HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Big Canyon Creek Restoration ProjectCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 16
September 11, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Assistant City Manager
Dave Kiff
949 - 644 -3002 ordkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: BIG CANYON CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — ADOPTION OF
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ISSUE:
The City of Newport Beach, as the Lead Agency, has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project. California State Law
requires that the Lead Agency conduct environmental review for all pending projects
that require a public hearing. An environmental review examines the nature and extent
of any potentially significant adverse effects on the environment that could occur if a
project is implemented. The City of Newport Beach would require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report if the review concluded that the proposed project could
have a significant unavoidable effect on the environment. Based on an Initial Study and
a Project Feasibility Design Study, City staff has concluded that with mitigation, the Big
Canyon Creek Restoration Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
DISCUSSION:
Environmental Review:
As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, stakeholder meetings
were held on September 28 and December 12, 2006. Stakeholders indicated general
support for the proposed - project at both meetings.
In accordance with §15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, a MND shall be prepared if the
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion
of mitigation measures in the project. Based on the available project information, and
the environmental analysis presented in the MND, there is no substantial evidence that,
after the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a
Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 11, 2007
Page 2
significant effect on the environment. The MND states that the proposed Big Canyon
Creek Restoration Project would result in less- than - significant impacts for the following
issues: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public
services, recreation, transportation /traffic, and utilities and service systems.
The completed MND was circulated for a 30 -day public review period (July 18 to August
17, 2007). The MND was reviewed with Council at Study Session on July 24, 2007.
Meeting minutes from the study session are included in Exhibit 1. Additionally, a public
hearing was held on August 1, 2007 adjacent to the Bluffs Community Center in
Newport Beach and meeting minutes are included in Exhibit 2. Attendees of the public
hearing indicated general support for the proposed project. Comments were received
regarding the project, including: sediment removal, amphitheatre, plant species,
hydrology, funding, traffic and pedestrian safety, public access, Back Bay Dr.
realignment, parking, trails, noise and removal of exotic plant species. Responses to
the comments have been prepared and incorporated into the MND as Exhibit 3. Staff
thinks all concerns have now been addressed and recommends Council acceptance of
the MND referenced as Exhibit 4.
Prepared by:
Oor
JMr�r. w
Mark Reader, AE.
Project Manager
Exhibits
1. July 24, 2007 City Council Study Session Minutes
2. August 1, 2007 Public Hearing Minutes
3. Response to Public Comments
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration
Submitted by:
i
Da a iff
Ass tant City Manager
EXHIBIT 1
July 24, 2007
City Council
Study Session Minutes
Agenda Item No. I
August 14, 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Study Session
July 24, 2007 — 4:00 p.m
1• ROLL CALL
II.
Present: Council Member Henn, Council Member
Council Member Webb, Council Member ]
CURRENT BUST KESjS
I. • CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON
Regarding item 9 (Buck Gully W
the controlling(blocking of se di
Gully and it is critical that it gets
Pro Tem. Selich, Mayor Rosansky,
Member Gardner
O
uncil Member G expressed concern about
:e the sediment in Littl na comes from Buck
as possible.
Regarding item 14 and Jury to the Report "Newport Harbor
Moorings"), Council Me gle stated t she plans on pulling the item for discussion
and that there isri t any that bushes that profits are being made.
In response to Council M ber He 'on, Chief Lewis stated that, Item 5
(Execution 1 Year 20 Ho nd Grant Programs Transfer Agreements) is
reset ' g from 2 12 (Request for Additional Funding for Proposed
Unde d ssment D' 92, 100, 101 and 103), Council Member Henn stated the
he be p item 12 to ht. Regarding Item 16 purchase of Police Department
Digital eo Jail and Police acility). Council Member Henn expressed concern that it
s like rtmen doing single source bids. Mayor Pro Tem. Selich stated
oul a to life of the DVR system since there is a possibility that
the Po pli ill %be moved. He' also wanted to know if the system can be relocated to
another b line
City introdua* the new Utilities Director Steve Myrter. Utilities Director Myrter
gave a backgfund of his career and spoke briefly about his personal life.
2.
It w,
8. BIG
AND GRANT DEALING WITH WATER QUALITY.
of Council to continue this item to a future study session.
PROJECT.
Assistant City Manager Kiff introduced the Public Works Consultant Mark Reader and the
Lead Consultant to the project, Lan Weber, from WRC Consulting. Mr. Reader utilized a
PowerPoint presentation to explain the existing conditions and Dredge/Fill history. He
stated that in 2003, the Community Conservancy International (CCI) led a project team to
address various issues within the Big Canyon Nature Park in which scientific research and
analysis was conducted to develop possible restoration alternatives. In April 2004, CCI
completed the Phase 1 report and made the following recommendations: restore the historic
title zone, improve water quality issues, restore functioning wetlands & fresh water
marshes, repair upland habitats, improve public trail access, scenic opportunities, and
Volume 58 - Page 220
Exhibit 2, Page 3
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 24, 2007
interpretive facilities, remove invasive non - native plants, encourage public participation,
and provide educational and recreational opportunities. In August of 2005, the City selected
WRC to move forward with Phase 2. They have completed the feasibility assessement,
water quality analyses and preliminary engineering. He explained the changes to the
grading, drainage, utilities plan, planting/habitat plan, trail and facility plan, ampitheater
plan, restroom plan, interpretive education/park use, and the trail and facility plan. He
stated that the next step is a. meeting on August 1, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. at The Bluffs'
Community Room and the comment period for the CEQA process closes on August 17, 2007.
In response to Council Member Gardner's que:
maintenance of the sediment will not be a problei
maintenance manual will be provided at the end
cleanings. Council Member Gardner stated tha e
or test the sediment considered. Regarding
seat ampitheater w�11 be on the slope and Ingle
will be concrete but, between the seats, t,#re will be
In response to Council Member Da
the Orange County DepartmentAO
ampitheater and that the. City
of the schedule. He stated that ti
County to determine the use of the
Weber stated that th ill not
species and replace the ills
In response to Council M
project is to get better drs
capacity, tojl&ve the roa
restorati budget
be lin for
aonj Ms. Weber explained why the
LAe reported that an operation and
Fhe study that will recommend annual
would like the issue of having to distill
Neater, Ma_ Weber stated that the 100
h the nature_ Further, the seating
s q lions, Assistant'W&r Manager Kiff stated that
u n will be the most organization using the
t involve with the but will keep track
ty might want to enter into an agreement with the
1 n and to deal with other issues as they arise_ Ms.
in new species,- but will remove the• invasive
w trees.
ue i _ Weber stated that the focus of the
trjOUR"jiL Ba Drive and, when the water exceeds its
enough Lain the overflow. She stated that the
.mine the level of protection; but the whole facility can't
can not be obtained.
In reap to until Member 's questions, Assistant City. Manager Kiff stated that
the pants the State Water Resources Control Board and the
Cos cY via Propositions 40 and 50_ He confirmed that the
City.. about 15 p rcent of the overall cast to date_ He added that there is
money de The Irvine Company for the interpretive elements and they have
proposed a t $90 , for the trail systems, overlook, benches and ampitheater area.
In response Mayor Tem Selich's questions, Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that
they will get construction estimates and then approach the funding agencies. He
rted the City can set it up so that certain elements of the project are deferred if
th is no g. He indicated that the project is considered a research improvement, so
he d o xpect the City to pay for improvements over the budget_
In res se to Council Member Curry's questions, Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that
the estimated amount of the project is about $8 million to $10 million dollars. He reported
that the State passed another bond measure for.$5.2 billion and the State has supported
this project in the past.
In response to City Manager Bludau s questions, Ms_ Weber stated that speed can be limited
and stop signs can be installed for vehicles. Assistant City -Manager Kiff reported that the
Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem project has a requirement that states there should not be a
net loss of no more than 10 percent of one habitat, and noted that, in this case, it is the
mudflats. He confirmed that it is possible to widen the road upstream and
Volume 58 - Page 221
Exhibit 2, Page 4
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 24, 2007
III.
