HomeMy WebLinkAboutCollins Island_Final_ MND_10-2024FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PREPARED BY
OCTOBER 2024
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PART II RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
PART III ERRATA
PART IV MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
PART I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 i Table of Contents
PART I: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Consultation ................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................................ 1-2
2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4 Construction/Phasing ..................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.5 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................. 2-14
3.0 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-3
4.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 4.8-1
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 4.11-1
4.12 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 4.14-1
4.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 4.16-1
4.17 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 4.17-1
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1
4.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................. 4.20-1
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 4.21-1
4.22 References ................................................................................................................................ 4.22-1
4.23 Report Preparation Personnel ................................................................................................... 4.23-1
5.0 Inventory of Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 5-1
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 ii Table of Contents
6.0 Consultant Recommendation .................................................................................................................... 6-1
7.0 Lead Agency Determination ...................................................................................................................... 7-1
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data
Appendix B Jurisdictional Delineation/Marine Reports
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D Geotechnical Report/Paleontological Resources Assessment
Appendix E Noise Data
Appendix F AB 52 Documentation
The Notice of Intent, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Technical Appendices are available for public review on the
City’s website:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-division/projects-
environmental-document-download-page/environmental-document-download-page
In addition to the City’s website, these documents are also available for review on the Office of Planning and
Research’s (OPR) CEQAnet Online Database, under State Clearinghouse No. 2024070802:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2024070802
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 iii Table of Contents
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Vicinity ............................................................................................................................. 2-2
Exhibit 2-2 Site Vicinity ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3
Exhibit 2-3 Overall Project Improvements ........................................................................................................ 2-5
Exhibit 2-4 Conceptual Bridge Design .............................................................................................................. 2-6
Exhibit 2-5 Proposed Seawall Improvements ................................................................................................... 2-9
Exhibit 2-6 Pump Station Accommodations ................................................................................................... 2-10
Exhibit 2-7a Bridge Construction Stages .......................................................................................................... 2-12
Exhibit 2-7b Bridge Construction Stages .......................................................................................................... 2-13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.3-1 Project-Generated Construction Emissions ................................................................................. 4.3-6
Table 4.3-2 Localized Significance of Emissions .......................................................................................... 4.3-10
Table 4.4-1 General Plan Natural Resources Element Project Consistency Analysis .................................... 4.4-7
Table 4.6-1 Energy Consumption ................................................................................................................... 4.6-2
Table 4.8-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................... 4.8-5
Table 4.11-1 General Plan Land Use Element Project Consistency Analysis ................................................ 4.11-2
Table 4.11-2 California Coastal Act Project Consistency Analysis ................................................................. 4.11-4
Table 4.11-3 Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis ............................................................... 4.11-9
Table 4.13-1 Noise and Land Use Compatibility ............................................................................................ 4.13-2
Table 4.13-2 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards ...................................................................... 4.13-3
Table 4.13-3 City of Newport Beach Interior Noise Standards ....................................................................... 4.13-3
Table 4.13-4 Noise Measurements ................................................................................................................. 4.13-5
Table 4.13-5 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ............................................... 4.13-6
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 iv Table of Contents
Table 4.13-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................................ 4.13-8
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 1-1 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project (herein referenced as the “project”) consists of three major
components: 1) bridge replacement, 2) seawall improvements, and 3) future pump station accommodations. Refer to
Section 2.0, Project Description for a detailed description of the proposed project.
Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach (City) has determined that it is
subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378, a “project” is defined as the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either
a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment,
and that is any of the following:
• An activity directly undertaken by any public agency, including, but not limited to, public works construction
and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and
amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements
thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700;
• An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contacts,
grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies; or
• An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for
use by one or more public agencies.
This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed.
1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City is identified as
the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000-21177) and pursuant
to Section 15063 of the CCR, the City is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the
proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency
finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency
shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project-related and cumulative
environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as
proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect
on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration (or Mitigated Negative Declaration). Such determination can be
made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such impacts
may occur (Section 21080[c], Public Resources Code).
The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as
an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon
the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither
presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits, and other discretionary
approvals would be required.
1.2 PURPOSE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant
to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:
• A description of the project, including the location of the project;
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 1-2 Introduction
• Identification of the environmental setting;
• Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on
a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries;
• Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any;
• Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use
controls; and
• The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study.
1.3 CONSULTATION
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(g), as soon as the Lead Agency (in this case, the City) has determined
that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all
Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to
obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared for
the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead Agency considers any
recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary findings. Following completion of this Initial
Study, the Lead Agency initiates formal consultation with these and other governmental agencies as required under
CEQA and its implementing guidelines.
1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated into this document
by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development
Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660.
• Newport Beach General Plan (July 25, 2006). The Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) is a policy
document intended to guide the long-term development within Newport Beach. The General Plan reflects the
community’s vision and provides a framework for Newport Beach’s long-range physical and economic
development and resource conservation. The General Plan consists of the following elements: Land Use;
Circulation; Historical Resources; Recreation; Arts and Culture; Safety; Noise; Harbor and Bay; Housing; and
Natural Resources.
• Newport Beach General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (July 25, 2006). The Newport Beach General
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) analyzes potential environmental impacts from
implementation of the General Plan, identifies policies from the General Plan that serve to reduce and
minimize impacts, and identifies additional mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce potentially significant
impacts of the General Plan. Based on analysis provided within the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General
Plan was found to result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics and visual quality, air
quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, and transportation/traffic.
• City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (adopted 2005; amended 2019). The
City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) sets forth goals, objectives,
and policies that address the requirements of the Coastal Act to ensure the City guides development in the
Coastal Zone in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Act.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 1-3 Introduction
• Newport Beach Municipal Code (codified through Ordinance No. 2023-13, enacted passed August 22, 2023).
The Newport Beach Municipal Code (Municipal Code) includes the City’s regulatory, penal, and administrative
ordinances. Municipal Code Title 20, Planning and Zoning (Zoning Code), is intended to carry out the policies
of the General Plan. Additionally, the Zoning Code is intended to promote the orderly development of the City;
promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; protect the character,
social, and economic vitality of neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial development of the City. Municipal
Code Title 21, Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, implements the policies of the CLUP, consistent
with the Coastal Act, by establishing and regulating zoning district standards, site planning and development
standards, and other standards for specific land use types.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 1-4 Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 2-1 Project Description
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Regionally, the project site is located within the City of Newport Beach (City), in the southwestern portion of Orange
County; refer to Exhibit 2-1, Regional Vicinity. The Pacific Ocean bounds the City to the west and surrounding
jurisdictions include the cities of Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa to the north, Irvine to the east, and unincorporated
Orange County to the south.
The project site is the Collins Island Bridge and its immediate vicinity located on Balboa Island in Newport Bay; refer
to Exhibit 2-2, Project Limits. Collins Island is located on the western tip of Balboa Island and is connected to the
greater Balboa Island via the Collins Island Bridge. Regional access to the project site is provided via State Route 1
(SR-1; Pacific Coast Highway) and local access to the site is provided via Marine Avenue (across the Balboa Island
North Channel), and North Bay Front and Park Avenue on Balboa Island.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Balboa Island is located in Lower Newport Bay and is one of the City’s older, distinct residential neighborhoods along
the coastline. This early neighborhood follows a traditional subdivision pattern of homes on streets designed in a linear
grid with alleyways and is generally pedestrian-oriented. Much of Balboa Island is characterized by duplex units and
single-family residences, with a central retail village consisting of specialty shops, entertainment, and marine uses that
serve nearby residents and visitors.
On the western tip of Balboa Island, Collins Island is developed with eight single-family residences and is accessed
only by the Collins Island Bridge via Park Avenue. The existing reinforced concrete bridge was constructed in 1953
and is approximately 20 feet and 8 inches long and 19 feet wide. The bridge is supported on concrete sheet pile
bulkheads, which are insufficient to resist current code level seismic loads. The bridge accommodates one lane of
vehicle traffic, one raised public sidewalk, and steel railings on each side of the bridge to provide public and private
access to the bridge. Essential utilities that serve Collins Island residents are currently located on the bridge. Given the
age of the structure, the Collins Island Bridge does not meet current bridge code requirements and is nearing the end
of its useful lifetime. According to a 2012 bridge inspection report, the Collins Island Bridge was designated as
functionally obsolete and has not been improved since 2012.
2.2.1 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING
Based on the City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan), City of Newport Beach Coastal Zoning Map (Zoning
Map), and City of Newport Beach GIS Map Viewer, Collins Island is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-
D) and zoned Single Unit Residential (R-1). Uses to the east of the Collins Island Bridge on the greater Balboa Island
are designated Two-Unit Residential (RT) and zoned Two-Unit Residential (R-BI [Balboa Island]).1,2 The bridge itself
does not have a land use designation or zoning district.
Based on the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), Collins Island is
designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RSD-B) with an allowed density of 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac); uses to the east of the Collins Island Bridge on the greater Balboa Island are designated Two-Unit Residential
(RT-E) with an allowed density of 30.0 to 39.9 du/ac.3
1 City of Newport Beach, Interactive Maps, https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/city-manager-s-
office/information-technology-city-division/gis-mapping/interactive-maps, accessed July 7, 2023.
2 City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Coastal Zoning Map, August 9, 2017.
3 City of Newport Beach, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, Map 1, August 9, 2017.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-1
Regional VicinityNOT TO SCALE
02/2024 • JN 191636
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
O
C
E
A
N
USMC
Camp Pendleton
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
101
395
405
405
605
105
210
210
710
110
215
215
5
5
5
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
73
55
57
9191
90
60
71
83
66
91
60
38
18
18
22
1
2
14
18
18
138
138 173
247
74
74
1
1
133
261
241
330
241
Victorville
Adelanto
Hesperia
Apple Valley
SanBernardino
LakeArrowhead
RunningSprings
Riverside
Fontana
OntarioPomona
RanchoCucamonga
Chino
Rialto
Corona
Norco
LakeElsinore
Hemet
Beaumont
Redlands
Temecula
Fallbrook
Oceanside
Murrieta
Palmdale
Lancaster
SanFernando
Pasadena
WestCovina
Whittier
Burbank
Glendora
LosAngeles
Torrance
LongBeach
NewportBeach
HuntingtonBeach
SanClemente
DanaPoint
LagunaBeach San JuanCapistrano
SantaAna
CostaMesa
GardenGrove
Fullerton
YorbaLinda
Irvine
MorenoValley
SunCity
Perris
Project Site
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-2
Project LimitsNOT TO SCALE
02/2024 • JN 191636
Collins Island Bridge Replacement
Project Improvement LimitsCity of Newport Beach
Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impacts
Temporary Dock Relocations
LEGEND
Source: Michael Baker International, July 2023
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 2-4 Project Description
According to the General Plan, the RS-D designation applies to a range of detached single-family residential dwelling
units on a single legal lot and is not intended for condominiums or cooperative housing. The RT designation applies to
a range of two family residential dwelling units such as duplexes and townhomes.
Based on Newport Beach Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Section 20.18.010, Purposes of Residential Zoning
Districts, the R-1 zoning district is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a range of detached single-family
residential dwelling units, each located on a single legal lot, and does not include condominiums or cooperative
housing. The R-BI zoning district is intended to provide for a maximum of two residential dwelling units (i.e., duplexes)
located on a single legal lot on Balboa Island.
2.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding uses in the project area are primarily comprised of open waters, beach areas, and residential uses as
described below.
• North: Open waters associated with the Newport Bay are located to the north of the project site. Harbor Island
is located further north and is designated RS-D and RT and zoned R-1 and Two-Unit Residential (R-2).
• East: The greater Balboa Island is located to the east of the site. Balboa Island uses are primarily designated
RT and zoned R-BI.
• South: Open waters associated with the Newport Bay are located to the south of the site. The Balboa
Peninsula is located further south. Uses along the Balboa Peninsula have various land use designations,
including RS-D, RT, Multiple Unit Residential (RM), Public Facilities (PF), Visitor Serving Commercial (CV),
Mixed-Use Water Related (MU-W2), and Parks and Recreation (PR). Zoning districts along the Balboa
Peninsula include R-2, Multi-Unit Residential (RM), Mixed-Use Vertical (MU-V), Commercial Visitor-Serving
(CV), Public Facilities (PF), and Parks and Recreation (PR).
• West: Collins Island and open waters associated with the Newport Bay are located to the west of the site.
Harbor Island is located further northwest.
2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project (project) has three major components: 1) bridge replacement,
2) seawall improvements, and 3Public) future pump station accommodations; refer to Exhibit 2-3, Overall Project
Improvements. The three project components are described in further detail below.
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
As shown on Exhibit 2-4, Conceptual Bridge Design, the proposed bridge would be designed to be a total of 20 feet
and 6 inches in width to accommodate one vehicle travel lane 13 feet and 9 inches-wide, one 4-foot wide public
sidewalk, and concrete barriers on each side to provide protection from projected sea level rise. The bridge would be
31 feet in length spanning over existing concrete sheet pile bulkheads.
The current slope along the roadway and sidewalk bridge approaches on both sides of the bridge exceed five percent.
Therefore, the profiles would be adjusted to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Landscaped
areas and the bridge monument would also be improved to increase sight distance along the adjacent walkways to
increase pedestrian safety. A new stop sign and limit line would also be added at the intersection on both sides of the
bridge.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-3
Overall Project Improvements
Source: Michael Baker International, July 2024
NOT TO SCALE
07/2024 • JN 191636
PROPOSED SEAWALLIMPROVEMENTS
FUTURE PUMP STATION
STREET, SIDEWALK ANDLANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSEDBRIDGE
PROPOSED SEAWALLIMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED BRIDGEAPPROACHES
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-4
Conceptual Bridge Design
Source: Michael Baker International, February 2024
NOT TO SCALE
02/2024 • JN 191636
ELEVATION
TYPICAL SECTION
X-XXXX-X
XX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
C-8846
GENERAL PLAN
2
PLAN
COLLINS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 2-7 Project Description
Street, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements are also proposed on the Balboa Island side along the Bay Front
sidewalk and Park Avenue eastward until the alley; refer to Exhibit 2-3. Anticipated improvements include monument
sign construction, irrigation, paving, and landscaping.
SEAWALL IMPROVEMENTS
Seawalls are designed to protect properties from water levels associated with high tides and storm surges. Water
surface elevations are also expected to rise in the future due to climate change. Therefore, the project proposes to
construct a new seawall in front of the existing seawalls adjacent to the bridge. Currently, most seawalls along Collins
Island Bridge and along the Bay Front sidewalk consist of concrete sheet pile bulkheads with a concrete cap (coping)
elevation of approximately 9 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Some of the existing concrete
sheet piles are structurally deficient where existing tie back anchors have corroded and no longer provide adequate
support at the upper part of the walls. Therefore, the proposed seawall improvements would be installed in front of the
existing seawalls and be designed to have a top of wall coping elevation of 11 feet NAVD 88 with a future cap extension
elevation up to 14 feet NAVD 88.
To maintain consistency between Collins Island and Balboa Island, existing seawalls along the Bay Front sidewalk
would also be improved; refer to Exhibit 2-5, Proposed Seawall Improvements. The seawall improvements along the
Bay Front sidewalk are required where the roadway and sidewalk profiles are proposed to be adjusted to meet ADA
requirements and to accommodate future sea level rise. The Bay Front sidewalks adjacent to the new proposed
seawalls would also be raised to provide a minimum of 42 inches from sidewalk to top of coping for pedestrian safety.
Public views along Bay Front sidewalk would be maintained.
The new seawalls would be designed to allow access to existing boat ramps and docks. However, certain docks would
be temporarily relocated during construction activities. Where possible, the existing concrete sheet pile bulkhead
system would remain in place to reduce disturbance and associated environmental impacts. In the case of Bay Front
sidewalk seawall improvements, new steel sheet piles would be placed seaward from the existing concrete sheet piles.
A new sidewalk and parapet cap would provide seawall protection; refer to Exhibit 2-5.
FUTURE PUMP STATION ACCOMODATIONS
The City is currently designing storm drain improvements for Park Avenue near the Collins Island Bridge as part of a
separate project. As such, given that the proposed project and pump station project are being designed concurrently
in close vicinity, the project includes underground pump station accommodations to convey stormwater outflow into the
bay adjacent to the new bridge. Specifically, the underground pump station and catch basin will have a discharge pipe
near the new seawall and east bridge approach. It will also have a collection/distribution drainpipe located beneath the
Bay Front Sidewalk adjacent to the new seawall. Given that the pump station and associated improvements would be
underground, no impacts to public parking in the area would occur. The configuration is illustrated on Exhibit 2-6, Pump
Station Accommodations. It should be noted that while the pump station project is being designed by the City
concurrently with the proposed project, the pump station project is not a part of the proposed project and would be
approved separately.
2.4 CONSTRUCTION/PHASING
Construction activities are scheduled to occur over a period of 11 months. Construction activities would include
demolition, excavation, utility relocation, drilling for bridge pile foundations, steel sheet piling installation with press-in
method, formwork framing and concrete placement for bridge and seawall improvements construction, street paving
(concrete), and landscaping.
Short-term construction impact areas are illustrated in the orange polygon on Exhibit 2-2 and consists of the bridge,
the segment of Park Avenue on either side of the bridge, the segment of the Bay Front sidewalk adjacent to anticipated
COLLINS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 2-8 Project Description
seawall improvements, and the waterway in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Primary waterway activities would
involve barges delivering construction materials and would require the temporary relocation of several docks outlined
in purple on Exhibit 2-2. These docks consist of floats and access gangways. Floats would be temporarily relocated
outside of the work area and placed along the adjacent bulkhead with the gangways attached to the top of bulkhead
walls to provide safe access to the floats. Permanent project improvements would occur within the yellow hashed
polygon on Exhibit 2-2 and consist of the bridge, the segment of Park Avenue on either side of the bridge, and the
segment of the Bay Front sidewalk adjacent to anticipated seawall improvements.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-5
Proposed Seawall Improvements
Source: Michael Baker International, July 2024
NOT TO SCALE
07/2024 • JN 191636
M
W
MW
MW
PB PB
PB
W
W
5.86 9+76.00 GB 7.00 10+00.00 GB 7.009+88.50 GB 7.00 10+25.00 GB 6.80 10+67.00 GB 6.59 10+80.00 GB 6.2010+04.00 GB 7.00 10+09.00 GB 7.00
11
+
1
0
.
0
0
G
B
5.
4
5
9+23.00 GB 6.47 9+33.00 GB 6.808+97.00 GB 5.75 9+13.00 GB 6.07
10+90.00
G
B 5.71
11
+
0
3
.
0
0
G
B
5.
4
5
X-XXXX-X
XX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
C-8846
PROFILE SCALE
=
=
1"
1"
HORIZ.
VERT.2'
10'
PLAN & PROFILE
_
BAYFRONT SIDEWALK
9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50
COLLINS ISLAND
BALBOA ISLAND
CO
L
L
I
N
S
I
S
L
A
N
D
B
R
I
D
G
E
11+00
6789 67891010
55
1111
PA
R
K
A
V
E
BAY FRON
T
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
BAY FR
O
N
T
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-6
Pump Station Accommodations
Source: Michael Baker International, July 2024
NOT TO SCALE
07/2024 • JN 191636
MW
MW
MW
PB
PB
PB
W W W W W W W W W W
X-XXXX-X
XX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
C-8846
DETAIL No. 1
SEAWALL DISCHARGE
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 2-11 Project Description
Construction activities would occur during permitted hours as detailed in the City’s Noise Ordinance. Specifically,
Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity - Noise Regulations, limits construction hours to weekdays
7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No construction activities are permitted on Sundays
and federal holidays.
As shown on Exhibits 2-7a and 2-7b, Bridge Construction Stages, the bridge would be replaced in portions to provide
access to Collins Island during construction activities to maximum extent feasible. A 14-foot wide portion would first be
removed and replaced and the remaining 5-foot wide portion would be removed and replaced. Short-term bridge
closures limited to a few hours in a day (i.e., not full day or multi-day closures) may be required. However, steel plates
would be placed over temporary excavations to allow traffic to remain open after work hours.
Overall, the proposed project improvements would occur in two phases and generally consist of:
Phase 1 – Bridge Construction (approximately 7 months)
a. Partial demolition of the site would require removal of portions of existing concrete paving, bridge structure,
sidewalks, and landscaping. The partial demolition would occur for approximately one to two months.
Anticipated construction equipment includes excavators, back hoes, hydraulic hammers, concrete saws,
material handlers, truck crane, and dump trucks. The bridge removal would consist of saw-cutting long
portions of the bridge and lifting them onto nearby flatbed trucks for removal. A drop net placed over the
waterway would be used to catch debris during removal of the concrete bridge and coping on existing
seawalls.
b. All four stages of bridge replacement activities illustrated on Exhibits 2-7a and 2-7b would occur in this
construction phase. Estimated duration for bridge construction is approximately two months. 24-inch concrete
pile foundations would be drilled into the sea floor and precast/prestressed concrete slab girders would be
utilized during construction to accelerate bridge construction and minimize impacts to adjacent residents.
c. A temporary utility bridge would be constructed on the northern side of the bridge to ensure essential utility
services to Collins Island are maintained.
d. Steel sheet piling near the bridge abutments would be placed at this phase of construction to support the
existing concrete sheet pile seawalls. New steel sheet piling would be installed in front of the existing concrete
sheet pile wall utilizing a hydraulic press-in-method that forces the interlocking steel piling sections through
loose fill and into competent sandstone substrata below grade to the depth specified in the project’s
geotechnical report; refer to Exhibit 2-5. No impact pile driving would be utilized. A barge mounted crane may
be required to position the steel sheet piles. Steel sheet piles would be delivered to the site by truck or barge
and off loaded as needed by crane to minimize the need for on-site storage and laydown areas. Once sheet
piling is installed, steel outlet pipes (for the future pump station) would be constructed.
e. The proposed seawall improvements along the Bay Front sidewalk would consist of new steel sheet pilings
installed on the seaward side of the existing concrete sheet piling with the hydraulic press-in-method to the
depth specified in the project’s geotechnical report. Concrete coping and concrete sidewalks would then be
constructed. This portion of construction would occur immediately after bridge construction. Estimated
duration for seawall construction is approximately four months.
f. Street improvements for bridge approaches, paving, sidewalk, and utility relocations would also occur
concurrently with the seawall construction and take approximately four months.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-7a
Bridge Construction Stages
Source: Michael Baker International, July 2023
STAGE 1 PLAN
STAGE 3 PLAN
STAGE 2 PLAN
STAGE 4 PLAN
X-XXXX-X
XX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
C-8846
STAGE CONSTRUCTION No. 1
3
NOT TO SCALE
07/2023 • JN 191636
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2-7b
Bridge Construction Stages
Source: Michael Baker International, July 2023
STAGE 2
DEMOLITION
CONSTRUCTION
DEMOLITION
CONSTRUCTION
STAGE 3
CONSTRUCTION
STAGE 4
STAGE 1
X-XXXX-X
XX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
C-8846
STAGE CONSTRUCTION No. 2
4
NOT TO SCALE
07/2023 • JN 191636
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 2-14 Project Description
Phase 2 - Park Avenue Street Improvements (approximately 4 months)
a. Demolition of the remaining portions of existing concrete paving would occur for approximately one month.
Anticipated construction equipment include excavators, back hoes, hydraulic hammers, concrete saws,
material handlers, truck crane, and dump trucks.
b. The remaining portions of partial street improvements would occur for a duration of approximately two months.
c. Landscaping improvements consisting of monument sign construction, sign construction, irrigation, paving,
and landscaping would occur for approximately one month.
Given the site constraints, there are limited laydown areas for construction staging. Similar to other projects on Balboa
Island, construction contractors would be required to bring material to the site on an as-needed basis with limited areas
for truck parking to offload materials.
Construction workers would be required to park off-site and shuttle from mainland parking areas to the site in order to
minimize impacts to Balboa Island parking. Potential mainland parking areas would be identified in the project’s Traffic
Management Plan and reviewed and approved by the City prior to initiation of construction activities. Construction
activities would require approximately 20 workers on-site each day for the duration of the construction period.
HAULING ACTIVITIES
The project would require hauling of demolition materials from the project site to the local landfill. Each haul truck is
capable of holding approximately 10 cubic yards of material. It is anticipated that approximately 40 truck trips would be
required over the anticipated construction period.
Additionally, the project would require hauling of construction materials (i.e., steel and other miscellaneous construction
materials) from the mainland to the construction area via trucks and barges. Given the limited laydown areas,
construction materials would be delivered to the project site on an as-needed basis with most as pre-cast elements.
2.5 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The City of Newport Beach and other applicable agency approvals required for project implementation would include,
but are not limited to, the following:
City of Newport Beach
• California Environmental Quality Act Clearance
• Coastal Development Permit
California Coastal Commission
• Coastal Development Permit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act/Clean Water Act Section 404 (Nationwide Permit 3, Maintenance)
Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 3-1 Initial Study Checklist
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
3.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Robert Stein, Assistant City Engineer
949.644.3311
4. Project Location: Regionally, the project site is located within the City of Newport Beach, in the
southwestern portion of Orange County; locally, the project site is the Collins Island Bridge and its
immediate vicinity located on Balboa Island in the Newport Bay. Collins Island is located on the western
tip of Balboa Island and is connected to the greater Balboa Island via the Collins Island Bridge.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
Robert Stein, Assistant City Engineer
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
6. General Plan Designation: Based on the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Collins Island is
designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D). Uses to the east of the Collins Island Bridge on the
greater Balboa Island are designated Two-Unit Residential (RT). As a roadway feature, the bridge itself
does not have a land use designation.
7. Zoning: According to the City of Newport Beach Overview Map, Collins Island is zoned Single Unit
Residential (R-1). Uses to the east of the Collins Island Bridge on the greater Balboa Island are zoned
Two-Unit Residential (R-BI [Balboa Island]). As a roadway feature, the bridge itself does not have a zoning
district. Additionally, based on the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan,
Collins Island is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RSD-B) with an allowed density of 6.0 to
9.9 dwelling units per acre (du/ac); uses to the east of the Collins Island Bridge on the greater Balboa
Island are designated Two-Unit Residential (RT-E) with an allowed density of 30.0 to 39.9 du/ac.
8. Description of the Project: The project has three major components: 1) bridge replacement, 2) seawall
improvements, and 3) future pump station accommodations. Additional details regarding the project are
provided in Section 2.3, Project Characteristics.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding uses in the project area are primarily comprised of
open waters, beach areas, and residential uses as described below:
• North: Open waters associated with the Newport Bay are located to the north of the project site.
Harbor Island is located further north and is designated RS-D and RT and zoned R-1 and Two-Unit
Residential (R-2).
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 3-2 Initial Study Checklist
• East: The greater Balboa Island is located to the east of the site. Balboa Island uses are primarily
designated RT and zoned R-BI.
• South: Open waters associated with the Newport Bay are located to the south of the site. The Balboa
Peninsula is located further south. Uses along the Balboa Peninsula have various land use
designations, including RS-D, RT, Multiple Unit Residential (RM), Public Facilities (PF), Visitor
Serving Commercial (CV), Mixed-Use Water Related (MU-W2), and Parks and Recreation (PR).
Zoning districts along the Balboa Peninsula include R-2, Multi-Unit Residential (RM), Mixed-Use
Vertical (MU-V), Commercial Visitor-Serving (CV), Public Facilities (PF), and Parks and Recreation
(PR).
• West: Open waters associated with the Newport Bay are located to the west of the site. Harbor Island
is located further northwest.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): Refer to Section 2.5, Permits and Approvals, for a description of the permits
and approvals anticipated to be required for the project. Additional approvals may be required as the
project entitlement process moves forward.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan
for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB)
52, the City distributed letters to applicable Native American tribes to notify tribes of the opportunity to
consult with the City regarding the proposed project. Refer to Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, for
additional details.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Mineral Resources
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Noise
Air Quality Population and Housing
Biological Resources Public Services
Cultural Resources Recreation
Energy Transportation
Geology and Soils Tribal Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Utilities and Service Systems
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wildfire
Hydrology and Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance
Land Use and Planning
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 3-3 Initial Study Checklist
3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas
evaluated in this Initial Study include:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA
Guidelines and used by the City of Newport Beach in its environmental review process. For the preliminary
environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a determination that there is a potential
for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation.
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided
according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses:
• No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.
• Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although
this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant.
• Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to
generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation
measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts
to levels that are less than significant.
• Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and
additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than
significant levels.
Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be
avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 3-4 Initial Study Checklist
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.1-1 Aesthetics
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist.
Explanations are provided for each item.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and
its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) identifies the conservation of
sensitive lands and natural resources, and enhancement of the City’s visual resources as important goals. The General
Plan designates visual resources, scenic corridors, public view points, ocean views, cliffs, and hillsides as important
scenic resources with the City of Newport Beach. The project site is located within a developed residential area on
Balboa Island/Collins Island within Newport Bay. According to General Plan Figure NR3, Coastal Views, and the City
of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) Map 4-3, Coastal Views, the existing Collins
Island Bridge and surrounding area are not designated as a “Public View Point” or “Coastal View Road.”
During project construction, views towards the project site from surrounding residences, public sidewalks, beach areas,
and open water may be temporarily altered by construction activities and equipment. However, project construction
would occur over a short duration (11 months) and would not block expansive public views of Newport Bay; upon
completion, any disruption of public views due to construction activities would cease.
The proposed project would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge with a new bridge structure, implement seawall
improvements, and install future pump station accommodations. The Bay Front sidewalks adjacent to the new proposed
seawalls would also be raised to provide a minimum of 42 inches from sidewalk to top of coping for pedestrian safety
and would not obstruct existing public views along the sidewalk over the seawalls. The project would also improve sight
distance along the adjacent walkways to increase pedestrian safety. Overall, the project’s height, mass, and scale
would be similar to existing conditions, and would not introduce new structures that would further obstruct public views
of Newport Bay. As such, the project would have a less than significant impact on a scenic view or vista.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.1-2 Aesthetics
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No Impact. State Route 1 (SR-1) is the nearest Officially State Designated State Scenic Highway, located
approximately 0.4-mile to the northeast of the project site.1 Views to the project area from SR-1, however, are not
afforded due to topographic conditions and intervening structures. As such, the proposed project would not affect
scenic resources along SR-1. No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a developed, urbanized area of Newport Beach. Based
on the City’s Zoning Map, Collins Island is zoned Single Unit Residential (R-1) and uses to the east of the Collins Island
Bridge on the greater Balboa Island are zoned Two-Unit Residential (R-BI [Balboa Island]). However, the bridge itself
and adjacent rights-of-way (e.g., Park Avenue and Bay Front sidewalk) where anticipated project improvements would
occur do not have any zoning districts since they are public roadway infrastructure facilities. As described in Response
4.1(a), there are no public view points or coastal roads in the project impact area, and changes to public views of the
site during construction would be temporary. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with Municipal Code
Section 20.30.100, Public View Protection.
The proposed project would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge with a new bridge structure that would have
slightly reduced slopes along the roadway and sidewalk bridge approaches compared to existing conditions to meet
Americans with Disabilities (ADA) standards. Landscaped areas and the bridge monument would also be improved to
increase sight distance along the adjacent walkways to increase pedestrian safety. A new stop sign and limit line would
also be added at the intersection on both sides of the bridge. Street, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements are also
proposed on the Balboa Island side along the Bay Front sidewalk and Park Avenue eastward until the alley. Proposed
discharge and outlet pipes to accommodate a future pump station (to be processed as a future, separate project) would
also be constructed.
The project would also increase the height of existing seawalls adjacent to the bridge, as well as construct new
seawalls, in order to accommodate future sea level rise, maintain consistency with surrounding seawalls on Collins
Island and Balboa Island, and comply with ADA standards. Specifically, the project would increase the seawall heights
from 9 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) to 11 feet NAVD 88 with a future cap extension elevation
up to 14 feet NAVD 88. Pursuant to Appendix A, Sea Level Rise, of Municipal Code Title 21, Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan, the City understands that, due to the threat of flooding and inundation from sea level rise, public
and privately-owned seawall caps may need to be extended, and City standards may need to be revised to allow for
the construction of new seawalls. The Bay Front sidewalk adjacent to the new proposed seawalls would also be raised
to provide a minimum of 42 inches from sidewalk to top of coping for pedestrian safety. Existing public views and visual
character of the harbor as viewed from the public walkway would be maintained. As such, while the project would
slightly alter the visual character of the project site, this action would be consistent with local regulations. Refer also to
Table 4.11-3, Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis, in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, for a
project consistency analysis with applicable City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan
(CLUP) policies, including those related to aesthetics and scenic/coastal views.
1 California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map,
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed August
9, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.1-3 Aesthetics
Overall, the project’s potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors that pass
through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security
lighting, and landscape lighting). Light introduction can be a nuisance to adjacent uses and diminish the view of the
clear night sky.
Project construction could involve temporary light and glare impacts as a result of construction equipment and
materials. However, based on the project’s limited construction duration and scope of activities, these sources of light
and glare would not be substantial. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity – Noise
Regulation, all construction activities associated with the proposed project shall be limited to the hours between 7:00
a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction
activities would occur on Sunday or federal holidays. Construction activities would not utilize any nighttime lighting that
could result in temporary light and glare impacts. Thus, short-term construction light and glare impacts would be less
than significant.
The project area currently experiences lighting typical of urban/suburban areas. The primary source of light and glare
in the area is from streetlights, private residential lighting, and motor vehicle headlights. The proposed project may
include bridge lighting for pedestrian safety and architectural character similar to the existing lighting fixtures in the
project area. It is not anticipated that the project would introduce new lighting that would substantially alter nighttime
views in the project area. All project lighting would be designed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.20.070, Outdoor
Lighting and Municipal Code Section 21.30.070, Outdoor Lighting; generally, all outdoor lighting fixtures would be
designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent
properties or roadways. Thus, upon required Municipal Code and design guidelines compliance, a less than significant
impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.1-4 Aesthetics
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.2-1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
122220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-
forest use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. Based on the California Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Finder, the project site is not
mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 No active agricultural uses
occur on-site or in the surrounding area. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. Collins Island is zoned Single Unit Residential (R-1). Uses to the east of the Collins Island Bridge on the
greater Balboa Island are zoned Two-Unit Residential (R-BI [Balboa Island]). The bridge itself does not have a zoning
district and is not covered under an existing Williamson Act contract.2 Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed July 13, 2023.
2 California Department of Conservation, California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/, accessed July 13, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.2-2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 122220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. Collins Island is zoned R-1. Uses to the east of the Collins Island Bridge on the greater Balboa Island are
zoned R-BI. The bridge itself does not have a zoning district and is not occupied or used for forest land, timberland, or
timberland production. Further, project implementation would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or
timberland zoned timberland production. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(c). No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(d). No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-1 Air Quality
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by
the applicable air quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b. 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?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). On December 2, 2022, the SCAQMD Governing Board
adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and
technical information and planning assumptions, including the latest applicable growth assumptions, updated emission
inventory methodologies for various source categories. Additionally, the 2022 AQMP utilized information and data from
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and its 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects must
be analyzed for consistency with two main criteria, as discussed below.
Criterion 1:
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include
forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations?
Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to
total regional emissions, an analysis of a project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations
associated with the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed under Responses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c),
the project’s short-term construction emissions, long-term operational emissions, and localized concentrations of
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) would be less than significant. Due to the role volatile
organic compounds (VOC) plays in ozone (O3) formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional
emissions threshold has been established. Overall, the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-2 Air Quality
b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations?
As discussed in Response 4.3(b), the proposed project would result in emissions that are below SCAQMD
thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the
ambient air quality standards and would result in a less than significant impact.
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions
specified in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to regional and localized
concentrations during project construction; refer to Reponses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). Further, the project would not
generate operational emissions. As such, the proposed project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality
standards or AQMP emissions reductions.
Criterion 2:
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is
important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards
at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population,
housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on
whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the
AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the AQMP involves the evaluation
of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria.
a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections
utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
A project is consistent with the 2022 AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment
assumptions that were used in the development of the 2022 AQMP. In the case of the 2022 AQMP, three sources
of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions: the City’s General Plan, SCAG’s regional
growth forecast, and the SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic
forecast projections of regional population growth.
Based on the General Plan, Zoning Map, and City of Newport Beach GIS Map Viewer, the bridge itself does not
have a land use designation or zoning district. As the project would replace the existing bridge and would not
change the land use type or introduce any new land uses, the proposed development would be consistent with
the General Plan and Zoning Map and would not require amendments to these local land use planning documents;
refer to Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning. Furthermore, given the nature of the development, the project would
not result in direct or indirect population growth and, therefore, would not affect Citywide plans for population
growth at the project site. Additionally, the project would require minimal maintenance during operation of the
proposed new bridge, seawalls, or stormwater features and therefore would not increase employment. Thus, the
proposed project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site in these
local plans. The population, housing, and employment forecasts adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council are based
on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. As such, the project would be consistent with SCAG’s 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2022 AQMP, it
can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-3 Air Quality
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures?
The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with all feasible emission
reduction measures identified by SCAQMD would be required as identified in Responses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). As
such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP?
Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2022 AQMP are primarily based on the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As
discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s vision for the site and would not require
a General Plan or Zoning Code amendment. As such, the proposed project meets this 2022 AQMP consistency
criterion.
In conclusion, the determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with long-term influence of a project
on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet
federal and State air quality standards. Further, the proposed project’s long-term influence on air quality in the Basin
would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2022
AQMP. Overall, development of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP and
impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established air
quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health. The national and State ambient air
quality standards have been set at levels to protect human health with a determined margin of safety. For some
pollutants, there are also secondary standards to protect the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has established ambient air quality standards for the following air pollutants:
• ozone (O3);
• nitrogen dioxide (NO2);
• carbon monoxide (CO);
• sulfur dioxide (SO2);
• lead (Pb); and
• particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
The following is a description of the criteria air pollutants.
Ozone (O3). Ozone (O3), a colorless gas with a sharp odor, is a highly reactive form of oxygen. High O3 concentrations
exist naturally in the stratosphere. Some mixing of stratospheric O3 downward through the troposphere to the earth’s
surface does occur; however, the extent of O3 transport is limited. At the earth’s surface in sites remote from urban
areas, O3 concentrations are normally very low (e.g., from 0.03 ppm to 0.05 ppm). Unlike most other air pollutants,
ozone is not directly emitted, but instead is formed in the atmosphere. Ozone is formed when NOx and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight. While both NOx and VOCs contribute to ozone, the key to
attaining the ozone standard is to reduce NOx.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-4 Air Quality
Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish-brown gas with a bleach-like odor. Nitric oxide (NO) is a colorless
gas, formed from the nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) in air under conditions of high temperature and pressure which are
generally present during combustion of fuels; NO reacts rapidly with the oxygen in air to form NO2. NO2 is responsible
for the brownish tinge of polluted air. The two gases, NO and NO2, are referred to collectively as NOx. In the presence
of sunlight, NO2 reacts to form nitric oxide and an oxygen atom. The oxygen atom can react further to form O3, via a
complex series of chemical reactions involving hydrocarbons. Nitrogen dioxide may also react to form nitric acid (HNO3)
which reacts further to form nitrates, components of PM2.5 and PM10.
Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a primary pollutant, meaning that it is directly emitted into the air, not
formed in the atmosphere by chemical reaction of precursors, as is the case with ozone and other secondary pollutants.
Ambient concentrations of CO in the Basin exhibit large spatial and temporal variations due to variations in the rate at
which CO is emitted and in the meteorological conditions that govern transport and dilution. Unlike ozone, CO tends to
reach high concentrations in the fall and winter months. The highest concentrations frequently occur on weekdays at
times consistent with rush hour traffic and late night during the coolest, most stable portion of the day.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas with a sharp odor. It reacts in the air to form sulfuric acid
(H2SO4), which contributes to acid precipitation, and sulfates, which are components of PM10 and PM2.5. Most of the
SO2 emitted into the atmosphere is produced by burning sulfur-containing fuels. SO2 is a precursor to sulfate, which is
a component of fine particulate matter, PM10, and PM2.5.
Lead (Pb). Lead (Pb) is a naturally occurring elements found in small amounts in the earth’s crust. While it has some
beneficial uses, it can be toxic to humans and animals, causing health effects. On May 2012, CARB approved a revision
to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address attainment of the federal lead standard in the South Coast Air Basin
portion of Los Angeles County.
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten
one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction
operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates
penetrate lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the CARB adopted amendments
to the statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s
Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter
(particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and federal PM2.5 standards have been created.
Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary
disease. In 1997, the EPA announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and
the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court
reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards.
On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates the Basin as a
nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for statewide annual
ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns
by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above
the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts
associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging. On July 8, 2016, the EPA
made a finding that the Basin has attained the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards based on 2011-2013 data.
However, the Basin remains in nonattainment as the EPA has not determined that California has met the FCAA
requirements for redesignating the Basin nonattainment area to attainment.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various
combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-5 Air Quality
through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic
compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the
same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include
gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include CO, carbon dioxide,
carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. The terms VOC and reactive organic gases
(ROG) (see below) are often used interchangeably.
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOCs, ROGs are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds
containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some
type of combustion/decomposition process.
