatible plant material following the completion of the dredging operation. Plant material to be used shall be selected by a licensed landscape architect and approved by the City of Newport Beach. (NM Not significant after mitigation. M MI its ilia IM'm i• ill♦ M M 11111111 M M M M 01111 M M M M M illy M M M= M M M M M M M M M M M in IMPACTS HYDROLOGY AND SEDIMENTATION Surface drainage patterns on the Lower Castaways site would be altered due to development of the project. (NS) Two counter -rotational gyres (circular movements) will be created within the mooring basin, and one large gyre is expected to set up during flood flow conditions. (NS) The proposed marina and floating pier will entrap a negligible amount of the floatable debris which currently bypasses the project site. (NS) Hydraulic model tests indicate that approxi- mately 500 cubic yards of sediment per year will be transported to the proposed new marina basin, resulting in an estimated average annual depth increase of approximately 0.2 foot per year within the inner two-thirds of the mooring basin. An average annual depth increase of 0.1 TABLE 1.2.1 (continued) CITY PPOLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach City Engineer. A hydrology and hydraulic study and a master plan of water, sewer, and storm drain for onsite improvements shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to recording of the tract map. Any modifications to the existing storm drain system shall be the responsibility of the developer. (CP) To minimize tidal flow interference, the basin design shall use adequately spaced plastic pontoons to support the docks within the channel. (MM) The project applicant shall clean debris from the new basin and boat slips as part of the regular maintenance program to be approved by the City of Newport Beach. (MM) To maintain project depths within the boat basin, dredging of the sand bar that may form at the entrance of the marina basin shall be conducted by the applicant in accordance with an approved dredging permit from the City of Newport Beach and ALOE. QdM) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant. Not significant. Not significant. Not significant. a TABLE 1.2-1(continued) LEVEL OF SIGNMCANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER CITY POLICIESOR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) MITIGATION MEASURES (HYDROLOGY AND SEDDMMATION (continued) foot per year would occur over the mooring basin entrance. This increase, while not considered significant from a biological or water quality perspective, will require maintenance at approximately 5-year intervals. Storm -related generation and accumulation of sediments is not anticipated to be significant. (NS) Dredging activities could result in increased sediment deposition in the vicinity of the barge marshalling area(s). (NS) Dredging and excavation activities will temporarily increase turbidity in the Upper Newport Bay near the project site; however, the suspended material will consist of mostly -heavy particles (fine sand) which should settle rapidly and redeposit locally. (NS) See later discussion of potentially adverse short- term impacts on water quality, marine biological resources, and terrestrial biological resources resulting from increased turbidity. Prior to, and upon completion of, the dredging operation, soundings shall be taken at each barge marshalling area and the data supplied to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department to ascertain the need for dredging to return the area(s) to pre -dredging conditions. Such dredging will be the responsibility of the project applicant. (MM) To reduce the extent of increased turbidity, the applicant shall require the dredging contractor to use filter curtains around dredging operations, when feasible. (MM) When feasible, the dump scow shall be loaded only during ebb tide conditions to reduce the amount of suspended material that could be flushed into Upper Newport Bay. (MM) Not significant. Not significant. M M M M it M r m 'm MM � M M M M Ml M M M = M = = M = = M = = = = s L IMPACTS WATER QUALITY Construction dredging will have short-term adverse chemical impacts on water quality related to a reduction in dissolved oxygen levels and an increase in detectable levels of trace metals. These impacts could add to cumulatively significant water quality problems in the bay during the construction phase, when installation of docks and pilings will add to the cumulative risk of leakages of contaminants, such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), grease, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other contaminants potentially harmful to marine life. (S) Behind the bulkhead, material below the groundwater level will be dewatered. This water will be discharged to Upper Newport Bay and if it does not meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards, it could contribute to cumulatively significant water quality problems in the bay. Therefore, it will be required to meet (or be treated to meet) said standards. (S) TABLE 1.2-1 (continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (" Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall be provided with evidence that all appropriate permits or clearances have been obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. (MM) Water extracted from dewatering wells and drained from bay materials shall meet current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements prior to discharging into the bay. If necessary, the water shall be desilted prior to discharge. (MM) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION tiWASURES Not significant after mitigation. Not significant after mitigation. I WATER QUALITY (continued) Ocean disposal of dredged materials has a low potential to significantly degrade water quality at the LA-3 site. (S) Demolition of the existing bulkhead and general marina construction may generate floatable woo d debris that represents a safety hazard for watercraft in the inner harbor area, and could TABLE 12,1(continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES WRI) Treatment of extracted water shall be conducted in a manner and at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach City Engineer and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. (MM) Suspended soils (e g., sand) shall be separated from extracted water in accordance with applicable water quality standards and disposed of at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works Department and the Grading Engineer. (A4v1) Provision shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. QMA) The dredging contractor shall conduct dredging and disposal activities in accordance with the approved dredging permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Mid) Prior to the demolition of the existing bulkhead structure, a complete plan for litter and debris control for the demolition, grading, and construction phases shall be approved by the LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant after mitigation. Not significant. M = iM M M M M M M M M = = = I• = M HIPACTS WATER QUALITY (continued) reduce intertidal habitat utilization by aquatic resources and some birds, if it accumulates. (NS) Marina tenants could potentially discharge wastes from vessel holding tanks illegally, resulting in an increase in bacterial and viral contamination, nutrient loading, and turbidity that would contribute a small increment to cumulatively significant water quality problems in the bay. (S) The project will add a small increment to cumulative levels of antifouling and paint -related contaminants in the bay due to paint which can leach from the bottom of boats at anchor, and from normal maintenance activities, including hull scraping. In addition, hull cleaning activities could result in periodic release of marine fouling organisms, increasing the organic content of local sediments which can then contribute to anoxic bottom conditions. (S) TABLE 1.2-1(continued) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER CITY POLICIES OR TIGATION MEASURES (MM) NMGATION MEASURES directors of the City's Planning and Marine departments to ensure debris is not permitted to enter Newport Bay. (MM) No vessel discharges are allowed within Newport Bay. (CP) The applicant shall provide for periodic maintenance of the sanitary pumpout station to ensure its continuous operation. (MM) For the life of the project, the project applicant shall provide each marina tenant with a copy of all applicable regulations regarding vessel discharges of wastes, antifouling paint use, and refuse management (including handling of hazardous wastes) as a part of lease materials. (MM) Cumulatively significant. Cumulatively significant. N 0 IMPACTS WATER QUALITY (continued) Runoff from the new marina parking lot and adjacent landscaped areas will result in the discharge of contaminants such as oil, grease, fertilizers, pesticides, and trace metals into the bay and thus contribute a small increment to the cumulative water quality problems associated with stormwater discharges throughoutthe bay's watershed. (S) The presence of additional boats introduced by the project could increase the risk of accidental oil and fuel spills occurring in Newport Bay. (S) Spillage of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, gasoline and lubricating oils from vessels, and paint thinner and other organic solvents from maintenance activities, or the improper disposal of these materials associated with operation of the marina would contribute a small increment to cumulatively significant water quality problems in Newport Bay. (S) TABLE 1.2-1(continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (M M) A landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted for approval by the directors of Planning and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, which includes a maintenance program that controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. (CP) Landscaped areas shall be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. (CP) The applicant shall provide regular cleaning of the marina docks and vacuum sweeping of the parking lot. (Mlul) For the life of the project, the project applicant shall provide each marina tenant with information regarding procedures for notifying appropriate authorities regarding spills of hazardous materials, containment measures, and applicable penalties for violations as a part of lease materials. (MM) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Cumulatively significant. Cumulatively significant. N IMPACTS MARINE BIOLOGY The presence of construction and dredging equipment and their associated noise, as well as human activity, could result in the movement of fish and birds away from the site during the operation. Also, construction of the marina will cause increases in turbidity that can temporarily decrease submarine light levels, and may cause short-term impacts, such as reducing the foraging ability of visual -foraging fishes and birds, and clogging the gill rakers of planktivorous fishes. Therefore, it is expected that some of these fishes and birds would forage elsewhere until the operation is completed. (NS) Organic -rich bottom sediments may be resuspended in the water column during dredging activities and cause a temporary reduction in ambient dissolved oxygen levels. Sediment -absorbed pollutants would also be resuspended into the water column where they become bioavailable to filter -feeding invertebrates and fish. Because concentrations of contaminants have been determined to be well below threshold levels, and because these sediments are expected to redeposit rapidly, these effects are not considered to be significant. In addition, based on the results of bioassays conducted in accordance with Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA -approved methods, TABLE 1.2-1 (continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES See turbidity reduction mitigation measures Not significant. identified in the Hydrology and Sedimentation section. No mitigation measures are required. Not significant. N N TABLE 12,1(continued) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER C1rY POLICIES OR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES (MM MITIGATION MEASURES MARINE BIOLOGY (continued) there is low potential for project -area sediments to degrade organisms at the LA-3 ocean disposal site (if this method of disposal is approved). (NS) Dredging in the main channel would remove all invertebrates that cannot escape from the excavation area. Habitat alteration may also result from exposing different sediment types, and could cause some structural changes in benthic infaunal species composition. The Ioss of these benthic organisms is not considered to be a significant impact because they will repopulate the sediments within I to 3 years after dredging is completed. Habitat alteration is not expected to have an adverse effect on the local benthic community or result in a negative change in the foraging habitats of benthic feeding fish. (NS) Accidental oil or fuel spills could potentially occur during the proposed dredging operation or marina construction and could result in significant effects on the wildlife of the Upper Bay. The duration of the construction operation would be relatively short rnd the potential for the occurrence of petroleum -product leaks or No mitigation measures are required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall be provided with evidence that all appropriate permits or clearances have been obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and Regional Water Quality Board. (MM) Not significant. Not significant after mitigation. M M M M M M M M M M M M a M M M M M M N w IMPACTS MARINE BIOLOGY (continued) spills would be low. However, biological effects could be significant depending on the severity of the accident. (S) During operation of the marina, accidental oil or fuel spills could adversely affect wildlife in the Upper Bay; the significance would depend on the severity of the spill. The project would reduce the potential for accidental oil or fuel spills by not providing a fueling station, and by prohibiting major boat maintenance activities (painting, engine overhauls, etc.). (S) The Bayside Marsh Peninsula across the channel from the site is not expected to be affected in the short term by the project if precautions, such as the use of filter curtains, are implemented during the dredging operation. However, in the long term, boating activity is expected to increase in the main channel, and the channel width would be narrower because of the proposed pier. This could result in an increase in noise and enhanced public access to the Bayside Marsh Peninsula mudflat and marsh habitat, thereby reducing the wildlife utilization value of the area. (S) TABLE 1.2.1 (continued) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) MITIGATION MEASURES See mitigation measures in the Water Quality section requiring preparation and education regarding accidental spills and containment measures. The dredging contractor shall be required as part of the dredging contract to ensure that dredging activities shall be conducted so as not to disturb sensitive biological habitats and resources in the vicinity of Bayside Marsh Peninsula. (MM) To reduce the extent of increased turbidity, the applicant shall require the dredging contractor to use filter curtains around dredging operations, when feasible. (MM) Not significant after mitigation. Not significant after mitigation. DWACTS MARINE BIOLOGY (continued) The construction phase of the project is not expected to have a significant impact on the fishery or benthic resources in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. In the longer term, the number of recreation boats that will travel north into the reserve is not expected to increase substantially due to the large size of the vessels that would be moored at the marina. Therefore, the wildlife value of the reserve should not be significantly affected by the physical presence of the vessels. Smaller recreational vessels in the Upper Bay may increase, but not substantially. (NS) The project will result in a net loss of 0.69 acre ofmudflat habitat, which represents a41 percent decrease in this habitat category within the projeces impact area. The maintenance of Newport Bay mudflats is important for the continued success of the birds that forage and nest in the Upper Bay. Reduction in mudflat habitat is considered to be a significant, localized impact of the project. (S) TABLE 1.2-1(continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (KM) To avoid potential misuse of smaller recreational vessels in the Upper Bay and to reduce potential impacts on wildlife, Castaways Marina tenants shall, as part of their leases, be provided with educational materials regarding local and federal boating regulations and the importance of reducing disturbances to the wildlife of the Upper Bay. In accordance with Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requirements, the loss of 0.69 acre of mudflat habitat shall be mitigated by the in -kind replacement of mudflat habitat at a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 in an ACOE-approved site, preferably in Upper Newport Bay. A detailed conceptual mitigation plan will be developed and implemented by the applicant in consultation with the appropriate resource and regulatory agencies. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant. Not significant after mitigation. MI M MI M M M M =1 M )lam M M M M M M =1 M =1 V B1[PACTS MARINE BIOLOGY (continued) A permanent deepening of subtidal halibut nursery habitat would result from channel dredging. The deepening of this habitat would reduce the habitat quality and result in a net loss of 0.28 acre of habitat for "young of the year " (YOY). The dredging would also recontour habitat at depths preferred by juvenile halibut. The creation of the Castaways Marina basin will fully offset the loss of juvenile halibut habitat since the depth of the marina basin would be within the preferred depth range for juvenile halibut. The reduction and alteration of halibut nursery habitat is considered to be a significant local impact of the project, but is not expected to be a significant regional impact. (S) TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed project would result in further habitat fragmentation, displacement of wildlife, degradation of remaining open space, and diminishment of wildlife abundance and diversity on the site. However, due to the site's low wildlife diversity, and the currently disturbed nature of the site, these impacts would not be considered significant. (NS) TABLE 1.2-1 (continued) C]TY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) In accordance with ACOE requirements, the loss of 0.28 acre of subtidal nursery area shall be mitigated by the in -kind replacement of halibut nursery habitat at a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 at depths between 1.5 and 3.21 feet mean lower low water level. The mitigation shall be undertaken in an ACOE-approved site, preferably in Upper Newport Bay. A detailed conceptual mitigation program shall be developed and implemented by the applicant in consultation with the appropriate resource and regulatory agencies. No mitigation measures are required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant after mitigation. Not significant. EWPACTS TABLE 1.2.1 (continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (h W TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (continued) Approximately 15 acres of ruderaUdisturbe i habitat will be removed due, primarily, to marina excavation on Lower Castaways and grading for the temporary access road on Upper Castaways. Approximately 11 acres of this habitat would be revegetated resulting in a net loss of 4 acres of ruderalldisturbed vegetation. This impact is not considered significant due to the lack of sensitive and native species. (NS) Construction of the temporary access road through the Upper Castaways site could result in erosion and runoff into the cattail marsh habitat located near Dover Drive on the Upper Castaways site. (S) Construction of the marina will result in the loss of 0.002 acre of low-babitabvalue salt marsh plants. (NS) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan for both project sites shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and shall place emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. (CP) All appropriate BMPs should be used to prohibit erosion and runoff during construction and from disturbed and paved areas into Newport Bay and the cattail marsh. Measures should also include revegetation immediately after construction ceases and placement of runoff -retaining barriers. (MM) The areas affected by construction should be limited to the project site and proposed haul road; no material shall be deposited in the cattail marsh or coastal sage scrub habitats. (MM) No mitigation measures are required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CTTY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant. Not significant after mitigation. Not significant. M M M M M M M M M M M M' M M = M M = L TABLE 1.2-1(continued) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER CITY POLICIES OR EMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES (Mh'1) MITIGATION MEASURES TERRESTR1&L BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (continued) Impacts on the southern tarplant, should it be located onsite (last siting in 1988), may be considered locally important but would not be considered significant because the project would only remove a small portion of potential habitat for this species. (NS) The red -shouldered hawk or hawks potentially nesting or foraging on Upper Castaways may be disturbed by construction activities, primarily from activities along the temporary haul road. This would constitute a potentially adverse short- term impact assuming the bird is nesting on Upper Castaways. (NS) The noise of construction equipment may disrupt foraging and roosting activities of sensitive bird species using Upper Newport Bay (e.g., the California least tern and the California brown pelican), but no impacts on nests are expected. No recorded nesting areas of sensitive bird species are located near enough to the project to be affected by project -related noise. Therefore, this potential impact is not considered significant. (NS) No mitigation measures are required. Not significant. Truck activity on the Upper Castaways site shall Not significant. be limited to the temporary haul road and, if feasible, shall be curtailed between February and June to minimize adverse impacts on the red - shouldered hawk nesting and foraging area. No mitigation measures are required. Not significant. TABLE 1.2-1 (continued) C1TY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (NAM) TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (continued) Turbidity may result in impacts on foraging habitat for the California least tern and California brown pelican. This temporary condition would be a locally important impact in the area of turbidity but would not be considered significant because of the availability of extensive foraging areas throughout Upper Newport Bay. (NS) The proposed landscape plan includes periwinkle ground cover which is potentially invasive to natural plant communities, particularly wetland habitats. (S) CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project would not result in an impact on archaeological or historical resources since no such resources have been found on the proposed project site (Lower Castaways). (NS) If the temporary haul road is graded through Upper Castaways, a portion of an archaeological site could be affected. However, this impact is Dredging and construction activity shall be terminated between April 1 and September 30, the nesting season of California least terns, to minimize adverse impacts on their foraging habitat due to increased turbidity. If the red - shouldered hawk is found nesting in the project area, construction should be terminated between February and June to minimize adverse impacts on this species. (MM) Also, see turbidity reduction measures in the Hydrology and Sedimentation section above. The landscape plan shall be altered to eliminate the use of periwinkle ground cover. (MM) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER C1TY POLICIES- OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant. Not significant after mitigation. A qualified archaeologist Shall be present during Not significant. pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractor of the results of any archaeological surveys and studies completed. In addition, an archaeologist shalt be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If M M M M M M M i M M M M M M V EWPACTS CULTURAL RESOURCES not considered significant since resources at this site are not considered to be "important archaeological resources" under CEQA. (NS) The Monterey and Capistrano formations located on both the Upper and Lower Castaways site have a history of providing fossil records throughout Southern California. Project implementation would expose these formations and could significantly affect and possibly destroy any fossil remains. (S) TABLE 1.241(continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop work or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the finds. (CP) In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or the developer. (CP) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of Assembly Bill 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. (CP) A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. (CP) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant after mitigation. w 0 TABLE 1.2-1(cont mx* LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER CITY POLICIES OR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES (Mbl) MITIGATION MEASURES TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The proposed project will generate additional traffic, primarily on Dover Drive and Coast Highway, during the dredging and construction phase of the project. The additional traffic may cause short-term traffic congestion in the vicinity of the project site. Construction -related traffic impacts can generally be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through the use of standard traffic control practices. (S) If ocean disposal for dredged materials is not approved, all or part of the material will be hauled to the Coyote Canyon Landfill. Assuming a 5-day work week and a 12-week dredging period, as estimated 70 truck trips a day could be generated by the proposed dredged material disposal operation. Due to the potentially high number of truck trips, the dredging operation would contribute to potentially significant short-term traffic congestion in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. (S) Trucks hauling dredged material to the Coyote Canyon Landfill could leak water or spill dirt along the haul route creating unsightly and unsafe road conditions. (S) Prior to issuance of a grading permit by the city, the applicant shall present a traffic management program to manage construction -related traffic access to the project site and to ensure safe turning movements from Pacific Coast Highway onto Dover Drive. Such a plan should describe the use of signage and flag people and include any requirements of the City of Newport Beach Police and Public Works Departments. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by the city, the applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans, the County of Orange, and the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine regarding their plans for improvements along. MacArthur Boulevard, Bonita Canyon Road, and Pelican Hill Road (Newport Coast Drive). To the degree feasible, 'the hauling operation will avoid hauling during morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. Prior to leaving the construction staging area and delivering dredged material to the Coyote Canyon Landfill (assuming this disposal method is selected), haul trucks shall be inspected to ensure that (1) no water leaks from the tricks Not significant after mitigation. Not significant after mitigation. Not significant after mitigation. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M = M M t M IMPACTS TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION (continued) If the landfill disposal option is not -performed, all construction traffic would enter and exit the site via a driveway on the Lower Castaways site. In this case, only right turns into and out of Dover Drive would be possible. Entrance to the site would occur via a right turn from north- bound Dover Drive, immediately after a right turn from Coast Highway. In addition, long- term traffic access to the marina would be limited to a right -turn in and out movement. This will generate additional U-turn movements at the Cliff Drive/Dover Drive intersection and is considered to contribute to potentially unsafe turning movements and lane changes. (S) Long-term operational impacts on traffic are primarily an increase in traffic in the project area. Approximate trip generation rates for the proposed project estimate that the project would generate 12 trips during the morning peak 2.5- hour period, and 20 trips during the evening peak 2.5-hour period. Analysis of five City of Newport Beach intersections utilizing the one percent method indicate that none of the five intersections will be significantly affected by the proposed project due to additional trips. (NS) TABLE 1.2-1(continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES "I) and (2) dirt has been placed to avoid spillage onto roadways. The applicant shall redesign the proposed site access point to be via a new road from the marina parking lot to the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection to form a 4-way, signalized intersection. No mitigation measures are required. LEVEL OF SIGNMCANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant after mitigation. Not significant. w N IMPACTS HARBOR CIRCULATION Should either of the dredged material disposal alternatives be implemented, short-term impacts to harbor circulation are expected. The dredge/construction stage of the project will limit the ability of boats to enter or exit the Upper Bay due to the placement of equipment immediately north of the Coast Highway bridge. If the ocean disposal alternative is selected, the dredging activity and transport of the dredged material will potentially interfere with the various recreational boating activities/events, such as boat races, that occur on a regular basis in the harbor. With the stows moving down the middle of the channel, racing boats and pleasure craft will need to adjust their course to avoid the slow -moving stows. The disruption of harbor circulation is considered a short-term significant impact of the proposed project. (S) The long-term operation of the project will add up to 125 boats to Newport Bay. With an estimated current total of approximately 10,000 boats operating within the bay, the project will increase the total number of boats within the bay TABLE 1.2-1(continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) During the dredging and ocean disposal operations, a guideboat or lookout on the barge bow will be used and equipped with a megaphone and 2-way radio to minimize potential accidents. (MM) Prior to the issuance of the dredging permit, the contractor will meet with the ferry operator to develop an acceptable communications system, and shall provide the City of Newport Beach with verification of said meeting. (MM) Dredging operations shall be limited to non - holiday weekdays, and shall be prohibited during the period of the annual Christmas boat parade and holiday period (from approximately December 15 through January 1). In addition, said activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. for acceptable weekdays. No mitigation measures are required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant after mitigation. Not significant^ 1• M M M M M i M 1• M M M i M M M M M M M W M M M m m 1 m .m M = M M M M M M M :y w w IMPACTS HARBOR CIRCULATION (continued) by approximately 1 percent. Because of the small percentage increase, it is not considered significant to safe harbor circulation. (NS) The project will permanently reduce the amount of available space for maneuvering of boats within the lower portion of the Upper Bay. However, the proposed marina would not reduce the width of either of the navigational channels used to enter or exit the Upper Bay. Thus, this impact is not considered significant. (NS) AIR QUALITY The combined effect of all phases of construction would contribute to an already existing violation of the ozone standard. Nitrogen oxide emissions from the dredging equipment are estimated to exceed 100 lbs/day and would lead to a short-term significant impact on regional air quality. (S) TABLE 1.2-1 (continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) No mitigation measures are required. The project applicant shall require all applicable contractors to implement emissions reduction measures, as follows: • Maintain equipment per manufacturer's specifications. Install catalytic converters on all gasoline - powered equipment. 0 Implement engine timing retard. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant. Cumulatively 'significant. w a. TABLE 1.2-1(continued) LEVEL OF SIGNMCANCE CiITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER C1TY POLICIES OR IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) MITIGATION MEASURES Alit QUALITY (continued) Potentially significant short-term fugitive dust levels will be, generated during the grading and dredging phases of construction if the temporary haul road across Upper Castaways is required. (S) Although long -tern project -generated air quality impacts are expected to be minimal due to the relatively small number of boats, any increase in emissions of ozone precursors (i.e., nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons) is considered cumulatively significant since the site is in a non -attainment area for ozone. (S) Required dredging would involve the exposure of potentially odorous sediment that has undergone organic decomposition and may result in very faint to negligible malodors in downwind areas. Based on experiences during previous • Utilize electrical- or gasoline -powered equipment instead of diesel -powered equipment whenever possible. (A" Construction activities shall be curtailed during periods of high ambient pollutantconcentrations. (Ah" The applicant shall implement suppression measures for fugitive dust. These include wet suppression techniques for dry ground soil, immediate replanting and irrigation of landscaped areas, coverage requirements for loaded trucks, and an onsite vehicle speed limit of 15 mph. (h" No mitigation measures are identified. Provision shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. Not significant. Cumulatively significant. Not significant. 1=1 r = M M M M JW =1 M M M r M M M M =1 = t t t t t t t t VV, EWPACTS AIR QUALITY (continued) Upper Newport Bay dredging operations requiring similar marshalling of sediments, it is expected that the dredged sediment will not create significant odors. (NS) NOISE Construction operations (e.g., dredging and pile driving) will produce noise levels that exceed the City's noise criterion of 65 dBA CNEL in residential areas. Although these increased noise levels are of a relatively short-term nature, they may be perceived as significant by nearby residents. (S) Transport of the dredged material will result in an increase in noise levels regardless of the disposal option selected. Transport by trucks to the Coyote Canyon Landfill would result in an estimated noise increase over existing noise levels of less than 1 decibel. Because of the temporary nature of the construction activities, cumulative noise level increases along the roadway segments are considered less than t tit !• t t t t t t i• t TABLE 1.2-1(continued) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES OMM MITIGATION MEASURES Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance, which limits construction to the following hours and days. • 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. weekdays 9 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays • Prohibited Sundays and holidays On Saturdays, pile driving activity shall be further limited to the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No mitigation measure are required. Significant. Not significant. w a TABLE 11-1(continued) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CF) AND AFTER CITY FOLICIIF.S OR IMPACTS N MGATION MEASURES (MM) MITIGATION Mi ASURES NOISE (continued) significant. Ocean disposal during day -time hours would not generate noise levels above those experienced during normal daytime hours. Based on the short-term nature of the impact and the small increase in noise levels, noise resulting from the disposal of dredged materials is considered less than significant. (NS) PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTIIXfM Implementation of the proposed project will add to the need for fire protection and emergency medical services in the area. However, the Newport Beach Fire Department has indicated that there is sufficient manpower and equipment to serve the project. Therefore, additional demand for Fire Protection services are not considered significant. (NS) The project applicant shall comply with the minimum site access, turning radius, height clearance, roadway width, marine fire protection, and water supply requirements set forth by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department- (CP) The project applicant shall consult with the City of Newport Beach Water Department to ensure fire flows of 3,000 gallons per minute for the project (MO Access dimensions shall be consistent with the City of Newport Beach standards. (MM) Not significant. M M M i TABLE 1.2-1 (continued) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER CITY POLICIES OR EMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES (" MITIGATION MEASURES PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTELITIES (continued) w Police Services The project will add to the need for police services to the area. Responses from the Newport Beach Police Department and the Orange County Harbor Patrol indicate that current service levels are adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the additional demand for police services is considered less than significant. (NS) Solid Waste The project will contribute additional demand for•solid waste disposal sites. Correspondence with the County of Orange General Services Department indicates that the landfill serving the site can accommodate the additional waste Fire protection requirements shall be consistent with the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. (MM) Prior to the City's issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall verify that the Newport Beach Fire and Police departments, and the Orange County Sheriff's Harbor Patrol are provided with keys to all locked facilities/areas within the site. Prior to the City's issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall verify that the Newport Beach Fire and Police departments, and the Orange County Sheriff's Harbor Patrol are provided with keys to all locked facilities/areas within the site. No mitigation measures are required. Not significant. Not significant. w 00 IMPACTS PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTHMES (amflnued) generated by the project. Because of the small size of the project -and the ability of the landfill to accommodate the waste, additional demand for solid waste disposal facilities is not considered significant. (NS) The proposal project will add to the cumulative demand for water supply in the project area. However, the City of Newport Beach Utilities De partment has indicated that existing supplies and facilities are adequate to provide service to the project area. Based on the agency response and the small size of the project, additional demand on the City's water supply is not considered significant. (NS) The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) have indicated that wastewater generated by the proposed project can be accommodated at CSDOC's Huntington Beach treatment plant. The proposal project will add TABLE 1.2-1 (continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) Low flow fixtures shall be used in the bathroomistorage buildings on the site. (MM) The approved landscape palette shall include drought4olerantplant materials. (MM) The project shall be designed to avoid disturbance of the existing onsite 30-inch water main, or if this cannot be achieved, design for the proposed project shall include provisions for the relocation of the water main in accordance with the City of Newport Beach requirements. (MM) See water conservation mitigation measures above. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant. Not significant. M M' M M iiiil• M r M M M M M M M = = M M M M M M M M M M M M M IMPACTS PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (continued) to the cumulative demand for wastewater treatment services. However, based on the agency response, and the -small size of the project, the additional demand for wastewater treatment facilities is not considered significant. (NS) Public Transportation Due to the nature of the proposed land use and its relatively small size, impacts on public wo transportation will be minimal and can be served %by the existing bus stop adjacent to the site. The Orange County Transit Districthas indicated that the project will be adequately served by the current level of service. Based on the District's ability to serve the project and the nature of the proposed land use, any.increased demand for public transportation 'is not considered significant. (NS) Electrigity TABLE 1.2-1(continued) CITY POLICIES (CP) AND MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) No mitigation measures are required. The proposed project will increase demand for No mitigation measures are required. electricity in the project area. Southern California Edison is able to meet the increased electrical demands of the project. Because of the small size of the project, and the ability of LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER CITY POLICIES OR MITIGATION MEASURES Not significant. Not significant. g TABLE 1.2-1 (continued) LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CITY POLICIES (CP) AND AFTER CITY POLICIES OR RMACTS MITIGATION MEASURES (M) MITIGATION MEASURES PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTHMM (continued) Southern California Edison to serve -it, expected demand for additional electrical service is not considered significant. (NS) The proposed project will create the need for telephone service to the project site. However, Pacific Bell has indicated that existing telephone facilities are sufficient to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no significant effect on telephone services is expected. (NS) A conduit system will be required for cable placement and shall be provided by the project proponent. iA'Q'1) Not significant. u I I t SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 GENERAL PURPOSE This environmental impact report (EIR) addresses the potential environmental impacts of the development of the proposed Castaways Marina in the City of Newport Beach. To implement this project, the project applicant, California Recreation Company, has requested the City of Newport Beach to certify the EIR and approve: (1) a Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan amendment, (2) a traffic study, and (3) a grading permit. The City of Newport Beach has the principal responsibility for the project's approval and supervision. Consequently, the city is the lead agency for the preparation of this EIR. The material contained in this EIR is intended to serve as information for decisions to be made by the City of Newport Beach and other responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. Section 3.5 lists the other responsible agencies, discretionary actions, and permits required prior to project implementation. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This EIR is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code, Section 15000, et seq.), and adopted City of Newport Beach rules, regulations, and procedures for the implementation of CEQA. The EIR discusses the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project, as well as the cumulative impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably foceseeabie future projects. This EIR also addresses impacts associated with alternatives to the proposed project. The analysis will allow the lead agency to review the full range of potential environmental impacts associated with approval of the proposed project. In accordance with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (including an environmental checklist) was prepared for the proposed Castaways Marina and was distributed along with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR. This NOP and Initial Study was originally prepared and distributed in August 1988. An EIR was never completed for the project addressed in the original NOP. Due to revisions to elements of the proposed project, the NOP and Initial Study was revised and redistributed in March 1990. The primary difference between the originally proposed project and the currently proposed project is the revised set of dredged material -disposal site rnv006"11z 2-1 alternatives. The previously evaluated disposal site alternatives included four offsite parcels located , adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. The current proposal is considering two different alternative disposal ' sites: (1) Coyote Canyon Landfill and (2) an ocean disposal site (to be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). This EIR addresses the latter project. Copies of both versions of the NOP, Initial Study, and distribution list are included in Appendix A. In addition, Appendix B includes responses to both versions of the NOP. t 2.3 EIR FOCUS 1 The purpose of the Initial Study/environmental checklist is to focus the EIR on the effects determined to be potentially significant, identify the effects found not to be significant, and explain the reasons for determining that certain effects would not be significant. Based on the March 1990 Initial Study, effects found to be potentially significant (those marked "yes" or "maybe" on the environmental ' checklist) and potential adverse effects identified by March 1990 NOP responses from responsible agencies are addressed in the text of this EIR—primarily in Section 5. These effects are addressed , under the following topical areas: Earth Resources, Hydrology, Water Quality, Marine Biological Resources, Terrestrial Biological Resources, Cultural and Scientific Resources, Traffic/Circulation, ' Harbor Circulation/Public Safety, Air Quality, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, and Short Term Construction Impacts. 2A EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT In accordance with Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, effects found not to be significant (those marked "no" on the Environmental Checklist) are summarized below (in accordance with the , environmental checklist numbering system). Except where noted, these effects will not be discussed further in the EIR. , 1. FAdh. Earth resources are addressed in Section 5.2 with the exception of the ' following potential issues or effects which are considered either not significant or not applicable to the proposed project for the reasons noted below. d. Unique geological or physical features will not be affected by the project since ' they do not occur on the marina site. g. No increases in exposure of people to geologic hazards are expected since no , onshore facilities for occupation are included in the project. Proposed grading and building construction will be required to meet the city's grading standards and building code requirements, respectively. , rn2100"OD11.2 2 2 1 ' 2. Air. Air resources are addressed in Section 5.10 with the exception of the following effects which are not applicable to the proposed project for the reason noted below. ' C. Due to the nature of the proposed uses at the marina, the proposed project will not alter existing air movement, moisture, temperature, or local or regional climatic conditions. 3. Water. The effects of the proposed project on water resources are addressed in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 with the exception of the following issues or effects which are considered not significant or not applicable to the project for the reasons noted below. ' f. Due to the groundwater conditions in the area, the direction or rate of groundwater flow is not expected to be significantly altered by proposed marina construction. ' g. No significant change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or ' excavations, is expected to result due to the project. The project would require excavation of land infiltrated by saltwater from the bay. However, increased saltwater intrusion into the adjacent groundwater table is not expected to result due to the increased area of the bay. Freshwater sources of groundwater are distant from the proposed marina h. Water for boat washdown and drinking supplies will be available at the ' marina. However, due to the relatively small size of the marina, no substantial reduction of available public water supplies would be expected due the proposed uses. ' 4. Plant Life. Marine and terrestrial plant resources are addressed in Sections 5.5 and 5.6, respectively, with.the exception of the following issue which is not considered ' applicable to the proposed project for the reason noted below. d. No reduction in acreage of agricultural crop would result due to the project; no agricultural use occurs at the site and the site is not suitable for such a use. ' 5. Animal Life. Marine and terrestrial animals are addressed in Sections 5.5 and 5.6, respectively, with the exception of the following issue which is not considered ' applicable to the proposed project. C. No new animal species are expected to be introduced into the project area as a result of the project. An increased water area could provide additional ' habitat for bay fishes. ' 6. Noise. Project -related noise is addressed in Section 5.11. 7. Light and Glare. The possible increase in light around the marina is expected to ' be relatively minor and localized. Impacts on biological resources are addressed in Sections 5.5 and 5.6. =00640011.2 2-3 U MV00640011.2 8. Land Use. As discussed in Section 5.1, the marina site is currently unoccupied and ' is designated for marine recreational and commercial uses. Thus, no conflicts with existing or planned land uses are expected. 9. Natural Resources. No significant increase in the use of natural resources is expected from the proposed project. Fuel and water usage due to the increased ' number of boat slips and resulting boat usage is expected to be negligible. No fuel will be available at the site. 10. Risk of UQe. Potential public safety issues associated with the construction and ' operation of the proposed marina are addressed in Sections 5.4, 5.8, and 5.9 with the exception of the following issue which is not applicable to the project for the reason noted below. ' b. No interference with evacuation/response plans is expected. Due the nature of the marina and Its location in Upper Newport Bay, the marina is not , expected to affect the orderly evacuation of the area. 11. Population. No increase in population would be expected since no residential , facilities are proposed by the project. Mooring facilities will be limited to small vessels and no food, fuel, or service facilities are planned for the marina. Construction crews are expected from local areas. Also, live-aboards are prohibited , in accordance with the lease terms. 12. Housing. No additional housing is required for construction or operation personnel. 13. Importation. Motor vehicle traffic and circulation issues associated with the project are addressed in Section 5.8 with the exception of the following effects which are considered not significant or not applicable to the project for the reasons noted below. , d. Due to the location of the proposed marina within a large marina -oriented area, no long-term, significant alteration of patterns of circulation or , movement of people and/or goods would be expected. e. Due to the marina nature of the project, no changes to rail or air traffic would , be expected. 14. Public Services. Due to the nature of the proposed uses, the proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in the need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: schools, parks or recreational facilities, other governmental services. The need for additional fire protection, ' police, and other public services are addressed in Section 5.12. 15, Energy. No substantial increase in energy usage (boat fuel or electricity) is expected to occur due to the relatively small size of the project. ' 16. Utilities. Due to the nature of the proposed uses at the site, the project would not result in new utility systems or alterations to existing utility systems other than those , needed to connect to existing adjacent utilities. See Section 5.12 for further discussion of facilities to serve the site. ' 2-4 , I 17. human Health. Public safety issues associated with increased boat usage in the harbor is addressed in Sections 5.4 and 5.9. 18. Aesthetics. Other than potential "short-term" view impacts during the dredging or construction phases, no aesthetically offensive views should result due to the project. Short-term view impacts are addressed in Section 5.13. 19. Recreation. Recreational opportunities provided by the proposed project are expected to be beneficial. 20. Cultural Resources. Potential effects on cultural and scientific resources are addressed in Section 5.7. 2.5 PROTECT SPONSORS AND KEY CONTACT PERSONS The Lead Agency in preparing the EIR is the City of Newport Beach. The project applicant is the California Recreation Company. The environmental consultant is Michael Brandman Associates. Preparers of and contributors to this report are listed in Section 12. Key contact persons are presented below. Lead Agency Ms. Patricia L. Temple Advance Plamung Manager City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225 Project Applicant Environmental Consultant Mr. Edward V. Power President California Recreation Company 1137 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, California 92625 (714) 644-9730 Ms. Beverly Bruesch, AICP Senior Project Manager Michael Brandman Associates Carnegie Centre 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 250-5555 MU00640011.2 2-5 J I J SECTION 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROTECT LOCATION The proposed Castaways Marina site is shown in its regional and local setting in Exhibits 3-1 and 3-2. The site is located on the lower portion of an undeveloped area referred to as the "Castaways" site. It consists of land and open water areas totaling approximately 8 acres. The 4-acre land portion is bordered on the east by the Upper Newport Bay, on the west by Dover Drive, on the south by the Coast Highway Bridge, and on the north by a 60-foot-high bluff that separates the site from the "Upper Castaways" site. Automobile access to the proposed marina will be from Dover Drive. Boats will pass under the Coast Highway Bridge to travel between Lower Newport Bay and the new marina. 3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 PROPOSED MARINA FACIIdTIES The proposed marina will consist of floating and pile -supported facilities. No fueling stations, hotels, restaurants, snack facilities, or other commercial uses will be included as part of the project. Only support facilities, such as a sanitary pumpout station, restrooms, showers, utilities, trash containers, and storage facilities will be located at the marina. Two onsite fire hydrants and fire hose cabinets with 75-foot hoses will provide fire protection for the floating structures and boats. A public viewing area will be located at the end of the paved parking area. A total of 106 parking spaces will be provided at the west and north sides of the basin. The marina is proposed to consist of 125 slips (including six side ties) of four sizes as shown in Exhibit 3-3 and described below. 1. Fifty-two 45-foot slips •2. Thirty-nine 42 foot slips 3. Nineteen 38-foot slips 4. Eight 35-foot slips The 880-foot main walkway will be constructed of pressure -treated wood framing with concrete pile supports. This walkway will provide 64 slips or side ties. Two additional floating main walkways H ra0064wu.3 3-1 will provide access to the 61 marina basin slips and side ties. The slips are designed for those boats that can pass under the limited vertical clearance beneath the Coast Highway Bridge. 3.2.2 LANDSCAPING Landscaping will be provided in the circular areas near the viewing and parking areas, Exhibit 3-4 presents the preliminary landscape concept. 3.2.3 MARINA CONSTRUCTION Development of the marina is proposed to occur over three general phases: (1) removal of the old bulkhead wall and installation of new bulkhead walls, (2) dredge operations, and (3) construction of guide piles and the marina. Each of these phases is described below. Installation of new bulkhead walls is expected to occur in the fast construction phase. Bulkheads will consist of a tie -back system using steel sbeetpiles with a reinforced concrete cap, cathodically protected tie rods, and reinforced concrete deadmen. Steel sheetpiles will have both a protective coating, as well as an impressed cathodic protection system for corrosion protection. Exhibit 3-5 presents the proposed dredge operation boundaries and Exhibit 3.6 presents a cross-section of the operation. Dredging of approximately 80,000 cubic yards (cy) will be required to create the marina basin and access channel to the floating pier and slips. Approximately 56,000 cy of material will be removed from behind the existing bulkhead and 24,000 cy from the bay, Dredging and disposal of dredged materials are expected to occur following bulkhead installation. It is expected that bulldozers will excavate the surficial dry sediments behind the bulkhead, while sediments below the water line will be removed by clamshell dredge. Waterside dredging will be completed by hydraulic, diesel -driven equipment. Marina and guide piles construction will occur following the dredge operation. The marina dock framing system will be composed of preserved wood framing members connected by galvanized metal angles, bent plates, and through -bolts. Framing for the slip fingers will include torsion bars to resist potentially excessive twists caused by tidal action and currents at and near the Coast Highway Bridge. Guide piles shall be designed to support the floating dock system, and shall include composite pre- stressed concrete piles with a steel driving tip or round steel pipe piles. Piles will be cathodically I L C F 2VOO W11.s 3-2 1 ' LOS ANGELES COUNTY I ' SAN BERNARDINO a COUNTY 1 F FVLLERTON w�+e,xk Y F«r I RIVERSIDE COUNTY ANAHEIM �fl 'rb'4 S 15 ORANGE a� � Lake �6 SANAA TUSTIN \� J 1 IaAi� COSTA IRVINE ES. MESAS ; oA L2ke 1 ¢ •C � Viejo on % MISSIONj 1. l VIEJO , OC,� CAP JISTRAT4NIO .�� . • SAN DIEGO GII7A \ COUNTY 1 1 b 1 �'j�„.,� Location ..cation iMap', '!4 ap Noah 0 3 0640011 1 2/90 Regional, i i jiilYta F t3.1 wi El p `•Z�;�.•mv� • it Project Site LL:.1 9 r•.x � ....._s........._.._..._- N �}. [IM 1J9 !' 