IV
consider providing a pedestrian lane for safety reasons_
Council Member Daigle stated that there will be a meeting at the Bluffs and it is up to the
community_
Pat.Krohn, representative from the Homeowners Association, stated that the owners in her
candiminium are very interested in the Big Canyon Project and believe that it will be an
enhancement to the community. She asked how the additional people in the area will affect
her neighborhood. Assistant City Manager Kiliexplained that there will not be a new paved
public road, no increase in public access, and all of the tra7s are already existing.
Diana Blazer stated that her biggest concern is tVvehicles because people do not pay
attention to the speed limit which makes the one. She believed that the stop
signs will be ignored, but widening for ingress greas would be helpful_ She reported
that City crews leave the dead branches an ri w they clean the culvert.
Council Member Gardner stated that t Ry should co speed bumps.
In response to Council Member Web's q ons, Ms. We ted that they decided to
keep the same amount of park' ' ' aces use the parking lot derutilized. He added
that the parking area will bent d by school buses brin , ' dren to the area.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT - 5:00 p.m.
The agenda for the Study
Hall Bulletin Board loco
Building. AIML
City Clerk
19, 2007, at 12:80 p.m. on the City
' Newport Beach Administration
Recording Secretary
Volume 58 - Page 222
Exhibit 2, Page 5
EXHIBIT 2
August 1, 2007
Public Hearing Minutes
BIG CANYON CREEK
RESTORATION PROJECT
Phase 11
Engineering, Design, Permitting, and Final Construction Documents
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
August 1, 2007
OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS
Mr. Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager for the City of Newport Beach, began the meeting at
approximately 6:30 p.m. by thanking the attendees for their interest. A sign -in sheet was
provided and circulated to the meeting attendees. Mr. Kiff then introduced City Council
Member Leslie Daigle and explained that she requested the meeting as part of the public review
process for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Big Canyon Creek
Restoration Project. He then explained that pertinent, project documents, including the MND, are
available on the City web site and that public comments may be submitted by using the link to
his email address that is provided at the bottom of the project web page.
Mr. Kiff continued the meeting by providing a summary of the project's history and background.
He emphasized that Big Canyon is a nature park and that the project is not intended to increase
park usage or change its character. Mr. Kiff then proceeded to introduce Mr. Mark Reader,
Project Manager for the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, as well as members
of the project consultant team in attendance.
PRESENTATION OF PROJECT OVERVIEW
Mr. Reader began the next portion of the meeting by presenting an overview of the Big Canyon
Creek Historic Tidal Wetlands Conceptual Restoration Plan, prepared by Community
Conservancy International in 2004. He summarized the issues of concern in Big Canyon and
Upper Newport Bay that are identified in the plan, including poor water quality and degraded
habitats. Mr. Reader continued by describing the opportunities (which are identified in the plan)
to address issues of concern, as well as how the issues of concern and opportunities were used to
guide the project and identify specific project elements.
Referring to a series of large project plans shown to the meeting attendees, Mr. Reader described
the project feasibility study completed earlier this year by WRC Consulting Services. He
highlighted the specific elements of the proposed project, including realignment of Back Bay
Drive, habitat restoration, removal of invasive exotic species, modification of an access road. for
sewer maintenance, water quality improvement, and facilities for education and interpretation.
Additionally, Mr. Reader indicated that mitigation measures incorporated into the project will
prevent negative impacts on the environment and that overall the project will serve to enhance
the environment.
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS OF MEETING ATTENDEES
The meeting continued with attendees asking questions about the plan and providing input
regarding specific issues of potential concern. In general, questions were focused on clarifying
specific aspects of the plan. Clarification questions were answered primarily by Mr. Reader and
Mr. Kiff, who occasional requested that project consulting team members provide additional
information related to their specific areas of technical expertise. Issues of concern generally
served to initiate discussions between and among meeting attendees and City representatives.
During these open discussions, Mr. Kiff ensured that all attendees were provided with speaking
opportunities by requesting that attendees raise their hands and be recognized to speak one -at -a-
time.
As the group discussed environmental mitigation measures, Mr. Jack Keating — of the Newport
Bay Naturalists and Friends (NBNF) — addressed the group and stated that the NBNF has been
involved with the planning process and has a favorable opinion of the project. Following Mr.
Keating's remarks, the meeting continued with further questions and additional discussion. The
overall level of interaction during this portion of the meeting was very productive and the group
was reminded to use the City web site or call Mr. Kiff s office to provide comments and raise
issues regarding the plan during the public comment period.
Questions asked for clarification of the project during the meeting, and issues of concern
identified, are summarized below in separate sections. Questions and issues have been
paraphrased for summary purposes when more than one attendee asked questions or raised
concerns about the same or similar topic.
Issues of Concern:
Need for educational and interpretation facilities — several attendees expressed a concern
that facilities were not needed at Big Canyon because other facilities currently exist
around the Bay (for example, the Peter and Mary Muth Interpretive Center). Much of the
concern was focused on the need for the planned amphitheater. Attendees also expressed
concern that the planned seating capacity of the amphitheater is larger than necessary.
• Hours of operation — issues related to planned hours of operation and controlling access
to the park were raised. Several attendees questioned the need for Back Bay Drive to be
open after dark, primarily due to noise concerns, but also as a means of limiting access to
the park to planned hours of operation.
• Unplanned or nuisance uses of park facilities — several attendees expressed concerns that
the proposed amphitheater would be used for activities that are noisy, incompatible with
project goals, or generally a nuisance to the surrounding community. This concern was
primarily focused on evening and after -dark hours.
Noise related to park use — attendees expressed concerns that the realignment of Back
Bay Drive would result in increased noise from vehicular traffic. Attendees also
Big Carryon Creek Restoration Project Phase 11
Notice of intent to Adopt MND Meeting Minutes Page 2
expressed concerns that the planned uses of educational and interpretive facilities would
result in greater noise levels than under current conditions. The potential for increased
noise related to sewer maintenance was also expressed as a concern.
Negative impacts to birds and other animals in Big Canyon — several attendees voiced
concerns about project construction displacing or negatively impacting animals. An
attendee asked if the Audubon Society had been contacted about impacts to birds. Others
expressed concerns that coyotes and bobcats might be impacted.
Erosion related to removal of invasive exotic vegetation — attendees were concerned that
removal of vegetation in steep areas of the canyon near home might result in increased
erosion problems.
Ouestions:
• Will Back Bay Drive be moved from the current location?
• What will happen to the existing freshwater pond?
• Will access from Jamboree Road be limited to sewer maintenance vehicles and
pedestrians?
• Will buses be using Back Bay Drive after it is moved?
• Does the County own any of the land?
• Will the County be involved in construction?
• What will be the hours of operation?
• What will happen to the existing parking lot?
• Does the project include Shellmaker Island?
• Will educational use of the park by the Inside the Outdoors program increase?
• Is financial help available for removing Brazilian pepper trees from private homes?
• How will the project be funded?
• What is the schedule for project construction?
• Will concrete be used to construct the amphitheater?
• How will the project affect the watershed and water quality?
Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project Phase II
Notice of Intent to Adopt WIND Meeting Minutes Page 3
• Will groundwater continue to get into the canyon?
• Will the plan do anything about problems with dog waste in the park?
• Is anything going to be done about removing dead pampas grass in the park?
CONCLUSION
After meeting participants finished asking questions and discussing issues of concern, Mr. Kiff
provided concluding remarks and the meeting was adjourned.
Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project Phase 11
Notice of Intent to Adopt MND Meeting Minutes Page 4
EXHIBIT 3
Response to Public
Comments
Big Canyon Restoration Project
Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Comment and Response
Chronology and Table of Contents
DATE
COMMENTIRESPONSE SYNOPSIS
STATUS
PAGE
Comment Cow Meerd Nary Gardr�r commented via email
7/14107
on maintenance issues related sediment removal from the upper
pond and possible damage th plods as a result of maintenance.
Comment
1
Response: Mr. Mark Read (Public Works Department) responded
7/17107
via email on July 17, 2007 by outlining the sedarrert maintenance
Addressed
plans for the proposed project.
7!17/07
Folknw up: Council Member Nancy Gardner aeknovAedged the
response via email on July 17, 2007
Comment Council Member Nancy Gardner conri enthd at the City
7/24/07
Council Study Session on ftwiritanance issues related to sediment
removal and testing of sediment characteristics.
