The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPA2008-040_DEIR MARINA PARK VOL. I OF IIIII 1111 111111111111111111111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* PA2008=040 DEIR Marina Park Vol. 1 of III Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina Park Newport Beach, Orange County, California Technical Appendices Volume I of III State Clearinghouse # 2008051096 Prepared for: CITY COPY DO NOT REMOVE FROM PREMISES City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949.644.3219 Contact: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Prepared by: Sirius Environmental January 2010 PA2008-040 For ER2008-001 1700 W. Balboa Blvd DATE OF MEETING: - -Cl/ 1012-0 to ' Marina Park Draft EIR Appendix A: Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and ' Comment Letters C� I 1 1 I u I I II 'L_l ' Michael Brandman Associates ti-NCllenl (PNJN)1OOMl00W 002310EIR\OOM0022 See I-00 Appendix Dividers doe ' Marina Park Draft EIR j 11 n 1 1 �I L_1 L A.1 - FINAL NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ' 01 w4 r2ouvmr.++ 11IYll4lI4CI :\Clicnt(PN•1N)\OOM\)\0064\00640022\DRIRW0640032 Rtt11.00 Appcnditi Dmdcrs.Joc I I H C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 DATE: May 22, 2008 TO: Interested Parties (see distribution list) FROM: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Notice of Preparation The City of Newport Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marina Park project. The City has prepared an Initial Study that provides a detailed project description and evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Initial Study is available for review at the following locations: ' City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Telephone: 949.644.3225 rl Balboa Brunch Library 100 E Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Telephone: 949.717.3800 The City of Newport Beach as the project proponent requests approval of a Harbor Permit, Use Permit, Parcel Map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Demolition Permit, and Modification Permit for the construction ofthe Marina Park project. The subject property is an approximate 10-acre site situated along West Balboa Boulevard between 15th street and 19th street. The proposed project consists of a public park and beach, a public short-term visiting vessel marina, improved parking lots, tennis courts, half -court basketball courts, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, and the Balboa/Sailing center which includes a restaurant, support offices, and classrooms. If you would like to submit written comments on the Notice of Preparation, please send them to the City of Newport Beach at the address shown below. Please be specific in your statements describing your environmental concerns. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your written response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days from the date of this notice, May 22, 2008. Project Title: Marina Park Project Applicant: The City of Newport Beach Send Responses to: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Telephone: 949.644.3208 Notice Public Scoping Meeting The City of Newport Beach as the Lead Agency for the Marina Park project, discussed above, has scheduled apublic Scoping meeting on Thursday, June 12 at 6:30 p.m. at the City of Newport Beach City Council Chambers located at 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard, Newport Beach. The purpose of the public Scoping meeting is to offer an opportunity for interested parties to provide comments regarding the environmental issues that are proposed to be addressed within the EIR for the project. Initial Study for Marina Park Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949.644.3208 Contact: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Manager of Environmental Services Michncl 11PdOdMilo ASWWV* May 21, 2008 ' Marina Park- Initial Study Table of Contents ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Section 1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose.........................................................................................................................1 1.2 1.3 Project Location...........................................................................................................1 Site History 2 ................................................................................................................... 1.4 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................. 1.5 Project Description.......................................................................................................2 ' 1.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Action............................................................................ 9 1.7 Environmental Determination....................................................................................10 1.8 Intended Uses of this Document................................................................................10 Section2 Environmental Checklist Form........................................................................................11 Section 3 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.........................................................................23 Environmental Checklist Responses....................................................................................... 23 I. Aesthetics................................................................................................................... 23 II. Agricultural Resources...............................................................................................24 III. Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 24 IV. Biological Resources..................................................................... V. Cultural Resources........................................................................ VI. Geology and Soils......................................................................... VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................... IX. Land Use and Planning................................................................. X. Mineral Resources......................................................................... XI. Noise.............................................................................................. XII. Population and Housing................................................................ XIII. Public Services.............................................................................. XIV. Recreation...................................................................................... XV. Transportation and Circulation...................................................... XVI. Utilities and Service Systems....................................................... XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................ ..................... 26 ...................... 28 ...................... 29 .. 31 ...................... 33 ...................... 35 ...................... 36 ...................... 36 ..... 38 ..... 39 .....40 ..... 41 ..... 42 .....44 ISection 4 References...........................................................................................................................45 1 LJ LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ............................................. Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map .................................................... Exhibit 3: Site Plan..................................................................... Michael Brandman Associates ui ' H;\Client(PN-JN)\0064100640022115\00640022 initial Study -Manna Park.doc Marina Park - Initial Study Introduction SECTION 1 ' INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE ' The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to identify the potential environmental impacts -associated with the proposed Marina Park. This IS has been prepared in conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) that implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Implementation Procedures for CEQA. The City of Newport Beach has primary responsibility for approval or denial of the proposed project. ' Accordingly, pursuant to Section 15367 of the Guidelines, the City is the lead agency in the preparation of a project -level Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City Council of Newport Beach will deliberate the certification of the EIR and approval or denial of the project. ' Because the City has determined that an EIR is required for this project, this IS is organized in a manner that: ' • Identifies potentially significant impacts that require analysis in the forthcoming project -level EIR; ' • Identifies environmental factors that are less than significant or have no impact and therefore will only be described briefly in the EIR; and • Provides sufficient information to public agencies and other interested parties in formulation of a meaningful written response to the Notice of Preparation in accordance with Section 15082(b) of the Guidelines. ' This document is organized into the following sections: Section 1- Introduction. Describes the project location and its environmental setting, a list of ' project design features, a detailed project description, a list of project objectives, identification of alternatives proposed for evaluation in the EIR, and intended uses of the EIR. ' Section 2 - Environmental Checklist. Provides an environmental checklist that identifies the level of impact associated with each environmental issue. ' Section 3 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. Provides a narrative discussion of each environmental issue contained in the environmental checklist. ' Section 4 - Reference Sources. Provides a list of references used in the preparation of this document. ' 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County, ' California as shown on Exhibit 1. The project site encompasses approximately 10 acres and is located along north side West Balboa Boulevard to Newport Bay between 15th Street and 1811/19th Streets (approximately 10 acres) as shown in Exhibit 2. Major arterial access is provided along West Balboa Boulevard with secondary access along 15th Street and 181h Street. Regional freeway access to Michael Brandman Associates ' HAChent(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc Introduction Marina Park - Initial Study the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73). 1.3 SITE HISTORY Historically, the approximately 10-acre project site has been comprised of the Marina Park mobile home park, a public beach and Las Arenas Park. The Marina Park mobile home park is an approximately 45-year old facility with approximately 15 full-time residents and 42 part-time tenants. Las Arenas Park consists of a metered public parking lot with 21 stalls, a City of Newport Beach Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, four public tennis courts, a children's play area, and the public beach located in front of the mobile home park and existing residents between the American Legion marina and 19i1' street. The existing public restroom on the public beach at 19"' street is also part of the project site. 1.4 'ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The existing site encompasses 10 acres and is built-up in nature with residential (i.e., mobile homes) community service (e.g., community center, public tennis courts, beach access, etc.), and surface parking lotuses. The 10-acre site is bordered on the east by an asphalt parking lot, the American Legion Post 291, residential and commercial uses, and 15'h Street, to the south by West Balboa Boulevard and residential uses, and to the west byl8a' Street, a hotel and residential uses, and 19'h Street along the public beach. 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This IS evaluates the development of the proposed Marina Park on an approximate 10-acre site situated along West Balboa Boulevard between 15`' Street and 19'4 Street as shown in Exhibit 3. The project includes a public park and beach, a public short-term visiting vessel marina, the Balboa/Sailing Center which includes a restaurant and tennis courts. The project provides a "Window on the Bay" from Balboa Boulevard. The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive area will include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and a half -court basketball court. The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina, Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa/Sailing Center will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. A restaurant will be located on top of the Balboa/Sailing center and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing classes. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern -portion of the site adjacent to 15'h Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19'h Street is proposed to be renovated or reconstructed but the size of the bathroom facility would remain the same. The implementation of the Marina Park will require removal of the existing mobile home park and existing community facilities. These existing facilities include the Balboa Community Center, Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, a children's play area, four tennis courts, and'bne basketball court. Primary access to the project will be via West Balboa Boulevard at 17"' Street and secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance off of 15'h Street. Public access to the beach will be provided by walkways within the proposed park as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore,l8'h and 19th Streets will still provide access to the public beach. E r u u IJ u 2 Michael Brandman Associates n:\Client(PN•JN)10064\00640022US\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Parkdue MAIL BFAH I__ Los Angeles 1Z Gorr • 90 142 • YaW LINDA wltaitDN 57 • 90 � ancarnn • 5 c� 39 • DPoWG SIANTON C�Ed(fdW • 22 • SWiAANA 1 HuNmGIDN 55 Bak 405 35rAM64 • 73 NBMPORreFAUi (%RMDEL" • LAGUNA LAGUNA LAGINA NIG EL BEACH miN7s�s z 5 2.5 0 5 ❑111INl1 SCALE IN MILES Michael Bmndman Assomtes 00640022.05/2008 1 1_regional.ai CLEVELND \ 'I `\ NATI'Pi3AJ \ FOREST MISSION VIM SANCLEME TE Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map MARINA PARK • IS/NOP M= M M M M M = = a== M M i= M� :id A 110. '4\ ISLE . TE Project Location °R enr ______.... Pi.LLE NNFvf7EW,M6 a 8AY PAW c ' » isoo LAs p as 0CE Source: Thomas Guide Digital Edition, 2003. %%%% C 2400 1200 0 2400 7a9lj zl SCALE IN FEET Michael Bnmdman Associates 00640022.05/200812_local.odr J� Exhibit 2 Local Vicinity Map MARINA PARK •IS/NOP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Source: Rabben/Herman Design office. J J% 1z NOT TO SCALE Michael Brandman Aswciates 0000000000* *000000000#1 @0000000000 Exhibit 3 Site Plan 00640022 •05/2008 1 3site plan.cdr MARINA PARK • IS/NOP 1 Marina Park - Initial Study Introduction The project proposes the following discretionary approvals: City of Newport Beach ' • Coastal Harbor Activities Permit and/or Harbor Permit • Use Permit ' • Parcel Map • Demolition Permits • Modification Permit ' Responsible Agencies Responsible agencies for the project have discretionary authority over the following: California Coastal Commission ......................... Coastal Development Permit ' Regional Water Quality Control Board ............. Section 401 Certification General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit ' California Department of Fish and Game.......... Section 1602 Agreement Other Agencies ' Other required permits include the following: ' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .......................... Section 404 Permit Section 10 Permit National Marine Fisheries Service ..................... Essential Fish Habitat ' 1.6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ' The EIR will analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Each alternative will be described and analyzed to determine if it can reasonably attain the identified objectives of the proposed project. The analysis will focus on whether the alternatives are capable of eliminating or ' reducing to a level of insignificance any significant adverse environmental impact of the,proposed project. A comparison of the alternatives will also be provided in tabular format. The EIR could analyze the following alternatives including, but not limited to: ' • Alternative 1- No Project/No Development Alternative. This mandatory alternative evaluates the potential impacts of not approving the proposed project. Alternative 1 assumes ' continuation of existing uses remaining on the project site. • Alternative 2 - Reduced Marina Alternative. This alternative evaluates the potential impacts of reducing the size of the marina as well as the number of vessel ships. • Alternative 3 - No Marina Alternative. This alternative evaluates the potential impacts of ' eliminating the marina but implementing the Sailing Center docks. I ' Michael Brandman Associates H-.\Client(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc Introduction Marina Park - Initial Study 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Through the preparation of this IS, the City has determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment and that a project -level EIR (Guidelines' Section 15161) will be prepared in compliance with Section 15120 of the Guidelines. The preliminary scope and content of the EIR have been determined based on the results of this IS and information obtained the City. The scope and content will be further evaluated based on input received from public agencies and interested members of the public during the 30-day Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period. 1.7.1 Effects Not Found To Be Significant The City has determined that the potential effects -to the environment in the following environmental issue categories are less than significant or of no impact and, therefore, will only be described briefly in the EIR, in accordance with Section 15128 of the Guidelines. These issues are: • Agricultural Resources • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation 1.7.2 Effects Found To Be Potentially Significant Through the preparation of this IS, the City has determined that the proposed project has the potential to result in potentially significant impacts on the environment. The EIR prepared for the proposed project will analyze all impacts associated with the following environmental issues: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and,Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Public Services • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/Service Systems 1.8 INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT This IS document has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from public agencies and interested members of the public regarding the proposed project, following the distribution of the NOP of the EIR. TheNOP will be circulated for a total of 30 days, during which written comments regarding the forthcoming EIR for the proposed project are invited to be sent to: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attn: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner r FI 1 10 Michael Brandmah Assoc/aces HACllent(PN-JMt00641006400221iS100640022 Initial Studydtarina Park.dac Marina Park - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form 1 1 C 1 1 I I SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Potentially I __ Form I Marina Park -Initial Study ' i Potentially Potentially Significant Leas Than No Environmental Issues Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? IV. Biological Resources - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ❑ ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as.a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Idave a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by i Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ❑ ❑ any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? 12 Michael Brandman Associates HAChcnt (PNdN)10064(00640022VS100640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc ' Marina Park - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form 1 1 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. Cultural Resources - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ® ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ® ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ® ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of topsoil? Michael Brandman Assoc! H.-Ulent (PN-1N)\0064\006400221 EnVironmentot Checklist Form Marina Park -Initial Study ' Potentially Environmental Issues Potenaatly Significant Significant Unless Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ® ❑ ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VH. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would the project; a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ® ❑ ❑ ❑ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ® ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a ® ❑ ❑ ❑ list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 14 Michael Brandmon Associates HdClicnt(PN•JN)10064100640022US100640022 Initial StudyMarina Park.doc IMarina Park -Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form F F 1 1 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant' Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant No Impact Impact. [Mitigation Incorporated, Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIH Hydrology and Water Quality -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ® ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ® ❑ ❑ ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ® ❑ ❑ ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which ® ❑ ❑ ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? t Michael Brandman Associates 15 ' H:\Cltcnt(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.dac Environmental Checklist Form Marina Park- Initial Study I Potentially Potentially Slgniticenl Less Then No Environmental Issues Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated fl Otherwise substantially degrade water ® ❑ ❑ ❑ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or•odter flood hazard delineation map? It) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ k) Result in significant alteration of receiving ® ❑ ❑ ❑ water quality during or following construction? 1) Result in a potential for discharge of ® ❑ ❑ ❑ stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge of ® ❑ ❑ ❑ stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes ® ❑ ❑ ❑ in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the ® ❑ ❑ ❑ project site or surrounding areas? IX. Land Use and Planning - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? I I u u E 1 1 16 Michael Brandman Associates 14AClient(PN-1N)n0064k0064o022US%00640022 Initiat Study-Morina Park.doc , Form Marina Park • Initial StUdy Environmental Checklist ' Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than �No Environmental Issues Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? ' X. Mineral Resources - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ ' mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ ' important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ' Xl. Noise - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of ® ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other ' agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ' excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ' noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ' in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ' e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? i) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ' excessive noise levels? Michael Brandman Associates 17 ' H:\Clicnt(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 initial Study -Marina Park.doc Environmental Checklist Form Marina Park -Initial Study ,' potentially Potentially Slgoalcent Less Than No Environmental Issues significant Impact unless Mitigation SiDniacanl Impact Impact Incorporated XH. Population and Housing - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ® ❑ area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people ❑ ❑ ® ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XHI. Public Services - Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ii) Police Protection? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ v) Other public facilities? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? I I I I H I 18 Michael Brandman Associates Il:lClienl(PN-)M100641006400221IS1O0640022 initial study -Marina Patk.doc ' Marina Park - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form 1 1 u J 1 Ir l 1 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact XV. Transportation/Traffic - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is ® ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? e) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in , substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. Utilities and Service Systems -Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ® ❑ ❑ ❑ of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ® ❑ ❑ ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ® ❑ ❑ ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ' Michael Brandman Associates HAClicnt(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Manna Park.doc Environmental Checklist Form Marina Park- Initial Study ' Potentially Potentially Significant Less Then No l:nvlronmentalIssues significant Impact Unless Mitigation significant Impact Impact Inrarporated d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ® ❑ ❑ ❑ serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ® ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ® ❑ ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ® ❑ ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or ® ❑ ❑ ❑ retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and odors)? XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance: a) Does the project have the potential to ® ❑ ❑ ❑ degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ® ❑ ❑ ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) I ri EJ C E �I Michael Brandman Associates U- Client(PN-)N)10064\00610022\IS100640022 Initial StudyAlarina Park.doc I Marina Park - Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form J II i� Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues significant' Impact Unless Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated c) Does the project have environmental effects, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. I Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by evidence provided in Section 3. ® Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ® Geology/Soils ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ® Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population/Housing ® Public Services ® Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Recreation ® Mandatory Findings of Significance ® Transportation/Traffic Michael Brandman Associates 21 ' II:\Client(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc Environmental Checklist Form Marina Park • initial MOO 1 Environmental Determination 1 On the basis of this initial evaluation (To be completed by the Lead Agency.): ❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a ' Negative Declaration will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 1 there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions -in, the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. 1 ® I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 1 gigne� C7� Date May 21, 2008 1 II C 1 l! pp Michael Brandman Associates ll:\Client (P1,14N)\0064100640022=06640022 Initial Studp Marina Park.doc Marina Park • Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation SECTION 3 ' DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES ' The following Initial Study Environmental Checklist responses discuss and briefly analyze the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. ' I. AESTHETICS Existing Conditions ' Presently, the project site is developed with a mobile home park, and Las Arenas Park, which includes a metered 21-stall parking lot, Balboa Community Center/Girl Scouts House, four public ' tennis courts, a children's play area, and a public restroom. The site is adjacent to Newport Bay, which fronts the property's northern perimeter. Minimal vegetation is present onsite, with the exception of some non-native, ornamental landscaping and a row of palm trees that line the boardwalk adjacent to the public beach situated along the beach front portion of the project. Site ' topography is relatively flat with little or no variation. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. ' Potentially Significant Impact. View corridors to Newport Bay from public rights - of -way adjoining the project site are obstructed by existing improvements on the site. Development consistent with the proposed project would provide enhanced views ' from public rights -of -way (i.e., Balboa Boulevard) to the bay. The proposed marina will extend within 100-feet of Balboa Boulevard which will create a dramatic visual element on the streetscape. Furthermore, the project includes structures with greater ' heights compared to the existing onsite structures. A visual evaluation will be conducted and impacts on the view corridors will be evaluated. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock ' outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the viewshed area of any State scenic highway. Therefore, no scenic resources within a state scenic highway would be visually affected with the development of the proposed project. ' c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The transformation of the project site from its current land uses to the proposed public park facilities will change the overall visual character of the site and its surroundings. Currently, views of the Newport Bay from Balboa Boulevard are obstructed by various uses at Las Arenas Park and the mobile home park. With the implementation of the proposed project, views of Newport Bay will be enhanced in )many areas and provide the public with a "Window on the Bay" from Balboa Boulevard. Michael Brandman Associates 23 ' HAClient(PN-JN)k0064\00640022klSX00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Marina Park-laitlal Study I d) Create a new source ofsubstantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day ' or nighttime views in the area? Potentially SIgnificant Impact, Presently, the project site is developed with urban , uses that contribute to nighttime illumination within the project area. Existing lighting sources include security lighting at Las Arenas Park and residential lighting from the mobile home park and traffic. With the proposed project, nighttime illumination from residential uses will be eliminated. However, additional security lighting within the project along with the interior and exterior lighting from the Balboa/Sailing Center may increase light and glare at night. The potential impact of nighttime lighting will be analyzed in the EIR. ' II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions The project site and surrounding areas are highly developed with urban uses. There are no agricultural lands within the vicinity of the proposed project. Environmental Checklist Responses , a) Convert Printe Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and MonitoringProgrant of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoningfor agricultural use, at, a Williamson Act contract? , c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ofFarniland, to non-agricultural use? , No Impact (a - c). The project site and the surrounding area are not zoned for agricultural uses, are not currently in agricultural, use or subject to,a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project does not involve any significant changes to the environment that will result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. III. AIR QUALITY , Existing Conditions Regional Setting ' The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is the jurisdictional responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and to a lesser extent the California Air Resources Board (CARE). Like most of Southern California, the climate within the project area is strongly influenced by the strength and location of a semi -permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell that is located over the Pacific Ocean, 24 Michael Brandman Associates n9Cllent(PNJN)50064\00(r)0022V$100040022Initial Study -Marina Park.doc ' Marina Park - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' Locally, the wind speeds are considered to be very low, which result in a limited capacity to horizontally disperse air contaminants. The dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 8 to 12 miles per hour (mph) daytime breeze and an offshore 3 to 5 mph nighttime breeze. The typical wind flow ' pattern only fluctuates occasionally during winter storms or when Santa Ana winds occur. During the summer, pollutant accumulation is intensified due to the high temperatures and increased sunlight, which results in ozone formation and inversions, which do not allow for the dispersal of air ' contaminants. During the winter, ground inversions are severe, especially on cold and clear mornings. The SCAB is currently in nonattainment of criteria pollutants. The basin is designated as nonattainment for the state and national PM2.5 standard. The basin is designated as nonattainment for the state and serious nonattainment for the national PM10 standard. Furthermore, the basin is in ' nonattainment for the state ozone 1-hour standard and is in severe nonattainment for the national 8- hour ozone standard. Local Setting Overall, Orange County retains a higher level of air quality than the rest of the SCAB, with the exception of when the area experiences Santa Ana winds. Generally, on -site conditions do not ' contribute to air pollution; however, on -site soil stockpiling may potentially contribute to airborne dust during high winds if no precautions are exercised. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. Potentially Significant Impact. The emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project may obstruct the implementation of the applicable ' Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). As for short-term impacts, fugitive particulate emissions are expected to occur during construction. Fugitive construction emissions have the potential to cause a significant impact on air quality. Actual emissions would depend on the level of activity and duration and the type of dust control measures being used. The short-term project -level and cumulative effects of this project on air quality and its compliance with the AQAP will require further review in the EIR. As for long term air quality impacts, such as vehicle emissions, an air quality analysis will be prepared for the proposed project. The project -level and cumulative effects of ' the project on air quality and its compliance with the AQAP will be further evaluated in the EIR. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ' Potentially Significant Impact. The emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project may obstruct the implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). As for short-term impacts, fugitive particulate emissions are expected to occur during construction. Fugitive construction emissions ' have the potential to cause a significant impact on air quality. Actual emissions would depend on the level of activity and duration and the type of dust control measures being used. The short-term project -level and cumulative effects of this Michael arandman Associates 25 HAClient(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial study -Marina Park.doc Discussion otEnvlronmental EValuatlon Marina Park -Initial Study �I project on air quality and its compliance with the AQAP will require further review in the EIR. As for long term air quality impacts, such as vehicle emissions, an air quality analysis will be prepared for the proposed project. The project -level and cumulative effects of the project on air quality and its compliance with the AQAP will be further evaluated in the EIk. c) Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-altaimnent under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact. The SCAB is designated as being in nonattainment by both federal and state standards for PM2.5, PM10, and ozone. The SCAB is designated as being in attainment for all other federal and state emissions standards for criteria pollutants. The project will increase the level of pollutants (ROG, NOx, and particulates), and the increase may be cumulatively considerable. The cumulative air quality effects will be further evaluated in the EIR. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the project site has the potential to generate significant air quality impacts. Project implementation will result in the generation of air pollutants during both short-term and long-term. There are residential land uses located to the south and west of the proposed project. Moreover, the project encompasses a public beach. There is the potential for sensitive receptors to be.exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, especially during the short-term construction period. Further analysis will be provided in the EIR. e) Create an objectionable odor affecting a substantial number ofpeople? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed marina and restaurant may have the potential for creating odors in the long-term. In addition, construction activities will involve the use of diesel -operated machinery. The use of diesel may produce odors that may affect adjacent residents. Potential odor effects will be further evaluated in the EIR. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions The project site itself is located within a highly developed area of the City of Newport Beach and currently supports urbanized uses, including a 57-space mobile home park and associated parking, a metered 21-stall surface parking lot, and Las Arenas Park) which includes the Balboa Community Center/Girl Scouts House, a children's play area and four public tennis courts. Little vegetation is present onsite, with the exception of some non-native, ornamental landscaping and a row of palm trees that line the boardwalk adjacent to the public beach located along the north portion of the site. However, the project site is directly adjacent to Newport Bay, which supports fish nursery habitat or marine -resources (plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, federally listed and State - listed marine associated species and sensitive habitats). I I I 1 I 26 Michael Brandman Associates II:1Client(PN•JN)t0064%00W0022%IS\OOW0022 Initial Study-Wrina Park.dae ' Marina Park - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' Environmental Checklist Responses a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on ' any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ' b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by ' Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) through the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ' Potentially Significant Impact (a-c). The proposed project will result in the development of a new marina and public facilities. Fish nursery habitats and marine resources (plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, federally listed and State -listed marine associated species and sensitive habitats) will be affected as a result of dredging the portion of the marina proposed in Newport Bay. The EIR will include the preparation of a Marine Resources Assessment (MRA). The MRA will include a review of available marine biological data for the local area and a site survey. Potential impacts to marine biological resources and the surrounding marine environment will be analyzed and where impacts are identified, mitigation measures ' will be recommended as appropriate. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratoryfish or ' wildlife species with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located in a highly urban• area and the site itself is developed with a mobile home park and community service type land uses. There are no migratory corridors within the project area. However, there may be habitat that would support nursery sites for native resident or migratory fish. ' Therefore, significant impacts related to wildlife movement may occur. The Marine Resources Assessment will address these impacts and provide mitigation measures, as appropriate. ' e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. There are no locally protected biological resources on the project site. Therefore impacts to these resources are not anticipated as a result of the proposed ' project and no mitigation measures are required. f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or stale habitat ' conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not located within the Natural Community ' Conservation Plan (NCCP). The NCCP has been developed to protect diversity of Michael Brandman Associates 27 ' H:\Clicnt(PN.JN)\0004\00040022\IS\00040022 Initial Study -Marina Park doc Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Marina Park - Initial Study natural wildlife within Orange County. The proposed project will not conflict with the NCCP. Implementation of the,proposed project will not result in impacts and no mitigation measures are required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions , The project site is highly developed with urban uses including a 57-space mobile home park and Las Arenas Park, which includes a metered 21-stall parking lot, the Balboa Community Center/Girl Scouts House, four public tennis courts, and a children's play area. MBA conducted a cultural resources record search for the project site at the South Central Coastal Information Center which is located at the California State University, Fullerton and reviewed the 1992 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) for the City of Newport Beach. The record search and HRI indicated there are no known cultural resources located on or directly adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the prehistoric and historic sensitivity of the area is considered to be low. The project site also contains the geologic Topanga Formation and Pleistocene terraces, which have potential for high paleontologic sensitivity. Environmental Checklist Responses , a) Cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section §15604.5? Potentially Significant Impact. It is unknown if historical resources are located on the project site. Therefore, potential historical resources impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact. Based on the record search, no known cultural resources are located on or directly adjacent to the project site. There is a potential for unknown cultural resources; therefore, these effects will be further evaluated in the EIR. c) Directly or indirectly deslrov a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologicfeature? , Potentially Significant Impact. Based on the project site containing the geologic Topanga Formation and Pleistocene terraces, there is a potential for paleontological resources to be affected. Therefore, these potential impacts to paleontological resources will be further evaluated in the EIR d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? , Less Than Significant Impact. No remains are known to be present on site. The project site has been previously graded. In the event that unknown remains are discovered on the project site, the proposed project will be in compliance with the State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, as required and cited below; 28 Michael Brafidman Associates I IAClienl(PN,JN)\0064\00640022\IS\0064002216410 Stody-Morino Pnrk,doc ' Marina Park - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation If human remains are encountered, the state Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. The county coroner must be notified immediately of the find. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner is required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the owner of the land or his/her authorized representative, the descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendant shall complete the inspection ' within 24 hours of notification of the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Existing Conditions Southern California is a seismically active area. The five major fault zones within the project area ' that are considered to be active are: the San Andreas fault; the San Jacinto fault; the Sierra Madre/Cucamonga/San Fernando fault system; the Whittier/Elsinore fault system; and the Newport - Inglewood fault. All of these faults are capable of generating earthquakes up to a magnitude of 7.0. The City of Newport Beach, including the project site, is located along the southwesterly edge of the Los Angeles basin. The underlying geology of the project site consists of sandstone and siltstone of the Topanga formation and terraced deposits. The project site is not located within a currently ' designated Aliquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone. The primary seismic hazard affecting the project will be groundshaking from a regional seismic event (earthquake) along a ]mown active fault in the Southern California area. Groundshaking is the primary cause of structural damage during an earthquake. The duration and frequency of ground shafting will vary depending on the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and magnitude of the ' earthquake. The nearest active fault is the Newport -Inglewood Fault. Environmental Checklist Responses ' a) Expose people oi• structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquisi- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map issued by the State Geologist for the area of based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a currently ' designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on the site is considered less than significant. A geotechnical report addressing this issue will be prepared for the project, which will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. I Michael Brandman Associates 29 HAClicnt(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\IS\00640D22 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Marina Park- Initial Study ii) Strong Seismic Shaking? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project is likely to be exposed to strong seismic shaking during its lifetime. The severity of the groundshaking will depend upon the distance to the epicenter, the depth of shock, and the magnitude of the earthquake, A geotechnicaL report addressing this issue of strong seismic shaking will be prepared for the proposed project, which will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. As appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach the project site is located in an area that is susceptible to liquefaction. However, the General Plan does not identify the project site as an area unacceptable for development. Engineering design standards, including adherence to the Uniform Building Code, as required, generally can reduce project related liquefaction impacts. A geotechnicaL report, addressing seismic related ground failure, will be prepared for the proposed project, which will be summarized in the EIR And included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures will be recommended, as appropriate. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The project site is relatively flat and there is minimal topographic variation throughout the development envelope. The potential for landslides is considered to be low, Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required, b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site will require excavation and dredging for the proposed marina. The proposed project will be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the City Excavation and Grading Code, as well as the Development Project Guidance requirements of Chapter 14.36 of the Municipal Code to safeguard against soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Furthermore, the proposed project will implement Best Management Practices (i.e., use of sand bags, hydroseeding of graded pads, installation of landscaping after completion of grading, etc.) during construction activities. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that world become unstable as a result of the project, andpotentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life orproperly. Potentially Significant Impact (c and d). The site is located in an area that is considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. Additionally, due to the site's proximity to Newport Bay, there is the potential of the lateral spreading of soils towards the water which can create a risk to property. A geotechnical report, which will address 30 Michael Brandman Associates II.Xiient(PN-JN)100641006400221IS100640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doe ' Marina Park -Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' unstable and expansive soils, will be prepared for the proposed project and be summarized in the EIR. The report will be included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. As appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wasted disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project site will not utilize septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts to soils from alternative wastewater disposal systems will result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. ' VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ' Existing Conditions The project site is developed with a mobile home park, the Balboa Community Center/Girl Scouts ' facility, four tennis courts, and a children's play area. Such land uses are not typical generators of hazardous wastes or materials. ' Environmental Checklist Responses a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No Impact. The proposed project will not utilize or dispose of any hazardous ' materials of reportable quantities in its typical operations. Substances for landscaping, such as fertilizers and pesticides, will be subject to all applicable regulations. No impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. ' b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ' Potentially Significant Impact. Project construction consists of extensive excavation for the marina. The remaining areas will involve limited grading and trenching. These construction activities involve typical construction methods and equipment onsite for a relatively limited and short duration. Construction equipment will include diesel and gasoline powered engines. A very small (incalculable) risk is ' present from gasoline or diesel tank rupture. However, compliance with construction site safety regulations limits the risk of upset to less than significant levels. Also, because of the limited and short duration of these activities, there is minimal risk of spillage. In addition, operation of the proposed marina may result in a potential health hazard if a spill from a vessel into the bay occurs. This potential will be further evaluated in the EIR. i 1 Michael Brandman Associates 31 ' H:\Client(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Manna Park.doc Discussion ofEnvironmental Evaluation Marina Park -Initial Study A c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous at- acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within one -quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. An inventory of materials to be used in construction or operation of the project will be developed. Any material identified as inherently hazardous or hazardous as a result of the quantity to be handled on the project site will be identified and appropriate mitigation measures defined. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list ofhazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. Past or present uses either onsite or within the surrounding area also have the potential to result in hazardous materials impacts through the release and/or migration of toxic substances. Moreover, project implementation will require the removal of onsite structures, which depending on date of construction may contain lead or asbestos materials. A regulatory database review will be conducted for the proposed project, results of the database review will be summarized in the EIR and the review results will be included in their entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures will be recommended, as appropriate. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ailport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? fi For a project within fire vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact (e-f). The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public or public use airport, or private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue will result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evactlation plan? No Impact. Access to the peninsula is primarily obtained via Newport and Balboa Boulevards, and the project site is situated on Balboa Boulevard. The proposed project will not constrict access or result in modifications to Balboa or Newport Boulevards. The proposed project will not alter emergency access to surrounding uses and onsite emergency access will be provided via the onsite circulation system. The onsite circulation system has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles (i.e., turning radii, etc). Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 32 Michael Brandman Associates I hTllent (PN•JN)\006410064002211S\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc Marina Park • Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' h) Expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. No Impact. The proposed project is located in a highly urbanized area and is surrounded primarily by residential development and Newport Bay. The vicinity of the project site is considered to have a low fire hazard. Fire risk is dependent upon the moisture level in the plants and the presence of incendiary sources. Although fire is a risk for any kind of structure, the proposed project would not be at any greater risk than other uses adjacent to the site. Project design will include emergency fire access routes and the proposed structures will be reviewed by the Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that the design meets the Fire Department standards ' including building materials, sprinklers, internal fire walls, access for emergency vehicles, etc. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ■ Existing Conditions The proposed project is located on the Balboa Peninsula, which separates the Pacific Ocean from Newport Bay. Newport Bay is comprised of the upper and lower bays. Upper Newport Bay is an estuary that receives drainage from a 150 square mile area of Orange County and Lower Newport Bay is the recreational and commercial harbor, known as Newport Harbor. The project site is relatively flat, generally rectangular in shape and approximately 10 acres in size. The site is primarily built-up in nature with areas of ornamental vegetation. rEnvironmental Checklist Responses a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through ' the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ' f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Ic) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following ' construction? l) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material ' storage, vehicle or equipment fiieling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including Michael Brandman Associates 33 ' H:\Client(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Marina Park- Initial Study I washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge of storinwaler to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volone of stornnvater runoff to cause environmental harin? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Potentially Significant Impact (a, e, d-f, and k-o). Implementation of the proposed project will alter the existing drainage pattern of the -site. In the short-term, construction•activities may result in siltation and erosion as well as potential fuel oil spills, which could result in a decrease in water quality and an increase in turbidity and sedimentation as it relates to the amount of pollution flowing to Newport Bay and the ocean. The project siteis under the jurisdictional responsibility of the Santa Ana Region of the California Water Quality Control Board, a state agency, which regulates discharges into the State's waters. As part of its oversight, the state ensures the project is implemented in accordance with federal water quality requirements during grading and construction. More specifically, the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 402(p)) requires discharges of stormwater associated with industrial and construction activity to be regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. NPDES compliance requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality control. Potential water quality impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or intelfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses far whicl permits have been granted)? No Impact. The project site is developed with urban uses and there are very few permeable surfaces onsite. Conversely, project design incorporates permeable parking lots and a landscape scheme that may result in increasing the amount of rainfall that will infiltrate into the ground and, thus, result in a decrease in stormwater runoff. The proposed project includes substantially more permeable uses than the existing uses. I3owever, the project site is not considered a groundwater recharge area. The project would not require the pumping of groundwater, therefore, the project would not result in a depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. g) Place housing within a 100yearflood hazard as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flow. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, it jury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? I I I I I I tl I 11 I 1 I I I 34 Michael Brandmen Associates I l:\Client(PN•JN)10064100640022VSk00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc ' Marina Park • Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation No Impact (g-i). According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone or within a dam inundation area. Therefore, impacts resulting from flooding are not anticipated and will create no flooding impacts. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ' Potentially Significant Impact. Given the generally flat topography of the project site and the surrounding area, and the distance from the mouth of a canyon stream, the project is not subject to mudflow. A tsunami is a series of waves that are created in a body of water. Given that the ' project site is located adjacent to Newport Bay and near the Pacific Ocean, there is a potential for a tsunami. The last tsunami that hit Newport Beach was in 1934. The City has prepared a Tsunami Plan to help the City staff and residents to effectively respond to a tsunami warning. A further discussion of potential tsunami impacts will ' be provided in the EIR. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Existing Conditions ' Presently, the project site is developed with a mobile home park, a public beach, Los Arenas Park and ` a.metered 21-stall parking lot, the Balboa Community Center/Girl Scouts house, four public tennis courts, and a children's play area. A public beach is located to the north of the project site. Primarily residential uses and some commercial uses, including a hotel and American Legion, surround the project site. ' Environmental Checklist Responses a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project will not physically divide an established community. Project implementation will not result in any barriers that would preclude travel throughout the project area. There are residential land uses directly south of West Balboa Boulevard and west of 18°i Street. The proposed project will significantly enhance horizontal and lateral public access to the beach; thus, no impact related to this issue will result from the proposed project and no mitigation ' measures are required. ' b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of ' avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is currently designated as Recreational Parks and zoned as Planned Community District. The proposed project ' is also located within the coastal zone and as such is subject to the California Coastal Act. An evaluation of the project's compatibility with existing land uses and environmental plans and policies in the City's General Plan and other applicable Michael Brandman Associates 35 fIACl ent(PN.JN)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Manna Park.doe Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Marina Park -Initial Study regional plans and policies will be included in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be recommended, as appropriate. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project is not located in an area that is designated within a habitat conservation plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Therefore, project implementation will not conflict with the existing NCCP or any other applicable habitat conservation plans. No impact will occur and no mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Existing Conditions The proposed project is not utilized for mineral extraction, nor has it been identified by the California w Division of Mines and Geology as an important mineral resource zone. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach's General Plan does not identify any known minerals on the project site or within the surrounding area. The project will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of state, regional, or local value. Therefore, no mineral resource impacts are expected to occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally -important resource recovery site imthe City's General Plan. Therefore, no impacts in relation to locally important mineral resources will result from the implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE , Existing Conditions The noise environment within the project area is dominated primarily by vehicle traffic and community activity. Within the project area, there is noise sensitive residential land uses to the south and west and across the Bay to the north on Lido Isle. The City of Newport Beachhasestablished a maximum permissible interior noise level of 45 dBA for noise sensitive land uses. Sensitive land uses typically include residences, parks, churches, schools and hospitals. Traffic along West Balboa Boulevard generates the majority of the ambient noise in the project area. Occasional aircraft overflight and motorcycle drive-bys generate relatively high noise levels, but are not the major noise events in the project area. 36 Michael Brandman Associates II-Client(PN-1N)\0064100640022VS\00640022 Initial Study-Marina Park.dac ' Marina Park -Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' Environmental Checklist Responses a) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of excessive goundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing, without the project? ' d) A substantial temporary orperiodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact (a-d). Sensitive receptors within the project area include the residential land uses to the south, west, and north of the project site. The proposed project will contribute to the ambient noise environment in both the short- term and long-term, which may impact sensitive receptors. In the short-term, typical construction activities such as the operation of bulldozers, front loaders, scrapers, ' pumps, generators, compressors, etc., will elevate noise levels on the project site and the surrounding areas. In the long-term, project -related vehicular traffic and boat ' traffic within the marina will contribute to the ambient noise environment. Community noise standards relevant to this project are contained in the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. A noise evaluation will be prepared to address ' potential noise impacts. The noise impacts associated with the project's vehicular traffic on adjacent land uses will be assessed in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (based upon 24 hours of measurement) noise scale for the without -project and with -project conditions. Areas that will experience a significant noise increase will be identified. Noise associated with the utilization of the proposed recreational facilities and the potential impact on nearby sensitive uses will be evaluated. Noise levels generated by stationary sources will also be assessed for compatibility with the proposed land uses. Noise levels from stationary sources that potentially impact noise sensitive land uses will be estimated. The City's Noise Ordinance standards will be used to assess impacts. Based upon identification of cumulative noise impacts, the cumulative -plus project noise impacts in the area including mobile as well as any stationary sources of noise, will be evaluated. ' e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an area that is regulated by an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or public use airport. ' Therefore, impacts due to aircraft noise would not occur and no mitigation measures are required. Michael Brandman Associates 37 II:\Client(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Marina Park- Initial Study •n For projects within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located with the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue and no mitigation measures are required. , XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Existing Conditions The Marina Park mobile home park is comprised of 57 mobile homes each situated on a pad, which is rented by the owner of the respective mobile home. Twenty-seven percent of the tenants of the Marina Park mobile home park identify the park as their primary residences. The remaining seventy- three percent of tenants identify their units as vacation homes. There are residential neighborhoods located directly to the south and west of the proposed project. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). Less Than SIgnificant Impact. The proposed project will generate employment associated with the public facilities; however, this increase is expected to be nominal compared to the approximate 48,000-person labor force within the City of Newport Beach. Due to the minor amount of employees being generated by the proposed project, it is not anticipated that such employment will directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the project area, which would require new housing or extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, no significant population growth impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers ofpeople, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact (b-c). The proposed project will result in displacing the tenants of the 57 mobile homes. Seventy-three percent of the mobile home park's tenants are not year-round residents of Newport Beach and utilize their units as vacation homes. According to the -City of Newport Beach, mobile homes comprise approximately three percent of the City's housing stock and, currently, there are ten mobile home parks located within the City. In addition, the City of Newport Beach currently has a housing supply of approximately 37,000 units of which approximately four percent are vacant (1,480 units). Although not considered substantial, as defined by CEQA, any displacement of existing housing or people resulting from the proposed project could be adequately served by the existing housing supply within the City. The mobile homes are not considered "affordable housing" for purposes of the City's Housing Element requirements because there are no covenants requiring the spaces to be affordable and no restriction on the incomes 3E Michael Brandman Associates BAClicnt(PN.JN)\OOW40004n022\IS100W0022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc ' IMarina Park - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' of households occupying them. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project is not considered to result in the displacement of a substantial number of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Existing Conditions lJ r I r I I I I I The project site is developed primarily with residential and community service -type land uses. Currently, the site requires fire and police services and to a lesser degree schools and park services. • Fire Services. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department currently serves the project site. The Fire Department provides emergency fire protection, non -emergency service calls, paramedic services, and inspection services. The Fire Department operates eight fire stations throughout the City. • Police Services. The City of Newport Beach Police Department serves the project site. Crimes reported within the project area are generally larceny and burglary. • School Services. The public school district serving the project site is the Newport -Mesa Unified School District, which operates four elementary schools, one intermediate school, and one high school. • Park Services. Currently, the City owns and maintains 309 acres of parkland. Environmental Checklist Responses Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision: of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, it2 order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? Police protection? v) Otherpubliefacilities? Potentially Significant Impact (i, ii and v). The proposed project will replace and enhance the existing onsite recreational facilities (Balboa Community Center/Girl Scouts House, tennis courts, children's play area). The project will lessen intensification on the site which may result in a decreasing demand for police and fire services. If traffic increases in the area, it is likely there will be an increase in traffic related accidents and emergencies, which will require the response of the police and/or the fire department. However, a decrease in development may result in a decrease in theft, burglaries, and other such crimes that require police services. Potential impacts on public services will be further addressed in the EIR and, as applicable, mitigation measures will be recommended. Michael Brandman Associates 39 HACltcnt(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Imnal Study -Marina Park.doc Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Marina Park •Initial Study III W) Schools? I iv) Parks? No Impact (ill and iv). The project includes no permanent housing and will not result in population increase in the area that would create a demand for additional schools or parks. In addition, the proposed project includes a park with public , facilities, therefore, the project would increase the amount of park acreage on the project site. XIV. RECREATION Existing Conditions Presently, the City owns and maintains 309 acres of parkland, in addition to community centers, school recreation land, gymnasiums, senior centers, and picnic areas. Las Arenas Park, which includes the Balboa Community Center/Girl Scouts House, public tennis courts, and a children's play area is located onsite. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facililies such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in a resident population increase in the project area and is intended ao be a recreational facility; thus it will not result in an increased demand for recreational services and no mitigation measures will be required b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities, which Might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include new and expanded versions of all of the existing recreation facilities now found within the existing site. This includes an expanded beach area and facilities, the Girl Scout House, play areas and open grass areas. Also included is a public short-term visiting vessel marina, a public dock and public Sailing Center, and improved public launch areas. Furthermore, the proposed project will include the new Balboa Center that provides space for the Sailing Center boats, class rooms for boating and other related programs. Environmental impacts associated with the development of these new recreational facilities, such as hydrology, traffic, etc., will be addressed within the EIR. If appropriate, mitigation measures will be recommended. I 40 Michael Brandman Associates H:ielieht(PN-JN)\0064100640022pS100640022 Initial Study -Marina Pa Utte ' Marina Park - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ' XV. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Existing Conditions Upper and lower Newport Bay divides the City and creates barriers which result in lengthy circuitous vehicular traffic movements. The proposed project is located on the Balboa Peninsula. The site is bordered by West Balboa Boulevard to the south, 18°i and 191h Street to the West and 15a' Street to the East. Access to the site is currently provided from West Balboa Boulevard. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Cause an increase in: traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic ' load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Potentially Significant Impact. Existing traffic generated by the project site is primarily attributed to the mobile home park; however, since only twenty-seven percent of the tenants are full time residents of the park, traffic generation fluctuates seasonally. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project may increase the existing traffic load on nearby roadways. A traffic and parking study will be prepared for the project that will involve an estimation of the net new trips generated by the project considering a credit will be applied for the existing uses and the relocation of the mobile homes. Also, a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be prepared as part of the EIR to evaluate the effects on the local street network and the ability of the roadway system to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed project. This study will conform to City Charter Section 423 and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis procedures specified by the City and be summarized in the EIR. by b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project may result in an increase in traffic and has potential to exceed the level of service standards for the project area's circulation system. A traffic and parking study will be prepared for I the project that will involve an estimation of the net new trips generated by the project considering a credit will be applied for the existing uses and the relocation of the mobile homes. Potential traffic impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. Due to the nature of the proposed project, there will be no impacts to air traffic patterns that causes an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that ' will result in substantial safety risks. Therefore, there would be no air traffic impacts associated with the project. I LJ Michael Brandman Associates 41 ' H:\Clrcnt(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park doc Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Marina Park -Initial Study I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp cloves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (farm equipment)? No Impact. Primary access to the project site will be via West Balboa Boulevard at 17'h street. Controlled secondary access will be provided via 15'h Street. The project will not result in the construction of new roadways or the alteration of the existing off -site circulation system. It is not anticipated that traffic hazards will occur as a result of project implementation. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project will not alter emergency access to surrounding uses and onsite emergency access will be provided via the onsite circulation system. The onsite circulation system has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles (i.e., turning radii, etc). Therefore, the proposed project will result in no impacts related to emergency access. J) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will result in the construction of an approximately 97 space parking lot immediately adjacent to the Balboa/Sailing Center and a smaller lot providing 26 spaces to the east. An additional parking lot is provided on the west side of the park adjacent to 18'h Street which provides 24 spaces and will serve the Girl Scout House, the play areas, and the park in general. Parking will be evaluated in the EIR as well as an evaluation of the use of the parking facilities by non -users. A means to control any such "poaching" into the park's parking facilities will be developed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e,g., bits turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. No conflicts with any adopted alternative transportation policies, plans or programs are anticipated. Therefore, no impacts would result from -project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Existing Conditions The existing development requires electrical, natural gas, water, wastewater, solid waste, and communication services. . Electrical and natural gas services within the project site and surrounding area are provided by SCE and The Gas Company, both of which have various transmission and distribution systems located throughout the project area. . Water services are provided by both the City of Newport Beach, which maintains the storm drain systems within the project area and the Irvine Ranch Water District, which provides water supply and wastewater services to the site. 42 Michael Brandman Associates HAClient(PN-1N)1006A00640022US1006400221altial Study -Marina Park.doc Marina Park - Initial Study Discussion of Environmental Evaluation • Solid Waste collection services within the project area are provided by the City of Newport Beach (Barrel service for residents and businesses) or private collection companies. Solid waste collected within the City is disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Canyon Landfill, located on Sand Canyon Road in the City of Irvine and operated by the County of Orange. • SBC Communications and Cox Cable provide telephone and cable service to the project site, respectively. Environmental Checklist Responses a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existingfacililies, the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may ' serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments fi Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted stormwater treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and odors)? Potentially Significant Impact (a - h). The proposed public facilities may result in increasing the demand placed upon utility and service systems, especially the Balboa/Sailing Center. The proposed project may require additional extensions and ' hookups to existing infrastructure. It is anticipated that water, sewer, electric, natural gas, and solid waster services will be needed to serve the project. Potential utility and service systems impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR. I I I Michael Brandman Associates 43 nAClient(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 initial Study -Marina Park doe Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Marina Park - Initial Study XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the polential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number at- restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the inalou• periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact. The project could potentially result in significant impacts to biological and cultural resources. These issues are considered potentially significant and will be further evaluated in the EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, file effects of other current projects, and the effects ofprobable fhtture projects)? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located in a highly developed urban environment and is considered an in -full parcel. An assessment of cumulative impacts including other current and probable future projects will be included in the EIR, as required by CEQA. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Signiflcant Itnpact. Increases in traffic and air pollutant emissions may have effects on persons within the vicinity of the project site. The EIR will assess the level of these effects generated by the proposed' project as it relates to any features that would directly or indirectly expose human beings to adverse effects. 44 Michael Brandman Associates n:\Client(PNJN)\e0W\OOWa022VS100640022 Initial Study -Marina Parkdoc , IMarina Park -Initial Study References SECTION 4 REFERENCES The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. ' 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan. 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Final EIR - Marina Park Resort and Community Plan, 2004. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 9. Coastal Land Use Plan, City of Newport Beach I C 1 i I Michael Brandman Associates 45 H.\Client(PN.JN)\0064\00640022\IS\00640022 Initial Study -Marina Park.doc Marina Park 11-44 PID 1, I 11 I I d I I I I r A.2 - COMMENT LETTERS Michael Brandman Associates H:\Clicnt(PNdN)N0064\00640022\DLIR\00640022 Sac11.00 Appendix Drvidcrs.doc U i I I I. I i I I I I II r 11 I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED By District 12 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Tel: (949) 724-2267 JUN 17 M-3 rax: (949) 724-2592 CIN OF NEWPORT BEACH June 11, 2008 Ms. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: Marina Park Dear Ms. Ung, File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071 PCH Raryourpowrl Be energyefNend Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Marina Park Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project consists of a public park and beach, a public short-term visiting vessel marina, improved parking lots, tennis courts, half court basketball courts, the Neva Thomas Girl Scout House, and the Balboa/Sailing center which includes a restaurant, support offices, and classrooms. The project site is located along north side West Balboa Boulevard to Newport Bay between 15'b Street and 18t4/19a' Streets. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The Department of Transportation (Department) is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment. -at.- this -time:. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially, impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. Sincerely, ry:hpment/Intergovernmental•Review C: ,Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research ; "Caltrans improves mo61Ary acrossCaUjornia" June 11, 2008 Ms. Rosalinh Ung City ofNewport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: Marina Park C: Gale McIntyre, Deputy District Director File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071 PCH r1 Southern California Gas Company D A Sempra Energy utility" May 23, 2008 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 NewportBlvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attention: Rosalinh Ung 1919 S. state College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806-6114 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 2 & 2088 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Subject: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for Marina Park. Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to your preparation of an E.I,R. (Environmental Impact Report) Request. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in portions of the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. In areas where we do not have facilities, when the area is served by our facilities, the service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. Gas service to some of the project area can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service also will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non -utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial/Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427-2000 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427-2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, 4" Jose Padilla Technical Services Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim 602 eueY.dx ATr OFCAIrPORh^A Arnn1A Fchwn_rzen eager. poaC[nnL NATIVE AMERICAN HERrrAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM364 9ACRAMRNTO, CA 95814 (916)653,6251 •F=(916)•65T-090 RECEIVED BY - www n5n�anv ilsyehe@pec6ell.net PIANNING DEPARTMENT ' JUN 06 2000 June 2, 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT PEACH Ms. Rosalinh Ling CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: SC # 2008051096• CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP) draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marina Park Preieet City of Newport Beach- Orange County, California Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you forthe opportunity to comment on the above -referenced document The Native American Heritage Commission is the state agency designated for the protection of California's Native American cultural resources. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR per the California Code of Regulations § 15064.5(b)(c) (CEQA Guidelines). In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect (APE),' and if so, to mitigate that effect To adequately assess the project related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action: d Contact the appropriate California Historic, Resources Information Center (CHRIS). Contact information for the.14forcnation ;CenteC'nearest you, is'6'p11gble froln tlie'State Office of Historic Presep ation in Sacramento'(916i653-72781;•'The record search will determine'. ' • If a part drthe entire (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural'resources. ' • if any known.cUttural resou{oes halo already been iebofded in or adjacerit to the APE. • If the probability is lc6v, moderate, or higkthat 6UIIuIsI resources ar%e locaIad in the APE. • If a survey is required to drm eteine'whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present d If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department All information regarding'site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should bis in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. ' •, The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center_ �J Contact the Native American He'ritage'Commission (NAHC) for.; A Sacred Lands File, (SLF) search of the project area and information on tribal contacts in the project • vicinity who may have information on cultural resources in or near the APE. Please provide us site identification as follows: USGS 7 5' minute quadrangle citation with name township range and section. This will assist us with the SLF. • Also, we recommend that you cohlaetthe Native American contacts on the attached list to get their Input on the effect of potential project (e.g. APE) impact. in many cases a cuiturallyaffitiated Native American tribe.or person will be the only source of information about the existence of a cultural resource. Lack of surface -evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Lead'agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally,disco'vered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15054.5 (Oof the Ctivity; alffornia Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). In areas of identified a archaeologist Native -American, with ,ar6k661bQieal, sensicertified and'a culturaliy'affiKaied .. krioWbdge in: 6"at resources; should n6i itor'ali'ground=disturbing acti4ities: ,: Lead;�g'enotes slibu(d'indride id ttieir,miggation plan, prbvisions.for.the disposition of,recoyered artifacts, "' �, ° i' cbn'sulration Wild oulturaliy'fflliated;Native AmeriNaiis .', • ' ' ; fr;. :.; J Lead agencies should includeprovisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigations plans. • CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the Initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American groups, identified by the NAHE, to ensure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave goods. • Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d) mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. 4 Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15370 when significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of project planning or execution. Please feet free to contact me at (916) 653-6251 if you have any questions. cerely, Q Dave Singleton Program Analyst Attachment: Native American Contact List. �- Cc: State Clearinghouse 1 ' Native American Contacts Orange County June 2, 2008 I'At Society Indi Aivitre R15 E. Seaside Walk, #C Gabrielino 4 ng Beach , CA 90803 Ivitre@yahoo.com 14) 504-2468 Cell Isneno Band of Mission Indians Aclachemen Nation avid Belardes, Chairperson 742 Via Belardes Juaneno in Juan Capistrano , CA 92675 avidBelardes @hotmaii.com 49)493-0959 49) 493-1601 Fax Lgva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Gabrielino Tongva • r ttnlaw@gmail.com 10-570-6567 labrieleno(I-onAva San Gabriel Band of Mission Anthony Morales, Chairperson �O Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva an Gabriel , CA 91778 ChiefRBwife@aol.com 126) 286-1632 26) 286-1758 - Home (626)' 286-1262 Fax his list Is current only as of the date of this documem. Gabrielino/Tongva Council / Gabrielino Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary 761 Terminal Street; Bldg 1, 2nd floor Gabrielino Tongva Los Angeles , CA 90021 office @tongvatribe.net (213) 489-5001 - Office (909) 262-9351 - cell (213) 489-5002 Fax Juanano Band of Mission Indians Aciachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675-2674 arivera(gjuaneno.com 949-488-3484 949-488-3294 Fax Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources 5450 Slauson, Ave, Suite 151 PMB Gabrielino Tongva Culver City , CA 90230 gtongva@verizon.net 562-761-6417 - voice 562-925-7989 - fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675 kaamalam@cox.net (949) 493-0959 (949) 293-8522 Cell (949) 493-1601 Fax Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and .efety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. his list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the propose SCHN2008051096, CEOA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for the Marine Park �Rotect; City of Newport Beech; Orange County, California. Native American Contacts , Orange County June 2, 2008 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator Joe Ocampo, Chairperson ' P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno 1108 E. 4th Street Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 'Santa Ana , CA 92701 alfredgcruz@sbcgiobai.net (714) 547-9676 714-998-0721 (714)623-0709-cell sifredgcruz@sbcglobal.net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Adolph "Bud" Sepulveda, Chairperson P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 bssepul@yahoo.net 714-838-3270 714-914-1812 - CELL bsepui@yahoo.net Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson Juaneflo Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno -Santa Ana , CA 92799 ,sonia.johnston@sbcglobal.net (714) 323-8312 ' Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anita Espinoza _ 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno Anaheim , CA 92807 (714) 779-8832 .I I This list Is current only as of the date of this document. Ohtribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In SmAlon 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.90 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is only applicable for contacting "I Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the propose SCHM09051095; CEOA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental Impact Report (OEIR) for the Marine Park PRo)ect; City of Newport Beach; Orange County, California. 1 P t. a3 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 RECEIVED BY e (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov PLAMNING DEPARTMENT May 30, 2008 Ms. Rosalinda Ung, Associate -Planner JUN 1$`- . Planning Department Community and Economic Development p�rr��yy 3300 Newport Boulevard �' °TY ®� NLYVPORT BEACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Ms. Ung: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Marina Park Project The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above - mentioned document. The SCAQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the draft environmental impact report (EIR). Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition, please send with the draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality analysis and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. Without all files and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD will be unable to complete its review of the air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting air quality documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Ouality Analysis The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses, The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. Alternatively, the lead agency may wish to consider using the California Air Resources Board (CARE) approved URBEMIS 2007 Model. This model is available on the SCAQMD Website at: www.urbemis.com. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. The SCAQMD has developed a methodology for calculating PM2.5 emissions from construction and operational activities and processes. In connection with developing PM2.5 calculation methodologies, the SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD requests that the lead agency quantify PM2.5 emissions and compare the results to the recommended PM2.5 significance thresholds. Guidance for calculating PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 significance thresholds can be found at the following internet address: http•//www agmd og v/cega/handbook/PM2 5/PM2 5.html. Ms. Rosalinda Ung -2- May 30, 2008 In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized significance analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performinga localized air quality analysis can be found at littp•//www.agmd.gov/cegaAlandbook/LST/LST.litml. It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel - fueled vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis") can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at the following intemet address: httu://www agmd gov/ccga/handbook/mobile toxic/mobile toxie.html. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project constructionand operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project; please refer to Chapter I I of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at 41e following intemet address: www as and gov/cMa/liandbook/mitigation/MM intro.html Additionally, SCAQMD's Rule 403 —Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction -related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following intemet address: http://www agmd.gov/prdas/aq urg ide/agguide.htmi. In addition, guidance on sitting incompatible land uses can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective, which can be found at the following intemet address: littp://www arb ca gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)(D), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396-2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (httu://www.agmd,Rov). The SCAQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project -related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Gordon Mize, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3302 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, 6-1L� S Steve Smith, Ph.D. , Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:GM:AK , ORC080523-04AK Control Number ' L� SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA I 'ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor ' Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 ' t(213)236.1800 f(213)236.1825 ' www.scag.ca.gov ' Officers President Richard Dixon, Lake Forest 'First Vice President Harry Baldwin, SanGabriel Second Vice President Vacant Immediate Past President Gary Ovltt, San Bernardino County ' •pollcyCommitteeChairs Administration Ronald O. Loveridge, Riverside ' Community, Economicand Human Development Jon Edney, El Centro Energy and Emininrhent Debbie Cook, Huntington Beach �ransportatlon and Communications MlkeTen, South Pasadena RECEIVED ElyPINING DEPARTMENT JUN 13 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 12,2008 Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Dev. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard, P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120080296 Marina Park Dear Ms. Ling: Thank you for submitting the Marina Park for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. We have reviewed the Marina Park, and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's May 1-31, 2008 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this :Proieot,-Correspgndence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator.lf you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236-1857, Thank you. Sincerely, c7z6�, 5�� LAVERNE JONES, Planning Technician Environmental Planning Division The Regional Council is comprised of 76 elected officials representing 187 cities, six counties, . Doc #A$fflJntyTransportation Commissions, and aTribal Government representative within Southern California. 2001 oseew t Centrat Newport Beach Community .cssoeiation P.O. Box 884 • Newport Beach, Califomia 92661 June 19, 2008 ' te A��G Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community Development Department ' City of Newport Beach C�� U��'0 ryFNr 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 rV� RE: NOP Marina Park Dear Ms. Ung: The Directors of the Central Newport Beach Community Association offer the following ' comments in response to the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the Marina Park project: ' • First, and foremost, we are very enthusiastic about the creation of Marina Park and are grateful to the City Council for its actions to implement it. • Please refer to the Balboa Community Center and the Sailing Center separately. Currently they are referred to as the Balboa/Sailing Center. They are two distinct facilities with differing uses and require separate analysis. The building for ' servicing the marina also should be analyzed as a separate facility. • Impact on recreation was considered as non -significant in the initial study. The ' creation of Marina Park will increase recreation demand by both local residents and regional visitors who will want to use these State tidelands for the beach, ' boating opportunities, park amenities and Community Center classes. There will be impact on boating in that section of the bay due to the increase in boat traffic from the sailing center, marina and hand -launch area. This boat traffic may need ' to be managed. Use of the ocean beach between 151e and 19'" Streets also could be impacted by lack of parking due to overflow parking demand by Park users. Public Safety analysis should also examine adequacy of lifeguard services on the ' bay beach which, to date, has been little known and hidden from'public view. There will now be an unfenced tot lot next to a waterway. ' Careful attention to traffic circulation should be paid. Even if there is no increase in traffic, depending on how the traffic analysis is conducted, the current residents of the mobile home park know where they are going. Marina Park users will often not know how to access the facility or beach visitors will see the parking, try I to access it, find that it is restricted and have to return to the street or make a u ' turn to continue east to find parking. This is the type of chaos that the residents ' need to have analyzed to make traffic circulation as painless as possible. There will also be impact due to the creation of demand for a left -turn at 17a' Street where little or no demand currently exists. This will create impact to both west ' and east -bound Balboa Boulevard traffic and will adversely impact residents on that section of boulevard. The Public Safety section.should also address the impact of this circulation and congestion on the movement of police, fire, , paramedic and lifeguard vehicles servicing the Peninsula easterly of the facility. • Parking analysis should also include access for park and beach users, not just for ' users of the buildings. Increased parking demand for the hand launch area should be included. While we recognize that there can never be enough parking during the summer, all sources of demand should be included in the analysis. ' • Any landside demands placed by public dock users should be addressed and mitigated. , • The impact and mitigation of potential at -dock maintenance and repair of boats in the marina should be addressed. Mitigation measures should be incorporated to ' ensure recreation use of the marina and pubic dock to avoid their use by commercial interests for charters, temporary boat sales storage and/or outfitting and delivery. ' • Project Alternatives should include less intense development of the site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We want to maximize the success of Marina Park by attempting to anticipate problems and mitigate them before construction rather than trying to retrofit remediation. While the highest impact on residents from change in ' Central Newport is summer, that period is 25% of our livest Very truly yours, , Louise Fundenberg, President U Marina Park Drat EIR C� Appendix B: Visual Simulations 1 1 1 0 I u 1 0 I 1 1 Michael Brandman Associates 11 .Client USN-JN1ll111rAV104d011221UCIIC1106401n2 Secl I.Ol1 Appaulir Drvulen 6 - UPON � { c r :7�� •" :}yam„ � J; fj'� � � a 1, - ,` r- oil A�• ■, a Flip MeiL Mmom ;.r ;� 4 91 � - , � I - 1q, ilk$ 1'IA , . i � .0 Yy , if L,- , 12129%, owr WOMB 17 - MW Mv i •'' :� � .'t �' �T�' s�°tom _� �::, ` �i ,alet ,.'- } r1Ao i,. ,•'+' • _'� �•.� if a.� n I iii v p Ail rf 77 �Woow N . I A Marina Park Draft EIR I I � l it 1 1 [1 I 1 1 Appendix C: Air Quality Information ' Michael BrandmanAssociates 11'Chnn(I'NJN)NO064l00WOO22%DEIRWO640022 Scc11-00 Appcndir Dividers doc Supporting Air Quality Information Marina Park City of Newport Beach, California Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 621 E. Carnegie Dr., Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92407 909.884.2255 �NNINI [1E INIEN M1,11 ml LSnnJm in \w;mR, February 25, 2009 r r rTABLE OF CONTENTS URBEMIS Output: r ProjectSummer Emissions.................................................................................3 Project Winter Emissions..................................................................................16 Existing Summer Emissions.............................................................................20 ' Existing Winter Emissions................................................................................24 Marina/Boat Emissions.................................................................................................28 r NONROAD Output.......................................................................................................29 TugboatEmissions.......................................................................................................35 Caline4Output..............................................................................................................36 Greenhouse Gas Spreadsheets for Project..................................................................38 ' URBEMIS Annual Output for Project............................................................................47 for Existing Greenhouse Gas Spreadsheets ................................................................56 r r r r I r I r r I r Page: 1 2/25/2009 4:03:34 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:1MBA\Client\00640022 Marina Park\Marina Park.urb924 Project Name: Marina Park Project Location: South Coast AQMD On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CQ S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2 5 PM2 5 CO2 Exhaust 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 66.24 55.53 38.91 0.02 50.03 2.85 52.55 10.45 2.62 12.77 5,510.97 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day mitigated) 66.24 55.53 38.91 0.02 8.19 2.85 10.71 1.71 2.62 4.03 5,510.97 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 0.68 0.39 4.92 0.00 0.02 0.02 402.83 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROC NOx CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 4.80 6.67 58.56 0.07 9.97 1.94 5,921.79 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 5A8 7.06 63AS 0,07 9.99 1.96 6,324.62 Michael Srandman Associates Page 3 of 63 Page: 2 2125/2009 4:03:34 PM Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOX QQ PM10 Oust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 &42 Time Slice 1/5/2009-1/16/2009 1.60 11.62 7.55 0.00 1.27 0.79 2.06 0.27 0.72 0.99 1,157.03 Active Days:10 Demolition 01/05/2009- 1,60 11.62 7.55 0.00 127 0.79 2.06 0.27 0.72 0.99 1.157.03 01/16/2009 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.00 126 026 0.00 0.26 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel IAA 10.12 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.67 0.67 856.00 Demo On Road Diesel 0.11 1.42 0.55 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.06 176.60 Demo Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.43 Time Slice 1i19/2009-3/1312009 6.06 55.53 27.81 0.01 50.03 2.52 52.55 10.45 2.32 12.77 5.490.68 Active Days: 40 Mass Grading 01/19/2009- 6.06 55.53 27.81 0.01 50.03 2.52 52.55 10.45 2.32 12.77 5,490.68 03/13/2009 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0,00 0.00 , 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 10.44 0.00 10.44 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 5.60 50.26 23.59 0.00 0.00 2.30 2.30 0.00 2.11 2.11 4,606.06 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.39 5.13 1.97 0.01 0.02 021 0.24 0.01 0.20 0,20 635.76 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.07 0.14 2.25 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.86 Time Slice 311612009-3131/2009 2.90 23.32 11.89 0.00 0.01 1.29 1.30 0.00 1.19 1.19 2,212A8 Active Days:12 Trenching 03/16/200"3/31/2009 2.90 23.32 11.89 0.00 0.01 1.29 1.30 0.00 1.19 1.19 2.212.48 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.86 23.26 10.77 0.00 0.00 1.29 1.29 0.00 1.19 1.19 2,088.05 Trenching -Worker -Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.43 Michael Brandman Associates Page 4 of 63 Page: 3 212512009 4:03:34 PM Time Slice 4/112009-4/30/2009 Active Days: 22 Building 04/01/2009-12124/2009 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Fine Grading 04/01/2009- 04/30/2009 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 511/2009-11/3012009 Active Days: 152 Building 04/01/2009-12/24/2009 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips 5 7.55 45.22 38_91 0.02 10.08 2.68 12.75 2.12 2.46 4.58 5,510.97 4.33 1870 24.80 0.02 0.07 1.34 1.41 0.03 1.23 1.25 3,139.22 387 17.35 11.50 000 0,00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 0.05 0.5B 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 101.00 0.41 0.77 12.84 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.06 1,417.02 3.22 26.52 14.10 0.00 10.01 1.34 11.34 2.09 1.23 3.32 2,371.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 2.09 0.00 2.09 0.00 3.18 26.46 12.98 0.00 0.00 1.33 1.33 0.00 1.23 1.23 2,247.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.43 4.33 18.70 24.80 0.02 0.07 1.34 1.41 0.03 1.23 1.25 3,139.22 4.33 18.70 24.80 002 0.07 1.34 1.41 0.03 1.23 1.25 3,139.22 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 0.05 0.58 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 101.00 0.41 0.77 12.84 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.06 1,417.02 Michael Brandman Associates Page 5 of 63 Page: 4 212512009 4:03:34 PM Time Slice 12/112009-12/2412009 66.24 36.87 37.55 29Z 0.09 2. 2.94 0.03 253 2.65 4,888.16 Active Days: 18 Asphalt 12/01/2009-12124/2009 3.21 18.12 11.97 0.00 0.02 1.51 1.53. 0.01 1.39 1.40 1,663.75 Paving Off -Gas 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.81 16.83 9.27 0.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 0.00 1.34 1.34 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.09 1.15 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.05 142.85 Paving WorkerTrips 0.07 0.14 2.25 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.86 Building 04/01/2009-12/2412009 4.33 18.70 24.80 0.02 0.07 1.34 1.41 0.03 123 1.25 3,139.22 Building Off Road Diesel 3.87 17.35 11.50 0,00 0.00 1.28 128 0.00 1.17 1 17 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.58 0.47 0.00 0,00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 101.00 Building Worker Trips 0.41 0.77 12.84 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.06 1,417.02 Coaling 12101/2009-1212412009 58.70 0.05 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.20 Architectural Coaling 58.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coaling Worker Trips 6.02 0.05 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.20 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 1/5/2009 - 1116/2009 - Demolition Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 30000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 3000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 41.67 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at 0.59load factor for 2 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 4/1/2009-4/3012009- Fine grading Total Acres Disturbed: 2 Michael Brandman Associates Page 6 of 63 "a, I dw n1 I" = " ow no Page: 5 212512009 4:03:34 PM Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 lbs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 1/19/2009 - 3/13/2009 - Mass grading Total Acres Disturbed: 10 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 lbs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 150 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Aerial Lifts (60 hp) operating at a 0.46load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Trenching 3/16/2009 - 3131/2009 - Trenching Off -Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other Material Handling Equipment (191 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Michael Brandman Associates Page 7 of 63 Page: 6 2/25/2009 4:03:34 PM Phase: Paving 12/1/2009 - 12/24/2009 - Paving Acres to be Paved:1.69 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day i Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56load factor for7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/1/2009-1212412009 - Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at 0.43load factor for hours per day 2-Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45load factor for hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 12IM009-12/24/2009 - Default Architectural Coaling Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 species a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Michael Brandman Associates Page 8 of 63 M' Ml s 0M wi M M, M MAW M w t" M, as no go No te s -Mom W M Page: 7 2125/2009 4:03:34 PM Time Slice 1/512009-1/16/2009 Active Days: 10 Demolition 01/05/2009- 01/16/2009 Fugitive Dust Demo Off Road Diesel Demo On Road Diesel Demo Worker Trips Time Slice 1/19/2009-3/13/2009 Active Days: 40 Mass Grading 01/19/2009- 03/13/2009 Mass Grading Dust Mass Grading Off Road Diesel Mass Grading On Road Diesel Mass Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 3/16/2009-3/31/2009 Active Days: 12 Trenching 0311612009-03/31/2009 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips ROG Q CO 502 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust 1.60 11.62 7.55 0.00 1.27 0.79 1.60 11.62 7.55 0.00 1.27 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.00 1.45 10.12 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.11 1.42 0.55 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 6.06 55 5353 27.81 0.01 819 2.52 6.06 55.53 27.81 0.01 8.19 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.16 0.00 5.60 50.26 23.59 0.00 0.00 2.30 0.39 5.13 1.97 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.07 0.14 2.25 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.90 23.32 11.89 0.00 0.01 1.29 2.90 23.32 11.89 0.00 0.01 1.29 2.86 23.26 10.77 0.00 0.00 129 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM25 Exhaust 2.06 0.27 0.72 2.06 0.27 0.72 1.26 0.26 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.67 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 101,71 1.71 2.32 10.71 1.71 2.32 8.16 1.70 0.00 2.30 0.00 2.11 0.24 0.01 0.20 0.02 0.00 0.01 1.30 0.00 1.19 1.30 0.00 1.19 1.29 0.00 1.19 0.01 0.00 0.00 PM25 099 0.99 0.26 0.67 006 0.00 4.03 4.03 1.70 2.11 0.20 0.01 1.19 1.19 1.19 0.00 Michael Brandman Associates Page 9 of 63 Page: 8 212512009 4:03:35 PM Time Slice 411/2009-4/30/2009 7.55 45.22 38.91 0.02 2.35 2.68 6.03 0.50 2.46 2.96 5,51097 Active Days: 22 Building 04/0112009-1212412009 4.33 18.70 24.80 0.02 0.07 1.34 1.41 0.03 1.23 1.25 3,139.22 Building OffRoad Diesel 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.58 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 101.00 Building WorkerTrips 0.41 0.77 1284 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.06 1,417.02 Fine Grading 04/0112009- 3.22 26.52 14.10 0.00 2.28 1.34 3.62 0.48 1.23 1.71 2,371.75 0413012009 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.28 0.00 2.28 OAB 0.00 0.48 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.18 26.46 1298 0.00 0.00 1.33 1.33 0.00 1.23 1.23 2,247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.43 Time Slice 51112009-11/30/2009 4.33 18.70 24.80 0.02 0.07 1.34 1.41 0.03 1.23 1.25 3,139.22 Active Days: 152 Building 04101/2009-1212412009 4.33 18.70 24.80 0.02 0.07 1,34 1.41 0.03 1.23 1.25 3,139.22 Building Off Road Diesel 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.58 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 101.00 Building Worker Trips 0.41 0.77 12.84 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.06 1,417.02 Michael Brandman Associates Page 10 of 63 Mi IM M M M =� M M" M M" M��"WM min M� s M Page: 9 2/2512009 4:03:35 PM Time Slice 12/112009-12124/2009 Active Days: 18 Asphalt 1210112009-12/2412009 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 04/0112009-12/24/2009 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 12/01/2009-12/24/2009 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 66.24 36.87 37.55 0.02 0.09 2.85 2.94 0.03 2.62 2.65 4,888.16 3.21 18.12 11.97 0.00 0.02 1.51 1.53 0.01 1.39 1.40 1,663.75 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 16.83 9.27 0.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 0.00 1.34 1.34 1,272.04 0.09 1.15 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.05 142.85 0.07 0.14 2.25 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.86 4.33 18.70 24.80 0.02 0.07 1.34 1.41 0.03 1.23 1.25 3,139.22 3.87 17.35 11.50 0.00 0.00 128 1.28 0.00 1.17 1.17 1,621.20 0.05 0.58 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 101.00 0.41 0.77 12.84 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.06 1,417.02 58.70 0.05 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.20 58.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.20 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 4/1/2009 - 4/30/2009 - Fine grading For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by., PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 1119/2009 - 3/1312009 - Mass grading For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stabilizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: Michael Brandman Associates Page 11 of 63 Page: 10 2/2512009 4:03:35 PM PM10: 69% PM25:69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source RS>_a NOX M ,am PM10 PM2.5 &92 Natural Gas 0.02 0.33 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 394AO Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.37 0.06 4.64 O.OD 0.02 0.02 8.43 Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.29 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.68 0.39 4.92 0.00 0.02 0.02 402.83 Michael BrandmanAssociates Page 12 of63 1lM ON, No i 'w N i Mimp ow M Page: 11 212512009 4:03:35 PM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX City park 0.53 0.75 Community Center/Sailing 3.50 5.06 Center/Cafe Visitor Marina - Berths 0.77 0.86 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 4.80 6.67 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F)' 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type City park Community Center/Sailing Center/Cafe Visitor Marina - Berths Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 6.57 0.01 1.12 0.22 663.88 44.43 0.05 7.56 1.47 4,493.69 7.56 0.01 1.29 0.26 764.22 58.56 0.07 9.97 1.94 5,921.79 Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 15.80 acres 4.50 71.10 645.77 22.8E 1000 sq ft 21.30 487.34 4,372.94 2.96 1000 sq ft 28.00 82.88 743.68 641.32 5,762.39 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 51.7 1.2 98.6 0.2 7.3 2.7 94.6 2.7 Michael Brandman Associates Page 13 of 63 Page: 12 2/25/2009 4:03:35 PM Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs 22.9 0.4 99.6 0.0 Mad Truck 5751-8500 Ibs 10.6 0.9 99.1 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 1.6 0.0 812 18.8 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14.000lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000lbs 0.9 0.0 222 77.8 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60.000 Ibs 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 28 67.9 32:1 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0,9 0.0 88.9 11.1 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7A 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15A 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 %ofTrips -Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 • of Trips - Commercial (by land use) City park 5.0 2.5 92.5 Michael Brandman Associates Page 14 of 63 M a_ w No 4w M, wo� w� no s am M M M an s es Page: 13 2125/2009 4:03:35 PM Community Center/Sailing Center/Cafe Visitor Marina - Berths Travel Conditions Residential Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Operational Changes to Defaults Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 2.0 1.0 97.0 2.0 1.0 97.0 Michael Brandman Associates Page 15 of 63 Page:1 2/2512009 4:03:44 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2A Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\MBA\Client\00640022 Marina ParklMarina Park.urb924 Project Name: Marina Park Project Location: South Coast AQMD On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROGz N4X M $42 PM10 PM2,5 S�42 Natural Gas 0.02 0.33 028 0.00 0.00 0.00 394AO Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 0.00 Architectural Coatings 029 TOTALS (lbsMay, unmitigated) 0.31 0.33 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 394AO r . i2S2 i79IF� Michael Brandman Associates Page 16 of 63 Page: 2 2/2512009 4:03:44 PM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX City park 058 0.90 Community Center/Sailing 3.92 6.10 Center/Cafe Visitor Marina - Berths 0.75 1.04 7OTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 5.25 8.04 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type City park Community Center/Sailing Center/Cafe Visitor Marina - Berths Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 6.34 0.01 1.12 0.22 601.18 42.91 0.04 7.56 1.47 4.069.09 7.30 0.01 1.29 0.25 692.01 56.55 0.06 9.97 1.94 5,36228 Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 15.80 acres 4.50 71.10 645.77 22.88 1000 sq ft 21.30 487.34 4,372.94 2.96 1000 sq ft 28.00 82.88 743.68 641.32 5,762.39 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 51.7 1.2 98.6 0.2 7.3 2.7 94.6 2.7 Michael Brandman Associates Page 17 of 63 Page: 3 2/25/2009 4:03:44 PM Vehicle Fleet Miz Vehicle Type Percent Type Ught Truck 3751-5750lbs 22.9 Mad Truck 5751-8500lbs 10.6 Ute-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs 1.6 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 ibs 0.5 Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000lbs 0.9 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs 0.5 Other Bus 0.1 Urban Bus 0.1 Motorcycle 2.8 School Bus 0.1 Motor Home 0.9 Travel Conditions Residential Home -Work Home -Shop H Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by -land use) City park Michael Brandman Associates Commercial Non -Work 7.4 9.6 30.0 Page 18 of 63 M Page: 4 2/2512009 4:03:44 PM Community Center/Sailing Center/Cafe Visitor Manna - Berths Travel Conditions Residential Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Operational Chanoes to Defaults Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 2.0 1.0 97.0 2.0 1.0 97.0 Michael Brandman Associates Page 19 of 63 Page: 1 9/29/2008 2:29:16 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2A Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: I:\Madna Park\URBEMIS\ExistingLandUses.urb924 Project Name: Marina -Park Existing Land Uses Project Location: South Coast AQMD On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOX So S02 PM10 TOTALS (ibs/day, unmitigated) 3.95 0.97 4.81 0.00 0.01 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM1 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 2.36 2.69 25.01 0.02 0.19 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NQx &4 802 PM 0 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 6.31 3.66 29.82 0.02 0.20 Michael Brandman Associates 1 PM2.5 Sot 0.01 1,192.12 PM2.5 CO2 0.12 2,033.10 PM2.5 CO2 0.13 3,225.22 Page 20 of 63 Page: 2 9129/2008 2:29:15 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM2 5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.07 0.93 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,185.30 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.63 0.04 4.41 0.00 0.01 0.01 6.82 Consumer Products 2.92 Architectural Coatings 0.33 TOTALS.(Ibstday, unmitigated) 3,95 0.97 4.81 0.00 0.01 - 0.01 1,192.12 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10%to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5%to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85%to 0% Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM26 CO2 Mobile home park 2.36 2.69 25.01 0.02 0.19 0.12 2,033.10 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 2.36 2.69 25.01 0.02 _ 0:19 0:12 2,033.10 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Michael Brandman Associates Page 21 of 63 Page: 3 912912008 2:29:15 PM Does not Include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year. 2008 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type Mobile home pads Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 9.50 3.40 dwelling units Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Light Auto 51.6 1.7 Light Truck < 3750 lbs 7A 4.1 Light Truck 3751.5750 lbs 22.9 0.9 Med Truck 5751.8500Ibs 10.6 0.9 Lite-Heavy Truck 6501-10,000 Ibs 1.6 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,00144,000lbs 0.5 0.0 Med-Heavy Truck 14,00133,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000lbs 0.5 0.0 Other Bus 0.1 .0.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 Motorcycle 2.8 78.6 School Bus 0A 0.0 Motor Home 0.9 11.1 Michael Brandman Associates No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 57.00 193.80 1.957.92 193.80 1,957.92 Catalyst Diesel 97.9 0.4 91.8 4.1 99.1 0.0 99.1 0.0 81.2 18.8 60:0 40.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 77.8 11.1 Page 22 of 63 M Page: 4 9/29/2008 2:29:15 PM Travel Conditions Residential Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 %of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial.(by land use) Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 13.3 7.4 8.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 30.0 30.0 300 Michael Brandman Associates Page 23 of 63 Page: 1 9/2912008 2:29:29 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: IAMarina Park\URBEMIS1ExistingLandUses.urb924 Project Name: Marina Park Existing Land Uses Project Location: South Coast AQMD On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOX M S02 PM10 PM2 5 CO2 TOTALS (Ibstday, unmitigated) 3.32 0.93 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,185.30 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CCO22 TOTALS"(Ibsfday, unmitigated) 2.38 3,25 24.17 0.02 019 0.12 1,8".92 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOX 99 §Q3. PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (Ibstday, unmitigated) 5.70 4.18 24,57 0.02 0.19 0.12 3,030.22 Michael Brandman Associates Page 24 of 63 Page: 2 rth 9/29/2008 2:29:29 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx Natural Gas 0.07 0.93 H 0.00 0.00 ea Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 292 Architectural Coatings 0.33 TOTALS(Ibs/day, unmitigated) 3.32 -0.93 CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,185.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0,40 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - 1,185.36 Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 10%to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 5% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 85%to 0% Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO Mobile home park 2.38 3.25 24.17 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) - 2.38 3.25 24.17 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 0.02 0.19 0.12 1,844.92 0.02 0.19 0.12 1,84492 Michael Brandman Associates Page 25 of 63 Page: 3 9/29/2008 2:29:29 PM Does not include double counting adjustment for Internal trips Analysis Year.2008 Temperature (F):60 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Mobile home park Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Mad Truck 5751.8500 Ibs Lite•HeavyTruck 8501 -10.000 lbs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33.000 lbs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33.001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Michael Brandman Associates Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 9.50 3,40 dwelling units Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst 51.6 1.7 7.4 4.1 22.9 0.9 10.6 0.9 1.6 0.0 0.5 0,0 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.8 78.6 0.1 0.0 0.9 11.1 No. Units Total Trips Total VNIT 57.00 193.80 1,957.92 193.80 1,957.92 Catalyst Diesel 97.9 0,4 91.8 4.1 99.1 0.0 99.1 0.0 81.2 18.8 60.0 40.