0640011.10 Caitawawrz %i# Exhibit 3-2 NOTES ' pt DUSTING BULKHEAD TO BE REMOVED D PROPOSED IRRIGATED PLANTING ®EXISTING DOCKS 0 PROPOSED BASIN DREDGED TO -TO MSL i® PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTED DRIVEWAY ® EXISTING SAND BAR Q3 PROPOSED STEEL SHEET PILE BULKHEAD Q EXISTING SIDEWALK / ® PROPOSED ROCK PROTECTED SLOPE i® EXISTING BIKE PATH PROPOSED FLOATING DOCKS 1© EXISTING BRIDGE © PROPOSED GANGWAYS t® EXISTING PROPERTY LINE / Q7 PROPOSED SANITARY PUMP -OUT STATION © PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ` ® PROPOSED PILE SUPPORTED PIER ® PROPOSED TOILET/STORAGE BUILDING / Q9 PROPOSED TOILET AND SHOWER BUILDING Q9 PROPOSED RAILING �— ® PROPOSED PARKING ® DUMPSTER ®t ACCESS GATE mn a sort \ I at _._.—_._._. a 12 / % 21 4 ,Do a O / o d 3 S d '� UJ •P _-- _ t3 3' .P d i 14 nI�� _ .posed Marina Cult is s Mm*ta IN ' Nm6 0 105 210 Feet 0640011-15191 sm��a aAuaso Exhibit 3 3 PA 0 Preliminary Mstap :�• Play v , North D Bi IUD Fee[ Castaways marina .: ,,A„� E�11-121 0 < NOTES O7 DOSTING BULKHEAD TO BE REMOVED TQ PROPOSED IRRIGATED PLANTING (D E)OSnNG DOCKS Q2 PROPOSED BASIN DREDGED TO —10 MA 1® PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTED DRIVEWAY ® EMSTING SAND BAR / 0 PROPOSED STEEL SHEET PILE BULKHEAD 1© EXISTING SIDEWALK 0 PROPOSED ROCK PROTECTED SLOPE EXISTING BIKE PATH Q PROPOSED FLOATING DOCKS 1© EXISTING BRIDGE © PROPOSED GANGWAYS 1® EXISLWG PROPERTY LINE Q7 PROPOSED SANITARY PUMP —OUT STATION © PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 8Q PROPOSED PILE SUPPORTED PIER ® PROPOSED TOILETATORAGE BUILDING QB PROPOSED TOILET AND SHOWER BUILDING ©9 PROPOSED RAIUNG _ u ® PROPOSED PARKING ® DUNPSTER c ®1 ACCESS GATE Tar ar sort \ st j a / � ems:. nNIMMEMMIME-�V�C'\IQ:\' \\\\i }I ME JQQER alb Legend ®Dredging:Watersideof Existing Bulkhead Dredging: Landside of Existing Bulkhead Proposed Viedge OpmdQn Catoways Mar N N.,& 0 105 210 Fes 06400114 5191 j S.Crh&Aa Zf61PO Exhibit3-5 OF EXISTING GRADE--- NEW BULKHEAD LAND -BASED DREDGE MAT EXISTING ( TO BE RE iG DOCKS PIERHEAD LINE I /WATER -BASED IL DREDGE MATERIAL - NEW DREDGED MUDLINE - INE SCALE Horiz: V=50'-0" Vert:1/81=1'-01 t1navadon0r*_ '?.� Cress-Secdon A -A, ' Datum: MLLW=O cloAlaways Manna sa.mDunan.«k.APallsso Exhibit 3.6 ' protected. Depending on the bay bottom conditions, piles will be either jetted into place or driven into place using a barge mounted diesel pile driver. ' Dock flotation will be composed of a combination of foam -filled concrete and rotationally molded ' polyethylene plastic pontoons —both methods being widely used in Newport Bay. ' Landside improvements, such as the restrooms, showers, and storage facilities, will be constructed concurrent with the marina construction. Paving of the parking areas and landscaping will occur ' during this final phase. Utilities serving the proposed marina will include one sewage pump -out station —centrally located on the docks. Sewage will be pumped to a City of Newport Beach sewer line in Dover Drive. Water ' will be supplied to the marina for both domestic uses and fire protection. These systems are to be designed to meet City of Newport Beach Fire Department requirements. 1 3.2.4 DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL OPTIONS ' The disposal of the dredged materials will consist of three options. The three options are: 1. 100 percent disposal to Coyote Canyon Landfill 2. 100 percent disposal to an approved ocean site 3. Combined disposal to both Coyote Canyon Landfill and an approved ocean site 1 These options are described below and are shown on Exhibit 3-7. ' • 100 Percent Disposal to Coyote Canyon Landfill —Disposal to Coyote Canyon ' Landfill would commence once the landfill is reconveyed from the County of Orange to The Irvine Company. Drying of wet materials to acceptable levels would occur on the Lower Castaways site, and would require approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board —Santa Ana Region. It is estimated that approximately 4,000 truckloads of material would be transported to the disposal site. The truck route to and from the landfill is proposed to include the following streets: 16th Street, Dover Drive, Pacific Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, Bison Avenue, ' MacArthur Boulevard, Bonita Canyon Road, and Coyote Canyon Road (see Exhibit 3-7). Haul trucks for the dredged material would enter the site from northbound Dover ' Drive with a right-tum movement. To provide an exit or egress route for the loaded haul trucks, it is proposed that a temporary (dirt) haul road be provided from the ' Lower Castaways site to the easternmost (dead) end of 16th Street via the property n►s00e40011.3 3-3 r directly north of the site, referred to as the "Upper Castaways" site. This road, ' which would be approximately 2,100 feet in length, would begin along the Dover Drive side of the Upper Castaways site (utilizing a portion of an existing dirt road), then would turn northward around the back (easternmost) side of the church located ' on the Upper Castaways site. Trucks would then enter 16th Street at its dead-end and turn left at the Dover Drive intersection to begin their trip to the landfill (as depicted on Exhibit 3 7). Preparation of this temporary road, all on private , property, would require grading along approximately half its length (see Exhibit 3-8). As proposed, it would be designed for one-way (outbound) traffic only and would avoid areas of sensitive habitat on the Upper Castaways site. t • 100 Percent Di sal to Approved Ocean Site —Disposal at an ocean site is dependent on a formal bioassay and approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed disposal site, referred to as "LA 3," is a site off the coast of Newport Beach that has previously received U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' certification for dredged material disposal. Ocean disposal of the dredged material could include as few as 25 and as many as 80 barge (or scow) loads of material, depending on the contractor's equipment and methods. These methods are yet to be determined, but may include the use of tugs and barges (or scows) to transport the dredged material under the Coast Highway Bridge to a scow marshalling area in Newport Bay (location to be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard). Filled stows would be exchanged for empty stows at this point and ocean- going tugboats would transport the material to the approved ocean disposal site. ' •Combined Landfill and Qgm D aoo"..at—If approval of an ocean site is secured, some combination of the two alternative disposal sites methods would be likely. ' Therefore, this option would include some truck loads (1,250 to 3,000 is estimated) and some barge (or scow) loads (eight to 50 is estimated). 3.2.5 DEWATERING OF DREDGED MATERIAL ' Prior to landfill disposal, if this method is selected, the "wet" bay dredged material will be dewatered. The majority of the "wet" material will be dredged using hydraulic or clam -shell dredge and then will ' dry on the barge or on the land prior to being loaded onto trucks. Sludge hauling trucks can be used to reduce leakage of excess water. , For "wet" material behind the existing bulkhead, a well -point dewatering system is proposal. This system, places wells around the perimeter of the area to be dredged, and draws the groundwater down to below the proposal excavation level (in this can f 10 feet). This allows the dredging operation ' to use conventional earth moving equipment behind the existing bulkhead. Therefore, this dredged material is dewaterel prior to being loaded onto the trucks used for disposal. ' tsaooac I1.3 3-4 PWA To Ocean Disposal Site, LA: 3 (Aftemative #2; 33031.63 N Latitude, 11 r54.6 W Longitude x J) Coyote Canyon Landfill Disposal Site (Aftemative #1) \ Legend LwKS Disposal Allsmauve- Truek Haul Flouls sass =a Disposal Nter WIve- aa(ge or Snow Fauk lM!MM 32M Feet 0640011- 200 Exhibit 3.7 Legend - Area of Rowked C4a&v Nadi 0 105 210 Fv o6100114zw s�aban.ws.l�rtsso F-AiMt 3.8 n i C 1 u 1 n 1 1- 1 1 1 i i During the process of drying the "wet" material onsite, it is anticipated that runoff originating from the stockpiling/drying effort will return to the bay: Some temporary grading of the site may be required to accommodate this process. 3.3 Following approval of all required discretionary actions and permits (see Section 3.5 below), construction of the proposed marina is expected to occur over a 10- to 12 month period and will consist of removal of the existing bulkhead, installation of new bulkheads, dredging and disposal of dredged material, and installation of onshore and over -water structures. A preliminary estimate of the timing of each phase is presented below. • Removal of old bulkhead wall 2 to 3 months and installation of new bulkhead wails • Dredge operation 3 to 4 months • Guide piles and marina construction 5 months 3A PROJECT OBJECTIVES A statement of objectives is required by Section 15124 of CEQA. Project objectives for the City of Newport Beach and the project applicant, California Recreation Company, are provided below. 3.4.1 CM OF NEWPORT BEACH The city's primary objectives for the project are listed below. • Protection of sensitive natural resources and 'quality of man-made environment. • Approval of land uses consistent with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Plan policies, as well as zoning code requirements. • Provision of compatible marina commercial/recreational opportunities. • Enhancement of public access to Newport Bay. nuiooraoou.s 3-5 1 3A.2 PROJECT APPLICANT In addition to the city's objectives, the applicant's goal is to provide economically viable commercial marina facilities within Newport Bay. The responsible agencies listed below must approve the corresponding discretionary actions or issue permits prior to project implementation. The following actions are not necessarily listed in the order in which they will occur. tI IJ • City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) - Certification of EIR ' - Approval of Planned Community, District Regulations, and Development Plan - Approval of Traffic Study - Grading Permit ' - Harbor Permit • County of Orange ' - Clearance to use Coyote Canyon Landfill - Tidelands Permit , • California Environmental Protection Agency/Regional Water Quality Control Board —Santa Ana - NPDES Permit , • California Coastal Commission ' - Coastal Development Permit • State Lands Commission ' - Dredging Permit (for lands under state jurisdiction) • U.S. Coast Guard , - Aids to Navigation Permit • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ' - Section 404 Permit - Section 10 Permit ' • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Clearance to Use LA-3 Disposal Site ACIOD6400113 3-6 1 L, E I ',I I I LI SECTION 4 LOCAL AND REGIONAL SETTING 4.1 The purpose of this section is to provide'the reader with an understanding of the setting in which -the project will occur if approved. It presents the regional setting, local setting, approved and committed projects, and other planning considerations. This information is the basis for the analysis of cumulative impacts. 4.2 REGIONAL SETTING Orange County is considered the "regional setting" for the proposed marina since it would provide the primary service area for the marina (see Exhibit 3-1). This region has experienced significant growth in recent years. This growth has increased the demand for recreational opportunities and marina facilities. The proposed project would provide recreational opportunities by supplying 125 boat slips. The proposed project would not be considered to induce growth in the region. However, it would be considered to add to cumulative environmental effects associated with the operation of existing, planned, and approved marina facilities in the region. Approximately 10,810 boat slips, side ties, and moorings are provided in the three harbors in Orange County: Newport Bay (4,570), Dana Point Harbor (2,500), and Huntington Harbor (3,740) (Secketa, pers. comm., 5/29/90; Melum, pers. comm., 5/31/90). Therefore, the proposed project would providee-a 1.2 percent increase in the total supply of boat docking facilities in Orange County. However, it is important to note that there may be two or three times more boats in these harbors than slips, side ties, and moorings; often two or more boats are permitted at each slip, side tie, or mooring. For example, the Orange County Harbor Patrol estimates a total of approximately 8,500 boats are used within Newport Bay (Gage, pers. comm., 10/22/90). Proposed and approved new or expanded marina facilities projects in Orange County are listed in Table 4-1. With the addition of the 390 additional boat slips, the Orange County total would be 11,200. The proposed project would represent 1.1 percent of the cumulative Orange County total, and 2.6 percent of the Newport Beach total (estimated to be 4,895 with the addition of 325 slips at Newport Dunes and the proposed Castaways Marina). re20*40011.4 4-1 TABLE 4.1 PROPOSED OR APPROVED MARINA FACILITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY Newport Bay • Proposed Castaways Project 125 slips/side ties • Newport Dunes Marina` 200 slips/side ties Huntington Harbor • Sunset Aquatic' 65 slips/side ties 390 slips/side ties 1' I 1' I The Newport Dunes Marina project is currently under construction. ' At the time of this writing, the expansion of the Sunset Aquatic Marina is proposed but not 1 approved. Source: Sockets, pers. comm., 5/29/90. 1 4.3 LOCAL SETTING 1 The proposed project is located in the City of Newport Beach (see Exhibit 3 2 in Section 3). The city . 1 is divided by Newport Bay into three major geographic areas. The Upper Newport Bay generally runs north -south, dividing the community into east and west areas north of Coast Highway. The third 1 major geographic area is the Balboa Peninsula, which is generally separated from the rest of Newport Beach by Lower Newport Bay. The proposed project is somewhat centrally located in the city, being 1 at the western edge of the Coast Highway overcrossing of Newport Bay. As described in Section 5.1, band Uses and Land Use Plans, the proposed project site is located in ' the vicinity of a number of commercial marina facilities, both across Newport Bay and on the opposite 1 side of the Coast Highway Bridge from the project site. Other land uses in the vicinity of the site include residential, retail and office commercial, restaurant, community facilities (churches), and 1 public facilities (a school). In the City of Newport Beach, a project is considered "committed" when it has an adopted traffic , phasing plan (TPP) or an approved traffic study. Traffic studies and TPPs are approved in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)—Chapter 15.40 of the Newport 1 nl mono 11.4 4-2 1 C Beach Municipal Code 4 and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for the Implementation of the TPO"). The "Approved and Committed Projects" list is continually updated. Project occupancy ' is updated annually in conjunction with the preparation of new traffic counts for the city. ' Table 4-2 presents the list of these projects, and Exhibit 4-1 shows their locations. It identifies all approved and committed Newport Beach projects that are less than 100 percent occupied and could ' be expected to generate additional traffic, demand for public services and utilities, and construction - related impacts. 4.5 PLANNED ROADWAY EUPROVE111MNPS ' In addition, it should be noted that the following Caltrans, County of Orange, and cities of Newport ' Beach and Irvine roadway improvement projects are planned to occur within the next 2 to 5 years: 1. MacArthur Boulevard Improvements. Together, Caltrans and the cities of Newport ' Beach and Irvine are producing a feasibility study for improvements to MacArthur Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and San Diego Creek. The entire length of this segment is planned for widening and repavement, and a portion of this ' segment near Pacific Coast Highway is planned for realignment. As of this writing, no construction date has been set for this project (Angelini, pers. comm., 4/24/91). ' 2. Pelican Hill Road (renamed "Newport Coast Drive"). The County of Orange is in the process of building Pelican Hili Road (Newport Coast Drive) between Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. This project is expected to be completed by October 1991 (Anderson, pers. comm., 8/21/91). 3. San Joaquin Hills Road Extension. The County of Orange is extending San Joaquin ' Hills Road easterly to connect with Newport Coast Drive. This project is also expected to be completed by October 1991 (Anderson, pers. comm., 8/21/91). ' The schedules for the above -described projects may overlap the construction and dredging phase of the proposed project and will need to be considered in assessing the potential traffic/circulation impacts ' of hauling dredged material from the proposed project site to the Coyote Canyon Landfill along these routes. H rsyoo640011A 4-3 TABLE 4-2 , CnT OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED AND COMMrrrED PROJECTS Reference Map No.- Project Name ' 1 Civic Plaza —Art Museum , 2 Corporate Plaza —Office 3 Newport Place —Ketchum (office) 4 Valdez —Office , 5 Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero TPP 6 Big Canyon 10—Residential 7 North Ford --Commercial 8 Big Canyon Villa —Apartment ' 9 1400 Dove Street -Office 10 1100 Quail Stteet—Office 11 2901 West Coast Highway —Mixed ' - Retail - Office 12 Newport Aquatic Center —Recreation , 13 38W Campus Drive —Mini -Storage 14 Hoag Cancer Center —Medical 15 3760 Campus Drive —Mini -Storage 16 Newport Place Tower —Mixed Use 17 Newport Place Tower—Office/Retall 18 Villa Point —Residential t 19 Newport Lido Medical Center —Medical 20 Villa"Point Phase II —Residential 21 1455 Superior Avenue --Congregate 22 607-615 East Balboa Boulevard —Mixed Use 23 2912 West Coast Highway—Retail/Office 24 Mariner's Church 25 Rockwell International —Office , 26 Lancer Landing —Restaurant 27 Toyota Design Facility —Industrial Lady,28 Our gels —Church , 29 Zontb—Residential 30 28th Street Island —Residential 31 Taco Bell —Fast Food , 32 K.C.N. TPP Amendment No. 4—Mixed Use 33 Koll Center Newport No. 1 TPP 34 YMCA 35 Amendment No. 1—MacArthur Court ' 36 Rosan's Development 37 Edwards Newport Center 38 Newport Bay Retirement Inn , 39 Newport Classic Inn 40 McLachlan —Newport Place ' MOD64WHAx 4-4 TABLE 4-2 (continued) Reference Map No.- Project Name Legend FJAU Project Ste CommlttedorApprovad 32 Project Reference Number (See Table 4A4) Planned Roadway Improvements i! In Vicinity of Haul Route i (Conceptual Location) vT yiI," • r• � �rlid \C .a t, I _-?�"�n.x _5•'15''��if i, �� � ( U, II ,, ,,� -t{f` � '��A^ �Y::I II Yr"11� �1 �r rrr 2190 H F 5 1 I SECTION 5 0QLJ_I' • Whyl 5.1 LAND USES AND LAND USE PLANS 5.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Land Uses Onsite Historical and Existing Land Uses In the late 1800s, a dock was built on the Lower Castaways site for loading and unloading of agricultural and lumber products. A warehouse was also located on the bluff of Upper Castaways. This warehouse/dock facility was known as Newport Landing and remained in operation until 1889. In 1914, a country club was opened on the Upper Castaways site; the country club was later used as a restaurant/bar in 1941. An aerial photograph dated 1955 shows what appears to be the restaurant building on the Upper Castaways site, and a trailer park, or similar development, and boat dock on the Lower Castaways site. The restaurant building was not visible in a 1959 aerial photograph, and is believed to have been destroyed by a fire. Aerial photographs from 1970 and 1976 show the Lower Castaways site containing a trailer park, a boat dock, a small beach, and small commercial -like structures facing Coast Highway. The commercial buildings contained an ice-cream shop, a bait/tackle store, and a liquor store. No fueling facilities were located on the boat dock, nor were any underground or aboveground tanks located on the Lower Castaways site (Power, pens. comm., 4/19/90). In 1980 and 1981, the trailer park, commercial uses, and boat dock were abandoned, then removed for construction of the new Coast Highway Bridge. After 1981, the Lower Castaways site was used as a staging area for construction equipment associated with the new bridge construction. There is no record that large quantities of hazardous materials/wastes were stored on the site during its use as a staging area (Power, pers. comm., 4/19/90). JBV00640011.5-1 5.1-1 1' I An aerial photograph, dated 1984, showed no signs of unusually stained soil areas, nor were any signs ' of onsite dumping apparent. No visual signs of hazardous materials or waste problems (e.g., suspect drums/containers, sludge, odors, surface discoloration, or stressed vegetation) were observed during field visits to the site in 1989 and 1990. Also, the Newport Beach Fire Department has stated that there are no hazardous materials/wastes problems at the project site (Upton, pers. comm., 4/20/90). ' Surrounding Land Uses ' Exhibit 5.1.1 illustrates land uses surrounding the proposed project site. As shown on the exhibit, , north of the proposed marina (Lower Castaways) site is the 60-acre Upper Castaways site, which is mostly undeveloped. The Newport Harbor Lutheran Church is located on the western portion of the ' Upper Castaways site at the end of 16th Street. Single-family homes detached are found to the south and west of the project site across Coast Highway and Dover Drive, respectively. Multiple -family homes are also located south of Pacific Coast Highway. To the Upper Newport Bay, home , east, across are a commercial marina, a mobile park, and Newport Dunes (a public beach and recreational area). Land Use Plans , t City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element ' The Land Use Element is a long-range guide to the development of all lands within the city's jurisdiction. The document is an expression of the desired pattern of development for NewportBeach ' at the present time. The Land Use Element is part of a continuous planning process requiring research, policy review, and revision. ' Exhibit 5.1-2 presents the Land Use Element's land use plan for the project site and vicinity. As "recreational ' shown on the exhibit, the project site is designated for and marine commercial uses." The following policies apply to this category. ravoowM1115-1 �� •, ':w .} Pt •t7..7' �I.-+c x+€. "' ' r.r, «e•..rr ra K7 ,, Jy'�� � ' � r+n� � • ${ .y.'� yti 1?�• S..n; wy 4y F r l 'vv JtV ICi .I. • � J E n U P Legend Single Family Detached Multi -Family Residential Admin., Prof., & Government, Educational, Finan., Commercial & Institutional Facilities Two Family Residential ® Retail & Service Commercial . Recreational & Marine Recreational & Commercial Environmental Open Space . A Linda Isle <: r Lido L'QWER \ Island NEWPORT \� BAY r I: NEWI'ORT� New. Pori ' " .Dunes; ". Balboa Island 1� Park Avenue Nonl, Not To Scale 0640011.2 2/9D Exhibit 5.1-2 Recreational and Marine Commercial. This land use category has been applied to waterfront commercial areas where the City wishes to preserve and ' encourage uses which facilitate a marine commercial and visitor serving orientation. Specific and detailed land use provisions are contained in the Local Coastal Program and in the Newport Beach Municipal Code which ' further refine the land use limitations for each area and set forth incentive use provisions. Uses which are to be given a priority include marine commercial (such as marinas, marine supply sales, yacht brokers, boat charters and rentals, boat sales, dry boat storage, boat launching, commercial fishing facilities, marine service stations and gas docks, marine related offices and yacht clubs); marine ' industrial (such as marine construction, boat repair and servicing, and new boat construction) and visitor serving commercial (such as social clubs, commercial recreation, hotels, motels, "bed and breakfasts," restaurants and ' bakeries). Senior citizen housing facilities are also permitted in this category. (City of Newport Beach 1988a.) ' Specifically, for the Lower Castaways site, the Land Use Element limits the amount of commercial development on the site to 40,000 square feet, exclusive of parking. Hotels and motels are not permitted on the site. ' The Upper Castaways site is the major undeveloped area in the vicinity of the site. As shown on Exhibit 5.1-2, the majority of the Upper Castaways site is designated for "single-family detached ' residential" uses. The bluff areas are designated for "recreational and environmental open space" uses. According to the Land Use Element, the residential designation represents an anticipated ' development type and is not intended to limit development to only that type. This area may be developed with any of the residential types within an established 151-dwelling-unit limit. The city's Recreation and Open Space Element provides for park and coastal access. Circulation Element The city's Circulation Element provides long-range policies for traffic and circulation in the City of ' Newport Beach. The element identifies, evaluates, and analyzes the traffic and circulation patterns in the city. ' In the vicinity of the project site, the Circulation Element's Master Plan of Streets and Highways ' designates Dover Drive and Coast Highway west of Dover Drive as "major roads (six -lane divided)," and Coast Highway east of Dover Drive as an "eight -lane divided" highway. ' r82/00e40011s-1 5.1-3 1 I The Circulation Element's Master Plan of Bikeways designates a backbone bikeway parallel to Coast Highway and Dover Drive, and a secondary bikeway along the bluffs of the Upper Castaways site. , Housing Element The Housing Element establishes local policies and programs to provide housing to all economic segments of the community. The element examines residential development within the community to , reflect the local social and economic attitudes of the city. The policies within this element coincide with state housing goals. ' The city's Housing Element identifies the Castaways site as "undeveloped parcel A." Upper ' Castaways is designated for "low -density residential" at four dwelling units per buildable acre. Lower Castaways is designated as recreational and marine commercial. , Recreation and Open Space Element ' The purpose of the Recreation and Open Space Element is to provide open space and recreational opportunities within the City of Newport Beach. The element provides long-range planning policies for the preservation, introduction, and use of open space, trails, and scenic highways in the city. , The Recreation and Open Space Element identifies the Upper Castaways property as having unique scenic qualities. A special viewpark of approximately 10 acres is designated for the Upper Castaways ' site adjacent to the project site. It will parallel the bluffs and will provide scenic views along with some neighborhood park recreational facilities (i.e., restrooms, turf areas, picnic areas, and beaches). ' City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program , The city's Local Coastal Program (LCP) contains land use designations, policies, and detailed area ' descriptions for the area within the designated coastal zone. The program attempts to regulate land use to enhance the coastal resources of Newport Beach. Designated land uses identified in the LCP , are consistent with the Land Use Element of the city's General Plan. The LCP characterizes the Castaways site (both Upper and Lower portions) as highly disturbed and ' of relatively low sensitivity with the exception of the steep bluffs leading from Upper Castaways down , ravW"OD11s-1 5.1-4 I to the sensitive habitat of Upper Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach 1990). The land use designation for the Castaways site in the LCP is the same as that for the City's General Plan Land Use Element (see above discussion). ICity of Newport Beach Zoning Code ' As shown in Exhibit 5.1-3, district maps for the City of Newport Beach show that the Castaways site is zoned "P-C" (planned community district). This classification allows the following uses: multiple ' housing developments, commercial centers, professional and administrative areas, industrial parks, and/or those land uses permitted by the city's General Plan. Land uses permitted by the city's General Plan at or below the intensity and density designated are appropriate. The P-C text establishes uses that require a use permit. These uses include recreational establishments, yacht clubs, and ' playgrounds. In addition, the removal of earthen materials beyond that required for normal grading or landscaping will require a permit. These uses are permitted upon the acquisition of the use permit for each situation. Upper Castaways Entitlement Proposal Upper Castaways is one of the sites being evaluated as partof the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company. As part of this agreement, a preliminary land use entitlement proposal has been developed for Upper Castaways which would vest residential development, as well as result in open space and park dedication on the site. As proposed, the residential development would occur east and northeast of the onsite church, ' but would be set back from the bluff edge; open space would be maintained along the bluffs leading down to both Upper Newport Bay and the Lower Castaways site, and along Dover Drive south of the church; and park uses would be placed on the top of the bluffs between the residential and open space uses. 1 5.1.2 PROJECT EWPACTS 1 Potential Impacts from Historical Land Uses Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, the RMW Paleo report of August 1989, a visual walkover survey, and discussions with an official of the Newport Beach Fire Department, there does ' tav00e40011s-1 5.1-5 not appear to be any hazardous materials/wastes contamination problems on the project site. , Therefore, no significant impacts on public health and the environment from exposure to such materials/wastes resulting from the historical uses of the project site are anticipated. 1maads on E&Wng Land Uses Onsite Land Uses The proposed project would alter the 4 acres on the Lower Castaways site from open space to , commercial marina, and would represent a loss of open space in the vicinity of the site. However, the project related loss of open space is not significant due to the site's already disturbed nature (from historical land uses) and its lack of sensitive terrestrial biological resources. Therefore, no significant onsite land use impacts would occur due to the project. ' Surrounding Land Uses As discussed below, the proposed marina development will not have a significant long-term impact on surrounding urban land uses. The proposed project is compatible with the adjacent land uses (i.e., primarily residential and marina commercial), and is consistent withthe policies of the Newport Beach General Plan, LCP, and zoning code. I The Newport Harbor Lutheran Church on the Upper Castaways site may be affected adversely if the landfill disposal alternative is selected. In this case, a temporary road would be graded through the Upper Castaways site to allow trucks to haul the dredged material to the landfill disposal site via the proposed route (see Exhibit3-6). Potential short-term Impacts would primarily include increased dust, noise, and vehicular traffic (see Sections 5.8 through 5.11 for further discussion of these impacts). ' Church activities may be affected (mostly by noise, dust, and haul truck traffic) if they occur during use of the haul road. Table 5.1-1 presents a schedule of the church's regularly scheduled activities. As shown in the table, regularly scheduled church activities and community meetings occur every day of the week. Additional activities are scheduled on a monthly basis. Church activities and community meetings occur primarily in the evenings or on weekends. Therefore, the use of the proposed baul road should have no significant impact on the regularly scheduled church activities and community meetings. Schedule coordination with church officials prior to issuance of the grading permit could rs OOM1t.5.1 5.1-6 , CI L.egmw -- ® Project Site City of Newport Beach Zoning Districts ® Planned Community © Combining or'B' District UI Unclassified N71 Single Family Residential r&71 Light Commercial 0 Combining or'H' District tb2 Duplex ReWentiai GY Gerrard Canmerdal MHP y Zone "HePar R.a PastrFamil'yMdRdWig�el asklonp ® Neighborhood Commercial ] R•] A TR U9R a ss1 �9 Rq I ;CAD 849 ORIK Z R�' tp ARM• g � Truer / / / p 1 / .ti h�+ .I f• ` C NI NopCRr SAY C ME mm MOMMEMEN Nonh NocTo Scale 0640011.2 2NO Exhibit 5.1-3 further reduce the impacts on the church activities. Also, mitigation measures presented in Sections 5.8, 5.10, and 5.11 should reduce traffic, dust, and noise impacts, respectively. TABLE 5.1-1 NEWPORT HARBOR LUTHERAN CHURCH REGULARLY SCHEDULED SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES' Worship Service, Sunday School, Community Choir Practice, or Bible Study Meeting Sunday 8:00 a.m. 9:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. Monday 4:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Tuesday 7:00 p.m. ' Wednesday 7:30 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Thursday 10:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. Friday 7:30 p.m. Saturday 7:30 p.m. ' Additional activities are scheduled on a monthly basis. ISource: Newport Harbor Lutheran Church April 1990. In addition, an alternative site access design is evaluated in Section 6.4. This alternative site access design would eliminate the need for a temporary haul road on the Upper Castaways site, and thus would alleviate the potential short-term impacts to the church. See discussions in Section 5.8.2 regarding the need for an alternative site access design, and Section 6.4 regarding potential impacts of the alternative site access design. Note that, because the potential impacts to the church from the proposed temporary haul road are short-term and can be mitigated through close coordination with the church, the alternative site access design is not required to mitigate church impacts to a level considered less than significant. However, Section 5.8.4 recommends that the site access alternative be included to mitigate traffic/circulation impacts associated with the currently proposed site access. JBV006"11.5-1 5.1-7 Lind Use Plans City of Newport Beach General Plan The General Plan consists of the policies and programs outlined within each dement. The policies of each element related to the project were reviewed. The consistency of the proposed project to ielevant General Plan policies was determined on a policy -by -policy basis. Land Use Element I The land uses proposed by the project are consistent with the land uses designated for the site under the city's land use element. Circulation Element ' Specific impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system are discussed in the Transportation and Circulation Element section of the EIR. No changes to the Circulation Element are proposed or required by the project. Housing Element The project is consistent with the city's Housing Element. Recreation and boon Space Element I The project is considered consistent with.the Recreation and Open Space Element. r City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program The land uses proposed as a part of the project are consistent with the land uses identified for the site ' in the city's LCP. The coastal bluffs along the eastern edge of the Upper Castaways site will not be affected by the project. LCP setback policies for coastal bluffs are aimed at development at the top of coastal bluffs. The proposed marina will be developed at the base of the bluff that separates the Upper and Lower Castaways sites and includes rock to protect the slope at the corner formed by the ra2roo6 W11-1-1 5.1-8 I r J I I I I J 1 r coastal bluffs and the new marina. Therefore, the proposed project is considered to be consistent with the LCP. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code The land uses proposed by the project are consistent with the city's zoning code. This is contingent upon the acquisition of the appropriate use permits. In addition, a permit for the removal of earthen materials beyond that required for normal grading or landscaping will be required. Upper Castaways Entitlement Proposal The proposed marina will be separated from the park and residential uses on the Upper Castaways site by the elevational difference of the two sites and by the intervening open space. As demonstrated by existing developments throughout Newport Beach, the proposed marina uses are expected to be compatible with the park and residential uses proposed for the Upper Castaways site. See Section 5.6 for discussion of potential effects of the marina on the adjacent open space areas. 5.1.3 CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS 5.1-A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works departments. 5.1-B. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. This plan shalt be approved by the directors of the Planning, Public Works, and Parks, Beaches and Recreation departments. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 5.1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1-1. In the event that hazardous materials/wastes are encountered during development of the site, these materials/wastes shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 5.1-2. To mitigate potential short-term impacts to church activities, the project applicant, or its designated representative, shall coordinate/communicate with officials of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church to establish a schedule of haul road preparation and use that will minimize disruption of scheduled church activities. Written evidence of this coordination effort shall be 5.1-9 1 provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of the grading permit. 5.1.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS No significant cumulative land use impacts would be expected due to the Mature of the proposed marina uses. Proposed land uses are compatible with surrounding urban land uses and consistent with land use plans. 5.1.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Increased dust, noise, harbor traffic, and vehicular traffic will be unavoidable during the construction phase and are considered short-term adverse Impacts to surrounding urban land uses. however, these Impacts can be mitigated to levels not considered significant (see city policies and- mitigation measures in Sections 5.8 through 5.11). M0064W11.5-1 5.1-10 1`I L I I F 1 r-� V T I 1] I i r 5.2 EARTH RESOURCES As shown in Exhibit 5.2-1, the highest point on the project site (Lower Castaways) reaches an elevation of approximately 9 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The site gradually slopes in a southwesterly direction towards the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive, where the elevation drops to a low of 7.1 feet above MSL. Lower Castaways is at an elevation that places it below its landside surroundings. Dover Drive (at 10 to 13 feet above MSL), Pacific Coast Highway (at 10 to 17 feet above MSL), and Upper Castaways (at 70 feet MSL) form a ridgeline around the Lower Castaways site. Steep bluffs along the north edge of the Lower Castaways site lead to the Upper Castaways site. These have a slope of approximately 65 to 70 percent. The Upper Castaways site consists of a broad mesa that gently slopes to the southwest from a high of approximately 85 feet to a low of approximately 70 feet above MSL. Coastal bluffs are located along the eastern edge of the site, and Dover Drive, which rises to a height of 77 feet at the northern portion of the Upper Castaways property, forms its western boundary. To the north are single-family homes situated at roughly the same elevation as the upper end of Upper Castaways (85 feet above MSL). Repional and Local Geology This section is summarized from reports prepared by Leighton and Associates in 1989 and Converse Consultants in 1986. The reports can be seen in their entirety in Appendix D. The proposed project site is situated in the coastal portion of the Peninsular Range Province, a geomorphic region with a long and active history of deep marine sedimentation with subsequent cycles of folding, lifting, coastal erosion, and deposition. Exposed bedrock located in the bluff adjacent to the site consists of Tertiary Capistrano Formation that underlies the surficial deposits of hydraulic fill, beach deposits, and alluvium. Offshore marine sediments vary in thickness from about 3 to 5 feet. Bedrock beneath the deposits is Capistrano Formation claystone and sandstone. ra2ro0640011s-2 5.2-1 I The marine sediment consists of inter -layered silts and clays within the upper Ito 3 feet. Typically, these are underlain with coarse- to fine-grained sands and silty sands. Within these sandy deposits are shell fragments that vary from trace amounts to abundant amounts intermixed in layers. , The onshore portion of the proposed marina site (Lower Castaways) is capped by hydraulic fill to an average depth of about 8 feet. The hydraulic fill consists of sandy silts to silty sands with scattered gravel pockets or lenses. I Groundwater bas been found at depths ranging from 12 to 26 feet. The water is believed to be a local ' perched condition within or near the base terrace deposits. These appear to be discontinuous and influenced by seasonal rainfall and runoff. , The project site is located 1 mile away from the closest known active fault zone. The Newport - Inglewood structural fault zone consists of a series of faults and folds that extend from the southern edge of the Santa Monica mountains southeast to the offshore area of Newport Beach. The property itself is not cut by major faults. Due to the geologic conditions of the Upper and Lower Castaways sites, liquefaction could occur during a strong earthquake. Liquefaction is the process in which fine sands saturated with water are compressed by earth movement, which may temporarily transform the deposit into a fluid mass. 5.2.2 PROJECT IMPACTS I Earth=& Potential 1 The proposed marina will be exposed to hazards associated with earthquakes in the region. Proposed structures at the marina shall meet the applicable seismic building code requirements. Therefore, no significant seismic -related impacts will result, 1LALndform Alteration As described in Section 3.2, the proposed project will alter the existing landforms on the Lower Castaways site. The project will require the dredging of approximately 80,000 cubic yards (cy) of , material to create the marina basin and access channel to the floating pier and docks. The dredging n=064WII-5a 5.2-2 Upper Newport Bay 74 IN 78 Upper Castawaysf 5 4/ -k 80 0 High Point 0 9ftMSL PNI Lower 17 Castaways Low Point x 7.1 ft MSL TOography IBM six N.& 0 110 220 Felt 0640011.1 2J90 Exhibit 5.2A I ' will remove 56,000 cy of material from the Lower Castaways site, and 24,000 cy of material will be removed from Upper Newport Bay. Landside, bulldozers will excavate the surficial dry sediments behind the bulkhead, while sediments below the water table will be removed by clamshell dredge. Waterside dredging will be completed by hydraulic, diesel driven equipment. Exhibit 3-5 in Section 3.2 illustrates the approximate area of ' dr6dging proposed. The project will dredge the surface material to a depth of 10 feet below mean sea level. This will submerge the site in water, which will allow the docks and boating facilities to be built. The existing Lower Castaways site has no unique landforms; therefore, while the loss of the Lower Castaways land surface is an unavoidable impact of the project, it is not considered significant. Potential impacts of the dredging on channel depths and bay sediments are addressed in Sections 5.3 and 5.5. TemnoM Haul Road As described in Section 3.2, disposal of all or part of the dredged material at the Coyote Canyon Landfill would require preparation of a temporary haul road through the Upper Castaways site. The preliminary grading plan for this road is shown in Exhibit 3-7 in Section 3.2. A swale would be cut ' along the inside of this road to carry runoff from this roadway to the Lower Castaways site. Within the graded segment of the road, approximately one-third of the road's length would utilize the alignment of an existing dirt road on the site. This existing road is eroded and portions of it will need to be regraded (see Exhibit 3=7)'in accordance with City of Newport Beach requirements. As shown on the exhibit, grading would be required, along approximately half the length the road, primarily at ' the segment nearest to Dover Drive, and the maximum slope would be 2:1. Approximately 500 cy of material would be excavated. No fill would be required. The excavated material would be spread ' over 5 to 10 acres of the Upper Castaways site, at least 50 feet from the coastal bluff edge, and in accordance with the grading permit. Erosion of soils from the road into an adjacent cattail marsh (described in Section 5.6) could be potentially significant during the grading phase, but could be mitigated with erosion and runoff control measures. L1 n1/00640011.5-2 5.2-3 1 �I 5.2.3 CITY POLICIES AND REQUHU MMV'1'S 1 5.2-A. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning departments. The application for a grading permit is to be accompanied by the grading plan and specifications, and , supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports required by the building official. 5.2 B. Grading operations and drainage requirements shall meet the standards set , forth in the City's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 70 - Excavation and Grading, Sections 7001-7019) and the Building Department's General Grading Specifications. , 5.2-C. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and a watering program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. 5.2-D. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject ; to the approval of the Building Department (prior to approval of the grading permit). A copy shall be forwarded to the California Environmental - ProtectionAgency/Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5.2 B. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer incorporating the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department prior to issuance of building permits. , 5.2.4 MIITIGATION MEASURES I In addition to the grading standards required by the building code and grading specifications, the ' following measures are identified to reduce or eliminate potential soil erosion problems. 5.2-1. To reduce the potential for erosion into the wetlands area on the Upper Castaways site, the applicant shalt design the road to drain to the east, and shall provide a Swale along the eastern side of the temporary haul road to carry runoff from the road onto the Lower Castaways site. 5.2-2. To reduce erosion from the temporary haul road, the road shall be hydroseeded with compatible plant material following the completion of the dredging operation. Plant material to be used shall be selected by a licensed landscape architect and approval by the City of Newport Beach. I I I 3206400114.2 5.24 1 5.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS No significant cumulative impacts on landforms or earth resources are anticipated since the impacts are considered site specific. 5.2.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Geological hazards and soil erosion impacts that may occur can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with the mitigation measures and standard city policies identified. M00640011s-2 5.2-5 I 1 I L_I I I LI J J P 5.3 This section summarizes the results of a hydrology report prepared by Noble Consultants in May 1990. This report is presented in its entirety in Appendix E. 5.3.1 EXISTING Surface Drainage Patterns Surface Runoff from the Lower Castaways site enters Newport Bay directly. Runoff from the Upper Castaways site drains to Dover Drive or the Upper Bay directly. A 33- inch storm drain is in Dover Drive and crosses the southwesterly comer of the Lower Castaways site before it discharges into Newport Bay under the bridge. Nmport Bay Circulation Bathymetry As shown in Exhibit 3-2, the project site is located adjacent to a narrow reach of channel that connects the upper and lower portions of Newport Bay. The channel is bounded by a high bluff on the north bank and low land on the south side. Survey data measured in 1988 and presented in Exhibit 5.3-1 indicate that the bathymetry (measurement of water depth) over this reach generally conforms to the channel alignment since the isobaths (depth contours) are parallel to the shore (Noble Consultants 1989a). The irregular shape of the individual depth contours and an anomalous depression near the site at mid -channel are believed to be the remnants of recent dredging operations (OCEMA 1988). The bathymetry was most recently surveyed in September 1989 for preliminary project design purposes (S.E.A. Contractors 1989). Comparison of the depth data (presented in Appendix E) with the earlier measurements indicates that no significant depth changes have occurred over the short period between the two surveys. Localized depth changes near the Coast Highway Bridge were also reviewed for depth variation over time. A review of data recorded near the bridge, between 1986 and 1988, shows that depth increases of 2 to 3 feet have occurred. This significant depth variation is also estimated to be man-made as a result of the recent channel dredging activity. M00640011s-3 5.3-1 I Tides ' Tide patterns along the Southern California coast are characterized as mixed semi -diurnal, and consist , of two unequal high tides and low tides each day. Tides at the Newport Harbor entrance are referenced to the Los Angeles Harbor gauge station. Benchmark elevations for this primary station, ' summarizing the tidal characteristics and corrections to Newport Harbor, are presented in Table 5.3-1. The table also includes high-water elevations that were measured on January 27, 1983, and January 17, 1988, and represent the most extreme conditions to date. TABLE 5.3-1 ' TIDE DATA—LOS ANGELES HARBOR Elevation in , Feet Over MLLW Mean Higher High Water (MM HW) 5.40 Mean High Water (MHW) 2.60 Mean Tide Level (MM) 2.80 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVDr 2.70 , Mean Low Water (MLW) 1.00 Mean Lower Low Water O&LW) 0.00 , High Tide on January 27, 1983 7.96 High Tide on January 17, 1988 7.43 , Corresponds to mean sea level (MSL). Notes: 1. Corrections to Newport Harbor Entrance: Elevation —multiplied by 0.97. Time—lags by 2 minutes. 2. Time lag at project site longer due to its location farther inside harbor. Source: NOAA 1987. Winds , An annual distribution of wind speeds by direction in the coastal Orange County area is listed in Table 2 in Appendix E. The prevailing directions are from the west and northwest, with wind speeds MOOM otts-3 5.3-2 ' 1 ay 1 Legend Depth G in 20 Fa Mean La Elevetbr s� — sss — PRO.E r- I 1 L_ $510" — .0 s�2{��7. � wa o to 1ZC.Wl 40 1.2 �` Llw1.GsiW A�ir.{�, L�`1{�• Sa Nabfe 1999s xhibit5. -1 Exhibit 53-I r-, I 1 I generally 4 to 10 knots. In general, average wind speeds are 20 knots (23 miles per hour) or less about 90 percent of the time. Wind velocities in excess of 20 knots occur only about 4 percent of the time. Calm conditions exist the balance of the time. Waves No measured nontidal wave data have been recorded near the project site. However, since the wind fetch within the channel is limited, wind -generated wave heights are expected to be small. Due to the configuration of the bay, it is estimated that wave heights no larger than 0.5 to 1 foot would be generated during severe storm wind conditions. Currents The magnitude of tidal currents that flow past the project site corresponds to the amount of rise or fall in tidal amplitude. For large tide fluctuations, particularly during ebb tide, currents at the site can be swift as a result of the significant tidal prism drainage from the Upper Newport Bay. Ebb currents during the November -April "wet" season will also increase in response to the added volume of freshwater runoff delivered by the tributaries to this estuary following storms. Recorded measurements of current velocity and directional pattern at or near the site are limited. Occasional measurements by the County of Orange (1987) at the Coast Highway Bridge indicate that the average velocity ranges at mid -channel from 2 to 3.4 feet per second (1.2 to 2 knots) during peak velocity conditions. Measurements have also been made to determine velocities associated with extreme tidal fluctuations. Data were collected in 1988 during an ebb tide fall of 8 feet and a subsequent flood tide rise of 5.1 feet. Temporal velocity variation near the site was recorded at mid -channel at four depth intervals (Noble Consultants 1989a). Results of these measurements are shown in Appendix E. Maximum ebb and flood tide velocities were approximately 3.2 and 1.5 feet per second, respectively (1.9 and 0.9 knots). Evidence of flow stratification was also observed during the onset of flood tide as faster flood currents were observed at deeper depths. It is believed that this phenomenon reflected a short-lived condition of denser sea water moving upstream beneath a residual ebb discharge of less saline upstream water. This density stratification was observed only during the initial stages of flood tide. After the incoming water became well mixed, evidence of stratification disappeared. JBV00640011.5.3 5.3-3 I Hydraulic Circulation Model 1 Water circulation patterns were simulated in the laboratory using a physical hydraulic model especially ' built to investigate the project site area (Noble Consultants 1989a). Hydraulic simulations were conducted under the existing and proposed project conditions. The results of the "pre -project" tests ' formed the basis of assessing the hydraulic baseline condition of water circulation. Exhibits 5.3-2 and 5.3-3 show the flow patterns for ebb and flood peak velocity conditions that were observed in the , physical model. In general, tidal currents flow past the site in conformance with the main channel alignment, with the exception of two counter -currents. During ebb flow a small reverse circulation ' forms near the existing bulkhead at the project site. The observed gyre (circular movement) is believed to be caused by the upstream shoreline bluff projection, which disrupts an otherwise smooth , hydraulic flowline. During the flood tide condition, a larger circulated water pattern was observed immediately upstream of the project site, just beyond the same protruding shoreline bluff feature. Runoff Hvdroloey and Sediment TranaM Precipitation Measurements recorded at the Newport Harbor gauge indicate that the average annual precipitation for the area is about 11 inches (NOAA 1988). Table 3 in Appendix E.presents an average monthly , precipitation occurrence compiled from the last 60 years of data. Rainfall predominates in the winter to spring months of November through April. I Sedimentation ' Stormwater runoff (and the associated sediment transport) is the primary mechanism for sediment delivery to the Upper Newport Bay and downstream marine areas. Sediment loads from San Diego Creek watershed, including its major San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash tributaries, contribute , the majority of the sediment ultimately deposited in the estuary. The volume of annual sediment delivery to the estuary depends in large measure on the extent of the land use within the watershed ' area and the amount of precipitation from major storms and the subsequent large-scale runoff. tB2100610o1i.s 3 5.3.4 m m m m = = m s m =� m m m m = m m a PROJECT SITE / o / COAST > / Y' Z*4Y PENINSULA C// DE ANZA BAYSIDE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL AREA MULKHEAD / / NEWPORT DUNES AQUATIC PARK �rr'MUNNI I I I I El E)dstin :Ebb mt Pattem� Noah 0 187.5 375 Fmr 0640011.2 2/90 Ct4d7txyS [lnhtl Exhibit5.3-2 m m m m m m m m m m on=! m m m i! m ULA i / BULK AD BULKHEAD / ' r0 �� /^/ •.r'` DE ANZA BAYSIDE VILLAGE PROJECT SI5,j O/ BULKHEAD / 1, COAST HiCy� 't Y RESIDENTIAL AREA NEWPORT DUNES AQUATIC PARK mm MINE �}MON Ej s� ng Floo �' urrent P4ttri txrct, 0 1875 375 Feet 0640DII.2 2190 itStia�(y$riU - s�Exhibits 3 t>aet�cmK,tDeD�sas. -3 n J ' Annual Sediment Delivery Estimates of average annual sediment yields may be derived from the findings of the sediment monitoring program thathas been undertaken by the County of Orange in San Diego Creek since 1985 ' (County of Orange 1987 and 1988). Table 4 in Appendix E summarizes the recorded water discharge and rainfall data, as well as calculated sediment transport volumes. It is noted that a continuing ' reduction of sediment delivery has been estimated since 1982. Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses in addition to lower amounts of rainfall (i.e., drought conditions) are believed to be the primary reasons for this trend. ' Storm Delivery of Sediment ' Greater volumes of sediment are delivered during intense individual storm events when runoff volumes are highest. A flood hydrology study by Boyle Engineering Corporation (1982) summarized runoff hydrography for 24-hour duration storms using parameters outlined in the Orange County Flood ' Control District Hydrology Manual. These data are shown in Table 5 in Appendix E for storms having 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year return periods. Based on the storm runoff described in the Boyle study, Table 6 in Appendix E presents the estimated ' sediment supply to Upper Newport Bay resulting from various -sized storm events under the existing and ultimate (i.e., completely developed) watershed condition. The latter criteria were selected as the most representative of the future land use condition within the San Diego Creek watershed (i.e., fully developed) due to the ongoing trend of rapid urbanized development. The projected quantities ' represent a combined bed load (sand, gravel, and sediment particles that move along the bottom) and suspended load (sediment that moves through the water column in suspension) volume total. The contribution due to bed load was estimated based on the sediment transport capacity associated with each size category of the sediment particles that characterize the source material. The suspended load ' passing through a given channel section was assumed to be approximately equal to the quantity of fine sediment (clay and silt) generated from the upstream watershed area. ' Debris ' Floating debris and trash enter the waters of Newport Bay from a variety of point and non -point sources both upstream and downstream of the project site. No quantitative data exist that document the volume of material transported by runoff into the tidal stream, but it is believed that the majority JW00640011.5-3 5.3-5 of the debris is delivered via the natural upstream tributaries and numerous storm drains that empty into Upper Newport Bay during the initial storm discharges of each year's rainy season. Brief field observations made near the site indicate that minor amounts of trash and debris accumulate along the bank of the west channel immediately north of the project site (Noble Consultants 1989a). It is believed that this shoreline deposition of floatables may be attributed to the secondary circulation effects of transverse currents caused by ebb flow turning the channel bend. This circulation pattern tends to carry floating debris in a direction normal to the channel and towards the west bank. Furthermore, the circulation pattern during flood flow (see Exhibit 5.3-3) also tends to encourage collection of floating debris and trash. However, this material appears to be gradually removed by subsequent high tide and ebb current action. 