Construction Impacts
Construction Emissions
Construction activities are scheduled to occur over a period of 11 months. Construction activities would include
demolition, excavation, utility relocation, drilling for bridge pile foundations, steel sheet piling installation with press-in
method, formwork framing and concrete placement for bridge and seawall improvements, street paving (concrete), and
landscaping. Overall, the proposed project improvements would occur in two phases: Phase 1 – Bridge Construction
(approximately 7 months) and Phase 2 - Park Avenue Street Improvements (approximately 4 months). The project
would require hauling of demolition materials from the project site to the local landfill. Additionally, the project would
require hauling of construction materials (i.e., steel, and other miscellaneous construction materials) from the mainland
to the construction area via trucks and barges. Given the limited laydown areas, construction materials would be
delivered to the project site on an as-needed basis with most as pre-cast elements. Construction workers would be
required to park off-site and shuttle to the site from mainland parking areas to minimize impacts to Balboa Island
parking.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1 was utilized to calculate the project’s
construction air pollutants emissions; refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Data, for
CalEEMod outputs and results. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on
the program defaults of CalEEMod. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level
of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather
conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. Table 4.3-
1, Project-Generated Construction Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions
associated with the project.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-6 Air Quality
Table 4.3-1 Project-Generated Construction Emissions
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local
air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust
emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways
(typically during demolition and construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day,
depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading, excavation
and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project completion. These short-term impacts,
however, would not be significant for the reasons discussed below.
Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious
health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10
poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical
processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension
of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is
mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from
stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of
gases such as NOX and SOX combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from material in the earth’s crust, such as
dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations.
The proposed project would implement all required dust control techniques per SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires
that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures to reduce
PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. It should be noted that these reductions were applied in CalEEMod. As indicated in
Table 4.3-1, total fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions during construction would not exceed applicable SCAQMD
thresholds. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and
supplies to and from the project site, employee commutes to the site, emissions produced on-site as equipment is
used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. As presented in Table 4.3-1, criteria pollutant
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions
Year 1 2.42 19.30 28.20 0.05 1.61 0.93
Year 2 0.73 6.40 9.78 0.02 0.45 0.28
Maximum Daily Emissions 2.42 19.30 28.20 0.05 1.61 0.93
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter;
PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1. Maximum emissions during summer or winter are presented here to
represent the worst-case scenario.
2. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires: properly maintain mobile and other construction
equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water
all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Data for detailed model input/output data.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-7 Air Quality
emissions, including those associated with the use of construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust, would not
exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG
emissions, which are O3 precursors. The ROG emissions associated with roadway paving and striping have been
quantified with the CalEEMod model. As presented in Table 4.3-1, criteria pollutant emissions associated with ROG
emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when
airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also
found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, federal, and international agencies
and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986.
Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of
release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have
been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some
localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for
development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially
harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make
it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation
Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to
Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the
project area.1 Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.
Operational Impacts
The project proposes bridge replacement, seawall improvements, as well as stormwater features to accommodate a
separate, future pump station project. These features do not directly generate vehicle trips, a predominant source of
air pollutant emissions. While the proposed project would provide bridge improvements, the proposed new bridge would
not represent a trip generating land use nor is it anticipated to significantly increase the capacity of Collins Island
Bridge, which primarily serves the eight single-family residences on Collins Island. Rather, the project would facilitate
safe travel for Collins Island users by constructing a bridge that meets current bridge code requirements. Similarly,
both the proposed seawall improvements as well as stormwater features for the future pump station would not represent
a trip generating land use. Additionally, the project does not propose any occupied buildings and would not introduce
new stationary source emissions. Overall, as the proposed project would not include new mobile sources of emissions
or permanent stationary sources, the project would not have the potential to generate criteria air pollutants emissions
from project operations. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Air Quality Health Impacts
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected
variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and
character of exposed individual [e.g., age and gender]). In particular, O3 precursors, VOCs and NOX, affect air quality
1 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in
California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-8 Air Quality
on a regional scale. Health effects related to O3 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources
throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and,
as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment
would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution
from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.
As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD,2 the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult,
if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as
well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD),3 SJVAPCD has acknowledged that currently available
modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development
project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.
The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from O3, as an example, is correlated with the increases
in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae
goes on to state that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3
levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality
Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000
pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce O3 levels at highest monitored site by only nine parts per billion. As such, the
SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or
VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and
regional model limitations. As the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction (refer to Table 4.3-1)
and would not generate operational air emissions, the project would result in less than significant air quality health
impacts.
Conclusion
As summarized above, the project’s short-term construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD thresholds and
would result in a less than significant impact. Furthermore, the project would not result in significant long-term air quality
impacts, as there would be no emissions from the proposed bridge, new seawalls, and new stormwater features, and
the project would not increase existing vehicular capacity. Thus, the project’s construction and operational emissions
would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable air quality impact for nonattainment criteria pollutants in the Basin.
Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the
population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with
illnesses.4 Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, and places of
worship. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File
Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the supreme Court of California. Sierra Club,
Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.
3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and
Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women
Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.
4 Per the definition in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, revised July 2008, and various SCAQMD
Rules (such as Rule 1470, paragraph [b][60]).
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-9 Air Quality
elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as
asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the bridge and proposed seawall improvements are the single-family uses along
North and South Bay Front , located immediately adjacent to the site.
In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance
thresholds (LSTs) for construction and operations impacts (stationary sources only). The CO hotspot analysis following
the LST analysis addresses localized mobile source impacts.
LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-
4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, dated June 2003 and revised
2008, for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts at the project-specific
level. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or
PM10. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile
sources traveling over the roadways.
The SCAQMD guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment
would likely disturb per day.5 SCAQMD provides LST thresholds for one-, two-, and five-acre site disturbance areas;
SCAQMD does not provide LST thresholds for projects over five acres. According to CalEEMod, the project would
actively disturb less than one acre per day during demolition and bridge construction phases. Therefore, the LST
thresholds for one-acre (minimum) were utilized for the construction LST analysis. Sensitive land uses may be
potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are
provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. According to SCAQMD LST
Methodology, projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for
receptors located at 25 meters. As the nearest sensitive uses are directly adjacent to the proposed construction
boundary, the LST values for 25 meters (82 feet) were used. The project site is located within Source Receptor Area
(SRA) 18, North Coastal Orange County.
Construction Impacts
Table 4.3-2, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the localized construction-related emissions for
NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for SRA 18. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in
Table 4.3-2 are less than those in Table 4.3-1 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (i.e., from
construction equipment and dust from material movement), and do not include off-site emissions (i.e., from hauling
activities). As shown in Table 4.3-2, localized construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 18. Therefore,
localized significance impacts from construction would be less than significant.
5 The number of acres represent the total acres traversed by grading equipment. To properly grade a piece of land, multiple
passes with equipment may be required. The disturbance acreage is based on the equipment list and days of the grading phase
according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-10 Air Quality
Table 4.3-2 Localized Significance of Emissions
Source Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions2,3 19.10 26.30 1.14 0.82
Localized Significance Threshold4 92 647 4 3
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes: NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1.
2. Maximum on-site daily emissions for all four pollutants, including NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, occur during the two Street Improvements
Phases in year 1 (2025) and during the Landscaping/Paving Phase 2 in year 2 (2026).
3. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires the following: properly maintain mobile and other
construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with
tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
4. The Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Screening Criteria was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized
Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold
was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (less than one acre) and SRA 18.
Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Data for detailed model input/output data.
Operational Impacts
According to SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a
project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing
and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not include such uses. Thus,
due to the lack of such emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed. No operational
LST impacts would result in this regard.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme
meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels
(i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.). The Basin is designated as an
attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards and an attainment area for State standards. There has been
a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased.
Nationwide estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014,
mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions.6 Three major control
programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and
motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.
As previously discussed, the proposed project does not directly generate vehicle trips, a predominant source of CO
emissions. As such, it is not anticipated that the project would result in a CO hotspot. Impacts would be less than
significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
6 United States Environmental Protection Agency¸ Carbon Monoxide Emissions,
https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed August 28, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-11 Air Quality
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with
odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical
plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The project does not propose any uses
identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.
Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust.
However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the
project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485,
which minimize the idling time of construction equipment either by requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use
or limiting idling time to no more than five minutes. Compliance with these existing regulations would further reduce
the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also be required to comply with the
SCAQMD Rule 1113, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during roadway striping. Any odor
impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and negligible. As such, the project would not result in other
emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less
than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.3-12 Air Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-1 Biological Resources
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally
protected wetlands (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 native wildlife nursery sites?
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?
The information presented in this analysis is primarily based on the following technical studies; refer to Appendix B,
Jurisdictional Delineation/Marine Reports:
• Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, Newport Beach, California
Final Report (EFH Assessment), prepared by Six Scientific Service and dated October 2023;
• Pre-Construction Surveys Eelgrass (Zostera marina) & Caulerpa taxafolia, Collins Island Bridge Replacement
Project, Newport Beach, California Final Report (Eelgrass Survey Report), prepared by Six Scientific Service
and dated October 2023; and
• Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters for the Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project, City
of Newport Beach, Orange County, California (Jurisdictional Delineation), prepared by Michael Baker
International and dated November 16, 2023.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As shown on Exhibit 2-2, Project Limits, the project
site encompasses terrestrial and water areas surrounding the existing Collins Island Bridge. The terrestrial areas are
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-2 Biological Resources
fully developed with urban uses, including the existing bridge, boat docks, Park Avenue, the Bay Front sidewalk, and
associated rights-of-way. These areas have limited ornamental trees and vegetation associated with the adjacent
single-family residences and along the Park Avenue right-of-way. Only one mature tree is within the project limits; the
tree is located on private property on Collins Island and would not be impacted by project development. No vegetation
exists within the project site or surrounding terrestrial areas that could provide habitat for endangered, rare, or
threatened species. Further, while nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California
Fish and Game Code, may occur within the project limits, the MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. Compliance with existing MBTA
regulations would ensure construction-related impacts to potential nesting birds are reduced to less than significant
levels. Thus, impacts to special status species within the terrestrial areas of the project site would be less than
significant. The following analyzes potential impacts to the marine habitat in the project area.
Essential Fish Habitat
With regards to the project’s water areas, an EFH Assessment was prepared to determine potential project impacts to
essential fish habitat (EFH) protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCA). EFH is defined as waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity. Newport Bay is a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for EFH as it contains expansive meadows of
eelgrass (Zostera marina), as well as a broad diversity of coastal saltmarsh vegetation species considered EFH.
Specifically, the project site is located within a general area designated as EFH for the Coastal Pelagic Species and
Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). The goal of a FMP includes the development and sustainability
of an efficient and profitable fishery, optimal yield, adequate forage for dependent species, and long-term monitoring.
Coastal Pelagic Species FMP
The Coastal Pelagic Species FMP covers six species, including the market squid, northern anchovy, jack mackerel,
Pacific mackerel, Pacific sardine, and krill. According to the EFH Assessment, none of these species were observed
during 2021 and 2022 surveys conducted by the Orange County Sanitation District (OC SAN) during their semi-annual
trawl, adjacent to the project area; refer to EFH Assessment Table 2, NMFS Managed Species Observed Near Collins
Island, including Abundance, Total Percent and Habitat. However, all six covered species could occur within the project
area at some point during their life stages in the project area.
Pacific Groundfish FMP
The Pacific Groundfish FMP covers 92 fish species and geographically encompasses all waters off southern California
between Mean Higher High Water and depths to 11,483 feet. HAPCs of the Pacific Groundfish FMP include, but are
not limited to, estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, and rocky reefs.
The most abundant Pacific Groundfish species captured during the OC SAN 2021 and 2022 surveys were the flatfish,
rockfish, and roundfish. Of the 92 fish species covered in this FMP, 14 species were observed during the surveys; refer
to EFH Assessment Table 2, NMFS Managed Species Observed Near Collins Island, including Abundance, Total
Percent and Habitat.
Project Impacts on EFH
Construction Activities
Terrestrial construction activities are not expected to impact marine resources. However, construction activities in the
water (e.g., bridge replacement and seawall improvements) may temporarily impact fish species covered by the Coastal
Pelagic Species and Pacific Groundfish FMPs. Nevertheless, potential construction impacts would be temporary.
Should any individuals of the covered species occur within the immediate vicinity of the project area, they would
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-3 Biological Resources
temporarily relocate to another area of open water or other shallow water habitat as a result of construction activities
(e.g., increased noise or turbidity).
Fish species passing through, or occupying the construction area, as well as benthic invertebrates and those that are
resident on the existing bridge sediments and hard surfaces, would be disturbed during construction activities.
Suspension of sediments with increased tidal height during construction could also adversely impact invertebrates
immediately adjacent to the construction area. This impact, however, would be temporary given the tidal habitat, relative
abundance, rapid colonization rates, and movement of some individuals of these species. The soft bottom benthic
habitat would be able to repopulate and recolonize once construction activities cease.
Fish eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults would experience minimal impacts from the construction activities. Fish eggs
and larvae are primarily found adjacent to the water column in this area and are dispersed by water movement, while
juvenile and adult fishes would move to avoid the disturbance during construction activities. Short-term water quality
impacts (e.g., increase in turbidity) may affect resident fishes; however, these impacts would have no effect on the
success of fish populations due to the ability of the juvenile and adult fishes to relocate to other areas. The constant
water replenishment due to tidal flow in the bay transports fish larvae and eggs to various areas within the water body.
A brief relocation of these transient species would not result in biologically significant impacts with regard to
competition, predation, or spawning.
Other effects of in-water construction of the bridge and seawall improvements include the unnatural occurrence of light
and noise. However, both would be short-term during construction activities. It is unlikely that these effects would lead
to reduced survival, and if so, only a small percentage of individuals within fish populations would potentially be
adversely impacted. Additionally, the bridge and seawall construction activities would not adversely impact the denser
eelgrass beds located outside the construction area that serve as EFH.
Nevertheless, construction-related best practices would be implemented in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-
1 to reduce potential construction-related impacts to EFH. Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require all
construction equipment to be inspected regularly (daily) to ensure any leaks are found and repaired immediately;
refueling of all vehicles and equipment in a designated, contained area; utilization of drip pans under all stationary
equipment and covering of drip pans during any rainfall; and construction and maintenance of appropriate containment
structures to prevent off-site transport of pollutants from spills and/or construction debris. Upon implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-1, construction-related project impacts to EFH would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Operational Activities
No long-term operational impacts would occur to fish species covered by the Coastal Pelagic Species and Pacific
Groundfish FMPs. Resident fish species would likely return if they were temporarily displaced during construction
activities. Eelgrass habitat in Newport Bay is abundant and any disrupted or displaced species would find suitable
habitat in the vicinity of the project area. It is also acknowledged that long-term project effects would potentially be
beneficial, in that the supports or pilings of the new bridge and seawall improvements would provide substrate for
organisms, and thus could provide additional benefit to fish populations near Balboa Island and within Newport Bay.
Eelgrass Habitat
Eelgrass is the only native plant community in the marine area of the project limits with potential to provide habitat for
sensitive biological species. Eelgrass is a flowering, marine vascular plant that is considered a sensitive marine
resource due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes and because it is considered critical foraging habitat
for California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni), a federal and State endangered species. Eelgrass is protected by
the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, which requires impacts to this species be avoided, minimized, or
compensated.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-4 Biological Resources
As such, an Eelgrass Survey Report was prepared to identify existing sensitive eelgrass habitats within the project
limits that may be impacted by construction activities. Based on the survey, medium to low density patches of eelgrass
were identified at the project site. Consistent with the City of Newport Beach’s 2022 Eelgrass Monitoring in Newport
Bay, Newport Beach, California, dated February 24, 2023, the survey documented eelgrass throughout the project
area in open areas where no shading is present. Visual observations indicated medium to low density eelgrass beds
present near docks with the denser beds observed in the open water at the north and south border of the project limits.
The majority of the plants were comprised of low numbers of turions (e.g., shoots) per plant. Medium to low density
beds were found within the project limits but none immediately adjacent to the bridge. Generally, eelgrass is less dense
in and around docks and moored vessels. Given the increased shading from existing trees, vessels, docks, and the
bridge, either no eelgrass was observed, or low density eelgrass beds were observed within ten feet of the bridge and
seawalls. Denser eelgrass beds were observed in the open waters to the north and south of the project limits. The
denser eelgrass beds would experience minimal effects from the temporary construction activities. If any effects
occurred, they would not contribute to any adverse long-term damage to the eelgrass health in the project area.
The replacement of the bridge and seawall improvements would add approximately 1.5 feet in width to the bridge and
less than a foot in width to the seawalls. The Eelgrass Survey Report did not observe any eelgrass in the footprint of
these permanently impacted areas (i.e., 1.5 feet out from the existing bridge width and one foot out from the existing
seawall widths). The survey also indicated that eelgrass abundance in the project area is sun based and potential
construction-related impacts to existing eelgrass communities (i.e., temporary shading, physical disturbance,
decreased light [turbidity]) would be temporary and have little to no long-term adverse impact. Nevertheless,
construction-related best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented per Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to
provide adequate protections during in-water construction activities. Specifically, these BMPs would include decreasing
sedimentation using terrestrial construction booms, where feasible, and avoiding any unneeded shading during
construction. Any in-water manipulation or dock temporary relocation would be conducted with guidance from the most
recent eelgrass survey to minimize disturbance of more dense eelgrass beds in the project area. Bridge and seawall
construction activities would occur for approximately seven months, which would leave ample growth season for any
impacted eelgrass beds, if any, to recover before the next dormant/winter season. Given the small footprint of the
proposed in-water activity, short construction duration, and lack of eelgrass observed adjacent to the bridge and
seawalls, the Eelgrass Survey Report concluded that the project would not result in any long-term adverse impacts to
the health of eelgrass communities in the project area. As such, impacts to sensitive eelgrass habitat would be less
than significant upon implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach City Engineer shall ensure the following
construction best management practices are incorporated into the project’s final construction plans and
monitored with weekly inspections during construction activities within the water areas:
• Construction equipment shall be inspected regularly (daily) during construction, and any leaks found
shall be repaired immediately.
• Refueling of vehicles and equipment shall be in a designated, contained area.
• Drip pans shall be used under stationary equipment when refueling or during maintenance.
• Drip pans that are used shall be covered during rainfall to prevent leaching of contaminants.
• Construction and maintenance of appropriate containment structures to prevent off-site transport of
pollutants from spills and construction debris.
• Construction best management practices (BMPs) shall be monitored during weekly inspections to
ensure the BMPs are implemented and kept in good working order.
• Drop nets shall be cleared of debris as soon as feasible.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach shall also prepare and implement a Spill
and Prevention Plan to minimize and/or prevent discharge of spilled material at the project site. The Spill
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-5 Biological Resources
and Prevention Plan shall include measures to prevent and control spills, contain the spill, clean the spill,
and dispose of contaminated materials in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
BIO-2 To the extent feasible, the construction contractor shall minimize potential impacts to existing eelgrass
beds within the project area by:
• Decreasing sedimentation by utilizing terrestrial construction booms;
• Avoiding any unneeded shading during in-water construction activities;
• Locating temporary docks, barges and vessels, and all barge anchoring outside of existing eelgrass
beds in the project area;
• Ensuring anchor chain designs and mooring locations of all barges and vessels avoid eelgrass
habitat in the project area;
• Implementing best management practices (BMPs) such as perimeter debris booms. If debris is
observed falling into the water, debris shall be retrieved as soon as feasible;
• Installing silt curtains around demolition areas, to the extent feasible, and restricting turbidity plumes
to the smallest possible area during all in-water construction phases to minimize water turbidity and
sedimentation;
• Conducting comprehensive pre- and post-construction surveys for eelgrass beds and patches in
accordance with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
(CEMP). If unavoidable eelgrass impacts occur, compensatory mitigation using guidance specified
in the CEMP shall be implemented; and
• If eelgrass harvest and transplant is required for mitigation, obtaining a Scientific Collecting Permit
(SCP) from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to harvest and transplant activities.
The SCP may include permit conditions such as donor eelgrass surveys, submittal of an eelgrass
harvest and transplant plan, limits on number of turions collected, methods for collection and
transplanting, notification of activities, and reporting requirements.
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, the terrestrial areas of the project
limits are fully developed with urban uses, including the existing bridge, boat docks, Park Avenue, the Bay Front
sidewalk, and associated rights-of-way. These areas have limited ornamental trees and vegetation associated with the
adjacent single-family residences and along the Park Avenue right-of-way. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural
communities occur in these areas and thus, no impacts would occur.
Sensitive natural communities occur within the water areas of the project limits. As analyzed in Response 4.4(a), an
EFH Assessment was prepared to determine potential project impacts to EFH protected under the MSFCA, including
covered species under the Coastal Pelagic Species and Pacific Groundfish FMPs. Additionally, an Eelgrass Survey
Report was prepared that surveyed existing eelgrass communities within the project area and evaluated potential
project impacts on such communities. Based on the studies, it was determined that project-related construction
activities would not adversely impact covered species under the Coastal Pelagic Species and Pacific Groundfish FMPs
or existing eelgrass communities upon implementation of construction BMPs detailed in Mitigation Measures BIO-1
and BIO-2. Thus, potential project impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities would be reduced
to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 above.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-6 Biological Resources
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. There are four key agencies that regulate activities
within coastal streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in coastal California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Regulatory Division regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates activities under Sections 1600 et seq. of the
California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities
pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Section 13263 of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(Porter-Cologne Act), and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) regulates activities under the California Coastal
Act.
As analyzed in the Jurisdictional Delineation, portions of the project site include non-wetland tidal areas of Newport
Bay. The project site is subject to permanent tidal inundation and high tide events. Little to no lateral variation occurs
due to the presence of sea walls around the northern and southern limits of the project site. No other jurisdictional
areas were noted during the time of the assessment.
• Corps: Evidence of a High Tide Line (HTL) and an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) was noted within the
boundaries of the project site and survey area. Based on observation of surface water in the bay, the entire
open water area would meet the definition of a “Waters of the U.S.” (WoUS) as a Traditional Navigable Water
(TNW). As shown on Jurisdictional Delineation Exhibit 6, Jurisdictional Map, approximately 0.01-acre of
WoUS would be permanently impacted due to the installation of 250 linear feet of seawall at a two-foot width,
which would be approximately two feet in width. The seawall would be installed in front of the existing seawall
and would be limited to the extent necessary for sea level rise protection.
• RWQCB: As mentioned above, the Pacific Ocean/Newport Bay meets the definition of a WoUS as well as
Wates of the State. Project impacts regulated by the RWQCB are the same as those impacts regulated by
the Corps as indicated above.
• CDFW. Although other agencies have jurisdiction of the waters within the project site, the CDFW does not
take jurisdiction of tidal/beach areas as they do not contain lakes or streambeds. CDFW jurisdiction of Newport
Back Bay areas begins immediately east of the State Route 1 (SR-1) bridge. Based on the results of the field
delineation, no CDFW jurisdiction is present within the boundaries of the project site; therefore, no impacts to
CDFW jurisdiction are anticipated.
• CCC. As previously mentioned, the project site is located within the Coastal Zone. Based on the results of the
field delineation, it was determined that approximately 0.01-acre (250 linear feet at a two-foot width) of CCC
jurisdictional open water is located within the permanent impact area. Project impacts regulated by the CCC
are the same as those impacts regulated by the Corps as indicated above.
To reduce impacts associated with the proposed seawall improvements, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be required
to ensure the City of Newport Beach coordinates with the Corps, RWQCB, and CCC to obtain the required regulatory
permits, which would include verifying delineation results, determining permanent losses and temporary impact areas,
and identifying any compensatory mitigation, as applicable. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, impacts
in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-3 Prior to any construction activity within the project limits, the City of Newport Beach shall consult with the
appropriate responsible resource agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, and California Coastal Commission) to verify delineation results, determine permanent
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-7 Biological Resources
losses and temporary impact areas, and identify compensatory mitigation, as applicable. Prior to
undertaking ground-disturbing activities on or immediately adjacent to any aquatic resource areas, the
City of Newport Beach and/or their designee shall obtain all applicable discretionary
permits/authorizations.
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
native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wildlife corridors and linkages are key features for wildlife movement between habitat
patches. Wildlife corridors are generally defined as those areas that provide opportunities for individuals or local
populations to conduct seasonal migrations, permanent dispersals, or daily commutes, while linkages generally refer
to broader areas that provide movement opportunities for multiple keystone/focal species or allow for propagation of
ecological processes (e.g., for movement of pollinators), often between areas of conserved land.
As stated, nesting birds are protected pursuant to the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Specifically, the
MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and
nests. Compliance with existing MBTA regulations would ensure construction-related impacts to potential nesting birds
are reduced to less than significant levels.
The project area does not support any migratory corridors or linkages. However, Newport Bay may provide a migration
corridor for fish species migrating into the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve is also located within the Pacific Flyway for migratory avian species. However, the proposed activities would
be limited to the area adjacent to the Collins Island Bridge and would not impact potential fish migration within Newport
Bay or avian migration in the area. Additionally, the Coastal Subregion of the County of Orange Central/Coastal Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) does not identify any proposed Core or Special
Linkage Areas in the project area. As such, the project would not interfere with wildlife movement, nor would it impede
the use of wildlife nursery sites. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not conflict with local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The primary documents applicable to the proposed project are
the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan, the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land
Use Plan (CLUP), and California Coastal Act (Coastal Act). As analyzed under Response 4.11(b), impacts related to
consistency with the General Plan Land Use Element, CLUP, and Coastal Act would be less than significant. Table
4.4-1, General Plan Natural Resources Element Project Consistency Analysis, provides a consistency analysis of the
proposed project and relevant General Plan Natural Resources Element goals and policies related to protecting
biological resources.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-8 Biological Resources
Table 4.4-1 General Plan Natural Resources Element Project Consistency Analysis
Relevant Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Goal NR 10: Protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development.
NR 10.1: Terrestrial and Marine Resource
Protection. Cooperate with the State and federal
resource protection agencies and private
organizations to protect terrestrial and marine
resources.
Consistent. As discussed above, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would require
the project to consult with the appropriate responsible resource agency
(i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and California Coastal Commission) to verify delineation results,
determine permanent losses and temporary impact areas, and identify
compensatory mitigation, as applicable.
NR 10.2: Orange County Natural Communities
Conservation Plan. Comply with the policies
contained within the Orange County Natural
Communities Conservation Plan.
Consistent. As discussed below in Response 4.4(f), the proposed project
would not conflict with any policies contained in the NCCP/HCP.
NR 10.3: Analysis of Environmental Study Areas.
Require a site-specific survey and analysis
prepared by a qualified biologist as a filing
requirement for any development permit
applications where development would occur
within or contiguous to areas identified as ESAs.
Consistent. As discussed above, an EFH Assessment and Eelgrass
Survey Report were prepared to evaluate potential project impacts on
EFH and eelgrass communities within the project area. The studies
determined that temporary project construction activities would not
adversely impact any EFH or eelgrass communities upon implementation
of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2.
NR 10.4: New Development Siting and Design.
Require that the siting and design of new
development, including landscaping and public
access, protect sensitive or rare resources against
any significant disruption of habitat values.
Consistent. Compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3
would ensure that sensitive species and other biological resources are
not significantly impacted as a result of construction and operation of the
proposed project.
NR 10.7: Exterior Lighting. Shield and direct
exterior lighting away from significant or rare
biological resources to minimize impacts to wildlife.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, project construction
could involve temporary light and glare impacts as a result of construction
equipment and materials. However, based on the project’s limited
construction duration and scope of activities, these sources of light and
glare would not be substantial. Additionally, construction activities would
be limited to the hours detailed in Municipal Code Section 10.28.040,
Construction Activity – Noise Regulation, and no nighttime construction
activities would occur.
Any operational exterior lighting (e.g., bridge lighting for pedestrian
safety) would be similar to the existing light fixtures in the project area
and would be designed pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.20.070,
Outdoor Lighting. Generally, all outdoor lighting fixtures would be
designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent
properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways.
NR 11: Protection of environmental resources in Newport Harbor while preserving and enhancing public recreational boating
activities.
NR 11.3: Eelgrass Protection. Avoid impacts to
eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the extent feasible.
Mitigate losses of eelgrass in accordance with the
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy.
Encourage the restoration of eelgrass in Newport
Harbor at appropriate sites, where feasible.
Consistent. As concluded in the Eelgrass Survey Report and discussed
in Response 4.4(a), medium to low density beds were found within the
project limits but none immediately adjacent to the bridge. Given the
increased shading from existing trees, vessels, docks, and the bridge,
either no eelgrass was observed, or low density eelgrass beds were
observed within ten feet of the bridge and seawalls. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would minimize temporary construction
impacts to less than significant levels in this regard. No eelgrass
communities would be permanently impacted in a manner that would
require mitigation of loss.
Source: City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, July 25, 2006.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-9 Biological Resources
In addition, the only local tree ordinance that would apply to the project would be Local Council Policy G‐1, Retention
or Removal of City Trees, and Municipal Code Chapter 7.26, Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other
Waterfowl, also provides guidance for tree maintenance and preservation. Only one mature tree is within the project
limits; the tree is located on private property on Collins Island and would not be impacted by project development.
Nominal vegetation removal would be required for the proposed project, primarily along Park Avenue and the Bay Front
sidewalk right-of-way. Vegetation removal would be limited to minor ornamental landscape removal and would be
replanted with new landscaping. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Local Council Policy
G‐1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, and Chapter 7.26, Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other
Waterfowl, of the Municipal Code.
As described above, the project would not result in conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1
through BIO-3.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 above.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Coastal Subregion of the County of Orange
Central/Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) but is not located
within any designated Core, Reserve, Special Linkage Area, or Existing Use Area. As such, the project would not
conflict with the NCCP/HCP. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.4-10 Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.5-1 Cultural Resources
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
The information presented in this analysis is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Collins
Island Bridge Replacement Project, Newport Beach, Orange County, California (Cultural Report), prepared by Michael
Baker International and dated January 2024; refer to Appendix C, Cultural Resources Assessment.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5?
No Impact. As part of the Cultural Report, a South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search,
literature review, interested parties consultation, archaeological field survey, sensitivity analysis, and National Register
of Historic Resources (National Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)
evaluations were conducted to determine whether the project could result in a significant adverse change to cultural
resources in accordance with CEQA. The field survey was conducted on August 22, 2023. The records search was
conducted at the SCCIC to identify previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resources
studies within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. The search results included a review of the National Register,
California Register, California Inventory of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Historical
Resources. The Cultural Report also included a review of available historic United States Geologic Survey (USGS)
7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps, aerial photographs, and archives. Additionally, the Newport Beach Historical
Society was notified via email on April 8, 2023 requesting information or concerns regarding historical resources within
the project area that may be impacted by the project. No response was received from the Newport Beach Historical
Society.
The records search identified six previous cultural resource studies conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the project
site, none of which overlap the project site. The record search also identified seven previously recorded cultural
resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, none of which overlap the project site.
During the survey of the project area, ground surface visibility was almost nonexistent due to the developed nature of
the project area. Surface exposures were limited to small patches of obviously disturbed soils in planters and
landscaped areas. During the pedestrian survey, the Waters Way Bridge (No. 55C-0265)1, colloquially known as the
Collins Island Bridge, is a historic-aged built environment resource and was photo-documented for the purpose of a
California Register and National Register evaluation. No prehistoric or historical archaeological resources were
identified. The Waters Way Bridge (No. 55C-0265) is described below, and the DPR 523 series form for the resource
is included in the Cultural Report.
1 The Collins Island Bridge is referred to as the Waters Way Bridge in this section and the Cultural Report as it is referred to as
such in the California Department of Transportation directory and in bridge inspection reports.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.5-2 Cultural Resources
Waters Way Bridge (No. 55C-0265)
The Waters Way Bridge (No. 55C-0265) is a reinforced concrete slab bridge constructed in 1953 that carries Park
Avenue over Newport Bay between Balboa Island and Collins Island in Newport Beach. It is a local agency bridge
maintained by the City. According to the Caltrans Local Agency Historic Bridge Inventory, this bridge is listed as a
Category 5, “Bridge not eligible for NRHP.”
• Criterion A/1: Research did not demonstrate that the Waters Way Bridge (No. 55C-0265) was associated
with events significant to the broad patterns of our history at the local, state, or national level. The bridge was
constructed in 1953 to replace a footbridge to facilitate automobile traffic between Balboa Island and the small,
private Collins Island.
Although the bridge made travel to Collins Island more convenient, it was not significant to the development
of Collins Island, Balboa Island, or the Newport area, nor with road and bridge development in Newport Beach
or Orange County. The subject bridge is not directly or significantly associated with general bridge
development at the State or national level. The Waters Way Bridge (No. 55C-0265) is not known to have
made a significant contribution to other broad patterns of local, regional, State, or national culture and history.
The Waters Way Bridge (No. 55C- 0265) is a ubiquitous concrete slab beam bridge type in similar form in the
region since the early twentieth century. As such, it is not one of the first or pioneering reinforced concrete
slab bridges, nor was it significant to the development of the Newport Bay. Therefore, Waters Way Bridge
(No. 55C-0265) is recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A and California
Register under Criterion 1.
• Criterion B/2: William McNamara purchased Collins Island in 1948 and worked to have it subdivided for
residential development. To improve island access, he replaced the existing footbridge with a privately funded
automobile bridge, which he deeded to the City of Newport Beach in 1959. McNamara was a successful
businessman, and he is responsible for the construction of the subject bridge. However, his local historical
significance is not represented by the bridge, but rather by the increased development of Collins Island. There
is no demonstrable evidence that any other persons that made significant contributions to history at the local,
State, or national level are associated with the bridge. Therefore, the property is recommended not eligible
for listing in the National Register under Criterion B and California Register under Criterion 2.
• Criterion C/3: The Waters Way Bridge (No. 55C-0265), a reinforced concrete slab bridge, is indistinguishable
from other examples of this resource type. It was not the first of its type, nor the most distinguished example
of a reinforced concrete slab bridge in the region, State, or nation. Its design and construction do not represent
a departure from standard construction practices or design for this resource type. The Waters Way Bridge
(No. 55C-0265) is not the representative work of a master, nor does it possess high artistic values. Therefore,
the resource is recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C and the
California Register under Criterion 3.
• Criterion D/4: The built environment of the subject property is not likely to yield valuable information which
will contribute to our understanding of human history because the property is not and never was the principal
source of important information pertaining to significant events, people, or engineering. Therefore, the
resource is recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D and the California
Register under Criterion 4.
Lacking significance, this property is recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register and California
Register. It is not a historic property as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1) nor is it a historical resource as defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a).
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.5-3 Cultural Resources
Overall, based on the records search, literature review, field survey, and interested parties’ consultation, there are no
historical resources located in the project area that could be impacted by the proposed project development. Impacts
would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Response 4.5(a) and detailed in the
Cultural Report, no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project site as part of the records
search or field survey. The archaeological sensitivity for potential unknown prehistoric archaeological sites within the
project area is low. The project is located on what USGS maps indicate was a slight rise in the marshy land surrounding
Newport Bay. Historically, the Santa Ana River would have meandered through this area, sometimes debouching into
the Pacific Ocean in the project vicinity. The project site would have provided an important resource procurement locale
for prehistoric inhabitants, but the unstable nature of the land would have lent itself toward temporary use, leaving
ephemeral remains. The five archaeological sites documented within 0.5-mile of the project site exemplify this land
use; they are documented as moderate to light shell scatters, sometimes with small quantities of lithic debitage, on
higher ground considerably to the east of the project site. No resources are documented within the project site.
In addition, the project site has been substantially disturbed over the course of the twentieth century. During the
twentieth century, Newport Bay was dredged and stabilized. The dredged material was used to build new, stable
ground, including Collins Island and Balboa Island. In addition, these mostly artificial islands, while they may contain
native soils at their cores, have been further disturbed by major ground-disturbing activities such as bridge construction,
building construction, boat dock and slip installation, road construction, and utilities installation. This massive reworking
of the coastline would have damaged or destroyed archaeological sites, particularly the kind of small, ephemeral sites
documented in the records search area and anticipated to have once existed in the vicinity.
Although the project site is located in an area that is anticipated to have been an important resource procurement area
for the Gabrielino and other early inhabitants, the instability of the land and known recent disturbances indicate that
the sensitivity for unknown buried resources is low. However, in the unlikely event that archaeological resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require all project construction efforts
to halt until an archaeologist examines the find, evaluates the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends
a course of action. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the project would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and
impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 In the event that any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during earth-moving activities, all
work within 50 feet shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist is retained by the City of Newport Beach
and evaluates the find and makes recommendations. The archaeologist shall evaluate the find in
accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in the California Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2, to assess the significance of the find and identify avoidance or other
measures as appropriate.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response 4.5(b), the project site would have provided an important
resource procurement locale for prehistoric inhabitants, but the unstable nature of the land would have lent itself toward
temporary use, leaving ephemeral remains. Thus, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.5-4 Cultural Resources
outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Nevertheless, if human
remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of
California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for human
remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are
accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set
forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the
County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified
by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If human remains are found during
ground-disturbing activities, activities must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to
overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and
appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance
with existing State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are
encountered, impacts in this regard would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.6-1 Energy
4.6 ENERGY
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes bridge replacement, seawall improvements, as well as
stormwater features to accommodate a separate, future pump station project; the project does not propose any
buildings and would not introduce land uses which would require new permanent energy usage. Additionally, while the
proposed project would provide bridge improvements, the proposed new bridge would not represent a trip generating
land use nor is it anticipated to significantly increase the capacity of Collins Island Bridge, which primarily serves the
eight single-family residences on Collins Island. As a result, project operations would not result in increased energy
consumption from electricity, natural gas, or operational fuel usage. As such, this analysis focuses on one source of
energy that is relevant to the proposed project: on-road (automotive) fuel consumption associated with construction
vehicle trips and off-road fuel consumption associated with construction equipment usage.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1 was utilized to calculate the project’s fuel
consumption during construction; refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Data, for the
CalEEMod outputs and results. The project’s construction equipment fuel consumption is estimated from the project’s
construction equipment, timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment as modeled in CalEEMod.
The project’s construction automotive fuel consumption is estimated using the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Emissions Factor 2021 (EMFAC2021) database, which provides projections for typical daily fuel (i.e., diesel and
gasoline) usage in the County, and the project-generated trips during construction as projected in CalEEMod.
The project’s estimated construction-related energy consumption is summarized in Table 4.6-1, Energy Consumption.
As shown in Table 4.6-1, the project would increase the off-road vehicle fuel consumption within the County by 0.0328
percent and on-road vehicle fuel consumption by 0.0004 percent during construction.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.6-2 Energy
Table 4.6-1 Energy Consumption
Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption1
Orange County Annual
Energy Consumption2
Percentage
Increase Countywide2
Fuel Consumption
Construction Off-Road Fuel
Consumption 32,926 gallons 100,261,094 gallons 0.0328%
Construction On-Road Fuel
Consumption 4,971 gallons 1,280,285,436 gallons 0.0004%
Notes:
1. Project electricity consumptions as modeled in California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) computer model. Project
fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results.
2. The project increases in construction off-road and on-road fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide off-road fuel
consumption and Countywide on-road fuel consumption in 2025 (first year of construction). Countywide off-road construction equipment
diesel fuel consumption and on-road fuel consumption are from CARB EMFAC2021.
Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Data for assumptions and methodology used in this analysis.
Project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction
vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and
manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during demolition,
bridge construction, street improvements, and landscaping/paving. Fuel energy consumed during construction would
be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy
conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use
for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the
latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions
standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel
consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial
incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. There is growing
recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive, and that there
is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices and materials.
Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materials
composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than non-recycled materials. The
project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in typical roadway construction materials such as
asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially
increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable
to assume that production of construction materials would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the
interest in minimizing the cost of doing business.
As indicated in Table 4.6-1, the project’s off-road fuel consumption and on-road fuel consumption from construction
would be approximately 32,926 gallons and 4,971 gallons, respectively. Consequently, the project’s off-road
construction equipment diesel fuel consumption and on-road construction fuel consumption would increase Orange
County’s consumption by approximately 0.0328 percent and 0.0004 percent, respectively. As such, project construction
would have a minimal effect on the local and regional energy supplies and would not require additional capacity. There
are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less
energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, construction fuel consumption
would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. A
less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.6-3 Energy
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City adopted the City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan (EAP) in July 2013.
The EAP aims to provide a roadmap for the City to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through reductions in
energy used in facility buildings and operations. The EAP identifies past energy measures that have been implemented
and present measures that are currently being implemented, all of which contribute towards the City’s energy reduction
goal. In addition, the EAP identifies other potential energy reduction measures that the City could consider for future
implementation. The EAP’s long-term vision for energy efficiency focuses on the following objectives:
• Reduce the City’s carbon footprint and its adverse effect on the environment;
• Conserve energy at the local government facilities; and
• Raise energy conservation awareness in local community and improve the quality of life.
This EAP also outlines various measures and strategizes numerous methods on how the City’s long-term vision can
be achieved. Key goals of this EAP include:
• Meeting and exceeding AB 32 energy reduction goals;
• Being an example for energy efficiency and sustainability at City facilities;
• Continue interacting, educating, and informing the community about energy efficiency and greenhouse gas
emissions;
• Exploring the newest "green" technologies and methods to decrease future energy dependency;
• Exploring renewable energy recourses (not limited to solar) and possible financing based on available
grants/rebates;
• Enhancing energy efficiency and operations in existing buildings through systematic commissioning strategies
or independent energy efficiency studies; and
• Evaluating all the suggested energy efficiency action measures presented in the EAP, establishing a priority
for implementation, and determining possible funding sources.
It should be acknowledged that the EAP focuses on improving building efficiency and sustainability of City facilities,
and is not directly applicable to the proposed project. As a small-scale transportation improvement project with minimal
energy consumption, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct the EAP or a State plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. Specifically, as shown in Table 4.6-1, the project’s off-road fuel consumption
and on-road fuel consumption from construction would increase Orange County’s consumption by approximately
0.0328 percent and 0.0004 percent, respectively. In addition, project implementation would not result in increased
operational electricity, natural gas, or fuel consumption compared to existing conditions. Further, the project would be
required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local requirements pertaining to energy efficiency. Therefore,
less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.6-4 Energy
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.7-1 Geology and Soils
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) 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.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
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 California Building Code (2001), creating substantial
direct or indirect 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?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geological feature?