Comment
Addressed
4
Response: Dr. Lan Weber (WRC Cog ) responded
7/24107
that a maintenance manual will be prepared as pmt of the proposed
project
7/24M7
Comment Council Member Nancy Gardner commented at the City
Council Study Session on the design of the Proposed amphitheater.
Comment
Addressed
4
Response: Dr. tan Weber (WRC Consulting Services) responded
7/24107
that the amphitheater will be designed to blend visually with the
surroundings and will use grass be[r the concrete sects.
Comment Council Member Leslie Daigle commented at the City
7/24107
Council Study Session on the use of the proposed amphitheater and
to City's involvement in coordinating use.
Response: Assistant City Manager Dave Krff responded that the
Orange County Department of Education is expected to be the most
Addressed
4
frequent user of the ampfhitheater. Assistant City Manager Kiff also
7/24/07
stated that the City will keep track of tie amphitheater use schedule
and that the City may want to enter into an agreement with the
Orange County Depaztinerit of Education to deal with any issues ttrat
arise.
7/24107
Comment Council Member Leslie Daigle commented at the City
Council Study Session on the introduction of new plant species.
Comment
Addressed
4
7!24/07
Response- Lan Weber (WRC Consulting Services) responded
that native species will be used to replace invasive species.
DATE
COMMENTfRESPONSE SYNOPSIS
STATUS
PAGE
Comment Council Member Don Webb commented at the City
724107
Council Study Session on drainage control and the potential for
damage to Back Bay Drive.
4
Response: Dr. Lan Weber (WRC Consulting Services) responded
724107
that a project objective is to protect Bic Bay Drive from damage and
Comment
that the level of protection will ultimately, depend on hxxling
Addressed
availability.
Folbw -up Response Mr. Mark Reader (Pubes Works Department)
8007
emailed a more detailed follow -up response to Council Member Don
6
Webb an August 2, 2007
724107
Comment Council Member Keith Curry commented at the City
Council Study Session on the sources of funding for the project.
Comment
Addressed
4
Response: Assistant City Manager Dave lGff responded by
724 /07
identifying the funding sources, including state agencies, the City,
and The Irvine Company.
Comment Maya Pro Tem Edward Selich commented at the City
724 /07
Council Study Session on the process of obtaining funding for the
projea
Comment
4
Response: Assistant City Manager Dave Kill responded that funding
agencies will be approached after constructor cost esbmates are
Addressed
724 107
prepared.. He continued that the project will be designed so that
certain elements can be deferred if funding is not available and that
the City is not expected to pay for improvement costs that exceed
budgets.
724107
Comment Council Member Keith Curry camrerted at the City
Council Study Session on the expected project cost.
Comment
4
Response: Assistant City Manager Dave Koff responded that the
724 /07
estimated cost of the project is $8 to $10 million. He eonti.nued that
the State has supported the project in the past and recently passed a
$5.2 billion bond measure.
724107
Comment City Manager Horner Bludau commented at the City
Council Study Session on baft and pedestnanh safety.
Comment
4
Response: Dr. Lan Weber (WRC Consulting Services) responded
that the legal speed fa vehicles can be limited and that stop signs
Addressed
724/07
can be installed. Assistant City Manager Dave Kiff responded that it
is possible to widen the road except in the mudtat areas and a
pedestrian lane could be considered for safety reasons.
Comment: Ms. Patricia Krone commented at the City Council Study
7/24107
Session on how additional people in the area will affect her
Garment
5
neighborhood.
Addressed
COMMENTIRESPONSE SYNOPSIS
Assistant City Manager Dave Kiff responded that
project does not iriclude a new paved public road or an increase in
public access. He continued by stating that all of the trails e
already existing.
WAI
El- .\L • n - L. r rr 1 \. r-•
i .YI i! - � • �Y • ii �• 1 -
` •,• ate. >•
' I
1 .I • -Ja-1 is f - - IL \ '15: • Y _I 1 1 "+ \_ Cn
r. f
:1 I I, rA FFN -.. -e-
f � �1 I - �-. • .Y 14 f 4� - :Y is I
f f �.r. �I
r. Y- •r•t
4 IA
Response: Gornmentacknowledged. Ealorcerneryt of rules
governing park access and noise levels is outside the Scope of the
proposed • • however, the YY' • make any appropriate
enforcement changes if necessary the Uwe.
Comment; Mr. Milliard MacAdam (President Bluffs Homeowners
1. 1
_ • Dave • the • erf exofic plans • coricem
Canyori, the fttance of potential negative effect of the exotic plants
and potential funding sources for the removal of exotic plants on
private • •!-
IV
COMMENTIRESPONSE SYNOPSIS
providing a list of plants of concern. Points of contact for additional
provided-
Follow-up Response Mr Mark Reader D. (Public .. Department)
1
emaded _ more detailed list orf . plants and associated f . r- ha. •
negafiveeffiact
1
Comment Mr. Greg Holmes
Substances r t • nr- addressed v Mr. Mark Reader
(Public Works Department) commented about currentiffifstoric land
•. 1
use in the project area t1rat may haw cr in hazardous
wasWsubstance releases; offsite disposal orf scid; procedures
necessary ff contaminated soWgroundwater is encountered during
construction; and other environmental ftclors.
r
Response Historical land use in Big Canyon has been evaluated
through file review of historic aerial ptiotographs maps and other
perbnerd documents. Additionally, limited sampling aid analysis orf
dredge rroterials present at Um site has been perlonned. No
conditicins associated with the release of hazardous waste or
hazardous substances haw been ideritilied. Sol excavated during
tr � I .« • 'r ♦ � he.�ar • � r - r _ « a - • _'Y f. r _: r
1 .'i „•.♦ t r.:. - \ cr . rr r �i •+r.' •r' r r _. 1•:.
Comment Ms. Diana Blaisure via a letter addressed to Council
Member I esl Daigle commented on the potential for increased
noise; IW[ure of vehicles to observe, speed limits; the rationale for the
proposed c. a , 1 .- - .r.a c:r or .r- uses of proposed
facilities, loss of habitat mid other factors.
Response: Big Canyon wig continue to be a nature park and the
project is riot intended to increase park usage or change its
1
character Enforcement orf rules governing park access and noise
levels is outside the scope orf the proposed project however, the City
could make any appropriate enforcement changes if necessary in Um
'lbirnal written response forthcoming.
r • .v a r 'mac. r r - '♦
Ali
•nf c.•A•f
1
- • rf �« « or •r: -ter «_
IV
DATE I COMMENTIRESPONSE SYNOPSIS I STATUS I PAGE
. -.r
Comment: Mr. Greg Gauthier (State Coastal Conservancy) via email
commented ghat he reviewed the RAND documents ttrorougtdy and
arl=7 does not have comments_ However, Mr. Gauthier indicated that tie
observed some typographical errors. Additionally, tie stated that the
National Oceanic & Ahnospheric Administration (NOAA) indicated Addressed
24
ttrat grey have no comments on the documents.
..« ..., ... ..
From: M E Reader [mereader48@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tue 7/17/2007 9:34 AM
To: Nancy Gardner
cc Robert Stein
Subject: Big Canyon Creek Project
Attachments:
Councilwoman Gardner,
I am assisting Bob Stein with the Big Canyon Creek Restoration project and wanted to respond to the email you sent to Bob on July
14th.
In terms of sediment removal, maintenance roads are planned to access the upper and lower freshwater pond areas so that
equipment can operate for removals of sediment.
In terms of possible damage to plants due to sediment removals... the plantings are proposed along the banks of the fresh water
ponds. The deeper areas of the ponds where sediments would coiled are proposed as open water habitats. Eventually cattails Could
grow in these areas and hence would be removed with sediment removals, but the removals of these plant species would be
Incidental to the project
If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.