5.3.2 PROJECT IMPACTS The proposed marina development includes excavation of about 56,000 cubic yards (cy) of existing upland hydraulic fill to create a new mooring basin, and approximately 24,000 cy of material from the adjacent channel to accommodate new small craft berthing. The proposed Improvements were assessed for potential short and long-term impacts on the hydrological characteristics of the bay. Dredging and excavation activities will temporarily increase turbidity or suspended sediment concentrations on the project site. Most of the mooring basin excavation is expected to be performed using land -based equipment on upland areas and will, therefore, have a negligible impact on adjacent waters until the prevailing water level is reached and inundation from channel waters can occur. It is anticipated that dredging in the channel itself, or to remove the deposits leading to the mooring basin, will be performed by clam shell equipment. Removal of sedimentary material from the bottom of the channel will result in the resuspension of fine particles that will cause adjacent water to be muddy or cloudy. Since a large portion of the sediments to be dredged is comprised of fine sand, once these heavier particles are disturbed, they are expected to rapidly settle and be redeposited locally. The effects of increased turbidity on water quality, marine biological resources, and birds are addressed in Sections 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6, respectively. Another potential short-term effect of the dredging operation would be the deposition of material at the barge marshalling ares(s). Soundings at the marshalling areas) will be required prior to, and upon I I tavcos 0011.s-3 5.3.6 I I 1 1 F7 L J I completion of, the dredging operation to ascertain the need for dredging to return the area(s) to pre - dredging conditions. This impact would not be considered significant. Long -Ter rn Impacts Surface Drainage Patterns The proposed marina will drain into Newport Bay. Due to the introduction of impervious surfaces (i.e., parking lot and structures), the amount of surface runoff from developed portions of the site would increase and the amount of groundwater recharge would be reduced. Also, with the proposed excavation of the marina area, the Newport Bay surface. area would increase and additional rainfall would enter the bay directly. A master plan of storm drainage facilities must be approved by the City of Newport Beach prior to approval of any grading permits. It should.also be noted that, if the Upper Castaways site is to be developed with residential uses (as currently designated on the City's Land Use Plan), the storm drain which lies within Dover Drive and crosses the southwesterly corner of the Lower Castaways site may need to be upgraded. Therefore, The Irvine Company (owner of both the Upper and Lower Castaways sites) would be required to make any needed improvements to this storm drain system. Such improvements could result in short-term disruption of the marina site, and would need to be addressed during the environmental review of any development proposals for the Upper Castaways site. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed marina are addressed in Section 5.4. Flow Patterns The results of the physical hydraulic model study (Noble Consultants 1989a) were used as the basis for assessing long-term hydrologic impacts in Newport Bay. As discussed below, expected flow pattern changes are not expected to have a significant effect on the prevailing flow patterns in the bay. In general, the west bluff and shoreline configuration upstream of the proposed marina basin will control flow circulation within the new marina basin. Exhibits 5.3-4 and 5.3-5 illustrate the expected flow patterns during both the ebb and flood tide conditions observed in the hydraulic model study. Flow separation occurs along the mooring basin entrance, resulting from the strong velocity gradient in the high -velocity main channel, as compared to the quiescent mooring area. ' MVOOMWI1-5-3 5.3-7 The flow pattern during flood flow is independent of structural details downstream of the marina entrance, however, the upstream projection of the west bluff dominates flow definition during incoming tides and is responsible for creation of a large We (circular motion of water) upstream of the proposed marina basin within the area of the proposed channel dock. ' Internal circulation within the proposed mooring basin is different for flood and ebb conditions. Two counter -rotational gyres are set in motion by ebb flow, while one large gyre sets up during flood flow. The size of the ebb flow gyres depends somewhat on the length and configuration of slope protection and fill along the west bank near the northern entrance to the proposed marina basin. ' Debris Accumulation ' Floatable tracer material injected in the model to stimulate the "with project" condition indicated that about 90 percent of the floating debris would bypass the marina as illustrated in Exhibits 5.3-5 and 5.3-6. An estimated 10 percent of the floating material was observed to be entrained within the , mooring basin. It is therefore concluded from the simulation studies that a dock system, such as the one proposed, and with a minimum of floating pontoon surface area, will not severely restrict the , normal downstream passage of debris past the project site. Returning flood flow waters would tend to deliver more debris to the marina basin than ebb circulation. However, it is estimated that most debris originates from upstream sources. Erosion Effects The hydraulic model results did not indicate that current velocities will increase within the project ' limits and immediate channel areas. Therefore, it is concluded that no significant adverse channel ' scour or shoreline erosion effects will result from the project improvements. Sedimentation ' Annual sediment Delivery A statistical analysis by Boyle Engineering Corporation (1982) estimated an average annual sediment delivery of 50,000 cubic yards (Cy) to the Upper Newport Bay. Review of the estimated data for the , two major tributaries (San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash) in recent years (County of Orange Jsyoowaou.s.a 5.3.8 1 j------- W o°------L- -- D' y / INULexEAD COAST i PENINSULA r r DE ANZA BAYSIDE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL AREA i / su / NEWPORT DUNES / AQUATIC PARK 61 'v y North 0 1875 375 Peet 0640011.2 2/90 %;kYg sn.�:rmw,cm.m�u�sev. Exhibit5.3.4 I m m m m m m m = m m m = m m = = = m = I C 1 I I I I 1 I I I I of If i / / EBV LOAD / / SECONDARY SHOAL MIGRATION ON t� Lu FLOOD TIDE PRI R Y "-" EBea DDDEPOSITION / ` P /TERN Q L —Wee — .3ed Load, Sedir m-t Ti`r`cx port Pa Ca#aUuaYS M47ina COAST / h/Gyw '4 r NN%W►► N Nash 0 875 175 Feet Saar NAkC.1l 196a 0640011-2 2190 Exhibit 5.M II P 1 1988) suggests that the fluvial (stream -related) sediment delivery predicted by Boyle Engineering Corporation may be overestimated. Based on an annual average precipitation of approximately 11 inches, it is assumed that about 25,000 cy is the representative annual sediment delivery rate exclusive of severe storm events. Of this volume, more than 80 percent of the suspended load is believed to be retained within the Upper Bay basin. The hydraulic model tests indicated that about 10 percent of the remaining suspended material transported past the site would be delivered to the marina basin. Therefore, it is estimated that approximately 500 cy per year (25,000 x 0.2 x 0.1) may be transported into the marina basin. Assuming a suspended sediment concentration of 150 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and assuming that deposition occurs only within the inner two-thirds of the mooring basin, this rate of sediment delivery translates to an average annual depth decrease of approximately 0.2 foot per year (Noble Consultants 1989a). Bed load transport was estimated using a simplified method applicable to estuarine environments (Sternberg 1972). Based on an assumed average flow rate of 2 feet per second past the project site (1.2 knots), and bed material consisting of fine sands to silts, an annual transport rate of 0.9 cy per foot of bottom width is estimated. From observations conducted in the hydraulic model, it is assumed that 10 percent of this amount is delivered to the mooring basin entrance. This implies a shoaling rate of approximately 55 cy per year. Assuming further that this shoaling is concentrated uniformly in a bar formation over an area of about 9,600 square feet, as shown in Exhibit 5.3-6, an annual rise in channel bottom across the mooring basin entrance of approximately 0.1 foot per year is estimated (Noble Consultants 1989a). Ibis rate of sedimentation would not be considered significant, but would require maintenance at approximately 5-year intervals. Storm -Generated Solids Transport The estimated sediment supply into the Upper Bay for the 25-, 50-, and 100-year return interval storms are 100,000, 165,000 and 220,000 cy, respectively. As previously discussed, more than 80 percent of this fluvial suspended load and the entire bed load resulting from a return storm event are retained in the Upper Bay basin. The remaining fraction of suspended load that could be delivered to the Castaways Marina basin was estimated from the previously mentioned hydraulic model observations. Table 5.3-2 illustrates the calculated results. MV00640011.5-3 5.3-9 TABLE 5.3-2 i s • 1 51 s Storm Recurrence Item 25 Year 50-Year 100-Year Estimated Current Velocity (ft(sec) Total Sediment Supply (cy) Transported Suspended Load (cy) Suspended Load Deposition (ft) Bed Load Deposition (ft) 4.60 5.60 6.40 100,000 165,000 220,000 12,000 20,000 25,000 0.50 0.80 1.00 0.10 0.15 0.25 Notes: 1. See Noble Consultants, Inc. 1989a (m Appendix E), for description and estimation of sediment deposition. 2. Current velocity is estimated for the navigation channel near the project site. Source: Noble Consultants, Inc. 1990. Based on the estimated current velocities, bed load deposition during the storm conditions was characterized using the aforementioned Sternberg method. Calculations estimate that the marina should shoal at a rate of about 0.6, 1.0, and 1.3 feet as a result of runoff caused by 25-, 50-, and 100- yeaz storm conditions, respectively. These numbers are derived from corresponding values of 0.1-, 0.2-, and 0.3-foot depth decreases due to bed load sources and 0.5-, 0.8-, and Moot changes due to suspended load deposition, and are not considered significant (Noble Consultants 1989b). 5.3.3 CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS 5.3-A. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach City Engineer. • A hydrology and hydraulic study and a master plan of water, sewer, and storm drain for onsite improvements shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to recording of the tract map. Any modifications to the existing storm drain system shall be the responsibility of the developer. 5.3.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 5.3-1. The project applicant shall clean debris from the marina basin and boat slips as part of a regular maintenance program to be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach. 1 F F 1 1] i C 1 1 1 i 1 1 t_J 1 1 JR2AM oott.ss 5.3-10 1 1J 1 I 1 L 5.3-2. To maintain project depths within the boat basin, dredging of the sand bar that may form at the entrance of the marina basin shall be conducted by the applicant in accordance with an approved dredging permit from the City of Newport Beach and ACOE. 5.3-3. To minimise tidal flow interference, the basin design shall use adequately spaced plastic pontoons to support the docks within the channel. 5.3-4. To reduce the extent and effects of increased turbidity, the applicant shall require the dredging contractor to use filter curtains around dredging operations, when feasible. 5.3-5. When feasible, the dump scow shall be loaded during ebb tide conditions so suspended material will be flushed seaward and not into Upper Newport Bay. 5.3-6. Prior to, and upon the completion of, the dredging operation, soundings shall be taken at each barge marshalling area and the data supplied to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department to ascertain the need for dredging to return the area to predredging conditions. Such dredging will be the responsibility of the project applicant. 5.3.5 CUMULATIVE MPACTS The project's impacts on the bay's flow and sedimentation patterns are addressed in Section 5.3.2 and represent an "existing plus project" condition. However, because no other major marina projects have been proposed for Upper Newport Bay, Section 5.3.2 also represents the evaluation of the project's contribution to cumulative hydrology and sedimentation conditions. No significant long-term cumulative hydrology or sedimentation impacts are identified. 5.3.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Increased turbidity in the Upper Bay is an unavoidable adverse impact of both the initial dredging and the maintenance dredging operations. However, turbidity can be reduced by use of filter curtains around the dredging operation when feasible. isv00e40011.5-3 5.3-11 I H L C 7 J I CI I 5.4 WATER OUAI= 5A.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Introduction Newport Bay's ambient water quality is a product of past and present influences. These factors include its use as a major small boat recreational harbor that shelters nearly 10,000 boats (Blodgett, pers. comm., 3/30/89), the quality of freshwater runoff from its watershed which drains nearly 93,000 acres of both urban and agricultural land use, sedimentation processes, and tidal exchange with the open ocean environment. Water Onality Objectives and the Beneficial Uses of Newport Bay, In order to maintain the water and sediment quality of Newport Bay, the State of California Water Quality Board has established water quality objectives and guidelines for the prevention of water quality degradation and the protection of the beneficial uses of the waters of the state. These objectives are general, and present minimal guidelines in terms of minimum and maximum acceptable water quality standards. These standards are implemented through the Basin 8, Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Plan and federal requirements for waste discharges. Federal waste discharge requirements are identified in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, and implemented through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process for point source discharges. During July 1990, non -point source discharges throughout Orange County also became regulated under the NPDES system. As designated in the Basin Plan, Lower Newport Bay beneficial uses include navigation, water contact recreation, ocean commercial and sportfishing, marine habitat, and shellfish harvesting. Upper Newport Bay beneficial uses include water contact recreation, ocean commercial and sportfishing, wildlife habitat, preservation of rare species, marine habitat, and shellfish harvesting, and includes an area of unique biological significance. Transport and Fate of Pollutants Pollutants (trace metals, pesticides, herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and petroleum hydrocarbons) are discharged into the bay from urban and agricultural runoff, accidental or illegal n2/00640011.5-4 5.4-1 u discharge of wastewaters, oil and fuel spillages, antifouling paints on vessel bottoms designed to limit marine fouling growth, and dissolution from sacrificial metallic anodes. These substances are transported throughout the bay and into offshore waters through water currents and turbulent resuspenslon. Dissolved pollutants can then became associated with suspended particulates that are further dispersed with the currents and tides, and can become available to aquatic organisms within the water column through feeding mechanisms or direct contact. Some of the particulate -bound contaminants accumulate in highly organic, fine sediments, where other biological organisms can take up the contaminants when ingesting or filtering particulates from the water. Once the contaminants are deposited in the sediments, they are not lost to the aquatic ecosystem, since the particulates can be resuspended and dispersed due to bottom current scour, tides, storm waves, and dredging activities. The sediments within Newport Bay vary from coarse sands to fine silts and clays, depending on current velocity and depth. The coarsest sediments occur where strong currents scour the bottom (i.e., at the Newport Harbor entrance, near the Santa Ana Delhd Channel, and at the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge), stripping away most fine mud and clay components and leaving mostly sands and shell debris. These sediments tend to be low in organic matter, trace contaminants, and hydrocarbons. In areas characterized by lower velocity, finer sediments accumulate which act as a sink for organics, trace metals, and hydrocarbons as they are formed. Sediments in the Castaways project area are variable because of the observed tidal current circulation patterns (Noble Consultants 1989a); major sediment types include unconsolidated fine sands, silts, and clays; intermittent riprap; and pockets of heavy shell debris. Mudflats occur along the base of the bulkhead and at the base of the cliff west of the proposed marina. Occasional shale boulders, originating from the upland bluffs near the shoreline, are scattered along the mudflat. 91 , r '- Historical and ongoing water and sediment quality studies have identified spatial and temporal variations in trace metal contamination, organics (petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and polychlorinated bdphenyls [PCBs]), and nutrients throughout Newport Bay. Current monitoring of the bay's water and sediment quality is being conducted by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA), which has routinely monitored conditions in the bay and its watershed since 1976. Data are collected at five stations In the Lower Bay and six stations in the 1 n u P 1 1 J I I 1 D nMV0640011s•4 5.4-2 I I I I I I I I I I` L I I' L I I F L Upper Bay on a monthly, semimonthly, or biannual basis. One -of the OCEMA stations (UNBCHB) is located just north of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge in the vicinity of the Castaways study area. The types of water quality conditions monitored' include physical parameters (dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, pH, temperature, transparency, and wind speed and direction); nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus compounds); suspended solids and turbidity; trace metals (lead, copper, chromium, zinc, cadmium, mercury, aluminum, and selenium) in water and sediments; oil and grease; and selected synthetic organics (pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs). 'Sampling is conducted during dry weather conditions as well as during individual storm runoff events. Prior to 1980, sediment chemical characteristics were routinely monitored at the UNBCHB station, in addition to other parameter$; however, they are not currently monitored at the site. The quality of Newport Bay waters has been studied extensively over the past 15 years. Newport Bay water quality monitoring results for 1976 through 1979 are summarized in a study by the OCEMA (1980). In 1985, the Regional Water Quality Control Board prepared a separate study of Newport Bay water quality for the period between 1976 and 1984, and provided recommendations for the management of the bay's water quality (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 1985). Recently, Collacott, et al. (1989) prepared a report on the water quality conditions in Newport Bay for the OCEMA in response to California Senate Resolution 88, which directed the Regional Water Quality Control Board to assess Newport Bay's water quality since 1985; comparisons were then made to data collected between 1976 and 1985. Since 1977, the State of California has conducted the State Mussel Watch Program. This biomonitoring study monitors the levels of trace metals and synthetic organics (herbicides, pesticides, and PCBs) in transplanted, filter -feeding mussels QWlus spp.) at 10 stations in Newport Bay, while tissues of freshwater clams are monitored at a single station in San Diego Creek. Station 724.0 of the Mussel Watch Program is located at the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge in the vicinity of the Castaways study area. The results of these comprehensive water quality studies and other Newport Bay water quality documents are summarized below (excerpts of these data are provided in Appendix F). ►FAT Q � 0 Trace metals that frequently occur at detectable levels in Newport Bay water and sediment samples include lead, copper, zinc, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic. Vessel maintenance operations in the Lower Newport Bay, particularly in the Turning Basin and Rhine Channel, and urban runoff are the primary sources of these heavy metal contaminants (Wehner, et al. 1972; Wood, et al. 1972; Christensen nV/00e40011.5-4 5.4-3 11 1977; Young and Alexander 1977; Weimer 1978; OCEMA 1980; Coliscott, et al. 1989). Copper, chromium, arsenic, and tributyl tin (TBT) are toxicants used in antifouling paints to control the growth of fouling marine organisms; chromium, lead, and zinc are components of boat bottom primer coatings, as well as automobile use byproducts, Cadmium occurs in certain paint pigments and zinc is utilized in sacrificial anodes that are attached to vessel bottoms to prevent corrosion of metal parts. The accumulation of these contaminants in the marine environment, in combination with high organic loads, poor tidal flushing, and fine sediments, can be toxic to marine organisms. Newport Bay is recognized as one of three major coastal sources of trace metal contaminations in the Southern California Bight (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project [SCCWRP] 1986). • The State of California Mussel Watch Program found elevated levels of copper, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, and tin in the tissues of transplanted mussels in Newport Bay when compared to the levels in mussels placed at the channel entrance (Stevens 1988). Mussels from the Rhine Channel and the Turning ' Basin exhibit the highest metal concentrations and accumulated TBT levels are also excessive. TBT is toxic at concentrations as low as 0.05 parts per billion (ppb), particularly to molluscan and crustacean larvae. Because of its extreme toxicity, federal and state laws prohibit its use, except on vessels larger than 85 feet long or those that are aluminum hulled. Synthetk Organics , I • Observed concentrations of PCBs and pesticides are low or below laboratory detection limits in Lower and Upper Newport Bay waters. In sediments, PCBs and pesticides (primarily DDT derivatives and endosulfan) have been found at detectable levels (Marine Biological Resources [MBC] and SCCWRP 1980, Famak 1988, NEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1990). Reports by the Orange County BMA (1980) and Collacott, et al. (1989) Indicate, however, that pesticide and herbicide levels In sediments were below laboratory detection limits during surveys conducted between 1976 and 1989. ' • Despite low levels of pesticides and herbicides in samples of sediment and water, observed levels were higher than statewide average concentrations for DDT, DDT derivatives, PCBs, chlordane, dacthal, aldrin, and endosulfan when tested for in tissues of bay mussels in Newport Bay (Hayes and Phillips 1987, Stevens 1988). This indicates that despite their low ambient levels in the environment, these substances are being bioconcentrated by organisms and incorporated into the local aquatic food chain. • The Newport Bay watershed appears to be the major source of pesticides and ' herbicides. Diazinon, endosulphan, and DDT concentrations in freshwater clams from San Diego Creek are higher than the statewide average (Stevens 1988). Recent concern about the high levels of endosulfan accumulating in mussels and freshwater , clams have resulted in the ban of endosulfan use in Orange County agricultural fields. • Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), present in crude oil, fuels oils, and crankcase oils, enter Newport Bay through small oil spills, bilge pumping, and accidental spillages of industrial effluent. PAR contamination in Lower Newport Bay is relatively high —Newport Harbor ranked 12th highest among the 24 coastal JIMMO ou.s.4 5.4-4 ; 11 J i i U t LJ u I 17 FI LI J I I I 1' Nutrients and embayment sites tested between Santa Monica and San Diego Bay (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 1986). • Nutrient levels are a major water quality concern because of the potential for nutrient enrichment (eutrophication). Nutrient enrichment can induce excessive growth of algae that leads to a reduction in water clarity, produce wide fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels, and adversely affect the aesthetics of the bay through discolored water, floating scums, and an increase in noxious odors. Freshwater drainage from the Newport Bay Watershed enters Newport Bay primarily from San Diego Creek, Santa Ana Delhi Channel, and Big Canyon Wash. These sources are partially responsible for the inputs of high levels of nitrogen and phosphates (Webner 1978, MBC and SCCWRP 1980, OCEMA 1980, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 1985, Collacott, et al. 1989). Fertilizers used for agricultural and nursery purposes are ,major sources of nutrient loading. Water quality is also affected by the illegal discharge of untreated sanitary wastes from vessels, and accidental wastewater overflows from sewer systems that contribute to higher than normal nutrient loads. Nitrate is the dominant species of nitrogen found in the bay and San Diego Creek; its concentration in the bay is variable due to depth, season, tidal flushing, and ongoing biological processes. Low base flow conditions, characteristic of freshwater inflows to the bay during nonstorm periods, account for up to seven times the amount contributed during storm periods. Recent reductions in nitrogen loading, particularly nitrate in the Upper Bay, may be correlated to better tidal flushing, created during the Upper Newport Bay Restoration Project (Collacott, et al. 1989). Bacterial Contamination • The County of Orange Health Care Agency routinely monitors Newport Bay for the presence of coliforvt bacteria and fecal streptococci. During most months of the year, California Ocean Plan water -contact recreation standards are usually exceeded in the most upstream portions of Upper Newport Bay, which are closed for water contact sports. The lower parts of Upper Newport Bay in the vicinity of Dover Shores, Newport Dunes, and the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge exhibit bacteriological quality less frequently in violation of water contact sports standards. All of Upper Newport Bay is closed for shellfish growing waters, and clam tissue samples generally exceed California Department of Health bacterial guidelines. Sources of such contamination are thought to originate both in Newport Bay and its watershed from avian, human, and animal sources, as well as in Lower Newport Bay, where the illegal discharge of domestic wastes from pleasure boats occurs. Floatable Debris • Man-made floating debris such as paper, plastic, wood, and miscellaneous trash are either intentionally or accidentally discarded into marinas. The fate of these materials, largely discarded nuisance items, are dependent on tidal flushing, where they are often deposited along shorelines or beaches, and the ability of these items to decompose and settle to the bottom of the marina. Some nonfloatable debris, such as glass and metal, are aesthetically unpleasing and represent potential hazards to the public. Discarded plastic is a known hazard to marine animals if it is eaten or animals become entangled in it. 'II J=00640011.5.4 5.4-5 I At the project site, trace metals and synthetic organic compounds occur in low concentrations in the water column and in low to moderate concentrations in the sediments (Orange County EMA 1980; Collacott, et al. 1989; Fausak 1988; NEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1990). Nutrient concentrations are variable depending on season, rainfall, and depth, but observed concentrations are generally low to moderate within the project area. A major contributing factor in the generally acceptable water quality is the higher than average current velocity near the constriction at the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. However, despite the good flushing characteristics, some contaminants are bioaccumulated by local marine organisms. Transplanted mussels at the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge (California Mussel Watch Sampling Station 724) have higher than average concentrations of some trace metals and herbicides in their tissues, which could potentially be a human health concern. Data, by station, are given by Fausak (1988) and MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. (1990) (see Appendix F). A comparison of the two studies suggests that the data are in general agreement regarding the presence and concentration of contaminants within the project area. Table 5.4-1 presents the total threshold limit concentrations CMC) for hazardous wastes, as defined by the State of California, California Administrative Code (CAC), TItle 22. Trace metal levels in project area sediments are substantially below the TTLC for trace metals (Fausak 1988 and MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1990). Detectable levels of DDD, DDE, DDT, endosuifan, and lindane occur in the channel sediments, but are also below the TTLC (Fausak 1988; MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1990). ' In the most recently completed contaminant study, lead, zinc, mercury, and cadmium concentration levels in the Castaways test site sediments were moderately elevated compared to the LA-3 ocean disposal site reference sediments; levels of other metals were within normal ranges or lower than levels observed at the reference site (NEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1990). Low but detectable levels of persistent pesticides (DDE and endosulfan sulfate) were found within the Castaways site sediments, although no polynuclear aromatic compounds were found above detection limits (MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1990). Chemical, Physical, and Biological Bioassay Tests r Preliminary elutdate analyses, which involve project area sediments agitated into project area water samples under laboratory conditions, indicated that beryllium, mercury, and silver were detectable after elutriation, with beryllium and silver significantly enriched by the elutriation process. All nMAD640011.54 5.4-6 1 I pesticides and PCBs in the elutriate tests were below detection limits in the aqueous phase (Fausak 1988, Appendix F). Project area sediments exhibited concentrations for toxic contaminants that were below toxicity levels specified in CAC Title 22. In addition, 100 percent of the fishes survived the toxicity bioassay (Leighton and Associates 1989), indicating no significant biological implications. In spring 1990, NEC Analytical Systems, Inc. conducted a series of chemical, physical, and bioassay tests on sediments from the main channel in the vicinity of the proposed Castaways Marina, according to standardized methodologies approved by the ACOE and EPA. The purpose of this testing program was to determine the suitability of project area dredge spoils for ocean disposal at the EPA LA-3 dredge disposal site offshore from Newport Harbor. The testing Table 5.4-1 program consisted of sediment and water trace constituent analysis, liquid/suspended-phase toxicity testing, 10-day solid phase toxicity testing, and a 20day bioaccumulation study. NEC Analytical Systems, Inc.'s findings ' are presented in full in Appendix F. A summary of the bioassay findings are presented below. • Liauid/SusRended Phase Based on the observed toxicity levels and grain size analysis of the proposed dredge spoil materials, no significant toxicity is expected from the disposal of project site dredge spoils at the LA-3 dredge disposal site. This test calculates the expected concentration (Limiting Permissible Concentration [LPq) of potential toxic material at the disposal site immediately after the dumping of a barge -load of sediment. No toxicity was found in the liquid/suspended bioassays on sanddabs (juvenile flatfish) or mysids (planktonic mysid shrimp). Some toxicity was found using the sea urchin sperm inactivation test. This test is a very sensitive test and the observed levels of toxicity response have been seen in other studies on dredge materials. • Solid Phase Significant mortality of mysids was found in the finest sediments at one of the three test sites (Site 3); Mortality of the marine worm (Neohtvs caecoi was ' marginally significant at one of the sites (Site 2) in the 10day bioaccumulation test, but not significant in the 20-day test. These results appear -somewhat conflicting but do show a relatively low toxicity potential. Mortality in clams Qfacoma nasuta was not significant in either the 10- or 20day test for any site. Some types of contaminants have been found to bioaccumulate in transplanted test organisms in the �t vicinity of the project site (Hayes and Phillips 1987; Stevens 1988). Total DDT, o,p'-DDT, dacthal, total endosulfan, and endosulfan I concentrations in the tissues of transplanted bay mussels at the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge exceeded statewide averages (Elevated Data Levels [EDL]) in 1986 to 1987, while cadmium concentrations exceed the Median International Standard (see data excerpts in MOD640011.54 5.4-7 I TABLE 5.41 1 CALIFORNIA ADMPUSTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 22 TOTAL THRESHOLD TOXICITY LDuT CONCENTRATIONS (T w FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES (Limits for Constituents Tested at the Castaways Dredge Area Site) TMC Metals (milligram/kg, wet weight) Antimony and/or antimony compounds 500 Arsenic and/or arsenic compounds 500 Beryllium and/or beryllium compounds 75 Cadmium and/or cadmium compounds 100 Chromium and/or Chromium III compounds 2,500 Copper and/or copper compounds 2,500 Lead and/or lead compounds 1,000 Mercury and/or mercury compounds 20 Nickel and/or nickel compounds 2,000 Selenium and/or selenium compounds 100 Silver and/or silver compounds 500 Thallium and/or thallium compounds 700 Zinc and/or zinc compounds 5,000 TTLC Pesticides and PCBs (microgram/kg, wet weight) Aldrin 1,400 Chlordane 2,500 Dieldrin 8,000 DDT, DDD, DDE 1,000 Alpha Endosulfan — Beta Endosulfan — Endrin 200 Endrin Aldehyde — Hepachlor 4,700 Alpha BHC — Beta BHC — Lindane (Gamma BHC) 4,000 Delta BHC — PCBs (Total)• 50,000 Toxaphene 5,000 ' No limits for individual PCB compounds (i.e., PCB 1254). Source: Adapted from California Administrative Code, Title 22, Article 11-Toxic Criteria. IRV006"11.54X 5.4-8 ' I I I I I H Appendix F). United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) action levels or tolerance levels and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended guidelines related to toxic substances in fish and shellfish were not exceeded (see data excerpts in Appendix F). The results of dredge spoil bioaccumulation tests conducted by NEC Analytical Systems, Inc. in 1990 are reported in Appendix F and summarized below. • Bioaccumulation Potential Significant bioaccumulation of chemical constituents was found for both the marine worm and clam at all three test sites. Actual tissue levels, however, were relatively low and the determination of significance was often based on small differences between the reference and test means. In worms, cadmium, copper, oil and grease, and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) accumulated at two of the three sites (Sites 1 and 3) over reference levels. Cadmium, oil and grease, and TRPH accumulated in organisms at Site 2. The range of bioaccumulation factors varied from 1.6 and 4.1 over the base levels at reference sites. In clams, chromium accumulated at Site 1; chromium, copper, mercury, selenium, and silver accumulated at Site 2; and chromium and DDE increased in tissues at Site 3. It should be noted that in the comparisons between the reference and test animals at Site 2 for mercury, selenium, silver, and at Site 3 for DDE, the values were calculated using the detection limits and should be interpreted cautiously. The variation in bioaccumulation factors ranged from 1.02 to 9.8 times the reference levels, and should be considered fairly low factors. In summary, the results of the combined chemical, physical, and biological tests conducted under the CAC Title 22 Hazardous Waste Guidelines and the ACOE and EPA Ocean Disposal Guidelines suggest the following: • Some enrichment of contaminants in the water column at the project site can be expected during the dredging phase of construction, particularly for mercury, beryllium, and silver. The level of contaminants in project area sediments are below the State of California CAC Title 22 TTLC limits for hazardous wastes. There is a relatively low potential for project area sediments to significantly degrade the LA-3 disposal site, based on ACOE- and EPA -approved testing procedures for the disposal of project area dredge spoils. 11 JBVW"WI1-5.4 5.4-9 H Nutrients ' The concentrations of nitrogen compounds (nitrate, ammonia, ammonium ion, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen) generally decline along a gradient between the San Diego Creek confluence and Lower Newport Bay, and vary with tide range, season, and depth. Observed nutrient levels at the Coast Highway Bridge are in the mid -range of reported values and do not currently indicate any substantial water quality degradation in the project area. I 5.4.2 PROJECT IMPACTS Short Term ImQ� Turbidity Dredging will be conducted in the main channel using hydraulic or clamshell dredging techniques similar to the methods employed during the restoration of the channels in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The major impact resulting from dredging will be a short-term increase in turbidity from the discharging of the suspended fine sediments with the liquified portion of the dredge material, Localized increases in turbidity can also occur as a result of vessel prop wash from tug boats and construction area washdowns. Increased turbidity will reduce the amount of available light at submarine depths and could potentially lead to short -tam adverse biological impacts (see Sections 5.5.2 and 5.6.2). The extent and orientation of the dredge plume will depend on the prevailing tidal cycle. With ebbing tides, the plume will dissipate into bower Newport Bay, while incoming flood tides will cause the turbidity plume to disperse into the Upper Bay. However, an increase in turbidity is likely be a localized effect and not significant. Water Quality Contamination Dredging will have short-term adverse chemical impacts on water quality. The level of impact would not be significant, but it could contribute to cumulatively significant water quality problems In the bay during the construction phase. Organically enriched sediments resuspended into the water column during dredging will cause a slight decrease to dissolved oxygen levels. Thu depression is expected to be a minor, short-term reduction, since moderate tidal current velocities and high tidal volumes will be able to dissipate the oxygen -demanding organics and replenish ambient oxygen levels. Sediment - bound particulates will be resuspended during dredging operations and could potentially affect water fi nMIODRWII.54 5.4-10 I quality by releasing detectable levels of trace metals, particularly beryllium, mercury, and silver, into the water column. These contaminants will be redistributed with the prevailing tidal current. rContaminant levels identified to date in project area sediments, water, elutriate tests, and test organisms are low to moderate background levels determined to be nontoxic to CAC Title 22 TTLC hazardous waste test organisms. Behind the existing bulkhead, material will be dewatered prior to excavation. As proposed, this water would be discharged to Upper Newport Bay. If the water does not meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards, it could contribute to cumulatively significant water quality problems in Newport Bay. Therefore, it will be required to meet (or be treated to meet) said standards, as defined in the NPDES permit to be issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. ' Dredged Material Disposal �. Soils excavated during the creation of the marina will be disposed of at the Coyote Canyon Landfill located 5.5 and/or at an EPA -designated offshore disposal site (LA-3) nautical miles (nm) southwest of Newport Beach and 16.3 nm from the jetties. If ocean disposal is employed, scows will be towed from the Castaways site, through Lower Newport Bay, and out of the harbor area to the LA-3 disposal site. As few as 20 or as many as 80 loads of material will be transferred to this approved dumpsite. 1 In anticipation of ocean dumping of dredge spoils at the EPA LA-3 dredge disposal site, the ACOE and EPA are evaluating the suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal. Based on ACOE- and EPA -approved dredge bioassay studies, the disposal of Castaways Marina main channel sediments at the LA-3 ocean disposal site has a low potential to significantly degrade the water quality and/or biological communities at the disposal site (see Section 5.4.1). Water discharged from hydraulic fill during dewatering of sediments will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Construction Debris The demolition of the existing bulkhead and general marina construction could generate floatable wood debris that would represent a safety hazard for watercraft in the inner harbor area. Accumulation of woody debris at the high tide line zone could reduce intertidal habitat utilization by aquatic resources (* and some birds. This would be considered a short-term adverse effect, but would not be significant. M00640011.5-4 5.4-11 I Accidental Spills or Leaks I Dock and pilings will be installed in the marina and the main channel during the construction phase r of the project. Pilings will be jetted into place or driven in using a barge -mounted diesel pile driver. While both of these methods will increase levels of water turbidity, jetting is likely to have greater water quality impacts due to the increased amount of sediment resuspension that accompanies this method. Both methods will increase the cumulative risk of small leakages of oil, PAHs, grease, PCBs, and other construction -related contaminants into the marine environment that could be harmful to marine life. Also, the operation of scows and tugs within the bay channel and Lower Bay may , increase the potential for boat collisions, accidental oil spills, and leakages of diesel fuel and lubricating oils. Spills or leaks of these materials could lead to potentially significant effects on local water quality and marine life. ('The biological effects of oil spills are discussed in Section 5.5.2.) u Maintenance Dredging Maintenance dredging programs are anticipated to occur periodically (approximately every 5 years) to remove the buildup of sediments across the mouth of the marina. The impacts from maintenance dredging programs will result in similar types of impacts as described for the construction of the marina, but on a lesser scale. The reduction in water quality will be temporary, and the required excavation activities will result in short-term biological impacts due to the removal of benthic organisms. These impacts are not considered significant (see Section 5.5.2). Also, because the maintenance dredging will occur using a vacuum device --it is not expected to create turbidity plumes that would significantly affect endangered bird species' foraging areas. Illegal Vessel Discharges The elimination of wastes from vessel holding tanks to the bay is prohibited; authorized pumpout stations must be used for waste elimination. An increase in the total number of boats in the Upper Bay has the potential to increase the incidences of illegal waste discharges and contribute to an increase in cumulatively high levels of bacterial contamination, nutrient loading, and turbidity that would affect both water quality and water contact recreational uses of the bay. Illegal discharges of waste can contribute to serious health hazards by releasing both pathogenic bacteria and viruses to the marine environment, and increasing turbidity and nutrient levels that could potentially lead to plankton ra1006"113 4 5.4-12 1 or bacterial blooms. In some instances, high concentrations of pathogens from illicit waste discharges have been associated with gastroenteritis and possibly other diseases (Cabelli, et al. 1983). Pathogens can also concentrate in the tissues of filter -feeding clams and mussels, and thereby increase the exposure of humans to pathogens through consumption of these shellfish. Therefore, illegal vessel discharges would constitute a significant local water quality impact. To mitigate this potential impact, the Castaways Marina will include a regularly maintained vessel sewage pumpout station centrally located at a dock specifically reserved and properly posted for this operation. Sewage collected at this point will then be pumped via pipeline to the County Sanitation District of Orange County's sewer system (m Dover Drive). The incidences of illegal vessel discharges are expected to be substantially reduced, assuming the pumpout facilities are maintained properly, marina tenants routinely use the facilities, and the facilities' capacity is not exceeded by the demand. At the proposed marina, the project applicant proposes to prohibit waste discharges into the bay. The applicant will include the prohibition of waste discharges as a condition of use of the marina in each lease agreement. Also, the marina will be supervised and maintained by the applicant on a daily basis to ensure proper use and care of the onsite sewage pumpout station, and maintenance personnel will be on call 24 hours a day in case of pumpout station breakdown. Beyond incurring possible legal action, violations of the marina's waste discharge conditions will be grounds for lease'termination by the applicant. Also, marina tenants' vessels shall be required to have holding tanks designed to retain all contents deposited into the tank until they can be discharged into a pumpout station. The lease would allow the applicant to periodically inspect such marina tenant holding tanks upon demand. If strictly adhered to, regulations relating to discharge of vessel wastes from holding tanks can reduce the potential increase in degradation of waters within Newport Bay. However, the project applicant cannot enforce such regulations away from the proposed marina. Therefore, away from the marina, the project's possible contribution to increased incidences of illegal waste discharges must be acknowledged, and such discharges would be considered to contribute to cumulatively significant water quality degradation in Newport Bay. 11 - Boat Maintenance Periodic vessel maintenance will increase the levels of antifouling, paint -related contaminants entering the estuarine environment, and local marinas and boat maintenance facilities throughout Newport Bay have been identified as major sinks for these toxicants. These materials will enter the waters through Jsuoosaootlsa 5.4-13 I the leaching of components of antifouling paints applied to boat bottoms, and periodic hull scraping 1' to remove accumulated dirt and fouling organisms. The project -related impact on water quality could be locally significant, and could contribute a small increment to cumulatively significant water quality degradation in the Bay. This would be mitigable by strict enforcement of the use of EPA -approved antifouling paints and by performing boat maintenance in accordance with local regulations. As proposed, the applicant will prohibit painting or paint scraping within the new marina, and will supervise the marina on a daily basis to enforce this regulation. Hull cleaning activities will result In the removal of accumulated marine fouling organisms. If these bdowastes are allowed to be dumped back into the bay waters, the damaged animals can increase the organic content of the sediments and could lead to anoxic bottom conditions. Again, theperformance of boat maintenance in accordance with local regulations will reduce this potential impact. The marina will be supervised on a daily basis and strict enforcement of boat maintenance regulations will be by the No boat required applicant. major maintenance activities (i.e., boat painting, paint scraping, engine overhauls) will be allowed at the marina. Surface Runoff Currently, storm nmoff from Lower Castaways enters the bay through an existing drainage system that once served the trailer park which previously occupied the site. Runoff from the marina parking lot and adjacent landscaped areas into the marina basin would result in the discharge of contaminants such as oil, grease, fertilizers, pesticide, and trace metals. Site runoff would add a small increment _ to the cumulatively significant water quality problems associated with stormwater discharges. The quality of said runoff is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater discharges that has been issued to Orange County and its municipal co- permittees, including Newport Beach, The marina may also need a separate NPDES permit as a regulated industrial activity from the Santa Ana RWQCB. Regular maintenance programs for parking �• lot cleaning and sweeping would reduce the buildup of the contaminants and trash on the parking lot surface. Such non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) will help improve runoff quality leaving the site, as will improved housekeeping practices for petroleum products, to be discussed in the spills section to follow. I I Hazardous Waste Spills into the Marine Environment The spillage of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, gasoline, and lubricating oils from vessels, as well as paint thinner and other organic solvents from maintenance activities, or the improper disposal of these materials could cause a potentially significant, long-term water quality impact in the marina and areas downcurrent. The proposed project does not provide fueling facilities, neither will it allow boat painting nor major engine maintenance activities to occur on the premises. Therefore, the hazardous materials associated with these activities will not be brought into the new marina, and potential impacts of hazardous materials spills in Upper Newport Bay are reduced. However, it is acknowledged that the additional boats introduced by the project could increase the incidence of oil and fuel spills occurring elsewhere in the harbor, and any such incidences would contribute to cumulatively significant water quality degradation in Newport Bay. 1 5.4.3 CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS Please see City Policies/Requirements 5.2-C and 5.2-D in Section 5.2.3. In addition, the following policies/requirements are applicable. 5.4-A. No vessel discharges are allowed within Newport Bay. 5.4-B. A landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted for approval by the directors of Planning and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, which includes a maintenance program that controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 5.4-C. Landscaped areas shall be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 5.4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 5.4-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall be provided with evidence that all appropriate permits or clearances have been obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,, U.S. Coast Guard, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. 5.4-2. Treatment of extracted water shall be conducted in a manner and at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach. City Engineer and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. is2/oo640011.5.4 5.4-15 1 5.4-3. Suspended soils (e.g., sand) shall be separated from extracted water in accordance with applicable water quality standards and disposed of at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works Department and the Grading Engineer. 5.4-4. Provision shall be made, as necessary, for treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. 5.4-5. Prior to demolition of existing bulkhead structure, a complete plan for litter and debris control for the demolition, grading, and construction phases to ensure debris is not permitted to enter Newport Bay shall be approved by the Directors of the Planning and Marine departments. , 5.4-6. Water extracted from dewatering wells and drained from bay materials shall meet current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements prior to dbcbarging into the bay. If accessary, the water shall be desilted prior to discharge. . 5.4-7. The dredging contractor shall conduct dredging activities in accordance with the approved dredging permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 5.4-8. For the life of the project, the project applicant shall provide each marina r tenant with a copy of all applicable regulations regarding vessel discharges of wastes, antifouling paint use, and refuse management (including handling of hazardous wastes) as a part of lease materials. 5.4-9. For the life of the project, the project applicant shall provide each marina tenant with information regarding procedures for notifying appropriate authorities regarding spills of hazardous materials, containment measures, and applicable penalties for violations as a part of lease materials. _ 5.4-10. The applicant shall provide for periodic maintenance of the sanitary pumpout station to ensure its continuous operation. 5.4-11. The applicant shall provide regular cleaning of the marina docks and vacuum sweeping of the parking lot. 5.4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative impact study area for the Newport Bay is its entire watershed. As described in Section 5.4.1, water pollutants are contributed by urban and agricultural runoff throughout the from watershed, as well as marina -related discharges or accidents. The proposed Castaways Marina, in association with existing boating activity in Newport Bay, would add incrementally to the degradation of existing water quality from cumulative sources. The proposed project could potentially contribute an increment of approximately 1 percent of the pollutants associated with recreational marina activities, based on the total number of boats in Newport Bay t 10,000. Due to strict nrrrao "11.5-t 5.4-16 I enforcement of regulations at the Castaways Marina, to be implemented by the applicant, the actual level of risk could be less. However, due to the sensitivity of the environment in Newport Bay, and ' its existing water quality problems, the cumulative water quality problems would be considered significant. 5.4.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS For the most part, potential adverse water quality impacts on Newport Bay are avoidable by the projectifregulations regarding vessel discharges, paintuse, boat maintenance, and hazardous materials and refuse management are complied with by the marina tenants and enforced by the applicant. Because of the small potential for boating accidents and accidental spills or leaks, it can be expected that the project will contribute a small increment of contaminants to Newport Bay and, therefore, would contribute to an unavoidable adverse water quality impact. City policies and mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 will reduce the level of potential project -related water quality impacts, although cumulative water quality impacts would be considered potentially significant. 1 I I I I I. I I nWOD640011.5.4 5.4-17 1 1 5.5 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I5.5.1 EXLSTING CONDITIONS The proposed Castaways Marina site is situated between the urbanized harbor environment of Lower Newport Bay and the unique wetland environment of Upper Newport Bay. Asa result, ithas physical and biological characteristics that are common to both environments. Marsh reclamation, dredging, and bulkheading, as well as marina constructionhave altered the natural marine communities of Lower Newport Bay and at least the lower one-third of the Upper Newport Bay. The majority of the habitat in the Upper Bay consists of tidal channels, mudflats, and saltmarsh habitat. The combination of these different types of marine environments results in greater species diversity. Several distinctive types of marine biological habitats occur in Newport Bay: (1) open water, (2) subtidal softbottom benthos (depths below -1.5 feet [ft] relative to the Mean Lower Low Water [b1LLW] level), (3) subtidal riprap (depths below -1.5 ft MLLW), (4) intertidal mudflat (depths between -1.5 and +3.5 ft MLLW), (5) rocky intertidal (depths between -1.5 and +7 ft MLLW), and (6) remnant salt marsh (+3.5 to +7 ft MLLW). Saitmarsh habitats are discussed in Section 5.6, Terrestrial Biological Resources. The marine biological resource communities that inhabit Newport Bay and the project area are described below. Exhibit 5.5-1 illustrates the marine habitats within the proposed Castaways Marina site. N�vi7lort icy Fish Communities At least 78 species of fishes have been identified from Upper Newport Bay (Hardy 1970; Allen 1976; NBC and SCCWRP 1980; Horn and Allen 1981; California Department of Fish and Game [unpublished data]; Allen 1988). The bay is a known spawning ground for at least 10 species and a nursery area for juveniles of 33 species (White 1977). Newport Bay supports resident and seasonally transient groups of sharks, skates, rays, and bony fishes. The majority of the species are marine and/or estuarine associates, although at least six freshwater species occur in the Upper Bay following periods of winter stormwater runoff into the bay. Fishes occupy severaf different types of habitats in the bay: (1) marsh channels and pools (panes), (2) mudflats or in the water column over inundated mudflats at high tide, (3) shallow subtidal channel mvooeaaotts-s 5.5-1 I slopes, (4) deeper tidal channels, and (5) marinas. While some species occur primarily within a single habitat, the majority interact with other habitat types as a result of feeding activities, seasonal movement, or changes in preferred1abitat that accompanies an increase in growth. California killifish (Funduiug payipRW. and longjawed mudsuckers (flligg @ p>jrabiiare characteristic of the shallow tidal channels of marsh islands. Forage fishes, such as topsmelt (AthermoRs AMUM, striped mullet MaU ,=bW deepbody anchovy (fig conresgg), and slough anchovy (Ancho delleWsshna), characterize the water columns of both the shallower parts of the main channel and shallow subtidal area along the shoreline. Various species of bottom -dwelling gobies occur along the shoreline and shallow subtidal muddy bottoms. Deeper parts of the main channel, as well as the larger side channels are inhabited mostly by residents and seasonal migrants, such as shiner surfperch (Cvmatoraster ggggg, black surfperch (F biotppg jam, diamond turbot aft= gugy&W, juvenile halibut (Paralichdo califbrnicu , spotted sand bass maculatofasciatus), barred sand bass (E. nebul yellowfncroaker (Umb roncador), _ and round string ray (Ural ilyg ice. Marina and harbor habitats, found both in Lower and Upper Newport Bay, may exhibit a greater diversity of fishes than channel and mudflat habitats characterized by soft bottoms and shallow water because of additional hard substrate (provided by rock jetties, docks, pilings, and bulkheads) and deeper channels. Hard substrates offer structural cover, protection, or new sources of food for fishes such as pileperch (Damalichthvs yW, pipefish (SygnadW spp•), kelpfish sp.), opaleye (Girella , balfmoon (Mialun califo� ram), sargo (Anisotremus dayjdso , and kelp bass (P. dathr These species, in association with open water column species, such as queenfish (SeriWWs Pol ug), topsmelt, anchovy, and white croaker (GeWnemus jipg�, and bottom fishes, such as halibut, diamond turbot, and various blennies and gobies, are often found in Lower Newport Bay. Fish abundance, species diversity and richness, and total biomass vary seasonally as a result of changes In salinity, temperature, and productivity (Allen 1976; NBC and SCCWRP 1980, Horn and Allen 1981; Allen 1988; California Department of Fish and Game [unpublished data]). The lowest abundances occur In late fall and winter when the species present are mostly residents. Greater diversity and use of the bay occurs during the spring and summer when transient and migratory fishes join the resident species. During this period, adults move into the Upper Bay to spawn, juveniles undergo rapid growth, and larger fishes move into the bay to exploit the bay's increased forage raxroowwmms-s 5.5 2 Legend Marine Biology Study Area ®Intertidal Mudilat ( ' %' + I • (-1.5 to +3.5 It MLLW) BIntertidal Bulkhead n (+2.0 to +7.0 ft MLLW) '� �� - ;/ �" - .