The information presented in this analysis is primarily based on the following technical studies; refer to Appendix D,
Geotechnical Report/Paleontological Resources Assessment:
• Draft Foundation Report, Collins Island Bridge, Newport Beach, California (Geotechnical Report), prepared
by Earth Mechanics, Inc. and dated October 27, 2023; and
• Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project, Newport Beach,
Orange County, California (Paleo Report), prepared by Michael Baker International and dated October 11,
2023.
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
1) 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.
No Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active
faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.7-2 Geology and Soils
Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone. According to the Geotechnical Report, the region consists of numerous active and potentially active faults
including the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone, the Pelican Hill fault, and the San Joaquin Hills fault. Of these faults,
the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone is the nearest fault identified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone
defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazards Act of 1972 revised in 1994. The project site is located approximately
2.6 miles southeast of the nearest mapped trace of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone. Given the distance, the
project site does not occur within any Alquist-Priolo fault zones and does not cross any active fault traces.
Consequently, no impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The southern California region has numerous active
seismic faults that can result in potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of
potential hazards for people and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards are
caused by the direct interaction of seismic energy with the ground. Examples include ground rupture, ground shaking,
ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Secondary hazards are consequences of the
shaking, such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves
(seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires.
As stated, there are a number of known fault zones within proximity to the project site, including the Newport-Inglewood
Structural Zone, Pelican Hill fault, and San Joaquin Hills fault. As such, the project site could be subjected to strong
seismic ground shaking that may result from earthquakes on local to distant sources.
The existing Collins Island Bridge was constructed in 1953 and is supported on concrete sheet pile bulkheads, which
are insufficient to resist current code level seismic loads. Given the age of the structure, the existing bridge also does
not meet current bridge code requirements and is nearing the end of its useful lifetime. Therefore, the proposed project
would replace the bridge with a new bridge that meets current bridge standards related to seismic safety and would be
a beneficial improvement compared to existing conditions. The Geotechnical Report also includes recommended
construction designs and methods to reduce ensure seismic safety of the bridge and seawall improvements.
Specifically, the Geotechnical Report recommends pile foundations in the form of secant pile wall abutments, which is
a series of alternating reinforced cast-in-drilled-hole piles and un-reinforced concrete piles, to reduce seismic related
hazards (e.g., liquefaction and soil settlement). Additionally, the Geotechnical Report recommends embedding the
proposed sheet piles for the sea wall improvements at least five feet below the competent soils. Further, earthwork
activities and construction of the concrete and sheet piles would be required to comply with the California Department
of Transportation’s California Test Methods Standard Specifications and verified in the final construction plans and
specifications prior to issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure the project construction
plans include the design recommendations from the Geotechnical Report to minimize site-specific geotechnical
hazards. Additionally, the design and construction of the project (including the bridge replacement, seawall
improvements, and pump station accommodations) would be required to comply with the existing seismic safety
requirements of the California Building Code and Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the Municipal Code, which
would minimize risks pertaining to seismic ground shaking. Overall, impacts would be less than significant upon
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall verify that final construction plans and
specifications incorporate the design recommendations from the Draft Foundation Report, Collins Island
Bridge, Newport Beach, California, prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc. and dated October 27, 2023,
and/or the final geotechnical report for the Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.7-3 Geology and Soils
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction and seismically induced settlement or
ground failure is generally related to strong seismic shaking events where the groundwater table occurs at a relatively
shallow depth (generally within 50 feet of the ground surface) or where lands are underlain by loose, cohesionless
deposits. Liquefaction generally results in the loss of shear strength of a soil, which occurs due to the increase of pore
water pressure caused by the rearrangement of soil particles induced by shaking or vibration. During liquefaction, soil
strata typically behave similar to a heavy fluid.
According to the Geotechnical Report, the site is generally underlain by hydraulic fill, which was used originally to
create Balboa Island. Underlying the hydraulic fill are alluvial soils deposited into Newport Bay by way of the Santa Ana
River (before being re-aligned). These deposits generally consist of grey, fine sands and silts. Underlying the alluvial
deposits is the sedimentary bedrock composed of dark to medium brown, well consolidated, highly fractured fine
siltstone and claystone of the Capistrano Formation. The near-surface alluvial sediments (upper 20 feet of soils) within
the project area are susceptible to liquefaction due to moderate to intense ground shaking. A liquefaction potential
screening was conducted with two site-specific cone penetration tests, which identified granular materials susceptible
to liquefaction. In addition to the reduction in soil strength, liquefaction could also result in seismically-induced
settlements. In the liquefiable layers, seismically-induced soil settlements are expected to be up to 4.5 inch. These
potential soil settlements would generate downdrag forces on the proposed piles and thus, would be considered and
mitigated for in the foundation design. As such and as described above, the Geotechnical Report recommends pile
foundations in the form of secant pile wall abutments to reduce liquefaction and soil settlement hazards. Additionally,
the Geotechnical Report recommends embedding the proposed sheet piles for the sea wall improvements at least five
feet below the competent soils. Earthwork activities and construction of the concrete and sheet piles would also be
required to comply with the California Department of Transportation’s California Test Methods Standard Specifications
and verified in the final construction plans and specifications prior to issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 would require the project construction plans include the design recommendations from the Geotechnical Report
to ensure site-specific geotechnical hazards are mitigated with proper geotechnical design. Thus, impacts would be
less than significant upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
4) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is located on Collins Island within the Newport Bay. There are no hillsides or slopes on the
island or in the project area that could be susceptible to landslides. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a) and 4.10(c)(1). The project would be required to comply
with applicable regulations from Municipal Code Chapter 14.36, Water Quality, and Title 21, Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan, Chapter 21.35, Water Quality Control. Specifically, Municipal Code Section 14.36.040, Control
of Urban Runoff, requirements related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff, including soil
and sediment erosion. Municipal Code Chapter 21.35 requires a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan that outlines
temporary best management practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction, and to
minimize pollution of runoff and coastal waters by construction chemicals and materials. Additionally, the project would
implement all BMPs related to erosion and sediment control and site management as required by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 and Santa Ana RWQCB Section 401 permitting processes. Last, the project would
be subject to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which establishes requirements
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.7-4 Geology and Soils
for dust control during construction activities. Following conformance with local regulations and SCAQMD Rule 403,
impacts concerning soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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 an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Responses 4.7(a)(3), 4.7(a)(4), and 4.7(d)
regarding project impacts related to liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils, respectively.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is limited displacement ground failure, often associated with liquefaction. Lateral spreading is typically
exemplified by the formation of vertical cracks on the surface of liquefied soils, and usually takes place on gently sloping
ground or level ground with nearby free surface such as a drainage or stream channel. As stated above, the near-
surface alluvial sediments (upper 20 feet of soils) within the project area are susceptible to liquefaction (and associated
lateral spreading) due to moderate to intense ground shaking. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure project design
recommendations detailed in the Geotechnical Report related to the proposed foundation piles are identified in the final
construction plans and specifications and implemented during construction. Thus, potential hazards associated with
lateral spreading would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced or compressed vertically, typically due to human activities,
such as the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. No groundwater, oil, or natural gas extraction is proposed
as part of the project. Thus, subsidence is not anticipated to occur on-site and no impacts would occur in this regard.
Collapse
Soil collapse is a phenomenon where the soils that have loose soil structures undergo a significant decrease in volume
upon increase in moisture content, with or without an increase in external loads. Buildings, structures, and other
improvements may be subject to excessive settlement-related distress when compressible soils or collapsible soils are
present. According to the Geotechnical Report, the site soils are composed predominantly of coarse-grained soils
consisting of loose to medium dense sand at the upper 20 feet. Below that is approximately 30 feet of dense to very
dense sand over the sedimentary bedrock (siltstone to claystone). As stated above, the upper 20 feet of soils are
susceptible to liquefaction and thus, could be susceptible to collapse with increases in moisture content.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure project design recommendations detailed in the
Geotechnical Report related to reducing on-site geotechnical hazards (e.g., liquefaction, lateral spreading, and
collapse) are included in the final construction plans and specifications and implemented during construction.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Expansive soils are those that undergo volume
changes as moisture content fluctuates, swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Soil expansion can
damage structures by cracking foundations, causing settlement, and distorting structural elements. The Geotechnical
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.7-5 Geology and Soils
Report states that Montmorillonitic clays are most susceptible to expansion due to their layered crystalline structure,
and claystone beds within Capistrano Formation may have potential to be highly plastic and expansive.
As stated, the project site is underlain by predominantly coarse-grained soils consisting of loose to medium dense sand
at the upper 20 feet. Below that is approximately 30 feet of dense to very dense sand over the sedimentary bedrock
composed of well consolidated, highly fractured fine siltstone and claystone of the Capistrano Formation. The
Geotechnical Report includes recommended design and construction methods to reduce geological hazards, including
expansive soils. The project would be required to comply with all site-specific design recommendations identified in the
Geotechnical Report per Mitigation Measure GEO-1. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
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?
No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would be constructed as part of the project. No impacts
would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Paleo Report included a paleontological resources
records search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, literature and geologic map review, and a
paleontological resources sensitivity analysis; refer to Appendix D. The records search did not identify any
paleontological resources within the project site. Several localities have been found within three miles of the project
site; however, these localities are from rock formations (Pleistocene Palos Verdes Sand and Fernando Formation
deposits) older than those mapped as underlying the project site. Only one locality of Holocene age, equivalent to
sediments underlying the project site, was found within three miles of the project site. Per mitigation impact guidelines
set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) and due to the fossil sensitivity of the rock formations present
within the project site, the project has a low potential to disturb paleontological resources within undisturbed
sedimentary deposits and bedrock. Nevertheless, in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during
earth-disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would require all construction activities within 100 feet of the find
to halt until a qualified paleontologist assesses the find to determine its significance and any required measures. If the
qualified paleontologist finds the resource is potentially significant, then the qualified paleontologist would make
recommendations for appropriate treatment in accordance with SVP guidelines for identification, evaluation, disclosure,
avoidance, recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. Thus, following implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2,
impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-2 In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all
construction activities within 100 feet of the discovery shall be temporarily halted until a qualified
paleontologist shall evaluate the findings and make a recommendation. The assessment will follow
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards as delineated in the Standard Procedures for the
Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010). If the qualified
paleontologist finds that the resource is not a significant fossil, then work may resume immediately. If the
qualified paleontologist finds the resource is potentially significant, then the qualified paleontologist shall
make recommendations for appropriate treatment in accordance with SVP guidelines for identification,
evaluation, disclosure, avoidance, recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. The City of Newport Beach
shall determine the appropriate treatment of the find. Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.7-6 Geology and Soils
the City of Newport Beach, through consultation as appropriate, determines that appropriate treatment
measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the City. Any fossils recovered during mitigation
shall be cleaned, identified, catalogued, and permanently curated with an accredited and permanent
scientific institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Cooper Laboratory in Santa Ana.
A qualified professional paleontologist is a professional with a graduate degree in paleontology, geology,
or related field, with demonstrated experience in the vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical paleontology
of California, as well as at least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized
training in paleontological research (i.e., the identification of fossil deposits, application of paleontological
field and laboratory procedures and techniques, and curation of fossil specimens), and at least four
months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American paleontology as defined
by the SVP.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.8-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting approximately 369.2 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2020.1 Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially
contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb
heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are
generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Every nation emits
GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global
cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused increase
in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions.
The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has
been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2,
CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago.
For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm). For the period
from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period
concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial
period range. As of August 2023, the highest monthly average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was recorded
at 420.97 ppm.2
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed
to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450
ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)3 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees
Celsius (ᵒC), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
1 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020, Trends of Emissions and Other
Indicators, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000-2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf, October 26,
2022.
2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory,
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed August 8, 2023.
3 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based
upon their global warming potential.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.8-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
State
Various Statewide and local initiatives to reduce the State’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness
that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood,
global climate change is under way, and there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and
economic effects in the long term.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32
establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and
establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990
levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG
emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be
implemented, then the California Air Resources Board (CARB) should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG
emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which Statewide emissions of
GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Senate Bill 32. Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order
B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level
target to be achieved by 2030.
CARB Scoping Plan. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which
functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted
regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce GHG emissions by 174
million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million
MTCO2e under a business as usual (BAU)4 scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MTCO2e, or almost ten percent,
from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth
through 2020.
The Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of
any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past
baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical
power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to
2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. The measures described in the Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected
2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32.
AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. On December 15, 2022, CARB
released the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), which identifies the strategies
achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. The 2022 Scoping Plan contains the GHG reductions, technology, and
clean energy mandated by statutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan was developed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045
4 “Business as Usual” refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions; refer to
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU means. In
determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the “definition.” It is broad enough to allow for design features to be
counted as reductions.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.8-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
through a substantial reduction in fossil fuel dependence, while at the same time increasing deployment of efficient
non-combustion technologies and distribution of clean energy. The plan would also reduce emissions of short-lived
climate pollutants (SLCPs) and would include mechanical CO2 capture and sequestration actions, as well as emissions
and sequestration from natural and working lands and nature-based strategies. Under the 2022 Scoping Plan, by 2045,
California aims to cut GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels, reduce smog-forming air pollution by 71
percent, reduce the demand for liquid petroleum by 94 percent compared to current usage, improve health and welfare,
and create millions of new jobs. This plan also builds upon current and previous environmental justice efforts to
integrate environmental justice directly into the plan, to ensure that all communities can reap the benefits of this
transformational plan.
Local
City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan
In July 2013, the City prepared an Energy Action Plan (EAP), created in partnership with Southern California Edison
(SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SCG). The EAP provides the City guidance in reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions by lowering municipal and community wide energy use. The EAP assists in identifying a clear path
to successfully implementing goals, policies, and actions that will achieve the City’s reduction targets. The EAP aims
to provide a roadmap for the City to reduce emissions through reductions in energy used in facility buildings and
operations. The EAP identifies past energy measures that have been implemented and present measures that are
currently being implemented, all of which contribute towards the City’s energy reduction goal. In addition, the EAP
identifies other potential energy reduction measures that the City could consider for future implementation. The EAP’s
long-term vision for energy efficiency focuses on the following objectives:
• Reduce the City’s carbon footprint and its adverse effect on the environment;
• Conserve energy at the local government facilities; and
• Raise energy conservation awareness in local community and improve the quality of life.
This EAP also outlines various measures and strategizes numerous methods on how the City’s long-term vision can
be achieved. Key goals of this EAP include:
• Meeting and exceeding AB 32 energy reduction goals;
• Being an example for energy efficiency and sustainability at City facilities;
• Continue interacting, educating, and informing the community about energy efficiency and greenhouse gas
emissions;
• Exploring the newest "green" technologies and methods to decrease future energy dependency;
• Exploring renewable energy recourses (not limited to solar) and possible financing based on available
grants/rebates;
• Enhancing energy efficiency and operations in existing buildings through systematic commissioning strategies
or independent energy efficiency studies; and
• Evaluating all the suggested energy efficiency action measures presented in the EAP, establishing a priority
for implementation, and determining possible funding sources.
Threshold of Significance
At this time, there is no absolute consensus in the State of California among CEQA lead agencies regarding the analysis
of global climate change and the selection of significance criteria. In fact, numerous organizations, both public and
private, have released advisories and guidance with recommendations designed to assist decision-makers in the
evaluation of GHG emissions given the current uncertainty regarding when emissions reach the point of significance.
Lead agencies may elect to rely on thresholds of significance recommended or adopted by State or regional agencies
with expertise in the field of global climate change.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.8-4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group
(Working Group) to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their
CEQA documents. As of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No.15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is
proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is the
lead agency.5
With the tiered approach, the project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result
in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from
resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a
certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual
emissions lower than a screening threshold. For all non-industrial projects, the SCAQMD is proposing a screening
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening
threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact. Tier 4 consists of three options. Under the Tier 4 first
option, the SCAQMD initially outlined that the project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures
resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. However, the Working Group did not provide
a recommendation for this approach. Under the Tier 4 second option, the Working Group folded this into the third
option. Under the Tier 4 third option, the project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8
MTCO2e per service population per year or 3.0 MTCO2e per service population for post-2020 projects.6 Tier 5 would
exclude projects that implement off-site mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG
emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level.
The City has not adopted a qualifying climate action plan (CAP) or a numerical significance threshold for assessing
impacts related to GHG emissions. As such, for the purpose of this analysis, the SCAQMD’s screening threshold (3,000
MTCO2e per year) for non-industrial projects (such as the proposed project) within its October 2008 document is used
to determine the significance of project-related GHG impacts. Project-related GHG emissions resulting in exceedance
of 3,000 MTCO2e would be considered significant.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project’s anticipated GHG emissions are identified in Table 4.8-1, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1 was used to calculate
project-related GHG emissions. Project-related GHG emissions would include direct emissions from construction
activities; as the project does not propose any buildings and would not introduce new stationary sources, no GHG
emissions associated with project operation (such as those from area sources, refrigerants, energy consumption, water
demand, and solid waste generation) are anticipated or quantified. Additionally, while the proposed project would
provide bridge improvements, the proposed new bridge would not represent a trip generating land use nor is it
anticipated to significantly increase the capacity of Collins Island Bridge, which primarily serves the eight single-family
residences on Collins Island. Rather, the project would facilitate safe travel for Collins Island users by constructing a
bridge that meets current bridge code requirements. Similarly, both the proposed seawall improvements as well as
5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Board Letter – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources,
Rules and Plans, December 5, 2008.
6 The project-level efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population per year is relative to the 2020 target date.
The SCAQMD has also proposed efficiency-based thresholds relative to the 2035 target date to be consistent with the GHG
reduction target date of SB 375. GHG reductions by the SB 375 target date of 2035 would be approximately 40 percent. Applying
this 40 percent reduction to the 2020 targets results in an efficiency threshold for plans of 4.1 MTCO2e per service population
per year and an efficiency threshold at the project-level of 3.0 MTCO2e/year.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.8-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
stormwater features for the separate, future pump station project would not represent a trip generating land use.
Generally, the project is a bridge improvement project which would not generate any emissions during operations.
Table 4.8-1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Metric Tons/year1
Direct Emissions
Construction (amortized over 30 years)2 16.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 16.09
Total Project-Related Emissions3 16.09 MTCO2e/year
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 MTCO2e/year
Exceed Thresholds? No
Notes:
1. Emissions calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) computer model.
2. The amount of GHG emissions from project construction would total 16.09 MTCO2e per year when amortized over 30 years, or 482.59
MTCO2e total. The standard 30-year project lifetime assumption is based on South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance
Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.
3. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Data for assumptions used in this analysis.
Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30
years), then added to the operational emissions.7 As shown in Table 4.8-1, the proposed project would result in 16.09
MTCO2e per year construction emissions when amortized over 30 years (or a total of 482.59 MTCO2e in 30 years). As
discussed above, the project would not generate emissions during operation. As such, the amount of project related
GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total approximately 16.09 MTCO2e per year.
Therefore, project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD interim threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per
year, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City has not adopted a qualifying CAP for assessing impacts related to GHG
emissions. Nonetheless, the City adopted the City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan (EAP) in July 2013, created
in partnership with SCE and SCG.
It should be acknowledged that the EAP focuses on improving building efficiency and sustainability of City facilities and
is therefore not directly applicable to the proposed project. It should also be acknowledged that the EAP is not
considered a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
Additionally, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan describes the approach California will take to reduce GHG emissions by 40
percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030.
As a small-scale transportation improvement project with minimal construction GHG emissions, the proposed project
is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct the EAP or a State plan for GHG emissions reductions. Specifically, as
shown in Table 4.8-1, project-related GHG emissions would only result in a total of approximately 16.09 MTCO2e per
7 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance
Threshold, October 2008).
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.8-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
year and are well below SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening threshold for non-industrial projects. Compared to
other development projects, the proposed project would generate a nominal amount of GHG emissions and would not
have the potential to conflict with the EAP, 2022 Scoping Plan, or any other applicable plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.9-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MA`TERIALS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to
a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Limited amounts of hazardous materials could be used in the short-term construction
of the project, including standard construction materials (i.e., paints and solvents), gasoline, diesel fuels, and other
hazardous materials routinely utilized with construction equipment. However, these activities would be short-term, and
the materials used would not be in such quantities, or stored in such a manner, as to pose a significant safety hazard.
Further, all project construction activities would demonstrate compliance with the applicable laws and regulations
governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials, which would ensure all potentially hazardous
materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner. Specifically, regulations established by the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and California Highway Patrol (CHP) as
well as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA) statute would ensure that impacts
concerning the hauling or disposal of hazardous materials during construction are reduced to less than significant
levels.
The proposed project would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge with a new bridge structure, implement seawall
improvements, and install future pump station accommodations. Additionally, project implementation would provide
street, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements. The project would not construct habitable structures, nor would the
project introduce new land uses that would require the use of hazardous materials. Thus, the proposed project would
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.9-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during long-term operations. Less than
significant impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: 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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
CONSTRUCTION
One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substances could occur is through accidental release.
Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment can cause contamination
of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. Human exposure of
contaminated soil, soil gas, or water can have potential health effects based on a variety of factors, such as the nature
of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.
During project construction, unanticipated discovery of existing hazardous materials may occur during ground
disturbance activities. There is also a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum-
based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release
of hazardous substances from construction equipment is not considered significant due to the small volume and low
concentration of hazardous materials anticipated during the limited construction duration. Nevertheless, regulations
established by the DOT, Caltrans, and CHP as well as the HMTUSA statute would ensure that impacts concerning
hazardous materials during construction, including ground disturbing activities, are reduced to less than significant
levels. Further, the construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety
procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment.
Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and
remediated as required by local, State, and federal law. Upon compliance with all applicable regulations, impacts in
this regard would be less than significant.
OPERATIONS
The proposed project would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge with a new bridge structure, implement seawall
improvements, and install future pump station accommodations. Additionally, project implementation would provide
street, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements. As noted in Response 4.9(a), project implementation would not
introduce a change in land use that would result in the use of hazardous materials. The project site is the Collins Island
Bridge and its immediate vicinity located on Balboa Island. Upon project completion, no operational impacts would
occur that could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset
or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Long-term impacts in this
regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools located within 0.25-mile of the project site. The nearest school
is the Newport Elementary School, located approximately 1.0 mile to the west at 1327 West Balboa Boulevard on the
Balboa Peninsula. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.9-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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?
No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update a regulatory site listing (per the criteria of the
Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of
all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water
analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement
agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), to compile,
as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste.
The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5.1 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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
or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The closest public use airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately five miles to the northeast of
the project site at 18601 Airport Way in the City of Santa Ana. The project site is located outside of the John Wayne
Airport Influence Area and is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or any airport land use plan, or within two miles
of a public airport.2 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not impair emergency
access in the site vicinity. Given the age of the structure, the existing Collins Island Bridge does not meet current bridge
code requirements and is nearing the end of its useful lifetime. According to a 2012 bridge inspection report, the Collins
Island Bridge was designated as functionally obsolete and has not been improved since 2012. Thus, the proposed
bridge replacement would provide a long-term beneficial impact by providing safe, reliable emergency access and
evacuation for the Balboa Island community. Further, the current slope along the roadway and sidewalk bridge
approaches on both sides of the bridge exceed five percent. Therefore, the profiles would be adjusted to comply with
ADA standards. Landscaped areas and the bridge monument would also be improved to increase sight distance along
the adjacent walkways and improve pedestrian safety. A new stop sign and limit line would also be added at the
intersection on both sides of the bridge. Through these project improvements, safety, access, and mobility across
Collins Island Bridge would be improved, resulting in a beneficial impact in this regard.
1 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, http://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/,
accessed August 10, 2023.
2 County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, amended April 17,
2008, https://files.ocair.com/media/2021-02/JWA_AELUP-April-17-
2008.pdf?VersionId=cB0byJjdad9OuY5im7Oaj5aWaT1FS.vD, accessed August 10, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.9-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As shown on Exhibits 2-7a and 2-7b, the bridge would be replaced in portions to ensure either vehicular or pedestrian
access to Collins Island during construction activities to the maximum extent feasible. However, construction activities
may require temporary partial bridge, roadway, or sidewalk closures. Short-term full bridge closures limited to a few
hours in a day (i.e., not full day or multi-day closures) may also be required and thus, may impede emergency access
to Collins Island. As such, implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be required to maintain adequate
emergency access during the construction process (Mitigation Measure TRA-1). The TMP shall include measures such
as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours of traffic, temporary striping plans,
and, if necessary, use of construction flag person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. Further, the City
would be required to coordinate with the Newport Beach Fire and Police Departments to arrange for adequate
alternative access options in the event an emergency event occurs during a temporary full bridge/roadway closure. As
such, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the project’s impacts in this regard would be reduced to less
than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are built-out with urbanized uses or open water; no wildland
vegetation that could fuel wildfires is present. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the project site is not
located in an area identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.10-1 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of
stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The
NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The SWRCB works in
coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore
water quality. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Impacts related to water quality typically range over three different periods: 1) during the earthwork and construction
phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest; 2) following construction,
prior to the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and 3) following
completion of the project, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly, but those associated with
urban runoff would increase.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.10-2 Hydrology and Water Quality
CONSTRUCTION
The proposed project may result in water quality impacts during short-term construction activities. Project-related
demolition, excavation, and drilling activities would expose soils to wind and water erosion. During partial bridge
demolition, a drop net over the waterway would be used to catch debris during removal of the concrete bridge and
coping on existing seawalls.
The project would be required to comply with applicable regulations from Municipal Code Chapter 14.36, Water Quality,
and Title 21, Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, Chapter 21.35, Water Quality Control. Specifically, Municipal
Code Section 14.36.040, Control of Urban Runoff, requires all new development and significant redevelopment within
the City to comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and conditions/requirements established
by the City related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site. Municipal Code
Chapter 21.35 requires a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan that outlines temporary best management practices
(BMPs) to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction, and to minimize pollution of runoff and coastal
waters by construction chemicals and materials. Further, the project would implement all BMPs related to erosion and
sediment control and site management as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 and
Santa Ana RWQCB Section 401 permitting processes. Following implementation of temporary construction BMPs per
Municipal Code Chapter 21.35, adherence to permitting requirements (USACE Section 404, Santa Ana RWQCB
Sections 401), and conformance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.36, the project’s short-term impacts to water quality
would be less than significant.
OPERATIONS
At project completion, the proposed bridge replacement would not substantially alter drainage or water quality in
comparison to existing conditions as development would not entail activities or changes in land use other than
construction. However, the project would implement storm drain improvements simultaneously within street and
sidewalk improvements, including the relocation of one catch basin along the Park Avenue right-of-way and the
installation of discharge and outlet pipes to accommodate a future separate pump station project. These improvements
would ensure that water quality impacts are reduced to a less than significant level during long-term operations.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact. The proposed project would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge with a new bridge structure,
implement seawall improvements, and install future pump station accommodations; it would not introduce any new
uses that would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
Although a nominal amount of water may be used during construction these activities would be minimal and temporary
in nature and would have no impact on groundwater supplies. Additionally, the site is not currently utilized as a
groundwater recharge area. The project would not result in any water demand at project completion and thus, would
not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. No impacts
would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.10-3 Hydrology and Water Quality
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in a substantial alteration to existing drainage
patterns, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. Currently, stormwater from the project site
sheet flows southwesterly into an existing catch basin at the corner of Park Avenue and the Bay Front sidewalk, and
eventually into Newport Bay. There is one existing catch basin along the Park Avenue right-of-way, which the project
would relocate. Soil disturbance during project construction would include earth-moving activities such as excavation,
drilling for bridge pile foundations, and steel sheet piling installation, among others. Disturbed soils would be susceptible
to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via runoff from the project site; however, soil
disturbance is anticipated to be nominal and temporary in nature.
As discussed in Response 4.10(a), the proposed project would not result in water quality pollutants (including
erosion/siltation) during short-term construction or long-term operations. The project would include the implementation
of construction and operational BMPs, including the utilization of a drop net over the waterway to be used to catch
debris during removal of the concrete bridge and coping on existing seawalls, and installing landscaped areas adjacent
to the bridge and Bay Front sidewalk areas. These short-term construction and operational BMPs would minimize the
potential for erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Additionally, the project would implement storm drain improvements
simultaneously within street and sidewalk improvements, such as relocation of an existing catch basin. While the
separately proposed future pump station is not a part of the proposed project, the proposed project does include
accommodations for the pump station (i.e., discharge and outlet pipes), which would facilitate stormwater conveyance
into the bay.
As further discussed in Response 4.10(a) the project would be required to develop a Construction Pollution Prevention
Plan in accordance with Municipal Code Section 21.35. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with
applicable regulations from Municipal Code Chapter 14.36, Water Quality. Specifically, Municipal Code Section
14.36.040, Control of Urban Runoff, would require all new development and significant redevelopment within the City
to comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and conditions/requirements established by the
City related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site. Additionally, the
project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 14.36.030, Illicit Connections and Prohibited
Discharges, which prohibits the construction, maintenance, operation, and utilization of any illicit connection or
prohibited discharge. As such, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on-
site in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant
in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a) and 4.10 (c)(1).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.10-4 Hydrology and Water Quality
3) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a) and 4.10(c)(1). Stormwater runoff from the project site
would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources or polluted runoff. Given the nature of the proposed project as primarily a bridge replacement, project
implementation would not introduce any new land uses that could increase stormwater runoff on-site. Less than
significant impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a), 4.10 (c)(1), and 4.10(c)(3).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Flood Hazard
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is situated within Zone AE, which
is within the 100-year flood hazard area.1 However, as discussed throughout this section, the project would implement
temporary construction BMPs under the project’s Construction Pollution Prevention Plan per Municipal Code Chapter
21.35, and conform to Municipal Code Section 14.36.040, which would collectively prevent release of pollutants in the
instance of flooding. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Tsunami
A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance
such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. General Plan Figure S1,
Coastal Hazards, identifies the project site as located within a 100-year tsunami inundation at extreme high tide zone,
with an identified inundation elevation of 13.64 feet. Although a potential tsunami hazard exists for the project area, the
proposed project would not increase the potential for inundation in comparison to existing conditions. The proposed
bridge replacement, seawall improvements, and pump station accommodations could not release any pollutants during
a tsunami inundation. Rather, the project is anticipated to result in beneficial impacts related to rising sea levels due to
climate change, as it would replace the existing bridge with one that meets current bridge code requirements and
improve seawalls adjacent to the bridge to protect properties from high tides and storm surges. Thus, impacts in this
regard are less than significant.
1 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0382K, March 3, 2019, https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd&extent=-
117.87113952835794,33.61505203269935,-117.86594677170439,33.61728568259848, accessed August 11, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.10-5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Seiche
A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. Although the project site is located
adjacent to Newport Bay, according to the General Plan EIR, the probability that damaging seiches would develop in
Newport Bay is considered low. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No Impact. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses for
water bodies in the Santa Ana Region and establishes water quality objectives and implementation plans to protect
those beneficial uses. As noted above, the project would not result in significant impacts to water quality following
compliance with the Basin Plan and conformance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.36, Water Quality, and Chapter
21.35, Water Quality Control.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainability
agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans or prepare an
alternative to a groundwater sustainability plan. According to the California Department of Water Resources SGMA
Basin Prioritization Dashboard, the project is not underlain by a groundwater basin.2 Thus, the proposed project is not
anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2 California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-
dashboard/final/, accessed August 11, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.10-6 Hydrology and Water Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-1 Land Use and Planning
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. Activities and features that could physically divide a community include, but are not
limited to:
• Construction of major highways or roadways;
• Construction of storm channels;
• Closing bridges or roadways; and
• Construction of utility transmission lines.
The key factor with respect to this threshold is the potential to create physical barriers that change the connectivity
between areas of a community to the extent that persons are separated from other areas of the community. Given the
age of the structure, the existing Collins Island Bridge does not meet current bridge code requirements and is nearing
the end of its useful lifetime. Thus, the proposed project would replace the existing Collins Island bridge with a new
bridge, construct seawall improvements adjacent to the new bridge, and accommodate discharge and outlet pipes
associated with a separate pump station project within Park Avenue. Given the nature of the bridge replacement
activity, the project would physically divide the greater Balboa Island from Collins Island temporarily during bridge
replacement activities. In an effort to reduce temporary closure durations of the existing bridge, the bridge would be
replaced in portions to ensure access to Collins Island during construction activities to the maximum extent feasible.
As shown on Exhibits 2-7a and 2-7b, a 14-foot wide portion would first be removed and replaced and the remaining 5-
foot wide portion would be removed and replaced. Short-term bridge closures limited to a few hours in a day (i.e., not
full day or multi-day closures) may be required. However, steel plates would be placed over temporary excavations to
allow traffic to remain open after work hours.
The other project improvements associated with the seawall and pump station accommodations would not physically
divide the existing Balboa Island community. Temporary construction activities would occur within the Park Avenue
and Bay Front sidewalk right-of-way with limited construction staging on-site given the site constraints.
The Balboa Island community, including Collins Island, would maintain connection upon completion of all construction
activities. Thus, no permanent physical division of the established Balboa Island community would occur as a result of
project implementation. Further, the new bridge would provide long-term benefits for the Balboa Island community by
providing safe and continued access between Collins Island and the greater Balboa Island. Impacts would be less than
significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-2 Land Use and Planning
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
According to the General Plan and Zoning Map, Collins Island is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D)
and zoned Single Unit Residential (R-1). Uses to the east of the Collins Island Bridge on the greater Balboa Island are
designated Two-Unit Residential (RT) and zoned Two-Unit Residential (R-BI [Balboa Island]). As a public roadway
facility, the bridge itself does not have a land use designation or zoning district. Table 4.11-1, General Plan Land Use
Element Project Consistency Analysis, provides a consistency analysis of the proposed project and relevant General
Plan Land Use Element goals and policies. As indicated in Table 4.11-1, the proposed project would be consistent with
the General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Table 4.11-1 General Plan Land Use Element Project Consistency Analysis
Relevant Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Goal LU 1: A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high
quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that
Newport Beach is primarily a residential community.
LU 1.1: Maintain and enhance the beneficial and
unique character of the different neighborhoods,
business districts, and harbor that together identify
Newport Beach. Locate and design development
to reflect Newport Beach’s topography,
architectural diversity, and view shed.
Consistent. The project proposes to replace the existing Collins Island
Bridge with a new bridge that meets current bridge code standards;
implement seawall improvements along both ends of the bridge to
accommodate future sea level rise; and install discharge and outline
pipes to accommodate a separate pump station project near the project
site within Park Avenue. The primary intent of the proposed
improvements is to replace structurally deficient infrastructure to ensure
safety for residents and visitors on Balboa Island. The improvements
would be limited to the area surrounding the Collins Island Bridge and
project impacts would be limited to temporary construction impacts.
Construction activities are anticipated to occur for approximately 11
months and may temporarily impact existing scenic views of Newport Bay
near the project area. However, view impacts would be temporary and
would be limited to the areas immediately adjacent to the project site;
refer to Exhibit 2-3. Given the site constraints, no construction staging
areas would be present during construction; materials and equipment
would be brought in daily on an as-needed basis. Thus, temporary
construction impacts to scenic views in the local area would be less than
significant. Additionally, given the nature of the project, no changes would
occur to the topography and architecture of the project area.
LU 1.3: Protect the natural setting that contributes
to the character and identify of Newport Beach and
the sense of place it provides for its resident and
visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches,
harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as
visual, recreational and habitat resources.
Consistent. As stated, project impacts would be limited to temporary
construction activities. Thus, visual, recreational, and habitat resources
associated with Newport Bay near the Collins Island Bridge would only
experience temporary impacts from project-related construction activities.
Refer to response to Policy LU 1.1 with regards to project impacts on
visual resources.
With regards to recreational resources, barges would be utilized to bring
in construction equipment and materials and thus, would require
relocating some private recreational boat docks of Balboa Island
residents near the site; refer to Exhibit 2-2. At project completion, the
private docks would be located back at their original locations to ensure
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-3 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-1 [cont’d] General Plan Land Use Element Project Consistency Analysis
Relevant Policies Project Consistency Analysis
recreational harbor activities could resume.
With regards to habitat resources, Section 4.4, Biological Resources,
evaluates potential project impacts related to biological resources,
including sensitive habitats. Specifically, an essential fish habitat (EFH)
assessment and eelgrass survey report were prepared to identify and
evaluate project impacts on EFH and eelgrass communities in the project
area. As analyzed in Response 4.4(a), the project’s temporary
construction activities would not adversely impact EFH or eelgrass habitat
upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2.
Additionally, based on a jurisdictional delineation of the project area, the
project would be required to obtain regulatory permits from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), and California Coastal Commission (CCC) per Mitigation
Measure BIO-3. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1
through BIO-3, the project would minimize impacts to habitat resources
in the project area.
LU 1.6: Protect and, where feasible, enhance
significant scenic and visual resources that include
open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean,
and harbor from public vantage points.
Consistent. Refer to responses to Policies LU 1.1 and LU 1.3.
Goal LU 2: A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without
compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of
residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City’s diverse recreational
amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life.
LU 2.5: Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the
waterfront that contribute to the charm and
character of Newport Beach and provide needed
support for recreational and commercial boaters,
visitors, and residents, with appropriate
regulations necessary to protect the interests of all
users as well as adjoining residents.
Consistent. Refer to responses to Policies LU 1.1 and LU 1.3.
LU 2.6: Provide uses that serve visitors to Newport
Beach’s ocean, harbor, open spaces, and other
recreational assets, while integrating them to
protect neighborhoods and residents.
Consistent. Refer to responses to Policies LU 1.1 and LU 1.3.
Goal LU 3: A development pattern that retains and complements the City’s residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial
districts, open spaces, and natural environment.
LU 3.7: Require that new development is located
and designed to protect areas with high natural
resource value and protect residents and visitors
from threats to life or property.
Consistent. Refer to responses to Policies LU 1.1 and LU 1.3.
Goal LU 5.6: Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and building that are mutually compatible
and enhance the quality of the City’s environment.
LU 5.6.4: Require that sites be planned and
buildings designed in consideration of the
property’s topography, landforms, drainage
patterns, natural vegetation, and relationship to the
Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental
character that distinguishes Newport Beach.
Consistent. Refer to responses to Policies LU 1.1 and LU 1.3.
Source: City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element, July 25, 2006.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-4 Land Use and Planning
ZONING CODE CONSISTENCY
As stated, Collins Island is zoned R-1 and uses to the east of the Collins Island Bridge on the greater Balboa Island
are zoned R-BI (Balboa Island). The bridge itself does not have a zoning district. Based on Municipal Code Section
20.18.010, Purposes of Residential Zoning Districts, the R- 1 zoning district is intended to provide for areas appropriate
for a range of detached single-family residential dwelling units, each located on a single legal lot, and does not include
condominiums or cooperative housing. The R-BI zoning district is intended to provide for a maximum of two residential
dwelling units (i.e., duplexes) located on a single legal lot on Balboa Island.
The project does not propose any new land use development. Rather, the project would replace an existing bridge
structure with a new bridge that meets current bridge code requirements. Seawall improvements and discharge and
outlet pipe accommodations associated with a separate pump station project adjacent to the project site would also be
implemented. Additionally, street, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements are proposed on the Balboa Island side
along the Bay Front sidewalk and Park Avenue eastward until the alley; refer to Exhibit 2-2. Overall, the proposed
public works improvements would occur within existing rights-of-way and thus, would not conflict with existing zoning
standards that regulate development on the adjacent parcels. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT CONSISTENCY
The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act; Public Resources Code Division 20, California Coastal Act, Chapter 3, Coastal
Resources Planning and Management Policies) contains specific sections pertaining to land use and planning within
the Coastal Zone. The entire project site is located within the Coastal Zone. Thus, Table 4.11-2, California Coastal Act
Project Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with relevant Coastal Act
sections.
Table 4.11-2 California Coastal Act Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Coastal Act Sections Project Consistency Analysis
Public Access
Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with
the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired
through use or legislative authorization, including, but
not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal
beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Consistent. The project proposes to replace the existing Collins Island
Bridge with a new bridge that meets current bridge code standards;
implement seawall improvements along both ends of the bridge to
accommodate future sea level rise; and install discharge and outlet
pipes to accommodate a separate pump station project near the
project site within Park Avenue. The proposed improvements would
occur within the vicinity of the existing bridge. Within the project area,
private access to Newport Bay is provided by private docks of
residences on both Collins Island and the greater Balboa Island. As
shown on Exhibit 2-2, project-related construction activities would
require temporary relocation of several private docks on Collins Island
and Balboa Island to allow barges to deliver construction equipment
and materials. The dock relocations would be temporary and would
still allow boat use at the relocated docks. At construction completion,
the docks would be replaced back at their original locations.
Additionally, the existing bridge is publicly accessible via a public
sidewalk; the proposed bridge improvements would provide similar
public access on the bridge. Thus, the project would not interfere with
the public’s right of access to the sea.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-5 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-2 [cont’d] California Coastal Act Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Coastal Act Sections Project Consistency Analysis
Recreation
Section 30220. Coastal areas suited for water-
oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be
provided at inland water areas shall be protected for
such uses.
Consistent. Refer to response to Section 30211.
Section 30224. Increased recreational boating use of
coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance
with this division, by developing dry storage areas,
increasing public launching facilities, providing
additional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting
non-water-dependent land uses that congest access
corridors and preclude boating support facilities,
providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new
boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected
water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land.
Consistent. Refer to response to Section 30211.
Marine Environment
Section 30230. Marine resources shall be maintained,
enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Special
protection shall be given to areas and species of
special biological or economic significance. Uses 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.
Consistent. Section 4.4 evaluates potential project impacts related to
marine resources, including essential fish habitat (EFH) and eelgrass
communities. Specifically, an EFH assessment and eelgrass survey
report were prepared to identify and evaluate project impacts on EFH
and eelgrass communities in the project area. As analyzed in
Response 4.4(a), the project’s temporary construction activities would
not adversely impact EFH or eelgrass habitat upon implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Additionally, based on a
jurisdictional delineation of the project area, the project would be
required to obtain regulatory permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and
CCC per Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Upon implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, the project would minimize
impacts to marine resources in the project area.