Mark Reader
Project Manager
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
Any Q's call 94943815260
Exhibit 2, Page 1
From: Gardnemcy@aol.com [C,ardnerncy @aol.mm] Sent: Tue 7/17/2007 12:14 PM
To: mereader48@sbcglobal.net
Cc:
Subject: Re: Big Canyon Creek Project
Attachments:
Thanks, Mark. It looks like a terrific project, and I'm glad to see that maintenance is built in up front. Nancy
Gardner
Exhibft 2, Page 2
Lan W
From: Don Webb [don2webb@earthlink.net] Sent: Thu 8/2/2007 8:31 PM
To: M E Reader
Cc:
Subject: Re: Big Canyon Creek Restoration
Attachments:
Mark
I will be out of town until Aug 19 and would like to discuss thee5e items after then. Don
Webb
- -Original Message-'-- -
From: M E Reader
Serer Aug 2, 2007 2:52 PM
To: Dior Webb
Cc Steve Badum , Robert Stein
Subject g8 Carryon Creek Restoration
Councilman Webb,
During the city council study session you had several questions regarding the project.
Although I believe we had answered most of your questions, due to time limitations it was agreed that I would contact you
to discuss the hydrology and the 90 degree turn at the beginning of the re- aligned back bay drive.
During the meeting it was discussed that new culverts are proposed under the re- aligned Back Bay drive to accommodate
a 100 year frequency storm and provide an all weather access across the mouth of Big Canyon. These culverts will also aid
in the movement of water to create the tidal marsh.
We also discussed the culverts crossing the middle service road will accommodate about 50 cis and during storm events
with higher flows, the road crossing will act as an Arimna crossing as it does now and has for many years. This
configuration will help to create the backup of water from the dry weather flows to create the proposed upper and lower
freshwater ponds.
You were concerned with how the improvements planned for the restoration project would be affected by a major storm
event. I would like to point out that the 100 year flood plain limits have been mapped for this project by WRC consulting.
The interpretive area which includes the parking lot and amphitheater is located outside the 100 year floodplain and
therefore should not be impacted by a major storm event.
The water quality elements such as the upper and lower pond and fresh water marsh are within the limits of the 100 year
floodplain and are subject to the damages which would occur during a major storm event. The mid service road
crossing and Back Bay Drive are designed to handle the 100 year flows, approximately 23,000 cis, but the water quality
elements are designed.for low flows up to 1,000 cis. The ponds could become completely filled with sediments after a
major storm event. It should be noted that maintenance roads and turnarounds are planned to remove the sediments from
the ponds when this occurs under normal circumstances. Various grant money will be available to help construct the
project but at this time since the project is still within the conceptual planning stage, proposed maintenance costs and who
will pay for the ongoing maintenance of the project is still yet to be determined.
In temps of the 90 degree bend from the existing Back Bay Drive to the proposed re- aligned roadway, the centerline radius
is approximately 150 feet. There are some radius on the existing roadway which are less than 100 feet and seem to
accommodate vehicle travel at the posted speed limit of 15 mph, The traffic department has reviewed the alignment and
currently we have asked the consultant to analyze the roadway configuration for bus turning movements, especially near
the connections to the interpretive area.
I hope this answers your concerns and if need be I would be happy to meet with you in person to discuss this project
further.
Mark Reader
Project Manager
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
Any Q's call 949- 981.5260
Exhibit 2, Page 6
From: M E Reader [mereader48@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Mon 8/20/2007 12:02 PM
To: tan Weber
Cc: Dave Kiff
Subject: Public Comment
Attachments:
Lan,
Here is another Item to add to the public comments.
On July 24th at the City Council Study Session, Patricia Krone had concerns about the relocated Back Bay Drive and proximity to her
property. She also had concerns about the trails and their proximity to her property.
On July 31st, Dave Kiff and Mark Reader met Ms. Krone at her home located at 835 Amigos Way no.4. It was determined that when
viewing Big Canyon Creek from Ms. Krones balcony that her property was quite a distance away from the proposed interpretive
center. Ms. Krone was also advised that the extension of the OCSD maintenance road along Jamboree would limit vehicle traffic to
maintenance vehicles and the fire department. The Public would not have access to driving on the exisidng or proposed
maintenance roads.
Mark Reader
Project Manager
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
Any Q's call 94949615260
Exhibit 2,
From: Kiff, Dave [DKiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Thu 8/2/2007 2:43 PM
To: memader48@sbcglobal.net
cc:
Subject: FW: Big Canyon project .
Attachments:
Comments for the MND.
Fran: Bob Olds [mailto:rbolds@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:14 PM
To: IOff, Dave
Cc: Daigle, Leslie
Subject: Big Canyon project
Dave:
Many thanks for your informative presentation last evening
With one exception I am very comfortable with the overall project. That exception is the potential for night time noise, thus hope some restriction
or curfew can be placed on night time traffic and activity.
Of those who commented on this issue last evening, Barry Wallace (with the LA ballcap) and I live on lower Vista Bonita and are in the closest
homes on the North side of the canyon to the relocated section of Back Bay Drive, and the relocated parking (although the Park Newport
apamnents on the South side appear closest).
In finalizing the project please endeavor to preclude traffic and activity that will disturb the night time tranquility that we currently enjoy
Again, thanks for your presentation. Bob Olds, 641 Vista Bonita, NB, 949- 720 -9111
Exhibit 2, Page 8
From: kff, Dave [DIOff@city.newport- beach.cams] Sent: Fri 8/10/2007 10:03 AM
To: MarAdam@PALConsulting.net
Cc: mereader48@sbcglobal.net; Dennis Baker
Subject: RE: List of Exotic Plants
Attachments:
Hi Mr. MacAdam
The plants of concern are in the feasibility study.
It starts around page 38 of this document:
httpl[www.city.newport -beach p. usjCMOJB igCanyonCreek/Main_Body.pdf
I'll ask Mark Reader of our Public Works department to help connect you
to the biologists who can advise you as to distancing. Distance is one
factor, but so is a watercourse (storm drain) that would move a seed a
lot faster than wind would.
Finally, I have asked Dennis Baker of the NB Naturalists and Friends to
help give us some ideas about grant opportunties. More later, and I
apologize that you had to e-mail me twice.
Dave
- -- -Original Message---- -
From: Millard MacAdam [mai- ftmaca..dam@palconsulting, net]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:08 AM
To: Klff, Dave
Subject: List of Exotic Plants
Dave, I need a list of the exotic plants of concern to the Big Canyon
Creek
Project. I want our Association to begin identifying and mapping these
plants
that are on our property adjacent to the project and back bay bluffs.
Would you please send me a list of those plants? Also, please give me
some
direction as to how far away from the canyon these plants are a
detriment to
the project.
In addition, do you have any information or suggestions as to where to
start to
obtain a grant or funds for removal and replacement.
Millard MacAdam
President, Bluffs Homeowners Community Association
Exhibit 2, Page 9
From: Mark Reader [mereader48 @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tue 8/21/2007 2:12 PM
To: Lan Weber
Cc:
Subject: FW: Fwd: Follow Through
Attachments:
Keeping you in the loop
-Original Message---- -
From: KEATING @pacbell.net [ma lto;KEATING @pacbell._net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:49 PM
To: M E Reader
Cc: Millard MacAdam
Subject: Re: Fwd: Follow Through
Thanks, Mark
The recommendations from Margot are very helpful. I'll get will Millard
next week
and we'll figure out what we need for his Board presentation and how to
proceed on
grants necessary to get the job done.
Thanks again.
Jack
- -- Original Message - --
From: M E Reader <mereader48 @sbcglobal.net>
To: John Keating <keating @pacbell.net>
CC: Millard MacAdam <macadam @palconsulting.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Follow Through
>John,
> =20
> Here are the recommendations from Margot Griswold with Earthworks
>resto= ration
> We recommend replacing the Brazilian pepper trees, myoporum and
>acacia = shrubs with the following plants that are easy to purchase and
>easy to gr=
>ow:
> =20
> 1) Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia): a native species that is
>relativel= y fast growing. This plant maybe pruned to a tree shape or a
>multi -trunk = tree and grows to 15- 20 feet. It may also be left to
>grow as a wide shru= b 8 - 15 feet high and as wide. This plant has
>several attractive feature= s, mainly t is evergreen and makes a good
>screen, It has showy red berrie= s covering it in winter from December
>through February. And it is very ha= rdy and almost foolproof. =20 =20
> 2) Bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus): a non native species that
> grows= to 15 -25 feet as a tree or 12 feet as a shrub. this species is
>a common= screening plant With showy red flowers most of the year. It
>is attractiv= a to hummingbirds. This is a foolproof plant to grow, and
>it also grows r= elatively fast. =20
Exhibit 2, Page 10
> 3) Cape Honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis): a fast growing shrub with a
>v= ining habit. It grows to 8 - 12 feet high and 10 - 15 feet wide. It
>has o= range tubular flowers from fall through winter. This species is
>part of t= he landscaping above Big Canyon.