� •'•' `% Subticial Soft BottonVOpen Water \ = '� (-1.5 to -9.9 ft MLLW) ( yln . ,\•X,i ®Sublidal Soft Bottom/Open Water (-10 ft MLLW and deeper) / _ • � ` —/� . ' - ' i Subtidal Rock Riprap� (-5.0 to -8.0 It MLLW) Note: MLLW.Mean Lower Low Water level N Z/ �_ a ,•'- fV.,,,� Castaways r v/ l � \\ •. li,; ,�„ �'- ="i' .la's:; 'i..r _{x�., �) 1 Lower., ' -- Castaways coast Highway Nifz Existing Marine Habitats Nord, o tso 400 r-2 oboou- 2l90 C6tmqvd Marimi Exhibit 5.5.1 L iproductivity (White 1977). Fish community structure also is highly variable from year to year, and although the types of species that can be found are generally predictable, their abundances are not. At least 39 species of fish are known to occur between the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge and Shellmaker Island or pass through the channel in the Castaways project area (see Table A in Appendix G). Between 14 and 28 species were sampled during previous fisheries studies in the main channel in the vicinity of the project site. Although the most abundant species in the Upper Bay are lower trophic level species (i.e., topsmelt, anchovies, croaker, and mullet), the types of fishes in the project area that dominate the abundance and the biomass are higher trophic level channel species, such as shiner surfperch, black surfperch, round stingrays, diamond turbot, and California halibut (Horn and Allen 1981; Allen 1988). These species are associated with both channel and shallow subtidal habitats along the shoreline. Gobiids, although difficult to sample and quantify, are also ' common to the area and include the longlawed mudsucker, checkspot goby nus zUberti , arrow goby (Cievelandia io , shadow goby, ietula -cauda , and bay goby (Leoidogobius le idus . These are likely present in the shallow subtidal and mudflat habitats. Seven species were identified by biologists during a diving reconnaissance survey of the project area on May 23, 1989, despite poor underwater visibility that ranged from less than 1 foot to nearly 4 feet. Juvenile halibut, diamond turbot, barred sand bass, spotted sand bass, and deepbody anchovy were the most frequently observed species. Juvenile and adult opaleye, and juvenile kelp bass were observed around the subtidal rock riprap at depths of about -10 ft (MI.LW) near the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. Softbottom Benthic Community Benthic (bottom -dwelling) plants, invertebrates, and fishes live in association with soft sediments of intertidal mudflats and channel bottoms. Aquatic primary producers such as blue-green algae, diatoms, and macro -algae (Ulva sp. and Enteromoroha sp.) account for a considerable amount of the primary production in Southern California wetlands (Zedler 1982). Although not currently found in the Upper Bay, eeigrass ostera marina , a flowering marine plant that grows in sedimentary habitats, ' lives in shallow subtidal softbottom habitats at scattered locations in the Lower Bay. Benthic invertebrates live either on the surface of the sediment (epifaunal organisms) or build tubes or'burrow ' within the sediments (mfaunal organisms). Demersal feeding fishes, resident softbonom-dwelling fishes such as gobies, and shorebirds are dependent on these soft bottom -dwelling organisms as food resources (Quammen 1980). J=W64W11*5-5 5.5-3 LJ The distribution and abundance of benthic invertebrates is a function of their tolerance and adaptability , to extreme variation in major physical factors (temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and depth), sediment type, and biological interactions such as competition and predation. Shallow water habitats, such as Upper Newport Bay, are generally stressful to marine invertebrates because of the continual ~ variability in salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen levels. Sediment quality, as governed by past and current dredging disturbances, and an accumulation of toxic organics, trace metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and petroleum hydrocarbons, have affected the type, distribution, and shundances of benthic organisms in Newport Bay (California Department of Fish and Game 1953; Daugherty 1978; MBC and SCCWRP 1980; Seapy 1981). Over 300 species of benthic invertebrates have been Identified from Newport Bay mudflats and subtidal channel sediments (Barnard and Reish 1959; Daugherty 1978; MC and SCCWRP 1980; Seapy 1981; Ware 1985). At least 117 of these organisms were previously reported to live between the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge and San Diego Creek (CDFG unpublished manuscript). The dominant benthic invertebrate types inNewportBay are annelid worms (polychaetes and oligochaetes), arthropods (gammarid and caprellid amphipods, Isopods, ostracods, mid cumaceans), and mollusks (gastropods and pelecypods). Most forms are not endemic to the region, or necessarily reflect polluted bottom Rather, distributed highly conditions. they are widely and adaptable (they survive well under stressed conditions that occur naturally in many California coastal bays and estuaries). As one progresses inland from the Pacific Ocean, the number of benthic infaunal species decreases between the entrance to Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay (MBC and SCCWRP1980;. Daugherty 1978). These community changes occur because of increasing environmental stresses due to extremes in salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen, as well as decreasing grain sizes within r the sediments that they inhabit. Recruitment and subsequent high densities and numbers of species occur between summer and early fall (Daugherty 1978; NBC and SCCWRP 1980; Seapy 1981). Lower densities and numbers of species occur during the winter and spring as a result of a reduction in salinity induced by greater freshwater inflows and intense shorebird feeding activity (Quammen 1980; Seapy 1981; NBC and SCCWRP 1980). Species composition also changes on a seasonal basis; brackish and aquatic species (insect larvae, freshwater oligochaetes, freshwater clams, and freshwater ostracods) are often found in Upper Newport Bay during the winter and early spring because of lowered salinity in the estuarine waters and sediments. However, localized assemblages dominated by freshwater be found in freshwater species can also sediments near perennial drainages into the bay throughout the year. WOowao11.5-5 5.5-4 r interannuai variability in the benthic community is also high because of fluctuating freshwater influence, local sediment deposition, scour, and resulting changes in sediment characteristics that govern the distribution and types of benthic organisms. As a result of increased tidal influence associated with the CDFTs Upper Newport Bay dredging activities, the amount of benthic seasonal and interannual variability attributable to fluctuating water salinities is likely to decrease. Such changes in salinity and other water qualityparameters are monitored during periodic County of Orange water quality sampling programs, as described in Section 5.4. Castaways Beathic Biological Study A benthic infaunal assessment was conducted at the Castaways Marina project site.on May 23, 1989, to characterize the types and abundances of benthic animals that may be affected by marina construction and operation. Scuba -equipped biologists collected fifteen 0.01-square-meter (m� core samples. Five replicate samples were collected at each of three stations in the proposed dredge area. Field sampling methods, laboratory procedures, and resulting infaunal and sedimentologicai data by replicate samples and station are provided in Appendix G. As shown in Table 5.5-1, a total of 3,477 benthic invertebrates of 110 distinct taxa were identified in fifteen 0.01 m2 samples. Station densities varied from 15,540 animals/mz (Station B3) to 28,220 1 animals/e (Station Bl). The mean density in the Castaways dredge area (23,180 animals/m) is higher than reported during other spring surveys in the bay, and comparable to densities reported in summer surveys (Daugherty 1978; NBC and SCCWRP 1980; Seapy 1981; Ware 1985). ' TABLE 5.5-1 BENTE11C COMMUNITY COMPOSITION CASTAWAYS MARINA SITE r Percent Number Percent r Species Count Total of Species Total Annelida 2,673 76.88 55 50.00 Arthropoda 607 17.46 28 25.45 Cnidaria 66 1.90 3 2.72 Echinodermata 3 0.09 1 0.91 Mollusca 81 2.33 16 14.55 Nemertea 44 1.25 5 4.55 ' Phoronida 2 0.06 1 0.91 Sipunculida 1 0_03 1 0.91 iTotal 3,477 100.02 110 100.01 ra2/00e40011s5 5.5-5 I Coarse sediments at Station B1 (mean grain size-0.117 mm, fine sand) mixed with shell debris and a minor amount of silt and clays near the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge supported the highest abundances (see Appendix G). Slightly finer sediments mixed with a minor fraction of shell debris M upcbaanel at Station B3 (mean grain size-0.058 mm, very fine sand) contained nearly 50 percent fewer organisms. Station Bi sediments supported the most species (77), whereas 60 species were collected at Station B3 and 50 species were collected at Station B2. Station B2 sediments were also the forest (mean grain size-0.015 mm, medium silt). Species diversity (H') ranged from a high of 2.59 (Station B3) to a low of 1.76 (Station B2). Annelid worms accounted for most of the abundance (2,673; 76.9 percent of the total) and most of the total species found (55; 50 percent of the total). Crustaceans (mostly gatnmaridean and caprellid amphipods) contributed 607 individuals (15.5 percent) and 28 species (25.5 percent). Other phyla represented in the benthic community included mollusks (snails and bivalves), caidarians (anemones), ' echinoderms (holothurians and brittlestars), and nemecteant (flatworms). The relative contribution by each group mirrors the patterns of relative species composition observed in previous benthic studies in both Lower and Upper Newport Bay. As shown in Table 5.5 2, five distinct invertebrate taxa accounted for 75 percent of the total abundance; a single polychaete species (PseudoygMora oaucibranchiata) contributed 53 percent of the total benthos abundance. Pseudogolvd, ora and four other taxa (the caprellid Merella Wig, unidentified oligochaete worms, the polychaete Mediomastus spp., and the ostracod Euphilomedes carcharodonta) were distributed widely throughout the study area. PseudogWydora paucibranchialL Mayerella bm9 ia, and Mediomastus spp. were numerically dominant at all three stations; oligochaetes were dominant at Stations Bl and B3 and Euphilomeles carcharodonta was a dominant species at Station B2. Other species that contributed significantly to station abundances included the sabeilid polychaete (Bucho linmicgl at Station (B2) and an unidentified anenome (Anthozoa at Station B3). The species composition within the proposed dredge area is characterized by invertebrates that are commonly found in shallow subtidad and mudflat benthic communities in Upper Newport Bay as well as the bottom sediments of dower Newport Bay (CDFG 1953; Dawson 1963; Barnard and Reish 1959; Hardy 1970; Daugherty 1978; MBC and SCCWRP 1980; Ware 1985). This overlapping spatial distribution exists because the Castaways site was in a transition zone between the marine environments of the urbanized Lower Bay and the wetlands and estuarine tidal channels of Upper r Newport Bay. Each environment supports slightly different forms of benthic invertebrates due to 122oMwo11s•5 5.5-6 M M M M a M r M OEM M M r M r an TABLE 5.5 2 DOMINANT INFAUNAL SPECIES, CASTAWAYS MARINA SITE Station No. Per Percent Percent Species Common Name B1 B2 B3 Total Sq. M. Total Cum. Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata polychaete worm 814 754 285 1,853 12,353.3 53.3 53.31 Mayerella banksia caprellid amphipod 59 148 90 297 1,980.0 8.5 61.85 Oligochaeta, unid. oligochaete worm 146 it 65 222 1,480.0 6.4 68.24 Medionastus spp. polychaete worm 28 43 56 127 846.7 3.7 71.89 Euphilomedes carcbardonata ostracod 28 78 20 126 840.0 3.6 75.52 Euchone limnicola polychaete worm 1 79 5 85 566.7 2.4 77.96 Anthozoa, unid. unid. anemone 11 0 48 59 393.3 1.7 79.66 Armandia bioculata polychaete worm 30 1 13 44 293.3 1.3 80.93 Streblospio benedicti polychaete worm 21 20 2 43 286.7 1.2 82.16 Paranemertes sp. A of SCAMIT nemertean 22 6 6 34 226.7 1.0 83.14 Parasterope barnesi gammarid amphipod 4 6 21 31 206.7 0.9 84.03 Sphaerosyllis californiensis polychaete worm 11 0 19 30 200.0 0.9 84.90 Oxyurostylis Pacifica cumacean 7 IS 8 30 200.0 0.9 85.76 Leitoscolopos pugettensis polychaete worm 1 20 8 29 193.3 0.8 86.59 Rudilemboides stenopropodus gammarid amphipod 26 0 1 27 180.0 0.8 87.37 Cumella sp. A of MBC cumacean 24 2 0 26 173.3 0.7 88.12 Solen rosaceus jacknife clam 3 14 8 25 166.7 0.7 88.84 Musculista senhousia ribbed mussel 0 0 20 20 133.3 0.6 89.41 Notomastus sp. polychaete worm 15 1 3 19 126.7 0.5 89.96 Microdeutopus schmitti gammarid amphipod 12 6 1 19 126.7 0.5 90.51 Total 1,263 1,204 679 3,146 20,973.4 .90.4 90.51 Source: Michael Brandman Associates 1989. r82%0064W11.5x 5.5-7 I variable current velocities and depths that promote a wide range of sediment types and different , chemical environments. The project area softhottom habitat supports more species than similar areas farther into the Upper - Bay, where decreasing depth and increasing environmental stress limit the diversity of die infauna ' (Daugherty 1978; NBC and SCCWRP 1980; Seapy 1981; Ware 1985). In comparison to observed Lower Newport Bay species richness, the number of species present at the Castaways site is higher than the total reported by NBC and SCCWRP (1980) in the sediments near Harbor Island Reach (midway between Lido and Balboa Islands), as well as at the entrance channel to the bay for spring or summer surveys. A total of 37 additional taxa that are common inhabitants of Lower Newport Bay or nearshore marine sediments were also found at the Castaways site, but had not been previously documenW from the Upper Bay (MFG unpublished manuscript). Softlwttom F.uibiota 1 The algal component living on the surface of mudflats or channel bottoms in Upper Newport Bay �• includes at least three species of macroalgae (Enteromorob& jjjyfi, and Grac7azial and colonial diatoms and blue/green algae that form a surface mat over the sediments. The most abundant surface - dwelling invertebrates are horn snails (Ceritbidea calif4, yellow shore crabs (Hemigrapsus sp.), and lined shore crabs in rocky areas (PlabyUansus grassig ). Horse mussels (6cuke jg Agi im) attach to the roots of cordgrass and other solid subsrates, while isopods burrow into marsh banks. Fiddler crabs Wa creaul live in burrows and coexist with both HemigmQsus and Pubygrpsus. Subtidal burrowing anemones ( trianthus fimbri sea slugs (Chelidonera inerml , hydroids (CoZ=mba 2&W, and Gould's bubble snail GhQ gpydtjjBpa) are the most commonly encountered epiblots. Six epibiotic species were observed during surveys of the project area mudflats (Table 5,5-3). Horn snails, lined shdrecrabs, and yellow shorecrabs were the most common mudflat-occurring species. Although evidence of fiddler crab burrows were common, no individual crabs were seen. A light cover of filamentous green algae (F.nteromorobal was occasionally present. In the subtidal zone, amphipod tubes, sea slugs, hydroids, Gould's bubble snail, and clam siphons were the only epifauna observed (Table 5.5-3). I7 I; MV06"11.5.5 5.5-8 P I I I I I U I I I r I I i I 11 Species TABLE 5.5-3 MARINE ORGANISMS OBSERVED DURING CASTAWAYS MARINA SITE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY' Common Name SU MAL MACROFAUNA Corymorpha Palma hydroid Anthozoa, unid. anemone Zaolutis actius anemone Bulla gouldiana Could's bubble snail Chelidonura inermis sea slug Tresus nuttalli pelecypod NMFLAT EFMIOTA Enterom=h sp green algae Callianassa sp ghost shrimp Hemigraosus yellow shore crab oor gonensis Pach-tgrapsus stripped shore crab crassioes Uca crenulata fiddler crab Cerithidea horn snail califbmica Species Common Name ROCKY INTERTIDAL SPECIES Porifera, unid sponge Serpulidae, unid annelid worm Chthamalus fissus barnacle Balanus ig andula barnacle Pachygrapsus striped crassioes shore crab Mopalia sp. chiton llisela limatula limpet r idula onyx slipper limpet M ' us edulis bay mussel a Date of Survey: May 23, 1989. Source: Michael Brandman Associates 1989. Abundance present present present common present uncommon present in patches present; two dead individuals abundant on mudflat; under rocks present under rocks many burrows seen abundant Abundance Zone present low intertidal present mid intertidal abundant high intertidal abundant high -mid intertidal common mid -low intertidal present mid intertidal common mid intertidal present mid intertidal abundant mid -low intertidal m7Jo0e40011.5x 5.5-9 I Hard surfaces, such as pilings, docks, floats, riprap, cement bulkheads, and vessel bottoms in marinas r and boat harbors, provide attachment for intertidal and subtidal algae and sessile marine invertebrates, and offer protective cover and foraging habitat for motile marine invertebrates and fishes. Collectively, the various invertebrates and algae that make up this community in bays and harbors are referred to as the fouling community because of their ability to form thick, encrusting layers of marine growth. Typical algae that occur in marinas include Enteromomba sp., Mn sp., COIRgmenia alIlw a, and crustose or leaf varieties of red algae. Typical invertebrates include bay mussels (idyfdyg gd", which grow in thick masses within the low and mid -tide zones, encrusting sponges, sea squirts iC = W0911Wk and SW-cla spp.), slipper limpets (Uidul , barnacles (Balanyg spp. and Qtthamalus &gyg), lined shorecrabs (Pac gtapsus per, limpets Q111sej]aaaa, Q digitalis, and .Q limatula), polychaete worms (annelids), and moss animals (ectopmcts). At the project area, hard substrate is currently limited to the west -channel cement bulkhead near the Coast Highway Bridge and scattered, abandoned r1prap located by biologists during underwater surveys in front of the bulkhead. The types of invertebrates encountered are typical of the marine life that lives on bulkheads, floats, and docks in Lower Newport Bay and'rock substrate in the Upper Bay (MacGinitie and MacGinitle 1968; Hardy 1970), but the minor amount of hard substrate limits a higher diversity of these organisms. Nine rocky intertidal species were identified on the intertidal bulkhead, most common to high and mid intertidal zones, but no attached algae were present (see Table 5.5 3). The dominanttaxa included barnacles ((hthamalus fissus and Bajagya g andula), limpets , (Collisella limatula), and bay mussels MyWus edutisl. The observed species commonly occur in other coastal Orange County and Los Angeles County marinas (Reish 1972). 1 Rock riprap scattered along the muddy shoreline is generally uncolonized, although both lined shore crabs and yellow shore crabs seek refuge beneath these rocks. Subtidal riprap in front of the existing bulkhead is colonized by fouling organisms such as sponges, ectoprocts, and mussels. Marine Marnmab There are no resident marine mammals in Newport Bay. The types of marine mammals that may occasionally be sighted are limited to a few California sea lions (Zalogh californiia_nthat occasionally congregate near Lower Bay sportfishing facilities and the harbor entrance, but are isvaoa+oolts-s 5.5-10 ' sometimes sighted north of the Coast Highway Bridge, and rare occurrences of gray whales (Eschricthius robustus that wander into the Newport Bay entrance channel. Sensitive Habitats Mudtlats ' Mudflats are sensitive habitats and ecologically significant because (1) a large part of the primary productivity of Southern California coastal wetlands is related to algal productivity on the inundated mudflats and (2) the invertebrates that live in the mudflats support resident and wintering over populations of shorebirds (CDFG unpublishedmanuscript; Quammen 1980). Approximately 1.6 acres of mudflats occur in the project area between the lower depth limit of the mudflats (-1.5 ft MLLW) and the beginning of the coastal bluffs or seawalls (see Exhibit 5.5-1). Extensive mudflats are also Comparatively, 250 located on the east side of the main channel on the Bayside Marsh Peninsula. over acres of mudflats occur in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. ' Subtidal Shallow subtidal environments of coastal embayments, including Newport Bay are important nursery 1 areas for the California halibut, a commercially important species. Juvenile halibut prefer cool, marine salinity waters at depths ranging from less than 3.21 feet to about 15 feet below MLLW and ' use coastal bays and estuaries for about 9 months prior to moving to offshore waters. Nearshore Southern California coastal waters are also halibut nursery areas but their relative importance may not be as great as protected inshore habitats (Kramer and Hunter unpublished manuscript). Halibut distribution in Upper Newport Bay is concentrated between Lower Newport Bay and the Narrows 1 within Upper Newport Bay (Alien 1976; Horn and Allen 1981; NBC and SCCWRP 1980), and the Castaways project site is a documented halibut nursery area (Allen 1981). Eelgrass Beds ' Eelgrass ostera marina is a flowering, marine plant that forms meadows on soft sediments of mudflats and subtidal channels in non -turbid bays and estuaries. Eelgrass beds are important nursery habitat for marine fishes, and support a diverse community of marine invertebrates. Eelgrass disappeared from the Upper Bay between the late 1960s and the mid 1970s. Although it was never ' conclusively determined why eelgrass beds disappeared from Upper Newport Bay, increased siltation ' MOD640011.5.5 5.5-11 L] and higher turbidity, dredging, and the effects of destructive floods probably accounted for its local ' demise (Stevenson and Emery 1958; Posjepai 1969; Allen 1976). Eelgrass beds were once located adjacent to the Bayside marsh shoreline across the channel from the proposed Castaways Marina (Barnard and Reish 1959; Posjepal 1969; Allen 1976). As late as 1994, ' eelgrass beds there had not recovered naturally (Ware 1985) and attempts to restore eelgrass to the Bayside Peninsula by artificial transplantation, methods were unsuccessful In 1985. There are no records of eelgrass occurring along the west bank of the main channel in the proposed marina mouth to be dredged. Eelgrass was not located by biologists during a subtidal reconnaissance dive at the project site on May 3, 1989, and eelgrass litter was not observed along the high -tide line among the flotsam and jetsam. Bayside Peninsula The BaysidePeninsula, located across the main channel from the Castaways project area, is designated as recreational and environmental open space in the City of Newport Beach's Local Coastal Program. t The habitats that are present on the peninsula include mudflat, salt marsh, coastal scrub dune, open sand, disturbed grassland, and transitional. The marine biologieal and terrestrial habitats and diverse resources of this area were described in detail by Ware (1985) and Marsh (1985). Federally endangered Belding 's savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwicbensis balding were observed in pickloweed habitat on the peninsula during the summer of 1984 (Marsh 1985). Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve ' The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve was established in 1975 by the State of California Fish and Game Commission and is one of 32 ecological reserves in the state. It includes over 750 acres of marine subtidal habitat, mudflats, salt marsh, riparian habitat, freshwater marsh, salt barrens, and , maritime uplands. The reserve extends from the northern end of Shellmaker Island north, and then Jamboree Road Bridge. The is for State California by CDFG. east to the reserve managed the of the In 1985, the CDFG established a management plan designed to preserve and protect the system as a saltwater marsh ecosystem. To date, several projects have been completed to enhance the saltwater marsh character of the Upper Bay. Watershed sediment -reduction projects and Upper Newport Bay habitat restoration programs, conducted by the City of Newport Beach under the direction of the , CDFG and the County of change, have resulted in reduced sediment input, deeper Upper Newport Bay channels, the creation of marsh island refuges, and restored tidal flushing to the uppermost MOD640011.5s 5.5-12 L r ' portions of the Bay. These programs are designed to enhance the use of the Upper Bay's mudfiats, subtidal channels, and open water areas for wildlife, fishes, and aquatic -oriented birds. 5.5.2 PROJECT IMPACTS Exhibit 5.5-2 identifies the proposed project's area of potential impactlalteration of marine habitats, ' and Exhibit 5.5-3 illustrates the post -construction condition of these habitats. This section addresses the short- and long-term impacts of the proposed activities on the site's marine biological resources. Short -Term Impacts Turbidity ' Construction activities such as pile driving, vessel propeller turbulence, dredging, and construction ' area washdown will cause increases in water turbidity that can temporarily decrease submarine light levels and may cause a short-term impact on aquatic life in the channel. These impacts could include reducing the foraging ability of visual -foraging fishes (surfperch, shiner perch, and halibut) and birds. Suspended sediments may clog the gill rakers of planktivorous fishes (topsmelt, anchovy, juvenile surfperch, and juvenile scienids). Adult fishes and birds would respond by moving out of the ' dredging area until water conditions are again favorable after dredging operations are completed. The physical presence of construction and dredging equipment, a scow and tug, associated work noise, and human activity could also.result in some movement of fish and birds away from the site to other areas of the bay. Dredging would not result in a significant effect because it is short-term and localized. The effects of dredging activities on the endangered California least tern and California brown pelican are addressed in Section 5.6.2. ' Contaminant Resuspension ' Organic -rich bottom sediments may be resuspended in the water column during dredging and thereby cause a temporary reduction in ambient dissolved oxygen levels. Sediment -absorbed pollutants will also be resuspended into the water column where they become bioavailable to filter -feeding invertebrates and fish. Based on the levels of toxicants identified in elutriste toxicity tests (see Appendix F), the concentrations of contaminants (oil and grease, trace metals, PCBs, and pesticides) that would be released are substantially below values required under the State of California Total Threshold Limit Concentration for Hazardous Wastes. Environmental effects on the marine biota nna00640011.5-5 5.5-13 related to the temporary resuspension of contaminants are considered short-term impacts that are not significant due to the rapid return to pre -construction conditions as this material is redeposited. The biological effects of dredge material disposal at the LA-3 EPA disposal site have been evaluated in ACOE- and EPA -approval bioassays (see Appendix F). The results of these bioassays are summarized In Section 5.4.1. They concluded that there is relatively low potential for project area sediments to significantly degrade organisms at the LA-3 ocean disposal site based on ACOE- and EPA -approved testing procedures. Effects on Benthic Organisers Dredging required in the main channel for boat maneuvering and new boat slips will remove all infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates that cannot escape from the active excavation area. Expected losses can be inferred from the results of the Castaways site specific benthic study and mudflattsubtidal benthic studies conducted on the main channel side of the Bayside Marsh Peninsula (Ware 1985). Based on these studies, dredging would remove 110 species of benthic invertebrates (at depths up to - 1.5 feet MLLW) and approximately 60 species at mudflat depths (1.5 feet to +3.5 feet MLLW). Nine rocky intertidal invertebrate taxa living on the existing bulkhead will also be removed. Short-term reductions in benthic biomass (excluding mollusks) would be approximately 38.7 grate (54 kilograms for the dredging area), based on benthic infaunal biomass data in the Bayside Peninsula mudflattshallow subddal area (Ware 1985). Although not quantified during the Castaways study, mudflat clam bed losses could possibly affect six species and reduce existing clam bed densities. The loss of benthic infanna and epifauna due to dredging as described above will not be a significant impact since benthic organisms will repopulate the sediments relatively soon after dredging is completed. Within 1 to 3 years, the benthic community is expected to recover to predredging levels of species diversity and abundance, assuming -successful recruitment and recolonization, water quality and adequate flushing is maintained, and additional large-scale dredging is not required. Habitat alteration that may result from exposing different sediment types may cause some structural changes in benthic infaunal species composition. This change is not expected to have an adverse effect on the local benthic community or result in a negative change in the foraging habits of benthic feeding fishes. Dredging may likely benefit sediment quality in the project area by removing those fine sediments that may have trace contaminants and synthetic organics associated with them, and exposing less contaminated, coarser channel sediments as the new bottom. r I r r MV.VO6+0011-s-5 5.5-14 r Legend Marine Biology Study Area FE , 7", Intertidal Mudflat (-1.5 to 43.5 ft MLLW) X Intertidal Bulkhead (+2.0 to +7.0 ft MLLW) Subtidal Soft Bottom/Open Water (-1.5 to -9.9 ft MLLW) Subtidal Soft Bottom/Open Water A (-10ftMLLW and deeper) Subtidal Rock Riprap (-5.0 to -8.0 It MLLW) F& Marine Habitats Impact Area Note: MLLW=Mean Lower Law Water Level P or Castaway's X 16 J, K , . k\'T I. f-f, cl.71� --r Coast Marine Habitats Impa * I I # Area Castaways Marin4 Highway NNIONNIVN NOA 0 150 300 Feet 0640011-2/90 Exhibit 5.5.2 NOA 0 150 300 Feet 0640011-2/90 Exhibit 5.5.2 t Legendtill \ Marne Biology Study Area.; 1. Intertidal ® Mudfiat� �� I r•' t. (-1.5 to +3.5 ft MLLW) a ;. , � I -----/ BIntertidal Bulkhead AA r (+2.Oto+7.OitMLLW) ��•��•• U.. ),•. I Subtidal Soft Bottom/Open Water -\ \ t ? •r ` (-1.5 to -9.9 It MLLW) ''% --�_�? • r /- . 'Subtidal Soft Botton /Open Water i ram' ® (A0 it MLLW and deeper) Subtidaf Rock Riprap (-5.0 to -8.0 it MLLW) Note: MLLW=Mean Lower Low Water Level / 1 -,� ` / ; • op " 01111-4 1, 1 \1` � - ■iiiiii�liiiiii r MMMMMMMMMM a■■■■MUMMMEMMEM ■■■■!■■■■MMHMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMM oo■■■■■■MENUMMIS MMMMMMMMmM ■■■ a■!O■■■■■!■• v■MMOMMM MMMM t■tuu■o uEMOMEM u INI` aou■■o■ a■■■■!!■■■MOMMM MENEM WON i I MMMMEWMMMMr sn n I!I Iv ■o■uoo MEMEMMOOM ■iiliiiily ' '� y ■■■■■■■■!■ ��■■■esc;der ' Past -Construction Mrx ine Habitati Casta4v[Lys Marina CG ::: Nonh 0 150 300 Feet 0640011. 2,00 Exhibit 5.5.3 I 1 II �J rI I 1 1 Petroleum Product Spills Accidental oil or fuel spills that could potentially occur during the proposed dredging operation or marina construction could result in significant effects on the wildlife of the Upper Bay depending on the severity of the spill. Such events are likely to be localized spills of lighter, refined diesel fuels, gasoline, and lubricating oils that are highly toxic to marine life. As discussed in Section 5.4.2, the potential for the occurrence of petroleum -product leaks or spills would be low, and the duration of the operation is relatively short. Seabirds and waterfowl could be affected from toxic effects related to ingestion of oil during preening and feeding, or physical effects of oiling that reduces the ability of birds to fly and maintain their thermal insulation. In the event of a petroleum product spill, loss of seabirds, particularly diving birds (pelicans, terns, western grebes, cormorant, and waterfowl) is possible. Greater biological damage is likely if the spill were to occur during the over -wintering period for migrant waterfowl and shorebirds. Eggs and larval stages of fishes during the warmer months could also be affected. If oil or fuel were to be transported into the Upper Bay, it could coat the sediments of the mudflat and marsh plants, and could result in long-term impacts on biological communities there. The infrequent presence of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project site precludes the possibility of significant impacts on this group of marine life. Bayside Marsh Peninsula Effects The Bayside Marsh Peninsula across the channel from the site is not expected to be significantly affected by the project if precautions, such as use of filter curtains, are utilized when feasible during the dredging operation. Precautionary measures will need to be taken by the dredging crews to avoid direct disruption of Bayside Marsh Peninsula bottom sediments and the potential for grounding of work boats on the Bayside Marsh Peninsula shallows when maneuvering in the project area. Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Effects As discussed below, the construction phase of the Castaways Marina project is not expected to have a significant impact on the fishery or benthic resources in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Some wildlife may move out of the construction area and into the Upper. Newport Bay Ecological Reserve due to dredging, construction noise, or the presence of construction equipment, but an increase in the numbers of shorebirds into the reserve is not expected to result in either a significant 1=00640011s-5 5.5-15 Ll depletion of shorebird food sources or decrease the amount of available roosting habitat. Also, , dredging activities and increased boat movement in the project area are not expected to impede the seasonal movement of migratory fishes such as halibut between the ocean and open estuarine areas ' north of the Castaways site. Long -Term ' The construction and operation of the Castaways Marina will permanently alter existing marine biological habitat types. The current acreage associated with each habitat type, expected, changes for ' each habitat and mitigation measures for significant impacts are listed in Table 5.54. Also, see Exhibit 5.5-3, which illustrates the expected post -construction marine habitats. Expected changes to marine habitats are identified below, and then described more fully. • Terrestrial habitat on Lower Castaways will be transformed into open water, subtidal r shorelines, and softbottom benthic habitat in the new marina basin (see Section 5.6.2 for discussion of impacts to terrestrial resources). ' • The addition of pilings, docks, and bulkheads will inert aae the amount of intertidal and subtidal bard substrate in the marina basin, additional docks, pilings, and floats , to be added in the main channel will also increase the amount of intertidal and subtidal marine habitat. • Intertidal mudfiat habitat will be replaced with openwater and subtidal habitats as a result of dredging activities. The loss of this habitat is considered a significant impact and will require mitigation measures to compensate for its loss. ' • Subtidal bottom contours in the main channel will be permanently modified due to channel dredging and will result in a deepening of the shallow water habitat. Additional new subtidal habitat will be created in the newly exposed marina. , • Foraging area for endangered bird species will be reduced because of the fragmentation of the available habitat created by the presence of boat docks and ' potential increases of small boat traffic in the channel. New Marina Habitat I The excavation of the marina will allow marine invertebrates, fishes, and seabirds to colonize the new marine habitats. The addition of the marina basin will add a total volume of 34,144 cubic yards of habitat for infauna, epifaima, and demersal fishes, such as halibut and gobies. An estimated 0.82 acre ' of hard substrate (pilings, bulkheads, and docks) will be created, which willprovide habitat for rock, open water marine habitat for plankton and fishes, and a total of 2.11 acres of softbottom benthic Jasroana 11.5.5 5.5-16 ' Habitat Mudflats Open Water Subtidal Soft Benthos TABLE 5.54 CASTAWAYS MARINA PROJECT EXISTING Bi.ABITATS, ACREAGE, EXPECTED MARINE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS, AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Existing Area (acres) 1.69 acres 4.31 acres 4.31 acres Construction Impacts Loss of 0.74 acres (43%) of shorebird foraging habitat and associated benthic organisms as a result of dredging. Short-term increase in turbidity, reduction of photosynthetic activity, and movement of fishes and seabirds (including endangered species) out of construction zone. Short-term decrease of benthic organisms because of dredging. Deeper depth contours "in main channel. Post -Construction Ultimate Configuration Creation of 0.05 acre mudflat habitat for a net loss of 0.69 acre (41 %) of mudflat habitat (4.5 to +2.5 ft. MLLW). 6.99 acres Increased amount of habitat for plankton and fishes due to construction of marina basin. 6.99 acres Net increase of soft bottom habitat because of construction of marina basin. Increased abundances and biomass of benthic organisms. Mitigation Create mudflat habitat at a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 in Upper Newport Bay prior to channel dredging. Dredge between October and March to preclude impacts to least terns, use a dredge curtain to reduce spread of turbidity plume. None required. ra2%0a40011.5x 5.5-17 Halibut Nursery: (Young of the Year and Juvenile) Rocky Intertidal Pilings and Docks Je2Xo0e40011.sx TABLE 5.5-4 (continued) Existing Area (acres) Construction Impacts Loss of 0.34 acre of halibut young of the year (YOY) nursery habitat. 100 percent reduction in habitat and associated organisms. M M M Post -Construction Ultimate Configuration 6.99 acres Changes in channel depth contours will create 0.06 acre YOY habitat for a net loss of 0.28 acre at a depth between -1.5 to 3.21 ft. MLLW. Construction of marina basin will fully offset the loss of juvenile halibut nursery habitat (3.21 to -10 ft. MLLW). Net increase of 2.96 acres of juvenile halibut habitat. 0.17 acre Net increase of rocky intertidal habitat and associated organisms. Approximately 0.82 acre Net increase of piling and dock surface area and associated organisms. Create YOY halibut nursery habitat at a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 in Upper Newport Bay prior to channel dredging. None required. None required. I intertidal, and fouling community invertebrates (algae, mussels, tunicates, sponges, and ectoprocts) and associated fishes. The increased surface area and additional variety of marine habitat afforded ' by the presence of hard substrates will increase species diversity of both invertebrates and fishes in the project area. If water quality is maintained within the new marina, the fish and invertebrate marine life is expected to be diverse and no significant impacts to marine biota are likely to occur. However, if water quality is degraded due to uncontrolled discharges of various pollutant types during the operation of the marina, the diversity of local marine life in the marina and the immediate vicinity of the main channel will decline. Good water quality and resultant diverse marine communities utilization can, for the ' most part, be maintained in the marina by complying with standard water quality and boating, regulations. However, because the marina is part of the larger bay system, chronic or periodic water quality degradation that occurs outside the marina may occasionally affect the water quality within the confines of the marina. It is likely that any changes in water quality associated with either the operation of the Castaways Marina, or outside influences, will be detected by County of Orange and ' State of California water quality monitoring programs, as described in Section 5.4. Surface runoff from the marina will be regulated by the NPDES permit for stormwater discharges issued to the ' County of Orange and its municipal co-permittees, including Newport Beach. ' Maintenance Dredging ' Maintenance dredging may be required periodically to remove bedload sediments trapped at the channel juncture of the marina during the long-term operation of the marina (see Section 5.3). ' Maintenance dredging programs will result in the periodic removal of softhottom benthic organisms, the resuspension of bottom sediments that will increase water column turbidity, and periodic releases of trace metals and organic contaminants into the water column. Dissolved oxygen levels will be ' reduced slightly because of the resuspension of organic materials in the dredged sediments. These temporary reductions in water quality may result in periodic short-term disturbances to local marine ' life; however, these disturbances are not expected to cause significant impacts on the resident marine community. Mudflat Habitat Loss The proposed project will remove a total of 32,412 square feet (0.74 acre) of mudflat habitat at depths ' shallower than 1.5 feet below MLLW. However, 0.05 acre of mudflat will be created during J=006"11.5-5 5.5-19 ' t construction. The net loss (0.69 acre) is a 41 percent reduction of this habitat category within the project area, but comparatively, represents less than 0.2 percent of the total mudflat habitat within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The maintenance of Newport Bay mudflats is important for the continued success of the bird populations that use the Upper Bay. Therefore, a reduction in mudflat habitat as a result of this project is a significant, localized impact. The reduction in the amount of mudflat habitat will require in -kind mitigation foi the replacement of mudflat habitat, preferably within Upper Newport Bay. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the mudflat habitat replacement. The location of a suitable replacement site is under study and shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries service prior to approval of the dredging permit issued by the ACOE. If the mitigation program is successful, the mudflat impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. Halibut Nursery Laos A permanent deepening of subtidal halibut nursery habitat will result from channel dredging. A total of 140,970 square feet (3.2 acres) of halibut nursery habitat at depths between -1.5 and -10 fat MLLW will be deepened to approximately -10 feet MLLW. The deepening of this habitat will reduce the habitat quality, especially for newly settled young of the year (YOY) leas than 20 millimeters in length, which prefer depths less than i meter (3.21 feet deep). The net amount of affected area associated with YOY habitat is 12,175 square feet (0.28 acre). Juvenile halibut prefer water depths between 3.2 and 10 feet MLLW (Kramer and Hunter 1988). A total of 2.89 acres of this habitat in the main channel will be recontoured to a maximum channel depth of 10 feet MLLW, at the extreme 16wer depth range preference for juveniles. The creation of the Castaways Marina basin (2.96 acres) will fully offset the loss of juvenile halibut habitat since the depth of the marina basin (8 feet MLLW) will be within the preferred depth range for juveniles. The reduction of the halibut nursery habitat (0.28) acre is a significant local impact, but is not expected to be a significant regional impact. This impact is mitigale to below a level of significance by in -kind mitigation in Upper Newport Bay and with maintenance of water and sedimental quality in the Castaways Marine Basin that provides suitable nursery area for halibut. In addition, project design alternatives which could reduce halibut nursery impacts are discussed in Section 6.0, L.J �I L7 u LJ LJ I� n;u 06W11s-s 5.5-20 ' Bayside Marsh Peninsula Effects Boating activity is expected to increase in the main channel, and the overall channel width will be narrower because of the presence of the proposed pier. This combination of factors may reduce the wildlife utilization value of the Bayside Marsh Peninsula and, therefore, may be a significant impact. Project -related activities that may result in a decrease of habitat value include an increase in noise and ' enhanced public access to the Bayside Marsh Peninsula mudflat and marsh habitat. This impact could be mitigated somewhat by educating marina tenants regarding the biological sensitivity of this peninsula. Alternatively, the scope of the project could be altered to eliminate the proposed boat slips in the main channel (see discussion of this alternative in Section 6). ' Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Effects ' Despite the increase of local boating activity near the Castaways Marina site, the number of recreation boats expected to travel north into the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is not expected to increase substantially due to the large size of the vessels that will be moored at the proposed new marina. Therefore, the wildlife value of the reserve should not be significantly affected by the ' physical presence of the vessels. Smaller recreational vessels (outboards, kayaks, and windsurfers) in the Upper Bay may increase, but not substantially. To reduce potential impacts on wildlife, boaters ' using the Castaways Marina shall be notified of local and federal boating regulations and the importance of reducing disturbances to the wildlife of the Upper Bay. ' Petroleum Product Spills ' The proposed project would result in a small increase in the number of boats in the bay, and could thereby contribute to an increase in the incidences of accidental spills or leaks of oil, grease, and fuel. Due to its small size, the project, by itself, would not result in significant spills. However, it would add to potentially significant cumulative impacts associated with all boating activity in the bay. The ' project design will reduce this potential impact by not providing a fueling station, and by prohibiting major boat maintenance activities (painting, engine overhauls, etc.). 5.5.3 CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENT'S See water quality -related city policies and requirements in Section 5.4.3. No further city policies or ' requirements have been identified. M0064MI1.5-5 5.5-21 L 5.3.4 MITIGATION MEASURES See water quality -related mitigation measures in Section 5.4.4. In addition, the following measures are aimed at protecting marine biological resources. 5.5-1. The dredging contractor shall be required as part of the dredging contract to ensure that dredging activities shall be conducted so as not to disturb sensitive biological habitats and resources in the vicinity of Dayside Marsh Peninsula. 5.5 2. In accordance with ACOE requirements, the loss of 0.69 acre of mudflat habitat shall be mitigated by the in -kind replacement of mudflat habitat at a replacement ratio of 1.5:1, and at an ACOE-approved site, preferably in Upper Newport Bay. This habitat shall be replaced prior to any project - related dredging of the channel. Mudflat will be created at depths between - 1.5 and +2.5 ft MLLW. A detailed conceptual mitigation plan will be developed and implemented by the applicant in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, CDFO, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the ACOE. The plan will include the following elements. 1. Pre -construction Analysis of Preferred and Alternative Mitigation Sites. This study will assess the types and locations of sites that could serve as mitigation sites. Both onsite and offsite areas will be analyzed. 2. Pre -construction Conceptual Site Plans. Conceptual designs will be presented that indicate elevations and contours to be achieved for the mitigation program, appropriate methods for habitat construction, and criteria to messuee the success of the habitat replacement program. 3. Shorebird Construction and Post -Construction Monitoring Program. A 5-year monitoring program will be designed that includes both construction and post -construction monitoring surveys. Shorebird surveys will be conducted prior to and during construction; quarterly during the first year following the creation of the mudflat area; and annually for the remaining 4 years. The purpose of these surveys will be to measure the success of the mitigation project, comparing the shorebird diversity of the newly created mudflsts with existing mudflats nearby. The results of each survey will be presented in a post -survey report prepare for the City of Newport Beach and responsible agencies. 4. Option for Remedial Measures. If the newly created mudflat does not meet pre -determined criteria, then remedial actions, including a second mudflat restoration attempt in another area, will be undertaken. Specific remedial measures will be determined upon consultation with responsible resource agencies. 5.5-3. In accordance with ACOE requirements, the loss of subtidal halibut nursery area shall be mitigated by the in -kind replacement of halibut nursery habitat at a replacement ratio of 1.5:1, at depths between 1.5 and 3.21 feet below MLLW. This habitat shall be restored at an ACOE-approved site, preferably u L _I F LI F I I� Jag/ DA00tJ.Sd 5.5 22 I in Upper Newport Bay, prior to project -related dredging. A conceptual mitigation program shall be developed and implemented by the applicant in ' consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, CDFG, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the ACOE. The plan will include the following elements. 1. Pre -Construction Analysis of Preferred and Alternative Mitigation Sites. ' This study will assess the types and locations of sites that could serve as mitigation sites. Both onsite and offsite areas will be analyzed. 2. Pre -Construction Conceptual Site Plans. Conceptual designs will be presented that indicate elevations and contours to be achieved for the mitigation program, appropriate methods for habitat construction, and criteria to measure the success of the habitat replacement program. ' 3. Construction and Post -Construction Monitoring Program. A 5-year monitoring program will be designed that includes both pre -construction and post -construction surveys. Halibut surveys will be conducted at the selected mitigation area prior to construction; quarterly for the first year ' following the creation of the subtidal habitat; and annually for the remaining 4 years. The purpose of these surveys will be to measure the success of the mitigation project and compare the use of the newly ' created habitat by halibut with other areas in the Upper Bay. The results of each survey will be presented in post -survey monitoring reports prepared for the City of Newport Beach and responsible agencies. 4. Options for Remedial Measures. If the newly. created subtidal habitat does not meet predetermined criteria, then remedial actions, including ' a second restoration attempt in another area, will be undertaken. However, specific remedial measures will be determined upon consultation with responsible resource agencies. 5.5-4. To avoid potential misuse of smaller recreational vessels in the Upper Bay and to reduce potential impacts on wildlife, Castaways Marina tenants shall, as ' part of their leases, be provided with educational materials regarding local and federal boating regulations and the importance of reducing disturbances to the wildlife of the Upper Bay. 55.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1 1 I The project will contribute a small increment to potentially significant cumulative effects on marine habitats resulting from existing plus project marina uses in Upper Newport Bay. Shallow water fish and benthic community structure will be further modified and will take on characteristics of those found in more urban harbor marine communities, such as Lower Newport Bay. Mudflat habitat will be replaced with openwater and subtidal habitats, with an associated reduction in shorebird feeding MOD640oi1.5-5 5.5-23 1 habitat, increased channel depths and a small incremental reduction in the value of the Upper Bay as a spawning ground and nursery for fishes. 5.5.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IWACTS The proposed project will result in short-term unavoidable disruption of foraging activities of visual - foraging fishes and seabirds due to the increase in noise, human activity, and turbidity during the construction and dredging activities. However, these impacts are not considered significant (see Section 5.6 for discussion of impacts to birds). In addition, dredging of the marina channel will unavoidably result in the short-term loss of benthic invertebrates. However, these are expected to recolonize upon cessation of dredging activities. In the long-term, the project will modify the shallow water fish community within the project impact area—mudflat and halibut habitats removed by the project will need to be replaced at another location within the bay. Assuming this mitigation plan is successful —significant adverse impacts would be avoided. In the long term, the proposed project'will reduce the foraging area for bird species within the lower part of Upper Newport Bay. The loss of mudflat habitat and halibut nursery can be.mitigated through replacement programs or through redesign of the marina (see alternatives in Section 6). If an accidental spill of oil or contaminants were to occur during the construction or operation of the project, potentially significant cumulative effects on wildlife in the bay could result, depending on the severity of the spill. E Ll 7 I F ravoowaoiis 5 5,5-24 I I� F n H D CI LJ LJ 5.6 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This report describes the biological resources of both the Upper and Lower Castaways sites. While the majority of the impacts of the proposed project will occur on the Lower Castaways site, a short- term impact on the Upper Castaways site may occur if the temporary haul road is constructed through the upper site. Therefore; both the Upper and Lower Castaways sites are included in the study area for this analysis. Information for this report was compiled through field reconnaissance supplemented by existing documentation of the biological resources within the project vicinity. In addition to describing the biological composition of the project site, this report delineates the significance of potential biological impacts. Vegetation communities were mapped with the aid of 100-scale (1"= 100') topographic map of the site. Floral constituents were recorded in terms of relative abundance and host plant community. Faunal constituents were determined through field identification combined with documented habitat preferences of regional wildlife species that, whether or not detected during the survey, are believed to include the project site within their range. Complete floral and faunal compendia for the project site are included as Appendix H of this report. Terrestrial habitats on both sites were surveyed on foot by staff ecologists of Michael Brandman Associates on February 12, 1988, on July 10, 1989 between 2:00 and 5:00 p.m., on April 5, 1990 between 11:00 a.m, and 2:30 p.m., and on March 19,1991 between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Plant communities and sensitive biological resources were mapped with the aid of a 100-scale topographic map and a 100-scale aerial ,photograph of the site. The temperature at the time of the 1988 and 1989 surveys ranged from 70 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit. During the 1990 survey, the temperature ranged from 65 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The 1988 and 1989 surveys were warm and sunny. Weather during the 1990 survey included wind out of the west at 3 miles per hour and low clouds giving way to partial sunshine. Special attention was given to those areas likely to support sensitive biological resources. Sensitive species include those plants and animals that have been afforded special consideration by federal, state, and local conservation agencies due to declining populations. nWO0640011.5-6 5.6-1 F 5.