Section 30231. 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 waste water discharges
and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing
depletion of ground water supplies and substantial
interference with surface waterflow, encouraging
waste water reclamation, maintaining natural
vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats,
and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
Consistent. Refer to response to Section 30230.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water
Quality, project construction and operations would be required to
comply with NPDES program requirements regarding water quality,
stormwater runoff, and soil erosion. Additionally, Municipal Code
Section 14.36.040, Control of Urban Runoff, requires all new
development and significant redevelopment within the City to comply
with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and
conditions/requirements established by the City related to the
reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the
project site. Further, Municipal Code Chapter 21.35 requires a
Construction Pollution Prevention Plan that outlines temporary best
management practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and
sedimentation during construction, and to minimize pollution of runoff
and coastal waters by construction chemicals and materials. Further,
the project would implement all BMPs related to erosion and sediment
control and site management as required by the USACE Section 404
and Santa Ana RWQCB Section 401 permitting processes.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-6 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-2 [cont’d] California Coastal Act Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Coastal Act Sections Project Consistency Analysis
Section 30232. Protection against the spillage of
crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous
substances shall be provided in relation to any
development or transportation of such materials.
Effective containment and cleanup facilities and
procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that
do occur.
Consistent. As analyzed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, during project construction, there is a possibility of
accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum-
based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The
level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous
substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and
low concentration of hazardous materials anticipated during the
limited construction duration. Nevertheless, regulations established
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, California Department of
Transportation, and California Highway Patrol as well as the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act would ensure
that impacts concerning hazardous materials during construction are
reduced to less than significant levels. Further, the construction
contractor would be required to use standard construction controls
and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for
accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard
construction practices would be observed such that any materials
released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by
local, State, and federal law.
Section 30235. Revetments, breakwaters, groins,
harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and
other such construction that alters natural shoreline
processes shall be permitted when required to serve
coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing
structures or public beaches in danger from erosion
and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse
impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing
marine structures causing water stagnation
contributing to pollution problems and fishkills should
be phased out or upgraded where feasible.
Consistent. The project proposes to increase the height of existing
seawalls on the eastern end of the bridge; refer to Exhibits 2-3 and 2-
5. Currently, most seawalls along Collins Island Bridge and along the
Bay Front sidewalk consist of concrete sheet pile bulkheads with a
concrete cap (coping) elevation of approximately 9 feet. The
proposed seawall improvements would be designed to have a top of
wall coping elevation of 11 feet with a future cap extension up to 14
feet. The seawalls are necessary to protect residences on Balboa
Island from erosion and sea level rise.
Land Resources
Section 30240. (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 those areas, and shall be
compatible with the continuance of those habitat and
recreation areas.
Consistent. Refer to response to Section 30230.
Section 30244. Where development would adversely
impact archaeological or paleontological resources as
identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer,
reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.
Consistent. Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, analyzes the project’s
potential impacts on archaeological resources, and Section 4.7,
Geology and Soils, evaluates the project’s potential impacts on
paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce
potential impacts to archaeological resources if found during ground-
disturbing construction activities. Further, Mitigation Measure GEO-2
would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources if found
during ground-disturbing activities. As such, implementation of
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and GEO-2 would ensure project
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-7 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-2 [cont’d] California Coastal Act Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Coastal Act Sections Project Consistency Analysis
development does not adversely impact archaeological or
paleontological resources.
Development
Section 30251. The scenic and visual qualities of
coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a
resource of public importance. Permitted
development shall be sited and designed to protect
views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal
areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms,
to be visually compatible with the character of
surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore
and enhance visual quality in visually degraded
areas. New development in highly scenic areas such
as those designated in the California Coastline
Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the
Department of Parks and Recreation and by local
government shall be subordinate to the character of
its setting.
Consistent. As analyzed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the project site is
located within a developed residential area on Balboa Island/Collins
Island within Newport Bay. According to General Plan Figure NR3,
Coastal Views, the existing Collins Island Bridge and surrounding
area are not designated as a “Public View Point” or “Coastal View
Road.” During project construction, views towards the project site
from surrounding residences, beach areas, and open water may be
temporarily altered by construction activities and equipment.
However, project construction would occur over a short duration (11
months) and would not block expansive public views of Newport Bay;
upon completion, views of construction activities would cease. While
the project involves seawall improvements that would increase the
height of seawalls adjacent to the Collins Island Bridge, the Bay Front
sidewalk would also be raised to provide a minimum of 42 inches from
sidewalk to top of coping for pedestrian safety. Existing public views
from the walkway would not be obstructed by the proposed seawall
and sidewalk improvements. Further, given the nature of the
development as a bridge replacement project, operational impacts of
the project would have no adverse aesthetic impact on the project
area. The new bridge would continue to operate similar to the existing
bridge.
Section 30253. New development shall do all of the
following:
(a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high
geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither
create nor contribute significantly to erosion,
geologic instability, or destruction of the site or
surrounding area or in any way require the
construction of protective devices that would
substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs
and cliffs.
(c) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air
pollution control district or the State Air Resources
Board as to each particular development.
(d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles
traveled.
(e) Where appropriate, protect special communities
and neighborhoods that, because of their unique
characteristics, are popular visitor destination
points for recreational uses.
Consistent. Refer to lettered corresponding analysis below.
(a) As analyzed in Sections 4.7, Geology and Soils, 4.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, and 4.20, Wildfire, the project would result in
less than significant impacts in these regards, respectively.
(b) The primary intent of the project is to replace structurally deficient
infrastructure, including the Collins Island Bridge and adjacent
seawalls. Thus, implementation of the project would ensure
stability and structural integrity of the bridge and seawalls. Further,
there are no natural landforms along bluffs or cliffs in the project
vicinity.
(c) As analyzed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the project would not
exceed established air quality emission thresholds for construction
and operational activities upon compliance with existing
regulations.
(d) Section 4.6, Energy, concludes that the project would not cause
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building
energy during project construction or operation or preempt future
energy development or future energy conservation. Additionally,
given the nature of the project, no vehicle trips would be generated
and thus, no vehicle miles traveled impacts would occur.
(e) Balboa Island is a unique residential community of Newport
Beach. The proposed project components, including the bridge
replacement, seawall improvements, and pump station
accommodations, would protect Balboa Island by improving
existing infrastructure.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-8 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-2 [cont’d] California Coastal Act Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Coastal Act Sections Project Consistency Analysis
Section 30254. New or expanded public works
facilities shall be designed and limited to
accommodate needs generated by development or
uses permitted consistent with the provisions of this
division; provided, however, that it is the intent of the
Legislature that State Highway Route 1 in rural areas
of the coastal zone remain a scenic two-lane road.
Special districts shall not be formed or expanded
except where assessment for, and provision of, the
service would not induce new development
inconsistent with this division. Where existing or
planned public works facilities can accommodate only
a limited amount of new development, services to
coastal-dependent land use, essential public services
and basic industries vital to the economic health of the
region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial
recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be
precluded by other development.
Consistent. Refer to response to Section 30211. The primary intent of
the proposed improvements is to replace structurally deficient public
works infrastructure to ensure continued safety for residents and
visitors on Balboa Island. No impacts would occur to State Highway
Route 1.
Sea Level Rise
Section 30270. The commission shall take into
account the effects of sea level rise in coastal
resources planning and management policies and
activities in order to identify, assess, and, to the extent
feasible, avoid and mitigate the adverse effects of sea
level rise.
Consistent. One of the proposed project components is to implement
seawall improvements to accommodate future sea level rise.
Specifically, the project proposes to increase the height of existing
seawalls adjacent to the bridge. Currently, most seawalls along
Collins Island Bridge and along the Bay Front sidewalk consist of
concrete sheet pile bulkheads with a concrete cap (coping) elevation
of approximately 9 feet. The proposed seawall improvements would
be designed to have a top of wall coping elevation of 11 feet with a
future cap extension up to 14 feet.
Source: Public Resources Code Division 20, California Coastal Act, Chapter 3, Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies.
As analyzed in Table 4.11-2, the project would be consistent with each of the relevant Coastal Act coastal resources
planning and management policies and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CONSISTENCY
The City’s Local Coastal Program consists of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use
Plan (CLUP), adopted in 2005 and most recently amended in 2019, and the Local Coastal Program Implementation
Plan (Implementation Plan), included as Title 21 in the Municipal Code. The CLUP sets forth goals, objectives, and
policies that address the requirements of the Coastal Act to ensure the City guides development in the Coastal Zone
in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Act. Similarly, the intent of the Implementation Plan is to implement the
policies of the CLUP, consistent with the Coastal Act, by establishing and regulating zoning district standards, site
planning and development standards, and other standards for specific land use types. Table 4.11-3, Local Coastal
Program Project Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the CLUP and
Implementation Plan.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-9 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
Policy 2.1.20-1. Land uses and new development in
the coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal
Land Use Plan Map and all applicable LCP policies
and regulations.
Consistent. As a public roadway facility, the bridge itself does not
have a land use designation or zoning district. However, as detailed
in Table 4.11-3, the proposed project would be consistent with the
applicable CLUP and Implementation Plan policies and regulations.
Policy 2.2.1-2. Require new development be located
in areas with adequate public services or in areas that
are capable of having public services extended or
expanded without significant adverse effects on
coastal resources.
Consistent. Refer to Section 4.15, Public Services. Currently, the
Collins Island Bridge provides public and private access to Collins
Island, including emergency vehicle access. During construction of
the proposed project, the bridge would be replaced in portions to
maintain access to Collins Island during construction activities to the
maximum extent feasible. Short-term full bridge closures limited to a
few hours in a day (i.e., not full day or multi-day closures) may also
be required and thus, may impede Newport Beach Fire Department
and/or Newport Beach Police Department access to Collins Island. As
such, implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be
required to maintain adequate emergency access during the
construction process (Mitigation Measure TRA-1). Utility services
(e.g., water, sewer, natural gas, and electricity) would continue to be
provided to Collins Island residences during and after construction
activities. No project impacts to other public services, including
schools, parks, and libraries, are anticipated.
Policy 2.2.2-1. After certification of the LCP, require a
coastal development permit for all development within
the coastal zone, subject to exceptions provided for
under the Coastal Act as specified in the LCP.
Consistent. The project would require approval of a Coastal
Development Permit; refer to Section 2.5, Permits and Approvals.
Policy 2.2.2-3. Prior to approval of any coastal
development permit, the City shall make the finding
that the development conforms to the policies and
requirements contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan.
Consistent. As detailed in Table 4.11-3, the proposed project would
be consistent with the applicable CLUP and Implementation Plan
policies and regulations.
Policy 2.8.1-1. Review all applications for new
development to determine potential threats from
coastal and other hazards.
Consistent. Refer to Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, and Section 4.9,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Following compliance with existing
regulatory requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 and TRA-1, the proposed project would have less than
significant impacts related to seismic hazards and emergency access.
Policy 2.8.6-5. Permit revetments, breakwaters,
groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls
and other structures altering natural shoreline
processes or retaining walls when required to serve
coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing principal
structures or public beaches in danger from erosion
and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse
impacts on local shoreline sand supply, unless a
waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a
previous coastal development permit.
Consistent. The primary intent of the project is to replace structurally
deficient infrastructure, including the Collins Island Bridge and
adjacent seawalls. The project proposes to increase the height of
existing seawalls on both sides of the bridge; refer to Exhibits 2-3 and
2-5. The proposed seawall improvements would be designed to have
a top of wall coping elevation of 11 feet with a future cap extension up
to 14 feet. The seawalls are necessary to protect residences on
Balboa Island from erosion and sea level rise. Thus, implementation
of the project would ensure stability and structural integrity of the
bridge and seawalls.
Policy 2.8.6-6. Design and site protective devices to
minimize impacts to coastal resources, minimize
alteration of natural shoreline processes, provide for
coastal access, minimize visual impacts, and eliminate
or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand
supply.
Consistent. The primary intent of the project is to replace structurally
deficient infrastructure, including the Collins Island Bridge and
adjacent seawalls. The existing bridge provides one raised public
sidewalk to provide public access to the bridge; proposed bridge
improvements would afford similar public access on the bridge. The
Bay Front sidewalks adjacent to the new proposed seawalls would be
raised to provide a minimum of 42 inches from sidewalk to
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-10 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 [cont’d] Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
top of coping to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards
and maintain public views.
Policy 2.8.7-2. Require new development to provide
adequate drainage and erosion control facilities that
convey site drainage in a non-erosive manner in order
to minimize hazards resulting from increased runoff,
erosion and other hydrologic impacts to streams.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water
Quality, project construction and operations would be required to
comply with NPDES program requirements regarding water quality,
stormwater runoff, and soil erosion. Additionally, Municipal Code
Section 14.36.040, Control of Urban Runoff, requires all new
development and significant redevelopment within the City to comply
with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and
conditions/requirements established by the City related to the
reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the
project site. Further, Municipal Code Chapter 21.35 requires a
Construction Pollution Prevention Plan that outlines temporary BMPs
to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction, and to
minimize pollution of runoff and coastal waters by construction
chemicals and materials. Further, the project would implement all
BMPs related to erosion and sediment control and site management
as required by the USACE Section 404 and Santa Ana RWQCB
Section 401 permitting processes.
Policy 2.8.7-3. Require applications for new
development, where applicable [i.e., in areas of known
or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a
geologic/soils/geotechnical study that identifies any
geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site,
any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a
statement that the project site is suitable for the
proposed development and that the development will
be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to
be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering
Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to
review and approval by the City.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, the
proposed project would incorporate the design recommendations of
the Draft Foundation Report, Collins Island Bridge, Newport Beach,
California (Geotechnical Report), prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc.
and dated October 27, 2023 in accordance with Mitigation Measure
GEO-1.
Policy 3.1.5-3. Require public access consistent with
public access policies for any new development in
private/gated communities causing or contributing to
adverse public access impacts.
Consistent. The existing bridge provides public access along the
bridge via a public sidewalk; the proposed bridge improvements
would provide similar public access on the bridge. Thus, the project
would not interfere with the public’s right of access.
Policy 3.2.3-1. Ensure that planned public facilities
include provisions for adequate access for the persons
with disabilities and that existing facilities are
appropriately retrofitted to include such access as
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act in a
manner consistent with the protection of coastal
resources.
Consistent. The proposed project would replace the existing Collins
Island Bridge with a new bridge structure that would have slightly
reduced slopes along the roadway and sidewalk bridge approaches
compared to existing conditions to meet ADA standards. The project
would also increase the height of seawalls adjacent to the bridge to
accommodate future sea level rise and maintain consistency with
surrounding seawalls on Collins Island and Balboa Island. Thus, the
project would continue to provide adequate access to Collins Island
and along the Bay Front sidewalk to persons with disabilities.
Policy 4.1.2-1. Maintain, enhance, and, where
feasible, restore marine resources.
Consistent. Section 4.4, Biological Resources, evaluates potential
project impacts related to marine resources, including EFH and
eelgrass communities. Specifically, an EFH assessment and eelgrass
survey report were prepared to identify and evaluate project impacts
on EFH and eelgrass communities in the project area. As analyzed in
Response 4.4(a), the project’s temporary construction activities would
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-11 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 [cont’d] Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
not adversely impact EFH or eelgrass habitat upon implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Additionally, based on a
jurisdictional delineation of the project area, the project would be
required to obtain regulatory permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and
CCC per Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Upon implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, the project would minimize
impacts to marine resources in the project area.
Policy 4.1.2-2. Provide special protection to marine
resource areas and species of special biological or
economic significance.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 4.1.2-1.
Policy 4.1.2-5. Continue to require Caulerpa protocol
surveys as a condition of City approval of projects in
the Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT
when found.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, pre-
construction surveys for eelgrass and Caulerpa were conducted by
Six Scientific Service, the results of which were compiled in a report
dated October 2023; refer to Appendix B, Jurisdictional
Delineation/Marine Reports.
Policy 4.1.4-1. Continue to protect eelgrass meadows
for their important ecological function as a nursery and
foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 4.1.2-1. Given the small
footprint of the proposed in-water activity, short construction duration,
and lack of eelgrass observed adjacent to the bridge and seawalls,
the Eelgrass Survey Report concluded that the project would not
result in any long-term adverse impacts to the health of eelgrass
communities in the project area.
Policy 4.1.4-3. Site and design boardwalks, docks,
piers, and other structures that extend over the water
to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows. Encourage the
use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and the
growth of eelgrass.
Consistent. Refer to responses to Policies 4.1.2-1 and 4.1.4-1.
Policy 4.1.4-5. Where applicable require eelgrass and
Caulerpa taxifolia surveys to be conducted as a
condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay
in accordance with operative protocols of the Southern
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa
taxifolia Survey protocols.
Consistent. Refer to responses to Policy 4.1.2-5.
Policy 4.2.2-2. Require a survey and analysis with the
delineation of all wetland areas when the initial site
survey indicates the presence or potential for wetland
species or indicators. Wetland delineations will be
conducted in accordance with the definitions of
wetland boundaries contained in section 13577(b) of
the California Code of Regulations.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, a
Jurisdictional Delineation was conducted by Michael Baker
International, the results of which were compiled in a report dated
November 16, 2023; refer to Appendix B. As analyzed in the
Jurisdictional Delineation, portions of the project site include non-
wetland tidal areas of Newport Bay. The project site is subject to
permanent tidal inundation and high tide events. Little to no lateral
variation occurs due to the presence of sea walls around the northern
and southern limits of the project site. No other jurisdictional areas
were noted during the time of the assessment. To reduce impacts
associated with the proposed seawall improvements, Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 would be required to ensure the City of Newport
Beach coordinates with the USACE, RWQCB, and CCC to obtain the
required regulatory permits, which would include verifying delineation
results, determining permanent losses and temporary impact areas,
and identifying any compensatory mitigation, as applicable.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-12 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 [cont’d] Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policy 4.2.3-16. Design and site all structures
permitted to encroach into open coastal waters,
wetlands, and estuaries to harmonize with the natural
appearance of the surrounding area.
Consistent. The primary intent of the project is to replace structurally
deficient infrastructure, including the Collins Island Bridge and
adjacent seawalls. The new bridge and seawalls would look similar to
the existing bridge and seawalls and would harmonize with the natural
appearance of the project area.
Policy 4.2.5-1. Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera
marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses
of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in
accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of
eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 4.1.2-1.
Policy 4.3.1-4. Preserve, or where feasible, restore
natural hydrologic conditions such that downstream
erosion, natural sedimentation rates, surface flow, and
groundwater recharge function near natural
equilibrium states.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water
Quality, project construction and operations would be required to
comply with NPDES program requirements regarding water quality,
stormwater runoff, and soil erosion. Additionally, Municipal Code
Section 14.36.040, Control of Urban Runoff, requires all new
development and significant redevelopment within the City to comply
with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and
conditions/requirements established by the City related to the
reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the
project site. Further, Municipal Code Chapter 21.35 requires a
Construction Pollution Prevention Plan that outlines temporary BMPs
to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction, and to
minimize pollution of runoff and coastal waters by construction
chemicals and materials. Further, the project would implement all
BMPs related to erosion and sediment control and site management
as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section
404 and Santa Ana RWQCB Section 401 permitting processes. Thus,
the project would not adversely impact the hydrologic conditions of
the project area.
Policy 4.3.1-6. Require grading/erosion control plans
to include soil stabilization on graded or disturbed
areas.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 4.3.1-4. The project would be
required to comply with existing City regulations related to
grading/erosion control.
Policy 4.3.1-7. Require measures be taken during
construction to limit land disturbance activities such as
clearing and grading, limiting cut-and-fill to reduce
erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes,
unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require
construction to minimize disturbance of natural
vegetation, including significant trees, native
vegetation, root structures, and other physical or
biological features important for preventing erosion or
sedimentation.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 4.3.1-4.
Policy 4.3.1-8. Protection against the spillage of crude
oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances
shall be provided in relation to any development or
transportation of such materials. Effective containment
and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be
provided for accidental spills that do occur.
Consistent. As analyzed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, during project construction, there is a possibility of
accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum-
based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The
level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous
substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and
low concentration of hazardous materials anticipated during the
limited construction duration. Nevertheless, regulations established
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-13 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 [cont’d] Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, California Department of
Transportation, and California Highway Patrol as well as the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act would ensure
that impacts concerning hazardous materials during construction are
reduced to less than significant levels. Further, the construction
contractor would be required to use standard construction controls
and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for
accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard
construction practices would be observed such that any materials
released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by
local, State, and federal law.
Policy 4.3.2-7. Incorporate BMPs into the project
design in the following progression:
• Site Design BMPs.
• Source Control BMPs.
• Treatment Control BMPs.
Include site design and source control BMPs in all
developments. When the combination of site design
and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect
water quality as required by the LCP or Coastal Act,
structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along
with site design and source control measures.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 4.3.1-4.
Policy 4.4.1-1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance
the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone,
including public views to and along the ocean, bay,
and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic
coastal areas.
Consistent. During project construction, views towards the project site
from surrounding residences, beach areas, and open water may be
temporarily altered by construction activities and equipment.
However, project construction would occur over a short duration (11
months) and would not block expansive public views of Newport Bay.
While the project involves seawall improvements that would increase
the height of seawalls adjacent to the Collins Island Bridge, the Bay
Front sidewalk would also be raised to provide a minimum of 42
inches from sidewalk to top of coping for pedestrian safety. Existing
public views from the walkway would not be obstructed by the
proposed seawall and sidewalk improvements. Further, given the
nature of the development as a bridge replacement project,
operational impacts of the project would have no adverse aesthetic
impact on the project area. The new bridge would continue to operate
similar to the existing bridge.
Policy 4.4.1-2. Design and site new development,
including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to
public coastal views.
Consistent. Minimal landscaping is proposed adjacent to the bridge
and sidewalk areas, similar to existing conditions. No impacts to
public coastal views from the proposed landscaping would occur.
Policy 4.5.1-1. Require new development to protect
and preserve paleontological and archaeological
resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize
impacts to such resources. If avoidance of the
resource is not feasible, require an in situ or site-
capping preservation plan or a recovery plan for
mitigating the effect of the development
Consistent. Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, analyzes the project’s
potential impacts on archaeological resources, and Section 4.7,
Geology and Soils, evaluates the project’s potential impacts on
paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce
potential impacts to archaeological resources if found during ground-
disturbing construction activities. Further, Mitigation Measure GEO-2
would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources if found
during ground-disturbing activities. As such, implementation of
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and GEO-2 would ensure project
development does not adversely impact archaeological or
paleontological resources.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-14 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 [cont’d] Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
Policy 4.5.1-3. Notify cultural organizations, including
Native American organizations, of proposed
developments that have the potential to adversely
impact cultural resources. Allow qualified
representatives of such groups to monitor grading
and/or excavation of development sites.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources,
in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City distributed letters
notifying each tribe that requested to be on the City’s list for the
purposes of AB 52 of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding
the proposed project; refer to Appendix F, AB 52 Documentation.
Policy 4.6-1. Review all new development subject to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
coastal development permit requirements in
accordance with the principles, objectives, and criteria
contained in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the
Local Coastal Program, and any environmental review
guidelines adopted by the City.
Consistent. As discussed in Chapter 1.0, Introduction, the proposed
project is subject to the guidelines of CEQA; this Initial Study
addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects
of the project, as proposed. The analysis herein details compliance
between the proposed project and the principles, objectives, and
criteria contained in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and LCP.
Further, as discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description,
implementation of the proposed project would include approval of a
Coastal Development Permit from the CCC and City of Newport
Beach, as well as CEQA clearance from the City.
Policy 4.6-2. Integrate CEQA procedures into the
review procedures for new development within the
coastal zone.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 4.6-1.
Policy 4.6-9. Require applications for new
development, where applicable, to include a
geologic/soils/geotechnical study that identifies any
geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site,
any necessary mitigation measures, and contains
statements that the project site is suitable for the
proposed development and that the development will
be safe from geologic hazard for its economic life. For
development on coastal bluffs, including bluffs facing
Upper Newport Bay, such reports shall include slope
stability analyses and estimates of the long-term
average bluff retreat rate over the expected life of the
development. Reports are to be signed by an
appropriately licensed professional and subject to
review and approval by qualified city staff member(s)
and/or contracted employee(s).
Consistent. A Geotechnical Report was prepared for the proposed
project; refer to Appendix D, Geotechnical Report/Paleontological
Resources Assessment. As detailed in Section 4.7, Geology and
Soils, the proposed project would incorporate the design
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report in accordance with
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. The project site is not located along a
coastal bluff.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Section 21.30.015(B), Location of New
Development. New development shall be located in
areas with adequate public services or in areas that
are capable of having public services extended or
expanded without significant adverse effects on
coastal resources. Redevelopment and infill
development shall be allowed within and adjacent to
the existing developed areas in the coastal zone
subject to the density and intensity limits and resource
protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 2.2.1-2.
Section 21.30.015(C)(3)(a), General Site Planning and Development Standards. Public Access to Bay
Front. Public access and recreational opportunities
shall be protected, and where feasible, expanded and
enhanced. The dedication and improvement of public
Consistent. Public access to bay front areas in the project vicinity
include the Bay Front sidewalk and along the existing bridge, which
has one raised public sidewalk. The proposed bridge improvements
would similarly provide public access on the bridge. Additionally, the
Bay Front sidewalks adjacent to the new
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-15 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 [cont’d] Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
access to and along the waterfront, in conjunction with
proposed development and new land uses, shall be
required pursuant to Chapter 21.30A (Public Access
and Recreation).
proposed seawalls would be raised to comply with ADA standards
and maintain public coastal views. Thus, the project would not
interfere with public access to the bay front.
Section 21.30.015(D)(3)(a), General Site Planning
and Development Standards. New development
shall be designed and sited to assure stability and
structural integrity and avoid destruction of the site and
surrounding area by providing setbacks for principal
structures that avoid the need for new or perpetuation
of existing shoreline protective devices to the extent
possible.
Consistent. Given the age of the structure, the existing Collins Island
Bridge does not meet current bridge code requirements and is nearing
the end of its useful lifetime. Thus, the primary intent of the project is
to replace the structurally deficient bridge to ensure safe public
infrastructure. Additionally, the project proposes seawall
improvements to accommodate future sea level rise and protect
existing residences and structures on the greater Balboa Island and
Collins Island.
Section 21.30.015(D)(3)(f), General Site Planning
and Development Standards. New development
shall protect, and where feasible, expand and
complete lateral public pedestrian access along the
waterfront with connectivity to beaches, street-ends
and shoreline areas providing public access (see
Chapter 21.30A (Public Access and Recreation).
Consistent. Refer to responses to Section 21.30.015(C)(3)(a) and
Section 21.30.015(D)(3)(a).
Section 21.30.070(A)(1), Outdoor Lighting. All
outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed, shielded,
aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent
properties, and not flood light toward the shoreline,
coastal waters and coastal bluffs and to not produce
glare onto adjacent properties, roadways, the
shoreline, coastal waters or coastal bluffs. Parking lot
light fixtures and light fixtures on buildings shall be full
cut-off fixtures.
Consistent. The proposed project may include lighting for pedestrian
safety similar to the existing lighting fixtures in the project area. It is
not anticipated that the project would introduce new lighting that would
substantially alter nighttime views in the project area. All project
lighting would be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained
to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent
properties or roadways.
Section 21.30.070(C), Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor
Lighting Standards for Buildings, Statues, Other
Manmade Objects, and Landscapes. Spotlighting or
floodlighting used to illuminate buildings, statues,
signs, or any other objects mounted on a pole,
pedestal, or platform or used to accentuate
landscaping shall consist of full cut-off or directionally
shielded lighting fixtures that are aimed and controlled
so that the directed light shall be substantially confined
to the object intended to be illuminated to minimize
glare, sky glow, and light trespass. The beam width
shall not be wider than that needed to light the feature
with minimum spillover. The lighting shall not shine
directly into the window of a residence or directly into
a roadway. Light fixtures attached to a building shall
be directed downward.
Consistent. Refer to response to Section 21.30.070(A)(1).
Section 21.30.100(D), Scenic and Visual Quality
Protection. Siting and Design. Development shall be
sited and designed in accordance with the following
principles, where applicable in order to meet the
purpose of section:
Consistent. According to CLUP Map 4-3, Coastal Views, the existing
Collins Island Bridge and surrounding area are not designated as a
“Public View Point” or “Coastal View Road.” The proposed project
would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge with a new bridge
structure that would have slightly reduced slopes along the roadway
and sidewalk bridge approaches compared to existing conditions to
meet ADA standards. Landscaped areas and a bridge monument
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-16 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 [cont’d] Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
7. Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars,
and other nonstructural elements that block views and
access to the harbor.
8. Prevention of the appearance of the harbor being
walled off from the public right-of-way.
would also be improved. A new stop sign and limit line would also be
added at the intersection on both sides of the bridge. Street, sidewalk,
and landscaping improvements are also proposed on the Balboa
Island side along the Bay Front sidewalk and Park Avenue eastward
until the alley. The project would also increase the height of seawalls
adjacent to the bridge to accommodate future sea level rise and
maintain consistency with surrounding seawalls on Collins Island and
Balboa Island. The Bay Front sidewalks adjacent to the proposed
seawalls would also be raised for pedestrian safety. The proposed
improvements would not obstruct existing public coastal views on
Collins Island or the greater Balboa Island.
Section 21.30.100(F), Scenic and Visual Quality
Protection. Landscape Standards. Landscape
improvements shall be installed and maintained to
ensure that landscape materials do not unnecessarily
obstruct public views at maturity. Landscaping at the
edges of roads from which there is an identified public
view should be designed, planted and maintained to
frame and accent public views.
Consistent. Landscaped areas and a bridge monument would be
provided along the adjacent walkways. The proposed landscaping
would be limited to replacement of existing ornamental vegetation and
would not obstruct public views.
Section 21.30.100(G), Scenic and Visual Quality
Protection. Utilities. New utility connections and
appurtenant and associated utility equipment for
proposed new development shall be sited and
designed to minimize visual impacts to scenic and
visual qualities of the coastal zone and placed
underground, unless the Public Works Director
determines that undergrounding is physically
infeasible. New major utilities shall be sited and
designed to protect public views to and along the
ocean and scenic coastal areas and to be visually
compatible with the character of surrounding areas.
Consistent. The proposed project would include the temporary
relocation of existing utilities lines within the existing Collins Island
Bridge to allow for continued utility service to Collins Island residences
throughout the duration of the construction process. Upon completion
of the proposed project, all utility lines would be placed within the new
bridge structure and would operate similar to existing conditions.
Section 21.30.105(A)(3)(a)(i), Cultural Resource
Protection. When a development is proposed in an
area where there are known or has potential for
archaeological or paleontological resources on the site
an Archaeological Research Plan (ARP) shall be
prepared by a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist
and implemented through a coastal development
permit before the submittal of a coastal development
permit for the proposed development of the site. The
purpose of the ARP is to determine whether or not
significant cultural resources are present, determine
the boundaries of cultural resources, and provide
measures that result in the avoidance and/or
minimization of impact to archaeological or
paleontological cultural resources present on the site.
A coastal development permit is required to implement
an ARP since such implementation involves
development (e.g., excavating shovel test pits,
trenching, etc.) that has the potential to result in
significant impacts to known or suspected on-site
Consistent. A Cultural Report and Paleo Report were prepared for the
proposed project; refer to Appendix C, Cultural Resources
Assessment, and Appendix D, Geotechnical Report/Paleontological
Resources Assessment. Section 4.5 analyzes the project’s potential
impacts on archaeological resources; Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources if found
during ground-disturbing construction activities, which would ensure
project development does not adversely impact archaeological
resources. Section 4.7 analyzes the project’s potential impacts on
paleontological resources and requires implementation of Mitigation
Measure GEO-2 to reduce potential impacts to unanticipated
discoveries of paleontological resources.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-17 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 [cont’d] Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
cultural resources. Subsequent development of the
site shall be subject to approval of a coastal
development permit and shall be guided by the results
of the approved ARP.
Section 21.30A.030 Protection and Provision of
Public Access Required (B)(1). Protection of
Existing Public Access. Development shall not
interfere with public right of access to the shoreline or
coastal bluff tops where the rights have been acquired
through use or legislative authorization, including, but
not limited to, the public accessways identified in the
Coastal Land Use Plan. Public access rights may
include, but are not limited to, the use of dry sand and
rocky beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Consistent. The proposed bridge improvements would provide public
access on the bridge, similar to existing conditions. Additionally, the
Bay Front sidewalks adjacent to the new proposed seawalls would be
raised to comply with ADA standards and maintain public coastal
views. Thus, the project would not interfere with public access to the
bay front.
Section 21.30A.030 Protection and Provision of
Public Access Required (B)(2). Maximization of
Existing Public Access. Proposed new development
shall be encouraged to provide new and to improve,
expand or enhance existing public access to and along
the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters,
tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Improvements or
enhancements include, but are not limited to:
a. Expanding of hours of public use;
b. Widening existing public accessways to and along
the shoreline to conform with current standards or as
needed to accommodate present and foreseeable
future demand;
c. Closing curb cutouts to create new on-street parking
spaces;
d. Wayfinding signage, consistent with the standards
contained in Appendix B, that encourages public use
of the shoreline and recreational facilities; and
e. Prohibiting gates, guardhouses, barriers, or other
structures where they would inhibit public access to
and along the shoreline, beaches, coastal parks, trails,
or coastal bluffs.
Consistent. Refer to response to Section 21.30.100(D).
Section 21.30A.050(10), Bay Front Amenities.
Nonresidential development along the bay front shall
provide amenities to assure access for coastal visitors.
Bay front amenities include, but are not limited to,
seating, trash enclosures, water fountains, lighting,
viewing areas, lighting, and other pedestrian-oriented
improvements.
Consistent. Refer to response to Section 21.30.015(C)(3)(a).
Section 21.30B.020(A), Initial Site Resource
Survey. An initial site resource survey, recently
prepared (within one year), identifying the presence or
potential for wetlands or sensitive habitat, vegetation
or wildlife species on the site shall be required for
coastal development permit applications on a
development site that:
Consistent. Refer to response to Policies 4.1.2-1, 4.1.2-5, and 4.2.2-
2.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.11-18 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-3 [cont’d] Local Coastal Program Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Local Coastal Program Policies Project Consistency Analysis
1. Is located within or within one hundred (100) feet of
an Environmental Study Area (ESA) indicated in Map
4-1 (Environmental Study Areas) in the Coastal Land
Use Plan; or
2. Contains southern coastal foredune or southern
dune scrub habitats; or
3. Contains or is located within one hundred (100) feet
of a delineated wetland, designated Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), ESHA buffer, or
wetland buffer; or
4. Contains or is located within one hundred (100) feet
of a habitat area where there is substantial evidence
of the presence of a wetland or ESHA.
Section 21.30B.040(A), Wetlands, Deepwater
Areas, and Other Water Areas.
1. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal
waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall
be protected, maintained and, where feasible,
restored.
2. All uses 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. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced,
and, where feasible, restored.
4. Special protection shall be provided to marine
resource areas and species of special biological or
economic significance.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 4.1.2-1.
Section 21.30B.040(B), Wetland Delineation. When
the initial site resources survey indicates the presence
or potential for wetland species or indicators, coastal
development permit applications shall include a
recently prepared (within one year) site survey and
wetlands delineation analysis.
Consistent. Refer to response to Policy 4.2.2-2.
Sources: City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, adopted 2005 and amended 2019;
City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach Municipal Code, Title 21, Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan.
As analyzed in Table 4.11-3, the project would be consistent with the CLUP and Implementation Plan. In order to
ensure that development within the Coastal Zone is consistent with the Local Coastal Program and any applicable
policies from Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, the City requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) prior to
commencement of any development in the Coastal Zone, with some exceptions. As stated in Section 2.5, Permits and
Approvals, the project requires discretionary approval of a CDP from the City and California Coastal Commission. As
such, the project would be reviewed for approval by the City and CCC. Upon approval, the project would be consistent
with the Local Coastal Program, inclusive of the CLUP and Implementation Plan, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.12-1 Mineral Resources
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
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 California Department of Conservation’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 identifies a
range of Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) within California based on geologic and economic factors that identify the
potential importance of mineral deposits in a particular area. According to the General Plan Natural Resources Element,
MRZ within the City are either classified as containing no significant mineral deposits (MRZ-1) or the significance of
mineral deposits has not been determined (MRZ-3). According to the California Geological Survey, the project site is
identified as MRZ-1.1 As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: 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. Refer to Response 4.12(a), above.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 California Geological Survey Division of Mines and Geology, Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete
Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, California, Part II- Orange County Special Report 143: Mineral Land
Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Part III - Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Orange County-
Temescal Valley Production-Consumption Region, Mineral Land Classification Map Plate 3.29, 1981.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.12-2 Mineral Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-1 Noise
4.13 NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in in the vicinity of the
project excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip
or 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?
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is characterized
by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the
ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-
weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from
approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA.
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within
the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound
intensity. Noise can be generated by several sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and
airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by
mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The
rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver.
Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft
surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling
of distance.
There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time.
One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the
same sound energy as the time-varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based
on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for
sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity
to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient
noise conditions.
Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound
source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the sound
source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving the sound
source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various
meteorological conditions.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-2 Noise
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State
The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level
standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. Table 4.13-
1, Noise and Land Use Compatibility, shows the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise
levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).
Table 4.13-1
Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential - Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 85
Residential - Multiple Family 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 70 - 85
Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 - 70 NA 65 - 85
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 - 75 NA 70 - 85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 NA 67.5 - 75 72.5 - 85
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 70 NA 70 - 80 80 - 85
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 - 70 67.5 - 77.5 75 - 85 NA
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 75 70 - 80 75 - 85 NA
Notes: NA = Not Applicable
Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without
any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made
and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning,
will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of
the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: State of California Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, October 2017.
Local
Newport Beach Noise Ordinance
The City of Newport Beach has a noise ordinance that provides noise guidelines and standards for significant noise
generators. Noise standards from Municipal Code Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control, are presented in Table
4.13-2, City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards, and Table 4.13-3, City of Newport Beach Interior Noise
Standards. The following sections are applicable to the project.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-3 Noise
Table 4.13-2 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards
Zone Allowable Exterior Noise Level (Leq)1
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
1- Single-, two- or multiple-family residential properties 55 dBA 50 dBA
2- Commercial properties 65 dBA 60 dBA
3- Residential portions of mixed-use properties 60 dBA 50 dBA
4- Industrial or manufacturing 70 dBA 70 dBA
1. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standards, the ambient shall be the standard.
Source: City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control, Section 10.26.025(A), 2018.
Section 10.26.025, Exterior Noise Standards
A. The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all property with a
designated noise zone:
B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise,
or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such
person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed the following:
1. The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15-minute period;
2. A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for
any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response).
C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level
under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
D. The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a
commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property.
E. If the measurement location is on boundary between two difference noise zones, the lower noise level
standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply.
Section 10.26.030, Interior Noise Standards
A. The following noise standard, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property
within all noise zones:
Table 4.13-3 City of Newport Beach Interior Noise Standards
Noise
Zone Type of Land Use Allowable Interior Noise Level1
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
I Residential 45 dBA 40 dBA
III Residential portions of mixed-use
properties 45 dBA 40 dBA
1. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standards, the ambient shall be the standard.
Source: City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control, Section 10.26.030(A), 2018.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-4 Noise
B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise,
or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such
person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed the following:
1. The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15-minute period;
2. A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for
any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response).
C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level
under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
D. The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a
commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property.
E. If the measurement location is on boundary between two difference noise zones, the lower noise level
standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply.
10.28.040, Construction Activity – Noise Regulations
The following noise regulations regarding construction activity from Municipal Code Chapter 10.28, Loud and
Unreasonable Noise, are applicable to the proposed project:
A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading,
demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or
machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal
sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 6:30 p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading,
demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or
machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal
sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday.
C. No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor, or employer shall permit or allow
any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or
machine in violation of the provisions of this section.
City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element
The General Plan Noise Element discloses guiding information pertaining to noise sensitive land uses and noise
sources and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing policies to ensure that Newport Beach
residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. The Noise Element includes goals, objectives, and policies
that apply to the proposed project, including those identified below.
Goal N-5: Minimized excessive construction-related noise.
Policy N 5.1: Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-5 Noise
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Collins Island is designated as Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) and zoned Single Unit Residential (R-1) The
bridge itself does not have designation or zoning district. The closest noise sensitive receptors are single-family uses
along North and South Bay Front on Balboa Island, situated adjacent to the construction activities. The existing noise
environment is predominately characterized by vehicular traffic noise along Park Avenue.
Noise Measurements
In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, Michael Baker conducted two short-term noise
measurements on August 30, 2023; refer to Table 4.13-4, Noise Measurements. The noise measurement sites were
representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. The ten-minute
measurements were taken between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.
Table 4.13-4
Noise Measurements
Site
No. Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin (dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Start Time
1 6 Collins Isle (in public right-of-way) 60.9 37.9 84.5 10:05 a.m.
2 101 North Bay Front (in public right-of-way) 54.5 40.3 68.0 10:29 a.m.
Source: Refer to Appendix E, Noise Data.
Meteorological conditions when the measurements were taken consisted of clear skies, warm temperatures, with
moderately light wind speeds (less than five miles per hour), and low humidity. Measured noise levels during the
daytime measurements ranged from 54.5 to 60.9 dBA Leq. The source of ambient noise in the project area is vehicular
traffic along Park Avenue. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Brüel & Kjær
Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 pre-polarized microphone. The monitoring equipment
complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (precision) sound
level meters. The results of the field measurements are included in Appendix E, Noise Data.