> =20
> In terms of pictures needed for a presentation, these are not a part
>of= the feasibility report
> I did find some pictures on the internet of the recommended plant
>speci= es. I have asked the city print shop to scan the color photos to
>create a= .pdf which could be inserted into a power point
>presentation. The city p= rint shop can get buried with other business
>and I expect to recieve some= thing this afternoon and will forward to
>you once I recieve.
> I might suggest as a backup to search these plant names on the internet=
> and you should find pictures suitable for your presentation.
> =20
> Let me know if I can be of any further assistance
> =20
> =20
> =20
>John Keating ¢keatng @pacbell.net> wrote:
> Hi Mark, =20
> I spoke to Millard after our meeting last Wednesday. This message
>from= him is encouraging as it appears the Bluffs HOA is willing to
>work towar= d removing exotics from there property as we move forward
>with the Big Ca= nyon project. =20
> In order to address his needs for information and pictures for his
>pres= entation on August 22nd, we'll need to work closely together.
>Would it b= a appropriate to ask Gordon Bailentine to respond to
>Millard's specific q= uestions? Perhaps you could ask Gordon to
>provide the listing of the nat= ive species we will use and the
>invasive species that will be removed fro= m the area. I would expect
>the pictures he needs for his presentation ar= a available as part of
>the WRC Feasibility Report. Perhaps we could emai= I a few to Millard.
> =20
> I will work with Millard to help him on the grant writing for HOA
>fun= ding. Also, I'll discuss this with our UNB Restoration Team,
>meeting tom= orrow. The Team is interested in working with HOA's
>adjacent to the Bay = to help them find creative ways of removing the
> exotics. =20
> Thanks,
> =20
> Jack
> I =20
> =20
> Begin forwarded message:
• From: "Millard MacAdam" ¢macadam @palconsulting.net>
• Date: August 5, 2007 4:11:03 PM PDT
• To: keating @pacbell.net
• Subject: Follow Through
Exhmh a,
n
> Reply -To: MatAdam @PALConsulting.net
> =20
> I appreciated receiving the information enjoyed meeting you and
> learning more about the Big Canyon Nature Park enhancement efforts.
> =20
> As President of the Bluffs Homeowners Community Association and
> Chairperson of our Landscape Advisory Committee, I want to do all I
> can to facilitate cooperation between our association and all
> agencies and organizations working together on this effort.
> =20
> If I =92m to be of help in a timely way, my immediate needs are to
> have a list of the invasive species of concern and the native species
> being proposed to replace them when removed. =20
> I also need a few jpg picture Ries sent to me which I can use in a
> PowerPoint presentation I =9211 be doing on August 22nd as part of my
> Landscape Committee Report to the Board. =20
> Lastly, any guidance and direction you can give me in applying for
> funds to remove the invasive species from specifically identified
> areas of our Association property which impact the Big Canyon Nature
> Park is critical. I will need to have located for me to photograph
> what needs to be removed and have pictures of what the trees and
> plants removed will be replaced with.
> =20
> If a walk around of our property is appropriate, I =9211 be glad to
> schedule a time to do it. =20
> Regards,
> =20
> Millard Mac4dam
> President, Bluffs Homeowners Community Association
> =20
> =20
>Mark Reader
> Project Manager
> Public Works Department
> City of Newport Beach
> =20
> Any Q's call 949 - 981 -5260
> =20
> =20
Exhibit 2. Page 12
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Maureen F. Gorsen, Director
Uxia S. Adam 5796.Corporate Avenue
" for Cypress, California 0WM
EmA e
ram W Protection
.
August 14, 2007
�4
Arnold SchmrmnegM
Grniemor
Mr.. Mark Reader.
City of Newport Beach, Planning Department
3306 Newport Bodlbv4rd
Newport, California 92663
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR BIG CANYON CREEK
RESTORATION (SCH# 2007071081)
Dear Mr. Reader: .
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
document for the above - mentioned project.. As stated in your.documeni: 'Big Canyon is
the only natural, undeveloped portion of the Big Canyon Watershed and only significant
remaining natural canyon on the east side of Newport Bay. This project will restore the
tidal marsh by removing about 65,060 cubic yards and create about 7.9 acres of
vegetated and non - vegetated salt marsh habitats.. Bade Bay Drive will be realigned in-
land out of the Historical tidal inundation boundary. The new road alignment will follow
the existing maintenance road and trail dike and will increase in length from 1000 to
1500 feet. The existing freshwater marsh will be modified to a tansiiionai marsh
complex that supports a more diverse community of native wetlands plants. Two
freshwater ponds are planned as habitat areas. and elements of the water quality
Improvement design. Another freshwater pond wil[provide a sediment management
function. Invasive plants will be removed and the area replanted with native species ".
Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments:
1)
2)
3)
The ND should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
project area may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances.
The document states that the ND would identify any known or potentially
contaminated sites within the proposed project area..
The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and /or rernediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government
9 Printed on ReWded Paper
Mr. Mark Reader
August 14,.2007
Page 2
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or
wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be
conducted . to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should
be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the
potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated., It
may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to
reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no
immediate_ threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance
with state laws, regulations and policies.
4) . The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated; properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location_ Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of
contamination.
5) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by
the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if
there are, have beery, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may
pose a risk to human health or the environment.
6) If during constructlon/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater
contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease
and appropriate health and safety procures should be implemented. If it is
determined that contaminated.soll and/or groundwater exist, the NO should
identify how any required investigation and/or remedlation will be conducted,
and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight.
7) If weed abatement occurred, onsite soils may contain herbicide residue. if so,
proper investigation arm remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at
the site prior to construction of the project.
Exhibit 2, Page 14
Mr. Mark Reader
August 14, 2007
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Al Shami, Project .
Manager, at (714) 484 -5472 or °ashami@DTSC.ca.god'.
Sincerely,
i
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office
cc: Govemor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, Calffomia 95812 -3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental. Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812 -0806
CEQA #1763
Exhibit 2, Page 15
Diana Tenn Blaisure
1972 San Bruno
Newport Beach,
CA 92660
8 -15 -07
August 15, 2007
I II:
� j,L4Y, o i� :y fl 11
Subject: Proposed Big Canyon Nature Park
Dear Councilmember Daigle:
I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed improvements to the Big Canyon
Creek area. As a resident of the Bluffs, a member ofthe Bhrffi Lane Committee, a member of the
Friends ofNewport Back Bay and a recently mtaed city planner, I being a special perspective to my
pia in this process. Improvements to the Big Canyon area are greatly needed and, in general, I
supportthe Proposed program.
Subsequent to my mince at the July 24, 2007 presentation to Cry Council, the August 1, 2007
community meeting at the Bluffs and review of both the feau%Mty study and the mitigated negative
declaration, the Mewing comnwals are pmwnMd for your review and consideration:
!. necessAY ofixm9rog Back Road .1 • !1 the homes e: n apartments 131 ring
Canyon in 1 p r1 II[�r'. , and 4P:11', habitat taM ". IY \ and Supported. What is
not understood II the proposed ose mitigation measures and improvernents is that proximity of
the proposed \se glint n will exacerbate ensting conditions. Teenagm 4 andymmg / /a
ot ' 1- I y'
John Airport r:;.se Rights i l-' r i ! I:
c, prominent.
n r- r
a ) 77teproposedlOqM4wedhmtzsmtbawdonreday CurrentlymostwinciesdoWt
,.r comply 1 1 the current °r : :+ larrut of uu r OvertitepastlOyearsofwallang
along rr :c Drive at •:I .t times ofd: ofday and on both .. ,.: and weekends, I can
aftest to the fict that most drivers ,.; no attention to the posted speed limit, n , 1 •_ the
bus drivers who transport Ir.' children for the "Inside the outdoors" programs. Ao, on
weekend evcmiags, none ofthe tmnagers and young :a r ;r: are concerned with the posted
speed limit.