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Y-eatation Communities The project site includes four vegetation communities: ruderal/disturbed (34.2 acres), coastal sage scrub (4.4 acres), salt marsh (0.04 acre), and cattail marsh (0.8 acre). A complete list of species encountered in the study area is provided in Appendix H. The extent and location of each plant community on Lower Castaways and the potentially affected area of Upper Castaways are shown on Exhibit 5.6-1. RudaaUDisfiRted The majority of the study area is covered by ruderal/disturbed vegetation. This plant community is found mainly on the flat portions of the study area and occurs where native vegetation has been replaced by weedy, non-native plants. Common plant species in this community include Russian thistle (min australi, short -podded mustard Brassica geniculata), Australian saltbush WrjQI aemibaccata), wild radish (Ragabanus sativus), small -flowered ice plant (Mesembryadthemum noglitl4Llim), and red -stemmed fdaree (Erodiu giuutariu. Several native plant species also occur here, including deerweed (&g& acooacius), common fiddieneck (Amsjncid interme ll, and California bush sunflower (Encdii californica). A few specimens of the native lance -leafed dudleya (Dudleva lanceolate) were found on a dirt embankment near Dover Drive. Non-native grasses in this community include ripgut grass (Jr4iLY4 diandruand wild oat (&= sp.). Other less common non- native species are telegraph weed (fleterothecaZmWiflo and tree tobacco lNicotian g ". The Lower Castaways mderal/disturbed community contains small patches of saltgrass (pistichlig >Ag! giant reed (Amndo d gus), and mulefat Bacebaris salicifolis), plants usually associated with wetlands. Cattail Marsh This community is located at the southwest edge of the Upper Castaways site, adjacent to Dover Drive, and is bordered on the north by a church parking lot. It is further restricted by short, steep slopes to the east and south. This wetland is not designated in a report on the area by the CDFG (1984), and may have been formed inadvertently as a result of other activities on the site and from P, I LJ F F E I t 1 LJ LJ t HMM640011s.6 5.6-2 ' runoff from Dover Drive. The community is dominated by native cattail MTha sp.), with a few arroyo willows (S_alix lasiole i found at the north end near the church parking lot. Coastal Sage Scrub ' Prior to disturbance of the area by development, a diverse coastal sage scrub plant community probably covered the majority of the bluffs surrounding Newport Back Bay, including both Upper and Lower Castaways. As shown on Exhibit 5.6-1, this plant community is now restricted adjacent to the ' Upper Castaways site along the steep bluffs overlooking Newport Bay. This area is dominated by California sagebrush (,Artemisia californica , with additional components of California buckwheat ' (Edo ponum fasciculatum), coastal prickly -pear cactus Mund littoralis), California bush sunflower, and bladderpod eome isomeris . Erosion and the steepness of the slopes where this community ' occurs have contributed to the sparseness and poor development of the vegetation. No coastal sage scrub occurs on the Upper or Lower Castaways site. ' Salt Marsh. tThe east side of Upper and Lower.Castaways borders Newport Bay and consists of a thin, patchy strip of salt marsh located between the mudflat and the base of the coastal bluff (0.04 acre). Refer to ' Section 5.5 for a more detailed analysis of the mudflat community. The dominant vegetation in the salt marsh is pickleweed Salicornia vir ' 'ca , saltwort ads maritima , and saltgrass istichlis ' s icata .. Other species present include sea-blite Suaeda californica , Frankenia rankenia andifolia , and shoregrass (Monanthochlce littoralis). Due to previous activities in the vicinity of ' the proposed marina basin, the salt marsh is degraded within the areas proposed for construction. Farther north along the mudflat (beyond the proposed marina basin), the salt mush increases in patch size and diversity. ' Wildlife The plant communities in the study area, as described above, provide habitat of marginal value for ' wildlife species. The presence of the small cattail marsh on Upper Castaways increases the value of the study area to animals, but the extent of disturbance diminishes the overall quality of the habitat. ' Below is a brief discussion, by taxonomic group, of wildlife on the site. 1 J=00640011.s-0 5.6-3 Reptiles and Amphibians Amphibian species are probably limited to the cattail marsh because most of the study area is too and or salty to support this group of animals. No amphibians were observed during the surveys, but expected species include Pacific treefrog ($y(g LUM, western toad UMQ how, and Pacific slender salamander @atrachogg},q p$cj . Reptiles observed during the surveys include western fence lizard (Scelopg ocoidentalis) and side - blotched lizard Q1 stansburiaoa). Expected reptile species include gopher snake Q'jgiop lis melanoleucus), southern alligator lizard (Gerrbonotus multicarinatusl, and common garter snake (Thamnopbis ;tl»LW. Birds Twenty bird species were observed in the study area during the April 1990 survey. This high number of bud species is due to the time of year (spring migration), the proximity of Newport Bay, and the conspicuousness of most birds. The more common birds observed include mourning dove (Zenaida. Inam , house finch QMQdacus mexi ug), rough -winged swallow (Siel¢idootervxs=lgmjW , western meadowlark ($1yrne]ja aW and common raven (Cotyus gas). The non-native European starling (Stu myg yujwas also very common. Other less common buds observed include ash -throated flycatcher MyJarghug ciner ^e, white - crowned sparrow (Zonotricbia fig), barn swallow (Hi ynd rustics), yellow-rumped warbler (DendrQigg coronatal, northern mockingbird (Mimus pQlyglottosl, northern harrier Qrgus gyaneusl, and turkey vulture (fit an . A red -shouldered hawk (Buteo liipeatug) was also observed and may be nesting in the eucalyptus trees in the northwest corner of the study area. Some birds observed are associated with the shoreline and open water habitat along Newport Bay, including whiwbrei (Numenius phaeonus), western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalisl, great blue heron (&4raheroid western gull aim occidentalis), brown pelican (pglpgapug occidemalisl, and willet (CatontrQghg= semipalmatusl. Sandpipers and many other aquatic species are expected to occur, such as western and least sandpipers (Calidrismtauri and-Qmjnuljjju), marbled godwit (Limos fedW, and mallard (&u pl"ynchos). Newport Back Bay is a well-known bird sanctuary used by hundreds of resident and migrant bird species throughout the year. I 11 u 1 E F raro0640ottsa 5.6-4 r1 1 1 0 1 1 California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beeche i were frequently observed in the study area. The only other mammal observed was a desert cottontail ftl—vilagrus audubonii . Expected mammal species include opossum idel bis marsupialis), Botta's pocket gopher omo s bottae , and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculams). Non-native mammals should be present also because of the increasing urbanization of the area. These include house mouse fts muscolas , Norway rat attus norve i , and black rat (_anus rattus). Sensitive Biological Resources This section discusses plant and wildlife species present or potentially present within the study area that have been afforded special recognition by federal, state, and/or local resources conservation agencies or organizations, primarily because of declining or limited population sizes resulting, in most cases, from habitat loss. Sources used for the determination of sensitive biological resources are as follows: plants—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1997); CDFG (1989); California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (1989); and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (Smith and Berg 1988); wildlife—USFWS (1987); CNDDB (1989); CDFG (1980 and 1986); and Remsen (1978). Sensitive Plant Species Southern Tarplant The 1988 survey of the proposed Castaways Marina site and Upper Castaways site recorded the presence of southern tarplant (Hemizonia auslrrlis). a CNPS List 3 species. This indicates that more information on status is necessary to support listing as rare by CNPS standards. The species has no official status with the CDFG or USFWS. It is believed that this plant has been extirpated from much of its former range, where it is found in grasslands near the coast, often along trails. In the study area, the plant was recorded near the eastern bluffs of the Upper Castaways site, growing beside an established trail. The southern tarplant was not observed during the 1989 survey; it may have been removed due to discing operations for fire control. 1 asvooraooll.s-e 5.6-5 w7ml TmIkninT The Laguna beach dudleya (Dudley& stoloniferal is a CDFG threatened species and a USFWS Category 1 Candidate for listing as endangered or threatened (meaning sufficient data exist to support proposed listing). This species occurs infrequently within a limited range. All known records are from steep, damp canyon cliffs near I.aguna'Beach. There are no records of this species in the Newport Beach area and it is extremely unlikely that it occurs in the study area because of its limited range and lack of appropriate habitat. The many -stemmed dudleya MWWgmy(ticaulis a USFWS Category 2 Candidate for listing as endangered or threatened, which indicates that information to support listing is currently insufficient. It is a small plant that grows in open places on rock outcroppings in coastal sage scrub habitats. It is unlikely to occur in the study area due to lack of suitable habitat. Orange County turkish rugging (Ch orirantbe staticoides var. dwn&m is a USFWS Category 2 Candidate. It occurs in coastal Orange County in habitat similar to that for the many -stemmed dudleya, and has been sited in Newport Beach. Although the species is sometimes found on steep, eroded slopes, it was not recorded and is not likely to occur in the Castaways study area because of a lack of suitable habitat. Apbanisma (AphNgm blito dnl is a USFWS Category 2 Candidate. It is a small, inconspicuous plant that occurs on bluffs in coastal sage scrub or along the coastal strand. Although it may occur on the steep bluffs east of the Upper Castaways site above Newport Bay, no suitable habitat is present on Upper or Lower Castaways for this species. Salt marsh bird's -beak (Cordvlanthus maritimus var. marithn is a USFWS and CDFG listed endangered species. It is found in the upper reaches of coastal salt marshes, and is known to occur E t LI L C I 722/ooe+0oII—" 5.6.6 1 I n I I F I I I I I �I I I I J I I i on the eastern shore of Upper Newport Bay. It is unlikely to occur in the Castaways study area as there is no suitable, salt marsh habitat. Sensitive Wildlife Species San Diego Homed Lizard The San Diego horned lizard (Phnmosoma coronatum blainviller is a USFWS Category 2 Candidate. It is usually found in sandy, open places within coastal sage scrub communities. It is unlikely to occur in the vicinity of the study area because of disturbance and the steepness of the adjacent coastal sage scrub. California Brown Pelican The California brown pelican elecanus occidenWis californicusl is a USFWS and CDFG listed endangered species. Its original decline is attributable to the effects of pesticide contamination, but numbers have been increasing since the United States ban on DDT. The pelican occurs commonly in Newport Bay. One individual was observed along the shore on the east edge of the study area during the current survey. No suitable foraging habitat for this species occurs on Upper or Lower Castaways. Snowy Plover The snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinrrsl is a USFWS Category 2 Candidate and a CDFG Species of Special Concern. It nests on beaches and sand flats that are isolated from human disturbance and predation. The snowy plover has declined because suitable nesting sites have been lost to development and recreation, and feral cats and dogs have been introduced into its habitat. This species may occur in the study area during migration, but it is not likely to nest there due to the level of disturbance and other human activities. Red -Shouldered Hawk The red -shouldered hawk uteo lineatus is listed as a sensitive species by the National Audubon Society and is considered locally sensitive. A red -shouldered hawk was observed roosting in the eucalyptus trees on Upper Castaways during the surveys and may possibly nest there. mu00670011.5-6 5.6-7 1 I California Least Tern I The California least tern (Stems yRgllanim brownil is a USFWS and CDFG listed endangered species that nests in several areas in Southern California, including Upper Newport Bay. Least terns nest on the islands in the tidal channel near the Jamboree Road Bridge that were created during the CDFG Upper Newport Bay Restoration Project. The nest site is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Castaways site in the extreme northeast section of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. During the breeding season (April through September) least terns forage for baitfish throughout Newport Bay, including areas near the Castaways site, and near -shore coastal waters. In 1989, the Upper Newport Bay colony was moderately successful and Included 94 breeding pairs of least terns, with 81 nests and 55 fledglings (Massey 1989). The nearest breeding colony outside of Upper Newport Bay is the Huntington Beach State Park. California Gnatcatcher ' The California gnatcatcher (Poliogtita californical is a USFWS Category 2 Candidate. It occupies coastal sage scrub habitat dominated by California sagebrush, and its numbers have declined dramatically because of habitat loss and fragmentation associated with regional development. Its former range extended from Ventura County south I= Baja California, but it is now absent from Ventura and most of Los Angeles counties. The coastal sage scrub adjacent to the site offers marginal ' habitat for the gnatcatcher, The gnatcatcher was not observed In the study area during any of the surveys and is not expected to occur at this site due to lack of habitat. Belding's Savannah Sparrow ' The Bd&Ws savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis bel is a USFWS Category 2 Candidate and a CDFG endangered species. It Is found in salt marsh habitat dominated by pickleweed and occurs across the channel in the Bayside Peninsula Salt Marsh area (Marsh 1985) as well as areas north of the project site in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The salt marsh habitat in the study area is not suitable for this species because of its sparseness and small size, and no Belding's savannah sparrows are expected to occur. , 1 rsv WO11s.c 5.6-8 11 u I I I t 1 I I I I 11 I 5.6.2 PROJECT IMPACTS This discussion considers the direct and indirect biological impacts of excavation for the proposed marina on Lower Castaways, and the construction of the access road across Upper Castaways. The discussion is divided into three sections: (1) general impacts common to all habitat types, (2) habitat - specific impacts, and (3) impacts on sensitive species. General Impacts The general impacts of the proposed Castaways Marina are summarized below. Habitat Fragmentation Development of the access road on the Upper Castaways site could further fragment this patch of habitat, which itself is isolated from other contiguous stands of vegetation. This fragmentation could contribute to the ongoing loss of species as isolation increases susceptibility to genetic in -breeding and lowered viability. However, the small size of the site, its current isolation, and the amount of disturbance combine to make the site biologically depauperate, and further fragmentation would not be a significant impact. Displacement of Wildlife The activities involved with construction of the marina will cause the displacement of animal species using the Lower Castaways site. The displaced wildlife would be expected to move to adjacent, suitable habitats. Because of the low diversity of species expected to occur on this site, this is not expected to be a significant impact. Degradation of Remaining Open Space After Construction The development of the Castaways Marina would further diminish the quality of the habitat on the Castaways site by increasing human traffic (people, pets, etc.). This increase in human activity could reduce the habitat value of Upper Castaways. Although much of this habitat is already disturbed, the marina and road construction activities may further degrade the condition of this habitat. n► 006aoott.s-6 5.6-9 Diminishment of Wildlife Abundance and Diversity on the Site and in Adjacent Areas It is expected that wildlife diversity and abundance at and near the project site will be reduced by the ' proposed marina construction and resulting recreational uses (boating, etc.). There may be displacement of native species by non-native plants and animals. See Section 5.5 regarding impacts ' on intertidal and marine habitats of the bay. HabitatSneafic Impacts The following discussion is organized by plant community, as reported earlier, and considers direct and secondary impacts of construction. ' Ruderal Dis;hO ed ' Impacts from development of the proposed Marina will be greatest on this plant community because most of the excavation for the marina on Lower Castaways and the grading for the access road on Upper Castaways is proposed to occur in this habitat. It is anticipated that up to approximately 15 acres of this plant community will be lost to direct excavation or grading impacts. Of this, it is proposed that approximately I l acres be restored after construction is complete (this will include the area disturbed by the temporary haul road and a portion of the Upper Castaways site where temporary road cut material will be placed). The effects of the 4-acre habitat loss should be minimal, because ; this habitat is not regionally important, due to lack of sensitive and native species. The proposed marina landscape plan is shown in Exhibit 3-4 in Section 3. The plant palette shown is generally compatible with surrounding natural habitat on Upper Castaways, with the exception of the periwinkle ground cover GjpO llmltlr). Ibis ground cover has been found to invade natural plant �. communities, particularly wetland habitats. An alternative ground cover shall be selected by alicensed landscape architect and approved by the City of Newport Beach as a part of the landscape plan approval process. Cattail Marsh The cattail marsh area on the Upper Castaways site is considered a sensitive habitat. Construction of the temporary access road through the Upper Castaways site could result in erosion and runoff into this wetland. Runoff from graded areas of the road may carry sediments that could be deposited in ra2/00640011s-e 5.6-10 1 ' the marsh and could disturb or destroy all or part of the habitat, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact on this wetland. Erosion and runoff control measures, such as those included in ' Sections 5.2.4 and 5.6.4, would reduce the impact to a level less than significant. 1 Coastal Sage Scrub The proposed marina will not remove or disturb any coastal sage scrub located on the bluffs at the eastern edge of Upper Castaways. Therefore, no significant impacts on this habitat will occur. Salt Marsh Construction of the marina will result in the loss of 94 square feet (0.002 acre) of salt marsh plants, ' or approximately 5 percent of the total salt marsh in the project area. Four small, degraded patches of sea biite, pickleweed, and saltwort will be removed near the north end of the proposed marina basin entrance. The loss of this salt marsh is not considered a significant impact because the habitat value is low. IImpacts On Sensitive Biological Reso aces IPlants The following plants are not likely to occur on the site and will not be affected by the development of the marina: Laguna Beach dudleya, many -stemmed dudleya, Orange County turkish rugging, and salt marsh bird's -beak. Impacts to the southern tarplant, if it is again located on the site, may be considered locally important but would not be considered significant because the project would only ' remove a small portion of potential habitat for this species. ' Wildlife The noise of construction equipment may disrupt foraging and roosting activities of birds along the ' shore of Newport Bay, such as the federally listed endangered California least tern and California brown pelican. However, no recorded nesting, areas of least tern, Belding's savannah sparrow, or snowy plover are located near enough to the project to be affected by project -related -noise, and this impact is not considered significant. nw0064MILS-6 5.6 11 As discussed in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.5.2, the dredging operation could generate increased turbidity ' in the vicinity of the dredging equipment. Increased turbidity could temporarily reduce the ability of the California least tern and California brown pelican to forage in the area. However, the brown ' pelican is known to forage In the open ocean and harbor areas as well as in Newport Bay, therefore this would not be a significant impact. This would be a locally important impact in the area affected by the turbidity for the least tern, which forages primarily during the chick -rearing phase of nesting in shallow water areas. However, because of the availability of extensive shallow water habitats , throughout the bay where the least tern has been observed foraging, this is not expected to be a significant impact, and this impact could be reduced if the dump scow is loaded during ebb tide conditions, and if dredging is limited to October through March to avoid the least tern nesting season. Potential impacts on wildlife using the bay due to potential water quality degradation (i.e., from potential petroleum -product spills) are addressed In Section 5.5. Seabirds and waterfowl could be affected from toxic effects related to ingestion of oil during preening and feeding, or physical effects of oiling that reduces the ability of birds to fly and maintain their thermal insulation. Such short-term ' effects may be significant, depending on the severity of the spill. However, due to the size of the project and the low level of risk, the project by itself would not result In significant effects. A red -shouldered hawk was observed on the Upper Castaways site during two field studies, although no nest was found. The hawk may be disturbed by construction activities (primarily from activity on the temporary haul road on the Upper Castaways site). Because this raptor is generally adaptable to _ human activities, the potential disturbance from construction activities to its possible nesting and foraginghabitats onUpper Castaways would constitute apotentially adverse, butnot significant, short- term impact. ' 3.6.3 CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREWZM ' 5.6-A. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan for both project sites shall be prepvred by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and shall place emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. 12210064011.5.6 5.6-12 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I L' n F, U L 5.6.4 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures to reduce turbidity during dredging are presented in Section 5.3.4, and measures to reduce water quality impacts are presented in Section 5.4.4. In addition, the following measures are identified to reduce impacts to sensitive biological resources. 5.6-1. All appropriate Was shall be used to prohibit erosion and runoff during construction and from disturbed and paved areas into Newport Bay and the cattail marsh. Measures should also include revegetation immediately after construction ceases and placement of runoff -retaining barriers. 5.6-2. Dredging and construction activity should be terminated between April 1 and September 30, the breeding season of California least terns, to minimize adverse impacts on their foraging habitat due to increased turbidity. 5.6-3. Truck activity on the Upper Castaways site shall be limited to the temporary haul road and, if feasible, shall be curtailed between February and June to minimize adverse impacts to the red -shouldered hawk nesting and foraging area. 5.6-4. The areas affected by construction shall be limited to the project site and proposed haul road; no material shall be deposited in the cattail marsh or coastal sage scrub habitats. 5.6-5. The landscape plan shall be altered to eliminate the use of periwinkle ground cover. 5.65 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The development of the Castaways Marina would further diminish the quality of the habitat on the Upper Castaways site and in lower Upper Newport Bay due to the increased intrusion of human activity into these areas. The proposed marina will incrementally add to the cumulative loss of open water habitat used for foraging by birds, including endangered species such as the California least tern and California brown pelican. Because extensive foraging sites are available for these species, this is .not expected to be a significant cumulative impact because no further open water habitat loss is anticipated; the remainder of Upper Newport Bay is protected as an ecological reserve. The project would not result in a loss of existing or potential nesting areas for these buds. =00640011.5-6 5.6-13 1 i 5.6.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE BOACTS Construction activity will result in the temporary displacement and disturbance of wildlife in the vicinity of the project site. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures (e.g., avoidance of nesting season), sensitive species will not be significantly affected, The project will result in an 1 unavoidable, but not significant, loss of a small area of open water habitat that may be used for foraging by birds, including the endangered California least tern and the California brown pelican. 1 11 1 U r 1 I [l 1 i 1 n M/006400us-6 5.6-14 I P I I I I I I I I r I I I I 5.7 CULTURAL AND SC>ENTMC RESOURCES 5.7.1 EXISTING Archaeological and Historical Resources An archaeological investigation of the Upper and Lower Castaways sites was completed by RMW Paleo Associates in August 1989, and a follow-up study was completed in May 1990. Both assessments are summarized in this section and are included in their entirety in Appendix I. A review of ethnohistorical and ethnographic literature for the region indicates that the general area was part of the former Gabrielino Indian territory. The initial archaeological assessment included a records search for the study area. The search indicated that both sites have been subject to formal surveys in the past. The first professional survey was conducted in the 1940s by J. Briggs. This survey identified no sites on the Lower Castaways site, but two sites on the Upper Castaways site: CA-LAn-48, and CA-LAn-49 (or CA-0ra-48 and CA-Ora-49). (The identification system has since been modified to reflect the growth and status of Orange County. Sites in Orange County are now referred to with the prefix "CA -Ora-_ ") A second survey was conducted in 1965 by Hafner, Smith, and McKinney. This survey resulted in the recordings of two additional sites on Upper Castaways: CA-LAn-186 and CA-LAn-187 (or CA-Ora-186 and CA-Ora-187). For the August 1989 field survey, both the Upper and Lower Castaways sites were examined using a traditional transect method with transects spaced at 20 meters. No cultural deposits other than those known to exist on the property were encountered during the survey. A discussion of the field survey results for each of the above -mentioned archaeological sites is provided below. CA-Ora-48 CA-Ora-48 is located on the northern boundary of the Upper Castaways site, and runs diagonally to a point just past the southwestern side of the Lutheran Church property. Examination of the surrounding area revealed a midden band 50 meters wide with mytilus, pecten, olivella, chione, ostrea, marine snail, and turritella shells. MVOD640011s-7 5.7-1 1 t The outline of small rectangular pits was visible on the northeast corner of the site. Since no excavation report is on file, it is believed to be the result of unauthorized digging. Also on the northeast corner of the site along the high tide line, a midden-bearing deposit was observed. The deposit contained a variety of shell species. Whether this is a cultural deposit or the result of erosional deposition from the top of the bluff could not be determined. , Further investigation of this site was undertaken by RMW Paleo Associates in May 1990 since it would be partially affected by the temporary road that could be used to haul dredged materials off the site (see report in Appendix 1). Twenty-two posthole excavations were made beginning at the northern ' extent of the proposed road. These proceeded to the south and east along the road right-of-way across CA-Ora-48. Each posthole was approximately 30 centimeters in diameter, and all material was , screened through 1/8-inch wire mesh. The only artifact recovered during the posthole excavation was a piece of brick encountered in one of the southernmost holes. Shell deposits were recovered Insufficient quantity to justify excavation and to permit definition of the site. An excavation unit was placed within the densest concentration of the midden shell. This unit was 1 meter by 1 meter in surface extent and was excavated in arbitrary levels of 10 centimeters. All material was screened through 1/8-inch wire mesh. No artifacts were encountered during this excavation, but quantities of shell midden were recovered. While CA-Ora-48 is a well developed shell midden, artifacts are rare in the deposit. The deposit begins at the surface and extends to a depth of 30 to 40 centimeters in the central part of the site. , RMW Paleo Associates determined that the studied portion of this site does not contain important archaeological resources that require mitigation beyond city policies and requirements (Bissell, pers. comm., 8/22/90). CA-Ora-49 ' The CA-Ora-49 site is located on the bluff face between the Upper Castaways site and Upper Newport Bay. It is located in an area that will not be affected by the proposed project. Due to the location of the site along the high -tide line, it is in .immediate danger of destruction from ' tidal action. When compared to past descriptions of the site by Briggs, it becomes apparent that much MIU6M11-1.7 5.7-2 I I I 1 I I IF, I1 I 7 LJ of the site has been destroyed. A midden mound extends vertically for 1 meter, and is covered by 1/2 meter of erosional material. There are three distinct strata of charcoal separated by layers of shells in the mound. Two meters up slope from the midden mound is an area in which two prehistoric flakes were seen; one was chert, the other was quartz. CA-Ora-186 CA-Ora-186 is located on the southernmost portion of Upper Castaways. It is located in an area that will not be affected by the proposed project. Evidence of prehistoric activity is present on the surface. Midden material like that found elsewhere on the project site is scattered along the ground. The midden is eroding down the bluff both towards the bay and the project parcel. No prehistoric artifacts were found on this site. The historic component consists -of two different occupational uses. This is the location of the "old landing" where cargo was loaded and unloaded for commercial purposes during the late 1800s. There is no trace left of this activity on the surface. The other use was the Orange County Country Club and Castaways Restaurant. Chunks of concrete foundation and pieces of masonry are strewn about. Much of the area is covered with asphalt. CA-Ora-187 Although midden material was found in the general area of CA-Ora-187, no distinct site was found. The description of this site places its location in the vicinity of CA-Ora-48. It is noted that, in 1965, the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society rerecorded CA-Ora-48 as CA-Ora-187 (Rosenthal, pers. comm., 12/17/90). Paleontological Resources A paleontological resource assessment of both the Upper and Lower Castaways sites was performed by RMW Paleo Associates in August 1989. This included a walkover survey of the sites, in addition to a historical records search at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History and the Orange County Natural History Foundation. The assessment is summarized in this section and is included in its entirety in Appendix I. J=00640011.5a 5.7-3 I At the northern end of the Lower Castaways project site is a Capistrano Formation overlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits and soil. The major part of the project site is covered by man-made or imported materials. Pleistocene terrace deposits are also present in the Upper Castaways site. The Capistrano and Monterey formations have a history of providing abundant fossil records throughout Southern California. Marine mammals such as whales, sea lions, shark remains, and trace fossils have been collected from this type of deposit. Along the cliff of the Upper Castaways site, the Orange County Natural History Foundation has a record of a fossil fish and whale bone fund. The Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History has recorded vertebrate finds across the .bay in the Monterey Formation. No vertebrate fords have been found on the project site itself. Only microfossils were observed on the site. On the Upper Castaways site, an 8- to 10-foot-thick soil horizon and Pleistocene terrace deposit is present. Marine shells such as chione, ostrea, and pecten were observed. These are interpreted as archaeological midden material, not paleontological remains. Pleistocene formations are known to contain the remains of "Ice Age" animals such as elephants, reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Only recent shell fragments and transported midden material were observed on this site. 5.7.2 PROJECT IWACT'S Since no archaeological or historical resources have been found on the proposed marina site (Lower Castaways site), the proposed project would have no impacts on such resources. If the temporary haul road is developed through the Upper Castaways site, it would affect a portion of CA-Ora-48. Any scraping to remove vegetation or scaring to prepare the road surface would disturb a portion of the archaeological deposit. However, this impact would not be considered significant since resources at this site are not considered to be "important archaeological resources" under CEQA. l Y _ The Monterey and Capistrano formations have high paleontological sensitivity. Pleistocene terrace materials are also rated as having high paleontologic sensitivity due to their past history of yielding fossil remains. If measures identified in Section 5.7.3 below are not implemental, grading or trenching activities that expose these formations could significantly affect and possibly destroy the fossil remains. 1 I [1 I J Cl I I E I r I I i r JR2100640011.5-7 5.7.4 1 H ' 5.7.3 CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMMS ' 5.7-A. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractor of the results of any archaeological surveys and studies completed. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of ' 48 hours to assess the significance of the finds. 5.7-B. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the ' landowner and/or developer. 5.7-C. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer ' to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 5.7-D. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of Assembly Bill952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. ' S.7.4 MITIGATION MEASURE'S No further mitigation measures are required. ' 5.7.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impacts on cultural and scientific resources are typically considered to be site -specific, and can be mitigated to a level not considered to be significant by the city's policies and requirements (see Section 5.7.3). 5.7.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 1 Implementation of the city policies and requirements listed in Section 5.7.3 would reduce impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources to a level not considered to be significant. No historical resources would be affected by the proposed project. isvooeaaoii.5a 5.7 5 I 1 I r I [l L I I 5.8 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION 5.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Primary access to the project site is provided by north -south trending Dover Drive, designated as a "major road" (6-lane divided) on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways. This road extends north of Coast Highway (State Highway 1), a regional east - west arterial through the City of Newport Beach. Regional access to the general study area is provided by Jamboree Boulevard located approximately 0.75 mile east of Dover Drive, Newport Boulevard (State Highway 55) located approximately 1 mile west of Dover Drive, and MacArthur Boulevard located approximately 1.5 miles east of Dover Drive. This road extends from Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula to the Costa Mesa Freeway, which connects to several regional freeways to the north. 5.8.2 PROJECT IMPACTS Short -Term Impacts Conshvction/Dredging-Related Truck Traffic The proposed project will generate additional traffic on streets in Newport Beach and Irvine during the dredging and construction phases. This additional traffic may cause short-term traffic congestion in the vicinity of the project site. Generally, impacts associated with construction -related traffic can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with standard construction traffic control practices. This would include applicable signage and flag people at the entrance/exit to the site. However, due to the proposed dredging operation, and the need to haul the dredged material to an approved disposal site, traffic impacts of the project may be significant during the dredging operation phase of construction. If ocean disposal of dredged material is approved by the EPA and ACOE, all or part of the dredged material would be hauled by barge to the approved ocean disposal site. The impacts of this operation on harbor circulation are addressed in Section 5.9. However, if ocean disposal is not approved for all or part of the material, all or part of the material shall be hauled to the County of Orange Coyote Canyon Landfill south of Bonita Canyon Road in the County of Orange. The proposed route for hauling this material is illustrated in Exhibit 3-7 in Section 3. =00640011.5-8 5.8-1 1 The project engineer estimates the dredging operation could require between 1,250 and 4,000 haul ' truck trips over the course of the dredging operation (Cash and Associates 1989), depending on the size of the trucks (either 10 or 20 cubic yards). Assuming a 5-day work week and a 12-week dredging period, it is estimated that up to approximately 70 truck trips per day could be generated by the proposed landfill haul operation. (This would be considered a "worst case" scenario.) These trips would be spread throughout the workday and would not be expected to significantly indrease the total volume of traffic on the roads and at intersections. However, for the short term, these trucks could potentially contribute to congestion due to their large size, generally slower speeds, and wider turning movement requirements. In addition, these trucks would be expected to create additional exhaust ' emissions, dust, and noise along the haul route (see discussions in Sections 5.10 and 5.11 regarding air quality and noise impacts, respectively), and could result in water beingleaked or dirt being spilled onto the roadways along the haul route, thus creating unsightly and unsafe road conditions. These impacts could be significant for the short term, but could also be reduced through standard implementation identified constructionpractices, and through of city policies and mitigation measures in Sections 5.8.4, 5.10.4, and 5.11.3. The traffic congestion associated with project trucks impacts could be significant for the short term, and would occur along the proposed haul route (see Exhibit 3-7) and at intersections along the haul , route, including 16th Street/Dover Drive, Dover Drive/Coast Highway, Coast Highway/Jamboree Road, Jamboree RoadMison Road, Bison Road/MacArthur Boulevard, and MacArthur ' Boulevard/Bonita Canyon Road. Also see discussion of cumulative short-term impacts in Section 5.8.5. However, mitigation measures identified in Section 5.8.4 (traffic management plan and coordination with relevant agencies) would mitigate these impacts to a level considered less than significant. Consuructlon Period SIte Aces Also, as discussed in Section 3 and Section 5.2, if the landfill disposal method is required, it will be to temporary haul from Lower Castaways Upper Castaways, ' necessary construct a road up through around the back of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church, and exiting onto the westbound section of 16th Street (east of Dover Drive). This haul road would provide an exit route only for loaded trucks, allowing the trucks to make a left turn at the traffic light at the 16th Strad/Dover Drive intersection. The use of this haul road could adversely affect the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church activities (see ' discussion in Section 5.1.2). If the landfill disposal option is not required, the temporary haul road would not be required; all construction traffic would enter and exit the site via a driveway on the ' nnmowaott sa 5.8-2 p Li Lower Castaways site. In this case, only right turns in and right turns out to/from Dover Drive would be possible. Entrance to the site, both before and after construction, would occur via a right turn from northbound ' Dover Drive, immediately after a left or a right turn from Coast Highway, thus having a potentially significant impact on the safety of this intersection. Prior to approval of the grading permit, the ' design of the staging area(s), haul road, and access driveway, along with other elements of the grading/dredging operation, shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Public ' Works Department to ensure the provision of adequate/safe site access. In addition, an alternative access route, such as that evaluated in Section 6.4, would mitigate the potential safety problems ' associated with the proposed construction access point, as well as provide benefits for long-term circulation safety (see discussion below). ' Long -Term Impacts ' - Circulation ' As noted above, proposed access to the new marina will be from northbound Dover Drive. An existing raised median along Dover Drive restricts vehicular site access to right turns in and out. ' According to the City of Newport Beach, this access design presents potentially significant safety concerns due to (1) its proximity to the Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection (approximately 200 feet) and (2) because it generates U-tutu movements at the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection (Webb, pers. comm., 8/8/91). ' Since project traffic will be limited to right turns only into and out of the project site, outbound project traffic oriented toward Coast Highway will turn right out of the project site, and make a U-turn at Cliff Drive before traveling south to Coast Highway. Similarly, inbound project traffic from the north ' on Dover Drive will be required to travel to Coast Highway to turn around and access the project from northbound on Dover Drive. Since U-turns are prohibited southbound at the Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection, this traffic will make a right tam onto westbound Coast Highway, ' make a U-turn along Coast Highway, and turn left onto Dover Drive before entering the project site. (These movements are reflected in the 1 percent analysis calculations discussed below.) The above -described safety concerns have prompted the re-evaluation of the proposed access design. An alternative access design is provided for consideration in Section 6.4 of this EIR, and would mv00eaootts-8 5.8-3 I mitigate to a level less than significant the potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed access design. It would provide a signalized, 4-way intersection at the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection (see Section 6.4). Parking will be provided for 106 vehicles at the east and north sides of the basin. This number of parking spaces is in compliance with the city's harbor permit requirements of a minimum 0.75 space per slip (94 spaces required). Trip Generation and Distribution The remainder of this section includes a summary of the traffic study prepared by Austin -Foust Associates in April 1991. This analysis was prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (l'PO). Data sheets for this analysis are provided in Appendix J. Approximate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from two traffic counts for similar marinas within the City of Newport Beach. An average inbound rate of 0.06 trip/slip and an outbound rate of 0.04 trip/slip were calculated for the peak 1-hour a.m. period. For the peak 1-hour p.m. period, the average rates were calculated to be 0.08 trip/slip inbound and 0.08 trip/slip outbound, for a total of 0.16 trip/slip. These rates and resulting project trip generation are summarized in Table 5.8-1. TABLE 5.8-1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Size III OB Total III OB Total ADT Marina 125 Slips Trips/Slip 0.06 0.04 0.10 Trip Generation 8 5 13 Notes: IB = Inbound trips. OB = Outbound trips. ADT = Average daily trips. Source: Austin -Foust Associates 1991. I I I [1 0,08 0.08 0.16 1.46 , 10 10 20 183 [-1 I JEWO ants-s 5.8-4 r I L 7 1 11 Ll The proposed project is estimated to generate 12 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 20 trips in the p.m. hour. The trip generation was factored to obtain a peak 2.5 hour volume for the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. The peak 2.5 hour volumes were based on an estimated factor of 2 to account for the extension of the usual 1-hour period. Distribution of project generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the location of the proposed project. The traffic study area and general trip distribution assumed for the project is illustrated in Exhibit 5.8-1. The City of Newport Beach identified five intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed marina. These intersections are: • Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd. -Superior Ave. • Coast Hwy./Riverside Ave. • Coast HwyJTustin Ave. • Coast Hwy./Dover Dr: Bayshore Dr. • Coast Hwy.Bayside Dr. The 1990 peak 2.5-hour volumes were provided for each intersection by the City of Newport Beach staff. Since the project is expected to be completed by 1993, the ambient growth rate of 1 percent was added to all volumes along Coast Highway east of Newport Boulevard. A factor of 2.5 percent was added to all volumes along Coast Highway west of Newport Boulevard. The peak 2.5-hour volumes of all approved projects identified through March 1991, also provided by the City of Newport Beach, were added to the peak-2.5 hour volumes —see Table 5.8 2 for a list of the projects. The resulting volumes represent the projected peak 2.5-hour volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. One Percent Analysis As required by the TPO, 1 percent of the projected peak 2.5-hour volumes of each approach of each intersection is compared with the peak 2.5-hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this comparison is shown in Table 5.8-3 assuming the access design as proposed (right turns in and out only). m2/00640011.5-8 5.8-5 I TABLE 5.8-2 APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY Hughes Aircraft #1 St. Andrews Church Far West Savings and Loan' Allred Condos Aeronutronle Food Morgan Development Back Bay Office Four Seasons Hotel Boyle Engineering Univ Ath Club TPP 4 Emkay Cal Canadian Bank Block 400 Medical Civic Plaza Amendment #1 MacArthur Court Corporate Plaza Amendment #2 Ford Aero Koll Center Newport Carver Granville Office MacArthur Court Corona Del Mar Homes Orchard Office Rosan's Development Pacific Mutual Plaza Block 500 Newport Center Project 3701 Birch Office Newport Aquatics Center Newport Place Jasmine Park Bank of Newport Newporter Inn Expansion Bayside Square Fashion Island Renaissance Sea Island CMD Senior Project Baywood Apartments Point Del Mar Harbor Point Homes Pacific Club Roger's Gardens Newport Seacrest Apartments Seaview Lutheran Plaza Seaside Apartments (Mesa II) Rudy Baron Victoria Station (Office) Quail Business Center Newport Imports 441 Newport Blvd. Mariner's Mile Marine Center Coast Business Center 15th Street Apartments Ross Molard Seaside Apartments Hughes Aircraft 92 2600 E. Coast Highway Flagship Hospital Martha's Vineyard Big Canyon 10 Amendment #1 Ford Aero Fun Zone Amendment #1 North Ford Marriott Hotel Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 1991. h JI L I I I I n II [l 5.8-6 sttttces (}Affi/yin {�#y�/sd,•' ; Nonh Noe To Scale -C�$ta7M1ayvs la, Swnv:Autln.FoutArxYu.19B9 0640011•2 2/90 Exhibit 5.8-1 TABLE 5.8-3 S[A1MARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS WITH PROPOSED SITE ACCESS DESIGN Intersection A.M. Project Peak 2.5-Hour Volumes NB SB EB WB Less Than 1 % of 1992 Peak 2.5-Hour Volumes Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd. - Superior Ave. 0 0 3 2 Yes Coast Hwy./Riverside Ave. 0 0 11 7 Yes Coast Hwy./Tustin Ave. 0 0 11 7 Yes Coast Hwy./Dover Dr: Bayshore 0 10 12 4 Yes Coast Hwy.Bayside Dr. 0 0 2 4 Yes P.M. Project Peak 2.5-Hour Volumes Less Than 1 % of 1992 Intersection NB SB EB WB Peak 2.5-Hour Volumes Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd. - Superior Ave. Coast Hwy./Riverside Ave. Coast Hwy./Tustin Ave. Coast Hwy./Dover Dr: Bayshore Coast Hwy.Bayside Dr. Source: Austin Foust Associates 1991. 0 0 4 4 Yes 0 0 14 14 Yes 0 0 14 14 Yes 0 20 15 5 Yes 0 0 5 5 Yes J=00640011s-8 5.8 7 If 1 percent of the 1992 peak 2.5-hour volumes of each approach is larger than the peak 2.5-hour project volumes, no further analyses are required. If project peak 2.5 hour volumes are higher than 1 percent of the projected peak 2.5-hour volumes on any approach of any intersection, the intersection is analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICI) method. Comparison of 1 percent of the peak 2.5 hour volumes without the project with the project's peak 2.5 hour volumes results in each intersection "passing" the 1 percent analysis test; no further analysis is required. See Appendix i for the 1 percent analysis calculations. In summary, the proposed Castaways Marina project would generate 26 trips during the a.m. peak 2.5-hour period and 40 trips during the p.m. peak 2.5-hour period. Five City of Newport Beach identified intersections were analyzed to determine the projeces potential traffic impact. The analysis shows that none of the five intersections will be significantly affected by the proposed project, and no further traffic analysis is required. No city policies or requirements are identified. I 17 J I' 5.8.4 h=GATION MEASURES , 5.8-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by the city, the applicant shall present a traffic management program to manage construction -related traffic access to the project site and to ensure safe turning movements from Coast Highway onto Dover Drive. Such a plan should describe the use of signage and flag people and include any requirements of the CIty of Newport Beach Police and Public Works Departments. 5.8 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by the city, the applicant shall coordinate with Cadtrans, Orange County, and the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine regarding their plans for improvements along MacArthur Boulevard, Bonita Canyon Road, and Pelican Hill Road (Newport Coast Drive). To the degree feasible, the hauling operation will avoid hauling during morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. 5.8-3 Prior to leaving the construction staging -area and delivering dredged material to the Coyote Canyon Landfill (assuming this disposal method is selected), haul trucks shall be inspected to ensure that (1) no water leaks from the trucks and (2) dirt has been placed to avoid spillage onto roadways. I Ja7mommil.S4 5.8-8 n I I Ji 5.8-4 The applicant shall redesign the proposed site access point to be via a new road from the marina parking lot to the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection to form a 4-way, signalized intersection. 5.8.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS During the construction period, the project is expected to generate an increase in truck traffic in the vicinity of Dover Drive and Coast Highway. In addition, if dredged material is hauled to Coyote Canyon, the project could generate additional truck traffic on Jamboree Road, Bison Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and Bonita Canyon Road. Other construction activity is also expected in the area during project construction. Therefore, the increased project -related truck traffic could contribute to significant cumulative (short-term) traffic congestion expected along MacArthur Boulevard (and' perhaps parallel Jamboree Boulevard) during the construction of planned improvements along MacArthur Boulevard (see discussion of these improvements in Section 4). Significant impacts can be avoided with development of a traffic management plan if coordination occurs between the applicant, the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, and Caltrans. As discussed in Section 5.8.2, the traffic study demonstrated that the proposed project would generate only minor amounts of traffic in the long term, compared to existing and projected traffic levels —the projec 's traffic will not represent a significant contribution to cumulative traffic volumes. 5.8.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No unavoidable adverse traffic and circulation impacts are expected. The project would generate unavoidable short-term increases in construction -related traffic within Newport Beach, primarily in the vicinity of the project site. If dredged material is hauled to the Coyote Canyon Landfill, the impact could be significant. However, a traffic management plan to be developed by the applicant and approved by the city can reduce the level of impact to less than significant. Also, the proposed site access point is considered to present potentially significant traffic safety problems. These problems could be eliminated with the provision of an alternative access design that incorporates a 4-way, signalized intersection at the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection (see Section 6.4). nivDOUWuss 5.8-9 C I 5.9 HARBOR CIRCULATION 59.1 EXISTING As shown on Exhibit 3-2, the entrance to Newport Harbor is located at the southeast end of the harbor. The width of the entrance is approximately 750 feet from jetty to jetty. The entrance channel is 500 feet wide and extends north to the Bend Channel. This channel runs west into the 200-foot- wide Balboa Reach. The channel continues to the Balboa Pavilion, where it turns to -the northwest and becomes the Harbor Island Reach (200 feet wide). The Harbor Island Reach continues to the west, passing between Lido Isle and Bay Shores. It ends at the Lido Isle Reach, which extends to the far western portion of the harbor. The 200-foot-wide Lido Isle Reach ends at the Turning Basin. Anchoring and mooring areas are located along the border of the Bend Channel into the harbor. The speed limit throughout the harbor is 5 knots. The Coast Highway Bridge separates the upper and lower portions of the bay. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 20 feet and a horizontal clearance of 100 feet at a mean high tide of 4.5 feet. The clearance limits restrict the number of vessels in the upper bay to those that can negotiate the bridge. Currently, the main areas for recreational docking in the upper bay are the Dover Shores and the Newport Dunes Marina. Pleasure crafts dominate harbor circulation patterns. Several other types.of craft are also found in the harbor, such as fishing and tour boats. In addition, the Balboa Island Ferry operates between Balboa Island and the Balboa Peninsula. Operating hours are 6:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 6:30 a.m, to.2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The ferry operates 24 hours a day from June through Labor Day. Up to three ferries are in operation at one time and the crossing time ranges from 3 to 7 minutes. Crossing times depend on the time of year and time of week. A single ferry operates from 12:00 a.m, to 7:00 a.m. during the peak season. The harbor is a well developed facility that holds special events which can attract thousands of people and boats. Harbor facilities include approximately 1,230 residential piers, 2,120 commercial slips and side ties, and 1,220 bay moorings. However, it should be noted that the number of boats operating in Newport Harbor is estimated to be approximately 8,500. The Orange County Harbor Patrol has an additional 11 moorings and 5 slips, which are available to guests. The Patrol assists visiting boats in finding a place to stay once visitor spaces are filled. There are eight marinas, four gas docktservice stations, boat rentals, and firms providing fishing trips and harbor tours. The Back Bay contains MV00640011s-9 5.9-1 privately owned launching facilities that are available to the public. However, these are primarily used by power boats since most sailboats cannot pass under the Coast Highway Bridge. 5.9.2 IMPACTS Dredged Material Disposal Should either of the dredged material disposal alternatives be implemented, some short-term impacts on harbor circulation are expected. During the construction and dredging stage of the project, dredging equipment will be located in the upper bay immediately north of the Coast Highway Bridge. Ibis will temporarily limit the maneuvering area for boats attempting to enter or exit the Upper Bay. However, with observance of normal marine courtesies and adherence to navigational procedures, it is not expected to preclude boat movement between the Upper and Lower Bay. As a standard procedure, the dredging contractor along with the tug operator(s), Orange County Harbor Patrol, and City of Newport Beach will develop an approvable plan for the dredging operation and movement of dredged material. Upon approval by the Harbor Patrol, the plan must be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard; and the Coast Guard issues (publishes and posts) a Notice to Mariners regarding the proposed dredging activity. The notice describes the activities, identifies the tugboat and barge numbers, their call signs, and the assigned channels. If the ocean disposal alternative is implemented, public anchorage may need to be temporarily abandoned at the location of a barge marshalling area. As part of the Notice of Mariners, the Coast Guard would notify mariners that anchorage regulations will change temporarily. (See Exhibit 5.10-5 for the potential location of this possible barge marshalling area.) The 1,SCO-cubie-yard scows are typically 160 feet long and 50 feet wide. When pulled by a small tug (typically 40 feet long and 18 feet wide) located alongside the scow, the combined width is 68 feet. This width would represent approximately 34 percent of the total channel width of 200 feet. When combined with a larger ocean-going tug (typically 60 feet long and 20 feet wide), the width would be approximately 70 feet wide, or 38 percent of the total channel width in the harbor. Guideboats would not be a factor as they would most likely precede the tugs and scows in and out of the harbor. Similarly, it is probable that the tugs would push the scows from the rear. This would LI 1 l_J r L I n IJ razro064wi1s-9 5.9 2 t reduce the total width of transit by the width of a tug. The scows will travel in the center of the channel and could consume 100 feet of the total channel width. When barges are in use, the total channel width may not be available for recreational boating. The dredging activity and transport of the dredge material via scows will potentially interfere with various boating events, such as sabot races or the larger boat races just outside the harbor. Boating events are held monthly and are sponsored by a wide variety of clubs and organizations. The majority of the events are held on weekends, although some of the larger events occur over a period of 3 days (Association of Orange Coast Yacht Clubs 1990). Races involving sailboats can be required by the Orange County Harbormaster to relocate outside the scow traffic lanes during operational hours. Rental boats can also be confined to an area outside the project operations. Dredging and barge operations are planned to occur on weekdays, which will limit the impact of these operations on boating events. With the scows moving down the middle of the channel at 2.5 to 3 knots, racing boats and pleasure craft will need to adjust their course to avoid the slow moving scows. Should a sailboat stall in the path of the scows, the scows will need to stop or maneuver to avoid it, unless the boat -can resume course. At 2.5 knots, it will take a 1,500-cubic-yard scow approximately.400 feet to stop. If a sailboat came dangerously close to a scow and stalled, there is little the scow could do to stop or avoid a collision. Harbor traffic during holidays, weekends, and the annual Christmas boat parade is usually very heavy and would likely present logistical problems for scow and tug operators. Therefore, dredging and disposal activities will be prohibited from occurring on holidays, weekends, and during the boat parade (from approximately December 15 to January 1 for the latter). One possible way to reduce traffic conflicts is to post a lookout on the scow bow with a megaphone and radio. This would allow the tug operator to be notified of any possible hazards, as well as notify boaters to stay clear of the scow. In addition, a guideboat could be used to establish a safe distance between harbor traffic and the scow. This procedure would create a clear lane that would allow the scow enough room to stop should a sailboat stall in the path of the scow. Operation of the Balboa Ferry could be affected when a barge crosses the ferry's pathway. The degree to which ferry service will be affected is dependent upon the disposal method selected, with as few as 25 and as many as 80 bargeloads of material being hauled by scow. 1eti00e40otts-9 5.9-3 During the time when tug and scows are in operation, close cooperation and marine courtesy will be required among those using the harbor. Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce the impacts identified to a level that is considered less than significant. Operation of the marina will add 125 boats to Newport Bay. With an estimated total of approximately 8,500 boats operating within the bay, this represents an increase of approximately 1.5 percent in the total number of boats within Newport Bay (Gage, pers, Comm. 10/22/90). Due to the small percentage increase, this is not considered a significant impact. The location of the Castaways Marina will permanently reduce the amount of available space for maneuvering of boats within the lower portion of the Upper Bay. However, the proposed marina would not reduce the width of either of the navigational channels used to enter or exit the Upper Bay. Thus, long-term project impacts are not considered significant. 5.9.3 CITY POLICIES AND REQUnU04ENTS No city policies or requirements have been• identified. 5.9.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 5.9-1. During the dredging and ocean disposal operations, a guideboat, or a lookout on the barge bow, will be used and equipped with a megaphone and two-way radio to minimize potential accidents. 5.9-2. Prior to issuance of the dredging permit, the contractor will meet with the ferry operator to develop an acceptable communications system, and shall provide the City of Newport Beach with verification of said meeting. 5.9-3. Prior to the issuance of a dredging permit, the contractor will submit a plan for the dredging operation and movement of dredged material to the Orange County Harbor Patrol and U.S. Coast Guard, and shall receive approval of the plan from said agencies. Tbis plan will include the location of the mooring area for barges and equipment during weekend or holiday periods, and plans for emergency or bad weather conditions. In addition, the contractor shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach that said plan has been approved and that the Notice to Mariners has been issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. P F I� r JIMM060011.5-9 5.9-4 J h H 5.94. Dredging operations shall be limited to non -holiday weekdays and shall be prohibited during the period of the annual Christmas boat parade and holiday period (from approximately December 15 through January 1). In addition, said activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. for acceptable weekdays. 5.9.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the proposed Castaways Marina will contribute an additional 125 boats to Newport Bay, raising the cumulative number of boats within the harbor by approximately 1.5 percent. Due to the project's small contribution of boats to the cumulative total, it is not expected to have significant impacts on harbor circulation. 5.9.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EWACTS Short-term adverse impacts identified for harbor circulation can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant upon implementation of the mitigation measures. No adverse long-term impacts are identified. MV00640011.5-9 5.9-5 ' 5.10 AIR OUAI= 5.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ' Regional Setting ' The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin of California, a 6,600-square-mile area encompassing Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, ' and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east, the South Coast Basin is an area of high air pollution potential. ' Climate of the Basin The strength and location of a semipermanent, subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean ' primarily control the climate of the basin. Climate is also affected by the moderating effects of the nearby oceanic heat reservoir. • Warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime ' onshore breezes, and moderate humidities characterize local climatic conditions. ' The terrain features of the basin make it possible for various micro -climates to exist within the general area. The pattern of mountains and hills are primarily responsible for the wide variations of rainfall, ' temperatures, and localized winds throughout the region. Temperature variations have an important influence on basin wind flow, dispersion along mountain ridges, vertical mixing, and photochemistry. ' Due to the moderating marine influence that decreases with distance from the ocean, monthly and annual spreads between temperatures are greatest inland and least at the coast. Precipitation is highly ' variable seasonally. Summers are often completely dry; there are frequent periods of 4 to 5 months with no rain. In the winter, an occasional storm from the high latitudes sweeps across the coast ' bringing rain. Annual rainfall is lowest in the coastal plain and inland valleys, higher in the foothills, and highest in the mountains. Microclimate of Newport Beach ' The proposed project lies in the City of Newport Beach along the central coast of Orange County. The area is within the marine microcHmatic zone of the basin, completely dominated by the ocean. It has the mildest winters in the basin and the coolest summers, with early summer days having limited IMOD640011.510 5.10 1 sunlight because of the daily low clouds. The air, directly from the sea, is seldom really dry. Frost is rarely recorded. Amoral average daytime temperatures range from 73.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1) in August to 62.6 degrees F in January. Low temperatures average 61.9 degrees F in the summer and 46.5 degrees F during the winter. Annual average precipitation at Newport Harbor is approximately 11 inches and occurs almost exclusively from late October to early April. Winds across the project area are an important meteorological parameter since they control both the Mal rate of dilution of locally generated air pollutant emissions as well as their regional trajectory. Predominant windpatterns for the coastal plain of (range County generally follow those of the basin. During the day, effects of a sea breeze reach inland. During the night, surface radiation cools the air in the mountains and hills, flows into the valleys, and meanders to the coast producing a gentle "land braze." In Newport Beach, daytime winds normally occur from the west to the southwest due to onshore flow from the Pacific: Average daytime maximum speeds are approximately 4.1 miles per hour (mph) in the summer decreasing to 2 mph during the winter. This directional flow is most dominant in the summer and spring. Nighttime predominant wind patterns generally fund an easterly to northeasterly flow set up from the general offshore flow enhanced by the local thermal drainage. This directional flow is most dominant in the winter. Average nighttime maximum speeds in the winter reach 2.7 mph and fall to a gentle 1.5 mph in the summer. In general, the predominant winds observed throughout the year are mild. This general flow for the area is interrupted by occasional winter storms, frontal passages, and the Santa Ana winds. Meteorological conditions such as light winds and shallow vertical mixing, and topographical features such as surrounding --mountain ranges hinder the dispersal of air pollutants. The basin is an area of high air pollution potential because frequent temperature inversions tend to trap air pollutants in a limited atmospheric volume near the ground and hamper dispersion. In the month of January, a surface inversion exists 70 percent of the mornings. The average wind speed in the basin is less than 5 miles per hour 80 percent of the days during the summer smog season. This is a measure of daily stagnation. I I I 1 ravooMtt.sto 5.10-2 I I F t I. I During summer's longer daylight hours, plentiful sunshine provides the energy needed to fuel photochemical reactions between nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds that result in ozone formation. Ozone (O,) is a colorless toxic gas that irritates the lungs and damages materials and vegetation. To reach high levels of ozone, adequate sunshine, early morning stagnation in source areas, high surface temperatures, strong and low morning inversions, greatly restricted vertical mixing during the day, and daytime subsidence that strengthens the inversion layer are required. The most frequent ozone transport route is from source areas in coastal areas to receptor areas along the base of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains. On the rare days with offshore flows, ozone transport is more limited and highest concentrations occur in the western portion of the basin. In the winter, temperature inversions occur close to ground level during the night and early morning hours. At this time, the greatest pollution problems are from carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless gas that interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain. High carbon monoxide concentrations occur on winter days with strong surface inversions and light winds. Carbon monoxide transport is extremely limited. Since carbon monoxide is produced almost entirely from automobiles, the highest concentrations are associated with areas of highest traffic density. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish -brown gas that at high levels can cause breathing difficulties. High nitrogen dioxide levels usually occur during the autumn or winter on days with summer-like weather conditions. These conditions include low inversions, limited daytime mixing, and stagnant windflow conditions. Although days are clear, sunlight is limited in duration and intensity. Photochemical reactions necessary to form ozone are incomplete. Atmospheric particulates are made up of fine solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. A large portion of the total suspended particulate (TSP) matter in the atmosphere is finer than 10 microns (PM10). These small particulates cause the greatest health risk since they can more easily penetrate the defenses of the human respiratory system and cause irritation by themselves, as well as in combination with gases. As with ozone, a substantial fraction of PM10 forms in the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions. Peak concentrations of both ozone and PM10 occur downwind of precursor emission sources. Regional Air Ouality The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) samples ambient air at 32 monitoring stations in the basin. Locations of these stations are depicted on Exhibit 5.10-1. ra2100e40011.510 5.10-3 I Contaminant levels in air samples are compared to national and state standards to determine air quality. These standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at levels to protect publichealth and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. There are national and state sir quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, PM10 (suspended particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter), sulfur dioxide, and lead. The SCAQMD also measures for compliance with two other state standards: sulfate and visibility. Standards are described on Table 5.10-1. Attainment Status The basinhas not exceeded national and state standards for several pollutants. Levels of ozone exceed both national and state standards at all monitoring sites in the basin. In 1990, the peak ozone reading in the basin was almost three times the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Los Angeles urban area and the mountainous areas of San Bernardino County exceed this standard more frequently than any other area in the United States, and also record the highest peak readings. National and state standards for carbon monoxide are exceeded in more denselypopulated Los Angeles and grange counties, but not in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Carbon monoxide is produced almost entirely from automobiles. The national nitrogen dioxide standard is exceeded in Los Angeles County, the only area in the nation that still exceeds this standard. The state nitrogen dioxide standard is exceeded in both Los Angeles and Orange counties. The number of readings over the standard fluctuates from year to year, depending on weather patterns. PM10 levels regularly exceed the national standard in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. In 1988, the standard was also exceeded in Orange County. PM10 can irritate the respiratory system by itself and in combination with gases. Sulfur dioxide and lead levels in all areas of the basin are below national and state standard limits. I F r i 11 u I I naffiw 11.slo 5.10.4 1 LANCASTER • • GLENDORA j RESEDA BURBANK • ' PA3A•OEl7A • �• WEST AZIM / •UIMND LOS ANGELES Al�lOELES POMONADi • • LOS . ONTARq •PIOORIYEM • 1to•---- .WHITTIEYfif MWNORPE R HASM�• • LYNVOOO ANA EW mmrrOS COSTAMESA \� • ELTORO Legend ■■.Y ■..■a SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN • I AIR MONITORING STATION STATIONS REPRESENTATIVE OF STUDY AREAS AIR OUAUTY PROJECT SITE Ctt' atrr�#ii1t9itQC SANSERNARDUW • FONTANA REDlAND9 RUBIDOUK • I RIVERSIDE PERRIS LAMELSRWRE BANNING HEMET • Nash 0 12 0640011.3 2M Exhl6tc sao.i TABLE 5.10.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Califofnia National Air -. .. Ozone . 0.09 ppm,1-hr. avg.>a) 0.12 ppm, 1-hr. avg. 0.12 ppm, 1-hr. avg. t:arbon Mbnoxld& 9.0 ppm, 8-hr. avgab) 9 ppm, 8-hr. avg. 9 ppm, 8-hr. avg. 20 ppm, 1-hr. avg. 35 ppm,1-hr. avg. 35 ppm, 1-hr. avg. Nitrogen D/oxide.. 0.25 ppm, 1-hr. avg.>e) 0.53 ppm, annual avg. 0.53 ppm, annual avg. Suifar'DIdidde 0.05 ppm, 24-hr. avg.>-with 0.03 ppm, annual avg. 0.50 ppm, 3-hr. avg. ozone>.0.10 ppm, 1-hr. avg. 0.14 ppm, 24-hr. avg. or TSP>-ug/m3, 24-hr. avg. 0.25 ppm, 1-hr. avg.>c) SuBpended 30 ug/m3 annual geometric 50 ug/m', annual 0 50 ug/m3, annual t) particulate mean> arithmetic mean arithmetic mean NBtter(Pht t0) 50 ugtrrO, 24-hr. avg.>d) 150 ug/m3, 24-hr. avg. 150 ug/m3, 24-hr. avg. ,sulfates 25 ug/m3, 24-hr. avg.>= Lead 1.5 ug/m3, 30-hr. avg.>- 1.5 ug/m3, calendar 1.5 ug/m3, calendar quarter quarter Hydrogen ;. 0.03 ppm, 1-hr. avg.>= Su/nde VInyt Chloride 0.010 ppm, 24-hr. avg.>= Visibility- In sufficient amount to reduce Reducing the prevailing visbiI4 to less Particles than 10 miles at relative humidity less than 70%, 1 obs. b) ET**0 w b t15.1WZTh$ WbMrft Icy iopipffLI24 c ap.md40PPM14p avMya c) FJI@*nWOW 5. 19K Tn.WMnd wr pmianlySp+m.1•hWranwpa d)) E%CMAA'Aus Mafch 19619 prgmldu,gadfipm ppmp>�pp Pmmnod 0 w ft,. m and 100 UWrW T5P.24awrapa 0 EP.cO *Juy1.19W.TMOa,Mardsm PwAwAtr PAT 4zwWgowraftr TSP>751grmraW24wawap.TSP12fA1p5P'. S.mn0wy •AwA g.wwftn TSPaw u0(W and 24nw ay.np. TSP> 150 uptrn'. Now: ppm . paiwpwnaaonbyvdu,n.. uym . miaopmn PKCW TrA w. > gna vwn MIMMIr Soon: COMOMia Air Rncutoa. pond. IM& 5.10-5 `The SCAQMD monitoring station in Costa Mesa is the station closest to the project site, and is used to characterize baseline air quality in the project area (see Exhibit 5.10-1). Air quality readings at the Costa Mesa Station for the past 5 years are shown in Table S.10.2. Although air pollutant levels are usually below threshold levels, Costa Mesa ozone levels still exceed state standards a few times a year. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide ambient levels rarely exceed standards. Ambient levels of PM10 are not considered a problem locally and are not monitored. 5.10.2 PROJECT IMPACTS The CaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) indicates a project would be considered to have a significant impact on air quality if the project violates any ambient air quality standard, contributes measurably to an existing air quality violation, or exposes sensitive receptors to substantial levels of pollutants. Criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project need to be analyzed in an E1R have been determined by the SCAQMD. The threshold criteria include measurable emissions and conformity with the existing air quality management plan, as well as a number of other factors. The determination that a project would have a significant impact on air quality and any subsequent finding, including a statement of overriding considerations, must be made by the lead agency. Emissions from the proposed project fall into two general categories: • Short -Term Construction Emissions: Airborne dust and emissions from heavy equipment, trucks, tugs, etc., during the constructionphases of the proposed project. • ,ShortTerm Odor Emissions: Odor nuisances that arise from the dredging and temporary storage of wet sediment. • Lon¢ -Term Exhaust Emissions: Exhaust emissions from vehicular and boat activities associated with the new marina. I L� C C, C C i n;voowooii.sio 5.10-6 I i ' TABLE 5.10-2 SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY DATA• COSTA MESA AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION ' 1986 1987 1988 1989° 1990 Ozone (O3) ' State standard (1-hr. avg. 0.09 ppm) National standard (1-hr. avg. 0.12 ppm) Maximum concentration 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.15 Number of days state standard exceeded 24 23 15 2 12 ' Number of days national standard exceeded 10 2 2 0 3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) State standards (1-hr: 20 ppm; 8-hr: 9.0 ppm) National standards (1-hr: 35 ppm; 8 hr: 9 ppm) Maximum concentration 1-hr./8-hr. period 15/NM 12/8.4 16111.6 16/12.7 13/10.7 Number of days state standards exceeded (1-hr./8-h.) 0/3 0/0 0/3 0/8 015 ' Number of days national standards exceeded(1-hr/8-hr) 0/3 0/0 0/2 015 0/4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) State standard (1-hr. avg. 0.25 ppm) National standard (0.0534 AAM in ppm) Maximum 1-hr. concentration 0.20 0.19 Number of days state standard exceeded 0 0 0.26 1 0.22 0 0.22 0 Percent national standard exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)° State standard (24-hr. avg. 150 ug/m3) National standard (24-br. avg. 260 ug/m3) ' Maximum 24-hr. concentration NM NM NM NM NM Percent samples state 24-hr. standard exceeded NM NM NM NM NM Percent samples national 24-hr. standard exceeded NM NM NM NM NM ' Suspended Particulates (PM10)' State standard (24-hr. avg. 50 ug/m3) National standard (24-hr. avg. 150 ug(m3) ' Maximum 24-hr. concentration NM NM NM NM NM Percent samples exceeding state 24-hr. standard NM NM NM NM NM ' Percent samples exceeding national 24-hr. standard NM NM NM NM NM AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean NM = Not Monitored ppm = parts per million ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ' • Pollutants shown are those for which the South Coast Air Basin is designated as a federal nonattainment area. State and federal standards for both lead and sulfur dioxide have been met everywhere in the basin for the past 5 years. u Less than 12 full months of data were taken in 1989. Data may not be representative. ° The state TSP standard was superseded by the state PM10 standard in 1986 and the federal TSP standard was superseded by the federal PM10 standard in 1987. ' Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Data-1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990. ' Ja2\00640011.5x 5.10-7 11 Short -Term Construction Emissions ' Construction is expected to occur over a 10- to 12-month period and would include dredging and , disposal of dredged material and installation of onshore and over -water structures. Dredging and Disposal Phase , Dredging of approximately 80,000 cubic yards (cy) would be required. Approximately 56,000 cy of , material would be removed from behindthe existing bulkhead and 24,000 cy from the bay. Dredging , is expected to occur over 3 to 4 months. It Is expected that bulldozers would excavate the surficial dry sediments behind the bulkhead, while sediments below the water table would be removed by ' clamshell dredge. Waterside dredging would be completed by hydraulic, diesel -driven equipment. Emissions associated with the dredging operation would result from the use of diesel engines on tug ' boats, guide boats, and the required types of dredging equipment. The exact amount and ' characteristics of the tugs and various equipment to be used are dependent on the contractor's methods and are not known at this time. However, approximate values of emissions can be developed based on emission factors provided in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AP42: ' Coppitation of Air F011u Ar+t Em4.4ion Factors. Volume II• Mobile So +rent, (U.S. EPA 1985) and from operation details found in the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement/Sediment Management Project ' EIR (City of Newport Beach 198Q. Table 5.10-3 presents the estimated emissions stationary dredging equipment used in dredging ' operations during an average workday and during the total phase of work basal on a worst -case 4- ' month schedule. As shown, the levels of emissions from the stationary equipment for the dredging operation phase could contribute to measurable increases in nitrogen oxides, precursors to ozone, and are, therefore, significant. In addition to the emissions from dredging operations, air quality impacts associated with the disposal (mobile) phase for each of the three disposal options described for the proposed project are evaluated , below. I naAft 11.Sho TABLE 5.10-3 ' DREDGING EQUIPMENT ESTIMATED DAILY AND TOTAL EMISSIONS Emissions' Workday Total Dredging Period' Pollutant pb/day) (tons) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 89.1 3.6 Hydrocarbons (HC) 21.4 0.9 Nitrogen Oxides (NO.) 470.8 18.8 Assumes the operation of two dredges, two guide boats, and three tugs. Source of emission factors: U.S. EPA 1985. ° Based on estimated 4-month dredging schedule. ' (Option 1) 100 Percent Disposal to Coyote Canyon Landfill ' Under this option, it is estimated that approximately 4,000 truckloads of material would be transported to the County of Orange Coyote Canyon Landfill disposal site in the City of Irvine. Considering round trips, approximately 44,000 vehicle miles would be required by the heavy-duty diesel trucks. The EPA -approved emission factor generation model MOBILE4 was used to determine the impacts on ambient air quality by the added pollutant emissions from the required truck traffic. Table 5.10-4 presents both the daily and total disposal -period exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants from the estimated truck traffic. A worst -case 3-month estimate for the disposal phase of dredging was assumed, giving higher peak daily emissions. As shown, even with worst -case estimates, levels of ' criteria pollutants would not contribute substantially to local ambient levels. The small concentrations of the ozone -precursor pollutants, non -methane hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides would not contribute measurably to existing regional ozone levels. Local and regional air quality impacts as a result of mobile emissions from the required trucks alone would not be significant. However,' in combination with estimated stationary equipment emissions noted above (see Table 5.10-3), the Iestimated total nitrogen oxides emissions could be considered significant for a short-term period. During the disposal phase under this option, there is the potential for fugitive dust generation as a result of truck travel over the temporary dirt haul road to be provided through the Upper Castaways site to the exit at 16th Street (see Exhibit 3-8 in Section 3). The road would be approximately 1=00640011.510 5.10-9 2,100 feet in length. Table 5.10-4 also presents calculated estimates of TSP and PM101evels resulting from 4,000 trips throughout a 3-month disposal phase. It should be noted that the estimates are very general and are for a worst -case situation, and do not account for dust control measures. Emission factors were developed using data provided in the U.S. EPA AP-42: Co=flation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources (U.S. EPA 1986). As shown, without mitigation, fugitive dust levels would represent significant sources of TSP and PM10. Fugitive dust may become a nuisance to workers under predominant wind conditions and to local residences upwind to the northeast under stronger wind conditions (windspeeds greater than 20 mph). However, mitigation with an efficient watering program can reduce fugitive dust emissions by 50 percent, thereby reducing the PM10 concentration below levels considered significant by the SCAQMD and lowering the potential for TSP nuisance impacts, TABLE 5.10.4 DISPOSAL OPERATIONS OPTION 1: 100 PERCENT DISPOSAL TO COYOTE CANYON LANDFILL ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATED DAILY AND TOTAL E WMONS Emissions• Workday Total Dredging Period Pollutant pb/day) (tons) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 19.4 0.6 Non -Methane Hydrocarbons° (NMiC) 4.0 0.1 Nitrogen Oxides (NO) 29.7 0.9 Fugitive Dust Source Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 560.0 16.8 Particulate Matter (<10 microns) (PM10) 253.3 7.6 Source of emission factors: U.S. EPA AP-42 1986. " Based on estimated 3-month disposal phase. ° Reactive fraction of total hydrocarbon emissions most associated with ozone formation. Based on 4,000 truck trips over a 2,100-foot unpaved road surface. I i 11 I I H H I I �II u n I razroowoousio 5.10-10 1 J I 11 I I I� I I I I ,L(ption 21 100 Percent Disposal to an Approved Ocean Site This option would add oceangoing tugboats as an incremental source of short-term emissions during the dredging and disposal phase of construction operations. Ocean disposal of the dredged material could include as few as 25 and as many as 80 barge (or scow) loads of material depending on the chosen contractor's equipment and methods. These methods are yet to.be determined, but may include the use of tugs and barges (or scows) to transport the dredged material under the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge to a barge (or scow) marshalling area in Newport Bay. Oceangoing tugboats would transport filled barges (or scows) to the approved ocean disposal site. Table 5.10-5 presents estimated emissions stemming from the additional usage of tugboats in Newport Harbor under this disposal option. Emission factors were provided in the U.S. EPA AP-42: Comoation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 11: Mobile Sources (U.S. EPA 1985). The worst -case scenario of a required 80 loads over a 3-month period was assumed. As shown, the levels of emissions from the added use of tugboats during ocean disposal operations could, under the worst - case conditions described, represent a measurable short-term increase of ambient NO, levels and, thereby, ozone as well. It should be noted that actual emissions levels are extremely dependent on the number of tugboat trips taken and the time frame required to dispose of all sediment. A reduction in trips during this particular phase of the construction operations could reduce short-term air quality impacts of NO, and ozone to levels below those considered to cause a measurable regional increase in ambient concentrations. However, in combination with estimated stationary equipment emissions noted above (see Table 5.10-3), the estimated total nitrogen oxides emissions could be considered significant for a short-term period. TABLE 5.10-5 DISPOSAL OPERATIONS OPTION 2: 100 PERCENT DISPOSAL TO OCEAN ESTIMATED DAILY AND TOTAL EMISSIONS Emissions` Workday Total Dredging Period' Pollutant (lb/day) (tons) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 33.5 1.0 Hydrocarbons (HC) 7.2 0.2 Nitrogen Oxides (NO, 168.4 5.1 Source of emission factors: U.S. EPA 1985. ' Based on estimated 3-month disposal phase. 1 M006"11s10 5.10-11 I Under this option, some combination of the two alternative disposal methods would be used. This option would include an estimated 1,250 to 3,000 truck loads to the landfill, and an estimated eight to 50 barge (or scow) loads to the ocean disposal site. Estimated emissions under worst -case load requirement conditions were calculated using the same techniques described above for each of the two previous options. Table 5.10.6 presents daily and total exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants for a combination of 3,000 truck loads and 50 barge loads. As shown, the levels of emissions from the worst -case combination of disposal methods described could represent a measurable short-term source of NO. and, thereby, ozone, mostly from the source of added use of tugboats during ocean disposal operations. It should be noted that actual emissions levels am extremely dependent on the number of tugboat trips taken and the time frame required to dispose of all sediment. Fewer required trips could reduce short-term air quality impacts of NO, and ozone from this particular phase of the construction operations to levels below those considered to cause a measurable increase in regional ambient concentrations. TABLE 5.10-6 DISPOSAL OPERATIONS OPTION 3: COM UM LANDFILL AND OCEAN DISPOSAL ESTIMATED DAILY AND TOTAL EMISSIONS Emissions" Workday Total Dredging Period` Pollutant pb/day) (tons) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 35.5 1.1 Non Methane Hydrocarbons° (NMIiC) 7.5 0.2 Nitrogen Oxides (NO) 127.6 3.8 jonrim.. Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 420.0 12.6 Particulate Matter (<10 microns) (PM10) 190.0 5.7 Source of emission factors: U.S. EPA 1986. ' Based on estimated 3-month disposal phase. ° Truck exhaust contribution to total basal on nonmethane hydrocarbons only. ° Based on 3,000 truck trips over a 2,100-foot unpaved road surface. I �J H u I r I I I I F I I u n+2roo640ot1.510 5.10-12 II I i n P 1 I I I I During the landfill disposal phase of this option, there is.the potential for fugitive dust generation as a result of track travel over the temporary dirt haul road described in Option 1. Table 5.10-6 also presents calculated estimates of TSP and PM10 levels resulting from 3,000 trips throughout a 3-month disposal phase. It should be noted that the estimates are very general and are for a worst -case situation and do not account for dust control measures. As shown, without mitigation, fugitive dust levels would represent significant sources of TSP and PM10. Fugitive dust may become a nuisance to workers under predominant wind conditions and to local residences upwind to the northeast under stronger wind conditions (windspeeds over 20 mph). However, mitigation with an efficient watering program can reduce fugitive dust emissions by 50 percent, thereby reducing the PM10 concentration below levels considered significant by the SCAQMD and lowering the potential for TSP nuisance impacts. Structure Installation Phase The preparation of the area for facility construction would produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of soil movement. The emissions produced during grading and construction activities are short-term, expected to last only 2 to 3 months. Depending on prevailing wind conditions, these emissions could be troublesome to workers and nearby sensitive receptors, such as adjacent residents, even though prescribed wetting procedures are followed. Exhaust Emissions from Construction Equipment Exhaust emissions from construction activities include those associated with the transport of workers and machinery to the site, as well as those produced onsite as the equipment is used. Table 5.10-7 presents anticipated emissions from this phase of the construction process. Exact numbers and types of equipment to be used by the chosen contractor are not known at this time. However, based on studies of similar operations, emission factors are available in the U.S. EPA AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (U.S. EPA 1985). A worst -me 3-month facility installation phase was assumed. As shown, even with worst -case estimates, levels of criteria pollutants would not contribute substantially to local ambient levels. The small concentrations of the ozone precursor pollutants, hydrocarbons, and NO, would contribute negligibly to existing regional ozone levels. Local and regional air quality impacts as a result of emissions from the required construction equipment alone would not be significant. nsvooca I1.sto 5.10-13 I TABLE 5.10.7 , FACILITY INSTALLATION OPERATIONS 3ffSIATED DAILY AND TOTAL EMISSIONS Emissions' Workday Total Dredging Periodb Pollutant (lb/day) (tons) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 28.8 0.9 Hydrocarbons (HQ 3.2 0.1 , Nitrogen Oxides (NO, 66.4 2.0 ' • Source of emission factors: U.S. EPA 1985. b Based on estimated 3-month facility installation phase completion schedule. Fugitive Dust Emissions Clearing, grading, utility excavation, and travel on unpaved surfaces would contribute fugitive dust to the area. CARB estimates that each acre of soil disturbed creates about 110 pounds of dust per workday during the constructionlife of any project. This value depends on soil moisture, silt content, wind speed, construction density, and many other factors. As stated, through watering and other dust , control measures, dust emission rates can be reduced by about 50 percent. An estimated 4 acres will be excavated, graded, or both during the constructionphase of the project. Based on CARB estimates, the grading would generate 146.7 pounds (0.07 ton) of dust per month during area clearing and installation of facilities. It should be noted that this estimate is very general and conservative (worst case), and does not account for dust -control measures (e.g., watering). Fugitive dust emissions from this phase of construction operations would not represent significant sources of total suspended particulates and PM10. II The SCAQMD (Rule 403) requires that fugitive dust be controlled so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In , addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques as ' required by the SCAQMD can reduce the fugitive dust generation by 50 to 75 percent. 3RUCOM 11.sxo 5.10-14 I L� I I I I L' Li r 0 Short -Term Odor Emissions The dredging and disposal phases of the construction operations consist of the removal of sediment and water that may have associated odors winch would be annoying to nearby residences. Odors generated are attributed to the inherent odor of the compounds in the water and to odors resulting from the decomposition of organic matter. Neither the EPA nor CARB have established ambient air quality criteria for odors. The SCAQMD has adopted a nuisance ordinance (Rule 402), which provides some protection to the public from malodors. Odor Definitions Odors are characterized by two parameters: quality and intensity. Public appraisal of the quality of an odor is generally straightforward —it is either liked or disliked. Whether or not an odor is objectionable is a highly subjective appraisal. Odor intensity is the strength of the perceived odor sensation. Two response curves and their corresponding thresholds are possible. The detection threshold is the point at which a person detects the presence of an odor, that is, detects a difference from background. The other response is the point when an odor is recognized, defining a corresponding recognition threshold. Both thresholds depend on the ambient concentration of the odorant substance. The thresholds may or may not be sharply defined, depending on the individual. The intensity of an odor sensation has been shown to be proportional to the logarithm of the odorant concentration (Williamson 1973). The most common way of summarizing a perceived intensity of odors is through category scales. A category scale consists of a series of numbers with a definition of their meaning. The odor intensity Iscale developed is as follows: 0 - No noticeable odor 1 - Very faint odor 2 - Faint odor 3 - Easily noticeable odor 4 - Strong odor 5 - Very strong odor I =006400us10 5.10-15 I Castaways Marina Construction Odor Generation Potential 1 As mentioned, the construction of the proposal project would involve the exposure of potentially odorous sediment that has undergone organic decomposition. Them are two distinct cycles in nature involving the decay of organic matter: aerobic and anaerobic decomposition. As these processes proceed, gases, many of which are odorous, are produced. The type of gases produced and the resulting odors differ depending on whether the decomposition is aerobic or anaerobic. While both processes generate some odor, the anaerobic process generates considerably more malodors. The difference between aerobic and anaerobic decomposition is in the microorganisms' use of oxygen. In the aerobic cycle, the microorganisms present use oxygen for the decay of the organic matter (composed of primarily carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen). Oxygen is not used for the decay of organic matter in the anaerobic cycle. The aerobic decomposition cycle produces carbon dioxide and water. Any sulfur -containing organic ' compounds will be converted to sulfur dioxide. Similarly, any nitrogen -containing compounds will be converted to some form of oxides of nitrogen. Therefore, the majority of by-products of aerobic decomposition, specifically, carbon dioxide, water, and oxides of nitrogen, are odorless. However, sulfur oxides have a slight odor. The odor threshold for sulfur dioxide is 0.47 ppm (Williamson 1973). Anaerobic decomposition occurs whenever there is a lack of oxygen. This can occur in stagnant bottom conditions. The bottom layer of water is not exposed to air, and becomes deficient in oxygen. Initially, the organic material in this layer would begin to undergo aerobic decomposition. After a short tmte, the oxygen supply in the lower portions will be depleted and anaerobic decomposition will develop. The anaerobic process converts organic matter to methane and carbon dioxide. Nitrogen contained in the organic matter will be converted to ammonia, which has an odor threshold of 46.8 ; ppm (Williamson 1973). Of more concern is the fact that the sulfur contained in the organic matter will be converted to hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide has an odor described as rotten eggs and pungent. The odor threshold of byorogen sulfide is a very low 0.00047 ppm (Williamson 1973). The anaerobic process generates substantially more odors because the threshold concentration for sulfur ' dioxide is 1,000 times higher than for hydrogen sulfide. The estuarine waters of the Newport Back Bay are almost constantly on the move. The three most important factors operating to produce currents are oceanic tides, stream flow, and wind. These factors help in maintaining a high level of dissolved oxygen in the water and thus prevent anaerobic rasraoAW11.510 5.10-16 17 I I I t I I I I I C LI [I LJ I or stagnant conditions from developing. Oxygen is introduced into the water through the interaction of wind over the surface. The rising and lowering of tides results in the temporary exposure of mud flat areas, also introducing oxygen into the water. In addition, in shallow waters where enough sunlight is present, the bottom algae and many microorganisms convert carbon dioxide into oxygen through the same process as green terrestrial plants. In deep estuaries, the bottom layer can become depleted in oxygen, and anaerobic conditions develop. This condition does not commonly occur in the Newport Back Bay area, most likely due to its limited depth. However, some signs of anaerobic processes are evident in some of the muds. A black layer of mud is usually an indication of anaerobic conditions having been present. Layers of black mud were encountered in the project area during dives taken by MBA's project marine biologist. It should be noted that the Iyers of black mud are indicative of normal conditions in shallow bays. In many instances, the top layer of mud was aerobic while only lower layers of mud showed signs of oxygen depletion. Previous Odor Complaints A review of the findings during the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement/Sediment Management project (City of Newport Beach 1986) indicated that no complaints about odors had been received during dredging and disposal operations. Very faint odors had been detected at times during these operations. Strong odors or rotten egg odors characteristic of anaerobic processes were not detected, even though layers of black mud had been encountered. Objectionable odors had not been encountered during other projects using dredging operations as well. Odors are sometimes evident in the Newport Back Bay area. Generally, these odors are considered very faint, not objectionable, and due to natural sources. Strong hydrogen sulfide odors typical of anaerobic processes are not present. Castaways Marina Construction Odor Dispersion The release point of odors, if any, during the dredging and disposal phase of construction would differ for the two alternative methods of disposal (landfill or ocean disposal). Under all options, clamshell dredging would create a point of release at the excavation area. As stated, the predominant daytime wind direction at the project location is from the west to southwest. At the closest point of dredging, odor release would be within approximately 1,500 feet of the nearest residences downwind. ravo0640011.510 5.10-17 y, :1.1 Under this disposal option, dredged sediment would be allowed to dry at the Lower Castaways site ' before being hauled by trucks to the Coyote Canyon Landfill. This would result in an odor release point at the Lower Castaways site. Any odor releases would be within approximately 2,000 feet of the nearest residences downwind under predominant wind conditions. In general, the odors generated from exposure of sediment material to the air during drying would be inclusive of those generated ' during the dredging operation itself, making the entire project site the potential source of odor release. (On on 2) 100 Percent Dis22sal to A proved Ocean Site I As part of this disposal option, dredged material would be transported to and stored on a barge (or scow) marshalling area positioned somewhere in the Newport Harbor Channel, most likely just south ' of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge and east of Lido Island. In addition to the excavation site as a point of odor release, the marshalling area could be a primary point of odor release. Residences lie approximately 250 feet downwind of the likely marshalling area. 1 This option would necessitate the creation of both•odor release points of the different disposal method alternatives discussed previously. Some dredged material would be stored at the excavation site, while the rest would be transported to the marshalling area in Newport Harbor. , Dispersion analyses were estimated for the proposed project based on analysis techniques outlined in 1 the U.S. EPA AP-26: Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates (U.S. EPA 1973) and the methodologies used in the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement/Sediment Management Project EIR (City *of Newport Beach 1980. The purpose of a dispersion analysis is to determine the dilution ratio that would occur at various locations downwind. The dispersion analysis compares the odor concentrations experienced at the vicinity of the source with the odor concentration experienced downwind. Therefore, if the odor concentration experienced at the release points are known, the dispersion analysis can be used to identify the intensity of the odor in downwind areas. It should be noted that unlike most sources of air quality impacts, the emission factors of odors cannot be calculated for most sources. Factors generating odors are too complex and vary considerably from day to day, making it difficult to forecast with any degree of certainty. However, as discussed above, based on the experiences during previous dredging projects requiring similar marshalling of sediment material, it nnrooc<ooi1.510 5.10-18 1 r I I I U i 1 I 7 LJ J LI I D is expected that for the Castaways Marina construction project, odors would not be noticeable, in the worst case, would be very faint. Accordingly, odors from the construction phase of the proposed project would be identified with a ranking between 0 and 1 on the previously discussed odor -intensity category scale. Dispersion estimates were made for the two likely odor release points under the various options of the disposal phase of the project construction operations. Exhibits 5.10-2 and 5.10-3 show the horizontal dispersion in relative concentrations that would occur from odors released at the project site (under options 1, 2, and 3, as discussed) and at the Newport Harbor marshalling area (under options 2 and 3, as discussed), respectively. Worst -case meteorological conditions observed at the project location were used in developing stability conditions. Parameters included a Class D (neutral) stability category with 2 mph southwesterly winds. These conditions are typical of many days in the Newport Beach area when a low marine inversion layer and calm wind conditions are observed. For reference purposes, an odor concentration of 1 was assumed at the area of odor release. This level is simply a unitless reference level and does not imply a relationship to any odor threshold concentration. The exhibits show lines of equal relative concentration at 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 levels. If the odor at the release point was considered "very faint" (category 1) then all areas within the 0. 1, 0.05, and 0.01 relative concentration lines would perceive the odor as somewhere between "very faint" and "not noticeable" (between category 0 and 1). Winds from other directions would result in similar patterns of lines in the designated downwind direction. Long -Term Emissions The predicted increase in both vehicular and boat traffic is relatively minute and thus would result in minimal increases to ambient levels of air pollutants. However, any increase in emissions of ozone precursors (i.e., nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons) is considered cumulatively significant since the site is located in a non -attainment area for ozone. Conformity with State Implementation Plan The Federal Clean Air Act (1990 amendments) requires designated agencies in any area of the nation which does not meet the NAAQS to prepare a plan demonstrating the steps which will be taken to bring the area into compliance. The national deadline for meeting all standards was December 31, 1987. Congress recently revised the Clean Air Act extending attainment deadlines to the year 2010 for areas with severely degraded air quality such as the South Coast Air Basin. I 3=006I0011S10 . 5.10-19 F Designated planning agencies in the Basin are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association 1 of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies adopted a revised Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on March 17, 1989 which projects attainment for all national standards by the year 2007. The California Air Resources Board approval the South Coast Air Basin AQMP in August 1989. However, the EPA has only approved portions of the AQMP for inclusion in the federally enforceable State Implementation Plan. The EPA was directed to prepare a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which was released in draft form in summer 1990, but was not finalized prior to enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and has since been suspended. SCAG and the SCAQMD have prepared a Draft 1991 Clean Air Plan which addresses the California Clean Air Act requirements, as well as measures for reducing toxic contaminants and global warming ' precursors. The Final Draft 1991 Plan was released in May 1991, and is scheduled for adoption by the SCAQMD Board and submittal to the Air Resources Board prior to June 30, 1991. The 1991 ' Draft Plan includes revisions to the 1989 Plan conformity guidelines. These changes emphasize reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Subregional vehicle mites traveled (vmt) targets were proposed ' in the portion of the plan prepared by SCAG and submitted to the SCAQMD in December 1990 for incorporation In the 1991 Clean Air Plan. The Federal Clean Air Act also requires that projects receiving federal funds demonstrate conformity to the approved local AQMP. Conformity guidelines for the AQMP extend these requirement to all regionally significant projects, regardless of whether federal funding is being sought. Regionally significant is defined by the size of the project, either in square footage or number of units. Projects larger than the minimum size are required to demonstrate conformity with the AQMP by showing that they are within the job/housing balance ratio designated for the subregion in which they are located. If a project cannot mane such a finding, it is required to include transportation control measures that achieve an equivalent reduction in vehicle trips and miles traveled. I The proposed marina is a project for which the job/housing balance demonstration of the AQMP is not applicable and, due to the size of the project, it does not meet the minimum requirements for projects subject to UP conformity review under the General Development Conformity Guidelines (Southern California Association of Governments 1990). Also, the facility would not add enough vehicle trips to the area to require project -specific transportation control measures to be incorporated. As stated in Section 5.8, Traffic/Circulation, the average daily trip generation is estimated to be 183. nryoowoouslo 5.10-20 "WI a• Sa�'!ry'y • � 19fr• 1 �' °,;.`'Zvi r `�.�� : �h'"`'•d}}� , i •_. , _ .�. ., ' �a�� �R.• - �G ;�. �• n.5}I} t511,1 � G y �, 1 � •. .- ter, v'1� ,yT�1`}p/�i�. N \�ywy.�yi t)! 1 .° •y �� a y $$ ^�yA'' \ • NY a 4 R ni �p •• } aTYM. �•t4' }Prx a - � - ajlr.v � 'J1 � ,. ' ' J Y a.� - •_- all ,I .. � •i ,q •i ate. � � .VI ' ' � _ \ �` - • � , �,I'�iiy 4 w 4. W V : ' .ram ..•!e�i a�Qad_• _ - , I ' 5.103 EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS INo city policies or requirements• are identified. ' 5.10.4 MITIGATION MEASURES ' Short -Term (Construction) Emissions ' The following measures would be effective in reducing short-term ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., NO) and PM10 emissions associated with the construction phase of the project: ' Equipment Exhaust Emissions Mitigation ' 5.10-1. The project applicant shall require all applicable contractors to implement the following exhaust emission reduction measures: ' a. Maintain equipment per manufacturer's specification. ' b. Install catalytic converters on gasoline -powered equipment. c. Implement engine timing retard. ' d. Utilize electrical or gasoline -powered instead of diesel -powered equipment whenever possible. ' Fugitive Dust Emission Mitigation ' 5.10-2. The applicant shall implement suppression measures for fugitive dust. Measures shall include wet suppression techniques for dry ground soil, immediate replanting and irrigation of landscaped areas, coverage requirements for loaded trucks, and onsite vehicle speed limits of 15 mph. These measures, as well as others deemed necessary by the City of Newport Beach, shall be incorporated as conditions of preventing offshe fugitive dust nuisances, as required in the SCAQMD Rule 403. ' Equipment Exhaust and Fugitive Dust Emissions Mitigation 5.10-3. Construction activities shall be curtailed during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations. Ambient PM10 concentrations are highest during days with strong winds (greater than 20 mph). rau00e40011s10 5.10-21 1 I 5.10.5 CUMULATIVE II11t'ACTS ' As discussed, some components or alternative elements ofthe dredging operations individually are not estimated to have a significant impact on ambient air quality. however, since the combined effect of all phases of dredging and construction would contribute to an already existing violation of the ozone , standard, the construction -related ozone precursor pollutant emissions would lead to a short-term significant impact on regional air quality. It should -be noted that the majority of these short term r emissions would stem from the dredging phase of operations. Equipment and/or truck emissions resulting during the disposal option phase would incrementally add to the already high emissions , associated with the dredging equipment. Although long-term project -generated air quality impacts are expected to be minimal due to the ' relatively- small number of boats, any increase in emissions of ozone precursors is considered cumulatively significant since the site is in a non -attainment area for ozone. 5.10.6 UNAVOILABLE ADVEM MPACTS r The proposed project would contribute to cumulatively significant air pollutant emissions that cannot r be eliminated altogether by project -related measures, and thus would contribute to unavoidable adverse cumulative air quality impacts. r r r r r r r ra2ooeQ011.510 5.10-22 i� P 7 r E 5.11 NOISE 5.11.1 EXISMG CONDITIONS Noise Scales Community noise levels are measured in terms of the A -weighted decibel (dBA). A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. * Additional units of measurement have been developed to evaluate the long-term characteristics of sound. The equivalent noise level (Leq) is a single -number representation of the fluctuating sound level in decibels over a specified period of time. It is a sound -energy average of the fluctuating level. The "eq" of Leq stands for "equivalent." The Leq of a time -varying sound is equivalent or equal to the level of a constant unchanging sound. The community noise equivalent level (CNEL) has been adopted by the City of Newport Beach to evaluate noise impacts. CNEL represents a time -weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise occurring during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at those times. CNEL includes an additional 5 dBA penalty for events occurring in the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and a 10 dBA penalty for events occurring in late evening and early morning hours (between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). Typical noise levels for different types of noise sources within communities are presented in Exhibit 5.11-1. Noise Criteria State and local governments have established noise standards and guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service has guidelines to protect endangered species (birds or fish) from excessive noise. The applicable standards dnd guidelines for this study area are discussed below. State of California The State Office of Noise Control, in Guidelines for the Prenaration and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan (February 1976), provided guidance for the acceptability of designated land uses within specific CNEL contours. Residential uses are normally unacceptable in areas exceeding 70 dB CNEL and conditionally acceptable within 60 to 70 dB CNEL. However, the state stresses that these IJ nm0064001 1s11 5.11-1 h guidelines can be modified to reflect communities' sensitivities to noise. Exhibit 5.11-2 lists typical noise -compatible land uses. City of Newport Beach The Noise Element of the General Plan, adopted October 15, 1974, requires noise -sensitive land uses to not exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dB CNEL, while interior noise levels are not to exceed 45 dB CNEL. "Sensitive" land uses typically include residences, parks, churches, schools, and hospitals. While the Noise Element sets guidelines for transportation -related noise impacts, the Newport Beach , Noise Control Ordinance sets standards to regulate the operation of stationary noise sources. As stated , In Ordinance No. 10.28, Section 10.28.010, "It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make, continue or cause to be made or continued, any loud or unreasonable noise which disturbs the peace , or quiet of any person or neighborhood, or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area." ' Also stated in Ordinance No. 10.28, Section 10.28.040, is that, "No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering, or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment, or machine In a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 am. and 6:00 p.m." In addition, any such noise is prohibited on Sundays and holidays (as identified in the noise ordinance). Existim Acoustical Sea= Several noise -sensitive land uses were identified in the vicinity of the proposed project site (see Section 5.1.1). These land uses include single-family residences located about 200 feet west of the ' proposed project site across Dover Drive, the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church located on Upper Castaways about 1,200 feet to the north, and a mobile home park located 1,000 feet to the east across the bay. ri2ro0640011.511 5.11-2 RELATIVE COMMON INDOOR COMMON OUTDOOR LOUDNESS NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVELS dB(A) 12D ROCK BAND 32 110 CHAIN SAW AT 2 FEET 16 IOD GAS LAWN MOWER AT 3 FEET B 90 FOOD BLENDER AT FEET 2-ENGINE PROP TAKEOFF (1000� 4 30 GARBAGE DISPOSAL AT3FEET DIESEL TRUCK AT50FEET 1-ENGINE PROP TAKEOFF (10D01 2 70 VACUUM CLEANER AT 10 FEET AUTOMOBILE AT 50 FEET 1 60 CONVERSATIONAT3FEET HEAVYTRAFFIC AT300 FEET LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE 1/2 50 QUIET OFFICE QUIET URBAN DAYTIME 1/4 40 QUIET RURAL NIGHTTIME LIBRARY 1/8 30 1/16 20 V32 10 THRESHOLD OF HEARING 0 80 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 PERCENTAGE } COMPLAINANTS O COMMUNITY a60 20 REACTION 15 VIGOROUS 10 ACTION = 40 COMPLAINTS & w I 5 THREATS 95% CONFIDENCE —OF LEGAL H r INTERVALATMEAN 2 ACTION w 20 1 NONE w ' IL SOURCE: `IMPACT OF NOISE ON PEOPLE' 50 60 70 80 90 FAA, OFFICE OF ENVIRCNMEN AL OUALITY, DAY -NIGHT SOUND LEVEL, (Ldn)/CNEL M1AY/9n ' t M , LAMA '�`f S>�tX4tlfl�*5 iY!€i i EilfE 0640011.3 ' Fxhlbics.i1-1l-1 1 I� n C C I � `I 1 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Let OR CNEL, dS LAND USE CATEGORY 55 60 65 70 75 80 RESIDENTIAL - LOW DEX, - *0100////////0//0 SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL - MULTIFAMILY TRANSIENT LODGING- MOTELS, HOTELS ; SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT HALLS, AMPHITHEATRES SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS i PLAYGROUNDS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS I GOLF COURSES, RIDING ':'::j.;' : ":<•:�.'; : -' `'• STABLES, WATER RECREATION, CEMETERIES I BUSINESS//� COFFICE OMMEBUTALAND, PROFESSIONAL ! INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING�j// UTILITIES, AGRICULTURE i LEGEND NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise Insulation requirements. SEEN CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be under- taken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conven- tional construction, but with Closed windows and fresh air supply systems or am conditioning will normally suffice. 