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 21A 0.0 0.0 100.0 77.8 11.1 Page 26 of 63 Page: 4 9/29/2008 2:29:29 PM Travel Conditions Residential Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 300 %ofTrips- Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 13.3 7A 8.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 30.0 30.0 30.0 Michael Brandman Associates Page 27 of 63 E-7 -o m z K o• 3 0 N N y N N O Q_ O 3 N � m 3 0 O O. O N 0 � D � O m o• 3 CDN ID C N_CD i 3 M m CAD n m 3 n. n 0 3 C CD K a O y z O (D m m O N O n O 7 N ~ 6 l< N N N N a C 3 fD m 7 co CD N A o N O ' 0 mmmmm xco -0-v�3 3 3 3 3 3 0 v m m d d N N fn 4) N N N N U) N N N Dl 7 O O O O O 7 > > > C N CDD) Q O_ m o (A > O Q f0 o CDto O N Q^ 1 CL O N N p. 03 N n A C N `NG V (� N Q' U) N " m 3 O m� C N O. O C) W 7 � N C O N 0 2 O N O _v m ur rn z . C5 rn O to co o w x .9 O C 3 W CD OI O O) O O N CD o O A N O O N O) .P C" C� 0 V -t ONN Emission Factors by Horsepower, SCC, and Pollutant All Fuels tsrammiperaung tnour .,, augc �VUIIay Marina Park 2010 (Marina) Total for year: 2009 Date of Model Run: Oct 14 15:54:24: 2008 Today's Date: 10/14/2008 Fuel Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Crankcase Diurnal Type SCC Equipment Description Engine Type THC NOx CO PM10 S02 CO2 THC THC Horsepower Diesel Pleasure Craft 2282020005 Inboard/Stemdrive Diesel 6< HP <= 11 4 25 17 3 3 2,000 0 0 11 < HP <= 16 6 34 21 4 5 3,065 0 0 16 < RP <= 25 8 49 30 6 7 4,398 0 0 25 < HP <= 40 11 63 38 8 10 6,412 0 0 40 < HP <= 50 15 86 51 10 14 8,714 0 0 50 < HP <= 75 4 127 20 4 19 11,597 0 0 75 < HP <= 100 7 213 34 6 31 19,446 0 0 100 <HP <= 175 10 320 53 9 43 26,898 0 0 175 < HP <= 300 16 492 81 13 67 41,415 0 0 300 <HP <= 600 28 854 141 23 116 71,859 0 0 600 < HP <= 750 49 1,494 246 41 203 125,675 1 0 750 <HP <= 1000 68 2,036 319 55 263 162,695 1 0 1000 < HP <= 1200 89 2,680 420 72 346 214,204 2 0 1200 <HP <= 2000 106 3,180 498 86 411 254,112 2 0 #Name? page I of 6 Michael Brandman Associates Page 29 of 63 Emission Factors by Horsepower, SCC, and Pollutant All Fuels Grams/Operating Hour Marina Park 2010 (Marina) Total for year: 2009 Date of Model Run: Oct 14 15:54:24: 2008 Orange County Today's Date: 10/14/2008 Fuel Vapor Spillage Hot Soak Running Tank Hose Total Type SCC Equipment Description Engine Type Displacement THC THC Loss Permeation Permeation THC THC TUC THC THC Horsepower Diesel Pleasure Craft 2282020005 InboardiStemdrive Diesel 6<HP<=11 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11<HP<=16 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16<HP<=25 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 25 < HP <= 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 40<HP<=50 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 50 <HP <= 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 75 < HP <= 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 100<HP<=175 0 0 0 0 0 o n 175 <HP <= 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 300 <HP <= 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 600 < HP <= 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 750 < HP <=1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 1000 <HP <= 1200 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 1200 < HP <= 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 #Name? Michael Brandman Associates page 2 of 6 Page 30 of 63 � 1• ili• � � � i 1l• � i� lii� il• '>• l•' 1• � 1• !• 1• Fuel Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Crankcase Diurnal Type SCC Equipment Description Engine Type THC NOx CO PM10 SO2 CO2 THC THC Horsepower 2000 <HP <= 3000 177 5,328 835 144 688 425,810 3 0 2282020010 Outboards Diesel 25 < HP <= 40 11 65 39 8 11 6,628 0 0 Gasoline Pleasure Craft 2282005010* Outboard 2 Stroke 1< HP <= 3 89 1 242 2 0 785 0 10 3< HP <= 6 200 3 374 4 0 1,685 0 25 6 < HP <= 11 240 5 516 5 1 2,604 0 30 11 < HP <= 16 346 9 769 7 1 4,436 0 30 16 < HP <= 25 444 11 985 9 1 6,579 0 46 25 < HP <= 40 645 20 1,537 13 2 9,463 0 46 40 < HP <= 50 927 26 2,154 19 3 12,377 0 59 50 < HP <= 75 881 41 2,599 18 3 15,142 0 87 75 < HP <= 100 1,238 52 3,485 25 4 20,393 0 87 100 < HP <= 175 1,911 89 5,313 38 6 28,427 0 144 175<HP<=300 2,618 145 7,168 51 8 39,390 0 207 2282005015* Personal Water Craft 2 Stroke I< HP <= 3 31 1 208 0 0 566 0 2 3 <HP <= 6 70 1 396 1 0 1,295 0 2 6 <HP <= 11 124 8 444 3 1 2,476 0 2 16 < HP <= 25 99 20 683 2 1 5,199 0 2 25 < HP <= 40 146 42 1,277 3 2 9,704 0 4 40 < HP <= 50 883 13 1,824 21 2 11,666 0 4 #Name? page 3 of 6 Michael Brandman Associates Page 31 of 63 Fuel Vapor Spillage Hot Soak Running Tank Hose Total Type SCC Equipment Description Engine Type Displacement THC THC Loss Permeation Permeation THC THC THC THC THC Horsepower 2000 < HP <= 3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 2282020010 Outboards Diesel 25<HP<=40 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Gasoline Pleasure Craft 2282005010* Outboard 2 Stroke 1 <HP <=3 0 1 0 0 18 248 367 3< HP <= 6 1 1 0 0 36 248 510 6 < HP <= 11 1 1 0 0 41 248 56Z 11 < HP <= 16 2 2 0 0 41 248 669 16 < HP <= 25 3 0 0 0 58 248 800 25 <HP <= 40 4 0 3 0 49 132 880 40 < HP <= 50 6 0 3 0 65 234 1,294 50 < HP <= 75 7 0 3 0 100 244 1,323 75 <HP <= 100 9 0 3 0 100 244 1,682 100 < HP <= 175 13 0 3 0 174 345 2,592 175 <HP <= 300 18 0 3 0 270 447 3,563 2282005015* Personal Water Craft 2 Stroke 1< HP <= 3 0 0 3 3 15 39 93 3<HP<=6 1 1 3 3 Is 39 132 6 < f3P <= 11 1 1 3 3 15 39 187 16 <HP <= 25 2 2 3 3 15 39 165 25 < HP <= 40 4 0 3 3 25 48 234 40 < HP <= 50 5 1 3 3 30 58 986 #Name? page 4 of 6 Michael Brandman Associates Page 32 of 63 Exhaust Crankcase Diurnal Fuel Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Type SCC Equipment Description Engine Type THC NOx CO PM10 SO2 CO2 THC THC Horsepower 50 < HP <= 75 1,521 21 3,193 32 4 18,352 0 6 75 < HP <= 100 1,687 25 3,713 37 4 21,787 0 6 100 <HP <= 175 969 70 4,168 19 5 22,925 0 8 175 < HP <= 300 3,518 94 8,673 78 9 42,685 0 8 2282010005* Inboard/Sterndrive 4 Stroke 3< HP <= 6 7 6 192 0 0 976 0 7 6 <HP <= 11 14 11 385 0 0 1,951 0 12 11 < HP <= 16 21 17 577 0 1 2,927 0 14 25 <HP <=40 43 35 1,172 0 1 5,946 0 39 50<HP<=75 81 71 2,197 I 2 11,488 0 41 75 < RP <= 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 < HP <= 175 203 180 5,523 2 6 28,879 0 96 175 < HP <= 300 247 293 6,643 3 8 39,215 0 125 300 < HP <= 600 406 569 I0,805 5 14 69,194 0 208 600 < HP <= 750 759 851 20,432 9 24 117,944 0 195 * Under 25 horsepower spark -ignition engines are lumped into either 2- or 4-stroke. #Name? page 5 of 6 Michael Brandman Associates Page 33 of 63 Fuel Vapor Spillage Hot Soak Running Tank Hose Total Type SCC Equipment Description Engine Type Displacement THC THC THC Loss THC Permeation THC Permeation THC THC Horsepower 50 < HP <= 75 9 1 3 3 40 77 1,660 75 < HP <= 100 10 1 3 3 40 77 1,828 100 < HP <= 175 10 1 3 3 47 97 1,137 175 <HP <= 300 20 1 3 3 47 97 3,697 2282010005* Inboard/Stemdrive 4 Stroke 3< HP <= 6 0 1 3 3 12 54 87 6 < HP <= 11 1 1 3 3 17 54 105 11 <HP <= 16 1 1 3 3 20 54 117 25 <HP <= 40 2 0 3 3 25 97 212 50 < HP <= 75 4 0 3 3 45 171 349 75<HP<=100 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 100 < HP <= 175 11 0 3 0 108 245 667 175 <HP <= 300 15 0 3 0 151 319 861 300 < HP <= 600 27 0 3 0 269 393 1,306 600 < HP <= 750 45 0 3 0 443 467 1,912 * Under 25 horsepower spark -ignition engines are lumped into either 2- or 4-stroke. #Name? page 6 of 6 Michael Brandman Associates Page 34 of 63 W r r r M r r r r r r IM r r M M ■r Tugboat Emissions Marina Park 2/24/2009 Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Assumptions Source Propulsion Engine Power (kW) 939 POLB, Table 3.1, Tugboat, Average Auxiliary Engine Power (kW) 54 POLB, Table 3.2, Tugboat, Average Load Factor 0.31 POLB, Table 3.8, Tugboat Assumptions Maximum hours per day Operating with auxiliary Operating with propulsion Days in operation 8 hours 40% 60% 40 Zero Hour Emission Factors (g/kWh) Engine Type Year Min Year Max kW Max PM NOx S02 CO HC CO2 N20 CH4 Source Auxiliary 1997 2000 89 0.78 11.73 0.17 4.81 1.58 652 0.031 0.032 POLB, Appendix B Propulsion 1987 1999 1417 0.67 17.4 0.17 4.01 1.13 652 0.031 0.023 POLB, Appendix B Propulsion 2000 2007 1417 0.48 9.8 0.17 2.64 0.91 652 0.031 0.018 POLE, Appendix B Propulsion 2007 2012 1417 0.27 7.41 0.17 5 0.91 652 0.031 0.018 POLB, Appendix B Emissions (lbs/day) Engine Type Year Min Year Max kW Max PM NOx S02 CO HC CO2 N20 CH4 PM2.5 Auxiliary 1997 2000 89 0.09 1.38 0.02 0.57 0.19 77 0.004 0.004 0.08 Propulsion 1987 1999 1417 2.06 53.49 0.52 12.33 3.47 2004 0.095 0.071 1.89 Propulsion 2000 2007 1417 1.48 30.12 0.52 8.12 2.80 2004 0.095 0.055 1.36 Propulsion 2007 2012 1417 0.83 22.78 0.52 15.37 2.80 2004 0.095 0.055 0.76 Emissions (MTCO2e/year) Emissions (tons/year) Global Warminq Potentials Engine Type Year Min Year Max kW Max CO2 N20 CH4 CO2 N20 CH4 310 N20 (nitrous oxide) Auxiliary 1997 2000 89 1 0.02 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 21 CH4 (methane) Propulsion 1987 1999 1417 36 0.54 0.03 40 0.00 0.00 1 CO2 (carbon dioxide) Propulsion 2000 2007 1417 36 0.54 0.02 40 0.00 0.00 Propulsion 2007 2012 1417 36 0.54 0.02 40 0.00 0.00 Sources POLB: Port of Long Beach, Air Emissions Inventory - 2007. January 2009. Prepared by Starcrest Consulting Group. www.polb.com/enVironmentlair�_quality/emissions.asp Notes - Towboats/pushboats/tugboats are self-propelled vessels that tow or push barges within and outside of the port. - The average year of the tugboat engines pursuant to the POLBInventoryis 1997 for the propulsion engines and 1998 for the auxiliary engine. - PM2.5 is estimated as 92 percent of PM10 pursuant to SCAQMD Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006. The percentage was obtained from Appendix A, category "ships." - Emissions = hours operating per day * percent operating with engine * emission factor (g/kWh) * conversion from grams to pounds (0.0022)' engine power (kW) * load factor - MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent = tons multiplied by the global warming potential multiplied by 0.9072 Michael Brandman Associates Page 35 of 63 Newport & 32nd Results CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Newport and 32nd RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT! carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 MIS ZO- 100. CM ALT- BRG- WORST CASE VD- .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS. .0 CM/S MIX"= 1000, M AMB= 15..0 PPM SIGTN= S. DEGREES TEMP 6 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF DESCRIPTION * Xi Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) _-_________ _*_ _ _ __._ _ -*-------------------- A. NB External * 11 0 11 600 * AG 1140 4.2 B. NO Approach * 11 600 11 755 * AG 1079 7.1 C. NO Depart * 11 755 11 909 * AG 1299 7.1 D. NB External * 11 909 11 1509 * AG 2299 4.2 E. NB Left * 11 600 5 755 * AG 61 7.1 F. SB Left * 0 909 5 755 * AG 70 7.1 G. SB External ' 0 1509 0 909 * AG 2072 4.2 H. SB Approach * 0 909 0 755 * AG 2002 7.1 I. SB Depart * 0 755 0 600 * AG 1732 7.1 J. SB External * 0 600 0 0 * AG 1732 4.2 K. EB External * -750 750 -150 750 * AG 250 4.2 L. EB Approach * -150 750 5 750 * AG 70 7.1 M. ES Depart * 5 750 161 750 * AG 120 7.1 N. EB External * 161 750 761 750 * AG 120 4.2 0. We External * 761 759 161 759 * AG 110 4.2 P. WB Approach * 161 759 5 759 * AG 90 7.1 Q. WB Depart * 5 759 -150 759 * AG 421 7.1 R. WB External * -150 759 -750 759 * AG 421 4.2 S. EB Left * -150 750 5 755 * AG 180 7.1 T. WS Left * 161 759 5 755 * AG 20 7.1 2. (M) H (M) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 w (M) 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Newport and 32nd RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z _-________-- --------------------- 1. Receptor * -8 742 2.0 2. Receptor * 19 742 2:0 3. Receptor * 19 767 2.0 4. Receptor * -8 767 2.0 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE ) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) -RECEPTOR ---- *(DEG)-*-(PPM) *__ A B C D E F G H 1. Receptor * 6. * 1.9 * .0 .0 .2 .2 .0 .0 .0 1.1 2. Receptor * 353. * 1.5 * .0 .0 .8 .0 .0 .0 .2 .4 3. Receptor * 352. * 1.4 * .0 .0 .9 .0 .0 .0 .2 .3 4. Receptor * 273. * 1.7 * .1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T ------------ *------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Receptor * .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Receptor * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Receptor * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Receptor * 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 Page 1 Michael Brandman Associates Page 36 of 63 ' ViaLido_Results CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 ' JOB: Newport and 1 Via Lido (WORST CASE ANGLE) RUN: Hour POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 2. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) MIXH= 1000. M VS= AMB= .0 .0 PPM SIGfH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 15.6 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * X1 Yl X2 Y2 * * TYPE VPH EF (G/MI)(M) H W (M) __ DESCRIPTION ____ _-*____-__ ____________*____________ ---- _____ 20.8 ' A. B. NB External * 18 0 NB Approach * 18 600 18 18 600 756 * AG 1465 * AG 1465 4.2 7.1 .0 .0 20.8 C. NB Depart * 18 756 18 911 * AG 1745 * 1745 7.1 4.2 .0 20.8 20.8 D. NB External * 18 911 * 18 600 18 9 1511 756 AG * AG 0 7.1 .0 .0 20.8 E. F. N8 Left SB Left * 0 911 9 756 * AG 580 7.1 .0 20.8 G. SB External * 0 1511 0 911 756 * AG 2684 * AG 2104 4.2 7.1 .0 20.8 .0 20.8 H. 1. SB Approach * 0 911 SB Depart * 0 756 0 0 600 * AG 2124 7.1 .0 20.8 J. SB External * 0 600 0 0 * AG 2124 * 0 4.2 4.2 .0 20.8 14.4 ' K. L. EB External * -750 750 EB Approach * -150 750 -150 9 750 750 AG * AG 0 7.1 .0 .0 14.4 M. EB Depart * 9 750 168 750 * AG 610 * 610 7.1 4.2 .0 14.4 14.4 N. EB External * 168 750 * 768 761 768 168 750 761 AG * AG 330 4.2 .0 .0 14.4 0. P. WS External WB Approach * 168 761 9 761 * AG 310 7.1 .0 14.4 * -150 761 -750 761 * AG 0 4.2 .0 14.4 R. S. WB External EB Left * -150 750 9 756 * AG 0 * 20 7.1 7.1 .0 14.4 14.4 T. WB Left * 168 761, 9 756 AG .0 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Newport and Via Lido RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ' 1. Receptor * -12 741 2.0 2. Receptor * 30 741 2.0 3. Receptor * 30 170 2.0 4. Receptor * -12 770 2.0 ) IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND * * ANGLE CONC/LINK ' * PRED * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G_-H- ------------- *------- *------- *------------------------------------- 1.0 1. Receptor * 7. * 1.7 * * 349. * 1.7 * .0 .0 .1 .1 .2 .0 .8 .0 .0 .2 .2 .1 .1 .3 2. 3. Receptor Receptor * 190. * 1.4 * .0 .0 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 4. Receptor ** 8. * 1.7 * ,10 'OCONC/LINK2 0 .2 .1 * (PPM) ' RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 P Q R S _ T_ ________________________________________ 1. Receptor * .0 .0 .0 * 0 0 0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. 3. Receptor Receptor ** .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Receptor .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1 Page 1 Michael Brandman Associates Page 37 of 63 I Summary of Operational Greenhouse Gases Unmitigated Marina Park Prepared, by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2010 Emissions !tons per vear Carbon Nitrous Metric Tons Source Dioxide Oxide Methane Other CO2e Motor vehicles 1,047 0.15 0.31 999 Natural gas 72 0.00 0.00 65 Indirect electricity 117 0.00 0.00 106 Water transport 11 0.00 0.00 10 Refrigerants 0.23 276 Total 1.247 0.16 0.31 0.23 1457 Total 1,131 0.14 0.28 0.21 metric tons per year GWP 1 310 21 varies Total 1,131 44 6 276 MTCO2E per year Total 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 MMTCO2E per year Total - all gases California emissions in 2004 Project percent of emissions U.S. emissions in 2005 Project percent of emissions Global emissions in 2004 Project percent of emissions 1,457 MTCO2e per year 0.0015 MMTCO2e per year 500 MMTCO2e per year 0.000291% 7,260.4 0.000020% 20135 0.000007% Emissions converted from tons per year to metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year by using the formula: (tons of gas) x (global warming potential) x (0.9072 metric tons) Emissions converted to million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2E) using the formula: MMTCO2e = (metric tons of gas) / (1,000,000). �I 1 I 7I L7j I J 1 I I Michael Brandman Associates Page 38 of 63 , Mobile Emissions - Methane Unmitigated Page 1 Marina Park 15-Sep-08 Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2010 Vehicle Miles Traveled 5,762 ' Starting Emissions 0.07 Ibs/day 0.0000 tons/day 0.0008 tons/day Running Emissions 1.61 Ibs/day Total 1.68 Ibs/day 0.0008 tons/day Vehicle Percentages Vehicle Type Percent Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 54.7% 1.1% 98.7% 0.2% ' Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 15.2% 2.0% 1.2% 96.0% 98.1% 2.0% 0.7% Light Truck 3,751-5,750 16.2% Mad Truck 5,751-8,500 7.3% 1.4% 95.9% 2.7% Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.1% 0.0% 81.8% 18.2% Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.3% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% Heavy-Heavy33,001-60,000 0.9% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9% Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% ' Urban Bus 0.2% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% Motorcycle 1.6% 68.8% 31.2% 0.0% School Bus Motor Home 0.1% 1.4% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 85.7% 100.0% 7.2% Running Emission Factors (glmile) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel ' Light Auto LDA 0.1931 0.1127 0.0161 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.2253 0.1448 0.0161 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.2253 0.1448 0.0161 Mad Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV 0.2253 0.1448 0.1448 0.0161 0.0805 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.2012 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 ' Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Urban Bus UB 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Motorcycle MCY 0.2092 0.2092 0.2092 ' School Bus SBUS 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Motor Home MH 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 ' Running Emissions (pounds per day) Diesel Vehicle Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Light Auto 0.01 0.77 0.00 Light Truck<3,750 Ibs 0.01 0.27 0.00 ' Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 0.01 0.29 0100 Mad Truck 5,751-8,500 0.00 0.13 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.00 0.00 0.01 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.00 0.00 0.01 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs 0.00 0.00 0.00 Urban Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motorcycle 0.03 0.01 0.00 School Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Motor Home 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 Total 0.06 1.52 0.01 tons/year 0.29 tons/year 0.31 tons/year ' Michael Brandman Associates Page 39 of 63 Mobile Emissions - Methane Page 2 Marina Park Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2010 Total Trips 641 Starting Emission Factors (glstart) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel LightAulo LDA 0.059 0.009 .0.003 Light Truck<3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.067 0.099 -0,004 ' Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.067 0.099 -0.004 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0,067 0.099 .0.004 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.147 0.215 -0.004 ' Urban Bus UB 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Motorcycle MCY 0.024 0.024 0.033 School Bus SBUS 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Motor Home MH 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Trip Distribution Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 3.9 346.2 0.7 Light Truck<3,750 Ibs LDT1 1.9 93.6 1.9 Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT2 1.2 101.9 0.7 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.7 44.9 1.3 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.0 5.8 1.3 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0 1.3 0.6 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0 1.3 5.1 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0 0.6 5.1 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urban Bus Motorcycle UB MCY 010 7.1 0.6 3.2 0.6 0.0 School Bus SBUS 0.0 0.0 0.6 Motor Home MH 0.6 7.7 0,6 Total 15.4 607.2 18.8 , Starting Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel L1ghtAulo LDA 0.0005 0.0069 0.0000 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.0003 0.0204 0.0000 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.0002 0.0222 0.0000 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.0001 0.0098 0.0000 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.0000 0.0027 0.0000 , Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0000 0.0006 0.0000 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0000 0.0006 0.0000 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Urban Bus UB 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 Motorcycle MCY 0.0004 0.0002 0.0000 School Bus SBUS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Motor Home MH 0.0002 0.0036 0.0000 Total 0.0016 0.0676 -0.0002 - Source of running emisslon factors: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Landers Greenhouse Gas inventory Protocol, Core Module Guldonce. Direct Emissloos from Mobile Combustion Sources. OUober 2004. -Sourcootvahicfepercentogos: URBEMIS2002 default values. •SourcoofstaNngemissions: U.s.EnvironmontalProlecllonmancy. ProparodbylCFConsulOng• EPA420-P-04.016. Updalo of MaNano and Nitrous 04de Emission Factors for On -Highway Vohidas. November 2004. Michael Brandman Associates Page 40 of 63 ' Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Unmitigated Page 1 Marina Park 15-Sep-08 ' Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2010 Vehicle Miles Traveled 5,762 Starting Emissions 0.11 Ibs/day 0.0001 tons/day 0.0004 tons/day Running Emissions 0.74 Ibs/day Total 0.85 Ibs/day 0.0004 tons/day ' Vehicle Percentages Vehicle Type Percent Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel LightAuto 54.7% 1.1% 98.7% 0.2% Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 15.2% 2.0% 96.0% 2.0% Light Truck 3,751-5,750 16.2% 1.2% 98.1% 0.7% Mad Truck 5,751-8,500 7.3% 1.4% 95.9% 2.7% Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.1% 0.0% 81.8% 18.2% Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.3% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.9% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9% Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% ' Urban Bus 0.2% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% Motorcycle 1.6% 68.8% 31.2% 0.0% School Bus Motor Home 0.1% 1.4% 010% 7.1% 0.0% 85.7% 100.0% 7.2% Running Emission Factors (g/mlle) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.0166 0.0518 0.0161 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.0208 0.0649 0.0322 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.0208 0.0649 0.0322 Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV 0.0208 0.0480 0.0649 0.1499 0.0322 0.0483 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10.000 LHDT1 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Med-Heavy 14,001-33.000 MHDT 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 ' Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Urban Bus UB 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Motorcycle MCY 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 School Bus SBUS 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Motor Home MH 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 ' Running Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 0.00 0.35 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 0.00 0.12 0.00 ' Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 0.00 0.13 0.00 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 0.00 0.06 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Urban Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motorcycle 0.00 0.00 0.00 School Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Home 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 Total 0.00 0.71 I 0.02 tons/year 0.13 tons/year 0.15 tons/year ' MichaeiBrandmanAssociates Page 41 of 63 I Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Marina Park Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buiidout Year 2010 Total Trips Starting Emission Factors (glstart) Vehicle Type Type Light Auto LDA Light Truck<3,750 Ibs LDT1 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Trip Distribution Vehicle Type Type Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Total Starting Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Type Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Total Non -Catalyst 0.028 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.012 0.070 0.070 Non -Catalyst 3.9 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.6 15.4 Non -Catalyst 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0008 Catalyst 0.072 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0,194 0.194 0.012 0.194 0.194 Catalyst 346.2 93.6 101.9 44.9 5.8 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 3.2 0.0 7.7 607.2 Catalyst 0.0548 0.0191 0.0209 0.0092 0.0025 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0,0001 0.0000 0.0033 0.1115 Page 2 641 Diesel 0.000 -0.001 -0.001 -0,001 -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 -0.002 =0.002 -0.002 0.012 -0.002 -0.002 Diesel 0.7 1.9 0.7 1.3 1.3 0.6 5.1 5.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 18.8 Diesel 0,0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0001 - Source of running emission factors: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol, Coro Modulo Guldonce. Direct Emissions horn Mobile Combustion Sources. October2004. sdurcoervehldeporcenrages: URBEMIS2002 default values. $ ource of staring emissions: U.S. Environmental Proloction Agancy. Pfepmed by ICF Consulting. EPA420•P-04.016. Updalo of Mothane sand Nlbous Oxide Emission Factors ter On -Highway Vehicles. November 2004. II I l� I I I I I [1 I P I I Michael Brandman Associates Page 42 of 63 1 II II Electricity - Indirect Emissions Project: Marina Park Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 9/15/2008 Total Greenhouse Methane Nitrous oxide Electricity Use Electricity Use feet Emission Factor (pounds per Emissions 0.0067 2 0.0037 1 290319 0 0 0 290319 290 MWh/year Emissions 0.001 0.001 Emission factor source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity -Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org Residential electricity usage rate: 5626.50 kwh/unit/year, from South Coast Air Quality Management 1993 CEQA Handbook, Table 9-11-A * Table E-1 from California Energy Commission. California Commercial End -Use Survey. Consultant Report. March 2006. CEC-400-2006-005 Table E 1: Overview of Energy Usage in the Statewide Service Area E011d1 Floc[ Stock AUMMIEN Inns M" Total Annual Maas ElecillcltY NT N nl GY arme7EN Narharal Gas kB EbAMcitp M" Nalurad Gas lMRne AlCoWnerdal 4920114 13.63 D26 2559 67077 127810 secall Glees{s3pkf. 36UZ14 1110 DAl tO G: 4736 WAD L 611oe .+37k'1 6E0429 17.70 022 21 93 11691 144AD Re61YJ1aat 14a.592 4020 210 239.58 5996 312ED Relall 7D2053 14.06 nos 462 9871 3250 Food Stole 144,209 4IL99 028 27.E0 E9t1 3520 Reei ertedvfareeouse UmM4eWedWareOouse 95 LD 2DA2 006 5E0 1913 53D 554,166 4A5 003 3.D7 2457 17.00 seeodi 445106 TAB D.16 1507 3322 71.1D College 2N.242 122E 034 34.24 2e'24 Nealin 232E06 19_El 076 7553 4591 17570 LOtI I 270.1.114 12.13 DA2 42.40 3275 114P-0 MlScellaneoua t0?954a 0.94 D23 2334 10817 256RD ATOMC S 1.022,C72 16A6 0.18 17.90 1643D 182.90 AFWaRnaJees 649706 n 003 344 439D 224D Michael Brandman Associates Page 43 of 63 L.J Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Project: Marina Park Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 9/15/2008 kWh/MG Northern California Southern California Water Supply and Conveyance 150 8,900 Water Treatment 100 100 Water Distribution 1,200 1,200 Wastewater Treatment 2,500 2,500 Totals 3,950 12,700 From California's Water Energy Relationship, CEC 2005 Millions Gallons Gallons per day (MG) per year Water Usage 6000 2.19 kWh MWh Energy Usage 27,813 28 Indirect Electricity Emission Factor (pounds per Emissions Emissions Carbon dioxide 804.54 22,377 11 Methane 0.0067 0,19 0,000 Nitrous oxide 0.0037 0.10 0.000 Factor for electricity source: Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity -Wide se Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org 2005: California Energy Commission. California's Energy -Water Relationship. Staff Report. November 2005. CEC-700-2005-011-SF tl Ij 11 11 Michael Brandman Associates Page 44 of 63 ll 1=1 no I= M , W1=11 W M Ml M M IM I• = M = = Natural Gas Combustion Marina Park Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates 9/15/2008 Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Square Usage Factor* Usage for usage for Emission Emission Heating Value of Emissions Emissions Feet or (SCF/square foot Project Project Factor Factor Natural Gas (tons per (pounds Gas Type of Land Use Units or unit/month) (SCF/month) (SCF/year) (g CO21SCF)'* (g/MMBTU)" (BTU/SCF)** year) per day) Methane Office 21300 2.0 42600 511200 N/A 4.75 1020 0.00 0.01 Retail/Shopping 0 2.9 0 0 N/A 4.75 1020 0.00 0.00 Residential 0 6665 0 0 N/A 4.75 1020 0.00 0.00 Industrial 241611 0 0 N/A 4.75 1020 0.00 0.00 Multi -family 0 4011.5 0 0 N/A 4.75 1020 0.00 0.00 Nitrous Oxide Office 21300 2.0 42600 511200 N/A 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Retail/Shopping 0 2.9 0 0 N/A 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Residential 0 6665 0 0 N/A 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Industrial 241611 0 0 N/A 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Multi -family 0 4011.5 0 0 N/A 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Total Units Nitrous Oxide Methane pounds per day 0.00 0.01 tons per year 0.00 0.00 Global warming potential 310 21 MTCO2e/year 0.000000 0.000000 Natural gas usage factor from URBEMIS2002 default; Industrial is based on number of buildings USEPA, 2004: Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources, Climate Leaders Greenhouse Inventory Protocol, Core Model Guidance, October 2004 Emissions of CH4, N20 = Emission Factor x Heating Value of Natural Gas x Natural Gas Usage x Number of Units/Square Feet Michael Brandman Associates Page 45 of 63 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Fugitive Emissions Project: Marina Park Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 9/15/2008 uornesuc r[euiyerduun Commercial Refrigeration Residential A/C Office A/C Commercial A/C Industrial A/C Total Units 21.3 Capacity of Unit (kg) 0.5 1000 50 100 100 100 Annual Leak Rate in percent of Emissions Emissions capacity (kg/year) (tons/year) 0.5% 0 0.000 35.0% 0 0.000 10% 0 0 10% 213 0.2343 10% 0.0 0.000 10% 0 0 0.234 Global Metric Tons Warming CO2 1300 0 1300 0 1300 276 1300 0 1300 0 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Leaders. May 2008. Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA430-K-03-004. hftp://Www.epa.gov/stateply/documents/resources/Mfgrfg.pdf, Accessed -in July 2008. Michael Brandman Associates 276 Page 46 of 63 r Ml awr ams swum r m maw w w w MI w a• wl■w Page: 1 212512009 4:03:56 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\MBA\Client\00640022 Marina Park\Marina Park.urb924 Project Name: Marina Park Project Location: South Coast AQMD On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Michael Brandman Associates Page 47 of 63 Page: 2 2125/2009 4:03:56 PM Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES - PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 &92 Exhaust 2009 TOTALS (tonslyear unmitigated) 0.24 0.20 0.44 472.07 2009 TOTALS (tonslyear mitigated) 0.04 0.20 0.24 472.OT Percent Reduction 51.61 0.00 44.06 0.00 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES PM2.5 5Q43 TOTALS (ton*ear, unmitigated) 0.00 73.52 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES PM2.5 Mz TOTALS (tonslyear, unmitigated) 0.36 1,046.69 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES PM2.5 99 TOTALS (tonslyear, unmitigated) 0.36 1,120.21 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Michael Brandman Associates Page 43 of 63 M' r gw "NAM MMIMIM ' � S= � ww' ' M M ,M =� M� w w A�=S �" w M A M M Page: 3 2/2512009 4:03:56 PM PM2 5 Dust PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 2009 0.24 0.20 0.44 472.07 Demolition 01/0512009- 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.79 01/1612009 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.28 Demo On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 Demo Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Mass Grading 0111912009- 0.21 0.05 0.26 109.81 03/13/2009 Mass Grading Dust 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.04 0.04 92.12 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.72 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.98 Trenching 03116/2009-03/31/2009 0.00 0.01 0.01 13.27 Trenching Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.01 12.53 Trenching Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 Building 04/01/2009-12/24/2009 0.00 0.12 0.12 301.36 Building Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.11 0.11 155.63 Building Vendor Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.70 Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 136.03 Michael Brandman Associates Page 49 of 63 Page: 4 2/2512009 4:03:56 PM Fine Grading 04/01/2009- 0.02 0.01 0.04 26.09 04/30/2009 Fine Grading Dust 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.01 24.72 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 Asphalt 12/012009.1224/2009 0.00 0.01 0.01 14.97 Paving Off -Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.01 11.45 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 129 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.24 Coaling 1210MO09-122412009 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 i7rF-F4'-L�iT04f•SrF� Phase: Demolition 1/5/2009-1/162009 - Demolition Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 30000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 3000 On Road Truck Travel (VMT):41.67 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industdal Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 2 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loadem/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 4/1/2009-4/3012009- Fine grading Total Acres Disturbed: 2 Michael Brandman Associates Page 50 of 63 S, r NM=16 I=, an � so on � ow' Im � M, M M am nil M r M M so M so go M " " ! in Page: 5 2/2512009 4:03:56 PM Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 1/19/2009 - 3/13/2009 - Mass grading Total Acres Disturbed: 10 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10lbs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 150 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Aerial Lifts (60 hp) operating at a 0.46 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Trenching 3/16/2009 - 3/31/2009 - Trenching Off -Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other Material Handling Equipment (191 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Michael Brandman Associates Page 51 of 63 Page: 6 2/25/2009-4:03:56 PM Phase: Paving 12/1/2009-12/24/2009 - Paving Acres to be Paved:1.69 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56load faetorfor 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 toad factor for T hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56load factor for 7 hours per day 1 TractorslLoaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55load factorfor7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 4/12009-12124/2009 -Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 TracforsUaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a OAS load factor for 8 hours perday Phase: Architectural Coating 12/12009-122412009 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/12005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7112008 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/302008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/l200B ends 121312040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1112005 ends 12/312040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1112005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Michael Brandman Associates Page 52 of 63 �' 4M% IM an � Mt � 4m � IM _ W ' M IM,M1 M M mom w m w �m m im awm ,m m" M m m w Page: 7 2125/2009 4:03:56 PM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons PerYear, Unmitigated Source PM2 55 CO2 Natural Gas 0.00 71.98 Hearth 0.00 0.00 Landscape 0.00 1.54 Consumer Products Architectural Coatings TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.00 73.52 Area Source Chances to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source PM25 CO2 City park 0.04 117.34 Community Center/Sailing 0.27 794.27 Center/Cafe Visitor Marina - Berths 0.05 135.08 TOTALS (tons/year,-unmitigated) 0.36 1,046.69 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Michael Brandman Associates Page 53 of 63 Page: 8 2/2512009 4:03:56 PM Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year 2010 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type City park Community Center/Sailing Center/Cafe Visitor Marina - Berths Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500lbs Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,00114,000lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000Ibs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001.60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Michael Brandman Associates Summary of Land Uses UnitType No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Acreage Trip Rate 15.80 acres 4.50 71.10 645.77 22.88 1000 sq it 21.30 487.34 4,372.94 2.96 1000 sq it 28.00 82.88 743.68 641.32 5.762-39 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 51.7 1.2 98.6 0.2 7.3 2.7 94.6 2.7 22.9 0.4 99.6 0.0 10.6 0.9 99.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 81.2 18.8 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.9 0.0 222 77.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.8 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Page 54 of 63 w w w m A W r i% w qmj w w w wwm man M Page: 9 212512009 4:03:56 PM Vehicle Type Motor Home Home -Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 Rural Tdp Length (miles) 17.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) City park Community CenteriSailing Center/Cafe Visitor Marina - Berths Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non -Catalyst 0.9 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential Home -Shop Home -Other 7.0 9.5 12.1 14.9 30.0 30.0 18.0 49.1 Operational Changes to Defaults Catalyst Diesel 88.9 11.1 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 13.3 7.4 8.9 15A 9.6 12.6 30.0 30.0 30.0 5.0 2.5 92.5 2.0 1.0 97.0 2.0 1.0 97.0 Michael Brandman Associates Page 55 of 63 Existing Emissions 1 Mobile Emissions - Methane Unmitigated Page 1 Marina Park -Existing Uses 15-Sep-08 Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2008 Vehicle Mlles Traveled 1,958 Starting Emissions 0.02 ibs/day 0.0000 tons/day 0.00 Running Emissions 0.65 ibs/day 0.0003 tons/day 0.10 Total 0.57 Ibe/day 0.0003 tons/day 0.10 Vehicle Percentages , Vehicle Type Percent Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 54.7% 1.1% 98.7% 0.2% UghtTruck<3,750 Ibs 15.2% 2.0% 96.0% 2.0% Light Truck 3,751.6,750 16.2% 1.2% 98.1% 0.7% Mod Truck 5,751.8,500 7.3% 1.4% 95.9% 2.7% Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.1% 0.0% 81.8% 18.2% Lite-Heavy 10,001.14,000' 0.3% 0.0% 66,7% 33.3% Mod -Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% Heavy-Heavy33,001.60,000 0.9% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9% Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs Urban Bus 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 60.0% Motorcycle 1.6% 68.8% 31.2% 0.0% School Bus 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Motor Home 1.4% 7.1% 85.7% 7.2% Running Emission Factors (g/mile) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.1931 0.1127 0.0161 Light Truck< 3,780 Ibs LDT1 0.2253 0.1448 0.0161 ' Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.2253 0.1448 0.0161 Med Truck 5,761. 8,500 MDV 0.2253 0.1448 0.0161 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDTt 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Lite-Heavy 10,001.14,000 LHDT2 - 0,2012 0.1448 0.0805 Med-Heavy 14,001.33,000 MHDT 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Heavy-Heavy33,001.60,000 HHDT 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Line Haul > 60,000 ibs LHV 0.2012 0.1448 010805 Urban Bus UB 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Motorcycle MCY 0.2092 0.2092 0.2099 School Bus SBUS 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Motor Home MH 0.2012 0.1448 0.0805 Running Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel rr Light Auto 0.01 0.26 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 0.00 0.09 0.00 Light Truck 3,761- 5,750 0.00 0.10 0.00 Med Truck 6,751. 8,500 0.00 D.04 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,601.10,000 0.00 0.01 0.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Med-Heavy 14,001.33,000 O.DO 0.00 0.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.DO 0.00 0.00 Line Haul> 60,000 Ibs 0.00 0.00 0.00 Urban Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motorcycle 0.01 0.00 0.00 SchoolBus 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Home 0.00 0.01 0.00 Total 0.02 0.52 0.01 1 Michael Brandman Associates Page 51 of 61 I Mobile Emissions - Methane Marina Park -Existing Uses Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2008 Total Trips Page 2 fRi! Starting Emission Factors (g/start) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.059 0.009 -0.003 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.067 0.099 .0.004 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.067 0.099 -0.004 Mod Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.067 0.099 -0.004 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Urban Bus UB 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Motorcycle MCY 0.024 0.024 0.033 School Bus SBUS 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Motor Home MH 0.147 0.215 -0.004 Trip Distribution Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 1.2 104.6 0.2 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.6 28.3 0.6 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.4 30.8 0.2 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.2 13.6 0.4 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.0 1.7 0.4 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0 0.4 0.2 Mod -Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0 0.4 1.6 Heavy-Heavy33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0 0.2 1.6 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urban Bus UB 0.0 0.2 0.2 Motorcycle MCY 2.1 1.0 0.0 School Bus SBUS 0.0 0.0 0.2 Motor Home MH 0.2 2.3 0.2 Total 4.7 183.5 5.7 It I I Ll I 11 Starting Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Type Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 Lite-Heavy 10,001.14,000 LHDT2 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Total Non -Catalyst 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0005 Catalyst 0.0021 0.0062 0.0067 0.0030 0.0008 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0011 0.0204 Diesel 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • Seams of Mnrdng ernWlon factors: U S. Ernironmentei Prot 11 Agency. ClImate Leaders Greenhouse Gaz Imenlory Protocol, Core MotlNo Guidence. Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources. October2004. - Souroe of veNcle percentages: URBEMIS2002 defaullNalues. Prepared by ICF Corxu • Source of sterling omleslo . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ll'mg. EPA42PP-04-016. Update or Methane and N,Irous O)dde Erninlon Factors for On -HI hvm Velticles. November2004. IMichael Brandman Associates Page 57 of 63 Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Unmitigated Page 1 Marine Park -Existing Uses 15-Sep-08 Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2008 Vehicle Miles Traveled 1,958 Starting Emissions 0.03 Ibs/day 0.0000 tons/day 0.01 tonslyear RunningEmissions 0,25 Ibs/day 0.0001 tons/day 0.05 tons/year Total 0.28 Ibs/day 0.0001 tons/day 0.05 tonslyear Vehicle Percentages Vehicle Type Percent Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 54.7% 1.1% 98.7% 0.2% Light Truck < 3,760 Ibs 15.2% 2.0% 96.0% 2.0% Light Truck 3,751-5,750 16.2% 1.20/0 98.1% 0.7% Med Truck 6,751-8,500 7.3% 1.4% 95.9% 2.7% Lite-Heavy 8,501.10,000 1.1% 0.0% 81.8% 18.2% Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.3% 0.0% 66.7% 33,3% Mod -Heavy 14,001.33,000 1.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% Heavy -Heavy 33,001.60,000 0.9% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9% Line Haul> 60,000 ibs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Urban Bus 0.2% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% Motorcycle 1.6% 68.8% 31.2% 0.0% Scho01 BUS 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Motor Home 1.4% 7.1% 85.7% 7.20/6 Running Emission Factors (g/mile) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.0166 0,0518 0.0161 Light Truck <3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.0208 0.0649 0.0322 Light Truck 3,761.6,760 LDT2 0.0208 0.0649 0.0322 Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.0209 0.0649 0.0322 Lite-Heavy 8,601.10,000 LHDT1 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Urban Bus UB 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Motorcycle MCY 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 School Bus SBUS 0.0480 0.1499 0.0483 Motor Home MH 0,0480 0.1499 0.0483 Running Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 0.00 0.12 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs 0.00 0.04 0.00 Light Truck 3,761- 5,750 0.00 0.04 0.00 Mod Truck 6,751.8,500 0.00 0.02 0.00 Lite-Heavy ,8,601-10,000 0.00 0.01 0.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Heavy-Heavy33,001.60,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs 0.00 0.00 0.00 Urban Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motorcycle 0.00 0.00 0.00 School Bus 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Home 0.00 0.01 0.00 Total 0.00 0.24 0.01 Michael Brandman Associates Page 58 of 63 , Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Page 2 Marina Park -Existing Uses Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2008 Total Trips 194 StartingwEmisslon Factors (g/start) Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 0.028 0.072 0.000 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.032 0.093 -0.001 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.032 0.093 -0.001 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.032 0.093 -0.001 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 MHDT 0.070 0.070 0.194 0.194 -0.002 -0.002 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 Heavy -Heavy 33,001.60,000 HHDT 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Urban Bus UB 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Motorcycle MCY 0.012 0.012 0.012 School Bus SBUS 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Motor Home MH 0.070 0.194 -0.002 Trip Distribution Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA 1.2 104.6 0.2 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.6 28.3 0.6 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.4 30.8 0.2 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 MDV 0.2 13.6 0.4 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT1 0.0 1.7 0.4 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0 0.4 0.2 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0 0.4 1.6 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0 0.2 1.6 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.0 0.0 0.0 Urban Bus • UB 0.0 0.2 0,2 Motorcycle MCY 2.1 1.0 0.0 School Bus SBUS 0.0 0.0 0.2 Motor Home MH 0.2 2.3 0.2 Total 4.7 183,5 6.7 Starting Emissions (pounds per day) Diesel Vehicle Type Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Light Auto LDA 0.0001 0.0166 0.0000 Light Truck < 3,750 Ibs LDT1 0.0000 0.0058 0.0000 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 LDT2 0.0000 0.0063 0.0000 Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV 0.0000 0.0028 0.0000 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDTi 0.0000 0.0007 0,0000 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT2 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 Heavy-Heavy33,001-60,000 HHDT 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 Line Haul > 60,000 Ibs LHV 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Urban Bus UB 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 Motorcycle MCY 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 School Bus SBUS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Motor Home MH 0.0000 0.0010 0.0000 ,. Total 0.0002 0.0337 0.0000 -Source of cunning emission tactors: U.S. Emironmemel Protection Agency. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Invemary Protocol, Coro Module Guidance, Direct Emissions tram Mobile Combustion sources. October 2004. - Source of vehicle porcentages: URDEMIS2002 default values. • Source of starting emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by ICF consulting. EPA420-P-04.010. Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for OnrHi hwa Vehicles. Nmembor2004. V Michael Srandman Associates Page 59 of 63 Electricity - Indirect Emissions Project: Marina Park -Existing Uses Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 9/15/2008 Electricity Use Electricity Use Land Use Dwelling Units (kWh/sf-year)* (kWh/year) Mobile Homes 57 5626;5 320710.5 0 0 0 Total 320710.5 321 MWh/year Emission Factor (pounds per Emissions Emissions Greenhouse Gas MWh/year) (pounds/year) (tons/year) Carbon dioxide 804.54 288,024 129 Methane 0.0067 2 0.001 Nitrous oxide 0.0037 1 0.001 Emission factor source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity -Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org Residential electricity usage rate: 5626.50 kwh/uniUyear, from South Coast Air Quality Management 1993 CEQA Handbook, Table 9-11-A * Table E-1 from•California Energy Commission, California Commercial End -Use Survey. Consultant Report. March 2006. CEC-400-2006-005 Table E-1: Overview of Energy Usage in the Statewide Service Area t: 'a AnRwi 1363 2699 670n 127e EO 361,534 13.10 7G22 10.64 4736 3E.t0 U !OT'Y. s1i4k A7 6E0 29 1770 1W It69 104°0 Ret1]Vrtlt 143.692 40,20 229.50 5916 3120Retail 7Cl O63 •14U6 4 9 32EO F00o-tom 144209 40.29 0.20 27'.E0A25=7046 A4`0 Re-MI*dt`13rl1001e 955E0 2 06 EOs3umetr em,eOWsemm ssi166 4A6 043 3.0717XD34nm 446106 7 6 6 t60711000. 2M"2 12.26 034 34.240 _0e i '+ 6 076 7667 0Lod I� 270R44 12.13 OA2 42.4014M109n544 9ed 023 23MSetA3471114E4 1,022,012 1606 0.16 17.203250A, wxehgltec 649705 . 4 003 344224D Michael Brandman Associates Page 60 of 63 I it 'I Electricity Use in Typical Urban Water Systems Project: Marina Park -Existing Uses Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 9/15/2008 kWh/MG Northern California Southern California Water Supply and Conveyance 150 8,900 Water Treatment 100 100 Water Distribution 1,200 1,200 Wastewater Treatment 2,500 2,500 Totals 3,950 12,700 From California's Water Energy Relationship, CEC 2005 �1 Water Usage Energy Usage Greenhouse Carbon dioxid Methane Nitrous oxide Gallons per day 1.2000 Indirect Electricity Emission Factor (pounds per Millions Gallons (MG) per year 4.38 kWh MWh 55,626 56 Emissions Emissions 0.0067 0.37 0.000 0.0037 0.21 0.000 Emission factor for electricity source: California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol. Reporting Entity -Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 2.2, March 2007. www.climateregistry.org 2005: California Energy Commission. California's Energy -Water Relationship. Staff Report. November 2005. CEC-700-2005-01 1 -SF IMichael Brandman Associates Page 61 of 63 Natural Gas Combustion Marina Park -Existing Uses Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates 9/15/2008 Square Feet or Gas Type of Land Use Units Natural Gas Usage Factor' (SCF/square foot or unit/month) Natural Gas Usage for Project (SCF/month) Natural Gas usage for Project (SCF/year) Emission Factor (g CO2/SCF)" Emission Factor (g/MMBTU)" Heating Value of Natural Gas (BTU/SCF)" Emissions (tons per year) Emissions (pounds per day) Methane Office 0 2.0 0 0 WA 4.75 1020 0.00 0.00 Retail/Shopping 0 2.9 0 0 WA 4.75 1020 0.00 0.00 Residential 57 6665 379905 4558860 WA 4.75 1020 0.02 0.13 Industrial 241611 0 0 WA 4.75 1020 0:00 0.00 Multi -family 0 4011.5 0 0 WA 4.75 1020 0.00 0.00 Nitrous Oxide Office 0 2.0 0 0 WA 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Retail/Shopping 0 2.9 0 0 WA 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Residential 57 6665 379905 4558860 WA 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Industrial 241611 0 0 WA 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Multi -family 0 4011.5 0 0 WA 0.095 1020 0.00 0.00 Total Units Nitrous Oxide Methane pounds per day 0.00 0.13 tons per year 0.00 0.02 Giobalwarming potential 310 21 MTCO2e/year 0.000000 0.000001 Natural gas usage factor from URBEMIS2002 default, Industrial Is based on number of bulidmgs '• USEPA, 2004: Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources, Climate Leaders Greenhouse Inventory Protocol, Core Model Guidance, October 2004 Emissions of CH4, N20 = Emission Factor x Heating Value of Natural Gas x Natural Gas Usage Number of Units/Square Feet Michael Arandman Associates Page 62 of 63 me 11111111L} 410 11" via Mr aw oft =I Uliiii owl WE (tk M i Im ! ! ! i m i ! jw! m Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Fugitive Emissions Project: Marina Park -Existing Uses Prepared by. Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 9/15/2008 Type of Unit Domestic Refrigeration Commercial Refrigeration Residential A/C Office A/C Commercial A/C Industrial A/C Total Annual Leak Rate in Capacity of percent of Emissions Emissions Units Unit (kg) capacity (kg/year) (tons/year) 57 0.5 0.50/0 0.1425 0.000 1000 35.0% 0 0.000 '57 50 10% 2B5 0.3135 100 10% 0 0 100 10% 0.0 0.000 100 10% 0 0 0.314 Global Metric Tons Warming CO2 Potential EquivJyear 1300 0 1300 0 1300 370 '(300• 0 1300 0 '1300 0 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Leaders. May 2068. Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. EPA430-K-03-004. http./Avww.epa.gov/stateply/documents/resources/mfgrfg.pdf, Accessed in July 2008. 370 Michael Brandman Associates Page 63 of 63 1 Marina Park Draft EIR 1 C 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 CI 1 0 7 1 1 Appendix D: Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resources Assessments 1 Michael Brandman Associates H.Thol IhN.JNl'A064\00640022TEIRNOW 0022 Seel I.00 Appendix e1vId0R dm 1 Marina Park n,r ft RFIR 1 ' D.1 - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT C� F } I 1 ' �..,NW:1 ' E,E,NE, b[ichael Brandian Associates November 111, 2008 ' Ilal;e:>r,eia 661.334.2735 ' Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner Fresno City of Newport Beach S.9A97.0310 3300 Newport Boulevard Irvine ' Planning Department 714508.4100 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Palm Sprin/,rs 760.322.8847 ' Subject: Terrestrial Biological Resource Assessment ento '°"17 )1G:4-q.1100.110U Marina Park Project, Newport Beach, Orange County, CA San Ilemnrdino ' Dear Ms. Ung: 909.884,2255 Sna Ramon At the request of the City of Newport Beach, Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) 025830.2733 ' conducted a biological resources assessment to document the existing conditions within the approximately 10-acre Marina Park property, hereafter referred to as project site or site, located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. This report provides a description of existing conditions. The information contained herein is intended to ' provide a baseline from which subsequent evaluations can be made of potential biological resource impacts associated with future projects, based upon environmental ' policies and regulations including the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the California Coastal Act (CCA) the Central/Coastal Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan and Habitat ' Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). It should be noted that this document only provides an assessment of the terrestrial habitat and does not include a project specific impact ' analysis or an assessment of the marine habitat. Summary The existing land use on the site includes residential development (i.e. mobile homes), ' community service facilities (i.e. public park, American Legion building), and paved parking lots. The existing development does not provide suitable habitat for any sensitive species and is not considered a wildlife movement corridor. A public beach defines the The ' northern property boundary and is comprised of highly disturbed beach sand. adjacent Newport Harbor represents potentially suitable nursery habitat for marine life, which is addressed separately in the Marine Resources Assessment. Vegetation on the ' site is entirely ornamental including non-native trees and shrubs that provide potential nesting habitat for migratory birds. A nesting bird survey is required prior to removal of vegetation on the site, to reduce the potential for nest failure during the nesting season. ' Newport Harbor is a Traditionally Navigable Water and is under thejurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Program (CLUP). Site Location �9Br1 The project site encompasses approximately 10 acres, and is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County, California as shown L —' ENVIRONN11.NUM, SERVICES•PLANNING• NATURAL. RESOURCES MANAGE\I hNT . ' www.brandman.unn YEARS , � Rosalinh Ung November 18, 2008 Page 2 on Exhibit 1. It can be found on the Newport Beach, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, Section 33 of Township 6 South, Range 10-West (Exhibit 2). The site is specifically located north of West Balboa Boulevard, south of Newport.Harbor east of 19th Street and west of 15t^ Street as shown in Exhibits 3. Methodology Prior to the field visit, MBA reviewed available literature and maps to evaluate the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur in the vicinity of the project site. This included a review of topographic maps, aerial photography, and sensitive.species databases. A list of sensitive plant and wildlife species recorded in the vicinity of the site was completed from the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society'Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI). Additional review included literature detailing the habitat requirements of sensitive plant and wildlife species that potentially occur in the project area. Subsequently, a reconnaissance -level field survey was conducted, The primary objective of the survey -is to document existing site conditions and determine the potential presence of sensitive species that require a significance -analysis pursuant to CEQA including but not limited•to species formally listed as threatened and/or endangered under the ESA and CESA, California Species of Special Concern, designated as Fully Protected by CDFG; given a status of 1A,1B, or 2 by the CNPS, or designated as sensitive by City, County, or other regional planning documents. Special•attention was focused on the potential suitability of the site for light-footed clapper rail (Railus longirostris levipes), California least tern (Sternula antiliarum brown!), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptlla californica californica), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), southern tarplant (Centromadia parryl ssp, Australis), Coulter'ssaitbush (Atrlplex coulteri), Davidson's saitscale (Atriplexserenana var. davidsonip, estuaryseabllte (Suaeda esteroa), and mud nama (Nama stenocarpum). Each of these sensitive species of animals and plants are known to occur in the region and thus•must be assessed regarding their potential presence, The reconnaissance-level•field survey Was conducted on July 10, 2008,•between 11:00 and 14:00. Weather conditions during the field survey included temperature& ranging from 70 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit, with an 80%cloud cover and winds between 2 and 10 miles per hour. Environmental Setting The existing site encompasses 10.45 acres and includes 1) an American Legion Community Building with an associated lawn, marina and parking lot; 2) Las Arenas community park including a children's play area, four tennis courts, and a public beach; 3).a 57-space mobile home park with an, associated parking lot; and 4) a limited amount subtidal coastal wetland located immediately off -site. Surrounding land uses include the Newport Harbor to the north, residential housing to the east, West Balboa Boulevard to the south, and residential and commercial uses4o the west. The proposed project entails the development of the Balboa Center Complex, a•marina, and public use beach. Topographic Features Topographically, the.project site is located onAhe coast at the southern end of Newport Harbor. The site is relatively flat except where the public beach slopes to the water. The project site has an elevation range of 5 to 8 feet above sea level. PlantCommunitles/Land use The plant communities and land uses on the site include disturbed/developed areas, ornamental landscaping, turf, sandy beach, and intertidal coastal wetland; subtidal coastal wetland is located ' Rosalinh Ung November 18, 2008 ' Page 3 immediately off -site. No sensitive plant communities or suitable habitat for sensitive plants are present on the site. Vegetation on the site is exclusively ornamental landscaping between structures, in parkways and around public use areas (Exhibit 4). Table 1 below provides a summary of the plant community and land use acreages. Representative photos of the communities can be found in Exhibit 5. Table 1: Plant Community/Land Use Acreages I 1 1 1 1 Plant Community/Land Use Area (acres) Disturbed/Developed 7.05 Ornamental 0.70 Turf 0.40 Sandy Beach 1.00 Intertidal Coastal Wetland 1.20 Subtidal Coastal Wetland 0.10 Total 10.45 Disturbed/Developed (7.05 Acres) Disturbed/developed land use includes any form of human disturbance, especially in cases of permanent impacts to natural communities, and comprises 7.05 acres of the property. By definition, disturbed areas include dirt roads, off -highway use, pavement, concrete, buildings and structures, bridges, agricultural activities, and permanent flood control measures. Disturbed/developed areas on the site include roads, a 56-space mobile home park and associated parking, a metered 21-stall surface parking lot, and Las Arenas Park, which includes the Balboa Community Center/Girl Scouts House, a children's play area, and four public tennis courts. Ornamental (0.70 Acre) Several individual specimens of white bottlebrush (Callistemon salignus), weeping fig (Ficus benjamina), Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle) and ornamental palm trees are scattered throughout the property for landscaping purposes. A hedge of ornamental shrubs is also present between the public beach and the mobile home park, and a line of ornamental palm trees lines the sidewalk that borders the public beach. These individual trees and landscaped areas of ornamental vegetation are not associated with any native vegetation and provide only limited habitat value, primarily as cover and perching areas for birds and common terrestrial wildlife that are normally found in and associated with developed areas. The scattered ornamental landscaping covers a total of 0.70-acre of non-native vegetation. Turf (0.40 Acre) ' Turf includes any form of grass lawn and comprises 0.40-acre of the property. By definition, turf includes areas that are covered with grass, regularly mowed, and artificially irrigated. A long strip of turf extends between the sidewalk and the tennis courts along West Balboa Boulevard, and several patches of turf are ' scattered between the mobile homes. Rosalinh Ung November 18,2008 Page 4 Sandy Beach (1.00Acre) Sandy beach habitat includes any unvegetated coastal area comprised exclusively of sand, and covers 1.00 acre of the property. Sandy beach can be subject to high energy wave action or, as in this case, can be located in a sheltered location with low energy wave action. By definition, this area includes the sandy shore adjacent to Newport Harbor that is subject to wave action. The strand of beach is approximately 60 feet wide and runs along the northern portion of the property for approximately 1,400 linear feet. Intertidal Coastal Wetland (1.20 Acres) Intertidal coastal wetlands are located Immediately seaward of SandyBeach habitat. Intertidal coastal wetlands are generally located in sheltered areas such as bays and estuaries, and form when mud and marine animal detritus are deposited by tides. Sediment in this habitat is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and is.therefore submerged and exposed twice a day. Coastal wetland sediments may support algae, marine grasses, benthic invertebrates, and benthic fishes. Coastal wetland habitat covers 1.20 acres of the property. By definition, this area includes the intertidal shore between +7 feet MSL and -2 feet MSL adjacent to the sandy shore, Subtldal Coastal Wetland (0.10 Acre) Subtidal coastal wetlands are located Immediately seaward of Intertidal Coastal Wetland habitat and are constantly submerged. Subtidal coastal wetlands include 1) deepwater habitats dominated by plants that grow on or below the surface of the water, 2) areas where sediment particles are generally smaller than stones and vegetative cover is less than 30-percent, and 3) areas with man-made or natural reef systems dominated by sessile Invertebrates. Subtidal coastal wetland habitat is not present within the site boundary, but is present within a 0.10 acre off -site area immediately adjacent to the project site. Wildlife The plant communities discussed above provide marginally suitable foraging habitat for a few local terrestrial wildlife species, all of which are urban -adapted, and no sensitive wildlife or suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife are present on the site. Invertebrates observed within the project site Include sand fleas (Insects in the family Ceratopogonldae), beached moon jellies (Aurelia aurita), and sand crabs (Emerita talpoida). The project site contains shallow marine habitat that provides potentially suitable habitat for several marine fish. The Marine Resource Assessment will include a detailed description of marine Invertebrate and fish species on site. No amphibian or reptile species were observed during the field survey, and none are expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat. The ornamental trees and shrubs on the project site.provide suitable foraging and perching habitat for passerine birds, and the stretch of calm beach provides suitable foraging habitat for shorebirds. Birds observed on site are urban -adapted and Include house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), snowy egret (Egretta thula), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalfs), and gull -billed tern (Sterna nilotica). No mammals were observed during the field survey, however, feral dogs and cats, and opossums can be expected to occur on the site. Special Status Species The following federally or state listed species are reported to occur within the vicinity of the site and were evaluated for their potential to occur on -site: light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), California least tern (Sternula antlllarum browm), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polfoptila californica californica), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Australis), Coulter's saltbush (Atriplex coulteri), Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonfl), estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa), mud nama (Nama stenocarpum), chaparral sand -verbena (Abronla viilosa var. aurita). t I I I t I 1 ' Rosalinh Ung November 18, 2008 ' Page 5 No federally or state listed species are present on the site, and no suitable habitat for any federally or ' state listed species is present on the site, therefore, no further action is required pursuant to the ESA or the CESA. Additionally, no species or habitat protected under the Orange County Coastal -Central NCCP/HCP are present on the site, therefore, no further action is required pursuant to the NCCP/HCP. ' Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not have significant impacts on any special status or sensitive plant communities, special status or sensitive plants, or special status or sensitive species. ' Nesting Birds The project site contains several ornamental trees and shrubs that provide marginally suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds. Therefore, pursuant to the MBTA and CFG Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, ' or any other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season. The nesting season generally extends from early February through August, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. Any activity that may potentially cause a nest failure, requires a ' biological monitor, therefore, a pre -construction nesting bird survey will be required prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbance activities to determine if nesting activity occurs onsite. 1 If active nests are observed, construction activity must be prohibited within a buffer around the nest, as determined by a biologist, until the nestlings have fledged. Construction activity may encroach within the designated buffer at the discretion of the biological monitor. Once the nestlings have fledged, construction activity may proceed. Wildlife Movement Corridors The project site does not provide wildlife movement corridors. Opossums, and feral cats and dogs can be ' expected to travel though the site and surrounding developed areas, but the site does not provide narrow connectivity between large areas of open space on a local or regional scale; therefore, implementation of the project will not have significant impacts on wildlife corridors. The portion of the site included in Newport Harbor, may provide suitable nursery habitat for fish and marine resources, which will be addressed in the Marine Resource Assessment. ' Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Based upon MBA's jurisdictional assessment during the field survey, the project site overlaps with Newport ' Harbor, a traditionally navigable water that is considered jurisdictional by regulatory agencies. A Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands is required in order to document potential impacts to any waters or wetlands that may require a permit, Based upon this assessment for the proposed project site, the shallow marine habitat within Newport Harbor that overlaps with the project site boundary and areas immediately off -site, falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, and the City of Newport Beach CLUP pursuant to the CCA. Conclusion ' Pursuant to CEQA, no significant impacts to terrestrial biological resources on site will occur as a result of the proposed project; findings regarding impacts to marine biological resources will be discussed in the Marine Resource Assessment under a separate cover. ' If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 714-508-4100. Sincerely, Rosalinh Ung November 18, 2008 Page 6 Diana Lloyd Regulatory Specialist/Biologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Ens Exhibit1- Regional Exhibit 2 - Vicinity topographic base Exhibit 3 - Vicinity aerial base Exhibit 4 - Vegetation/Land Use Map Exhibit 5 - Site Photographs S 0060012. Mama Pork EIRIrM40022_¢�flaN�ol_letter_RcP[nt_M,itlel P41M_RMse14Vfe 03J"jd o owch City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Biological Resource Study Letter Report H I n [l I I I I Ii I I I Exhibits Michael Brandman Associates tS.\00640022 - Marina Park EIR\00640022_ Biological Letter_Repon Marina Park RevisedAcres_031909.doc 1 1 1 1 JL Orange \ Garden vrove Cleveland NF 'Fr�raci Sne e - — --� �anra ana NOT TO SCALE FO'J )tam Vale � IL au^hrnr-/° Eeac/ Project Site fir' �- - _i^urra Hrlls .L f` \ L-guna Niguel San Jua\Capistrano i \ r1ana Point Pacific Ocean - ramA I � I `\ Source: Census 2000 Data. The CaSIL. MBA GIS 2008. � 6 z.s o 6 ❑❑�❑ Miles \lielru'I li).mducw .\sv Kiale. 00640022 - 07r2008 1 1_regional.mxd Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LETTER REPORT ■ •��, ..,ter �— h- t :� °'� _ - _ •\� tm.�y' � 17js s. (Ado IDlC .,t. � .R. .... e s Pvk,rg Area as rt. LC' a;, e4jm y foumx I, ps R 34 NEWPORT BEACH •, /1.1;j{6C1 4h o.y New art y Ps, a Project Sde &each x ` �V .s, 3m -3w ue rsr%r%r% is 2.000 1.000 0 2,000 ❑❑M❑ ""6mmmm� Feet Michael Hcmdum Assxiates 00640022. 10/200812 ocal topo.mxd txnma z Local Vicinity Map ' Topographic Base CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK ' BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LETTER REPORT * T / .11Yrifiz.!K . N t -\ '; � �l�f_ �t+�-•ice ft ,` . f'� ;. � le ,jam �'t >•IM / � C.��C�� r.�, •' � Source: MBA. 2008. 1 1\ 1 z 00640022 •0712008 1 5a_sitephotostand2.cdr Exhibit 5a Site Photographs 1 and 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LETTERS REPORT Photograph 4: West facing view of tennis courts and mobile homes with associated parking lot in the eastern half of the site. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2007. 1111 \I i<hacl lrandman .4ssocialcs 00640022.07/2008 1 5b_sitei-photo3and4.cdr Exhibit 5b , Site Photographs 3 and 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK , BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LETTER REPORT. = = = = = s = = = r = m = m = m = s m m" Photograph 5: West truing vic%c of the beach adjacent to mobile homes in the northern portion of the site. Source: MBA 2008. Exhibit 5c 1% No Site Photograph 5 Michael Bmndman Associates 00640022 • 07/2008 1 5c_site_photo5.cdr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LETTER REPORT ' Marina Park Draft REIR 1 I D.2 - MARINE BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1 'i71 u L I 1 1 t 1 1 MARINE BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT MARINA PARK PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Contact: Mark Reader, Project Manager (949) 981-5260 Prepared by: Coastal Resources Managemen4 Inc PMB 327, 3334 E. Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Contact: Rick Ware, Principal/Senior Marine Biologist (949) 412-9446 SPA. RQyp( >H OrygH�d� October 15`*, 2008 Revised December 18th, 2009 1 Management, Inc. City of Newport Beach Manna Park Project Coastal Resources Marine Biological Impact Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Section PAEe 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1.1 Project Location and Current Issues................................................................................. 1 1.2 Proposed Project and Proposed Uses............................................................................... 3 2.0 MARINE RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................ 6 2.1 Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Sediments.......................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Marine Biological Resources............................................................................................ 12 2.4 Endangered, Threatened, Rare, and Sensitive Species .................................................. 21 2.5 Sensitive Habitats........................................................................................................... 26 2.6 Fish Management Plan Species.......................................................................................... 27 ' 2.7 Invasive Species.................................................................................................................. 28 29 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................. 3.1 Thresholds for Significance........................................................................................... 29 3.2 Relevant California Environmental Policies and Acts ................................................. 29 30 3.3 Proposed Action............................................................................................................. 3.4 Project -Related Issues That Could Adversely Affect Marine Biological Resources..................................................................................................................... 31 3.5 Demolition and Marina Construction Impacts On Marine Resources ......................... 32 ' 3.6 Long-term Impacts of Landside Construction On Water Quality ................................ 45 3.7 Long-term Impacts of Visitor Use on Water Quality ................................................... 46 3.8 Long-term Marina Impacts on Marine Resources........................................................ 46 ' 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................................................ 51 4.1 Runoff Water Quality ................................................................................................... 51 ' 4.2 Marina Construction and Operation Resources........................................................... 52 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 56 6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.................................................................................................... 56 LITERATURE CITED 57 7.0 .......................................................................................................... LIST OF TABLES 1 19`h Street Buoy (Rhine Channel) Oceanographic Data, July -August 2008....................................... 8 2 EPA Total Maximum Daily Load Target Values for Newport Bay....................................................12 ' 3 Comparison of Benthic Species .Richness, Abundance and Density Per Square Meter. Rhine Channel, Newport Bay. 1952-1994..........................................................................................17 4 Common Invertebrates Observed on the Bulkheads and Docks in Newport Bay Source...................19 ' 5 Special Status Species...........................................................................................................................22 6 Habitat Losses and Gains, Marina Park Project...................................................................................36 i City orNmvport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment LIST OF FIGURES ProjectArea Location........................................................................................................................... z MarinaPark Layout..............................................................................................................................A Marine Park Marina Conceptual Plan..............................................................................................5 TidalFlushing Rates in Newport Bay....................................................................................................7 SWRCBSampling Stations in Newport Bay................................................................................11 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Locationof the Project Area................................................................................................................ Marine habitat fronting the proposed Marina Park project................................................................ Viewlooking west towards 18' Street............................................................................................ South -facing view of sand beach in the vicinity of the proposed marina ................................... North -facing view of shoreline and waters in the vicinity of the proposed marina ..................... LIST OF APPENDICES Pelagic and Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan Species Potentially Present InNewport Bay.................................................................................................. ' City of Newport Beach Marina Pack Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment I I L I II I J I I MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT MARINA PARK PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results and findings of a marine biological impact assessment for the Marina Park Project Marina. The purposes of this investigation are to identify the existing marine resources in the vicinity of the project site, analyze project impacts on marine resources, and identify mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for potential adverse project impacts on marine resources. The study was conducted to (1) assess the project depths, sediment types, and types of marine life on the bayfloor in the vicinity of the property proposed for the marina and (2) to provide the basis for a marine biological resources impact assessment of the proposed project on intertidal and subtidal marine resources in the project area. Field survey results of surveys conducted by CRM in August and September 2008 are integrated into Section 2, Environmental Setting and presented in full in Appendix 1. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND CURRENT USES The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula in southwest Newport Beach (Figure 1, Photograph 1). The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park (3.83 acres), Girl Scout House (0.34 acres), community center (0.50 acres), Las Arenas Park (1.50 acres), the Southern California Edison parcel (0.14 acres), Veteran's Park (0.47 acres), alley, sidewalk, and 19th Street restroom (0.97 acres), beach (2.16 acres), and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay (0.54 acres). The site is bordered on the east by an asphalt parking lot, the American Legion Post 291, residential and commercial uses, and 15`s Street, to the south by West Balboa Boulevard and residential uses, and to the west byl8th Street, a hotel and residential uses, and 19"t Street along the public beach. The shoreline consists of a wide, City -maintained sand beach between le and 18t' Streets. A cement groin separates the sand beach from the American Legion Marina on the east. Residential docks border the west end of the public beach at 19`h Street. The shoreline and waters at the project site are located southeast of the Rhine Channel section of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor) and south of Lido Isle. Several shipyards are active in the Rhine Channel, and private and commercial vessels are kept in boat slips that line the Rhine Channel, Lido Peninsula, and Balboa Peninsula perimeter. Private vessels are moored throughout the waters in the eneral vicinity of the project area. The waters along the shoreline between 15`h and 18 Street are currently used for public recreation, including swimming, kayaking, sailing, and power boating. I I 1\ L \ 1 B •- • r r 1 t Marinapark R rt Project Area mil, • Sip% � �-: r .�4� , ✓ �J a '��ti - - •. a '..*c�#��.. _ 10 .I. Nau0cal Miles Figure 1. 0.00 0.10 070 0.30 0TO 050 05r Project Area Location Source: NOAA Chart 18754 m = m = = m � = = m m I City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological impact Assessment Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 1 I I I 1 n Photograph 1. Location of Project Site and other areas of West Newport Bay 1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROPOSED USES (Source; MBA) The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive area will include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and a half -court basketball court. The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Sailing Center will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. A restaurant will be located on top of the Balboa/Sailing center and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing classes. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15`h Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street is proposed to be renovated or reconstructed but the size of the bathroom facility would remain the same. Primary access to the project will be via West Balboa Boulevard at 17th Street and secondary access will be via a controlled exit/entrance off of 15t' Street. Public access to the beach will be provided by walkways within the proposed park as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, 18`h and 19`h Streets will still provide access to the public beach. A r Figure 2a. Marina Park Layout Source: Michael Brandman Associates a �a I 00Iw •� m m = = m m m = = m m I City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Maaagement, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment I 1 I r I I I by increasing water temperatures, lowering dissolved oxygen, and increasing the length of time that suspended sediments prevent light from illuminating the seafloor. The long residence time required to flush the bay through tidal action appears to be an important factor that affects both water and sediment quality. 2.1.2 July -August 2008 Oceanographic Data Water column sampling was conducted in the vicinity of Marina Park 10 times between 25 July and 22 August 2008 (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. unpublished data). Data were collected at surface, mid, and bottom depths. A summary of the data, by sampling level is presented in Table 1. Flushing time scale (days) 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 ' Figure 3 Tidal Flushing Rates for Newport Bay. Source: Everest International Consultants, Inc. ' The data illustrate summer maxima in water temperatures, with conversely, low dissolved oxygen concentrations and low pH. Low dissolved oxygen levels are an indication of degraded water quality, particularly if it is a persistent condition. It commonly occurs in ' areas of poor circulation and high organics. In general, a concentration of 5 mg/I (ppm) of dissolved oxygen is required to sustain marine life. All parameters exhibited a decline in values with an increase in depth. Mean water temperatures varied from 74.28 F at the surface, to 72.69 at the bottom. Dissolved oxygen concentrations varied from 6.71 mg/1 at the surface to 5.15 mg/l at the bottom; pH decreased from 7.95 at surface and mid depths, to 7.87 at the bottom; salinity ranged 7 i City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological hnpact Assessment Coastal Resources Management, Inc. from 32.46 parts per thousand (ppt) at the surface to 32.42 ppt at the bottom. The range in Total Dissolved Solids varied from 32.23 g/l to 32.18 g/1 at the bottom. Maximum and minimum survey values for each parameter were 71.17 F (bottom) and 76.73 F (surface) for water temperature; 4.10 mg/1 (bottom) to 7.76 mg/l for dissolved oxygen; 7.76 (bottom) to 8.05 (bottom) for pH; 32.26 ppt (surface and bottom) to 32.95 ppt (surface) for salinity; and 32.03 g/l (bottom) to 32.65 g/1 (surface) for total dissolved solids. Table 1. Rhine Channel Buoy (Mid channel between Balboa Peninsula and Lido Peninsula Oceanographic Data, July 25th to August 22" , 2008 Source: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. n=9 surveys Surface Values (1 It below surface) Temp Dissolved Total Dissolved Temp (F) (C) Oxygen pH Salinity Solids mg/L ppt g/L Mean 74.28 23.49 6.71 7.95 32.46 32.23 Std Dev 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 N of reps 21 21 19 21 21 21 Min 72.68 22.60 5.89 7.85 32.26 32.04 Max 76.73 24.85 7.65 8.04 32.95 32.65 Mid Depth (-6 ft MLW) Dissolved Total Dissolved Temp (F) Temp C Oxygen pH Salinity Solids mg/L ppt g/L Mean 73.47 23.04 6.51 7.95 32.44 32.20 Std Dev 1.1 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 N of reps 19 19 17 19 19 19 Min 71.78 22.10 4.46 7.85 32.28 32.06 Max 76.14 24.52 7.76 8.04 32.59 32.34 Bottom Water (-12 ft MLLW) Dissolved Total Dissolved Temp (F) Temp C Oxygen pH Salinity Solids mg/L ppt g/L Mean 72.69 22.61 5.15 7.87 32.42 32.18 Std Dev 1.2 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 N of reps 16 16 14 16 16 19 Min 71.17 21.76 4.10 7.76 32.26 32.03 Max 75.13 23.96 7.27 8.05 32.64 32.38 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment 2.2 SEDIMENTS Identifying sediment types and concentration of chemicals in Newport bay sediments is important for several reasons: (1) chemical contaminants are primarily bound to finer grain sizes (2) contaminants in the sediments can be assimilated into the food chain (3) ' alterations to the seafloor through dredging or other activities that disrupt the seafloor may result in the release of contaminants to the water column and (4) sediment characteristics and sediment contamination will affect the distribution and abundances of marine organisms. 2.1.1 Intertidal Sand Beach Sediments and Levels of Contaminants Petra (2004a) conducted sediment grain size and sediment chemistry testing from beach sediments in the area proposed as a 12-slip marina for a Limited Phase II Soils Assessment. These sediments were collected at the low tide line. Photograph 2 shows the general area where the samples were collected from. No tidal level data relative to Mean Lower Low Water information was provided. The upper three feet of sediment cores taken at the swimming beach sediments consisted of fine to medium sands; at a depth of four feet, the sediments included finer silts. No detectable concentrations of semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), organo- chloride pesticides (OCPs), or polychlorinated biphenyl's (PCBs) were detected. Metals were not detected at elevated ranges. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) were detected at 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in soil from Boring 2. TPH concentration of 10 mg/kg is insignificant and does not represent an environmental condition at these boring locations (Petra 2004a). ' 2.1.2 Subtidal Bayfloor Sediments and Levels of Contaminants Beyond the tide line, Newport Harbor sediments consist of sand, mud, or combinations of sand/shell hash sediments depending on tidal exchange rates, current velocities, channel depths, the configuration of the bay, and proximity to sources of sediment inputs. Observations made during a site reconnaissance survey at the proposed marina project site (CRM 2004, 2008) indicated that sediments at depths shallower than -2 ft MLLW were predominantly sands, a combination of sands and silts at depths up to -6 ft MLLW, and primarily silts at depths up to 11 ft MLLW. Sediment samples taken at a depth of -3 ft MLLW in front of the proposed marina in at 15th Street in front of the existing trailer park in September 2008 indicated the sediments consisted of 0.43% gravel, 3.12% coarse sand, 48.93% medium sand, 44.89% fine sand, 0.58% silts, and 2.05% clay (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. unpublished data). Comparatively, the bayfloor in the vicinity of 181h Street at the entrance to the Rhine Channel consists of between 90 % and 95% fine-grained ' sediments at depths of -5 to -10 ft MLLW (Harbor Resources Department unpublished data). Petra (2004b) conducted environmental site assessment work at the proposed Regent Marina site, Newport Beach, California on March 17'h, 2004. The work consisted of drilling and sampling three borings at a depth of 0.5, 2.5 foot and 5 feet below the mud line in the Rhine Channel to assess the environmental condition of submarine sediments on site. The five foot samples were archived. The soil samples were analyzed by dry 9 r City of Newport Bcach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. ' Marine Biological Impact Assessment weight in a State approved laboratory. In addition, representative samples of the r subsurface sediments were collected for grain size analysis. The geologic and chemical information obtained indicates the following: • The Rhine Channel in the vicinity of the site is underlain by one to three , feet of bay mud consisting of organic silty and clayey sand. Beneath the bay mud is mediumund coarse sand with shell fragments. • Trace amounts of Total Petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were detected in the one-half foot samples in all three borings and in the two and one half foot sample in Boring 'BP-2. The detected concentrations were less than ' 40 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The likely source of this contamination is storm water runoff. • Semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCS) were not detected in any of the collected samples. ' • The organo-chlorine pesticide 4,4'-DDE was detected at a concentration of 13 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) in the one half foot sample in boring BP-3. The this material is likely source of . • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were not detected in any of the collected samples. • Metals concentrations were within the anticipated background range for soils in Southern California. Based on these findings, the Limited Phase Two Sampling Program of submarine sediments at the proposed Marina Park marina site indicates that sediments are >80% sand material, and classified as medium to coarse sands. These materials are suitable for beach disposal. Slight chemical degradation of the sediments has occurred (Petra 2004b). Very low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the upper one-half foot of the bay mud. The hydrocarbons are not present at levels which require regulatory involvement or remediation. A single sample contained a very low concentration of a organo-chlorine pesticide (13 ug/kg 4,4-DDE). This concentration is well below action levels for soils on land. Between 1992 and 1997, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB and other State and Federal agencies conducted investigations of sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic community conditions in Newport Bay and other selected water bodies in the '. Santa Ana Region (SWRCB et al. 1998). Lower and Upper Newport Bay sediments were surveyed in 1994 at 23 locations (Figure 2). Three stations were located in west Newport Bay region, in the region surrounding the proposed marina site 10 1 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment 11 I I U I I I i 1 i I Figure 4. 1994 SWRCB Sampling Stations in Newport Bay for sediment contaminants and sediment biology. These stations included 85006, off the east tip of Lido Peninsula; 85012, mid -channel between the Balboa Peninsula and Lido Isle near the 10th Street Beach, and 85013, in the Rhine Channel. ' Based on the results of the sampling, Newport Bay sediments contained elevated concentrations of several contaminants at levels known to be toxic to marine organisms. Rhine Channel sediments (85013) contained elevated concentrations of mercury, copper, p,p; DDD, Total PCBs, and tri-butyl tin (TBT). Sediments around Lido Peninsula and Lido Isle (including 85006 and 85012), Harbor Island, Dover Shores, and De Anza (Bayside) Peninsula were elevated for either lead, p'p, DDE, or Total Chlordane, or a 11 11 City of Newport Beach Marina park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment combination of these compounds. Potential biotoxicity on marine organisms was also addressed. These results are summarized in Section 2.2. The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) investigated site - specific sediment contamination in the Rhine Channel and the effects of contaminants on marine organisms at 16 stations in 2002 (SCCWRP 2003). Their study results also found , contamination in the sediments. Concentrations of copper, mercury, lead, zinc, and total PCBs exceeded the sediment TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) targets at all 15 sediment stations in the Rhine Channel. The exceedances varied between 4.3 times the TMDL sediment target for zinc, to 110 times the TMDL sediment target for mercury. Total PCBs exceeded the TMDL sediment target by 13 times. Several other constituents were also elevated. Elevated concentrations of dissolved trace meters (copper, nickel, mercury, selenium, and zinc) indicated that some sediments were being released to the water column. The results of toxicity experiments conducted with these contaminated sediments are discussed in Section 2.2. Petra (2003c) conducted sediment contaminant sampling in the Rhine Channel for a proposed shipyard redevelopment project at the South Coast Shipyards. Copper, lead, , and mercury exceeded the Title 22 of the California Code of regulations Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) by 10 times in several samples. Elevated concentrations of PCBs were also found in the sediments. , TABLE 2 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Target Values for Newport Bay Source: SCCWRP 2003 Contaminant TMDL Target Contaminant TMDL Target Value (mg/kg) Value (ng/g) Copper 18.7 chlordane 2.26 Chromium 52 dieldrin 0.72 Lead 30.4 Total DDTs 3.89 Zinc 124 Total PCBs 21.5 Mercury 0.13 2.3 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Marine habitat types in the Marina Park project area include a city -maintained sandy beach, , intertidal sand/mudflats, subtidal bay bottom (benthos), a cement groin that separates the sand beach from the American Legion marina, and open water bay habitat (Photographs 2 to 5). The project area intertidal zone extends from Extreme Low Water (-2.0 ft. MLLW) to Extreme High Water (+7 ft. MLLW). Subtidally, water depths in the project area range ' from -2.0 ft to approximately -12 ft MLLW. Depths at the offshore edges of the boat docks located to the east of the project area are approximately -8 ft to -10 ft MLLW (Coastal Resources Management, 2004). 12 i I 1 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment u 1 1 I 1 1 I Photograph 2. Marine habitat fronting the proposed Marina Park Project. View facing I 1 i 1 1 1 C 1 13 1 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment .��.1• wWV.! qW as Photograph 5. North -facing view of shoreline and waters in the vicinity of the proposed marina 2.3.1 Sand Beach 14 ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment t While most of the shoreline of Newport Harbor is dredged for boat slips and lined with ' bulkheads, open sand beaches are scattered throughout the harbor. Most of Newport Harbor's sandy beaches are located around Balboa Island, although some sand beach habitat is found on Bay Isle, Lido Isle and Balboa Peninsula. ' On the Balboa Peninsula, public swimming beaches are located between 9th Street and 10`h Street, and between 151h Street to 19th Street. These beaches provide the public with ' recreational opportunities, but they are also habitat for marine -associated wildlife. The high intertidal portion of the city -maintained public beach support few if any marine ' organisms in the sediments because of the infrequent tidal exposure and periodic cleaning and grooming. This higher elevation however, is resting habitat for seabirds (gulls and pelicans). The middle and low intertidal zones provide more consistent tidal inundation and ' supports burrowing species of invertebrates (primarily clams, crustaceans, and polychaete worms). These organisms attract shorebirds to the mid and low intertidal elevations of the beach that utilize these invertebrates as their food source (Quammen 1980). ' 2.3.2 Subtidal Soft Bottom Benthos ' Beyond the shoreline, the sediments support algae and bottom -dwelling organisms (benthic invertebrates), some of which crawl over the surface of Newport Bay sediments, while ' others lead a sessile existence and protrude above the sediments from within a tube. While the majority of benthic invertebrates of bays and estuaries obtain their nutrition by consuming organic detritus, some graze on diatoms and algae or actively prey on other invertebrates. In turn, bottom feeding fishes and resident soft bottom -dwelling fishes (gobies, juvenile flatfish, and sand bass) rely upon these benthic organisms as food sources (ACOE 2000, MBC and SCCWRP 1980). Algae and Eelgrass. The shallow subtidal zone fronting the sand beach shoreline in the project area is occasionally vegetated green algae (Enteromorpha sp). At deeper depths, ' red algae is more common. During marine biological surveys conducted along the shoreline of the project area in October 2003, March 2004, October 2007, and August 2008, no eelgrass (Zostera marina) was at depths between 0.0 and -12 ft MLLW along ' the 15`h to 19th Street shoreline. Eelgrass is a sensitive marine resource because of its value as a nursery habitat and protective cover that it provides for invertebrates and fish. While it is prolific throughout may parts other Newport Harbor from Bay Isle east to the ' Harbor Entrance Channel (CRM 2004, CRM 2008, in preparation) its western -most occurrence along the Balboa Peninsula is near the Newport Harbor Yacht Club (CRM, 2004; CRM 2008 in preparation). ' Benthic Invertebrates. Over 300 species of benthic invertebrates that live in the sediments (benthic infauna) have been identified from Newport Bay mudflats and subtidal channel sediments (Barnard and Reish 1959, Dawson 1963, Daugherty 1978, MBC and SCCWRP 1980, Seapy 1981, Ware 1985, SWRCB et al., 1998). The dominant types are annelid worms (polychaetes and oligochaetes), arthropods (gammarid and ' caprellid amphipods, isopods, ostracods, and cumaceans), and mollusks (gastropods and 15 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment pelecypods). Most are not endemic to Newport Bay or necessarily reflect polluted bottom conditions. Rather, they are widely distributed and highly adaptable (they survive well under stress conditions which occur naturally in many California coastal bays and estuaries). The numbers of benthic infaunal species decrease between the harbor entrance and the regions where water circulation is restricted in Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay (MBC and SCCWRP 1980, 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 the sediments they inhabit. Other influences, related to the concentrations of contaminants in the sediments will also affect the types and abundances of organisms inhabiting Newport Bay sediments (SWRCB et al. 1998). Common benthic invertebrates identified in the fore -mentioned studies include polychaete worms (Capitella capitala, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, Streblospio benedicti, Haploscoloplos elongalus, Tharyx sp. Neanthes arenaceodentata, Polydora socialis, P. ligni, P. nuchalis, Prionospio heterobranchia newportensis), oligochaete worms, amphipods (Grandidierella japonica, Corophium acherusicum, C. insidiosum, Ampithoe spp.), caprellid amphipods (Mayerella banksia), snails (Tryonia imitator and Assiminea californica), and clams (Theora lu'brica, Chione frticlifaga, Maconaa spp., Tagelus subteres and T. californianus) Many larger types of benthic invertebrates live on the sediment surface (epifauna). Several species of epifauna were observed at the site of the proposed Marina Park marina in October 2003 (CRM, 2003). These included the hydroid Corymorpha pahna, tube anemone Pachyceeianthus funbriants, tube -dwelling polychaete annelid worms, tube - dwelling amphipods (Grandidierella japonica), and the predatory sea slug (Chelidonera [Navanax] inermis. A comparison of benthic species richness, abundance, and density per square meter is provided in Table 3. Historically, the benthic infaunal community in the general vicinity of the proposed Marina Park marina is characterized by low numbers of species and high abundances of a few species of invertebrates that reproduce well and out compete other species under stressed environmental conditions (California Department of Fish and Game 1953, County of Orange 1078, SWRCB et al, 1998). The number of benthic species identified at stations between loth Street and the Rhine Channel during the SWRCB et al. 1994 survey varied between 14 (10h Street) to 32 (Lido Peninsula). Comparatively, cleaner sediments near the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel support as many as 207 species (MBC and SCCWRP 1980). The Rhine Channel and Lido Peninsula sites were classified as a "Transitional" by the SWRCB which indicates that the sediments have elevated chemical contamination and some toxicity to marine organisms is present. However, the benthic community is not Table 3. 16 1 E 11 1 1 1 1 1 ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment J 1 I H t Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Comparison of Benthic Species Richness, Abundance and Density Per Square Meter. Rhine Channel, Newport Bay. 1952-1994 SAMPLING TOTAL RICHNESS RICHNESS MEAN METHOD AND AND ABUNDANCE PER DENSITY SAMPING AREA SAMPLE PER SURVEY SAMPLE AND YEAR OF (SQ M) STUDY Cal Fish & Game 16 individuals 1951-1952 1 species County of Orange Three, 0.05 sq. in 184 individuals 8.6 1,226 September 1975 Ponar Grab sam les 18 taxa n=3 n=3 County of Orange Three, 0.05 sq. m 483 individuals 14.3 3,220 March/April 1976 Ponar Grab samples 23 taxa n=3 n=3 Combined Survey Six, 0.05 sq. m 667 individuals 11.5 2,223 County of Orange Ponar Grab samples 30 taxa n=6 n=6 1975-1976 Regional Board Three, 0.1 sq. m 1,567 individuals 20.3* 4,816* September 1994 Modified Van Veen 30 taxa n=3 n=3 Sam les * Excludes nematode worms; nematodes were not counted during the County or Grange purvey "degraded" compared to other areas of Newport Bay and other water bodies within the region. In Newport Harbor, "Degraded" benthic conditions were noted in the channel near loth Street beach, on the north side of Lido Island, the south side of Harbor Island, and the north side of Balboa Island. Based on the results of the 1998 SWRCB et al. benthic studies in Newport Harbor, the benthic community in the Rhine Channel has exhibited some signs of recovery compared to earlier studies in Newport Harbor in 1951-1952 (California Department of Fish and Game 1953) and 1975-1976 (County of Orange 1978). However, species richness is considerably lower in the sediments between Lido Isle and the Rhine Channel than in sediments nearer the harbor entrance channel. However, these sediments still have significant chemical contamination that may be toxic to benthic invertebrates and fishes. In addition, sediments released into the water column have a potential to release contaminants into the water column (SWRCB 1998 et al., SCCWRP 2003). During the 1951-1952 Fish and Game study, 16 individuals of C. capitata were found in the Rhine Channel. In September 1975, 18 taxa and 184 individuals were collected in three, 0.05 sq. in. Ponar Grab samples. Mean density was 1,226 individuals/sq. in, and the mean number of species was 8.6. During March/April 1976, 23 taxa and 483 individuals were collected at the same site. Mean density was 3,220 individuals/sq. in, and the mean number of taxa increased to 14.3 per sample. The dominant species encountered in the Rhine Channel during the County study were the polychaetes Capitella capitata, Schistomeringos rudolphi, Polydora ligni, the crustaceans Leptochelia sp., Ampithoe pollex, Corophium acherusicum, and C. insidiosum. During both surveys, 30 species were collected. 17 11 City of Newport Bcach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment During September 1994, three, 0.1 sq. in Young -modified Van Veen Grab samples were ' collected at Station 85013 in the Rhine Channel. Cumulatively, 30 taxa and 1,567 individuals were collected. With nematodes excluded (they were not counted during the ' County survey but described as "uncommon" in the Rhine Channel) the mean density per sample was 4,816 individuals/sq. in, and the mean number of species was 20.2 per sample. The dominant species included a complex of oligochaete worms, nematode worms, the , polychaete worm Streblospio benedict, and the amphipod crustaceans Grandidierella japonica and Arnpithoe valida. Based upon this analysis, the health of the benthic community in the Rhine Channel slowly ' improved between 1952 and 1994, a span of 42 years. And, since 1975, the number of species in the Channel increased by a factor of 1.8 and infaunal density increased by a factor ' of 2.2. The stability of the community structure and the types of organisms present however, are likely still affected by levels of sediment contaminants that are known to produce toxicity at levels measured in the Rhine Channel sediments (SWRCB et al.1998). ' Benthic Contaminants and Toxicity to Marine Organisms in Newport Harbor. The State study (SWQCB et al. 1998) employed the Long and Morgan's Effects Range Low ' (ER-L) and Effects Range -Medium (ER M) analysis (Long and Morgan 1990) to rate the potential for biological effects based upon the concentrations of contaminants found in the sediments that are associated with toxic responses on marine organisms. Biological ' effects are most probable at or above the ER-M (Long and Morgan 1990). Some Newport Bay sediments, including the Rhine Channel had the highest ERM Quotient of any regional water body. The Rhine Channel had the highest number of ERM , exceedances; these were for copper, mercury, zinc, and total PCBs. The highest overall exceedances in Newport Bay were for mercury in the Rhine Channel (12.3x the ERM). , Toxicity studies were conducted using Rhine Channel Sediments during the SCCWRP 2002 investigation (SCCWRP 2003). Sediments were toxic to amphipod crustaceans and sea urchin larvae at a majority of the 15 stations sampled. However, the cause of the , sediment or seawater -interface toxicity (SWI) reported in this study could not be determined with the available data. There were no statistically significant negative correlations among metals or organic contaminants and toxicity. It is possible that ' unmeasured contaminants or differences in contaminant bioavailability among stations may be responsible for the observed toxicity (SCCWRP 2003). ' 2.3.3 Bulkhead and Seawall Associated Plants and Animals. Man-made substrates (bulkheads, seawalls, docks, pilings, jetties) in Newport Harbor are ' not biologically sensitive. However, hardscape provides surface area for sessile marine animals and plants that would not be present in the Harbor in the absence of development. Common types of organisms found on bulkheads and docks in Newport Bay are listed in Table 4. The hardscape of these structures support mussels, barnacles, and sponges, and other types of invertebrates, and plants that constitute the "biofouling ' Table 4. Common Invertebrates Observed on the Bulkheads and Docks.in Newport Bay , 18 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment Source: Coastal Resources Management (1998; unpublished observations) Intertidal Zone to shallow Ulva spp. mid to subtidal common to abundant Phaeophyta brown algae low to subtidal Cystoseim osmundacea low to subtidal present Sargassum muticum low to subtidal present Rhodophyta red algae low to subtidal common Haliclona sp. sponge low to subtidal present Cnidaria 1 hydroids & anemones Aglaophenia dispar hydroid low to subtidal present A. elegantissima anemone -solitary form mid to subtidal uncommon Polychaeta segmented worms mid to subtidal common to abundant Arthropoda crustaceans Balanus glandula barnacle mid to high common intertidal Chthainalus frssus/dalli barnacle high to splash common intertidal Pachygrapsus crassipes lined shore crab high to low uncommon intertidal Mollnsca-Gastronoda snails Lottia limatula I finger limpet middle to low I common intertidal Mopalia mucosa chiton middle to low III present intertidal Mnlhisca-Peleevnoda bivalves IF III Chamaidae, unid rock jingle low to subtidal present Ostrea conchilcola oyster mid intertidal present Mytilus galloprovincialis bay mussel mid to shallow common subtidal Bryozoa moss animals low intertidal to snhtidal Zoobotryon verticillatum soft bryozoan low to subtidal common Urochordata tunicates Styela monfereyensis sea squirt low common Ciona intestinalls tunicate low common Styela plicata sea squirt low common community". The undersides of boat floats and docks are commonly colonized by green 19 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Managemen4 Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment algae, barnacles, mussels, limpets, polyebaete worms, moss animals (ectoprocts), and sea squirts (tunicates). Bay fishes are attracted to the biofouling habitat because it a constant source of food. The cement groin separating the American Legion marina from the sand beach at 10h Street is colonized by few species on the beach side of the groin, primarily because most of its length is buried by sand. Where exposed, it supports a limited population of barnacles (Balanus glandula) in the high tide zone and mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) in the mid to low tide zone. 2.3.4 Bay Fishes Over 75 species of fish are known from Newport Bay (Allen 1976; Bane 1968; Marine Biological Consultants and SCCWRP 1980, SCCWRP 2002). Along the Peninsula between 9°i St and 13`h St, Allen (1976) recorded 19 species of fish during 18 months of sampling between 1974 and 1975. This sampling was conducted midchannel by otter trawl net methods. The numerically dominant species were white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), shiner surf perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), white surf perch (Phanerodon fitrcatus), slough anchovy (Anchoa dellcatissitna), deepbody anchovy (Anchoa compressa), black surf perch (Embiotoca jacksont), and queen fish (Seriphus politus). Bat ray (Myliobatis californica), white croaker, and queen fish contributed the most biomass. Other species, such as halibut (Paralichthys californicus), diamond turbot (Hypsopsetta guitulata), and various bottom -dwelling blennies and gobies are also found in Newport Harbor environments. Marinas, docks, bulkheads, and groins provide habitat that attract a variety of fishes and these environments may exhibit a greater diversity of fishes than channel and mudflat habitats alone because both soft bottom channel fishes and rock -associated fishes inhabit these environments (Coastal Resources Management, 1993). Hard substrate offers cover, protection, or new sources of food for fishes such as pile perch (Damalichthys vacca , pipefish S nathus spp.), kelpfish (Heterostichus spp.), opaleye Girella ni ricans , balfmoon Medialuna californiensisl, sargo (Anlsotrernus davidsont , and kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus . During a site reconnaissance SCUBA survey conducted by Coastal Resources Management, Inc. in August 2008, round sting ray (Myliobatis californicus) and mullet (Mugil cephalus) were observed. During surveys conducted at the project site in 2004, four species were observed by SCUBA diving biologists at the site of a proposed marina. These included topsmelt (Atherinops afnis), spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciakts), bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus) and round stingray (Urolophus hallert) (Coastal Resources Management 2004). Other common species recorded from Newport Harbor include arrow goby (Clevelandia ios)„ California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), topsmelt (Atherinops affnis), black surfperch (Embiotoca jacksont), white surfperch (Phanerodon furcatus) shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), and walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenleum). Several of these may be present at the site, but were not observed during the underwater surveys. 2.4 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, RARE, OR SENSITIVE MARINE SPECIES 20 ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment Table 5 lists potential federal and/or state endangered, rare, or non -listed sensitive species ' and that could be present within or nearby the project area during construction. Species of particular concern and relevance to this project are discussed in detail below. ' 2.4.1 Plants Eelgrass, Zostera marina. Eelgrass is a marine angiosperm that forms meadows in mud - and -sand substrates of bays and wetland channels. Although it is not a listed species, it is considered sensitive by resource agencies because it is an important biological habitat for ' invertebrates and fishes. In Newport Bay, eelgrass grows in the lower intertidal and the shallow subtidal substrates at depths between 0.0 and -28 ft. MLLW, although more commonly, at depths shallower than -8 ft. MLLW (Coastal Resources Management, 2005 ' and Coastal Resources Management, 2008). Surveys using GPS surveying methods of eelgrass in Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay indicate prolific growth of this seagrass along Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Collins Isle, Beacon Bay, Harbor Island, Linda Isle, DeAnza Bayside Peninsula, Castaways, Bayshores Community, and Mariner's Mile extending between Bayshores and the Orange Coast College Rowing Facilities (CRM 2005), although areas within the middle parts of the harbor and Upper Newport Bay experienced significant declines in eelgrass areal cover and density between 2004 and 2008 (CRM 2008, in preparation). Eelgrass is not present alongs the shoreline between 15`h St and 19`h St. Eelgrass transplanted conducted along the 15` St to 191h St shoreline in late ' summer 2004 as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower Newport Harbor Pilot Eelgrass Restoration Project, in coordination with the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach were unsuccessful (Chambers Consultants, Inc. and Coastal Resources ' Management, Inc. 2005), likely due to (1) the lateness of the transplant in the growing season and (2) significant rainfall in the months following the transplant. ' 2.4.2Invertebrates There are no sensitive species of marine invertebrates located in the project area. ' 2.4.3 Fishes ' California Grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) _The California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) is a fish that uses the high intertidal sandy beach habitat of many southern California beaches as spawning habitat (Walker, 1952), including Newport Beach (CRM and Chambers ' Group, 2002). The grunion is a member of the silversides family, Atherinidae, along with the jacksmelt and topsmelt. They normally occur from Point Conception, California, to Point Abreojos, Baja California. Occasionally, they are found farther north to Monterey Bay, California and south to San Juanico Bay, Baja California. They inhabit the nearshore waters from the surf to a depth of 60 feet. Grunion are not expected to be present in the project area. 1 21 11 City of Newport Bead, Marina ParkPmject Marine Biological Impact Assessment Coastal Resources Management, Inc. TABLE 5 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE MARINA PARK PROJECT AREA Scientific Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur orNhiFSStatas Plants Phyllospadix torreyi surfgrass Habitat Area of — Nearshore rocky intertidalfrocky none Particular Concern subtidal (HAPC)) for Fisheries Management Plan (IMP) Species under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ,Zostera marina eelgrass Habitat Area of — Bays, harbors, shallow nearshore Not observed at the project in 2063, Particular Concern water sediments 2004, 2005, and 2009 (HAPC) for Fisheries ManagementPlan (IMP) Species under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Fishes Eucyclogobius newberryi Tidewater goby FE — Shallow marine waters, lowerreaches No potential extirpated from of streams Orange County Leuresthes tennis California grunion — — Spawns on local open coastal beaches No potential to occur at the project site 22 M M M M M City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment Coastal Resources Management, Inc. c Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NMFS Status [[Scientifl None in West Newport Bay; does pops rubicundus California garibaldi Protected under California State Subtidal rocky reef habitat; resident occur near the harbor entrance commercial and Marine Fish , and territorial species in shallow channel in rocky subtidal sport fish Assembly Bill subtidal rocky habitats environment regulations AB77, 1995 Paralichthys californicus California halibut — — Shallow coastal waters, open ocean High potential Reptiles Chelonia mydas Green turtle FE — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor but unlikely to occur in the waters of West Newport Bay Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill sea turtle FE — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor but unlikely to occur in the waters of West Newport Bay Brown pelican FE; proposed for CE Bays, estuaries, nearshore waters Forages and rests in project area delisting Moderate potential. Forages in the waters of Newport Bay; Nesting roccidentalis habitat occurs in Upper Newport California least tern FE CE Nests on sparsely vegetated flat Bay and nearby at the Santa Ana substrates, forages in nearby waters River mouth; least terns will forage on juvenile baitfish in the nearshore waters, Newport Harbor and Upper Bay channels, usually within 5 mi of nesting sites . Scientific Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NMFS Status aradri=rs alexandrinus [nivosits Western snowy plover FT SSC Nests on sandy beaches and shores No nesting habitat present onsite, no potential for individuals to occur on site 23 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Mammals Zalophus californianus Califomia sea lion MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters, Moderate -to -high potential for occasionally enters bays/harbors individuals to be present in West Newport Bay. Locally becoming more abundant in Newport Harbor, and in the vicinity of vessels moored offshore of Lido Peninsula Phoca vitulina Harbor seat MMA Nearshom and open ocean, Low potential to be present in West _ occasionally enters baystharbors Newport Bay. Tursiops rruncafus Bottlenose dolphin MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor to Newport Harbor Eschrichtius robusius California gray whale MMA Ncarshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor to Newport Harbor FE— Federal Endangered; FT— Federal Threatened; MMA — Protected under MarineMammal Act California Department of Fish and Game CE—Califomia Endangered SSC—Species of Special Concern HAPC are subsets of Essential Fish -Habitat (EFH) which are rare, particularly susceptible -to buman induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA); bowever, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (NMFS 2008a) 24 I 11 F1 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment California halibut. Although the California halibut does not have a formal special species status, it is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value and a continued region -wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. California halibut spawn at sea and the larval stages are planktonic. After several months, the larval fish settle to the bottom, and migrate into shallow coastal waters, including Newport Bay. Halibut are distributed throughout the waters of Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay, primarily as juveniles, although larger individuals are caught near the ocean entrance and in offshore waters. Young -Of -The - Year (YOTY) prefer shallow waters between about —0.45 meter (1.5 ft) and —1.0 meter (3.5 ft) Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), whereas juveniles prefer deeper channel bottoms to a maximum depth of approximately 4.5 meters (15 ft) MLLW. After spending nearly nine months in Newport Bay, juveniles will move out into the open coastal environment. This species has a low to moderate potential to occur in the shallow waters of the project area because of the nature of the sand shoreline and the relatively wide shelf of sandy silt sediments. 2.4.4 Marine Reptiles Marine reptiles do not utilize the local marine waters as a permanent breeding or foraging habitat. However, the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), will occasionally occur in the nearshore environment offshore Orange County. Green sea turtles have been reported approximately 20 miles upcoast of Newport Bay in the San Gabriel River where they encounter the warmer, discharged waters of the power generating facilities located farther up the River and Alamitos Bay. (Vivian Cook, Marine Bureau; Allen Powder, Long Beach Lifeguards pers. comm. with R. Ware, CRM, 27 July 2007; Long Beach Aquarium, 2008). Their occurrence within Newport Bay is expected to be rare. 2.4.5 Birds The State and Federally -listed California least tern (Sterna antillarum brownz) is a spring - and -summer resident in southern California during the breeding and nesting season. The least tern does not breed or nest near the project site but will forage in Newport Bay and nearshore coastal waters during their March through September breeding season. The nearest least tern nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and 4.2 mi northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Bridge. The state -and federally listed California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) is found in Newport Bay year -around but does not breed locally. The brown pelican utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish, and the shoreline as resting habitat. This species is proposed for delisting as a federally- endangered species, due to a population resurgence along the southern California coastline. The site is not a roosting or nesting site for herons, based upon a sensitive species site visit on September 30th, 2009, and an evaluation of the adequacy of the sensitive species 25 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment information provided in the project draft EIR and marine biological technical appendix (Hamilton Biological Inc., 2009) 2.4.6 Marine Mammals In recent years, California sea lions (Zalophus californicus) have taken up seasonal residence in the Harbor. While initially concentrated in the southeast section of the harbor between the Pavilion and the entrance channel, they now extend their seasonal distribution to the northwest (West Newport) waters and Mooring Areas J and H seaward of the proposed Marina Park development. Their abundance in the Bay is the result of abundant food resources and potential haul out areas on moored vessels. They are able to utilize boats in the harbor as haul outs because many of the boats have low stern platforms (i.e., dive platforms). Countermeasures have been implemented by the City and boat owners to reduce the ability of sea lions to use vessels as haul out areas, and to reduce the direct and indirect feeding of sea lions through the implementation of ordinances and public education brochures. Their presence is a concern for vessel owners who have experienced damaged vessels or sunken vessels (Orange Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department, 2006; and most recently in August 2008 (Orange County Register, 2008). Their distribution in the West Newport waters may also be related to observed increases in the population of mullet (Mugil cephalus) that have been particularly abundant in this section of the Harbor in 2008 (R. Ware, pers. observations). Harbor seals (Phoea vitulina) may also occasionally enter Newport Harbor but their presence in Newport Harbor is incidental. The presence of bottlenose dolphin, and gray whales or other cetaceans would be an extremely rare event in the western section of Newport Harbor. 