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in in the
vicinity of the project excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. It is difficult to specify noise levels which are acceptable
to everyone, what is annoying to one individual may be acceptable to another. However, standards usually address
the needs of most of the general population and can be based on documented complaints in response to documented
noise levels or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. All such
studies recognize that individual responses vary considerably.
Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
Construction activities are generally temporary and have a short duration, resulting in periodic increases in the ambient
noise environment. Construction activities are scheduled to occur over a period of 11 months. Typical noise levels
generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 4.13-5, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction
Equipment. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power
operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance
would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment).
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-6 Noise
As shown in Table 4.13-5, construction-generated noise levels could be up to 105 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive
receptors (single-family residences) located immediately adjacent to the proposed construction boundary; the distance
is estimated to be approximately 5 feet. Ambient noise level at the single-family residential receptors was measured to
range from 54.5 to 60.9 dBA Leq; refer to Table 4.13-4. Pursuant to the City’s Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040,
construction activities are exempt from standards of the Noise Ordinance if limited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
6:30 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays or
national holidays. These permitted hours of construction are required in recognition that construction activities
undertaken during permitted hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant
disruption. Project construction activities would be conducted during allowable hours per the Municipal Code.
Further, to ensure that noise generated during construction of the project would be lessened to the furthest extent
possible, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would
require the City of Newport Beach to prepare a construction noise mitigation plan that incorporates best management
practices during construction and ensure nuisances do not occur. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 also requires construction
equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation
devices such as noise shielding device. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, impacts would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
Table 4.13-5
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 5 Feet (dBA)
Backhoe 20 80 100
Compactor 20 80 100
Compressor 40 80 100
Concrete Pump 20 82 102
Concrete Saw 20 90 110
Crane 16 85 105
Dump Truck 40 84 104
Excavator 40 85 105
Flatbed Truck 40 84 104
Forklift 20 78 98
Generator 50 82 102
Grader 40 85 105
Loader 40 80 100
Paver 50 85 105
Pile Driver 20 95 115
Pump 50 77 97
Roller 20 85 105
Soil Mix Drill Rig 50 80 100
Tractor 40 84 104
Water Truck 40 80 100
Welder 40 73 93
Note:
1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its
loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-7 Noise
Long-Term (Operational) Impacts
The project proposes bridge, seawall, and stormwater improvements, which would not represent any trip generating
land uses, and no expansion of vehicular capacity would occur. Furthermore, the proposed improvements would not
introduce new stationary noise sources. As such, no long-term noise impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
NOI-1 Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a Construction
Noise Mitigation Plan and demonstrate that the project complies with the following:
• The construction contractor shall ensure that power construction equipment (including
combustion or electric engines), fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with noise shielding and
muffling devices (consistent with manufacturers’ standards) during the entirety of construction
of the project. The combination of muffling devices and noise shielding shall be capable of
reducing noise by at least 5 dBA from non-muffled and shielded noise levels. Prior to initiation
of construction the contractor shall demonstrate to the City that equipment is properly muffled,
shielded and maintained. All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional
noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated.
• The Construction Noise Mitigation Plan shall depict the location of construction equipment
storage and maintenance areas, and document methods to be employed to minimize noise
impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses.
• Property owners and occupants located within 100 feet of the construction limits shall be sent a
notice, at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction, regarding the construction
schedule of the project. A sign, visible to the public, shall also be posted at the project
construction site. All notices and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport
Public Works Department prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of
construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone number where
residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.
• The construction contractor shall provide evidence that a construction staff member is
designated as a Noise Disturbance Coordinator and shall be present on-site during construction
activities. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Noise Disturbance
Coordinator shall notify the City within 24-hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the
noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable
measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department. All notices that are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the
construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and
the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.
• The City shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Public Works
Department that construction noise reduction methods shall be used, including but not limited
to, shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment
staging areas and occupied residential areas, and the use of electric air compressors and similar
power tools, to the extent feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise
is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-8 Noise
• In compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, construction activities shall
only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays, and 8:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays or national holidays.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction equipment
used and the type of activity. Construction equipment operation would generate groundborne vibrations which decrease
with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located near the construction site often varies depending on soil
type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range
from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate
levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels
that damage structures.
The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs
when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time.
Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation
and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual identifies various vibration damage criteria for different building classes.
This evaluation uses the Caltrans architectural damage threshold for continuous vibrations at residential buildings of
0.5 inch-per-second (in/sec) PPV. Table 4.13-6, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, identifies typical
vibration levels for construction equipment.
Table 4.13-6
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate peak
particle velocity at 25
feet (in/sec)
Approximate peak
particle velocity at
5 feet (in/sec)
Approximate peak
particle velocity at
20 feet (in/sec)
Sonic Pile Driving -- Typical 0.170 - 0.2173
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.4464 -
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.2056 -
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0176 -
Notes:
1. Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.1
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec) of the equipment adjusted for the distance
PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level at 25 feet in in/sec
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Groundborne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. The nearest structures are located approximately 5 feet from
the bridge construction and 20 feet from the pile driving of the new sheet pile bulkheads. However, precast/prestressed
concrete slab girders would be utilized during construction to accelerate bridge construction and minimize impacts to
adjacent residents. As indicated in Table 4.13-6, the typical pile driving would generate vibration velocities of
approximately 0.2173 in/sec PPV at 20 feet from pile driving activities. The vibration velocities from typical heavy
construction equipment used during project construction would range from 0.0176 to 0.4464 in/sec PPV at 5 feet from
the source of activity, which would not exceed the Caltrans 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold. Therefore, groundborne vibration
impacts would be less than significant.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-9 Noise
Operations
Operations of the proposed project would not generate groundborne vibration that could be felt at surrounding uses.
The proposed project would not involve railroads or substantial heavy truck operations, and therefore would not result
in vibration impacts at surrounding uses. No impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan and there are no public or private airports or
airstrips within two miles of the project site. The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport located
approximately five miles to the northeast of the project site at 18601 Airport Way in the City of Santa Ana. Thus, project
implementation would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact
would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.13-10 Noise
This page left intentionally blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.14-1 Population and Housing
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial population unplanned growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses that
would result in direct or indirect population growth.
The proposed project would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge with a new bridge structure, implement seawall
improvements, and install future pump station accommodations. Short-term temporary construction jobs would be
created during construction of the project, however, given the temporary nature of the construction process and limited
duration of construction, it is anticipated that local construction workers would be employed, and no new workers would
relocate to Newport Beach to construct the project.
While the bridge replacement would improve safety in the project area by replacing a functionally obsolete bridge with
a new bridge that meets current code requirements, this is not expected to induce population growth because: 1) the
project area is urbanized and completely built out; 2) the project would not increase the vehicular capacity of the Collins
Island Bridge; and 3) the project would not represent the removal of a barrier to growth, since roadway facilities already
exist throughout the project area. As such, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population
growth and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site is the Collins Island Bridge and its immediate vicinity located on Balboa Island. Construction
activities would temporarily relocate some existing boat docks but would not displace any residents of surrounding
Balboa Island residences. Thus, the project would not displace residents or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.14-2 Population and Housing
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.15-1 Public Services
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No
Impact
a. 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:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
a) 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:
1) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) provides
fire and emergency medical services for the City. The NBFD staffs eight fire stations 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. Each are staffed, per shift, with one battalion chief, 10 fire captains, 10 fire apparatus engineers, 14
paramedic/firefighters, and three firefighters.1 The project site is served by Fire Station #4, located at 124 Marine
Avenue, approximately 0.6-mile east of the project site.
The proposed project would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge with a new bridge structure, implement seawall
improvements, and install future pump station accommodations. The project would not increase the City’s existing
population; refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. Additionally, the proposed project would not construct
habitable structures or introduce any new land uses capable of substantially increasing the need for fire protection
services.
Currently, the Collins Island Bridge provides emergency vehicle access to Collins Island. During construction of the
proposed project, the bridge would be replaced in portions to maintain access to Collins Island during construction
activities to the maximum extent feasible. Short-term full bridge closures limited to a few hours in a day (i.e., not full
day or multi-day closures) may also be required and thus, may impede NBFD access to Collins Island. As such,
implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be required to maintain adequate emergency access during
the construction process (Mitigation Measure TRA-1). The TMP shall include measures such as construction signage,
1 City of Newport Beah, Fire Operations Division, https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/fire-
operations-division, accessed August 14, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.15-2 Public Services
limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours of traffic, temporary striping plans, and, if necessary, use of
construction flag person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. Further, the City would be required to
coordinate with the NBFD and Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) to arrange for adequate alternative access
options in the event an emergency event occurs during a temporary full bridge/roadway closure. As such, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, fire response capability and access would be maintained and impacts in
this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1.
2) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The NBPD provides police protection services to the
City. The NBPD station is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast of the project site at 870 Santa Barbara
Drive. As stated, implementation of the project would not increase the City’s existing population. Further, no habitable
structures or other land uses capable of substantially increasing the need for police protection services are proposed.
Therefore, the project would not increase the need for additional police protection services or involve construction of
any new or physically altered police protection facilities. Refer to Response 4.15(a)(1) regarding emergency access
during construction and operation; as discussed, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require implementation of a TMP
and coordination with the NBFD and NBPD to arrange for adequate alternative access options in the event of an
emergency event during a temporary full bridge/roadway closure. As such, impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1.
3) Schools?
No Impact. The project site is located within the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD). Implementation of
the proposed project would not increase the City’s residential population and thus, would not impact existing capacities
and resources at NMUSD schools and facilities. No impact is anticipated in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4) Parks?
No Impact. Given the nature of the proposed improvements, the project would not generate the need for new or
physically altered park facilities. No habitable structures are proposed as part of the project. Moreover, as discussed
in Response 4.14(a), the project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the project area.
Thus, no impacts are anticipated in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
5) Other public facilities?
No Impact. As detailed above in Responses 4.15(a)(1) through 4.15(a)(4), the proposed project would not result in
any potentially significant impacts related to public services. The project would not increase the City’s existing
population and would not introduce any uses that would increase demand for other public facilities, including library
services. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.16-1 Recreation
4.16 RECREATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
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?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.15(a)(4). Given the nature of the project, the proposed project would not result in an
increase in demand for parks or other recreational facilities and would not result in physical deterioration of these
facilities. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
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?
No Impact. The project does not include recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of
existing recreational facilities. No impacts would result in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.16-2 Recreation
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.17-1 Transportation
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
ROADWAY FACILITIES
The project site is served by Park Avenue, one of the major roadways on Balboa Island. Park Avenue is not classified
in the General Plan Circulation Element but is primarily a two-lane roadway with some segments divided by a
landscaped median. Construction activities associated with the project would include short-term trips associated with
the transfer of construction equipment, construction worker trips, and hauling trips for soil and construction material.
Although construction traffic may have the potential to impact the local circulation system, construction activities would
be temporary (approximately 11 months) and would occur during permitted hours as detailed in Municipal Code Section
10.28.040, Construction Activity - Noise Regulations. Specifically, construction activities would be limited to weekdays
7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No construction activities would occur on Sundays
or federal holidays. Given the site constraints, most construction materials would be precast/prestressed and ready for
installation upon delivery to the site. Additionally, some construction equipment would be brought to the site via barges
to reduce impacts on adjacent residences and roadways on Balboa Island.
As shown on Exhibits 2-7a and 2-7b, the bridge would be replaced in portions to ensure either vehicular or pedestrian
access to Collins Island during construction activities to maximum extent feasible. A 14-foot wide portion would first be
removed and replaced and the remaining 5-foot wide portion would be removed and replaced. Short-term bridge
closures limited to a few hours in a day (i.e., not full day or multi-day closures) may be required. However, steel plates
would be placed over temporary excavations to allow traffic to remain open after work hours.
Construction activities associated with the proposed seawall improvements, outlet and discharge pipe installations,
and street improvements (e.g., street, sidewalk, and storm drain modifications) along Park Avenue and the Bay Front
sidewalk may impact vehicular travel along Park Avenue and require temporary partial lane closures. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be prepared to maintain vehicular traffic
flow and pedestrian access, and emergency access during the construction process. The TMP would be required to
include potential measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours,
temporary striping plans, and the use of a construction flagperson to direct traffic during heavy equipment use, among
others. Additionally, should temporary full bridge, vehicular lane, or sidewalk closures be required, the TMP would
require notification to all residences within a 500-foot radius of the site at least one week before scheduled full closure(s)
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.17-2 Transportation
with details regarding anticipated closure duration and any available detours. Coordination with the Newport Beach
Fire and Police Departments would also be required to arrange for adequate alternative access options in the event
an emergency event occurs during a temporary full bridge/roadway closure. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
TRA-1, short-term construction impacts on roadways would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Upon construction completion, Park Avenue and the new Collins Island Bridge would continue to operate similar to
existing conditions. No operational impacts would occur in this regard.
TRANSIT FACILITIES
No transit services are provided on Balboa Island. The closest transit stop to Balboa Island is located at the intersection
of Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive to the north of Balboa Island and is serviced by Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) Route 55. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not impact existing OCTA transit
facilities.
Water transportation via the Balboa Island Ferry is also available between Balboa Island and the Balboa Peninsula.
Similarly, the proposed project would not impact ferry services and thus and no impacts would occur in this regard.
The project would not conflict with any polices or regulations pertaining to transit facilities.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Based on Figure CE3, Bikeways Master Plan, of the General Plan Circulation Element, the City recommends
designated Class III bike routes throughout Balboa Island. Class III bike routes would provide for shared use with
vehicular traffic and may be identified by signage and stencil markings. However, there are currently no existing
designated bicycle facilities on Collins Island or Balboa Island. Given that there are no existing designated bicycle
facilities on Collins Island or Balboa Island, project implementation would have no impact on such facilities and would
not conflict with any policies or regulations pertaining to bicycle facilities.
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, are provided throughout the Balboa Island residential community. Near the
project site, Park Avenue has sidewalks on both sides of the roadway and the Bay Front sidewalk is a pedestrian-only
walkway that circles around the greater Balboa Island perimeter (excluding Collins Island). The existing bridge provides
one raised public sidewalk for public access along the bridge; proposed bridge improvements would provide similar
public access on the bridge. On Collins Island, there are no existing sidewalks.
Construction activities associated with the project may temporarily impact pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity,
primarily along Park Avenue and the Bay Front sidewalk. Specifically, the project proposes to adjust the slope along
Park Avenue and sidewalk bridge approaches to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
Landscaped areas and the bridge monument would also be improved to increase sight distance along the adjacent
walkways to increase pedestrian safety. A new stop sign and limit line would also be added at the intersection on both
sides of the bridge. Street, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements are also proposed on the Balboa Island side along
the Bay Front sidewalk and Park Avenue eastward until the alley; refer to Exhibit 2-3. Anticipated improvements include
monument sign construction, irrigation, paving, and landscaping.
As detailed in Section 2.4, Construction/Phasing, partial street improvements for street, sidewalk, and storm drain
modifications would occur concurrently with the seawall construction and take approximately three months. The
remaining portions of partial street improvements would occur for a duration of approximately two months, and
landscaping improvements consisting of monument sign construction, sign construction, irrigation, paving, and
landscaping would occur for an additional one month. As such, street related improvements that may impact existing
pedestrian facilities would occur for approximately six of the 11 months of anticipated construction. As stated, temporary
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.17-3 Transportation
partial lane closures, including pedestrian facilities along Park Avenue, may be required during project construction
activities. As such, a TMP would be required to maintain vehicular traffic flow and pedestrian access, and emergency
access during the construction process (Mitigation Measure TRA-1). Pedestrian sidewalks would be required to remain
open and accessible, to the greatest extent feasible, during construction or be re-routed to ensure continued
connectivity. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, impacts to pedestrian facilities would be less than
significant in this regard.
Upon construction completion, pedestrian facilities along Park Avenue and the Bay Front sidewalk would be similar to
existing conditions. No operational impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures:
TRA-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall
prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The TMP shall specify that one lane of travel for vehicles and
pedestrians on Park Avenue shall be maintained during project construction activities to the greatest
extent feasible. The TMP shall include measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for
lane closures to avoid peak hours of traffic, temporary striping plans, and, if necessary, use of
construction flag person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. Additionally, the TMP shall
establish dedicated truck routes approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. To
reduce congestion and impacts to parking on Balboa Island, the TMP shall also identify proposed
mainland parking areas for construction workers. Pedestrian sidewalks shall remain open and accessible,
to the greatest extent feasible, during construction or shall be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity
while maintaining Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. The TMP shall be incorporated into
project specifications for verification prior to final plan approval.
Should temporary full bridge, roadway, or sidewalk closures be required, the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department shall notify all residences within a 500-foot radius of the site at least one week before
scheduled closure and provide details regarding anticipated closure duration and any available detours.
The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall also conduct advanced notification and
coordination with the Newport Beach Fire and Police Departments to arrange for adequate alternative
access options in the event an emergency event occurs during a temporary full bridge/roadway closure.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No Impact. In accordance with Senate Bill 743, the City has developed a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis
methodology as part of Council Policy K-3, Implementation Procedures for the California Act. The City’s VMT analysis
methodology is also supplemented by the City SB 743 VMT Implementation Guide, dated April 6, 2020, the General
Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Municipal Code. The City’s VMT analysis methodology establishes screening criteria
and thresholds of significance to determine whether a project would result in a significant transportation impact under
CEQA.
Given the nature of the proposed infrastructure improvement project, the project does not explicitly fall within any of
the City’s land use or transportation project screening categories. The project does not involve any new land uses that
would generate new vehicle trips and associated VMT. Thus, no VMT impacts would occur, and the project would not
conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.17-4 Transportation
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project improvements would not introduce hazards on surrounding roadways due to
geometric design features or incompatible uses. The proposed bridge would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge
along the same alignment and the other project components (i.e., seawall improvements and pump station
accommodations) would not introduce geometric design features along Park Avenue. No new land uses are proposed
that would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated, construction activities may require temporary
partial bridge, roadway, or sidewalk closures. Short-term full bridge closures limited to a few hours in a day (i.e., not
full day or multi-day closures) may also be required and thus, may impede emergency access to Collins Island. As
such, implementation of a TMP would be required to maintain adequate emergency access during the construction
process (Mitigation Measure TRA-1). With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, and with compliance with
State and City regulations pertaining to emergency access, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.18-1 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal
consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project may affect or
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to
“begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic
area of the proposed project.” Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called
“tribal cultural resources.” Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred
places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is either listed on or eligible for the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat
the resource as a tribal cultural resource.
On February 19, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency proposed to adopt and amend regulations as part of
AB 52 implementing Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, CEQA Guidelines, to include
consideration of impacts to tribal cultural resources pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.6. On September
27, 2016, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,
and these amendments are addressed within this Initial Study.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.18-2 Tribal Cultural Resources
No Impact. According to the Cultural Report, no historic resources listed or eligible for listing in a State or local register
of historic resources are located within the project site. The Waters Way Bridge (No. 55C-0265),1 colloquially known
as the Collins Island Bridge, was evaluated to determine potential National Register of Historic Resources (National
Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) eligibility. As evaluated in Response
4.5(a), the property is recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register and California Register. Thus, no
impacts related to historic tribal cultural resources defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) would occur in
this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
No Impact. In compliance with AB 52, the City distributed letters notifying each tribe that requested to be on the City’s
list for the purposes of AB 52 of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project; refer to Appendix
F, AB 52 Documentation. The letters were distributed by certified mail on September 7, 2023. The tribes had 30 days
to respond to the City’s request for consultation. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded on
September 16, 2023 stating that it is highly unlikely that any cultural resources exist at the project site and that the tribe
is available to the City if tribal support is needed for the project’s permits. The City acknowledges the tribe’s comments.
No other tribes responded to the notification letter. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 The Collins Island Bridge is referred to as the Waters Way Bridge in this section and the Cultural Report as it is referred to as
such in the California Department of Transportation directory and in bridge inspection reports.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.19-1 Utilities and Service Systems
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. 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?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, State, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact.
Water
The City of Newport Beach Water Services Department provides water supply and conveyance services throughout
Newport Beach. Although a nominal amount of water may be used during construction, construction-related water
usage would be minimal and temporary in nature. Existing water lines within Collins Island Bridge would be temporarily
relocated during construction so as not to disrupt water services to Collins Island residents; all lines would be replaced
within the new bridge structure. The project does not propose any new land uses that would increase operational water
demand. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Wastewater
The project does not propose any new land uses that would generate wastewater and result in increased demand for
wastewater treatment. The existing Collins Island Bridge contains wastewater lines that provide service to the Collins
Island residents; all lines would be temporarily relocated during construction, and service would be maintained. Upon
project completion, all wastewater lines would be replaced within the new bridge structure and service to Collins Island
residents would continue. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.19-2 Utilities and Service Systems
Stormwater Drainage
The project does not propose any new land uses that would require installation of new storm drainage infrastructure
on-site. The project would relocate on catch basin along the Park Avenue right-of-way and would install discharge and
outlet pipes to accommodate a future separate pump station project. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and
Water Quality, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern and runoff volumes in the project
area. As such, the project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities. Less than
significant impacts would occur in this regard.
Dry Utilities
The proposed project would include the temporary relocation of existing utilities lines within the existing Collins Island
Bridge to allow for continued utility service to Collins Island residences throughout the duration of the construction
process. Upon completion of the proposed project, all utility lines would be placed within the new bridge structure, and
would operate similar to existing conditions. No new dry utility facilities would be required. As such, project impacts in
this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially increase water demand during
construction or operational activities. Although a nominal amount of water may be used during construction, these
activities would be minimal and temporary in nature and would have a negligible impact on the City’s overall water
supplies. It is not anticipated that operation of the new bridge structure, seawall improvements, or pump station
accommodations would generate water demand. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) 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?
No Impact. Project construction and operational activities would not introduce a new land use that would generate
wastewater. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would replace the existing Collins Island Bridge with a new
bridge structure, implement seawall improvements, and install future pump station accommodations. While some solid
waste in the form of construction waste/debris may be generated during construction activities, such activities are
temporary and limited in nature and would not substantially impact solid waste capacities of nearby landfills. At project
completion, no solid waste would be generated. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.19-3 Utilities and Service Systems
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated, the project may generate a nominal amount of solid waste during
construction activities, however, the project would be required to comply with existing regulations related to construction
waste and state the regulations, including Assembly Bill 939. Specifically, the project would be required to recycle,
reduce, or compost at least 50 percent of construction and demolition debris. As such, the project would comply with
all applicable federal, State, and local solid waste management and reduction regulations. Impacts would be less than
significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.19-4 Utilities and Service Systems
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.20-1 Wildfire
4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire, the project site is not located within or near a
State responsibility area or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.1 Therefore, no impacts would
occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
1 California Department of Forestry and Fire, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/,
accessed July 13, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.20-2 Wildfire
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.21-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
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?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the
terrestrial areas of the project limits are fully developed with urban uses, including the existing bridge, boat docks, Park
Avenue, the Bay Front sidewalk, and associated rights-of-way. These areas have limited ornamental trees and
vegetation associated with the adjacent single-family residences and along the Park Avenue right-of-way. No special-
status species or sensitive natural communities occur in these areas and thus, no impacts would occur. However,
sensitive natural communities occur within the marine areas of the project limits. An essential fish habitat (EFH)
assessment was prepared to determine potential project impacts to EFH protected under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, including covered species under the Coastal Pelagic Species and Pacific
Groundfish Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). Additionally, an eelgrass survey report was prepared that surveyed
existing eelgrass communities within the project area and evaluated potential project impacts on such communities.
Based on the studies, it was determined that project-related construction activities would not adversely impact covered
species under the Coastal Pelagic Species and Pacific Groundfish FMPs or existing eelgrass communities upon
implementation of construction best management practices detailed in Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Proposed
seawall improvements would also impact jurisdictional tidal waters regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Coastal Commission. Thus, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would
require the project to consult with the appropriate responsible resource agencies to obtain the required regulatory
permits prior to initiating construction activities. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, the
project is not anticipated to 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, or reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.21-2 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Additionally, as analyzed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, no historic,
archaeological, or tribal cultural resources occur on-site. Should previously undiscovered cultural or tribal cultural
resources or human remains be uncovered during project ground-disturbing activities, implementation of Mitigation
Measure CUL-1 would reduce the project’s potential effects to less than significant levels. Thus, the project would not
eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory and impacts in this regard would be
less than significant.
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)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative impacts can occur as a result of the
interactions of environmental changes from multiple projects that affect the same resources, transportation network,
watershed, air basin, noise environment, or other environmental conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and
temporary from overlapping construction impacts, or long-term due to permanent land use changes.
The project would not result in substantial population growth within the area, either directly or indirectly; refer to Section
4.14, Population and Housing. While other projects and development in the project area are considered probable and
foreseeable, environmental analysis of these future projects would be conducted on a project-by-project basis in
accordance with CEQA. Although the project may incrementally affect other resources that were determined to be less
than significant, the project’s contribution to these effects is not considered “cumulatively considerable,” in
consideration of the relatively nominal project impacts and required mitigation measures.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. This Initial Study reviewed the proposed project’s
potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology/water quality, noise,
hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, among other disciplines. As concluded in this Initial Study, the proposed
project would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.22-1 References
4.22 REFERENCES
The following references were utilized during preparation of this IS/MND. These documents are available for review at
the City of Newport Beach, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660, or accessed at the indicated web
page.
1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version
2022.1.
2. California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, December 2022.
3. California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020, Trends of Emissions and
Other Indicators, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000-
2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf, October 26, 2022.
4. California Air Resources Board, Emissions Factor 2021 (EMFAC2021) database.
5. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Important
Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed July 13, 2023.
6. California Department of Conservation, California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/, accessed July 13, 2023.
7. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic
Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000.
8. California Department of Forestry and Fire, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer,
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed July 13, 2023.
9. California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map,
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa,
accessed August 9, 2023.
10. California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard,
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/, accessed August 11, 2023.
11. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources,
http://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed August 10, 2023.
12. California Geological Survey Division of Mines and Geology, Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland
Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, California, Part II- Orange County
Special Report 143: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Part III - Classification of Sand
and Gravel Resource Areas, Orange County-Temescal Valley Production-Consumption Region, Mineral Land
Classification Map Plate 3.29, 1981.
13. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Coastal Zoning Map, August 9, 2017.
14. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan, July 2013.
15. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, 2005.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.22-2 References
16. City of Newport Beach, Fire Operations Division, https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire-
department/fire-operations-division, accessed August 14, 2023
17. City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, adopted 2005 and
amended 2019.
18. City of Newport Beach, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan, Map 1, August 9, 2017.
19. City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach General Plan, July 25, 2006.
20. City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, July 25, 2006.
21. City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach Municipal Code, codified through Ordinance No. 2023-13, enacted passed
August 22, 2023.
22. County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport,
amended April 17, 2008, http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/JWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf, accessed
August 10, 2023.
23. Earth Mechanics, Inc., Draft Foundation Report, Collins Island Bridge, Newport Beach, California, October 27,
2023.
24. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06059C0382K, March 3, 2019,
https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd&extent=-
117.87113952835794,33.61505203269935,-117.86594677170439,33.61728568259848, accessed August 11,
2023.
25. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.
26. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
27. Michael Baker International, Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters for the Collins Island Bridge
Replacement Project, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California, November 16, 2023.
28. Michael Baker International, Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Collins Island Bridge Replacement
Project, Newport Beach, Orange County, California, October 11, 2023.
29. Michael Baker International, Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Collins Island Bridge Replacement
Project, Newport Beach, Orange County, California, January 2024.
30. Public Resources Code Division 20, California Coastal Act.
31. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno
and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club,
Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.
32. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory,
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed August 8, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.22-3 References
33. Six Scientific Service, Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, Newport
Beach Final Report, California, October 2023.
34. Six Scientific Service, Pre-Construction Surveys Eelgrass (Zostera marina) & Caulerpa taxafolia, Collins Island
Bridge Replacement Project, Newport Beach, California Final Report, October 2023.
35. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2022.
36. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for
Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the supreme Court
of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno,
2014.
37. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Board Letter – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for
Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans, December 5, 2008.
38. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, revised November 1993.
39. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, revised July
2008.
40. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020.
41. State of California Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, October 2017.
42. United States Environmental Protection Agency¸ Carbon Monoxide Emissions,
https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed August 28, 2023.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.22-4 References
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.23-1 Report Preparation Personnel
4.23 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency)
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949.644.3225
Dave Webb, Public Works Director
Jim Houlihan, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
Robert Stein, Assistant City Engineer
Michael Baker International
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
949.472.3505
Brad Mielke, Project Manager
Alan Ashimine, Environmental Manager
Richard Beck, Coastal and Regulatory Permitting Manager
Frances Yau, AICP, Senior Environmental Analyst
Allie Beauregard, Environmental Analyst
Winnie Woo, Air Quality/GHG/Noise/Energy Specialist
Tina Yuan, Air Quality/GHG/Noise/Energy Specialist
Allexis Cruz, Regulatory Specialist
Susan Wood, PhD, Senior Architectural Historian
Marc Beherec, PhD, RPA, Senior Archaeologist
Josh Rawley, MA, Cultural Resources Specialist
Six Scientific Service
921 Mulberry Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
760.908.5753
Chris Clark, Senior Marine Scientist/USCG Captain
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4.23-2 Report Preparation Personnel
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 5-1 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
5.0 INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach City Engineer shall ensure the following
construction best management practices are incorporated into the project’s final construction plans and
monitored with weekly inspections during construction activities within the water areas:
• Construction equipment shall be inspected regularly (daily) during construction, and any leaks found
shall be repaired immediately.
• Refueling of vehicles and equipment shall be in a designated, contained area.
• Drip pans shall be used under stationary equipment when refueling or during maintenance.
• Drip pans that are used shall be covered during rainfall to prevent leaching of contaminants.
• Construction and maintenance of appropriate containment structures to prevent off-site transport of
pollutants from spills and construction debris.
• Construction best management practices (BMPs) shall be monitored during weekly inspections to
ensure the BMPs are implemented and kept in good working order.
• Drop nets shall be cleared of debris as soon as feasible.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach shall also prepare and implement a Spill
and Prevention Plan to minimize and/or prevent discharge of spilled material at the project site. The Spill
and Prevention Plan shall include measures to prevent and control spills, contain the spill, clean the spill,
and dispose of contaminated materials in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
BIO-2 To the extent feasible, the construction contractor shall minimize potential impacts to existing eelgrass
beds within the project area by:
• Decreasing sedimentation by utilizing terrestrial construction booms;
• Avoiding any unneeded shading during in-water construction activities;
• Locating temporary docks, barges and vessels, and all barge anchoring outside of existing eelgrass
beds in the project area;
• Ensuring anchor chain designs and mooring locations of all barges and vessels avoid eelgrass
habitat in the project area;
• Implementing best management practices (BMPs) such as perimeter debris booms. If debris is
observed falling into the water, debris shall be retrieved as soon as feasible;
• Installing silt curtains around demolition areas, to the extent feasible, and restricting turbidity plumes
to the smallest possible area during all in-water construction phases to minimize water turbidity and
sedimentation;
• Conducting comprehensive pre- and post-construction surveys for eelgrass beds and patches in
accordance with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
(CEMP). If unavoidable eelgrass impacts occur, compensatory mitigation using guidance specified
in the CEMP shall be implemented; and
• If eelgrass harvest and transplant is required for mitigation, obtaining a Scientific Collecting Permit
(SCP) from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to harvest and transplant activities.
The SCP may include permit conditions such as donor eelgrass surveys, submittal of an eelgrass
harvest and transplant plan, limits on number of turions collected, methods for collection and
transplanting, notification of activities, and reporting requirements.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 5-2 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
BIO-3 Prior to any construction activity within the project limits, the City of Newport Beach shall consult with the
appropriate responsible resource agency (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, and California Coastal Commission) to verify delineation results, determine permanent
losses and temporary impact areas, and identify compensatory mitigation, as applicable. Prior to
undertaking ground-disturbing activities on or immediately adjacent to any aquatic resource areas, the
City of Newport Beach and/or their designee shall obtain all applicable discretionary
permits/authorizations.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 In the event that any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during earth-moving activities, all
work within 50 feet shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist is retained by the City of Newport Beach
and evaluates the find and makes recommendations. The archaeologist shall evaluate the find in
accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in the California Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2, to assess the significance of the find and identify avoidance or other
measures as appropriate.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall verify that final construction plans and
specifications incorporate the design recommendations from the Draft Foundation Report, Collins Island
Bridge, Newport Beach, California, prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc. and dated October 27, 2023,
and/or the final geotechnical report for the Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project.
GEO-2 In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all
construction activities within 100 feet of the discovery shall be temporarily halted until a qualified
paleontologist shall evaluate the findings and make a recommendation. The assessment will follow
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards as delineated in the Standard Procedures for the
Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010). If the qualified
paleontologist finds that the resource is not a significant fossil, then work may resume immediately. If the
qualified paleontologist finds the resource is potentially significant, then the qualified paleontologist shall
make recommendations for appropriate treatment in accordance with SVP guidelines for identification,
evaluation, disclosure, avoidance, recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. The City of Newport Beach
shall determine the appropriate treatment of the find. Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until
the City of Newport Beach, through consultation as appropriate, determines that appropriate treatment
measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the City. Any fossils recovered during mitigation
shall be cleaned, identified, catalogued, and permanently curated with an accredited and permanent
scientific institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Cooper Laboratory in Santa Ana.
A qualified professional paleontologist is a professional with a graduate degree in paleontology, geology,
or related field, with demonstrated experience in the vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical paleontology
of California, as well as at least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized
training in paleontological research (i.e., the identification of fossil deposits, application of paleontological
field and laboratory procedures and techniques, and curation of fossil specimens), and at least four
months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American paleontology as defined
by the SVP.
NOISE
NOI-1 Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a Construction
Noise Mitigation Plan and demonstrate that the project complies with the following:
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 5-3 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
• The construction contractor shall ensure that power construction equipment (including
combustion or electric engines), fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with noise shielding and
muffling devices (consistent with manufacturers’ standards) during the entirety of construction
of the project. The combination of muffling devices and noise shielding shall be capable of
reducing noise by at least 5 dBA from non-muffled and shielded noise levels. Prior to initiation
of construction the contractor shall demonstrate to the City that equipment is properly muffled,
shielded and maintained. All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional
noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated.
• The Construction Noise Mitigation Plan shall depict the location of construction equipment
storage and maintenance areas, and document methods to be employed to minimize noise
impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses.
• Property owners and occupants located within 100 feet of the construction limits shall be sent a
notice, at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction, regarding the construction
schedule of the project. A sign, visible to the public, shall also be posted at the project
construction site. All notices and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport
Public Works Department prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of
construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone number where
residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.
• The construction contractor shall provide evidence that a construction staff member is
designated as a Noise Disturbance Coordinator and shall be present on-site during construction
activities. The Noise Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Noise Disturbance
Coordinator shall notify the City within 24-hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the
noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable
measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department. All notices that are sent to residential units immediately surrounding the
construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and
the telephone number for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.
• The City shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Public Works
Department that construction noise reduction methods shall be used, including but not limited
to, shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment
staging areas and occupied residential areas, and the use of electric air compressors and similar
power tools, to the extent feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise
is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
• In compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, construction activities shall
only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays, and 8:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays or national holidays.
TRANSPORTATION
TRA-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall
prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The TMP shall specify that one lane of travel for vehicles and
pedestrians on Park Avenue shall be maintained during project construction activities to the greatest
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 5-4 Inventory of Mitigation Measures
extent feasible. The TMP shall include measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for
lane closures to avoid peak hours of traffic, temporary striping plans, and, if necessary, use of
construction flag person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. Additionally, the TMP shall
establish dedicated truck routes approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. To
reduce congestion and impacts to parking on Balboa Island, the TMP shall also identify proposed
mainland parking areas for construction workers. Pedestrian sidewalks shall remain open and accessible,
to the greatest extent feasible, during construction or shall be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity
while maintaining Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. The TMP shall be incorporated into
project specifications for verification prior to final plan approval.
Should temporary full bridge, roadway, or sidewalk closures be required, the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department shall notify all residences within a 500-foot radius of the site at least one week before
scheduled closure and provide details regarding anticipated closure duration and any available detours.
The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall also conduct advance notification and
coordination with the Newport Beach Fire and Police Departments to arrange for adequate alternative
access options in the event an emergency event occurs during a temporary full bridge/roadway closure.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 6-1 Consultant Recommendation
6.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study, we recommend that the City of
Newport Beach prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project. We find
that the proposed project could have a significant effect on a number of environmental issues, but that mitigation
measures have been identified that reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. We recommend that the second
category be selected for the City’s determination (see Section 7.0, Lead Agency Determination).
7/7/2024
Date Alan Ashimine, Project Manager
Michael Baker International
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 6-2 Consultant Recommendation
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 7-1 Lead Agency Determination
7.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
_
I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in Section 4 have been added. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
_
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) 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 measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant
impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
_
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 7-2 Lead Agency Determination
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
PART II RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 1 Response to Comments
PART II: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
During the public review period, comments were received on the Draft IS/MND from interested parties. The following
is a list of the interested parties that submitted comments on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period:
Comment
Letter No. Person, Firm, or Agency Letter Dated
1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Craig Shuman, D. Env., Marine Regional Manager August 20, 2024
2 California Department of Transportation District 12
Scott Shelley, Branch Chief August 21, 2024
Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 does not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments
received, the City of Newport Beach has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting
a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed project. The number designations in the responses are
correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter.
State of California Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
Marine Region
1933 Cliff Drive, Suite 9
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
www.wildlife.ca.gov
August 20, 2024
Robert Stein
Assistant City Engineer
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
rstein@newportbeachca.gov
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SCH #2024070802
Dear Mr. Stein:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) received a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Newport Beach (City) for the Collins Island
Bridge Replacement Project (Project), pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding
those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.
Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects
of the Project that the Department, by law, may be required to carry out or approve
through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
DEPARTMENT ROLE
those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the state (Fish and Game Code,
Section 711.7, subd. [a] & 1802; Public Resources Code, Section 21070; CEQA
Guidelines Section 15386, subd. [a]). The Department, in its trustee capacity, has
jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native
plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species
(Id., Section 1802). Similarly for purposes of CEQA, the Department is charged by law
to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review
efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to
adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. The Department is also responsible for
marine biodiversity protection under the Marine Life Protection Act (Fish & G. Code,
1
1-1
Robert Stein
City of Newport Beach
August 20, 2024
Page 2 of 7
Section 2850-2863) and the Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (Pub. Resources
Code, Section 36700) in coastal marine waters of California and ensuring fisheries are
sustainably managed under the Marine Life Management Act (Fish & G. Code, Section
7050-7090). Pursuant to our jurisdiction, the Department has the following comments
and recommendations regarding the Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Newport Beach
Objective:The objective of the Project is to replace the Collins Island Bridge, improve
the seawall, and make future pump station accommodations. The proposed bridge
would be 31 feet in length spanning over existing concrete sheet pile bulkheads, and
the width would be 20 feet and 6 inches to accommodate one vehicle travel lane, one
public sidewalk, and concrete barriers on each side to provide protection from projected
sea level rise. The Project proposes to construct a new seawall in front of the existing
seawalls adjacent to the bridge. Additionally, the Project includes an underground pump
station and catch basin that will have a discharge pipe near the new seawall and east
bridge approach to convey stormwater outflow into the bay adjacent to the new bridge.
Primary project activities include demolition, excavation, utility relocation, drilling for
bridge pile foundations, steel sheet piling installation with press-in method, formwork
framing and concrete placement for bridge and seawall improvements construction,
street paving (concrete), and landscaping. Marine construction would involve barges
delivering construction materials and would require the temporary relocation of several
docks which consist of floats and access gangways. The bridge removal would consist
of saw-cutting long portions of the bridge and lifting them onto nearby flatbed trucks for
removal. The City plans to place a drop net over the waterway to catch debris during the
concrete bridge removal process and coping on existing seawalls. The bridge
replacement would consist of drilling 24-inch concrete pile foundations into the sea floor
and precast/prestressed concrete slab girders would be used.
Location: The Project site is located at the Collins Island Bridge on Balboa Island in
Newport Bay within the City of Newport Beach.
Timeframe:Construction activities are scheduled to occur over a period of 11 months
in two phases. The anticipated construction start date was not included in the MND.
BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Discussion and Comment: The Newport Bay waters support many resident and
migratory fish and special status wildlife such as seabirds, marine mammals, and sea
turtles. Important marine plants such as eelgrass (Zostera marina) support those fish
and wildlife species and may be present throughout shallow coastal environments in the
1-1
contd
Robert Stein
City of Newport Beach
August 20, 2024
Page 3 of 7
Harbor. Eelgrass is important as fish nursery habitat and supports juvenile and adult
fish. The Newport Bay waters also support commercially and recreationally important
fish and invertebrate species such as California halibut (Paralichthys californicus),
California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus), and the important forage fish Northern
anchovy (Engraulis mordax).
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in
significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
I. Project Level Impacts and Other Considerations
Native Eelgrass Impacts
Comments:The MND indicated that medium to low density patches of eelgrass
were observed during a preliminary eelgrass survey, conducted on September 16,
2023, at the proposed Project site where in-water bridge removal construction, pile
driving, and seawall improvements may occur. Eelgrass also has the potential to
occur where several docks may be temporarily relocated during construction. Native
eelgrass species create large beds beneficial for fish habitat and have been
identified as special aquatic sites and given protections by the Clean Water Act. The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) identifies
eelgrass as a Habitat Area of Special Concern. Additionally, the importance of
eelgrass protection and restoration, as well as the marine ecological benefits of
eelgrass, is identified in the California Public Resources Code (PRC §35630). The
Department uses the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP) (NOAA 2014,
Attachment 1), developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), for
guidance on identifying eelgrass impacts, eelgrass mitigation measures and
compensation, and for identifying appropriate eelgrass mitigation and donor sites.