77 NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged It new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINATION OF NOISE -COMPATIBLE LAND USE A. NORMALIZED NOISE EXPOSURE INFORMATION DESIRED where sufficient data exists, evaluate land use suitability wrth respect to a 'wnnaazed'value of CNEL or l.. Noffmkzedvatuwm obtained byaddmg or subbabrg me wrdtants described in Table t to me measured or calculated value of CNEL or L.. B. NOISE SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS The land use.h,,m compatibility rewmmendMha should be viewed in relation to the specific sours of the noise. For example, aircraft and rallraed noise Is normally made up at higher single hors a"=than auto traffic but ocwre less frequently. Therefore. different sources yielding me same composite noise exposure do not necessarily create the same noise emuonmem. The State Aeronautics Act uses 65 d8 CN EL as me cme con witch airports must eventually meet to protect existing residential wmmunifies from unacceptable expasure to anaraft noise. In order to facietete the purposes of the Ad, one of which Is to encourage Land uses compatible vim the 65 de CNEL criterion wherever possible. and in order to facilitate the abllrly of wrpons to comply wdh the Act. rasld9nbal uses koated In Com mumty Noise Exposure Areas greater Man 65 d8 should be discouraged and considered located vermin normally unacceptable areas. C. SUITABLEINTERIOR ENVIRONMENTS One objectives of locating rat de mal units relative to a known noise source Is to maintain astiltableintewrnoise enwronmem at w greater than45 OR CNEL of L,. This requirement, coupled with the measured or calculated noise reduction perionnanceof the typeolstructure underconsderahon.should govern rho mini- mum acceptable dchanCa d a noise source. D. ACCEPTABLE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Anamarwnsiderdtion, which in somowmmunaiesus an ovemdmg factor, is the dwmtormacwptableoutdwrnoiwanwrmmwt When Irmistheoase,more restngvee standards to r land use w mpatilxlity, typmal ly below the manmum wn- siowed -norm illy acceptable' for that land use category. may be appropnate. SQml:Cildomia Deportment at Meal,. Gogewwe for me rreparupnaw Von. a, noaa cronm,uw nw wm,mw rw�„rww�r• ��•. NNNI 11 CE5 4Uft 5 l 7iC� No . " EXhibithibit5.11 •2 11 C I 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 i i L The project site and surrounding area are currently exposed to traffic noise from Coast Highway and Dover Drive. To document existing noise levels in the area, noise measurement surveys were conducted by MBA's noise engineer in September 1989 at the locations shown. in Exhibit 5.11-3. Noise levels were recorded using a Larson Davis Model 800 Dosimeter, which was calibrated before each of the measurements was conducted. Results of these measurements are presented in Table 5.11-1. Afternoon noise levels (considered to be peak noise level period) at noise -sensitive land uses in the study area ranged from 58.5 to 63.5 dBA Leq, while evening noise levels ranged from 41.0 to 62 dBA Leq. TABLE 5.11-1 EXISTING ACOUSTICAL SETTING Approximate Noise Level, Dominant Location` Time Leq (dBA) Noise Source 1. Newport Harbor 2:15 - 2:30 p.m. 63.5 Dover Drive Lutheran Church 8:20 - 8:35 p.m. 41.0 2. Neighborhood along 3:15 - 3:30 p.m. 58.5 Ambient Kings Place 7:30 - 7:45 p:m. 50.5 3. DeAnza Trailer Park 3:45 - 4:00 p.m. 60.0 Coast Highway 7:05 - 7:20 p.m. 62.0 Locations shown on Exhibit 5.11-3. ' To predict the incremental increase in noise due to project -related traffic, both existing and future traffic noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise ' Prediction Model (FHWA-RD 77-108, December 1978), as modified, to generate CNEL values. Model input data include average daily traffic levels, roadway gradients, day/eveninglaight ' percentages of automobiles, medium and heavy trucks, vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. Existing traffic volumes were provided by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering Department. Vehicle fleet mix percentages were assumed based on typical estimates for 1 urban roadways in Southern California. The FHWA noise calculation data sheets including all assumptions are provided in Appendix K. Table 5.11-2 quantifies the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 1 dB CNEL contours and lists the CNEL value at 50 feet from the centerline of the near travel lane for roadways in the project vicinity. These noise levels do not consider any obstructions to the noise path, 1 nr2/00e4MI1.511 5.11-3 such as shielding due to buildings or changes in topography, and are therefore considered a worst -case representation. TABLE 5.11-2 CALCULATED EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS' Distance from Roadway Centerlige to CNEL Cm feet) CNEL at 50 feet from near travel Roadway Segment 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL lane Coast Highway 135 278 591 72.6 (east of Dover Drive) Dover Drive 65 132 280 69.0 (north of Coast Highway) Jamboree Blvd. 119 247 528 72.4 (between Coast Highway & Bison Avenue) Bison Avenue <50 85 175 65.5 (between Jamboree Road & MacArthur Blvd.) MacArthur Blvd. 163 348 748 75.4 (north of Bison Avenue) Note: Does not consider any obstructions to the noise path. ' See Appendix K for traffic volumes and other assumptions used in calculations. In a previous noise assessment, conducted by Mestre Greve Associates in 1985 for Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program, Unit II, noise measurements of a typical hydraulic dredge operation produced the noise levels listed in Table 5.11-3. From the data measured, an equation was developed to estimate the noise levels generated by typical dredge operations: L = 72 + 20 log (100/D) where L is the noise level (dBA) that would be measured at D feet from the dredge. An additional 3 dB should be added to the above equation to represent worst -case conditions. rav00640011s11 5.11-4 LJ I I I I I I u I I I Ij E I I Legend IKDINoise Monitoring Location Z 4-- Up Cas=ys ,T h7I~WPO&m Z, Lido Island Hurd z Z" z Bay Z\ Isle Balboa Peninsula wwitrns Cdstciwqs, F-77TPFff 112PI Nonh NotToScalc Aveam 0640011-8190 Exhibit 5.11-3 I L P I 7 J U E TABLE 5.113 NOISE LEVELS FOR HYDRAULIC DREDGE Distance from Dredge Noise Levels (dBA) 141 67 252 66 280 71 448 69 980 54 Source: Mestre-Greve Associates 1985. The tugs would have the same size diesel engine as the dredge, and when towing a scow, would be near full power. Estimates of the noise levels generated by tug and/or clamshell dredge can be made based on the typical engine size. Typical engine size is approximately 250 horsepower (hp) for a clamshell dredge, which is a tenth the engine size of the hydraulic dredge system, and so would be expected to be about 10 dBA quieter than the hydraulic dredge. TTpical Noise Levels Generated by Trucking Activities The noise level generated by typical large trucks traveling at•55 miles per hour (mph) is 86 dBA at 50 feet ("Statistical Analysis of FHWA Traffic Noise Data," FHWA-RD-78-64), similar to the noise level generated by a lawn mower 5 feet away. With the speed slowed down to 30 mph, the noise level at 50 feet would be reduced to 80 dBA. Further noise reduction can be expected with increasing distance from the centerline of the roadway and other shielding effects such as topographic change and roadside berm/trees. The general rule is a 6-dB noise reduction per doubling of the distance from the noise source, assuming a soft site between the receptor and the noise source. Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Table 5.11-4 lists noise levels generated by typical construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet and the suggested sound levels for analysis. nl2/0064WI1.511 5.11-5 TABLE 5.11.4 NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Range of Sound Levels Suggested Sound Levels Measured for Analysis Type of Equipment (dBA at 50 feet) (dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers 12,000-18,000 81- 96 93 ft lb/biow Rock Drills 83 - 99 96 Jack Hammers 75 - 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 - 88 85 Pumps 68 - 80 77 Dozers 85 - 90 88 Tractor 77 - 82 80 Front -End Loaders 86 - 90 88 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 - 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81- 90 86 Graders 79 - 89 86 Air Compressors 76 - 86 86 Trucks 81- 87 86 Source: "Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants," BBN Layman Miller Lecture Notes 1987. 3.11.2 PROJECT IMPACTS i i7mm, Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the noisiest equipment JBZV0640011s11 5.11-6 ' types operating at construction sites typically range from, 88 dBA to 91 dBA at 50 feet, with the exception of pile driving and rock drilling, which would be as high as 96 dBA at 50 feet. Typical ' operating cycles may involve 2 minutes of full power, followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower settings. Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the erection phase (laying ' subbase and paving) tended to be less noisy. Noise levels vary from 79 dBA to 88 dBA (energy average) at 50 feet during the erection phase of construction. Construction activities would potentially ' cause a short-term annoyance to noise -sensitive land uses in the surrounding area. See Section 5.6 for discussions of noise -related impacts on wildlife. ' • Potential noise impacts may arise from bulkhead wail installation, landside and waterside dredging, disposal of dredge materials from the project site, marina and guidepile installation, and landside improvements, including buildings and grading, paving, and landscaping of the site. Three options ' have been proposed for the disposal of dredged materials. The following discusses the noise impact from each of the construction operations and the three material disposal alternatives. ' Bulkhead Wall Installation Bulkheads will consist of a tie -back system using steel sheetpiles with a reinforced concrete cap, cathodically protected tie rods, and reinforced concrete deadmen. Installation of these bulkheads would require the use of jackhammers and possibly other pneumatic tools. A noise level of 82 to 85 dBA is expected at 50 feet from this equipment. At a distance of 200 feet from the noise sources, an ' additional 12 dB noise reduction can be expected. More noise reduction may come from natural shielding such as earth berm, dense trees, and other structures that would block the line -of -sight ' between the noise -sensitive receptors and the noise sources. At 1,000 feet from the noise sources, at least 26 dB in noise reduction would result from distance attenuation and shielding effects. It is ' estimated that the single-family residences directly west of the project site across Dover Drive could experience a noise level of about 70 dBA from this construction activity. Although of a short-term ' nature, this increase in noise could be perceived as significant by affected residents. However, due to the limitations on work hours set by the Orange County Harbor Patrol and the city's noise ' ordinance, these noise impacts would be limited to daylight hours on weekdays and Saturdays. Therefore, these impacts would be mitigated to a level less than significant. It is estimated thatthe mobile homes to the east across the bay could experience an exterior noise level of about 56 dBA from this construction activity; this level would not be considered significant. No n;voosaaousu 5.11-7 u significant noise impact is expected to the church and the single-family residences to the north of the project site due to their higher distance attenuation (28 and 33 dB, respectively). Dredge Operations Dredging will be accomplished using a combination of methods incorporating standard excavation techniques —front-end loaders —for the land -based dry materials, and both hydraulic pumping and clamshell methods for the land -based wet and water based materials. At a distance of 50 feet from these operations, 86, 88, 77, and 73 dBA are expected for hydraulic excavation, front-end loading of earth, hydraulic pumping, and ciamshell dredging, respectively. However, with the results of the 2-day Mestr&6reve Associates (1985) measurements, 78 dBA could be measured at 50 feet for the overall dredging operation. This would be a maximum noise level because the dredging operation may use smaller-engined ciamshell dredging equipment. As discussed above, the closest nodse- sensitive receptors are those residences approximately 200 feet to the west, across Dover Drive. These residences currently experience an estimated traffic noise level of about 69 dB CNEL (see Table 5.11-2). Noise generated by the proposed dredge operation could lead to short-term increases in cumulative noise levels experienced in the nearby residential areas. Although of a short-term nature,'this increase in noise could be perceived as significant by affected residents. However, due to the limitations on work hours set by the Orange County Harbor Patrol and the city's noise ordinance, these noise impacts would be limited to daylight hours on weekdays. Therefore, these impacts would be mitigated to a level less than significant. Disposal of Dredge Materials After drying the dredged materials to acceptable levels for transportation on the Lower Castaways Site, these materials would be transported over city streets to the disposal site by 2(kubic-yard tandem trucks. Approximately 4,000 truckloads of material are estimated to be transported to the Coyote Canyon Landfill via Dover Drive, 16th Street, Coast Highway, Jamboree Boulevard, Bison Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Bonita Canyon Drive, and Coyote Canyon Drive (see Exhibit 3 7 in Section 3). Typical large trucks traveling at 30 mph on city streets would generate a noise level of 81 dBA 50 feet from the trucks. This transport activity would affect those residences closest to the designated 1 I� I 11 U rR21006 aolt.511 5.11-8 I I 1 1 H 1 L u LJ 5 1 segments along Dover Drive, Coast Highway, Jamboree Boulevard, Bison Avenue, and MacArthur Boulevard. Assuming approximately 4,000 truck trips during the dredging period, and a 3-month dredging period, 52 truck trips per day are expected (excluding Sundays). This increased truck traffic would have the following effect: Coast Highway —about a 10 percent increase in the truck average daily traffic (ADT) and a 0.07 percent increase in the total vehicular ADT; Dover Drive —a 23 percent increase in the truck ADT and a 0.17 percent increase in the total vehicular ADT; Jamboree Boulevard —an 18 percent increase in the truck ADT and a 0.11 percent increase in the total vehicular ADT; MacArthur Boulevard —a 13 percent increase in the truck ADT and a 0.08 percent increase in the total vehicular ADT; and Bison Avenue —a 54 percent increase in truck ADT and a 0.35 percent increase in total vehicular ADT. These are increases over existing (1989) traffic volumes. With a 3-dB increase in noise levels requiring doubling the volume (100 percent increase) of the total vehicular trips, the noise level increases over existing levels along the roadway segments of the designated truck trips would be far less than 1 dB. Also, due to the temporary nature of construction activities, noise level increases along these roadway segments would be at a level considered less than significant. 100 Percent Ocean Disposal to an Approved Ocean Site Ocean disposal of all dredge materials would result in as few as 25 and as many as 80 bargeloads of material, depending on the contractor's equipment and methods. Variables include barges capable of holding either 1,000 cubic yards or 3,000 cubic yards of material, as well as dredge quantities varying from 24,000 to 80,000 cubic yards. Transporting dredged materials by barges could require up to 5 tug trips daily on average through Lower Newport Bay assuming a 1-month ocean disposal period. Tug trips during the daytime hours would not generate noise levels above those normally experienced during this time period. Combined Disposal to Both Coyote Canyon Landfill and the Approved Ocean Site Ocean disposal would be accomplished using hydraulic dredging techniques and barges. The number of barge loads may be as few as eight or as many as 50, depending on the size barge selected by the contractor and the quantity of material allowed for ocean disposal. Ja J00640o11.511 5.11-9 I The inland disposal of remaining material would be transported to Coyote Canyon Landfill. As few as 1,250 and as many as 3,000 truckloads of material would be required for this option, based on the contractor's methods and the quantity of material allowed for ocean disposal. This alternative would reduce the noise impacts from either the Coyote Canyon Landfill alternative or the Approved Ocean Site alternative. Since neither of these two alternatives would generate significant noise impacts on the study area, and the noise generated by them would not be integrated into ahigher level, the combined noise impact would be considered less than significant. Marina and Guidepile batallation Depending on the bay bottom conditions, guidepiles may either be jetted into place, causing little noise and vibration to surrounding areas, and/or driven using a bargemounted diesel pile driver. pile driving using a hammer will produce noise and vibration. Pile drivers with the capacity of 12,000- 18,000 ft-lb/blow typically generate 93 dBA 50 feet away (see Table 5.11-4). Although this "worst" care would generate a noise level exceeding the existing traffic noise level at the residences to the west of the project site (about 80 dBA), and would be an adverse impact, it would be at a level that is considered less than significant due to the temporary name of construction activities. Iandside l upr+ovements Landside improvements include bathroom/storage facilities, a sanitary pumpout station, and a parking lot. Grading, paving, and landscaping equipment will generate noise; with graders expected to generate the greatest levels. Graders typically generate 86 dBA 50 feet away. Again, with the existing traffic noise from Dover Drive, these construction noises would not be significant to the closest residences west of the project site. No significant noise impact is expected from the operations of the proposed marina. Boat cruising operations would not generate noise levels in excess of the existing levels. Noise from project -related vehicular traffic (estimated to be 183 average daily trips) would add to cumulative noise levels but would not be considered significant. I] 11 I I L rfl21006+0011s11 5.11-10 t n H 1 I 0 D 1 5.11.3 CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS 5.11-A. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance which limits construction to the following hours and days. • Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on any weekday • Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays • Prohibited on Sundays and holidays 5.11A MITIGATION MEASURES 5.11-1. On Saturdays, pile driving activity shall be further limited to the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 5.11.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The short-term, construction -equipment -generated noise was evaluated in Section 5.11.2 and was found to add to existing traffic noise generated along the roads in the vicinity of the site and along the possible haul route. These increases in noise levels may be perceived as annoying but, because of their short-term nature, would not be considered cumulatively significant. 5.11.6 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Unavoidably, the proposed project will generate increased noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the dredging and construction phases. These noise increases would be relatively short-term but may be preceived as significant by nearby residents. As noted in Section•5.6, the dredging and pile -driving activities could disturb endangered bird species that nest or forage near the site, but this is avoidable by conducting these activities during the fall and winter months. 1=00640011.511 5.11-11 1 I 1 C 1 t SJU PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTMUMS 5.12.1 FIRE PROTECTION EsistiGng Conditions The City of Newport Beach Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical services in Newport Beach. Mutual aid response from adjacent cities is provided upon request. The two fire stations that would respond to emergencies in the project area are Station 2 at 475 32nd Street and Station 6 at Irvine Avenue. Station 2 has nine men available on a 24-hour basis. The station is equipped with a truck company, an engine company, and a paramedic ambulance. Station 6 has three men available on a 24-hour basis, and an engine company. In addition, a battalion chief and a battalion chiefs aid from Station 3 at 868 Santa Barbara Drive would respond to an emergency at the proposed project site. Response time to the project site is approximately 3 minutes from both fire stations 2 and 6. The fire hazard severity for the proposed project area is not classified. Project Impacts Implementation of the proposed project would increase the need for fire protection and emergency medical services in the project area; however, the Fire Department has reported that it -has sufficient manpower and equipment to satisfy this increase (Brown 1989). No adverse impacts on fire protection are therefore expected. The Fire Department has also indicated that the proposed project would require a fire flow of 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (Brown 1989). City Policies and Requirements 5.12-A. The following Fire Department standards/requirements shall be complied with prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. A. Site Access 1. Minimum Width Required a. 26 feet —no parking allowed b. 26 feet + car width — parking one side (parallel) n 210064WI1.512 5.12-1 c. 26 feet + 2 car widths — parking two sides (parallel) 2. Turning Radius a. Cul-de-sac - Minimum 40-foot radius - Minimum 42-foot radius if center is planted - Minimum 15-foot radius 3. Height Clearance a. Minimum overhead-13 feet 6 inches b. Building eaves, trees, etc., are prohibited 4. Roadway Width with Access Control (Knox Key Controlled) a. 13 feet clear on each side of control apparatus or island upon which it is mounted, whichever requires the greatest width B. Hydrant Locations 1. A minimum of two onsite hydrants will be required at locations to be specified on site plans (basically at or near the cul-de-sac turnaround areas) C. Marine Fire Protection 1. Standpipe and hose cabinet requirement a. Pier or floats under 500 feet in length Class H standpipe with hose cabinets arranged to provide protection to any portions of floats or floating vessels b. Pier or floats over 500 feet in length Class III standpipe with 2-1/2-inch hose outlets for fire department use and hose cabinets arranged so that all portions of floats and floating vessels are protected 2. Required Water Supplies a. Class 11 standpipe - 100 GPM at a residual pressure of 65 P.S.I. at the most remote cabinet nMMD640011S12 5.12 2 I 1 b. Class III standpipe - Same as Class II except that supply piping must be able to deliver 500 gpm to the 2-1/2-inch hose valves 3. Extinguishers a. One 2A 20 BC located in each hose cabinet 1 4. Transmittal of Fire Emergency a. A means of rapidly notifying the fire department in the event of an 1 emergency (telephones used for this purpose shall not require the use of a coin) Chi 1 1 0 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Mitigation Measures The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect the Fire Department's level of service, however, the following measures are recommended to enhance fire protection. 5.12.1-1 The project proponent shall consult with the City of Newport Beach Water Department to ensure fire flows of 3,000 gpm for the project. 5.12.1-2 Access dimensions shall be consistent with City of Newport Beach standards. 5.12.1-3 Fire protection requirements shall be consistent with the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. 5.12.1-4 Prior to the city's issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall verify that the Newport Beach Fire and Police departments, and the Orange County Sheriff's Harbor Patrol are provided with keys to all locked facilities/areas within the site. Cumulative Impacts The project contributes to the cumulative impact on fire protection services from all development occurring within the City of Newport Beach. However, because of the small size of the project, the mitigation measures identified, and the ability of the Fire Department to adequately serve the project site, the project's contribution is not considered significant. 1 nsv00e40011.512 5.12-3 i The Newport Beach Fire Department has indicated that it is able to adequately service the proposed project (Brown 1989). Based on this information and the small size of the project, no unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to occur. 5.12.2 POLICE SERVICES Law enforcement services to the project site area are provided by the City of Newport Beach Police Department and the Orange County Sheriffs Harbor Patrol. In addition, other city and county agencies provide assistance upon request. The closest facility, the NBPD, is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive and currently has three 4-wheel-drive vehicles, three 4-wheel-drive ATVs, three K 9s, two helicopters, and approximately 25 marked police cars. The NBPD has a minimum of eight officers available on a 24-hour basis. Response time for emergency calls to the site is less than 3 minutes by land and approximately 1 minute by air. The second closest facility is the Harbor Patrol Division Headquarters located at 1901 Bayside Drive in Corona del Mar. This facility has a minimum of four officers, two fire boats, and three patrol boats available on a 24-hour basis. Response time for emergency calls is between i and 9 minutes, depending on the units' location at the time of the dispatch. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the need for police protection in the project area; however, the Police Department and the Harbor Patrol reported that the current level of service would be adequate to accommodate the proposed project (Newman 1989; Gage 1989). Therefore, no adverse impacts on law enforcement are expected. CiJX Polides and R=gremwtts No city policies or requirements are identified. I J I I I I I I nvo0e+0011.512 5.12-4 ' Mitigation Measures ' See Mitigation Measure No. 5.12.1-4 above. ' Cumulative Impacts ' The project contributes to the cumulative impact on police service levels from development occurring within the City of Newport Beach. Current levels of service are adequate to meet the project needs. ' Based on communication with the Police Department and Harbor Patrol, and the small size of the project, cumulative impacts are expected to be less than significant. ' Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ' Communication with the applicable law enforcement agencies indicates that the project will be ' adequately served. Thus, no unavoidable adverse impacts are associated with the project. 5.12.3 SOLID WASTE Currently, waste generated in the project area is hauled by private refuse haulers. Solid waste ' generated by the project would be deposited at the County of Orange Bee Canyon Landfill. The lifespan of this landfill is approximately 25 years (Niederhaus 1989). ' Proiect Impacts ' No adverse impacts on available solid waste disposal capacity at the Bee Canyon Landfill are expected. Ctv Policies and Requirements No city policies or requirements have been identified. • . Mitigation Measures ' No mitigation measures are required. H ' nVOD640011.512 5.12-5 Cumulative lmnacic ' Continued development throughout Orange County has created a shortage of available landfill space. ' Thus, the project will be contributing additional demand on solid waste disposal sites. However, due to the small size of the project, its impact is considered less than significant. ' Unavoidable Adverse hopmV ' Due to the small size of the project, relatively small amounts of solid waste are expected to be ' generated. Communication with the General Services Department regarding the capacity of the Bee Canyon Landfill, which services the project area, indicates that the landfill has a lifespan of 25 years, ' and can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the project (Niedubsus 1989). 'Thus, no unavoidable adverse impacts are associated with the project. ' 5.12.4 WATER SUPPLY , Existine Condidous Water supply service is provided by the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department. A portion of ' an existing 30-inch water main is located within the Lower Castaways site. Project h3gKu ' implementation of the proposed project would add to the cumulative demand for water supply services ' in the project area; however, the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department has indicated that existing facilities are adequate to provide service, including fire flow requirements, to the proposed ' project (Malkemus 1989). Thus, no adverse impacts on water supply service are expected. Ciy Policies and Requirements ' No city policies or requirements have been identified. I.1 razroos+cousi2 5.12-6 ' Mitigation Measures ' 5.12.4-1. Low -flow fixtures shall be used in the bathroom/storage buildings on the site. ' 5.12.4-2. The approved landscape palette shall include drought -tolerant plant materials. ' 5.12.4-3. The project shall be designed to avoid disturbance of the existing onsite 30-inch water main, or if this cannot be achieved, design for the proposed project shall include provisions for the relocation of the water ' main in accordance with City of Newport Beach requirements. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ' Due to the nature and size of the project, no unavoidable adverse impacts on water services are expected. ' 5.125 WASTEWATER TREATMENT ' Existing Conditions ' All wastewater facilities in the immediate area of the proposed project are owned and maintained by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC). The closest trunk sewer to the area is ' the Back Bay trunk sewer located east of the site, next to the existing marina. The line is 36 inches in diameter at this point. The treatment facility that will serve the project is the CSDOC wastewater ' treatment plant No. 2 located in Huntington Beach. Sewage currently receives primary and secondary treatment at the plant with discharge 5 miles off the coast at ocean outfail No. 2. The maximum ' capacity of the plant is 186 million gallons/day and the plant is currently operating under its design capacity (Windsor, pers. comm., 4/26190). No expansion at the plant is planned for the near future. ' Project Impacts ' Wastewater generation of the project has been estimated at an average of 2,000 gallons per day, and, according to a CSDOC representative, the project can be accommodated at its Huntington Beach ' treatment plant (Windsor, pers. comm., 4/26/90). The project will have two bathroom facilities and a sanitary pumpout facility, which will be connected to CSDOC's sewer line in Dover Drive. ' Implementation of the proposed project would add to the cumulative demand for wastewater services =00640011.512 5.12 7 U in the project area; however, due to the small size of the project, the impact on wastewater services , will be minimal (Windsor, pers. comm., 4/26/90). City Policies Rem&YURO wd ' No city policies or requirements are identified. MItjgation Measur4s ' ' See Mitigation Measure No. 5.12.4-1 above. Cumulative Innaets The ' proposed project would contribute to the cumulative total of wastewater treated at the CSDOC treatment facilities. However, communication with CSDOC representatives indicates that the project can be adequately serval (Windsor, pens. comm., 4/26190). Due to the small size of the project, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts is considered less than significant. ' Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Due to the nature and size of the project, no unavoidable adverse impacts on wastewater services are expected ' 5.12.6 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ' W The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) provides transit service to the project area via three local ' lines (Routes 1, 57, and 65). These lines provide service on weekdays, weekends, and holidays. An existing stop is located at northbound Dover Drive and farside Pacific Coast Highway (adjacent to the ' proposed project). 782/0064WII.512 5.12-8 I I 1 1 LJ I C� 1 I u Protect hnpacts Due to the nature of the proposed land use and its relatively small size, the proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for public transit service in the area (Huard -Spencer, pers. comm., 7/13/89). The demand for public transit resulting from the project should be accommodated by the current levels of service and by the adjacent bus stop. Cily Policies and Requirements No city policies or requirements have been identified. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts Due to the small size and type of project proposed, the OCM is not concerned that the project will have a cumulative impact on service levels (Huard -Spencer, pers. comm., 7/13189). Thus, cumulative impacts will be less than significant. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed project is not expected to generate a substantial amount of additional demand on OCTD service. This is due to the nature and small size of the project. Based on the agency's lack of concern regarding increased demand as a result of the project, and the nature of the project, no unavoidable adverse impacts are expected. 5.12.7 ELECTRICITY Exdsting Conditions The proposed project is within the service area of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). An undergroundelectrical conduit system•exists in Dover Drive. The conduit is immediately north of the existing driveway and can be used to supply power to the site. n=0060011.512 5.12-9 The proposed project would add to the cumulative demand for electrical service in the project area; however, SCE has indicated that existing facilities are sufficient to provide service to the proposed project (Cartwright 1989). Therefore, no adverse impacts on electrical service are expected. M1 M L. L 1. lij V41 4 No city policies or requirements are identified. No mitigation measures are required. Additional development in an area will have a cumulative impact on electrical service in the area. However, based on SCE responses to the proposed project, and on the small size of the project, cumulative impacts on electrical service in the area will be less than significant. M� . '.I'UTX Discussions with SCE representatives have indicated that SCE will be able to meet the additional demands of the project (Cartwright 1989). Based on these discussions, and on the small size of the project, no unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to result from project implementation. 5.129 TELEPHONE The proposed project is within the service area of Pacific Bell. An underground telephone conduit system and two manholes exist onsite. This conduit system is connected to the main system in Dover Drive. IF1 I F J I I I Jai006+0011s12 5.12-10 I 1 1 1 1 Project Impacts The proposed project would add to the cumulative demand for telephone services in the project area; however, Pacific Bell has indicated that existing telephone facilities are sufficient to provide service to the proposed project (Lowing 1989). Therefore, no adverse impacts on telephone service are expected. Pacific Bell estimates that approximately 70 pairs pines) will be required for in-service telephone needs and 130 pairs (lines) for ultimate telephone needs. 011 Policies and Requirements No city policies or requirements have been identified. Mitigation Measum 1 5.12.9-1. A conduit system will be required for cable placement and shall be provided by the project proponent. 1 n 1 L 1 I 1 1 1 Cumulative Impacts Communications with Pacific Bell indicate that the proposed project will not have an impact on its, service level (Lowing 1989). Due to the nature of the project, impacts on phone service are considered less than significant. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Pacific Bell does not anticipate an impact to its service as a result of the project. This is in part due to the project's small size, and to the nature of the project. Based on these factors, no unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to occur as a result of this project. I n VO064OD11S12 5.12-11 ' SECTION 6 ALTERNATIVES TO TBE PROPOSED PROJECT ' In accordance with Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section presents a range of ' reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, and evaluates the comparative merits of the alternatives. These alternatives focus on alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing ' the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. For the proposed marina project, reasonable alternatives include: (1) the no project alternative, (2) lower -number -of -boat -slips ' alternatives, and (3) alternative project site location(s). la addition, this section will consider an alternative to the design of the temporary haul road and long-term site access —these being design ' alternatives to the proposed project at its currently proposed location. ' 6.1 NO -PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ' In this case, the no -project alternative assumes no development of the proposed marina or alternative uses at the proposed project site. This alternative would allow the Lower and Upper Castaways sites, and the Upper Newport Bay to remain in their current conditions. The land on Lower Castaways ' would remain an undeveloped lot with ruderal and disturbed vegetation, the Upper Newport Bay adjacent to the Lower Castaways would remain as open water and intertidal mudflat habitat, and the ' channel conditions would remain unchanged. Also, no temporary haul road would be developed through Upper Castaways with this alternative. ' This alternative would eliminate the short-term (but mitigable) disturbances and increased turbidity ' which may affect endangered birds which forage in this part of Upper Newport Bay; particularly the California least tern which nests in the Upper Bay. at should be noted that these short-term impacts ' could also be eliminated by the proper scheduling of the proposed project's dredging and construction activities to avoid the breeding season of this bird.) In addition, this alternative would eliminate the ' long-term loss of open space, mudflat habitat, halibut nursery habitat, and foraging area for birds. ' The no -project alternative would eliminate the project's potential to contribute to water quality problems within the bay. Even though the project would represent a small, increment of the marina uses in Newport Bay, as whole, it could contribute to existing significant water quality problems ' (primarily through accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials, or discharges of sanitary waste or refuse). ' MOD640011.6 6-1 Ibis alternative would eliminatethe air contaminant and dust emissions associated with the proposed dredging and marina construction activities. These were determined to be. significant on a short-term basis, only. In addition, it would eliminate the truck traffic which could cause potentially significant short-term traffic impacts and disturbances to the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church (assuming the Coyote Canyon Landfill disposal option were to be implemented). Note that traffic impacts could be mitigated to a level less than significant with the proper construction traffic management plan, and coordination with other agencies regarding concurrent road improvement projects. This alternative would not meet the project objectives to provide land uses consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element which identifies the site to be used for "Recreational and Marina Uses." Nor would it allow for public access to the part of Newport Bay next to the site. In summary, this alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, and is under consideration by the City of Newport Beach. It would eliminate the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. However, as noted above, it would not meet the land use and public access objectives for the project property (as identified in Section 3.4 of this EIR). _ ,JT NN1 1. N_ 0 ;-10 Win kit V51I .4U' Alternative marina designs have been considered in an attempt to reduce environmental impacts associated with the project, and create a design best suited to the conditions of the site. Ibis section addresses three conceptual alternatives smaller than the proposed project, both with and without excavation of a new marina basin. 6.2.1 121-BOAT-SLIPS ALTERNATIVE This alternative is similar to the proposed project, but is primarily designed to reduce the project's expected impacts on the existing mudflat and halibut habitats near the shore. To accomplish this, three slips at the end of the pier are removed, and a side tie on the inside base of the pier is removed (see Exhibit 6-1). In addition, the last +/-100 feet of the pier is angled gently away from the shore by a few feet to further reduce dredging requirements near the shore. For the majority of potential impact areas, the reduction of the number of boat slips and side ties from 125 to 121 (a 3 percent reduction) would not alter the impacts associated with the proposed project, I J I L_I D LI I97100640011.6 6-2 11 11 IL I I 121--,B©ram Marm*a Allexn :.usruysta�t NNN Emil x..a 0 105 210 Feet C640011.15191 sqL.:c h&A.m -ZjOo Exhibit 6-1 I I 1 LI F I__ I 1 E or would only slightly reduce the impacts. For the following topical areas, the environmental effects of this alternative would be expected to be the same as for the proposed project: land uses and land use plans, terrestrial biology, and cultural resources. The magnitude of the long-term (operational) impacts from this alternative on water quality, traffic, harbor circulation, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities would be expected to be approximately 3 percent less by virtue of the fewer number of boat slips and side ties. Most likely, this reduction would not be noticeable. However, due to the alterations described in the first paragraph, this alternative design would substantially reduce the amount of bay or "wet" material that would need to be dredged. As shown in Table 6-1, the estimated amount of wet material to be dredged would be reduced from approximately 24,000 cubic yards (cy) for the proposed project to approximately 11,000 cy with this alternative. This represents a 54 percent reduction in required bay material dredging, and a 16 percent reduction in total dredging. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to result in substantially reduced short-term impacts associated with the dredging operation. Not only would potential short-term impacts to water quality, sedimentation, turbidity, benthic organisms, fishes, and bird foragingpatterns be reduced, butpotential short-term impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, and harbor circulation associated with disposal of the dredged material would be reduced. If 100 percent of the dredged material would be disposed of at the Coyote Canyon landfill it would represent 16 percent fewer truck trips (3,360 versus 4,000) on local roadways. If 100 percent of the dredged material is disposed of at an approved ocean site, it would represent 16 percent fewer barge trips (67 versus 80) through Newport Bay. If a combination of landfill and ocean disposal is used, then this alternative could represent an even greater reduction in barge trips through Newport Bay (assuming only "wet" material goes to the ocean and only "dry" material goes to the landfill). A major benefit of this alternative, would be the reduction of impacts to mudflat and halibut habitats. As shown in Table 6-1, this alternative would result in a net loss of approximately 0.34 acre of mudflat habitat —or 0.35 acre less than the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would result in a net loss of approximately 0.21 acre of halibut nursery/young of the year (YOY) habitat —or 0.07 acre less than the proposed project (see Exhibit 6-2). In contrast, the amount of juvenile halibut habitat created would be approximately 2.5 acres —or 0.46 acre less than the proposed project (see Exhibit 6-3). As a result of reduced mudflat habitat and halibut nursery impacts, less of these habitats would need to be replaced (at another location in Newport Bay) as a part of the mitigation program. =00643011.6 6-3 II TABLE 6.1 ' ESI7MAM DREDGING REQI<JIItEl1ZENTS AND HALIBUT AND MWK AT IMPACTS FOR ALTERNATIVE MARINA DESIGNS ' Proposed Project 121-Boat 84-Boat 50-Boat ' (125-Boat) Alternative Alternative Alternative A. Estimated Amount Dredging of Dry Material (ey)` 56,000 56,000 $6,000 3,500 ' Wet Material (cy) 24,000 11,000 11,000 13,000 ' Total (Cy) 80,000 67,000 67,000 16,500 B. Halibut (YOY Nurservl ' Removed (acres)' -0.34 -0.24 -0.28 -0.28 Created (acresN +0.06 +0.03 +0.02 +0.02 Net Loss (acres) -0.28 -0.21 -0.26 -0.26 C. Halibut (Juvenile) , Removed (acres) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Created (acres) +2.96 +2.50 +2.50 +0.10 ' Net Gain (acres) +2.96 +2.50 +2.50 +0.10 ' D. Mudilat Removed (acres) -0.74 0.34 0.65 0.65 ' Created (acres) +0.05 0,00 0.00 0.00 t Net Loss (acres) -0.69 -0.34 -0.65 -0.65 ' cy = cubic yards YOY = young of the year "Dry Material" is material behind existing bulkhead. ` "Wet Material" is material on bottom of bay. ' ° "Removed" refers to the total amount of habitat that is altered to depth contours outside the defined rangy for each habitat type. "Created" refers to the total amount of habitat that is altered to depth contours within the defined range fo ' each habitat type. Source: Cash and Associates 1991. ' J92MO6WI1.6x 6.4 , Legend .Halibut Nursery Area Replaced Halibut Nursery =SI Area Removed Rock Slope • 1:2 Castaways Mar! ct Naa 0 105 210 Feet 0411-1 S 1 Savor G.hfiAaom Voo Exhibit 6-2 I c I!� I Legend Existing Juvenile Halibut Area (Altered to -10) ••- Juvenile Halibut Area Created (321 to -10) Films Rock Slope • 1:2 AmenAe 14ab:Na Arm pacts 30 Emm I Nmh 0 105 210 Feet 0640011-15191 S.Crh&Aeacbcs ZWD Exhibit63 I u I I I I I I I According to the applicant, the reduction in the total number of boat slips and side ties from 125 to 121 would not substantially reduce the economic viability of the proposed marina (Power 1991). In addition, it would meet all the project objectives• identified in Section 3.4, and would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative is under consideration by the City of Newport Beach. 6.2.2 84-BOAT-SLIPS ALTERNATIVE This alternative would provide 84 boat slips —or 41 fewer boat slips than the proposed project, and proposes an alternative basin and pier design (see Exhibit 6-4). As conceptualized, this alternative would have the same marina basin size and location as the proposed project, and therefore, would require the same dredging activity to create the marina basin as the proposed project. However, due to a smaller pier structure, less dredging of bay "wet" material would be required. For the following topical areas, the environmental effects of this alternative would be expected to be the same as for the proposed project: land uses and land use plans, terrestrial biology, and cultural resources. The magnitude of the long-term (operational) impacts from this alternative on water quality, traffic, harbor circulation, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities would be expected to be substantially less —approximately two-thirds of those posed by the proposed project —by virtue of the 41 fewer of boat slips. Also, due to the smaller pier structure and its conceptualized configuration, this alternative marina design would substantially reduce the amount of bay or "wet" material that would need to be dredged. As shown in Table, 6-1, the estimated amount of wet material to be dredged would be reduced from approximately 24,000 cy for the proposed project to approximately 11,000 cy with this alternative. This represents a 54 percent reduction in required bay material dredging, and a 16 percent reduction in total dredging. ' Therefore, this alternative would be expected to result in substantially reduced short-term impacts associated with the dredging operation. Not only would potential short-term impacts to water quality, sedimentation, turbidity, benthic organisms, fishes, and bird foragingpatterns be reduced, butpotential short-term impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, and harbor circulation associated with disposal of the dredged material would be reduced. If 100 percent of the dredged material would be disposed of at the Coyote Canyon landfill it would represent 16 percent fewer truck trips (3,360 versus 4,000) on ' local roadways. If 100 percent of the dredged material is disposed of at an approved ocean site, it =006400u.e 6-5 would represent 16 percent fewer barge trips (67 versus 80) through Newport Bay. If a combination of landfill and ocean disposal is used, then this alternative could represent an even greater reduction in barge trips through Newport Bay (assuming only "wet" material goes to the ocean and only "dry" material goes to the landfill). However, due to this alternative's configuration (see Exhibit 63) it would result in approximately the same level of impact on both the mudflat and halibut habitats. As shown in Table 6-1, this alternative would result in slightly less net loss of mudflat habitat (0.65 acre net loss vs. 0.69 acre net loss for the proposed project), and slightly less net loss of halibut nursery habitat (0.26 acre versus 0.28 acre for the proposed project). The amount of juvenile halibut habitat created would be slightly less than the proposed project, as in the 121 slip alternative. Therefore, this alternative would not demonstrate a significant reduction of impacts to these habitats compared the proposed project, and would require a similarly scoped mitigation program for the replacement of these habitats. Because of the reduced amount of dredging required for this alternative, this alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. In addition, it would meet the City's objectives, as identified in Section 3.4 of this EIR, However, the development of an 84-boat-slip marina is not considered economically feasible by the applicant (Power 1991). Therefore, this alternative is not being pursued by the project applicant. 6.2.3 50-BOAT-SLIPS ALTERNATM—WITHOUT NEW MARINA BASIN This alternative would provide 50 boat slips 75 fewer boat slips than the proposed project, and proposes an alternative basin and pier design. As conceptualized, this alternative would not create a new marina basin, but would provide a pier structure into Newport Bay in approximately the same location as the one proposed for the project (see Exhibit 6-5). As concepntalized, this alternative would extend boat slips and a new pier structure from a reconfigured bulkhead in approximately the same location as the existing bulkhead. As shown in Table 6-1, this alternative would eliminate most dredging behind the existing bulkhead, and would reduce the estimated amount of dredging within the bay compared to the proposed project. For the following topical areas, the environmental effects of this alternative would be expected to be the same as for the proposal project: land uses and land use plans and cultural resources. It is possible that this alternative would have less impact on flora and fauna.on the Lower Castaways site. However, this would be dependent on how the balance of the Lower Castaways site was treated or 1 I U I I I I I I LJ I I JIMOO 4oa11.6 M II SCHEME 445' Slips 63 38' Slips 17 Side Ties 63 Parking Spaces Required 75 Parking Spaces Provided + + I 1 + 1 1 i 1 I 1 � \ + 1 1 'F- 1 1 1 1 1 -� C'<P � I(LLLLIl�+f�Fd� i I •.' 1 s i j . x I c 3 a i1 • • A // b s f I _ / HIG4WA)0 NI ,84,-Boat dY1at,�i.��'1l�'i {�dve N.& Not ToS=le 0640011.2ZM Castaway-s LY1fi'1"%ti' a , S�C.h&A.o<+ Exhibit 6-4 ' SCHEME r 50 Boat Slips 43 Parking Spaces Provided i l I. t Upper Castaways � I J t j do. e `41 r o � 9 .t f •• J { Jr V M Lower Castaways BRIDGE / COAST 50-Boat a,4k to :Jte=five: VtthoW i` .eW MtiT'va ${fnn- Nam% NocTOSak 0640011.21j90 Or stawgys M4ii sc s�ouhan.v-.= Exhibit 6-5 I I I I I -1 LI I F 1 I I altered. The magnitude of the long -tern (operational) impacts from this alternative on water quality, traffic, harbor circulation, air quality, noise, public services, and utilities would be expected to be substantially less —approximately two-thirds of those posed by the -proposed project —by virtue of the 75 fewer of boat slips. Also, due to the smaller pier structure and its conceptualized configuration, this alternative marina design would substantially reduce both the amount of "dry" ,material dredging (behind the bulkhead) and the amount of "wet" material dredging (within the bay). As shown in Table 6-1, the estimated amount of wet material to be dredged would be reduced from approximately 24,000 cy for the proposed project to approximately 13,000 cy with this alternative. This represents a 46 percent reduction in required bay material dredging. In combination with the reduction in dredging behind the existing bulkhead, the amount of dredging activity would be reduced by a total of 63,500 cy, or 79 percent less than that needed for the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to result in substantially reduced short-term impacts associated with the dredging operation. Not only would potential short-term impacts to water quality, sedimentation, turbidity, and bird foraging patterns be reduced, but potential short-term impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, and harbor circulation associated with disposal of the dredged material would be reduced. If 100 percent of the dredged material would be disposed of at the Coyote Canyon landfill it would represent 79 percent fewer truck trips (840 versus 4,000) on local roadways. If 100 percent of the dredged material is disposed of at an approved ocean site, it would represent 79 percent fewer barge trips (17 versus 80) through Newport Bay. However, due to this alternative's configuration (see Exhibit 6-4) it would result in approximately the same magnitude of impact on both the mudflat and halibut nursery habitats. As shown in Table 6-1, this alternative would result in slightly less net loss of mudflat habitat (0.65 acre net loss versus 0.69 acre net loss for the proposed project), and slightly less net loss of halibut nursery habitat (0.26 acre versus 0.28 acre for the proposed project). Therefore, this alternative would not demonstrate a substantial benefit to the mudflat and halibut nursery habitats compared to the proposed project, and would require a similarly scoped mitigation program for the replacement of these habitats. Also, the amount of juvenile habitat created would be approximately 0.10 acre —or 2.86 acres less than the proposed project. Because of the reduced dredging material disposal requirements for this alternative, this alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. In addition, it would meet the =0060011.6 6-7 City's objectives, as identified in Section 3.4 of this EIR. However, the development of a 50-boat- slip marina is not considered economically feasible by the applicant (Power 1991). Therefore, this alternative is not being pursued by the project applicant. Due the sensitivity of certain intertidal habitats within the project site, and endangered species which forage and roost in the vicinity of the proposed project site, this alternative evaluates the possibility of relocating the project to another location to alleviate or reduce potential environmental effects on these Upper Bay resources. However, in investigating the potential for alternative locations for an additional marina within Orange County, it was determinel.that no alternative sites are available which, would have less environmental effect (Rossmiller, pers. comm., 2/14/90). The following sites were evaluated (see Exhibit 6.6): Newport Beach: Lower Newport Bav - This portion of the bay is virtually builtout between the pierhead and bulkhead lines. No new marinas can be established within the ' Lower Newport Bay without an act of Congress to revise federal harbor lines. Upper NegrportBav - Newport Dunes is expanding but will be fully built out. Other locations within Upper Newport Bay are closer to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, or are within it and would result in potentially greater environmental effects. West Newport/Newport Shores - A marina facility has been considered at this location for a number of years. However, due the extreme environmental and engineering constraints associated with this alternative (it would require the creation of a new harbor entrance from the ocxan, parallel to the Santa Ana River) it has not been pursued. Dana Po'mt: No sites are available within the Dana Point Harbor. Additional marina spa Legend Altema6ve Marina Locations LOS ANGELES COUNTY wl jr FULLERTON I SAN COUNTY O '%+.e, r- RIVERSIDE COUNTY f to ANAHEIM ORANGE ' SANTA ' ANA TVS!'IN w . •' John Warne A1Rb6 AAA IRVINE \`\ ••` \• i'[ 'Sd' Laim Mission View J.