2.5 SENSITIVE HABITATS Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). Although no eelgrass occurs at the Marina Park project site, Newport Bay in general is estuarine and eelgrass habitat, both of which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (See Section 2.6) within the Pacific Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of Essential Fish Habitat which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area, Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997). However, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007). 26 I I I I I I City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment 2.6 FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN SPECIES ' This assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the Marina Park project is being provided in conformance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (FR 62, 244, December 19, 1997). The 1996 ' amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Act set forth a number of new mandates for the National Marine Fisheries Service, eight regional fishery management councils, and other ' federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The councils, with the assistance from NMFS are required to delineate EFH for all managed species. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that ' may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to the NMFS recommendations. EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity". An adverse effect is "any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH". Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Adverse effects may be sites specific or habitat -wide impacts, including individual, ' cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions [50 CFR 600.910(a)]. Impacts to Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are described in the regulations as ' subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area, including eelgrass. The proposed project is located within an area designated as EFH for the Coastal Pelagics Management and the Groundfish Management Plan designated species. Four (4) coastal ' pelagic species, (the northern anchovy, pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and Pacific mackerel) potentially occur in the waters offshore of Newport Beach. Six (6) groundfish species also potentially occur within the local project area, including California scorpion ' fish, vermillion rockfish, calico rockfish, California skate, spiny dogfish shark, and leopard shark (Appendix 1). Of these species, only the northern anchovy comprises a significant portion of fish that occur, and contribute moderate -to -heavy abundances to the ' nearshore fish, but much less so within Newport Bay. Northern anchovy comprise a portion of the commercial bait fishery in San Pedro Bay and a commercial bait fishing operation operates in the Newport Harbor entrance channel that provides northern ' anchovy to sports fishermen. This species is a planktivore, and is preyed upon by larger fish and seabirds. Larvae of northern anchovy are also part of the Newport Bay ichthyofauna and icthyoplankton community. Although several other coastal pelagic and groundfish IMP species are known from the project area, data indicate that their presence is likely sporadic and their numbers in the ' project region would be extremely low (Coastal Resources Management, 2008). 1 27 City ofNewport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological impact Assessment 2.7 INVASIVE SPECIES Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Caulerpa taxifolia. Caulerpa taxifolia has a characteristic bright green color, flat, leafy fern -like fronds (branches), and a below -ground root system. This noxious algae was found within shallow, enclosed lagoons located at the northeast section of Huntington Harbour and in Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County in 2001. Although efforts are believed to have eradicated this species over the last two years, this tropical marine algae can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems because it invades, out -competes, and eliminates native algae, seagrasses, kelp forests and reef systems by forming a dense blanket of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces (National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board unpub. brochure). It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper ocean waters, and up to nine feet in length. Caulerpa has not been found within Newport Bay despite intensive underwater searches (Coast Keeper 2000; Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2004, 2005, 2008, in preparation). Newport Bay has been designated as a Caulerpa free system (National Marine Fisheries Service 2001 revised 2003). This species was not observed at the project site in October 2003, March 2004, October 2007y and August, 2008 (R. Ware, CRM pers. observation). 28 CI I 1 L,J I L ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment t 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ' 3.1 THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNIFICANCE Coastal Resources Management, Inc. ' The threshold for significance of impacts to marine biological resources is determined by scientific judgment, and considers the relative importance of the habitat and/or species affected by project implementation. For the purposes of this analysis, the project's effects on biological resources are considered to be significant if it would: ' Substantially affect a rare, threatened, endangered, or candidate plant or animal species, or the habitat of any such species; • Substantially diminish or degrade the habitat of any marine plant or animal; Result in notable net loss of a biotic community that is subject to local, state, ' and/or federal regulations or that is otherwise of very limited occurrence in the region. • Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish and wildlife species; or Conflict with adopted environmental policies, general plans, or regulatory policies of the community and State of California. ' 3.2 RELEVANT CALIFORNIA ENVIROMENTAL POLICIES AND ACTS The California Coastal Act (State of California 1976, amended 1999) provides the basis ' for protection of land and marine resources within the California coastal zone. The following relevant sections of the Coastal Act apply to protection of local marine resources in the vicinity of the proposed Marina Park project. ' Section 30231 of the California Coastal Act: "The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored ' through among other means, minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with groundwater flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, ' maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. 1 29 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment Section 30107.5 of the California Coastal Act. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Environmentally sensitive areas are "any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem: and which could be easily be degraded by human activities and developments" Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act: (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade these areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitats and recreational areas. Section 30230 of the California Coastal Act: Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economical significance. Use of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION Figures 2a and 2b illustrate the components of the proposed project. Existing mobile homes on the project site will be removed and/or demolished. The basic features of the project will include a public park for passive and active recreation, short-term visiting vessel marina, bathroom and laundry facilities adjacent to the marina, a sailing center and restaurant, tennis courts, and improvements to an existing bathroom. This impact analysis addresses water quality issues related to the demolition of existing structures, site hydrology, and marine -related impacts associated with the construction of the marina. Marina facilities will be constructed by excavating a basin out of landside, non marine habitat and dredging a portion of the existing intertidal sandy beach to depths of -12 ft MLLW. The marine will include a groin wall around the marina, three boat basins, ADA gangway, 23 slips to accommodate vessels 40-57 ft in length, dry storage for small boats, lockable kayak racks, and interlocking floats to provide dry storage within two of the 3 basins. Approximately 50 piles will be driven into the bayfloor to support the docks (Source: URS, Inc). 30 1 I t I I 1 I ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment I 1 1 1 I 1 Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 3.4 PROJECT -RELATED ISSUES THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Demolition and construction tasks for the project could potentially affect Newport Harbor marine resources. Particular aspects of this project that have a potential to degrade water quality and the quality of local marine resources include hydrology and site runoff, visitor use, and construction and operation of a marina. This project incorporates upfront Water Quality Best Management Practices that ensure there will be no adverse and significant short-term or long-term effects on local water quality and subsequent adverse effects on marine biological resources. These items include: 3.4.1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Land -side construction impacts on water quality and marine resources will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that incorporates specific Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to water quality for both onshore and water -side construction operations. An Erosion Control Plan will be part of this document. This plan will reduce the potential impacts of airborne dust deposition and waterborne soil erosion during storm events on the marine environment. See Section 4 for a listing of potential construction BMPs. 3.4.2 Post -Construction (Operational) Project Water Quality Management Plan A Water Quality Management Plan will be prepared to avoid potentially significant effects of the project on water quality and marine resources. The plan will address current drainage systems, improvements to the drainage system to manage storm water and dry weather runoff, hydrology, and mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant project -related effects to less than significant. The Water Quality Management Program will consist of strategies and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will provide source control for pollutants as well as treatment of runoff constituents. Additional water quality BMPs will be developed for the construction and operation of the marina. Implementation of a Water Quality Plan for the construction and operation of Marina Park will reduce potentially significant water quality and hydrological impacts associated with storm water and dry weather runoff to less than significant impacts. Consequently, hydrological and water quality effects originating from the construction of the resort will have less than significant impacts on marine resources with the inclusion of these measures. 31 City ofNctvport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment 3.5 DEMOLITION AND MARINA CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO MARINE , RESOURCES 3.5.1 Site Hydrology, Water Quality, Noise, Dust, and Pollutant Generation Implementation of the proposed project may alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. , In the short-term, construction activities may result in siltation and erosion as well as potential fuel oil spills, which could result in a decrease in water quality and an increase in turbidity and sedimentation as it relates to the amount of pollution flowing to Newport , Bay and the ocean. The project site is under the jurisdictional responsibility of the Santa Ana Region of the California Water Quality Control Board which regulates discharges into the State's waters. As part of its oversight, the state ensures the project is ' implemented in accordance with federal water quality requirements during grading and construction. More specifically, the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 402[p]) requires discharges of stormwater associated with industrial and construction activity to be regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. NPDES compliance requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality control. Site Hydrology , A storm water conveyance system will be constructed to manage storm water flowing onto the site, as well as flows generated onsite. The project site, in its existing ' conditions, drains directly to the bay or the City storm drain system without incorporation of best management practices, Site drainage will be improved and standard Best Management Practices will be included to prevent adverse impacts to bay water quality ' and biology. The incorporation of the measures proposed by the project's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will greatly reduce existing pollutant discharge to the bay. This is considered a beneficial impact on Newport Harbor water quality. ' Storm Water Runoff Fine sediments generated from the construction activities that might be transported to the bay in storm water runoff would result in a localized short-term impact on water quality and bay marine resources. During rainfall events, sediment flowing to the bay would ' increase the concentration of suspended sediments, increasing water turbidity. Because the tidal flushing rate within this section of Newport Harbor is extended in this section of the bay (Everest Consultants, Inc. 2007), the material would tend to stay within the local water mass creating an extended period of higher water turbidity. Reductions in submarine light intensity, slight reductions in primary productivity, and reduced subsurface visibility for sight -foraging fishes and seabirds would be expected. These ' impacts will be mitigated to less than significant with the implementation of the Erosion Control Plan and the Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plan. Project Water Quality Control Plan BMPs will ensure that Newport Harbor marine biological resources will be protected from short-term construction effects. 32 1 ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment With the implementation of the project's long-term WQMP, storm water runoff associated with the project will not result in localized adverse hydraulic effects. ' Improved drainage system along the bay front will reduce storm drain flows to the beach area and will improve water quality compared to conditions that currently exist, resulting in a long-term, beneficial impact to water quality. Improvements to the storm drain ' system and implementing the Water Quality Management Plan BMP provisions will result in no significant impacts to water quality in Newport Bay. 1 Noise and Dust ' Intertidal Sandy Beach Habitats and Resources. Noise, and dust generated from the project may result in a temporary reduction in the quality of the sand beach as resting and foraging habitat for shorebirds and seabirds. This would result in a temporary, less than ' significant impact to these resource groups. Implementation of construction BMPs including the installation of screening around the site will assist in lessening potential construction impacts on seabird and shorebirds. No shorebird or seabird nesting or breeding activity occurs on this local stretch of shoreline further reducing the potential for population -level impacts to these resource groups. ' Open Bay Environment. Demolition, grading, and construction of the marina will produce dust from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles on the site. During high velocity, windy conditions, this dust might be transported into Newport ' Harbor with prevailing northwest winds, or offshore across the Peninsula and to the ocean environment during Santa Ana wind conditions. The addition of dust would result in a short-term, less -than -significant impact that would form a light coating of sediment ' on the water depending on the velocity and duration of the wind event. The deposition of fine dust in the project area could potentially result in a short-term increase of water turbidity and a reduction in photosynthetic processes. Such a reduction would result in a ' slight decrease in photosynthetic activity of bay and ocean phytoplankton. However, there would be no long-term impacts to benthic resources resulting from an increase of dust settling on the water. Because of the expected short duration of any wind events that might generate dust the expected effect will be less -than significant on water quality and marine resources. The ' generation of dust from the construction site will also be mitigated by the inclusion of project water quality management BMPs . ' Pollutant Generation Typical pollutants generated during demolition and marina construction related -activities ' could include heavy metals, toxic chemicals, waste materials and debris, fuel, lubricants and other toxins related to construction equipment and its maintenance. If these ' pollutants enter the bay through airborne or water -borne transport methods, then water quality degradation and potential adverse impacts to marine life could occur, including reduced viability, tissue contamination, and a short-term/and or long term effect on ' plankton, fish, and benthic resources. 33 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment The generation of these pollutants from the construction site will be mitigated by the inclusion and implementation the Water Quality Management Plan and the preparation of both a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and an erosion control plan. Strict adherence to identified source controls and project 13MPs in these documents wilt result in short-term, and less than significant impacts on Newport Harbor water quality and marine resources. In summary, the impacts of demolition and marina construction activities will be less than significant on Newport Harbor and marine resources with the preparation and implementation of the (1) Water Quality Control Plan, and (2) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). These plans and will identify dry season and wet season runoff control measures, source control, and or treatment controls that will be implemented during construction to avoid and/or mitigate potential soil erosion, runoff pollutants, andother storm water constituents. 3.5.2 Marina Construction Marine biological habitats and resources (plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, federally listed and State -listed marine associated species and sensitive habitats) have a potential to be affected by marina dredging and excavation. Figure 5 illustrates the two components required to construct the marina. Table 6 summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed marina project on marine biological resources. Landside excavation will be accomplished using dozers, skip loaders, trucks, and other small equipment. Dredging will involve the removal of bayfloor sediments by either a clam shell dredge or by hydraulic dredge for the purpose of providing necessary depths to accommodate vessels to depths of -12 ft MLLW. In addition, cement piles and metal sheet piles will be driven into the sediments to secure the docks. Pile installation is involved in several areas: a. Building piles: 12 inch square standard building piles. The pile will be jetted to within five feet of tip elevations and then driven with a diesel hammer of 50,000 ft/lb rating, for the final five feet. It is anticipated that the piles will require approximately 20 blows per foot of driving length, in this case for five feet. b. Sheet piles for Bulkhead and Groin Wall: 10 to 12 inch in thickness, 3 to 8 feet in width, interlocking pre -stressed concrete elements. A maximum of 285 sheet piles (311 wide) will be needed to define the basin bulkhead and groin wall. Embedment of these walls below the design dredge depths will be approximately 18 feet to a pile tip elevation of approximately-30.OMLLW. Sheets will be jetted to within two feet of tip elevation and then driven with a diesel hammer of 50,000 ft/lb rating, for the final two feet. It is anticipated that the piles will require approximately 20 blows per foot of driving length, in this case for two feet. c. Guide piles for the Docks: 14 to 24-inch pre -stressed concrete round or octagonal piles. The inner boat basin would likely use 14 and 16-inch piles. The outer long dock and 56 ft finger may utilize 18 to 24 inch piles. The geotechnical consultant has analyzed' all sizes between 14 and 24 34 '1 U 17 u I �J I r ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment inch, and once designed, the Engineer will select the appropriate sized piles for the given loading condition. A maximum of 50 guide piles will be needed to support the basin dock systems. Embedment of these piles below the design dredge depths will be approximately 20 feet to a pile tip elevation of approximately-34.OMLLW. Piles will be jetted to within two feet of tip elevation and then driven with a diesel hammer of 50,000 ft/lb rating, for the final two feet. It is anticipated ' that the piles will require approximately 20 blows per foot of driving length, in this case for two feet. ' d. Gangway Platform Piles: Up to two platforms may be required for the ADA-compliant gangways. Each platform could require up to 4 piles. It is anticipated that 16 inch or 18 inch piles will be required for these platforms. A maximum of 8 piles, 18 inch octagonal, may be ' required for these platforms. Embedment of these piles below the design dredge depths will be approximately 20 feet to a pile tip elevation of approximately-34:OMLLW. Piles will be jetted to within two feet of tip elevation and then driven with a diesel hammer of 50,000 ft/lb rating, for the final two feet. It is anticipated that the piles will require approximately 20 blows per foot of ' driving length, in this case for two feet. One of these two platforms may be eliminated in the final dock layout, depending on cost and layout considerations. ' It is envisioned that the following sequencing of events would occur to build the boat basin: a. Initial excavation (approx 5ft) of the basin with traditional earth -moving equipment. ' b. Installation of building piles c. Installation of bulkhead and groin sheets d. Installation of tieback anchors and backfill e. Dredging of basin and stockpiling of dredge spoils on -site for drying and transport. f. Build -out of buildings and park g. Installation of floating dock and guide pile installation ' There is an approximately 20ft of existing landside groin wall and the edge of the American Legion facility. Due to the inherent risks of removing existing walls that may be providing ' current support to landside structures, this wall would likely be left in -place, and supplemented with a bulkhead or attach a new bulkhead to this existing wall. 1 35 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological impact Assessment Coastal Resources Management.Inc. Table 6. Habitat Losses and Gains. Marina Park Vessel Marina Proiect Habitat Loss Habitat Created NetEffect Miti ation Construction of 0.90 acre of supra tidal 0.90 acre of shallow water 0.90 acre increase of shallow water habitat. Beneficial None required. Short -tern Best Marina Basin (terrestrial), non -marine marine habitat created at depths impact to marine resources and Habitat Area of Particular Management Practices (BMPs) to habitat for construction of of -12 ftMLLW Concern (HAPC).Essential Fish Habitat; provides avoid adverse water quality impacts to marina basin. additional watercolumn habitat for fishes and foraging bay resources None; will remain shallow water seabirds, and soft bottom benthic habitat for benthic Depth modifications of 0.10 habitat invertebrates and bottom -foraging fishes None required. Short-term BMPs to acre of shallow water avoid adverse water quality impacts to marine habitat within and Depths will be -I2 ft MLLW bay resources beyond the pierhead to reach project depths of-12 it MLLNV Dredging of sandy 0.66 acre loss of sandy intertidal habitat. Additional 0.66 acre of shallow watermarinehabitat created at depths to Loss of 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal. Transition from intertidal seabird and shorebird roosting and foraging habitat and Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC). to The loss of 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal will be mitigated at an acceptable location within Newport intertidal to create shallow water habitat for marina -12 ft MLL%V shallow water habitat for benthic invertebrates, fishes and water birds and HAPC. Bay or another southern California embayment based upon a ratio determined -by the project proponent G during theproject permitting phase. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan will be developed that identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included -in the ACOE and the - CCC ermit conditions. Construction of Included in construction of Increased intertidal and subtidal Net increase in biomass of marine community of None required. Short-term BMPs to groin wall around marina basins habitat losses hard bottomhabitatorganisms living on hard substrate. Habitat will support an assemblage of species typical of Newport Bay's hardscape habitat (algae, mussels, limpets, chitons, sea squirts and moss animals) providing a source of food for bay fishes avoid adverse waterqualityimpacts to bay resources the marina and the installation of boat docks and piles 36 1 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment 3.5.2.1 Impacts on Water Quality ' Dredging and marina construction activities will cause a short-term increase in turbidity from the discharging of the suspended fine sediments with the liquefied portion of the ' dredge material. Localized increases in turbidity can also occur as a result of vessel propeller wash from tug and support vessels. Increased turbidity will reduce the amount of available underwater light that could potentially lead to short-term adverse biological ' impacts such as a slight decrease in plankton production, the movement of fishes out of the project area, and an interruption of seabird and shorebird foraging behaviors. The extent and orientation of the dredge plume will depend on the prevailing tidal cycle. With ebbing tides, the plume will dissipate into the main channel, and out towards the harbor entrance channel. Incoming flood tides will cause the turbidity plume to disperse farther up towards the Rhine Channel. However, an increase in turbidity is expected to be a localized, less than significant impact with the implementation of Best Management Practices to limit the spread of any turbidity plumes. ' The sediment -bound particulates resuspended during dredging could potentially affect water quality by releasing detectable levels of trace metals and organic contaminants in the water column. Organically enriched sediments resuspended into the water column during dredging will cause a slight decrease in dissolved oxygen levels. Tidal currents will slowly dissipate the oxygen -poor water mass and replenish ambient oxygen levels. These impacts are expected to be short-term and less than significant, with a return to ambient water quality conditions upon the completion of the dredging project. I Dredge material is being tested to determine its suitability for ocean disposal, if this option for disposal is pursued (Mike Houlihan, Michael Brandman Associates, pers. com. with R. Ware). However, preliminary analysis of sediment samples collected for the Proposed Newport Regency Hotel Project in 2004 at the same project site indicate that the intertidal sediments are greater than 80% sands, and may qualify for beach fill. Sites considered for sand disposal include the Marina Park site (via truck); China Cove, via truck (Newport Harbor); the Marine Center (base of Newport Pier), via truck; 16th Street to 6th Street via barge with near -shore sand disposal (Balboa Peninsula); and 40th Street to 52nd Street via barge with near -shore sand disposal (Balboa Peninsula). The presence of both sensitive habitats and sensitive species at the China Cove and Balboa Peninsula disposal sites and potential impacts to these resources are provided in Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (2009), Appendix D3 of the project EIR. Contaminant levels are relatively low (Petra 2004c). In addition, water discharged from the dredging operations or 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. Accidental oil or fuel spills that could occur during the dredging operation or marina construction could result in significant effects on the fish and wildlife of the Harbor 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 37 1 City of Newport Beach Mori do Park Project CoostnDRcsources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment life. The potential for petroleum -product leaks or spills would be low but the potential for significant, long-term effect on marine resources would be moderate to high. The inclusion and implementation of a Marina Dredging Management Plan will assist in preventing accidental spills and providing the necessary guidelines to follow in case of an oil or fuel spill and reduce the potential for a significant long term impact to be mitigated to less than significant. 3.5.2.2 Dredging, Excavation, and Marina Construction Impacts on Marine Resources Habitat Alterations Table 6 and 'Figure 5 summarize habitat losses and habitat created for the marina. The project will excavate approximately 0.9 acre of upland of dry material to create a portion of the marina to depths of -12 ft MLLW. This action will result in a beneficial increase of 0.9 acre of shallow water habitat. A total of 0.66 acre of sandy beach habitat will be dredged to create shallow water habitat in the marina basin. Consequently, the project will result in a net beneficial increase of 0.24 acre of bay habitat. However, there will be a shift in the acreage of bay habitat types and habitat values as consequence of dredging 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal habitat to create shallow water areas of the marina basin. A total of 0.1 acre of shallow water habitat will be dredged, but will remain shallow water habitat, and thus, no mitigation will be required. A more detailed discussion of habitat losses is provided in the Benthic Invertebrate Impact section (see below). The marina will be enclosed by a cement groin wall. Along with the hardscape of dock floats and 50 pilings this component of the marina will create a substantial amount hard bottom habitat that will support species of marine algae and invertebrates typical of Newport Bay (See Table 4). Plants Dredging will result in the loss of sandy intertidal and soft bottom habitat, upon which the green algae Ulva spp. commonly colonizes. Waterfowl graze on algae as a food source. However, this algae is opportunistic, grows throughout the shallow waters of the bay, and the loss of the algae would be considered a short-term, non significant loss of plant life. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) doe not grow in the project area, precluding any impacts to this sensitive species. Marine plants will not be affected by landside excavation activities. Benthic Invertebrates The intertidal and the subtidal soft bottom habitat of Newport Bay supports a diverse assemblage of benthic invertebrates (i.e., clams, worms, crustaceans) that are important in the detrital food web because they process organics and release nutrients back to the system. Additionally invertebrates are an important food source for shorebirds and 38 I I I I I i I I r I City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment bottom -foraging fishes. Dredging activity will deepen 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal habitat to permanent shallow water subtidal habitat. Once dredging is completed, benthic invertebrates will colonize the portion of the marina basin created from land excavation, as well as bayfloor dredged to -12 ft MLLW, provided that tidal flushing and water quality within the marina basin is maintained to support marine life. The loss of the intertidal sandy beach habitat and associated invertebrate populations would constitute a significant, but mitigable loss of 0.66 acre of intertidal habitat and benthic food resources for foraging shorebirds. The loss of 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal will be mitigated at a mitigation ratio determined by the project proponent during the project permitting phase. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan will be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included in the ACOE and the CCC permit conditions. The project has an overall net benefit with a gain of 0.24 acre of shallow water habitat based upon the creation of 0.66 acre of shallow water habitat from upland habitat, and the loss of 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal habitat (deepened to create shallow water habitat). . Piling and groin wall associated flora and fauna The installation of the groin wall surrounding the marina and the installation of the 55 support piles for the docks will occur following excavation of land soils and following project dredging. Therefore, the installation of the groin wall and piles will not impact marine resources. Piling -and -groin wall associated flora and fauna will colonize the hardscape soon after the groin wall and the piles are installed Within one to three years, the piling community is expected to be fully developed assuming successful recruitment and recolonization occurs and water quality and adequate flushing is maintained. ' Fishes IL] The project area fish community consists of approximately 19 species (Allen 1976). The most common species are shiner surf perch, white surfperch, slough anchovy, and black perch. During summer 2008 surveys at the project site, mullet were also extremely common (Coastal Resources Management, Inc unpublished data). There will be no direct mortality of open water (schooling) fishes during dredging. Some mortality of bottom -dwelling species such as gobies may occur. However, these losses will be short-term as other individuals migrate into the area created for the marina and colonize the newly exposed sediments within one year based upon Allen's (1988) study of how fast fish recolonized the Unit I and Unit II basins following the 1985 dredging project. Secondary impacts of increased water turbidity will be less than significant. A greater -than ambient suspended sediment load related to higher turbidity may reduce the ability of both visual foraging fishes to feed (i.e., surfperch and halibut) and planktivores (i.e., topsmelt, anchovy, juvenile surfperch, and juvenile sciaenid). In addition, water column dissolved oxygen concentrations may decrease due to the resuspension of 39 I City ofNewport 'Bcach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment organically -enriched sediments. These impacts would physiologically stress the fish, and ' result in their temporarily movement out of the area to feed. Turbidity will return to ambient levels upon cessation of dredging through tidal flushing and circulation and fishes would return to the area. Non -Endangered Water Birds ' The most common groups of non -endangered species of water birds to be present within the location of the marina construction and dredging activity are seabirds (gulls, cormorants), waterfowl (mallards), and various shorebirds (i.e., willets, marbled godwits, sanderlings). These species may avoid the marina construction zone due to noise, interruption of resting areas and foraging sites, resulting in a short-term, less than , significant impact on the local water bird population. Roosting areas for seabirds and shorebirds, and intertidal foraging habitat for shorebirds ' will be permanently replaced (see discussion of benthic invertebrates) resulting in a significant impact to bird habitat that would require mitigation as described above (See Benthic Invertebrates). Once construction is completed, marine birds will return to the unaffected areas of sandy beach, and non -endangered species of birds will use the roosting areas of the groin walls. No mortality of marine birds will occur as a result of marina construction or dredging activities. Marine Reptiles ' Marine reptiles are protected under the Endangered Species Act. See Endangered Species Section below. , Marine Mammals All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Act (1972). See Endangered Species Section below. Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or Sensitive Species Plants. No sensitive species of marine plants occur within project intertidal or subtidal , habitats. The nearest eelgrass habitat is located 0.9 mile east of the project area at the Newport Yacht Club (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (2007). Benthic Invertebrates. No sensitive species of benthic invertebrates occur in the project ' area. Fishes. The California halibut is a sensitive marine fish but does not have official status as such. This species is an important commercial and sport fish resource that uses Newport Harbor as nursery habitat. The proposed project does not support a large population of halibut, although some may be present. Dredging activity will temporarily degrade soft bottom subtidal habitat where this species is present, but individuals will 40 u City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment move to non -impacted areas precluding any direct or indirect adverse impacts. Proposed project construction activities will not result in the mortality of any individuals. Habitat ' degradation will be a short-term, less than significant impact on halibut. Once dredging 1 and the marina basins are completed, additional soft bottom and open water habitat will be available for this species provided that tidal flushing and water quality within the marina basin is maintained to support marine life. ' Marine Reptiles. The potential for sea turtles to be in the project area is extremely low. ' No impacts are anticipated on this resource group. Marine Birds. Brown pelicans and California least terns forage in Newport Harbor ' waters in the general vicinity of Marina Park. Turbidity plumes that would spread away from the dredge area could potentially affect their foraging behavior by limiting their ability see their prey, and causing them to search other nearby areas of Newport Harbor ' for food. This could result in a locally significant impact to endangered species, and in particular, the California least tern. Least terns are present in the region between March through late September during their breeding season. They forage within several miles of ' their nesting sites at Bolsa Chica Marsh, and Upper Newport Bay. During this period, adults will forage on juvenile baitfish and take their prey back to their fledglings. Brown pelicans however, do not breed in the project region and therefore, an alteration of their ' foraging behavior would not affect young -on -the -nest. Both species may react to construction disturbances (noise and vessel activity) by also altering their normal foraging behaviors. No direct mortality of endangered seabirds will result from the ' dredging or excavation activities. To mitigate the potential for a locally significant impact to least terns and brown pelicans related to turbidity, a silt curtain should be placed around dredging and excavation ' activity when feasible to limit the spread of any turbidity plumes into Newport Harbor (See Section 4). ' Marine Mammals. ' Dredging and pile driving activities would be a minimum of 250 feet (76 meters) from the nearest vessels in Mooring Area H anchorage. Infrequently, sea lions (and/or harbor seals) may swim to this section of the harbor, and may, on occasion, haul out on improperly -maintained vessels. The impacts of both dredging and pile driving on marine mammals is discussed below. ' Dredging. Both hydraulic and clamshell dredging would be used for the Marina Park project. Hydraulic dredging would be used to remove the upper layer of fine material and clamshell dredging would be used to remove the deeper, sandier portions of the material. ' The measured sound exposure levels of a clamshell dredge may range between 75-88 ' dBA (re 20 /-1Pa) at 50 feet. Animals have been observed flushing from haul out sites at a 41 I City of Newport Bcach Marina Park Project 'Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment sound exposure level of less than 100dBA, and it is possible that marine mammals may modify their behavior as a result of the noise produced by the pile driving and dredging operations. (Source: NMFS comment). The duration of such noise would be short, 30 days and the work at each site would be in different locations and at different times. Based on Port of Los Angeles responses to comments on the Port of Los Angeles 'Channel Deepening Project EIR/EIS, NMFS Comment NMFS 08, page 14-08, April 2009) underwater noise from the clamshell dredging would be 150-162 dB (rel µPa) in LA Harbor, which is below the designated level A harassment threshold of 190 dBrms (re 1 µPa) for pinnipeds. This would imply that clamshell dredging effects for pinnipeds, or any other marine mammals near the Marina Park Project site would be less than significant. Hydraulic dredging activity at the Marina Park project site would result in less sound production than clam, shell dredging, and therefore, will not result in significant sound effects on sea lions or other marine mammals. Pile Driving. Pile driving in the air and water could cause seal lions to temporarily move farther away from these activities, such as to other areas of the bay, although the -sea lions are anticipated to adapt to noise and continue to be present in the general area of marina construction. It is expected that pile driving and dredging activity will occur during a relatively short -period (two months), which limits the potential for adverse effects, if any to occur. Breeding would not be affected because sea lions do not breed in the Harbor. Sound pressure waves in the water caused by pile driving could temporarily affect the hearing of marine mammals (primarily sea lions) if swimming near the proposed marina construction site. The following information is extracted the Port of Los Angeles, Pacific L.A. Marine Terminal LLC Crude Oil Terminal Final SEIS/SEIR 3.3-23 and 3.3 24 in regards to the NMFS comments on the effects of noise in pinnipeds relative to pile driving in L.A. Harbor. "Pinnipeds appear to have greater tolerance to noise levels than cetaceans. Kastelein et al. (2006) demonstrated that captive seals avoid zones where the sound pressure levels were louder than 107 dBrms (re 1 µPa), but noted that it is possible that in the wild, seals may tolerate higher levels, in order to get food, escape predators, or stay with a pup. Finneran et al. (2003) found no measurable Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) at sound pressure levels up to 178 to 183 dB (re 1 µPa) for California sea lions. a sea lion, harbor seal, and northern elephant seal at sound pressure levels over periods of 25 to 50 minutes. Increasing the exposure duration from 25 to 50 minutes had a greater effect on threshold shifts than increasing the exposure level from 80 dB original sound source level (SL) (137 to 159 dBrms re 1 µPa) to 95 dB SL (152 to 174 dBrms re 1 µPa); SELs resulting in TTS onset ranged from about 183 to 206 dB (re 1 µPa2 s). Kastak and Schusterman (1996) reported TTS in California sea lions exposed to airborne noise from nearby construction. 42 'yJ I I� L] 1 I it I I I I I 7 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment Pile driving produces noise levels of 175 to 205 dBrms 177 to 220 dB (re 1 µPa) at 33 ft (10, m) depending on the material and size of the piles (Caltrans 2007, Hastings and Popper 2005). Caltrans (2007) data indicate the sound level for the proposed steel piles could be as high as 195 dBrms at 33 ft (10m). In comparison, an underwater sound level of 180 190 dBrms (re 1 µPa) has been designated as the 12 level A harassment level for pinnipeds (Federal Register 2005), representing a 13 potential effect level for marine mammals occurring close to construction noise 14 sources in the Outer Harbor. Observations during pile driving for the San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge East Span seismic safety project showed minimal response in harbor seals while sea lions swam rapidly out of the area (Caltrans 2001). In water, sound transmission loss is between 3 and 6 dB per doubling of distance, with approximately 4.5 dB per doubling of distance in nearshore waters (Vagle 2003). However, at distances of less than about 330 feet (100 m), the transmission loss (rate of attenuation) can be less (Caltrans 2007). For this project, marine mammals such as pinnipeds could experience sound levels approaching Level A harassment levels at around 100 in (330 feet) from the pile driving. This estimate accounts for the size of the largest steel piles, the power of the hammer that would be required to drive them, the lower rate of attenuation close to the pile, and uncertainty in the sound propagation rate that depends on site -specific characteristics (Caltrans 2007). " Few, if any, individual sea lions or marine mammals would be expected the Marina Park construction site. As discussed in the EIR, any sea lions or other marine mammals present would not be harmed, because they would likely either move out of range of sound produced by pile driving, or they would adapt to expected sound intensities. The effect would be of short duration for each pile, that would occur infrequently over a two - month period during marina dredging and construction. In addition, the time to drive the piles (2 months) in Newport Harbor is expected to reduce the potential for pinnipeds to be present in the project area. The size of the piles to be driven for the Marina Park project (16 and 24 inch piles are smaller in diameter than those typically used for commercial port shipping operations (see above analysis), and therefore, the sound intensity produced for the Marina Park Project is likely to be less than that observed in the Port of Los Angeles. Based on observations at the Marina Park project site, sea lions tend to be present in the spring and summer, and not during the late autumn or winter. Therefore, it would be advisable for the City to drive piles and (conduct dredging operations) during the late - autumn to winter period to lessen the potential for pinnipeds to be affected by pile driving (and dredging) operations. However, the City will add a mitigation measure to the Marina Park project that requires slowly ramping up pile -driving activities (referred to as a "soft start") at the start of pile - driving activities (at the beginning of the day and at restarting of construction after lunch breaks or other pile driving interruptions of longer than 15 minutes). The added mitigation measure reads as follows: 43 Fi Coastal Resources Management, Inc. , City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment The contractor shall be required to use sound abatement techniques to reduce noise and vibrations from pile -driving activities. Sound abatement techniques shall include, but not be limited to, vibration or hydraulic insertion techniques, drilled or augured holes for cast -in -place piles, bubble curtain technology, and sound aprons where feasible. At the initiation of each pile -driving event and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft -start" in which the hammer is operated at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to 60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1-minute interval between each strike for a 5-minute-period. A biological monitor shall be on site to monitor effects on marine mammals. The biological monitor shall also note (surface scan only) whether marine mammals are present within 100 meters (333 ft) of the pile driving and, if any are observed, temporarily halt pile driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance. The operation of the hammer at 40 to 60 percent energy level during the soft start of pile driving is expected to result in similar levels of noise reduction (40 to 60 percent) underwater. Likely sea lions will swim away from the area, after pile driving has occurred. While impacts from pile driving on marine mammals were found to be less than significant in the Marina Park EIR, this mitigation measure will further reduce the potential impact. The soft -start approach to pile driving would also prevent "take" of marine mammals, and therefore, the City believes that an Incidental Harassment Authorization under MMPA will not be required. Based on the expected levels of impacts to marine mammals for the project, mitigation measures identified for reducing pile -driving effects on marine mammals, sound noise levels below that expected to be below that identified as harassment during dredging operations, and current City of Newport Beach measures to ensure sea lions will not haul out in the project area, the City believes that an application to the NMFS for an Incidental Harassment Authorization, under Section 101 of the Marine Mammal Project Act is not necessary. Fishery Management Plan Species (FMP), Essential Fish Habitat Analysis Project activities that could potentially affect identified Coastal Pelagic FMP species (northern anchovy juveniles) and HAPC (estuarine habitat) include increased water turbidity caused by the site excavation, pile installation, and dredging. These impacts could result in (1) the avoidance of juvenile and adult FMP species to the affected, turbid waters, (2) an increase in the suspended sediment load in the water column that could introduce contaminants to FMP species, and (3) the clogging of the gill apparatus of filter feeders (engraulids) that would reduce the ability of the fish to breathe and/or feed. 44 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment Groundfish species are likely to be extremely rare or absent in the Marina Park project area. However, should they be present, the potential for direct mortality on juveniles or adults of is minimal -any impacts resulting from project turbidity would result in species avoiding the project area. Based upon the life histories and the distribution of identified FMP species that indicate coastal pelagic and groundfish-managed species occur in very low abundances in Newport Harbor, and in particular, in the West Newport Harbor project area. The potential for adverse short-term impacts on IMP species related to the Marina Park project is less than significant. Estuaries are considered Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997). The excavation of the landside area will result in creation of 0.9 acres of estuarine habitat for benthic invertebrates, fishes, water fowl and seabirds, and result in a beneficial impact to fishery habitat in Newport Bay. There is no eelgrass in the project area, nor has it historically been present. The alteration of the shoreline at depths to -12 ft MLLW will not result in the loss of potential eelgrass habitat, as defined within the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS, 1991 as amended). Invasive Species ' Caulerpa algae is not present at the site of the proposed marina (CRM 2004). However, a Caulerpa algae survey will be conducted according to the National Marine Fisheries Service Control Protocol (httn //swr ucsd edu/hcd/CauleroaControlProtocol.htm) prior to marina construction. The City will conform to the 2008 Caulerpa Control Protocol, which requires survey results to be submitted to NOAA and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) within 15 days of completion. This protocol also requires that NOAA and CDFG be notified within 24 hours if Caulerpa is identified at a permitted project site. If this species is found, then protocols for the eradication of Caulerpa will be implemented to remove -this species from the project area. 3.6 LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF LANDSIDE OPERATIONS ON WATER QUALITY 3.6.1 Water Quality ' With the implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan and a Storm Water Protection Plan (Section 4), there will be no significant impacts on Newport Bay water quality resulting from the use of Marina Park onshore facilities. 1 45 Fi City of Newport Bcach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment Coastal Resources Management, Inc. ' 3.7 LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF VISITOR USE ON WATER QUALITY The public beach between 10h and IV' Streets will continue to be a popular recreational area, and visitor use will likely increase. The volume of trash and debris generated from beach use will also likely increase. This has a low potential to degrade water quality, and impact marine life, provided that City maintenance of the area continues to be effective. BMPs to reduce the potential for visitor -use impacts on Marina Park should be included in the project's Water Quality Management Plan (Section 4). These could include, but not be limited to adding additional signage to remind visitors to use trash receptacles, and providing conservation brochures to visitors who visit Marina Park. 3.8 LONGTERM MARINA IMPACTS ON MARINE RESOURCES 3.8.1 Water Quality Tidal Flushing. Water quality within the proposed marina will be governed by its flushing capacity (Everest International Consultants, Inc. 2008). Water quality analyses conducted by Everest indicated that tidal flushing rates would be poor and the flushing capacities are well below the EPA guidelines which suggest adequate tidal flushing to maintain water quality of marina basins requires flushing reductions (the amount of a conservative substance that is flushed from the basin) ranging from 70% to 90% over a 24-hour period. Even with eliminating the existing groin system, the improvement is not enough to provide good water quality for the marina basin. Inadequate tidal flushing in the marina basin would result in lowered dissolved oxygen levels, higher water temperatures, poor water transparency, a potential for eutropbication (a process where water bodies receive excess nutrients that stimulate excessive plant growth), and increased sedimentation. Poor tidal flushing would also exacerbate water quality issues in this region of the bay since the tidal flushing rate in this part of the Harbor is already poor (30 days) outside the proposed marina in front of the swimming beach and the American Legion Marina. Poor flushing may also result in the potential for maintenance dredging to remove trapped sediments during the long-term operation of the marina. Maintenance dredging programs, conducted under either the City's Army Corps of Engineers blanket maintenance dredging permit or an Army Corps of Engineers individual dredging permit would result in the periodic removal of soft bottom 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. The short-term impact on water quality would be potentially significant, and also result in short-term significant impacts to marine life, 46 I I C City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment Unless mitigated, poor tidal flushing within the marina would result in a significant, long- term impact on Newport Harbor water quality and would severely limit the colonization of marina habitats by plants, invertebrates and fish. See Section 4 for mitigation measures that will reduce the impact of poor tidal flushing on water quality and marine resources to a less -than -significant impact. Marina Tenant Impacts. Water quality will also be governed by the practices of the tenants relative to their compliance with ordinances, laws, and guidelines related to discharges, vessel maintenance and marina maintenance. Periodic and/or uncontrolled discharges of various pollutants, oils, greases, and wastes will result in a long-term significant adverse effects on water quality and local marine life. Surface runoff from the marina will also be regulated through NPDES permit for storm water discharges. Implementation of the creation and the implementation of a Marina Management Plan (Section 4) will reduce potential long-term water quality impacts to less than significant. 3.8.2 Marine Resources 3.8.2.1 Non -sensitive Plants The presence of marina hardscape (docks, pilings, and groin walls) will promote the growth and establishment of algal species typical of Newport Bay hardscape areas. This will result in a beneficial impact to marine plant productivity assuming water quality and tidal flushing is maintained in the marina. 3.8.2.1 Impacts to Benthic (bottom -dwelling) Resources The loss of the intertidal sandy beach habitat and associated invertebrate populations would constitute a significant, but mitigable loss of 0.66 acre of intertidal habitat and ' benthic food resources for foraging shorebirds. The loss of 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal will be mitigated at an acceptable location within Newport Bay or another southern California embayment based upon a ratio determined by the project proponent during the ' project permitting phase with the knowledge that the project has an overall net gain 0.9 acre of deep water habitat. The shift to shallow water habitat will result in an increase of 0.9 acre of soft bottom subtidal habitat for soft bottom benthic organisms (i.e., clams and ' worms) which is a beneficial impact to marine resources (See Section 3.5.2.3). Mitigation for this loss is described in Section 4. ' Hard substrate of pilings, retaining walls (bulkheads and groins) and docks will be created which will provide attachment surfaces for intertidal and subtidal hardscape associated plants and animals such as algae, barnacles, mussels, limpets, and limpets, resulting in a beneficial impact to hard substrate -associated plants and invertebrates. Many of these organisms are food for fishes. The increased surface area and additional marine habitat afforded by the presence of hard substrate will increase species diversity ' of both invertebrates and algae in the project area which will also attract a greater diversity of fish to the project area because of an increase in food supply and increased habitat diversity. 47 1 City ofNewporl Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. ' Marine Biological Impact Assessment 3.8.1.2 Impacts to Fishes , Marina operation will result in a beneficial impact to fishes (i.e., topsmelt, perch, sand bass, flat fish and sting rays) because an additional 0.9 acre of shallow water habitat will be created, provided that water quality is maintained to support marine life. The addition of the bulkhead wall, pilings, and docks will also attract fishes (i.e., perch) who will forage on plants and invertebrates attached to the hard substrate. Additional soil bottom ' habitat created will provide additional foraging habitat for bottom -feeders, such as flat fish, gobies, and sting rays. 3.8.1.3 Impacts to Non -endangered Shorebirds and Seabirds ' The presence of the new marina will provide seabirds with roosting and open water ' foraging habitat, although this will be at the expense of their current foraging and resting habitat on the existing sandy beach. Both shorebirds and seabirds, however, will also be permanently displaced to the remaining sandy beach habitat west of the marina. In the long-term, there will be a loss of sandy intertidal habitat as a consequence of marine construction (significant but mitigable), as described in Section 3.5.2.3 resulting in a mitigation requirement to offset seabird and shorebird habitat. ' 3.8.1.4 Impacts to Marine Mammals ' See Section 3.8.1.6. 3.8.1.5 Impacts to Endangered Species and Sensitive Species ' Plants. The proposed marina will be excavated and dredged to a depth of -12 fl MLLW, below the depth range in Newport Bay to support eelgrass in this part of the Harbor. ' Therefore, there will be no long-term effects on this species, since appropriate habitat will not be present. ' Invertebrates. No endangeredspecies of invertebrates will be impacted by the presence or the operation of the proposed marina. Fishes. California halibut will be beneficially impacted by the creation of additional soft bottom habitat from (1) the excavation of 0.9 acre of non -marine habitat and the dredging , and deepening of 0.66 acre of intertidal sand beach habitat. This will provide additional shallow water nursery habitat in Newport harbor. Reptiles. The proposed project will have no impact on marine reptiles (sea turtles) due to their absence in Newport Harbor. Marine Mammals. There will be no long-term impacts on marine mammals resulting from the presence or operation of the marina. Although sea lions may occasionally swim 48 I I I City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment into the marina, they are not expected to haul out if measures are taken to deter their presence. Cetaceans (whales and dolphins are not expected to enter this part of Newport Harbor, precluding potential impacts to these species. The City will work with NMFS to ensure that project design features of the Marina Park Project will include design features to low - lowing docks on the water, to non -lethally deter pinnipeds, specifically sea lions, from hauling out. In addition, the City has a City -ordinance, and an in -place program for all commercial and private vessels designed to deter marine mammals from hauling out on vessels. These are described at the City's website at: ' littt ://w),vw city ilewoort-beach ca us/HBR/Sean/`2OLion`/`200rdinance.ndf ' http•//www city newliort-beach ca us/1-IBR/Sean/`2OLion%2ODeterrents.l)df; http7//www.city.newi)ol-t-beach.ca.us/IIBR/Pulibcn/a20Information'/n20btdletin.pdf ' ht_pt •//www city newi)ort-beach ca us/i-IBR/Publica/*201nformation%n2OBuiletin%20- %20Commercial%20(2).pdf ' Based on the expected levels of impacts to marine mammals for the project, mitigation measures identified for reducing pile -driving effects on marine mammals, sound noise levels are expected to be below that identified as harassment during dredging operations, and current City of Newport ' Beach measures to ensure sea lions will not haul out in the project area, the City believes that an application to the NMFS for an Incidental Harassment Authorization, under Section 101 of the Marine Mammal Project Act is not necessary. ' Seabirds. There will be no long-term adverse impacts on endangered species of seabirds resulting from the presence or operation of the marina. The creation of shallow water ' habitat in the new marina will provide additional foraging habitat for these species, resulting in a beneficial impact to endangered species of seabirds. ' 3.8.1.7. Impacts to Fishery Management Plan Species. Based upon the life histories and the distribution of identified IMP species that indicate coastal pelagic and grounditsh-managed species occur in very low abundances in Newport Harbor, the ' potential for long-term, adverse impacts is less than significant. The only managed species likely to be present in Newport Bay will be the northern anchovy, which is unlikely to be benefited or adversely affected in this part of Newport Harbor due to their ' limited numbers. 3.8.1.8 Impact To Sensitive Habitats ' See Section 3.5.2.3 and Table 6 for a discussion of impacts to sensitive habitats. The loss of the intertidal sandy beach habitat and associated invertebrate populations would constitute a significant, but mitigable loss of 0.66 acre of intertidal habitat and benthic food resources for foraging shorebirds. The loss of 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal will be ' mitigated at an acceptable location within Newport Bay or another southern California embayment based upon a ratio determined by the project proponent and ACOE, NMFS, and the CDF&G during the project permitting phase with the knowledge that the project ' has an overall net gain of 0.9 acre of shallow water habitat. Since Newport Harbor is 49 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. ' Marine Biological Impact Assessment considered an estuarine Habitat of Particular Concern (HAPC) under provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997), this loss is considered a significant, but mitigable adverse impact on an HAPC. Mitigation for this , loss is provided in Section 4. 3.8.1.9 Impacts to Invasive Species I Caulelpa is not currently present at the proposed marina site. In the event that it colonizes the marina, an eradication program would be implemented immediately under ' the supervision of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game according to the Caulerpa Eradication Protocol (ht ://swr.ucsd.edt/hcd/CauleMaControlProtocol.htm). Informational and educational pamphlets alerting boaters and visitors of this potentially destructive species should be included in the Marina Management Plan. ' so I� I I I J u I 1 ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment ' 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ' 4.1 RUNOFF WATER QUALITY I F 1 1 Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Planning Documents. With the preparation and implementation of the following documents and all required Best Management Practices contained in the plans, potential water quality impacts on Newport Harbor related to site construction and operation will be reduced to less than significant: • Post -Construction (Operational) Project Water Quality Management Plan and • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Specific BMPs should include: Construction BMPs should include the following: • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed in newly graded areas to prevent grading activities dust to be blown to adjacent areas. • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in contained area allowing proper cleanup. Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering will require approved permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Installation of screening around the site will assist in lessening potential impacts on seabird and shorebirds. 1 Source: Metro Pointe Engineers, Inc. 2004 These plans shall be completed prior to the initiation of construction and included in 51 I City orNewport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment construction bid packages to the contractors and be part of project's long-term management requirements. 4.2 MARINA CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 4.2.1 Planning Documents. A Marina Management Plan shall be developed by the applicant to identify construction and long-term operational BMPs to reduce the level of potential water quality impacts to less than significant. This document shall be developed and included in marine construction bid packages and implemented as a requirement of the long term operation of the project. With the implementation of the Marina Management Plan, and planning documents and Best Management Practices potential water quality impacts on Newport Harbor will be reduced to less than significant. This will significantly reduce the potential for adverse impacts to intertidal and subtidal marine resources, The plan should provide boaters with reasonable BMPs, safety guidelines, and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. In addition, two pamphlets The Guide to Clean, Green Boating (California Department of Fish and Game 1999) and Clean Boating (California Department of Boating and Waterways (undated material) should be distributed and made available to management and marina tenants. These are available through the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department. Clean Marinas California Program (2006) has developed a guidebook for to making marinas environmentally clean facilities and to help protect the state's waterways from pollution. This guidebook is available at http://cleanmarinascalifomia.ore. It is recommended that a copy of this document be kept onsite in the Marina Office. Examples of shoreline and boat dock BMPsI include: • Limiting heavy equipment use to the backshore portions of the beach. • Prohibit boat in -water maintenance and discharge of waste. • Provide easily accessible restrooms and trash receptacles. • Provide fire fighting and spill containment equipment. • Additional BMPs for marina construction and operation will be integrated into the project's Water Quality Management Plan. • Dispose of used oil, antifreeze, paints, and other household chemicals properly. • Avoid spills of hazardous or polluting material and prepare guidelines for remediation of such occurrences. • Affix signs educating user of the property about BMPs. 52 1 C 1 I ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment 1 1 11 [1 1 1 1 1 1 f,l 1 I. 1 1 1 1 1 Scheduled inspections. Long -Term Maintenance: As design progresses, the owner's plan for the long-term and continuous maintenance of all on -site BMP's requiring ongoing maintenance will be developed. This plan will include his acceptance of the responsibility for the on -site maintenance of all structural and treatment control BMPs. Maintenance of a Water Quality Management Plan report, its distribution to lessees, and assignment of specific responsibilities by the owner. 4.2.2 Specific Dredging BMPs to reduce impacts to water quality and marine resources • 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 Newport Bay. • No vessel discharges are allowed within Newport Bay. • Dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. • 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. Dredging and excavation operations will be surrounded with a silt curtain to reduce turbidity from spreading outside the marina construction site and to mitigate the potential for a locally significant impact to endangered brown pelicans and least terns. In addition, Best Management Practices that will further reduce the impact of turbidity include using appropriate machinery when dredging and transporting materials, and employing proper maintenance and operation on equipment (including adequate training, staffing, and working procedures. Turbidity monitoring should be conducted during dredge operations to insure compliance with standards set forth by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. • Treatment of extracted water, if required, 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. • Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. • The dredging contractor shall conduct dredging activities in accordance with the approved dredging permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 53 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 1 Conditions imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game will be incorporated into the project. Should ocean disposal be required for the project, project operations will require that the scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. To prevent long-term impacts on local water quality due to potential tidal flushing issues the following mitigation measure is recommended: 4.2.3 Mitigation for Adverse Water Quality Impacts Related to Poor Flushing in the Marina Mechanical flow enhancement devices should be installed, if feasible, to improve tidal circulation within the marina (Everest International Consultants, Inc. 2008) to mitigate potential 'long-term, adverse impacts on water quality and marine biological resources. Other methods of providing increased circulation should also be considered. 4.2.4 Mitigation for the Loss of Intertidal Soft Bottom Habitat and Seabird/Shorebird Foraging and Roosting Habitat The loss of 0:66 acre of sandy intertidal will be mitigated at an acceptable location within Newport Bay or another southern California embayment based upon a ratio determined by the project proponent and ACOE, NMFS, and the CDF&G during the project permitting phase. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan will be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included in the ACOE and the CCC permit conditions. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. A five-year monitoring program is recommended. The location of a suitable replacement site is under study and shall be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prior to approval of the marina construction permit issued by the ACOE and the California Coastal Commission. An in -lieu fee agreement option for contributing to a permitted or nearly -permitted mitigation project option will also be simultaneously pursued. If the mitigation program is successful, then impacts would be reduced to a level considered legs than significant. 54 11 Ll 0 P I L.J ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment 4.2.5 Marine Biological Resource Monitoring • A construction and post -construction marine biological mitigation monitoring plan will be prepared that will include preconstruction, construction, and post - construction monitoring of the health of marine life at the project site, and a final determination of areas impacted by the project. These monitoring programs should be implemented to ensure that Newport Harbor water quality and marine resources are being protected through the implementation of the Marina Management Plan. This monitoring program should include a phased monitoring of the marina basin and the channel waters in front of the sand beach prior to, during, and following marina construction for a one-year period. If there are no observable, adverse impacts during the first year, then all monitoring will be deemed complete. If ' adverse impacts are observed, then mitigation measures will be re-evaluated and implemented. Monitoring will occur and cease once there are no observable impacts, up to a period of five years. If it is determined that Newport Harbor water quality or marine life have been degraded as a result of the operation of the marina, then adaptive management techniques should be implemented to protect the bay's water quality and marine resources. ' In the event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the City will immediately contact Mr. Joe Cordero, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest ' Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 980-4017) and will submit a report to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. LJ 55 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Marine Biological Impact Assessment 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Coastal Resources Management, Inc. ' 5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVEINO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE This alternative would maintain status -quo marine water quality and marine resources conditions. There would be no loss of marine resources or reduction in soft bottom habitat as a consequence of this alternative. 6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The proposed project will incrementally increase the potential for water quality degradation in Newport Harbor. However, with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, these cumulative impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The project will incrementally reduce the amount of open sand beach and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitat in Newport Harbor, reducing the value of Newport Harbor as a biological habitat for seabirds and shorebirds, It will increase shallow water habitat area for fishes and soft bottom benthic invertebrates. The net loss of 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal habitat is a potentially significant, but mitigable long-term impact. Mitigation for habitat losses, if successful, will result in a less than significant cumulative impact to marine resources. SS ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment ' 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ' Allen, L. A. 1976. Abundance, diversity, seasonality and community structure of the fish populations of Newport Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton. 108pp. ' Allen, L. G. 1988. Final report. Results of a two-year monitoring study on the fish populations 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. ' Barnard, J. L., and D. J. Reish. 1959. Ecology ofAmphipoda and Polychaeta offewport Bay, California. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications. Occasional Paper No. 21. Pp. 1-106. eCalifornia Department of Boating and Waterways. (no date).t Clean boating habits. Sacramento, CA. 23 pp. California Department of Fish and Game Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response. 1999. Guide to clean, green boating. no publication date. Sacramento, CA. ' California Department of Fish and Game. 1953. Biological survey: Lower Newport Bay. Report to the Santa Ana Regional Water Pollution Control Board. Feb 10, ' 1953. Code No.58-8-8. California State Water Resources Control Board. 1998. Sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic community conditions of selected water bodies of the Santa Ana Region. Final report. In association with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region, ' California Department of Fish and Game, University of California, Santa Cruz, and San Jose State University. 33 pp. plus appendices. ' Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (in progress). Newport Harbor oceanographic field survey investigation: 2008-2010 submarine light, temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and salinity in Newport Harbor. Under contract to the City of Newport Beach ' Harbor Resources Division. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2009. Sensitive species and habitats in the vicinity of sand disposal sites in China Cove (Newport Bay) and on the Balboa Peninsula for the proposed City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project in Newport Harbor, ' California. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. October 15th, 2009. 1 57 City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2007. Distribution and abundance of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Newport Bay GIS Map. 2006-2007. Eeggrass habitat mapping project. Bulkhead to pierhead line surveys. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. Map available on City of Newport Beach Website. Coastal Resources Management. 2005, Results of bay -wide eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat mapping surveys in Newport Bay, December 2003April 2004. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department. GIS maps of eelgrass habitat and density information. March 2005. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2004. Marine biological impact assessment. Marinapark Resort and Community Plan. Prepared for Michael Brandman Associates. April 2004. 50 pp. Coastal Resources Management. 1999. Marine biological impact assessment. Voit residence seawall replacement project. Balboa Peninsula, Newport Beach, CA. 20 pp. plus appendices. Coastal Resources Management and Chambers Group, Inc. 2002. City of Newport Beach, California. Local Coastal Plan Biological Appendix. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. November 2002. 101 pp plus appendices. Coastal Resources Management 2000. Marine biological resources impact assessment (draft) for the Southcoast Shipyard redevelopment project, Newport Bay, CA. Prepared for Shellmaker, Inc. and Southcoast Shipyards. Prepared by R. Ware. 15 pp. Draft Report. May 2000. Coastal Resources Management. 1993. Upper Newport Bay environmental evaluation. Appendix E, Marine and Estuarine Resources in: Upper Newport Bay Reconnaissance Study. Final Report. Prepared by R. Ware for Coastal Frontiers Corporation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 202 pp. I u I I C I Coast Keepers, 2001. Caulerpa taxifolia survey. Map of Caulerpa sampling sites and , identification of eelgrass bed locations in areas where surveys were conducted. Map prepared for the City of Newport Beach. July 2001. Computer CD-ROM, GIS format. ■ County of Orange. 1978. Environmental studies in Newport Bay. Orange County Human Services Agency. Various pp. Daugherty, S. J. 1978. Benthie ecology. In: Environmental Studies in Newport Bay. Orange County Human Services Agency, Environmental Health Division. Santa Ana, California. Pp. 129-192 58 , II City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment ' Dawson, C. M. 1963. Benthic ecology in the entrance channel of Newport Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, University of Southern California. 112 pp ' Everest International Consultants, Inc. 2008. City of Newport Beach Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study (Draft). Prepared for URS, Inc. and the City of Newport Beach. Hamilton Biological Inc. 2009. CEQA evaluation of potential effects of Marina Park ' sand disposal project on birds. Letter report prepared for Coastal Resources Management, Inc. October 12th, 2009. 12 pp. ' Harbor Resources Division, City of Newport Beach. Unpublished PowerPoint presentation on Rhine Channel toxicity. ' Long, E. R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment absorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 62. National Oceanic and ' Atmospheric Administration, Seattle Washington. 86pp. Marine Biological Consultants (MBC) 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. ' MEC Analytical Services, Inc. 1997. Biological resources of Upper Newport Bay, California. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District. ' Contract Number DACW09-D-003. November 1997.71 pp. plus appendices. Metro Point, Engineers, Inc. 2004. Drainage technical study. Hydrology, hydraulic ' calculations, and water quality management plan for the Regent Newport. W. Balboa Blvd, Newport Beach, CA Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, January 2004. Revised February 2004. Newport Beach (City of). 2008. Marina Park Initial Study. Newport Beach Planning Department. May 22, 2008. ' National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) evaluation for the Balboa Marina Project, Newport Beach, Ca. February, 2008. Prepared by Robert Hoffman, NMFS, Long Beach, CA. 4 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. (no date). Undated brochure on the noxious algae Caulerpa taxifolia. 59 City orNewport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. (Revised 1999). Southern California eelgrass mitigation policy. 4pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001, Caulerpa eradication protocol. Revised October 2003. littl2://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/Caule[paControlProtocol.htin Petra Geotechnical, Inc. 2004a. Limited Phase 11 Site Assessment, Regent Marina Site. Prepared for Cash & Associates.. 17 February 2004. 6 pp plus tables. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. 2004b. Limited Phase 11Environmental Site Assessment, Regent Marina site, located west of Bay Avenue and north of Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. 7 pp. plus appendices. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. 2004c. Sediment chemical data for the Southcoast Shipyard Project in: Harbor Resources Department, City of Newport Beach unpublished PowerPoint presentation. Quammen, M. L. 1980. The impact of predation by shorebirds, benthic feeding fishes, and a crab on the shallow living invertebrates in intertidal mudjlats of two southern California lagoons. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine. 132 pp. Seapy, R. R. 1981. Structure, distribution, and seasonal dynamics of the benthic community in upper Newport Bay, California. Department of Fish and Game. Marine Resources Technical Report No. 46.74 pp. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2003. Chemistry and toxicity in Rhine Channel sediments. Final reort. Technical Report#391. Prepared by Stephen Bay and Jeffrey Brown. May 16', 2003. 14 pp. plus appendices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (ACOE) 2000. Upper Newport Bay ecosystem restoration feasibility study. ACOE Los Angeles District. F4/AFB Main Report. Dart Environmental Impact Statement/Report. Los Angeles District. January 2000. Walker, Boyd W. 1952. A guide to the grunion. Calif. Fish Game 38 (3):410.420. Ware, R. R. 1985, Section IV. Marine biological assessment of the DeAnza mudflats and marsh peninsula. In: DeAnza Peninsula Marina Feasibility Study. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 28 June, 1985.38 pp 1 I 1 I CI, i Ii 60 1 ' City of Newport Beach Marina Park Project Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marine Biological Impact Assessment I 1 I I J u J Appendix 1. Pelagic and Groundfish Fishery Management Plan Species Potentially Present in Newport Bay Common Name Scientific Name Comment Coastal Pelagics FMP Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax Upper Newport Bay Absent in Upper Newport Bay (Allen, 1976) 1 individual in Upper Newport Bay (MBC and SCCCWRP, 1980; Eighth most abundant species in Upper Bay (Horn and Allen, 1981); Seventh most abundant species in Upper Newport Bay (Allen, 1988); Not among 10 most dominant species in Upper Newport Bay (MBC 1997 in MEC 1997); Engraulid juveniles abundant (1,844) in purse seines in Upper Newport Bay (MEC 1997); Lower Newport Bay Present (13) in Lower Newport Bay (Allen, 1976) Pacific sardine Sardino s sa ax Rare 1 in Lower Newport Bay (Allen, 1976 Pacific mackerel Scomber japonicus rare 1 in Lower Newport Bay Allen, 1976 Jack mackerel Trachurus none reported s mmetricus Pacific Groundfish FMP English sole Parophrys vetulus rare (1) in Upper Newport Bay (Allen, 1976) rare 1 in Lower Newport Ba Allen, 1976 Pacific sanddab Citharichth s sordidus none reported Leopard shark Triakis semifasciata rare (1) in Upper Newport Bay (Allen, 1976) Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis none reported California scorpion Scorpaena guttata rare (1) in Lower Newport Bay (Allen, 1976) fish Olive rockfish Sebastes serranoides Rockfish, unid) Sebastes sp. rare (1) in Lower Newport Bay (Allen, 1976) Cabezon Scorpaenichthys none reported marmoratus 61 Draft REIR I Appendix D.3. Dredge Disposal Area Evaluations 1 1 1 I J 1 1 ' Sirius Environmental ' MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT HABITATS AND SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF PROPOSED BEACH REPLENISHMENT FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MARINA PARK PROJECT ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA I C 1 I "ter Prepared for: ' The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: Mark Reader, Project Manager I Prepared by: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. PMB 327, 3334 E. Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Contact: Rick Ware, Principal/Senior Marine Biologist (949)412-9446 October 23`", 2009 L ' CONTENTS TABLE OF ' Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 ' 3 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.................................................................................................... 2.1 Habitat Types and General Biological Characteristics in the Project Area .................. 3 ' 2.2 Non -Protected Special and Unique Habitats................................................................... 11 2.3 Marine Protected Areas................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Sensitive Species............................................................................................................. 12 ' 2.5 Essential Fish Habitat...................................................................................................... 22 2.6 Invasive Species.............................................................................................................. 24 ' 3.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................................................... 26 3.1 Description of Preferred Project Alternative.................................................................... 26 ' 3.2 Definitions of Significant Impacts.................................................................................. 26 3.3 Water and Sediment Quality Impacts............................................................................... 27 Non Marine Resources 31 3.4 Impacts on -Sensitive .................................................................. 3.5 Long Term Operational Impacts....................................................................................... 42 4.0 LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................................. 44 ' 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................................ 45 ' LIST OF TABLES page Table 1 Summary of Sand Disposal Options for the Marina Park Project ............................................ 1 2 Special Status Species............................................................................................................. 14 LIST OF FIGURES ' Figure Page 1 China Cove Sand Disposal Site.................................................................................................... 2 2 Balboa Peninsula Sand Disposal Sites.......................................................................................... 2 4 3 China Cove Beach Disposal Site.................................................................................................. 4 China Cove Beach -Rocky Outcrop in the Center of the Cove ................................................... 4 ' 5 Site A, Near -Shore Disposal Site. 44th Street to 52nd Street ...................................................... 6 6 6 Site A, 44th Street to 45'h Street Coastal Erosion.......................................................................... 7 Site B, 6'h Street Moderately -Sloped Foreshore and High Wave Run-up .................................. 7 ' 8 Site B, Near -Shore Sand Disposal Site Shoreline-16` to 6` Street ............................................. 7 9 Marine Center Project Area at Newport Pier................................................................................ 10 Marine Center Sand Disposal Area, Facing West............................................................... ....... ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I LIST OF FIGURES 1 Figure (continued) Pace 11 Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study. Grain Size Distribution .............................. 9 12 Eelgrass Distribution in China Cove. 2007.........................................................................I....1. 12 13. Newport Bay Eelgrass Distribution. 2003-2007....................................................................... 13 14. The Invasive Algae, Caulerpa taxifolia....................................................................................... 24 15. Undaria pinnatifida....................................................................................................................... 25 16. Typical Near -Shore Disposal Plan............................................................................................... 29 LIST OF APPENDICES 1 CEQA Evaluation of Potential Effects of Marina Park Sand Disposal Project on Birds...............46 2 Example of Monitoring Options for Beach and Near -Shore Sand Disposal .............................. 46 Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I i I I I I L I 11 i I 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Newport Beach is proposing to develop a public park for passive and active activities between 15tb and 190' Street, in Newport Beach, Califomia. The passive area will include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and a half -court basketball court. Sailing facilities to be developed at the site include a public short- term visiting vessel marina and a sailing center that will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. A restaurant will be located on top of the Balboa/Sailing center and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing classes. The City of Newport Beach proposes to use sandy material excavated from the site as beach fill material along the Balboa Peninsula and in China Cove (Newport Bay). The sites proposed for beach replenishment, amount of material each site can accommodate, disposal method, and location of disposal (on beach or nearshore) are shown in Table I and illustrated in Figure 1-3. In addition to these sites, some fill will be required for the project (on -site), and approximately 3,000 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated material will be disposed at an upland disposal site which accepts contaminated material. The location of this site is unknown at this time. Dredged material meeting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) criteria and the following criteria for beach replenishment may be deposited as beach nourishment in accordance with project plans: Material utilized for beach nourishment shall have a sand content that is either 1) greater than 80% sand; or 2) at least 75% sand and within 10% of the sand content of the receiver beach. Any material that meets these requirements for beach nourishment and consists of less than 80% sand shall only be placed upon submerged beach areas (i.e. below the water line) (Source: California Coastal Commission, 2006). ' Table 1. Summary of Sand Disposal Options for the Marina Park Project In Newport Bay and along the Balboa Peninsula (Source: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department C� 1 1 I Location Amount of Material Disposal Method Area of Disposal China Cove, 5,000 cubic yards via Truck Sand Beach Newport Bay (cy) 110 x 110 sq ft sand beach fill area Marine Center, Up to 10,000 cy via Truck Sand Beach Newport Pier Site A Near -shore Up to 45,000 cy via Barge Nearshore Dis�osal Site 4,570 ft long length 40 St. to 52nd St. of nearshore habitat Balboa Peninsula Site B Near -shore Up to 45,000 cy via Barge Nearshore Disposal Site (2,450 ft long length 16'b St. to 6th St. of nearshore habitat) Balboa Peninsula In response to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marine Park Project EIR, (No. 2008051096) that requested more information on the presence of sensitive habitats potentially within sand disposal areas (Comment A64), this report identifies sensitive resources and assesses the potential Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I 2 Figure 1. China Cove Sand Disposal Site Figure 2. Balboa Peninsula Sand Disposal Sites. Upper left is the Site A, 407-to 52nd St. nearshore disposal site; middle (Newport Pier) is the Marine Center Site; and the lower right site is the Site B, 16d' to 61h St. nearshore disposal site. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 1 3 effects of sand disposal on biological habitats and resources groups, including sensitive habitats and sensitive species. Where applicable, Best Management and mitigation measures are provided to lessen potential adverse environmental impacts on marine resources. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing biological conditions discussed in this study are based upon: (1) site visits to each of the project sites by Rick Ware, Senior Marine Biologist of Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) and Robb Hamilton, President/Biologist of Hamilton Biological, Inc. on September 300, 2009 and October 12s'; (2) applicable scientific data bases, (3) literature and reports; and (4) communications with local wildlife experts. The assessment of project impacts on birds (Hamilton Biological Inc.) is presented in Appendix 1. ' 2.1 HABITAT TYPES AND GENERAL BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE ' PROJECT AREA 2.1.1 China Cove is located near the entrance to Newport Harbor, along the Corona del Mar ' shoreline (Figure 1). The area is a residential community that fronts a sandy beach and the entrance channel to Newport Harbor (Figures 2 and 3). A cement bulkhead is located along its backshore perimeter. The two sand beaches in the cove consist of fine-grained, imported sand, ' and these beaches are susceptible to sand loss. The backshore vegetation at the site consists of only terrestrial plants- Highway Iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis) and Washington Fan Palm (Washingtonia filifera), both non-native invasive species. ' The foreshore is a wide, low -tide terrace that grades into a fine-grained shallow subtidal bayfloor colonized by eelgrass (Zostera marina). See Section 2.4.1 for a discussion of eelgrass. At the south end of the cove, the shoreline is a combination of bulkhead and rocky intertidal that is colonized by green, red, and brown algae, and invertebrates such as mussels, anemones, barnacles, and limpets. The marine biological community living on the low -intertidal rocky substrate in Carnation Cove (immediately north of China Cove) supports high cover of the scaly worm snail (Serpulorbis squamigerus), and secondary, lower biological cover of barnacles (Balanus spp.), mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis), green algae (Enteromorpha/Ulva complex), and brown ' algae (Sargassum muticum, and Codium fragile (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008). Invertebrates observed on the shallow subtidal rock outside the cove included Kellet's whelk (Kelletia kelletti), ochre sea star (Pisaster ochraceus), warty sea cucumber (Parastichopus parvimensis), and lobster (Panulirus interruptus). These species would be expected occur in the rocky intertidal facing the Entrance Channel around the perimeter of China Cove as well. The rocky intertidal transitions into the sandy subtidal bayfloor of the entrance channel. One small rocky intertidal outcrop is present in the middle of China Cove, that is located 175 feet away from the proposed beach replenishment activity . Bird life in the cove is variable, and typical of beach sites in Newport Bay. A Western Gull and a Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) were observed at this site during the sensitive bird species reconnaissance survey, and it is likely that other common bird species such as the willet and marbled godwit forage or roost here on occasion. Other birds observed at the site have included great blue heron and great egret, both on the docks of the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory (R. Ware, pers. obs). The site is ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 1 4 too small and close to residences to provide habitat for any bird species that is not highly adapted to conspicuous human presence. Figure 3. China Cove Beach Disposal Site Figure 4. China Cove Beach. A rocky outcrop is located in the center of the cove 175 feet north of the disposal site. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marian Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 5 ' 2.1.2 Balboa Peninsula Sandy Beaches. Along the ocean side of the Balboa Peninsula, moderate -to -high energy sand beaches extend between the Santa Ana River Mouth and the entrance to Newport Harbor. The section of Newport's shoreline between the Santa Ana River Mouth and Newport Pier is also interspersed with rock groins that serve to stabilize the sandy shoreline. Photographs of shoreline at the three Peninsula sand replenishment sites are shown in Figures 5-6 (Site A, 40th to 52nd Street; Figures 7-8 (Site B, Site 6th Street to 16th Street); and Figures 9-10 (Marine Center, Newport Pier). Based on the results of the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study grain size distribution analysis (USACOE, 2002), West Newport has coarse sand between 0.4 to 0.5 millimeters in diameter, and Balboa Peninsula has coarser sand of between 0.5 and 0.6 mm in diameter (Figure 11). Beach slopes in West Newport are relatively steep compared to other beaches, but the Peninsula has the steepest beaches due to the coarsest sand. Slopes at West Newport are 10:1 (horizontal:vertical) while those at the Peninsula ' are up to 5:1 in some areas. Typical beach slopes are between 10:1 and 20:1. Erosion between the beach groins typically occurs on the downcoast side of each groin, creating beach scarps and loss of beach sand (Figure 6). Offshore, sediments tend to be fine-grained silty -sand to silts at ' depths between -6 to -30 ft. There are no nearshore reefs, although rock groins provide substrate for both intertidal and subtidal species associated with reefs and hardscape. The backshore of the sandy beaches east of the Newport Pier support some dune vegetation on unstablized dunes, usually immediately adjacent to open beach (Coastal Resources Management, and Chambers Group, Inc. 2003). Southern coastal foredunes extends along the open sandy beaches from 10`s Street to the end of the Balboa Peninsula. The soil is nutrient -poor and the community is exposed to continuous wind. Dominant plant species include red sand -verbena (Abronia maritima), sea rocket (Cakile maritima), beach primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia), ' sea -fig (Carpobrotus edulis), iceplant (Mesembryanthemum sp.), beach morning glory (Calystegia soldanella), sand mat (Cardionema ramosissima), and beach bur (Ambrosia chamissonis). Sandy beaches support relatively few intertidal organisms compared to rocky intertidal areas due to generally intolerant physical conditions such as seasonal losses of beach sands and extreme ' variations in temperatures. Beach hoppers (amphipods), sand crabs (Emerita analogs), and a limited diversity of polychaete worms are representative intertidal beach organisms. In addition, the California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) is known to spawn along Newport Beach between 1 March and September. See discussion of California grunion in Section 2.4.4. The proposed sand disposal site at the Marine Center is located between the base of Newport Pier and the southern terminus of 19s' Street (Figure 9-10). The site consists of open, sandy beach that Just north of the pier is a fish cleaning area that routinely attracts large numbers of gulls (Larus spp.) and some Brown Pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), as well as Royal Terns (Thalasseus maximus) and Elegant Terns (Thalasseus elegans) (Hamilton Biological, Inc, 2009). Various common shorebird species forage in the intertidal zone at this location, including the Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa), and Sanderling ' (Calidris alba). Otherwise, bird use of this area will generally be limited to such highly adaptable species as the Rock Pigeon (Columba livia), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Mmagement, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I Figure 6. Site A - Street Coastal Erosion Street Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I 7 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i J 1 1 C 1 1 1 Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 1 8 it Figure 10. Marine Center Sand Disposal Area, Facing West Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 � nnl!!ii!!llilni IIIIIII��IIlIlIII 111111111111111 mm�nnnn umnmm�lil - �, �; m._.. --- ... , , = mnnmm�n IIII IIIIIIIIuI nmmunmwnnn,,'n'm,riian'',:,; nn[Iili[� ' - �� „ • • _: •. :: " - " [Illlllllllllllgllll�n�I1.NCAlI lull IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiaidl'_illgslll nii[lI,I[I[iIlll;;� i�R ��"��lii� 1I1��1 Ili Iillllll�l�l;Ilnr_�n�alall 111111��111�11 IIIIIIIIIO��[;11111[;1111 INil lil11111111111111MIR IR-i l nl - imll��lgqi?II 11119111IIII1A01,0 111N�lI E�Illlllllllllnllllll[--•� mnnummmnml[_uri:.i[n�n Imnnnnmm�mnh-- ��_.niiin .. liRlllllllRi!!l!l!lll� ��u'llo,�■::;ll 1pll[�' Illllln!lIIII;1111111111!!IC 111111 IIII IIIIIIIn1a1!n; Il111111lII�IlI�lIR: . all .3 1111111 :::amnnun[il-milliiinc 11 IMP-EM"Ill'"ll Ill,: • nIIMlIRIIIIII�iIIIliiiii�i��y� Rock groins (West Newport, Figures 5-6) provide a stable biological habitat for many coastal 1 species. while the surfaces of these structures within the littoral (tide) zone provide attachment area for intertidal and subtidal algae and invertebrates, cryptic habitat for resident fishes, and foraging areas for fish that prey on small invertebrates and graze on algae that attach to the structure. Sand movement will alternately expose and cover lower areas at the base of these rocks, creating stressful conditions for invertebrates and plants resulting in highly variable abundances over the course of a season and between years. Common invertebrates observed on Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 1 10 the rock groins at 44t' Street during the site reconnaissance survey on 30 September 2009 included California mussels (Mytilus californianus), goose -neck barnacles (Pollicipes polymerus), anemones (Anthopleura Bola), and the barnacles Chthamalus fssus/dalli and Balanus glandula. The groins adjacent to the westerly Site A provide foraging and roosting habitat for birds of the rocky shore, including the Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani), Black Tumstone (Arenaria melanocephala), and Surfbird (Aphriza virgata) and perching sites for birds such as pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis occidentalis), cormorants (Phalocorax spp.), and sea gulls (Larus spp.). 2.13 Balboa Peninsula Near -Shore Waters. Sand beaches grade into subtidal fine sands and silts that become progressively finer with increasing depth and decreasing wave energy outside the wave zone. The distribution of these sediments is affected by several factors, including input of sediments from the Santa Ana River, normal longshore current patterns, the obstruction and alternation of longshore current patterns by the Newport Beach groin fields, and the Newport Harbor jetty that modifies patterns of water and sediment movement. Within the project area, sandy -to -silty sediments are present where depths vary from -2 ft MLLW immediately to depths of -20 and -30 ft approximately 1,000 ft offshore. The median grain size at depths of -12 ft (3.7 in) along West Newport between the Santa Ana River and 40 St were coarser than the Balboa beaches east of the pier where the median grain size at this depth was generally less than 0.2 mm. This shift in grain sizes may be in part, due to the effects of the Newport Submarine Canyon. Outside of the -12 ft isobath, sediments tend to become siltier, with increasing depth. These sediments support a benthic community of invertebrates such as sea pansies (Renilla kolkerii), sea pens (Stylatula elongata), polychaete worms (Diopatra ornata/D. splendissima), crustaceans (amphipods, isopods, cumaceans and ostracods), snails (Olivella biplicata), ophiuroid brittle stars (Amphiodia sp.), sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus), sea stars (Pisaster brevispinus), and sand stars (Astropecten armatus). Various gulls are also often seen roosting along the beaches and in the water just past the breakers. Fishes of the sandy surf zone habitat include topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata), walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum), barred surfperch (Amphisticus argenteus), dwarf surfperch (Micrometrus minimus), California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), and round sting ray (Urolophus halleri). Common open coastal water column and/or demersal fishes associated with sand bottom habitats offshore of Newport Beach include white croaker, halibut, barred sand bass, sand dabs (Citharichthys stigmaeus), horny head turbot (Pleuronichthys verticalis), bat ray (Myliobatis californica), staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and lizard fish (Synodus lucioceps). The near -shore waters in the vicinity of Near -shore Disposal Sites A and B provide potential foraging habitat for limited numbers of such common species as the Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), and Double -crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 11 I I I I i I I I 1 I I 2.2 NON -PROTECTED SPECIAL AND UNIQUE HABITATS 2.3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC). The project area does not fall within any areas of reef, kelp bed, estuarine, or eelgrass habitat, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish FMP, (i.e., rockfishes). The nearest HAPC are Newport Bay and the subtidal and intertidal reefs south of the Newport Harbor Channel Entrance. HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of Essential Fish Habitat that are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997). However, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007). 2.3.2 Newport Beach Submarine Canyon. Although the Newport Submarine Canyon is not a protected habitat, it is a unique coastal feature that begins immediately seaward of the Newport Pier at a depth of 8 meters (25 ft) Bottom depths rapidly increase to nearly 30 meters (100 ft) within 400 meters (1,200 ft) from shore and 100 meters (300 ft) deep within 1,300 meters (3,900 ft) from shore (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2002). This geological feature is believed to have been formed by the ancestral Santa Ana River, and it is the exit pathway for southward - moving sands transported through littoral drift currents at the end of the San Pedro Littoral Cell. In an effort to reduce the sand loss, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) constructed groins along West Newport to hold the sand, which has been partially successful. Biologically, the submarine canyon is unique because it acts as a pathway for cold, nutrient -rich waters that upwell from deeper offshore waters to the shallower nearshore shelf. Additionally, the Canyon acts as a pathway through which deeper water species of fish, squid, shark, and jellyfish) sometimes can be found close to shore. The Canyon is also an important fishing zone for the Newport Dory Fleet. 2.3 MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 2.2.1 State and City Protected Areas. China Cove and the Balboa Peninsula are not located within the boundaries of City, State, or Federal marine protected areas, nor are identified within any of three proposals that are being evaluated to update the limits of MPAs in the South Coast Study Region(htip://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/sers2-dprons-r3.asp). The nearest local and state -marine protected area is the City of Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge (Area of Special Biological Significant #32, Robert C. Badham ASBS), located in Corona del Mar east of the entrance jetty. This marine refuge is located 0.5 mi from China Cove, 3.5 miles from 6" Street to 16`s Street nearshore sand disposal site, and 4.3 miles from the 44b to 52ul Street nearshore sand disposal site. The City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan (City of Newport Beach, 2004) identifies giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) beds along the west jetty in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel as Environmental Study Area Number 13, because kelp forests afford protection and cover for many marine invertebrates and fishes, they are a persistent feature within the Entrance Channel, and because there is a potential for kelp to be affected by future dredging activity in the Entrance Channel. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I 12 The head of the Canyon is located at the tip of Newport Pier but is not within the proposed near -shore sand disposal sites. It is located 0.9 mi southeast of Site A near -shore sand disposal area and 0.4 mi northwest of the Site B near -shore sand disposal site. 2A SENSITIVE SPECIES Sensitive species that may be present within the project area are listed in Table 2 and discussed below. 2.4.1. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Although not identified as a City designated Environmental Study Area, eelgrass habitat extends between the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel and Upper Newport Bay, and back through Mariner's Mile (Figure 12, Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2005, 2008). Most eelgrass is found between the harbor entrance channel and Linda Isle. Eelgrass occurs in the intertidal and subtidal habitats of China Cove, at depths between 0.0 and -12 feet (ft) Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). It lies approximately 100 ft from the edge of the proposed sand disposal site. While it occurs in the Harbor Entrance Channel, it has not been reported to occur in the nearshore shallow subtidal habitat offshore of the Balboa Peninsula in the vicinity of the either Site A or Site B near - shore sand disposal sites. 2.4.2 Surfgrass (PhyUospad& torreyi) Surfgrass is a sensitive marine resource that occurs in rocky shoreline and rocky subtidal habitats at depths to approximately 20 feet. Its sensitivity is related to its use by invertebrates and fishes as nursery habitat and its susceptibility to long-term damage because it is a very slow growing species. Revegetation occurs very slowly through initial seeding and eventually the spreading of roots and rhizomes over surfaces of rocks. Surfgrass is considered to be a Habitat of Particular Concern by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and juvenile olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides) which are Figure 12. Newport Bay Eelgrass Distribution. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (2009) Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 13 u'E 0 1 Mlle9 Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2006-2008 • 2003-2004 Figure 13. Newport Bay Eelgrass Distribution. Source: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (2009). Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. V Table 2. Special Status Species Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to occur Plants Macrocystis pyrifera giant kelp Habitat Area of - Nearshore rocky subtidal habitat None; not present in the project Particular Concern areas. (HAPC) for Fisheries Management Plan (IMP) Species under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Phyllospadix torreyi surfgrass HAPC for FMP Species — Nearshore rocky intertidal/rocky Low potential to be present on the subtidal groins located along West Newport Zosrera marina eelgrass Habitat Area of — Bays, harbors, shallow nearshore Present in China Cove; absent along Particular Concern water sediments the Balboa Peninsula (HAPC) for Fisheries Management Plan (IMP) Species under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Invertebrates Hahotts spp. Black abalone FE Rocky intertidal and subtidal reefs No potential Tivela stultorum Pismo clam no status no status, although it Low intertidal sandy beaches and Potential unknown, due to limited is considered a nearshore sandy sediments at depths knowledge of the Pismo clam recreational fishery to about 80 feet; common in shallow population along the Newport resource water surf -zone depths shoreline. Fishes Eucyclogobius newberryi Tidewater goby FE — Shallow marine waters, lower reaches No potential, extirpated from of streams Orange County Leuresthes tennis California grunion — — Spawns on local open coastal beaches High potential to be present in the vicinity of the Balboa Peninsula Protected under California State Subtidal rocky reef habitat; resident None in West Newport Bay; does Hypsypops mbicundus California garibaldi commercial and sport Marine Fish , and territorial species in shallow occur near the harbor entrance fish regulations Assembly Bill subtidal rocky habitats channel in rocky subtidal AB77, 1995 environment Paralichthys californicus I California halibut — — Shallow coastal waters, open ocean High potential Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. M M M M W M M s M M M M M M" M M M 15 Scientific Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NMFS Status Chelonia mydas Green turtle FE — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor but unlikely to occur in the waters of West Newport Bay Erelmochelys imbricata Hawksbill sea turtle FE — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor but unlikely to occur in the waters of West Newport Bay Birds FE Does not nest in local area; non- Pelecanus occidentalis California Brown (delisting CE breeders roost in estuaries and on Known to forage and rests in the colifornicus Pelican proposed) beaches and breakwaters, and forage project area. in bays and near -shore waters. Nests at Upper Newport Bay; likely Nests on islands with expanses of bare to forage in project area. Skimmers ground; in winter, commonly roosts forage on small fish and possibly Rynchops niger Black Skimmer — SSC l on beaches well above the tide line or crustaceans in ponds, estuaries, on mud flats estuaries. bays, and in the nearshore waters, usually within a few miles of nesting sites. Nests at Upper Newport Bay and at the mouth of the Santa Ana River; moderate potential to forage Slernu(a antillarum brorvni California Least Tern FE CE Nests on sparsely vegetated flat substrates, forages in nearby waters. occasionally in project area. Least Tems forage on small fish in ponds, estuaries, bays, and in the nearshore waters, usually within 5 miles of nesting sites. No potential for breeding in the project area; low potential for occurrence by non -breeders. Nearest nesting location is -at the Nests on sandy beaches and shores. mouth of the Santa Ana River. Charadrius alexandrinus Western Snowy Plover FT SSC Non -breeders fom a and roost on g Repeated surveys by local Snowy Plover monitors have identified nivosns sandy beaches and shores, typically only one regular wintert roost on the using the same areas year after year. Newport Peninsula, 2.0 miles southeast of Newport Pier, on the beach between E and F streets, where 62 plovers were present on 5 October 2009 (Peter Knapp pers. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. comm.). Scientific Name Common Name USF%VS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NMFS Status Mammals Zalophus califoraiamis California sea lion MMA Nearshoreand open ocean waters, Moderate -to -high potential for occasionally enters bays/harbors individuals to be present in -the vicinity of China Cove and within near -shore Disposal Sites A and B_ Phoca vimlfaa Harbor seal MMA Nearshore and open ocean, Low -to -moderate potential for occasionally enters bays/harbors individuals to be present in the Entrance Channel and along the Balboa Peninsula. Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters; Moderate potential for individuals may enter bays/harbors to be present along the Balboa Peninsula; low potential to be present in Newport Harbor Eschrichrius robustus California gray whale MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor to Newport Harbor, common offshore of the Balboa Peninsula between December and April. Potential higher for individuals to be closer to shore during northbound migration _ between March and April. FE—Federal Endangered; FT— Federal Threatened; MMA —Protected under Marine Mammal Act California Department of Fish and Game CE— California Endangered SSC — Species of Special Concern HAPC are subsets of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) which arc rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in as environmentally stressed area_ Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA); however, federally pertained projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (NMFS 2008a) Species and Habitats Impact -Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study no M no Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. Irl 17 Fisheries Management Plan groundfish species, utilize surfgrass beds as nursery habitat. Surfgrass is also an extremely important nursery habitat for juvenile lobsters. Surfgrass may be present at low intertidal and shallow subtidal depths on the individual groins in Disposal Area A. However, this species is not present within the perimeter of proposed near -shore sand disposal activities. Giant Kelp. Giant kelp, as discussed in section 3.3.1 grows in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel, but is not present at either of the near -shore sand disposal sites off of the Balboa Peninsula. 2.4.3. Invertebrates. In 1998, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) added black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) to the candidate species list for possible listing under the federal ESA, and on January 14`I', 2009, NMFS listed black abalone as an endangered species (Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14t1', 2009 /Rules and Regulations). Black abalones usually inhabit surf - battered rocks and crevices from the intertidal zone to shallow subtidal zone down to 20 ft (6 m). It is a long-lived species, attaining an age of 25 years or more. Now a rare species, the black abalone was abundant in California until the mid-1980's. It once occurred in such high concentrations that individuals were observed stacked on top of one another. This species is not present within the sand disposal project areas, and unlikely to be present at the mouth of Newport Harbor. east of Disposal Site B. The Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum) is a thick, heavy -shelled clam that is sought after for its flavor by recreational clam diggers. It usually lives in the intertidal zone on flat beaches of the open coast, but they have been found out to depths of 80 feet and are sometimes encountered in the entrance channels to sloughs, bays and estuaries (California Department of Fish and Game, 2001). Their normal depth in the sand is 2 to 6 inches, but can be found up to 12 inches deep (CDFG 2001). Burrowing is accomplished by moving the foot rapidly to loosen the surrounding sand. Jets of ejected water then help to further loosen the sand along the sides of the shell. The weight of the clam and the pull of the foot together drag the clam down through the sand. It has been periodically abundant in Orange County between Seal Beach and Newport Beach (Knaggs, 1977; California Department of Fish and Game, 2001). Although no recent surveys have been conducted in Orange County, Pismo clam surveys conducted at Coronado Beach between 2000- 2005 indicated that the Pismo clam population was relatively stable and that some recruitment was taking place. Recent reports from clam diggers, as well as divers indicate that significant numbers of Pismo clams continue to be harvested from some of the beaches in southern California. In addition, Pismo clam populations at the Channel Islands appear to be stable, as shown by surveys conducted by the National Park Service (California Department of Fish and Game, 2006). Based upon this information, it can be assumed that Pismo clams may be present in the intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat within the project area. However, their abundance rwithin the area is not known. 