Recommendations:The Department recommends that plans should be developed
to avoid and minimize potential impacts to eelgrass to the maximum extent feasible
if eelgrass beds or patches are identified within or adjacent to the Project area. The
proposed Project should avoid and minimize disturbance and damage or losses of
eelgrass beds from the in-water bridge removal/replacement and seawall
improvements construction, pile driving and pulling, associated barges and vessels,
and temporary dock relocations. Impacts to avoid and minimize may include, at a
minimum, barge shading and anchoring within eelgrass habitat, pile driving and
pulling bottom disturbances, demolition and construction turbidity, sedimentation,
and falling debris. The Department recommends the following since eelgrass beds
or patches were identified within and adjacent to the Project area:
To avoid direct eelgrass impacts, locate temporary docks, pile driver barges and
vessels, and all barge anchoring outside of eelgrass habitat.
1-1
cont'd
1-2
Robert Stein
City of Newport Beach
August 20, 2024
Page 4 of 7
To avoid scouring of eelgrass and potential eelgrass habitat, anchor chain
designs, and locations of barge and vessel moorings, should avoid eelgrass
habitat impacts.
To avoid and minimize eelgrass impacts from demolition and construction debris,
the City should use Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as perimeter debris
booms. If debris is observed falling into the water, retrieve debris as soon as
possible.
To minimize eelgrass impacts from water turbidity and sedimentation, install silt
curtains around pile driving or demolition areas if feasible. Restrict the turbidity
plumes to the smallest possible area during all phases of in-water construction.
Since eelgrass was identified in the Project area, comprehensive pre-and post-
construction surveys for eelgrass beds or patches should be conducted consistent
with the CEMP. If any unavoidable eelgrass impacts occur, these impacts should be
compensated using guidance described within the CEMP. Indirect eelgrass impacts
such as shading from new piles should also be avoided. Since pile driving work
conducted outside of the peak eelgrass growing period may reduce shading impacts
when eelgrass beds may have died back, pile location and time of year for pile
driving should be considered to avoid eelgrass and other fish and wildlife impacts
generated by pile driving.
If eelgrass harvest and transplanting is required for mitigation, a Scientific Collecting
Permit (SCP) from the Department will be required prior to harvest and transplanting
activities. The SCP may include permit conditions such as donor eelgrass surveys,
submittal of an eelgrass harvest and transplant plan, limits on number of turions
collected, methods for collection and transplanting, notification of activities, and
information:https://wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting.
Pile Driving and Sound Criteria
Comments:Underwater noise associated with pile driving and pulling activities may
cause temporary or permanent impacts to fish, such as temporary movement out of
the Project area, barotrauma injury, or mortality. The Department relies on guidance
from the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group to set safe sound pressure level
(SPL) criteria for pile driving and pulling activities (Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working
Group 2008, Attachment 2). The SPL dual criteria include a peak level of 206 dB
and a cumulative sound exposure (SEL) level of 187 dB for fish 2 grams and
heavier or a cumulative SEL of 183 dB for fish less than 2 grams. Additionally, if
hydraulic jetting or an impact hammer is used for pile driving, this may impact water
quality, releasing contaminants from sediments into the water and/or creating
turbidity that could harm fish and shade or smother eelgrass beds.
Recommendations:The Department recommends using a vibratory hammer for
pile driving to the greatest extent feasible, or an alternative technology that produces
the least amount of noise such as the press-in method mentioned in the MND. If an
1-2
cont'd
1-3
Robert Stein
City of Newport Beach
August 20, 2024
Page 5 of 7
impact hammer must be used (e.g., due to pile material, refusal at bedrock), multiple
minimization measures may be used to reduce sound levels. The Department
recommends the following:
A sound attenuation and monitoring plan should be submitted to the resource
agencies for review prior to initiating pile driving activities.
A wood, or similar material, cushion block should be used between the pile and
hammer during all pile driving using an impact hammer.
To further reduce hydroacoustic impacts to fish and marine mammals, a bubble
curtain may be used during all impact pile driving to reduce sound below levels
that have been shown to cause injury and/or mortality.
Underwater sound level monitoring should be conducted during pile driving. If
SPLs and SELs exceed agreed upon levels as per the Interim Criteria for Injury to
Fish, additional steps should be taken to reduce the underwater noise to
acceptable levels.
The Department recommends the use of a silt curtain to control turbidity during
high turbidity generating activities, such as hydraulic jetting. Additionally, high
turbidity generating activities should be conducted when there are no strong
outgoing tides since this could exacerbate turbid conditions and negatively impact
marine life.
Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring
Comments: Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus
californianus), other species of marine mammals, and sea turtles (including listed
species under the Endangered Species Act such as the green sea turtle (Chelonia
mydas)) may be present or occur within the Project area. Project activities,
particularly noise from pile driving, could impact these animals if they are present.
Recommendations: The Department recommends that the City prepare and
implement a marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring plan that includes, but is not
limited to:
Establishment of an underwater exclusion zone.
Pre-
area.
Monitoring of marine mammals and sea turtles by an experienced observer
immediately prior to and during all pile driving activities.
Pile driving should not occur while marine mammals or sea turtles are present
within the exclusion zone.
The Department recommends that the City consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the above
recommendations and any other necessary avoidance and mitigation measures to
reduce impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles.
1-3
cont'd
1-4
Robert Stein
City of Newport Beach
August 20, 2024
Page 6 of 7
Floating Debris and Spill and Prevention Plan
Comments: bridge removal/demolition has the potential to generate
waters and impact important marine species and habitats.
Recommendation: The Department appreciates to place a drop net
over the waterway to catch debris during the bridge demolition construction
activities. The collected debris should be removed as soon as possible and disposed
of in an appropriate manner. The Department recommends that the City prepares
and implements a spill and prevention plan to minimize and/or prevent discharge of
spilled material at the Project site. This plan should include measures to prevent and
control spills, contain the spill, clean the spill, and dispose of contaminated
materials.
Invasive Species Impacts
Comments:Disturbance of the bottom sediments from pile construction and
anchoring may redistribute non-native species that compete with native species.
This could cause widespread adverse impacts to eelgrass and marine ecology. The
invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia is listed as a federal noxious weed under the U.S.
Plant Protection Act and while deemed eradicated in 2006 is monitored for potential
future emergence. Another invasive alga species found recently in Newport Bay and
San Diego Bay is Caulerpa prolifera, which is also a potential threat to growth and
expansion of native eelgrass beds and other native algae. Caulerpa prolifera can
grow as deep as 50 meters and appears to be more tolerant of low light
environments than most other macroalgae. Additionally, since all Caulerpa species
pose a serious risk in harming native marine life, Fish and Game Code Section 2300
was amended in 2023 so that no person shall sell, possess, import, transport,
transfer, release alive in the state, or give away without consideration all species of
the genus Caulerpa, with the exception of bona fide scientific research upon
authorization by the Department.
Recommendations:The Department recommends conducting pre-construction
Caulerpa Spp. surveys to identify potential existence of invasive Caulerpa Spp.in
accordance with the Caulerpa Control Protocol
https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-12/caulerpa-control-protocol-v5.pdf (October
2021). Any sightings of Caulerpa Spp.should be reported within 24 hours to the
Department (Caulerpa@wildlife.ca.gov), and NMFS at 562-980-4037
(nmfs.wcr.caulerpa@noaa.gov).
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and
negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make
subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, §
1-5
1-6
1-7
Craig Shuman, D. Env
Marine Regional Manager
ec: Eric Wilkins, Senior Environmental Scientist
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: NMFS. 2014. California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Attachment 2: Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group. 2008. Interim Criteria for
Injury of Fish Exposed to Pile Driving Operations: Memorandum. Washington:
Federal Highway Administration.
Robert Stein
City of Newport Beach
August 20, 2024
Page 7 of 7
21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural
communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted
online at the following link:https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The
types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment
of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the
Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of
environmental review by the Department. Payment of the environmental document filing
fee is required for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, §
21089.)
CONCLUSION
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City
in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. Questions
regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Leslie Hart,
Environmental Scientist at R7CEQA@wildlife.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
1-7
cont'd
1-8
West Coast Region
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and
Implementing Guidelines
October 2014
Photo credit: www.Lorenz-Avelar.com
Attachment 1
i
Table of Contents
I. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE’S (NMFS) CALIFORNIA EELGRASS MITIGATION
POLICY........................................................................................................................................................................1
A. POLICY STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................1
B. EELGRASS BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION................................................................................................2
C. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR EELGRASS MITIGATION POLICY .............................................................................3
D. RELEVANCE TO OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES .................................................................................4
1. Corps/EPA Mitigation Rule and supporting guidance........................................................................4
2. State of California Wetland Conservation Policies.............................................................................4
3. NOAA Aquaculture Policy and National Shellfish Initiative...............................................................5
4. NOAA Seagrass Conservation Guidelines...........................................................................................6
5. Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy.................................................................................6
II. IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES FOR CALIFORNIA................................................................................6
A. EELGRASS HABITAT DEFINITION....................................................................................................................7
B. SURVEYING EELGRASS ...................................................................................................................................8
1. Survey Parameters ..............................................................................................................................8
2. Eelgrass Mapping..............................................................................................................................10
3. Survey Period....................................................................................................................................11
4. Reference Site Selection ....................................................................................................................11
C. AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS TO EELGRASS ...................................................................................11
1. Turbidity............................................................................................................................................12
2. Shading..............................................................................................................................................12
3. Circulation patterns ..........................................................................................................................13
4. Nutrient loading ................................................................................................................................14
5. Sediment loading...............................................................................................................................14
D. ASSESSING IMPACTS TO EELGRASS HABITAT ...............................................................................................14
1. Direct Effects.....................................................................................................................................16
2. Indirect Effects ..................................................................................................................................16
E. MITIGATION OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................17
1. Comprehensive management plans...................................................................................................17
2. In-kind mitigation..............................................................................................................................18
3. Mitigation banks and in-lieu-fee programs.......................................................................................18
4. Out-of-kind mitigation.......................................................................................................................19
F. IN-KIND MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO EELGRASS .......................................................................................19
1. Mitigation Site Selection....................................................................................................................19
2. Mitigation Area Needs.......................................................................................................................20
3. Mitigation Technique ........................................................................................................................23
4. Mitigation Plan..................................................................................................................................24
5. Mitigation Timing..............................................................................................................................24
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Performance Milestones........................................................................25
7. Mitigation Reporting.........................................................................................................................27
8. Supplemental Mitigation ...................................................................................................................27
G. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES............................................................................................................................27
1. Localized Temporary Impacts...........................................................................................................28
2. Localized Permanent Impacts ...........................................................................................................28
III. GLOSSARY OF TERMS.................................................................................................................................29
IV. LITERATURE CITED....................................................................................................................................31
ii
ATTACHMENT 1.Graphic depiction of eelgrass habitat definition including spatial distribution and aerial
coverage of vegetated cover and unvegetated eelgrass habitat.
ATTACHMENT 2.Example Eelgrass Habitat Percent Vegetated Cover.
ATTACHMENT 3.Flow chart depicting timing of surveys and monitoring.
ATTACHMENT 4.Eelgrass transplant monitoring report.
ATTACHMENT 5.Wetlands mitigation calculator formula and parameters.
ATTACHMENT 6.Example calculations for application of starting and final mitigation ratios for impacts to
eelgrass habitat in southern California.
ATTACHMENT 7.Example mitigation area multipliers for delay in initiation of mitigation activities.
ATTACHMENT 8.Summary of Eelgrass Transplant Actions in California
1
I. National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
A. Policy Statement
It is NMFS’ policy to recommend no net loss of eelgrass habitat function in California.
For all of California, compensatory mitigation should be recommended for the loss of existing
eelgrass habitat function, but only after avoidance and minimization of effects to eelgrass have
been pursued to the maximum extent practicable. Our approach is congruous with the approach
taken in the federal Clean Water Act guidelines under section 404(b)(1) (40 CFR 230). In
absence of a complete functional assessment, eelgrass distribution and density should serve as a
proxy for eelgrass habitat function. Compensatory mitigation options include comprehensive
management plans, in-kind mitigation, mitigation banks and in-lieu-fee programs, and out-of-
kind mitigation. While in-kind mitigation is preferred, the most appropriate form of
compensatory mitigation should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Further, it is the intent of this policy to ensure that there is no loss associated with delays in
establishing compensatory mitigation. This should be accomplished by creating a greater
amount of eelgrass than is lost, if the mitigation is performed contemporaneously or after the
impacts occur. To achieve this, NMFS, in most instances, should recommend compensatory
mitigation for vegetated and unvegetated eelgrass habitat be successfully completed at a ratio of
at least 1.2:1 mitigation area to impact area. This ratio is based on present value calculation
1
using a discount rate of 0.03 (NOAA-DARP 1999). This ratio assumes that restored eelgrass
habitat achieves habitat function comparable to existing eelgrass habitat within a period of three
years or less (Hoffman 1986, Evans & Short 2005, Fonseca et al.1990).
For ongoing projects, once mitigation has been successfully implemented to compensate for the
loss of eelgrass habitat function within a specified footprint, NMFS should not recommend
additional mitigation for subsequent loss of eelgrass habitat if 1) ongoing project activities result
in subsequent loss of eelgrass habitat function within the same footprint for which mitigation was
completed and 2) the project applicant can document that no new area of eelgrass habitat is
impacted by project activities.
This policy does not address mitigation for potential eelgrass habitat. NMFS recognizes impacts
to potential eelgrass habitat may preclude eelgrass movement or expansion to suitable
unvegetated areas in the future, potentially resulting in declines in eelgrass abundance over time.
In addition, it does not address other shallow water habitats. Regulatory protections in the
estuarine/marine realm typically focus on wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation. Mudflats,
sandflats, and other superficially bare habitats do not garner the same degree of recognition and
1 Present Value (PV) is a calculation used in finance to determine the present day value of an amount that is
received at a future date. The premise of the equation is that receiving something today is worth more than receiving
the same item at a future date; PV = C1/(1+r)n where C1= resource at period 1, r= interest or discount rate,
n=number of periods.
2
concern, even though these are some of the most productive and fragile ecosystems (Reilly et al.
1999). NMFS will continue to collaborate with federal and state partners on these issues.
B. Eelgrass Background and Information
Eelgrass species (Zostera marina L. and Z. pacifica) are seagrasses that occur in the temperate
unconsolidated substrate of shallow coastal environments, enclosed bays, and estuaries. Eelgrass
is a highly productive species and is considered to be a "foundation" or habitat forming species.
Eelgrass contributes to ecosystem functions at multiple levels as a primary and secondary
producer, as a habitat structuring element, as a substrate for epiphytes and epifauna, and as
sediment stabilizer and nutrient cycling facilitator. Eelgrass provides important foraging areas
and shelter to young fish and invertebrates, food for migratory waterfowl and sea turtles, and
spawning surfaces for invertebrates and fish such as the Pacific herring. Eelgrass also provides a
significant source of carbon to the detrital pool which provides important organic matter in
sometimes food-limited environments (e.g., submarine canyons). In addition, eelgrass has the
capacity to sequester carbon in the underlying sediments and may help offset carbon emissions.
Given the significance and diversity of the functions and services provided by seagrass, Costanza
et al.(2007) determined seagrass ecosystems to be one of Earth’s most valuable.
California supports dynamic eelgrass habitats that range in extent from less than 11,000 acres to
possibly as much as 15,000 acres statewide. This is inclusive of estimates for poorly
documented beds in smaller coastal systems as well as open coastal and insular areas. While
among the most productive of habitats, the overall low statewide abundance makes eelgrass one
of the rarest habitats in California. Collectively just five systems, Humboldt Bay, San Francisco
Bay, San Diego Bay, Mission Bay and Tomales Bay support over 80 percent of the known
eelgrass in the state. The uneven distribution of eelgrass resources increases the risk to this
habitat and also contributes to its dynamic nature. Further, the narrow depth range within which
eelgrass can occur further places this habitat at risk in the face of global climate change and sea
level rise predictions.
Seagrass habitat has been lost from temperate estuaries worldwide (Duarte 2002, Lotze et al.
2006, Orth et al.2006). While both natural and human-induced mechanisms have contributed to
these losses, impacts from human population expansion and associated pollution and upland
development is the primary cause (Short and Wyllie-Echeverria 1996). Human activities that
affect eelgrass habitat distribution and abundance, including, but not limited to, urban
development, harbor development, aquaculture, agricultural runoff, effluent discharges, and
upland land use associated sediment discharge (Duarte 2008) occur throughout California. For
example, dredging and filling; shading and alteration of circulation patterns; and watershed
inputs of sediment, nutrients, and unnaturally concentrated or directed freshwater flows can
directly and indirectly destroy eelgrass habitats. Conversely, in many areas great strides have
been made at restoring water quality and expanding eelgrass resources through directed efforts at
environmental improvements and resource enhancement. While improvements in eelgrass
management have occurred overall, the importance of eelgrass both ecologically and
economically, coupled with ongoing human pressure and potentially increasing degradation and
losses associated with climate change, highlight the need to protect, maintain, and where
feasible, enhance eelgrass habitat.
3
C. Purpose and Need for Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
Eelgrass warrants a strong protection strategy because of the important biological, physical, and
economic values it provides, as well as its importance to managed species under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Vegetated shallows that support
eelgrass are also considered special aquatic sites under the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean
Water Act (40 C.F.R. § 230.43). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
(NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) developed this policy to establish and
support a goal of protecting this resource and its habitat functions, including spatial coverage and
density of eelgrass habitats. This NMFS policy and implementing guidelines are being shared
with agencies and the public to ensure there is a clear and transparent process for developing
eelgrass mitigation recommendations.
Pursuant to the MSA, eelgrass is designated as an essential fish habitat (EFH) habitat area of
particular concern (HAPC) for various federally-managed fish species within the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (PFMC 2008). An HAPC is a subset of EFH that
is rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially ecologically important,
and/or located in an environmentally stressed area. HAPC designations are used to provide
additional focus for conservation efforts.
This policy and guidelines support but do not expand upon existing NMFS authorities under the
MSA, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Pursuant to the EFH provisions of the MSA, FWCA, and obligations under the
NEPA as a responsible agency, NMFS annually reviews and provides recommendations on
numerous actions that may affect eelgrass resources throughout California. Section 305(b)(1)(D)
of the MSA requires NMFS to coordinate with, and provide information to, other federal
agencies regarding the conservation and enhancement of EFH. Section 305(b)(2) requires all
federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or
undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. Under section 305(b)(4) of the MSA,
NMFS is required to provide EFH Conservation Recommendations to federal and state agencies
for actions that would adversely affect EFH (50 C.F.R. § 600.925). NMFS makes its
recommendations with the goal of avoiding, minimizing, or otherwise compensating for adverse
effects to EFH. When impacts to NMFS trust resources are unavoidable, NMFS may
recommend compensatory mitigation to offset those impacts. In order to fulfill its consultative
role, NMFS may also recommend, among other things, the development of mitigation plans,
habitat distribution maps, surveys and survey reports, progress milestones, monitoring programs,
and reports verifying the completion of mitigation activities.
Eelgrass impact management and mitigation throughout California has historically been
undertaken without a statewide strategy. Federal actions with impacts to eelgrass require
considerable NMFS staff time for project review, coordination and development of conservation
recommendations. As federal staff resources vary with budgets, and threats to aquatic resources
remain steady or increase, regulatory streamlining and increased efficiency are crucial for
continued protection of important coastal habitats, including eelgrass. The California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy (CEMP) is meant to increase efficiency of existing regulatory authorities in a
4
programmatic manner, provide transparency to federal agencies and action proponents, and
ensure that unavoidable impacts to eelgrass habitat are fully and appropriately mitigated. It is the
intent of NMFS to collaborate with other federal, state, and local agencies charged with the
protection of marine resources to seek a unified approach to actions affecting eelgrass such that
consistency across agencies with respect to this resource may be enhanced.
D. Relevance to Other Federal and State Policies
Based on our understanding of existing federal and state policies regarding aquatic resource
conservation, the CEMP does not conflict with existing policies and complements the federal and
state wetland policies as described below. NMFS does not intend to make any recommendations,
which, if adopted by the action agency and carried out, would violate other federal, state, or local
laws. The CEMP also complements the NOAA Aquaculture Policy and National Shellfish Initiative
and builds upon the NOAA Seagrass Conservation Guidelines and the Southern California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy.
1. Corps/EPA Mitigation Rule and supporting guidance
In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) issued revised regulations governing compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to
wetlands, streams, and other waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The
regulations emphasize avoiding impacts to wetlands and other water resources. For unavoidable
impacts, the rule incorporates Natural Resource Council recommendations to improve planning,
implementing and managing wetland replacement projects, including: science-based assessment
of impacts and compensation measures, watershed assessments to drive mitigation sites and
plans, measurable and enforceable ecological performance standards for evaluating mitigation
projects, mitigation monitoring to document whether the mitigation employed meets ecological
performance standards, and complete compensation plans. The regulations also encourage the
expansion of mitigation banking and in lieu fee agreements to improve the quality and success of
compensatory mitigation projects.
The NMFS policy to recommend no net loss of eelgrass function and the eelgrass mitigation
guidelines offered herein align with the provisions of the EPA and Corps mitigation rule, but
provide more specific recommendations on how to avoid and minimize impacts to eelgrass and
how to implement eelgrass surveys, assessments, mitigation, and monitoring.
2. State of California Wetland Conservation Policies
The 1993 State of California Wetlands Conservation Policy established a framework and strategy
to ensure no overall net loss and long-term gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of
wetlands acreage and values in California in a manner that fosters creativity, stewardship, and
respect for private property, reduce procedural complexity in administration of state and federal
wetlands conservation programs, and encourage partnerships to make landowner incentive
programs and cooperative planning efforts the primary focus of wetlands conservation and
restoration.
5
The State of California is also developing a Wetland and Riparian Area Protection Policy. The
first phase of this effort was published as the “Preliminary Draft Wetland Area Protection
Policy” with the purpose of protecting all waters of the State, including wetlands, from dredge
and fill discharges. It includes a wetland definition and associated delineation methods, an
assessment framework for collecting and reporting aquatic resource information, and
requirements applicable to discharges of dredged or fill material. The draft specifies that dredge
or fill projects will provide for replacement of existing beneficial uses through compensatory
mitigation. The preliminary policy includes a determination that compensatory mitigation will
sustain and improve the overall abundance, diversity and condition of aquatic resources in a
project watershed area.
Based on the definition of wetlands included in these state wetland policies, the policies do not
directly apply to subtidal eelgrass habitat, but may apply to intertidal eelgrass habitat. The
NMFS policy of recommending no net loss to eelgrass habitat function and recommendations for
compensatory mitigation for eelgrass impacts complement the state protection policies for
wetlands.
3. NOAA Aquaculture Policy and National Shellfish Initiative
In 2011, NOAA released the National Marine Aquaculture Policy and the National Shellfish
Initiative. The Policy encourages and fosters sustainable aquaculture development that provides
domestic jobs, products, and services and that is in harmony with healthy, productive, and
resilient marine ecosystems, compatible with other uses of the marine environment, and
consistent with the National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts, and the Great
Lakes (National Ocean Policy). The goal of the Initiative is to increase populations of bivalve
shellfish in our nation’s coastal waters—including oysters, clams, abalone, and mussels—
through both sustainable commercial production and restoration activities. The Initiative
supports shellfish industry jobs and business opportunities to meet the growing demand for
seafood, while protecting and enhancing habitat for important commercial, recreational, and
endangered and threatened species and species recovery. The Initiative also highlights improved
water quality, nutrient removal, and shoreline protection as benefits from shellfish production
and restoration. Both the Policy and the Initiative seek to improve interagency coordination for
permitting commercial and restoration shellfish projects, as well as support research and other
data collection to assess and refine conservation strategies and priorities.
The regulatory efficiencies, transparency, and compensation for impacts to eelgrass promoted by
the CEMP directly support the National Aquaculture Policy statements and National Shellfish
Initiative through: (1) protection of eelgrass, an important component of productive and resilient
coastal ecosystems in California and habitat for wild species, and (2) improved coordination with
federal partners regarding planning and permitting for commercial shellfish projects.
Furthermore, research conducted under the direction of the National Shellfish Initiative could be
informed by and also inform NMFS consultations regarding eelgrass impacts and mitigation in
California.
6
4. NOAA Seagrass Conservation Guidelines
The NOAA publication, “Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the
United States and Adjacent Waters” (1998) was developed by Mark Fonseca of NOAA’s
Beaufort Laboratory along with Jud Kenworthy and Gordon Thayer and was funded by NOAA’s
Coastal Ocean Program. The document presents an overview of seagrass conservation and
restoration in the United States, discusses important issues that should be addressed in planning
seagrass restoration projects, describes different planting methodologies, proposes monitoring
criteria and means for evaluation success, and discusses issues faced by resource managers. The
CEMP considers information presented in the Fonseca et al. document, but deviates in some
cases in order to provide reasonable and practicable guidelines for eelgrass conservation in
California.
5. Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
In southern and central California, eelgrass mitigation has been addressed in accordance with the
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy applied by NMFS, US Fish & Wildlife Service,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Coastal Commission, US Army Corps of
Engineers, and other resource and regulatory agencies since 1991, and which has generally been
effective at ensuring eelgrass impacts are mitigated in most circumstances. Given the success of
the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy over its 20-year history, this policy reflects an
expansion of the application of the Southern California policy with minor modifications to
ensure a high standard of statewide eelgrass management and protection. This policy will
supersede the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy for all areas of California upon its
adoption.
II. Implementing Guidelines for California
This policy and guidelines will serve as the guidance for staff and managers within NMFS for
developing recommendations concerning eelgrass issues through EFH and FWCA consultations
and NEPA reviews throughout California. This policy will inform NMFS’s position on eelgrass
issues for California in other roles as a responsible, advisory, or funding agency or trustee. In
addition, this document provides guidance to assist NMFS in performing its consultative role
under the statutes described above. Finally, pursuant to NMFS obligation to provide information
to federal agencies under Section 305(b)(1)(D) of the MSA, this policy serves that role by
providing information intended to further the conservation and enhancement of EFH. Should
this policy or guidelines be inconsistent with any formally-promulgated NMFS regulations, those
formally-promulgated regulations will take precedence over any inconsistent provisions of this
policy.
While many of the activities impacting eelgrass are similar across California, eelgrass stressors
and growth characteristics differ between southern California (U.S./Mexico border to Pt.
Conception), central California (Point Conception to San Francisco Bay entrance), San Francisco
Bay, and northern California (San Francisco Bay to the California/Oregon border). The amount
of scientific information available to base management decisions on also differs among areas
within California, with considerably more information and history with eelgrass habitat
management in southern California than the other regions. Gaps in region-specific scientific
7
information do not override the need to be protective of eelgrass habitat while relying on the best
information currently available from areas within and outside of California. Although the
primary orientation of this policy is toward statewide use, where indicated below, specific
elements of this policy may differ between southern California, central California, northern
California and San Francisco Bay.
NMFS will continue to explore the science of eelgrass habitat and improve our understanding of
eelgrass habitat function, impacts, assessment techniques, and mitigation efficacy.
Approximately every 5 years, NMFS intends to evaluate monitoring and survey data collected by
federal agencies and action proponents per the recommendations of these guidelines. NMFS
managers will determine if updates to these guidelines are appropriate based on information
evaluated during the 5-year review. Updates to these guidelines and supporting technical
information will be available on the NMFS website.
The information below serves as a common starting place for NMFS recommendations to
achieve no net loss of eelgrass habitat function.NMFS employees should not depart from the
guidelines provided herein without appropriate justification and supervisory concurrence.
However, the recommendations that NMFS ultimately makes should be provided on a case-by-
case basis to provide flexibility when site specific conditions dictate. In the EFH context, NMFS
recommendations are provided to the action agency, which has final approval of the action; in
accordance with the MSA, the action agency may take up NMFS recommendations or articulate its
reasons for not following the recommendations.In the FWCA context, NMFS makes
recommendations which must be considered, but the action agency is ultimately responsible for
the wildlife protective measures it adopts (if any).For these reasons, neither this policy nor its
implementing guidelines are to be interpreted as binding on the public.
A. Eelgrass Habitat Definition
Eelgrass distribution fluctuates and can expand, contract, disappear, and recolonize areas within
suitable environments. Vegetated eelgrass areas can expand by as much as 5 meters (m) and
contract by as much as 4 m annually (Donoghue 2011). Within eelgrass habitat, eelgrass is
expected to fluctuate in density and patch extent based on prevailing environmental factors (e.g.,
turbidity, freshwater flows, wave and current energy, bioturbation, temperature, etc.). To
account for seagrass fluctuation, Fonseca et al.(1998) recommends that seagrass habitat include
the vegetated areas as well as presently unvegetated spaces between seagrass patches.
In addition, there is an area of functional influence, where the habitat function provided by the
vegetated cover extends out into adjacent unvegetated areas. Those functions include detrital
enrichment, energy dampening and sediment trapping, primary productivity, alteration of current
or wave patterns, and fish and invertebrate use, among other functions. The influence of eelgrass
on the local environment can extend up to 10 m from individual eelgrass patches, with the
distance being a function of the extent and density of eelgrass comprising the bed as well as local
biologic, hydrographic, and bathymetric conditions (Bostrom and Bonsdorff 2000, Bostrom et al.
2001, Ferrell and Bell 1991, Peterson et al. 2004, Smith et al.2008, van Houte-Howes et al.
2004, Webster et al. 1998). Detrital enrichment will generally extend laterally as well as down
slope from the beds, while fish and invertebrates that utilize eelgrass beds may move away from the
8
eelgrass core to areas around the bed margins for foraging and in response to tides or diurnal cycles
(Smith et al. 2008).
To encompass fluctuating eelgrass distribution and functional influence around eelgrass cover,
for the purposes of this policy and guidelines, eelgrass habitat is defined as areas of vegetated
eelgrass cover (any eelgrass within 1 m2 quadrat and within 1 m of another shoot) bounded by a
5 m wide perimeter of unvegetated area (See Attachment 1 for a graphical depiction of this
definition). Unvegetated areas may have eelgrass shoots a distance greater than 1 m from
another shoot, and may be internal as well as external to areas of vegetated cover. For isolated
patches and on a case-by-case basis, it may be acceptable to include an unvegetated area
boundary less than or greater than 5 m wide. The definition excludes areas of unsuitable
environmental conditions such as hard bottom substrates, shaded locations, or areas that extend
to depths below those supporting eelgrass.Suitable depths can vary substantially depending upon
site-specific conditions. In general, eelgrass does not extend deeper than 12 feet mean lower low
water (MLLW) in most protected bays and harbors in Southern California, and is more limited in
Central and Northern California embayments. However, eelgrass can grow much deeper in entrance
channels and offshore areas
B. Surveying Eelgrass
NMFS may recommend action agencies conduct surveys of eelgrass habitat to evaluate effects of
a proposed action. Eelgrass habitat should be surveyed using visual or acoustic methods and
mapping technologies and scales appropriate to the action, scale, and area of work. Surveys
should document both vegetated eelgrass cover as well as unvegetated areas within eelgrass
habitat (See section II.A. for definition). Assessing impacts to eelgrass habitat relies on the
completion of quality surveys and mapping. As such, inferior quality of surveys and mapping
(e.g., completed at an inappropriate scale or using inappropriate methods) may make proper
evaluation of impacts impossible, and may result in a recommendation from NMFS to re-survey
and re-map project areas. Also, to account for fluctuations in eelgrass habitat due to
environmental variations, a reference site(s) should be incorporated into the survey (See section
V.B.4 below for more details).
1. Survey Parameters
Because eelgrass growth conditions in California vary, eelgrass mapping techniques will also
vary. Diver transects or boundary mapping may be suited to very small scale mapping efforts,
while aerial and/or acoustic survey with ground-truthing may be more suited to larger survey
areas. Aerial and above-water visual survey methods should be employed only where the lower
limit of eelgrass is clearly visible or in combination with methods that adequately inventory
eelgrass in deeper waters.
The survey area should be scaled as appropriate to the size of the potential action and the
potential extent and distribution of eelgrass impacts, including both direct and indirect effects.
The resolution of mapping should be adequate to address the scale of effects reasonably expected
to occur. For small projects, such as individual boat docks, higher mapping resolution is
appropriate in order to detect actual effects to eelgrass at a scale meaningful to the project size.
At larger scales, the mapping resolution may be less refined over a larger area, assuming that
9
minor errors in mapping will balance out over the larger scale. Survey reports should provide a
detailed description of the survey coverage (e.g., number, location, and type of samples) and any
interpolation methods used in the mapping.
While many parameters may be useful to describe eelgrass habitat condition (e.g., plant biomass,
leaf length, shoot:root ratios, epiphytic loading), many are labor intensive and may be
impractical for resource management applications on a day-to-day basis. For this reason, four
parameters have been identified for use in eelgrass habitat surveys and assessment of effects of
an action on eelgrass. These parameters that should be articulated in eelgrass surveys are: 1)
spatial distribution, 2) areal extent, 3) percentage of vegetated cover, and 4) the turion (shoot)
density.
a) Spatial Distribution
The spatial distribution of eelgrass habitat should be delineated by a contiguous boundary around
all areas of vegetated eelgrass cover extending outward a distance of 5 m, excluding gaps within
the vegetated cover that have individual plants greater than 10 m from neighboring plants.
Where such separations occur, either a separate area should be defined, or a gap in the area
should be defined by extending a line around the void along a boundary defined by adjacent
plants and including the 5 meter perimeter. The boundary of the eelgrass habitat should not
extend into areas where depth, substrate, or existing structures are unsuited to supporting
eelgrass habitat.
b) Aerial Extent
The eelgrass habitat aerial extent is the quantitative area (e.g., square meters) of the spatial
distribution boundary polygon of the eelgrass habitat. The total aerial extent should be broken
down into extent of vegetated cover and extent of unvegetated habitat. Areal extent should be
determined using commercially available geo-spatial analysis software. For small projects,
coordinate data for polygon vertices could be entered into a spreadsheet format, and area could
be calculated using simple geometry.
c) Percent Vegetated Cover
Eelgrass vegetated cover exists when one or more leaf shoots (turions) per square meter is
present. The percent bottom cover within eelgrass habitat should be determined by totaling the
area of vegetated eelgrass cover and dividing this by the total eelgrass habitat area. Where
substantial differences in bottom cover occur across portions of the eelgrass habitat, the habitat
could be subdivided into cover classes (e.g., 20% cover, 50% cover, 75% cover).
d) Turion (Shoot) Density
Turion density is the mean number of eelgrass leaf shoots per square meter within mapped
eelgrass vegetated cover. Turion density should be reported as a mean ± the standard deviation
of replicate measurements. The number of replicate measurements (n) should be reported along
with the mean and deviation. Turion densities are determined only within vegetated areas of
10
eelgrass habitat and therefore, it is not possible to measure a turion density equal to zero. If
different cover classes are used, a turion density should be determined for each cover class.
2. Eelgrass Mapping
For all actions that may directly or indirectly affect eelgrass habitat, an eelgrass habitat
distribution map should be prepared on an accurate bathymetric chart with contour intervals of
not greater than 1 foot (local vertical datum of MLLW). Exceptions to the detailed bathymetry
could be made for small projects or for projects where detailed bathymetry may be infeasible.
Unless region-specific mapping format and protocols are developed by NMFS (in which case
such region-specific mapping guidance should be used), the mapping should utilize the following
format and protocols:
a) Bounding Coordinates
Horizontal datum - Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), NAD 83 meters, Zone 11 (for
southern California) or Zone 10 (for central, San Francisco Bay, and northern California) is the
preferred projection and datum. Another projection or datum may be used; however, the map
and spatial data should include metadata that accurately defines the projection and datum.
Vertical datum - Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), depth in feet.
b) Units
Transects, grids, or scale bars should be expressed in meters. Area measurements should be in
square meters.
c) File Format
A spatial data layer compatible with readily available commercial geographic information
system software producing file formats compatible with ESRI®ArcGIS software should be sent
to NMFS when the area mapped supports at least 10 square meters of eelgrass. For those areas
supporting less than 10 square meters of eelgrass, a table may alternatively be provided giving
the vertices bounding x, y coordinates of the eelgrass areas in a spreadsheet or an ASCII file
format. In addition to a spatial layer and/or table, a hard-copy map should be included with the
survey report. The projection and datum should be clearly defined in the metadata and/or an
associated text file.
Eelgrass maps should, at a minimum, include the following:
- A graphic scale bar, north arrow, legend, horizontal datum and vertical datum;
- A boundary illustrating the limits of the area surveyed;
- Bathymetric contours for the survey area, including both the action area(s) and reference
site(s) in increments of not more than 1 foot;
- An overlay of proposed action improvements and construction limits;
- The boundary of the defined eelgrass habitat including an identification of area
exclusions based on physical unsuitability to support eelgrass habitat; and
11
- The existing eelgrass cover within the defined eelgrass habitat at the time of the survey.
3. Survey Period
All mapping efforts should be completed during the active growth period for eelgrass (typically
March through October for southern California, April through October for central California,
April through October for San Francisco Bay, and May through September for northern
California) and should be considered valid for a period of 60 days to ensure significant changes
in eelgrass distribution and density do not occur between survey date and the project start date.
The 60 day period is particularly important for eelgrass habitat survey conducted at the very
beginning of the growing season, if eelgrass habitat expansion occurs as the growing season
progresses. A period other than 60 days could be warranted and should be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis, particularly for surveys completed in the middle of the growing season. However,
when the end of the 60-day validity period falls outside of the region-specific active growth
period, the survey could be considered valid until the beginning of the next active growth period.
For example, a survey completed in southern California in the August-October time frame would
be valid until the resumption of the active growth phase (i.e., in most instances, March 1). In
some cases, NMFS and the action agency may agree to surveys being completed outside of the
active growth period. For surveys completed during or after unusual climatic events (e.g., high
fluvial discharge periods, El Niño conditions), NMFS staff should be contacted to determine if
any modifications to the common survey period are warranted.
4. Reference Site Selection
Eelgrass habitat spatial extent, aerial extent, percent cover and turion density are expected to
naturally fluctuate through time in response to natural environmental variables. As a result, it is
necessary to correct for natural variability when conducting surveys for the purpose of evaluating
action effects on eelgrass or performance of mitigation areas. This is generally accomplished
through the use of a reference site(s), which is expected to respond similarly to the action area in
response to natural environmental variability. It is beneficial to select and monitor multiple
reference sites rather than a single site and to utilize the average reference site condition as a
metric for environmental fluctuations. This is especially true when a mitigation site is located
within an area of known environmental gradients, and reference sites may be selected on both
sides of the mitigation site along the gradient. Environmental conditions (e.g., sediment,
currents, proximity to action area, shoot density, light availability, depth, onshore and watershed
influences) at the reference site(s) should be representative of the environmental conditions at the
impact area (Fonseca et al. 1998). Where practical, the reference site(s) should be at least the
size of the anticipated impact and/or mitigation area to limit the potential for minor changes in a
reference site (e.g., propeller scarring or ray foraging damage) overly affecting mitigation needs.
The logic for site(s) selection should be documented in the eelgrass mitigation planning
documents.
C. Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts to Eelgrass
This section describes measures to avoid and minimize impacts to eelgrass caused by turbidity,
shading, nutrient loading, sedimentation and alteration of circulation patterns. Not all measures
12
are equally suited to a particular project or condition. Measures to avoid or minimize impacts
should be focused on stressors where the source and control are within the purview of the
permittee and action agency. Action agencies in coordination with NMFS should evaluate and
establish impact avoidance and minimization measures on a case-by-case basis depending on the
action and site-specific information, including prevailing current patterns, sediment source,
characteristics, and quantity, as well as the nature and duration of work.
1. Turbidity
To avoid and minimize potential turbidity-related impacts to eelgrass:
- Where practical, actions should be located as far as possible from existing eelgrass; and
- In-water work should occur as quickly as possible such that the duration of impacts is
minimized.
Where proposed turbidity generating activities must occur in proximity to eelgrass and increased
turbidity will occur at a magnitude and duration that may affect eelgrass habitat, measures to
control turbidity levels should be employed when practical considering physical and biological
constraints and impacts. Measures may include:
- Use of turbidity curtains where appropriate and feasible;
- Use of low impact equipment and methods (e.g., environmental buckets, or a hydraulic
suction dredge instead of clamshell or hopper dredge, provided the discharge may be
located away from the eelgrass habitat and appropriate turbidity controls can be provided
at the discharge point);
- Limiting activities by tide or day-night windows to limit light degradation within eelgrass
habitat;
- Utilizing 24-hour dredging to reduce the overall duration of work and to take advantage
of dredging during dark periods when photosynthesis is not occurring; or
- Other measures that an action party may propose and be able to employ to minimize
potential for adverse turbidity effects to eelgrass.
NMFS developed a flowchart for a stepwise decision making process as guidance for action
agencies to determine when to implement best management practices (BMPs) for minimizing
turbidity from dredging actions as part of a programmatic EFH consultation in San Francisco
Bay. The parameters considered in the flow chart are relevant to all marine areas of California.
This document is posted on the NMFS West Coast Region web page
(http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/habitat_types/seagrass_info/california_eelgrass.
html) and may be used to evaluate avoidance and minimization measures for any project that
generates increased turbidity.
2. Shading
A number of potential design modifications may be used to minimize effects of shading on
eelgrass. Boat docks, ramps, gangways, and similar structures should avoid eelgrass habitat to
the maximum extent feasible. If avoidance of eelgrass or habitat is infeasible, impacts should be
minimized by utilizing, to the maximum extent feasible, design modifications and construction
materials that allow for greater light penetration. Action modifications should include, but are
not limited to:
13
- Avoid siting over-water or landside structures in areas where shading of eelgrass habitat
would occur;
- Maximizing the north-south orientation of the structure;
- Maximizing the height of the structure above the water;
- Minimizing the width and supporting structure mass to decrease shade effects;
- Relocating the structure in deeper water and limiting the placement of structures in
shallow areas where eelgrass occurs to the extent feasible; and
- Utilizing light transmitting materials in structure design.