� \ " ry b •, ,• d� 0 MISSION OC+��N� raw c7 SAND[ CArlsn \5> A Jt&rrtrrf4&to Mirt" /v I Ar-atil�-6s Castaways Mariner 'AN, I .gANO-- r SAN DIEGO COUNTY MENEEMEN Nadi 0 3 6Miks 0640011.1 W90 Exhibit 6.6 I I I i I I I I I I I I I 6.4 ALTERNATIVE HAUL ROAD/LONGTERM SM ACCESS DESIGN This alternative would provide an alternative access to the site which could be used for both the short- term haul road activities and as a possibly safer, long-term access route for the proposed marina. Exhibit 6-7 presents a conceptual design for this alternative access route and Exhibit 6-8 illustrates its cross -sections. As shown, it would be a 2-lane, 2-way road starting at the same point as the currently proposed temporary haul road (the northwest corner of Lower Castaways), and would then parallel Dover Drive within the property line until it curves westerly to intersect with Dover Drive directly across from Cliff Drive, thus forming a 4-way intersection. This alternative assumes a traffic light would be installed at the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection. As shown on Exhibit 6-7, a stairway could be provided at the northeast corner of the new intersection to provide access to the Upper Castaways Site. This alternative road/access design would alleviate the potential noise and dust impacts to the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church (these are considered short-term and mitigable). Also, it could create less potential for short-term erosion impacts to the wetlands on the Upper Castaways site (another short- term, mitigable impact). This alternative would require more extensive and severe grading along Dover Drive than the temporary haul road (approximately 2,000 cy of material would be removed), and would require a permanent retaining wall or cribwall to support the hillside cut (see Exhibit 6-8). It is assumed that excess cut material would be disposed of at the Coyote Canyon Landfill. As noted above, this alternative assumes that a traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of Dover Drive and Cliff Drive. Therefore, if this road were to be used for hauling of material to the Coyote Canyon Landfill, the trucks would exit the site at this intersection. It is assumed that trucks would make a left turn onto Dover Drive and proceed to Coast Highway where they would make a left and continue along the proposed haul route (see Exhibit 3-7). This alternative may be perceived to have a significant aesthetic impact due to the large cut in the hill along Dover Drive (see Exhibit 6-7). A 6- to 15-foot cribwall to support the hillside would be visible to local residents and drivers along this portion of Dover Drive. This could be mitigated with landscaping, but may continue to be perceived as a significant aesthetic impact. =00640011.6 6-9 In addition, this alternative would require removal of approximately 0.94 acre of ruderal/disturbed vegetation. This would not be considered a significant Impact due to this habitat's lack of sensitive and native species. The mostprominent long-term benefits of this alternative site access design are expected to be: (1) the ability to directly enter the proposed marina from southbound Dover Drive via a left turn (eliminating the need to make a U-turn movement at some location along Coast Highway (e.g., Bayside Drive), (2) the ability to make a left turn directly from the site onto southbound Dover Drive (eliminating the need to make a U-turn at the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection to go southbound on Dover Drive), and (3) the provision of greater distance between the site access point and the Dover Drive/Coast Highway Intersection (thus reducing potential conflicts between cars exiting the site and cars turning right or left from Coast Highway onto northbound Dover Drive). All of the above are considered to improve the safety of the proposed project's ingress and egress movements. In addition, according to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, existing traffic conditions at the intersection of Dover Drive and Cliff Drive (even without the proposed project) warrant a traffic signal (Webb, pens, comm., 8/8/91). There is a known sensitivity in the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights communities as to the potential for traffic shifts to occur as a result of added signalization at the Dover/Cliff intersection. Although not anticipated, there is the potential for traffic increases on Cliff Drive as a result of the new signalization. Therefore, if this alternative site access is adopted, the following mitigation measure will be Implemented by the City of Newport Beach. A-1. The City shall conduct a baseline traffic study on Cliff Drive, prior to installation of the traffic signal at Dover Drive/Cliff Drive. The City shall monitor traffic along Cliff Drive, and, if a significant amount of traffic results, the City will install new traffic control devices, such as stop signs, to make Cliff Drive less attractive to use than Coast Highway. The city's Traffic phasing Ordinance (1?0)1 percent analysis was conducted for this alternative (see Table 6-2 and Appendix n. The project -related traffic distribution was assumed to be similar to the proposed access design, although Inbound project traffic from southbound Dover Drive and outbound traffic going toward Coast Highway would not need to make U-turns to enter or leave the site. As shown in Table 6-2, the TPO analysis resulted in the finding that no further analysis would be required if this alternative is selected since each of the five intersections analyzed passed the 1 percent criterion. nMV0640011.6 6-10 m m m of Mao m m Am me a m me no m Mir m r m S�GTIOI,I /1 NNNNF m Adtermative Site �{rry �y,,����**�y c ry 't �yAjcyi�~� ss,: oait ss ecu ms ��•:«I: ' `>;e �. ;, . , ,a� ',;:IBM , N�Tosdl� {k�TiiWi4 >� .7`#•I ifh• s ,� r- `•.s�„ ,9{s a ` I"<� "�• N y 0640011.2 5/91 Exhibit 6-8 Although this alternative site access design may be perceived to have greater aesthetic impacts, it is considered environmentally superior overall due to its potential improvements to the safety of the project's ingress and egress movements. Therefore, this alternative is under consideration by the City of Newport Beach. TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS WITH ALTERNATIVE SITE ACCESS AT DOVER DRIVWCLIFF DRIVE INTERSECTION A.M. Project Peak 2.5-Hour Volumes Less Than 1 % of 1993 Intersection NB SB EB WB Peak 2.5-Hour Volumes Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd. - Superior Ave. 0 0 3 2 Yes Coast Hwy./Riverside Ave. 0 0 11 7 Yes Coast Hwy./Tustin Ave. 0 0 11 7 Yes Coast Hwy./Dover Dr: Bayshore Dr. 0 9 11 4 Yes Coast Hwy.Bayside Dr. 0 0 2 4 Yes P.M. Project Peak 2.5-Hour Volumes Less Than 1 % of 1993 Intersection NB SB EB WB Peak 2.5-Hour Volumes Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd. - Superior Ave. 0 0 4 4 Yes Coast Hwy./Riverside Ave. 0 0 14 14 Yes Coast Hwy.frustin Ave. 0 0 14 14 Yes Coast Hwy./Dover Dr.- Bayshore Dr. 0 19 14 5 Yes Coast Hwy.Bayside Dr. 0 0 5 5 Yes Source: Austin -Foust Associates 1991. =00640011.6 6-11 I 1 I I 1 u r I [I I L I I I I 7.1 SECTION 7 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT TERM PRODUCTIVITY In general, it is recognized that there is a shortage of boat slips within Orange and Los Angeles counties. The proposed marina facilities are proposed at this time due to the demand for boat slips in the 40- to 45-foot range. Due to the project applicant's long-standing operation of other marina facilities in the bay, the applicant is aware of this demand. However, the applicant has also expressed awareness of the environmental sensitivity of the Upper Newport Bay, and has identified project design and other measures to mitigate potential significant impacts to the bay. As discussed in Section 5, the proposed project will result in relatively long-term alterations to the Lower Castaways site and to a small portion of the lower part of Upper Newport Bay. The project will represent only a small incremental increase in the cumulative amount of marina facilities in the bay, and its contribution to potential water quality and biological problems would be relatively insignificant. However, due to the environmental sensitivity of Upper Newport Bay, and the bay's existing water quality problems, any additional potential sources of water quality contamination or disruption to endangered wildlife may be considered significant. By itself the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the beneficial uses identified for the Upper Newport Bay. However, as noted above, it will add incrementally to the long-term, cumulative environmental problems within the bay. 7.2 SIGNIFICANT HtREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The proposed project will require the use of nonrenewable or scarce resources, such as energy and lumber. However, once constructed, the utilization of energy will be relatively small. The proposed marina use is not considered an irreversible use —it should be noted that a marina was located at this site until 1980, when it was partially removed during the construction of the new Coast Highway Bridge, it was completely removed in 1982. It is possible that, in the future, the marina facilities could be removed, although the removal of the proposed new bulkhead and marina basin may JWW60011.7 7-1 i not be as feasible. This is due to the fact that once the water area is established, it cannot be filled without mitigation; that is replacement of lost habitat area. 7.3 Due to the project's proposed recreational characteristics, and its consistency with existing land use plans for the area, it would not be considered to induce population growth or development beyond that approved. The proposed uses would accommodate a demand for additional commercial marina facilities within Newport Bay, and would not be extending said facilities into an area that does not currently provide them. i� 11 it f; F" L I 7 J I IM0640011.7 7-2 I SECTION 8 SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS IF PROJECT IS DIPLEAMMM LAND USES AND LAND USE PLANS Increased dust, noise, harbor traffic, and vehicular traffic will be unavoidable during the construction ' phase and are considered short-term adverse impacts to surrounding urban land uses. However, these impacts can be mitigated to levels not considered significant (see city policies and mitigation measures in Sections 5.8 through 5.11). EARTH RESOURCES Geological hazards and soil erosion impacts that may occur can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with the mitigation measures and standard city policies identified. Increased turbidity in the Upper Bay is an unavoidable adverse impact of both the initial dredging and the maintenance dredging operations. However, turbidity can be reduced by use of filter curtains around the dredging operation when feasible. WATER OUALITY For the most part, potential adverse water quality impacts on Newport Bay are avoidable by the project if regulations regarding vessel discharges, paint use, boat maintenance, and hazardous materials and refuse management are complied with by the marina tenants and enforced by the applicant. Because of the small potential for boating accidents and accidental spills or leaks, it can be expected that the project will contribute a small increment of contaminants to Newport Bay and, therefore, would contribute to an unavoidable adverse water quality impact. City policies and mitigation ' measures identified in Sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 will reduce the level of potential project -related water quality impact, although cumulative water quality impacts would be considered potentially significant. ' MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed project will result in short-term unavoidable disruption of foraging activities of visual - foraging fishes and seabirds due to the increase in noise, human activity, and turbidity during the construction and dredging activities. However, these impacts are not considered significant (see Section 5.6 for discussion of impacts to birds). In addition, dredging of the marina channel will ' unavoidably result in the short-term loss of benthic invertebrates. However, these are expected to recolonize upon cessation of dredging activities. In the long-term, the project will modify the shallow water fish community within the project impact area—mudflat and halibut habitats removed by the project will need to be replaced at another location within the bay. Assuming this mitigation plan is successful —significant adverse impacts would be avoided. In the long term, the proposed project will reduce the foraging area for bird species within the lower part of Upper Newport Bay. The loss of mudflat habitat and halibut nursery can be mitigated through replacement programs or through redesign of the marina.(see Alternatives in Section 6). 1=00640011.8 8-1 If an accidental spill of oil or contaminants were to occur during the construction or operation of the project, potentially significant cumulative effects on wildlife in the bay could result, depending on the severity of the spill. ' TERRESTRTAL gIOLAWIICAi_. RF OURCES Construction activity will result in the temporary displacement and disturbance of wildlife in the vicinity of the project site. However, with implementation of the mitigationmeasures (e.g., avoidance of nesting season) sensitive species will not be significantly affected. The project will result in an unavoidable, but not significant, loss of a small area of open water habitat that may be used for foraging by birds, including the endangered California least tern and California brown pelican. n< tAAT AND SCUMMC RESOURCES I Implementation of the city policies and requirements listed in Section 5.7.3 would reduce impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources to a level not considered to be significant. No historical ' resources would be affected by the proposed project. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION No unavoidable adverse traffic and circulation impacts are expected. The project would generate unavoidable short-term increases in construction -related traffic within Newport Beach, primarily In the vicinity of the project site. If dredged material Is hauled to the Coyote Canyon Landfill, the impact could be significant. However, a traffic management plan to be developed by the applicant and approved by the city can reduce the level of impact to less than significant. Also, the proposed site access point is considered to present potentially significant traffic safety r problems. These problems could be eliminated with the provision of an alternative access design that incorporates a 4-way, signalized intersection at the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection (see Section 6.4). HARBOR CIRCULATION Short-term adverse impacts identified for harbor circulation can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant upon implementation of the mitigation measures. No adverse long-term Impacts are identified. AIR QUALITY The proposed project would contribute to cumulatively significant air pollutant emissions that cannot be eliminated altogether by project -related measures, and thus would contribute to unavoidable adverse cumulative air quality impacts. NOISE Unavoidably, the proposed project will generate increased noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the dredging and construction phases. These noise increases would be relatively short term but may be considered significant to nearby residents. As noted in Section 5.6, the dredging and pile - driving activities could disturb endangered bird species that nest or forage near the site, but this is avoidable by conducting these activities during the fall and winter months. 1 MA06 oott.s 8-2 LJ 5- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' FIRE PROTECTION The Newport Beach Fire Department has indicated that it is able to adequately service the proposed project (Brown 1989). Based on this information and the small size of the project, no unavoidable ' adverse impacts are expected to occur. POLICE SERVICES indicates the be Communication with the applicable law enforcement agencies that project will adequately served. Thus, no unavoidable adverse impacts are associated with the project. ' SOLID WASTE Due to the small size of the project, relatively small amounts of solid waste are expected to be generated. Communication with the General Services Department regarding the capacity of the Bee Canyon Landfill, which services the project area, indicates that the landfill has a lifespan of 25 years, ' and can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the project (Niederhaus 1989). Thus, no unavoidable adverse impacts are associated with the project. WATER Due to the nature and size of the project, no unavoidable adverse impacts on water services are expected. WASTEWATER Due to the nature and size of the project, no unavoidable adverse impacts on wastewater services are expected. ' PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The proposed project is not expected to generate a substantial amount of additional demand on OCTD service. This is due to the nature and small size of the project. Based on the agency's lack of concern regarding increased demand as a result of the project, and the nature of the project, no unavoidable adverse impacts are expected. ELECTRICITY Discussions with SCE representatives have indicated that SCE will be able .to meet the additional ' demands of the project (Cartwright 1989). Based on these discussions, and on the small ,size of the project, no unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to result from project implementation. LI J Pacific Bell does not anticipate an impact to its service as a result of the project. This is in part due to the project's small size, and to the nature of the project. Based on these factors, no unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to occur as a result of this project. J=00640011.8 8-3 I At TERNAIM gAtn RO n/r NGTERM ACCESS DEI GN , Selection of this alternative would result in potential aesthetic impacts which could be perceived as ' significant and unavoidable. I 11 11 I I EI:a(C CId �mn 8-4 r i Cl I I I 1 I I I SECTION 9 SUMMARY OF CITY POLICIES AND REQUEREMENTS LAND USES AND LAND USE PLANS I -A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works departments. 1-C: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. This plan shall be approved by the directors of the Planning, Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation departments. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 2-A. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning departments. The application for a grading permit is to be accompanied by the grading plan and specifications, and supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports required by the building official. 2-B. Grading operations and drainage requirements shall meet the standards set forth in the City's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 70 - Excavation and Grading, Sections 7001- 7019) and the Building Department's General Grading Specifications. 2-C. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and a watering program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. 2-D. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department (prior to approval of the grading permit). A copy shall be forwarded to the California Environmental Protection Agency/Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 2-E. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer incorporating the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department prior to issuance of building permits. 3ffi100640011.9 9-1 I B!YDROLOGYBEDOM ATION 1 3-A. Existing onsite drainage facilities shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City of ' Newport Beach City Engineer. A hydrology and hydraulic study and a muster plan of - water, sewer, and storm drain for onsite improvements shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to recording of the tract map. Any modifications to the existing storm drain system shall be the responsibility of the developer. WATER OUALITY 4-A. No vessel discharges are allowed within Newport Bay. 4-B. A landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted for approval by the directors of Planning and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, which includes a maintenance program that controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 4 C. Landscaped area shall a irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. ' MARINE BIOLOGICAL• RESOURCES No city policies or requirements have been identified. TEIZ_RR_STRiAL MOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6-A. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan for both project sites shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department and the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, and shall , place emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES A. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractor of the results of any archaeological surveys and studies completed. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to , inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the finds. 7 B. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate JE21006"11.9 9-2 LJ C' I I I r I Cl C I J C I data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. 7-C. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 7-D. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of Assembly Bill 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION No city policies or requirements are identified. HARBOR CIRCULATION No city policies or requirements are identified. AIR QUALM No city policies or requirements are identified. NOISE 11-A. Construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance which limits construction to the following hours and days. • Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on any weekday • Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays • Prohibited on Sundays and holidays PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES FIRE PROTECTION 12-A. The following Fire Department standards/requirements shall be complied with prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. =00640011.9 9-3 1 A. Site Access 1. Minimum Width Required a. 26 feet no parking allowed b. 26 feet + car width — parking one side (parallel) c. 26 feet + 2 car widths — parking two sides (parallel) 2. Turning Radius a. Cul-de-sac - Minimum 40-foot radius - Minimum 42-foot radius if center is planted b. Corners - Minimum 15-foot radius 3. Height Clearance a. Minimum overhead-13 feet 6 inches b. Building eaves, trees, etc., are prohibited 4. Roadway Width with Access Control (Knox Key Controlled) a. 13 feet clear on each side of control apparatus or island upon which it is mounted, whichever requires the greatest width B. Hydrant Locations 1. A minimum of two onsite hydrants will be required at locations to be specified on site plans (basically at or near the cul-de-sac turnaround areas) C. Marine Fire Protection 1. Standpipe and hose cabinet requirement a. Pier or floats under 500 feet in length Class 11 standpipe with hose cabinets arranged to provide protection to any portions of floats or floating vessels b. Pier or floats over 500 feet in length Class M standpipe with 2-1/2-Inch hose outlets for fire department use and hose cabinets arranged so that all portions of floats and floating vessels are protected 10=06W11.9 9.4 2. Required Water Supplies a. Class II standpipe 100 GPM at a residual pressure of 65 P.S.I. at the most remote cabinet b. Class Ill standpipe Same as Class II except that supply piping must be able to deliver 500 gpm to the 2-1/2-inch hose valves 3. Extinguishers a. One 2A 20 BC located in each hose cabinet 4. Transmittal of Fire Emergency a. A means of rapidly notifying the fire department in the event of an emergency (telephones used for this purpose shall not require the use of a coin) POLICE SERVICES No city policies or requirements have been identified. SOLID WASTE No city policies or requirements have been identified. WATER No city policies or requirements have been identified. WASTEWATER No city policies or requirements have been identified. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION No city policies or requirements have been identified. ELECTRICITY No city policies or requirements have been identified. TELEPHONE No city policies or requirements have been identified. J=0064M11.9 9-5 11 L d 1 1 I� J I SECTION 10 SUAEVIARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES LAND USES AND LAND USE PLANS 1-1. In the event that hazardous materials/wastes are encountered during development of the site, these materials/wastes shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 1-2. To mitigate potential short-term impacts to church activities, the project applicant, or its designated representative, shall coordinate/communicate with officials of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church to establish a schedule of haul road preparation and use that will minimize disruption of scheduled church activities. Written evidence of this coordination effort shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of the grading permit. 2-1. To reduce the potential for erosion into the wetlands area on the Upper Castaways site, the applicant shall design the road to drain to the east, and shall provide a swale along the eastern side of the temporary haul road to carry runoff from the road onto the Lower Castaways site. 2-2. To .reduce erosion from the temporary haul road, the road shall be hydroseeded with compatible plant material following the completion of the dredging operation. Plant material to be used shall be selected by a licensed landscape architect and approved by the City of Newport Beach. HYDROLOGY/SEDIDdENl'ATION 3-1. The project applicant shall clean debris from the marina basin and boat slips as part of a regular maintenance program to be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach. 3-2. To maintain project depths within the boat basin, dredging of the sand bar that may form at the entrance of the marina basin shall be conducted by the applicant in accordance with an approved dredging permit from the City of Newport Beach and ACOE. 3-3. To minimize tidal flow interference, the basin design shall use adequately spaced plastic pontoons to support the docks within the channel. 3-4. To reduce the extent and effects of increased turbidity, the applicant shall require the dredging contractor to use filter curtains around dredging operations, when feasible. 3 5. When feasible, the dump scow shall be loaded only during ebb tide conditions so suspended material will be flushed seaward and not into Upper Newport Bay. 3-6. Prior to, and upon the completion of, the dredging operation, soundings shall be taken at each barge marshalling area and the data supplied to the City of Newport Beach Public mvooeaoou.to 10-1 Works Department to ascertain the need for dredging to return the area to predredging ' conditions. Such dredging will be the responsibility of the project applicant. WATER QUALITY 4-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall be provided with evidence that all appropriatepermits or clearances have been obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4-2. Treatment of extracted water shall be conducted in a manner and at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach City Engineer and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4-3. Suspended soils (e.g., sand) shall be separated from extracted water in accordance with applicable water quality standards and disposed of at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works Department and the Grading Engineer. 4.4. Provision shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. 4-5. Prior to demolition of existing bulkhead structure, a complete plan for litter and debris control for the demolition, grading, and construction phases to ensure debris is not permitted to enter Newport Bay shall be approved by the Directors of the Planning and - Marine departments. ' 4.6. Water extracted from dewatering wells and drained from bay materials shall meet current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements prior to discharging into the bay. If necessary, the water shall be desilted prior to discharge ' 4-7. The dredging contractor shall conduct dredging activities in accordance with the approved dredging permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. , 4-8. For the life of the project, the project applicant shalt provide each marina tenant with a copy of all applicable regulations regarding vessel discharges of wastes, andfouling paint use, and refuse management (including handling of hazardous wastes) as a part of lease ' materials. 4-9. For the life of the project, the project applicant shall provide each marina tenant with r information regarding procedures for notifying appropriate authorities regarding spills of hazardous materials, containment measures, and applicable penalties for violations as a part of lease materials. 4-10. The applicant shall provide for periodic maintenance of the sanitary pumpout station to ensure its continuous operation. 4-11. The applicant shall provide regular cleaning of the marina docks and vacuum sweeping of the parking lot. ' nVJoowoott.to 10-2 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' 5-1. The dredging contractor shall be required as part of the dredging contract to ensure that dredging activities shall be conducted so as not to disturb sensitive biological habitats and resources in the vicinity of Bayside Marsh Peninsula. ' 5-2. In accordance with ACOE requirements, the loss of 0.69 acre of mudflat habitat shall be mitigated by the in -kind replacement of mudflat habitat at a replacement ratio of 1.5:1 and at an ACOE-approved site, preferably in Upper Newport Bay. This habitat shall be ' replaced prior to any project -related dredging of the channel. Mudflat will be created at depths between -1.5 and +2.5 ft MLLW. A detailed conceptual mitigation plan will be developed and implemented by the applicant in, consultation with the National Marine ' Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the ACOE. The plan will include the following elements. ' 1. Pre -construction Analysis of Preferred and Alternative Mitigation Sites. This study will assess the types and locations of sites that could serve as mitigation sites. Both onsite and offsite areas will be analyzed. 1 1 LJ 2. Pre -construction Conceptual Site Plans. Conceptual designs will be presented that indicate elevations and contours to be achieved for the mitigation program, appropriate methods for habitat construction, and criteria to measure the success of the habitat replacement program. 3. Shorebird Construction and Post -Construction Monitoring Program. A 5-year monitoring program will be designed that includes both construction and post - construction monitoring surveys. Shorebird surveys will be conducted prior to and during construction; quarterly during the first year following the creation of the mudflat area; and annually for the remaining 4 years. The purpose of these surveys will be to measure the success of the mitigation project, comparing the shorebird diversity of the newly created mudflats with existing mudflats nearby. The results of each survey will be presented in a post -survey report prepare for the City of Newport Beach and responsible agencies. 4. Option for Remedial Measures. If the newly created mudflat does not meet pre- determined criteria, then remedial actions, including a second mudflat restoration attempt in another area, will be undertaken. Specific remedial measures will be determined upon consultation with responsible resource agencies. 5-3. In accordance with ACOE requirements, the loss of subtidal halibut nursery area shall be mitigated by the in -kind replacement of halibut misery habitat at a replacement ratio of 1.5:1, at depths between 1.5 and 3.21 feet below MLLW. This habitat shall be restored at an ACOE-approved site, preferably in Upper Newport Bay, prior to project -related dredging. A conceptual mitigation program shall be developed and implemented' by the applicant in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the ACOE. The plan will include the following elements. 1. Pre -Construction Analysis of Preferred and Alternative Mitigation Sites. This study will assess the types and locations of sites that could serve as mitigation sites. Both onsite and offsite areas will be analyzed. MOD640011.10 10-3 r 2. Pre -Construction Conceptual Site Plans. Conceptual designs will be presented that indicate elevations and contours to be achieved for the mitigation program, appropriate methods for habitat construction, and criteria to measure the success of the habitat replacement program. 3. Construction and Post -Construction Monitoring Program. A 5-year monitoring program will be designed that includes both pre -construction and post -construction surveys. Halibut surveys will be conducted at the selected mitigation area prior to construction; quarterly, for the first year following the creation of the subtidal habitat; and ammally for the remaining 4 years. The purpose of these surveys will be to measure the success of the mitigationproject and compare the use of the newly created habitat by halibut with other areas in the Upper Bay. The results of each survey will be presented in post -survey monitoring reports prepared for the City of Newport Beach and responsible agencies. 4. Options for Remedial Measures. If the newly created subtidalhabitat does not meet predetermined criteria, then remedial actions, including a second restoration attempt in another area, will be undertaken. However, specific remedial measures will be determined upon consultation with responsible resource agencies. 5-4. To avoid potential misuse of smaller recreational vessels in the Upper Bay and to reduce potential impacts on wildlife, Castaways Marina tenants shall, as part of their leases, be provided with educational materials regarding local and federal boating regulations and the importance of reducing disturbances to the wildlife of the Upper Bay. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6-1. All appropriate BMPs shall be used to prohibit erosion and ntnoff during construction and from disturbed and paved areas into Newport Bay and the cattail marsh. Measures should also include revegetation immediately after construction ceases and placement of runoff - retaining barriers. 6-2. Dredging and construction activity should be terminated between April 1 and September 30, the breeding season of California least terns, to minimize adverse impacts on their foraging habitat due to increased turbidity. 6-3. Truck activity on the Upper Castaways site shall be limited to the temporary haul road and, if feasible, shall be curtailed between February and June to minimize adverse impacts on the red -shouldered hawk nesting and foraging area, 6-4. The areas affected by construction shall be limited to the project site and proposed haul road; no material shall be deposited in the cattail marsh or coastal sage scrub habitats. 6-5. The landscape plan shall be altered to eliminate the use of periwinkle ground cover. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES No mitigation measures are identified. r r r r I r i r r nmo0640011.10 10.4 r 11 1 L 1 1 I 1 8-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by the city, the applicant shall present a traffic management program to manage construction -related traffic access to the project site and to ensure safe turning movements from Pacific Coast Highway onto Dover Drive. Such a plan should describe the use of signage and flag people and include any requirements of the City of Newport Beach Police and Public Works Departments. 8 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by the city, the applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans, Orange County, and the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine regarding their plans for improvements along MacArthur Boulevard, Bonita Canyon Road, and Pelican Hill Road (Newport Coast Drive). To the degree feasible, the hauling operation will avoid the period of construction along MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Avenue and University Avenue, and will avoid hauling during morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. 8-3. Prior to leaving the construction staging area and delivering dredged material to the Coyote Canyon Landfill (assuming this disposal method is selected), baul trucks shall be inspected to ensure that (1) no water leaks from the trucks and (2) dirt has been placed to avoid spillage onto roadways. 8-4 The applicant shall redesign the proposed site access point to be via a new road from the marina parking lot to the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection to form a 4-way, signalized intersection. HARBOR CIRCULATION 9-1. During the dredging and ocean disposal operations, a guideboat, or a lookout on the barge bow, will be used and equipped with a megaphone and 2-way radio to minimize potential ,accidents. 9-2. Prior to issuance of the dredging permit, the contractor will meet with the ferry operator to develop an acceptable communications system, and shall provide the City of Newport Beach with verification of said meeting. 9-3. Prior to the issuance of a dredging permit, the contractor will submit a plan for the dredging operation and movement of dredged material to the Orange County Harbor Patrol and U.S. Coast Guard, and shall receive approval of the plan from said agencies. In addition, the contractor shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach that said plan has been approved and that the Notice to Mariners has been issued by the U.S. Coast. Guard. 9-4. Dredging operations shall be limited to non -holiday weekdays, and shall be prohibited during the period of the annual Christmas boat parade and holiday period (from approximately December 15 through January 1). In addition, said activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. for acceptable weekdays. AIR QUALITY 10 1. The project applicant shall require all applicable contractors to implement the following exhaust emission reduction measures: rnnooeaaou.lo 10-5 11 a. Maintain equipment per manufacturer's specification. , b. Install catalytic converters on gasoline -powered equipment. c. Implement engine timing retard. d. Utilize electrical or gasoline -powered instead of diesel -powered ' equipment whenever possible. 10-2. The applicant shall implement suppression measures for fugitive dust. Measures shall include wet suppression techniques for dry ground soil, immediate replanting and irrigation oflandscaped areas, coverage requirements for loaded trucks, and onsite vehicle speed limits of 15 mph. These measures, as well as others doomed necessary by the City ' of Newport Beach, shall be incorporated as conditions of preventing offsite fugitive dust nuisances, as required in the SCAQMD Rule 403. 10-3. Construction activities shall be curtailed during periods of high ambient pollutant , concentrations. Ambient PM10 concentrations are highest during days with strong winds (greater than 20 mph). NOISE 11-1. On Saturdays, pile driving activity shall be further limited to the hours of 8:30 a.m. to , 6:00 p.m. 12.1-1 The project proponent shall consult with the City of Newport Beach Water Department to ensure fire flows of 3,000 gpm for the project. 12.12 Access dimensions shall be consistent with City of Newport Beach standards. 12.1-3 Fire protection requirements shall be consistent with the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code. 12.1-4 Prior to the City's issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall verify that the Newport Beach Fire and Police departments, and the Orange County Sheriffs Harbor patrol are provided with keys to all locked facilities/areas within the site. POLICE SERVICES 12.2-1. See Mitigation Measure No. 12.1-4 above. f ie)11 No mitigation measures are required. I r I u r JB2/00640011.10 I CJ 1 r L J I� I 12.4-1. Low -flow bathroom fixtures shall be used in the bathroom/storage buildings on the site. 12.4-2. The approved landscape palette shall include drought -tolerant plant materials. 12.4-3. The project shall be designed to avoid disturbance of the existing onsite 30-inch water main, or if this cannot be achieved, design for the proposed project shall include provisions for the relocation of the water main in accordance with City of Newport Beach requirements. WASPEWATER See Mitigation Measure No. 12.4-1 above. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION No mitigation measures are required. ELECTRICITY No mitigation measures are required. 12.9-1. A conduit system will be required for cable placement and shall be provided by the project proponent. ALTERNATIVE HAUL ROAD/LONG-TERM SITE ACCESS DESIGN If this alternative is selected, the following mitigation measure will be implemented. A-1. The City shall conduct a baseline traffic study on Cliff Drive, prior to installation of the traffic signal at Dover Drive/Cliff Drive. The City shall monitor traffic along Cliff Drive, and, if a significant amount of traffic results, the City will install new traffic control devices, such as stop signs, to make Cliff Drive less attractive to use than Coast Highway. =006"11.10 10-7 L u 711 I� SECTION 11 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO TEM REPORT Michael Brandman Associates (EIR Consultant) Principal -in -Charge .............................. Curtis E. Alling, AICP Project Manager ................................ Beverly Bruesch, AICP Assistant Project Manager ................................ M. Ken Koch Research and Analysis .................................... T.C. Chung Kathryn K. Curtis Rick Ferns Julie Gaa Julia Jakobs Kathy Keane Dave Levine John McGinnis Rick Ware Graphics ........................................... Shaun Martin WordProcessing ....................................... Chris Alzua Linda Burns Becky Garcia Barbrah Michaels Technical Editing ...................................... Andrea Joyles Deena Linquist Document Reproduction ................................. Jeffrey Dillon Cash & Associates (Engineering Consultant) ........................ Randy Mason RMW Paleo Associates (Cultural/Scientific Resources Consultant) ...... Kenneth M. Becker Ronald M. Bissel Frances M. Govean LSA, Inc. (Cultural Resources Consultant) .......................... Beth Padon Jane Rosenthal Austin -Foust Associates (Traffic Consultant) ...................... Cathy Lawrence Denise Gemma Joe Foust JB2100640011.11 Noble Consultants (Marine Hydrology Consultant) .............. . . Jon T. Moore, P.E. Chia -Chi Lu, Ph.D. Leighton and Associates (Geotechnical Consultant) .................. Rodney J. Weick Sherry Hritz NEC Analytical Systems, Inc. (Bioassay Consultant) ................ . .. Art Barnett Kurt Kline MEC AppH ed Environmental Sciences (Benthic Biological and Sediment Laboratory Analysis) ................................ Carol Paquette J. A. Bing & Associates, Inc. (Government Relations Consultant) ............................................. Jerry A. King nVrooseoou.0 11-2 SECTION 12 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED DURING PREPARATION OF THE REPORT ' City of Newport Beach ' Planning Department ................................. Patricia L. Temple Public Works Department ................................... Don Webb Marine Department Tony Melum ' ..................................... Fire Department ......................................... Jim Upton Ray Brown Utilities Department ................................... Paul Malkemus General Services ................................... David Niederhaus ' Police Department Tun Newman ' California Recreation Company ............................ Edward V. Power The Irvine Company ....................................... Don McNutt ' Irvine Industrial Company ...:........................... Robert L. Zeiback ' Cash and Associates Engineers ................................ Randy Mason County of Orange ' Environmental Management Agency Planning . Grace Secketa Regulation/Environmental Resources ......................... Chris Compton Harbors, Beaches, and Parks ............................ Patricia McCauley ' Tom Rosmiller Transportation ....................................... Max Anderson Sheriff/Harbor Patrol ................................ Captain Harry F. Gage State of California ' Department of Boating and Waterways ......................... Karen Cagel Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ...................... Albert Angelini Department of Fish and Game . Fred Worthley Dick Nitsos Earl Lauppe United States Coast Guard .............................. Commander Porter National Marine Fisheries Service (Terminal Island) ................. Bob Hoffman City of Irvine ............................................ Will Brent Southern California Edison ............................... Chris Cartwright Pacific Bell ............................................. Bill Lowing ' 7S2J00640011.12 12-1 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County .................... Chuck Windsor Orange County Transportation District .................. Christine Huard -Spencer State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board .............. P. Blodgett RMW Palen Associates ................................. Ronald M. Bissell California Coastal Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Larry Simon U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Brad Tarr Connolly Pacific Company ................................. Ralph Larison 02100640011A2 12-2 L � n, I n L 'L i7 SECTION 13 Allen, L. A. 1976. Abundance. Diversity. Seasonality and Community Stricture of the Fish Pgpulations of Newport Bay. California. M.S. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton. 108 pp. Allen, L. G. 1988 (December). Final report. Results of a Two -Year Monitoring Study on the Fish Potation in the Restored. Uppermost Portion of Newport Bay, California: With Emphasis on the Impact of Additional Estuarine Habitat on Fisheries -Related Species. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service in fulfillment of Contract #WASC-85-00216. Anderson, Max. Senior Civil Engineer, County of Orange. Personal communication. Telephone interview, 1991: August 21. Angelini, Alberto. Project Manager, Caltrans District 12. Personal communication. Telephone interview. 1991: April24. Association of Orange Coast Yacht Clubs (AOCYC). 1990. Master Calendar of Events. Barnard, J. L., and D. J. Reish. 1959. Ecology of Amphipoda and Polychaeta of Newport Bay, if rnia. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications. Occasional Paper No. 21. Pp.1-106. Bissell, Ronald M. Principal Investigator, RMW Paleo Associates. Personal communication. Telephone interview, 1990: August 22. Blodgett, P. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Personal communication. 1989: March 30. Boyle Engineering Corporation. 1982. Sediment source analysis and sediment delivery analysis. Task II -A, II-C, and II-D. Brown, Ray. 1989 (June 13). Letter. Brown (Fire Marshall, Newport Beach Fire Department) to Julie Gaa of Michael Brandman Associates. Cabelli, V. I., A. P. Dufour, L. J. McCabe, and M. A. Levin. 1983. Swimming -associated gastroenteritis and water quality. In: American Journal of Epidemiology. 11: 606-616. California Administrative Code 1985. Title 22, Section 66699. Persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances. In: Article 11: Criteria for Identification of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes. Register 85, No.2-1-12-85. Pp. 1800,77-1800.78. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1989 (June). California Surface Wind Climatologv. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Upper Newport Bay Management Plan. Unpublished manuscript. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1953 (February). Biological Survey: Lower Newport Bay. Report to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Code No. 58- 8-8. 32 pp. J=00640011.13 13-1 r California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1980. At the Crossroads: A Report on the Status of California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1986. Endangered. Rare and Threatened Animals of California. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1989. "Designated Endangered or Rare Plants." Summary list from Section 1904, Fish and Game Code (Native Plant Protection Act). State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 1989. Data Base Record Search for Information on Threatened, Endangered, Ram or Otherwise Sensitive Species and Communities in the Vicinity of Calabasas Quadrangle. California Department ofFish and Game, State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. California Office of Noise Control. 1976 (February). Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan. Cartwright, Chris. 1989 (June 13). Letter. Cartwright (Southern California Edison) to Julie Gaa of Michael Brandman Associates. Cash & Associates. 1987 (August). Castaways Marina, engineering study and feasibility report. Prepared for the Irvine Company. Cash & Associates. 1989 (December). Castaways Marina, environmental impact report narrative. Prepared for California Recreation Company. Christensen, E. R. 1977. Trace Metals in rb n Runoff and Their Influence on B=1ankton Growth in the Receiving Waters. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine. 186 pp. Collacott, R., L. Waldner, and M. Chien. 1989 (June). Water Quality Trends in Newport Bay. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Santa Ana, California. Converse Consultants. 1986 (August). Preliminary Geotechnical investigation Pronn.,� t aaradavQ Prepared for Cash & Associates Engineers. Daugherty, S. J. 1978. Bemhic ecology. In: Environmental Studies in Newport BBv. Orange County Human Services Agency, Environmental Health Division. Santa Ana, California. Pp. 129-192. Dawson, C. M. 1963. Benchic Ecology in the Entrance Channel of Newport Bay California. M.S Thesis, University of Southern California. 112 pp. Leland E. 1988 (February). Associates, Santa 4 pp., plus appendices. Prepared for Michael Brandman Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978 (December). Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). r r r r r r r ras 0MM1i.i3 13-2 r Gage, Harry. 1989 (June 29). Letter. Gage (Captain, Orange County Sheriff's Harbor Patrol) to Julie Gaa of Michael Brandman Associates. ' Gage, Harry. Captain, Orange County Sheriff's Harbor Patrol. Personal communication. Meeting, 1990: October 22. ' Hardy, R. A. 1970. The Marine Environment in Upper Newport and Sunset Bays, Orange County, Califbrnia. California Department of Fish and Game Report. MMR Reference No. 70-10. 84 pp. ' Hayes, Stephen P., and Peter T. Phillips. 1987. California State Mussel Watch 1985-1986. California Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. Water Quality ' Monitoring Report No. 87-2 WQ. Horn, M. H., and L. G. Allen. 1981. Ecology of Fishes in Upper Newport Bay. California Seasonal Dynamics and Community Structure. California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Technical Report No. 45. 102 pp. ' Huard -Spencer, C. Environmental Coordinator, Orange County Transit District. Personal communication. Telephone interview, 1989: July 13. Kramer, S. H., and 7. R. Hunter. 1988. Southern California Wetland/Shallow Water Habitat ' Investigation. Annual ReQort for Fiscal Year 1988. Prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center. La Jolla, California. 8 pp. plus appendices. Leighton and Associates. 1974 (November). Preliminary Geologic and Soil Engineering Investigation t for General Planning —Castaways Point Project Newport Beach California. Prepared for The Irvine Company. ' Leighton and Associates. 1982 (August). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Lots 5 and 6 of the CastawMftperty Tentative Tract 11819 City of Newport Beach California. ' Prepared for The Irvine Company. Leighton and Associates. 1989 (November). Preliminary Analysis of Suitability of Dredge Material for Land -Based OCfsite Fill Castaways Marina Project City of Newport Beach California. Prepared for the Newport Beach Planting Department, Newport Beach, California. Lowing, Bill. 1898 (June 13). Letter. Lowing (Pacific Bell) to Julie Gaa of Michael Brandman Associates. MacGinitie, C. E., and N. MacGinitie. 1968. Natural History of Marine Animals. Second edition. ' McGraw Hill. 523 pp. Malkemus, Paul. 1989 (July 31). Letter. Malkemus (Utilities Analyst, City of Newport Beach) to Julie Gaa of Michael Brandman Associates. Marine Biological Consultants (NBC) Applied Environmental Sciences and the Southern California ' Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). 1980 (Dec). Irvine Ranch Water District Upper Newport Bay and Stream Augmentation Program. Final report. October 1979-August 1980. =00640011.13 13-3 Marsh, K. 1985 (June). Part I -terrestrial Peninsula. In: DeAnza Peninsula Marl and Evaluation. Prepared by NBC Biological Consultant. botanical resources of the DeAnza Marsh Environmental Sciences and Karlin Marsh, Cash & Associates. Personal communication. Telephone Interview, 1991 Massey, B. W. 1989. California Imt Tern Field Stud. 1989 breeding season. Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game. Contract FG 8553 (FY 1988-89). Prepared for California State University, Long Beach Foundation. NEC Analytical Systems, Inc. Melum, Tony. Tidelands Administrator, City of Newport Beach. Personal communication. Telephone interview, 1990: May 31. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1982 (September). Climatic Data Center. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1987. Benchmark Elevation, Los Angeles Berth 60 (941-0660): National Ocean Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1988. Annual Climatological Summary. Newman, Tim. 1989.(June 29). Letter. Newman (Lieutenant Executive Officer, Newport Beach Police Department) to Julie Gas of Michael Brandman Associates. Newport Beach, City of. 1974 (January). Newport Beach Subdivision Code. As amended. Newport Beach, City of. 1976 (February), Newport Beach Zoning, Code. Newport Beach, City of. 1984 (June). Nrmport Beach Housing Element. Newport Beach, City of. 1985 (February). &v=rt Beach Recreation and Ones Space Element. Newport Beach, City of. 1986 (March). Environmental impact Report —Upper Newnort_Bg Prepared by Culbertson, Adams and Newport Beach, City of. 1988a (October). Newport Beth Land Use. Element, Newport Beach, City of. 1988b (October). Newport Beach Circulation Element. Newport Beach, City of. 1990 (January). Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. Land Use Plan. Newport Harbor Lutheran Church. 1990 (April). Crossroads. (Monthly Church Newsletter.) ' Niederhaus, David. 1989 (June 26). Letter. Niederhaus (Director, General Services Department) to Julie Gaa of Michael Brandman Associates. Noble Consultants. 1989a. Hydraulic Model Study, Castaways Marina. Technical report. Noble Consultants. 1989b. Imnact of Recurrent Storms. Castaways Marina. Letter report. Noble Consultants. 1990. Marine Hydrology Study, Castaways Marina. Technical report. Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA). 1980 (June). Water Ouality in Newport Bay and Its Watershed. Prepared by the Water Resources Section, Engineering Services Section. Santa Ana, California. ' Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA). 1987. San Diego Creek Sediment Monitoring Program —Annual Report 1985-1986. Technical report. Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA). 1988. San DiMQ Creek Sediment Monitoring Program —Annual Report 1986-1987. Technical report. Phillips, Peter T. 1988 (May). California State Mussel Watch. Ten Year Data Summary 1977-1987. State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 87-3. Posjepal, M. A. 1969. The Population Ecology of the Benthic Iethyofauna of Upper Newport Bay. M. S. Thesis, University of California, Irvine. 146 pp. Power, Edward V. President. California Recreation Company. Personal communication. Telephone interview, 1990: April 19. Power, Edward V. President. California Recreation Company. Personal communication. Meeting, 1991: August 8. ' Quammen, M. L. 1980. The Impact of Predation by Shorebirds, Benthic Feeding Fishes, and a Crab on the Shallow Livin¢ Invertebrates in Intertidal Mudflats of Two Southern California La¢oons. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine. 132 pp. Reish, D. J. 1972. Marine Life of Southern California. Forty Niner Bookshops, Inc., California State University, Long Beach. 164 pp. ' Remsen, J. V. 1978. "Bird Species of Special Concern in California: An Annotated List of Declining or Vulnerable Bird Species." Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Wildlife Management ' Branch, California Department of Fish and Game. Administrative Report No. 78-1. RMW Paleo Associates. 1989 (August). Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Castaways Marina Project, Newport Beach. Orange County. California. Prepared for Michael Brandman Associates, Santa Ana, California. ' RMW Paleo Associates. 1989 (August). Paleontologic Resources Assessment of the Proposed Castaways Marina Project, Newport Beach. Orange County. California. Prepared for Michael Brandman Associates, Santa Ana, California. BV006MI1.13 13-5 RMW Paleo Associates. 1990 (May). Test Excavation of a Portion of CA -Ora 48. Newport Beach. ' Orange only. Califo ia, preparedforMichaeiBrandmanAssociates, SantaAna, California. Rosenthal, J., Ph.D. 1990 (December 17). Letter. Rosenthal (Staff Archaeologist, LSA Associates, , Inc.) to Beverly Bruesch of Michael Brandman Associates, Rossmiller, Tom. 1990 (February 14). Letter of Transmittal. Rossmiller (County of Orange -- Harbors, Beaches, and Parks) to Randy Mason of Cash & Associates. S.E.A. Contractors. 1989. Soundings on Castaways. , Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 1985 (November). Report to the California Leg lature. Newport Bay: Water Quality Issues and Reeo men atin s, , Seapy, R. R. 1981. Structure, Distributionand Seasonal Ihmamics of the Benthic Commuwtx ja 11p= hurt Bay, California. California Department of Fish and Game. Marine Resources Technical Report No. 46. 74 pp. Sockets, Grace, Planner, Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA), Planning ' Division. Personal communication. Telephone interview, 1990: May 29. Smith, J. P., Jr., and K Berg. 1988. California Native Plant SocWJJ's Inventolyof Rare Aw , Endangered Vascular Plan c of CaliforWa, Special Publication No. 1. Fourth edition. California Native Plant Society, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). "Air Quality Data," 1984-1988. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1987. Air Quality Handbook for Erma ing Environmental I== =rts, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 1989. South Coast Buin 1989 Air Qualily Manantneut Plan. , Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 1990 (March). Ggidance for Implementation of 1989 AOMP Conformily Guidelines Procedures. ' Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). 1986. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon contamination in sediments from coastal waters off Southern California. In - Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 1986 Annual_ Rnxm, Pp. 13-16. Sternberg, R. W. 1972. Predicting initial motion and bed load transport of sediment particles in the shallow marine environment, Chapter 3, In: Shelf Sediment_ Transport: Progress and Pang. Pp. 61-82. Stevens, Timothy P. 1988 (July). California State Mussel Watch 1986.1987, 3. California Water ' Resources Control Board. Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 88-3. Stevenson, R. E., and K. O. Emery. 1958. Marshlands at NewyQrt Baq. Allan Hancock Foundation ' Publications, Occasional Paper No, 20. University of Southern California Press, Los Angeles, California. rooa+cou.ta 13.6 ' ' Temple, Patricia. Advance Planning Manager, City of Newport Beach. Personal communication. Meeting, 1991: August 8. ' Tracey, Skip. Street Superintendent, City of Irvine Public Works. Personal communication. Telephone interview, 1990: August 20. ' Upton, Jim. City of Newport Beach Fire Department. Personal communication. Telephone interview, 1990: April 20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1973 (January). Workbook of Atmospheric ' Dispersion Estimates, EPA AP-26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985 (September). Compilation of Air Pollutant ' Emission Factors, Volume II: Mobile Sources, EPA AP-42. Fourth edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986 (October). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. EPA AP-42. Fourth edition. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. ' Federal Register 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12 U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Naval Weather Service Command. 1976 (May). Summary of Surface Meteorological ' Observations. Area 32, Volume 3. Ware, R. R. 1985 (June). Part IV. Marine biological assessment of the DeAnza mudflats and marsh peninsula. In: DeAnza Peninsula Marina FeasibilStudy: Biological Resources Assessment ' and Evaluation. Prepared by NBC Applied Environmental Sciences and Karlin Marsh, Biological Consultant. ' Webb, Don. City Engineer, City of Newport Beach. Personal communication. 1991: August 8. ' Welmer, Michael P. 1978 (June). Trace metals and pesticides. In: Environmental Studies in Newport Bay. Orange County Human Services Agency, Environmental Health Division. Pp. 88-128. ' Wehner, M. P., J. L. Abati, and H. G. Schroth. 1972. Analysis of Heavy_Metals and Chlorinated_ Hydrocarbons in Newport Bay Sediments. Orange County Health Department report. White, W. S. 1977. Taxonomic Composition Abundance Distribution and Seasonality of Fish Eggs and Larvae in Newport Bay, California. M. A. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton. Williamson, S. J. 1973. Fundamentals of Air Pollution. Addison Wesley Publishing. Windsor, Chuck. Planning Manager, Orange County Sanitation District. Personal communication. ' Telephone interview, 1990: April 26. Wood, D. R., L. Green, and C. Tennis. 1972. Field investigation report on boatyards in Lower Newport Bay. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco. J=00640011.13 13-7 1 Young, D. R., and G. V. Alexander. Metals in mussels from harbors and outfall areas. Jn: Southern Caiifo is CpmW Water Research project Annual H=rt for the Year Ended 30 June 1977. Pp. 159-165. Zedler, J. B. 1982. The Ecology of Southern California Coastal Salt Marshes, A cornrn mid $ofilg. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Biological Services program, FWS/OBS-81/54. n 21006 oo11.13 13-8