Copy Dave Kit City Project Planer
MMlard MwAdama, Bhd s HOA
President - Board of Diredms
Page I
Exhibit 2, Page 16
Diana Tenn Blaisure
1972 San Bruno
Newport Beach,
CA 92660
9 -15 -07
2. Relocation of the 35 -space Parking Lot.
(a) Again, as with realignment ofBack Bay Road, it is understood that the existing
parlfrrg lot will be relocated, and like the Road, that relocation borings it closer to the
homes and apartments. And again, the issue of teenagers and young adults who use
the parking lot as a hang out, in particular on weekend evenings, will measurably
increase noise msplac& to the adjacent residents. I can attest to evidence on a
Saturday, Sunday or Monday turning of the previous nights activity m the parking
lot_ food, food containers, bear cams and used condoms. For nine years I regularly
walked through that area between 6:30 and 7:06 AM on weekday mornings prior to
going to work.
3. Amphitheater
(a) White relocation ofthe Road and parking lot are understood as necessary, a 100 -seat
amphitheater is not neceesmy. It is understood that the "Inside the Outdoors"
program director (employee oftbe Orange County Board of Education) has
requested the amphitheater. No consideration, however, has been given to the
anyAirheaier being an attractive nuisance. For the teenagers and young adults who
hangout in the existing parking lot, the amphitheater will be even more attractive for
clandestine parties, etc. The amphitheater will certainty attract more young people
than the parking lot does now. The noise will measurably impact the adjacent
residents.
Currently, the children w! 1 attend the "Inside - 11" i' 1 1.1 , divided 1 into
small V 1 p for Ian 11 activities and/or discussions have I'
program .111 "\ years and :11f '4 pleased es 11 N: vl 1.: this opportunity. I
addition, has been my impression 11 a the staff about I 1- 1
participation 11 the i' 1 u •III However, person `,'1 ' I -1 raised two children and
attended 1 IIP.: 1 \ fimetions at If' II d ry schools cannot believe !.': bringing 1 t
fourth =l I : into an amphitheater result in improved instruction. Between
their limited attention span and the limited 1 11 , - of adults \ monitor mass
instruction not 1
(c) Chaparral habitat will be lost with the installation of a 100 -seat concrete beach
amphitheater.
Copy: Dave Kilfy City - Project Planner
Millard MacAdams, Bluffs HOA
President - Board of Directors
Page 2
EAU 2, Page 17
Diana Teran Blaisure
1972 San Brunc
Newport Beach:
CA 9266(
&15-01
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Response and Recommendations
1. XI Noise
c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project (above levels without the project)?
The MND states: "No Impact."
As stated p wwusly, there wifl be an utcrease w noise teve& based on the
previous$ raised issuer young adult evening activity impacts on adjacent
residents inchWing the addition of the amp as an "attractive nuisance."
d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic i tcrease in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project, in excess of noise levels existing without the project.
As stated previously, there will be an increase m noise levels based on the previously
raised issues: young adult evening wtivify impacts on adpzeffi residents
including the addition of the amphitheater as an "attractive nuisance."
Recommendattons and Mitigation Revisions
• Cfose and foch the gates to Bactk Bay Drive after satrset.
The games would greatly re the numbed ofteenagers and young adults in the
area and would elim pate vehicle noise at night.
• Eliminate the 100 -seat wnphftheater from the plan.
• With the Back Bay Road gates closed and locked - an amphitheater compromise:
build a 50 -seat amphitheater with logs for seating similar to the amphitheater at
the Muth Interpretive Center.
2. XV Transportation/Traffic
d) Contain a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or a dangerous intersection) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) that would substantially increase
hazards?
The MND states: "No Impact."
In the " Discussion" design features such as stop signs and a 10 mph speed limit
are expected to mitigate the realigned roadway. As stated previously, most
drivers ignore the current 15 mph speed limit and at night this new curved
Copy: Dave KifQ City - Project Planner
Millard MacAdams, Bluffs HOA
President - Board of Directors
Page 3
Exhibit 2, Page 18
Diana Torero Blaisure
1972 San Bruno
Newport Beach,
CA 92660
9 -15 -07
roadway will be pad of the added "attractive nuhance "for teenagers end young
adults who enM speeding along Back Bay Drive.
d) Recommended mitigation revision: In addition to the stop signs near the parr ing
lot that will affect some of the day time drivers and add some level of safety for
pedestrians and bicyclist, close and lock the gates to Back Bap Drive at night
Most drivers at night will ignore the stop signs and the 10mph speed limit in
addition to those that will enjoy using that loop to test their driving skills.
1) This section of the MM creeds to clarify, as stated by the WRC consultant Len
Weber, PhD at the City Council study session of July 24, 2007, that the exiling
parking lot oontammg 35 parking spaces mrluding two bus parking spaces wilt be
drapficafed in the proposed location outside of the Mal wetlands.
Mitigation Addendum: Sisaaee for dog owners
As noted at the community meeting on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, many people
allow their dogs to run lose in the Big Canyon area and also to defiesate any where the
dog chooses. If you walk the trail down from the edge of the Bluffs property and into
the Canyon there is a lot of evidence of people not picking up after their dogs.
An important addition to the Big Carryon Creek Park improvements would be
installation ofskwW 1hr Clog owners regarding: no dogs off leask mice of City
and SAitefnewfordogsojfksash Concluding SSS) andpicknsg up dogstooi. Also,
place several dispensers of plasde bags for stool colledion and trashcans in the new
park and a sign, dispenser and trashcan at the trailhead adjacent to the Bluffs property
line.
We all want the to improve Back Bay habitat, educational opportunities and recreation
for residents and visitors. The above comments and recommendations have been
submitted with that goal in mind.
Sincerely,
Duns Teran Blwsure
fd* nwptb@pacbell.netj
Copy: Dave KilX City - Project Planner
Millard MacAdams, Bluffs HOA
President - Board of Directors
Page 4
�~ h
!u 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH '.
STATE Cf EARiNGHOUSE AND PIANNIM UNIT.
August 16, 2067
CtTT1 MBRYANT
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state.
agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has
listed the state agencies that reviewed your document The review period closed on August 15, 2007, and
the comments from the responding agency (ies) is ( are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,
Ply notify the State Cteermghnuge fly. Please reefer to the project's hen -digit State
Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Plum note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code dies that
"A responsible or otter public agency shall only mater substantive camincnffi regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency . or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These Comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental doc®mt Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the,
commenting agency directly.,
This letter acknowledges that you, have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, Pursuant to the California Envsonmental Quality Act Please contact the State .
Clearinghouse. at (916) 445 -6613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Terry Roberts ..
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency,
140010th Street P.O. Sox 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044
(916) 445 -0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.oprca.gov .
Exhibit 2. Page 20
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2007071081
Project 77ge Big Carryon Creak Restoration
Lead Agency . Newport Beach, Cky of
Type. MN MUgated Negative Declaration
Description D
Big Carryon is the only natural, undeveloped portion of the Egg Canyon Creek Watershed and the only
significant remaining natural carryon on the east side of Newport Bay. This project will restore the tidal
marsh by removing about 05,D00 cubic. yards and create abort 7.9 acres of vegetated and
non- vegetated salt marsh habitats. Back Bay Drive will be realigned inland out of the historical tidal
Inundation boundary. The new. road alignment will follow the ewsting maintenance road and trail dike
and will increase in length from 1090 to 1500 feet. The existing freshwater marsh will be nuxified to a
iransitional marsh complex #tat wIU support a more diverse community of native wed plods. Two
freshwater ponds are plmined as habitat areas.and aliments of the water qurgity Improvement design.
Another freshwater pond will provide a.sedinent management fundFon. Invasive piers will be
removed and the area replanted with native species.
Lead Agency Contact
Name
Mark Reader
Rgeary
'City of Newport Beach
Phone
(849) 644- 3311- Four
snag
Address
.3300 Newport Boulevard
qty
Newport Beach State CA.. ZIP 92663
Project Location
Comfy
Orage'
City
Newport Beach
Region
Cross Streets
Backbay Drive and Jamboree Road
-Parcel Ala
440-092-78,440-132-35, 440 -092.75
Township
Range Section Base
Proximity to:
%Wwiays . 1
Airports
Railways
Waterways, Big Carryon Creek. Newport Bay .