Construction materials used to increase light passage beneath the structures may include, but are
not limited to, open grating or adequate spacing between deck boards to allow for effective
illumination to support eelgrass habitat. The use of these shade reducing options may be
appropriate where they do not conflict with safety, ADA compliance, or structure utility
objectives.
NMFS developed a stepwise key as guidance for action agencies to determine which
combination of modifications are best suited for minimizing shading effects from overwater
structures on eelgrass as part of a programmatic EFH consultation in San Francisco Bay. The
parameters considered in the flow chart are relevant to all marine areas of California. This
document is posted on the West Coast Region web page
(http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/habitat_types/seagrass_info/california_eelgrass.htm
l) and may be used to evaluate avoidance and minimization measures for any project that results
in shading.
3. Circulation patterns
Where appropriate to the scale and nature of potential eelgrass impacts, action parties should
evaluate if and how the action may alter the hydrodynamics of the action area such that eelgrass
habitat within or in proximity to the action area may be adversely affected. To maintain good
water flow and low residence time of water within eelgrass habitat, action agencies should
ensure actions:
- Minimize scouring velocities near or within eelgrass beds;
- Maintain wind and tidal circulation to the extent practical by considering orientation of
piers and docks to maintain predominant wind effects;
- Incorporate setbacks on the order of 15 to 50 meters from eelgrass habitat where practical
to allow for greater circulation and reduced impact from boat maneuvering, grounding,
and propeller damage, and to address shading impacts; and
- Minimize the number of piles and maximize pile spacing to the extent practical, where
piles are needed to support structures.
For large-scale actions in the proximity of eelgrass habitats, NMFS may request specific
modeling and/or field hydrodynamic assessments of the potential effects of work on
characteristics of circulation within eelgrass habitat.
14
4. Nutrient loading
Where appropriate to the scale and nature of potential eelgrass impacts, the following measures
should be considered for implementation to reduce the potential for excessive nutrient loading to
eelgrass habitat:
- diverting site runoff from landscaped areas away from discharges around eelgrass habitat;
- implementation of fertilizer reduction program;
- reduction of watershed nutrient loading;
- controlling local sources of nutrients such as animal wastes and leach fields; and
- maintaining good circulation and flushing conditions within the water body.
Reducing nutrient loading may also provide opportunities for establishing eelgrass as mitigation
for project impacts.
5. Sediment loading
Watershed development and changes in land use may increase soil erosion and increase
sedimentation to downstream embayments and lagoons.
- To the extent practicable, maintain riparian vegetation buffers along all streams in the
watershed.
- Incorporate watershed analysis into agricultural, ranching, and residential/commercial
development projects.
- Increase resistance to soil erosion and runoff. Sediment basins, contour farming, and grazing
management are examples of key practices.
- Implement best management practices for sediment control during construction and
maintenance operations (e.g.,Caltrans 2003).
Reducing sediment loading may also provide opportunities for establishing eelgrass as mitigation
for project impacts in systems for which sedimentation is a demonstrable limiting factor to
eelgrass.
D. Assessing Impacts to Eelgrass Habitat
If appropriate to the statute under which the consultation occurs, NMFS should consider both
direct and indirect effects of the project in order to assess whether a project may impact eelgrass.
NMFS is aware that many of the statutes and regulations it administers may have more specific
meanings for certain terms, including “direct effect” and “indirect effect”, and will use the
statutory or regulatory meaning of those terms when conducting consultations under those
statutes.2 Nevertheless, it is useful for NMFS to consider effects experienced
2 In the EFH context, adverse effects include any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH, including
direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate (50 CFR 600.910). The
Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations regarding NEPA implementation (40 CFR 1508.8(a)) define
direct and indirect impacts of an action for the purposes of NEPA. Other NMFS statutes provide their own
definitions regarding effects.
15
contemporaneously with project actions (both at the project site and away from the project site)
and which might occur later in time.
Generally, effects to eelgrass habitat should be assessed using pre- and post-project surveys of
the impact area and appropriate reference site(s) conducted during the time period of maximum
eelgrass growth (typically March through October for southern California, April through October
for central California, April through October for San Francisco Bay, and May through September
for northern California). NMFS should consider the likelihood that the effects would occur
before recommending pre- and post-project eelgrass surveys. The pre-construction survey of the
eelgrass habitat in the action area and an appropriate reference site(s) should be completed within
60 days before start of construction. After construction, a post-action survey of the eelgrass
habitat in the action area and at an appropriate reference site(s) should be completed within 30
days of completion of construction, or within the first 30 days of the next active growth period
following completion of construction that occurs outside of the active growth period. Copies of
all surveys should be provided to the lead federal agency, NMFS, and other interested regulatory
and/or resource agencies within 30 days of completing the survey. The recommended timing of
surveys is intended to minimize changes in eelgrass habitat distribution and abundance during
the period between survey completion and construction initiation and completion. For example,
a post-action survey completed beyond 30 days following construction or outside of the active
growing season may show declines in eelgrass habitat as a result of natural senescence rather
than the action.
The lead federal agency and NMFS should consider reference area eelgrass performance,
physical evidence of impact, turbidity and construction activities monitoring data, as well as
other documentation in the determination of the impacts of the action undertaken. Impact
analyses should document whether the impacts are anticipated to be complete at the time of the
assessment, or whether there is an anticipation of continuing eelgrass impacts due to chronic or
intermittent effects. Where eelgrass at the impact site declines coincident with and similarly to
decline at the reference site(s), the percentage of decline at the reference site should be deducted
from the decline at the impact site. However, if eelgrass expands within the reference site(s), the
impact site should only be evaluated against the pre-construction condition of the reference site
and not the expanded condition. If an action results in increased eelgrass habitat relative to the
reference sites, this increase could potentially be considered (subject to the caveats identified
herein) by NMFS and the action agency as potential compensation for impacts to eelgrass habitat
that occur in the future (see Section II. E. 3). An assessment should also be made as to whether
impacts or portions of the impact are anticipated to be temporary. Information supporting this
determination may be derived from the permittee, NMFS, and other resource and regulatory
agencies, as well as other eelgrass experts.
For some projects, environmental planning and permitting may take longer than 60 days. To
accommodate longer planning schedules, it may also be necessary to do a preliminary eelgrass
survey prior to the pre-construction survey. This preliminary survey can be used to anticipate
potential impacts to eelgrass for the purposes of mitigation planning during the permitting
process. In some cases, preliminary surveys may focus on spatial distribution of eelgrass habitat
only or may be a qualitative reconnaissance to allow permittees to incorporate avoidance and
minimization measures into their proposed action or to plan for future mitigation needs. The pre-
16
and post- project surveys should then verify whether impacts occur as anticipated, and if planned
mitigation is adequate. In some cases, a preliminary survey could be completed a year or more
in advance of the project action.
1. Direct Effects
Biologists should consider the potential for localized losses of eelgrass from dredging or filling,
construction-associated damage, and similar spatially and temporally proximate impacts (these
effects could be termed “direct”). The actual area of the impact should be determined from an
analysis that compares the pre-action condition of eelgrass habitat with the post-action conditions
from this survey, relative to eelgrass habitat change at the reference site(s).
2. Indirect Effects
Biologists should also consider effects caused by the action which occur away from the project
site; furthermore, effects occurring later in time (whether at or away from the project site)
should also be considered. Biologists should consider the potential for project actions to alter
conditions of the physical environment in a manner that, in turn, reduce eelgrass habitat
distribution or density (e.g., elevated turbidity from the initial implementation or later operations
of an action, increased shading, changes to circulation patterns, changes to vessel traffic that lead
to greater groundings or wake damage, increased rates of erosion or deposition).
For actions where the impact cannot be fully determined until a substantial period after an action
is taken, an estimate of likely impacts should be made prior to implementation of the proposed
action based on the best available information (e.g., shading analyses, wave and current
modeling). A monitoring program consisting of a pre-construction eelgrass survey and three
post-construction eelgrass surveys at the impact site and appropriate reference site(s) should be
performed. The action party should complete the first post-construction eelgrass survey within
30 days following completion of construction to evaluate any immediate effects to eelgrass
habitat. The second post-construction survey should be performed approximately one year after
the first post-construction survey during the appropriate growing season. The third post-
construction survey should be performed approximately two years after the first post-
construction survey during the appropriate growing season. The second and third post-
construction surveys will be used to evaluate if indirect effects resulted later in time due to
altered physical conditions; the time frames identified above are aligned with growing season
(attempting a survey outside of the growing season would show inaccurate results).
A final determination regarding the actual impact and amount of mitigation needed, if any, to
offset impacts should be made based upon the results of two annual post-construction surveys,
which document the changes in the eelgrass habitat (areal extent, bottom coverage, and shoot
density within eelgrass) in the vicinity of the action, compared to eelgrass habitat change at the
reference site(s). Any impacts determined by these monitoring surveys should be mitigated. In
the event that monitoring demonstrates the action to have resulted in greater eelgrass habitat
impacts than initially estimated, additional mitigation should be implemented in a manner
consistent with these guidelines. In some cases, adaptive management may allow for increased
success in eelgrass mitigation without the need for additional mitigation.
17
E. Mitigation Options
The term mitigation is defined differently by various federal and State laws, regulations and
policies. In a broad sense, mitigation may include a range of measures from complete avoidance
of adverse effects to compensation for adverse effects by preserving, restoring or creating similar
resources at onsite or offsite locations. The Corps and EPA issued regulations governing
compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable adverse effects to waters of the United States
authorized by Clean Water Act section 404 permits and other permits issued by the Corps (73 FR
19594; April 10, 2008). For those regulations (33 CFR 332.2 and 40 CFR 230.92, respectively),
the Corps and EPA, define "compensatory mitigation" as "the restoration (re-establishment or
rehabilitation), establishment (creation), enhancement, and/or in certain circumstances
preservation of aquatic resources for the purposes of offsetting unavoidable adverse effects
which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been
achieved."
When impacts to eelgrass would occur, the action agency should develop a mitigation plan to
achieve no net loss in eelgrass function following the recommended steps in this policy. If
NMFS determines a mitigation plan is needed, and it was not included with the EFH Assessment
for the proposed action, NMFS may recommend, either as comments on the EFH Assessment or
as an EFH Conservation Recommendation, that one be provided. Potential mitigation options
are described below. The action agency should consider site specific conditions when
determining the most appropriate mitigation option for an action.
1. Comprehensive management plans
NMFS supports the development of comprehensive management plans (CMPs) that protect
eelgrass resources within the context of broader ecosystem needs and management objectives.
Recommendations different from specific elements described below for in-kind mitigation may
be appropriate where a CMP (e.g.,an enforceable programmatic permit, Special Area
Management Plan, harbor plan, or ecosystem-based management plan) exists that is considered
to provide adequate population-level and local resource distribution protections to eelgrass. One
such CMP under development at the time these guidelines were developed is City of Newport
Beach Eelgrass Protection Mitigation Plan for Shallow Water in Lower Newport Bay: An
Ecosystem Based Management Plan.If satisfactorily completed and adopted, it is anticipated the
protection measures for eelgrass within this area would be adequate to meet the objectives of this
policy.
In general, it is anticipated that CMPs may be most appropriate in situations where a project or
collection of similar projects will result in incremental but recurrent impacts to a small portion of
local eelgrass populations through time (e.g., lagoon mouth maintenance dredging, maintenance
dredging of channels and slips within established marinas, navigational hazard removal of
recurrent shoals, shellfish farming, and restoration or enhancement actions). In order to ensure
that these alternatives provide adequate population-level and local resource distribution
protections to eelgrass and that the plan is consistent with the overall conservation objectives of
this policy, NMFS should be involved early in the plan’s development.
18
2. In-kind mitigation
In-kind compensatory mitigation is the creation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat to mitigate for
adverse impacts to the same type of habitat.In most cases in-kind mitigation is the preferred
option to compensate for impacts to eelgrass. Generally, in-kind mitigation should achieve a
final mitigation ratio of 1.2:1 across all areas of the state, independent of starting mitigation
ratios. A starting mitigation ratio is the ratio of mitigation area to impact area when mitigation is
initiated. The final mitigation ratio is the ratio of mitigation area to impact area once mitigation
is complete. The 1.2:1 ratio assumes: (1) there is no eelgrass function at the mitigation site prior
to mitigation efforts, (2) eelgrass function at the mitigation site is achieved within three years, (3)
mitigation efforts are successful, and (4) there are no landscape differences (e.g., degree of urban
influence, proximity to freshwater source), between the impact site and the mitigation site.
Variations from these assumptions may warrant higher or lower mitigation ratios. For example,
a higher ratio would be appropriate for an enhancement project where the mitigation site has
some level of eelgrass function prior to the mitigation action.
Typically, in-kind eelgrass mitigation involves transplanting or seeding of eelgrass into
unvegetated habitat. Successful in-kind mitigation may also warrant modification of physical
conditions at the mitigation site to prepare for transplants (e.g., alter sediment composition,
depth, etc.). In some areas, other in-kind mitigation options such as removing artificial structures
that preclude eelgrass growth may be feasible. If in-kind mitigation that does not include
transplants or seeding is proposed, post-mitigation monitoring as described below should be
implemented to verify that mitigation is successful.
Information provided below in Section II.F includes specific recommendations for in-kind
mitigation, including site selection, reference sites, starting mitigation ratios, mitigation methods,
mitigation monitoring and performance criteria. Many of the recommendations provided in
these guidelines for eelgrass assessments, surveys, and mitigation may apply throughout the state
even if a non-transplant mitigation option is proposed.
3. Mitigation banks and in-lieu-fee programs
In 2006 and 2011, the NMFS Southwest Region (merged with the Northwest Region in 2013 to
form the West Coast Region) signed interagency Memorandum of Understandings that
established and refined a framework for developing and using combined or coordinated
approaches to mitigation and conservation banking and in-lieu-fee programs in California. Other
signatory agencies include: the California Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, the Corps, the US Fish &Wildlife Service, the EPA, the Natural Resource Conservation
Service, and the State Water Resources Control Board.
Under this eelgrass policy, NMFS supports the use of mitigation bank and in-lieu fee programs
to compensate for impacts to eelgrass habitat, where such instruments are available and where
such programs are appropriate to the statutory structure under which mitigation is recommended.
Mitigation banks and in-lieu fee conservation programs are highly encouraged by NMFS in
heavily urbanized waters. Credits should be used at a ratio of 1:1 if those credits have been
established for a full three-year period prior to use. If the bank credits have been in place for a
19
period less than three years, credits should be used at a ratio determined through application of
the wetland mitigation calculator (King and Price 2004).
At the request of the action party, and only with approval of NMFS and other appropriate
resource agencies and subject to the caveats below, surplus eelgrass area that, after 60-months,
exceeds the mitigation needs, as defined in section II.F.6 Mitigation Monitoring and
Performance Milestones, has the potential to be considered for future mitigation needs.
Additionally, only with the approval of NMFS and other appropriate resource agencies and
subject to the caveats below, eelgrass habitat expansion resulting from project activities, and that
otherwise would not have occurred, has the potential to be considered for future mitigation
needs. Exceeding mitigation needs does not guarantee or entitle the action party or action
agency to credit such mitigation to future projects, since every future project must be considered
on a case-by-case basis (including the location and type of impact) and viewed in light of the
relevant statutory authorities.
4. Out-of-kind mitigation
Out-of-kind compensatory mitigation means the adverse impacts to one habitat type are mitigated
through the creation, restoration, or enhancement of another habitat type. In most cases, out-of-kind
mitigation is discouraged, because eelgrass is a rare, special-status habitat in California.There may
be some scenarios, however, where out-of-kind mitigation for eelgrass impacts is ecologically
desirable or when in-kind mitigation is not feasible. This determination should be made based
on an established ecosystem plan that considers ecosystem function and services relevant to the
geographic area and specific habitat being impacted. Any proposal for out-of-kind mitigation
should demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will compensate for the loss of eelgrass habitat
function within the ecosystem. Out-of-kind mitigation that generates services similar to eelgrass
habitat or improves conditions for establishment of eelgrass should be considered first. NMFS
and the federal action agency should be consulted early when out-of-kind mitigation is being
proposed in order to determine if out-of-kind mitigation is appropriate, in coordination with other
relevant resource agencies (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Coastal
Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
F. In-kind Mitigation for Impacts to Eelgrass
As all mitigation project specifics will be determined on a case-by-case basis, circumstances may
exist where NMFS staff will need to modify or deviate from the recommended measures
described below before providing their recommendation to action agencies.
1. Mitigation Site Selection
Eelgrass habitat mitigation sites should be similar to the impact site. Site selection should
consider distance from action, depth, sediment type, distance from ocean connection, water
quality, and currents. Where eelgrass that is impacted occurs in marginally suitable
environments, it may be necessary to conduct mitigation in a preferable location and/or modify
the site to be better suited to support eelgrass habitat creation. Mitigation site modification
should be fully coordinated with NMFS staff and other appropriate resource and regulatory
agencies. To the extent feasible, mitigation should occur within the same hydrologic system
20
(e.g., bay, estuary, lagoon) as the impacts and should be appropriately distributed within the
same ecological subdivision of larger systems (e.g., San Pablo Bay or Richardson Bay in San
Francisco Bay), unless NMFS and the action agency concur that good justification exists for
altering the distribution based on valued ecosystem functions and services.
In identifying potentially suitable mitigation sites, it is advisable to consider the current habitat
functions of the mitigation site prior to mitigation use. In general, conversion of unvegetated
subtidal areas or disturbed uplands to eelgrass habitats may be considered appropriate means to
mitigate eelgrass losses, while conversion of other special aquatic sites (e.g., salt marsh,
intertidal mudflats, and reefs) is unlikely to be considered suitable. It may be necessary to
develop suitable environmental conditions at a site prior to being able to effectively transplant
eelgrass into a mitigation area. Mitigation sites may need physical modification, including
increasing or lowering elevation, changing substrate, removing shading or debris, adding wave
protection or removing impediments to circulation.
2. Mitigation Area Needs
In-kind mitigation plans should address the components described below to ensure mitigation
actions achieve no net loss of eelgrass habitat function. Alternative contingent mitigation should
be specified and included in the mitigation plan to address situations where performance
milestones are not met.
a) Impacts to Areal Extent of Eelgrass Habitat
Generally, mitigation of eelgrass habitat should be based on replacing eelgrass habitat extent at a
1.2 (mitigation) to 1 (impact) mitigation ratio for eelgrass throughout all regions of California.
However, given variable degrees of success across regions and potential for delays and
mitigation failure, NMFS calculated starting mitigation ratios using “The Five-Step Wetland
Mitigation Ratio Calculator” (King and Price 2004) developed for NMFS Office of Habitat
Conservation. The calculator utilizes methodology similar to Habitat Equivalency Analysis
(HEA), which is an accepted method to determine the amount of compensatory restoration needed
to provide natural resource services that are equivalent to loss of natural resource services following
an injury (http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/economics/pdf/heaoverv.pdf). HEA is commonly used by
NOAA during damage assessment cases, including those involving seagrass.Similar to HEA, the
mitigation calculator is based on the “net present value” approach to asset valuation, an
economics concept used to compare values of all types of investments, and then modified to
incorporate natural resource services. Using the calculator allows for consistency in
methodology for all areas within California, avoids arbitrary identification of size of the
mitigation area, and avoids cumulative loss to eelgrass habitat that would likely occur with a
standard 1:1 ratio (because of the complexity of eelgrass mitigation and the time for created
eelgrass to achieve full habitat function).
The calculator includes a number of metrics to determine appropriate ratios that focus on
comparisons of quality and quantity of function of the mitigation relative to the site of impact to
ensure full compensation of lost function. (see Attachment 4). Among other metrics, the
calculator employs a metric of likelihood of failure within the mitigation site based on regional
mitigation failure history. As such, the mitigation calculator identifies a recommended starting
21
mitigation ratio (the mitigation area to eelgrass impact area) based on regional history of success
in eelgrass mitigation. Increased initial mitigation site size should be considered to provide
greater assurance that the performance milestones, as specified in Section II.F.6, will be met.
This is a common practice in the eelgrass mitigation field to reduce risk of falling short of
mitigation needs (Thom 1990). Independent of starting mitigation ratio utilized for a given
mitigation action, mitigation success should generally be evaluated against a ratio of 1.2:1.
The elevated starting mitigation ratio should be applied to the area of impact to vegetated
eelgrass cover only. For unvegetated eelgrass habitat, a starting mitigation ratio of 1.2:1 is
appropriate.
To determine the recommended starting mitigation ratio for each region, the percentage of
transplant successes and failures was examined over the history of transplanting in the region.
NMFS staff examined transplants projects over the past 25 years in all mitigation regions (see
Attachment 6). Eelgrass mitigation in Southern California has a 35-year history with 66
transplants performed over that period. In the past 25 years, a total of 47 eelgrass transplants for
mitigation purposes have been conducted in Southern California. Forty-three of these were
established long enough to evaluate success for these transplants. The overall failure rate, with
failure defined as not meeting success criteria established for the project, was 13 percent.
Eelgrass mitigation within central California has a better history of successful completion than
within southern California, San Francisco Bay, and northern California. However, the number of
eelgrass mitigation actions conducted in this region is low and limited to areas within Morro
Bay. While the success of eelgrass mitigation in central California has been high, the low
number of attempts makes mitigation in this region uncertain. Eelgrass habitat
creation/restoration in San Francisco Bay and in northern California has had varied success.
In all cases, best information available at the time of this policy’s development was used to
determine the parameter values entered into the calculator formula. As regional eelgrass
mitigation success changes and the results of ongoing projects become available, the starting
mitigation ratio may be updated. Updates in mitigation calculator inputs should not be made on
an individual action basis, because the success or lack of success of an individual mitigation
project may not reflect overall mitigation success for the region. Rather NMFS should re-
evaluate the regional transplant history approximately every 5 years, increasing the record of
transplant success in 5 year increments for new projects implemented after NMFS’ adoption of
these guidelines. If the 5-year review shows that new efforts are more successful than those
from the beginning of the 25-year period, NMFS staff should consider removing early projects
(e.g., those completed 20 years prior) from the analysis.
On a case-by-case basis and in consultation with action agencies, NMFS may consider proposals
with different starting mitigation ratios where sufficient justification is provided that indicates
the mitigation site would achieve the no net loss goal. In addition, CMPs could consider
different starting mitigation ratios, or other mitigation elements and techniques, as appropriate to
the geographic area addressed by the CMP.
Regardless of starting mitigation ratio, eelgrass mitigation should be considered successful, if it
meets eelgrass habitat coverage over an area that is 1.2 times the impact area with comparable
22
eelgrass density as impacted habitat. Please note, delayed implementation, supplemental
transplant needs, or NMFS and action agency agreement may result in an altered mitigation area.
In the EFH consultation context, NMFS may recommend an altered mitigation area during
implementation of the federal agency’s mitigation plan following EFH consultation or NEPA
review, or as an EFH Conservation Recommendation if the federal agency re-initiates EFH
consultation.
(1) Southern California (Mexico border to Pt. Conception)
For mitigation activities that occur concurrent to the action resulting in damage to existing
eelgrass habitat, a starting ratio of 1.38 to 1 (transplant area to vegetated cover impact area)
should be recommended to counter the regional failure risk. That is, for each square meter of
vegetated eelgrass cover adversely impacted, 1.38 square meters of new habitat with suitable
conditions to support eelgrass should be planted with a comparable bottom coverage and eelgrass
density as impacted habitat.
(2) Central California (Point Conception to mouth of San
Francisco Bay).
For mitigation activities that occur concurrent to the action resulting in damage to existing
eelgrass habitat, a starting ratio of 1.20 to 1 (transplant area to vegetated cover impact area)
should be recommended based on a 0 percent failure rate over the past 25 years (4 transplant
actions). It should however be noted that all of these successful transplants included a greater
area of planting than was necessary to achieve success such that the full mitigation area would be
achieved, even with areas of minor transplant failure.
(3) San Francisco Bay (including south, central, San Pablo and
Suisun Bays).
For mitigation activities that occur concurrent to the action resulting in damage to the existing
eelgrass bed resource, a ratio of 3.01 to 1 (transplant area to vegetated cover impact area) should
be recommended based on a 60 percent failure rate over the past 25 years (10 transplant actions).
That is, for each square meter adversely impacted, 3.01 square meters of new habitat with
suitable conditions to support eelgrass should be planted with a comparable bottom coverage and
eelgrass density as impacted habitat.
(4) Northern California (mouth of San Francisco Bay to
Oregon border).
For mitigation activities that occur concurrent to the action resulting in damage to the existing
eelgrass habitat, a starting ratio of 4.82 to 1 (transplant area to vegetated cover impact area)
should be recommended based on a 75 percent failure rate over the past 25 years (4 transplant
actions). That is, for each square meter of eelgrass habitat adversely impacted, 4.82 square
meters of new habitat with suitable conditions to support eelgrass should be planted with a
comparable bottom coverage and eelgrass density as impacted habitat.
23
b) Impacts to Density of Eelgrass Beds
Degradation of existing eelgrass habitat that results in a permanent reduction of eelgrass turion
density greater than 25 percent, and that is a statistically significant difference from pre-impact
density, should be mitigated based on an equivalent area basis. The 25 percent and statistically
significant threshold is believed reasonable based on supporting information (Fonseca et al.
1998, WDFW 2008), and professional practice under SCEMP. In these cases, eelgrass remains
present at the action site, but density may be potentially affected by long-term chronic or
intermittent effects of the action. Reduction of density should be determined to have occurred
when the mean turion density of the impact site is found to
two annual sampling events following implementation of an action. The number of samples
taken to describe density at each site (e.g., impact and reference) should be sufficient to provide
for appropriate statistical power. For small impact areas that do not allow for a sample size that
provides statistical power, alternative methods for pre- and post- density comparisons could be
considered. Mitigation for reduction of turion density without change in eelgrass habitat area
should be on a one-for-one basis either by augmenting eelgrass density at the impact site or by
establishing new eelgrass habitat comparable to the change in density at the impact site. For
example, a 25 percent reduction in density of 100-square meters (100 turions/square meter) of
eelgrass habitat to 75 turions/square meter should be mitigated by the establishing 25 square
meters of new eelgrass habitat with a density at or above the 100 turions/square meter pre-impact
density.
3. Mitigation Technique
In-kind mitigation technique should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Techniques for
eelgrass mitigation should be consistent with the best available technology at the time of
mitigation implementation and should be tailored to the specific needs of the mitigation site.
Eelgrass transplants have been highly successful in southern and central California, but have had
mixed results in San Francisco Bay and northern California. Bare-root bundles and seed buoys
have been utilized with some mixed success in northern portions of the state. Transplants using
frames have also been used with some limited success. For transplants in southern California,
plantings consisting of bare-root bundles consisting of 8-12 individual turions each have proven
to be most successful (Merkel 1988).
Donor material should be taken from the area of direct impact whenever practical, unless the
action resulted in reduced density of eelgrass at the area of impact. Site selections should
consider the similarity of physical environments between the donor site and the transplant
receiver site and should also consider the size, stability, and history of the donor site (e.g., how
long has it persisted and is it a transplant site). Plants harvested should be taken in a manner to
thin an existing bed without leaving any noticeable bare areas. For all geographic areas, no more
than 10 percent of an existing donor bed should be harvested for transplanting purposes. Ten
percent is reasonable based on recommendations in Thom et al.(2008) and professional practice
under SCEMP. Harvesting of flowering shoots for seed buoy techniques should occur only from
widely separated plants.
24
It is important for action agencies to note that state laws and regulations affect the harvesting and
transplantation of donor plants and permission from the state, where required, should be
obtained; for example, California Department of Fish and Wildlife may need to provide written
authorization for harvesting and transplanting donor plants and/or flowering shoots.
4. Mitigation Plan
NMFS should recommend that a mitigation plan be developed for in-kind mitigation efforts.
During consultation, NMFS biologists should request that mitigation plans be provided at least
60 days prior to initiation of project activities to allow for NMFS review. When feasible,
mitigation plans should be developed based on preliminary or pre-project eelgrass surveys.
When there is uncertainty regarding whether impacts to eelgrass will occur, and the need for
mitigation is based on comparison of pre- and post-project eelgrass surveys, NMFS biologists
should request that the mitigation plan be provided no more than 60 days following the post-
project survey to allow for NMFS review and minimize any delay in mitigation implementation.
At a minimum, the mitigation plan should include:
- Description of the project area
- Results of preliminary eelgrass survey and pre/post-project eelgrass surveys if available
(see Section II.B.1 and II.B.2)
- Description of projected and/or documented eelgrass impacts
- Description of proposed mitigation site and reference site(s) (see Section II.B.4)
- Description of proposed mitigation methods (see Section II.F.3)
- Construction schedule, including specific starting and ending dates for all work including
mitigation activities. (see Section II.F.5)
- Schedule and description of proposed post-project monitoring and when results will be
provided to NMFS
- Schedule and description of process for continued coordination with NMFS through
mitigation implementation
- Description of alternative contingent mitigation or adaptive management should proposed
mitigation fail to achieve performance measures (see Section II.F.6)
5. Mitigation Timing
Mitigation should commence within 135 days following the initiation of the in-water
construction resulting in impact to the eelgrass habitat, such that mitigation commences within
the same eelgrass growing season as impacts occur. If possible, mitigation should be initiated
prior to or concurrent with impacts. For impacts initiated within 90 days prior to, or during, the
low-growth period for the region, mitigation may be delayed to within 30 days after the start of
the following growing season, or 90 days following impacts, whichever is longer, without the
need for additional mitigation as described below. This timing avoids survey completion during
the low growth season, when results may misrepresent progress towards performance milestones.
Delays in eelgrass mitigation result in delays in ultimate reestablishment of eelgrass habitat
functions, increasing the duration and magnitude of project impacts to eelgrass. To offset loss of
eelgrass habitat function that accumulates through delay, an increase in successful eelgrass
25
mitigation is needed to achieve the same compensatory habitat function. Because habitat
function is accumulated over time once the mitigation habitat is in place, the longer the delay in
initiation of mitigation, the greater the additional habitat area needed (i.e., mitigation ratio
increasingly greater than 1.2:1) to offset losses. Unless a specific delay is authorized or dictated
by the initial schedule of work, federal action agencies should determine whether delays in
mitigation initiation in excess of 135 days warrant an increased final mitigation ratio. If
increased mitigation ratios are warranted, NMFS should recommend higher mitigation ratios (see
Attachment 7). Where delayed implementation is authorized by the action agency, the increased
mitigation ratio may be determined by utilizing the Wetlands Mitigation Calculator (King and
Price 2004) with an appropriate value for parameter D (See Attachment 4). Examples of delay
multipliers generated using the Wetlands Mitigation Calculator are provided in Attachment 5.
Conversely, implementing mitigation ahead of impacts can be used to reduce the mitigation
needs by achieving replacement of eelgrass function and services ahead of eelgrass losses. If
eelgrass is successfully transplanted three years ahead of impacts, the mitigation ratio would
drop from 1.2:1 to 1:1. If mitigation is completed less than three years ahead of impacts, the
mitigation calculator can be used to determine the appropriate intermediate mitigation ratio.
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Performance Milestones
In order to document progress and persistence of eelgrass habitat at the mitigation site through
and beyond the initial establishment period, which generally is three years, monitoring should be
completed for a period of five years at both the mitigation site and at an appropriate reference
site(s) (Section II.B.4. Reference Site Selection). Monitoring at a reference site(s) may account
for any natural changes or fluctuations in habitat area or density. Monitoring should determine
the area of eelgrass and density of plants at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months after completing the
mitigation. These intervals will provide yearly updates on the establishment and persistence of
eelgrass during the growing season. These monitoring recommendations are consistent with
findings of the National Research Council (NRC 2001), the Corps requirements for
compensatory mitigation (33 CFR 332.6(b)), and other regional resource policies (Corps 2010,
Evans and Leschen 2010, SFWMD 2007).
All monitoring work should be conducted during the active eelgrass growth period and should
avoid the recognized low growth season for the region to the maximum extent practicable
(typically November through February for southern California, November through March for
central California, November through March for San Francisco Bay, and October through April
for northern California). Sufficient flexibility in the scheduling of the 6 month surveys should be
allowed in order to ensure the work is completed during this active growth period. Additional
monitoring beyond the 60-month period may be warranted in those instances where the stability
of the proposed mitigation site is questionable, where the performance of the habitat relative to
reference sites is erratic, or where other factors may influence the long-term success of
mitigation. Mitigation plans should include a monitoring schedule that indicates when each of
the monitoring events will be completed.
The monitoring and performance milestones described below are included as eelgrass transplant
success criteria in the SCEMP. These numbers represent milestones and associated timelines
26
typical of successful eelgrass habitat development based on NMFS’ experience with: (1)
conducting eelgrass surveys and monitoring and (2) reviewing mitigation monitoring results for
projects implemented under SCEMP. Restored eelgrass habitat is expected to develop through
an initial 3 year monitoring period such that, within 36 months following planting, it meets or
exceeds the full coverage and not less than 85 percent of the density relative to the initial
condition of affected eelgrass habitat. Restored eelgrass habitat is expected to sustain this
condition for at least 2 additional years.
Monitoring events should evaluate the following performance milestones:
Month 0 – Monitoring should confirm the full coverage distribution of planting units over
the initial mitigation site as appropriate to the geographic region.
Month 6 – Persistence and growth of eelgrass within the initial mitigation area should be
confirmed, and there should be a survival of at least 50 percent of the initial
planting units with well-distributed coverage over the initial mitigation site. For
seed buoys, there should be demonstrated recruitment of seedlings at a density of
not less than one seedling per four (4) square meters with a distribution over the
extent of the initial planting area. The timing of this monitoring event should be
flexible to ensure work is completed during the active growth period.
Month 12–The mitigation site should achieve a minimum of 40 percent coverage of eelgrass
and 20 percent density of reference site(s) over not less than 1.2 times the area of
the impact site.
Month 24–The mitigation site should achieve a minimum of 85 percent coverage of eelgrass
and 70 percent density of reference site(s) over not less than 1.2 times the area of
the impact site.
Month 36–The mitigation site should achieve a minimum of 100 percent coverage of
eelgrass and 85 percent density of reference site(s) over not less than 1.2 times the
area of the impact site.
Month 48–The mitigation site should achieve a minimum of 100 percent coverage of
eelgrass and 85 percent density of reference site(s) over not less than 1.2 times the
area of the impact site.
Month 60–The mitigation site should achieve a minimum of 100 percent coverage of
eelgrass and 85 percent density of reference site(s) over not less than 1.2 times the
area of the impact site.
Performance milestones may be re-evaluated or modified if declines at a mitigation site are also
demonstrated at the reference site, and therefore, may be a result of natural environmental
stressors that are unrelated to the intrinsic suitability of the mitigation site. In the EFH
consultation context, NMFS should provide recommendations regarding modification of
performance milestones as technical assistance during interagency coordination as described in
27
the mitigation plan or as EFH Conservation Recommendations if the federal action agency re-
initiates EFH consultation.
7. Mitigation Reporting
NMFS biologists should request monitoring reports and spatial data for each monitoring event in
both hard copy and electronic version, to be provided within 30 days after the completion of each
monitoring period to allow timely review and feedback from NMFS. These reports should
clearly identify the action, the action party, mitigation consultants, relevant points of contact, and
any relevant permits. The size of permitted eelgrass impact estimates, actual eelgrass impacts,
and eelgrass mitigation needs should be identified, as should appropriate information describing
the location of activities. The report should include a detailed description of eelgrass habitat
survey methods, donor harvest methods and transplant methods used. The reports should also
document mitigation performance milestone progress (see II.F.6. Mitigation Monitoring and
Performance Milestones). The first report (for the 0-month post-planting monitoring) should
document any variances from the mitigation plan, document the sources of donor materials, and
document the full area of planting. The final mitigation monitoring report should provide the
action agency and NMFS with an overall assessment of the performance of the eelgrass
mitigation site relative to natural variability of the reference site to evaluate if mitigation
responsibilities were met. An example summary is provided in Attachment 3.
8. Supplemental Mitigation
Where development of the eelgrass habitat at the mitigation site falls short of achieving
performance milestones during any interim survey, the monitoring period should be extended
and supplemental mitigation may be recommended to ensure that adequate mitigation is
achieved. In the EFH consultation context, NMFS should provide recommendations regarding
extended monitoring as technical assistance during interagency coordination as described in the
mitigation plan or as EFH Conservation Recommendations if the federal action agency re-
initiates EFH consultation. In some instances, an adaptive management corrective action to the
existing mitigation area may be appropriate. In the event of a mitigation failure, the action
agency should convene a meeting with the action party, NMFS, and applicable regulatory and/or
resource agencies to review the specific circumstances and develop a solution to achieve no net
loss in eelgrass habitat function.
As indicated previously, while in-kind mitigation is preferred, the most appropriate form of
compensatory mitigation should be determined on a case-by-case basis. In cases where it is
demonstrated that in-kind replacement is infeasible, out-of-kind mitigation may be appropriate
over completion of additional in-kind mitigation. The determination that an out-of-kind
mitigation is appropriate will be made by NMFS, the action agency, and the applicable
regulatory agencies, where a regulatory action is involved.
G. Special Circumstances
Depending on the circumstances of each individual project, NMFS may make recommendations
different from those described above on a case by case basis. For the scenarios described below,
28
for example, NMFS could recommend a mitigation ratio or 1:1 or for use of out-of-kind
mitigation. Because NMFS needs a proper understanding of eelgrass habitat in the project area
and potential impacts of the proposed project to evaluate the full effects of authorized activities,
NMFS should not make recommendations that diverge from these guidelines if they would result
in surveys, assessments or reports inferior to those which might be obtained through the
guidance in Section II. The area thresholds described below are taken from the SCEMP and/or
reflect recommendations NMFS staff have repeatedly made during individual EFH consultations.
These thresholds minimize impacts to eelgrass habitat quality and quantity, based on NMFS’
experience with: (1) conducting eelgrass surveys and monitoring and (2) reviewing project
monitoring results for projects implemented under SCEMP. The special circumstance included
for shellfish aquaculture longlines is supported by Rumrill and Poulton (2004) and the NMFS
Office of Aquaculture.
1. Localized Temporary Impacts
NMFS may consider modified target mitigation ratios for localized temporary impacts wherein
the damage results in impacts of less than 100 square meters and eelgrass habitat is fully restored
within the damage footprint within one year of the initial impact (e.g., placement of temporary
recreational facilities, shading by construction equipment, or damage sustained through vessel
groundings or environmental clean-up operations). In such cases, the 1.2:1 mitigation ratio
should not apply, and a 1:1 ratio of impact to recovery would apply. A monitoring program
consisting of a pre-construction eelgrass survey and three post-construction eelgrass surveys at
the impact site and appropriate reference site(s) should be completed in order to demonstrate the
temporary nature of the impacts. NMFS should recommend that surveys be completed as
follows: 1) the first post-construction eelgrass survey should be completed within 30 days
following completion of construction to evaluate direct effects of construction, 2) the second and
third post-construction surveys should be performed approximately one year after the first post-
construction survey, and approximately two years after the first post-construction survey,
respectively, during the appropriate growing season to confirm no indirect, or longer term effects
resulted from construction. A compelling reason should be demonstrated before any reduced
monitoring and reporting recommendations are made.
2. Localized Permanent Impacts
a) If both NMFS and the authorizing action agencies concur, the compensatory mitigation
elements of this policy may not be necessary for the placement of a single pipeline, cable, or
other similar utility line across existing eelgrass habitat with an impact corridor of no more than
1 meter wide. NMFS should recommend the completion of pre- and post-action surveys as
described in section II.B. and II.D. The actual area of impact should be determined from the
post-action survey. NMFS should recommend the completion of an additional survey (after 1
year) to ensure that the action or impacts attributable to the action have not exceeded the 1-meter
corridor width. NMFS should recommend that, if the post-action or 1 year survey demonstrates
a loss of eelgrass habitat greater than the 1-meter wide corridor, mitigation should be undertaken.
b) ) If both NMFS and the authorizing action agencies concur that the spacing of shellfish
aquaculture longlines does not result in a measurable net loss of eelgrass habitat in the project
29
area, then mitigation associated with local losses under longlines may not be necessary. NMFS
should recommend the completion of pre- and post-action surveys as described in section II.B.
and II.D. NMFS should recommend the completion of additional post-action monitoring surveys
(to be completed approximately 1 year and 2 years following implementation of the action) to
ensure that the action or impacts attributable to the action have not resulted in net adverse
impacts to eelgrass habitat. NMFS should recommend that, if the 1-year or 2-year survey
demonstrates measurable impact to eelgrass habitat, mitigation should be undertaken. c) NMFS
should consider mitigation on a 1:1 basis for impacts less than 10 square meters to eelgrass
patches where impacts are limited to small portions of well-established eelgrass habitat or
eelgrass habitat that, despite highly variable conditions, generally retain extensive eelgrass, even
during poor years. A reduced mitigation ratio should not be considered where impacts would
occur to isolated or small eelgrass habitat areas within which the impacted area constitutes more
than 1% of the eelgrass habitat in the local area during poor years.
c) If NMFS concurs and suitable out-of-kind mitigation is proposed, compensatory mitigation
may not be necessary for actions impacting less than 10 square meters of eelgrass.
III. Glossary of Terms
Except where otherwise specified, the explanations of the following terms are provided for
informational purposes only and are described solely for the purposes of this policy; where a
NMFS statute, regulation, or agreement requires a different understanding of the relevant term,
that understanding of the term will supplant these explanations provided below.
Compensatory mitigation – restoration, establishment, or enhancement of aquatic resources for
the purposes of offsetting unavoidable authorized adverse impacts which remain after all
appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved.