11 Species and Habitats impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I I� 2.4.4 Fishes Tidewater Goby. The tidewater goby (Eucyclogoblus newberiyi) has been expatriated from Orange County Streams. It is currently found in shallow marine areas and lower reaches of streams between San Diego northward to Humboldt County waters where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand. The population of the tidewater goby is depleted due to lowering or elimination of flows in the lower reaches of coastal streams, pollution, and the filling in, ebannelization, or physical alterations of their habitats. The population disappeared from about 74 percent of the coastal lagoons from Morro Bay southward to San Diego (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 1994). This species will not occur within the project areas. California Grunion (Leuresthes tennis) :The California grunion (Lettresthes tenuis) is a fish that uses the high intertidal sandy beach habitat of many southern California beaches as spawning habitat (Walker, 1952), including Newport Beach (CRM and Chambers Group, 2002, Moffatt & Nichol 2009). The grunion is a member of the silversides family, Atherinidae, along with the jacksmelt and topsmelt. They normally occur from Point Conception, California, to Point Abreojos, Baja California. Occasionally, they are found farther north to Monterey Bay, California and south to San Juanico Bay, Baja California. They inhabit the nearshore waters from the surf to a depth of 60 feet. The grunion is a non -migratory species (httn://Nvww.dfp,.ca. ovg hnrd/firuschd.htinl). Grunion use the energy of waves to strand themselves onto sandy beaches generally over a 3-4 night period following the highest semi lunar tides. Typically, grunion "runs" last about 1 to 2 hours (Walker, 1952). Female dig themselves tail -first into wet sand. The males then curl around the females and deposit milt. Normally, the eggs develop above the water line buried in moist sands and are triggered to hatch in nine days at the high tide of the next new or full moon by waves that reach high enough on shore to wash out the sand and carry the eggs into the ocean (Walker, 1952; Middaugh et al., 1983 in Darken et al., 1998). If the eggs are washed out to sea during the next high tides, they hatch rapidly into free-swimming larvae (Walker, 1952). If the waves do not reach the eggs, as happens frequently along the southern California coast, the eggs are able to remain viable for at least two more weeks (Walker, 1952) and up to 35 days (Darken et al., 1998). This period encompasses the next two highest semi lunar tides. However, hatching success decreases over time (Darken et al., 1998). Spawning occurs from March through August, and occasionally in February and September. Peak spawning period is between late March and early June. After July, spawning is erratic, and the number of fish observed in a grunion run greatly decreases. (Walker, 1952). The California grunion is not a formally listed federal -or -state rare, threatened, or endangered species, but grunion spawning habitat (sandy beaches) is considered "sensitive" because of the overlap between beach spawning activity and shoreline management activities such as (1) the removal of debris and grooming beaches by mechanical means that rake, remove, or crush eggs (2) beach erosion; 3) harbor construction; and (4) pollution (Martin, 2002, ht!p://www.dfp,.ci.gov/i-nrd/w-uschd.htm]), as well as beach nourishment activities. Grunion have a low potential to be present in China Cove. Grunion do however, spawn frequently along the Balboa Peninsula/West Newport beach shoreline. Historically, "grunion "runs" have occurred on west -facing beaches west of Newport Pier, where the beach slopes tend Species and I Iabitats Impact Bvaluntion Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. .r r 1 'r 19 to be more gradual rather south facing beaches downcoast of Newport Pier (Coastal Resources Management, 2003). Grunion run activity has also occurred on Corona del Mar State Beach and Rocky Point (Pirate's Cove) Beach, in the Harbor Entrance mouth (Jim Turner, Newport Beach Marine Department, Aug 7th 2002). Recent documented runs occurred during the 2009 grunion season (Karen Martin, PhD, Pepperdine University pers. com with R. Ware, 15 October 2009). In the early part of the season, grunion runs were observed along West Newport (57`I' St and the Santa Ana River Mouth), 36`h St to 32"d St, and 301h St to 28th St (Tonia McMahon, Moffatt & Nichol, pers.com May 291h, 2009). On the basis of the 2009 grunion run data, there is a moderate -to -high potential for grunion to be present between March and August in the near -shore habitat as well as on the beaches during spawning events. California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). The California halibut does not have a formal special species status, but it is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value and a continued region -wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and ' wetlands. California halibut spawn at sea and the larval stages are planktonic. . After spending nearly nine months in Newport Bay, juveniles will move out into the open coastal environment. This species has a moderate -to -high potential to occur in the shallow waters of the project area because of the nature of the sand shoreline and the relatively wide shelf of sandy silt sediments. Garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus). The garibaldi is the largest of the damselfish family (Pomacentridae); adults, orange in color, typically reach 14 inches in length. It is found in shallow waters off the Southern California coast and Mexico (California Department of Fish and Game, 2001. Males build the nests, the female enters several of them and then makes her decision. The garibaldi is one of the few fish to use the same nesting site every year. In 1995 the California Legislature designated the Garibaldi as the Official State Marine Fish and banned any further commercial take. Garibaldi populations have rebounded from the local effects of commercial take and are in good condition throughout their range in southern California. Sports fishing take of this species is also prohibited (http:iiwww.dfg.ca.gov/marine/Pdfs/oceanfish2OO8.pdo. rGaribaldi occur in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel and nearshore reefs (Coastal Resources Management, 2002, 2008) and may utilize the rock groins in the project area. However, their potential to be present in the project area is low. 2.4.5 Marine Reptiles Marine reptiles do not utilize the local marine waters as a permanent breeding or foraging habitat. However, the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), will occasionally occur in the nearshore environment offshore Orange County. Their occurrence in the vicinity of China Cove within Newport Harbor, and along the coastline in the vicinity of the near -shore sand disposal areas is expected to be rare. I I Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I 20 ' 2.4.6 Birds Sensitive Bird Species Potentially in the Project Area. Table 2 lists each sensitive bird species known to occur on the project site or adjacent areas, or that could potentially occur there. Species accounts following the table discuss the range and conservation status of all taxa included in Table 2. Additional sensitive wildlife species could conceivably occur on the project site, but such occurrences would be exceptional or limited to the passage of migrants. California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) The California brown pelican breeds from the Channel Islands south along Pacific coast of Mexico as far south as Nayarit; also breeds at the Salton Sea. Non -breeders range from southern British Columbia south along Pacific coast to Colima, Mexico. The federal government and State of California listed this large seabird as endangered due to sharp population declines resulting ' from organochlorine pesticide pollution during the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting the brown pelican in 2008, and if this decision is carried forward the species' populations will be monitored for a decade, from 2010 to 2020, under a post-delisting monitoring plan. The species continues to be listed as endangered by the State. California brown pelicans do not breed in Orange County, but non -breeders occur commonly in estuaries and on beaches and breakwaters; they typically forage in bays and near -shore waters. Brown Pelicans occur regularly in lower Newport Bay, on the beach at Newport Pier, and in the near -shore waters off Balboa Peninsula, including areas that would be affected by the proposed project. Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger) The black skimmer is a California Species of Special Concern, an administrative designation given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining , populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. Some species may be just starting to decline, while others may have already reached the point where they meet the criteria for listing as a threatened or endangered species. The species is widespread along the coasts of the ; Americas, and in the West it breeds primarily in coastal southern California and the Salton Sea. The species also breeds very locally in Mexico, from Baja California south to Colima. The winter range extends south to El Salvador and Nicaragua. The greatest threat to the long-term viability of the breeding population is thought to be the apparent shortage of suitable open nesting habitat and its continued loss as a result of erosion or vegetation growth on small islets. This species is a year-round resident on the coast of Orange County, breeding on islands at Upper Newport Bay, Bolsa Chica, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. The species forages mainly at dawn, dusk, and at night, and foraging skimmers could potentially forage in the near -shore waters proposed as sand disposal sites, but would be unlikely to do so regularly or intensively. California Least Tern (Sternula antillartun browni). ' This small tern, listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of California, breeds on sandy beaches and other barren habitats along the Pacific coast from Monterey County south to southern Baja California. The birds prey upon small fish in ponds, bays, and near -shore waters, typically within five miles of their nesting colonies. California least Species and Habitats Impact avalunlion Coastal Resources Management, Inc. , Marino Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I F1 I I 11 21 terns typically are present in southern California from mid -April through August; they winter on the Pacific coast of southern Mexico. Declines in populations of this species have been related to loss of suitable nesting habitat because of human recreational uses, and the concentration of their remaining colonies in small areas, rather than scattered widely as in historical times, has made them vulnerable to predation by a variety of predators. The California least tern colonies closest to the project area are located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the proposed Near -shore Sand Disposal site A, and on a man-made island near the head of Upper Newport Bay, approximately 4.0 miles northeast of the project area. Birds from these colonies could potentially forage in the near -shore waters proposed as sand disposal sites, but would be unlikely to do so regularly or intensively. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) This Pacific coast population of this small shorebird is federally listed as threatened, and it is also a California Species of Special Concern. The current Pacific coast breeding population extends from Washington south to southern Baja California Sur. These birds winter mainly in along the coast from southern Washington to Central America. Western snowy plovers nest on beaches, many of which have been subjected to habitat degradation caused by human disturbance, urban development, introduced beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria), and expanding predator populations. Frequent mechanical raking to remove garbage, kelp, and other debris makes beaches unsuitable for nesting and probably harms food resources for wintering plovers by eliminating substrates supporting flies and other invertebrates important in the birds' diets. Humans and dogs also disturb roosting birds on heavily used recreational beaches, but effects of such disturbance have not been quantified. The western snowy plover is a year-round resident of Orange County beaches, although it is found only locally during both breeding and non -breeding periods. There is an influx of birds from outside of the county during the fall and winter months, typically from other coastal areas in southern California. The nearest consistent nesting location for the western snowy plover is at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, approximately 2.4 miles northwest of the proposed sand disposal site at the base of the Newport Pier. The only consistent snowy plover winter roosting site on the Balboa Peninsula is located in the vicinity of E and F Streets, approximately 2.0 miles southeast of Newport Pier (Peter Knapp pers. comm.). In 2009, a snowy plover nest at this location produced three young (Peter Knapp pers. comm.). Mr. Knapp recorded 62 snowy plovers at this location on 5 October 2009. Hamilton Biological Consulting (2009, Appendix 1) found only 18 there on 12 October 2009, but this was at mid -day, when most of the birds were out foraging on the local beach rather than roosting in a large group. The snowy plover is un- likely to occur in any areas proposed for project impacts except as a rare transient. 2.4.7 Marine Mammals Several species of marine mammals have a potential to occur within the project site -the pinnipeds California sea lion (Zalophus californica) and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)- and cetaceans -the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) and the California gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 22 ' California sea lions, harbor seals, and bottlenose dolphin are occasional to common -visitors in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel, -and common in the near -shore waters of Newport Beach. There are no rookeries or haul outs on the Balboa Peninsula. In June 1994, the California gray whale eastern pacific population was removed from the Federal Endangered Species List, due to recovery of population numbers to near the estimated sustainable population size. The gray whale migrates through the SCB twice each year, traveling ' between its feeding grounds in Alaska and its breeding grounds in Baja California. The southern migration through the Southern California Bight (SCB) between Point Conception and the Mexican Border occurs from December through February, with pregnant females moving through the area first. The northward migration begins in February and lasts through May, peaking in March (Bonnell and Dailey, 1993). Solitary animals generally lead the northbound migration with cow -calf pairs following 1 to 2 months later (Foster and Schiel 1985). Gray whales migrate within 125 miles (200 km) of the shoreline and many are sighted within 9 miles (15 km) of shore (Bonnell and Dailey, 1993). On the northbound migration, cow -calf pairs are believed to more closely follow the shoreline rather than the offshore route (Dailey et al. 1993). Gray whales are commonly observed offshore of the Entrance Channel and along the Balboa Peninsula, but usually offshore of the proposed near -shore sand disposal Sites A and B. The potential for individuals to occur in the local project area is greater during March and April, ' when cow/calf pairs travel close to shore on their northbound migration. 2.5 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 1 The assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the project is being conducted to conform with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (Federal Register 62, 244, December 0, 1997). The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Act set forth a number of new mandates for the National Marine Fisheries Service, eight regional fishery management councils, and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine , and anadromous fish habitat. The councils, with the assistance from NMFS are required to delineate EFH for all managed species. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to the NMFS recommendations, EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity". An adverse effect is "any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH". Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Adverse effects may be sites specific or habitat -wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions [50 CFR 600.910(a)]. 2.5.1 Fisheries Management Plan Species I The Coastal Pelagics IMP includes four finfish (Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, northern anchovy, and jack mackerel) as well as market squid. The Pacific Groundfish FMP includes 83 species, many of which are rockfish but also include sharks, skates, ratfish, morids, grenadiers, roundfish cabezon, greenlings, Pacific cod, Pacific whiting, sablefish, and lingcod . Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. ' Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I 1 I 23 Newport Bay is located in an area designated as EFH in the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and the Pacific Groundfish FMP. Four coastal pelagic species -the northern anchovy, pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and Pacific mackerel -potentially occur within Newport Bay or offshore of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach at depths within the 30 ft contour (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 1988; Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008). Of these, the northern anchovy contribute moderate -to -heavy abundances to the nearshore fish community and can be abundant within Newport Bay (Coastal Resources Management, 2008; MEC, 1997). Northern anchovy comprise a portion of the commercial bait fishery in San Pedro Bay and a commercial bait fishing operation operates in the Newport Harbor entrance channel that provides northern anchovy to sports fishermen. Groundfish FMP species potentially present within Newport Harbor and within the 30 ft depth contour offshore of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach include California scorpion fish, vermillion rockfish, calico rockfish, bocaccio, California skate, spiny dogfish shark, and leopard shark (Coastal Resources Management, 2008, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 1988). FMP species that have been caught offshore of Newport Beach and in the Newport Submarine Canyon at depths generally greater than 80 meters by the Newport Dory Fishing Fleet (Cross 1984)) include northern anchovy and Pacific mackerel. Groundfish FMP species caught by the ' Dory fishing fleet include sablefish, shortspine thomyhead, several species of rockfish, long spine hornyhead, Dover sole, spiny dogfish shark, and spotted ratfish (Cross, 1984). 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 2.5.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area National Marine Fisheries Service, 2005). Newport Harbor (Lower Newport Bay) and Upper Newport Bay are estuarine and eelgrass habitats that are considered HAPC for various federally managed fish species within Coastal Pelagic and Pacific Groundfish Fisheries Management FMPs, under EFH provisions of the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (FR 62, 244, December 19, 1997). Designated HAPC within Newport Bay that include estuaries and eelgrass are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997). However, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC are more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008). Eelgrass is located in China Cove (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008, 2009 in progress), within 100 feet of the proposed beach disposal site. Coastal or marine habitats comprise a variety of broad habitat types for EFH managed species including sand bottoms, rocky reefs, and submarine canyons. The waters offshore of the Newport Beach are also in areas designated as EFH in the Coastal Pelagics FMP and the Pacific Groundfish FMP. The project vicinity seafloor is sand bottom and the Newport Submarine Canyon is located between near -shore sand disposal sites A and B, extending to continental slope depths of several hundred meters. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, hie. 1 24 1 2.6 INVASIVE SPECIES 2.6.1 Invasive Algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) Caulerpa (Figure 7) has a potential to cause ecosystem -level impacts on California's bays and nears -shore systems due to its extreme ability to out -compete other algae and seagrasses. Caulerpa taxifolia grows as a dense smothering blanket, covering and killing all native aquatic vegetation in its path when introduced in a non-native marine habitat. Fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds that are dependent on native marine vegetation are displaced or die off from the areas where they once thrived. It is a tropical -subtropical species that is used in aquariums. It was introduced into southern California in 2000 (Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Huntington Harbour) by way of individuals likely dumping their aquaria waters into storm drains, or directly into the lagoons. While outbreaks have been contained, the Water Resources Board, through the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game require that projects that have potential to spread this species through dredging and bottom -disturbing activities conduct pre -construction surveys to determine if this species Figure 14. The invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia. Source: NOAA/NMFS is present using standard agency -approved protocols and by National Marine Fisheries Service/California Department of Fish and Game Certified Field Surveyors. Biologists did not observe any invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia in the general vicinity of the project site during either 2005 or 2007 surveys near Carnation Cove (Coastal Resources Management Inc., 2008), or during site dives in China Cove in August 2008 (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. pers. observations). Its potential to occur in the near -shore project area is extremely low. 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 1 Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 1 i 25 1 1 i 1 t 1 1 1 I I 2.6.2 Undaria pinnatiftda (wakame) Undaria pinnatifida (Figure 9) is a golden brown kelp native to the Japan Sea. It has been introduced in Australia, New Zealand, and Europe and has now spread to the California coastline. It has been found in several bodies of water including Monterey Harbor, Santa Barbara Harbor, Port Hueneme, Channel Islands Harbor, Ventura Harbor, Long Beach Harbor, Anaheim Bay, San Diego Bay, and the waters surrounding Catalina Island (Silva et at., 2002, R. Ware, pers. observations). In Japan it is known as wakame and is extensively cultivated as a fresh and dried food plant. However, it has the potential to become a major pest in our coastal waters. Undaria grows to between 3 to 7 feet (1 and 2 m) tall and is found in sheltered harbor waters on rocks, breakwaters, and marine debris from the low -tide mark to 50 feet (15 m). A mature plant has a distinctive, spiraled (frilly), spore -producing structure at its base. It also has an obvious central stem to 4 inches (10 cm) wide that extends for the length of the plant (Figure 15). The blade may be up to 3.1 feet (1 m) wide and extends from the tip of the plant for half the length of the plant. It has not been reported from Newport Beach outer coast or from within Newport Harbor. Figure 15. Undaria pinnatif:da (Source: CRM, Inc.) ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 26 ' 3.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ' AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ' The City of Newport Beach proposed to use sandy material excavated from the site as beach fill material along the Balboa Peninsula and in China Cove (Newport Bay). The sites proposed for ' beach replenishment, amount of material each site can accommodate, disposal method, and location of disposal (on beach or nearshore) are shown in Table 1 and illustrated in Figures 1-3. In addition to these sites, some fill will be required for the project (on -site), and approximately ' 3,000 cy of contaminated material will be disposed offsite at an upland disposal site which accepts contaminated material, which is unknown location at this time. 3.2 DEFINITIONS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ' Potential impacts to marine resources are classified into several categories; significant and ' Immitigable, significant but mitigable, adverse but not significant, and beneficial. Several factors were taken into account when identifying the level of impact: duration of impact, ' rates of recovery of habitat and populations, and how an impact might affect habitats, communities, or individuals of a population. Significant impacts are defined as: ' The populations of an endangered species, threatened species, fully protected species, ' or species identified by state and federal resource agency as "sensitive" is directly affected, its breeding habitat impaired, or critical foraging or breeding habitat is lost or substantially affected; ' The movement of any sensitive species is impeded; Sensitive resources (reefs, kelp beds, surfgrass beds, and eelgrass beds) are affected for a period of time that will substantially reduce the ability of resources to recover. Significant impacts are considered mitigable if the resources can be returned to its previous level ' of structure and function through a viable restoration program and if the restoration of the resource is considered feasible by resource agencies. , Impacts are considered adverse but not -significant if (1) the project would disturb habitats and individuals but would not result in long-term population effects, beach fill and/or near -shore sand ' movement would result in a short-term sedimentation increase but not persistent burial of the resource. 1 1 Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc - Marina Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. I 27 1 I 3.3 WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY IMPACTS 3.3.1 Turbidity China Cove. Beach disposal material will be trucked into China Cove, reducing the potential for dispersal of any fine sediment into the Bay. The level of turbidity generated is expected to be low since the material will be beach -compatible and contain low percentages of silt. Level of Impact. The turbidity plume created during beach disposal of sands is expected to have an adverse but not -significant short-term effect on local water quality. Some localized turbidity will continue until the nourished shoreline reaches an equilibrium profile. Miti ag tion. No mitigation is required. Although not required, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that turbidity levels associated with the proposed project do not exceed ambient levels. ' 1. During construction, daily monitoring of turbidity during sand placement shall be conducted to ensure turbidity levels do not exceed ambient levels as measured points ' beyond a radius of 300 feet downcoast of the placement site for a prolonged period, assumed to be 5 days. If ambient turbidity levels within 300 feet of shoreline are exceeded, the condition will be documented and placement may be modified to reduce ' turbidity. Turbidity plume observations shall be documented with photographs, and maps of maximum daily plumes shall be reported to the City after construction. Observations of swell, wind, and tide conditions shall also be recorded to correlate with turbidity conditions. Marine Center, Newport Pier. Beach disposal material will be trucked on to the beach, reducing the potential for dispersal of any fine materials into the surf zone during beach fill operations. The level of turbidity generated is expected to be low since the material will be beach -compatible and contain low percentages of silt. Turbidity will be generated during high ' tides and high surf conditions, that will naturally increase near -shore turbidity. Level of Impact: The turbidity plume created during beach disposal of sands at the Marine ' Center is expected to have an adverse but not -significant short-term effect on local water quality. Some localized turbidity will continue until the nourished shoreline reaches an equilibrium profile. ' Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Although not required, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that turbidity levels associated with the proposed project do not ' exceed ambient levels. 2. During construction, daily monitoring of turbidity during sand placement shall be conducted to ensure turbidity levels do not exceed ambient levels as measured one - quarter mile offshore at or downcoast of the placement site for a prolonged period, assumed to be 5 days. If ambient turbidity levels within one quarter mile of shoreline are ' exceeded, the condition will be documented and placement may be modified to reduce turbidity. Turbidity plume observations shall be documented with photographs, and maps of maximum daily plumes shall be reported to the City after construction. Observations Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. m of swell, wind, and tide conditions shall also be recorded to correlate with turbidity conditions. Near -shore Sand Replenishment, Sites A and B. Beach disposal material will be barged to the Site and B near -shore beach disposal sites from the project area in Newport Harbor. The typical near -shore disposal plan is shown in Figure 16. Barges will approach the disposal site and release the fill material between the 3 and 10 meter isobaths (10 to 29.5 feet), 50 meters to 300 meters (164 to 984 feet) offshore, depending upon the barge's operational capabilities. The level of turbidity generated is expected to be low since the material will be beach -compatible and contain low percentages of silt. Turbidity will be generated during high tides and high surf conditions, that naturally increase near -shore turbidity. Level of Impact: The turbidity plume created during near -shore sand replenishment is expected to have an adverse but not -significant short-term effect on local water quality. Some localized turbidity will continue through the completion of near -shore disposal operations and the seafloor reaches an equilibrium profile. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Although not required, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that turbidity levels associated with the proposed project do not exceed ambient levels. 3. During construction, daily monitoring of turbidity during sand placement shall be conducted to ensure turbidity levels do not exceed ambient levels as measured at a distance one-half mile offshore at or downcoast of the placement site for a prolonged period, assumed to be 5 days. If ambient turbidity levels within one half mile of shoreline are exceeded, the condition will be documented and placement may be modified to reduce turbidity. Turbidity plume observations shall be documented with photographs, and maps of maximum daily plumes shall be reported to the City after construction. Observations of swell, wind, and tide conditions shall also be recorded to correlate with turbidity conditions. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 29 Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 30 ' 3.3.2 Construction Runoff and Discharges China Cove and Marine Center Beach Fill Sites. At the beach construction staging area spills or leaks from heavy equipment could enter runoff and or be washed into the nearshore waters, releasing petroleum products such as fuel, oil and grease, and heavy metals into the environment. Unexpected leakages of oil, hydraulic fluid, and other hazardous material associated with dredge slurry pipeline installation and maintenance could also release toxic and/or hazardous materials on the beach and/or the nearshore open waters. Debris (trash and other macro debris) could wash off the beach in storm water run off, as well as be thrown overboard from vessels. Level of Impact: The project will have a potential for adverse, and but mitigable impacts on water quality. Mitigation: Potential impacts would be reduced with implementation of the following mitigation measures. 1. Adhere to applicable local, state, and federal regulations including Best Management Practices for construction vehicle fueling. 2. Debris generated would be placed in trash receptacles to prevent any contamination of surface runoff. 3. Fully comply with applicable local, state, and federal water quality regulations. 4. Reasonable and prudent measures shall be taken to prevent all discharge of fuel or oily waste or other hazardous materials from heavy machinery or construction equipment or power tools on East Beach or in the nearshore project area. The City of Newport Beach and its contractors shall maintain current contingency planning guidelines and protocols at the project site, and have adequate equipment available to contain and clean up hazardous materials spills. Near -shore Sand Replenishment Sites. Unexpected leakages of oil, hydraulic fluid, and other hazardous materials on -board barges or tugs could release toxic and/or hazardous materials on in Newport Harbor or the nearshore open waters. Debris (trash and other macro debris) could wash off the beach in storm water run off, as well as be thrown overboard from vessels. Level of Impact: The project will have a potential for adverse, and but mitigable impacts on water quality. Mitigation: Potential impacts would be reduced with implementation of the following mitigation measures. 1. Adhere to applicable local, state, and federal regulations including Best Management Practices for vessel fueling. 2. Fully comply with applicable local, state, and federal water quality regulations. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 31 ' 3. Reasonable and prudent measures shall be taken to prevent all discharge of fuel or oily waste or other hazardous materials from heavy machinery or construction equipment. The City of Newport Beach and its contractors shall maintain current contingency planning ' guidelines and protocols at the project site, and have adequate equipment available to contain and clean up hazardous materials spills. 3.4 IMPACTS ON NON -SENSITIVE MARINE RESOURCES On -shore and near -shore beach sand replenishment projects would potentially bury marine ' organisms living within the tide zone and the near -shore subtidal habitat through the direct placement of sand on these resources. Secondly, the movement of sand discharged within the near -shore littoral drift could secondarily impact subtidal benthic organisms by increasing the ' depth of sediment cover and also bury subtidal benthic organisms out of the initial disposal sites. Lastly, water column turbidity created by the resuspension and transport of the fine particle constituent of the discharged beach fill material to nearshore waters may temporarily reduce ' primary productivity (plankton), interrupt feeding mechanisms of filter feeding fishes, and reduce the ability of sight -foraging fishes to see their prey. 3.4.1 Beach Nourishment Impacts on Sandy Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Soft Bottom Benthic Infauna (Non -sensitive species) China Cove and Marine Center Onshore Beach Replenishment Sites Fill material will be placed on China Cove beach from the supra -tidal to intertidal elevations, while the beach fill material will be placed at the Marina Center site in the supra -tidal area. Both nourishment sites are sandy beach habitat. Animals that live in the high -to -low tide zone within the China Cove beach sands such as worms, clams, crustaceans, and insects are naturally adapted ' to living within environments that undergo seasonal environmental changes in order to feed, burrow, and reproduce. They are adapted to living deep in the sands to depths of about 2-3 feet, ' capable of withstanding normal fluctuations of waves, currents, erosion, and accretion cycles of storms, and are generally tolerant of extreme ranges in temperature and oxygen. If the replenishment occurs gradually, over time, many forms such as bivalves and crustaceans will be ' able to migrate vertically and survive. Quick and direct burial of non -motile forms however, will smother and kill the organisms. Few organisms live in the supra -tidal beach sides, with the exception of insects and insect larvae that are found in decaying material. Beach fill material will be placed over the existing beach and intertidal habitat in China Cove that will smother intertidal -occurring sandy beach and infaunal organisms. Once beach nourishment activities are completed, planktonic larvae will resettle the China Cove beach and shallow subtidal sand habitat through tidal and wave transport mechanisms. Full recovery of the beach and shallow subtidal benthic infauna is expected to occur within one to three months. ' Level of Impact: Beach fill at the Marine Center will not affect marine organisms because of the supra -tidal nature of the fill project. The effect of beach replenishment on beach fauna at China Cove is expected to be adverse, but not -significant, resulting in a temporary loss of intertidal sandy infauna and non -motile macrofauna. Once the project is completed, sandy beach and ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 32 benthic soft bottom organisms will begin to recolonize the sediments. Full recovery is expected to occur within one to three months. Miti atg ion: No mitigation is required. Although no mitigation is required, implementation of Best Management Practices related to turbidity and other impacts on water quality would ensure that no adverse effects on biological resources will occur. Near -Shore Sand Disposal Sites A and B. The soft bottom benthic community, composed primarily of polyehaete worms, microcrustaceans, mollusks, and slow moving, or non -motile benthic macrofaima (i.e., snails, sea stars, sand stars, and crabs) will be temporarily disturbed by being rapidly buried by the disposal of the sand disposal material. Once operations have ceased, benthic invertebrate populations will recolonized the impacted zones. Level of Impact: This action will result in a short-term disturbance to soft bottom benthic habitat and a short -tern decrease in benthic invertebrate populations resulting in an adverse, but not significant impact to non -sensitive benthic resources. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. 3.4.2 Impacts on Intertidal and Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat China Cove and Marine Center Sites The biological community on the rocks and bulkheads nearby the China Cove site consist of mussels, barnacles, limpets, chitons, tunicates, sponges, tube snails, sea stars, and other invertebrates common to southern California hard -substrate habitats. Direct burial of hard substrate and associated marine organisms is not expected since the limits of beach fill will stop short of these habitats. Some redistribution of the beach fill material is expected to occur through longer -term and natural wave processes that have a low -potential to affect mussel and other organisms that live nearby. Level of Impact: This action will result in minor disturbances to intertidal organisms at China Cove, but no disturbances are expected at the Marine Center site located next to the Newport Pier. At most, the disturbance at China Cove will be short-term stress resulting in an adverse, but not significant impact. No impacts on intertidal and subtidal hard substrate habitat or communities are expected to occur at the Marine Center Site located near the Newport Pier. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Near -shore Disposal Sites A and B The biological community on the groins within Disposal Site A and on the pier pilings between Disposal Sites A and B also consist of mussels, barnacles, limpets, chitons, tunicates, sponges, tube snails, sea stars, and other invertebrates common to southern California hard -substrate habitats. Direct burial of hard substrate and associated marine organisms is not expected. Redistribution of the near -shore placed sands is expected to increase subtidal elevations that potentially could bury some hard -bottom habitat at the base of the groins. However, these Species and Ilabitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 33 ' habitats are continually subjected to burial and scour, which results in low species diversity and abundances. Consequently, any redistribution of the near -shore material placed in the vicinity of these structures is not expected to have an impact on these benthic marine resources. ' Level of Impact: None. ' Mitigation: No mitigation is required. 3.4.3 Open Water Habitat China Cove. Beach filling from the shore will potentially create a minor turbidity plume in the as beach fill material is moved to the water line and is agitated and redistributed by wave action and tidal surge. While the spread of a turbidity plume could temporarily reduce phytoplankton primary production due to lowered submarine light intensity, the impact would be neglible since the project is relatively small, and conducted over a short period. Demersal (bottom) and water column fishes that live in the project area are accustomed to turbid conditions in the Harbor and are not expected to be substantially affected by short-term increases in turbidity. The most likely response to a turbidity plume that exceeds their threshold for being able to find prey, or their threshold to respond to water quality degradation would be an avoidance behavior. Some species (i.e., anchovy, sardines, and grunion) are planktivores that ' rely upon their gills as filtering mechanisms. High levels of suspended sediments can clog their gills and impair their ability to feed as well as breathe. Since the turbidity plume is expected to be short-term and confined within a relatively small zone, fishes would swim out of the higher turbid areas to seek prey and less stressful conditions. Such behavioral changes, while adverse, would not result in mortality or impacts at a population level. ' Level of Impact: Short-term adverse, but not significant resulting in short-term stressed to fishes. ' Mitigation: None required. Although no mitigation is required, the implementation of Best Management Practices related to turbidity and other impacts on water quality would ensure that no adverse effects on biological resources will occur. 3.5 IMPACTS ON SENSITIVE SPECIES AND HABITATS 3.5.1 China Cove. Eelgrass is the only sensitive species that has a potential to be impacted within China Cove. No other sensitive plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, invasive algae, Essential Fish Habitat, Marine Protected Areas, reefs, or kelp beds would be affected by the placement of sand at this site. ' Eelgrass. Eelgrass is located approximately 30 meters (100 feet) from proposed beach disposal operations in China Cove. Although eelgrass is capable of surviving slow rates of sand deposition (Phillips, 1984) it cannot survive quick burial. Because it is present approximately ' 30 meters away from the beach disposal site, there is no potential for adverse impacts related to immediate burial. Over time, these sediments may migrate seaward through tidal action and ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 34 winds that could increase the intertidal elevation at which eelgrass can survive. Eelgrass is a designated HAPC within Newport Bay. Level of Impact: Due to its status as a sensitive species and as a Habitat of Particular Concern for federal groundfish management plan species, any loss of eelgrass as a consequence of sand disposal would be considered a significant and adverse impact. However, there is no potential for impacts related to burial since all material will be trucked to the site and placed on to the beach. Additionally, no vessels will be used for this project, eliminating the potential for anchor scarring and/or damage as a result of vessel movement. Mitigation: Although no impacts are anticipated, pre -and -post beach replenishment surveys may be required from the California Coastal Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers. The following requirements were placed upon the City of Newport Beach and the Channel Reef Community Association for dredging at Channel Reef, temporarily pumping it to a sand -berm dewatering pit at China Cove Beach, and placing the sandy material on Corona Del Mar State Beach and the Ruby Avenue Beach in Newport Beach (Permit Application 5-06-225). Pre -Construction Eelgrass Survey. A valid pre -construction eelgrass (Zostera marina) survey shall be completed during the period of active growth of eelgrass (typically March through October). The pre -construction survey shall be completed prior to the beginning of construction and shall be valid until the next period of active growth. The survey shall be prepared in full compliance with the "Southern. California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy" Revision 8 (except as modified by this special condition) adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service and shall be prepared in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. The applicants shall submit the eelgrass survey for the review and approval of the Executive Director within five (5) business days of completion of each eelgrass survey and in any event no later than fifteen (15) business days prior to commencement of any development. If the eelgrass survey identifies any eelgrass within the project area, which would be impacted by the proposed project, the development shall require an amendment to this permit from the Coastal Commission or a new coastal development permit. Post -Construction Eelgrass Survey. If any eelgrass is identified in the project area by the survey required in subsection A of this condition above, within one month after the conclusion of construction, the applicants shall survey the project site to determine if any eelgrass was adversely impacted. The survey shall be prepared in full compliance with the "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy" Revision 8 (except as modified by this special condition) adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service and shall be prepared in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. The applicants shall submit the post -construction eelgrass survey for the review and approval of the Executive Director within thirty (30) days alter completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted, the applicants shall replace the impacted eelgrass at a minimum 1.2:1 ratio on -site, or at another location, in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. All impacts to eelgrass habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). The exceptions to the required 1,2:1 mitigation ratio found within SCEMP shall not apply. Implementation of mitigation shall require an amendment to this permit or a new coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment or new permit is legally required. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Silo Study and Hamilton Biological. Inc. 35 ' Pre -Construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey. Not earlier than 90 days nor later than 30 days prior to commencement or re -commencement of any development authorized under this coastal development permit (the "project"), the applicants shall undertake a survey of the project area ' and a buffer area at least 10 meters beyond the project area to determine the presence of the invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia. The survey shall include a visual examination of the substrate. B. The survey protocol shall be prepared in consultation with the Regional Water Quality ' Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. ' Within five (5) business days of completion of the survey, the applicants shall submit the survey: for the review and approval of the Executive Director; and to the Surveillance Subcommittee of the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT). If Caulerpa taxifolia is found within ' the project or buffer areas, the applicants shall not proceed with the project until 1) the applicants provide evidence to the Executive Director that all C. taxifolia discovered within the project and buffer area has been eliminated in a manner that complies with all applicable governmental ' approval requirements, including but not limited to those of the California Coastal Act, or 2) the applicants have revised the project to avoid any contact with C. taxifolia. No revisions to the project shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal ' development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. No mitigation is required. ' 3.5.2 Marine Center No sensitive plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, invasive algae, Marine Protected Areas, ' Essential Fish Habitat, reefs, or kelp beds would be affected by the placement of sand at this site. One species of bird (western snowy plover) has a low potential of occurrence in the project area. ' Birds. This site (and the China Cove site) is heavily impacted by human activities and do not provide nesting habitat for birds of any kind. However, California brown pelicans and the federally threatened western snowy plover may occur within the local project area (Hamilton ' Biological, Inc. 2009). California brown pelicans occur commonly at the Newport Pier adjacent to the Marine Center sand disposal site, but this adaptable species routinely interacts with ' humans in this area and would not be significantly impacted by the proposed actions. The federally threatened western snowy plover is known to roost on open, sandy beaches, including some beaches on the Balboa Peninsula that are used by moderate numbers of people; it is ' possible that this species could occur as a non -breeder at the Newport Pier sand disposal site. Level of Impact: There was a recent case in which a vehicle ran over and killed a non -breeding ' western snowy plover on a southern California beach, and the resource agencies have expressed concern that any sick plovers may be unable to move out of the way of heavy equipment working on a beach. If sand disposal actions were to result in death, injury, or harassment of one or more roosting western snowy plovers this would constitute a potential violation of the federal Endangered Species Act, a potentially significant impact. Mitigation: To ensure against any potential adverse effects upon the federally threatened western snowy plover, a qualified biological monitor shall inspect the sand deposition site at Newport Pier immediately before sand is disposed of at this site and throughout the period when Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 36 1 sand is being deposited on the beach. The monitor shall have experience surveying for Snowy Plovers and shall be approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service prior to conducting this work. The monitor shall have the authority to immediately stop work if any snowy plovers that may be present show signs of stress or disturbance as a result of the sand disposal work. Work shall only 'recommended resume with the monitor's approval. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that sand disposal actions would not entail any potentially significant impacts upon the western snowy plover. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, the proposed sand disposal actions would result in no potentially significant impacts upon any bird ' species. Appendix 2 provides an example of pre, during, and post sand replenishment monitoring programs identified for the County of San Diego's Regional Sediment Management Plan (Moffatt & Nichol et al., 2008) that could be adapted to any monitoring programs adapted by the ' City of Newport Beach for proposed sand disposal projects along the Newport Beach shoreline. 3.5.3. Near -shore Disposal Sites A and B. Several species or sensitive habitats have a potential to , occur along the Newport Beach coastline at depths between the tide zone and the 30 foot isobath. Surfgrass. Surfgrass has a low potential to occur around the base of the groins within Disposal Site A. It is a nursery habitat for juvenile lobsters and provides habitat for a number of invertebrates and fish. Surfgrass attaches to rocks and forms meadows with an extensive root/rhizome system and has long -bladed leaves designed to withstand abrasion and at least , partial sand burial. Because it occurs within the highly dynamic nearshore environment, this species is naturally adapted to periods of sand burial, and subsequent re-emergence. Some blade loss will occur as a result of these physical rigors on a seasonal basis. Consequently, it is recognized as a species that can tolerate some stress, including sand burial. The degree of sand burial it can withstand however, is not well documented and depends in part, on the duration and ' length of burial and recovery from disturbances such as sand burial is dependent upon if the integrity of the rhizome system is left intact after the disturbance. Since oxygen is transported from the blades to the rhizomes, the rhizomes are capable of surviving under anoxic conditions , created by the sand cover (Phillips and Menez 1988). The period of survival under varying sand cover however, has not been investigated. Since the blades must be above sand level to provide the rhizomes with oxygen, a maximum threshold sand cover criteria of two-thirds of surfgrass blade length was established to limit long- term damage. Sand cover of no more than six months was used as the threshold duration since ' longer -term burial of more than one season may affect the ability of new rhizome shoots to survive and grow. This threshold was conservatively established based on the period of time identified as being a maximum that surfgrass could withstand before a significant biological ' impact would occur for the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand Project (MEC Analytical Systems 2000). Level of Impact: It is not clear if surfgrass is present within the project area's groin field, although because hard substrate is present, there is a low potential for it to occur. There are no natural reefs in the project area, however that would support this species. If it was present, the level of impact ' would likely be a short-term adverse, but not significant impact due to its ability to survive low -to - moderate amounts of sand burial for up to six months. Pre -and -post sand disposal monitoring is recommended to identify possible impacts on this species (See Appendix 2). , Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. , 37 ' Mitigation. None required. However, documenting the presence of this species presence in the Disposal Area A's groin field would provide a clear understanding of the potential for this species to be impacted by near -shore sand replenishment. Appendix 2 provides an example of pre, during, and post sand replenishment monitoring programs identified for the County of San Diego's Regional Sediment Management Plan (Moffatt & Nichol et al., 2008). ' Pismo Clams. The status of the Pismo clam population is not known for the project area intertidal and subtidal habitats. In the past, its presence has fluctuated widely, and no recent surveys are ' known that have documented this species' abundance or populations structure. Being in a zone of high sand movement, Pismo clams are naturally adapted to periodic and,natural levels of burial, and they can live in the sands to a depth of about 12 inches. Level of Impact: While it is not clear if Pismo clams are present within Disposal Areas A and B. If this species is present, the level of impact would depend upon the depth of burial and the duration of ' burial. Pre -and -post sand disposal monitoring is recommended to identify possible impacts on this species (See Appendix 2). California Grunion. California grunion may spawn along the Newport Beach shoreline periodically between March and September each year, although total number and the degree of spawning success are highly variable on a year-to-year basis. Level of Impact: The level of impact is dependent upon when and how shallow near -shore beach disposal would occur. No impacts would occur if the projects are conducted between September and the end of February. No monitoring or mitigation would be necessary. If near -shore sand disposal were to occur between March and August, then the potential for impact is greater and there could potentially be short-term adverse, but mitigable impacts on this sensitive species. If beach nourishment was to occur in or immediately offshore the surf zone compared to farther offshore, then the potential for impact to grunion would be greater. Any shoreline vehicular movement along the shoreline and/or spreading beach material associated with sand disposal would result in temporary, adverse impacts to grunion spawning habitat. This will temporarily degrade grunion spawning habitat until the project is completed and new beach slopes have stabilized. While the entire Newport Beach shoreline is potentially grunion spawning habitat, it will not be known to what degree grunion will use the region within Site A (40th to 52nd Streets) or Site B (16d' to 51h Streets) until the grunion season is underway. The degree of impact to spawning grunion and beach habitat would be related to changes in beach slope and if these projects would involve any shoreline activities. Every possible means will be implemented to ensure that grunion spawning habitat is protected and spawning success is achieved if grunion are present during sand disposal operations. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 38 ' Offshore of the surf zone, the likelihood of impacts to schooling grunion would be minimal. Miti ag tig Should shoreline beach disposal activity (use of vehicles or equipment) or near -shore surf -zone sand disposal occur during the grunion spawning season (as defined by the California Department of Fish Game grunion calendar), the City of Newport Beach shall prepare and implement a beach nourishment grunion habitat protection plan prior to start of sand disposal activities ,on the project site, to include; Temporal BMPs, such as avoidance of known spawning area during grunion runs, to avoid disturbances to grunion spawning activity and to minimize damage to grunion spawning habitat; 2. conduct pre -construction monitoring surveys within three weeks of proposed construction to determine the potential for grunion to use Newport Beach Disposal Sites A and B during beach nourishment activities; 3. conduct grunion monitoring during known grunion run activities while onshore or near - shore beach nourishment activities are in progress to assess if the project sites will be impacted; 4. implement avoidance measures, if feasible, to minimize impacts within Disposal Sites A and B during beach or near -shore sand disposal activities if spawning activity is observed by berming off beach habitat within 100 ft of where spawning is observed; and 5. conduct post -beach nourishment grunion spawning success monitoring surveys for two - months if the projects impact grunion habitat. The first post -construction survey will be conducted during the first grunion run following completion of sand disposal activities. The survey results will be included in a report that be submitted to the City of Newport Beach, National Marine Fisheries Service, CDFG, and California Coastal Commission within 30 days after the final grunion run. If sand disposal activity occurs between September and the end of February, or outside of the 15 ft isobath, then the level of impact will be no impact, and no mitigation or monitoring would be required. California Halibut. Juvenile and adult halibut are common offshore of Newport Beach. This species was the 7°i most abundant species collected in otter trawl surveys offshore of Seal Beach between 1972 and 2006 (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 2006) and the 5tb most abundant species collected offshore of Huntington Beach between 1978-1988 (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 1988). It is considered a sensitive resource because of its value as sports fish and commercial species. Proposed beach nourishment could temporarily affect individuals as a consequence of disturbing shallow water habitat, since both juveniles and adults frequent offshore of the project area. Individuals that are disturbed will migrate out the zone of effects. No mortality or long-term impacts on a population level will occur. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. �J �I I P f -1 i I I 39 ' Level of Impact: Short-term adverse, but not significant resulting in short-term stressed to halibut populations. ' Mitigation: None required. Marine Reptiles (Sea Turtles). Near -shore sand disposal operations will potentially occur within a corridor where green sea turtles have been occasionally sighted. Therefore, there is a potential that green sea turtles may be in the general project area during near -shore sand disposal operations and where vessels and dredge scows would be transiting to -and -from Newport Harbor. Although an occasional green sea turtle may be present, the potential for adverse impacts to an individual is low since only a small number of barge -loads would be needed. Vessel movements have a very low potentially to result in a behavioral modification (a "take" of a endangered species) to this species that would include a change in swimming behavior to avoid excessive ' noise, turbidity, or the vessel movements. However, no mortality is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project. ' Level of Impact. The unauthorized take of an endangered species would constitute a short term adverse, but mitigable impact on an endangered species. However, the potential for this occurrence is low. Mitigation. If a sea turtle is present in the project area during near -shore sand disposal activity, the mitigation measure identified below would reduce potential short-term, significant but ' mitigable to adverse and not -significant. 1. If a sea turtle is within 100 meters radius of any near -shore sand disposal operations, ' disposal activity should be halted until the turtle is safely out of the area. 2. Vessel crews should be cognizant of the potential for sea turtles to be present within the ' project area. Crews should be trained to spot and avoid sea turtles while transiting to and from Newport Harbor. ' Marine Birds. The near -shore disposal sites could possibly serve as foraging habitat for small numbers of California brown pelicans, black skimmers, or California least terns, but these sites are not known or expected to be of particular value to these or other foraging seabird species. Furthermore, only a small number of barge -loads would be needed to dispose of the sand at the near -shore sites, so any adverse effects that might occur, such as a temporary increase in ' turbidity, would have no significant impacts to foraging- pelicans, skimmers, terns, or other bird species (Hamilton Biological, 2009). Marine Mammals. All marine mammals are protected by the Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). The MMPA prohibits the intentional taking, import, or export of marine mammals without a permit. Several of the species that occur within the SCB are also ' protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). A species that is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA is categorized as depleted under the MMPA. Unintentional take of a depleted species is allowed by permit only if the activity is determined to ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 40 , have a negligible impact. Intentional take of a depleted species is only allowed under a scientific research permit. Vessel traffic transiting to and from the near -shore disposal sites (barges, tugs, work vessels) ' would be operating in waters where California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, California gray whale, bottlenose dolphin, and other marine mammals occur. These species, including the cow - calf gray whale pairs can occur as close as the surf line (Poole, 1982, Bonnell et al., 1992), R. , Ware, personal observations), and gray whales have been observed immediately offshore of Newport Pier (R. Ware, pers. observations) between early -to -late spring, More common however, they will be present in a divergent pathway offshore, heading across the Huntington ' Beach Flats, where small -to -large sized vessels operate and where few, if any collisions and/or marine mammal interactions occur. Hypothetically, work vessels could collide with marine mammals. However, marine mammals ' are mobile and are generally capable of avoiding boat traffic (American Petroleum Institute, 1983) especially at the speeds the vessels would likely be transiting. Also, marine mammals in the local waters have Habituated, to some degree, to vessel traffic since vessels commonly transit the waters offshore Newport Harbor. Vessel operators are also trained to recognize the presence of marine mammals which reduces the potential for adverse impacts. , In the event a pinniped or cetacean is injured or killed as consequence of a collision, the impact would be a locally significant impact and a "take" a protected species, but it would not result in a , population -level impact. Should a marine mammal be injured or killed, the vessel operator and the City of Newport Beach will immediately notify the National Marine Fisheries Service (Southwest Division) and will submit a written, follow up report within 24 hours of the incident. ' Marine mammals can sense underwater noise and vibrations coming from onshore and offshore sources, although moving sound sources from vessels and aircraft seem to be more disturbing ' than stationary sources such as drilling rigs, drill ships, and dredging operations (American Petroleum Institute, 1983). Over time, marine mammals in the region would acclimate to dredge -operation noises. Marine mammals could come within a close range slurry pipeline , operations, and although they would likely able to "sense" the noise, the magnitude and intensity of the source sounds are unlikely to result in any significant changes in behavior. Such types of sounds and their intensity levels are common throughout the range in which these marine mammals live. Only a small number of barge -loads would be needed to dispose of the sand at the near -shore , sites, which lowers the potential for both possible vessel -marine mammal interactions and avoidance behaviors by marine mammals due to an increase of underwater noise and vibrations. Level of Impact. The "taking" of a marine mammal as a consequence of vessel operations would be a short term, adverse but mitigable impact if vessel operators approach within 100 yards of a marine mammal or vessel operations result in the death of a marine mammal. Mitigation. If a protected marine mammal is present in the nearshore project area, the mitigation measure identified below would reduce potential short-term, significant but mitigable to adverse and not -significant, Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. , Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 11 41 ' 1. Vessel crews should be cognizant of the potential for marine mammals, including sea lions, whales, and dolphins to be present within the project area. Crews should be trained ' to spot and avoid marine mammals while transiting to and from the slurry pipeline project area. ' Fishery Management Plan Species. Of the several IMP species identified from the local project region, only the northern anchovy is expected to be in the near -shore Newport Beach waters in substantial numbers. However, the temporary nature of any turbidity plume created by sand disposal is expected to have an adverse, but not -significant impact on this species. No mortality !, is expected. This species will likely avoid any sediment plume originating from the project, which would constitute a schooling behavioral change. ' Level of Impact: Turbidity related to beach nourishment activities is expected to be adverse, but not -significant resulting in temporary, minor behavior disturbances FMP species. Mitigation: None required. Designated Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). HAPCs in the region include kelp beds, reefs, and submarine canyons. Of these, none occur within the near -shore Disposal Sites A and B. Level of Impact. No impact. Mitigation. None required. Sensitive Habitats. Reefs. No Impacts. Kelp Beds. No Impacts. Submarine Canyons. No Impacts. Marine Protected Areas. No Marine Protected Areas occur in the proposed near -shore disposal sites. Invasive Species Caulerpa taxifolia. Caulerpa is not known to be present within the near -shore disposal site project areas which precludes the potential spread of this species during sand disposal activities. However, a Caulerpa algae survey will be conducted according to the National Marine Fisheries Service Control Protocol prior to construction. Level of Impact. None if not found in the project area. If found, then the impact will be a significant adverse, but mitigatable impact. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. ' 42 Mitigation. If this species is found, then protocols for the eradication of Cattlelpa will be implemented to remove this species from the project area. ' (http•//swr.ucsd.edu/lied/CatilerpaCoiitro]Protocol.hnn). The City will conform to the 2008 Caulerpa Control Protocol, which requires survey results to be submitted to NOAA and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) within 15 days of completion. This protocol ' also requires that NOAA and CDFG be notified within 24 hours if Caulerpa is identified at a permitted project site. ' 3.5 LONG TERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 3.5.1 China Cove and Marine Center Water Quality and Sediment Quality. The proposed projects will have no long -tern impacts on water quality. , Sand Beach and Subtidal Soft Bottom Habitat Communities. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on sand beach or nearshore soft bottom benthic communities. Rocky Intertidal/Hardscape. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on rocky intertidal or subtidal marine organisms or rock habitat. Open Water. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on open water habitats or biological resources. , Special Status Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on species that have special biological status. ' Fisheries Management Plan Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on FMP species. , Sensitive Habitats. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on sensitive habitats. Invasive Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on invasive species. 3.5.2 Near -shore Sand Disposal Sites A and B. Water Quality and Sediment Quality. The proposed projects will have no long-term impacts on water quality. Sand Beach and Near -shore Benthic Soft Bottom Habitat Communities. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on sand beach or nearshore soft bottom benthic communities. Rocky Intertidal/Hardscape. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on rocky , intertidal or Subtidal marine organisms or rock habitat. Open Water. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on open water habitats or biological resources. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. ' Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 43 Special Status Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on species that have special biological status. Fisheries Management Plan Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on FMP species. Sensitive Habitats. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on sensitive habitats. Invasive Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on invasive species. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 44 , 4.0 LITERATURE CITED Bonnell, Michael L. and M. D. Dailey. 1993. Marine Mammals. Chapter 11 in: Dailey, M. D., D. J. Reish, and J. W. Anderson. Ed, 1983. Ecology of the Southern California Bight. A synthesis and interpretation. University of California Press. 926 pp. California Coastal Commission. 2006. Staff report 5-06-225. Channel Reef Association and the City of Newport Beach. Dredge the Channel Reef Community Association Marina to remove 7,000 cubic yards of sand and temporarily pump it to a sand -berm dewatering pit at China Cove Beach. The sand will then be distributed to two different sites for beach nourishment: 1) Ruby Avenue Beach (1,500 cubic yards) and 2) Corona Del Mar State Beach (5,500 cubic yards). July 16d', 2006. California Department of Fish and Game. 2001. California Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. The Resources Agency. W. S. Leet, C. M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E. J. Larson (ed). 581 pp. California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Chapter 6. Pismo Clams: Annual Status of the Fisheries Report. Prepared by Christine Pattison and revised by Kai Lampson, 2007. City of Newport Beach. 2004. Local Coastal Program. Coastal Land Use Plan. Approved May 25d', 2004. Coastal Resources Management. 2002. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan. Biological Appendix. Prepared in association with Chambers Group for the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. December, 2002, Various paging. Coastal Resources Management. 2005. Results of bay -wide eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat mapping surveys in Newport Bay, December 2003 .1pri12004. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department. GIS maps.of eelgrass habitat and density information. March 2005. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008. Distribution and abundance of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Newport Bay GIS Map. 2006-2007. Eelgrass habitat mapping project. Bulkhead to pierhead line surveys. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. Map available on City of Newport Beach Website. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2009 (in progress). Distribution and abundance of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Newport Bay-GIS Map. 2009-2010, Eelgeass habitat mappingproject. Bulkhead to pierhead litre surveys. Being prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. Cross, Jeffrey.1983. The Newport Dory Fishing Fleet. f(p:Hftp sccwrp org/ptib/download/DOCUMENTS/AniivalReports/1983 84AnnualRenort /AR83-84 069.I1df Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. [l I I I I 11 rl L' I I 45 ' Darken, Rachel S., K Martin, and M. Fisher. 1998. Metabolism during delayed hatching in terrestrial eggs of a marine fish, the grunion Leuresthes tenuis. Physiological Zoology 71(4):400-406. ' Hamilton Biological Inc. 2009. CEQA evaluation of potential effects of Marina Park sand disposal project on birds. Prepared for Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Corona del ' Mar, CA. 15 October, 2009. 13 pp. Knaggs, Eric H., E. R. Fleming, and T. Hoban. 1977. Results of the 1977 Southern California Pismo Clam Survey. Administrative report No. 77-15. August 1977.20 pp. Martin, Karen. 2002. Does beach grooming harm grunion eggs? Coastal Ocean Research R/CZ/81PD:2.15.2002-8.31.2002. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 1988. NPDES 1988 Receiving Water Monitoring ' Report, Huntington Beach Generating Station. Prepared for the Southern California Edison Company. 46 pp plus appendices. ' MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 2006. NPDES 2006 Receiving Water Monitoring Report, Haynes and AES Alamitos LLC Generating Stations. Prepared for LADWP, 89 pp, plus appendices. r MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 2000. Evaluation of impacts to marine resources and water quality from dredging of sands from offshore borrow sites and beach replenishment at Oceanside, Carlsbad, ' Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff, Solana Beach, Del Mar, Torrey Pines, Mission Beach, and Imperial Beach, Ca. Prepared for KEA Environmental, Inc. San Diego, CA. 183 pp. plus appendices. ' Middaugh, D.P., H.W. Kohl, and L.E. Burnett. 1983. Concurrent measurement of intertidal variables and embryo survival for the California grunion, Leuresthes tenuis, and Atlantic silverside, Menidia menidia (Pisces: Atherinidae). Calif. Fish Game 69:89-96. ' National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991 (as amended). Southern California eelgrass mitigation policy. 4 pp. Revision 11, 30 August, 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Caulerpa control protocol. Version 4, March 28d, 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. 7 pp. Phillips, R. C. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: A community profile. FWS/OBS-84/24. 85 pp. Richardson, W. J., C. Greene, J. Hickie, and R. Davis. Effects of offshore petroleum operations ' on cold water marine mammals. A literature review. Prepared by LGL Limited for the American Petroleum Institute. October 1983. ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. J 46 1 Silva, Paul C., Rachel A. Woodfield, Andrew N. Cohen, Leslie H. Harris, and Jeffrey H.R. Goddard. First report of the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Biological Invasions. 4: 333-338. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 2002. Coast of California Study (Figure 3-20). Supplied to CRM by Chris Webb, Moffatt & Nichol. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of endangered status for the tidewater goby. Federal Register 59(24):5494- 5498, Walker, Boyd W. 1952. A guide to the grunion. Calif. Fish Game 38 (3):410-420. 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Rick Ware, Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Robb Hamilton, Hamilton Biological, Inc. !I F L 1 I I r Lj 11 I Species and Haltimas Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc, , Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. ' APPENDIX 1. HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL INC., PROJECT REPORT I IJ 1 u �J ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. '1 HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL 1 October 15, 2009 Rick Ware, President/Senior Marine Biologist Coastal Resources Management, Inc. PMB 327, 3334 East Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 SUBJECT: CEQA EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF MARINA PARK SAND DISPOSAL PROJECT ON BIRDS ' Dear Rick, At your request, this letter report provides a CEQA-level evaluation of the potential effects of implementing the proposed Marina Park Sand Disposal project on biologically "sensi- tive" bird species. It is my understanding that this letter report will be used as part of a supplemental EIR that you are preparing for the City of Newport Beach to cover only the ' sand disposal aspect of the Marina Park renovation project; the rest of the project's effects were addressed in a previous EIR, No. 2008051096, completed in early 2009. This report de- scribes the general bird resources known or potentially present along the shoreline, and any species listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal governments, as well as California Species of Special Concern and any other species of local or regional interest. ' PROJECT OVERVIEW The Marina Park project site, currently a trailer park and public beach, is located in New- port Beach, on the bay (north) side of West Balboa Boulevard between 15th and 1911, Streets (Figures 1-3). This report evaluates the potential effects of replacing sand from the project ' site with imported fill, and using (a) trucks to move some of the sand to two onshore beach disposal sites located near Newport Pier and at China Cove in Newport Bay, and (b) barges to move the rest of the sand to one or two near -shore beach replenishment areas within ap- proximately 100 meters of the shoreline (see Figure 2). METHODS ' I conducted two mornings of reconnaissance surveys, on 30 September 2009 and 12 October 2009, covering the Marina Park project site and the two onshore areas proposed for sand disposal. I spent a total of approximately two hours at the Marina Park site, three hours at the Newport Pier sand deposition site, and one hour at the China Cove sand deposition site. Weather was good on both mornings, with temperatures between 61 and 74° F, light to moderate winds, and good visibility. I recorded all bird species seen at each site and evalu- ated the potential for sensitive bird species to occur at these sites. I inspected all trees and other vegetation for potential heron or egret nests, and inspected the ground for the white- wash that typically accumulates beneath nest or roost sites. ' 316 Monrovia Avenue � — Long Beach, CA 90803 �— 562477.2181 �— Fax 562433.5292 Lakewood.p h _ OAnaeim 1 }' p Cypress 4 a -1 � QSlanlon � Orange v pGardem Grove L��ong Beach ` t i OWestm ester Santa no Tustin Seal eeaa'h' O O .. .fw•Yr Huntington Beach _ p Lake Forest Costa Mesa _ :'.� .Rancho San N e.port Beach Manna Park Project Site a 0 Lagoa woods �t, _ Mis'e ion.V elo� - 41 F " �• �Al sc Velo � v Laguna Beach g G ;.p Lagu a N,yu 1.4. paC=, 1 San J.in aps no 7 �,a .._..p Da in a Point .� San :;lenccx CEQA Review of Potential Effects of Marina Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds Hamilton Biological, Inc. Ottober 15, 2009 Page 3 of 12 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 On 5 October 2009 I inquired with local birder Peter Knapp about known locations of win- ter roosts of the federally listed Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in 1 Newport Beach. On 12 October 2009 I checked the location that he described as the only consistent Snowy Plover roost on the Balboa Peninsula, located between E and F Streets, approximately two miles south of the Marina Park project site. On that date, I spent ap- proximately 30 minutes checking the local area for roosting and foraging plovers. As part of preparing this report, I reviewed a report dated 12 October 2009 from the Cali- fornia Natural Diversity Data Base covering the Newport Beach, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Anaheim, Orange, Tustin, and Laguna Beach U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangles. I also re- viewed the current DEIR for the Marina Park project, dated 26 February 2009, prepared for the City of Newport Beach by Michael Brandman Associates. i 1 CEQA Review of Potential Effects of Marina Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds October 15, 2009 Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 4 of 12 SETTING Marina Park Project Site The Marina Park project site, shown in Figure 3, consists of a trailer park, public beach, and limited areas of turf and landscaping. The potential biological effects of project implemen- tation upon the project site itself have already been evaluated in the existing EIR, prepared in early 2009. My surveys of the project site confirmed the adequacy and accuracy of the existing biological study of this parcel and did not reveal any potential heron nesting or roosting sites, or any other potential biological constraints not previously considered. F gure 3. Marina Park project site, outlined in yellow. Exhibit 5.3-1 in the existing DEIR for this project pro- vides a current Plant Communities Map for this parcel. Newport Pier Sand Disposal Site This proposed sand disposal site is located between the base of Newport Pier and the southern terminus of 190, Street (Figure 4). The site consists of open, sandy beach that is heavily used by beachgoers on weekends. Just north of the pier is a fish cleaning area that routinely attracts large numbers of gulls and some Brown Pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis). On the morning of 30 September 2009, a flock of gulls at the proposed sand disposal site included 80 Heermann's (Larus heermanni), 75 Western (L. occidentalis), and 14 California Gulls (L. californicus). On 12 October 2009 I observed seven Brown Pelicans, 55 Heermann's Gulls,165 Western Gulls, 40 California Gulls, two Ring -billed Gulls (Larus delawarensis) , seven Royal Terns (Thalasseus maximus), and four Elegant Terns (Thalasseus elegans). Various common shorebird species forage in the intratidal zone at this location, including the Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa), and Sanderling (Calidris alba). 1 n t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CEQA Review of Potential Effects of Marina Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 15, 2009 Page 5 of 12 ' Otherwise, bird use of this area will generally be limited to such highly adaptable species ' as the Rock Pigeon (Columba Livia), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). 1 I I I 1 I I I I LI 1 I 1 able human use, at least during some days. China Cove Sand Disposal Site This proposed sand disposal site occupies a limited area of approximately 0.3 acre at the southern terminus of Fernleaf Street, where it intersects with Cove Street, in Corona del Mar (Figure 5). CEQA Review of Potential Effects of Marina Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 15, 2009 Page 6 of 12 The China Cove site is a small, sandy beach surrounded by existing residences. The only terrestrial plants present are Highway Iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis) and Washington Fan Palm (Washingtonia filifera), both non-native invasive species. On 12 October I saw a West- ern Gull and a Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) at this site, and it is likely that other common bird species such as the Willet and Marbled Godwit forage or roost here on occa- sion. The site is too small and close to residences to provide habitat for any bird species that is not highly adapted to conspicuous human presence. Near -shore Sand Disposal Sites A and B As shown previously, in Figure 3, proposed near -shore sand disposal site A is located in open water between 4011, and 52nd Streets and proposed site B is located between 161h Street and 6th Street. These near -shore waters provide potential foraging habitat for limited num- bers of such common species as the Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), and Double -crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Various gulls are also often seen roosting in such areas, just past the breakers. The jetties adjacent to the northerly Site A provide foraging and roosting habitat for birds of the rocky shore, in- cluding the Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani), Black Tumstone (Arenaria melano- cephala), and Surfbird (Aphriza virgata). SENSITIVE BIRD SPECIES This section discusses bird species that occur or potentially occur in areas that could be af- fected by the proposed project that are endangered or rare, as those terms are used in CEQA and its Guidelines, or that are of current local, regional, or state concern. Legal pro- tection for sensitive species varies widely, from the relatively comprehensive protection ex- tended to listed threatened/endangered species to no legal status at present. The California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) publishes quarterly its lists of "Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens' and "Special Animals." The Special Plants list incorpo- rates continually updated information from the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), an independent organization that maintains an online inventory of taxa that its botanists re- gard as rare, declining, or insufficiently known. In addition, recently published findings and preliminary results of ongoing research provide a basis for consideration of species that are candidates for state and/or federal listing. Table A lists each sensitive bird species known to occur on the project site or adjacent areas, or that could potentially occur there. Species accounts following the table discuss the range and conservation status of all taxa included in Table A. Additional sensitive wildlife spe- cies could conceivably occur on the project site, but such occurrences would be exceptional or limited to the passage of migrants. CEQA Review of Potential Effects of Marina Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds October 15, 2009 Table A Special Status Bird Species With Potential To Occur in the Marina Park Project Area .M am Mi Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 7 of 12 USFWS CDFG Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Habitat Potential to Occur FE Does not nest in local area; non- Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California Brown Pelican (delisting CE breeders roost in estuaries and on beaches and breakwaters, and forage Known to forage and rests in the project area. proposed) in bays and near -shore waters. o Nests on islands with expanses of Nests at Upper Newport Bay; likely to forage occa- Ryncbops roger Black Skimmer — SSC bare ground; in winter, commonly sionally in project area. Skimmers forage on small fish and possibly crustacens in ponds, estuaries, well roosts beaches well above the tide is bays, and in the nearshore waters, usually within a line on mud flats estuaries. few miles of nesting sites. Nests at Upper Newport Bay and at the mouth of Nests on sparsely vegetated flat sub- the Santa Ana River; moderate potential to forage Sternula antillarnut browni California Least Tern FE CE strafes, forages in nearby waters. occasionally in project area. Least Terns forage on small fish in ponds, estuaries, bays, and in the near - shore waters, usually within 5 miles of nesting sites. No potential for breeding in the project area; low potential for occurrence by non -breeders. The near - Nests on sandy beaches and shores. est nesting location is at the mouth of the Santa Ana River. Repeated surveys by local Snowy Plover Ch,mdrius alexandrinus ninosus Western Snowy Plover FT SSC Non -breeders forage and roost on sandy beaches and shores, typically monitors have identified only one regular winter using the same areas year after year. roost on the Newport Peninsula, 2.0 miles southeast of Newport Pier, on the beach between E and F streets, where 62 plovers were present on 5 October 2009 (Peter Knapp pers. comm.). FE - Federal Endangered; FT -Federal Threatened California Department of Fish and Game CE - California Endangered SSC - Species of Special Concern, an administrative designation given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. Some species may be just starting to decline, while others may have already reached the point where they meet the criteria for listing as a threat- ened or endangered species. _ CEQA Review of potential Effects of Marina Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds October 15, 2009 California Brown Pelican(Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) Hamilton Biological, Inc. pyellof12 The California Brown Pelican breeds from the Channel Islands south along Pacific coast of Mexico as far south as Nayarit; also breeds at the Salton Sea. Non -breeders range from southern British Columbia south along Pacific coast to Colima, Mexico. The federal gov- ernment and State of California listed this large seabird as endangered due to sharp popu- lation declines resulting from organochlorine pesticide pollution during the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting the brown pelican in 2008, and if this decision is carried forward the species' populations will be monitored for a decade, from 2010 to 2020, under a post-delisting monitoring plan. The species continues to be listed as endangered by the State. California Brown Pelicans do not breed in Orange County, but non -breeders occur com- monlyin estuaries and on beaches and breakwaters; they typically forage in bays and near - shore waters. BrownPelicans occur regularly in lower Newport Bay, on the beach at New- port Pier, and in the near -shore waters off Balboa Peninsula, including areas that would be affected by the proposed project. Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger) The Black Skimmer is a California Species of Special Concern, an administrative designa- tion given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declin- ing populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. Some species may be just start- ing to decline, while others may have already reached the point where they meet the crite- ria for listing as a threatened or endangered species. The species is widespread along the coasts of the Americas, and in the West it breeds primarily in coastal southern California and the Salton Sea. The species also breeds very locally in Mexico, from Baja California south to Colima. The winter range extends south to El Salvador and Nicaragua. The great- est threat to the long-term viability of the breeding population is thought to be the apparent shortage of suitable open nesting habitat and its continued loss as a result of erosion or vegetation growth on small islets. The BlackSkimmer is a year-round resident on the coast of Orange County, breeding on islands at Upper Newport Bay, Bolsa Chica, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. The species forages mainly at dawn, dusk, and at night, and foraging skimmers could po- tentially forage in the near -shore waters proposed as sand disposal sites, butwould be un- likely to do so regularly or intensively. California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum browni) This small tern, listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of California, breeds on sandy beaches and other barren habitats along the Pacific coast from Monterey County south to southern Baja California. The birds prey upon small fish in ponds, bays, and near -shore waters, typically within five miles of their nesting colonies. California LeastTerns typically are present in southern California from mid -April through August; they winter on the Pacific coast of southern Mexico. Declines in populations of this species have been related to loss of suitable nesting habitat because of human recreational 1 I H I I I u I i 0 I ' CEQA Review of Potential Effects of Marina Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 15, 2009 Page9of12 ' uses, and the concentration of their remaining colonies in small areas, rather than scattered ' widely as in historical times, has made them vulnerable to predation by a variety of preda- tors. ' The California Least Tern colonies closest to the project area are located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the proposed Near -shore Sand Dis- posal site A, and on a man-made island near the head of Upper Newport Bay, approxi- mately 4.0 miles northeast of the project area. Birds from these colonies could potentially forage in the near -shore waters proposed as sand disposal sites, but would be unlikely to do so regularly or intensively. ' Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) ' This Pacific coast population of this small shorebird is federally listed as threatened, and it is also a California Species of Special Concern. The current Pacific coast breeding popula- tion extends from Washington south to southern Baja California Sur. These birds winter ' mainly in along the coast from southern Washington to Central America. Western Snowy Plovers nest on beaches, many of which have been subjected to habitat degradation caused by human disturbance, urban development, introduced Beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria), ' and expanding predator populations. Frequent mechanical raking to remove garbage, kelp, and other debris makes beaches unsuitable for nesting and probably harms food resources for wintering plovers by eliminating substrates supporting flies and other invertebrates important in the birds diets. Humans and dogs also disturb roosting birds on heavily used recreational beaches, but effects of such disturbance have not been quantified ' The Western Snowy Plover is a year-round resident of Orange County beaches, although it is found only locally during both breeding and non -breeding periods. There is an influx of ' birds from outside of the county during the fall and winter months, typically from other coastal areas in southern California. The nearest consistent nesting location for the western snowy plover is at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, approximately 2.4 miles northwest of ' the proposed sand disposal site at the base of the Newport Pier. The only consistent Snowy Plover winter roosting site on the Balboa Peninsula is located in the vicinity of E and F Streets, approximately 2.0 miles southeast of Newport Pier (Peter Knapp pers. comm.); see ' Figure 6 on the next page. In 2009, a Snowy Plover nest at this location produced three young (Peter Knapp pers. comm.). Mr. Knapp recorded 62 snowy plovers at this location on 5 October 2009. I found only 18 there on 12 October 2009, but this was at mid -day, when ' most of the birds were out foraging on the local beach rather than roosting in a large group. The Snowy Plover is unlikely to occur in any areas proposed for project impacts except as a rare transient. U 1 CEQA Review of Potential Effects of Marina Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds Hamilton Biological, Inc. ' October 15, 2009 Pageloofn proposed sand removal and sand disposal activities. In 2009 one plover nest was also found in this area. IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact is considered significant (before considering offsetting mitigation measures) if the lead agency determines that pro- ject implementation would result in one or more of the following: • Substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as being a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS, • Substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural commu- nity identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS; • Substantial adverse effects on federally protected aquatic resources as defined by S2c- tion 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interrup- tion, or other means; • Substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or interference with the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • A conflict with any local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or • A conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP. 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ' CEQA Review of Potential Effects of Marina Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds Hamilton Biological, Inc. October 15, 2009 Page 11of12 ' Anticipated Effects of Proposed Sand Disposal Actions ' The proposed project involves (a) trucking sand from the proposed Marina Park site to ex- isting beaches near the base of the Newport Pier and at China Cove, and (b) barging sand from the proposed Marina Park site to one or two near -shore sand disposal sites. The proposed onshore sand disposal sites are heavily impacted by human activities in the ' existing condition and do not provide nesting habitat for birds of any kind. California Brown Pelicans occur commonly at the Newport Pier sand disposal site, but this adaptable species routinely interacts with humans in this area and would not be significantly im- pacted by the proposed actions. The federally threatened Western Snowy Plover is known to roost on open, sandy beaches, including some beaches on the Balboa Peninsula that are used by moderate numbers of people, it is possible that this species could occur as a non - breeder at the Newport Pier sand disposal site. There was a recent case in which a vehicle ran over and killed a non -breeding Western Snowy Plover on a southern California beach, and the resource agencies have expressed concern that any sick plovers may be unable to ' move out of the way of heavy equipment working on a beach. If sand disposal actions were to result in death, injury, or harassment of one or more roosting Western Snowy Plovers ' this would constitute a potential violation of the federal Endangered Species Act, a poten- tially significant impact. Recommended Mitigation Measure No.1 addresses this potential project effect. ' The near -shore disposal sites could possibly serve as foraging habitat for small numbers of California Brown Pelicans, Black Skimmers, or California Least Terns, but these sites are ' not known or expected to be of particular value to these or other foraging seabird species. Furthermore, only a small number of barge -loads would be needed to dispose of the sand at the near -shore sites, so any adverse effects that might occur, such as a temporary in- crease in turbidity, would have no significant impacts to foraging pelicans, skimmers, terns, or other bird species. ' MITIGATION The original DEIR for the Marina Park project identified several mitigation measures that ' will be required to address potential adverse effects that could result from aspects of pro- ject implementation previously addressed. This report recommends the addition of one more mitigation measure to ensure against any potentially significant effects resulting from ' the proposed sand deposition activities. Recommended Measure No. 1: Monitoring of Sand Deposition at Newport Pier ' To ensure against any potential adverse effects upon the federally threatened Western Snowy Plover, a qualified biological monitor shall inspect the sand deposition site at New- port Pier immediately before sand is disposed of at this site and throughout the period when sand is being deposited on the beach. The monitor shall have experience surveying for Snowy Plovers and shall be approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service prior to con- ducting this work. The monitor shall have the authority to immediately stop work if any Snowy Plovers that may be present show signs of stress or disturbance as a result of the CEQA Review of Potential Effects of Marian Park San Disposal on Sensitive Birds October 15, 2009 Hamilton Biological, Inc. Pag 12of12 sand disposal work. Work shall only resume with the monitor's approval. Implementation of this recommended mitigation measure would ensure that sand disposal actions would not entail any potentially significant impacts upon the Western Snowy Plover. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of the recommended mitigationmeasure,the proposed sand disposal actions would result in no potentially significant impacts upon any bird species. CONCLUSION Thank you for the opportunity to provide this CEQA analysis. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any issues, please call me at 562-477-2181; you may send e-mail to robb@hamiltonbiologicalcom. Sincerely, Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. http://han-&tonbiological.co Appendix 2 t U Example of Monitoring Options for Beach and Near -Shore Sand Disposal (Source: Moffatt & Nichol, Everest International, and SAIC (2008) Project Phase Timing/Duration 1 month prior 1/2 month prior, 3 times per week over 14 days If project is scheduled between March 1 and September 15 (2 to 3 weeks prior Pre -project Baseline to construction before and/or during predicted grunion run closest to project initiation) During Construction Post -Construction 1 Post -Project 30 days prior to project start Daily during construction Type of Monitoring Beach profiles Surf conditions Grunion habitat suitability (if surf zone or berm placement) Grunion monitoring (if habitat suitable) Nearshore sensitive resources; e.g., Pismo clam beds, giant kelp beds, surfgrass beds, nearshore reefs with sea fans, sea palms, and/or feather boa kelp (if nearshore placement) Turbidity If scheduled between March 1 and Grunion monitoring September 15 (monitoring frequency dictated by tides and lunar cycle, approximately every 2 weeks during spawning season) If scheduled between March 1 and September 15 Immediately after completion 1 month after, 3 times per week over 14 days 90 days after construction Over 1 year following construction; surveys at 6 months after; and 1 year after Either 9 months or 1 year following construction, depending on biologist, with concurrence of permitting agencies ' Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Endangered and Threatened Species Western snowy plover (daily monitoring if receiver site is within critical habitat and/or adjacent to known breeding sites); California least tern (daily monitoring of turbidity outside surf zone if receiver site is adjacent to known breeding sites) Beach profiles Surf conditions Nearshore sensitive resources (if appropriate) Beach profiles Nearshore sensitive resources (if appropriate) Beach Sand Gradation Nearshore Sand Gradation (conduct grain size cnm nlinrt anA tactinrt near times at Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 1 1 Marina Park Draft REIR 1 '-1 I 1 n Draft Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Marina Park Project, City of Newport Beach Orange County, California Newport Beach OES USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 10 West ' Prepared for: City of Newport Beach ' Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 ' Contact: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner ' Prepared by: ' Paul Mead, Esq., Regulatory Project Manager Michael Brandman Associates 621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100 ' San Bernardino, California 92408 909.884.2256 ' Contact: Mike Hulihan, Project Manager Ilk ' ,LINIEN ]L•L,el7tunJmm l". x�aia• ' Surveys Conducted By: Paul Mead Surveys Conducted: July 10, 2009 ' Report Date: August 17, 2009 I U 1 City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Protect Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1: Summary ..............................................................................................................1 1.1 - Introduction.........................................................................................................1 1.2 - Project Description..............................................................................................2 1.3 - Summary of Jurisdictional Findings....................................................................2 Section 2: Jurisdictional Methodology...............................................................................3 3 2.1 - Methodology Statement...................................................................................... 2.2 - Pre -Survey Investigation.....................................................................................3 2.3 - Field Investigation...............................................................................................4 Section 3: Environmental Setting........................................................................................6 3.1 - Location of the Property......................................................................................6 3.1.1 - Directions to the Property.....................................................................6 3.2 - Land Uses...........................................................................................................6 3.2.1 - Land Uses............................................................................................6 3.2.2 - Surrounding Land-Uses.....................................................................10 3.2.3 - Activities Relating to Interstate or Foreign Commerce .......................10 3.3 - Topography....................................................................................................... 10 3.4 - Hydrology.......................................................................................................... 10 3.4.1 - Watershed Description.......................................................................10 3.4.2 - Beneficial Uses...................................................................................10 3.4.3 - Flood Data..........................................................................................11 3.4.4 - Seasonal Climate Variation................................................................11 3.4.5 - Field Conditions at time of Field Investigation....................................12 3.5 - Soils..................................................................................................................13 3.6 - Biological Resources.........................................................................................13 3.6.1 - Biological Resources Surveys and Reports.......................................13 3.6.2 - Plant Communities / Land Use Acreages / Flora / Fauna ..................13 3.6.3 - Evaluation of Special Status Species (Terrestrial) .............................15 3.6.4 - Evaluation of Special Status Species (Marine)..................................15 3.6.5 - Listed Species / Critical Habitat — Moderate to High Potential ...........18 3.7 - Historical Properties..........................................................................................19 3.8 - Coastal Zone Evaluation...................................................................................19 3.9 - Environmental Documentation..........................................................................19 3.10 - USACE District Considerations — Los Angeles District...................................20 Section 4: Jurisdictional Delineation Results..................................................................25 4.1 - Summary of Jurisdictional Areas.......................................................................25 4.2 - USACE Jurisdictional Determination - Rationale..............................................26 4.2.1 - Lower Newport Bay............................................................................25 4.2.2 - Intertidal Wetlands — Field Analysis...................................................26 4.2.3 - Intertidal Wetlands — USACE Jurisdictional Determination................28 4.3 - CCC Wetland Determination - Rationale..........................................................28 Section5: References...............................................................................................""......36 Michael Brandman Associates HOChcn1W064ddycrNewpan 13ochO0640022_Alanna PadJD (Dm0_081709) doc City ofNewport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation or Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Table of Contents ' APPENDICES ' Appendix A: Regulatory Compliance ' Appendix B: Jurisdictional Wetlands and Significant Nexus Determination Appendix C: Glossary of Terms Photographs ' Appendix D: Site Appendix E: Jurisdictional Determination Forms Appendix F: Wetlands Data Sheets ' Appendix G: Supporting Data I u i 1 1 I I ,, J Michael Brandman Associates lit M.ThtnIT069-01y ofNcwpod eathOM0012Mariam Park JD_(Dmf ONI909)da ' II I City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table1: Water Shed Data - Size..........................................................................................10 Table2: Beneficial Uses.......................................................................................................11 Table3: Climate Data...........................................................................................................12 Table 4: Plant Community/Land Use Acreages....................................................................14 Table 5: Special Status Species Potentially Present in the Marina Park Project Area .........16 Table 6: Summary of Jurisdictional Areas.............................................................................25 Table 7: Functions and Values of Wetlands..........................................................................30 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map............................................................................................7 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity USGS Topographic Map...................................................................8 Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Aerial Map......................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 4: Watershed / Drainage Map...................................................................................21 Exhibit5: FEMA Flood Map..................................................................................................22 Exhibit6: USDA Soils Map....................................................................................................23 Exhibit 7: Plant Communities Map........................................................................................24 Exhibit 8: Jurisdictional Determination (Aerial)......................................................................33 Exhibit 9: Jurisdictional Determination (Cross-section).........................................................34 Exhibit 10: Jurisdictional Determination (Photo Cross-section)............................................35 Michael Brandman Associates iv H9CFcn1\0064Airy omcwpod BtlCM100640022—Mannn_PodJD—(Dm8 081709) doc IJ I"I i City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Protect Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Summary [SECTION 1: SUMMARY-��.-�� Applicant Name: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Contact: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Agent Name: Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) 621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Phone: 909.884.2255 Contact: Paul Mead, Senior Regulatory Specialist Email: pmead@brandman.com ' 1.1 - Introduction At the request of City of Newport Beach, Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) conducted a Jurisdictional Determination of the 10-acrew Marine Park Property, hereafter referred to as the project site or site, located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. ' The project site was evaluated to determine the presence and extent of jurisdictional of waters of the U.S. and waters of the State. [1] These waters include all rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and coastal ' resources including wetlands. Wetlands were evaluated using criteria established by the United States Army Corps of Engineers ' (USACE) (See Section 2). Similarly, because the project is located within the coastal zone (as defined by the California Coastal Act), the project was also evaluated using criteria employed by the ' California Coastal Commission. [2] This report delineates waters and wetlands, and also provides a summary of ancillary information ' needed for processing regulatory permits with the USACE and other Regulatory Agencies. ' Regulatory permits are required for potential impacts to Waters of U.S. as set forth in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Impacts to waters of the U.S. will also require CWA section 401 permitting with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Similarly, because the project lies within the coastal zone, authorization will also be required from the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The project site is not subject to California Department of Fish & Game Jurisdiction under Fish & Game Code section 1600-1616 because the project site does not contain lake or streambed. ' Impacts and proposed mitigation will be assessed in a separate mitigation plan and are not provided in this report. [1] Waters if the U.S are a s defined by the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. [21 The California Coast Act is set forth in Public Resources Code, Section 30000-30900. Michael8randman Associates 1 adClicni=64-Cay orNmvpon apcM100640022 Mnnnn—Pork JD (Dm(t_081709) doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Perk Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Summary 1.2 - Project Description The proposed Marina Park Project (Project) includes the Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), the Girl Scout House (0.16 acre), marina services building (0.03 acre), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres), beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). , 1.3 - Summary of Jurisdictional Findings ' The project site includes 0.76 acre of Newport Bay, which are navigable waters of the TI.S. and subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The on -site , portions of the Bay are also subject to RWQCB jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. As defined using USACE criteria, no adjacent wetlands were determined to be found on the project site because the project site does not exhibit a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, or hydric ' (anaerobic) soils. Applying the California Coastal Commission one -parameter rule, the maximum potential extent of ' wetlands is defined as lands "covered periodically or permanently with shallow water ...... [3] The delineation determined this area.of periodic inundation to extend from the lowest (historically) observed water level (LOWL) to the high tide line (HTL), including 1.81 acres. However, because ' this area contains neither hydric soils nor a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation it does not possess sufficient wetland indicia to be determined a CCC wetland. [4] Furthermore, the project site lacks , sufficient functional capacity to be considered a wetland (or even degraded wetlands). No California Coastal Commission wetlands are present at the site. , Because no wetlands are present (even in a degraded state), proposed activities in the surveyed area should not result in loss of wetland functional capacity in the Lower Newport Bay. A comprehensive discussion of the rationale for these jurisdictional determinations is provided in section 4 of this document. ' I I [3]Public Resources Code, Section 30121; defining wetlands [4] "CCC Welland Delineation Rationale - Method", John Dixon, Senior Ecologist, California Coastal ' Commission. Michael Brandman Associates 2 ' a:%CncmWWr4euyofNmpon emc0a640022 hlmn�.Pak 1p-(Dmn Qe1709)da I U 1 E 1 City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Methodology � ES CTION 2,JURISDICTIONALMETRODOLOGY 2.1 - Methodology Statement This Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) was conducted in accordance with regulations set forth in 33 CFR part 328 and the USACE guidance documents referenced below: USACE Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition), Wetlands Delineation Manual, Environmental Laboratory, 1987 (Wetland Manual). USACE Guidelines for Jurisdictional Determinations for Waters of the United States in the Arid Southwest, 2001 (Arid Southwest Guidelines). • USACE Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations, November 30, 2001 (Minimum Standards). • USACE Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, December 2006 (Arid West Supplement). • USACE Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook, May 30, 2007 (JD Form Guidebook). - USACE A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary Hiugh Water Mark (OHWM in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, August 2008 (Delineation Manual). • California Coastal Commission, Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in California's Coastal Zone, June 15, 1994. 2.2 - Pre -Survey Investigation Prior to the field visit, a 200-scale (1 inch = 200 feet) aerial photograph of the Site was procured and compared with the Newport Beach, California, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map to identify drainage features within the survey area as indicated from topographic changes or visible drainage patterns. The National Wetland Inventory was also reviewed to determine whether any wetland areas had been documented within the vicinity of the site. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey Map was reviewed to identify the soil series that occur on the Site. Tidal data was accessed from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These tidal data include information gathered over a 19-year period as set forth in the last National Tidal Datum Epoch (1983-2001).These data were combined with topographic data provided by the City of Michael Brandman Associates 3 NdClicntb064-QryofNewpmlBmch00640022Marino_PoTk JD_(Dmn 081709)doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Pork Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Methodology L Newport Beach and aerial imagery to create contours for the referenced tidal datum in the surveyed area. Because topographic data was based on I -foot intervals, slope intercept calculations were used to extrapolate and approximate tidal datum contours to sub -foot accuracy. Three transects were established for field evaluation and confirmation. These transects located in the west, central and eastern segments of the beach portion of the project site. (See transects in Exhibit 8) These transects were used to create cross-section reference graphics. (See Exhibits 9 and 10) 2.3 - Field Investigation A field investigation was performed by MBA Senior Regulatory Project Manager, Paul Mead, on July 10, 2009. Materials used included, transect markers, a 50-meter tape measure, shovel, and Munsell color chart. Data was collected using a Magellan Explorist 210 GPS with an accuracy of±12 feet. Three transects were evaluated (See Exhibit 8). Seven soil pits were excavated along transect 3 to a minimum depth of 18". These pits were used to evaluate soil profiles for indications of anaerobic and redoximorphic (hydric) conditions in the subsurface. The survey was conducted on foot. Potential jurisdictional features were systematically inspected to record existing conditions and to determine the jurisdictional limits. The site was carefully assessed for surface flow (inundation) indicators (presence of hydrophytic vegetation, staining, cracked soil, ponding, etc). The apparent flow regimes and corresponding hydrogeomorphic features were subsequently identified. The lateral extent ofUSACE jurisdiction was measured at the Ordinary High Watermark (OHWM) or at the Mean high Water (MHW) mark. Wetland areas were assessed to the outer reach of the applicable vegetative community (the Sandy Beach), or if hydrophytes were present then to the transition to upland species. Depressions/ponded areas where water appears likely to collect were also evaluated. Ponded features are assessed to the natural topographical rim of the depressional feature or to the outer drip mark of vegetative layer (whichever was greater). Features previously indicated on aerial photographs (dark/saturated areas, associated riparian vegetation, etc.) were field verified during the site visit. Similarly, USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils records for Orange County were also field confirmed. Plant species for each vegetative community were identified and given an indicator status as prescribed in the National List of PoscularPlant Species that Occur in Wetlands (1996). As needed, data collected were recorded on wetland data forms and evaluated using the 2006 USACE Arid West Regional Guidance. CCC jurisdiction includes coastal wetlands, as defined in the Coastal Act, and corresponding regulations and guidance. Based on Coastal Commission criteria, the maximum extent of California U I Michael Brandman Associates 4 II:WIIcnIU64.Cny ofNmpon amc000640021 Maon.Pplk JD_(Dmn 091709).dw ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Methodology Coastal Commission wetlands may extend from the lowest observed water level (Historical) to the high tide line. This area is also shown in the corresponding transect data. ' Measurements were entered into Geographical Information System (GIS) Arcview software to ' identify the location and dimensions of jurisdictional areas. The Arcview application was then used to compute federal and state jurisdiction in acres. Acreage computations were verified using a 200- scale aerial photograph and field data. d J ' Michael Brandman Associates 5 HACI1'emV0064-Cny ofNcwpon B.ch00640022_Marina Pad JD_(DIaB_061709) doe City or Newport Beach, Marina Park Project , Dellneatlon of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting (S C110 s3: E_.. ROt1THiWT_ SE -I G 3.1 - Location of the Property The project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County, ' California (see Exhibits 1-3). The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and is located between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay and between 151h Street on the cast and 19'h Street on the west. Major arterial access is provided along Balboa Boulevard with secondary access to the project site along 15°i Street, 18" Street, and 19'h Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ' (SR 73). The central point of the property was determined to have a latitude/longitude corresponding to 33.608503°N and --117.923843°W (Decimal degrees) 3.1.1 - Directions to the Property, , From Downtown Los Angeles, take the Santa Ana Freeway (5) south to.the Newport/Costa Mesa Freeway (55). Then southwest to Newport Boulevard, which begins at the southern terminus of the 55. Follow Newport Blvd. past Pacific Coast Highway (1) onto the Newport Peninsula until it transitions to West Balboa Boulevard (Balboa). Continue on Balboa until 18'h Street. Turn left on , 18'h street and proceed to the parking lot adjacent to the project site. 3.2 - Land Uses 3.2.1 - Land Uses The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park ' mobile home park (3.83 acres), Girl Scout House (0.34 acre), community center (0.50 acre), Las Arenas Park (1.50 acres), the Southern California Edison parcel (0.14 acre), Veteran's Park ' (0.47 acre), alley, sidewalk, and 19'h Street restroom (0.97 acre), beach (2.16 acres), and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay (0.54 acre). I J I Michael BrandmanAssociates B ' nAChnn6eW.CiryofNewpon Ocche0640023f1vina_Po* JD_tDna eBI109)Aoc Rancho Covina "" � Ontario Walnut _ Chino -------------- i i t Los Flnyeles County -_. Orange County ._--%• :`reo Fullerton l.i t r� Orange Seal Huntington Garden Grove Santa Fountain Valley Project Site PaCl/I UCea17 � Bm rys % °Or Yorba Linda•: 2- .Santiago E El Toro Hills Niguel i r" t i i -t ulo Flood itrol Basin �u ClevelanU)J'F•. �• Juan Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIS 2008. ®®m a 2.5 0 e Exhibit 1 m® a® Miles Regional Location Map Michael Brandman Associates _ 00640022 • 072009 1 1_regional.mzd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PROJECT DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS Pei' ■ P.rkmt A—, NEWPORT BEACH c �l1 a aC 4 AR Pro" Newport C 0 Project Site >curce: TOPO! USGS Newport Beach (1981) & Newport 1n1w1w X 2.000 1,000 0 2,000 EUN❑ z Feet Michael Brmdma Associates t=xnlDIT 1 Local Vicinity Map ' Topographic Base 00640022 • 072009 1 2_Local_Topo.mxd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PROJECT ' DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS 4<1 n, q �.rfit, A �r 1 MAL PLIL �]C Ocean * _ Newport Bay 49 ��'. r ��Gi iiyj+b✓ 1 i, 4 it City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting 3.2.2 - Surrounding Land -Uses The property is bound in the north by Newport Harbor. Marinas are located immediately to the east and west of the surveyed area. The site is bound in the west Balboa Blvd. and existing residential ' development to the south. 3.2.3 - Activities Relating to Interstate or Foreign Commerce In addition to being a navigable water, Newport Bay (including on -site portions) is used for recreation (swimming) including likely use by interstate or foreign travelers. Onsite resources (Newport Bay) ' may also be used for fishing with potential sale in interstate or foreign commerce. However, the land is not currently used for industry, agriculture or other like activities operating in interstate or foreign ' commerce. 3.3 - Topography , The Project Site has varied topography with an elevation ranging from approximately -2.35 Feet below Mean lower Low Water (MLLW) to approximately 10 feet above MLLW. The public beach , slopes at an approximate grade of 7.2 degrees to the water. 3.4 - Hydrology 3.4.1 - Watershed Description The project is located within the Newport Bay Watershed (USGS cataloging unit 18070204) and Newport Bay hydrologic sub -area (801.14). Table 1: Water Shed Data - Size Hydrologic Infomration Description Acres Sq Mt ° , :- 5i of Wakerst" Hydrologic Area Lower Santa Ana 309,681 483.9 NA River Hydrologic (Cataloging) Newport Bay 100,343 156.8 100 Unit (18070204) Hydrologic Sub -Area Newport Bay 1,610 T 2.5 1.6% (801.14) j 3.4.2 - Beneficial Uses The Basin Plan for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) has established the beneficial uses surface waters in the area. For purposes of noting beneficial uses, the project site is located within the "Lower Newport Bay" (See Table 2, below). Michael Brandman Associates H.CIieWW-Cily.M y Hn 6006 22 Mariw_Park_1D_(CxaA 081'109)d« fo I I I I City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting Table 2: Beneficial Uses Beneficial Uses Upper Newport Bay Lower Newport Bay Pacific Ocean Municipal/Domestic Water Supply (MUN) Agricultural Supply AGR) Industrial Service Supply (IND) Yes Industrial Process Supply (PROC) Groundwater Recharge (GWR) Navigation (NAV) Yes Yes Hydropower Generation (POW) Water Contact Recreation (REC 1) Yes Yes Yes Non -Contact Water Recreation (REC 2) Yes Yes Yes Commercial and Sports fishing (COMM) Yes Yes Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) Yes Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat (LWRM) Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance (B10L) Yes Wildlife Habitat (WILD) Yes Yes Yes Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) Yes Yes Yes Spawning, Reproduction, and Development (SPWN) Yes Yes Yes Marine Habitat (MAR) Yes Yes Yes Shellfish Harvesting (SHEL) Yes Yes Yes Estuarine Habitat (EST) Yes * NOTE: Reach of the Santa Ana River extends from Prado Dam to Mission Blvd. in Riverside.. 