Sehoois Comm del Mar No school
Land Use Open Space I Open Space Active ! Open Space (0.S)
Project Issues . AesMedcAlisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologlo•Historic; Biological Resources; Coastal
Zone; DratnagaAbsorpdw. Flood Pla n/FWoding; Geobgiclselsmkc tarduse; Nfarereis; Noise;.
PopulatiordHousing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; soil EmaionlCompaclion/Grading;
To*Mazardous; TratliclCiroulation; Vegetation; Water Quality
Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish
Agendas and Game, Region 5; Of0ce of Kistoric Preservation; Department of Parks snd Recreatlorr
Department of Wad Resources; California fthway Patrol; Cairene, District 12; Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Region 8; Depafinent of Toxic substances Control; Native Ame dean Heritage
Commission
Date Received 07/17/2007 Start of Review 07117=07. 1 End of Review 06!1512007
Note: Blanks in data fields result from Insufficient information provided by
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
OU OPPrr0r. MAU , ROOM 3e4 .
&4C RAS®rrq rA sm4
a6)tpueesr-8119n
wresrmexv.
emslk ds�
Auguste, 2007
Re:
Dear Mr. Reader.
RECEIVED
AUG .0 9 2007 is/is IQ(
STATE CtE 4RING HOUSE e
The Native Resources. A Com awn a #0 alaha's Trustee Agency for Nave American Culture
adverse kl the of err historical aft Ad (CEQA) sWHO that any project that causes a substantial.
effect' regrdragi the preparation of an Envim,nmerttal I UsR in (EJRs a §bXOj in
Import Rt�ort (EIFZ) per CEt]A guide6rtfs § 15064.5(bj(c). In .
order to comply with this prevision, the lead agency (e.g. the.Cily of San Diego) Is required In seem whetherthe.
pno d wit have an adverse Irrupamd on these reeamcea within the *area of poterdaf effect (APEy, and i so, to mifigate
that ~ To adequately assess the profi fed impacts on Nabftd amouam s the Commission recommends'
the foicwhtg action
.t Cmrbctfhe appmprOW CW"nb "BtOtic Rmm ces k t mm9an Cantsf (CHM). Corrfad inlbrmdion tax the
Inlormatiar Cerdsr nearestyo i is available from the Stabs OfRce of tiatoric Preservafimf W6AW- 7778)1
h to f/nrww. one .DBFk9.MLMV110gaMimflGY,WRostar odf The record search will determine:
• ' is pmt or the enure APE his been previously surveyed for cudbual resourcrc e$.
• If airy latomn OdbEW resources have shreacly been recorded in or a*icenl to the APE.
• If the probability is law, moderate, or twO that criturd resources are bceted m the APE_
• . If a survey is required to deteard ne whssineir previously unracarded cultural resources are present
J if an Ombnedogicad ftwenicity sum is regtirart, the Inal stage a the preperathn of a praFessioned report deTaaing
the findings and of t to records aaerch and field surrey.
• The Inal report containing afttrams,siteawe.and aufflastim mss should be submitted
imamediM* In the Planning depermerd. AN Intbrmstion regards e16a locations„ Nava.Amedcan human
mfusnu , and s funerary d4acls skid be in a separate confidenfialladderadurn. and not be made ..
evadable for pubic dsdosure.
• . The final written report should be submitted wthn 3 months after work has been competed to the appropriate
regiawl asdiaeohogical Adwnudlon Center.
J Contadth a Native Ammicari Fps Commission (NRI -iC) for
A Sa ad Lands Fib (SlF) search ofthe project aras.anrd odommfiOn on Mast coFdWb in the project
riartgr that may taus adder steed resounw hdwrnisico. Please proridb ilia o�ewtii Una togowirng .
atafion tbrrnat m assist with the sacred Lands Re search rer$raat LISGS 7 5-rri uk muadrascie citation
with Hares. tovmablix ranee and sewn: .
• . The NAHC advkm ft use of Nave American Monitors to endure properidenhTwation and care given aAturei
resources that may be discovered. The NAHC mconmsmde that contact be mode with
ContaftonthemOmbed In gs t Usk bW tau poierdiai project impart (APEj. In some anises, the ebspance of
a Native Amerman culture! resources may be knmm only to a beat bbe(s).
J Lack of smaface evince of ardneobgical resources close not predwie their subsnfma e».
• Lead agencemshouid irnckde fn Uric' min plan provisions for ire ikon and svalua6mr of
may d ecmwed arcdedogicaf mmum s, Per Caf m= Em4mr menbl QuaRyAct (CEQA) $75064.5 (f)
In areas of ickartified Hirdamologleal seer, a coed arrhaeobgat and a mussily afinded Native
American, wdh browledge fn cmiesal raeouees, shout monitor ati - diehebirp adyfilea.
• Lead agencies should include In thek mitigation plan provisions fur the deposition of recovered artifacts, in
consultation vwth culturally affibtad Native Americans_
J Lead agencies should include provisiene for discovery of Nave American hursn remafrs or unmarked cemeteries
in their mitigallon plans.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15054.5(d) regress the lead agency to work with the Native AnwHicans identified
by this Commission I the fmtial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Nave American human
remains % in the APE. CEQA GrkkIdnea provide for agreemenla wfih Native American, Identified by the
Exhibit 2, Page 22
Exhibit 2, Page 23
From: Greg Gauthier [ggauthier@scwrp.org] Sent: Thu 8/23/2007 1:03 PM
To: Lan Weber; dkifftcity.newport- beach.ca.us
CC:
Subject: Big Canyon
Attachments:
Lan and Dave,
I heard back from NOAA and they have no additional comments on the plan or the mitigated nag dec.
I also had a chance to read the documents thoroughly and have no additional comments at this time. There
are some spelling /grammatical errors in the mitigated nag dec but I imagine someone will edit the document for
those issues.
NOAA did say that they might have an idea for a potential funding source to be added to the list and 1 have left
a message with Jennifer Pettis to follow up on that lead. I will pass along any information I get.
Thanks
Greg Gauthier
State Coastal Conservancy
PO Box 224o5
Santa Barbara, CA 93121
805- 892 -4858 office
805- 259 -9539 cell
Exhibit 2, Page 24
EXHIBIT 4
Mitigated Negative
Declaration
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT: BIG CANYON CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS: The Initial Study for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is
available for review at:
Public Works Counter .
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Newport Beach proposes to restore Big Canyon Creek within the existing nature
park between Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. Under the General Plan, the area is zoned
for preservation and is designated for open space conservation. Surrounding areas are
residential developments on the bluff-and Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve to the west.
The proposed project would consist of the following:
• Restore 6.62 acres of historic tidal wetlands at the mouth of Big Canyon
• Realign Back Bay Drive to follow the historical tidal boundary at the mouth of Big
Canyon
• Convert 2.4 acre of the degraded freshwater marsh to tidal wetland and modify 0.8 acre
remaining marsh to a transitional marsh complex that will support a more diverse
community of native wetland plants
•. Excavate the lower freshwater pond to create 1.5 acres of open water to use as habitat
area and an element of the water quality improvement design
• Excavate the upper freshwater pond to create 0.5 acres of open water to provide a
sediment management function and open water habitat
• Enhance water quality through wetland marshes, ponds, and BMPs
• Enhance public use and educational opportunities; provide interpretive signage and
coordinated trail access
• Provide and repair maintenance service access and repair or upgrade any incidental
facilities to meet codes and safety requirements
Permitting and approval agencies include but not limited to US Army Corps of Engineers;
Regional Water Quality Control Board; California Department of Fish and Game; US Fish and
Wildlife Service; National Marine Fisheries Service; California Coastal Comn)ission; City of
Newport Beach; and Orange County.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page i
A copy of the Initial Study is attached. Questions or comments regarding this Initial
Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /NMD) may be addressed to:
Mr. Mark Reader, Project Manager
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: 949 -981 -5260
Email: mereader48 @sbcgloba1.net
Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the CEQA, the City of Newport Beach has independently
reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed
project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City of Newport
Beach. The City of Newport Beach, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation
measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Dave Lepo, Planning Division Director
City of Newport Beach person
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
City of Newport Beach person
Big Canyon Restoration Project
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc.