Ecosystem – a geographically specified system of organisms, the environment, and the processes
that control its dynamics. Humans are an integral part of an ecosystem.
Ecosystem function – ecological role or process provided by a given ecosystem.
Ecosystem services – contributions that a biological community and its habitat provide to the
physical and mental well-being of the human population (e.g., recreational and commercial
opportunities, aesthetic benefits, flood regulation).
Eelgrass habitat – areas of vegetated eelgrass cover (any eelgrass within 1 square meter quadrat
and within 1 m of another shoot) bounded by a 5 m wide perimeter of unvegetated area
Essential fish habitat (EFH) – EFH is defined in the MSA as “...those waters and substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”
EFH Assessment –An assessment as further explained in 50 C.F.R. § 600.920(e).
EFH Consultation – The process explained in 50 C.F.R. § 600.920
30
EFH Conservation Recommendation –provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
a federal or state agency pursuant to section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act regarding
measures that can be taken by that agency to conserve EFH. As further explained in 50 C.F.R. §
600.925, EFH Conservation Recommendations may be provided as part of an EFH consultation with
a federal agency, or may be provided by NMFS to any federal or state agency whose actions would
adversely affect EFH .
Habitat – environment in which an organism(s) lives, including everything that surrounds and
affects its life, including biological, chemical and physical processes.
Habitat function – ecological role or process provided by a given habitat (e.g., primary
production, cover, food, shoreline protection, oxygenates water and sediments, etc.).
In lieu fee program – a program involving the restoration, establishment, and/or enhancement of
aquatic resources through funds paid to a governmental or non-profit natural
resources management entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation needs; an in lieu fee program
works like a mitigation bank, however, fees to compensate for impacts to habitat function are
collected prior to establishing an on-the-ground conservation/restoration project.
In-kind mitigation – mitigation where the adverse impacts to a habitat are mitigated through the
creation, restoration, or enhancement of the same type of habitat.
Mitigation – action or project undertaken to offset impacts to an existing natural resource.
Mitigation bank – a parcel of land containing natural resource functions/values that are
conserved, restored, created and managed in perpetuity and used to offset unavoidable impacts to
comparable resource functions/values occurring elsewhere. The resource functions/values
contained within the bank are translated into quantified credits that may be sold by the banker to
parties that need to compensate for the adverse effects of their activities.
Out-of-kind mitigation – mitigation where the adverse impacts to one habitat type are mitigated
through the creation, restoration, or enhancement of another habitat type
31
IV. Literature Cited
Bostrom, C. and E. Bonsdorff. 2000. Zoobenthic community establishment and habitat
complexity–the importance of seagrass shoot density, orphology and physical disturbance
for faunal recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 205:123-138.
Bostrom, C., E. Bonsdorff, P. Kangas, and A. Norkko. 2002. Long-term changes of a Brackish-
water eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) community indicate effects of coastal eutrophication.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 55: 795-804.
California Department of Transportation. 2003. Storm Water Quality Handbooks: Construction
Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M, Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem,
S., O’Neill, R.V.O., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., and M. van den Belt. 1997.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Regulations 1508 – National Environmental Policy Act
(40 CFR 1508).
Donoghue, C. 2011. Technical Memorandum: Operational Definition of an Eelgrass (Zostera
marina) Bed. A Summary of a Workgroup Discussion and Related Analysis.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. October 2011.
Duarte, C. M. 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation 29(2):192-
206.
Duarte, C.M., Dennison, W.C., Orth, R.J.W. and T.J.B. Carruthers. 2008. The charisma of
coastal ecosystems: addressing the imbalance. Estuaries and Coasts: J CERF 31:233–
238.
Evans, N.T. and Leschen, A. 2010. Technical guidelines for the delineation, restoration, and
monitoring of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Massachusetts coastal waters. Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-43. 8 p.
Evans, N. T., and F. T. Short. 2005. Functional trajectory models for assessment of transplanted
eelgrass, Zostera marina L., in the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire. Estuaries
28(6):936-947.
Ferrell, D. J., and J.D. Bell. 1991. Differences among assemblages of fish associated with
Zostera capricorni and bare sand over a large spatial scale. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 72:15-24.
Fonseca, M.S., Kenworthy, W.J., Thayer, G.W. 1998. Guidelines for the conservation and
restoration of seagrasses in the United Stated and adjacent waters. NOAA Coastal Ocean
Program Decision Analysis Series, No. 12. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring,
MD. 222 p.
32
Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy, D. R. Colby, K. A. Rittmaster, and G. W. Thayer. 1990.
Comparisons of fauna among natural and transplanted eelgrass Zostera marina meadows:
criteria for mitigation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 65:251-264
Hoffman, R. S. 1986. Fishery Utilization of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Beds and Non-vegetated
Shallow Water Areas in San Diego Bay. SWR-86-4, NMFS/SWR.
King, D. M., and E. W. Price. 2004. Developing Defensible Wetland Mitigation Ratios: A
Companion to "The Five-step Wetland Mitigation Ratio Calculator." Prepared by King
and Associates, Inc. for NOAA, Office of Habitat Conservation, Habitat Protection
Division.
Lotze, H. K., H. S. Lenihan, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. G. Cooke, M. C. Kay, S. M.
Kidwell, M. X. Kirby, C. H. Peterson, and J. B. C. Jackson. 2006. Depletion,
degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312:1806-
1809.
Merkel, K. W. 1988. Growth and survival of transplanted eelgrass: The importance of planting
unit size and spacing. In: Proceedings of the California Eelgrass Symposium. Chula
Vista, CA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Damage Assessment and Restoration
Program (NOAA-DARP). 1999. Discounting and the treatment of uncertainty in natural
resource damage assessment. Technical Paper 99-1.
National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetlands Losses under the Clean Water
Act. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA.
Orth, R. J., T. J. B. Carruthers, W. C. Dennison, C. M. Duarte, J. W. Fourqurean, K. L. Heck, Jr.,
A. R. Hughes, G. A. Kendrick, W. J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F. T. Short, M. Waycott,
and S. L. Williams. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience
56(12):987-996.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2008. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery as
Amended Through Amendment 19.
Peterson, C.H., R.A. Luttich Jr., F. Micheli, and G.A. Skilleter. 2004. Attenuation of water flow
inside seagrass canopies of differing structure. Marine Ecology Progress Series 268: 81-
92.
Rumrill, S.S. and V.K. Poulton. 2004. Ecological role and potential impacts of molluscan
shellfish culture in the estuarine environment of Humboldt Bay, CA. http://
hdl.handle.net/1794/3798
33
Short, F. T., and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 1996. Natural and human-induced disturbance of
seagrasses. Environmental Conservation 23(1):17-27.
Smith, Timothy M., J. S. Hindell, G. P. Jenkins, and R. M. Connolly. 2008. Edge effects on fish
associated with seagrass and sand patches. Marine Ecology Progress Series 359:203-213.
South Florida Water Management District. 2007. Environmental Monitoring Report Guidelines.
Environmental Resource Regulation Department. 18 p.
Thom, R.N. 1990. A review of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) transplanting projects in the Pacific
Northwest. The Northwest Environmental Journal 6:121-137.
Thom, R.N., J. Gaeckle, A. Borde, M. Anderson, M. Boyle, C. Durance, M. Kyte, P. Schlenger,
J. Stutes, D. Weitkamp, S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and S. Rumrill. 2008. Eelgrass (Zostera
marina L.) restoration in the Pacific Northwest: recommendations to improve project
success. U.S. Department of Energy. Technical Report WA-RD 706.1.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. New England District Compensatory Mitigation
Guidance. 94 p.
van Houte-Howes, S.J. Turner, and C. A. Pilditch. 2004. Spatial Differences in
Macroinvertebrate Communities in Intertidal Seagrass Habitats and Unvegetated
Sediment in Three New Zealand Estuaries. Estuaries 27(6):945-957.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Eelgrass/macroalgae habitat interim survey
guidelines (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00714/).
Webster, P.J., A.A. Rowden, and M.J. Attrill. 1998. Effect of shoot density on the infaunal
macro-invertebrate community within a Zostera marina seagrass bed. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 47: 351-357.
34
ATTACHMENT 1. Graphic depiction of eelgrass habitat definition including spatial
distribution and aerial coverage of vegetated cover and unvegetated eelgrass habitat.
35
ATTACHMENT 2. Example Eelgrass Habitat Percent Vegetated Cover.
36
ATTACHMENT 3. Flow chart depicting timing of surveys and monitoring.
Preliminary
Survey
(project
planning)
Pre-action
Survey Action
Post-action
Survey
(verify extent
of impacts)
Post-action
monitoring
(if indirect
impacts
possible)
•All surveys should be completed during the growing season
•Surveys should be completed at the impact site and an appropriate reference site(s)
•A preliminary survey completed for planning purposes may be completed a year or more in
advance of the action.
•Pre-action and post-action surveys should be completed within 60 days of the action.
•A survey is good for 60 days, or if that 60 day period extends beyond the end of growing
season, until start of next growing season
•Two years of monitoring following the initial post-action monitoring event may be needed to
verify lack or extent of indirect effects.
•Survey reports should be provided to NMFS and the federal action agency within 30 days of
completion of each survey event
b) Eelgrass mitigation monitoring
Mitigation
0-month
confirm survival
and coverage
6-month
50% survival
well distributed
12-month
40% coverage
20% density
24-month
85% coverage
70% density
36-month
100% coverage
85% density
48-month
100% coverage
85% density
60-month
100% coverage
85% density
a) Eelgrass impact surveys
•Mitigation should occur coincident or prior to the action
•All monitoring should be completed during the growing season
•Performance metrics for each monitoring event are compared to the 1.2:1 mitigation ratio
•Monitoring reports should be provided to NMFS and the federal action agency 30 days of
completion of each monitoring event
•NMFS and action agency will evaluate if performance metrics met, and decide if supplemental
mitigation or other adaptive management measures are needed
37
ATTACHMENT 4. Eelgrass transplant monitoring report.
In order to ensure that NMFS is aware of the status of eelgrass transplants, action agencies
should provide or ensure that NMFS is provided a monitoring report summary with each
monitoring report. For illustrative purposes only, an example of a monitoring report summary is
provided below.
ACTION PARTY CONTACT INFORMATION:
Action Name (same as permit reference):
(a) Action party Information
Name Address
Contact Name City, State, Zip
Phone Fax
Email
MITIGATION CONSULTANT
Name Address
Contact Name City, State, Zip
Phone Fax
Email
PERMIT DATA:
Permit Issuance Date Expiration Date Agency Contact
EELGRASS IMPACT AND MITIGATION NEEDS SUMMARY:
Permitted Eelgrass Impact Estimate (m2):
Actual Eelgrass Impact (m2):On (post-construction
date):
Eelgrass Mitigation Needs (m2):Mitigation Plan
Reference:
Impact Site Location:
Impact Site Center Coordinates (actionion &
38
datum):
Mitigation Site Location:
Mitigation Site Center Coordinates (actionion &
datum):
ACTION ACTIVITY DATA:
Activity Start Date End Date Reference Information
Eelgrass Impact
Installation of Eelgrass Mitigation
Initiation of Mitigation Monitoring
MITIGATION STATUS DATA:
Mitigatio
n
Milestone
Scheduled
Survey
Survey
Date
Eelgrass
Habitat
Area
(m2)
Bottom
Coverage
(Percent)
Eelgrass
Density
(turions/m2
)
Reference
Information
Mo
n
t
h
0
6
12
24
36
48
60
FINAL ASSESSMENT:
Was mitigation met?
Were mitigation and monitoring performed timely?
Were mitigation delay increases needed or were supplemental mitigation
programs necessary?
39
ATTACHMENT 5. Wetlands mitigation calculator formula and parameters.
Starting mitigation ratios for each region within California were calculated using “The Five-Step
Wetland Mitigation Ratio Calculator” (King and Price 2004) developed for NMFS Office of
Habitat Conservation. The discrete time equation this method uses to solve for the appropriate
mitigation ratio is as follows:
The calculator parameters in the above equation and values used to calculate starting mitigation
ratios for CEMP are as follows:
* The value for E was based on regional history of success in eelgrass mitigation and varied between regions (see
Attachment X).
** NOAA suggests the use of a 3 percent real discount rate for discounting interim service losses and restoration
gains, unless a different proxy for the social rate of time preference is more appropriate. (NOAA-DARP 1999) We
use this value here, because it is based on best available information and is consistent with the NOAA Damage
Assessment and Restoration Program.
Symbol Calculator Parameter Value
A The level of habitat function provided at the mitigation site prior to the mitigation
project
0%
B The maximum level of habitat function that mitigation is expected to attain, if it is
successful
100%
C The number of years after construction that the mitigation project is expected to
achieve maximum function
3 yrs
D The number of years before destruction of the impacted wetland that the mitigation
project begins to generate habitat function
0 yrs
E The percent likelihood that the mitigation project will fail and provide none of the
anticipated benefits
various*
L The percent difference in expected habitat function based on differences in landscape
context of the mitigation site when compared with the impacted wetland
0%
k The percent likelihood that the mitigation site, in the absence purchase or easement
would be developed in any future year
0%
r The discount rate used for comparing gains and losses that accrue at different times in
terms of their present value
3%**
Tmax The time horizon used in the analysis (chosen to maintain 1.2:1 ratio at E=100% and
other parameter values listed above).
13 yrs
40
ATTACHMENT 6. Example calculations for application of starting and final mitigation
ratios for impacts to eelgrass habitat in southern California.
In this example, a pier demolition and construction would impact 0.122 acres of vegetated
eelgrass habitat (dark green) and 0.104 acres of unvegetated habitat (pink). Area of impact is
indicated by purple hatch mark. Application of recommended starting mitigation ratio for
southern California (1.38:1) and final mitigation ratio (1.2:1) to compute starting and final
mitigation area for this example are shown in the table.
41
ATTACHMENT 7. Example mitigation area multipliers for delay in initiation of
mitigation activities.
Delays in eelgrass transplantation result in delays in ultimate reestablishment of eelgrass habitat
values, increasing the duration and magnitude of project effects to eelgrass. The delay
multipliers in the table below have been generated by altering the implementation start time
within “The Five-Step Wetland Mitigation Ratio Calculator” (King and Price 2004).
MONTHS POST-IMPACT DELAY MULTIPLIER
(Percent of Initial Mitigation Area Needed)
0-3 mo 100%
4-6 mo 107%
7-12 mo 117%
13-18 mo 127%
19-24 mo. 138%
25-30 mo. 150%
31-36 mo 163%
37-42 mo. 176%
43-48 mo. 190%
49-54 mo. 206%
55-60 mo. 222%
43
44
45
Attachment 2
FHWG Agreement in Principle
Technical/Policy Meeting Vancouver, WA
June, 11 2008
Interim Criteria for Injury Agreement in Principle
Peak 206 dB (for all size of fish)
Cumulative SEL 187 dB for fish size of two grams
or greater.
183 dB for fish size of less than
two grams.*
*see Tableto be developed
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 61 Response to Comments
Response No. 1
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Craig Shuman, D. Env, Marine Regional Manager
August 20, 2024
1-1 This introductory comment introduces the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) role as a
Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and responsibility for biological protection. The commenter
also summarizes the proposed project description and biological significance of the Newport Bay waters.
This comment is acknowledged, and no further response is required.
1-2 The commenter summarizes the project’s potential impacts to eelgrass and applicable regulatory
protections for eelgrass. The commenter recommends the inclusion of avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce potential construction-related impacts to eelgrass habitat and cites the CDFW
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP) included as Attachment 1 to the comment letter. As such,
the Draft IS/MND text has been revised and is reflected below and in Section 3.0, Errata, of this Final
IS/MND.
Draft IS/MND Section 4.4, Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure BIO-2, Pages 4.4-4 and 4.4-5
BIO-2 To the extent feasible, the construction contractor shall minimize potential impacts to
existing eelgrass beds within the project area by:
• Decreasing sedimentation by utilizing terrestrial construction booms;
• Avoiding any unneeded shading during in-water construction activities; and
• Ensuring any in-water manipulation or dock temporary relocation is conducted with
guidance from the Eelgrass Survey Report to minimize disturbance of more dense
eelgrass beds in the project area;.
• Locating temporary docks, barges and vessels, and all barge anchoring outside of
existing eelgrass beds in the project area;
• Ensuring anchor chain designs and mooring locations of all barges and vessels
avoid eelgrass habitat in the project area;
• Implementing best management practices (BMPs) such as perimeter debris booms.
If debris is observed falling into the water, debris shall be retrieved as soon as
feasible;
• Installing silt curtains around demolition areas, to the extent feasible, and restricting
turbidity plumes to the smallest possible area during all in-water construction phases
to minimize water turbidity and sedimentation;
• Conducting comprehensive pre- and post-construction surveys for eelgrass beds
and patches in accordance with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP). If unavoidable eelgrass impacts occur,
compensatory mitigation using guidance specified in the CEMP shall be
implemented; and
• If eelgrass harvest and transplanting is required for mitigation, obtaining a Scientific
Collecting Permit (SCP) from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to
harvest and transplant activities. The SCP may include permit conditions such as
donor eelgrass surveys, submittal of an eelgrass harvest and transplant plan, limits
on number of turions collected, methods for collection and transplanting, notification
of activities, and reporting requirements.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 62 Response to Comments
This change provides a minor update, correction, or clarification and does not represent “significant new
information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and would not result in any new or
substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft IS/MND.
1-3 The commenter summarizes the project’s potential impacts on fish and eelgrass beds from project-related
pile driving activities and cites guidance from the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group (included as
Attachment 2 of the comment letter). The commenter recommends using a vibratory hammer or an
alternative technology that produces the least amount of noise, such as the hydraulic press-in method
proposed by the project. As detailed in Draft IS/MND Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed
construction activities would not require the use of pile driving and would instead utilize the hydraulic
press-in method. As such, the recommended measures to reduce impacts associated with pile driving
activities are not required.
1-4 The commenter states that harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and
green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), among other marine mammals, may be present or occur in the project
area. The commenter suggests that construction noise associated with pile driving activities could impact
these animals if they are present and recommends the preparation and implementation of a marine
mammal and sea turtle monitoring plan. Proposed construction activities would not utilize impact pile
driving. As such, the recommended measure to reduce impacts associated with pile driving activities are
not required.
1-5 The commenter states that the proposed bridge removal and demolition process could generate debris
and cause material spills that may pollute the surrounding waters. The commenter acknowledges that
the project proposes to place a drop net over the waterway to catch debris during the bridge demolition
construction activities and recommends removing the collected debris from the drop net as soon as
feasible. Additionally, the commenter recommends the preparation and implementation of a spill and
prevention plan to minimize and/or prevent discharge of spilled material at the project site. As such, the
Draft IS/MND text has been revised and is reflected below and in Section 3.0, Errata, of this Final IS/MND.
Draft IS/MND Section 4.4, Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Page 4.4-4
BIO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach City Engineer shall
ensure the following construction best management practices are incorporated into the
project’s final construction plans and monitored with weekly inspections during
construction activities within the water areas:
• Construction equipment shall be inspected regularly (daily) during construction, and
any leaks found shall be repaired immediately.
• Refueling of vehicles and equipment shall be in a designated, contained area.
• Drip pans shall be used under stationary equipment when refueling or during
maintenance.
• Drip pans that are used shall be covered during rainfall to prevent leaching of
contaminants.
• Construction and maintenance of appropriate containment structures to prevent off-
site transport of pollutants from spills and construction debris.
• Construction best management practices (BMPs) shall be monitored during weekly
inspections to ensure the BMPs are implemented and kept in good working order.
• Drop nets shall be cleared of debris as soon as feasible.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach shall also prepare and
implement a Spill and Prevention Plan to minimize and/or prevent discharge of spilled
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 63 Response to Comments
material at the project site. The Spill and Prevention Plan shall include measures to
prevent and control spills, contain the spill, clean the spill, and dispose of contaminated
materials in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
This change provides a minor update, correction, or clarification and does not represent “significant new
information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and would not result in any new or
substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft IS/MND.
1-6 The commenter states that invasive species (i.e., Caulerpa spp.) may be redistributed as a result of
disturbance to bottom sediments. The commenter recommends conducting pre-construction surveys for
Caulerpa spp. to identify potential existence of invasive Caulerpa spp. in accordance with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Caulerpa Control Protocol. As detailed in the Pre-
Construction Surveys Eelgrass (Zostera marina) & Caulerpa taxafolia, Collins Island Bridge Replacement
Project, Newport Beach, California Final Report (Eelgrass Survey Report), prepared by Six Scientific
Service and dated October 2023, a pre-construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey was conducted on
September 16, 2023 in accordance with the NOAA Caulerpa Control Protocol; refer to Draft IS/MND
Appendix B, Jurisdictional Delineation/Marine Reports. As analyzed in the Eelgrass Survey Report, no
Caulerpa taxifolia was observed in or near the project area during the survey.
1-7 The commenter requests that any special-status species and sensitive natural communities detected
during project surveys be submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database. This comment is
acknowledged. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND analysis. As such, no
further response is required.
1-8 The commenter states the proposed project would result in an impact on fish and/or wildlife; and thus,
would require payment of environmental document filing fees. This comment is acknowledged and
payment of environmental document filing fees will be provided upon filing of the Notice of Determination.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 66 Response to Comments
Response No. 2
California Department of Transportation District 12
Scott Shelley, Branch Chief
August 21, 2024
2-1 The commenter summarizes the proposed project description and location. This comment is not related
to the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND analysis. As such, no further response is required.
2-2 The commenter recommends the inclusion of an emergency plan that includes alternative routes and
paths to alleviate congestion in the event of an emergency and facilitate emergency medical services
(EMS) to easily access the site.
As detailed in Draft IS/MND Section 4.9, Hazard and Hazardous Materials (pages 4.9-3 and 4.9-4), the
project would not impair emergency access in the site vicinity during the operational phase given that the
bridge would operate similar to existing conditions. However, construction activities may require
temporary partial bridge, roadway, or sidewalk closures. Short-term full bridge closures limited to a few
hours in a day (i.e., not full day or multi-day closures) may also be required and thus, may impede
emergency access to Collins Island. As such, implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would
be required to maintain adequate emergency access during the construction process (Mitigation Measure
TRA-1). The TMP shall include measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane
closures to avoid peak hours of traffic, temporary striping plans, and, if necessary, use of construction
flag person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. Should temporary full bridge, roadway, or
sidewalk closures be required, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department would be required
to notify all residences within a 500-foot radius of the site at least one week before scheduled closure
and provide details regarding anticipated closure duration and any available detours. The City of Newport
Beach Public Works Department is also required to conduct advanced notification and coordination with
the Newport Beach Fire and Police Departments to arrange for adequate alternative access options in
the event an emergency event occurs during a temporary full bridge/roadway closure. As such, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the project’s impacts in this regard would be reduced to
less than significant levels.
2-3 The commenter recommends the implementation of a dedicated truck route to allow for improved traffic
flow and reduced congestion during project construction. As such, the Draft IS/MND text has been revised
and is reflected below and in Section 3.0, Errata, of this Final IS/MND.
Draft IS/MND Section 4.17, Transportation, Mitigation Measure TRA-1, Page 4.17-3
Mitigation Measures:
TRA-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the City of Newport Beach Public Works
Department shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The TMP shall specify that
one lane of travel for vehicles and pedestrians on Park Avenue shall be maintained
during project construction activities to the greatest extent feasible. The TMP shall
include measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures
to avoid peak hours of traffic, temporary striping plans, and, if necessary, use of
construction flag person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. Additionally, the
TMP shall establish dedicated truck routes approved by the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department. To reduce congestion and impacts to parking on Balboa Island, the
TMP shall also identify proposed mainland parking areas for construction workers.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 67 Response to Comments
Pedestrian sidewalks shall remain open and accessible, to the greatest extent feasible,
during construction or shall be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity while
maintaining Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. The TMP shall be
incorporated into project specifications for verification prior to final plan approval.
Should temporary full bridge, roadway, or sidewalk closures be required, the City of
Newport Beach Public Works Department shall notify all residences within a 500-foot
radius of the site at least one week before scheduled closure and provide details
regarding anticipated closure duration and any available detours. The City of Newport
Beach Public Works Department shall also conduct advanced notification and
coordination with the Newport Beach Fire and Police Departments to arrange for
adequate alternative access options in the event an emergency event occurs during a
temporary full bridge/roadway closure.
This change provides a minor update, correction, or clarification and does not represent “significant new
information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and would not result in any new or
substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft IS/MND.
2-4 The commenter recommends installing green conflict zone striping between Bayside Drive and the
southbound Class III bikeway. Bayside Drive is located approximately 0.39-mile from the project site on
the mainland. As such, installation of bicycle improvements on Bayside Drive is not within the scope of
the proposed project.
2-5 The commenter recommends the inclusion of pedestrian scale lighting along the project area. As detailed
in Draft IS/MND Section 4.1, Aesthetics (page 4.1-3), the project area includes lighting typical of
urban/suburban areas, including streetlights, private residential lighting, and motor vehicle headlights.
Specifically, existing light posts line the Bay Front sidewalk. The proposed project may include bridge
lighting for pedestrian safety and architectural character similar to the existing lighting fixtures in the
project area. As such, appropriate pedestrian scale lighting exists in the project area and may be
supplemented as part of the proposed project.
2-6 The commenter suggests appropriate detours and safety measures be in place during construction
activities to prioritize the mobility, access, and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Given that there are
no existing designated bicycle facilities on Collins Island or Balboa Island, project implementation would
have no impact on such facilities. However, construction activities may require temporary sidewalk
closures. As such, implementation of a TMP would be required to maintain pedestrian flow during the
construction process (Mitigation Measure TRA-1). The TMP is required to specify that one lane of travel
for vehicles and pedestrians on Park Avenue be maintained during project construction activities to the
greatest extent feasible. The TMP is also required to include measures such as construction signage,
limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours of traffic, temporary striping plans, and, if
necessary, use of construction flag person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. Pedestrian
sidewalks are required to remain open and accessible, to the greatest extent feasible, during construction
or be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity while maintaining Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
accessibility. Should temporary sidewalk closures be required, the City of Newport Beach Public Works
Department would be required to notify all residences within a 500-foot radius of the site at least one
week before scheduled closure and provide details regarding anticipated closure duration and any
available detours. As such, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the project’s impacts in
this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels.
2-7 The commenter recommends mitigation for anticipated temporary construction traffic impacts along State
Route 1 (SR-1). Refer to Responses to Comments 2-2 and 2-3, above.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 68 Response to Comments
The commenter also requests continued coordination between the City and Caltrans for any future
development that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. This comment is acknowledged.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
PART III ERRATA
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 1 Errata
PART III: ERRATA
Changes to the Draft IS/MND are noted below. A double-underline indicates additions to the text; strikethrough
indicates deletions to the text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0, Response to Comments,
of this Final IS/MND. Changes are listed by page and, where appropriate, by paragraph. These clarifications and
modifications are not considered to result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those
identified in the Draft IS/MND.
Draft IS/MND Section 4.4, Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Page 4.4-4
BIO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach City Engineer shall ensure the following
construction best management practices are incorporated into the project’s final construction plans and
monitored with weekly inspections during construction activities within the water areas:
• Construction equipment shall be inspected regularly (daily) during construction, and any leaks found
shall be repaired immediately.
• Refueling of vehicles and equipment shall be in a designated, contained area.
• Drip pans shall be used under stationary equipment when refueling or during maintenance.
• Drip pans that are used shall be covered during rainfall to prevent leaching of contaminants.
• Construction and maintenance of appropriate containment structures to prevent off-site transport of
pollutants from spills and construction debris.
• Construction best management practices (BMPs) shall be monitored during weekly inspections to
ensure the BMPs are implemented and kept in good working order.
• Drop nets shall be cleared of debris as soon as feasible.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach shall also prepare and implement a Spill
and Prevention Plan to minimize and/or prevent discharge of spilled material at the project site. The Spill
and Prevention Plan shall include measures to prevent and control spills, contain the spill, clean the spill,
and dispose of contaminated materials in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Draft IS/MND Section 4.4, Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure BIO-2, Pages 4.4-4 and 4.4-5
BIO-2 To the extent feasible, the construction contractor shall minimize potential impacts to existing eelgrass
beds within the project area by:
• Decreasing sedimentation by utilizing terrestrial construction booms;
• Avoiding any unneeded shading during in-water construction activities; and
• Ensuring any in-water manipulation or dock temporary relocation is conducted with guidance from
the Eelgrass Survey Report to minimize disturbance of more dense eelgrass beds in the project
area;.
• Locating temporary docks, barges and vessels, and all barge anchoring outside of existing eelgrass
beds in the project area;
• Ensuring anchor chain designs and mooring locations of all barges and vessels avoid eelgrass
habitat in the project area;
• Implementing best management practices (BMPs) such as perimeter debris booms. If debris is
observed falling into the water, debris shall be retrieved as soon as feasible;
• Installing silt curtains around demolition areas, to the extent feasible, and restricting turbidity plumes
to the smallest possible area during all in-water construction phases to minimize water turbidity and
sedimentation;
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 2 Errata
• Conducting comprehensive pre- and post-construction surveys for eelgrass beds and patches in
accordance with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
(CEMP). If unavoidable eelgrass impacts occur, compensatory mitigation using guidance specified
in the CEMP shall be implemented; and
• If eelgrass harvest and transplant is required for mitigation, obtaining a Scientific Collecting Permit
(SCP) from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to harvest and transplant activities.
The SCP may include permit conditions such as donor eelgrass surveys, submittal of an eelgrass
harvest and transplant plan, limits on number of turions collected, methods for collection and
transplanting, notification of activities, and reporting requirements.
Draft IS/MND Section 4.17, Transportation, Mitigation Measure TRA-1, Page 4.17-3
Mitigation Measures:
TRA-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall
prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The TMP shall specify that one lane of travel for vehicles and
pedestrians on Park Avenue shall be maintained during project construction activities to the greatest
extent feasible. The TMP shall include measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for
lane closures to avoid peak hours of traffic, temporary striping plans, and, if necessary, use of
construction flag person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. Additionally, the TMP shall
establish dedicated truck routes approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. To
reduce congestion and impacts to parking on Balboa Island, the TMP shall also identify proposed
mainland parking areas for construction workers. Pedestrian sidewalks shall remain open and accessible,
to the greatest extent feasible, during construction or shall be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity
while maintaining Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. The TMP shall be incorporated into
project specifications for verification prior to final plan approval.
Should temporary full bridge, roadway, or sidewalk closures be required, the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department shall notify all residences within a 500-foot radius of the site at least one week before
scheduled closure and provide details regarding anticipated closure duration and any available detours.
The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall also conduct advanced notification and
coordination with the Newport Beach Fire and Police Departments to arrange for adequate alternative
access options in the event an emergency event occurs during a temporary full bridge/roadway closure.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
PART IV MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PART IV: MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental
document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt
a reporting or monitoring plan. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be
mitigated. The reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation
(Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist,
has been prepared for the Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project (project). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant
environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure
has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in
the City of Newport Beach Collins Island Bridge Replacement Project file.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but
also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures
will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring
procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring
reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Checklist (Table 1). If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated
monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation.
Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the
following steps:
• The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance.
• Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Draft and Final IS/MND, which provide
general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures.
• Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate.
• Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures.
• Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as
applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented
through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review.
• The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report
summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts.
• Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of
permits/approvals.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Minor changes to the MMRP, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further
review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities,
plan redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation
measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the
MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of
Newport Beach City Engineer shall ensure the
following construction best management
practices are incorporated into the project’s final
construction plans and monitored with weekly
inspections during construction activities within
the water areas:
• Construction equipment shall be inspected
regularly (daily) during construction, and any
leaks found shall be repaired immediately.
• Refueling of vehicles and equipment shall be
in a designated, contained area.
• Drip pans shall be used under stationary
equipment when refueling or during
maintenance.
• Drip pans that are used shall be covered
during rainfall to prevent leaching of
contaminants.
• Construction and maintenance of
appropriate containment structures to
prevent off-site transport of pollutants from
spills and construction debris.
• Construction best management practices
(BMPs) shall be monitored during weekly
inspections to ensure the BMPs are
implemented and kept in good working
order.
• Drop nets shall be cleared of debris as soon
as feasible.
City Engineer;
Project
Construction
Contractor
Prior to
Issuance of
Grading
Permits; During
Construction
Activities
City Engineer;
City of Newport
Beach Public
Works
Department
Weekly
Inspection
During
Construction
Activities;
During Plan
Check Review
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of
Newport Beach shall also prepare and implement
a Spill and Prevention Plan to minimize and/or
prevent discharge of spilled material at the project
site. The Spill and Prevention Plan shall include
measures to prevent and control spills, contain
the spill, clean the spill, and dispose of
contaminated materials in compliance with
applicable regulatory requirements.
BIO-2 To the extent feasible, the construction contractor
shall minimize potential impacts to existing
eelgrass beds within the project area by:
• Decreasing sedimentation by utilizing
terrestrial construction booms;
• Avoiding any unneeded shading during in-
water construction activities;
• Locating temporary docks, barges and
vessels, and all barge anchoring outside of
existing eelgrass beds in the project area;
• Ensuring anchor chain designs and mooring
locations of all barges and vessels avoid
eelgrass habitat in the project area;
• Implementing best management practices
(BMPs) such as perimeter debris booms. If
debris is observed falling into the water,
debris shall be retrieved as soon as feasible;
• Installing silt curtains around demolition
areas, to the extent feasible, and restricting
turbidity plumes to the smallest possible
area during all in-water construction phases
to minimize water turbidity and
sedimentation;
• Conducting comprehensive pre- and post-
construction surveys for eelgrass beds and
Project
Construction
Contractor
During
Construction
Activities; Post-
Construction
Activities
City of Newport
Beach Public
Works
Department
During
Construction
Activities;
Post-
Construction
Activities
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
patches in accordance with the National
Marine Fisheries Service’s California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP). If
unavoidable eelgrass impacts occur,
compensatory mitigation using guidance
specified in the CEMP shall be implemented;
and
• If eelgrass harvest and transplanting is
required for mitigation, obtaining a Scientific
Collecting Permit (SCP) from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to
harvest and transplant activities. The SCP
may include permit conditions such as donor
eelgrass surveys, submittal of an eelgrass
harvest and transplant plan, limits on
number of turions collected, methods for
collection and transplanting, notification of
activities, and reporting requirements.
BIO-3 Prior to any construction activity within the project
limits, the City of Newport Beach shall consult
with the appropriate responsible resource agency
(i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and California
Coastal Commission) to verify delineation results,
determine permanent losses and temporary
impact areas, and identify compensatory
mitigation, as applicable. Prior to undertaking
ground-disturbing activities on or immediately
adjacent to any aquatic resource areas, the City
of Newport Beach and/or their designee shall
obtain all applicable discretionary
permits/authorizations.
City of Newport
Beach Public
Works
Department
Prior to Any
Construction
Activities
U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers,
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board, and
California
Coastal
Commission
Prior to
Issuance of
Regulatory
Permits
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 In the event that any subsurface cultural
resources are encountered during earth-moving
activities, all work within 50 feet shall be halted
Qualified
Archaeologist
In the Event
Any
Subsurface
City of Newport
Beach Public
In the Event
Any
Subsurface
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
until a qualified archaeologist is retained by the
City of Newport Beach and evaluates the find and
makes recommendations. The archaeologist
shall evaluate the find in accordance with federal,
State, and local guidelines, including those set
forth in the California Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2, to assess the significance of the
find and identify avoidance or other measures as
appropriate.
Cultural
Resources are
Encountered
During Earth-
Moving
Activities
Works
Department
Cultural
Resources are
Encountered
During Earth-
Moving
Activities
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City
Engineer shall verify that final construction plans
and specifications incorporate the design
recommendations from the Draft Foundation
Report, Collins Island Bridge, Newport Beach,
California, prepared by Earth Mechanics, Inc. and
dated October 27, 2023, and/or the final
geotechnical report for the Collins Island Bridge
Replacement Project.
Project
Construction
Contractor
Prior to
Issuance of
Grading
Permits
City Engineer During Plan
Check Review
GEO-2 In the event that paleontological resources are
encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all
construction activities within 100 feet of the
discovery shall be temporarily halted until a
qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the findings
and make a recommendation. The assessment
will follow Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
(SVP) standards as delineated in the Standard
Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of
Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources
(2010). If the qualified paleontologist finds that the
resource is not a significant fossil, then work may
resume immediately. If the qualified
paleontologist finds the resource is potentially
significant, then the qualified paleontologist shall
make recommendations for appropriate treatment
in accordance with SVP guidelines for
Qualified
Paleontologist
In the Event
Paleontological
Resources are
Encountered
During Earth-
Disturbing
Activities
City of Newport
Beach Public
Works
Department
In the Event
Paleontological
Resources are
Encountered
During Earth-
Disturbing
Activities
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
identification, evaluation, disclosure, avoidance,
recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. The
City of Newport Beach shall determine the
appropriate treatment of the find. Work cannot
resume within the no-work radius until the City of
Newport Beach, through consultation as
appropriate, determines that appropriate
treatment measures have been completed to the
satisfaction of the City. Any fossils recovered
during mitigation shall be cleaned, identified,
catalogued, and permanently curated with an
accredited and permanent scientific institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as
the Cooper Laboratory in Santa Ana.
A qualified professional paleontologist is a
professional with a graduate degree in
paleontology, geology, or related field, with
demonstrated experience in the vertebrate,
invertebrate, or botanical paleontology of
California, as well as at least one year of full-time
professional experience or equivalent specialized
training in paleontological research (i.e., the
identification of fossil deposits, application of
paleontological field and laboratory procedures
and techniques, and curation of fossil
specimens), and at least four months of
supervised field and analytic experience in
general North American paleontology as defined
by the SVP.
NOISE
NOI-1 Prior to issuance of any grading or building
permit, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a
Construction Noise Mitigation Plan and
City Engineer;
Project
Construction
Contractor
Prior to
Issuance of
Grading or
Building
Permits; During
City of Newport
Beach Public
Works
Department
During Plan
Check Review;
During
Construction
Activities
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
demonstrate that the project complies with the
following:
• The construction contractor shall ensure that
power construction equipment (including
combustion or electric engines), fixed or
mobile, shall be equipped with noise shielding
and muffling devices (consistent with
manufacturers’ standards) during the entirety
of construction of the project. The
combination of muffling devices and noise
shielding shall be capable of reducing noise
by at least 5 dBA from non-muffled and
shielded noise levels. Prior to initiation of
construction the contractor shall demonstrate
to the City that equipment is properly muffled,
shielded and maintained. All equipment shall
be properly maintained to assure that no
additional noise, due to worn or improperly
maintained parts, would be generated.
• The Construction Noise Mitigation Plan shall
depict the location of construction equipment
storage and maintenance areas, and
document methods to be employed to
minimize noise impacts on adjacent noise
sensitive land uses.
• Property owners and occupants located
within 100 feet of the construction limits shall
be sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to
commencement of construction, regarding
the construction schedule of the project. A
sign, visible to the public, shall also be posted
at the project construction site. All notices and
signs shall be reviewed and approved by the
City of Newport Public Works Department
Construction
Activities
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate
the dates and duration of construction
activities, as well as provide a contact name
and a telephone number where residents can
inquire about the construction process and
register complaints.
• The construction contractor shall provide
evidence that a construction staff member is
designated as a Noise Disturbance
Coordinator and shall be present on-site
during construction activities. The Noise
Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible
for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. When a complaint is
received, the Noise Disturbance Coordinator
shall notify the City within 24-hours of the
complaint and determine the cause of the
noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable
measures to resolve the complaint, as
deemed acceptable by the City of Newport
Beach Public Works Department. All notices
that are sent to residential units immediately
surrounding the construction site and all signs
posted at the construction site shall include
the contact name and the telephone number
for the Noise Disturbance Coordinator.
• The City shall demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the City of Newport Beach Public Works
Department that construction noise reduction
methods shall be used, including but not
limited to, shutting off idling equipment,
maximizing the distance between
construction equipment staging areas and
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
occupied residential areas, and the use of
electric air compressors and similar power
tools, to the extent feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction
equipment shall be placed such that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive noise
receivers.
• In compliance with Newport Beach Municipal
Code Section 10.28.040, construction
activities shall only occur between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Mondays to
Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, with no activity allowed on
Sundays or national holidays.
TRANSPORTATION
TRA-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the City
of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall
prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The
TMP shall specify that one lane of travel for
vehicles and pedestrians on Park Avenue shall be
maintained during project construction activities
to the greatest extent feasible. The TMP shall
include measures such as construction signage,
limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid
peak hours of traffic, temporary striping plans,
and, if necessary, use of construction flag
person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment
use. Additionally, the TMP shall establish
dedicated truck routes approved by the City of
Newport Beach Public Works Department.
Pedestrian sidewalks shall remain open and
accessible, to the greatest extent feasible, during
construction or shall be re-routed to ensure
continued connectivity while maintaining
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
City of Newport
Beach Public
Works
Department
Prior to
Construction
Activities
City of Newport
Beach Public
Works
Department
During Plan
Check Review;
During
Construction
Activities
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility Timing Monitoring
Responsibility Timing Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
accessibility. The TMP shall be incorporated into
project specifications for verification prior to final
plan approval.
Should temporary full bridge, roadway, or
sidewalk closures be required, the City of
Newport Beach Public Works Department shall
notify all residences within a 500-foot radius of the
site at least one week before scheduled closure
and provide details regarding anticipated closure
duration and any available detours. The City of
Newport Beach Public Works Department shall
also conduct advanced notification and
coordination with the Newport Beach Fire and
Police Departments to arrange for adequate
alternative access options in the event an
emergency event occurs during a temporary full
bridge/roadway closure.
COLLINS ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2024 12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This page intentionally left blank.