3.4.3 - Flood Data ' The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has an assigned flood Zone classification for the project area. The bulk of landward side of the property is within FEMA zone "X500". The "X500" designation establishes that the annual probability of flooding is between 0.2 percent and one percent (100-500 year flood). A small portion of the seaward side of the property is within FEMA designated zone "A", which corresponds to an annual; probability of flooding of one percent ' or greater (>_100 year flood) (See Exhibit 5). 3.4.4 - Seasonal Climate Variation NRCS has recorded and compiled climate data for Newport Beach Harbor (CA 6175). i Michael Brandman Associates 11 1i:tCl1cm(o064-Cny omcwpod Bmch00640022 M.dna Pod. JD_(DMf OS1709)doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting Table 3: Climate Data Climate Parameter Value Units Month (Year) Temperature: Average Daily Minimum 48.0 OF December Temperature: Average Daily Maximum 72.9 OF August/Sept Rainfall: Lowest Monthly Average 0.02 Inches July Rainfall: Peak Monthly Average 2.60 Inches January Precipitation: Lowest Annual (1935-2002) 2.95 Inches (1989) Precipitation: Highest Annual(1935.2002) 25.55 Inches (1983) Precipitation: Average Annual (1935-2002) 11.72 Inches NA Snowfall: Peak Monthly Average 0.0 Inches NA Growing Season: Dates tables suggest a 50 percent probability that the growing season will last year round (365 Days 28°F orhigher)(WETS Station Data): Precipitation is typically greatest in the winter months January through March, reaching peak average rainfall in January (2.60 inches). Average precipitation is lowest in July (0.02 inch). Snowfall is not typical in the area. The WETS tables indicate average annual precipitation for the area is 11.72 inches, with 0.0 inches of snowfall. Total average precipitation may vary greatly between drought and flood years. Between the survey years 1935 and 2002, annual precipitation was lowest in 1989'(2.95 inches) and highest in 1983 (25.55) (WETS Station Data). The highest recorded historical high tide corresponds to a storm surge in 1983, Precipitation within the Chino (Split) hydrologic sub -area (801.21) indicates annual precipitation within the watershed at 18.2 inches. 3.4.6 - Field Conditions at time of Field Investigation The field survey was conducted on July 10, 2009 from 05:40 am to 09:00 am. The weather was generally warm with a morning marina layer proving slight cloud cover throughout most of the survey. Sunrise was at 5:50 am, sunset at 8.48 pm. The field survey was scheduled to coincide with the low -low tide for the area at05:57 am. Low tide corresponded to a height of -0.2 feet measured from MLLW. Higher High tide for the survey date was +5.1 measured from MLLW at 1.1:20 pm. During the survey periods, the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) indicated severe drought conditions in the area, crop moisture index for the time period was at -2.43. I 1 1 n LI it 17 LJ I J !71 n u n L P I I Michael Brandman Associates 12 a:CLCn' W-City orNewpon nocl,00640073 hlcrine Pak JD-(Dree_091709).dw ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Profect Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting 3.5 - Soils The Project Site does not contain named soil series. A soil series is a group of soils with similar profiles. These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics. The USDA soil survey identifies the soil profiles in the area as "Beaches" and "Water" (United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey, Orange County Area, California 2008) (Exhibit 6). Sandy Beaches includes unvegetated coastal area comprised exclusively of sand. Sandy Beach can be subject to high-energy wave action. However, within protected bays such as Newport Harbor, ' beaches are sheltered resulting in low energy wave action. Sandy beaches are areas of extremely rapid percolation with virtually no run-off. 3.6 - Biological Resources 3.6.1 - Biological Resources Surveys and Reports Two biological assessments have been prepared fro this project and are cited/referenced in this report. • Coastal Resources Management, October 15, 2008 (Revised 02/25/2009); Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Marina Park Project, Newport Beach, California. • Michael Brandman Associates (MBA), November 18, 2008; Terrestrial Biological Resources Assessment, Marina Park Project, Newport Beach, Orange County CA. ' 3.6.2 - Plant Communities / Land Use Acreages / Flora / Fauna The Terrestrial Biological Resources Assessment for the project (MBA 2008), establishes the following Plant community/land uses for the project site (See Table 4, below). With respect to the delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands, the biological assessment of the ISandy Beach and Intertidal Coastal Wetlands are most pertinent. Sandy Beach and Intertidal Area rWhile most of the shoreline of Newport Harbor is dredged for boat slips and lined with bulkheads, a few sandy beaches are scattered throughout the harbor. The sandy beach area on the project site ' provides the public with recreation opportunities and also provides habitat for marine -associated wildlife. ' The high intertidal portion of the city -maintained public beach support few if any marine organisms in the sediments because of the infrequent tidal exposure and periodic cleaning and grooming. This higher elevation however, is resting habitat for seabirds (gulls and pelicans). The middle and low intertidal zones provide more consistent tidal inundation and supports burrowing species of ' invertebrates (primarily clams, crustaceans, and polychaete worms). These organisms attract Michael Brandman Associates 13 HXI=60064.01y orNcwpon Boch00640022_Manne Port. JD_(Drell_081709).doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting shorebirds to the mid and low intertidal elevations of the beach that utilize these invertebrates as their food source (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. at page 15, citing Quarnmen 1980). A hedge of ornamental shrubs is also present, separating the public beach from the adjoining mobile home park. A line of ornamental palm trees also lines the sidewalk that borders the public beach. These individual trees and landscaped areas of ornamental vegetation are not associated with any native vegetation and provide only limited habitat value, primarily as cover and perching areas for birds and common terrestrial wildlife that are normally found in and associated with developed areas. The scattered ornamental landscaping covers a total of approximately 0.7-acre of non-native vegetation. (MBA, 2008) Table 4: Plant Community/Land Use Acreages Plant Community i Approximate Area (acres) Disturbed/Developed 7.05 Ornamental 0.70 Turf 0.40 Sandy Beach 1.00 Intertidal Coastal Wetland (CCC). 1.20 Total 10.35 The plant communities discussed above provide marginally suitable foraging habitat for a few local terrestrial wildlife species, all of which are utban-adapted, and no sensitive wildlife or suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife are present on the site. (MBA, 2008) Invertebrates observed within the project site include sand fleas (insects in the family Ceratopogonidae), beached moon jellies (Aurelio aurila), and sand crabs (Bmerila lalpoida). Barnacles (Balanus,glandula) were also found in the mid to high intertidal area attached to piers, docks, walls and bay mussel (Myliltis galloprovinvialis). The project site contains shallow marine habitat that provides potentially suitable habitat for several marine fish. Fish were observed breaching the water during the early morning.hours, 20 or more feet offshore from the observed low tide. Positive identification was elusive, but the size and color suggest white seapearch (Phanerodon ftircatus, Silver, 32 cre in length). The Marine Resource Assessment for the project asserts that over 75 species of fish are known to be present in Newport Bay (CRM, 2009). Michael Brandman Associates 14 N:1CIIemWW.Ci,yorNcuponaach006700it Mariam Pur<._Jn_(t)m 091709).dw City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting ' The site lacks suitable habitat for amphibians or reptile species and none were observed during the filed survey. During the delineation several avian species were noted, these included small feeding groups of marbled godwit (limosa fedoa) in the low inter -tidal area, and also California gull (Laths californicus) and mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos). In addition to those species observed during the delineation, the terrestrial biological assessment of the area also recorded the presence of several urban -adapted avian species, including the house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanits), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). The snowy egret (Egretta thula), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and gull -billed tern (Sterna nilotica) may also occur on site (MBA, 2008). Other than domesticated cats and dogs, no mammals were observed during the field survey. Opossums may also be expected to occur on the site (MBA, 2008) 3.6.3 - Evaluation of Special Status Species (Terrestrial) The following federally or state listed species are reported to occur within the vicinity of the site and were evaluated for their potential to occur on -site: light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Australis), Coulter's saltbush (Atriplex coulteri), Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsoniz), estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa), mud nama (Nama stenocarpuln), chaparral sand -verbena (Abronia villosa var. atirita) (MBA, 2008). None of the listed terrestrial special status species were found or are expected to occur on site. (MBA, 2008) 3.6.4 - Evaluation of Special Status Species (Marine) The following federally or state listed species are reported to occur within the vicinity of the site and were evaluated for their potential to occur on Site. (CRM, 2009) I n J I Michael Brandman Associates 15 ' N.Theru=64•Cny utNewpod Bmeh00640022 Morino Ped<_JD_(DnB_081709) doe City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting Table 5: Special Status Species Potentially Present In the Marina Park Project Area Common Scientific Name USFWS Status Ct)FG labitat I potential to Name_^ or NMFS Status i Status occur Plants Phyllospadix surfgrass Habitat Area of — Nearshore rocky none torreyi Particular Concern intertidal/rocky (HAPC)) for subtidal Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Species under the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Zostera marina eelgrass Habitat Area of — Bays, harbors, Not observed at Particular Concern shallow near the project in (HAPC) for Fisheries shore water 2003, 2004, Management Plan sediments 2005, and 2008 (FMP) Species under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Fishes Eircyclogobius Tidewater FE — Shallow marine No potential, newberryi goby waters, lower extirpated -from reaches of Orange County streams Leu esdres tennis California — — Spawns on local No potential to grunion open coastal occur at the beaches project site None in West Hypsypops California Protected under California Subtidal rocky Newport Bay; rnbicundus garibaldi commercial and sport State reef habitat, does occur near fish regulations Marine resident and the harbor Fish , territorial entrance channel Assembly species in in rocky subtidal Bill shallow subtidal environment AB77, rocky habitats 1995 Paralichthys California — — Shallow coastal High potential californicus halibut waters, open ocean II I J� LJ I I Michael Brandman Associates 16 ' HXI=1 069-61yorNcwportemcM100W00u Merino Pa,k Ja_(bmrt 081709)Aoc City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting ' Table 5: Special Status Species Potentially Present in the Marina Park Project Area (Cont.) I 11 t, I I I .1 Scientific Name, Common, Name USFWS' Status or NMFS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur Reptiles Chelonia inydas Green turtle FE — Near shore and Rare visitor but open ocean unlikely to occur waters in the waters of West Newport Bay --- Eretmochelys Hawksbill — FE — Near shore and Rare visitor but iinbricata sea turtle open ocean unlikely to occur waters in the waters of West Newport Bay Birds -- --- — Pelecanus Brown FE; proposed for CE Bays, estuaries, Forages and rests occidentalis pelican delisting near shore in project area waters Moderate potential. Forages in the Sterna California FE CE Nests on waters of antillarum least tem sparsely Newport Bay; browni vegetated flat Nesting habitat substrates, occurs in Upper forages in Newport Bay nearby waters and nearby at the Santa Ana River mouth; least terns will forage onjuvenile baitfish in the nearshore waters, Newport Harbor and Upper Bay channels, usually within 5 mi of nesting sites . Charadrius Western FT SSC Nests on sandy No nesting alexmtdrinus snowy plover beaches and habitat present shores onsite, no nivosus potential for individuals to occur on site Mammals ' Michael Brandman Associates H%CbcnIW064CnyofNcwp0d BachOO640022_Monno_Padc )D_(Dmft 081709)doc City of Newport beach, Marina'Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands En vironmental.Setting, Table 5: Special Status Species Potentially Present in the Marina Park Project Area (Cont.) ' Scientific Name Common USFWS Status % CDFG Potential to Habitat Name or NMFS Status Status I Occur Zalophrts California sea MMA Near shore and Moderate-to- californiantrs lion open ocean high potential for waters, individuals to be occasionally present in West enters Newport Bay. bays/harbors Locally becoming more abundant in Newport Harbor, and in the vicinity of vessels moored offshore of Lido Peninsula Phoca vitulina Harbor seal MMA Nearshore and Low potential to open ocean, be present in occasionally West Newport enters Bay. bays/harbors Tursiops Bottlenose MMA Nearshore and Rare visitor to truncates dolphin open ocean Newport Harbor waters Eschrichtius California MMA Near shore and Rare visitor to robusnrs gray whale open ocean Newport Harbor waters FE — Federal Endangered; FT —Federal Threatened; MMA — Protected under Marine Mammal Act California Department of Fish and Game CE — California Endangered SSC— Species of Special Concern HAPC are subsets of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA); however, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (NMFS 2008a) 3.6.5 - Listed Species I Critical Habitat — Moderate to High Potential As part of the USACF, permitting program, Nationwide Permit General Condition 17 (GC 17) requires compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pursuant to the ESA and• GC 17, no activity is authorized under any Nationwide Permit (NWP) which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified (under the ESA), or which will destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Similarly no activity is authorized under any NWP which "may affect" a listed species or critical habitat, unless a Section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the proposed activity has been completed. '1 1 �I I F I I I LJ Michael Brandman Associates 18 ' uxiientwAswc ayamtwwrt Bochaao:: nmriro_Pa,k Jo-(onn aRt709).aoc I I I I I rI 11 J I 'r I u I City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting The following Federally listed species have moderate to high potential to occur on the project site: • California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis); • California least tem (Sterna antillarum browni); and • California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). In addition, the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) is protected under the Marine Mammal Act (MMA) and may require special consideration during permitting. The proposed project is not anticipated to detrimentally impact, or otherwise result in the direct or indirect take of listed species (See CRC, Marine Biological Impact Assessment, 2009). No other federally or state listed species are present on the site, and no suitable habitat for any federally or state listed species is present on the site, therefore, no further action is required pursuant to the ESA or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Additionally, no species or habitat protected under the Orange County Coastal -Central Natural Community Conservation Planning/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) are present on the site, therefore, no further action is required pursuant to the NCCP/HCP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not have significant impacts on any special status or sensitive plant communities, special status or sensitive plants, or special status or sensitive species. (MBA, 2008) 3.7 - Historical Properties An assessment of onsite historic -properties is required by USACE in administering the Section 404 permitting program. According to General Condition No. 12 of the USACE Nationwide Permit Program, pursuant to the federal National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the presence of significant cultural resources must be determined prior to submittal of the Section 404 application. 3.8 - Coastal Zone Evaluation The project site is within the coastal zone as defined by the California Coastal Act. As such, a Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination is required. As of July 1, 2008 the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for the South Coast Area, identified an "effectively certified" Land Use Plan (LUP) for the City of Newport Beach. a . FnvirenmPntal Documentation Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will be prepared for the Property and proposed project. The DEIR will evaluate the projects environmental effects/impacts. Final CEQA documents are required before water quality certification (CWA Section 401) will be authorized. Similarly, a I Michael Brandman Associates 19 H.1CIicn1W004-Qly or Newport Bmch00640022_Mnrino puh JD_(Dm( 081709)doe City of Newport Beach, Marine Park Project Delineation o/Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Environmental Setting California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Section 1602 streambed alteration agreement will r not be considered finalized until final CEQA documents have been issued. 3.10 - USACE District Considerations — Los Angeles District None of the USACE Los Angeles District regional conditions applies to the subject property. , I I L IIu I LJ I I I 11 I Michael Brandman Associates 20 RXIIentWO-CilyafNeamvd emch00G40022_hladne_I'etk JD_(Dna 081709)dac , Pacific Oeean yr� q 4 t i 1rr fi Yr ,'e ^ i � •1 y r• y 1 _ � 1�, uIR'Sn"fell l/. � ( � �\` •aC� r / Mi. Project Site .—JI ® m m ® m ! m m m i ! m i i i ® i = i 1,000 500 0 1,000 Feel Exhibit 5 FEMA Flood Map 00640022 • 072009 15_Flood.mzd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PROJECT DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS SONVl13M (INV SH31VM 1MJO1131OS12 nr d0 NOIIV3NI13O 103P0Hd NNVd VNI2MW • HOV38180dAMN j0 A113 Pxw'SIIoS 9I 600VIO • ZZ004900 sal>=uossy ueurnz_3 -aecFR'd den silos vasn load ®p ❑�� 9I!q!gx3 ooz o ooz ooz � M616 (900Z) SIPS 9L9BO SOHN VOSfI v old 4Pe3 aomE) :aalnoS ce suopeag!sselO l!oS u/��`' F I al!S loafoid Ml lec e SLL n,c,, errrre�� ` _ r LZZ I y Newport Bay {ell .r — Marina Park•� e_ a rc ` i / t _ l _ ids , • ! 4% s_ ' (h•� _iv'!I ��-m 1n . y mac.M 9tl'C8a14oa Blvd _4,4 rr �1-!�.v "i _ l am• .�'� ^»&�a�• _ �'�•� I H u t I 1 City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Delineation Results ECTION 4: JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION RESULTS The following section provides a detailed discussion of jurisdictional and non jurisdictional areas on the property, incorporating findings related to vegetative communities, topography, soils, hydrology, and wetlands for each of the geomorphic features. 4.1 - Summary of Jurisdictional Areas The only potential jurisdictional feature(s) on the project site are the Lower Newport Bay and the adjacent Beach, which was evaluated for presence of potential wetlands. Table 6: Summary of Jurisdictional Areas USACE Jurisdiction California Coastal Commission Jurisdiction Hydrogeomorphic Waters of U.S. Adjacent Deep Water Maximum Extent of Wetlands based on Feature acres (linear Wetland Waters acres periodic Presence of feet) (acres) Innundation Flydrophytes (acres) or Hydric HTL I HOWL' Soils (acre) Lower Newport 0.76 (1,378) NA 0.22 1.81 /2.20 0.0 Ba, Beach (from 16" to 19°i Street) * HTL = High Tide Line, HOWL = Highest Observed Water Line (See discussion below) 4.2 - USACE Jurisdictional Determination - Rationale ' A detailed discussion of the rationale for supporting the jurisdictional determination for each type of ' geomorphic feature found on the site is as follows. 4.2.1 - Lower Newport Bay The term "Waters of the UnitedStates" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of authority of the USACE under the Clean Water Act, is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3(a). These regulations establish ' CWA jurisdiction of "all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide". [5) Typically, waters which meet the regulatory definition for "navigability" (33 CFR ' 329) have sufficient commerce nexus to be considered waters of the U.S., thus the presence of recreational craft and access to the ocean or any navigable bodies of water linking other states or [5] 33 CFR 328.3(a)(1). 1 Brandman City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project 1 Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Delineation Results nations is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. (6] A determination of navigability, once made, applies ' laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody. [7] The project site includes portions of the Lower Newport Bay extending from 16'h Street westward to ' 19'h Street. The onsite reach is located at the junction of the Rhine Channel, Lido Peninsula Channel, and Mid Channel in the southwestern portion of bay. Existing Marinas are located immediately to the ' jl east and west of the project site. Similarly, boat moorings can be observed in the mid -channel from the project site. Boat traffic is regularly seen in the waters extending outward from the project site, ' and the beach is sometimes used as a launching point for small recreational watercraft such as kayaks, canoes, and catamaran. Furthermore, the Lower Newport Bay is directly connected to the Pacific Ocean, and regularly facilitates recreational boating/sailing to other states and foreign waters such as ' the territorial waters of Mexico. In its Basin Plan, the SARWQCB has identified beneficial uses for the Lower Newport Bay, which ' also support a nexus to interstate commerce. These uses include, navigability, water contact recreation, commercial and sports fishing, marine habitat and shellfish harvesting. ' Because the waters are susceptible to the ebb and flow of tide, are navigable and support interstate commerce, CWA jurisdiction will apply to the Lower Newport Bay. ' In bays and estuaries the shoreward limit of federal jurisdiction extends to the mean high tidal waters (MHW). [8] Following procedures set -forth in section 2 of this determination, the MHW was ' delineated across the entire reach of the bay extending from 16"' to 19"' Street (See Exhibit 8). The MHW for the area was determined to be 4.67 feet, above MLLW. The Mean Range of Tide (MN), (the difference in height between mean high water (4.67') and mean low water (0.915')) was ' calculated to be 3.755 feet. 4.2.2 - Interkidal Wetlands — Field Analysis , The USACE will assert federal jurisdiction over wetlands, which are adjacent to other (non -wetland) waters of the United States. ' The portion of bay within the project site includes 0.76 (1,378 linear feet) of Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (9) Wetlands are defined as, "those areas that are inundated orsaturated'bysurface of ' groundwater at a frequency and duration suJfucient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include sivaps marshes, bogs and similar areas." (10] generally The USACE definition is often referred to as a "three parameter definition". Accordingly, the project site was surveyed for the presence of wetland hydrology, vegetation (hydrophytes), and hydric soils. ' (6] 33 CFR 329.6(a) & (b). , [7] 33 CFR 329.4 [8] 33 CFR 329.12(b) [9133 CFR 328.3(a)(7) [10] 33 CFR 328.3(b) ' Michael Brandman Associates 26 11X11cnV4O 01yorNewporteachWW0012 Main -Polk JD_(Dm(t_OA1709)Aoc ' ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Delineation Results Wetland Hydrology: Generally, wetland hydrology is assumed to extend to the line encompassing spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency but not including storm surges in which there is a departure from normal or predicted reach of the tide caused by strong winds and storm surges. [11] ' Often the area of inundation is clearly demarcated by deposition of fine shell, debris soil or scum, seaweed and vegetation. However, on beaches, which are regularly maintained, raked and cleaned, this inundation may be more difficult to demarcate, particularly given variation in tidal reach over an ' annualperiod. During the field visit, the area of tidal influence could visually be determined by a change in the ' compaction of the beach sand. This line corresponded to a point 5.96 feet above MLLW. Suggesting that the area of frequent inundation extends beyond the mean high water line. However, given the ' disturbed nature of beach, which is susceptible to regular maintenance it is assumed that the area of periodic tidal influence (inter -tidal zone) extends to the high tide line (HTL). HTL data is not provided in the available data from NOAA, a precise HTL is over the National Tidal Datum Epoch is not known. However, (predicted) tidal data for the bay was reviewed over the three- month period extending from July 1 to October 13. During this period, HTL is anticipated to extend to 7.2 feet above MLLW. Though wetland hydrology is assumed to extend to the HTL, it is probably of insufficient frequency ' and duration to facilitate a change in soil morphology and establishment of wetland plant communities within the inter -tidal area. Similarly, the grade of the beach (Slope = 7.2) results in rapid retreat of water within the great diurnal range, further limiting duration of inundation (or saturation). ' Barnacles and mussels, which are typically found in the mid to high inter -tidal area, were observed on the existing sea-wall/marina adjacent to the project site. During the field visit, these invertebrates did not appear to extend beyond the mean high water line (+4.67'). These data suggest that the frequency ' and duration of inundation is progressively diminished beyond the MHW. Vegetation (Hydrophytes): ' Hydrophytic vegetation is present when the plant community is dominated by species that can tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during the growing season. [12] Hydrophytes typically ' include obligates, and facultative species (FACW, FAC) which may include many coastal halophytes. In the Newport area, the growing season extends year round. However, during the time of the survey ' no vegetation was observed within the surveyed area. Particularly within the HTL, the absence of vegetation may be due to insufficient periodic inundation (see above), but may also result from the ' disturbed beach habitat which is periodically raked and cleaned of debris. [11] 33 CFR 328.3(d): Defining High Tide Line. ' [121 USACE, Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, December 2006. at page 12. Michael Brandman Associates 27 tHdCIWI\0064-City uMcwpon ecoc000640022 Marina Pnd<_JD_(Dm0_061709) doc City of NeWport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Delineation Results Hydrophytes are not present in the surveyed area. Soils (Hydric Soil): At lower low tide (0.2 feet below MLLW) on the survey date, soil was examined along the length of the easternmost survey transect (Transect 3). Soil pits were excavated at the MLW, the mean tide level (MTL), the mean high water (MHW), the mean higher high water (MHHW), the field observed high water mark, the high tide line, and the highest historically observed water level (HOWL). All pits were dug to a minimum depth of 18 inches. The soil profiles of all pits were similar in that they revealed a consistent sandy matrix with no evidence of organic streaking, muck, peat, discoloration or any redoximorpbic features that might indicate the presence of hydric soil. The only inter -pit variation was the depth to saturation, which expectedly became deeper moving up the slope. Saturated soil/sand was not observed in monitoring pits excavated above the field observed high water mark. Hydric soils are not present in the surveyed area. 4.2.3 - Intertidal Wetlands — USACE Jurisdictional Determination Based on the field analysis, the surveyed area may provide sufficient wetland hydrology within some portionsofthe intertidal area extending to the HTL; however, inundation is of insufficient frequency and duration to facilitate the formation of hydric soils and/or establishment ofhydrophytic vegetative communities. As such, the area does not meet the USACE regulatory standard for wetlands. 4.3 - CCC Wetland Determination - Rationale Wetlands in California's Coastal Zone are regulated under the California Coastal Act (CCA) of 1976, which is administered by the CCC. Section 30121 of the CCA defines "wetlands" as "lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include sahwater matches, firshwater inarshes, open or closed brackish hater marshes, swamps, mudlIats, and fens." Subsequently, the term wetland was further and more explicitly defined in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 13577(b): ... land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the fornration of hydric soils or to stipparl die growth of hydrophyles, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result offrequent and drastic fluctualions of surface water levels, wave action, waterfow, turbidity or high concentrations ofsalis a• other substances in the substrate. Such wellands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated soil at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegelated wetland or deepwater habitats. [131 [13] Guidance: "CCC Wetland Delineation Rationale —Method" at section 2.1 CI 1 LI G LI 1 Michael Brandman Associates 28 H-mienPaOW{nyorNc%rnameh00640022_Mndna Pad<_JD_(Do(l08)709)due LI� I I� I City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Delineation Results On the basis of the above definitions, the CCC considers a wetland to be any area that is sufficiently wet for a Tong enough period of time to promote the formation of hydric soils or a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. Title 14 CCR Section 13577 designates the following features to define the upper limits of wetlands: [14] 1. The boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover; 2. The boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly non hydric; or 3. In the case of wetlands without vegetation or soil, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time each year and land that is not. The Coastal Commission requires wetland identification and delineation to be based on the definition within its regulation. A one parameter approach must be followed to identify and delineate the geographic extent of wetland boundaries. The parameter used can be either (1) conditions that promote the formation of hydric soils, which are generally demonstrated by field indicators of hydric soils, or (2) the presence of a predominance of hydrophytes. [15] Based on CCC regulations and guidance, the presence of wetlands within the surveyed area is not dispositive because neither hydric soils nor hydrophytic vegetation are present on site, suggesting that the period of inundation is insufficient to form indicia of wetland conditions. Survey results were as follow: . Vegetation (Hydrophytes): As set forth in section 4.2.2 above, the surveyed area does not support a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils (Hydric Soil): As set forth in section 4.2.2 above, no hydric soils were determined to be present in the surveyed area. Wetland Hydrology: (Shallow Water - Area of Periodic/Permanent Innundation) Coastal Commission Wetlands may occur in areas that are periodically or permanently covered with shallow water, In most cases, the extent of (periodic/permanent) "shallow water" will define the maximum extent of the area of potential wetlands. According to CCC guidance the demarcation between "shallow water" and "deep -water habitat" is the "the lowest historic tide recorded on the nearest available tidal benchmark established by the U.S. National Ocean Survey" (Lowest Observed Water Level, LOWL). However the guidance does not define the upper limit of shallow water. (16] ' [14] Guidance: "CCC Wetland Delineation Rationale —Method" at section 2.1 (15] Guidance: "CCC Wetland Delineation Rationale — Method" at section 2.2 [16] Generally see; California Coastal Commission (06/15/1994): Procedural Guidance for the review of Wetland Projects in California's Coastal Zone; Appendix A: Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet Environmental Sensitive Habitat. ' Michael Brandman Associates 29 H.ThcroW064C1y of Newport Beac1i00640022_Mmina_PnrA rD_(Dmk 081709).doe City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Delineation Results At a maximum, the upper limit of shallow water may extend to the highest (historically) observed water level (HOWL, 7.67 feet above MLLW on 01/28/1983). However, this tidal point may represent influence (storm surge) from extreme storm events and not reflect a meaningful periodic value. As such, the high tide line provides a closer approximation of the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time each year and land that is not. Based on these data, the maximum potential extent of CCC inter -tidal wetlands extends from the Lowest observed water level (-2.35 feet) and the highest observed water level (7.67 feet) encompassing 2.2 acres within the project area. However, applying the HTL as the upper limit of periodic inundation, the project site includes only 1,81 acres of shallow water. The project site also includes 0.22-acre of deep -water below the LOWL. (Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 provide graphical representation of both USACE and CCC jurisdictional areas.) Function and Value of Surveyed Area: Functions of wetlands can be defined broadly as all processes and manifestations of processes that occur in wetlands. (17] Most functions fall into three broad categories including (1) hydrologic, (2) biogeochemical, and (3) maintenance of habitat food webs. These functions can also be related to certain defined societal values. These functions and values are set forth in Table 7 (below) which also denotes whether indicators of wetland function are present on site. [18) Table 7: Functions and Values of Wetlands Function Effects Societal Value Indicator Indicator Present? Hydrologic Short-term Reduced Reduced damage Presence of floodplain No surface waer downstream flood from floodwaters along river corridor (or storage peaks Estuarine area) Long term Maintenance of base Maintenance of Topographic relief on No surface water flows, seasonal flow fish Habitat during floodplain (or estuarine storage distribution dry periods area) Maintenance of Maintenance of Maintenance of Presence of No high water table hydrophytic biodiversity Hydrophytes community Blogeochemical Transformation, Maintenance of Wood production Tree growth No cycling of nutrient stocks elements within wetland [17] National Research Council, Committee on Characterization of Wetlands (1995), Wedands Characteristics and Boundaries. [18] Table 6 is adapted from: National Research Council, Committee on Characterization of Wetlands (1995), Wetlands Characteristics and Boundaries. See Page 28 Table 2.2. 1 t I_J Michael Brandman Associates 30 H.wi,cnmw-cityorNcwpo9 Deoch00(d0021 Mmino Pmk-JD-(Dmn 081709)Am ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Delineation Results I Table 7: Function and Values of Wetlands (Continued) Function Effects 'Societal Value Indicator Indicator Present? Biogeochemical Retentions, Reduced transport Maintenance of Nutrient outflow lower No removal of of nutrients water quality than inflow dissolved downstream substances Accumulation of Retention of Maintenance of Increase in depth of peat No peat nutrients. Metals, water quality other substances Accumulation of Retention of Maintenance of Increase in depth of No inorganic sediments, some water quality sediment sediments nutrients Habitat and Food Web Support Maintenance of Food, nesting, cover Support for Mature wetland No characteristic for animals forbearers, vegetation plant waterfowl communities Maintenance of Support for Mainenance of High diversity of No characteristic populations of biodiversity vertebrates. energy flow vertebrates For projects conducted in the Coastal Zone maintaining the functional capacity of wetlands means ' maintaining the same level and number of species, biological productivity and maintain the same relative size and number of habitats. [19] the Coastal commission defines "marginal wetlands" as resources that may be less important because of their location (eg. small isolated areas) reduced species diversity, or reduced habitat complexity. A marginal wetland may or may not qualify, as a "degraded wetland" (as per Coastal Act Section 30411). However even degraded or marginal ' wetlands may be of special significance if they do provide important function and values such as providing unique or rare habitat for threatened or endangered species. However, as reflected in Table 7 (above) the surveyed area does not presently provide any indicia of either hydrologic, biogeochemical or habitat and food web support typically associated with wetlands. ' Furthermore, the surveyed are does not provide unique wetland resources upon which federal/state listed species may depend. As such the site does not presently provide even the limited functional capacity associated with, a marginal or degraded wetland. [19]California Coastal Commission (06/15/1994): Procedural Guidance for the review of Wetland Projects in California's Coastal Zone; Appendix A: Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet Environmental Sensitive Habitat. At Section V1(page 25) Michael Brandman Associates 31 HACHoll0064•0ly ofNcwpon Boch00640022 Marinn_ParkJE_(Dma_081709),doc City of Newport Beach, Marine Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictlonal Waters and Wetlands Jurisdictional Delineation Results Because no wetlands are present (even in a degraded state), proposed activities in the surveyed area ' should not result in loss of wetland functional capacity in the Lower Newport Bay. 1 LJ LJ LJ I u 1 IJ I I u Michael Brandman Associates 32 n&p ' N.WfleXityorNcwpod acach006700R Maine ParkJD_(Dnk 081709)dac I 1 1 1 1 1 Source: Google Earth Pro, NOAA Tides and Currents Datum (2009), MBA GIS (2009). rc ❑❑_ Mmmmm � Feet Michael B=dmm Associates 00640022 • 0812009 1 8_JD.mxcl Exhibit 8 Jurisdictional Determinations CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PROJECT DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS Vertical Elevation (In Feet) 8' 7' 6' 5' 4' 3' 2' 1' 0' -1' 2' 3' 2 77 Feet — 0 915 Feet 0 180 Feet _. f. 0.000 Feet Lowest Observed Water Level (012011988 ) 1 1 1 1 Mean Lower Low I Water (MLLW) 2.80 Mean Low Water (MLW) North American Vertical Datum-1988 fNAVD) Extent of USACE Jurisdiction Z20 Feet 5 96 Feet 5.41 Feet 4.67 Feet _ Mean Higher High Water MHHW) Mean Tide Level (MTL) Mean High Field Observed Water(MHW) High Water Mark Mean Sea 1 Level (MSL) I I I I I CCC Area of Periodic Inundation I 130' 1 I 1120' 110' 1 100' I 90 I 90 1 ' 70 br � Source: MBA GIS (2009). 1111NA 1111NA O Not To Scale Z_ Michael Fmclinan Associates 7.67 High Tide Line (HTL) 60 50 L 1 Transed 3 Distann Elevation Elevadw From Reference (meters) (feeq Point 3 (feet) High est Observed W star Level (0 1(2811983) 2337 767 403 High Tide Line (HTL) 2.196 720 52 1 Field Observed High Water Mark 1 817 5.96 680 Mean Higher High Water(MHHW) 1649 541 737 Mean High Water IMHW) 1 424 4.67 78B Mean Tide Level(MTLI 0952 2.80 922 Mean See Level (MSL) 0845 2.77 924 Mean Low Water (MLW) 0279 0,916 1051 North American Vertical Datum-1988 (NAVD) 0056 0 180 1101 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) 0000 0.000 1117 Lowest Observed Water Level(012011988) -0.717 -235 1269 Highest Observed Water Level (0128/1983) 40 30 20' 1 I 1 Distance From Reference Pant 3 (In Feet) 10 I Exhibit 9 Cross Section (Transect 3) 00640022.0&700919_Cross_Secticn.ai CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PROJECT DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS Exhibit 10 Photographic Cross Section 00640022 •072009 1 10_Photo Ref,mxd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PROJECT DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands California Coastal Commission (CCC), 1994 (June 15). Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in California's Coastal Zone California, State of 1989. Fish And Game Code. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2009 (Revision February 25); Marine Biological Impact Assessment, Marina Park Project, Newport Beach, CA. Department of Army. 1986 (Nov 13). 33 CFR Parts 320 Through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Federal Register. 51(219): 41206-260. Department of Army. 1993 (Aug 25). 33 CFR Parts 320 Through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 58 : 45036. Department of Army. 1999 (Mar 9). 33 CFR Parts 320 Through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule, Federal Register. Vol. 65 No. 47: 12818-899. Department of Army. 2002 (Jan 15). 33 CFR Parts 320 Through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 67 No. 10: 2020-2095. Department of Army -South Pacific Division 2001 (June). Guidelines for Jurisdictional Delineations for Waters of the United States In the Arid Southwest. ESRI. AreView. Version 9.1 Federal Interagency Committee For Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States. Environmental Protection Agency, United States Fish and Wildlife Services, and USDA Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Cooperative Technical Publication. Kollmorgen Corporation. 1975. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Md. Michael Brandman Associates (MBA), 2008 (November 18); Terrestrial Biological Resources Assessment, Marina Park Project, Newport Beach, Orange County, CA. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), December 2006: Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Arid West Supplement). United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), May 30, 2007: Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook (JD Form Guidebook, Rapanos Guidance). United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), August 2008. Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Delineation Manual). ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1998. Field Office 1 1 d 1 11 D 11 I Michael Brandman Associates 36 H:Mwu1W064LityofNewyoal cL00 22 Mamu_Park _ID_(aaft N17W)dce ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Protect Delineation of Jurlsdictional Waters and Wetlands References Official List of Hydric Soil Map Units for Orange County, California. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil Survey of Orange County, California. ' United States Fish And Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988 (May). National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). Biological Report 88(26.10). Washington, D.C.: USFWS. ' United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory. http://wetlands.fws.gov ' United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1980. Newport Beach, California. 7.5-minute topographic map. ' United States Geological Survey (USGS), Hydrologic Unit Maps, U.S. Geological Survey Water - Supply Paper 2294 (1994), by Paul R. Seaber, F. Paul Kapinos, and George L Knapp. I ' Michael Brandman Associates 37 HdChenA0064-Cny d Newport Bmch00640022 Marina —Pa JD_(Dm0 081709).doe ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands 1 1 I 0 u 17 LI 1 I Appendix A: Regulatory Compliance Michael Brandman Associates H:\CJicmWOW-Qly arNewpon Bmch00640032 Mnnno Pud 1D_(Dmf 081709)dM I i I I I I F L n iJ City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Regulatory permitting for dredge and fill activities involves a compliance framework requiring interaction with federal, state and local agencies, often involving a diverse number of statutes and regulations. FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS - USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Regulated activities include but are not limited to, grading, placing of riprap for erosion control, pouring concrete, laying sod, and stockpiling excavated material. In general, any activity, which proposes to carry out an activity, which will temporarily or permanently affect areas delineated as waters of the US, including wetlands, typically requires prior authorization from the USACE, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Successful applications will put forth projects with a valid purpose, which generally comply with the avoidance, minimization and mitigation ("no net loss") goals of the USACE. Nationwide Permits v. Individual Permits Nationwide permits (NWPs) are a type of general permit issued by the Chief of Engineers and are designed to expedite the regulatory process for those types of projects/activities expected to have minimal impacts on jurisdictional areas. The nationwide permitting program is reauthorized every five years. The current NWP program became effective on March 19, 2007 and includes 49 different nationwide permit categories including "Linear Transportation Projects" (NWP 14), "Residential Developments" (NWP 29), "Commercial and Institutional Developments" (NWP 39) and "Stormwater Management Facilities" (NWP 43) among others. Each NWP establishes thresholds, which trigger the need for submitting a pre - construction notification (PCN) to the Corps and which set upper limits to accepted impacts based on the total acreage and/or linear feet of impacts, which result from project. Exceeding these limits will require processing an Individual Permit (IP), which may involve a significantly longer processing time. Federal Jurisdiction over Waters and Wetlands The USACE will assert jurisdiction over waters that are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. The definition of "Waters of the U.S.," are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3. The term "waters of the United States" means: I Michael Brandman Associates A-1 H:1Chcm10064CityafNcryonecach00040022_Manno_Park JD (D.DOeI709)doo City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix A (1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use ' in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters, which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; ' (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; in interstate foreign (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold or commerce; and be for industrial by industries in interstate (iii) Which are used or could used purpose commerce. United States the ' (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the under definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(6) of this section. (Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the , United States), and (8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act ' jurisdiction remains with the EPA. Subsequent to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos, et al v. United States (2006) the ' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE (tire agencies) issued a joint memorandum (Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos v. United States, (June 5, 2007)), which integrates the Rapanos standards with the process presented in 33 CFR 328.3(a). Michael Brandman Associates A-2 A-MienPa061•01yorNmport adcA000400I3 Mmiae�Pnk Ja_(ena 081709).do ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix A Pursuant to the memorandum, federal jurisdiction will be asserted over the following categories of water bodies: • (TNWs): TNW, including territorial seas; ' • Wetlands adjacent to TNWs; • (RPWS): Non- navigable tributaries of TNWs with relatively permanent water flow that are flow directly or indirectly to TNWs. "Relatively permanent" means water flowing for at least three months of the year. (Usually, perennial streams and some intermittent streams); and • Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ' In addition, the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following categories of water bodies only if, based on fact -specific analysis, the water body is determined to have a significant nexus with a TNW: ' • (Non-RPWs): Non -navigable tributaries that do not have relatively permanent water flow that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs (Usually ephemeral and some intermittent streams); ' • Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs; and • Wetlands adjacent to, but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. "A significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands has more than a speculative or an insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical, and/or biological integrity of a TTh agencies will not assert jurisdiction over the following geomorphic features: ' • "Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent or short duration flows)," and • "Ditches (including roadsides ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands that do ' not carry relatively permanent water flows." The agencies now require that all determinations for non -navigable waters, isolated -waters and/or wetlands be evaluated by the USACE and EPA before making a final jurisdictional determination. In the absence of wetlands the lateral extent of federal jurisdiction over non -tidal waters of the U.S. is ' defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined in 33 CFR 328.3, as "that line on the shore established by thefluctuations of water and indicated byphysical characteristics ' such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, Michael Brandman Associates A•3 HACIiemW064-City of Newport BmehOO640022_Morino Pod JD_(DmB_081709) dm City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix A destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate weans that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." In June 2001, the USACE South Pacific Division issued Guidelines for Jurisdictional Delineations for Waters of the United States in the Arid Southwest. The purpose of this document was to aid delineators in assessing the physical characteristics of dry land drainage systems in the Arid West. , With respect to jurisdictional determinations, the factors for determining waters of the U.S include evaluating the flow regime geomorphic feature, and general indicators of flow. These methods are consistent with the criteria set forth in 328.3(a) and 328.3(e), but are also subject to guidance set forth in the Rapanos guidance, including "significant nexus determinations," as appropriate. , Subject to Rapanos limitations, Federal Jurisdiction will extend to "adjacent" wetlands. "Adjacent" means "bordering contiguous or neighboring." According to the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report, (1987) three criteria must be satisfied,to classify an area as a jurisdictional wetland: 1. A predominance of plant life that is adapted tolife in wet conditions (hydrophytic vegetation); ' 2. Soils that saturate, flood, or pond long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (hydric soils); and ' 3. Permanent or periodic inundation or soils saturation, at least seasonally (wetland hydrology). The USACE has established regional guidance to address specific regional variations in wetlands ' determinations. These regional guidance documents supplement the 1987 manual. The Interim Regional Supplement for the Arid West was published in December 2006. Similarly Draft guidance for Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Regions" was published in April, 2007. In performing its delineations, MBA applies these supplemental guidance as appropriate. Resulting from the 2001 US Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of North Cook County v. USACE (SWANCC) case, federal jurisdiction will not reach wholly intra-state wetlands, which are not ' "adjacent" to a jurisdicttonal stream course. Similarly, as previously established, the Rapanos decision may further limit jurisdiction, on a case -specific basis, where a significant nexus determination is required. Primary General Conditions (GC) of 404 Permits GC # 4: Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA protects all common wild birds found in the US except the house sparrow, starling, feral pigeon, and resident game birds such,as pheasant, grouse, quail, and wild turkey. Resident game birds are managed separately by each state. The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, Michael Brandman Associates A•4 11.01enIWW�C0yofNewPod amchU0W0022_Marina Park_ID_(Dn(LOA1709) d04 I I [1 I I I I I I J I City of Newport Beach, Marina Park ProJect Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Append&A collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird including feathers, parts, nests, or eggs. The primary responsibility for complying with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is that of the project proponent (permittee) and is independent of Department of the Army permitting processes (404). It should be noted, however, that the nationwide permitting program (General Condition 4) does require that breeding areas for migratory birds in waters of the United States must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. GC # 17: Compliance with Federal Endangered Species Act In administering the Section 404 permitting program, the USACE is required to abide by Section 7(a) (2) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires federal agencies to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) "to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat." As a result, the presence of federally listed species must be determined prior to submittal of the Section 404 application. In the nationwide permitting program compliance with the ESA is set forth in general condition (GC 17) The USFWS administers the Federal Endangered Species Act. The ESA provides a process for listing species as either threatened or endangered, and methods of protecting listed species. The ESA defines as "endangered" any plant or animal species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its known geographic range. A "threatened" species is a species that is likely to become endangered. A "proposed" species is one that has been officially proposed by the USFWS for addition to the federal threatened and endangered species list. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits "take" of threatened or endangered species. The term "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct. Take can include disturbance to habitats used by a threatened or endangered species during any portion of its life history. The presence of any federally threatened or endangered species in a project area generally imposes severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in take of the species or its habitat. Under the regulations of the ESA, the USFWS may authorize take when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act. GC # 18: Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act In processing a Section 404 permit, the USACE is required to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 consultation is triggered when historic or archaeological sites are potentially affected by the proposed project. In the nationwide permitting program compliance with the NHPA is set forth in general condition (GC 18). The USACE will initiate section 106 consultation with the appropriate state agency (SHPO in California) with federal Michael Brandman Associates A-5 H.\ClicntW064-Cny oMcwp aButch00640022 Marini Pink JD_(Dmn OB1709)dm City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix oversite (ACIdP). The process usually requires one month from the date the USACE triggers consultation with the state agency. GC # 21: Compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act In connection with notification to the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), pursuant to 33 CFR Part 330, a written request for Section 401 water quality certification must be submitted to the RWQCB to ensure that no degradation of water quality will result from the proposed project. Subject to CWA section 401(a)(1), the Army Corps of Engineers cannot issue a section 404 dredge/fill permit until such time as a CWA section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) has been approved by the applicable RWQCB. In the nationwide permitting program compliance with the Section 401 is set forth in general, condition (GC 21). In order to meet the requirements of the RWQCB for issuance of a 401-water quality certification, the project proponent must provide assurances that the project will not adversely affect the water quality of receiving water bodies. A written request for 401 water quality certification must be prepared and submitted to the RWQCB for review. The request will include a detailed project description, a description of proposed impacts, identification and discussion of beneficial uses of affected receiving waters (as described within the appropriate Basin Plan), a water quality plan identifying project - specific Best Management practices (BMPs), discussion of other approvals and certifications being obtained, a conceptual restoration plan, and a completed notification form. CEQA Compliance: Pursuant to Title 23, Section 3856(f) of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) may not issue a Clean Water Act (Section 401) Water Quality Certification (WQC) for a project before being provided with (and having had ample time to review) a copy of the final CEQA documentation prepared for the project. Upon formal request for certification, water quality certification should be forthcoming within 90-120 days of completion of the CEQA process. tee Structure: Subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 23, §3833, a section 401 application must be accompanied by an initial deposit of not less than $500.00. If the initial deposit does not cover the agency's application review costs, the RWQCB may require an additional (one- time) amount using the calculus set forth in section 2200(e), Title 23, of the California Code of Regulations. GC # 22: Compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act In administering the Section 404 permitting program, the USACE is required to abide by Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). This requirement is set forth in General Condition No. 22 of the NWP (2007) program and detailed in 33 CFR 330.4(d). This condition requires the USACE to provide a consistency determination and receive state agreement prior to the authorization of activities affecting land, water, or natural resources within the coastal zone. II 1 I I I 1 1 I I Michael Biandman Associates A•6 HACOMID064tdy orNc%vPd BocliMM0022Madne_Park_3e—(emft 081709).doc , City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix I LJ �J I I �I I I The California "Coastal zone" means that land and water area within the State extending seaward to the state's outer limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. In significant coastal estuarine, habitat, and recreational areas it extends inland to the first major ridgeline paralleling the sea or five miles from the mean high tide line of the sea, whichever is less, and in developed urban areas the zone generally extends inland less than 1,000 yards. The coastal zone does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, nor any area contiguous thereto, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing into such area. STATE STATUES AND REGULATIONS — RWQCB The State of California has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal government over §401 Water Quality Certification over jurisdictional waters and wetlands of the United States. Where isolated waters and wetlands (not subject to federal jurisdiction) are involved, the State will exert independent jurisdiction via the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act Section 13260(a) of the California Water Code ("Water Code", or "Porter Cologne") requires that any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste within any region, other than to a community sewer system, which could affect the quality of the waters of the State, file a report of waste discharge (ROWD). The discharge of dredged or fill material may constitute a discharge of waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State (Defined in Water Code § 13050(e)). Typically, the State of California relies upon its authority under section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA (33 U.S.C. §1341) to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material to California waters that are also within the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Given the water quality certification (WQC) process employed under section 401, waste discharge requirements under Porter Cologne are typically waived for those projects requiring a water quality ' certification. In 2001 the U.S. Supreme decision in Sold Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , 531 U.S. 159 (2001) ("SWANCC") invalidated the Army Corp's use ' of the "Migratory Bird Rule" to establish federal jurisdiction over isolated waters. Since 2001, the State of California has reasserted its authority under state law to assert jurisdiction over isolated waters for water quality purposes by requiring a ROWD. Regulation of Isolated Waters Dredging, filling, or excavation of "isolated" waters constitutes a discharge of waste to waters of the State, and prospective dischargers are required to submit a report of waste discharge to the RWQCB and comply with other requirements of the State Porter Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code). Michael Brandman Associates A-7 ' HAClient10064-City oMewpon BmehUB640022_Manna Pak JD_(DmB O91709).doe City of Newport Beach, Marina Perk Project Delineation of./urisdictlonal Waters and Wetlands Appendix Scope of Regulation: With respect to isolated waters, discharges and/or dredging of wetlands, active , channels or beds of waterbodies are regulated. Discharges to riparian or areas in proximity to a waterbody are regulated when such activity will directly or indirectly result a change to water quality. Such changes may include discharge of stormwater pollutants and runoff, change in the nature of vegetation that could affect water quality (e.g., affecting pollutant removal, stream shading or bank stability); or change to the hydrological or geomorphic characteristics of the-waterbody. Aanlication of Regulation: Whenever the USACE issues a jurisdictional disclaimer (concurs with a finding of no federal jurisdiction), the respective RWQCB is notified of the disclaimer. Typically, the RWQCB will issue a letter notifying the project proponent that a ROWD must be filed. A ROWD must be submitted in one of two forms, depending on the anticipated impacts. (1) General Waste Discharge Requirement (GWDR): The GWDR program is substantively set forth in SWRCB Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ. GWDRs are generally prescribed for a category of discharges (either temporary or permanent) involving earth, rock, or similar solid materials if the discharge will not be greater than 0.2 acres and 400 linear feet (for fill or excavation) or 50 cubic yards (for dredging). The type of projects that may be covered under these General WDRs include land development, detention basins, disposal of dredged material, bank stabilization, revetment, channelization, and other similar projects. GWDRs do not apply to discharges that adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modification, any plants or animals identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, or by the CDFG (including NCCPs), or USFWS (including HCPs). Similarly, GWDRs do not apply to discharges impacting ' significant historical, archaeological or paleontological resources. Requirements: The GWDR typically requires submittal of the following items: (1) A Notice of Intent (NOI), (2) Any CEQA documents that have been prepared for the project, (3) A fee pursuant to Title 23, section 2200 of the CCR, (4) A Mitigation Plan demonstrating that the discharger will , sequentially avoid, minimize, and compensate for the adverse impacts to the affected water bodies, and beneficial uses (as set forth in the applicable Basin Plan), and (5) Any other relevant information requested by the SWRCB or RWQCB. A copy of the application must be submitted to both the applicable RWQCB and to the SWANC-ROWD, Water Quality Certification Unit in Sacramento. Timine: Pursuant to the requirements of the California Permit Streamlining Act, RWQCB has , 30 days to deem the application complete. Upon receipt of a complete submittal, the RWQCB has 45 days in which to issue a Notice of Applicability (NOA) (authorizing the activity) or a Notice of Exclusion (NOE) (denying authorization. The discharge activity is operationally authorized if no NOE is issued within the 45-day evaluation period, provided that the proposed activity is not a prohibited activity. (2) Individual Waste Discharge Requirements (IWDR): Projects not qualifying for the GWDRs will need to satisfy individual waste discharge requirements, typically requiring submittal of 401 Water Quality Certification forms and supporting documentation as set forth by the respective RWQCB. Such submittals are, subject to fees as set forth in California Code of Regulations Title 23 Michael Brandman Associates A•8 mxti i)m-city brNewpDo awch00640@2 Maine Pock JD (DMA 08I709)Aw , City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project ' Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix A tSection 2200(a)(2). Pursuant to the Water Code the project proponent is required to file with the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) a Report of Waste Discharge ' describing the proposed discharge at least 140 days before it occurs (Water Code §§13260, 13264). 1 I I I 11 I I I 1 I 1 J Michael Brandman Associates A-9 ' NdCIlcm\0064.01y or Newport aeoeh00640022_Morino_Park JD_(Drnf 081709).doe City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands AppendlxA STATE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS - CDFG , Section 1600/1602 of the California Fish and Game Code In the public interest of protection and conservation of fish and wildlife resources of the state (§ 1600), Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify the CDFG before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following: ' (1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake. CDFG's jurisdiction includes ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial , watercourses, including dry washes, characterized by: 1 The presence of hydrophytic vegetation. 2. The location of definable bedand banks. 3. The presence of existing fish or wildlife resources. Furthermore, CDFG jurisdiction is often extended to habitats adjacent to watercourses, such as oak woodlands in canyon bottoms or willow woodlands that function as part of the riparian system. Historic court cases have further extended CDFG jurisdiction to include watercourses that seemingly disappear, but re-emerge elsewhere. Under the CDFG definition, a watercourse need not exhibit ' evidence of an OHWM to be claimed as jurisdictional. However, CDFG does not regulate isolated wetlands; that is, those that are not associated with a river, stream, or lake. CDFG Regulated Activities The CDFG regulates activities that involve diversions, obstruction, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife resources. When a project requires such activities, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Notification will be prepared and submitted to the CDFG for review. The request will include a detailed project description, a ' description of proposed impacts, a conceptual mitigation plan, and completed notification forms. Typically, CDFG will be able to complete the agreement within 60-90 days of the completion of the , CEQA process. CEQA Compliance: It should be noted that CDFG must also comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (pub. Resources Code, §21000, et seq.) before it may issue a final Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. Issuance of a final Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement occurs after the Department receives a draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from the applicant and the Department signs it. In many instances, the Department will receive a signed draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from an applicant before the lead agency has fully complied with CEQA. In those instances, the Department must wait for the lead agency to fully Michael Brandman Associates A-10 HX6cntWOWCity orNcwpod em[hO0640073 Molina pa* ID_(ama P$1709)da , City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Protect Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix A comply with CEQA before it may sign the draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, thereby making it final. Fee Structure: Pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14 §699.3, CDFG assesses a fee to cover the cost of reviewing § 1602 applications. The fee calculus is based on the sum cost of the proposed activities within the streambed or riparian community. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species �i Sensitive species are native species that have been accorded special legal or management protection because of concern for their continued existence. There are several categories of protection at both ' federal and state levels, depending on the magnitude of threat to continued existence and existing knowledge of population levels. California Endangered Species Act The CDFG administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The State of California considers an "endangered" species one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A "threatened" species is one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management. A "rare" species is one present in such small numbers throughout its portion of its known geographic range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. The rare species designation applies to California native plants. State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above. The term "species of special concern" is an informal designation used by CDFG for some declining wildlife species that are not state candidates for listing. This designation does not provide legal protection under CESA, but signifies that these species are recognized as sensitive by CDFG. California Native Plant Society The CNPS is a California resource conservation organization that has developed and inventory of California's sensitive plant species (Tibor 2001). This inventory summarizes information on the ' distribution, rarity, and endangerment of California's vascular plants. The inventory is divided into four lists based on the rarity of the species. In addition, the CNPS provides an inventory of plant ' communities that are considered sensitive by the state and federal resource agencies, academic institutions, and various conservation groups. Determination of the level of sensitivity is based on the number and size of remaining occurrences as well as recognized threats. Section 3503 and 3511 of the California Fish and Game Code The CDFG administers the California Fish and Game Code. Code 3503 makes it illegal to destroy any birds' nest or any birds' eggs that are protected under the MBTA. Code 3503.5 further protects all birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiforines (birds of prey, such as hawks and owls) and their eggs and nests from any form of take. Section 3511 of the Code lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFG is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Michael Brandman Associates A-11 H.TlienNO64-01y ofN p ft Dwa h00640022 Modno Port. JD_(DM OB1709).doe city of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands 1 I I I D I I I 11 I i City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix B �t NUSACE I I U I I I i 0 I 1 I 11 CRITERIA FOR WETLAND DETERMINATIONS As defined in 33 CFR part 328.3(a)(7) and as established by current case law, the USACE will currently assert jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to waters of the U.S., except for those wetlands adjacent to other wetlands. The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence or vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes , bogs, and similar areas (33 CFR part 328.3(b)). Typically, the term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like are also adjacent (33 CFR part 328.3(c)). Similarly, the wetland must be adjacent to either a navigable in -fact water way or tributary thereof. Where "adjacency" cannot be established, the wetlands will be determined to be an "isolated" non jurisdictional feature unless an independent nexus to interstate or foreign commerce can be established as per 33 CFR part 328.3(a)(3). (Also see SWANCC v. US, 2001). Based on the standards established in Rapanos v. U.S., the USACE will not assert jurisdiction over wetlands where: (1) the wetlands are adjacent to non -navigable tributaries that lack relatively permanent flows, or (2) wetlands are adjacent to but not abutting non -navigable tributaries with relatively permanent water, unless in both cases the relevant portion (reach) of the drainage, together with all of its wetlands, have a significant nexus to aTNW. According to the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report (1987), three criteria must be satisfied to classify an area as a jurisdictional wetland: 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: A predominance of plant life that is adapted to life in wet conditions (hydrophytic vegetation); 2. Hydric Soils: Soils that saturate, flood, or pond long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (hydric soils), and 3. Wetland Hvdrolary: Permanent or periodic inundation or soils saturation, at least seasonally (wetland hydrology). The USACE has established regional guidance to address specific regional variations in wetlands determinations. These regional guidance documents supplement the 1987 manual The Interim Regional Supplement for the Arid West, that was published in December 2006. Similarly, Draft I Michael Brandman Associates B-f HdChcntM64•City ofNcwpon Bmch00640073 Manno Pad.1D_(Dca0081709) dm City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix B guidance for Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Regions" was published in April, 2007. In performing its delineations, MBA applies these supplemental guidance as appropriate. As established in both the USACE 87 Manual and the "Arid West" regional guidance, the following criteria apply. Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as plant life growing in water, soil, or substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen because of excessive water content. The USFWS has published the National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands, (1996 National Summary, hereafter NLVPS) and divided,plants into 5 groups based on their "wetland indicator status:" ; 1. Obligate wetland plants (OBL) that occur almost always in wetlands under natural conditions; 2. Facultative wetland plants (FACW) that usually occur in wetlands but occasionally are found in upland areas; , 3. Facultative plants (FAC) that are equally likely to occur in wetlands as well as upland; ; 4. Facultative upland plants (FACU) that usually occur in upland areas but occasionally are found in wetlands; and ' 5. Upland plants (UPL) that occur almost always in upland areas under natural conditions. Plus (+) and minus (-) values, used in identifying indicator status in the NLVPS are not applied when evaluating plants in the and west region. In die and west, an area is deemed to have hydrophytic vegetation when either it: (1) passes the dominance test; (2) has a prevalence index 53; t (3) morphological adaptations are present; or (4) the area is a "problem area." (See, Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps ofLngineei s Wetland Delineation Manual: Arld West Region, December ' 2006.) Dominance Test: An area has hydrophytic vegetation when, under normal circumstances, more than 50 percent of the composition of dominant plant species (using the 50/20 rule) from all strata are obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW) and/or facultative species (FAC). If the plant community passes the dominance test, then the vegetation is hydrophytic and no further vegetation analysis is required. If the plant community fails the dominance test, and indicators of hydric soil and/or wetland are absent then hydrophytic vegetation is absent unless the site meets requirements for , a problematic wetland situation. Prevalence Test: In areas failing the dominance test yet having indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology, the vegetation must be re-evaluated using tite "prevalence index" (PI). The prevalence _ index takes into account all plant species in the community, not just a few dominants. The index is a Michael Brandman Associates B-2 H9CtlenfOMMoil ofNewpod aeocliMMOe22 Midnt_Ped<_J[J.(Dna eSn09).dm ' 1 E 1 City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix B weighted -average wetland indicator status of all plant species in the sampling plot, where each indicator status category is a given a numeric code (OBL =1, FACW =2, FAC = 3, FACU = 4, and UPL = 5) and weighting is by abundance (percent cover). The sum of the weighted indicator values are then divided by the sum of the percent cover values for each indicator type. Where the PI value is <_3, the area is considered positive for hydrophytic vegetation. Generally, the index is a more comprehensive analysis of the hydrophytic status of the community than one based on just a few dominant species. The index is particularly useful: (1) in communities only one or two dominants; (2) in highly diverse communities where many species may be present at roughly equal coverage; and (3) when strata differ greatly in total plant cover. The prevalence index is used on sites where indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present but the vegetation initially fails the dominance test. Morpholosical Adaptations: In areas failing both the dominance test and prevalence test, yet having indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation will still be deemed present when the morphological adaptations are present. In the and west the most common morphological adaptations are adventitious roots and shallow root systems developed on or near the soil surface on FACU species. If more than 50 percent of the FACU species have morphological adaptations, then these species are classified as FAC species and the dominance test and/or prevalence index are recalculated. The vegetation is hydrophytic if either test is positive. Hydric Soils Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. "Long enough" generally means 1 week during the growing season and soils that are saturated for this period usually support hydrophytic vegetation. The criteria for establishing the presence of hydric soils vary among different types of soils and between normal circumstances, disturbed areas, and problem areas. Due to their wetness during the growing season, hydric soils usually develop certain morphological properties that can be readily observed in the field. Prolonged anaerobic soil conditions typically lower the soil redox potential, causing a chemical reduction of some soil components, mainly iron oxides and manganese oxides. This reduction is typically reflected by the presence of iron or manganese concretions, gleying or mottling. Other field indicators of hydric soils include the presence of sulfidic material, an aquic or peraquic moisture regime, or a spodic horizon. (All organic soils, with the exception of Folists, are classified as hydric soils.) Wetland Hydrology Wetland hydrology is permanent or periodic inundation, or soil saturation for a significant period during the growing season. Numerous factors influence the wetness of an area, including precipitation, stratigraphy, topography, soil permeability, and plant cover. At certain times of the year in most wetlands, and in certain types of wetlands at most times, wetland hydrology is quite evident, since surface water or saturated soils may be observed. Yet, in many instances, especially Michael Brandman Associates B•3 H T1=110064-City or Newpon Doch00640022 Manno_Pod; ID (Dmtt_081709) doe City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix B along the uppermost boundary of wetlands, hydrology is not readily apparent. Despite this limitation, hydrologic indicators can be useful for confirming that a site with hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils still exhibits wetland hydrology. While hydrologic indicators are sometimes diagnostic of the presence of wetlands, they are generally either operationally impracticable (e.g. in the case of recorded data) or technically inaccurate (e.g., in the case of some field indicators) for delineating wetland boundaries. The following hydrologic indicators, while not necessarily indicative of hydrologic events during the growing season or in wetlands alone, do provide evidence that inundation or soil saturation has occurred at some time: visual observation of inundation, visual observation of soil saturation, oxidized channels (rhizospheres) associated with living roots and rhizomes, water marks, drift lines, waterborne sediment deposits, water -stained leaves, surface scoured areas, morphological plant adaptations, and hydric soil characteristics. Problem Areas and Atypical Situations Ia the and west some wetlands may periodically lack indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils or wetland hydrology due to normal (natural) seasonal or annual variability. Similarly, indicators in some areas may be affected by atypical situations brought about by recent human activities or unusual natural events. The Arid West Regional Guidance sets forth a number of procedures to identify and analyze problems areas. Examples of problem areas and atypical situations may include: Problematic Vegetation: • Temporal Shifts in Vegetation: plant communities in playas, venal pools, seepas and springs change in response to seasonal climatic fluctuations. These changes may result from: - Seasonal shifts in plant communities between normal wet/dry season - Drought Conditions lasting more than one growing season. • Sparse and Patchy Vegetation: A seasonal pond must have at least 5 percent plant cover to be considered vegetated. To be considered jurisdictional, unvegetated areas may be considered as other waters of the U.S. if they exhibit Ordinary High Water (OIJW) indicators as set forth in 33 CFR 328.3 • Riparian Areas: Where there is high variability in wetland vegetation indicator status between the different strata. (Usually the tree strata has wetter indicator status than other strata.) • Areas Affected by Crazing: • Managed Plant Communities: horticulture, tilling/disking. • Areas Affected by Fires, Floods and Other Natural Disturbances: • Vigor and Stress Response to Welland Conditions: horticulture is either robust or impeded by hydric soils, and/or wetland hydrology. Michael Brandman Associates 84 HACann MM-CilyofNnwpoa Du<h00040011 Marine.Po* JD—(Dma 081709)Adw I 1 u I 11 1 rJ City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix B Problematic Hydric Soils: • Moderately to Very Strong Alkaline Soils: Redox concentrations and depletions are not always evident in soils with pH of 7.9 or higher. • Volcanic Ash: Soils of volcanic origin are high in silica content and low in redoximorphic minerals such as iron, manganese, and sulfur. • Vegetated Sand and Gravel Bars within Flood Plains: Flood plains may lack hydric soil indicators because seasonal flooding deposits new layers of soil material or the deposited material may lack redoximorphic minerals. • Recently Developed Wetlands: may include mitigation sites, wetland management areas, unintentionally produced wetlands (flood irrigation, leaking water pipes, etc). • Seasonally Ponded Soils: depressional wetlands, usually with perched systems above a restrictive soil layer (hardpan or clay) where the saturation depth or saline conditions prohibit hydric soil indicators. • Soils with Relict or Induced hydric Soil Indicators: in some areas redoximorphic features in hydric soils were formed in the recent or distant past when conditions were substantially wetter than at present. Hydric soil indicators may persist in low land areas which were historically flooded (such as in California's Central Valley) even though the area has been drained for agricultural purposes. Alternatively, hydric soils indicators in upland areas may have formed historically from flood irrigation or like agricultural activities which no longer persist. Problematic Wetland Hydrology: • Site Visits During the Dry Season: Hydrophytic vegetation may be absent or diminished during the dry -season (when evapo-transpiration exceeds precipitation). When possible the site should be visited (or re -visited) during the normal wet season. • Periods with Below Normal Rainfall: Rainfall in the 3-month period prior to the site visit should'be compared to historical averages from the National Water and Climate Center (MRCS). Rainfall should be between the high and low 30 percent probability values. • Drought Years: Areas subject to drought conditions particularly lasting several years may affect wetland hydrology indicators. The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) (known operationally as the Palmer Drought Index (PDI)) attempts to measure the duration and intensity of the long-term drought -inducing circulation patterns. Long-term drought is cumulative, so the intensity of drought during the current month is dependent on the current weather patterns plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. Since weather patterns can change almost literally overnight from a long-term drought pattern to a long-term wet pattern, the PDSI (PDI) can respond fairly rapidly. PDSI values range between -6 and +6 with negative values indicating dry periods and positive values indicating wet periods: 1 Michael Brandman Associates B•5 HdCI1cmW064-City of Newport BmchOO650022—Morino Park JD_(Dmn 081709)doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix B F - (4 to -6) - Extreme Drought; - (-3) -Severe Drought; - (-2) - Moderate brought; and - (4) - Mild Drought. • Years with Unusually Low Winter Snowpack: the hydrology of areas with water -sheds in adjacent mountain regions may be affected by annual variability in the liquid equivalent of the snow pack. • Reference Sites! If indicators of hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation are present on a site that lacks wetland hydrology indicators, the site may be considered to be a wetland if the landscape setting, topography, soils, and vegetation are substantially the same as those on nearby reference areas. • Hydrology Tools: A collection of methods can be used to determine whether wetland hydrology is present on a potential wetland site that lacks indicators due to disturbances or other reasons (particularly in agricultural areas). • Long -terns Hydrological Monitoring: Areas may be monitored over long periods of time. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME: The California Wildlife Protection Act as codified in the Fish & Game code defines "wetlands" as "lands which may be covered periodically orpermanently with shallow water and which include sallwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudilats, fens, and vernal pools." (Fish & Game Code §2785(g)) SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION: A significant nexus determination is required when the following water bodies are present: (1) Non -navigable tributaries that do not have relatively permanent water flow that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs (usually ephemeral and some intermittent streams); (2) Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs; or (3) Wetlands adjacent to, but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. The determination begins by first identifying the relative reach of the applicable tributary. With respect to "significant nexus determinations," the "relevant reach" will include all tributary waters of the same order. Typically this will include the tributary and all adjacent wetlands reaching down stream from the project site to the confluence with the next tributary, and upstream to any a similar confluence. To have a significant nexus a tributary and its adjacent wetlands must have more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. A significant nexus determination requires evaluation of hydrological and ecological factors, which may contribute F u F E I_J LJ I_ 11 Michael Brandman Associates B•B H.Tlfenfa0k-CiiyofNewpon aadiWMD0:: MerinPah lo_(omn oeno9).doe City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix B tto the maintenance of water quality, aquatic life, commerce, navigation, recreation, and public health in the TNW. • Hydrological Factors: Volume, duration, and frequency of flow: including consideration of certain ' characteristics of the tributary, including historic records of flow, flood predictions, gauge data and personal observations (OHWM, Shelving, water staining, sediment 11 1 sorting and scouring); - Proximity to the TNW: If a tributary is too far from the TNW it's remoteness is more likely to make the impact on the TNW speculative; - Contextual hydrological factors: including (1) size of the watershed, (2) average annual rainfall, and (3) average annual snow pack, and - The presence of tributary or wetland within the flood plain: It should be noted, however that a significant nexus determination cannot be based solely on presence of the water body within or outside the flood plain. Ecological Factors: - The ability of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands (if any) to carry pollutants and flood waters to TNW; - The Ability of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands (if any) to provide aquatic habitat that supports biota of a TNW; - The ability of adjacent wetlands to trap and filter pollutants or store flood water, and - The ability to maintain water quality. COASTAL ZONE Jurisdictional assessments in the California coastal zone must also evaluate potential wetland areas ' using the criteria established in the California Coastal Act and set forth in the California Code of Regulations. ' The California "Coastal zone" means that land and water area within the State extending seaward to the state's outer limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. In significant coastal estuarine, habitat, and ' recreational areas it extends inland to the first major ridgeline paralleling the sea or five miles from the mean high tide line of the sea, whichever is less, and in developed urban areas the zone generally ' extends inland less than 1,000 yards. The coastal zone does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 ' (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, nor any area contiguous thereto, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing into such area. Michael Brandman Associates B-7 ' H9CImnAOOMtny orNewpon amch00640022-Mo6no Po* JD-(Dof 081709)doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix B n The California Coast Act section 30121 defines the term "wetland" as, "Lands within the coastal zone which be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and includes saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water inarshes, swanhps, nmd fats, acid fens." The Coastal Act is administered in the State by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Coastal Commission regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 14 (14CCR)) establish a "one parameter definition" that only requires evidence of a single parameter to establish wetland conditions: "Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the fannation ofhydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result offre9uent drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, waterflow, turbidity or high concentration ofsalts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at sortie during each year and their location within, or adjacent to vegetated wetland or deepwater habitats." (14 CCR 13577) The Commission's one parameter definition is similar to the USFWS wetlands classification system, which states that wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly un-drained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non -soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JURISDICTION Within the area of San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) CCC jurisdictional criteria does not apply, however USACE wetland determination criteria will apply. It is also noted that the primary State law governing the BCDC, the McAteer-Petris Act, does not define wetlands but does outline the BCDC's jurisdiction respective of wetlands. "Managed wetlands consisting of all areas which have been diked offfrom the bay and have been maintained during the three years immediately preceding the effective date of the amendment of this section during the 1969 Regular Session of the Legislature as a duck hunting preserve, game refuge or for agriculture." (Gov. Code §66610(b)) n F C L�I C C Michael Brandman Associates B•B HACIicniW004-CilyofNewpun amcli00040022 Afatino Pa,k JD—(atch 081709).dae CI ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands 1 I 1 1 Psi 1 1 1 1 1 1 r I Appendix C: Glossary of Terms ' Michael Brandman Associates N:WI¢.f,0064.00y of N.poa atloh0U640031 Marina_Pad._JD_(Dr+k 081709).d. [1 1 1 I City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source Page Definition Abutting 6 69 With respect to jurisdictional determinations, wetlands that are not separated from the tributary by an upland feature, such as a berm or dike, is "abutting." Adjacent 7 N/A The term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are "adjacent wetlands." Aerial Miles 6 53 With respect to jurisdictional determinations, "aerial miles" is the straight line (linear) distance between the water bodies in question. Best 4 11196 Policies, practices, procedures, or structures implemented to Management mitigate the adverse environmental effects on surface water Practices (BMPs) quality resulting from development. BMPs are categorized as structural or non-structural. Clean Water Act NA NA Also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA) of 1972 (FWPCA) 33U.S.C.A §§1251 to 1387 (alternatively cited as "to § § 101— 607). The primary goal as defined in § 125 l (a) is restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Jurisdiction to regulate "waters of the United States," vested under this Act include: §303 (Water Quality Standards and implementation Plans), §311 (Spill Program and Oil Pollution Act), §401 (State Water Quality Certification), §402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System — NPDES), §404 (Permits for dredge or fill material). Clean Water Act NA NA Section 303 Water Quality Standards Program: Under this (CWA) §303 program, State and authorized Indian Tribes establish water quality standards for navigable waters to `protect thepublic health or welfare" and "enhance the quality of water," `taking into consideration their use and value forpublic water supplies, propagation offish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agriculture, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation." Clean Water Act NA NA Section 311 Spill Program and the Oil Production Act (OPA): (CWA) §311 Under this program, the CWA addresses pollution from both oil and hazardous substance releases. Together with the Oil Pollution Act, it provides EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard with the authority to establish a program for preventing, preparing for, and responding to, spills that occur in navigable waters of the United States. Clean Water Act NA NA Section 401 State Water -Quality Certification: Provides that no (CWA) §401 Federal permit or license for activities that might result in a discharge to navigable waters may be issued unless a CWA Section 401 water quality certification is obtained from or waived by States or authorized Tribes. ' Michael Brandman Associates C-1 H•1CIicnA0064-Cily0rNcwO0d Bwch00640022—Marina Pad.—JD—(emQ081709) doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Perk Project I Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source page Definition Clean Water Act NA NA Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (CWA) §402 (NPDES): This program established a permitting system to regulatepoint source discharges of pollutants (other than dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States. Clean Water Act NA NA Section 404 Dredged and Fill Material Permit Program: This (CWA) §404 program established a permitting system to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Compensatory 4 11496 The restoration, establishment (creation), enhancement, or Mitigation reservation of aquatic resources for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved. Currently 4 11196 Useable as is or with some maintenance, but not so degraded as Serviceable to essentially require reconstruction. Discharge 4 11196 The term "discharge" means any discharge of dredged or fill material and any activity that causes or results in such a discharge. Diurnal Tide 9 NA The arithmetic mean of mean higher high water and mean lower Level low water. Entrancement 4 11196 The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an aquatic resource to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area. Ephemeral 4 11196 An ephemeral stream has flowing water only during, and for a Stream short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream. Runoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow. Establishment 4 11196 The manipulation of the physicals chemical, or biological (Creation) characteristics present to develop an aquatic resource that did not previously exist at an upland site. Establishment results in a gain in aquatic resource area. Facultative 1 14 Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability of Plants (FAQ 33 percent to 67 percent) of occurring in both wetlands and non -wetlands. Facultative 1 14 Plants that occur usually (estimated probability >67 percent to Wetland Plants 99 percent) in wetlands, but also occur (estimated probability (FACIII) l percent to 33 percent) in non -wetlands. Facultative 1 14 Plants that occur sometimes (estimated probability 1 percent to Upland Plants <33 percent) in wetlands, but occur more ofien (estimated (FACU) probability>67 percent to 99 percent) in non -wetlands. Great Diurnal 9 NA The difference in height between mean higher high water and GI 1 1 11 Michael Brandman Associates C•2 ' H.W11rn UM-Cny dNmpan amcli00W0022 Marine PhaJD� 0 _(Dm81709),doe 1 1 F City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Protect Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source Page Definition Range (GT) mean lower low water. Greenwich High 9 NA The average interval (in hours) between the moon's transit over Water Interval the Greenwich meridian and the following high water at a (HWI) location. Greenwich Low 9 NA The average interval (in hours) between the moon's transit over Water Interval the Greenwich meridian and the following low water at a (LWV location. High tide line 7 N/A The term "high tide line" means the line of intersection of the (HTL) land with the water's surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide. The high tide line may be determined', in the absence of actual data, by a line of oil or scum along shore objects, a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm, other physical markings or characteristics, vegetation lines, tidal gages, or other suitable means that delineate the general height reached by a rising tide. The line encompasses spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency but does not include storm surges in which there is a departure from the normal or predicted reach of the tide due to the piling up of water against a coast by strong winds such as those accompanying a hurricane or other intense storm. Historic Property 4 11196 Any prehistoric or historic district, site (including archaeological site), building, structure, or other object included in,.or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization which meet the National Register criteria (36 CFR part 60). Hydrological 8 1-3 As prescribed by the USGS, refers to the four levels of Units subdivisions, used for the collection and organization of hydrological data. The hierarchy of hydrological units include! (1) Regions (2) Subregions (3) Accounting Units, and (4) Cataloging Units. The identifying codes associated with these units are "hydrological unit codes." Hydrological 8 3 The first level of USGS hydrological classification, which Units — divides the Nation into 21 Major geographic areas. These "Regions" geographic areas (hydrologic areas based on surface topography) contain either the drainage area of a major river, or the combined drainage areas of a series of rivers. Most of California is located within region "18". Notable exceptions include the Tahoe basin ("Great Basin Region 16") and the Colorado River ("Lower Colorado Region 15"). All smaller hydrological units with the region begin with the region number (18). Hydrological 8 3 The second level of USGS hydrological classification, divides Units — the 21 regions into 222 subregions (nationally). A subregion Michael Brandman Associates C-3 ' H.ThcW064.City arNcwpon Btich0064007I Madno_Pat lD_(Dmn 081709)doc City or Newport Beach, Marina Park Project I Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source Page Definition "Subregions" includes the area drained by a river system a reach of a river and its tributaries in that reach, a closed basin(s), or a group of streams forming a coastal drainage area. Within Region 18, the state of California -includes 10 sub -regions. Hydrological 8 3 The third level of USGS hydrological classification, subdivides Units— many of the subregions in accounting units. These "Accounting 352 hydrologic accounting units nest within, or are equivalent Units" to, the subregions. The accounting units are used by the Geological Survey for designing and managing the National Water Data Network. Within Region 18, the state of California includes 16 Accounting Units. Hydrological 8 3 The Fourth level of USGS hydrological classification is the Units— cataloging unit, the smallest element in the hierarcy of "Cataloging hydrologic units. A cataloging unit is a geographic area Units" representing part of all of a surface drainage basin, a combination of drainage basins, or a distinct hydrological feature. There are 2,150 cataloging units in the United States, Within Region 18, the state of California includes 135 cataloging units. Independent 4 11196 A test to determine what constitutes a single and complete ritility project in the Corps regulatory program. A project is considered to have independent utility if it would be constructed absent the construction of other projects in the project area. Portions of a multi -phase project that depend upon other phases of the project do not have independent utility. Phases of a project that would be constructed even if the other phases were not built can be considered as separate single and complete projects with independent utility. Intermittent 4 11196 An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times of stream the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. Loss of {Paters of 4 11196 Waters of the United States that are permanently adversely the United States affected by filling, flooding, excavation, or drainage because of the regulated activity. Permanent adverse effects include permanent discharges of dredged or fill material that change an aquatic area to dry land, increase the bottom elevation of a water body, or change the use of a water body. The acreage of loss of waters of the United Stales is a threshold measurement of the impact to jurisdictional waters for determining whether a project may qualify for an Nationwide Permit (NWP); it -is not a net threshold that is calculated after considering compensatory mitigation that may be used to offset losses of aquatic functions and services. The loss of stream bed includes the linear feet of stream bed that is filled or excavated. Waters of the United States temporarily filled, flooded, excavated, or drained, but restored to pre -construction contours and elevations after construction, are not included in the measurement of loss of 'I t I�� Michael Brandman Associates a0cl wv"A•cily om wpon aacb00640033 Diedn._Puk Ja_(ana OAI709).doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source Page Definition waters of the United States. Impacts resulting from activities eligible'for exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act are not considered when calculating the loss of waters of the United States. Mean Diurnal 9 NA The difference in height of the two low waters of each tidal day High Water for a mixed or semidiurnal tide. Inequality (DL Mean Diurnal 9 NA The difference in height of the two high waters of each tidal day High Water for a mixed or semidiumal tide. Inequality (DHQ, I City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source j page Definition National Tidal 9 NA The specific 19-year period adopted by the National Ocean Dahen Epoch Service as the official time segment over which tide observations are taken and reduced to obtain mean values (e.g., meam lower low water, etc.) for tidal datums. It is necessary for standardization because of periodic and apparent, secular trends in sea level. The present NTDE is 1983 through 2001 and is actively considered for revision every 20-25 years. Tidal datums in certain regions with anomolous sea level changes (Alaska, Gulf of Mexico) are calculated on a Modified 5-Year Epoch. Obligate Wetland 1 14 Plants that occur almost always (estimated probability Plants (OBL) >99 percent) in wetlands under natural conditions, but which may also occur rarely (estimated probability <1 percent) in non -wetlands. Obligate Upland 1 14 Plants that occur rarely (estimated probability <1 percent) in Plants (UPL) wetlands, but occur almost always (estimated probability >99 percent) in non -wetlands under natural conditions. Open Water 4 11196 For purposes of the NWPs, an open water is any area that in a year with normal patterns of precipitation has water flowing or standing above ground to the extent that an ordinary,high water mark can be determined. Aquatic vegetation within the area of standing or flowing water is either non -emergent, sparse, or absent. Vegetated shallows.are considered to be open waters. Examples of "open waters" include rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds. Ordinary High 7 N/A The term "oedinary high water mark" means that line on the Water Mark shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Ordinary High 4 11196 An ordinary high water mark is a line on the shore established Water Mark by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, or by other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas (see 33 CFR 328.3(e)). Perennial Stream 4 11197 A, perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year. Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. Practicable 4 11197 Available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Pre -construction 4 11197 A request submitted by die project proponent to the USACE for notification confirmation that a particular activity is authorized by a NWP. The request may be a permit application, letter, or similar document that includes information about the proposed work Michael Brandman Associates C-6 NBCaemWOWdayorNcwpdrt amcl,Dg640022 Madne Pot JD IDma 0817e4).dw ' 1 L 1 City of Newport Beach, -Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C. GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source Page Definition and its anticipated environmental effects. Pre -construction notification may be required by the terms and conditions of a NWP, or by regional conditions. A pre -construction notification may be voluntarily submitted in cases where pre -construction notification is not required and the project proponent wants confirmation that the activity is authorized by a NWP. Preservation 4 11197 The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by an action in or near those aquatic resources. This term includes activities commonly associated with the protection and maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms. Preservation does not result in a gain of aquatic resource area or functions. Re-establishment 4 11197 The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area. Rehabilitation 4 11197 The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation results in a gain in aquatic resource function, but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area. Relatively 5, 5,69 In the context of CWA jurisdiction post-Rapanos, a water body Permanent Water is "relatively permanent" if it flows year round or its flow is (RPW) continuous at least "seasonally," (e.g., typically 3 months). Wetlands adjacent to a "relatively permanent" tributary are also jurisdictional if those wetlands directly abut such a tributary. Relevant Reach 6 40 With respect to "significant nexus determinations," the "relevant reach" will include all tributary waters of the same order. Typically this will include the tributary and all adjacent wetlands reaching down stream from the project site to the confluence with the next tributary or upstream to a similar confluence. _ Restoration 4 11197 The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or bJaquatic characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or degrade resource. For the purpose of tracking net gains iresource area, restoration is divided into two catre-establishment and rehabilitation. Riffle andpool 4 11197 Riffle and pool complexes are special aquatic sit complex CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Riffle and pool complexes sometimes characterize steep gradient sections of streams. Such stream sections are recognizable by their hydraulic characteristics. The rapid movement of water over a course substrate in riffles results in a rough flow, a turbulent surface, and high dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Pools are deeper areas associated with riffles. Pools are characterized by a ' Michael Brandman Associates C-y HAC11cnA0064-Cny orNewpon Bmeh00640022 Manno_Park_JD (Dma-081709).doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Dellneation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source Page Detlilition slower stream velocity, a streaming flow, a smooth surface, and a finer substrate. Riparian area 4 11197 Riparian areas are lands adjacent to streams, lakes, and estuarine -marine shorelines. Riparian areas are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, through which surface and subsurface hydrology connects water bodies with their adjacent uplands. Riparian areas provide a variety of ecological functions and services and help improve or maintain local water quality. (See general condition 20, in the N WP.) River Miles 6 53 The flowing distance between the water bodies in question. Typically not a straight line; rather, the measurement is based on how far the water will travel from water body A to water body B. For example, the water in a meandering tributary will flow further than water flowing in a channelized tributary provided the two water bodies are the same distance apart in the landscape. Shelfish seeding 4 11197 The placement of shellfish seed -and/or suitable substrate to increase shellfish production. Shellfish seed consists of immature individual shellfish or individual shellfish attached to shells or shell fragments (i.e., spat on shell). Suitable substrate may consist of shellfish shells, shell fragments, or other appropriate materials placed into waters for shellfish habitat. Significant Nexus 5 40 In the context of CWA jurisdiction post-Rapanos, a water body is considered to have a "significant nexus" with a traditional navigable water if its flow characteristics and functions in combination with the ecological and hydrological functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to such a tributary, affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a downstream traditional navigable water. Single and 4 11197 The term "single and complete project" is defined at 33 CFR complete project 330.2(i) as the total project proposed or accomplished by one owner/developer or partnership or other association of owners/developers. A single and complete project must have independent utility (see definition). For linear projects, a "single and complete project" is all crossings of a single water of the United States (i.e., a single water body) at a specific location. For linear projects crossing a single water body several times at separate and distant locations, each crossing is considered a single and complete project. However, individual channels in a braided stream or river, or individual arms of a large, irregularly shaped wetland or lake, etc„ are not separate water bodies, and crossings of such features cannot be considered separately. StationDatfan 9 NA A fixed base elevation at a tide station to which all water level measurements are referred. The datum is unique to each station and is established at a lower elevation than the water is ever expected to teach. It is referenced to the primary bench mark at the station and is held constant regardless of changes to the water level gauge or tide staff. The datum of tabulation is most 1 L I I w F Michael Brandman Associates C-8 ' H.Wlicnfa064Cdyoflimpon ecech00W0022_MedM Park 1D-(Dna 0817091.dw i 11 City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Protect Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source Page Definition often at the zero of the first tide staff installed. Stormwater 4 11197 Stormwater management is the mechanism for controlling management stormwater runoff for the purposes of reducing downstream erosion, water quality degradation, and flooding and mitigating the adverse effects of changes in land use on the aquatic environment. Stormwater 4 11197 Stormwater management facilities are those facilities, including management but not limited to, stormwater retention and detention ponds and facilities best management practices, which retain water for a period of time to control runoff and/or improve the quality (i.e., by reducing the concentration of nutrients, sediments, hazardous substances and other pollutants) of stormwater runoff. Stream bed 4 11197 The substrate of the stream channel between the ordinary high water marks. The substrate may be bedrock or inorganic particles that range in size from clay to boulders. Wetlands contiguous to the streambed, but outside of the ordinary high water marks, are not considered part of the streambed. Stream 4 11197 The manipulation of a stream's course, condition, capacity, or channelization location that causes more than minimal interruption of normal stream processes. A channelized stream remains a water of the United States. Stream Order NA NA A method of numbering streams as part of a drainage basin network. The smallest unbranched mapped tributary is called first order, the stream receiving the tributary is called second order, and so on. Structure 4 11197 An object that is arranged in a definite pattern of organization. Examples of structures include, without limitation, any pier, boat dock, boat ramp, wharf, dolphin, weir, boom, breakwater, bulkhead, revetment, riprap, jetty, artificial island, artificial reef, permanent mooring structure, power transmission line, permanently moored floating vessel, piling, aid to navigation, or any other manmade obstacle or obstruction. N/A The term "tidal waters" means those waters that rise and fall in a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where Ewaters7 the rise and fall of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by hydrologic, wind, or other effects. Tidal wetlan 7 N/A A tidal wetland is a wetland (i.e., water of the United States) that is inundated by tidal waters. The definitions of a wetland and tidal waters can be found at 33 CFR 328.3(b) and 33 CFR 328.3(f), respectively. Tidal waters rise and fall in a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where the rise and fall of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by other waters, wind, or other effects. Tidal wetlands are located channel -ward of the ' Michael Brandman Associates C-9 H-.WJien00004-Ctty or?4 wi aQatch00fi40022 Munno_Par. JD-(Dmft 08I709)dm City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project I Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source j Page Deflnitloh high tide line, which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(d). Traditional 6 68 A "traditional navigable water" includes all the "navigable Navigable waters of the United Stales," defines in 33 CFR §329, and by Waters (TNIV) numerous decisions of the Federal courts, plus nil other waters that are navigable -in -fact. Per 33 CFR §329: Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity. The USACE is currently drafting new regulations defining TNWs. Tributary 6 69 A "tributary," as defined in the Rapanos guidance document, means a natural, man -altered, or man-made water body that carries directly or indirectly into a traditional navigable water. For the purposes of determining significant nexus with a traditional navigable water, a "tributary" is the entire reach of the stream flint is of the same order (i.e., from the point of confluence, where two lower order streams meet to form the tributary, downstream to the point such tributary enters a higher order stream). Upland Plants 1 14 Plants that occur rarely (estimated probability <I percent) in (UPL) wetlands, but occur almost always (estimated probability >99 percent) in non -wetlands under natural conditions. Vegetated 4 11197 Vegetated shallows are special aquatic sites under the CWA shallows Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. They are areas that are permanently inundated and under normal circumstances have rooted aquatic Vegetation, such as sea grasses in marine and estuarine systems and a variety of vascular rooted plants in freshwater systems. Waterbody 4 11197 For purposes of the NWPs, a waterbody is a jurisdictional water of the United Stales that, during year with normal patterns of precipitation, has water flowing or standing above ground to the extent that an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or other indicators ofjurisdiction can be determined, as well as any wetland area (see 33 CFR 328.3(b)). If n jurisdictional wetland is adjacent—meaning.bordering, contiguous, or neighboring —to a jurisdictional waterbody displaying an OHWM or other indicators of jurisdiction, that waterbody and its adjacent wetlands are considered together as a single aquatic unit (see 33 CFR 328.4(c)(2)). Examples of "waterbodies" include streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. (Voters of The 7 N/A The tern "waters of the United States" means: United States (1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; I I I I w �J Michael Brandman Associates C•10 ' HdQicnebm-cdy omc" awchOM0022hled� P nuk 7D-(Dma a81709)da J I I City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Source Page Definition (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(I)-(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6) of this section, (Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA [other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(in) which also meet the criteria of this definition] are not waters of the United States.) and (8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the EPA. Wetlands 1,2,7 N/A The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. The criteria for determining wetlands is set forth in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) and relevant Regional Supplements (Arid West, December 2006) Sources: 1. USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, January 1987 2. USACE Guidelinesfor Jurisdictional Determinations for Waters of the United States in the Arid Southwest, June 2001 3. USACE Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps ofGngineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, December 2006 4. FEDERAL REGISTER: Department of Defense; Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Re -issuance of Natiomvide Permits, Notice, March 12, 2007 5. EPA/USACE Joint Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Courts Decision in Rananos v United States and Carabell v United States, (June 5, 2007) 6. USACE Jurisdictional Delineation Form instructional Guidebook, May 30, 2007 7. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): 33 CFR 328.3 Definitions of Waters ofthe United States and/or 33 CPR 329 Definitions of Navigable Waters of the United States. 8. USGS Hydrologic Unit Maps, U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2294 (1994), by Paul R. Seaber, F. ' Mlchael Brandman Associates H.\CHcn00064*1y orNcwpon acach0064002I Marina —Part. JD_(Dmft 091709).doc City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Appendix C GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term I Source I Page Definition Paul Kapinos, and George Knapp. 9. Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services. Michael Brandman Associates H-Kiient*064-01y ofNmsptl aweh00640022 hlanno Park JD_(DmA_0817Q9) der ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park ProJect Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Michael Brandman Associates IidClicnA0064-Cdy ofNewpoa 13wcl100640077 Morino_PatA JD_(Dmk 081709).doc Appendix D: Site Photographs [PHOTO 11 (Facing East : View of the project from the west property boundary and shows most of project site, which is bound by a marina on the eastern boundary (At the approximate location of the furthest palm tree towards the left of the photograph). The photo was taken at 05:59 am at lower low tide (-0.2 feet) at 05:59 am. 1PHOTO 21 (Facing West): View of the project site looking toward the western property boundary. A dock and marina is located immediately west of the project site. The view is at lower low tide (-0.2 feet). A marbled godwit (Amosa fedoa) is present in the center foreground. NNNN 00Na Michael Brandman Associates APPENDIX D - Sitel Photographs.doc Appendix D: Site Photographs City of Newport Beach — Marina Park Project Jurisdictional Determination [PHOTO 31 (Facing North) Photo taken during lower low tide. A sign indicates the presence of a storm drain outlet. Recreational craft are visible across the channel on Lido Island (to the left) and also moored within the channel (to the right). [PHOTO 41 (Facing East) the Eastern property boundary is demarcated by a sea wall (center) which separates the beach (project site) from an existing off -site marina. Also visible in the photograph are the transact markers used to field verify tidal datum. The markers are faintly visible in the foreground as which stakes with red numbered headers. Exhibit 10 was generated by overlaying tidal datum on this photograph. Michael Brandman Associates Appendix D: Site Photographs! City of Newport Beach — Marina Park Project APPENDIX 0 - Sitel Photographs.doc Jurisdictional Determination' t [PHOTO 51 (Facing North) A Close view of the transact markers (Transect 3) which were used to confirm tidal datum from a fixed reference point. Recreational boats present are anchoredimoored in the far ground. fi - I .. r n�= OW g 00 [PHOTO 61 (Facing East): A concrete pilon located in the west section of the project site. Mobile homes are border the beach to the right. A catamaran is also visible in the center far -right of the photograph. Source: Michael Brandman Associates NNNN Appendix D: Site Photographs ]aNF1 City of Newport Beach — Marina Park Project Michael Brandman Associates APPENDIX D- Sitel Photographs.doc Jurisdictional Determination HOTO 71. (Facing Southeast) Barnacle and clams attached to the concrete wall marking the eastern property boundary. Invertebrates mostly occurred at or bellow the mean high water mark. [PHOTO 81. (Facing South) A small depression is located along the western property boundary. The soil profile within the depression was consistent with other soil -pits examined on the project, revealing a consists sandy matrix with no hydric soil indicators. NNNN Appendix D: Site Photographs, ]aN� Michael Brandman Associates City of Newport Beach — Marina Park Project APPENDIX D- Sitel Photographs.doc Jurisdictional Determination' I I I I I I li I II L City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Mkhael Brandm: H:1ClicntWO64-Cny of No APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM ' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: _ C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Property Adjacent to "Lower Newport Bay" • The project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County, California (see Exhibits 1-3). The ' project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and is located between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay and between 15th Street on the east and 19th Street on the west. Major arterial access is provided along Balboa Boulevard with secondary access to the project site along 15th Street, 18th Street, and 19th Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73). • The portion of the property immediately adjacent to Lower Newport Bay is presently a public beach. • Lower Newport Bay.is immediately is a nvaigable water with direct connectivtiy to the Pacific Ocean. State: CA County/parish borough: Orana City: Newport Beach ' Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): 33.608503°N and-117.9238430W. Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Lover Newport Bav, Pacific Ocean Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Lower Newport Bav, Pacific Ocean ' Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): HUC =Newport Bay Waershed (18070204)HSA =Newport Bay (801.141 Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. ❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: _ ' [( Field Determination. Date(s): _ SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There "Are" "navigable waters ojdte U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] ® Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: The project site includes portions of the Lower Newport Bay extending from 16th Street extending westward to 19th Street. The onsite reach is located at the junction of the Rhine Channel, Lido Peninsula Channel, and Mid Channel in the southwestern portion of bay. Existing Marinas are located immediately to the East and west of the project site. Similarly, boat moorings can be observed in the mid -channel from the project site. Boat traffic is regularly seen in the waters extending outward from the project site, and the beach is sometimes used as a launching point for small recreational water craft such as kayaks, canoes, and catamaran. Furthermore, the Lower Newport Bay is directly connected to the Pacific Ocean, and regularly facilitates recreational boating/sailing to other states and foreign waters such as the territorial waters of Mexico. B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There "Are" "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 1. Waters of the U.S. i a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply). ® TNWs, including territorial seas ❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs ❑ Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ' ❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ❑ Impoundments ofjurisdictional waters ❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands ' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (e.g., typically 3 months). In. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non -Wetland waters: 1.378 linear feet: width _ (R) and/or 0.76 acres. Wetlands: none acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Elevation of established OHWM (if known): _ Feet. 2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3 f Potentiallyjurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be notjurisdictional. Explain: SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource Is a TNW, complete Section IiI.A.1 and Section iIi.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections iiI.A.1 and 2 and Section iII.D.I.; otherwise, see Section iIIM below. 1. TNW identify TNW: Lower Newport Bay Summarize rationale supporting determination: See section ii(a) 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent': The adjacent sandy beach does not meet USACE criteria for wetlands because it lacks both the presence ofbydric soils and hydrophytes. D. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT iS NOT A TN%V) AND iTS ADJACENT WETLANDS (iF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and It helps determine whether or not the standards forjurtsdictlon established under Raponos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically Dow year-round or have continuous Row at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW Is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not it TNW, but has year-round (perennial) Dow, skip to Section iIi.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial Bow, skip to Section IIi.D.4. A wetland (lint Is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will Include in the record any available Information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. if the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of Its adjacent wetlands Is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section ifI.B.1 for the tributary, Section 111.131for any onsite wetlands, and Section 111.8.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offshe. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined In Section iILC below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that Dow directly or indirectly into TNW (1) General Area Conditions: Watershed size (Acres): Drainage area (Acres): _ Average annual rainfall (Inches): _ Average annual snowfall (Inches): _ Supporting documentation is presenicd in Section III.F. i Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding svules, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in thearid West. 2 I Ll H I t I CI I l,-.1 I ' (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationshin with INK ❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ❑ Tributary flows through t tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are _ (or less) river miles from TNW ( ). Project waters are _ (or less) river miles from RPW ( ). Project waters are _ (or less) aerial (straight) miles from TNW ( )• Project waters are _ (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW ( ). Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: ' identify flow route to TNW': Tributary stream order, if known: . ' (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that annlvl: Tributary is: ❑ Natural ' ❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain: ❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: _feet Average depth: _ feet Average side slopes: Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete ❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck ❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. . ' ❑ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. _ Explain: Tributary geometry: Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume% Surface flow is: Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Explain findings: ❑ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ❑ Bed and banks ❑ OHWMa (check all indicators that apply): ❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ❑ the presence of litter and debris ❑ changes in the character of soil ❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation ❑ shelving ❑ the presence of wrack line ❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ❑ sediment sorting ❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ❑ scour ❑ sediment deposition ❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events ❑ water staining ❑ abrupt change in plant community Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which (lows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. 'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of now above and below the break. ❑ other(list):_ ❑ Discontinuous OHWM ' Explain: _ if factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): High Tide Line indicated by: Q Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum; ❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings; ❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. ❑ tidal gauges ❑ other (list): _ (Ili) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: that ' (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all apply): ❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): _ ❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: _ ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: _ ❑ Fisit/spawn areas. Explain findings: _ ❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings: _ ❑ Aquaticlwildlife diversity. Explain findings: _ 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly Into TNW (1) Physical Characteristics: , (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: _ acres Wetland type: _Explain: ' Wetland quality; _ Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW; Flow is: _. Explain: Surface flow is: Characteristics: Subsurface flow: _. Explain findings: ❑ Dye (or other) test performed:, (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: ❑ Directly abutting ❑ Not directly abutting ❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: _ ❑ Ecological connection, Explain:_ ❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: _ (d) Proximity (Relationshipl to TNW Project wetlands are_ river miles from TNW. Project waters are,_ aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: ']bid. 4 ' I Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed ' characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ❑ Habitat for: ❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings: ❑ Aquaticlwildlife diversity. Explain findings: _ 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Approximately ( acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: ' Descrintion (of Wetland) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: . C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. ' Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to i TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or floodwaters reaching a TNW? _ • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs7 _ • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or ' biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: I. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Signifleant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to , Section IN D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL ' THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: ❑ TNWs: _ linear feet, width _ (11), Or, _ acres. Q'%Vctlands adjacent to TNWs: _ acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. [� Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: Q Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: ' Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: _ linear feet, width _ (ft). ❑ Other non -wetland waters: _ acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 3. Non.RPWss that flow directly or Indirectly Into TNWs. ' Q Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 11I.0. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): ' ❑ Tributarywaters: _linear fect,width:_(tt). Q Other non -wetland waters: _ acres. Identify type(s) ofwaters:. Linear feet Size in ' Description Tvne width t acres 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or Indirectly Into TNWs. ❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. ' ❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:. ' Q Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally," Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section I11.6 and rationale in Section III,D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review Arco: _ acres. ' 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or Indirectly into TNW$. [( Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictionnl. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III,C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: _ acres. sSce Footnote B 3. G ' I 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that Bow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Q Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: _ acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters. 9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. ❑Q Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Q Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). ' E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10 Q which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. ❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. ❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. ❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain: �] Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: . Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ❑ Tributary waters: _ linear feet, width _ (B). Q Other non -wetland waters: _ acres. Identify type(s) of waters: ]� Wetlands: _ acres. F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Q Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based sole) on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Q Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): �❑] Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): _ linear feet _ width (B). Lakes/ponds: _ acres. ❑ Other non -wetland waters: _, acres. List type of aquatic resource: Q Wetlands: _ acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the `Significant Nexus" standard, where such i a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): ❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): _linear feet, width ❑ Lakes/ponds: _ acres. ' Other non -wetland waters: _ acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: _acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instmctional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CB'A Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: _ ❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicanttconsuitant. ❑ Office condors with data sheets/delincation report. ❑ Office does not concur with date shects/delineation report. ❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: _ ❑ Corps navigable waters' study: _ ® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: _ ❑ USGS NHD data. ® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: USDA NRCS ca678 Soils (2008) National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:_ State/Local wetiand inventory map(s): ® FEMA/FIRM maps:. I00-year Floodplain Elevation is: ` (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date); Gooele Earth Pro Aerial (2009) or ❑ Other (Name & Date): _ ❑ Previous determination(s). File no, and date of response letter: _ , ❑ Applicable/supporting case law: _ ❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature: _ ❑ Other information (please specify): Hydrologic calculations. 8. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: I I u 1 City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands 1 M 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 I I 1 C] 1 1 1 I Appendix F: Wetlands Data Sheets 1 Michael Brandmon Associates ' HAC mM0064-City omcwport Bmc]t06640022 Morino P.,._JD_(Dm0_081709).doc WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region [Jett Site: Marina Park City/County: Newport Beach/Orange Sampling Date: 7/10/2009 Iplicanvowner: City of Newport Beach State: CA Sampling Point: Transact 3 esligalor(s): Paul Mead Section, Township, Range: Newport S33, T6S, R10W Landform (hillslope, terrace,etc): Beasch / Hillslope (7.2%) Local relief (concave, conves, none): slope Slope (%) 7.2 Pbregion (LRR): LRR C Let: 33.608503 N Long:-117.923843 W Datum: oil Map Unit Name: Sandy Beach NWI Classification: [Climatic / hydrological conditions on the site typical this time of Year? Yes: ❑ No: ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) a: Vegetation: ❑ Soil: ❑ or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑✓ No ❑ (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) ;Vegetation: ❑ Soil: El orHydrology ❑ naturally problematic? MMAKY UP PJNUJNlS -ARaen unu n,ap awwu,y aw,,,r,,,,y r�^^ •��-•�••�, -•_..___._. ....�_____ -_ _. ydrophytic Vegetation Present?' Yes ❑ No ❑� Is'the Sampled Area ydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ) within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No ❑� We Hydrology Present? Yes ❑� No '❑ marks: Transect 3 Includes seven soil pit samples marking the following tidal datum collected at Lower low tide (-0.2' below MLLW) on 07/1112009. (1) MLW (2) MTL (3) MHW (4) MW WH, (5) Field Observed high water mark, (6) HTL, (7) HOWL. (See Exhibit 10). No wetlan GETATION Dominance Test worksheet: Absolute% Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Use scientific names) Cover species? Status Number of Dominant Species That are OBL FACW, or FAC: (A) 1 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: (B) 3 4. Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover: That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: tin /Shrub Stratum Total % Cover of: Multiply by 1 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = 5 Total Cover: UPL species x 5 = erb Stratum Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicatore: 4 ❑ Dominance Test is >60% 5 ❑ Prevalence Index is 63.0' 6 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 7 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Total Cover: ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicator, if hydric soil and wetland hydrology, must be, ood Vine Stratum present, . 1. 2. Hydrophytiti Total Cover: Vegetation Yes ❑ No � o Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: % Cover of Biotic Crust: Present? Remarks: No vegeation was present on the surveyed area (Sandy Beach) US Army Corps of Engineers •v,° was,- vmsmn , , , .�„� SOIL Sampling Point: Transect 3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Ouches) Color (moist) % Color (metal) % Typo Lee % Texture Remarks 0.18"+ NA NA Sand Sand 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Malrixc Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (85) ❑ 1 cm Muck 09) (LRR C) ❑ Hlstic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) ❑ Black HisBc (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Minaret (F1) ❑ Reduced Venic (F18) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ SlmtiOed Layers (A5) (LRR C) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Other (Explain In Remarks) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Depresssions (F8) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Vernal Pools (Fg) 'indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) wetland hydrology must be present. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Hydric Sall Yes ❑ No 21 Depth (Inches): Present? Remarks Sand. No evidence of hydric Indicators HYDROLOGY one indicator ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Water Marks (B1)(Nonriverine) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonrlvorine) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonrlverino) ❑ Surface Soll Cracks (B6) ❑ Inundation on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Water -stained Leaves (BB) ❑ Biotic Crust (1310) Did Observations: ❑ Crayfish Surows (1312) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C2) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soil (C6) ❑ Muck Surface (C7) ❑ Saturation on Aerial Imagery (CB) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (04) Other (Explain In Remarks) Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No Q Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No [D Depth (Inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑� No ❑ Depth (Inches): 4.18" The evaluation was made using datum from NOAA Seven soil pits were excavated along a transact marked with respect to estabihsed tidal Datum. Secondary Indicators (2 or more is required) ❑ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) ❑ Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) ❑ Drift Deposits (83) (Riverine) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B9) ❑ Dry Season Water Table (C3) ❑ Sait Deposits (C5) ❑ Mud Costs (C9) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D7) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ 1 ' City of Newport Beach, Marina Park Project Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands 1 LJ 1 1 1 n 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 ' Michael Brandman Associates H1ChcnIW64dilyorNmvpon Bach00600022_Manna Pa* JD_(DMft 081709)doc Appendix G: Supporting Data Tides for Newport Bay Entrance, Corona del Mar starting with July 1, 2009. Day High Tide Height Sunrise Moon Time % Moon /Low Time Feet Sunset Visible 7/1 W 1 Low 12:29 AM 0.7 5:45 AM Set 1:18 AM 64 1 High 6:37 AM 3.0 8:06 PM Rise 3:29 PM 1 Low 11:04 AM 2.1 1 High 5:58 PM 5.5 7/2 Th 2 Low 1:28 AM 0.2 5:46 AM Set 1:53 AM 74 2 High 7:59 AM 3.1 8:06 PM Rise 4:29 PM 2 Low 12:02 PM 2.4 2 High 6:43 PM 5.6 7/3 F 3 Low 2':15 AM -0.2 5:46 AM Set 2:32 AM 82 3 High 8:57 AM 3.3 8:06 PM Rise 5:27 PM 3 Low 12:54 PM 2.5 3 High 7:24 PM 5.7 7/4 Sa 4 Low 2:54 AM -0.4 5:47 AM Set 3:17 AM 89 4 High 9:39 AM 3.4 8:05 PM Rise 6:22 PM 4 Low 1:40 PM 2.5 4 High 8:02 PM 5.8 7/5 Su 5 Low 3:29 AM -0.6 5:47 AM Set 4:06 AM 94 5 High 10:11 AM 3.5 8:05 PM Rise 7:11 PM 5 Low 2:19 PM 2.5 5 High 8:37 PM 5.9 7/6 M 6 Low 4:01 AM -0.6 5:48 AM Set 5:00 AM 97 6 High 10:40 AM 3.6 8:05 PM Rise 7:56 PM 6 Low 2:54 PM 2.5 6 High 9:11 PM 5.9 7/7 Tu 7 Low 4:31 AM -0.6 5:48 AM Set 5:56 AM 99 7 High 11:07 AM 3.7 8:05 PM Rise 8:34 PM 7 Low 3:29 PM 2.4 7 High 9:43 PM 5.9 7/8 W 8 Low 5:00 AM -0.6 5:49 AM Set 6:54 AM 99 8 High 11:34 AM 3.7 8:05 PM Rise 9:08 PM 8 Low 4:04 PM 2.4 8 High 10:15 PM 5.7 7/9 Th 9 Low 5:29 AM -0.4 5:49 AM Set 7:51 AM 97 9 High 12:03 PM 3.8 8:04 PM Rise 9:38 PM 9 Low 4:41 PM 2.4 9 High 10:47 PM 5.5 _ ,_, __ 7/10 _. (SURVEY DATE) F 10 Low Sc57 AM -0.2 - _ 5i50 _ _ AM'i __ Set ,-._._ 8r48 AM' _ e94 10 High 12:33 PM 3.9 8:04 'PM' _ Rise 10:_05 PM 10 Low 5:22 PM 2.41l' 10 High 11:20 PM 5.1; 7/11 Sa 11 Low 6:24 AM 0.1 5:50 AM Set 9:44 AM 89 11 High 1:04 PM 4.0 8:04 PM Rise 10:31 PM 1 11 11 7/12 Su 12 12 12 7/13 M 13 13 13 13 7/14 Tu 14 14 14 14 7/15 W 15 15 15 15 7/16 Th 16 16 16 7/17 F 17 17 17 17 7/18 Sa 18 18 18 18 7/19 Su 19 19 19 19 7/20 M 20 20 20 20 7/21 Tu 21 21 21 21 7/22 W 22 22 22 22 7/23 Th 23 23 Low 6:10 PM High 11:56 PM Low 6:52 AM High 1:38 PM Low 7:08 PM High 12:38 AM Low 7:20 AM High 2:14 PM Low 8:24 PM High 1:36 AM Low 7:50 AM High 2:57 PM Low 9:57 PM High 3:11 AM Low 8:28 AM High 3:48 PM Low 11:28 PM High 5:28 AM Low 9:23 AM High 4:44 PM Low 12:36 AM High 7:14 AM Low 10:40 AM High 5:42 PM Low 1:29 AM High 8;14 AM Low 11:58 AM High 6:39 PM Low 2:15 AM High 8:56 AM Low 1:04PM High 7:32 PM Low 2:59 AM High 9:34 AM Low 2:01 PM High 8:22 PM Low 3:40 AM High 10:11 AM Low 2:55 PM High 9:11 PM Low 4:21 AM High 10:49 AM Low 3:47 PM High 9:59 PM Low 5:00 AM High 11:27 AM 2.4 4.6 0.5 5:51 AM 4.2 8:03 PM 2.4 4.0 5:51 AM 0.9 8:03 PM 4.4 2.3 3.4 5:52 AM 1.4 8:03 PM 4.6 1.9 2.8 5:53 AM 1.9 8:02 PM 4.9 1.3 2.6 5:53 AM 2.3 8:02 PM 5.3 0.6 5:54 AM 2.8 8:01 PM 2.5 5.8 -0.2 5:54 AM 3.2 8:01 PM 2.5 6.3 -0.8 5:55 AM 3.5 8:00 PM 2.4 6.7 -1.3 5:56 AM 3.8 8:00 PM 2.2 1.1 -1.6 5:56 AM 4.1 7:59 PM 1.9 7.2 -1.6 5:57 AM 4.4 7:59 PM 1.6 7.0 -1.4 5:58 AM 4.7 7:58 PM Set 10:40 AM Rise 10:51 PM Set 11:37 AM Rise 11:25 PM Set 12:37 PM Rise 11:54 PM Set 1:40 PM Rise 12:28 AM Set 2:46 PM Rise 1:09 AM Set 3:54 PM Rise 1:58 AM Set 5:03 PM Rise 2:57 AM Set 6:07 PM Rise 4:05 AM Set 7:05 PM Rise 5:19 AM Set 7:55 PM Rise 6:.35 AM Set 8:37 PM Rise 7:49 AM Set 9:13 PM m 74 65 55 45 34 24 14 7 `a 161 2 23 23 7/24 F 24 24 24 24 7/25 Sa 25 25 25 7/26 Su 26 26 26 26 7/27 M 27 27 27 27 7/28 Tu 28 28 28 28 7/29 W 29 29 29 7/30 Th 30 30 30 30 7/31 F 31 31 31 31 8/1 Sa 1 1 1 1 8/2 Su 2 2 2 2 8/3 M 3 3 3 3 8/4 Tu 4 4 Low 4:40 PM High 10:47 PM Low 5:39 AM High 12:07 PM Low 5:36 PM High 11:37 PM Low 6:17 AM High 12:48 PM Low 6:37 PM High 12:29 AM Low 6:54 AM High 1:32 PM Low 7:47 PM High 1:30 AM Low 7:32 AM High 2:21 PM Low 9:11 PM High 2:52 AM Low 8:13 AM High 3:17 PM Low 10:47 PM High 4:58 AM Low 9:04 AM High 4:20 PM Low 12:13 AM High 7:10 AM Low 10:24 AM High 5:25 PM Low 1:15 AM High 8:19 AM Low 11:51 AM High 6:23 PM Low 2:01 AM High 8:56 AM Low 12:54 PM High 7:11 PM Low 2:38 AM High 9:23 AM Low 1:39 PM High 7:51 PM Low 3:09 AM High 9:45 AM Low 2:16 PM High 8:26 PM Low 3:37 AM High 10:05 AM 1.4 6.5 -1.0 5:58 AM 4.9 7:57 PM 1.4 5.8 -0.4 5:59 AM 5.0 7:57 PM 1.4 5.0 6:00 AM 0.3 7:56 PM 5.1 1.4 4.0 6:01 AM 1.1 7:55 PM 5.1 1.4 3.2 6:01 AM 1.8 7:55 PM 5.1 1.2 2.8 6:02 AM 2.4 7:54 PM 5.1 0.8 6:03 AM 3.0 7:53 PM 2.7 5.2 0.4 6:03 AM 3.3 7:52 PM 2.9 5.3 0.0 6:04 AM 3.5 7:51 PM 2.8 5.5 -0.2 6:05 AM 3.7 7:50 PM 2.6 5.7 -0.3 6:05 AM 3.8 7:50 PM 2.5 5.8 -0.4 6:06 AM 3.9 7:49 PM Rise 9:00 AM Set 9:46 PM Rise 10:08 AM Set 10:17 PM Rise 11:14 AM Set 10:47 PM Rise 12:18 PM Set 11:19 PM Rise 1:21 PM Set 11:53 PM Rise 2:22 PM Set 12:31 AM Rise 3:21 PM Set 1:14 AM Rise 4:17 PM Set 2:02 AM Rise 5:09 PM Set 2:55 AM Rise 5:54 PM Set 3:50 AM Rise 6:35 PM Set 4:47 AM Rise 7:10 PM 4 11 19 0 39 50 9F rE WH T. 91 M. 3 4 4 8/5 W 5 5 5 5 8/6 Th 6 6 6 6 8/7 F 7 7 7 7 8/8 Sa 8 8 8 8 8/9 Su 9 9 9 9 8/10 M 10 10 10 8/11 Tu 11 11 11 11 8/12 W 12 12 12 12 8/13 Th 13 13 13 13 8/14 F 14 14 8/15 Sa 15 15 15 15 8/16 Su 16 16 Low 2:48 PM High 8:59 PM Low 4:02 AM High 10:26 AM Low 3:21 PM High 9:29 PM Low 4:26 AM High 10:48 AM Low 3:54 PM High 10:00 PM Low 4:50 AM High 11:11 AM Low 4:29 PM High 10:31 PM Low 5:13 AM High 11:35 AM Low 5:07 PM High 11:04 PM Low 5:36 AM High 12:01 PM Low 5:50 PM High 11:40 PM Low 5:58 AM High 12:29 PM Low 6:41 PM High 12:23 AM Low 6:21 AM High 1:04 PM Low 7:48 PM High 1:24 AM Low 6:45 AM High 1:48 PM Low 9:21 PM High 3:18 AM Low 7:13 AM High 2:49 PM Low 11:03 PM High 4:07 PM Low 12;20 AM High 7:32 AM Low 10:32 AM High 5:23 PM Low 1:14 AM High 8:05 AM 2.3 5.9 -0.4 6:07 AM 4.1 7:48 PM 2.1 5.9 -0.3 6:08 AM 4.2 7:47 PM 1.9 5.7 -0.1 6:08 AM 4.4 7:46 PM 1.8 5.4 0.2 6:09 AM 4.5 7:45 PM 1.8 5.0 0.5 6:10 AM 4.7 7:44 PM 1.7 4.5 1.0 6:10 AM 4.8 7:43 PM 1.7 3.8 6: 11 AM 1.4 7:42 PM 4.9 1.7 3.2 6:12 AM 1.9 7:41 PM 5.0 1.5 2.7 6:13 AM 2.4 7:40 PM 5.1 1.0 5.3 6:13 AM 7:39 PM 0.4 6:14 AM 3.1 7:38 PM 2.9 5.7 -0.2 6:15 AM 3.5 7:36 PM Set 5:45 AM Rise 7:41 PM Set 6:42 AM Rise 8:09 PM Set 7:38 AM Rise 8:36 PM Set 8:35 AM Rise 9:02 PM Set 9:32 AM Rise 9:29 PM Set 10:31 AM Rise 9:57 PM Set 11:31 AM Rise 10:29 PM Set 12:35 PM Rise 11:06 PM Set 1:41 PM Rise 11:50 PM Set 2:47 PM Rise 12:43 AM Set 3:52 PM Rise 1:44 AM Set 4:51 PM 98 W Ilu W 92 m 78 W, I&I 49 37 27 0 16 Low 12:05 PM 2.6 16 High 6:28 PM 6.2 8/17 M 17 Low 1:59 AM -0.7 6:15 AM Rise 2:54 AM 17 High 8:35 AM 3.9 7:35 PM Set 5:43 PM 17 Low 1:10 PM 2.3 17 High 7:24 PM 6.6 8/18 Tu 18 Low 2:39 AM -1.1 6:16 AM Rise 4:08 AM 18 High 9:05 AM 4.3 7:34 PM Set 6:27 PM 18 Low 2:04 PM 1.8 18 High 8:15 PM 6.9 8/19 W 19 Low 3:16 AM -1.2 6:17 AM Rise 5:22 AM 19 High 9:37 AM 4.7 7:33 PM Set 7:06 PM 19 Low 2:54 PM 1.3 19 High 9:02 PM 6.9 8/20 Th 20 Low 3:52 AM -1.1 6:18 AM Rise 6:35 AM 20 High 10:09 AM 5.1 7:32 PM Set 7:41 PM 20 Low 3:42 PM 0.9 20 High 9:49 PM 6.6 8/21 F 21 Low 4:27 AM -0.7 6:18 AM Rise 7:45 AM 21 High 10:43 AM 5.4 7:31 PM Set 8:13 PM 21 Low 4:31 PM 0.7 21 High 10:35 PM 6.0 8/22 Sa 22 Low 5:01 AM -0.2 6:19 AM Rise 8:53 AM 22 High 11:18 AM 5.5 7:29 PM Set 8:45 PM 22 Low 5:22 PM 0.7 22 High 11:22 PM 5.3 8/23 Su 23 Low 5:33 AM 0.4 6:20 AM Rise 10:00 AM 23 High 11:54 AM 5.6 7:28 PM Set 9:17 PM 23 Low 6:16 PM 0.7 8/24 M 24 High 12:14 AM 4.5 6:20 AM Rise 11:06 AM 24 Low 6:05 AM 1.2 7:27 PM Set 9:51 PM 24 High 12:32 PM 5.5 24 Low 7:18 PM 0.9 8/25 Tu 25 High 1:15 AM 3.7 6:21 AM Rise 12:10 PM 25 Low 6:36 AM 1.9 7:26 PM Set 10:29 PM 25 High 1:15 PM 5.3 25 Low 8:35 PM 1.1 8/26 W 26 High 2:47 AM 3.1 6:22 AM Rise 1:12 PM 26 Low 7:05 AM 2.5 7:24 PM Set 11:11 PM 26 High 2:10 PM 5.0 26 Low 10:12 PM 1.1 8/27 Th 27 High 5:42 AM 3.0 6:22 AM Rise 2:10 PM 27 Low 7:46 AM 2.9 7:23 PM Set 11:58 PM 27 High 3:26 PM 4.8 27 Low 11:45 PM 0.9 8/28 F 28 High 7:37 AM 3.3 6:23 AM Rise 3:04 PM 28 Low 10:13 AM 3.2 7:22 PM 17 0 3 x 0 3 15 24 34 44 54 5 28 8/29 Sa 29 29 29 29 8/30 Su 30 30 30 30 8/31 M 31 31 31 31 9/1 TU 1 1 1 1 9/2 W 2 2 2 2 9/3 Th 3 3 3 3 9/4 F 4 4 4 4 9/5 Sa 5 5 5 5 9/6 Su 6 6 6 6 9/7 M 7 7 7 7 9/8 Tu 8 8 8 9/9 W 9 9 High 4:54 PM Low 12:49 AM High 8:06 AM Low 12:00 PM High 6:04 PM Low 1:33 AM High 8:26 AM Low 12:55 PM High 6:55 PM Low 2:07 AM High 8:44 AM Low 1:33 PM High 7:35 PM Low 2:34 AM High 9:01 AM Low 2:06 PM High 8:09 PM Low 2:59 AM High 9:19 AM Low 2:36 PM High 8:41 PM Low 3:22 AM High 9:37 AM Low 3:07 PM High 9:12 PM Low 3:43 AM High 9:57 AM Low 3:40 PM High 9:44 PM Low 4:05 AM High 10:18 AM Low 4:14 PM High 10:17 PM Low 4:27 AM High 10:41 AM Low 4:51 PM High 10:53 PM Low 4:48 AM High 11:06 AM Low 5:33 PM High 11:34 PM Low 5:10 AM High 11:35 AM Low 6:24 PM High 12:26 AM Low 5: 31 AM 0.6 6:24 AM 3.6 7:21 PM 3.1 5.0 0.3 6:24 AM 3.8 7:19 PM 2.8 5.2 0.1 6:25 AM 4.0 7:18 PM 2.5 5.4 0.0 6:26 AM 4.2 7:17 PM 2.2 5.6 0.0 6:26 AM 4.4 7:15 PM 1.8 5.7 0.1 6:27 AM 4.6 7:14 PM 1.5 5.6 0.2 6:28 AM 4.8 7:13 PM 1.3 5.4 0.4 6:29 AM 5.1 7:11 PM 1.1 5.1 0.7 6:29 AM 5.2 1:10 PM 0.9 4.7 1.1 6:30 AM 5.4 7:09 PM 0.9 4.1 1.6 6:31 AM 5.4 7:07 PM 0.9 3.5 6:31 AM 2.0 7:06 PM Set 12:49 AM Rise 3:52 PM Set 1:44 AM Rise 4:34 PM Set 2:40 AM Rise 5:10 PM Set 3:37 AM Rise 5:43 PM Set 4:35 AM Rise 6:12 PM Set 5:31 AM Rise 6:40 PM Set 6:28 AM Rise 7:06 PM Set 7:26 AM Rise 7:33 PM Set 8:24 AM Rise 8:01 PM Set 9:25 AM Rise 8:32 PM Set 10:28 AM Rise 9:07 PM Set 11:33 AM Rise 9:48 PM 63 72 01 93 97 RE Wt 94 E11 82 rl 9 High 12:11 PM 5.4 9 Low 7:30 PM 1.0 9/10 Th 10 High 1:44 AM 3.0 6:32 AM Set 12:38 PM 10 Low 5:53 AM 2.5 7:05 PM Rise 10:37 PM 10 High 12:59 PM 5.3 10 Low 9:00 PM 1.0 9/11 F 11 High 2:10 PM 5.2 6:33 AM Set 1:42 PM 11 Low 10:40 PM 0.7 7:03 PM Rise 11:34 PM 9/12 Sa 12 High 3:46 PM 5.2 6:33 AM Set 2:41 PM 12 Low 11:54 PM 0.3 7:02 PM 9/13 Su 13 High 7:10 AM 3.6 6:34 AM Rise 12:39 AM 13 Low 10:59 AM 3.0 7:00 PM Set 3:34 PM 13 High 5:14 PM 5.5 9/14 M 14 Low 12:47 AM -0.2 6:35 AM Rise 1:49 AM 14 High 7:35 AM 4.0 6:59 PM Set 4:20 PM 14 Low 12:17 PM 2.5 14 High 6:22 PM 5.9 9/15 Tu 15 Low 1:30 AM -0.5 6:35 AM Rise 3:01 AM 15 High 8:02 AM 4.5 6:58 PM Set 5:00 PM 15 Low 1:14 PM 1.9 15 High 7:18 PM 6.1 9/16 W 16 Low 2:07 AM -0.6 6:36 AM Rise 4:12 AM 16 High 8:31 AM 5.0 6:56 PM Set 5:36 PM 16 Low 2:03 PM 1.2 16 High 8:08 PM 6.2 9/17 Th 17 Low 2:42 AM -0.5 6:37 AM Rise 5:22 AM 17 High 9:00 AM 5.4 6:55 PM Set 6:09 PM 17 Low 2:49 PM 0.7 17 High 8:55 PM 6.1 9/18 F 18 Low 3:15 AM -0.2 6:37 AM Rise 6:30 AM 18 High 9:30 AM 5.8 6:54 PM Set 6:40 PM 18 Low 3:34 PM 0.2 18 High 9:41 PM 5.8 9/19 Sa 19 Low 3:47 AM 0.2 6:38 AM Rise 7:38 AM 19 High 10:01 AM 6.0 6:52 PM Set 7:13 PM 19 Low 4:19 PM 0.0 19 High 10:27 PM 5.3 9/20 Su 20 Low 4:17 AM 0.8 6:39 AM Rise 8:45 AM 20 High 10:32 AM 6.1 6:51 PM Set 7:47 PM 20 Low 5:05 PM 0.0 20 High 11:14 PM 4.7 9/21 M 21 Low 4:46 AM 1.4 6:39 AM Rise 9:51 AM 21 High 11:04 AM 6.0 6:49 PM Set 8:24 PM 73 63 52 41 30 19 11 4 1 0 1 5 II 21 9/22 Tu 22 22 22 22 09/23 W 23 23 23 23 09/24 Th 24 24 24 24 09/25 F 25 25 09/26 Sa 26 26 26 09/27 Su 27 27 27 27 09/28 M 28 28 28 28 09/29 Tu 29 29 29 29 09/30 W 30 30 30 30 10/01 Th 1 1 1 1 10/02 F 2 2 2 2 10/03 Sa 3 3 Low 5:54 PM High 12:06 AM Low 5:14 AM High 11:38 AM Low 6:48 PM High 1:11 AM Low 5:39 AM High 12:15 PM Low 7:56 PM High 2:55 AM Low 5:59 AM High 1:03 PM Low 9:25 PM High 2:20 PM Low 10:57 PM High 7:13 AM Low 10:17 AM High 4:08 PM Low 12:02 AM High 7:25 AM Low 11:55 AM High 5:30 PM Low 12:47 AM High 7:40 AM Low 12:42 PM High 6:25 PM Low 1:20 AM High 7:55 AM Low 1:18 PM High 7:08 PM Low 1:47 AM High 8!11 AM Low 1:49 PM High 7:45 PM Low 2:11 AM High 8:28 AM Low 2:20 PM High 8:20 PM Low 2:33 AM High 8:47 AM Low 2:52 PM High 8:55 PM Low 2:56 AM High 9:07 AM 0,2 4.0 6:40 AM 1.9 6:48 PM 5.7 0.5 3.5 6:41 AM 2.5 6:47 PM 5.3 0.8 3.1 6:41 AM 2.9 6:45 PM 4.9 1.0 4.5 6:42 AM 1.0 6:44 PM 3.6 6:43 AM 3.4 6:42 PM 4.4 0.8 6:43 AM 3.8 6:41 PM 3.1 4.5 0.6 6:44 AM 4.1 6:40 PM 2.6 4.8 0.5 6:45 AM 4.3 6:38 PM 2.3 5.0 0.5 6:46 AM 4.6 6:37 PM 1.8 5.1 0.5 6:46 AM 4.9 6:36 PM 1.3 5.1 0.6 6:47 AM 5.2 6:34 PM 0.9 5.0 0.8 6:48 AM 5.5 6:33 PM Rise 10:56 AM Set 9:05 PM Rise 11:51 AM Set 9:51 PM Rise 12:54 PM Set 10:41 PM Rise 1:45 PM Set 11:36 PM Rise 2:30 PM Set 12:32 AM Rise 3:09 PM Set 1:29 AM Rise 3:43 PM Set 2:25 AM Rise 4!13 PM Set 3:22 AM Rise 4:41 PM Set 4:19 AM Rise 5:08 PM Set 5:16 AM Rise 5:35 PM Set 6:14 AM Rise 6:03 PM 11 19 28 37 47 56 65 74 9F FI7 d1l P13 0 3 Low 3:25 PM 0.5 3 High 9:31 PM 4.8 10/04 Su 4 Low 3:18 AM 1.1 6:48 AM Set 7:15 AM 4 High 9:30 AM 5.8 6:32 PM Rise 6:34 PM 4 Low 4300 PM 0.3 4 High 10:10 PM 4.6 10/05 M 5 Low 3:42 AM 1.4 6:49 AM Set 8:18 AM 5 High 9:55 AM 5.9 6:30 PM Rise 7:08 PM 5 Low 4:39 PM 0.1 5 High 10:52 PM 4.2 10/06 Tu 6 Low 4:06 AM 1.8 6:50 AM Set 9:23 AM 6 High 10:24 AM 6.0 6:29 PM Rise 7:48 PM 6 Low 5:24 PM 0.1 6 High 11:42 PM 3.8 10/07 W 7 Low 4:31 AM 2.1 6:51 AM Set 10:30 AM 7 High 10:58 AM 6.0 6:28 PM Rise 8:35 PM 7 Low 6:16 PM 0.1 10/08 Th 8 High 12:46 AM 3.4 6:51 AM Set 11:35 AM 8 Low 4:59 AM 2.5 6:26 PM Rise 9:30 PM 8 High 11:39 AM 5.8 8 Low 7:22 PM 0.3 10/09 F 9 High 2:25 AM 3.1 6:52 AM Set 12:36 PM 9 Low 5:32 AM 2.8 6:25 PM Rise 10:32 PM 9 High 12:33 PM 5.5 9 Low 8:44 PM 0.4 10/10 Sa 10 High 4:46 AM 3.3 6:53 AM Set 1:30 PM 10 Low 6:45 AM 3.2 6:24 PM Rise 11:39 PM 10 High 1:52 PM 5.2 10 Low 10:09 PM 0.3 10/11 Su 11 High 5:52 AM 3.7 6:54 AM Set 2:17 PM 11 Low 9:28 AM 3.2 6:23 PM 11 High 3:32 PM 5.0 11 Low 11:18 PM 0.2 10/12 M 12 High 6:26 AM 4.1 6:54 AM Rise 12:49 AM 12 Low 11:15 AM 2.7 6:21 PM Set 2:58 PM 12 High 5:02 PM 5.1 10/13 Tu 13 Low 12:10 AM 0.0 6:55 AM Rise 1:58 AM 13 High 6:55 AM 4.6 6:20 PM Set 3:34 PM 13 Low 12:22 PM 2.1 13 High 6:12 PM 5.2 m m Wa 92 [%7 76 d 55 44 32 0 ' Marina Park C 1 Appendix E: Cultural Resources 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 II 1 Michael Brandman Associates H \Client(PN-1NPA044\00(d0022\DEIR\OOM0022 Sal I-00 Appendix Dividers doc Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, ' Significance Evaluations, and Paleontological Records Review Marina Park Project 1 I I E I,J City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California Newport Beach, California, USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 10 West 10.45-Acre Study Area Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949.644.3208 Contact: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact/Author(s): Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A, RPA, Project Archaeologist \fidract Brandman Assodatcs Fieldwork Conducted By: Jennifer M. Sanka and Kathleen Crawford Fieldwork Conducted On: July 11, 2008 Report Date: February 18, 2009 Keywords* West Balboa Boulevard, American Legion Property, Las Arenas Park, Marina Park Mobile Home Park, Bayshores Penninsula Hotel, 19" Street Restroom, Southern California Edison Property City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase l Cultural Resources Assessment Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Management Summary 1 ' Section 1: Introduction.........................................................................................................3 1.1 - Project Location......................................................................................................... 1.2 - Project Description............................................................................................................4 ' 1.3 - Environmental Setting.......................................................................................................4 1.3.1 - Topography, Geology. and Soils.............................................................................4 1.3.2 - Vegetation and Wildlife............................................................................................4 1.3.3 - Land Use..................................................................................................................5 ' 1.4 - Assessment Team.............................................................................................................9 Section 2. Cultural Setting................................................................................................. 11 2.1 - Prehistoric Background...................................................................................................11 ' 2.1.1 - Early Period (before 6000 B.C.).............................................................................12 2.1.2 - Millingstone Period (6000 to 3000 B.C.)................................................................12 2.1.3 - Intermediate Period (3000 B.C. to A.D. 500).........................................................13 2.1.4 - Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 500 to A.D. 1769)....................................................13 2.2 - Native American Background..........................................................................................13 2.2.1 -The Gabrielino.......................................................................................................14 ' 2.3 - Historic Background: The City of Newport Beach..........................................................14 Section 3: Research Design and Methods........................................................................17 ' 3.1 - Record Search................................................................................................................17 3.1.1 - Information Center Search.....................................................................................17 3.1.2 - Native American Heritage Commission Record Search........................................18 3.1.3 - Paleontological Records Search...........................................................................18 3.2 - Pedestrian Survey...........................................................................................................18 3.3 - Sites and Isolates............................................................................................................19 Section.1 Results ....rch.......�........................................................ .............................20 4.1 -Record Search . ..20 4.1.1 - Information Center Search.....................................................................................20 4.1.2 - Native American Heritage Commission Record Search........................................22 ' 4.1.3 - Paleontological Records Search...........................................................................23 4.2 - Pedestrian Survey...........................................................................................................24 4.2.1 -American Legion Property.....................................................................................27 ' 4.2.2 - Las Arenas Park....................................................................................................31 4.2.3 - 19th Street Restroom..............................................................................................34 4.2.4 - Marina Park Mobile Home Park.............................................................................35 38 ' Section 5: Summary and Recommendations...................................................................38 5.1 - Summary ................................................................................................................... 5.2 - Recommendations..........................................................................................................39 5.2.1 - Cultural Resources Recommendations.................................................................40 5.2.2 - Accidental Discovery of Human Remains.............................................................40 5.2.3 - Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources..........................................................40 5.2.4 - Paleontological Recommendations.......................................................................41 Section6: Certification.......................................................................................................43 ' Section 7: References.........................................................................................................44 Mlchael Brandman Associates ll H.\Client(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022_Revised Pinal_PI_CRkmanna_Park doe City oI Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Table of Contents Appendix A: Cultural Resources Correspondence ' A-1: Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search A-2: Paleontological Records Search Appendix B: Personnel Qualifications Appendix C: Regulatory Framework Federal -Level Evaluations , Thresholds of Significance State -Level Evaluation Processes Tribal Consultation , Appendix D: Project Area Photographs LIST OF TABLES , Table 1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources...............................................................................20 Table 2: Recommended Paleontological Resource Mitigation Measures............................................42 , LIST OF EXHIBITS ' Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map...........................................................................................................6 , Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map, Topographic Base...................................................................................7 Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map, Aerial Base..............................................................................................8 Exhibit4: Site Plan...............................................................................................................................10 Exhibit 5: Project Area Building Complexes.........................................................................................26 t I I 1 Michael BiandMan Associates Ill H.\CIWI(PNJN)%00W100640022\CR\OOO40022 Rcvisal rinaL PI U Marins_Park.dac ' city of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Management Summary ' MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report documents a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)-level Phase I cultural resources assessment for 10.45 acres located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, ' California. This includes an archaeological and paleontological resources assessment, as well as significance evaluations and determinations of eligibility for several historic -age structures found ' within the project area, and near the project area boundaries. The proposed action is the construction of Marina Park, which includes a public park and beach, a public marina, and the Balboa Sailing Center containing a restaurant and tennis courts. The purpose of the study was to determine if ' cultural resources more than 45 years old were visible and to determine the cultural resource sensitivity of the project area for the purposes of generating mitigation measures consistent with the provisions of CEQA. In addition, this report provides the documentation of Michael Brandman Associates' (MBA's) effort to identify the effect of the proposed action on Historic Properties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs): 047-181-01, 890-230-50, 890-230-09, 890-230-12, 890-230-25, 890-230-28, 890- 230-49, 890-230-24, 890-230-06, 890-230-03, 890-230-53, 890-230-35, 890-230-02, 890-230-22, ' 890-230-04,890-230-16,890-230-54,890-230-34,890-230-17,890-230-56,047490-06,047-222- 08, 047-222-02, 047-222-03 and an additional unnumbered parcel located on a Southern California Edison property addressed at 1516 Balboa Boulevard constitute the project area for this report. A cultural resource literature search was conducted by MBA Project Archaeologist Jennifer M. Sanka at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), which is located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton on July 10, 2008. A search radius of 1 mile was used. The Phase I survey was performed on July 11, 2008 with positive results for historic -age resources. The L historic -age resources were documented and evaluated for significance between July and August 2008. ' MBA contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 26, 2008 requesting a Sacred Lands File search for traditional cultural properties. The response from the NAHC was ' received on June 27, 2008. The NAHC response indicated that no sacred lands or traditional cultural properties are known for the project area. MBA subsequently sent information -request letters to each tribal entity named by the NAHC on July 15, 2008. All correspondence is incorporated into ' Appendix A. ' MBA contacted Dr. Samuel McLeod of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County on July 15, 2008 requesting a paleontological records check. The response was received on August 6, 2008. The paleontological review indicated that the entire project area is situated upon surface deposits of ' younger Quaternary Alluvium, which potentially overlie older Quaternary terrace deposits at an unknown depth. The surface deposits have low potential to yield significant fossil resources, while there is an increased potential for adverse impacts to paleontologic resources in the older Quaternary Michael Brandman Associates HAClient(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022—Revised Final PI_CRA—Marina Park doe City of Newport Beach - MaNna Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Management Summary terrace deposits if present -within the subsurface. Thus, there is moderate potential for impacts to ' buried paleontological resources if the project area contains older Quaternary terrace deposits at depth. , During the pedestrian survey, no prehistoric -age resources and numerous previously undocumented historic -age resources were detected. The following properties were identified as historic -age , resources: • American Legion Property (Only the American -Legion Veterans Memorial Park is located , within the project area. The American Legion Great Hall, Yacht Club Building and any structures contained within the fenced parking lot are considered off -site.) ' • Marina Park Mobile Home Park • 19th Street Restroom • Las Arenas Park ' These resources were recorded onto Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms and were ' submitted to the SCCIC for the assignment of primary numbers. The evaluation process found the off -site American Legion Great Hall Building and the off -site Yacht Club Building contained within the American Legion Property to be locally significant historical resources, but ineligible for , inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The remaining properties did not meet any of the criteria for significance at the ' local, State or federal levels. Therefore, none.of the structures or structure complexes found within or near the project area are considered Historic Properties for the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA. , Based upon the high level of urbanization present within the project area and the resultant ground disturbance, in conjunction with the environmental setting where the project area has been subject to ' historic -era ground disturbance from the movement of nearby, ocean waters, MBA finds a low probability that significant, intact subsurface deposits will be uncovered during development. For this reason, MBA does not recommend archaeological monitoring during development. However, given ' the location of the project area along the culturally sensitive California coast, the cultural resource sensitivity of the project area was determined to be moderate to high for potential impacts to , resources of concern to Native American groups. Thus, while MBA does not recommend archaeological monitoring, Native American Tribal monitoring is recommended during development. Archaeological monitoring is not required during development; however, Native American Tribal monitoring is recommended and paleontological monitoring is required during development. Specific monitoring recommendations are carefully detailed in this report. LI I Michael Brandman Associates 2 II-Xiiem(PN-1N)10064\0064002PCR\00640022_Rcviscd Final PI_CRA Marina ParkAoa , City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Introduction ,, SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ' At the request of the City of Newport Beach, MBA conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment for a property located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Totaling 10.45 acres, the proposed use of the project area is for the future development of Marina Park, which is a public park and beach, marina and Sailing Center with a restaurant and tennis courts. ' The purpose of this report is to identify the presence or absence of potentially significant cultural and paleontological resources, and to determine the probability for encountering subsurface cultural resources within a specific project area. This report includes recommendations for cultural and paleontological mitigation programs, where necessary. In addition, this report documents MBAs effort to identify whether Historic Properties will be affected by the proposed action. Federal, state, and local agencies have developed laws and regulations designed to protect significant cultural resources that may be affected by projects regulated, funded, or undertaken by an agency. These laws govern the preservation of historic and archaeological resources of national, state, regional, and local significance. The cultural and paleontological resource survey was performed in u U compliance with CEQA, and in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. This report closely follows the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) procedures for cultural resource surveys and the OHP's Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR) reporting format for archaeological reports. This report is organized into sections and appendices, which are summarized as follows: • Section 1 introduces the project, the location, and the cultural resources team. • Section 2 presents the research design and investigative methods. • Section 3 summarizes cultural setting. • Section 4 provides cultural resources records searches and survey results. • Section 5 provides management recommendations. • Section 6 contains the project certification. • Section 7 presents a reference list. • Appendix A provides required cultural resource compliance documents. • Appendix B provides personnel qualifications. • Appendix C presents the regulatory framework. • Appendix D provides recent photographs of the project area. 1.1 - Project Location Situated in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County, California, the project area is generally located south of Interstate (I) 405 and southeast of the intersection of State Route (SR) 55 and Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1) (Exhibit 1). It can be found on the Newport Beach, Michael Brandman Associates 3 MTHent(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022_Revised Final —PI CRA Marina_Park.doc City or Newport Beach - Marina Pork Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Introduction California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, in ' Section 33 of Township 6 South, Range 10 West (Exhibit 2). Specifically, the project area is bound to the south by West Balboa Boulevard, to the west by 19"i Street and 18" Street, and to the east by , 15'" Street (Exhibit 3). The project site consists of APNs: 047-181-01, 890-230-50, 890-230-09, 890- 230-12, 890-230-25, 890-230-28, 890-230-49, 890-230-24, 890-230-06, 890-230-03, 890-230-53, 890-230-35,890.230-02,890-230-22,890.230-04,890-230-16,890-230-54,890-230-34,890-230- 17, 890-230-56, 047-190-06, 047-222-08, 047-222-02, 047-222-03 and an additional parcel located on a Southern California Edison property addressed at 1516 Balboa Boulevard. 1.2 - Project Description , The proposed project includes the construction of Marina Park, which consists of a public park and beach, a public short-term visiting vessel marina, and the Balboa Sailing Center, which includes a ' restaurant and tennis courts. The public park includes an open lawn area, water feature, children's play area and a balf-court basketball court. The public short-term visiting vessel marina will accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days with onsite utility hook-ups, and nearby bathroom and ' laundry areas. The Balboa Sailing Center includes rooms for educational classes and community events, as well as a roof -top restaurant and two tennis courts adjacent to 15'" Street. In addition, an , existing bathroom on 19'" Street will be renovated as part of this project (Exhibit 4). 1.3 - Environmental Setting 1.3.1 -Topography, Geology, and Soils , The project area is generally flat, and is situated between approximately 5 and 10 feet above mean sea level. Located on the south side of the Newport Bay, the northern portion of the project area exhibits ' a public sand beach known as Mother's Beach, which extends into Newport Bay. The remaining portions of the project area are paved with asphalt, covered by mobile homes, community buildings, and tennis courts, or exhibit manicured lawns within park space. As a result of this high level of urbanization, the original ground surface and the soils are not observable within the project area. Previous geologic mapping indicates that the project area is situated upon surface deposits of younger , Quaternary Alluvium derived as either fluvial deposits associated with Newport Bay or as beach sands from Newport Beach. These deposits may overlie Quaternary terrace deposits at an unknown depth (McLeod 2008). 1.3.2 - Vegetation and Wildlife The project area contains highly developed areas exhibiting ornamental vegetation, including manicured trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses. ' Several avian species were observed during the pedestrian survey. Michael Brandmon Associates 4 thiclicnt(PN•1N)\0064\00640022\CR\OOW0022 Rcviscd Final PI CRA_Madna_Parkdoc ' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Introduction I I I I I I I I I I i I 0 I I I 1.3.3 - Land Use The entirety of the project area is presently developed, and includes a variety of residential structures, community buildings, parks, paved roads, walkways and parking lots. The project area contains the following buildings or building complexes: the American Legion Property (only the American Legion Veterans Memorial Park is considered on -site, while the Great Hall and Yacht Club are considered off -site), Marina Park Mobile Home Park, 19t° Street Restroom, and Las Arenas Park. The Associated Realty Building, a multi -family residential property addressed at 1510 West Balboa Boulevard, and the Southern California Edison Property are all located directly southeast of the project area, near the intersection of 15" Street and West Balboa Boulevard. The off -site American Legion Great Hall and Yacht Club Building are located directly to the north and northeast of the project area, and exhibit associated docking facilities. Newport Bay is situated to the north of the American Legion Property, as well as the western extension of the project area. The northern edge of the project area is presently used as a public beach. Numerous commercial, residential, and retail properties are located to the east, west and south, across West Balboa Boulevard. The entire area generally exhibits similar mixed -use development. I Michael Brandman Associates 5 R Client(PN-N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022—Revised Final_PI—CRA_Muina_Patkdoc ■ I NOT TO SCALE Huntington Project Area Pacific Ocean Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIS 2008. NNNN "m 5 2.5 0 5 Exhibit 1 ❑❑NA _ Mlles Regional Location Map ' \Echael Braudman Associates 00640022 • 0712008 1 1_regional.mxd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS REVIEW u _ wksI' LV`f` t ter '7�/i� l�Y`t.% is •,y _\ Yn• Df 34 .Park s„ ! ti ♦i� y�- %`•• e r '�*:: w �w o 'o L.eM Hs,bW k `q Project Area y Pubne Area q f✓XV,� �.�3e I Collins 4, W 34 up i tea, NEWPORT BEACH OR Bay ry@wPort ♦ a Bed Ch H t lyel I boa ,r ntls 41 YV ass CXIIIUII L 2.000 1.000 0 2.000 Local Vicinity Map ❑❑N❑ Feet Topographic Base :Vichad Brandniw dssociates 00640022 • 10/2008 1 2jocal—topo.tviW CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS REVIEW r I City of Newport Beach • Marina Park Project Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Introduction 1.4 - Assessment Team MBA Project Archaeologist Jennifer M. Sanka conducted the cultural resources existing literature search at the SCCIC on July 10, 2008. Ms. Sanka and MBA Consulting Architectural Historian Kathleen Crawford performed the pedestrian survey on July 11, 2008. Professional qualifications for ' all team members are located in Appendix B. I I I I I I1 I I F1 I I a II Michael Brandman Associates 9 HACHenl(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final PI CRA_Manna Park.doc I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 Source: Ra66enlHerman Design office. 9N19N ❑11IN0°NOT TO SCALE Michacl Brandman Associates Exhibit 4 Site Plan ' 00640022 • 1112008 14_siteplan.odr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS REVIEW I u J 1 CI 1 F 1 I 1 City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Cultural Setting (SECTION 2; CULTURAL — The following is a brief overview of the prehistoric and historic context in which to understand the relevance of sites found in the general vicinity of the project area. This section is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the current resources available; rather this section serves as a generalized overview. Descriptions that are more detailed can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major published sources including Kroeber (1925), Wallace (1955), Warren (1968), Heizer (1978), Moratto (1984), and Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984). 2.1 - Prehistoric Background The ultimate purpose of establishing a cultural sequence is to allow for the meaningful comparison of material culture attributes on an intra- and inter -site basis, and to provide the basis for culture -model building. To this end, regional archaeologists generally follow Wallace's Southern California format (1955 and 1978) for discussing the prehistoric chronology of the project area. However, the established chronologies are often augmented or even abandoned. For example, Fagan (2003) does not use the traditional archaeological cultural sequences for his regional analysis, instead he describes the stages as generalized models related to recent environmental change and socio-economic models, all associated with an ever -changing environment. Thusly, it should be noted that all of the presented cultural sequences are regularly challenged, as are the meanings of the individual frames of reference. Wallace's prehistoric format is as follows: • Early Period (before 6000 B.C.) • Millingstone Period (6000 to 3000 B.C.) • Intermediate Period (3000 B.C. to A.D. 500) • Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 500 to A.D. 1769) Wallace also argued (Wallace, in Heizer 1978) that the stages prior to 2000 B.C. in southern California could be assigned to: San Dieguito Period (Period I: 9000 to 6000 B.C.) Standard Millingstone Period (Period II: 6000 to 3000 B.C.) Modified Millingstone Period (Period III: 3000 to 2000 B.C.) Warren (1968) uses the following terms to subdivide the periods. • San Dieguito Tradition (before 5500 B.C.) • Encinitas Tradition (5500 B.C. to A.D. 600) • Shoshonean Tradition (A.D. 600 to A.D. 1769) n Michael Brandman Associates H-XIiem(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022_Reviscd Final PI_CRA_Manna Park.doc City of Newport Beach - Merino Park Project Phase /Cultural Resources Assessment Cultural Setting The Late Period has been further subdivided into the San Luis Rey I (A.D.500 to A.D. 1500) and the San Luis Rey II (post 1500). The difference between the latter two is the introduction of locally made brownware pottery, the first indigenous pottery in southern California (Cameron 1999). 2.1.1 - Early Period (before 6000 B.C.) Beginning with the first human presence in California, prehistoric artifacts and cultural activities appear to represent a big -game hunting tradition. Very few sites from the Early Period exist, especially in inland areas. Of the Early Period sites that have been excavated and dated, most exhibit a refuse assemblage suggesting short-term occupation. Such sites have been detected in caves and around fluvial lakes fed by streams that existed near the end of the last glaciation. Chipped stone tools at these sites are surmised to reflect a specialized tool kit used by hunters. Large -stemmed bifaces are common. Miliingstones and dart points are not part of the Early Period tool assemblage. 2.1.2 - Millingstone Period (6000 to 3000 B.C.) The onset of the Millingstone Period appears to correspond with an interval of warm and dry weather known as the Altithermal (Wallace 1978). Artifact assemblages begin toreflectan emphasis on plant foods and foraging subsistence systems, as evidenced the grinding tools found at these.sites, and additionally include choppers and scraper planes. Notably, there is a reduced number of large bifaces in the excavated assemblages. Sites are occupied for a greater duration than Early Period sites, based on an increase in occupational debris. Although numerous Millingstone sites have been identified in Orange County, few are actually dated. The best understood of these is CA-ORA-64, which has been radiometrically dated to about 6000 B.C. (Breece et al.1988 and 1989). Excavations at this site located near Newport Bay, have been essential to the formulation of local research models- (Koerper 1981). Although this site is not located within the 1-mile search radius of the project area, this site is found nearby. Research at this site suggests a settlement -subsistence system during the Millingstone Period reflecting a semi -sedentary lifestyle, The regional distribution of Millingstone sites reflects the theory that aboriginal groups may have followed a modified central -based wandering settlement pattern. Under this model, large groups would have occupied a base camp for a portion of the year, with smaller bands occupying subsidiary camps in order to exploit resources not generally available near the base camp. Sedentism apparently increased in areas possessing an abundance of resources that were available for longer periods. Arid inland regions would have provided a seasonally and spatially dispersed resource base, restricting sedentary occupation, compared to the coastalareas. Generally, the Millingstone assemblage in the Los Angeles basin is typified by large and heavy deep -basin metates, wedge-shaped rnanos and large choppers and scrapers. Flaked lithic tools are slightly larger and cruder than in later periods, and cogstones begin to appear. 1 P I I U I 1 Mtchaet Brandman Assoclates 12 ndClicnt(PN-0MW064W0640022\CR100640022 Rcvised Finai PI CRA Mnrina_Park.doe I E 1 1 I� 1 City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Cultural Setting 2.1.3 - Intermediate Period (3000 B.C. to A.D. 500) Dating between roughly 3000 B.C. and A.D. 500, the Intermediate Period represents a slow technological transition, which is presumably related to the slowly drying and warming climate. Site artifact assemblages retain many attributes of the Millingstone Period. Technologically speaking, these sites are difficult to distinguish from earlier sites in the absence of radiometric dates. Additionally, these sites generally contain a reduced number of large -stemmed or notched projectile points but with an increase in portable mortars and pestles. The lack of large points combined with the mortars and pestles suggest that the indigenous populations may have preferred harvesting, processing, and consuming acorns and other seeds over hunting. Due to a general lack of data, neither the settlement and subsistence systems nor the cultural evolution of this period are well understood. It has been proposed by some researchers that group sedentarism increased with the exploitation of storable, high -yield plant food resources such as acorns. The duration and intensity of occupation at base camps increased during this period, especially in the later part of the period. Generally, the Intermediate Period artifact assemblage in the Los Angeles basin is vague, including elements of the Late Prehistoric Period and Millingstone Period, such as heavy grinding implements. A higher percentage of projectile points occur and smaller chipped stone tools are used. 2.1.4 - Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 500 to A.D.1769) Extending from about A.D. 500 to Spanish contact in A.D. 1769, the Late Prehistoric Period reflects an increased sophistication and diversity in technology. Village sites are common. Late assemblages characteristically contain small projectile or dart points, which imply the use of the bow and arrow. In addition, assemblages include steatite bowls, asphaltum artifacts, grave goods, and elaborate shell ornaments. Use of bedrock milling stations is purported to have been widespread during this period, as it was in the previous period. Increased hunting efficiency and widespread exploitation of acorns provided reliable and storable food resources. Pottery, previously traded into the area, is made locally during the latest stage of this Period and is of simple construction technology. Cameron (1999) names several village sites in inland Orange County that are located within Gabrielino territory. These exhibited pottery, which suggests that the pre -contact Gabrielino may have used pottery as a part of their lifestyle. One of these Late Prehistoric Period sites, Tomato Springs (CA-ORA-244), has been the subject of numerous excavations (Cottrell 1985) and is currently undergoing excavation. 2.2 - Native American Background The project area is situated within an area that has been ethnographically mapped as the Gabrielino traditional use area. The Gabrielino tribal territory is mapped as extending north from Aliso Creek to just beyond Topanga Canyon along the Pacific Coast, and inland to the City of San Bernardino (Bean and Smith 1978). Their territory would have included portions of the Santa Ana River, and several islands, such as Catalina. It is likely that these tribal boundaries were fluid, and allowed for contact, trade, and diffusion of ideas between neighboring groups. 1 Brandman Pinnl PI CRA Mnrina_Park,doc ,J City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Cultural Setting 2.2.1 -The Gabrielino Kroeber (1925) and Bean and Smith (1978) form the primary historical references for this tribal group. The arrival of Spanish explorers and the establishment of missions and outposts during the eighteenth century ended the prehistoric period in California. At this time, traditional Gabrielitio society began to fragment as a result of foreign diseases and the mass removal of local Indian groups to the Mission San Gabriel and Mission San Juan Capistrano. The Gabrielino spoke a language that belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily of the Uto-Aztecan language family (a language family that includes the Shoshonean groups of the Great Basin). The total Gabrielitio population in about 1770 AD was roughly 5,000 persons, based on an estimate of 100 small villages, with approximately 50 to 200 people per village. Their range is generally thought to have been located along the Pacific coast from Malibu to San Pedro Bay, south to Aliso Creek, then east to Temescal Canyon, then north to the headwaters of the San Gabriel River. Also included were several islands, including Catalina. This large area encompasses the City of Los Angeles, much of Rancho Cucamonga, Corona, Glendale, and Long Beach. By 1800, most traditional Gabrielitios had either been killed, or subjugated by the Spanish. The first modern social analyses of Gabrielitio culture took place in the early part of the twentieth century (Kroeber 1925). By this time, acculturation and disease had devastated this group, and the population studied was a remnant of their pre -contact form. Nonetheless, the early ethnographers viewed the Gabrielitio as a chief -oriented society of semi -sedentary hunter -gatherers. Influenced by coastal and interior environmental settings, their material culture was quite elaborate and consisted of well -made wood, bone, stone, and shell items. Included among these was a hunting stick made to bring down numerous types of game. Located in an area of extreme environmental diversity, large villages may have been permanent, such as that found on or near Red Hill in Rancho Cucamonga, with satellite villages utilized seasonally. Their living structures were large, domed, and circular thatched rooms that may have housed multiple families. The society exhibited ranked individuals, possibly chiefs, who possessed a much higher level of economic power than unranked persons. 2.3 - Historic Background: The City of Newport Beach The earliest European explorers to enter the Alta California region were the Spanish who navigated along the Pacific coast during the 17e' and 18'h centuries. During the latter portion of the 18'h century, the Spanish sent Father Junipero Serra to Alta California to create a chain of Missions and Mission outposts to bring Christianity to the indigenous population, and create a foundation for colonization of the region. Between 1769 and 1823, Spanish explorers and missionaries established 21 missions, four presidios, and four pueblos between San Diego and Sonoma (Bean and Rawls 1983), and in 1776 the Franciscan fathers of the San Juan Capistrano Mission began administration of the Newport Bay area (City of Newport Beach Chronology 2008). Also during this period, American explorations Michael Brandman Associates H9Climt(PN.JN)100W1006400221CR100640022_Revised Pinol PI CRA Marina Park.doa ' City of Newport Beach • Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Cultural Setting ' occurred when trappers traveled west in search of abundant sea otter and beaver pelts. In 1805, when Lewis and Clark crossed the Rocky Mountains and continued on to the Pacific coast, they reported ' that the area was richer in beaver and otter than any other country on earth. The fur trappers were close behind the explorers, and by 1840, the beaver was over -exploited and was no longer worth ' hunting (Bean and Rawls 1983). By the early decades of the 19t" century, the Missions began establishing ranchos for the purpose of expanding their agricultural holdings. On July 1, 1810, the Spanish land grant of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana was awarded to Jose Antonio Yorba and Juan Pablo Peralta (City of Newport ' Beach Chronology 2008; Lech 2004). This 75,000-acre grant was made by Governor Arrellaga, and encompassed the majority of the Santa Ana Canyon of eastern Orange County, as well as much of northern Orange County and Newport Bay. After Mexico achieved its independence from Spain in 1821, and Alta California became the northern frontier of Mexico, the Mission padres were forced to swear allegiance to Mexico. Secularization of ' the missions took place over the next decade, and the former mission lands were transferred to Mexican families that had settled in the area (Gunther 1984). In 1842, the Mexican land grant of ' Rancho San Joaquin was made to Jose Andres Sepulveda. This grant included the Newport Upper Bay and most of the mainland shoreline of lower bay (City of Newport Beach Chronology 2008). ' The City of Newport Beach then began in the mid-1800s, when the State of California sold several of the small islands and peninsula areas as swamp and overflow land for a $1 an acre. Harbor, Balboa, ' and Lido Islands formed the foundation for the eventual development of the City of Newport Beach. In 1870, Captain Samuel S. Dunnells brought his river steamer, the Vaquero, into the upper Newport Bay. The successful maneuvering of this 105-ton river steamer through the upper Bay brought ' attention to the bay area, as many had previously considered the area too treacherous for travel (Orange County 2008; City of Newport Beach Chronology 2008). Thereafter, the principal ' landowners in the Newport Bay area, James and Robert McFadden and James Irvine, believed the area could be prosperous. The group conceived the area as a "new port," and this is how the area gained its modern name according to the Newport Beach Historical Society (Orange County 2008). ' However, other sources maintain that a Mrs. Perkins suggested the name (City of Newport Beach Chronology 2008). ' By 1888 or 1889, the McFadden brothers and James Irvine moved their shipping business from the inner shores of Newport Bay to the deeper waters of the oceanfront area (City of Newport Beach Chronology 2008; Orange County 2008). The McFadden wharf soon became the largest business in the region, shipping agricultural products and manufactured goods eastward from the beach areas. ' Growth in the area continued to increase as the Santa Ana and Newport Railway was completed in 1891, and as a result of the Pacific Electric Railway Company line reaching Newport in 1905 (City of Newport Beach Chronology 2008). The Pacific Electric Railway connected the Newport Beach area with Los Angeles, and the advent of this rapid transit system attracted new residents, commuters, and Michael Brandman Associates 15 ' H.\Clicnt(PN•1N)\0064\006400221CR\00640022 Revised Final_PI CRA Marina Park.doa ' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Cultural Setting tourists. Shortly thereafter, small hotels and cottages developed along the beaches, and villages such , as West Newport, East Newport, Bay Island, and Balboa Island began to form along the coast and peninsula areas. , In 1906, the City of Newport Beach was incorporated by combining the existing small communities (City of Newport Beach Chronology 2008; Orange County 2008), and the City of Corona Del Mar was officially annexed in 1924. The City and region continued to grow as the Pacific Coast Highway was opened in 1926, the North Harbor was dedicated in 1936, and the Newport Beach area functioned as a vital hub for warships and defense industries in the 1940s. By the 1950s, growth in the area dramatically increased with the advent of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5), and by the 1970s rapid urbanization occurred with new businesses, residential growth and tourism. 1 11, J Michael Brandman Associates 16 ' 11.ldimt(PN-0N)\0064WO640022(CRW0640022 Rcviscd Final PI CRA Madna_Park.doc tCity of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Research Design and Methods ' SECTION 3 aRESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ' The primary purpose of this cultural resources assessment is to determine whether cultural resources are located within the project area, determine whether or not any existing cultural resources should be considered significant resources, and develop specific mitigation measures that will address potential ' impacts to existing or potential resources. In addition, this report documents MBAs effort to identify the effect of the proposed action on Historic Properties. Thus, this study consists of nine distinct ' efforts: 1. Review of regional history and previous cultural resource sites and studies in the vicinity of ' the project area. 2. Request of an NAHC Sacred Lands File record search and contact with appropriate tribal ' groups and individuals. 3. Request review of existing paleontological records and assessment of paleontological ' sensitivity. 4. Examination of archived topographic maps, road maps, and aerial photographs. ' 5. Conduct a pedestrian survey of the project area. 6. Completion of DPR forms for discovered resources. 7. Evaluation of historic -age buildings and structures. ' 8. Evaluation of cultural resource sensitivity and the potential for the proposed action to effect Historic Properties. ' 9. Development of recommendations associated with mitigation monitoring and/or impacts to existing cultural resources following CEQA Guidelines. 3.1 - Record Search 3.1.1 - Information Center Search ' The primary purpose of cultural resource record search is to determine what cultural resources more than 45 years old have been recorded in the vicinity of or within the project area, and whether such ' resources will be or could be impacted by development. A records search was conducted at the SCCIC, which is located at California State University, Fullerton, to determine the existence of ' previously documented cultural resources in the City and County. This records search included reviews of archival maps and examinations of current inventories of the: ' National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) • California Register of Historical Resources (CR) • California Historical Landmarks (CHL) ' California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) ' Michael Brandman Associates H.\Client(PN•1N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 — Revised rinal_PI CRA Marina Park.doc City of Newport Beach - Marine Park Project Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Research Design and Methods C • California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) 3.1.2 - Native American Heritage Commission Record Search A Sacred Lands File search request was sent to the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites are recorded within the project area or in the general vicinity. Information request letters were sent to the tribal groups and individuals named by the NAHC as having potential knowledge of sacred properties. These information request letters were associated with CEQA-level seeping only, and were not affiliated with formal, government -to -government SB 18 consultations. Tribal Consultation Overview and Responsibilities The following overview is provided to assist the City in meeting its responsibilities for compliance with Tribal Consultation legislation, which is required when a project results in adopting a Specific Plan or a General Plan Amendment. As of March 1, 2005, California Government Codes 65092; 65351; 65352; 65352.3; 65352.4; 65352.5 and 65560, formerly known, as Senate Bill (SB) 18, require city and county governments to consult with California Native American tribes before individual site -specific, project -level land use decisions are made. In particular, this process applies to General Plan Amendments and adoptions of Specific Plans. The intent of this legislation is to provide all tribes, whether federally recognized or not, an opportunity to consult with local governments for the purpose of preserving and protecting their sacred places. See Appendix C for more information. 3.1.3 - Paleontological Records Search The primary purpose of a paleontological analysis is to determine the potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources in the project area. Thus, an information request was made to the Vertebrate Paleontology Section at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. The results of the paleontology literature and records review assist in determining the need or lack thereof for additional paleontological studies or mitigation measures. 3.2 - Pedestrian Survey The purpose of the cultural resource pedestrian, survey is to locate and document previously recorded or new cultural resource sites or isolates that are more than 45 years old within the project area, and to determine whether such resources will be or could be impacted by development. Due to the highly urbanized nature of the project area, and the resultant lack of surface visibility, the project area was not examined using the standard protocol block-transect technique. Instead, the paved areas were walked trending from the eastern to the western boundary. Emphasis was placed upon visual examination of the structures located within the project area. I t t Michael Brandman Associates 18 HAClient(PN-1NM0W100W0022%CR\00040022 Revisal RnaL Pl_CRA_Madn _Park.doc City of Newport Beach • Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Research Design and Methods ' 3.3 - Sites and Isolates 1 1 Prehistoric and historic cultural resources can vary from area to area. Prehistoric and historic cultural resources are defined as three or more items, such as lithics, stone tools, glass, cans, etc., that are not from a single source or material found within a 10 square meter area. Historic items must be more than 45 years old or have the potential to be more than 45 years old. This definition assumes that items found in an area with a diversity of materials represent more than a single activity at a location. Sites could also be loci if they presumably represent repeated discrete activity, such as a milling station, hearth, or isolated structure. Michael Brandman Associates 19 H. Client(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final _PJ_CRA_Manna_Park.doc City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results !`J ILSEC 4.1 -'Record Search 4.1.1 - Information Center Search On July 10, 2008, MBA Project Archaeologist Jennifer M. Sanka conducted a records search at the SCCIC, which is located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. To identify any Historic Properties, Ms. Sanka examined the current inventories of the NRHP, CR, CHL, and CPHI. In addition, Ms. Sanka reviewed the HRI and archival maps for the County and the City to determine the existence of previously documented local historical resources. Review of the 1896 USGS Santa Ana 30 minute, the 1901 (reprinted 1945) Santa Ana, California, 15 minute, and the 1902 (reprinted 1946) USGS Corona, California 30 minute topographic maps revealed neither structures nor any other development within the project area boundaries. All of the listed maps do depict the intersection of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) Newport Beach .Branch and the SPRR Smeltzer Branch to the west-northwest of the project area. One of the SPRR branches then continues southerly to Newport Beach proper, withinr0.25 mile of the project area. These maps also depict numerous structures near the SPRR branches; however, all of these structures appear to be mapped to the south of modem Balboa Boulevard. According to SCCIC files, the project area has not been previously surveyed, and minimal surveys have been conducted near the project area boundaries. A total of 15 studies have been conducted within a 1-mile radius, and the majority of these studies were completed along Pacific Coast Highway and SR-55. In addition, there are no known cultural resources located within the project area boundaries. However, there are nine cultural resources known within the 1-mile search radius, including four prehistoric age and five historic age resources. Two of the resources are California Historical Landmarks, one is an NRHP listed property and one resource is considered a historical landmark by the Newport Beach Historical Society, but is not recognized by the City of Newport Beach as a landmark building. The following table outlines these previously recorded resources, as found in the I -mile search radius on the Newport Beach, California topographic quadrangle. Table 1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources �1-mile Site Name Type radius -0.5-mile -0.25- I radius mile On Site? radius CA-0ra-59 Prehistoric age - the traces of • — — No a "camp site" recorded in 1912 as a mound of shell. CA-Ora-60 Prehistoric age - the traces of • — — No a "camp site" recorded in 1912 as a scatter of clam, oyster and univalve shell. I J 1 I Michael Brandman Associates 20 n;\Climt(PN-1N)100641006400221CR100640022—Revised Final PI CRA Marina_Park.dm ' ' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results I 1 C Site Name Type —1-mile radius —0:5-mile radius ^0.25- mile On Site? radius CA-Ora-61 Prehistoric age - the traces of • — — No a "camp site" recorded in 1912 as a scatter of shell. The presence of a small, wood -frame house was noted at the site, and the prehistoric age of the shellscatter was considered potentially suspect by the original recorder as a result. CA-Ora-62 Prehistoric age - the traces of • — — No a "camp site" recorded in 1912. Oral tradition (1912) noted the presence of numerous skeletons, mortars, pestles, and other artifacts detected at this location. 30-176654 Historic age - the Our Lady — — • No Mount Carmel church built in 1951. The recorders note that the structure does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. (NR- 6Y) 30-179867 Historic age - the South — — • No Coast Shipyard, comprised of three groups of buildings built at various dates. The recorder/evaluator notes that none of the buildings appear to be individually eligible for listing in the CR. However, the grouping of buildings are referenced as a historic district, and are considered eligible for listing at the local level. The South Coast Shipyard is recognized as a historical landmark by the Newport Beach Historical Society, but is not recognized by the City of Newport Beach as a landmark building. 30-162261/ Historic age - the Old • — — No CHL 198 Landing site, where the area was named Newport by James Irvine, Benjamin Flint, James McFadden and Robert McFadden in 1870. This is also the site of a shipping Michael Brandman Associates 21 ' HAClient(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final PI CRA_Marina Park.doe City of Newport Beach • Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results Site Name Type -1•mile-0.5•mlle ! radius radius -0.25- tulle j On Site? radius service run -by the McFadden's in the 1870s and 1880s. (NR-7L) 30-162258/ Historic age - The site of the — — • No CHL 794 McFadden Wharf, originally constructed in 1888 by the McFadden brothers. (NR- 1CL) 30-158585/ Historic age - the Lovell — — • No NR 74000545 Beach House, built in 1926. (NR-IS) 4.1.2 - Native American Heritage Commission Record Search On June 26, 2008, MBA sent a letter to the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites are listed in their Sacred Lands File for this portion of the City of Newport Beach. Our efforts were associated with information scoping. The response from the NAHC was received on June 27, 2008. To ensure that all potential Native American resources are adequately addressed, letters to each of the 12 listed tribal contacts were sent on July 15, 2008. All responses received at the MBA office are incorporated into Appendix A. Letters received subsequent to the date of the final report will be forwarded to the City of Newport Beach as they are received. MBA received an email response from John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Administrator for the Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation dated July 16, 2008. Mr. Rosas indicated that he saw the need for Section 106 consultations, that the proposed projectposed an indigenous rights issue, and that the Tribe objected to any development within their territory. He additionally requested more information about the proposed project. MBA Project Archaeologist Jennifer M. Sanka responded to this email on July 17, 2008, to recognize Mr. Rosas concerns and to provide him with additional project -related information. Mr. Rosas then responded again on July 17, 2008. This email correspondence is included in Appendix A. MBA also received a telephone message from Anita Espinoza of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians. Ms. Espinoza stated that she was generally concerned with the high cultural sensitivity of the region and the project area, and saw a direct need for a Juaneno tribal monitor during development. Specifically, Ms. Espinoza suggested an Acjachcmen tribal monitor for the project. She indicated that she would be out of town for several weeks, and would probably not be able to respond to a return phone call. MBA Project Archaeologist Jennifer M. Sanka attempted to return her phone call on July 28, 29, and 31, 2008 and August 11, 2008; however, a busy signal was received on each attempt. i I J 1 11 I 1 Michael Brandman Associates 22 H.-Tlicm(PN,IN)�00641o0640022tCR100640022 Revised Finol PI Cftkh1arina Park.doc ' J City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results MBA then received a telephone call from Anthony Morelos, Chairperson of the Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians on July 30, 2008. Mr. Morelos requested additional information on the proposed project. MBA Project Archaeologist Jennifer M. Sanka returned his phone call in the following weeks, and was able to discuss the project with Mr. Morelos on August 18, 2008. Mr. Morelos indicated that the project area was located in an area of high cultural sensitivity for his Tribe, and strongly recommended Native American Tribal monitoring during development. Specifically, Mr. Morelos suggested a Gabrielino Tribal monitor for the project. The presence of a Tribal monitor, and specifically a Gabrielino monitor, was of the utmost importance to Mr. Morelos to ensure the proper treatment of any encountered resources in accordance with their belief system. 4.1.3 - Paleontological Records Search The paleontological records check was requested on July 15, 2008. A response was received on August 6, 2008 from Dr. Samuel McLeod of the Vertebrate Paleontology Section at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (McLeod 2008). The paleontological review showed that the entire project area is situated upon surface deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium derived as either fluvial deposits associated with Newport Bay, or as beach sands from nearby Newport Beach. There are no known fossil vertebrate localities known nearby from younger Quaternary Alluvium deposits, and it is unlikely that such deposits will contain significant vertebrate fossils. However, these deposits may overlie older Quaternary terrace deposits at an unknown depth. These older Quaternary terrace deposits have been known to yield fossil resources within the region. Locality LACM 6370 produced a fossil specimen of the extinct horse Equus from older Quaternary terrace deposits, which may be present within the project area. Based upon the results of this review, it is possible that significant paleontological resources may be adversely impacted by development -related ground disturbance. Therefore, MBA has determined that the project area has moderate paleontologic sensitivity if the project area contains older Quaternary terrace deposits at depth. For this reason, MBA recommends a paleontologic monitoring program to mitigate potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources. MBA suggests that a qualified paleontologist review any available bore/geotech samples to determine the existence of Quaternary terrace deposits. This data can then be used to determine the need or lack thereof for paleontologic monitoring, or the intensity of the monitoring program. If bore samples are not available, then a mitigation -monitoring program should commence at approximately 5 feet from the modern ground surface. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the sensitivity can be reduced from moderate to low, and MBA suggests that the project area be re-evaluated for sensitivity once 50 percent of all earthmoving activities have been completed. This evaluation should focus on the presence or absence of older Quaternary terrace deposits, and should assist in determining the need or lack thereof for additional monitoring. A monitoring program for excavation should be developed prior to any grading within the project area, and should be consistent with the provisions of CEQA. Michael Brandman Associates H:\Clicnt(PN•JN)\0064\00640022\CR\OOW0022 Rcviscd Final_PI CRA Marina Park.doc City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project ' Phase I Cultural Resources AssessMent Results 4.2 -'Pedestrian Survey ' MBA, Project Archaeologist JenniferM. Sanka and MBA Consulting Architectural Historian ' Kathleen Crawford surveyed the project area on July 11, 2008. The project area was not examined using the standard block-transeet technique generally employed for archaeological pedestrian surveys. Rather, the paved and park portions of the project area were walked trending from east to west. This , modified technique was employed based upon the negligible original ground surface visibility, due to the highly urbanized nature of the project area. ' The project area is generally flat, and the original ground surface is not observable due to the presence of various structures, paved areas and parks. The project area consists of a rectangular shaped extension occupied by the American Legion Veterans Memorial Park, which is bound by 15'" Street to the east. Las Arenas Park and associated properties are located to the west of the Park, and are bound by West Balboa Boulevard to the south. The Marina Park Mobile Home Park is bound by Newport Bay to the north and 18a' Street to the west. An additional "L-shaped" portion of the project area extends to the west from 18'h Street to 19'h Street, along West Bay (Appendix D: Photograph 7). ' This western extension includes the beach along Newport Bay and an outdoor public restroom building at 191h Street. The project area is easily accessible from West Balboa Boulevard to the south, , and then from any of north -south trending roads or various paved parking lots. The entirety of the project area is presently developed, including residential properties, community , buildings, tennis courts, parks, paved roads, and parking lots. Based upon the pedestrian survey, tie properties were grouped for ease in discussion and in some cases for recordation and significance evaluation purposes. The project area contains the following buildings or building complexes: • American Legion Property (Only the American Legion Veterans Memorial Park is included , within the project area. The Great Hall, Yacht Club Building and the structures included in de American Legion parking lot are considered off -site.) • Marina Park Mobile Home Park ' • 19a' Street Restroom • Las Arenas Park ' The off -site Associated Realty Building,1510 West Balboa Boulevard, the Southern California Edison Property and the Bayshores Peninsula Hotel were also considered during this study (Exhibit ' 5). The Marina Park Mobile Home Park,19'h Street Restroom, Las Arenas Park and a portion of the ' American Legion Property are considered on -site historic -age resources and are discussed in detail below. The off -site 1510 West Balboa Boulevard location (Appendix D: Photographs 1 and 13) , consists of a three-story, asymmetrical, U-shaped, Modern style, apartment building built in 2004 (City of Newport Beach 2008). The 9ff-site Associated Reality Building is located at 1500 West Michael Brandman Associates 24 H.Tlicdt(PN•JN)100041000400221CR100040022 Revised Piaal PI CRA Marmo_PatkAoc , ' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results ' Balboa Boulevard and is a two-story, asymmetrical, rectangular shaped, Modern style commercial building (Appendix D: Photograph 13). This building was constructed in 1989, and prior to its ' construction, the property was occupied by a Mobil gas station from the 1940s to the 1980s (City of Newport Beach 2008). These properties do not meet the 45-year age criteria for consideration as ' historic -age resources. The off -site Bayshores Peninsula Hotel is a three-story, asymmetrical, irregular shaped, Modem Spanish Eclectic building constructed in 1962 (City of Newport Beach 2008). The off -site Southern California Edison (SCE) Property is comprised of two sections. The northern portion is a vacant lot surrounded by a chain link fence, with a brick wall and two chain link gates on the west elevation. ' The wall extends up the sides of the property, and a pair of chain link gates are also present on the east portion of the lot. The southern portion of the property contains a continuation of a chain link fence, and encompasses a structure designed to mimic a residential building. This building does not meet the 45-year age criteria for consideration as a historic -age resource, as it was constructed in the ' 1990s. The two-story, rectangular shaped, Modem style, SCE structure is asymmetrical in design. The building has a concrete foundation, stucco exterior, and flat roof with a single door entrance and a second floor balcony with a flat roof. The balcony is accessed by large sliding glass doors. ' Collectively, these two sections comprise the SCE utility facility (Appendix D: Photograph 14). The Bayshores Peninsula Hotel and the SCE Property were recorded onto DPR 523 Forms, which ' were subsequently submitted to the SCCIC for the assignment of Primary Numbers. These resources were then evaluated for significance and found to be ineligible for inclusion in any local, State or ' federal registers (Crawford 2008). The project area exhibited negligible original surface visibility, due to the high level of urbanization ' (Appendix D: Photographs 1 to 14). The only observed soils consisted of fine-grained, light brown - yellow beach sands present within the public beach along Newport Bay. The remainder of the surface area within the project area was obscured by development and ornamental vegetation. 1 L_J i Michael Brandman Associates 25 11XIient(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final PI CRA Marina_Park.doe Source: Google Earth Pro. 200 100 0 zoo Z Feet Exhibit 5 Project Area Building Complexes 00640022.10/20081 5_building_com plexes.wd CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • MARINA PARK PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT — EWICA—VAUUNS A�LEOMOGICWCOF@WVIEti I 1 I r LI City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results During the pedestrian survey, no prehistoric -age archaeological resources were detected; however, several historic -age structures and structure complexes were observed. The following resources were recorded on DPR 523 Forms and evaluated for significance: • American Legion Property (Only the American Legion Veterans Memorial Park is included within the project area. The Great Hall, Yacht Club Building and the structures included in the American Legion parking lot are considered off -site.) • Marina Park Mobile Home Park • 19th Street Restroom • Las Arenas Park These properties were researched and evaluated by MBA Consulting Architectural Historian Kathleen A. Crawford, and the following sections are based upon the results of the research contained within each of the unpublished DPR 523 Forms (Crawford 2008). 4.2.1 - American Legion Property The American Legion Property (Post 291) is located in the eastern portion of the project area, and includes the on -site Memorial Park and modern shelter, as well as the off -site Great Hall Building, utility buildings, a parking lot and boat storage area, and the Yacht Club Building. The entire American Legion Property is bound by 151h Street to the east, Newport Bay to the north and Marina Park Mobile Home Park to the west. ' Located in the far northeastern corner of the American Legion Property, the off -site American Legion Great Hall building is a one-story, rectangular shaped, asymmetrical, Modern style, community center building. The building has a concrete foundation, stucco exterior, and bi-level hipped and shed roof. ' The building has a centered main entrance with glass and metal doors covered by a canvas awning. A chimney is present on the south fagade and a terrace is present on the east fagade. The windows vary in size, shape, and placement around the fagades and include metal or wood framed, fixed pane, and slider style windows. The property contains four small utility buildings at the rear of the structure. The original building was constructed in the 1940s, was heavily damaged by a fire in 1979, and was subsequently reconstructed. The building is presently in good condition, but has been altered by the addition of new windows and doors and other major components following the 1979 fire (Appendix ' D: Photograph 2). The American Legion Veterans Memorial Park property is located immediately south of the ' American Great Hall Building, and within the eastern -most portion of the project area (Appendix D: Photograph 2). The park includes a large grassy area and an L-shaped structure with round concrete posts topped by a wood trellis roof. This shelter structure is located at the northwest corner of the property on a concrete pad (Appendix D: Photograph 1). The structure was probably built about 1980 and is in good condition. Michael Brandman Associates 27 HAChent(PN.JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final PI_CRA_Marina_Park.doe City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results The western portion of the American Legion Property consists of a parking lot and a boat storage structure (Appendix D: Photograph 3). The boat storage structure was probably built in about 1980, and is contained within the private, fenced parking lot. The Yacht Club Building is also located within the fenced parking lot, at the far southwestem corner of the American Legion Property, and outside of the project area boundaries (Appendix D: Photograph 4). The Yacht Club Building is a small Craftsman -style building constructed around 1925. This building was the original American Legion building, which was moved to the present location in 1940 from a property on 10th Street. The building has a wood foundation, wood horizontal shiplap siding exterior and a front gabled roof. The entrance is recessed into the main mass of the structure and retains a pair of wood doors. A chimney is present at the rear of the structure, and a small utility building is present behind the structure. Windows are wood framed, double hung sash style windows placed symmetrically on the south and west fapades. The building appears to be in fair condition. Significance Evaluation The following information was obtained through an oral interview with Commander Steven Spriggs, the American Legion Post 291 website, Newport Beach City Directories, and the City of Newport Beach Planting Department (American Legion 2008; Oral Interviews 2008; City of Newport Beach 2008). The American Legion Post 291 was founded in 1924 by 30 World War 1 veterans. These veterans were all residents in the Newport Beach area. Raymond Hitchcock was elected the first commander of the post, and a decision was made to obtain a site for the post. Through fundraising activities, a site was purchased from the City of Newport Beach for $1,500, providing a 25-year lease for the property and adjoining tidelands. This original site was located at the intersection of 10"Street and West Balboa Boulevard (originally Center Street). Additional fundraising activities then were held to finance a but for the post, and in October of 1925, construction began on a one-story structure. Though the building was originally conceived as a two-story structure, the funding limited the building program to one-story. The $1,900 building was built almost entirely by members of the Post, and the first meeting was held in the building known currently as the Yacht Club on December 2, 1925. Thereafter, the Post decided to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop on its property. However, at this time the rules for the Boy Scouts stated that they had to be at least 12 years old. In an effort to include children under the age of 12 in the organization, Scoutmaster A.J. Twist created the "Cubs." By 1929, the National Council of Boy Scouts of America had ruled on the organization, and the Cub Scouts of America were officially recognized. This new important branch of American Scouting began in the original Post Building on 10a' Street. The NewportBeach City Directories list the American Legion Post 291 as occupying an address at Center Avenue and 10°i Street in 1938, and the post is listed at the current address in 1942. �ll I I� U I �l 1 I Michael Brandman Associates 28 11:lClient(PN•1N)100041006400221CR100640022 Revisal Final PI CRA_Marina PatU. L ' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results ' On September 20, 1940, the City of Newport Beach granted a new lease to the Post at 151h Street, and permanently set aside the tidelands for the facility. The public marina was constructed in 1958-1959. The original meeting building was completed in 1940, but was replaced by the Great Hall in 1949. The construction of the 1949 Great Hall was completed almost exclusively by Post members and their ' friends. Fire destroyed much of the Great Hall on December 14, 1979, due to a malfunctioning floor furnace. Many volunteers worked long hours to rebuild the hall in 1980, and it was reopened on July 4, 1980, The City of Newport Beach continues to extend the American Legion's 25-year lease as the property will be used by the group into the future. ' In discussing the American Legion Property with City of Newport Beach Planner, Patrick Alpert, he stated that the American Legion Post 291 property was not listed on the official Newport Beach Historic Inventory, but had been listed as locally significant on a volunteer historic inventory conducted in 1982 (Oral Interviews 2008). Integrity Statement ' With regard to the seven aspects of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feel and association, the ca. 1925 Yacht Club Building has not retained its location as it was moved from ' 101h Street. The ca. 1949 Great Hall Building has retained its original location, as it has not been moved. The other buildings on the property were moved onto the site at an -unknown time. The ' setting, feel and association of the buildings have not remained intact since their construction. The setting has been altered extensively by the construction of numerous buildings in the surrounding area from 1940 to the present. The integrity level of the property is fair and the condition of the buildings is good. Application of Register Criteria The property was assessed under NRHP Criterion A for its potential significance as part of a historic trend that may have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. ' The building was constructed as part of the social/military history of the Newport Beach area. There is no significant historic trend or event that is associated with this property that would allow the ' property to be considered significant at the federal level. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion A. tThe property was considered under Criterion B for its association with the lives of persons significant in our past. ' There is no evidence to suggest that any of the persons associated with the construction or development of the property were considered important in the history of this property. None of the persons associated with this building appear to have made any significant contributions to the development of the area. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion B. Michael Brandman Associates 29 ' II:\Client(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final PI CRA Manna_Park.doc City ofNeWport Beach • Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results The property was evaluated for Criterion C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of Modern style -construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values, or representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. The Great Hall building was designed in a basic Modern style, typical of mid-20a' century construction for structures, such as social buildings. The building does not represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The building does not serve as a good example of the 1940s style, due to its reconstruction after the fire in 1979. The building does not include distinctive elements of this style and its design does not rise to a level,of architectural significance. The building does not serve as a significant example of the style to qualify for NRHP significance. The building does not include significant artistic values. In addition, the building has been altered with new, non -historic doors and windows, terraces and other elements due to the damage caused by the fire. None of the other buildings on the site are considered to have architectural significance, Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion C. The property was considered for Criterion D for the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. dmorder for buildings, structures and objects to be eligible under this criterion, they would need to "be, or must have been, the principal source of information." This is not the case with this property Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion D. In summary, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP. Therefore, the property is not considered a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA. The property was also assessed for CRHR and local designation eligibility. The American Legion Post 291 ca. 1940/1979 Great Hall Building and the original ca. 1925 Yacht Club Building are considered to be locally significant for their association with the social and military history of Newport Beach under Criterion A. The ca. 1925 Yacht Club building does not meet the criteria for architectural significance, as it is a simple, non -significant example of Craftsman -style architecture. The ca. 1940/1979 Great Hall building has been altered extensively, resulting in a loss of integrity. The building is not considered to meet the criteria for architectural significance. The buildings do not meet any of the criteria for state -level significance, and the property is not considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. Therefore, the property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. However, the Great Hall Building and the Yacht Club Building are considered to be locally significant resources. Both of these buildings are located outside of the project area boundaries, and will not be directly affected by the proposed project. I I 11 I I I 1 I I I I Michael Brandman Associates 30 8:\Clicm(PN.JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Rcvlscd P(nal PI CRA_hiD* Palk•000 n L.J r I ICII f J' LI L I I J I i7 IL 11 I 7 LJ City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results 4.2.2 - Las Arenas Park Las Arenas Park is located along West Balboa Boulevard, extending from 16°i Street on the east to 18" Street on the west (Appendix D: Photograph 9). The Park includes several components, including: a child's playground, two tennis courts, a half -court basketball court, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, a one-story garage associated with the Girl Scout House, the Balboa Community Center, a small parking lot between the community center and the girl scout building, a one-story garage building behind the community center, and a 21-space parking lot on the northeast corner of the intersection of West Balboa Boulevard and 18d' Street. The Park area includes the various recreation activity centers, grass lawn, paved walkways, and planters with mature, ornamental landscaping. The Las Arenas Park property is generally in good condition. The children's play area is located at the eastern end of the Las Arenas Park property (Appendix D: Photograph 10), and the fenced tennis courts and basketball courts are found directly to the west of the playground. The City of Newport Beach Planning Department stated that none of the components of Las Arenas Park are listed on the Newport Beach Historic Inventory and are not considered to have historical or architectural significance. The property has served the community since its development in the mid-1960s (Oral Interviews 2008; City of Newport Beach 2008). The Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House is situated between the parking lot at the intersection of 18th Street and West Balboa Boulevard and the Las Arenas tennis and basketball courts. The building is addressed at 1700 West Balboa Boulevard and is a one-story, L-shaped, symmetrical', Modern Minimal Traditional style, community building (Appendix D: Photograph 11). The building has a concrete foundation, stucco exterior with wood horizontal siding accents, and a mixed gable roof with shingles. A shed roof portion extends over the recessed front entrance, and a small cupola with the Girl Scout logo is present on the peak of the front gable. The entrance has a pair of wood and glass doors, and the opening is framed by wood shutters. The building also includes a brick chimney. Windows vary in size, shape, and placement around the fagades and include metal framed, casement and fixed pane windows. Windows on the front figade are wood framed, double hung sash style with diamond shaped panes. Mature landscaping is present on the front fagade. A one-story garage structure is present behind the building. The building appears to be in good condition. The associated garage structure is located to the south-southeast of the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House. The building is a one-story, symmetrical, rectangular shaped, utilitarian garage structure. The garage has a concrete foundation, concrete block walls, and a shed style roof. The upper portions of the walls are vertical wood siding. A large wood door is present on the east fagade, and the remaining three sides include wood framed, rectangular shaped fixed pane windows placed in a contiguous row just under the roof -line. The building appears to be in fair condition. The Balboa Community Center building is situated to the east of the Neva B, Thomas Building, and is also between the parking lot at the intersection of 18" Street and West Balboa Boulevard and the Las Arenas tennis and basketball courts. Addressed at 1714 West Balboa Boulevard, the building is a lJ Michael Brandman Associates 31 119Client(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final_PI CRA Marina_Pak.doc City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results one-story, irregular shaped, asymmetrical, Modem style, community center building (Appendix D: Photograph 12). The building has a concrete foundation, wood shingle siding, and a multi -level roof. The roof has several planes and portions are gabled with shed roofs. The main entrance is a single wood door, and several other single wood doors are present around the fapades, providing access to the other portions of the structure. Windows vary in size, shape and placement around the fapades , and include slider style and fixed pane wood or metal framed windows. Mature ornamental landscaping is present around the front fapade and a small parking lot is present to the east of the building. A one-story garage structure is present behind the community center. The property appears to be in good condition. The associated garage is a one-story building located behind the Balboa Community Center. The ' building is an asymmetrical, rectangular shaped, Craftsman style, garage. The building has a concrete foundation, horizontal and scalloped vertical wood siding, and a front gable roof with exposed rafters and shingles. The cast fapade contains a garage door style openingand a single wood door. Windows vary in size, shape and placement around the fapade and include wood framed, casement ' and fixed pane windows. Some of the windows have canvas awnings. The building includes mature landscaping and the rear of the property includes a wood fence. The building appears to be in fair condition. I Significance Evaluation The City of Newport Beach Planning Department stated that none of the components of Las Arenas , Park are listed on the Newport Beach Historic Inventory and are not considered to have historical or architectural significance (Oral Interviews 2008; City of Newport Beach). The property has served , the community since its development in the mid-1960s. Integrity Statement With regard to the seven aspects of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feel and association, the ca. 1965 park and associated buildings on the property have retained their original locations, as they have not been moved. The setting, feel and association have not remained intact since the construction on the property. The setting has been altered extensively by the construction of new buildings in the surrounding area from the 1950s to the present. The integrity , level of the property is good and the condition of the buildings is good. Application of Register Criteria The property was assessed under NRHP Criterion A for its potential significance as part of a historic trend that may have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. ' The park and associated elements were constructed as part of the overall continuing residential and commercial development of the Newport Beach area, which began in the 1880s and continued dhrough the 2& century. There is no significant historic trend or event that is associated with this property. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion A. ' Michael Brandman Associates 32 11AClient(PN,1N)10064\00640022\CR\00640022 Reviscd Fina1_PI CRA Marino_Park.4ac ' ' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results ' The property was considered under Criterion B for its association with the lives of persons significant in our past. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the persons associated with the construction or ' development of the property were considered important in the history of this property. None of the persons associated with this property appear to have made any significant contributions to the development of the area and do not appear to be historically significant. Therefore, the property does I r d I I �l i� I I not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion B. The buildings on the property were evaluated for Criterion C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of Modem or Craftsman construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values, or representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. The Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout building was designed in a Modern Minimal Traditional style, typical of mid-20th century construction. The building does not represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The building does not serve as a good example of the style used in Southern California for structures in the 1950s. The building does not include distinctive elements of this style and its design does not rise to a level of architectural significance. The building does not serve as a significant example of the style to qualify for NRHP significance. The associated Craftsman style garage building, the Modern style Balboa Community Building, and the associated utilitarian garage building are all lacking in distinctive elements of their styles, were heavily altered, and do not serve as good examples of their individual styles. The buildings do not include significant artistic values. Therefore, none of the buildings or elements on the property appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion C. The property was considered for Criterion D for the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. In order for buildings, structures and objects to be eligible under this criterion, they would need to "be, or must have been, the principal source of information." None of the elements contained within this property meet this minimal requirement. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion D. In summary, neither the property nor any associated elements appear to qualify for the NRHP. Therefore, the property is not considered a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA. The property was also assessed for CRHR and local designation eligibility, and was determined to not meet the criteria for historical or architectural significance. Michael Brandman Associates 33 H.Thent(PN•JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022_Revised Final_PI CRA Mannn Park doc City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results None of the elements contained within this property appear to meet any of the criteria for state- , level significance, and the property is not considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. Therefore, the property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of C) QA. 4.2.3 -191h Street Restroom The restroom located at 19'h Street is a one-story, Spanish Eclectic style building (Appendix D: , Photograph 8). The building has a concrete foundation, asymmetrical fagade with stucco exterior, and a flat roof, with a single metal door on the west fagade and two doors on each of the south and east fagades. Five small, arched, wood framed, windows are present on the north facade and a small, square, four-lite, wood framed window is present on the west fagade. Small vents are present on the ' west, east and south fagades, and concrete block walls are outside the entrances to the restrooms on the south fagade. The exterior appears to have a new stucco coating, and appears to be in good condition. Significance Evaluation , The City of Newport Beach Planning Department was contacted regarding this structure, since no building permits could be located for the property. City of Newport Beach Planner Patrick Alpert, stated that the building is not considered to be historically or architecturally significant and is not listed on the Historic Inventory of Newport Beach. The beach adjacent to the restroom was locally known as Mother's Beach (Oral Interviews 2008). No other information was located regarding the structure , or its construction. Integrity Statement With regard to the seven aspects of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feel and association, the ca. 1930 19a' Street restroom building has retained its original location, as it has not been moved. The building's setting, feel and association have not remained intact since its construction. The setting has been altered extensively by the construction of numerous buildings from the 1930s to the present. The urban setting has changed substantially since its construction. The integrity level of the property is fair and the condition of the building is good, Application of Register Criteria , The property was assessed under NRHP Criterion A for its potential significance as part of a historic trend that may have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. , The building was constructed as part of the continuing residential and commercial development of the Newport Beach area, which began in the 1880s and continued through the 20'h century. There is no significant historic trend or event that is associated with this property. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion A. The property was considered under Criterion B for its association with the lives of persons significant in our past. Michael Brandman Associates 34 HdC(lent(PN•JN)10004100040022\CR\00G40022 Rcvisad Final PI CRA_Marina Park.duc ' I I nI L L I n II I City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results There is no evidence to suggest that any of the persons associated with the construction or development of the property were considered important in history. None of the persons associated with this building appear to have made any significant contributions to the development of the area, and do not appear to be historically significant. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion B. The property was evaluated for Criterion C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of Spanish Eclectic style construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing high artistic values, or representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. The building was designed in a basic Spanish Eclectic -style. The building does not represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The building does not serve as a good example of the style used in Southern California for structures in the 1930s. The building does not include distinctive elements of this style, and its design does not rise to a level of architectural significance. The building does not serve as a significant example of the style to qualify for NRHP significance. The building does not include significant artistic values. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C. The property was considered for Criterion D for the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. In order for buildings, structures and objects to be eligible under this criterion, they would need to "be, or must have been, the principal source of information." This property cannot meet this minimal requirement. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion D. In summary, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP. Therefore, the property is not considered a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA. The property was also assessed for CRHR and local designation eligibility, and was determined to not meet the criteria for historical or architectural significance. The building does not meet any of the criteria for state -level significance, and the property is not considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. Therefore, the property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. 4.2.4 - Marina Park Mobile Home Park The Marina Park Mobile Home Park is situated on about 8.10 acres, with a public beach known as Mother's Beach to the north-northeast, along Newport Bay (Appendix D: Photograph 5). The park contains spaces for 15 full-time residents and 41 part-time residents. The trailers are arranged in rows Michael Brandman Associates 35 11XIlent(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revisal Final PI CRA—Manna ParkAoc City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase / Cultural Resources Assessment Results and configured so that the spaces between the units are used for small garden areas with connecting walkways (Appendix D: Photograph 6). A wash -house is located in the center of the mobile home park. The wash -house is a rectangular -shaped brick building with wood doors and a flat roof with exposed rafters. The western side of the mobile home park property contains parking spaces for cars, and the property is surrounded by a block wall on the north, south and eastern sides. The property appears to be in good condition. Significance Evaluation The Marina Park Trailer Park was constructed in 1963 along the west edge of Mother's Beach, which is a public beach (City of Newport Beach 2008). The trailer park is not listed on any local, State or federal historic inventories and according to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, it is not considered to have historical or architectural significance (Oral Interviews 2008). Integrity Statement With regard to the seven aspects of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feel and association, the ca. 1963 trailer park has retained its original location, as it has not been moved. The setting, feel and association have not remained intact since its construction. The setting has been altered extensively by the construction of numerous buildings from 1963 to the present. The urban setting has changed substantially since its construction. The integrity level of the property is fair and the condition of the trailer park is fair. Application of Register Criteria The property was assessed under NRHP Criterion A for its potential significance as part of a historic trend that may have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The property was constructed as part of the overall continuing residential and commercial development of the Newport Beach area, which began in the 1880s and continued through the 20th century. There is no significant historic trend or eventthat is associated with this property. Therefore, the properly does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion A. The property was considered under Criterion B for its association with the lives of persons significant in our past. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the persons associated with the construction or development of the property were considered important in the history of this property. None of the persons associated with this property appear to have made any significant contributions to the development of the area and do not appear to be historically significant. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion B. The property was evaluated for Criterion C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of Modern style construction, or representing the work of a master, or possessing Ll I 1 I I I I I U I 11 Michael Brandman Associates 36 HACRam(PN-)N)W0W1006400221CR\00640022 Reviscd Final PI CRA Marina Park.doc U I I L I I I u r t I I Li City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Results high artistic values, or representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. The trailers and wash -house were designed in a basic Modern style, typical of mid-20" century construction for structures such as trailer parks. The trailer park does not represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion C. The property was considered for Criterion D for the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. In order for buildings, structures and objects to be eligible under this criterion, they would need to "be, or must have been, the principal source of information." This property cannot meet this minimal requirement. Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP under Criterion D. In summary, the property does not appear to qualify for the NRHP. Therefore, the property is not considered a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA. The property was also assessed for CRHR and local designation eligibility, and was determined to not meet the criteria for historical or architectural significance. The Marina Park Mobile Home Park does not meet any of the criteria for state -level significance, and the property is not considered eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. Therefore, the property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Michael Brandman Associates 37 HAClient(FN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final FI CRA_Marina Park doc City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Recommendations iSECTIO 5 SUMMARIf-A b_RECOMMEIfDATIO-gS sY- 5.1 -Summary In accordance with CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA, MBA assessed the effects of development for the project area. The results of the cultural resource record search indicate that there are no previously recorded resources within the project area boundaries, and nine cultural resources known within the I -mile selrch.radius. This includes four prehistoric age and five historic age resources. Two of the resources are California Historical Landmarks, one is an NRHP listed property and one resource is considered a historical landmark by the Newport Beach Historical Society, but is not recognized by the City of Newport Beach as a landmark building. In addition, the results of the records search indicate that the project area has not been previously surveyed, and that minimal surveys have been conducted near the project areaUundaries. A total of 15 studies have been conducted within a 1-mile radius, and the majority of these studies were completed along Pacific Coast Highway and State Route 55. Review of the 1896 USGS Santa Ana 30 minute, the I901 (reprinted 1945) Santa Ana, California 15- minute, and the 1902 (reprinted 1946) USGS Corona, California 30-minute topographic maps revealed neither structures nor any other development within the project area boundaries. During the pedestrian survey, no prehistoric -age resources were detected and numerous historic -age buildings or building complexes were observed. The following properties were identified as historic - age resources: • American Legion Property (Only the modern American Legion Veterans Memorial Park is included within the project area. The Great Hall, Yacht Club Building and the structures included in the American Legion parking lot are considered off -site.) • Marina Park Mobile Home Park 19"' Street Restroom • Las Arenas Park These resources were recorded onto DPR 523 Forms and were submitted to the SCCIC for the assignment of primary numbers. All of the aforementioned resources were evaluated for significance and eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, and any local registers. None of the resources were found to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR. Therefore, the American Legion Property, Marina Park Mobile Home Park, the 19'h Street Restroom, and Las Arenas Park are not considered Historic Properties for the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA. In addition, none of these resources are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA, However, the off -site Great Hall Building and the off -site Yacht Club Building contained within the American Legion Property are considered to be locally significant resources. Neither of these structures will be directly Michael Brandman Associates 38 HACHot(PN,IN)W064WO6400221CR\00640022 Reviscd Final PI CRA_Manna Park.doe City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Recommendations iaffected by the proposed project. None of the additional resources were found to be locally significant. Based upon the high level of urbanization present within the project area and the resultant ground ' disturbance, in conjunction with the environmental setting where the project area has been subject to historic -era ground disturbance from the movement of nearby ocean waters, MBA finds a low probability that significant, intact subsurface deposits will be uncovered during development. For this reason, MBA does not recommend archaeological monitoring during development. However, given ' the location of the project area along the culturally sensitive California coast, the cultural resource ' sensitivity of the project area was determined to be moderate to high for potential impacts to resources of concern to Native American groups. Thus, while MBA does not recommend archaeological monitoring, Native American Tribal monitoring is recommended during development. Previous geologic mapping has determined that the project area is situated upon surface deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium with low fossil bearing potential. However, these sediments may ' overlie sensitive older Quaternary terrace deposits at an unknown depth. Such deposits are known to yield significant vertebrate fossils within the region. Thus, MBA has determined that the project area has moderate paleontologic sensitivity within older Quaternary terrace deposits if present within the subsurface of the project area. For this reason, MBA recommends a paleontologic monitoring program to mitigate potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources. MBA suggests that a ' qualified paleontologist review any available bore/ geotech samples to determine the existence of Quaternary terrace deposits. This data can then be used to determine the need or lack thereof for paleontologic monitoring, or the intensity of the monitoring program. If bore samples are not available, then a mitigation -monitoring program should commence at approximately 5 feet from the modern ground surface. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the sensitivity can be reduced from moderate to low, and MBA suggests that the project area be re-evaluated for sensitivity once 50 percent of all earthmoving activities have been completed. This evaluation should focus on the presence or absence of older Quaternary terrace deposits, and should assist in determining the need or lack thereof for additional monitoring. A monitoring program for excavation should be developed prior to any grading within the project area, and should be consistent with the provisions of CBQA. 5.2 - Recommendations Based on the results of the pedestrian survey and the significance evaluations for the historic -age resources within the project area, MBA does not recommend additional cultural resource studies and ' does not recommend archaeological monitoring during development. However, MBA recommends Native American Tribal monitoring, due to the location of the project area along the culturally sensitive California coast, and the concerns of local Native American groups and individuals. I Michael Brandman Associates 39 He\C1icnt(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Rnal PI CRA Marina_Park doe City or Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase ! Cultural Resources Assessment Recommendations In addition, MBA recommends a paleontological monitoring program to mitigate potential adverse , impacts to significant fossil resources, commencing either with the review of bore/ geotech samples or at approximately 5 feet from the modern ground surface. ' 5.2.1 - Cultural Resources Recommendations The potential for adverse impacts to significant cultural resources as defined by CEQA is considered ' low. This is based upon the results of the significance evaluations, where all historic age properties were found ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR. In addition, the high level of urbanization present within the project area and the related ground disturbance, in conjunction with the environmental setting where the project area has been subject to historic -era ground disturbance intact ' from the movement of nearby ocean waters, results in a low probability that significant, subsurface deposits will be uncovered during development. For these reasons, MBA does not recommend additional cultural resource studies or archaeological monitoring. However, given the location of the project area along the culturally sensitive California coast and the concerns of local Native American groups, the cultural resource sensitivity of the project area was determined to be moderate to high for potential impacts to resources of concern to Native American groups. Thus, while MBA does not recommend archaeological monitoring, Native American Tribal ' monitoring is recommended during development. 5.2.2 -Accidental Discovery of Human Remains Where is always the small possibility that ground -disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. Should this occur, Federal laws and standards apply including Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and its regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 10. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County -Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. , 5.2.3 - Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources It is always possible that ground -disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown, buried cultural resources. In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archeologist and shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone,.fossils, wood, or shell Michael Brandmah Associates 40 11ACllent(PNJN)10664100640022%CR100640022 Revised Final PI_CRA Marina Park.doc ' City of Newport Beach • Marina Park ProJect Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Recommendations artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria ' If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. ' In addition, reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the property will be taken and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Native American tribes with concerns about the property, as well as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will be notified within 48 hours in compliance with 36 CFR 800.13(b)(3). 5.2.4 - Paleontological Recommendations The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources are considered moderate if older Quaternary terrace deposits are present within the subsurface of the project area. This sensitivity designation is based upon the known fossil bearing potential of such deposits in the region. MBA therefore recommends a paleontologic monitoring program to mitigate potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources. MBA suggests that a qualified paleontologist review any available bore/ geotech samples to determine the existence of Quaternary terrace deposits. This data can then be used to determine the need or lack thereof for paleontologic monitoring, or the intensity of the monitoring program. If bore samples are not available, then a mitigation -monitoring program should commence at approximately 5 feet from the modern ground surface. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the sensitivity can be reduced from moderate to low, and MBA suggests that the project area be re-evaluated for sensitivity once 50 percent of all earthmoving activities have been completed. This evaluation should focus on the presence or absence of older Quaternary terrace deposits, and should assist in determining the need or lack thereof for additional monitoring. A monitoring program for excavation should be developed prior to any grading within the project area, and should be consistent with the provisions of CEQA. 1 Michael Brandman Associates H•\Client(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final PI CRA Marina—Park.doc City oftlewport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Recommendations Mitigation No. Table 2: Recommended Paleontological Resource Mitigation Measures Mitigation Text PR-1 Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologist. Based upon the results of this review, areas of concern include all older Quaternary terrace deposits, which may be present within the subsurface of the project area. MBA suggests that a qualified paleontologist review any available bore/ geotech samples to determine the need or lack thereof for paleontologic monitoring, or the intensity of the monitoring program. if bore samples are not available, then a mitigation -monitoring program should commence at approximately 5 feet from the modern ground surface. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils, as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, and MBA suggests that the project area be re- evaluated for sensitivity once 50 percent of all earlhmoving activities have been completed. This evaluation should focus on the presence or absence of older Quaternary terrace deposits, and should assist in determining the need or lack thereof for additional monitoring. In the event that the mitigation -monitoring program results in positive findings for paleontological resources, then refer to-PR-2 to PR-4. PR-2 Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. PR-3 Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository hus'been fully completed and documented. PR-4 Preparation of a report of findings With an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. d i I 1 I I Michael Brandman Associates 42 )LIClint(PN•1N)\0064100640022ICR\00640022_Rcviscd final PI cRA Madna Park.doc ' 1 City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment Certification 1 SECTION 6� CERTIFICATION � ,� 1 I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: February 18, 2008 Signed: Jk5hnifer anka, .A., RPA Michael Brandman Associates Irvine, CA f 1` Date: February 18, 2008 Signed: j�.c14cu. Kathleen Crawford, M.M' Crawford Consulting La Mesa, CA i 1 1 I I I 1- C1 I Michael Brandman Associates 43 HACItent(PN•JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Pinal_PI CRA_Madna_Park*c City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 'References American Legion. Website accessed August 2008. http://www.al291.com/index3.htm. , Bean, L.J. and C.R. Smith. 1978. Gabriclitio. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R.F. Hcizer, 538-549. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Bean, W. and J.J. Rawls. 1983, California: An Interpretive History, 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Breece, W.H., J. Rosenthal and B. Padon. 1988. Test Level Investigations at CA-ORA-556, City of Orange, California. On file, SCCIC, Fullerton. Breece, W.H., J. Rosenthal and B. Padon. 1989. Results of the Data Recovery Program at CA-ORA- i 556, City of Orange, California. On file, SCCIC, Fullerton. Cameron, C. 1999, "Defining Tribal Boundaries Through Potsherds — An.Archaeological Perspective." Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly. 35(2 and 3):96-128. Spring 1999. Chartkoff, J.L. and K.K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Menlo Park. for the City of Newport Beach. 2008. Personal communications and records reviews conducted Marina Park Project documentation and significance evaluations by Kathleen A. Crawford, including: The Planning Department, City Directories, and the Department of Parks and Recreation. City of Newport Beach Chronology. Wcbsite Accessed August 2008. bttp://www.city.newport- beach.ca.tls/nbpl/AboutNBPL/newport beach_time—line.htm Cottrell, M.G. 1985. "Tomato Springs: The Identification of a Jasper Trade and Production Center in Southern California," American Antiquity 50(4):833-849, Crawford, K.A. 2008. Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Form for the American Legion Property, Bayshores Peninsula Hotel, Las Arenas Park, Marina Park Mobile Home Park, Southern California Edison Property and the 19'h Street Restroom. Unpublished resource documentation on -file at Michael Brandman Associates and the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Fagan, B.M. 2003. Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants. Alta Mira Press. Gunther, J.D. 1984. Riverside County, California Place Names. Riverside: Rubidoux Printing Company. Heizer, R.F. 1978. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, William Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Michael Brandman Associates 44 n:lCHent(PN•JN)100WW06400221CR100640022 Rcviscd Final PI CRA Marina P0tk.doc ' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment References Koerper, H.C. 1981. Prehistoric Subsistence and the Newport Bay Area and Environs, Orange County, California. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Riverside. ' Lech, S. 2004. Along the Old Roads: a History of the Portion of Southern California that became Riverside County, 1772-1893. Riverside: Self -published. McLeod, S.A. 2008. Paleontological Resources for the proposed Marina Park Project, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, project area. Unpublished letter report, on file at Michael Brandman Associates and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego, Academic Press. National Park Service (NPS). 2005. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15, revised on-line version. Washington, D.C. Website http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publicationsibulletins/nbrl5/ Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2005. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Oral Interviews. 2008. Oral Interviews conducted for the Marina Park Project documentation and significance evaluations by Kathleen A. Crawford, including: Spriggs, Commander Steven (August 2008); Alpert, Patrick, City of Newport Beach Planner (July 2008). Orange County (City of Newport Beach History). Website accessed August 2008. http://www.orangecounty.net/cities/NewportBeach.htmi ' Wallace, W.J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11 (3): 214-230. Wallace, W.J. 1978. "Post -Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. " In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 25-36. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Warren, C.N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In: Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C. Irwin -Williams, editor. Eastern New -� Mexico University Contributions in Archaeology, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-4. Portales. i I J I 11 Michael Brandman Associates 45 ' H. Ghent(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022_Reviscd Final_PI_CRA_Marina_Park.doc ' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase i Cultural Resources Assessment I I 1 I ,11 I Ll 11 1 1 I 1 I 11 I Appendix A: Cultural Resources Correspondence 1 Michael Brandman Associates 46 H:\Client(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022_Revised Final PI_CRA Morina_Park doe J I 1 1 1 IJI City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment A-1: Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search Michael Brandman Associates 47 11 Client(PN-1N)\0064\006400221CR\00640022 Revised Final PI CRA Marina Park.doc ENv1aONMENTALSERVICES . PIANNING . NATMV.RES0URCES1TY1ANAGEMM4r ' June 26, 2008 ' Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Suite 364 Sacramento, CA 95814-4801 ' Via email: gtomei_nahc@pacbell.net Subject: Request for a Sacred Lands Records Search for the Marina Park Project ' located on about 10 acres in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. (USGS Newport Beach, CA. quad) To Whom It May Concern: ' Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) would like to determine whether any listed sacred sites are located within or near a project area found in the City of Newport Beach. ' The project area is located in Orange County, and is found on the USGS Newport Beach, CA. 7.5' topographic quadrangle, US, R.10W, Section 33. Please notify us of any sacred Native American sites that may be affected by the undertaking. A ' full description of this project can be found in our archaeological survey report, which is forthcoming. This request is not affiliated with the SB 18 process; rather, it is an information request to be included within a cultural resources assessment compliance document. Sincerely, 1 Jennifer M. Sanka M.A., RPA ' Project Archaeologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 ' Irvine, CA. 92602 PHONE: 714.508.4100 x.1065 FAX: 714.508.4110 1 S:VenSanka\0064.0022.0 Marina Park EIR\Appendices\006400220_NAHC request Ictter.doc ' Bakersfield Irvine Palm Springs Sacramento San Bernardino San Ramon Santa Cruz 661.334.2755 714.508.4100 760.322.8847 916.383.0944 909.884.2255 925.830.2733 $31.262.1731 www.brandman.com mba@brandman.com Visalia 559.730400 ' r�oo1/ooa 06/27/2008 16:38 FAX'916 657 6390 NAHC 1 [1 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA96914 (916)653.6251 Fn%(91616V-5390 wab Bita'Mv mzha.ea,aov &Mall. da_nabc®PaWali,nat June 27, 2008 Jennifer Sanka Michael arandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Sent'by Fax: 714-608.4110 Number of pages; 2 Re: Proposed 10 acres in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange Dear Ms, Sanka: The Native American Heritage Commission was able to perform a record search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the affected project area. The SLF failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The absence of specific site information in the Sacred Lands File does not guarantee the absence of cultural resources in any 'area of potential effect (APE),' Early consultation with Native American tribes In your area Is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. Enclosed are -the nearest tribes that may have knowledge of cultural resources In the project area. A List of Native American contacts are ' attached to assist you. The Commission makes no recommendation of a single individual or group over another. It is advisable to contact the person listed; if they cannot supply you with specific Information about the impact on cultural resources, they may be able to refer you to another tribe or person knowledgeable of the cultural resources in or near the affected project area (APE). G 1 Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude the existence of archeological resources. Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in Section 15370 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project. Also, Public Resources Code Section 5007.98 and Health r3 Safety Code Section 7050:5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other then a'dedicated cemetery. Discussion of these should be included in your environmental documents, as appropriate. If you have any questions about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 653.6261. Attachment Native American Contact List 1 oa/zT/zoos 15:38 FAX aia sST Native American Contacts ' Orange County June 27, 2008 Society 'TI'At Cindi Alvitre 6515 E. Seaside Walk, #C Beach , CA 90803 'Long calvftre@yahoo.com (714) 504-2466 Cell I Ci L.J 1 I 1?1002/003 JuWww Band of Mission Indians Adiachamen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman Gabrielino 31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Caostrono , CA -92675 2674 arivera@juaneno.com 949488-3484 949-4883294 Fax Juamno Sand of MhrJw Indians A01whamen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno san Juan caplatrano , CA 92675 DavidWardes@hotmaii.com (949) 493.0959 (949) 498.1601 Fax Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. , Gabrielino Tongva tattnlaw@gmail.com 310-570-6567 Gabriefno Tongva Indians of CalifomlB. r ibal Coundl Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources 545o slauson, Ave, suite 161 PMS Gabrielino Tongva Culver City , CA 90230 gtongva@verizon.net 562-761-6417 - voice 562-925-7989 - tax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aojachemen Nation Joyce Perry , Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno Ban Juan capiauano , CA 92675 kaamalam@oox.net (949) 493-0959 (94.9) 293-8522 Cell (949) 493-1601 Fax Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno San Gabriel , CA 91778 Santa Ana , CA 92799 ChiefRBwife@aol.com alfredgcruz@sbcglobal.net (626) 286-1632 (626) 286.1758 - Home (626) 286-1262.Fax 714-998-0721 sifredgcruz@sbcglobal.net This flat IsounantoMy as of the daleatit" documaM. DlsMbudon of this flat does not relieve any pwaon of stahrMry reaporrelbllltyas defined In Section 7050.5 of the neafth and Be* Code, Section 5W.94 of the POW R8WUfoes Cad0 end Qnl 5W ft of the Public Rasourm Code. This list Is only applicable for contacdng kcal Native Ameflcana with ragarci to culhrnil resources for the Propose Mating Park Project located on about 10-acros In the City of Newport Beach; orange Courtly, California for Which a Saerod Lands File seeruh and Native American Contact's list were requestod. 08/27/2008 16: a6 FAX 916 8675399xAac Native Amedcan Contacts Orange County June 27, 2008 , Juaneno Band of Mission Indians "Bud" Adolph Sepulveda, Chairperson , P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana . CA 92799 bssepul@yahoo.net ' 7'14-08-3270 714-914-1812 - CELL bsepul@yahoo.net ' Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson Juaneno Band of Mission Indians P.O, Box 25628 Juaneno ' Santa Ana . CA 92799 sonia.johnstonGsbeglobal.net (714) 323.8312 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians ' Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno ' Anaheim , CA 92,807 (714) 779-8832 ' Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joe Ocampo, Chairperson 1108 E. 41h Street Juaneno ' Santa Ana . CA 92701 (714) 547.9676 (714) 623-0709-cell ' I This Nat Is current only as of the dNs of this docarnant. ' OlaMhtrnon aloft Net does not Wleve sny person of sbtutory mspoWbil ty asddhrad In SeoUonlgbg.6 of the Fieskh and Stlety, Calq Section 8M-M of the PUONc BasNMNS Coda end $codes 5WM of the public Hesourars Code, Tbls Nat is only, appgpsle foreontaeft local Nedve Americans with regard 10 cultural teeourcas for#0 piropoes , Mantra Park PM)SKlocaW on shout 104Area in the City of Nwrpad Bosch; Orange County, California forwhkh a sealed Lards His search snd Neft A, w n Corrh A Ilst werersquestW. I u N NNINN N CIII%El Michael Brandman Associates ' July 15, 2008 ' Sample I C 1 1 F Subject: Native American Consultation Letter associated with one Cultural Resource Survey: The Marina Park Project located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. (USGS Newport Beach, CA. quad) To Whom It May Concern: Michael Brandman Associates completed an archaeological and historical resource survey for a project on approximately 10 acres in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project is the construction of Marina Park, which includes a public park and beach,.a public short-term visiting vessel marina, and the Balboa Sailing Center which includes a restaurant and tennis courts. The archaeological survey retuned negative findings for prehistoric age resources; however, numerous historic age structures were detected. This consultation letter is not associated with the SB18 process, but is an information request that shall be included in our cultural resource survey document. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and CEQA consider the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of "historic properties" can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, MBA has reviewed background information and consulted with entities such as the NAHC. The Native American Heritage Commission does not indicate that any sacred sites are located in or near this project area, but have listed you as a tribal contact. We have attached a map showing the location of the project area with reference to the Newport Beach, CA. topographic map. Generally, the project area is found to the south of Interstate 405 and southeast of the intersection of State Route 55 and Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1). Specifically, the project area is located to the north of Balboa Boulevard, east of 19rh Street and west of 15rh Street. We wish to ask if you have any information or concerns about this project area, and/or if the proposed project may have an impact on cultural resources that are important to you. Please feel free to contact me at 714.508.4100 ext 1065 if you have any questions or information, or you may address and mail a response to my attention at the address below. EN VIRONNI F.NT}U. SI-RVICFIs • PLANNING • NKrORAI. RnSGUIICISSi.N,r Nvww.brandman.com Bakenrield 061 334 2755 Fresno 559.497 0310 Irvine 7145u8.11100 Palm Spins 760 322 8847 Samm iav, 916 447.1100 San Dwnardino 90IM84 2255 S.m Ramon !125 830 2733 MBA 6® YEARS 11 Page 2 Sinc ely I Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA " Project Archaeologist , Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 ' Enc: USGS Topo Map ' H:\Client(PNJN)\0064\00640020\CR\Appendices\Appendlx A- Cultural Document8\sources\006400220_NA Tribal Letter.doc tmsan ' LI LI 1 t L1%%7L7 LPEN N&A 1Ilnndman Associates ' March 18, 2008 C 1 1 Environmental Department Ann Brierty San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 101 Pure Water Lane Highland, CA 92346 Subject: Native American Consultation Letter associated with one Cultural Resource Survey: The Victorville WinCo Project located in the City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California. (USGS Victorville, CA. quad) Dear Ms. Brierty, Michael Brandman Associates completed an archaeological resource survey for a project on 12.60 acres in the City of Victorville. The proposed project is the construction of a WinCo Foods Store with associated parking. The archaeological survey retuned negative findings for prehistoric age and historic age cultural resources. This consultation letter is not associated with the SB18 process, but is an information request that shall be included in our cultural resource survey document. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and CEQA consider the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of "historic properties" can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. ' To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, MBA has reviewed background information and consulted with entities such as the NAHC. The Native American Heritage Commission does not ' indicate that any sacred sites are located in or near this project area, but have listed you as a tribal contact. ' We have attached a map showing the location of the project area with reference to the Victorville, CA. topographic map. Generally, the project area is found to the west of Interstate 15 and southwest of State Route 18. Specifically, the project area is located directly to the southeast of the intersection of Midtown Drive and Amargosa Road, and is directly north of Roy Rogers Drive. ' We wish to ask if you have any information or concerns about this project area, and/or if the proposed project may have an impact on cultural resources that are important to you. EN VIRON\1I'.NTA1. SIiRll'fci:s • PI.ANr,IING • NATUBAI. RESOURCES I1fANAGEAI liN'I' ' -,% %%mbrandman.com Baker.rivld 661,334.375, Frcmo 559.497.0310 Irvine 714.5118.4100 Pxinl Spungs 76a.322 8847 Sacnarcnt- 916.,W1.111A San Ikmardino 909,88.1.2255 San Ramon 925.830.2733 Ann Brierty March 18, 2008 Page 2 Please feel free to contact me at 714.508.4100 ext 1065 if you have any questions or information, or you may address and mall a response to my attention at the address below. Sinc ely Jennifer M. Sanke, M.A., RPA Project Archaeologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Eno: USGS Topo Map rr ,Gent�aaf�Rl4t+itl�ec�7019.CR�ppycnEx:cnV++�IWtcn17GbC+)134 M1t4Tntmt tere9r�tt IMV 11 11 It N&SNON [NEINEN Michael Brandman Associates ' March 18, 2008 1 C LJ 1 Environmental Coordinator Anthony Madrigal, Jr. Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 391760 Anza, CA 92539 Subject: Native American Consultation Letter associated with one Cultural Resource Survey: The Victorville WinCo Project located In the City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California. (USGS Victorville, CA. quad) Dear Environmental Coordinator Madrigal, Jr., Michael Brandman Associates completed an archaeological resource survey for a project on 12.60 acres in the City of Victorville. The proposed project is the construction of a WinCo Foods Store with associated parking. The archaeological survey retuned negative findings for prehistoric age and historic age cultural resources. This consultation letter is not associated with the SB18 process, but is an information request that shall be included in our cultural resource survey document. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and CEQA consider the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of "historic properties" can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, MBA has reviewed background information and consulted' with entities such as the NAHC. The Native American Heritage Commission does not indicate that any sacred sites are located in or near this project area, but have listed you as a tribal contact. We have attached a map showing the location of the project area with reference to the Victorville, CA. topographic map. Generally, the project area is found to the west of Interstate 15 and southwest of State Route 18. Specifically, the project area is located directly to the southeast of the intersection of Midtown Drive and Amargosa Road, and is directly north of Roy Rogers Drive. We wish to ask if you have any information or concerns about this project area, and/or if the proposed project may have an impact on cultural resources that are important to you. Please feel free to contact me at 714.508.4100 ext 1065 if you have any questions or ENVIRONDIGNTALS]:RVICIis • PLANNING • NNrURALRLSOURCFS NiANAGENIENT -mvc %.brandman.com Isakera0eld 661.3.34 2i55 Fresno 559A97,0310 Irvine 714 5n8.4100 Mai Spi4n}K 760 322 8847 SacrumnV, 916r147.1100 San Bemardmo 9119.884.2255 San R anon 925 830.2733 Anthony Madrigal, Jr. March 18, 2008 Page 2 information, or you may address and mail a response to my attention at the address below. Sinc ely Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA Project Archaeologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Enc: USGSTopoMap N'%CI MWN TOMI Letter Vr, A15t0 E,E,NE, NG chacl Br(ndman Associnccs ' March 18, 2008 I �I 1 Chairperson Charles Wood Chemehuevi Reservation P.O. Box 1976 Chemehuevi Valley, CA 92363 Subject: Native American Consultation Letter associated with one Cultural Resource Survey: The Victorville WinCo Project located in the City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California. (USGS Victorville, CA. quad) Dear Chairperson Wood, Michael Brandman Associates completed an archaeological resource survey for a project on 12.60 acres in the City of Victorville. The proposed project is the construction of a WinCo Foods Store with associated parking. The archaeological survey retuned negative findings for prehistoric age and historic age cultural resources. This consultation letter is not associated with the SB18 process, but is an information requestthat shall be included in our cultural resource survey document. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and CEQA consider the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of "historic properties" can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, MBA has reviewed background information and consulted with entities such as the NAHC. The Native American Heritage Commission does not indicate that any sacred sites are located in or near this project area, but have listed you as a tribal contact. We have attached a map showing the location of the project area with reference to the Victorville, CA. topographic map. Generally, the project area is found to the west of Interstate 15 and southwest of State Route I& Specifically, the project area is located directly to the southeast of the intersection of Midtown Drive and Amargosa Road, and is directly north of Roy Rogers Drive. We wish to ask if you have any information or concerns about this project area, and/or if the proposed project may have an impact on cultural resources that are important to you. Please feel free to contact me at 714.508.4100 ext 1065 if you have any questions or RNV1RGNh1 L•N"LA1. $IiRVICI•S • PLANNING • NA4'riR.11. RISUURCIiS Af:1NAGL\IIiNT www.brandman.com Bakersfield 661.334 2755 Fresno 559 497.0310 rrvmc 74L5n8A100 Pahn Springs 760 322.8847 Sacramento 91G447JI00 San Bernardino y0.884.2255 San R.nunn 923.830 2733 MBA i j )EARS Charles Wood March 18, 2008 Page 2 Information, or you may address and mail a response to my attention at the address below. S7elyy Jennifer M. Sana, M.A., RPA Project Archaeologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Enc; USGS Topo Map H,\Vtunl (7N )N)U=GR\I74rp713\CRylpiwnNttsylA Lrtre,C19GG09L0 NA VOW Ulter�dw A's 01 E,E,N, Michael Brandman Associates ' March 18, 2008 LJ L I 1 Chairperson Henry Duro San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 26569 Community Center Drive Highland, CA 92346 Subject: Native American Consultation Letter associated with one Cultural Resource Survey: The Victorville WlnCo Project located in the City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California. (USGS Victorville, CA. quad) Dear Chairperson Duro, Michael Brandman Associates completed an archaeological resource survey for a project on 12.60 acres in the City of Victorville. The proposed project is the construction of a WinCo Foods Store with associated parking. The archaeological survey retuned negative findings for prehistoric age and historic age cultural resources. This consultation letter is not associated with the SB18 process, but is an information request that shall be included in our cultural resource survey document. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and CEQA consider the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of "historic properties" can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, MBA has reviewed background information and consulted with entities such as the NAHC. The Native American Heritage Commission does not indicate that any sacred sites are located in or near this project area, but have listed you as a tribal contact. We have attached a map showing the location of the project area with reference to the Victorville, CA. topographic map. Generally, the project area is found to the west of Interstate 15 and southwest of State Route 18. Specifically, the project area is located directly to the southeast of the intersection of Midtown Drive and Amargosa Road, and is directly north of Roy Rogers Drive. We wish to ask if you have any information or concerns about this project area, and/or if the proposed project may have an impact on cultural resources that are importantto you. Please feel free to contact me at 714.508.4100 ext 1065 if you have any questions or 1 NVIRONMENTALSHRVICIiS • PLANNING • N,1TCiRU.R1.•SOURCGg11L1NAGli6113Nr www.brandman.com Bakerafidd 661.334.2755 Fresno 559.407.0310 Irvin 714508A 100 Palm Sp, ings 760.322.8847 SacnmcnL" 916 4.11.1100 San Bernardino 909.884.2255 San Ramiro 925.830.2733 Henry Duro March 18, 2008 Page 2 information, or you may address and mail a response to my attention at the address below. Sic el� Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA Project Archaeologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Enc: USGS Topo Map N lCknt IrN hDe,U_COMD_ILl T111i11 LE11MOa 1NSYn L1L'L'L7 L,LI%71, Michiel Brandman,Associntcs ' March 18, 2008 1 I I 1 I Chairperson John Velenzuela San Fernando Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 221838 Newhall, CA 91322 Subject: Native American Consultation Letter associated with one Cultural Resource Survey: The Victorville WInCo Project located in the City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California. (USGS Victorville, CA. quad) Dear Chairperson Veienzuela, Michael Brandman Associates completed an archaeological resource survey for a project on 12.60 acres in the City of Victorville. The proposed project is the construction of a WInCA Foods Store with associated parking. The archaeological survey retuned negative findings for prehistoric age and historic age cultural resources. This consultation letter is not associated with the S1318 process, but is an information request that shall be included in our cultural resource survey document. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and CEQA consider the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of "historic properties" can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, MBA has reviewed background information and consulted with entities such as the NAHC. The Native American Heritage Commission does not indicate that any sacred sites are located in or near this project area, but have listed you as a tribal contact. We have attached a map showing the location of the project area with reference to the Victorville, CA. topographic map. Generally, the project area is found to the west of Interstate 15 and southwest of State Route 18. Specifically, the project area is located directly to the southeast of the intersection of Midtown Drive and Amargosa Road, and is directly north of Roy Rogers Drive. We wish to ask if you have any information or concerns about this project area, and/or if the proposed project may have an impact on cultural resources that are important to you. Please feel free to contact me at 714.508.4100 ext 1065 if you have any questions or 1;NVIRONivtP.NTALSER�'ICGS PLANINING• NATURALRESOURCES D&ANAGENIENT www.brandm;tn.com Bakrafleld 061.334.2'55 Fresno 559.497.0310 irvinc 714.5( i8A 100 Palm SOrinpK 760.122.9847 Sacrtmato P16A•A.1100 San Bernardino 9119.834.2255 San Ramon v25.830.2733 i14BA r YnEARS . John Velenzuela March 18, 2008 Page 2 information, or you may address and mail a response to my attention at the address below. Sinc ely Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA Project Archaeologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Enc: USGS Topo Map Mt,ClertLetter Ow 1MS[h 1 1 ' March 18, 2008 1 J i I L� i �1 II 1 1 1 i i Representative Joseph Hamilton Ramona Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 391670 Anza, CA 92539 Subject: Native American Consultation Letter associated with one Cultural Resource Survey: The Victorville WinCo Project located in the City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California. (USGS Victorville, CA. quad) Dear Representative Hamilton, Michael Brandman Associates completed an archaeological resource survey for a project on 12.60 acres in the City of Victorville. The proposed project is the construction of a WinCo Foods Store with associated parking. The archaeological survey retuned negative findings for prehistoric age and historic age cultural resources. This consultation letter is not associated with the SB18 process, but is an information request that shall be included in our cultural resource survey document. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and CEQA consider the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of "historic properties" can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, MBA has reviewed background information and consulted with entities such as the NAHC. The Native American Heritage Commission does not indicate that any sacred sites are located in or near this project area, but have listed you as a tribal contact. We have attached a map showing the location of the project area with reference to the Victorville, CA. topographic map. Generally, the project area is found to the west of Interstate 15 and southwest of State Route 18. Specifically, the project area is located directly to the southeast of the intersection of Midtown Drive and Amargosa Road, and is directly north of Roy Rogers Drive. We wish to ask if you have any information or concerns about this project area, and/or if the proposed project may have an impact on cultural resources that are important to you. Please feel free to contact me at 714.508.4100 ext 1065 if you have any questions or L 7 %,% % 7 CIE1NEI Michael Brandman Associates 13N VIRQN\ILNTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • N.1TRRiV. R1iS0URC1?S RIANAGENIE V'r waxe.brandman.com nakereruld 001334.2755 Fresno 559.497.0310 Irvine 71-1.51)6.4100 P.dm Srringi 760.322.8847 Sacmmenno 916.447.1100 San 1101audina 9119.884.2255 8,111 Ramon 925.830.27M f MBA L. YEARS Joseph Hamilton March 18, 2008 Page 2 information, or you may address and mail a response to my attention at the address below. Sinc ely Jennifer M. Sahka, M.A., RPA Project Archaeologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Eno: USGS Topo Map HgOmrt IPN IH)p:G6i14i 19iGHNN>",Ok(9NA Nbc,.1^.GCOD1W_11ATr,W1 lLW6e Ws cb I I ' Bakersfield 061,334.27.1.1 March 18, 2008 Fresno ' 559.497.0310 rrVlpC ' 714.51 1b.4100 Palm SpOngs Chairperson Tim Williams 760322.8847 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 500 Merriman Ave A100 1 sgv.44zuon 16.4 Needles, CA 92363 Jan Bernardino ' Cultural 909.884.2255 San Ramon Subject: Native American Consultation Letter associated with one Resource Survey: The Victorville WInCo Project located in the City of 925830.2733 ' Victorville, San Bernardino County, California. (USGS Victorville, CA. quad) ' Dear Chairperson Williams, Michael Brandman Associates completed an archaeological resource survey for a project on 12.60 acres in the City of Victorville. The proposed project is the construction of a WinCo Foods Store with associated parking. The archaeological survey retuned negative findings for prehistoric age and historic age cultural resources. This consultation letter is not associated with the S818 process, but is an information request that shall be included in our cultural resource survey document. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and CEQA consider the effects a project may have on historic properties. The definition of "historic ' properties" can include properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to Native American groups. To determine whether the proposed project may impact any historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, MBA has reviewed background information and consulted with entities such as the NAHC. The Native American Heritage Commission does not indicate that any sacred sites are located in or near this project area, but have listed you as a tribal contact. We have attached a map showing the location of the project area with reference to the ' Victorville, CA. topographic map. Generally, the project area is found to the west of Interstate 15 and southwest of State Route 18. Specifically, the project area is located directly to the southeast of the intersection of Midtown Drive and Amargosa Road, and is directly north of Roy Rogers Drive. We wish to ask if you have any information or concerns about this project area, and/or if 4DA ' the proposed project may have an impact on cultural resources that are important to you. Please feel free to contact me at 714.508.4100 ext 1065 if you have any questions or 13NVIRON,\1 I SN'rm.SGRvTCVS • PI AWNING • NI ATURA7.RL•SOURCES N-LWAGnNIENT �c ' %vw.brandmanxom YLLARS _ Tim Williams March 18, 2008 Page 2 information, or you mayaddress and mail a response to my attention at the address below. S7elyy / Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA Project Archaeologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Enc: USGS Topo Map N+,C�.rl iFN•1N)ll:LG:17tob)13'yRJUN>ertlke:.NA Ictregl,GC�i0190_t1M1TnW I Louis Oa; imsTh From: "Johntommy Roses" <tattnlaw@gmail.com> To: "Carmen Hernandez" <CHernandez@brandman.com> Date: 7/16/2008 4:31 PM Subject: Re: The Marina Park Project located in the City of Hi It looks like you need to iniate a sec 106, as we -seen in the past field ' survey are just that, also we have Indigenous rights issue and need more info on the proposed project, I will tell you we object to any development in our territory ,Thanks johntommy On 7/16/08, Carmen Hernandez <CHernandez@brandman.com> wrote: > > Dear Mr. Roses: >,Please see attached consultation letter for your review/use, as requested > by Jen Sanka. > Let me know if you have any trouble viewing the pdf. > > Have a good day. > > > Carmen Hernandez > Administrative Assistant > Michael Brandman Associates > 220 Commerce, Suite 200 > Irvine CA 92602 > 714.508.4100, Ext. 1071 > Fax 714.508.4110 > www.brandman.com > »» > *Celebrating 25 Years of Leadership **Providing Environmental Planning > Services* > P "Please consider the environment before printing this email." > JOHN TOMMY ROSAS TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR TRIBAL LITIGATOR TONGVA ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL TRIBAL NATION ' OFFICIAL TATTN E-MAIL CONFIDENTIAL ' From: To: "Johntommy Rosas" <tattnlaw@gmail.com> "Jennifer Sanka" <JSanka@brandman.com> Date: 7/17/2008 5:28 PM Subject: Re: Marina Park Project - City of Newport Beach ' I I I i I I IL I r I I� I Thanks, You have done what most,dont do and that is lodge ALL our comments, I really appreciate that, please list TATTN as real parry in interest on any email notification lists or let me know and I can do that,Thanks again,Jophntommy On 7/17/08, Jennifer Sanka <JSanka@.brandman.com> wrote: Hi John Tommy. Thank you very much for your response to the Marina Park Project. In your email, you mention Section 106, and it is my understanding that there will likely be Section 106 consultation in the future. This cultural resources assessment is presumably being completed prior to any actions taken by the federal agencies. You also requested some additional information on the proposed project. The project -area presently contains an American Legion Building, Veteran's Park, Las Arenas Park, several tennis courts, parking facilities, an apartment complex, the Marina Park Trailer Park, the Balboa Community building, a Girl Scout Building and another commercial property. Presently, the entire project area is either paved or has manicured lawns and plants within the parks. It is our understanding that the proposed project will remove the Trailer Park, the community building, the tennis courts, and the girl scout building to create "Marina Park". As proposed, Marina Park includes a public,park and beach, a public short-term visiting vessel marina, and the Balboa Sailing Center, which includes a restaurant and tennis courts. The public park includes an open lawn area, a water feature, a children's play area and a half -court basketball court. I have also taken note of your opposition to development within your territory, and that this project presents an Indigenous Rights Issue. You response will be included in the Cultural Resources Assessment, to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach. If I can provide you with any additional information, I would be happy to do so.... Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you for your time. Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 P: 714.508.4100 ext 1065 F: 714.508.4110 ' file://C:\Documents and Settings\JSanka\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\487k'8159GWD... 8/25/2008 Page 2 of 2 III M:714.742.5636 III A leader in Environmental planning -Celebrating our 25th Yearl Visit our website: www.brandmon.com I! JOHN TOMMY ROSAS TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR TRIBAL LITIGATOR TONGVA ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL TRIBAL NATION OFFICIAL TATTN E-MAIL CONFIDENTIAL I I AI 11 file://CA\Documents and Setdngs\JSanka\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48IF8159GWD... 8/25/2008 AI ' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 1 1 1 1 1, 1 i I 1 I ,, I n La J A-2: Paleontological Records Search I Michael Brandman Associates 48 ' H:1Clicnt(PN•JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022_Rcviscd Final_P]_CRA_Marina Park.doc I I 7 %L..� % E111111111NIN Michael Brandman Associates ' July 15, 2008 ENMONMI3NTALSERVICLS • PIANN1NG . NAluiLU.RISolIRCGSNL1NNG17,nILNT Dr. Samuel A. McLeod The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 900 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90007 Via Fax:213-746-7431 ' Subject: Request for a Paleontological Resources Records Search for the Marina Park Project located on about 10 acres in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. (USGS Newport Beach, CA. quad) Dear Dr. McLeod: I am in need of a paleontological records search on a project area located in Section 33 of T.6S R.1OW, as found on the USGS Newport Beach, CA. 7.5' topographic quadrangle. Once the results have been determined, please fax the results to our office 714.508.4110 or email ' a PDF version to isanka(@brandman.com brandman.com and mail MBA a hard copy with the invoice. If you have any questions or need to speak with me, please feel free to call me at 714.508.4100 ext 1065. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Jennifer M. Sanka M.A., RPA Project Archaeologist Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA. 92602 I� 11 Bakersfield Irvine Pram Springs Sacramento San Bernardino San Ramon Santa Cruz 661.3.14.2755 714.508.4100 760.322.8847 916.383.0944 909.884.2255 925.830.2733 831.262.1731 ' www.brandman.com mba@brandman.com Visalia 559.739,0400 natural History (, of Los Angeles County goo Exposition Boulevard • Los Angeles, CA 90007 L 11 Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 IAttn: Jennifer M. Sanka, Project Archaeologist Vertebrate Paleontology Section Telephone: ((213)) 763-3325 FAR: 4213) 746-7431 e-mail: smcleod@usc.e- or smc eodddd@nhm.org ' re: Paleontological Resources for the proposed Marina Park Project, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, project area Dear Jennifer: ' I have conducted a thorough,search of our vertebrate paleontology records for the locality and specimen data for the proposed Marina Park Project, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, project area as outlined on the section of the Newport Beach USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via fax 15 July 2008. We do not have any vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project boundaries, but we do have localities nearby from deposits that may occur subsurface in the proposed project area. The entire proposed project has surficial deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived either as fluvial deposits associated with Newport Bay adjacent to the north or as beach sands from Newport Beach adjacent on the south. We have no fossil vertebrate localities anywhere nearby from these deposits and they are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers. Nearby elevated terrain, however, has older Quaternary terrace deposits and these may occur in the proposed project area at unknown depth. Our closest vertebrate fossil locality from these Quaternary terrace deposits. is LACM-6370, north-northwest of the proposed project area near the intersection of Superior Avenue and the Pacific Coast Highway, that produced a fossil specimen of a horse, Eguus. Surface grading or shallow excavations -in the proposed project area probably will not uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. Excavations that extend down -into the older Quaternary deposits, however, have a,good chance of encountering significant fossil vertebrate specimens. Therefore, any substantial excavations below the uppermost layers in the proposed project area should be monitored closely to quickly and professionally recover any fossil remains discovered while not impeding development. Any fossils recovered during mitigation.. should be 6 August 2008 ".,.to inspire wonder, discovery and responsibility for our natural and cultural worlds." deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.. I This records search covers only the vertebrate.paleontology records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. It is not intended to be a thorough paleontological survey of the proposed project area covering other institutional records, a literature survey, or any potential on -site survey. Sincerely, Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D. Vertebrate Paleontology enclosure: draft invoice I 1 City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Protect Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment i. I. 1 d LI Appendix B: Personnel Qualifications i J r i I 1 1 1 i 1 Michael Brandman Associates WChent(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022_Revised Final PI_CRA_Manna_Park.doc I I I I. I J I J t I Education M.A., Hebrew Bible,and Archaeology, Duke University. Durham, North Carolina Graduate Certification in Women's Studies, Duke University. Durham, North Carolina B.A., Anthropology, Comparative Religion, and Classical Humanities, Miami University. Oxford, Ohio Professional Affiliations American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) Registry of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) Jennifer M. Sanka, M.A., RPA NN N Project Manager, Archaeologist� Experience Summary Ms. Sanka is a Certified Archaeologist with eight years of archaeological field experience in both the New and Classical Worlds. Her Cultural Resource Management career began in North Carolina, directly after completing her M.A. at Duke University in 2003. Since then, Ms. Sanka has gained three years of experience in the prehistoric and historic archaeology of North Carolina, Maryland, and Southern California. She has participated in various projects, gaining familiarity with pre -field assessments, archival research, pedestrian field surveys, site evaluation and testing and data recovery and analysis. She is currently refining her ability to prepare documents that comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act. Ms. Sanka is a member of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), and a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA). Recent Project Experience Environmental Documents (CEQA and NEPA) Chaffey Joint School District East Avenue Project, Rancho Cucamonga. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Chaffey Joint School District East Avenue Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Shandin Hills Project, San Bernardino. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the MICAL, LLC Shandin Hills Project, San Bernardino, CA. Wildomar Trails Project, Wildomar. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the South Coast Communities, LLC Wildomar Trails Project, Wildomar, CA. Sempra North Montebello Boulevard Project, Montebello. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Sempra North Montebello Boulevard Project, Montebello, CA. Mesa Verdes Estates Project, Calimesa. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Mesa Verde Estates Secondary Access Road Project, Calimesa, CA. Terracon Cherry Valley Boulevard Project, Cherry Valley. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Terracon Cherry Valley Boulevard Project, Cherry Valley, CA. Ohio Avenue Project, San Bernardino. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the John Laing Homes Ohio Avenue Project, San Bernardino, CA. Merill Avenue Project, Chino. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Watson Land Company Merril( Avenue Project, Chino, CA. Kasbergen Ramona Expressway and Alessandro Avenue Project, San Jacinto. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kasbergen Ramona Expressway and Alessandro Avenue Project, San Jacinto, CA. ' Van Buren Street Project, Coachella. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Coachella Land Company Van Buren Street Project, Coachella, CA. �� Page t of 2 San Sevaine Way and Wacker Drive Project, Glen Avon, Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the United Strategies San Sevaine Way and Wacker Drive Project, Glen Avon, CA. Industrial Park Project, Redlands. Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for the IDS Real Estate Group Iowa Industrial Park Project, Redlands, CA. Ranch Road Project, Colton Staff Archaeologist and Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Medlin Tropica Ranch Road Project, Colton, CA. Tustin Skyline Drive Storm Drain Project, Tustin Hills Staff Archaeologist and Author of a Phase I Cultural Component for an EIR, Tustin Skyline Drive Storm Drain Project, Tustin Hills, CA. El Mirage Meeks Project, Adelanto. Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Alpine Real Property Equity Group El Mirage Meeks Project, Adelanto, CA, Dean Project, Adelanto Author of Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Alpine Real Property Equity Group Dean Project, Adelanto, CA. Jeffredo Property Project, Coachella. Contributing Author of Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment for Brighton Properties, LLC Jeffredo Property Project, Coachella, CA. Historical, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Phase I Surveys, Various Locations in Southern California. Field Technician for various Phase I surveys in Southern California: City of Bakersfield, Off Road Vehicle Project; Camp Pendleton,Oceanside, CA; Aerial Gunnery Range, Chocolate Mountains; China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, Ridgecrest; and various other projects for the City of Hemet, the City of Moreno Valley and the City of Fontana. Twenty-nine Palms Military Training Facility. Field Technician for Phase II Testing in Twenty-nine Palms and Barstow, Southern California. Fort Bragg and Randolph County. Field Technician for Phase II Testing in Fayetteville and Greensboro, North Carolina. Santiago Hills Full Data Recovery. Field Technician for Phase III, Full Data Recovery Projects in the City of Orange, Southern California: Downtown Los Angeles Public School #9 Project. Excavation and Relocation of an historic cemetery, Los Angeles, CA. Full Data Recovery Project Maryland Pokomoke City, Maryland. Field Technician for Phase III Project. This historic project evidenced many complex domestic features: a well, privies, middens and a sizable brick homestead with clayed floors. Page 2 of 2 I I 1 I I I Education Master of Arts, History, 1987 University of San Diego Valedictorian/Summa cum laude Thesis: History of San Diego Transit Corporation Bachelor of Arts, History, 1984 University of San Diego, California and Latin American emphasis Magna cum laude Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, 1984 University of San Diego, California and Latin American emphasis Magna cum laude Associate of Arts, General, 1982 Grossmont College With Honors Kathleen A. Crawford Archi tectaral Historian Experience Recent and Selected Project Experience Crawford Historic Services Historical Projects Consulting Services 9985-Present Sole proprietor of historical projects consulting service with clients including: • Michael Brandman and Associates, Orange County - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments for AT&T, T-Mobile, Royal Street Communications, Paratus, Cingular and Sprint Cell Tower sites in San Diego County, Orange County, Los Angeles County and Sacramento, 2005-Present. • Federal Aviation Administration, Quieter Home Program - Historical and Architectural Assessment of approximately 3000 homes in Point Loma and San Diego for sound retrofitting, 2002-2007 • Marie Burke Lia, Attorney at Law - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments, National Register of Historic Places nominations, CEQA reports, and City of San Diego historical and architectural assessments for over two hundred properties in San Diego, La Jolla, and County of San Diego, 1987-Present • Scott Moomjian, Attorney at Law - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments for over one hundred properties in San Diego, La Jolla, and County of San Diego, 1998-Present • Archaeos, Inc. - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments of properties in San Diego County, Orange County, and Riverside County, 2003-Present • Wright and L'Estrange, Robert Wright, Attorney at Law - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments for properties in San Diego County, 2003-2005 • Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg and Bagley, Attorneys at Law — Preparation of Historical and Architectural assessments for properties in San Diego County, 2005 • Matthew Peterson, Attorney at Law - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments for properties in San Diego County, 2002-2004 • Island Architects, La Jolla - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments for properties in San Diego County, 2003 • Corky MacMillan Inc: Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments for Properties in San Diego; Historical assistance with San Diego Naval Training Center Historic District and base closure issues, preparation of National Register of Historic Places nomination form for San Diego Naval Training Center, 1999-2003 • County of San Diego - Preparation of Historic Survey of Sweetwater/Bonita area for over 300 properties, 1996 • Scripps Institutions for Medicine and Science - Preparation of 75th Anniversary History of Scripps ' Institutions for Medicine and Science, 1997 1I+ J Page 1 of 4 • San Diego Gas & Electric Company -Preparation of 110th Anniversary Historyfor SDG&E,1991 • San Diego Trust and Savings Bank -Preparation of 100th Anniversary History of bank,1988 • Great American Savings Bank -Preparation of 100th Anniversary History of bank, 1987 • San Diego Transit Corporation - Preparation of 100th Anniversary of corporation, 1985 • Jennings, Engstrand and Hendrickson Law firm - Preparation of research for San Diego County water rights case for successful presentation to U.S. Supreme Court, 1985 • La Jolla Historical Society - Archivist for historical collection, 2006 Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. 1990.1997, Senior Historian 1997-2001, Historical Consultant Responsible for all phases of research, analysis and preparation of cultural resources reports for compliance with Federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. Selected projects Included: • San Diego Naval Training Center -Preparation of National Register nomination for property including approximately 400 buildings • Chollas Heights Radio Station - Preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey for radio station for approximately 100 buildings • Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including approximately 300 buildings • Long Beach Naval Station and Shipyard - Preparation of Historical and' Architectural Assessment of properties including approximately 750 buildings • Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton - Preparation of History of Air Station • Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii - Preparation of History of Air Base • Naval Air Station, Guam - Preparation of Base Closure Documentation for approximately 150 structures • San Diego Naval Air Station, Coronado - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of selected air base facilities • Naval Air Station, El Centro - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of air base t properties, including approximately 100 buildings • San Diego Naval Station, 32nd Street - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including approximately 350 buildings • Caltrans - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments for approximately 200 properties in San Diego and Riverside Counties • Kentucky Department of Transportation (KDOT) - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments of approximately 100 properties in'Loulsville, Kentucky • Miramar Naval Air Station - Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including approximately 250 buildings 1 Page 2 of 4 , I! y, San Diego Museum of Man 1984-1985; 1997-2000, Assistant Education Coordinator Responsible for all phases of Education Department activities including teaching anthropology courses, preparation of newsletter, lecture and film series, trips, and overall programs for museum visitors. San Diego Historical Society 1985-1988, Assistant Curator of Collections Responsible for all phases of collection management and administration, research and exhibition for 20,000+ piece collection of San Diego history displayed in four local museums; supervision and management of Facade Easement Program for donation of historic building facades to Society; served as Museum Registrar which included documentation and management of all curatorial files, archival materials, object documentation, photograph collection, and art collection; supervision of volunteer program, student interns, and preparation of visitor materials and tours. History, Anthropology and Political Science Lecturer 1987-Present San Diego State University- 1989-Present • Early/Modern World History • Early/Modern U.S. History • Early/Modern Latin American History • Early/Modern Western Civilization University of San Diego 1987-2007 • California History • San Diego History • Early/Modern World History • Early/Modern U.S. History • Renaissance History • Early/Modern Western Civilization United States International University 1990-2000 • The American Presidency • Introduction to Political Science • Early/Modern History of Asia • Early/Modern Western Civilization • Early/Modern World History • Intercultural Communication • American Culture +Lw� Page 3 of 4 11 Grossmont College 1988-2002 • Early/Modern History of Women in Western Civilization • Early/Modern Western Civilization • Early/Modern World History • Early/Modern Latin American History PUBLICATIONS Crawford, Kathleen A., "Fifty Years of the Journal of San Diego History," Journal of San Diego History, Fall 2005. Engstrand, Iris H.W. and Kathleen A. Crawford, Reflections: A History of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, 1881-1991, Heritage Press: Los Angeles,1991. Davie, Theodore and Kathleen A. Crawford, A History of San Diego Trust & Savings Bank, 1888-1988, San Diego Trust and Savings Bank: San Diego, 1988. Crawford, Kathleen A. A History of the San Diego Transit Corporation, 1886-1986, San Diego Transit Corporation: San Diego, 1986. Crawford, Kathleen A. "God's Garden: A History of the Grossmont Art Colony," Journal of San Diego History, Volume XX, Summer,1985. Crawford, Kathleen A. and Bruce Kammerling, "The Serra Museum and its Collections,' Some Reminiscences of Fray Junipero Serra, Santa Barbara Mission Press: Santa Barbara,1984. Crawford, Kathleen A., "The General's Lady: Maria Amparo Ruiz Burton," Journal of San Diego History, Volume XIX, Fall,1984. I F J 1' Page 4 of 4 1 City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment u I I I Appendix C: Regulatory Framework I I I I Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final Pl CRA Marina Park doc City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C ;R GE ULATORY FRAMEWORK Government agencies, including federal, state, and local agencies, have developed laws and regulations designed to protect significant cultural resources that may be affected by projects regulated, funded, or undertaken by the agency. Federal and state laws that govern the preservation of historic and archaeological resources of national, state, regional, and local significance include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, laws specific to work conducted on federal lands includes the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), the American Antiquities Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The following Federal or CEQA criteria were used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts on cultural resources for the proposed project. An impact would be considered significant if it would affect a resource eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CR), or if it is identified as a unique archaeological Federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their actions on Historic Properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings under NEPA § 106. Federal agencies are responsible for initiating NEPA § 106 review and completing the steps in the process that are outlined in the regulations. They must determine if NHPA § 106 applies to a given project and, if so, initiate review in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). Federal agencies are also responsible for involving the public and other interested parties. Furthermore, NHPA 5106 requires that any federal or federally assisted undertaking, or any undertaking requiring federal licensing or permitting, consider the effect of the action on Historic Properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. Under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 36 CFR Part 800.8, federal agencies are specifically encouraged to coordinate compliance with NEPA § 106 and the NEPA process. The implementing regulations "Protection of Historic Properties" are found in 36 CFR Part 800. Resource eligibility for listing on the NRHP is detailed in 36 CFR Part 63 and the criteria for resource evaluation are found in 36 CFR Part 60.4 [a-d]. The NHPA established the NRHP as the official federal list for cultural resources that are considered important for their historical significance at the local, state, or national level. To be determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, properties must meet specific criteria for historic significance and possess certain levels of integrity of form, location, and setting. The criteria for listing on the NRHP are significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture as present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client(FN•JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final PI CRA_Marina_Park.dac City of Newport Beach -Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In addition, a resource must meet one or all of these eligibility criteria: a.) I$ associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. b.) Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. c.) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. d.) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is usually reserved for archaeological resources. Eligible properties must meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character. Criteria Considerations Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, buildings that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the NRHP. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: a.) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance. b.) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person,or event. c.) A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life. d.) A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events. e.) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived. i Michael Brandman Associates C-2 H.-TUmt(PN.JN)N0641006400221CR100640022 Revised FIW h) CRA Madn_Park.doe , I 0 F, I f 11' City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C £) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance. g.) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. Thresholds of Significance In consultation with the SHPO/THPO and other entities that attach religious and cultural significance to identified Historic Properties, the Agency shall apply the criteria of adverse effect to Historic Properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The Agency official shall consider the views of consulting parties and the public when considering adverse effects. Federal Criteria of Adverse Effects Under federal regulations, 36 CFR Part 800.5, an adverse effect is found when an undertaking alters, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualifies the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that diminishes the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration will be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property's eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative. According to 36 CFR Part 800.5, adverse effects on Historic Properties include, but are not limited to, those listed below: • Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property. • Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties per 36 CFR Part 68 and applicable guidelines. • Removal of the property from its historic location. • Change of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance. • Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features. • Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. Michael Brandman Associates C-3 11 \Client(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022 Revised Final PI CRA_Marino_Park doc L.J , City of NeWport Beach - Marine Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C • Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and r. !' legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensurelong term preservation of the property's historic significance. If Adverse Effects Are Found If adverse effects are found, the agency official shall continue consultation as stipulated at 36 CFR Part 800.6. The agency official shall consult with the SHPO/THPO and other consulting parties to develop alternatives to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic resources. According to 36 CFR Part 800.14(d),. if adverse effects cannot be avoided then standard treatments established by the ACHP maybe used as a basis for Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). According to 36 CFR Part 800.11(e), the filing of an approved MOA, and appropriate documentation, concludes the § 106 process. The MOA must be signed by all consulting parties and approved by the ACHP prior to Construction activities. If no adverse affects are found and the SHPO/THPO or the ACHP do not object within 30 days of receipt, the agencies' responsibilities under § 106 will be satisfied upon completion of report and documentation as stipulated in 36 CFR Part 800.11. The information must be made available for public review upon request, excluding information covered by confidentiality provisions. State -Level Evaluation Processes An archaeological site may be considered an historical resource if it is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California per PRC § 5020.10) or if 'it meets the criteria for listing on the CR per California Code of Regulations (CCR) at Title 14 CCR § 4850. The most recent amendments to the CEQA guidelines direct lead agencies to first evaluate an archeological site to determine if it meets the criteria for listing in the CR. If an archeological site is an historical resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing inthe CR, potential adverse impacts to it must be considered as stated in PRC §§ 21084.1 and 21083.2(1). If an archeological site is considered not to be an historical resource, but meets the definition of a "unique archeological resource" as defined in PRC § 21083.2, then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. With reference to PRC § 21083.2, each site found within a project area will be evaluated to determine if it is a unique archaeological resource. A unique archaeological resource is described as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria: Michael Brandman Associates _ _ _ C-4 HACHnt(PNJN)100645006400221CRWO640022 Rcvisni Final PI CRA Marina Park,doc City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C ! 10. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 11. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 12. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. As used in this report, "non -unique archaeological resource" means an archaeological artifact, object, or site that does not meet the criteria for eligibility for listing on the CR, as noted in subdivision (g) of PRC § 21083.2. A non -unique archaeological resource requires no further consideration, other than simple recording of its components and features. Isolated artifacts are typically considered non - unique archaeological resources. Historic structures that have had their superstructures demolished or removed can be considered historic archaeological sites and are evaluated following the processes used for prehistoric sites. Finally, OHP recognizes an age threshold of 45 years. Cultural resources built less than 45 years ago may qualify for consideration, but only under the most extraordinary circumstances. Title 14, CCR, Chapter 3 § 15064.5 is associated with determining the significance of impacts to archeological and historical resources. Here, the term historical resource includes the following: 1. A resource listed in, or determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CR (PRC § 5024.1; Title 14 CCR, § 4850 et seq.). 2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the PRC § 5024.1(g) requirements, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency '�. determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered a historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC § 5024.1; Title 14 CCR § 4852) including the following: A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. Michael Brandman Associates C 1 I:\Client(PN-1N)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022_Revised Final PI CRA_Manna Park.doc City or Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C , C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, -or possesses high artistic values. D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Typically, archaeological sites exhibiting significant features qualify for the CRunder Criterion D because such features have information importantto the prehistory of California. A lead agency may determine that a resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC §§ 5020.1(i) or 5024.1 even if it is: • Not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CR. • Not included in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC § 5020.1(k). • Identified in an historical resources survey per PRC § 5024.1(g). Threshold of Significance If a project will have a significant impact on a cultural resource, several steps must be taken to determine if the cultural resource is a "unique archaeological resource" under CEQA. If analysis and/or testing determine that the resource is a unique archaeological resource and therefore subject to mitigation prior to development, a threshold of significance should be developed. The threshold c ' significance is a point where the qualities of significance are defined and the resource is determined to be unique under CEQA. A significant impact is regarded as the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significanee of the resource will be reduced to a point that it no longer meets the significance criteria. Should analysis indicate that project development will destroy the unique elements of a resource; the resource must be mitigated for under CEQA regulations. The preferred form of mitigation is to preserve the resource in -place, in an undisturbed state. However, as that is not always possible or feasible, appropriate mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to: 1. Planning construction to avoid the resource. 2. Deeding conservation easements. 3. Capping the site prior to construction. If a resource is determined to be a "non -unique archaeological resource," no further consideration of by lead is the resource the agency necessary. Michael Brandman Associates C-6 HACRmt(PN•1N)W0WW0W0022kCR100W0022 Revised final t'I CRA_Marina_PatkAoc City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C Tribal Consultation The following serves as an overview of the procedures and timeframes for the Tribal Consultation process, for the complete Tribal Consultation Guidelines, please refer to the State of California Office of Planning and Research web site. Prior to the amendment or adoption of general or specific plans, local governments must notify the appropriate tribes of the opportunity to conduct consultation for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural places located on land within the local government's jurisdiction that is affected by the plan adoption or amendment. The tribal contacts for this list maintained by the NAHC and is distinct from the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) list. It is suggested that local governments send written notice by certified mail with return receipt requested. The tribes have 90 days from the date they receive notification to request consultation. In addition, prior to adoption or amendment of a general or specific plan, local government must refer the proposed action to tribes on the NAHC list that have traditional lands located within the city or county's jurisdiction. Notice must be sent regardless of prior consultation. The referral must allow a 45-day comment period. In brief, notices from government to the tribes should include: • A clear statement of purpose. • A description of the proposed general or specific plan, the reason for the proposal, and the specific geographic areas affected. • Detailed maps to accompany the description. • Deadline date for the tribes to respond. • Government representative(s) contact information. • Contact information for project proponent/applicant, if applicable. �t The basic schedule for this process is: • 30 days: time NAHC has to provide tribal contact information to the local government; this is M recommended not mandatory. • 90 days: time tribe has to respond indication whether or not they want to consult, Note: tribes ' can agree to a shorter timeframe. In addition, consultation does not begin until/unless requested by the tribe within 90 days of receiving notice of the opportunity to consult. The consultation period, if requested, is open-ended. The tribes and local governments can discuss issues for as long as necessary, or productive, and need not result in agreement. Michael Brandman Associates C-7 '� II:\Client(PN-1N)\0064\00040022\CR\00640022 Revised Final Pl CRA Manno_Park.doe City of Newport Beach - Marina Park Project ' Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Appendix C • 45 days: time local government has to refer proposed action, such as adoption or amendment to a general plan or specific plan, to agencies, including the tribes. Referral required even if there has been prior consultation. This opens the 45-day comment period. • 10 days: time local government has to provide tribes of notice of public hearing. I I I I I 1I A 1 L I I Michael Brandman Associates C-8 ' HACHm(PN•JN)%0004\00040022\CR\00W0022_Revised Final PI CRA Marina Park.doc City of Newport Beach • Marina Park Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment 11 1 1 1 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix D: Project Area Photographs ' Michael Brandman Associates H.\Chent(PN-JN)\0064\00640022\CR\00640022— Revised Pinal_PI CRA Manna_Park.doc Photograph 1. View of the American Legion Veterans Memorial Park and shelter structure located in the eastern -most PI _ _ near the castem-most portion of the project area, facing northwest. y '9999 Appendix D: Project Area Photographs DIIINa Marina Park Project Michael 6randman Associates 00640022 • 0712008 1 00640022_Appendix D-Ldoc D-t S YL7 YSYSSIS Ml1 Photograph 3. View of fenced, off -site American Legion parking lot found to the east of the on -site American Legion Veterans Memorial Park, facing northwest. Photograph 4. View of off -site, fenced American Legion parking lot and the off -site Yacht Club Building, facing northwest. ource: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008 NNNN Appendix D: Project Area Photographs 00N0 Marina Park Project 1 Michael 6randman Associates 00640022 • 0712008 1 00640022_Appendix D-2.doc D-2' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 Photograph 5. View of public beach located to the north of the Marina Park Mobile Home Park, facing west. Photograph 6. View of the Marina Park Mobile Home Park, taken from the northeast comer of Park. facing southwest. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008 NNNN Appendix D: Project Area Photographs aaNL7 Marina Park Project Michael Brandman Associates 00640022 • 0712008 1 00640022_Appendix D-3.doc D-3 t Photograph 7. View of parking facilities located on West Bay, between 18'" and 190' Streets in the western portion of the project area, facing west. i 1 Photograph 8. View of the 19`s Street Restroom, facing northeast. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008 Michael Brandman Associates Appendix D: Project Area Photographs ' Marina Park Project 00640022 • 07/2008 1 00640022_Appendix D-4.doc D-4 1 1 t 1 1 1 Photograph 9. Close-up of City of Newport Beach Las Arenas Park sign. Photograph 10. View of children'ss play area in Las Arenas Park. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008 SNNN Appendix D: Project Area Photographs IIIIINa Marina Park Project Michael Brandman Associates 00640022 • 0712008 1 00640022_Appendix D-5.doc D-5 Photograph 11. View of the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout Building, facing north. Photograph 12. View of the Balboa Community Center Building, facing northwest. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2008 Michael Brandman Associates 00640022 • 0712008 1 00640022_Appendix D-6.doc Appendix D: Project Area Photographs ' Marina Park Project D-6 ' I 1 1 n 1 Photograph 14. View of the off -site Southern California Edison Property, facing north. ' NN®N Appendix D: Project Area Photographs DaNO Marina Park Project Michael Hmndman Associates 00640022 • 0712008 1 00640022_Appendix ❑-7.doc 0-7 Marina Park Graff EIR 1 t 1 1 1 I LJ 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix F: Geotechnical Investigation Michael Brandman Associates FIXI,,nl(PN-)N1',0064100W0022\DEIRWOM00225tt1 I.00Appcndix Drvidcmdoc 7 U GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MARINA PARK PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach, California Prepared by TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. San Diego, California Project No. 2573 August 7, 2008 J ' Geolechnieal Engineering Coastal Engineering ' An aine Engineering Project No. 2573 August 7, 2008 Mr. Mark S. Reader, P.E. Public Works Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MARINA PARK PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Reader: ' In accordance with your request, our Proposal No. 08018 dated March 3, 2008, and our Professional Services Agreement dated March 25, 2008, TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. (TCG) has completed a geotechnical investigation in support of the proposed Marina Park Development project, located on Newport Harbor between 15th and 19th Streets, and north of West Balboa Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach, California. ' The accompanying report presents the results of our review of available reports, plans, literature, our field investigation, and our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical ' .aspects of the proposed site development. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust this information meets your needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please give us a call. ' Very truly yours, ' TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC. �9.�� ' David B. Nevius, Project Engineer Braven R. Smillie, Principal Geologist R.C.E.65015 R.G.E.2789 R.G.402, C.E.G.207 ' Walt . Cr npton, Principal Engineer R.C.E. 23792, R.G.E. 245 WFC/DBN/BRS/jg ' Attachments (6) Addressee ' 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 A San Diego, California 92123-4379 A (858) 573-6900 voice A (858) 573-8900. icr 2601 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 110 A Santa Monica, California 90405 A (310) 399-8190 voice A (310) 399-8195 fax www.terracosta.com 7 I I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project No. 2573 TABLE OF CONTENTS August 7, 2008 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................1 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION........................................................................2 2.1 Onshore Facilities............................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Offshore Facilities (Proposed ADA Approach Piers, Floating Docks, Groin -Wall, andBulkhead Walls)......................................................................................................... 2 3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION.....................................................I...............3 3.1 Field Investigation............................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................ 4 4 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................4 4.1 Geologic Setting 4 4.2 Site Topography and Bathymetry..................................................................................... 4.3 Soil and Geologic Units.................................................................................................... 4 4.4 Groundwater.....................................................................................................................5 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS..............................................................................................................5 5.1 Regional and Local Faulting 5 5.2 Seismicity......................................................................................................................... 6 5.3 Geologic Hazards.............................................................................................................. 6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS.....................................................8 6.1 Site Preparation................................................................................................................. 8 6.2 Foundation Design............................................................................................................ 8 6.2.1 Mat Foundations for Restroom Facilities and Other Small Buildings ................. 8 6.2.2 Deep Foundations for Sailing Center and Community Center ............................ 9 6.3 Seismic Design Parameters per CBC.............................................................................. 10 6.4 Concrete Flatwork and Walkways.................................................................................. 11 6.5 Soil Corrosivity............................................................................................................... 11 ..................................................... 7 CONSIDERATIONS FOR MARINA IMPROVEMENTS....................................................... 11 7.1 Sheet -Pile Bulkheads...................................................................................................... 11 7.1.1 Tieback Anchors................................................................................................ 13 7.2 Guide Pile Recommendations......................................................................................... 14 7.2.1 Pre -Jetting Considerations................................................................:................ 15 7.3 Approach Pier/Gangway Abutment Foundation Recommendations .............................. 15 7.4 Dredging 16 7.5 Shore Perpendicular Groin-Wall.................................................................................... 16 8 LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................................16 FIGURE 1 BORING LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 ARCHITECTURAL MASTER PLAN ' FIGURE 3 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FIGURE 4 ROLLER DEFLECTION ' APPENDIX A LOGS OF TEST BORINGS & CPT SOUNDINGS APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS APPENDIX C SUGGESTED ITEMS FOR INCLUSION IN SPECIFICATIONS FOR PILE ' DRIVING APPENDIX D SUMMARY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX E DSI PRODUCT LITERATURE N \2M573t2573 R01 Gcotcch Invwt.doc J i r 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project No. 2573 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MARINA PARK PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION August 7,2008 Page 1 ' TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. (TCG) has performed a geotechnical investigation, and geologic and engineering analyses for development of the Marina Park project, located on ' Newport Harbor between 15th and 19th Streets, and north of West Balboa Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach, California (please refer to Figure 1, Vicinity Map/Boring Location ' Map). This report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing, and analyses, and ' provides geotechnical engineering recommendations for grading and construction of the proposed improvements. We understand that the principal structural elements of the project are: ' • A 10,190-square-foot, two-story, steel -framed community center building; • An 11,000-square-foot, two-story, steel -framed sailing center building (potentially 60± foot tall moment -frame tower); including a steel • Two small single -story restroom structures (one of which is located approximately a block away from the site on a separate property); ' An 800-square-foot, single -story marine services building; • Ancillary concrete flatwork and paved parking areas designed to support all of the above structures; and • Offshore facilities, including 28 floating -dock boat slips, flexi-float support docks, located in that must be dredged to approach piers, a groin -wall, and bulkheads an area accommodate the new facilities. The overall project layout is shown on the Architectural Master Plan, Figure 2. ' �_ N.Q5\2573\2573 ROI Gcolcch Inml doc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - Project No. 2573 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION August 7, 2008 , Page 2' The purpose of this investigation is to provide information to assist the City and its consultants in evaluating the site (both onshore and offshore) for project design. In particular, our investigation is designed to address the following geotechnical issues. 2.1 Onshore Facilities • The geologic/geotechnical setting of the site; • Potential geologic hazards, such as faulting and seismicity; • General engineering characteristics of the identified soil and geologic units, including on -site allowable soil -bearing and earth pressure values; • Settlement estimates; • The depth to groundwater; • Building foundation and flatwork recommendations; • Building setbacks for any foundation impacts from adjacent and nearby structures, if applicable; • Grading and earthwork recommendations; and • Soil contusion potential. 2.2 Offshore Facilities (Proposed ADA Approach Piers, Floating Docks, Groin -Wall, and Bulkhead Walls) • Geotechnical recommendations for dredging; • Geotechnical design input for the proposed groin -wall; • Recommendations for the lateral support of the dock -area bulkheads, including both earth -anchor and tieback/deadman approaches; • Geotechnical recommendations for approach pier foundations; and • Depth and load/deflection criteria for use in guide pile design. N'MUS J@ 7J R01 Gw1tt6lnvc"d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No. 2573 Page 3 To further our understanding of the Marina Park Development, and to establish working ' relationships with the City's team members, we attended a project kick-off meeting on April 4, 2008, and subsequently exchanged technical information with the design team. 1 3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ' 3.1 Field Investigation ' Our field investigation, performed May 16, 2008, included a geotechnical reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area; drilling, sampling, and logging two 8-inch-diameter ' exploratory test borings to a depth of 31.5 feet; and performing twelve continuous cone penetration test (CPT) soundings to depths ranging from 30 feet to 50 feet. The approximate locations of our test borings and CPT soundings are shown on the Boring Location Map ' (Figure 1). Samples were obtained from the test borings using both a 2-inch O.D. Standard Penetration Test Sampler (SPT) and a 3-inch O.D. "California Sampler." The samplers were ' advanced by driving them into the soil ahead of the auger using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. Samples obtained from the borings were sealed in the field to preserve in -situ moisture, and transported to the laboratory for additional inspection and testing. The drilling operations were observed, and the borings logged and classified, by a geologist from our firm. Field logs of the materials encountered in the test borings were prepared based on visual ' examination of the materials, and on the action of the drilling and sampling equipment. The descriptions on the logs are based on our field observations, sample inspection, and ' laboratory test results. A Key to Excavation Logs is presented in Appendix A as Figure A-1, and the final logs of the test borings are presented as Figures A-2 and A-3. ' CPT soundings were performed at the locations of proposed structures in order to obtain continuous profiles of the underlying foundation soils, in correlation with data from the test ' borings. Results of the CPT soundings are also included in Appendix A. ' \ N:@SQ573073 R01 Gcmcch In,st doc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project No, 2573 3.2 Laboratory Testing August 7, 2008 Page 4 Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration program were tested in the laboratory to verify field classifications and to provide data for geotechnical input to the design of project structures. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B. 4 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 Geologic Setting The project site is situated on the landward side of a naturally -formed coastal bar (or "barrier") of the type formed by a transgressive sea and littoral currents at the seaward edge of a stream delta or lagoon. The Newport Bay coastal estuary was originally formed as the lower reach of the Santa Ana River. However, in 1915, because of severe silting that resulted from flooding of the Santa Ana River (and also the construction of a man-made channel), the Santa Ana River was structurally realigned and the bay is currently fed only by San Diego Creek, which drains a comparatively small area. 4.2 Site Topography and Bathymetry Elevations across the site range from approximately 7.8 feet (NAVD 88) along West Balboa Boulevard, ascending to almost +10 feet near the central backbone of the parcel, then back down to about +5 feet at the U.S. bulkhead line generally along the existing shoreline. From the U.S. bulkhead line, the nearshore bay floor slope descends at an inclination of approximately 10:1, down to approximate elevation -10 to -12 feet along the channel limit line. 4.3 Soil and Geologic Units The site is underlain by hydraulic fill, bay deposits, and older alluvial deposits beyond the depths of our deepest exploratory testing at 50 feet. These soil and geologic units are described below in order of increasing age. Hydraulic Fill Soils: Our test borings indicate that the project site -area is generally underlain by from 5 to 6 feet of loose to medium dense, gray -brown, damp to wet, E i I 1 I 1 J N:12557573@573 AOt Omlmh Invest Joe I I I I I I I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project No. 2573 August 7, 2008 Page 5 hydraulically -placed sands and silty sands (SP/SM), with occasional shell fragments. It is likely that these relatively "clean" granular soils were placed as the result of dredging during one or more phases of the development of Newport Harbor. SPT blow counts within these artificially placed, dry to saturated sands range from 7 to 25 blows per foot. Bay Deposits: The hydraulic fill sands are typically underlain by a 2- to V2-foot- thick, soft to firm, compressible sandy silt to silty clay bay mud, which is in turn underlain by relatively clean, medium dense, gray sands (SP/SM), with shells and shell fragments, characteristic of Holocene -age bay deposits below an elevation of approximately -2 to -3 feet. SPT blow counts within these clean, saturated, natural bay deposit sands range from 13 to 24 blows per foot. Older Alluvial Deposits: Dense to very dense, red -brown to gray, coarse "clean" sands (SP-SM), generally characteristic of older fluvial/alluvial deposits, underlie the project site area at elevations ranging from approximately -20 to -26 feet. Limited blow counts within these older estuarine soils range from 37 to 38 blows per foot. However, the CPT tip resistance in these deposits typically exceeds 300 tsf, indicating Ia very dense sand. 4.4 Groundwater i I LJ Groundwater levels at the site can be expected to vary in response to tidal fluctuations. Groundwater highs will likely approach tidal highs in the bay, and groundwater lows may drop slightly below mean sea level. From a construction standpoint, any excavations advanced down to within the tidal zone should be expected to experience severe caving. I5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS I I 7 L 5.1 Regional and Local Faulting We did not observe indications of faulting during our field investigation at the site, and available geologic literature does not indicate that active faults have been mapped in the immediate project site area. However, our review of published and unpublished maps indicates that the site is approximately 3 km westerly of the Newport-Inglewood/Rose I N:@52573\2573 R01 Gwt h ImAdm CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No. 2573 Page 6 Canyon fault zone (south Los Angeles Basin segment), which generally trends north/south along the easterly margin of the Newport ("Upper") Back Bay. It is generally accepted that movement along the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon fault zone hag created compressional forces, which caused warping and tilting of the portion of crustal block underlying this area of Orange County. 5,2 Seismicity The project site is located in a moderately active seismic region of Southern California that is subject to moderate to strong shaking from nearby and distant earthquakes. Ground shaking from earthquakes on 63 major active faults could affect the site. The nearest of these, the Los Angeles Basin segment of the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault, is located approximately 3 km easterly of the site. According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Open -File Report 2008-1128, the maximum credible earthquake for this segment of the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be magnitude 7.2. During the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, a 6.4 magnitude shock was experienced offshore approximately 2.5 miles north-northeast of the site about 30 minutes prior to the shocks that devastated Long Beach. We used both the California Geologic Survey (CGS) and the USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards web sites to assess the probabilistic ground motion conditions of the site. According to both the CGS and USGS, the peak ground acceleration for a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is estimated to be on the order of 0.37 to 0.41 g. 5.3 Geologic Hazards Potential geologic hazards that may exist at the site include landslides, fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, seismic -induced settlement, lateral spreading, seiches, and tsunamis. With respect to these potential hazards, we have the following comments: • Landslides: No landslides have been mapped at the site. As such, it is our opinion that the risk associated with landslides is negligible. • Fault Rupture: No faults have been mapped across the site or inferred to cross the site. As such, it is our opinion that the risk associated with fault rupture is low to negligible. N.=573073001 Gmi"h1m CN.d00 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No. 2573 Page 7 • Ground Shaking: All sites within Southern California are susceptible to ground 1 I 1 i 1 u Ir LJ 1 LI II 1 'I 1 If '1 shaking. Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a potential hazard in any water -saturated, clean sandy soils. The loose to medium dense, near -surface hydraulic fills and bay deposits (typically above elevation -15 to -25 feet) exhibit relatively low relative densities and consist of clean (SP/SM) soils, making these materials susceptible to seismic -induced liquefaction and lateral spreading. The dense to very dense, older alluvial deposits encountered below -20 to -26 feet are not susceptible to liquefaction. Spontaneous liquefaction develops within sandy soils when they are subjected to a rapid buildup of pore pressure, such as that caused by seismic shock, and the result of this condition could be massive mobilization of the near -surface foundation soils and the failure (settlement) of site -area structural improvements. It is expected that liquefaction could be triggered at this site with a seismic acceleration of 0.20 g. Seismic -Induced Settlement: Ground settlements due to seismic activity results from a densification of soils due to ground vibration, as well as by reconsolidation of liquefied soils. For the facilities under consideration for this study, we anticipate that the majority of the seismic ground settlements will be associated with potential liquefaction of the upper 20±- feet of the hydraulic fills and bay deposits. We estimate that if these soils were to liquefy, the amount of total induced settlement could be on the order of 1 to 4 inches. • Seiches: As the site is located within the Newport Bay, it is our opinion that the risks associated with Seiches are moderate to high. Tsunamis: As the site lies on the coast, it is our opinion that the risk associated with tsunamis is the same as all projects located along the shoreline of the City of Newport Beach. Studies performed by Legg, Borrero, and Synolakis (2004) suggest that this area of the coastline may be affected by both earthquake- and subaqueous landslide - generated tsunamis with wave heights of 2+ meters and wave runup of 4+ meters. As such, the site may be affected by a tsunami under certain critical conditions. As we understand, the City of Newport Beach already has a tsunami contingency plan and evacuation routes in place. 1 N.@5@573@573 R01 Gwlmh 1n"S .d. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project No. 2573 6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS 6.1 Site Preparation August7,2008 Page 8 It is recommended that the entire site be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, watered, and properly recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557. Any loose zones encountered during compaction of the final subgrade should be overexcavated and properly recompacted to 95 percent in order , to provide the recommended subgrade density. We would recommend that the deep foundations for the Sailing Center and Community Center, whether driven piles or stone , columns, be completed prior to the completion of subgrade preparation. We recommend that the existing hydraulic fill sands be compacted by a combination of flooding and vibration using a vibratory roller, compactor, or heavy track equipment. All site preparation and grading should be performed under the observation of the geotecimical engineer and in accordance with Section 300, "Earthwork," of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ("Greenbook"). 6.2 Foundation Design From a geotechnical standpoint, the near -surface ' hydraulic fill sands are relatively competent in nature and suitable for supporting relatively lightly loaded foundation elements assuming sufficient confinement of the near -surface soils. However, given the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction -induced settlements that could be on the order of 1 to 4 inches, we recommend using a deep foundation system, or soil improvement with a that foundation for the Sailing Center and Community Center. We recommend that mat foundations be used for smaller proposed buildings, including restroom facilities. 6.2.1 Mat Foundations for Restroom Facilities and Other Small Buildings We recommend that all mat foundations be designed by a registered civil or structural engineer experienced in mat foundation design. We recommend a subgrade modulus of 100 pci, which has been adjusted for foundation size. We recommend that maximum allowable contact stresses be limited to 1,000 psf. This value should not be increased for any transient loads, including seismic and wind loads. K=573V573 R01 Orolroh Innadw CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No. 2573 Page 9 To provide resistance for design lateral loads, we recommend that an allowable friction coefficient of 0.45 be used between the concrete mat foundation and the underlying recompacted sandy subgrade soils. If, for some reason, additional lateral resistance is required, interior shear keys can be added when located a minimum of three times the depth of the shear key in from the perimeter edge of the mat foundation. Passive pressures, if used, should be limited to an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf. I6.2.2 Deep Foundations for Sailing Center and Community Center Due to the potential for significant settlement due to liquefaction, we recommend that the Sailing Center and Community Center buildings be supported on either driven piles, or on ' structural mats, the latter of which should be supported by improved soil. We recommend stone columns be used to densify the underlying soil if mats are the chosen foundations for the Sailing Center and Community Center. Both of these foundation alternatives are discussed in the following paragraphs. ' Pile Foundations In order to avoid undesirable liquefaction -induced settlements, we recommend that consideration be given to supporting all settlement -sensitive habitable structures on pile foundations deriving their support from the dense alluvial sands encountered below elevation -26 feet. As indicated in Section 5.3, potentially liquefiable sands overlie these dense sands and, under the design earthquake event, may locally liquefy down to a maximum elevation of about -26 feet, resulting in potential downdrag forces imposed on the upper portions of foundation piles. We currently anticipate maximum liquefaction -induced downdrag loads applied to 12-inch square pre -stressed concrete piles approaching 50 kips and recommend that all pile foundations be designed to accommodate this additional seismically induced axial downdrag load. 1 We recommend that 12-inch square pre -stressed concrete piles be designed for a minimum of 10 feet of embedment into the dense to very dense alluvial sands corresponding to a minimum design tip elevation of -35 feet. At this depth, the allowable bearing capacity of these soils will exceed the pile's maximum design allowable capacity of 105 tons (80 tons when subtracting out downdrag forces). l ' N.V5P1573\2573 R01 Gcolcch Invcsl.doc LJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No.2573 Page 10 We anticipate that the dense alluvial sands will require limited pre jetting to achieve design tip elevation and pre -jetting shall be allowed down to elevation -30 feet. However, in all instances, actual pile capacities and tip elevations shall be verified in the field utilizing a suitable pile driving formula, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR) formula. We recommend that our firm observe the driving of all piles. Continuous records of pile driving operations should be kept and any field changes reviewed with the structural engineer. Typical guide specifications for pile driving are attached in Appendix C, and may be used as an aid in preparation of job specifications. Stone Columns with Mat Foundations As an alternative to conventional deep foundations, in -situ ground improvement may also be performed to densify the near -surface liquefiable soils and to improve pore pressure dissipation resulting from seismic shaking. We consider stone columns to be a viable alternative to mitigating the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and the associated ground settlements that should be expected during the design seismic event. Thirty to 36- inch-diameter stone columns placed in a typical Moot triangular pattern, extending to a depth of approximately 30 feet, should provide sufficient increased soil stiffness to mitigate the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and ground settlements. This in -situ densification occurs by advancing a large electric or hydraulic vibrator to the desired depth with use of water or air jetting to assist penetration to the design depth. After penetration, the vibrator is partially withdrawn and the hole created by the vibrator filled with a charge of stone. The vibrator is again lowered into the stone, displacing the stone both radially and downward into the surrounding soil, thereby causing displacement of the soil over and above that created by the initial penetration of the vibrator. In this way, a compact column of stone interlockedwith the surrounding ground is built up to the ground surface. As indicted in Section 6.2.1, we recommend that foundations for the proposed marina buildings, if supported on stone columns, be supported by a structural concrete mat foundation, which in turn would be supported by the stone column densified subgrade soils. 6.3 Seismic Design Parameters per CBC The California Building Code (CBC) requires a site -specific seismic response analysis for any site that is considered liquefiable. However, based on ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05, 11 11 II tl I I t� 11 I I 1I 11 N 2507307JRGI Gm hInvmdcc , ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No.2573 Page 11 if the proposed structures have a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 ' seconds, site -specific analysis is not required and response spectra can be determined using the equivalent site class for non -liquefiable soil. In this particular case, we recommend using the Site Class D characterization for stiff soil. For this site class, we recommend using spectral accelerations of 1.252 and 0.711 for periods of 0.2 and 1.0 seconds, respectively. 6.4 Concrete Flatwork and Walkways We recommend that areas to receive concrete flatwork and walkways be prepared in general ' accordance with Section 301-1 of the Greenbook Specifications. We recommend that subgrade soils be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. Additional subgrade preparation may be necessary in those areas where flatwork and walkways may be subject to vehicle loading and should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. 6.5 Soil Corrosivity LI I Ll II The results of corrosivity testing of the near -surface soils indicate a soil pH of 7.0 and 40 years to perforation for a 16 gauge metal culvert. Test results are included in Appendix B. 7 CONSIDERATIONS FOR MARINA IMPROVEMENTS 7.1 Sheet -Pile Bulkheads It is our understanding that the subject sheet -pile walls will be pre -stressed, pre -cast, concrete panels and that those panels will be installed in a sequence as generally shown on Figure 3. At the contractor's option, we would anticipate that the sheet -pile bulkheads would be installed in a partially excavated trench and then jetted to near grade. Jetting may be permitted down to within 1 foot of design tip elevation, and then driven the last foot. Concrete sheets should us6 tongue -and -groove connections and should have jet tubes cast into the pile. The tongue -and -groove connection should be cast in such a way to allow installation of a 1 %2-inch-diameter pipe (after driving) into the oversized groove. A high- pressure water jet should be used to initially flush out any debris from within the joint. Each joint should then be pressure grouted to protect against possible loss of the soil backfill out through joints. NR5073@573 R01 Gcowl, Invot.doc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI4 August 7, 2008 Project No. 2573 Page 12 As shown on Figure 3, we recommend installation of the Sailing Center foundations prior to installation of the interior marina bulkhead anchors to avoid potential conflicts between the tiebacks and piles or stone columns. We have used Shoring Suite Version 8, by CivilTech, Inc. for design of the bulkhead walls. Based on the results of our CPT data and borings, we have selected an active earth pressure coefficient of 0,31, and a passive earth pressure coefficient of 3.2, reduced to 2.25, to ensure a factor of safety of 1.5 with regard to passive toe failure. We examined the shore -parallel Sailing Center bulkhead (+9 elevation, plan datum) with and without seismic loading, as well as the interior marina bulkhead walls (+10 elevation, plan datum) with H2O vehicle loading adjacent to the wall edge without seismic loading, and with seismic loading (without the H2O surcharge). We have also assumed a 4-foot tidal lag in front of the bulkhead wall. We have neglected the presence of the sloping passive toe in front of the bulkhead walls, as these sloping toes can be partially or completely scoured out as the result of boats backing into or out of their docks. Summary calculations are provided in Appendix D. Our analyses indicate that the critical design case for both the Sailing Center bulkhead wall and the interior marina bulkhead walls is the seismic loading condition under a design seismic acceleration of 0.20 g. For this condition, we have also increased the design acceleration by 50 percent to take into consideration the lack of deformation exhibited by rigid structures (Xanthakos, 1995). As indicated in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, the design seismic event has a peak ground acceleration with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years estimated to be on the order of 0.37 to 0.41 g. Moreover, for the site conditions, localized liquefaction is anticipated with site accelerations exceeding 0.2 g, with massive liquefaction and lateral spreading affecting the upper 20± feet with site accelerations approaching 0.4 g. Under these conditions, the bonded zone of the tiebacks would yield, and the liquefied bulkhead backfill would then overload and 'fail the now -cantilevered 22-foot-high bulkhead. As the bulkhead is not a habitable structure, to our knowledge, there is no code mandate to design for the 0.4 g seismic event. However, if desired, the bulkhead could be designed to resist the maximum seismic event by densifying the liquefiable bulkhead backfill materials, as well as the bonded zone for the tieback anchors. This liquefaction mitigation can be achieved through the use of stone columns, treating the zone extending roughly 70 feet back from the bulkhead. If this were to be considered, however, we anticipate that it may be more economical to use deep NMT25=373 R0i ilenleeh Inveg.dm I I I I I 11 I It L II CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No. 2573 Page 13 soil mixing adjacent the back of the bulkhead, which should be able to mitigate the maximum design seismic event with a soil mixed zone possibly 30 feet in width. As such, we recommend the following design parameters for the walls: Sailing Center Bulkhead Wall Top Elevation: Minimum Embedment: Minimum Tip Elevation: Maximum Design Moment: Required Top -of -Wall Lateral Restraint: Interior Marina Bulkhead Walls Top Elevation: Minimum Embedment: +9, plan datum 17 feet -29 feet, plan datum 84 kip-ft 9.4 kips/lineal foot +10, plan datum 18 feet Minimum Tip Elevation: -30 feet, plan datum Maximum Design Moment: 96 kip-ft Required Top -of -Wall Lateral Restraint: 10.3 kips/lineal foot 7.1.1 Tieback Anchors We understand that deadman anchors would attach to the bulkhead within the pile cap at about elevation +9 feet (+8 feet for the Sailing Center bulkhead wall). Assuming conventional deadman anchors were used, these anchors would extend a minimum of 7 feet below grade and run continuously behind the bulkhead. Since deadman anchors cannot encroach onto the adjacent easterly parcel, and 7-foot-deep continuous deadman anchors will likely pose significant construction difficulties, we understand that it ha been agreed to use post -grouted soil anchors to restrain all site bulkheads. Post -grouted soil anchors on tiebacks offer several significant advantages in that effective corrosion protection is assured, convenient preloading is possible, and construction conflicts with the Sailing Center deep foundations are minimized. In this regard, we anticipate that tieback anchors would be installed on 8 to 10 foot centers. For these conditions, we recommend a minimum unbonded length of 40 feet, and a minimum bonded length of 30 feet. As indicated, we also recommend that the tieback anchors be I N \25\2573\2573 R01 acolahln aLdoc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No. 2573 Page 14 installed at an inclination of 4 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), resulting in the tieback depth at the easterly edge of the Sailing Center building near elevation +1.5 foot. We recommend, that tiebacks be installed with the use of a casing drill, such as .a Klemm, which enables advancing a cased hole to the full design embedment depth. The anchor would then be inserted into the cased hole, grouted, and then the casing removed, enabling the straightforward installation of tieback anchors in clean sands that would otherwise -cave into any drilled hole. We recommend the use of DYWIDAG Systems International (DSI) anchors, with Type C double -corrosion protection. DSI product literature is provided in Appendix E. 7.2 Guide PIle Recommendations As we understand, guide piles for the proposed marina docks will utilize round pre -stressed concrete piles designed to accommodate maximum lateral design loads on the order of 2 to 4 kips. The outer shore -parallel 200-foot-long public side tie visitor dock will also be restrained by round guide piles. We also understand that this dock may incorporate a wave attenuation structure, which may ultimately result in lateral design loads on the order of 8 to 12 kips. In order to evaluate the structural requirements and load deformation characteristics of the proposed concrete guide piles, we have used the elastic theory approach developed by Matlock and Reese (1962). A condensed version of this approach is outlined in the NAVFAC Design Manual DM 7.02, Chapter 5, Section 7. A copy of this design section is included with our calculation package (Appendix D). We have also used a coefficient of variation of soil modulus of 15 pci for the medium dense to very dense sand deposits, which extend well below the depth of interest. Ultimate lateral load capacity was also evaluated using the approach developed by Broms (1965), which follows the general approach developed by Matlock and Reese. We have used a roller assembly design load elevation of +10.0 feet (plan datum) and a dredge bottom elevation of -12 feet. For this loading condition, we have calculated guide pile deflections for 14-inch, 16-inch, 20-inch, and 24-inch round, prestressed concrete piles N,=$70073 R01 Gwl"h InwAd« I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No.2573 Page 15 for the marina docks and the visitor dock. Figure 4 presents the load -deflection relationship for each pile size. When using the Matlock and Reese solution, in order to minimize guide pile deflections and account for variabilities in subsurface soil conditions, we recommend a minimum embedment depth of 4T or 4(EI/f)"s. The recommended minimum embedment depth for various pile diameters is also summarized in Figure 4. Calculations are also attached. 7.2.1 Pre -Jetting Considerations ' Based on the subsurface data obtained from our borings, the relatively clean dense sands will ' require pre jetting to reach the required design tip elevation. To maximize the lateral load capacity and minimize the deformation and response to lateral loads, jetting should be terminated approximately 2 feet from the design tip elevation, and the last 2 feet driven to aid in redensifying the soils disturbed by jetting. We would suggest the use of a minimum 50,000 foot-pound capacity pile hammer to •achieve design tip elevations within the medium ' dense to dense alluvial soils. The jetting of piles, and particularly if contemplated to be used to advance the piles down to design tip elevations, should be done using internal jet pipes, and jet volumes and velocities should be limited to the minimum flow needed to advance the piles. In this regard, it is important to recognize that excessive jetting will tend to enlarge the hole and significantly reduce the lateral load capacity of the soil. The proper jetting technique is to use a low - volume, low-pressure flow of water through the internal jet pipe while repeatedly lifting and dropping the pile to displace the dense sands beyond the pile tip and expel the sands up the annulus of the jetted hole without excessively disturbing the surrounding dense sands. The ' proper jetting technique essentially allows the lifting and repeated dropping of the pile to redensify the sand as the pile is advanced into the dense underlying sands. 7.3 Approach Pier/Gangway Abutment Foundation Recommendations We understand that the interior marina will be accessed by a single ADA-compliant gangway, approximately 80-feet long. We further understand that the gangway will be attached to a square concrete abutment supported by both the southerly and easterly bulkheads, along with a single round concrete pile positioned on the outward edge of the abutment centered between the gangway hinge assembly. We recommend a minimum N.Q512573@573 R01 Gwt"b law d. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 7, 2008 Project No.2573 Page 16 design pile tip elevation of -25 feet, plan datum. Jetting, if desired, may be allowed down to elevation -20 feet. We recommend an allowable axial capacity of 40 kips for a 16-inch- diameter pile. We have not considered lateral loading for this condition; however, additional design criteria can be provided, if desired. 7.4 Dredging As we understand, other consultants have provided recommendations regarding the environmental processing of dredged materials. With regard to geotechnical considerations, it should be noted that there is a 2- to 3-foot-thick layer of clayey material near elevation +1 to +2 feet (plan datum) that may affect the dredging and disposal operations. With the exception of this relatively thin layer of soil, all of the other on -site materials consist of granular sands and would likely be suitable as beach -quality sand fill. All of the near -surface soils may be dredged using conventional dredge equipment. 7.5 Shore Perpendicular Groin -Wall As we understand, a shore perpendicular groin -wall is also proposed to accommodate deep - water access adjacent the westerly floating dock. We would suggest that the load deformation and structural requirements for this shore -parallel bulkhead be designed utilizing the elastic theory approach developed by Matlock and Reese and described in Section 7.2. Although the same coefficient of variation of soil modulus would apply in this area, the Matlock and Reese design assumes isolated piles, with soil bridging providing an approximately threefold increase in passive resistance restraining the isolated pile. Thus, when using the NAVFAC design manual for design of the shore perpendicular groin -wall', a coefficient of variation of soil modulus of 5 pci should be used to account for the continuous shore perpendicular groin -wall. 8 LIMITATIONS Coastal engineering and the earth sciences are characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgments presented herein are based partly on our evaluation of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet the current professional standards. We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. [1 I [1 I I I I I I I Ni I MUM373R573 R01 Gcolmh Invol dm ' II CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Project No. 2573 August 7, 2008 Page 17 We have investigated only a small portion of the pertinent soil and geologic conditions at the subject site. The opinions and conclusions made herein were based on the assumption that the soil and geologic conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered during our field investigation. We recommend that a soil engineer from our office observe construction to assist in identifying soil conditions that may be significantly different from those assumed in our design. Additional recommendations may be required at that time. NAM37312573 R01 G.wcch Imsl do CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 712008 Project No. 2573 Page 18 REFERENCES ASTM Standard D 1557, "Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.ora. American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05, including Supplement No. 1 and Errata. Broms, B.B., 1965, "De ign of Laterally Loaded Piles," in Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 91, No. SM3, May 1965, pp. 79-99. Fuscoe Engineering, June 6, 2008, Preliminary Topographic Survey, Marina Park. Legg, M.R., and J.C. Borrero and C.E. Synolakis, C.E., 2004, Tsunami hazards associated with the Catalina fault in southern California: Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20, p. 917- 950. Matlock, H., and L.C. Reese, 1962, "Generalized Solutions for Laterally Loaded Piles," in Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 127, Part 1, Paper No. 3370, pp. 1220-1251. Public Works Standards, Inc., 2006, Greenbook: Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Building Flews, Inc. U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986, Foundations and Earth Structures, NAVFAC DM 7.02. Xanthakos, P.P., 1995, Bridge Substructure and Foundation Design, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. N.\251757312570 R01 Gwm hInwAdx R .1 lv4r [ �. 4k• US - - — — iI. Yrh iil 6 1 / q . ♦ +a ,ia f� ��NNN �Y; 4 Mr00 �4 •nNj �,T� M��f� S 1 ..,ynAl F. NEJY ° mix 4 r1 M NEWPORT BF 9l'I1 kT Y �° - PMIECT L0CAT10N- _ .a o 1000 2000 4=V101iV17YM4P fEEr Fp 1 Xk Rai6. f WI �.. F � � 1 • � �� +l bs 0 Nor Bose Map reproduced from City of Newport Beach Morino Park Master Plan. Bose Photo token from Google Earth imogs 2008. CEGEND APPROX SOALE- 122=1002 rHOAW OtIAW- OR4AC,-C iWY ➢AOf 9f8-1f �z APPROX/MAiE 80R/NG COG4TION CPr-12 • APPR0XhW7-6CPrt0C4770N EIN ms ANO 0 OWTS .Nf H Y CANYON ROAD. W. AO SAN L O. CA .212a [SUM 623-W00 PROJECT NAME PROJECT Nl16ER MAFMAPM ACE CITY OF I&VO T BEAM BORING LOCATION MAP 10i0a"••0!# O 1. 1NS7AU CONORMSNEE7PK V 2. 1N37AU rOUNOAr10NPliMtORS1/UNO CEMER a SV44VA762 r03 aCrOFAL17&Wl SEIWEENSNEEMUS O1NSrgU nEBA= I OatUVAIEREAf4/ IMAMERMI 8E7WEFNBNEE7P1LE5TOPLINORADES B MIIWO.00 I 80 -/1.Q F, a Q 0 c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DEFLECTION- INCHES NIEDYA. baNcs ♦ M♦. R-R R75My.R-R MI LUWD @Q75M�.K D Mcrlm AN 'W'DESW fszz vzsl #w aw fpt 14 77.5 58.1 2.48 6.46 18 -30 16 116.6 87.5 3.70 6.77 10 -32 20 232.5 174.4 7.25 5.84 23 -35 24 4473 335.5 13.70 6.18 27 -39 ♦mm roRplavm4vafADZREO BYDANY✓ADL7 APPENDIX A ' LOGS OF TEST BORINGS & CPT SOUNDINGS I 1 1 1 PROJECT NAME VKUJGCI nuniecK LOG OF TEST BORING MARINA PARK 2573 LEGEND 2 GRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (fl) GROUND ELEV (R) UEl'i KIGLty. UKUUKU VVA,cK tit n.1...i oc R 40 WE v w Q. Z Z UN^O O W Z Z � KZOE- WKV) 7 aOLija ¢o o � w wm c7 o ai a0:w o 1 2 ®gun 4 _ TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. �(' y 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92123 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION KEY TO EXCAVATION LOGS WATER TABLE MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING OTHER TESTS CC Confined Compression PI Plasticity Index CL Chloride Content R Resistivity CS Consolidation RV R-Value DS Direct Shear SA Sieve Analysis El Expansion Index HD Hydrometer GS Grain Size Analysis SF Sulfate LC Laboratory Compaction SG Specific Gravity pH Hydrogen Ion SW Swell PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWSIft) Number of blows required to advance the sampler 1 foot. California Sampler blow counts can be converted to equivalent SPT blow counts by using an end -area conversion factor of 0.67 when using a 140-pound hammer and a 30-inch drop. SAMPLE TYPE C ("California Sampler"y An 18-inch-long, 2-1/2-inch I.D., 3-inch O.D., thick-walled sampler. The sampler is lined with eighteen 2-3/8-inch I.D. brass rings. Relatively undisturbed, intact soil samples are retained in the brass rings. S ("SPT')- a.k.a. Standard Penetration Test, an 18-inch-long, 2-inch O.D., 1-3/8-inch I.D. drive sampler. B ('Bulk")- a.k.a. Bulk Sack Sample, a disturbed, but representative sample obtained from a specific depth interval placed in a large plastic bag. PB ('Plastic Bag")- A disturbed, but representative sample obtained from a specific depth interval placed in a small sealable plastic bag. (CONTINUED) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-1 a WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF TEST BORINGPROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING MARINA PARK 2573 LEGEND SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Newport Beach, CA 1 5/16/2008 5/16/2008 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Gre Drillln Hollow Stem Au er G. S auldln GRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (In) TOTAL DEPTH (R) GROUND ELEV (H) DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Marl 135 8 40 n/a SAMPLING METHOD NOTES 140-lb hammer / 30-Inch drop v z a z zw �z B a g ¢ w a w4�� h O Z w N wrN- N _� O DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION w ❑� �c OW J ❑ N z M W m w rn a. KEY TO EXCAVATION LOGS (CONTINUED) NOTES ON FIELD INVESTIGATION Borings were advanced using a truck -mounted Marl B5 drill rig with an 8-Inch hollow -stem auger. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and California Samplers were used to obtain soil samples. The SPT and California Samplers were driven Into 25 the soil at the bottom of the borings with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 Inches. When the samplers were withdrawn from the baring, the samples were removed, visually classified, sealed In plastic containers, and taken to the laboratory for detailed Inspection. Free groundwalerwas encountered In the borings as shown on the logs. Classificatlons are based upon the Unified Sail Classification System and Include color, moisture, and consistency, Field descriptions have been modified to retiect results of laboratory inspection where deemed appropriate. 30 35 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. OFTHIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. ��- 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE ATTHIS LOCATION FIGURE A-1 b WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA San Diego, California92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 0 j I I H 1 1 1 1 I R E T A PROJECT NUMBER BORING LOG OF TEST BORING MARINA PARK 2573 B-1 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. New ort Beach, CA 5/16/2008 5/16/2008 1 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Gre DrillingHollow Stem Au er G. S auldin DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHIELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Marl M5 8 31.5 nla SAMPLING METHOD NOTES 140-lb hammer / 30-inch drop vLu zw p OUr w >a. ~ QQy o IX N O A Ix DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION a r N Q. LU a zwm F=.. w O~ } O o < N W t� w QL o HYDRAULIC FILL SAND to Silty SAND (SP/SM)loose to medium dense, gray -brown, dry, with occasional shell fragments - Becomes medium dense, moist 5 C1 25 SA 10 BAY DEPOSITS C 2 24 SA ?' Medium SAND (SP/SM) medium dense, gray, wet, with shell fragments HD 3 Io C 3 18 SA ; c HD ' J `n V i �I r THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION u , TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. ` 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER O OTHER LOCATIONS AND E. AT THE AT LOCATION TIME. THE DATA FIGURE A-2 a San Diego, California 92123 GE OFTI WITH THE PASSAGE OF PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. LOG OF TEST BORINGJECT 0 u O O NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING MARINA PARK 2573 B-1 SITELOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO Newport Beach, CA 6/16/2008 1 5/16/2008 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Gre Drillin Hollow Stem AU er G. Spaulding DRILLING EgUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (fl) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELEV. GROUNDWATER (ft Marl M5 8 31.5 1 n/a SAMPLING METHOD NOTES 140-Ib hammer / 30-Inch drop v a d zw 0 _ UJ a z ¢ a l to w n ¢ y try UJ N x p DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION U.1 o. wy3 0.. p� n �il ¢ N W�m p W U) I n C 4 22 SA :. 25 5 15 SA OLDER ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS Coarse SAND (SPSM) medium dense, gray, wet 30 6 37'' Boring terminated at depth of 31.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 10feet at time of excavation. 35 i i r i THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER FIGURE A-2 b ' tom?•= 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION `..e ,• WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA San Diego, California92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 1 I I I I I 1 11 H I I LOG OF TEST BORING PR TNAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING MARINA PARK 2573 B-2 IL p 2Cwj^ w z z =z— rr �� qa�3 9 xa IL ¢ -w' a I- o a y^ �w �q w > o- < z w m >- O O~ t7 w < U) ate— o wet DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION to medium dense, gray -brown, damp to - Becomes medium dense, moist 1 1 7 1 1 1 SA - Becomes wet Becomes coarse with approximately 10 percent shell fragments 2 1 20 1 1 1 SA dense, gray, at 3 1 13 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION i TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 1OO LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-3 a WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA San Diego, California92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING LOG OF TEST BORINGPROJECT MARINA PARK 2573 B-2 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Newport Beach CA 1 5/16/2008 1 5/16/2008 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Gre Drillln Hollow Stem AU er G. S al. DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (In) TOTAL DEPTH (It) GROUND ELEV (it) DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (fl Marl B5 6 31,5 n/a SAMPLING METHOD NOTES 140-1b hammer / 30-Inch drop -. w a p z 2O 0. r a y p W a o n x O DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION >¢ o. Wye ❑� O J Q ¢ N Wpm w N IL o S 4 14 SA 25 5 5013` - Sam ler on rock OLDER ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS Coarse SAND (SPSM) medium dense, red -brown, wet 30 6 38 SA Boring terminated at depth of 31.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at depth ofapproxlmatety 6.5 feet at time Of excavation. t 35 i 1 i i 1 1 1 ) I '- THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION '• TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. tflu'`" 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION FIGURE A-3 b `.� se)•e WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA San Diego, California 92123 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. I FJ G J u EGG GREGG DRILLING & TESTING, INC. - GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES May 19, 2008 Terra Costa Consulting Group Attn: Bob Smille 4455 Murphy Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92123 Subject: CPT Site Investigation Marina -Park Balboa Peninsula, California GREGG Project Number: 08-206SH Dear Mr. Smille: The following report presents the results of GREGG Drilling & Testing's Cone Penetration Test investigation for the above referenced site. The following testing services were performed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU) Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPD) Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTU) Resistivity Cone Penetration Tests (RCPTU) UVOST Laser Induced Fluorescence (UVOST) Groundwater Sampling (GWS) Soil Sampling (SS) Vapor Sampling (VS) Vane Shear Testing (VST) SPT Energy Calibration (SPTE) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 A list of reference papers providing additional background on the specific tests conducted is provided in the bibliography following the text of the report. If you would like a copy of any of these publications or should you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (562) 427-6899. Sincerely, GREGG Drilling & Testing, Inc. Peter Robertson Technical Operations ' 2726 Walnut Ave • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 OTHER OFFICES: SAN FRANCISCO • HOUSTON . SOUTH CAROLINA www eweedfillina com GG GREGG DRILLING & TESTING, INC. - GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary -Table 1- CPT Sounding Identification Date Termination Depth (Feet) Depth of Groundwater Samples (Feet) Depth of Soil Samples (Feet) Depth of Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (Feet) CPT-01 5/16/08 50 - - - CPT-02 5/16/08 50 CPT-03 5/16/08 50 - - - CPT-04 5/16/08 30 - - - CPT-05 5/16/08 34 CPT-06 5/16/08 50 - - - CPT-07 5/16/08 35 - - - CPT-08 5/16/08 30 - - - CPT-09 5/16/08 30 _ - - - CPT-10 5/16/08 30 - - 22 CPT-11 5/19/08 47 - - - CPT-12 5/16/08 43 - - - 2726 Walnut Ave • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 OTHER OFFICES: SAN FRANCISCO • HOUSTON • SOUTH CAROLINA wmw.-reeedrilline com Cone Penetration Testing Procedure ' (CPT) Gregg Drilling carries out all Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) using an integrated electronic cone system, Figure CPT. The soundings were conducted using a 20 ton capacity cone with a tip area of 15 CM2 and a friction sleeve area of 225 cm2. The cone , is designed with an equal end area friction sleeve and a tip end area ratio of 0.80. The cone takes measurements of cone bearing (q,;), sleeve friction (f„) and penetration pore water pressure (u2) at 5- cm intervals during penetration to provide a nearly continuous hydrogeologic log. CPT data reduction and Interpretation is performed in real time facilitating on -site decision making. The above mentioned parameters are stored on disk for further analysis and reference. All CPT soundings are performed in accordance with revised (2002) ASTM standards (D 5778-95). The cone also contains a porous filter element located directly behind the cone tip (u2), Figure CPT. It consists of porous plastic and is 5.Omm thick. The filter element is used to obtain penetration pore pressure as the cone is advanced as well as Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT's) during appropriate pauses in penetration. It should be noted that prior to penetration, the element is fully saturated with silicon oil under vacuum pressure to ensure accurate and fast dissipation. Figure CPT +nsmisslon When the soundings are complete, the test holes are grouted using a Gregg support rig. The grouting procedures generally consist of pushing a hollow CPT rod with a "knock out' plug to the termination depth of the test hole. Grout is then pumped under pressure as the tremie pipe is pulled from the hole. Disruption or further contamination to the site is therefore minimized. 11 r li F ' Cone Penetration Test Data & Interpretation ' The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data collected from your site are presented in graphical form in the attached report. The plots include interpreted Soil Behavior Type (SBT) based on ' the charts described by Robertson (1990). Typical plots display SBT based on the non - normalized charts of Robertson et al (1986). For CPT soundings extending greater than 50 feet, we recommend the use of the normalized charts of Robertson (1990) which can be ' displayed as SBTn, upon request. The report also includes spreadsheet output of computer calculations of basic interpretation in terms of SBT and SBTn and various geotechnical parameters using current published correlations based on the comprehensive review by ' Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997), as well as recent updates by Professor Robertson. The interpretations are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc. do not warranty the correctness or the applicability of ' any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the software and do not assume any liability for any use of the results in any design or review. The user should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software. ' Some interpretation methods require input of the groundwater level to calculate vertical ' effective stress. An estimate of the in -situ groundwater level has been made based on field observations and/or CPT results, but should be verged by the user. ' A summary of locations and depths is available in Table 1. Note that all penetration depths referenced in the data are with respect to the existing ground surface. ' Note that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based solely on qt, f, and u1. In these situations, experience, judgment, and an assessment of the pore pressure dissipation data should be used to infer the correct soil behavior type. (After Robertson, et al., 1986) ' tW a ' ' ', a..., ..-.. ! ?f f� f f"f �:A ZONEffSalanydiry SBT 1tive, floe grained 2ic materials 3Clay 4lay to clay Sy slit to silty clay 6 silt to clayey slit 7 Silty sand to sandy silt a Sand to silty sand 9 1, ! sand 10 Gravely sand to sand 11 Very stiff fine grained* 12 NJ Sand to clayey sand* FrMon Ralia (%), Rf F/gure 5BT *over consolidated or cementea Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT) Pore 'Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT's) conducted at various intervals measured hydrostatic water pressures and determined the approximate depth of the ground water table. A PPDT is conducted when the cone is halted at specific intervals determined by the field representative. The variation of the penetration pore pressure (u)'with time is measured behind the tip of the cone and recorded by a computer system. Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of. • Equilibrium piezometric pressure • Phreatic Surface • In situ horizontal coefficient of consolidation (q) • In situ horizontal coefficient of permeability (kf,) In order to correctly interpret the equilibrium plezometric pressure and/or the phreatic surface, the pore pressure must be monitored until such time as there is no variation in pore pressure with time, Figure PPDT. This time is commonly referred to as t100, the point at which 100% of the excess pore pressure has dissipated. A complete reference on pore pressure dissipation tests is presented by Robertson et al. 1992, A summary of the pore pressure dissipation tests is summarized in Table 1. .o Y Pore Praasure (u) measured here a4 ....r-- o ww Hwater = scone - Hwater Where Hwater= Ua (depth units) Maefui Conversion Fectora: 1ps1=0301m =231feet (water) list = 0.958 ber=13.a psi tm =3381aet Figure PPDT I i I I n ' EGG GREGG DRILLING & TESTING, INC. - GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES Bibliography Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., "Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice" ' E & FN Spon. ISBN 0 419 23750,1997 Roberston, P.K., "Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, ' 1990 pp.151-158. Mayne, P.W., "NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization", available ' through www.ce.,qatech.edu/—qeosys/Facuity/"Mayne/papers/index.htmi, Section 5.3, pp.107-112. Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, "Seismic CPT to Measure In -Situ Shear Wave Velocity", ' Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol.112, No. 8,1986 pp.791-803. Robertson, P.K., Sully, J., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.J., "Guidelines for Estimating ' Consolidation Parameters in Soils from Piezocone Tests", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 1992, pp. 539-550. ' Robertson, P.K., T. Lunne and J.J.M. Powell, "Geo-Environmental Application of Penetration Testing", Geotechnical Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors),1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp 35.47. ' Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, "Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone for Groundwater Contamination Studies", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5,1990 pp. 557-567. ' DeGroot, D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, "Reliability of Soil Gas Sampling and Characterization Techniques", International Site Characterization Conference - Atlanta,1998. Woeller, D.J., P.K. Robertson, T,J. Boyd and Dave Thomas, "Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants Using the UVIF-CPT', 531d Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000. ' Zemo, D.A, T,A. Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker and L.R. Hilpert, "Field Comparison of Analytical Results from Discrete -Depth Groundwater Samplers" BAT EnviroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings,1992, pp 299-312. Copies of ASTM Standards are available through www.astm.org J Irl ' 2726 Walnut Ave • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 OTHER OFFICES: SAN FRANCISCO • HOUSTON • SOUTH CAROLINA wtvm ereeedrilline cam GREGG � TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer; B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-01 Date:-5/1612008 07:10 1 E qt (tsf) fs (tsf) 0mq U (nsii Rf (%) 0 Max. Depth: 50.033 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0.328 (ft) SBT_ Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) TERRA COSTA Qt (tst) fs (tsf) Site: MARINA PARK Sounding: CPT-02 u (osi) Rf (%) Engineer. B. SMILLE Date: 611612008 08:02 V V Max, Depth: 50.033 (ft) Av , Interval: 0.328 (ft SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1990) GREGG � TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer: B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-03 Date: 5/16/2008 08:24 - 1 10 4 5 Max. Depth: 50.033 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0.328 (ft) is (tsf) T—F-T—FT—T77 F t i i 1 { i f i 3 { i e f f I i t 1 f t } u (osi) (T.) SBT 5 0 12 Ssnd8s3ysaad E. s3rdrsua3fay--Y_a F saga f 7 q9 !j Sara arr {I f p T. Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA O c T n Site: MARINA PARK Engineer: B. SMILLE Rh► v .7 M Sounding: CPT-04 Date: 5/1612008 08:55 Qt (tsf) u (psi) Rf (%) I I 5 1 V V Max. Depth: 30:020 (ft) Interval- 28 (ft SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson 1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer: B. SMILLE � Sounding: CPT-06 Date: 6/16/2008 09:14 0 1 10 4 qt (tsf) V Max. Depth: 33.957 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0.328 (ft) 0 s u (psi) 0 Rf ('/o) 5 1 SBT 12 s nd & sl hysard sazd 3 sky surd I t_ssrd i I I I sand } SBT: Soil B'ehaviorType (Robertson 1990) GREGG � TERRA COSTA Site: MARINAPARK Engineer: B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-06 Date:511612008 09:33 c t (tst) is (ufl I f u Rf (%) 5 H sr6 1 � Max Depth: 50.033 (ft) A Interval 8 (ft SBT: Soil BefiaviorType (Robertson 1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer---B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-07 Date: 511612008 10:30 0 1 fs-(tst) 500 0 i f I 3 F 1 i i t i i i i i 3 t u (psi) Max Depih:35-269 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0.329,(ft) SBT Soil B'ehaviorType (Robertson 1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer: B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-08 Date: 51161200810:69 0 4t (tsf) soo o is (tsf) s s u (psi) 2s a Rf (%) s 0 SBT12 i I i I i i i I ; i i f t Max. Depth: 30.020 (ft) SBT: Soil BefiaviorType (Robertson 1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-09 Date: 511612008 11:22 qt (tsf) fS (tsf) u (psi) kf m SBT 0 Soo 0 5 -5 25 0 5 0 -12 10 JV Max. Depth: 30.020 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0,328 (ft) SBT. Soil 5ehaviorType (Robertson 1990) TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer. B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-10 Date: 61161200811:39 n 9t (tsf) 500 o fs (tsf) s s u (psi) 25 o Rf (%) s p SBT Max. Depth: 30.020 (ft) _ Avo. Intervah� 8 (ft6W SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) � iR ti: � �' i Its � tt• � Its � �� M m- m M ,m M M W � m11=1! m m MNIIIIIIIII M GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer: B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT 11 Daite:.61161200812:10 qt (tsf) fs (tsfl u (psi) Rf (5) I -SBT 12 Max. Depth: 47.080 (ft) Avg. Interval: 6.328 (ft) -SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson•1990) GREGG � TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer. B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-12 Date: 51161200812:31 qt (ISO 0 Is (ISO 5 -5 U (Psi) 25 i 1 1 I { i i I t M 1 I I i I { i I I I i 1 1 1 i I j t t 1 I 1 t 1 _ i 1 i r i f i WIT, V Max. Depth: 43.307 (ft) Avo. Interval: 0.328 (ft SBT: Soil Behavior Type (Robertson1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer: B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-01 Date:.5/16/2008 07:10 qt (tsf) 0 10 2C [il 4 V V Max. Depth: 50.033 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0.328 (ft) fs (tsf) Re M Nc (blows/ft) SUIT U 12 sand a srly sand saga; sanda s6 sand md saril I i r I r I I I I 1 t i r 1 y�p ; t r 5 !1i 5 11 I 1 SBT_ Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) RW TERRA COSTA Site: MARINAPARK Engineer. B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-02 Date: 511612008'08:02 n. ltst) L ttsfl Rr M N.. (blowsift) SBT 0 ' � 500 0 5. 9 I 0 -- - - 100 0 12 1 ssnQ 1 Semk.afixgmr�d f s � swt saw S I I Ssod 3 _ Max. Depth: 50.033 (ft) Av interval: 0-328 (ft SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson'1990) i jM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M GREGG � TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer: B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-03 Date:611612008 08:24 qt (tsf) V Max. Depth:50,033 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0.328 (ft) Is, (tsfl i Rf M N. SB1 Sand 65'dy sand Sand SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA S'tte:MARINAPARK Engineer-.B.SMILLE � Sounding: CPT-04 Date:5/1612008 08:55 qt (tsf) fs (Isf) I Rf (%) _ _ N,,(blows/ft) _ A I Max. Depth: 30.020 (ft) SBT Soil B'ehaviorType (Robertson 1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer: B. SMILLE � Sounding: CPT-05 Date: W1612000 09:14 at (tsf) V Max- Depth: 33.957 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0.328 (ft) fs (tsfl Rf (%) 771 SBT 12 - " 3smysard SW43 ay<_ard so SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Rohertson,1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer. B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-06 Date: 6116/200B 09:33 4t (tsf) fs (tsf) Rf (%) 5 N. (blows/ft) SBT Max. Depth: 50:033 (ft) SBT: Soil BebaviorType (Robertson 1990) GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer B.SMILLE Sounding: CPT-07 Date: 511612008 10:30 at (tsfl 0 10 2c U 4 5 Max. Depth: 35.269 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0.328- (ft) fS (tsf) 0 E I N60 (blows/ft) ) SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson InQ GREGG � TERRA COSTA Site:MARINAPARK Engineer B.SMILLE Sounding: CPT-08 Date: 511612008 10:59 Qt (tsf) t a a fs (Sf) Rf m I J 0 N60 (blows/ft) Max Depth: 30.020 (ft) A Interval 28 (ft SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) � :fir W� m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer. B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-09 Date: 511612008 11:22 ar (tsf) V Max. Depth: 30.620 (ft) Ayg. Interval: 0.328 (ft) Its -I N,° (blows/ft) SBT ! 0 12 SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer. B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT40 Date: 51161200811:39 qt (tsf) fS (tsf) Rf (%) N60 (blows/ft) SBT 0 50 I 0 0 5 0 5 0 100 0 12 }{ 1 i t l i i i c , i I i i i JV Max. Depth: 30.020 (ft) Avo. Interval: 0.328 (ft SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) m 60 >. GREGG TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer: B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT41 Date: 51161200812:10 i i s i i 3 i i i i i t i 50 Max. Depth: 47.080 (ft) Avg. Interval: 0.328 (ft) Rf. 5 0 N6600 I 7 SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) GREGG � TERRA COSTA Site: MARINA PARK Engineer. B. SMILLE Sounding: CPT-12 Date: 611612008 12:31 Qt (is() 0 Is Ust) 5 7 0 N60 (blows/ft) I I i SBT — ari asiy sari — 1 — Sari 1 t { I r � i I! i { { I ; V Max Depth: 43:307 (ft) Av Interval: 0.328 (ft SBT: Soil BehaviorType (Robertson 1990) 5 n lul GREGG DRILLING & TESTING Pore Pressure Dissipation Test 0 100 200 300 Time (seconds) in Sounding: CPT-10 Depth: 22.146 Site: MARINA PARK Engineer. G. SPAULDING 500 I r 1 [1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 90 80 70 z 60 Z 50 W U 0U.1 40 a Kit 2C 1C C Particle Size Distribution Report C G Ii 1 I I n ; I IL II + I 4 1 I 10001 1UU GRAIN SIZE - mm %Gravel % Sand %Fines %+3" Coarse Fine coarse Medium I Clay 0.0 0.0 1.0 1 4.0 39.0 1 49.7 6.3 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 0.375" 100.0 #4 99.0 #10 95.0 #20 81.0 #40 56.0 4100 20.0 #200 6.3 (no specificniion provided) Sample Number: BI-1 Depth: 5' MACTEC, Inc. San Diego Californi< Material Description (Lab #19844) Atterberg Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 0.9950 D60= 0.4701 D50= 0.3650 D80= 0.2109 D15= 0.1208 D10= 0.0930 Cu= 5.05 Cc= 1.02 Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks As received moisture content=15.9% Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Date: 5/29/08 Tested By: Valles/Stacy Checked By: Collins GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 5/30/2008 Client: TerraCosla Consulting Group, Inc. Project: 92573 Marina Park Project'Number: 50,14-07-0012.25 Depth: 5' Sample Number: B1-1 Material Description: (Lab H19844) Date: 5129108 Testing Remarks: As received moisture content=15.9% Tested by: Valies/Stacy Checked by: Collins Sieve Test Data Sieve Opening Percent Size Finer 0.375" 100.0 #4 99.0 #10 95.0 #20 81.0 #40 56.0 #100 20.0 #200 6.3 Fractional Components Gravel Sand Fines Cobbles --- Coarse Fine Total Coarse Flne Total Silt Clay Total 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 _Medium 39.0 49.7 92.7 6.3 010 D15 020 030 050 080 080 085 d90 D95 0.0930 0.1208 0.1500 0.2109 0.3G50 0.4701 0.8209 0.9950 1.2932 2.0000 Fineness Modulus Cu Cc 1.84 5.05 1.02 Particle Size Distribution Report C C C I I I I - .� f l I Il n I n n1 "II 0.001 IVV GRAIN SIZE - mm. %Gravel % Sand % Fines +3 Coarse I Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt I Clay 0.0 10.0 0.0 1.0 I 18.0 78.2 1.8 LO SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC. PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) #4 100.0 #10 99.0 H2O 95.0 #40 81.0 #100 29.0 #200 2.8 .. (no specification plovided) Sample Number: Bl-2 Depth: 10' MACTEC, Inc. Sa is Material Description (Lab #19845) Atterberq Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 0.4834 DB0= 0.2643 D50= 0.2192 D80= 0.1528 D15= 0.1137 D10= 0.1008 Cu= 2.62 Cc= 0.88 Classification USCS= SP AASHTO= Remarks As received moisture content=24.6% Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Date: 5/29/08 Tested By: Valles Checked By: Collins GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 513012008 Client: TerraCosta Consulting Croup, Inc. Project: 92573 Marina Park Project Number: 5014-07-0012.25 Depth: 10' Sample Number: B1-2 Material Description: (Lab #19845) Date: 5/29/08 USCS Classification: SP Testing Remarks: As received moisture content=24.6% Tested by: Valles Checked by: Collins Sieve Test Data Sieve Opening Percent Size Finer #4 100.0 #10 99.0 #20 95.0 #40 81.0 Viol) 29.0 #200 2.8 Hydrometer Test Data Hydrometer test uses material passing # 10 Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 99.0 Weight of hydrometer sample=116.88 Hygroscopic moisture correction: Moist weight and tare = 33.95 Dry weight and tare = 33.92 Tare weight = 20,67 Hygroscopic moisture = 0.2% Table of composite correction values: Temp., deg. C: 18.0 19.8 21.6 27.7 Comp. corr.: -8.0 -7.0 -6;0 -5.0 Meniscus correction only = 0.0 Specific gravity of solids = 2.65 Hydrometer type = 15211 Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16,294964 - 0.164 x Rm Elapsed Temp. Actual Corrected Eff. Diameter Percent Time (min.) (deg. C.) Reading Reading K Rm Depth (mm.) Finer 1.00 19.8 11.0 4.0 0.0137 11.0 14.5 0.0521 3.4 2.00 19.8 10.0 3.0 0.0137 10.0 14.7 0.0370 2.5 5.00 19.5 10.0 2.8 0:0137 10.0 14.7 0.0235 2.4 15.00 19.7 9.0 1.9 0.0137 9.0 14.8 0.0136 1.7 30.00 19.7 9.0 1.9 0,0137 9.0 14.8 0.0096 1.7 60.00 19.8 9.0 2.0 0.0137 9.0 14.8 0.0068 1.7 120.00 20.0 8.0 1.1 0:0136 8.0 15,0 0.0048 0.9 250.00 20.2 8.0 1.2 0.0136 8.0 15.0 0.0033 1.0 1440.00 19.6 8.0 0.9 0.0137 8.0 15.0 0,0014 0.8 MACTEC, Inc. �I FJ it l� It I LJI I� I I I Fractionab,Components 1 1 E 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 F ri 1 1 1 Gravel Sand Fines_E2. Cobbles Coarse Fine Total Coarse Medium Fine Total Silt Clay _0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 18.0 78.2 97.2 1.8 1.0 D10 D1 0.1008 0.11 Fineness I C Modulus_ 1.18 L 2.6 Particle Size Distribution Report ' "1 1 i i i) I I I �I� 1 I! I► I{ I ! 111 I ► I ;III 80 I I ' li ► ► I I��i j II ( ( 1 I I ! 4 li 70' i ii,i i; t I; Ali il.li I I �I11��1, I ►�It1�t W 60'l I I Z 50 I V W 40 j o. 30 20 I I�I I i i I I ill I I► ► %+3" II 0.0 1 1.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.' PASS? (X==NO) 0.375" 100.0 _PERCENT #4 99.0 910 98.0 #20 91.0 #40 64.0 #100 12.0 #200 0.8 _ (no specification provided) Sample Number: B1-3 Depth: 15' MACTEC, Inc. LSan Diego, California Fine 0.3 Material Description (Lab 1119846) Atterberci Limits PL= NV LL= PI= NP Coefficients D85= 0.6900 D60= 0.3937 D50= 0.3276 D30= 0.2267 D15= 0.1631 D10= 0.1408 Cu= 2.80 Cc= 0.93 Classification USCS= SP AASHTO= Remarks As received moisture content=19.7% Client: TerrtCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Date: 5/29/08 Tested By: Valies _ __. Checked By: Collins I 1] '1] 1 A GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 5/3012008 Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: t12573 Marina Park Project Number: 5014-07-0012.25 Depth: 15' Sample Number: B1-3 Material Description: (Lab #19846) Date: 5/29/08 PL: NV PI: NP USCS Classification: SP Testing Remarks: As received moisture content=19.7% Tested by: Valles Checked by: Collins Sieve Test Data Sieve Opening Percent Size Finer 0.375" 100.0 #4 99.0 #10 98.0 420 91.0 #40 64.0 #I00 110 #200 0.8 Hydrometer Test Data Hydrometer test uses material passing #10 Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 98.0 Weight of hydrometer sample=117.61 Hygroscopic moisture correction: Moist weight and tare = 33.08 Dry weight and tare = 33.04 Tare weight- 20.68 Hygroscopic moisture = 0.3`%u Table of composite correction values: Temp., deg. C: 18.0 19.8 21.6 27.7 Comp. corr.: -8.0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 Meniscus correction only = 0.0 Specific gravity of solids = 2.65 Hydrometer type = 1521-I Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm Elapsed Temp. Actual Corrected Eff. Diameter Percent Time (min.) (deg. C.) Reading Reading K Rm Depth (mm.) Finer 1.00 19.9 8.0 1.1 0.0137 8.0 15.0 0.0529 0.9 2.00 19.9 8.0 1.1 0.0137 8.0 15.0 0.0374 0.9 5.00 19.8 8.0 1.0 0.0137 8.0 15.0 0.0237 0.8 15.00 19.7 8.0 0.9 0.0137 8.0 15.0 0.0137 0.8 30.00 19.8 8.0 1.0 0.0137 8.0 15.0 0.0097 0.8 60.00 19.8 8.0 1.0 0.0137 8.0 15.0 0.0068 0.8 120.00 20.0 7.5 0.6 0.0136 7.5 15.1 0.0048 0.5 250.00 20.3 7.5 0.8 0.0136 7.5 15.1 0.0033 0.7 1440.00 19.6 7.5 0.4 0.0137 7.5 15.1 0.0014 0.3 MACTEC, Inc. Fractional Components 1 Gravel Fines Cobbles Coarse Fine Total Coarse _Sand Medium FineT908 tal Silt Cla Total0.0 _ 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 34.0 63.2.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 D10 D15 D20 �30 �50 �60 �80 D85 I - 0.1408 0.1631 d 0. 8841 1 0.2267 1 0.3276 1 0.3937 1 0.6023 1 0.6900 1 0.8160 1 1.0624 Fineness Modulus 1.70 — Cu - 2.80 Cc 0.93 1 'l 7 1 d �i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i MACTEC, Inc. 1 100 90 8C 7C 6C 5C 4C 3( 2( 1( Particle Size Distribution Report < o00 i II I�' 'III III ill �II�II li''�'I�I, �'I� III IIIVII .. GRAIN SIZE - mm. %Gravel %Sand %Fines %+31, Coarse Fine Coarsel Medium I Fine Silt 0.0 O.0 0.0 1.0 1 36.0 59.0 4.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC." PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) #4 100.0 #10 99.0 #20 93.0 #40 63.0 #100 14.0 #200 4.0 . (no specification provided) Sample Number: Bl-4 Depth: 20' MACTEC, Inc. San Diego, California Material Description (Lab # 19847) Atterberg Limits PL= NV LL= PI= NP Coefficients D85= 0.6693 D60= 0.4020 D50= 0.3346 D30= 0.2270 D15= 0.1552 D10= 0.1266 Cu= 3.18 Cc= 1.01 Classification USCS= SP AASHTO= Remarks As received moisture content=20.0% Client: 'IerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Project No: 5014-07-0012.25 Date: 5/29/08 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 5/30/2008 Client: TerraCosla Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Project Number: 5014-07-0012.25 Depth: 20' Sample Number: BI-4 Material Description: (Lab#19847) Date: 5/29/08 PL: NV Pi: NP USCS Classification: SP Testing Remarks: As received moisture content=20.0% Sieve Test Data Sieve Opening Percent Size Finer #4 100.0 #10 99.0 #20 93.0 #40 63.0 #1O0 14.0 #200 4.0 Fractional Components Gravel Sand Fines Cobbles Coarse I Ffne Total Coarse Medium Fine Total Silt Clay Total 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ` 1.0 36.0 59.0 96.0 1 4.0 D10 D15 D20 D30 D50 D60 D80 D85 D90 D95 0.1266 0.1552 1 0.1797 0.2270 0.3346 0.4020 1 0.5956 1 0.6693 1 0.7674 1.0569 Fineness Modulus Cu Cc 1.66 3.18 1.01 MACTEC, Inc. 10C 9C 8C 7C 0r z 6( LL Z V w U w 4( o. Particle Size Distribution Report C C O O O O C C C C C O O O O b ` N iuu iv GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand %+31. Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 00 00 50 5.0 40.0 I 48.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC:" PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 0.5" 100.0 0.375" 97.0 #4 95.0 #10 90.0 1120 79.0 #40 50.0 #100 9.0 11200 2.0 (no specirica(ion provided) Sample Number: 131-5 Depth: 25' MACTEC, Inc. San Diego, California Fines Material Description SP (LabU19848) Atterberg Limits PL= NV LL= __ PI= NP Coefficients D85= 1.1243 D60= 0.5239 D50= 0.4250 D30= 0.2771 D15= 0.1874 D10= 0.1567 Cu= 3.34 Cc= 0..94 Classification USCS= SP AASHTO= Remarks As reveived moisture content=18.5% Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: 92573 Marina Park Date: 5/29/08 Tested By: Sancha/Stacy Checked By: Collins GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 513012008 Client: TcrraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Project Number: 5014-07-0012.25 Depth: 25' Sample Number: Bl-5 Material Description: SP (Lab #19848) Date: 5/29/08 PL: NV PI: NP USCS Classification: SP Testing Remarks: As rcvcived moisture content=18.5% Tested by: Sancha/Stacy Checked by: Collins Sieve Test Data Sieve Opening Percent Size Finer 0.5" 100.0 0.375" 97.0 #4 95.0 #10 90.0 #20 79.0 #40 50.0 #t00 9.0 #200 2.0 Fractional Components Gravel Sand Fines Cobbles 0.0 CoaYse 0.0 Fine 5.0 Total Coarse Medium Fine Total Silt Clay Totai 5.0 5.0 40.0 48.0 93.0 2.0 010 015 020 030 �50 O60 080 D85 D90 095 0.1567 0.1874 0.2166 0.2771 0.4250 0.5239 0.8814 1.1243 2.0000 4.7500 Fineness Modulus__Cu 2.230.94 Cc Particle Size Distribution Report 100 0o 80 70 6C 6C 4C 3C 2C 1( GRAIN SIZE - ai % Sand Fines %+31, Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt cia 0.0 1 0.0 1 11.0 7.0 1 45.0 1 32,1 4.9 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 0.75" 100.0 0.5" 96.6 0.375" 95.0 #4 89.0 #10 82.0 #20 64.0 #40 37.0 #100 12.0 #200 4.9 .. (no specification provided) Sample Number: B2-1 Depth: 5' MACTEC, Inc. San Diego, Californic Material Description SP (Lab #19849) Atterberg Limits PL= NV LL= Pl= NP Coefficients D85= 2.7828 D60= 0.7598 D50= 0.5902 D30= 0.3453 D15= 0.1824 D10= 0.1281 Cu= 5.93 Cc= 1.23 Classification USCS= SP AASHTC= Remarks As received moisture content=11.1 % Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Date: 5/30/08 Tested By: Valles/Stacy Checked By: Collins GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 6/16/2008 Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Project Number: 5014-07-0012.25 Depth: 5' Sample Number: B2-1 Material Description: SP (Lab #19849) Date: 5130109 PL: NV PI: NP USCS Classification: SP Testing Remarks: As received moisture content=11.I% Tested by: Vailes/Stacy Checked by: Collins Sieve Test Data Sieve Opening Percent Size Finer 0.75" 100.0 0.5" 96.0 0.375" 95.0 #4 89.0 #10 82.0 #20 64.0 #40 37.0 #100 12.0 #200 4.9 Fractional Components Gravel Sand Fines Cobbles Coarse Fine Total Coarse Medium Fine Total Silt Clay Total 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 7.0 45.0 32.1 84.1 4.9 D10 D15 020 D30 D50 O60 D80 D85 D90 D95 0.1281 0.1824 0.2360 0.3453 0.5902 0.7598 1.7060 2.7828 5.2834 9.5250 Fineness _Modulus 2.71 5.93 1.23 Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 00 70 6C 5C 4C 3C 2( 1( Ilil �II0.1 ..��.I %Gravel % Sand % Fines %+3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 00 00 10 100 690 195 0.5 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.` PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 0.375" 100.0 #4 99.0 #10 89.0 #20 59.0 1140 20.0 11100 3.0 #200 0.5 (no specification provided) Sample Number: B2-2 Depth: 10-1 V MACTEC, Inc. San Diego, California Material Description SP (Lab 019850) Atterberq_Limits PL= NV LL= P1= NP Coefficients D85= 1.6791 D60= 0.8662 D50= 0.7255 D30= 0.5181 D15= 0.3737 D10= 0.3133 Cu= 2.77 Cc= 0.99 Classification USCS= SP AASHTO= Remarks As received moisture content=19.0% Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Date: 5/29/08 Tested By: Sancha/Stacy Checked By: Collins GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 5/30/2008 Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Project Number: 5014-07-0012.25 Depth: 10-1 P Sample Number: B2-2 Material Description: SP (Lab #] 9850) Date: 5/29/08 PL: NV PI: NP USCS Classification: SP Testing Remarks: As received moisture content=19.0% Tested by: Sancha/Stacy Checked by: Collins Sieve Test Data Sieve Opening Percent Size Finer 0.375" 100.0 #4 99.0 #10 89.0 #20 59.0 #40 20.0 #100 3.0 #200 0.5 Fractional Components Gravel Sand Fines Cobbles Coarse Fine Total Coarse Medium Fine _ _ Total_Clay Total 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 69.0 19.5 98,5� 010 D15 020 D30 p50 D60 080 0.3133 0.3737 0,4250 0.5181 0.7255 0.8662 1.4066 1.6791 2.1030 2.8913 Fineness Modulus Cu Cc 2.84 2.77 0.99 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 3C 2C 1( Particle Size Distribution Report 000 GRAIN SIZE - mm Gravel %° Sand % Fines %+3" Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 00 00 1 20 90 590 286 1 1.4 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC." PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 0.75" 100 0 0.5" 99.0 0.375" 99.0 #4 98.0 #10 89.0 #20 68,0 1140 30.0 #100 5.0 #200 1.4 - (no specification provided) Sample Number: B2-4 Depth: 20' MACTEC, Inc. San Diego, California Material Description SP (Lab#19851) Atterbera Limits PL= NV LL= PI= NP Coefficients DS5= 1.5276 D60=,0.7253 D50= 0.6087 D30= 0.4250 D15= 0.2827 D10= 0.2250 CU= 3.22 Cc= 1.11 Classification USCS= SP AASHTC= Remarks As received moisture content 16.6% Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: 42573 Marina Park Date: 5/29/08 Tested By: StacylValles Checked By: Collins GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 6/30/2008 Client: TerraCosla Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Project Number: 5014-07-0012.25 Depth: 20' Sample Number: 132-4 Material Description: SP (Lab 9 1985 1) Date: 5129/08 PL; NV PI: NP , USCS Classification: SP Testing Remarks: As received moisture content=16.6% Tested by: Stacy/Valley Checked by: Collins Sieve Test Data Sieve Opening Percent Size Finer 0.75" 100.0 0.5" 99.0 ' 0.375" 99.0 #4 98.0 ' #10 89.0 #20 68.0 #40 30.0 #100 5.0 #200 1.4 Fractional Components Gravel Sand Fines Cobbles Coarse I Fine I Total Coarse Medium Fine Total Silt Clay Total 0.0 0.0 2.0 1 2.0 9.0 59.0 28.6 96.6 1.4 D10 D15 D20 D30 D50 160 D80 D85 C90 D95 0.2250 0.2827 0.3334 0.7253 1.2022 1.5276 2.1549 3.2640 0.4250 0.6087 Fineness Cu Cc Modulus , 2.61^ 3.22 1.11 MACTEC, Inc. ' 100 go 6C 7C 6C 5C 4( 3( 2( 1( Particle Size Distribution Report 000 o 000 0 0 C C C \^ C N N y9 4 Ip N iuu GRAIN SIZE - mm. ^/a+3" %Gravel %Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 00 00 I 0.0 2.0 51.0 44.8 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.` PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) #4 100.0 #10 98.0 #20 90.0 #40 47.0 9100 5.0 #200 2.2 . (no specification provided) Sample Number: 132-6 Depth: 30' MACTEC, Inc. Sa E Silt Material Description SP (Lab #]9852) Atterberq Limits Fines 2.2 PL= NV LL= PI= NP Coefficients D85= 0.7628 D60= 0.5147 D50= 0.4448 D30= 0.3171 D15= 0.2237 D10= 0.1901 Cu= 2.71 Cc= 1.03 Classification USCS= SP AASHTO= Remarks As received moisture content=19.8% Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project: #2573 Marina Park Date: 5/29/08 Tested By: Stacy/Sancha Checked By: Collins GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 513012008 Client: TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. Project; #2573 Marina Park Project Number: 5014-07-0012.25 Depth: all' Sample Number: 132-6 Material Description: SP (Lab 1119852) Date: 5/29108 PL: NV PI: NP USCS Classification: SP Testing Remarks: As rcecived moisture content=19.8% Tested by: Stacy/Sancha Checked by: Collins Sieve Test Data Sieve Opening Percent Size Finer 94 100.0 #10 98.0 #20 90.0 #40 47.0 #100 5.0 #200 2.2 Fractional Components Cobbles Gravel Sand Fines _ Coarse Fine Total Coarse Medium_ Fine _ Total Silt _ Clay Total 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 _ 0.0 2.0 51.0 44.8 97.8 D10 D15 D20 D30 D50 D60 D80 D85 D90 �95 0.1901 0.2237 0.2553 0.3171 0.4448 0.5147 0.6970 0.7628 0.8500 1.3398 Fineness Modulus Cu Cc 2.05 2.71 1.03 MAC7EC, Inc. ' L A B O R A T O R Y R E P O R T Telephone (619) 425-1993 Fax 425-7917 Established 1928 ' C L A R K SO N L A B 0 R A T 0 R Y A N D S U P P L Y I N C. 350 Trousdale Dr. Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 www.clarksonlab.com ' A N A L Y T I C A L A N D C O N S U L T I N G C H E M I S T S Date: August 7, 2008 Purchase Order Number: 2573 ' Sales Order Number: 93846 Account Number: TERC ' To: Terra Costa Consulting Group 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 ' San Diego, Ca 92123 Attention: Gregory Spaulding ' Laboratory Number: S03412 Customers Phone: 858-573-1900 Fax: 858-573-8900 Sample Designation: *-------------------------------------------------* ' One soil sample received on 08/07/08, taken on 08/07/08 from Marina Park Project# 2573 marked as HA-1 @ 2-41. 1 Analysis By California Test 643, 1993, Department of Transportation Division of Construction, Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts. ' pH 7.0 Water Added (ml) 1 1 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Resistivity (ohm -cm) 49000 35000 24000 18000 14000 12000 11000 13000 15000 40 years to perforation for a 16 gauge metal culvert. 52 years to perforation for a 14 gauge metal culvert. 72 years to perforation for a 12 gauge metal culvert. 93 years to perforation for a 10 gauge metal culvert. 113 years to perforation for a 8 gauge metal culvert. Water Soluble Sulfate Calif. Test 417 0.002% Water Soluble Chloride Calif. Test 422 0.002% Laura Ts LT/ram I 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX C 1 SUGGESTED ITEMS FOR INCLUSION IN SPECIFICATIONS FOR PILE DRIVING 1 1 1 1 1 1 C C 1 1 C C C I 1 CI' 1 1 G 1 1 1 F 1 LJ 1 u J 1 1 APPENDIX C SUGGESTED ITEMS FOR INCLUSION IN SPECIFICATIONS FOR PILE DRIVING 1.0 SCOPE Furnish and install piling, complete, as shown and specified. 2.0 GENERAL A. Code Requirements - Per (Uniform Building Code) (Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction), and other applicable regulations; strictest requirements govern. B. Qualification - Piling subcontractor shall be qualified and 'experienced in this work. He shall present to Owner evidence of past successful installations of similar types of projects. C. Responsibility - Owner shall accept no responsibility for the driveability of piles as shown and specified. D. Grading - Necessary clearing, excavating, and filling shall be done by the General Contractor. E. Pile Locations - Staked out pile locations shall be protected from damage or movement. Cost for replacing moved or damaged stakes shall be borne by the Contractor under this section of work. F. Available Data - Records of the borings made at this work site are available at the Owner's office. These records pertain to conditions at the boring locations. Contractors are expected to make a personal inspection of the site and to otherwise satisfy themselves as to the conditions affecting the work. No claims for extra compensation or extension of time shall be allowed on account of subsurface conditions inconsistent with the data given. G. Pile Depth - All piles shall be advanced to the tip elevations shown on the plans. Piles stopped at lesser depths shall be cause for rejection. (See Section 5.0, Installation). H. Inspection - The Owner's representative shall inspect the placement of all piles. At least one week's notice shall be given before the first pile is driven. 1 3.0 MATERIALS Concrete Piles A. Concrete - Minimum 28-day compressive strength: (5,000) psi. B. Prestressing Strand - ASTM-(A416), uncoated (7) wire cold drawn type; ultimate stress (250,000) psi. C. Mild Reinforcing - ASTM-(AI5), intermediate grade. D. Wire for Special Reinforcing - ASTM-(A82), cold drawn wire. Steel Sheet Piles A. Steel sheet piles shall conform to normal material specifications: ASTM A328, ASTM A572 Grades 42 through 55. 4.0 HANDLING OF PILES 1 II All piles shall be handled with care to avoid damage. Damage to any pile prior to driving ' shall be cause for immediate rejection. 5.0 INSTALLATION A. General - Drive the first four piles at selected locations shown to the tip elevations shown on the plans. The indicator piles shall be driven with the same size and type of hammer to be used for driving the production piles. Indicator piles will be selected from permanent piles. Driving criteria will be established during construction by the Geotechnical Engineer on the basis of the first piles before additional piles are driven. Each pile shall be marked at one -foot intervals along its length to facilitate recording of penetration resistance. Drive each pile without interruption, until design depth is attained. If unforeseen causes arise, only by written permission shall deviation from this procedure be allowed. Refusal driving criteria will be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction. All piles shall be placed at the locations specified on the contract drawings. B. Record of Driving - Kept by Piling Inspector selected and paid for by Owner. I. Reference - All piles per numbering system. 2. Dimensions - Include elevation of tip and butt before and after cutting off. 3. Driving Resistance - Complete record with number of blows required to drive each foot for full length of each pile. L�� E 1 F 4. Time - Include time of starting, completion, interruptions (if any), and ' condition of pile after driving. 5. At Completion of Work - Contractor shall furnish accurate drawing showing ' locations of piles as driven. C. Location - All piles shall be placed at the locations specified on the contract drawing. ' No pile shall be driven more than 3 inches in horizontal dimension from its design location. D. Alignment - Do not exceed 2 percent maximum deviation from vertical over any section of length. Keep pile center at cut-off within 3 inches of design location. Pulling piles into position will not be permitted. The Contractor shall provide ' substitute piles where driven piles exceed specified tolerances; all correction costs shall be paid for by Contractor under this section, including any structural redesign, additional materials, and labor required for pile caps. t E. Heave Checks - Make on selected piles as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Check heave by measuring length and checking elevation on each pile immediately ' after it has been driven; recheck elevations and length after all adjacent piles have been driven. Redrive piles, where tips heaved more than '/z inch from original elevation. When pile heave is encountered, continue heave check and redriving until assured that pile heave does not occur. ' F. Damaged Piles 1. General - Any pile driven into a previously driven pile automatically rejects both piles. Leave all pile heads sound; repair or replace damaged or defect; replace as directed with a substitute pile at no expense to the Owner. Do not drive piles damaged or suspected of damage until inspected and approved. ' All correction costs shall be paid for by Contractor including structural redesign, additional materials, and labor required for pile caps. 2. Driving Damage - Development of tension cracks, spall, or chips in the concrete within the pay length shall be cause of rejection. ' G. Hard Driving - Difficult driving may be experienced within the stiff clays and formational sand deposits encountered above the design tip elevation of piles in the western portion of the site. All piles shall be driven to the design tip elevation unless ' specifically approved otherwise in writing by the Geotechnical Engineer at the time of construction. I H. Jetting is permitted for both isolated concrete piles and concrete sheets only as follows: Jetting shall be limited to the use of internal manifolded pipes cast into the pile and shall use, to the extent practical, a low volume and low pressure water source. The proposed jet pipe configuration and pile installation procedures should be reviewed by the owner's representative prior to approval. Jetting, under approved conditions, is permitted down to within 2 feet of plan tip elevation for piles providing lateral resistance only. Jetting is not allowed within five feet of plan tip elevation for axially -loaded piles. I. Predrilling - Predrilling will be allowed for piles, but shall in no case extend to within 5 feet of the final tip elevation of any piles for support of structures. The diameter of a predrilled hole shall not exceed 10 inches. Predrilling is not recommended for piles required for uplift capacity. Driving Equipment - Use approved type as generally used in standard pile driving practice. Use driving hammers of such size and type which are able to consistently deliver effective dynamic energy to the piles and which operate at manufacturer's recommended speeds and pressures. Pile hammer shall have a minimum rated energy of 50,000 foot-pounds per blow for 14-inch round piles. Hammers developing greater energies or sonic hammers may be used upon written authorization of the Geotechnical Engineer. It shall be demonstrated that the proposed hammer will adequately drive the pile to the required depth without damage to the pile. Swing leads will not be permitted; use fixed leads or other suitable means for holding pile firmly in position and in alignment with the hammer. Vertical piles shall be plumb before driving. Special precautions shall be taken to insure against leading away of piles from the plumb or true position. Use suitable anvils or cushions of approved design, depending on type of pile, to prevent damage to pile. Care shall be taken during driving to prevent and correct any tendency of piles to twist, rotate, or walk. 6.0 DRIVING CRITERIA Reduction of Hammer Energy for Prestressed Piles - When prestressed piles have settled into the ground under their own weight and the weight of the hammer, and the point of the pile is passing through soft soil so that there is little resistance, there is a possibility that longitudinal tensile stress will be set up in the pile shaft by the elastic shock waves traveling up and down the pile. For such driving conditions, the first hammer blows delivered to the pile shall have a lesser energy by reducing the stroke of the hammer. When the top of the pile is being driven to the final depth, the full length of the stroke and the full rated energy of the hammer shall be used to develop final driving resistance. J L CI' L'� 7.0 CLEANUP ' Keep construction and storage areas free from waste material, rubbish, and debris resulting from this work. ' 8.0. PAYMENTS A. General - Provide lump sum bid based on total pile length as shown based on length ' from cut-off to estimated pile tip elevation shown on drawings. B. Measurement - Based on total effective length of piles in place. Effective length of ' individual piles measured from tip elevation to cut-off line. C. Payment for Lineal Footage - In excess of that based upon the estimated pile tip ' elevation, when such excess is authorized, will be made on a unit price basis. Include such unit prices in the Bid. ' D. Credit for Undriven Lineal Footage - Short of that based upon the estimated pile tip elevation will be made on a unit price basis. Include such unit price in the Bid. ' 9.0 SUBMITTALS BY CONTRACTOR: A. General - For PILING, submit following in accordance with GENERAL CONDITIONS and SPECIAL CONDITIONS. B. Prestressed Pile Design - Submit design calculations, prepared by a licensed engineer ' showing all pickup points and basis of design. C. Reinforcing - Submit two copies of manufacturer's certificates of mill test reports for ' all reinforcing steel used. D. Shop Drawings - Submit for approval by Structural Engineer. Show location of ' pickup points. ' E. Guarantee - As specified. F. Pile Driving Hammer - Submit description of proposed hammer, including manufacturer, type, model number, operating specifications, and hammer cushion, ' pile cushion data for review and approval by Geotechnical Engineer. ' G. Load Test - Submit description of equipment and arrangement and set up of any load test for review and approval by the GeotechnicalEngineer. PILE TYPES NOT SPECIFIED General - Consideration will be given to pile types other than those shown or specified. If Contractor proposes to use a type other than those shown, he shall submit to Owner for review a description of the pile and shall demonstrate by calculations and other corroborating evidence on the ability of the pile to sustain required loads. Contractor shall familiarize himself with all loading criteria. Prequalification - Review proposed system with Owner and obtain written authorization before submitting proposal. Engineering_ Design - Prepare revised foundation plans at no cost to Owner; plans to be prepared and stamped by licensed civil engineer. Comply with all local jurisdictional codes. Pile Tests - If, in the opinion of the Owner, pile load tests are required to confirm the load bearing capacity, the costs of such test or tests shall be bortie by Contractor. Pile Caps - If the proposed alternate pile system results in increase in size and reinforcing of pile caps from those shown, said increases shall be made at no expense to the Owner. APPENDIX D SUMMARY CALCULATIONS u rl I I ' SHEET -PILE AND GUIDE -PILE CALCULATIONS ' MARINA PARK PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 August 7, 2008 I r I C [I I I I I Marina Park +9 Seawall ' Depth(ft 0) 1 --------------------------------- 5 10 , , 1 15 , 20 -------------------------------------------- 25 30 35 40 p 1 ksf ' I I <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoflware.com ' Licensed to DBN TerraCosta Consulting Group Date: 8/6/2008 File Name: UNTITLED Wall Height=21.0 Pile Diameter-1.0 Pile Spacing=1.0 ' ACTIVE SPACE: Z depth Spacing 1 0.00 1.00 ' 2 21.00 1.00 PASSIVE SPACE: Z depth Spacing 1 21.00 1.00 PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=15.93, Min. Pile Length=36.93 MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=67.59 at Depth of 17.15 ' VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY: Vertical Loading=0.0, Resistance=53.4, Vertical Factor of Safety=999.00 Request Embedment for Vertical Loading=0.0 ' Request Total Pile Length=21.0 PILE SELECTION: ' Request Min. Section Modulus = 34.1 in3/feet, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.66 -> Piles meet Min. Section Requirements: Top Deflection is shown in (in) ,L6 (-0.06) SPZ26 (-0.17) CZ128 (-0.17) 6M (-0.05) CZ128 (-0.17) 6H (-0.05) RZ11 (-0.18) H155 (-0.19) PZ32 (-0.18) BZ20.7L (-0.17) ' CZ141 (-0.16) CZ148 (-0.15) 4N (-0.14) FSPZ25 (-0.15) BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, and Deadman ' No &Type Depth Angle Total Horiz. Vert. L_free Fixed Length 1. Tieback 1.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 0.0 16.8 2.0 UNITS: Length/Depth - ft, Force -kip, Moment- kip-ft, Pressure - ksf, Pres. Slope - kip/ft3, Deflection -in , I I 11 I I I 1 I 11 Depth(ft) -0 -5 -10 15 - 20 25 30 35 40 0 Marina Park +9 Seawall 0.30 g 1 ksf <ShoringSulte> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoftware.com L 45 Licensed to DBN TerraCosta Consulting Group Date: 8/6/2008 File Name: UNTITLED Wall Height=21.0 Pile Diameter=1.0 Pile Spacing=1.0 ACTIVE SPACE: Z depth Spacing 1 0.00 1.00 2 21.00 1.00 PASSIVE SPACE: Z depth Spacing PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=16.62, Min. Pile Length=37.62 MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=83.22 at Depth of 16.62 VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY: Vertical Loading=0.0, Resistance=54.7, Vertical Factor of Safety=999.00 Request Embedment for Vertical Loading=0.0 Request Total Pile Length=21.0 PILE SELECTION: Request Min. Section Modulus = 42,0 in3/feet, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.66 -> Piles meet Min. Section Requirements: Top Deflection is shown in (in) 4N (-0.17) FSPZ25 (-0.18) PZ38 (-0.18) BZ26 (-0.15) AZ26 (-0.12) H175 (-0.16) PZ35 (-0.14) H215 (-0.13) BZ32 (-0.12) FSPZ32 (-0.13) PZ40 (-0.10) 5RU3 (-0.14) AZ36 (-0.08) BZ37 (-0.11) BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, and Deadman No & Type Depth Angle Total Horiz. Vert. L_free Fixed Length 4 1 n n n 9.4 9.4 0.0 16.8 _ 3.0 Marina Park +10 Seawall opth(ft) 5 -15 20 25 30 35 •40 •45 0 1 ksf I I 1 I <ShoringSulte> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www,clvlltechsoftware.com I Licensed to DBN TerraCosta Consulting Group Date: 8/4/2008 File Name: UNTITLED ' Wall Helght=22.0 Pile Diameter-1.0 Pile Spacing=1.0 ACTIVE SPACE: Z depth Spacing 1 0.00 1.00 2 22.00 1.00 PASSIVE SPACE: Z depth Spacing 1 22.00 1.00 PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=16,53, Min, Pile Length=38.53 MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=76.23 at Depth of 17.94 VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY: Vertical Loading=0.0, Resistance=55.6, Vertical Factor of Safety=999.00 Request Embedment for Vertical Loading=0.0 Request Total Pile Length=22.0 PILE SELECTION: Request Min. Section Modulus = 25.4 in3/feet, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=1 -> Piles meet Min. Section Requirements: Top Deflection is shown in (in) SZ222 (-0.29) SZ24 (-0.27) SZ24A (-0.25) SZ25 (-0:26) CZ114RD (-0.24) 3N(M) (-0.28) PZ27 (-0.26) PLZ23 (-0.23) BZ16.4 (-0.26) RZ10 (-0.28) 134N (-0.26) PZ27 (-0.25) BZ17 (-0;26) SPZ23 (-0.23) ' BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, and Deadman No. & Tvoe Decth Anole Total Horiz. Vert. L free Fixed Length _ I 11 Marina Park +10 Seawall With H 20 Loading Dapth(ft) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 p 1 ksf I I <ShoringSuite> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civiltechsoftware.com 45 Licensed to DBN TerraCosta Consulting Group Date: 8/6/2008 File Name: C:\Project Files12500-259912573 Marina Park1mp10.sh8 Wall Height=22.0 Pilp Diameter-1.0 Pile Spacing=1.0 1 2 Z Z PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=16.55, Min. Pile Length=38.55 MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=76.79 at Depth of 17,90 VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY: Vertical Loading=0.0, Resistance=55.6, Vertical Factor of Safety=999.00 Request Embedment for Vertical Loading=0.0 Request Total Pile Length=22.0 PILE SELECTION: Request Min. Section Modulus = 25.6 in3/feet, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=1 -> Piles meet Min. Section Requirements: Top Deflection is shown in (in) SZ222 (-0.29) SZ24 (-0.27) SZ24A (-0.26) SZ25 (-0.26) CZ114RD (-0.24) 3N(M) (-0.29) PZ27 (-0.26) PLZ23 (-0.24) BZ16.4 (-0.27) RZ10 (-0.28) 134N (-0.27) PZ27 (-0.26) BZ17 (-0.26) SPZ23 (-0.23) BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, and Deadman No. & Tvpe Depth Angle Total Horiz Vert. L free Fixed Length Marina Park +10 Seawall 0.30 g De0 th(ft) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 1 ksf 45 1 1 1 ---------- 1 I I I <ShoringSulto> CIVILTECH SOFTWARE USA www.civlltechsoftware.com I Licensed -to DBN TerraCosta Consulting Group Date: 8/6/2008 File Name: C:\Project Files\2500-2599\2573 Marina Park\3g.sh8 Wall Height=22.0 Pile Diameter-1.0 Pile Spacing=1.0 _ ACTIVE SPACE: Z depth Spacing 1 0.00 1.00 2 22.00 1.00 Z PILE LENGTH: Min. Embedment=17.36, Min, Pile Length=39.36 MOMENT IN PILE: Max. Moment=95.41 at Depth of 17.39 VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY: Vertical Loading=0.0, Resistance=57.2, Vertical Factor of Safety=999.00 Request Embedment for Vertical Loading=0.0 Request Total Pile Length=22.0 PILE SELECTION: Request Min. Section Modulus = 48.2 In3/feet, Fy= 36 ksi = 248 MPa, Fb/Fy=0.66 -> Piles meet Min. Section Requirements: Top Deflection is shown in (in) BZ26 (-0.18) AZ26 (-0.15) H175 (-0:19) PZ35 (-0.17) H215 (-0.15) BZ32 (-0.15) FSPZ32 (-0.15) PZ40 (-0.12) 5RU3 (-0.16) AZ36 (-0.10) BZ37 (-0.13) FSPZ38 (-0.12) BZ42 (-0.11) FSPZ45 (-0.10) BRACE FORCE: Strut, Tieback, Plate Anchor, and Deadman No. & Tvoe Death Anale Total Horiz. Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis Marine Park-8r05108 I Circular Guide Piles wAli=4 I Reese 8: Matlock solution - DM7.02 Pile Momentof Inertia, l m"4: 1 1886 Pile Diameter, D m : 1 14.00 Pile Modulus, E sr : 1 3.000 000 Ultimate lateral sob ca2adty ref: Brom's 1964 Soil Modulus.f 15.00 Pult-0.6'soiWens 'D•L"3' +L'for LliQ Unsupported Cantilevered Height. Hit : 22.00 Pult=Mr H+o. Prsaltiens' D• "0.5 fcr UT>4 Derith of Embedment L ft : 1 18,00 Soil ohl. decirees, 32 Soil densi , 60 Effective Depth, T(in): 51.92 Pult i s 3.26 Lan Pile Effective Depth, T ft : 4.33 Pu kf s 15.51 labor Pile Lateral Load,P ki s: 2.48 leverartn 22.00 Note. Use the smaller of the two Load Induced MomeM M OUP -It: 54.56 K 3.25 Also note: to abtain the ultimate capacity fora Ion pile, Embedment Depth Ratio. UT.' 4.16 - 'eld,Mtotal IC ft ; 77.5 vou must balance El and L13 to obtain the correct answer unnrrnarmunnnnauuauumanumuaurruuuuaeuaaawuuuunmrmnmiuuu� Coro utation of Variation in Soil Induced Moment with Lr=4 De th,T De th,ft Fmm F t Mm M t West Fiber Sendina. Fbfoal) 0.00 000 1.000 0.000 54.55 0.00 5456 2430 1 0.25 1.08 0.992 0.240 54.12 2,58 56% 2525 - 0.50 216 0.970 0.467 5292 5.01 57.93 2580 1 0.75 3.241 0.926 0.627 50.52 6.731 57.25 2550 - 1.00 4.331 0.859 0.732 46.87 7.85 54.72 2437 1.25 5A1 1 0.753 0.767 41.08 8.23 49.31 2196 1.50 6A9 0.940 0.747 34.92 8.02 4293 _ 1912 I ............................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................ Com uation of Pile Deformation with LIT = 4 . Depth. T 0.00 Depth, ft 0.001 Fdm 1.55 Fdol 2-50 DEF.m 0.49 DEF. t 0.15 DEFtot" 0.64 " SLOPE 0.01186740 Too of Pile Def m 6Ad" - 0.25 1.08 1,16 207 036 0.13 0.49 " 0.01052344 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 2.16 324 4.33 5.41 082 0.52 0.30 0.12 1.65 1.30 0.97 0.67 0.25 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.64 0.35 0.23 0.14 0.07" " " " 0.009196804 0.00693808 0.005439049 0.002796966 NOTE: Top of pile deflection is the combination of. Ground surface deflection. DEF tot" PLUS Deflected pile due to angular rotation only. sloe Deflected ile due oa inq,PL"3/3EI 1 fit PLUS 0.64 3.13 269" " " 1.50 6,49 0.03 0.44 0.01 0.03 0.03 " where: -leverarm Laterally Loaded Pile Ana . -Marina Padt-8/05ma - Ckcular Guide Pies wAfr=4 Reese B Matbck solution - DM7.02 HIM Pile Moment of Inerta.1 ur"a : 3217 Pile Diameter D m : 16.00 Pile Modulus E 3,000,000 Ultimate lateral soil capacity reE Bom's 1964 Soil Modubs, f 15.00 Pult=D.5's6l den ' D•L-3'K +L for Ur<2 _ Unsupported Carnilevered He1qht.H it: 2200 IPtdt=W +0.54 /soiWen for Lff>4 Be th of Embedment, L MY 20.00 I 1 I Soil DK. deqreas 32 SOH dens' 60 Effective De . T m : PB 4.85 Pile Effective Depth. T (it): Pult 24.78 short Pile Lateral Load.P EM4 leverarm 2200 Note Usemesmallerof*-ettoad induced Moment M 325 Also rote: to abtain the atimatece fora b tie, Embedment Ratio. UP eld,Mtotal 11• 116.6 vou must balance E15 and L13 to obtain the oorrect ansx l!/l//(//Il/Il/!///1/1/1/!///!l!/I/I/11/l!1/11111/1/llllllll/1/l1/llll(1/1111/111/1111/ll1/Ill/l/!1(Ifll/1/1/1! computation of Variation in Sal Induced Moment with Lfr= 4 Oeoth.Tl Det.ftl Fmml Ft Mm mot Mtotal Fiber Sending. Fb 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.000 81AO 0.00 81.40 2429 025 1.201 - 0.992 0240 80.75 4.27 85.02 - 2537 0.50M3.41 0.467 78.96 8.32 8728 2604 0.750.627 75.38 11.17 M54 2583 L000.732 69.92 13.04 - 829624761250.767 61.29 1366 74.96 2237 1.50 0.747 52W 1331 65.40 1952 .__._._................__..................__..__...-____._._._.........................._.......__._.._..._... Can Bon of Pile Deformation with Ur= 4 Depth. Devth. R Fdm Fdp DEFm DEF. DEF tot" SLOPE Too of Pie Del in 0.00 0.00 1.56 250 9.53 0.18 0.71' Q07177281 6.17' 025 120 1.76 207 0.39 0.15 0.54' 0.01645982 - 0.50 241 0.82 1.65 0.27 0.12 0.39" 0.009132189 NOTET of He defection is the combination of., 0.75 3.87 0.52 " 1.30 0.16 0.70 0.26 " 0.006923526 Ground surtace defection, DEFbt" PLUS 0.71 ' 1.00 _ 4.81 0.30 0.97 0.09 0.07 0.16' 1 0.005449051 Deflected pfle duetoangular mlaban on .sf 'HL PLUS 3.11" 125 6.02 012 0.67 0.03 0.05 0.08' 0.002841366 Defected pile due to l0adl .PL"3/3EI I 235' 1.50 7.22 0.03 0.44 0.01 0.03 0.04 ' wheL=loverarn re: � m m m m m 4w= m m m m m i M= M M Lateral) Loaded Pile Analysis-Madna Park -8105f08 CmrcuWr Guide Piles wM'=4 Reese & Mattock solution - DM7.02 Pile Momentaf Inertia, t in"4: 7854 Pile Diameter, Dn : 20.00 Pile Modulus Eisi : 31000,000 Ultimate lateral soil capacity ref. Brom's 1954 Soil Modulus, f (pal: I I 15.00 Putt--0.6 soil-densi D`L^3'K I H+L for Lrf<2 Unsu rted Cantilevered Hamm, H ft : 22.00 Pult-AN +0.54 P/soil-densi D•K "0. for UF>4 DeOf of Embedmen L ft: 23.00 Soil phi, degrees 32 Soil densily. pd 60 =11lq Effective Deth,Tin: 69.06 I Pile Effective De th, T ft: 1 5.75 Pult kt s 43.99 short Pile Lateral Load.P (kips): 1 Load Induced Moment, M Ki ft : 7.25 159.L leverarm K 22.00 3.25 Note: Usethesmallerofthetvro PJso note: to abtain the ultimate ce a ' fora Ion pile. Embedment Depth Ratio. LIT: 1 4.00 M 'eld,Mtotal Ki ft ; 2375 Ivou must balance E15 and L13 to obtain the correct answer 11111111/ll1111111/Ill/lI/!ll/Illlllllllfll111111111111I11!///I!1lllllllfllUl/1/l1/llllllll/Ill/l1111/1llll/ll Com taro of Vadahon in Soil Induced Moment with L/T=4 _ T De ,T De th ft 1-mml Fptj Mml Mptj Mtotall Fiber Bendm . Fb I anal 0.001 1.0001 0.0001 159.511 0.00 10U.0ul 2437 0.25 1.441 0.9921 0.2401 168.221 10.011 168.241 2570 0.50 2.88 0.970 0.467 154.72 19.48 774.20 2662 0.75 4.32 0.926 0.627 147.70 26.16 17386 2656 1.00 5.751 U. 0.732 137.01 30.54 767.55 2560 1.25 7.19 0.753 0.767 120.10 32.00 152.11 2324 1.50 8.63 0.840 0.7471 102.081 133.25 2036 ............................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... Com utlion of Piie Defonna0on vnth LIi= 4 De th T 0.00 De ftt,n 0.00 Fdm 7.56 Fd 2 50 DEF.mj 0.60 DEF.ptj 0.25 DEF to 0 86 "- SLOPE 001170813 To of Pile _ Oef In 5.84 " 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.44 2.88 4.32 5.75 7.19 1,16 0.82 0.52 0.30 0.12 207 1.65 1.30 0.97 0.67 0.45 031 0.19 0.10 0.04 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.66 0.48" 0.32 0.20 0.10 " " " " i I0.01043860 0.009097804 0.0089595 0.005516017 0.00294fi886 NOTE To of ile deflection IS the combination of Ground surface deflection, DEF tot" PLUS Deflected mle due to an ular rotation onI , sio e'HL Deflected pile due to Ioadin ,PL"3/3EI PLUS 1.50 8.63 0.031 0.441 0.01 0.041 0.05 " 1where: L=lever artn Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis -Madna Pads-8fOS108 Circular Guide Piles w1LlT=4 Reese & Matlock solufion. DM7.02 Pile Moment oflnedia. l uN4: 16286 He Diameter D (in): 1 24.00 ' Pile Modulus, E 3,000 Ultimate lateral sot n reF. Bmm's 1964 Sa Modulus.f 15.00 Pult=0.5'soldensi 'L^3' H+L for LfTQ Unsupported Canblevered HefaftLHIft 22.00 Putt--W / D' hx L/l>4 Deoth of Embedment L ft 27.00 Sal Phi. dearevs 32 Sall 60 _ Effective Depth, Tin : ( 79.90 1 Pu k IT.75ILong Pile 11 Effective Depth, T (ft), 6.68 P 78.43 shod Ple Lateral Load P 13.70 lever aml 22.00 Note: Usethesmallerofthetwo Load Induced Moment M ft : 301.40 K - 325 " Also note to abtain the uldmate ca fora long' Embedment RatioUP 4.05 d 447.3 vou nmzt balance EIS and LI3 to obta!n Ore co ectanswar Com uoation of Variation In Sol Induced Momerdwith Lrr 4 DeD1h,T Depth.ftj Fmm F Mm Mtotal Ffbar Bend 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.000 301.40 0.00 301.40 2665 025 1.66 0.992 0240 298.99 21.891 320.88 28371- 0.50 3.33 0.970 0.467 29236 4260 334.96 2962 0.75 4.991 0.926 0.627 279.10 6720 33629 2973 1.00 6.66 0.859 0.732 258.90 66.78 325.68 2880 1.25 8.32 0.763 0.767 226.95 69.57 295.92 2825 1.60 9.99 0.640 - - 0.747 19Z.90 68:14 251.04 2308 ..__.»..........».....».........._........._......»_.__.».__...._..._ . »._........._._........._.._......._.._..._......................._..... ..............._....».»........................ ._»..»».»....._......._....0........ ............. - Comoutalion of Pile Deformation wiM Vr= 4 DePjq U ft Fdm Fd DEFm DER DEFLW." SLOPE _ T of Pile Def in 0.00 0.00 1.56 2.60 0.74 0.38 1.09 • 0.01276292 1.16 2.07 0.54 0.30 0.84 ' 0.01141461 0.82 1.65 0.38 024 0.61' 0.009932853NOTET of le deflection isOre combination oF. 0.52 1.30 023 019 0.41 ' 0.007658796 Ground surface deflecton DEF tot.' PLUS 1.09 M1.258.32 0.30 0.97 0.12 0.14 026 " 0.006107635 Deflected due to an War rotation o . slo 'HL PLUS 3.37" 0.12 0.67 0.04 0.10 0.14 " 0.003330721 Deflected ite due toIoadi ,PL"3MEl -- 1.72" 0.03 0.441 0.01 0.06 0.07 " where L=leverartn 1 M r an M M i! M a Mr M W� M M Mr a 1 i I Foundations & � Earth Structures I I I DESIGN MANUAL 7.02 REVALIDATED BY CHANGE 1 SEPTEMBER 1986 Section 7. LATERAL LOAD CAPACITY 1. DESIGN CONCEPTS. A pile loaded by lateral thrust and/or moment at its top, resists the load by deflecting to mobilize the reaction of the surround- ing soil. The magnitude and distribution of the resisting, pressures are a function of the relative stiffness of pile and soil. Design criteria is based on maximum combined stress in the pilings allow- able deflection at the top or permissible bearing on the surrounding soil. Altbough 1/4-Inch at the pile top is often used as a limit. the allowable lateral deflection should be based on the specific requirements of the structure. 7.2-234 I 2. DEFORMATION ANALYSIS - SINGLE PILE. a. General. Methods are Nan -Dimensional Solutions for (e.g., Reference 9 and Reference 31, , oaded Piles. with Soil Modulus Assumed Proportional to Depth, by Reese and Matlock) for computing lateral Ti load-deforratiou based on complex soil conditions and/or non -linear soil stress -strain relationships. The CAN 622 computer program (Reference 32, Laterally Loaded Piles: Program Documentation, by Reese) has been documented and is widely used. Use of these methods should only be considered when the soil stress -strain properties are well understood. Pile deformation and stress can be approximated through application of several simplified procedures based on idealized assumptions. The two basic approaches presented below depend on utilizing the concept of coeffi- cient of lateral subgrade reaction. It is assumed that the lateral load does not exceed about 1/3 of the ultimate lateral load capacity. b. Granular Soil and Normally to Slightly Overcoosolidated Cohesiv Soils. Pideformation can be estimated assuring that the coefficient subgrade reaction, Kh, increases linearly with depth in accordance with: fz _ Kh D where: Kh - coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (tons/ft3) f - coefficient of variation of lateral subgrade reaction (Lone/ft3) z - depth (feet) D - vidth/diameter of loaded area (feet) Guidance for selection of f is given in Figure 9 for fine-grained and coarse --grained soils. c. Heavily overconsblldated Cohesive Soils. For heavily overconsoli- dated hard cobeelve soils, the coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction can be assumed to be constant with depth. The methods presented in Chapter 4 can be used for the analysis; varies between 35c and 70c (units of 14 force/length3) where c is the drained shear strength. d. Loading Conditions. Three principal loading conditions are illus- trated with—t-fi—e-Je—sign procedures in Figure 100 using the influence diagrams of Figure 11, 12 and 13 (all from Reference 31). Loading may be limited by allowable deflection of pile top or by pile stresses. Case I. Pile with flexible cap or hinged end condition. Thrust and moment are applied at the top, which is free to rotate. Obtain total deflec- tion, moment, and shear in the pile by algebraic sum of the effects of thrust and moment, given in Figure 11. 7.2-235 CASE I. FLEXIBLE CAP. ELEVATED POSITION CONDITION T GF40UND LINE DESIGN PROCEDURE PT FOR EACH PILER FOR DEFIN(TION OF PNRAMETERS SEE FRXIRE 12 P s P L COMPUTE RELATIVE STIFFNESS FACTOR. T : ( )1/5 H M ° fI 2. SENT CURVE FOR PROPER LY W FIGURE 11. M 3. OBTAIN COEFFICIENTS Fg,FM.FV ATOERRHS DESIRED. t 4. COMPUTE DEFILLIM, MOMENT AND SHEAR AT p r r OE51ttED OEPTHS USING FORMULAS OFFGUREII. L NOTE + «t« VALM FROM FIGURE 9 AND CONVERT TO LBAN3 n s NUMBER OF PRES DEF "" ITION CASEZ. PM WITH RIGID CAP AT GROUND SURFACE PT I p L PROCEED AS IN STEP I,CASEI . r 2 COMPUTE DETT EC ON AND MOMENT AT DESIRED 1 DEPTHS USING COEFFICIENTS FE,FM AND I FORMULAS OF FWRE 12. 1 3. MAXIMUM SHEAR OCCURS AT TOP OF PILE T AND SXIALS Ps - T IN EACH PILE. L n CASEDE. RIGID CAP, ELEVATED POSITION 1'T 1 DEFLECTED 1. ASSUME A HURGE AT POINT A WITH A BALANCING I MOMENT M APPLIED AT POINT A. X)v 2. COMPUTE SLOPE 02 ABOVE GROUND AS A RINCTION I OF M FROM CHARACTERISTICS OF SUPERSTRUCTURE. i 3. COMPUTE SLOPE 61 FROM SLOPE COEFFICIENTS i OF FIGURE 13 AS FOLLOWS: H T QI=FQ(EI 1tFQ(EI ) M I 4. EQUATE QT s 62 AND SOLVE FOR VALUE OF M. P .�-. / 5. MOWING VAUIES OF P AND M, SOLVE FOR DFFI wnm. SHEAR,A% MOMENT AS IN CASE I. 77MP M NOTE+ IF QWW SURFACE AT PILE WCATION tS L INCLINED, LOAD PTAMH BY EACH PILE IS PROPORTIONALTO Imo. FIG= 10 Design Procedure for Laterally Loaded Piles 7.2-237 V f11 twat 00 -t o 1 2 CMS1% 61 0 4 A nn Cin� J -A& ■■■AM■■■ ■■■■■■■■�SWENNOMEMPRON ��■®��.■■ OW ■■WI■■■ ■ESEA N KO\■■■■ ■■OINEM . ■W. +-21■■■■ . �� ■■NEMEN■ ■■■IN■■ ■■■■ ON MENOM _ , iiEMii'ii i�A■■■i■ iiiii.� -I Q ' 7 �V NT V.i. V.7 VA V.O VA DEFLE)CT10N COEF}ldl7tT, Fa Ol U. ODEFMIMT, FM SHEAR COEFFIGENT, Fv FIGURE 11 Influence Values for Pile with Applied Lateral Load and Moment (Case 1. Flexible Cap or Hinged End Condition) Case II. Pile with rigid cap fixed against rotation at ground sur- face. Thrust is applied at the top, which must maintain a vertical tangent. Obtain deflection and moment from influence values of Figure 12. Case III. Pile with rigid cap above ground surface. Rotation of pile top depends on combined effect .of superstructure and resistance below ground. Express rotation as a function of the influence values of Figure 13 and determine moment at pile top. Knowing thrust and moment applied at pile top, obtain total deflection, moment and shear in the pile by algebraic sum of the separate effects from Figure 11. 3. CYCLIC LOADS. Lateral subgrade coefficient values decrease to about 25% the initial value due to cyclic loading for soft/loose soils and to about 50% the initial value for stiff/dense soils. 4. LONG-TERM LOADING. Long-term loading will increase pile deflection cor- responding to a decrease in lateral subgrade reaction. To approximate this condition reduce the subgrade reaction values to 25% to 50% of their initial value for stiff clays, to 2OZ to 30% for soft clays, and to 80Z to 90Z for sands. 5. ULTIMTE LOAD CAPACITY - SINGLE PILES. A laterally loaded pile can fail by exceeding the strength of the surrounding soil or by exceeding the bending moment capacity of the pile resulting in a structural failure. Several met- hods are available for estimating the ultimate load capacity. The method presented in Reference 33, Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils, by Brows, provides a simple procedure for estimating ultimate lateral capacity of piles. 6. GROUP ACTION. Group action should be considered when the pile spacing in the direction of loading is less than 6 to 8 pile diameters. Group action can be evaluated by reducing the effective coefficient of lateral subgrade reac- tion in the direction of loading by a reduction factor R (Reference 9) as fol- lows: Pile Spacing in Direction of Loading D - Pile Diameter 8D 6D 4D 3D •7.2-241 Subgrade Reaction Reduction Factor R 1.00 0.70 0.40 0.25 AI II II 11 t� 11 iI II LJ 11 11 11 11 I I 1 I I u li 1' II LI 11 I. m mNO snRw= ha (hBw ) / V , MtClgwaMau,a� gI = I L .. Re (led by TerZa9h1 1955 (After o'Ne1)1 and Nurt�isoo. 19113) EL O 0 20 9c W W Relative Density, D, (Percent) Figure 9. Pile Cross -Coupling Stiffness,htie Figure 10. Rec se tifnforfor coefficands (Note: 1 LB/IN3 - 0.27 N/cm3) he authors. This recommendation and results of the correlation for clay are shown in Figure 11. Only the upper five iameters of soils (soil type and ground star) used to be considered in usage of the presented design charts. r.ae4tatt one of Anproaoh. There are 9weral simplifying assumptions in the ,resented approach. The coefficient f is not an intrinsic soil parameter. The 0 1 aendations for f presented in Figures 1 and 11 are appropriate for piles in cypical highway bridge foundations (i.e. smaller piles). Furthermore, the embedment ffect has not been taken into account in me procedure. Therefore the recommenda- mions are conservative and appropriate for shallow embedment conditions (say lees than feet or 2.5 m). although correlations for the coefficient f can be conducted for other conditions 's.g. larger piles and bigger embedment epthe), the additional complexity negates as merits of the use of simplified linear elastic solutions. For such cases, cam- -,ter solutions, which can readily accomo- ste nonlinear effects and more general —�undary conditions, are recommended. solutioonson ouslnn? Matlock's Soft Clay fm3�+ G � criteria (197d> 4,r S 1 o 7'.nM&= in cxrcw on SoMwI= 0 N (1) 12-)a4 corsets PIC e (2) Fved P"CW OMSAI (3) YMd ! Dcoeabe 2. Cohesion (ksf) C R; icon to Coltrane Practice. The Figure 11. Recommendations of rove procedure can be compared to the Coefficient f 3o� 0 Clays N/cm3) rractice adopted by Caltrans. In Caltrans (Note: 1 LB/IN ird Bridge Engineering Conference, Denver, Colorado, March 10-13, 1991 Jr more information, contact Earth Mechanics, Inc., fountain Valley, CA 714) 848-9204 S !I I I I [1 I 1 I E1 I I n EM d $i9 $�3�'dh �a,�Y�vIIAL ' DYWIDAG Rock and Soil Anchors d f M 1 i. ♦1.:�{r ..jam%,T�� IA c y r 'd✓ � � � y#'�'M- t •w�, "'fir- ..,. R' `1Y •�, ii� -.- ,". �' .1;;`,� �.�=a'�':w:s�,�rjr}�t<,�..;�.,•c�l::. 'Y�f�'s�si*Fr�:i!;iS" iM `� y• ' 1,« �� • U•:� r � r�ySn.�+�^�,• 4 ♦ µ,..is+t�ln, r4Eiitw.V�'{;�?'^,Fro � e. �ii,� AA** tau :+ p• • +1�i}1��'(l. ,v�•,,+. „yz"�•.",iNkR:'•t''•;I;C�lii'9v x.i:2�.' ..•'ai,M"Q.�1i'.}•, 4:.•.,ae"::. „ f16;�;�idA.a �rs.S`�.,kC• • ; • , r .`^ • Rogers Pass Slope Stabilization, British Columbia, Canada Q DYWIDAG I� An,y`I rt{t{� �ae ¢•2. 1"nJ Y�i *1��f ~ `4pn] 4V to S�' Ti+V MS i4•. 11''('I.F'd.J f'i4�"1 l'Ci:... DYWIDAG Threadbar Rock -and Soil Anchors Dywidag Systems International was a pioneer in the development of rock and soil anchor systems and technology. Today DSI is a world leader in this field with an outstanding reputation of product quality and customer service, The double corro- sion protected THREADBAR® anchor is universally recognized as the "standard" for anchor perfor- mance and corrosion protection, DSI Is dedicated to the advancement of the "State -of -the -Art' for rock and soil anchors and stands ready to support you during the design, planning and construction of your project. When questions arise, contact your nearest DSI representative, One Source for Bar and Strand Anchors DSI offers a complete line of THREADBARS' and multistrand anchors designed for both temporary The DSI Advantage As a full service organization, DSI Is prepared to • supply design assistance and practical field know- how. This service can also be used, to optimize the design process by helping to select the anchor system best suited to meet specific project requirements. The regional warehouse and fabricating centers strategically located throughout North America, coupled with an extensive network of local sales/service centers, provide prompt, reliable response to customer needs. Most orders can be supplied from'inventory with short lead time.. To minimize site labor and to optimize quality con- trol, a variety of shop prefabricating services are available forboth bar and strand anchors, In many cases the anchors can be delivered to the site ready for immediate installation without the need for site assembly. The application of corroslon'pro- tection grouting at the job site can also be mini- mized and, in many cases, completely eliminated, saving time and money, In some locations both supply and installation, including drilling services, are available.for any size project. or permanent use, manufactured from materials best suited to meet the needs of your project, THREADBAR®Anchors are available in 1" (26mm), .1-1/41' (32mm),•and 1-3/8" (36mm) nominal diame- ter, in lengths up to 60 feet (18.3 m) without cou- plers, with a guaranteed minimum ultimate tensile stress of 150 or 160 ksi (1034 or 1103 MPa). Multistrand Anchors manufactured from 0.6" dia. (152 mm) 270k (1861 ,MPa) strand are available in sizes up to 61 strands, Larger anchors are avail- able but system components are not stocked. Rock Bolts and Soll Nails manufactured from ASTM A615 grade 60 are produced in sizes ranging from #6 up to, and including, #11 grade 75 bars. Special steels for high impact, seismic and low temperature applications can be made available on special order. .a deco PORATEIIEACnUAfliER3 DodnCbrook(Chkago), IL a DIVISION HEADQUARTERS A FABRICATION CENTERS •SALES OFFICES AtSngtoe, T% ANlnpton,3% 841110ero/AJD TUCker(ADanta),GA DaBnghrook(MICago), IL Ooungbreok IL 1oMghrook IL Catgary,Arada FaBty,NJ ftkllaH, NJ Grand Jun41100,C0' 'Long Curb, CA Lon Beath«CA Johnstone, PA TugeT,(Atlanta), GA TdckeQAtNnHJ, SA Lill6lon (DtmeH, CO Conoord(TofoPk),ON Su"ry Nlawwer), CC NNTCoslo",NH Surie�,(VahoeWu); tlC Conoo (romlo), ON Citron PJtk Fl. Santa Cdq CA . Statue, WA Whatever your needs you can count on DSI for quality from start to finish, The dedication of our staff to quality and service will help you complete your project successfully and on time. i Lil d J i I I I I I I II i I I I I I i I P Applications Prestressed rock and soil anchors have become an important tool for the geotechnical engineer. Their safe and reliable use in both permanent and temporary applications is accepted throughout the world. Soil Anchors are pressure grouted anchors installed in either cohesive or non -cohesive soil or loose rock. The anchors transfer forces into the ground by means of a steel tendon and a well defined grout body. In the free stressing length the anchor remains free to move, Soil anchors are generally used to: -anchor support structures for excavations such as sheet pile walls, soldier plies and lagging, drilled plies and slurry walls, -counteract uplift forces in structures subjected to buoyancy and lateral loads. -transfer external forces to the ground; e.g„wind, earthquake. -stabilize eccentrically loaded foundations,' *stabilize material or excavated slopes. DS/ Rock Anchors are post -tensioned tendons installed in drilled holes for which at least the entire bond length is located in rock, The anchor force is trans- mitted to the rock by bond between the grout body and the rock, Rock anchors can remain unbonded in the free stressing length allowing the anchor to be checked and retensioned at any time. In such cases, adequate corrosion protection for the stressing anchorage and the free stressing length must be provided. On the other hand, the free stressing length can also be fully grouted after the anchor has been stressed, in which case force adjustment is no longer possible. Rock anchors are generally used to: • anchor external forces and uplift forces, -anchor retaining walls. -stabilize eccentrically loaded foundations, slopes, rock walls and cuts, *stabilize underground excavations and mines. -increase the stability of dams, m t o'Eif��t I to r, 't .ty ti..'n'$ry'rVL '4'�:�{. i .. r F •/ ':.u^`:" �,{u4'fil F7'T,.lS.Y W>��,• !Si r}.V;.,�'�a.� ?•" �1�1 i •.:^.•,51,: •i 1. •'S }n,'ii: '.rd',,�5 p'C^'!•¢i+�.'., �r'i�re,• ft' . � ta{f - - K;<('<IY i"��..i5• °y,. YL •..3,i>1•�' r Si ��"1,�� 55 ',iPy'1y �*\ L'',;•. '4 ,rim ].. �?_+�'a '.•iL�. i,1 ,5'.M'.nl .,?.,`:„ nnP.,:, ,,::;; li^ac:"� F,r- i" Sti4 „,>S 'i ,r �^r'. � r:, �k'. :�':5@'ih i fd•.. ,,k�.it,.'.`xwQ4,:i fir. �''''' :J° `d.`• '�._' - •c- 'M1�-•1, ! +(`Y•st { ,,, :I r yjt � i .4 `+°`.7`� ,. ::; `..•.,l:r.,. �`lr.ra ,' s.-.f;ti ;. �.Y=`•:f �A, S]�,t', ti !r, in ?��+Zn : •-n` .y<, yes 3 �y a 3. tiA�'+c.Y id.•„±X �''C.� ,5 r..l�,.....:hN „ ti+ \I Y)hti 1 y s.e•ag L•-; �-a,..:*, n...v,x 'i i q.i� A ;n}; ft': �{.�-i vi,•%\Ya.a..y':..:•y{?n>7i,'�r„`r�.{:?S-: i•: :.�S;t' ��1: sn�`.bM'.l_..v`:..7�,.a:':SRI!?.''`��t7n2a�ir.'.•J:.,�fii: ..v7�li li.fr'�t'.•^°• - �yf''e}i:�� a5; ''ty. i.. •:4j p.. jYY, +", ..j a' (',lx :;' •,y f':v .'-y, ,,.i�^�,,+.. r'J` 'b•,14\":^vi� � 1'i. 'I n,,l,�,, 3''•'Ui`,'fn'3•J{{\.l`,i''l.0 ft„V+ ;'. .,; '�' i'i N{1'� rr �h'!{f. 4Y.t:e;aSi4 ,�.%"` •o.', .?.S,ii'i •'q{J.. {('i ^''i ilr:ilp"Y:1 a'�*:t,,f; , : �Sg n„'., �Y ";•`�'^3 ''// y� :u 7 T � ``` � fy j •-� � 21Y r !'„ :t .i , i i.'.:4 � .l'� 9 } 1, '.q6 Y N' A.'1� � F ',,1j'f '�\/f', [ k`' ��' 1 4i'' � I M:'';., , �•'� SS I.i 1.1 �. I'S M1 4 n S V:4i�y�;`i<9+y:ir.'i"t `'• hi#� i`45 ti*( t° y �}•'i't�'1: It �Wi yr! k� !U1 /?�, '. i.l. .}/ '�tM1i� �, iii7 :1 n'ry, `r S�iJI�,W .._:e. '�4 .,'• all?°: l Y• � y. s 3Q ,1,. �. o1•r'FM u'1 h�5 I•} t t1�,iuk'ti Y.li a I 1'43,a f: ba'i nl4')•��.i•i"1"'.nn p'6: y {41�Ari•I,,1' �nN.,.:�i3tVL.1 n. 1 :k 1{ 11 v::,l,. /�y5y�'r}{ d 1<R ' f.'J'f' ill.'. h ,an�l�.S]Idd 1":;4) „riifrarkv'1'r»:.°.., WIi i\ �: .�;°:'�,r^ �at?ta (rb� ,IiY :3 ii'4••a.J.y<e4f'PMi]tli',irJAlq':a',',t{�nryt".ta la.e�°i. I • ., rj .i'v^ i •/ i iw.FI'a1 :.n j din-. Threadbar® Anchors The Dywidag Threadbar Rock and Soll Anchor System is manufactured in the United States and• Canada exclusively -by Dywidag Systems International. Simple and Rugged The threadbar has a continuous rolled -on pattern of deformations along its entire length which allows anchorage hardware or couplers to thread onto the bar at any point. The coarse thread is almost Inde- structible under normal job site conditions. Positive Anchorage The bar is anchored using a threaded nut which, unlike a wedge type anchorage, is not liable to be loosened when the anchor force is reduced due to possible ground movements. In addition, the threaded nut anchorage has a known overload capacity which cannotbe duplicated by a wedge type anchorage without the utilization of elaborate and expensive details. Easy to Stress The reliable and compact threaded nut anchorage has almost no anchor set, Its- hemispherical shape easily accommodates the small angular miselign- ments between bar and anchorage due to con- structlon tolerances. Lightweight, durable equipment makes stressing, restressing and adjusting the anchor load up or down easy to do. Easy to Check Actual Prestress Load and Restress The threaded design;makes it possible to make a lift off test and/or adjust the anchor load at anytime during the service fife of the anchor. Corrosion pro- tection can be maintained at all times. Easy to Splice The continuous thread makes it possible to extend the threadbar to any length, simplifying transporta- tion and Installation. Extending the bar beyond the stressing end to connect to another structural member is also a simple operation. DSI reserves the right to change the design or details of Its products without notice, Specific information for job details and drawings should be obtained from your DSI Sales Engineer. High Bond Strength The deformation pattern provides excellent bond between the bar and cement grout making it possible to reliably transfer anchor prestress load into the grout without the need for additional mechanical devices. The narrow spacing of the deformations assures close crack spacing in the surrounding grout and therefore smaller crack widths which will not degrade the corrosion protection. Removable The threadbar can be removed after destressing the anchor by unscrewing the unbonded portion of the bar from a coupler or out of an embedded end anchorage, Bars with end anchors and sleeved within the bond length can be completely removed. This is especially Important where temporary , anchors are installed below adjacent properties and must be removed after use. Easy to Install Because of their Inherent stiffness and rugged- ness, threadbar anchors can be easily installed in any position, including upward. It is particularly easy to install a bar anchor in.a pre-grouted'hole. Public school No. 48, New York City Board of Education, , Manhattan. Permanent DCP anchors extended to support subsequent retaining wall. I I 'i I I I I I I 11 Insurance Against Anchor Failure In cohesive and other poor soils, a proven and reliable DSI post -grouting system can be used to increase the capacity of an anchor. The use of this system can make the difference between an anchor that works and one that does not. Corrosion Protection Options A wide variety of corrosion protection options are available to choose from depending upon the expected length of service and the aggressiveness of the environment. Unprotected Anchors Unprotected anchors are used for temporary applications. The free stressing length is unpro- tected while the bond length is embedded in the cement grout body, Unprotected anchors may be subject to corrosion. However, the relatively large diameter and solid cross section of the Dywidag threadbar offers more corrosion resistance than smaller diameter high strength, prestressing steel elements with a larger surface area. Single Corrosion Protected Anchors SCP Single corrosion protected anchors are used for temporary anchors and sometimes for permanent anchors in non -aggressive rock or soil. A polyethyl- ene sheathing covers the free stressing length. The threadbar Is coated with a corrosion inhibitor before the polyethylene sheathing is installed, The bond length is covered with cement grout. DS/ Double Corrosion Protected Anchors'DCP Double corrosion protected anchors are recom- mended for anchors with a long service life and for an environment where aggressive materials or stray electrical currents are expected. A corrugated high strength PVC sheathing with plastic end caps is installed over the full length of the anchor. The annular space between threadbar and PVC is fully grouted before the anchor Is installed. To accommodate the bar elongation during stressing, a short length of threadbar is left free of the corrugated sheathing under the stress- ing anchorage, A steel pipe welded to the anchor plate and filled with corrosion preventive com- pound or grout protects the free end of the bar against corrosion. A smooth plastic sheathing is installed over the corrugated sheathing in the stressing length, This allows the tendon to elongate during stressing, The corrugated plastic -sheathing acts as a protec- tive membrane preventing intrusion of any corro- sive substances. The cement grout around the threadbar provides corrosion protection by embed- ding the bar• in an alkaline environment. The threadbar deformations minimize the width and control the distribution of any cracks that develop in the free stressing length, fully maintaining the protective action of the grout cover. A protective plastic or steel cap filled with a corro- sion preventative compound is installed over the anchor nut after stressing, completing the full encapsulation of the anchor tendon. The cap is removable for checking and/or adjusting the force level in the anchor tendon at any time in the future. Some important notes about the safe handling of high strength steel for prestfessing. Do not damage surface of steel. 2. Do not weld or burn so that sparks or hot slag will touch any particle of steel which wdll be under stress, S. Do not use any part of steel as a ground connection for welding. 4. Do not use steel that has'been kinked or contains a sharp bend. Disregarding these instructions may cause failure of steel during stressing. FJ DYWIDAG Threadbar Anchors with Single Corrosion Protection BASIC TYPE VARIATIONS GROUTING HEW -� ANCHOR IAIT PLASTIC OR STEEL CAP ANCHOR RATE ~. AN LE CONCRETE OR COMPENSATING STEEL SU'PORT 13 BEARINO AM WEDGE WASHER TR FOR S41NO MNCNORAOE SMOOTH PLASTIC SHEATHING COLPLER FOR REMOVABLE ANCHOR FIXED COMB FOR DIFFICULT IILRTALLATION CONDITIONS IWEADOAR ELASTIC CENTRALIZER FOR CASED DRILL HOLES THREADED CENTRALIZER FOR CHILL HOLES IN ROCK FLUSH TUDE FOR SOIL ANCHORS POST-GRWTING SYSTEM FOR COHESIVE SOIL GRWT TLBE FOR ROCK ANCHORS 6 DYWIDAG Threadbar Anchors with Double Corrosion protection r 'BASIC TYPE VARIATIONS GROUTING fCX}�JT ANCWOR NUT EUS11C OR STEEL CAP ANCHOR PUTS CORROSION PREVENTATIVE COMPOUND z ANGLE CONCRETE OR s� COf+f'ENSATING STD. SU'PORT TfREADGAR � w � FOR � CEhENi GROUT ELASTIC SHEATHING SPLICE IN FREE PhCKQI STRESSING LENGTH OR GONG LEKiTN w CCTtRUGATEA F4C MTHING GROUT CAP ELASTIC CENTRhL17.P]i SEWAL FLUSH TLBE FOR POST-iiROUTING GROUT'fUGE TOR ROCK AtkHORS SOIL ANCHORS 301E ORO WS OflKS N ROOq( WSM I iti t'•.kry .. �'�s{ar .i 797, N, W i1k7T EIRNA` lAONe°U. DYWIDAG Bar Rock and Soil Anchors Prestressina Steel Pronerties ASTM A722 Anchor Size Ultimate Strase to Crass Section Area Ultimate Strength (6, An) Prestressing Force Nomlmai Weight (bar only) Maximum Bar Diameter 0,811 to A,. 10.70 to An 0.60 to An In mm ksl , We in' mm' kips kN • kips kN kips kN kips kN _ pit I kp/m in mm 150 1'030 0.85 546 127.5 667 102.0 454 89.3 •397 76.6 340 3.01 4.48 1.20 30.6 1 26 160' 1100 0.85 548- •138.0 605 108.8 485 95.2 423 81.6 363 3.01 4.48 1.20 30.5 150 1036 1.25 806 �187.5 834 150.0 662 131.3 584 112.5 500 4.39 e.54 1.46 37.1 11/4 32 160" 1100 1.26 806 200.0 890 160.0 707 140.0 623 120.0 534 4.39 6,54 1.46 37.1 150 1030 1 1.68 1.1018 237.0 1,055 189.6 839 1165.91 738 142.2 633 5.56 8.28 1.63 41.4 14e 36 160" 11Q0 I 1.58 11018 262.8 1,125 202.3 899 1177.01 787 151.7 675 5.66 8.28 1.63 41.4 1% 46 150 1030 2.62 1690. 400 1,779 320 1423 280 1245 240 1068 2_3 13.74 2.00 61.0 Steel Stress Levels ' Dywidag Bars may be stressed to the allowable limits of ACI 318. The maximum jacking stress (temporary) may not exceed 0,80 fps, and the transfer stress (lock - off) may not exceed 0,70 fps. The final effective (working) prestress level depends on the specific application, installation procedure, ' stressing sequence and the rigidity of the structural system. In the absence of a detailed analysis of the Hardware Dimensions •AYOMTO On 4POOM ONn. structural system, 0.60 /pn may be used as an approxi- mation of the effective (working) prestress lave(. Dywidag Bars may be used individually or in.multiples depending upon the magnitude of force• requirements or upon drilling considerations. Actual logs calculations require structural design Infor- mation not normally present on contract documents. Bar in mm In mm In mm In mm Diameter' t 20 ' 1'/+ 32 11h 30 1'/4 40 AnchorPlate Size Sx5x1.25 4x6.6x1,25 130xi30x32 100x165x32 6x7x1.50 5x8xl.5 160x169x38 130x209081XII. 70,60.76 1.76 i80x190x26A 130x240k45 9x9x2.25 230030x67.2 Nut Wenslon a 1,875 50.0 215 3.6 2.75 70 2.875 74 Mln. Bar Projection b 3 762 3.6 ,88.9 4.00 100 3.625 92 Coupler Length o 1 5.6 1 140 1 6.76 170 1 8.626 1 220 1 6.76 173 Coupler Diameter d 1 2 1 50.0 1 2.375 60,326 1 2.626 1 67 1 3.125 1 79 Minimum Anchor Diameter Corrosion Protection Nominal Bar Diameter Without single Double Without Caupier With Coupler Without' I Coupler With Coupler 'Without. Coupler.- With Coupler In mm In mm in mml In mm In mm In mm In mm 1 26 1.20 30.5 2,000 60.00 1.825 41.28 2,125 53.98 2.376 60,33 2.500 6 .60 1'A 32 1'A6 37.1 875 •00.00, 1,876 47,63 2,600 03.60 2.876 73.63 3,125 79,38 11A 38 1.63 41.4 2,150 67.00 2,000 60.80 2.875 73.03 2.876 73.03 3.125 79.38 • P/4 46- 2 50,8 3,126 79.88 2.5 635 325 82.55 3.5 88.9 4,126 105 8 DYWIDAG Anchor Design The spacing, inclination, length and the load applied of each anchor depend on the local soil or rock conditions. The available drilling equipment and the structural capacity of the other support ele- ments, such as wales, lagging or a concrete retain- ing wall, may dictate the capacity and configuration of anchors. A factor of safety of 1.5 to 2.5 should be utilized in anchor design. For rock anchors, the shear stress on the rock socket perimeter is used to size the bond length. For soil anchors, the bond length is generally assumed on the basis of experience and site test- ing. Field testing should always be conducted to verify design assumptions. Pull out tests verify that the bond capacity of the threadbar in grout exceeds the recommendations of ACI 318, The threadbar grout interface does not control the bond length. Bond in cohesive soils can be considerably increased using the Dywidag Postgrouting System. The stressing length depends on the assumed fail- ure plane and/or the size of the rock or soil mass necessary to resist the anchor force. A minimum stressing length of 15 ft. is recommended, -so that small movements in the retaining system will not result in a major loss of prestress force. Dywidag Anchor Installation Selection of the drilling method depends on.the number of anchors, the composition of the soil or rock, availability of equipment bnd the required ' diameter.of the hole. The selection of the tools and techniques should be left to the discretion of the. drilling contractor where practical. The depth of the bore hole should be based on site tests. The diameter of the bore hole should exceed the maximum diameter of the anchor by at least 1"• If centering devices are used, larger• holes are required. Grouting DSI After the anchor is installed in the bore hole, the bond length is grouted. Rock anchors and anchors in cohesive soils are generally grouted without pressure. Soil anchors in loose granular material are pressure grouted while the drill casing or auger is withdrawn. Dywidag Postgrouting may be used for the installa- tion of anchors in cohesive soils and non -cohesive soils. This technique permits additional grouting operations after the primary grout has cured. Using a series of valves in a preplaced grout pipe, grout can repeatedly be injected under high pressure, Regrouting displaces the previously injected grout and increases the anchor capacity. Stressing In stressing, an electrically powered hydraulic jack with built-in socket wrench tightens the anchor nut. The jack fits over a pull rod designed to , w thread onto the threadbar extension protruding from the anchor nut. Elongation of the anchor can be measured directly or can be moni- tored by a counter on the jack. Hydraulic pressure is measured by a gauge on the hydraulic pump. Discrepancies of more than• 10% between elonga- tion and gauge reading should be investigated. Lift off readings should be taken to determine the applied prestress force. Movement of the structural system must be considered. Testing Prior to the installation of any production anchors, test anchors should be installed to verify all design assumptions, including anchor length. Test anchors should be proof stressed to 80% of the guaranteed ultimate strength of the Dywidag Threadbar, After 24 or more hours, readings may be required on selected anchors to determine creep behavior. For rock anchors, bore holes should be pressure.. All production anchors should also be proof tested to determine water leakage before the stressed but the load need not be held for an anchors are installed. Consolidation grouting, extended period, redrilling and retesting are required where water seepage is excessive. I i• 11 I $', ` *b..3YS I1"EMS HNI i IL:.RMAD1�ii1�Nd4' L DYWIDAG Muitistrand Anchors DSI's Multisirand Rock and Soil Anchor System is based on the proven prestressing technology of the Dywidag Post -Tensioning System and decades of experience in anchor technology. The system is extremelyversatile and can be adapted to meet almost any project requirement, Large Forces Although there is no theoretical limit to the capacity of a multistrand anchor, practical considerations such as drill hole size and the availability of mater- ial handling equipment limit the size of an anchor to 61-0,6" (15.2mm) dia, strands. Larger anchors can be manufactured but the practicality and eco- nomics of their use should be thoroughly evaluated before they are incorporated'into a design. Very large anchors should be avoided in order to assure a satisfactory force redistribution in case of an anchorfailure. Long Lengths No theoretical length limit exists, however, practical drilling and material handling considerations must be considered. For shop fabrication, the practical limit is dictated by total anchor weight. Small Bending Radius Strand anchors can easily be coiled to fit on a flat bed truck and are well 'suited for installation where work space is limited. Corrosion Protection Options A wide variety of corrosion protection options are available to choose from, depending upon the expected length of service and the aggressiveness of the environment, Single Corrosion Protection (3CP) (Type A) SCP Anchors are used for temporary applications and sometimes for permanent applications in non - aggressive environments, In the bond length, cement grout covers the bare strand, The protec- tion in the free stressing length depends upon whether single stage or two stage grouting is used, For single stage grouting, the free stressing length of each strand is coated with a layer of corrosion preventative grease over which is extruded a tough seamless layer of polyethylene. Grease never comes In contact with the grout in the free stress- ing length so the bond strength is not affected, For two stage grouting, the grease and PE coating can be omitted, DSI does not recommend the use of bare strand in the free stressing length where the free stressing length remains uhgrouted. Double Corrosion Protection DCP (Type B) DCP Anchors are used for permanent applications in aggressive or uncertain environments, The strand bundle in the bond length is grouted Into a corru- gated PE or PVC duct while the individual strands In the free stressing length are greased and sheathed in polyethylene. Quality control. may be enhanced by pregrouting the bond length under factory conditions, Drill hole size and cost are significantly influenced by the clearance required by the outer PE duct. Stewart Mountain Dam, US, Bureau of Reclamation. Permanent anchors consisting of 22 and 28 epoxy coated strands, 1 F l.J I 11 I It J 10 0 I 1 1 1 I 1 Double Corrosion'Protection DCP (Type C) Corrosion protection for the anchor tendon can be improved by extending the outer corrugated PE or PVC duct over the free stressing length. In this case, pregrouting of the anchor inside the plastic duct is not recommended because of difficulties which might be encountered during transportation and placing. Double Corrosion Protection DCP (Type D) The ideal protection for strand anchors is one in which the strand is totally and permanently pro- tected from the time of manufacture throughout its life. Such protection is provided by epoxy coating the individual strands both externally and Internally. Flo -bond Flo -fit® is a rugged, thermally bonded polymer coating that offers maximum corrosion protection, with a bond strength that exceeds that of bare strand. When two stage grouting Is used, no additional corrosion protection is required even DS/ in applications where the free stressing length will remain ungrouted for an extended period of time, The Dywidag wedge anchor for epoxy coated strand bites through the coating Into the strand, developing 100% of its nominal ultimate tensile strength, Corrosion protection provided by the epoxy is not compromised by the wedge. Although the cost of epoxy coated strand is higher than bare strand, the total cost of the installed anchor is reduced by eliminating the outer corru- gated plastic duct. This makes it possible to mini- mize the drill hole size, thereby reducing the cost of drilling and grouting. Double Corrosion Protection "DCP (Type E) For anchors in which single stage grouting Is desirable, the free stressing length of epoxy coat- ed strand anchors can be coated with a lubricat- ing grease and encased in a seamless extruded PE sheath. Multistrand Prestressing Steel Properties - ASTM A416 Anchor Size Nominal Cross Section Area. Nominal Weight (bare strand) Ultimate Strength (FPu Apo) Prestressing Force 0.80 FPu Ape 0.70 FPu Apo 0.60 FPu Apo In' mm' plf kg/m kips kN kips kN kips kN kips kN 3 -0.6 0.65 420 2.20 3.27 175.8 182 140.6 625 123.0 547 105.5 469 4 -OAY 0.87 860 3.00 4.46 234.4 1,043 187.5 834 164.1 730 140.6 626 5 -0.6 1.09 700 6.70 5.51 293.0 1,303 . 234.4 1.043 205.1 912 175.8 782 6 -0.6 1.30 840 4.40 6.55 351.6 1,564 281.3 1,251 246.1 1,b95 211.0 938 7 -0.6 1.52 980 5.20 7.74 410.2 1,825 328.2 1,460 267.2 1,277 246.2 1,095 8 -0.6 1.74 ' 1,120 5.90 8.78 468.8 2,085 375.0" 1,668 328.1 1,460 281.3 1,251 9 -0.6 1.96 1,260 6.70 9.97 527.4 2,346 421.9 1.877 369.2 1,642 316.4 1,408 12 -0.6 2.60 1,680 8.90 13.24 703.2 3,128 562.6 2,503 492.3 2,190 422.0 1,877 15 -0.6 3.26 2,100 11.16 16.62 879.0 3,910 703.2 3.128 615.3 2,737 527.4 2,346 19 -0.6 4.12 2,660 14.10 20.98 1,113.4 4,963 890.7 3,962. 779.4 3,467 668.0 2,972 27 -0.6 5,86 3,780 20,00 29.76 1,582.2 7,036 1,265.8 6.631 1,107.6 4,927 949.4 4,223 37 -0.6 8.03 5.180 27.40 40.78 2,168.2 9,645 1,734.6 7,716 1,617.8 6,751 1,301.0 5.787 48 -0.6 10.41 6,720 35.80 52.83 2,812.8 12,512 2,250.2 10,009 1,968.9 8,758 1,687,7 7,507 54 -0.6 1 11.72 7,560 39.90 59.38 3,164.4 14,076 2,531.5 11,261 2,215.1 9,853 1,898.E 61 -0.6 148,540 3.2 45.10 67.12 3,574.6 15,901 2,859.7 12,721 2,502.2 11,131 2,144.E],,446 9540. 11 DYWIDAG Multistrend Anchors Types (Corrosion Protection Options) \PRIM GROUTR TUBE �\ GREASE & PE / SHEATHING k\� BARE STRAND CENTRALIZING SPACERS PROVIDE 1/2' Of GROUT COVER A ScP SINGLE STAGr GREASE & SHEATHING PE \\ %- CORRUGATED K OR PVC DUCT (PRE -GROUTING / \`\ OPTIONAL) CENTRALIZERS / PROVIDE 1/2' OF GROUT N ' `� COVER \\ B DCP SINGLE. STAGE c DCP SINGLE STAGE 1 0 I 1 C CORRUGATED PE OR PVC DUCT (PRE -GROUTING 1 OPTIONALGREASE & 1 SHEATHING PE \� 1 \� 1� CENTRALIZERS PROVIDE 1/2' t� 1 OF GROUT \ COVER 1 IST STAGE GROUT TUBE �\ EPDXY COATED STRAND ZND GROUTTAGE TUBE k\ 1 D DCP 1 T TWO STAGE CENTRALIZING SPACERS PROVIDE 1/2' OF GROUT COVER TRUMPET FREE STRESSING SEPDXY TRAND LENGTH �.. �. GREASED 8 PE SHEAfiHEA E DCP SINGLE STAGE: EPDXY COATED STRAND CENTRALIZING IBBOONDEN H SPACERS PROVIDE 1/Z' OF COVEROUT ANCI-1QR TYPE. CORROSION PROTECTION GROUPING 1 is Stressing Anchorages The prestressing force in each strand is malntalnd by Individual 3-part wedges. The Wedge segments grip the strand by means of tooth shaped threads which are forced Into the surface of the strand wires as the wedge is drawn Into the wedge hole. Unless provisions are made to allow the wedge to move further into the wedge hole (reduced friction force F) in response to increases in the stl'and force V, the wedge teeth will fail in bending and shear resulting in strand slips and anchor failure. For this reason DSI recommends that wedges for. strand anchors, in which the free stressing length remains unbonded, be.seated at the highest possi- ble force (0.8 fpu). Subsequent adjustment in anchor force should be made by adding or removing shims. Using this technique the wedge teeth will remain securely embedded in the strand, This is particu- larly important in applications where anchor load is likely to increase with time due to superposition°of external loads or seismic activity, •''�11 •`)Fi: �l�', Ib.'f�.,� e•1 'l �i: �. 'v+r...f•`r ..`.. t;'i.: .'.., .°",n,,i...„ 4 i�}s!rI.S _.. ,1:14rC•;••iJt-,;�.kT'!,,: .ai ' .,f :Y: � i'Ty i �! 1 • !.`. :.i r•7:D siY.� r:::. , �br . ,'ji:. �; tL r- �r}��yy ..r ��''`"''C'Il'1 n1"•;'r, ..„�,t}r,� 1445 '.�''',rr��l,++#'er �:irG�1,;:}I.A>.'>)',r�4 �;+L`r:,},1.. 'f's-'"t l'?r:TY''�;�. ��••': l;r ��. <,i.1 fit �,ti..ti Fl„,V `yr•Ci i1: ;6�:: dA ., ,J: !,.`°.I,t' _ 1' •�',T.S ,` 4-'.4�1�(Ii,,,. � •fi �rl\,-. rA,, �`r. I{p1'A ' • _ �IJ '1:l •r.�'/' :{'•(•.i' .11,..'C i1� ,{. i, " ^++'11,J.'. .,-, "i„; i'!r {•jJ', •f_ '� t iq'' - : r��;• •p`'' - i,'. 7•n;; }%'. i A t.,. ar,y ^'�,'•1�.�'�, `"•,t.t;o'?f'a..i.,.', , ,s.:'�;i: %'+•;'^•'•' ' �-. . ',�, .. r. .srrr,'rm>,rt,,, .,1-' I P ]hjr ,�, "t:d �:?'t `+:ii' ' ',i{: f :}..I•. r tiJ," ' •, ,i:Y,1: '. \'/fM1. ^' rr ASV] .':i,�,: "l1i ��!•, }rr,?„'". ,i :' ..i�,+(`}r` Pgdu,'rPt\i�lr Jti Hf,'eC!. t „dy:'°t . `. :1,' pu?rT, .,E):., y;;JY r - r.'%'r!^.i� r..?'f ^r':a�G f' ?r.'1.; ..•:',!. .. 7,} ; +,Y. v,d ''.'i},:.,I, •i'.,'v.� i'7, ..� ,n•, <( r .S. , r rl L,'. A;, , r{,.J:: a '' • 's' . .'f: :•') r , jl.. •l'ln r r "f';, 1( i, IN-.11"�}Lr t t' � t �:r'', ' ':F: , p,i 5 ail .},�'�.•.•: {.!;a}4 'NG:� �, ,, •. � .,d., ., .; �J, ' j„• ; 1,, ., ;.,;; '4.�i, `:r(1,%r,,rF• ,iJ yfrr(WAN,•_i' •f1,z:,, .i r:" :,i, ..u'+'• - • ! ttf' a.j�• .r. � ''`' �''+ti�ri'�t,ry, ((I{ ,'tl'.e tt',24A+`d, j. ' • :.r ,:i, a'.Tiiy, ;X"dtag;• Y5: {. SC•'•. 1:%:{,•C, .,: '., 441:fi':.:;• SYSTEMS A, B, & C ANCHORAGE SIZEPOA 4-0.6" 6-0.6" 8-0,6" 11-0.8" 14-0.6" 18-0.6" 25-0.6" 34-0.6" 54-0.6" 5.38/130.7 6.26/168.8 7.00/177.8 8.00/203.2 8,75/222,3 10.69/260.711,50/292.114,00/355.6 WEDGE PLATE4.50/114.3 1.80/45.7 2,20/55,9 2.38/60.5 2:70/68.8 3.12/79,2 3.62/91.9 4,62/114.8 4.0117.3 5.62/142.7 8.25/209.6 10.00/254.0 12.001304.8 13,50/342,9 16.50/393,7 18.00/4572 21109/533.4 25:00/635,0 30.001762.0 BEARING PLATE1,19130.2 1.38135.1 1r00/38:1 1,75/44,6 2.00160.8 2,38/60,5 2.75/69.9 3.50188.9 4.00/101.6 3.30/83.8 4.001101.6 4.80/121.9 5,40/137.2 6:20/157.5 6.62/168.1 7.75/196.9 8,75/222.3 11.25/285.8 TRUMPET14,0/355.6 16,0/406.4 20.01608.0 23.0/884.2 26.0/680,4 '28,0/711.2 34.0/883,6 40.0/1016,0 44.0/11117.6 SYSTEMS 0 d E ANCHORAGE SIZE 4-0.6" 8-0,8" 11-0,6" 14—Or6" 25-0,6" 34-0.6" 54-0.6" OA 5,00/127.0 7,001177.8 8.00/203.2 9.00/228.6 12.00/304.813.00/330216.00/406,4 WEDOEPLATE B 2,38/60.5 2.30/60.5 2.75/69.9 3.12/792 4.62/114.8 4.62h17.3 5.62/142.7 C x c 8.50/215.9 12.60/317.5 14.00/355.6 16.00/400.4 22.00/448.8 25,001035.0 30.00/762.0 BEARING PLATE D 1.25/31.8 1.50/38.1 1.75/44.5 1.88/47.8 2.75/69.9 3.60/88.0 4,00/101.6 0E 4.00/101.6 5,191131.8 6.00/152.4 6,75/171,5 1 10.12/257.010,25/260,413,001330.2 TRUMPET L (MIN,) 17.0/431,8 23,0/5842 27.0/605.8 29,0/736.6 37.0/939,8 43,0/1092,2 47r0/1193.8 NOTE: Bearing plate design based on A36 steel loaded to 95% of putt DIMENSIONS: Inch/mm 14 I I ' Uncoiler For projects where anchor placement by overhead 'crane is impractical, DSI can provide a hydraulic powered uncoiler. A unique feature of the Dywidag Uncoiler is the adjustable hub which simplifies the 'process of placing the anchor in the uncoiler. If necessary, the uncoiler can be used to remove the anchor from the drill hole. Use of the uncoiler, both in installation and/or removal, will reduce the risk of ' damage to the tendon. DSI 7.5 Ton Uncoller 1 � IVOWMAX / I I • 111J_LL_ I+----12' 2' NOTE: REQUIRES AN R35.3 OR EQUAL PUMP TO DRIVE THE UNIT. Stressing For installation and stressing efficiency, most DYWIDAG jacks for multi -strand anchors are equipped with internal strand guide tubes with automatic strand gripping and releasing devices. These features make jack installation a fast, one- step operation with small wedge seating loss. For safety, all jacks feature a check valve which holds the pressure in the unlikely event of hydraulic failure. For reliability, the jacks are equipped with special devices for power seating all wedges simultaneously. Jacks also allow bleed -back to achieve full utilization of the maximum allowable stresses in the anchor. A hydraulic connection and a pressure gauge are provided for all tensioning jacks. The hydraulic pumps used in conjunction with the jacks can be operated by remote control.. Jack chairs are provided where -wedge plate lift off during anchor testing is antisipated. Restressable Systems Rams for Anchor Stressing NOTE: Detailed operating and safety Instructions are provided with all stressing units. Read and understand these Instructions before operating equipment, ' 2a5N;S"•TEHDONS' 110.O36,NAM •• - 11VEIOfrh34,6' ja79mmj MA%00:11514470mm1 We0HC200 LB3. tIWkp) . pOWERBEATING: DS/ . •. zo•zr�o.a•,TExoont .6-12/0.0" TENDONS ,T"WIP 2000 RAM 14,V0 ''16.19%0:8'TEMDOry8, • 28b47O.6"TENDONS NONCATH•SOO;TOM .14004ON •. MAX' 0:21,1140mm ' I NEIOFn:B7.6'(17Mmin) • MMC•00;21'i681r I',BUX�OP.31'g07mmi lunatic 2800Ias, 1270k0)', 111 WEIGIR;7o00 t8s.S8IM • . pOWEABFAIHO: i PoWEaBFATINO:N 15 �:• tli1�", `•u'.4 .0'.1'��va d lG.�}dll tl�'V!-I:..H"a R� n7tila"91FE'•'dit, Spacers The purpose of a spacer is to help insure that grout surrounds each strand for corrosion pro- tection and for bond strength development. Designers should specify the desired distance between spacers (typically 7" —10'). Centralizers Centralizers are placed over the assembled strand bundle in order to maintain the required spacing between the anchor and the bore hole so that an adequate thickness of grout (mini- mum 0,5'7 surrounds the anchor. A wide variety, of centralizers are available depending upon the anchor type Typical spacers and centralizers, DYWIDAG-SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, USA INC. Corporate Headquarters South ControlDivision 320 MarCentral on Drivelalan Arlingpton TXs7800Drive Bolingbrook,IL60440 Tel (811 466.3333 Tel (630 709.1100 Fag (04) 405.3969 Fax (6 %) 972.5517 North East Division 15 Industrial Road Fairfield NJ 07004 To] (9731 276.9222 Fax (9733) 276.9292 South East Division 4732 Stone Drive Tucker, GA30084 Tel (770)) 491.3790 Fax (72) 938.1219 Visit Our Webeite: www.dywldaysystems.com Western Division 2164 Bough Street Lon Beach, CA 90806 Tel 21631.8161 Fax (6822)631.2687 Latin America Division 15 Industdal Road Fairfield) NJ 07004 Feax( B73) 276.0249 E-mail: delemerlca@dslemedce.com Occoquan Dem, Fairfax County Water Authority, Permanent tie down anchors 40-54 epoxy coated strands, Los Angeles Public Library. Permanent Ile backs using epoxy coated strand. DYWIDAG-SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, CANADA LTD. Eastern Division 65 Bowes Road, Unit 85 Concord, ON WK IH5 Tel (005 869.4952 Fax (90) 669.2148 Western Division 19433 861h Avenue, Ste.103 Surrey, 80 WN 4C4 Tel(604 888.8818 Fax(60) 8B8.5008 U U I U I I DYWIDAG-SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, '. ASIA-PACIFIC Cc crate Headquarters 25 PadOo Nlghwey Barnette Green, NSW 2290 Australia Tel +612 4948 9099 Fax +612 4948 4087 1 I j 1210621J