Date
Date
City of Newport Beach
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
/Section
page
1
Introduction and Summary
1
2
Project Description
4
3
Environmental Checklist
13
I. Aesthetics
13
II. Agricultural Resources
14
III. Air Quality
14
IV. Biological Resources
17
V. Cultural Resources
21
VI. Geology Soils
22
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
25
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
26
IX. Land Use and Planning
30
X. Mineral Resources
31
XI. Noise
32
XII. Population and Housing
33
XIII. Public Services
34
XIV. Recreation
35
XV. Transportation/Traffic
36
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
38
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
40
4
References
41
Appendix A: Tables
Appendix B: Figures
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services. Inc. & WRA Inc. Page iii
CHAPTERI
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE
The Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) has been prepared by the City
of Newport Beach to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed Big
Canyon Creek Restoration Project in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. This
document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq.
An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a
significant effect on the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)]. If there is
substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines §15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines that revisions in the
project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially
significant effects to a less- than - significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may
be prepared instead of an EIR [CEQA Guidelines §15070(b)]. The lead agency
prepares a written statement describing the reasons a proposed project would not have
a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EIR need not be prepared.
This IS /MND conforms to the content requirements under CEQA Guidelines §15071.
1.2 LEAD AGENCY
The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for preparation of environmental
documentation in compliance with CEQA. The lead agency is the public agency with
primary approval authority over the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA
Guidelines §15051(b)(1), "the lead agency will normally be an. agency with general
governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or
limited purpose." The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Newport
Beach. The contact person for the lead agency regarding specific project information is:
Mr. Mark Reader, Project Manager
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: 949- 981 -5260
Email: mereader48 @sbcglobal.net
Questions or comments regarding this IS /MND should be submitted to:
Mr. Mark Reader, Project Manager
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 1
Phone: 949 - 981 -5260
Email: mereader48 @sbcglobal.net
Submissions must be in writing and postmarked or received by fax or email no later than
August 16, 2007. The originals of any faxed documents must be received by regular
mail within ten (10) working days following the deadline for comments, along with proof
of successful fax transmission. Email or fax submissions must include full name and
address.
1.3 PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the
proposed Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project. Mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project to eliminate any potentially significant impacts or reduce
them to a less- than - significant level.
In addition, the purpose of this document is to allow the City of Newport Beach to
determine whether or not to adopt the IS /MND and to approve the proposed project.
This document is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 — Introduction
This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose
and organization of this document.
Chapter 2 — Project Description
This chapter describes the reasons for the project, scope of the project, and
project objectives.
Chapter 3 Section I -XVI — Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures
This chapter identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts,
explains the environmental setting for each environmental issue, and evaluates
the potential impacts identified in the CEQA Environmental (Initial Study)
Checklist. Mitigation measures are incorporated, where appropriate, to reduce
potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
Chapter 3 Section XVII — Mandatory Findings of Significance
This chapter identifies and summarizes the overall significance of any potential
impacts to natural and cultural resources, cumulative impacts, and impact to
humans, as identified in the Initial Study.
• Chapter 4 — References
This chapter identifies the references and sources used in the preparation of this
IS /MND.
1.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 2
Chapter 3 of this document contains the Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist that
identifies the potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and a brief
discussion of each impact resulting from implementation of the proposed project.
Based on the IS and supporting environmental analysis provided in this document, the
proposed Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project would result in less- than - significant
impacts for the following issues: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population
and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service
systems.
In accordance with §15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, a MND shall be prepared if the
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion
of mitigation measures in the project. Based on the available project information, and
the environmental analysis presented in this document, there is no substantial evidence
that, after the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a
significant effect on the environment. It is proposed that a Mitigation Negative
Declaration be adopted in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 3
CHAPTER
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project (Project Area) is located in the City of Newport
Beach, Orange County, California (Figure 1). Big Canyon Creek Watershed covers
approximately two square miles and drains directly into Upper Newport Bay. The creek
flows from southeast to northwest through the 60 -acre Big Canyon Creek Nature Park,
ultimately draining into Upper Newport Bay. The lower portion of Big Canyon is within
the Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve. Big Canyon is the only natural,
undeveloped portion of the Big Canyon Creek watershed, and the only significant
remaining natural canyon on the east side of Newport Bay.
2.2 . PURPOSE AND NEED
Natural tidal flow into Big Canyon was impeded in the mid -1900s with the construction of
Back Bay Drive and placement of dredged materials from Upper Newport Bay, both of
which effectively created a barrier and eliminated more than five acres of tidal wetlands.
There has been significant habitat degradation throughout the canyon due to decades of
dredged fill, invasive non - native plants from surrounding developed areas, erosion, and
lack of a comprehensive plan. Dredged materials placed in Big Canyon have resulted in
large areas of saline and infertile soils, which cannot support native plant communities.
A freshwater pond was constructed in the early 1980s but is now a very shallow marsh
filled with sediment. The pond water is characterized by temperatures too high to
support native aquatic animal populations.
Newport Bay is listed as an impaired water body under the federal Clean Water Act
(CW.A) due to the high levels of constituents of concern flowing into the Bay. Unfiltered
urban runoff carried by Big Canyon Creek is a water quality issue having potential
negative impacts on Upper Newport Bay and the nearly 500 species of animals, fish and
plants that reside in the Bay.
The Big Canyon Nature Park has been heavily used by local communities for passive
recreation and by the Orange County Department of Education for outdoor education. It
is an integral part of the Upper Newport Bay ecological preserve and provides unique
opportunities for the public to learn a diversity of the biological resources and
environmental protection within a short walking distance.
The project intends to achieve the following objectives:
• Restore Tidal Marsh
• Improve Water Quality
• Enhance Riparian Habitat
• Reduce Flood /Erosion /Sedimentation Damage
• Encourage Public Participation and Provide Education
• Provide Recreational Opportunities
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 4
2.3 PROJECT AREA BACKGROUND
The Project is located between Jamboree Road .and Back Bay Drive, approximately one
mile north of Coast Highway along the east shore of Upper Newport Bay. The Project
Area occupies a 60 -acre area that consists of a nature park bounded by residential
developments on bluffs to the north and south. The Project Area is bounded by Upper
Newport Bay to the west and Jamboree Road to the east. A small parking lot,
information kiosk, and Upper Newport Bay are located west of Bay Back Drive within the
tidal zone. Land uses vary within and adjacent to the Project Area and include
residential areas, golf courses, paved and unimproved roads, power lines, and
commercial developments. Relatively undisturbed natural areas associated with the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve are present within and to the north, south, and
west of the Project Area.
The Project Area is characterized topographically by steeply sloping bluffs and a narrow
moderately sloped floodplain; site elevations range from 20 to 75 feet above mean sea
level (msl) for the slopes and from below the mean sea level to 25 feet ms] for the
canyon creek. A perennial stream area is present within the Project Area and supports
riparian species. An artificial dam and freshwater pond are located east of Back Bay
Drive.
Forty -two native plant communities are present in the Project Area (see Figure 2.1 -2,
Project Feasibility Report, WRC 2007). Many of these communities are fragmented,
discontinuous, and threatened by invasive weeds such as Brazilian peppertree and
lollipop tree. Native plant communities in the upper part of Big Canyon include arroyo
willow scrub, alkali meadow, freshwater marsh, and sagebrush scrub. The lower
(western) portion of the canyon is dominated by a large area of freshwater marsh, along
with cottonwood- willow riparian forest, alkali meadow, brackish marsh, mulefat scrub,
alkali grassland, chenopod scrub, coyote brush scrub, and sagebrush scrub. The
canyon slopes contain areas of coastal bluff scrub and coyote brush scrub.
The tidal wetlands on the bayside of Back Bay Drive are dominated by saltmarsh, with
smaller areas of alkali grassland, alkali meadow, alkali marsh, brackish marsh, mulefat
scrub and sagebrush scrub along the edges of the roadway. Mudflats and shallow tidal
channels are present in Upper Newport Bay.
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following work is proposed for this project
a) Restore Tidal Marsh: The historic tidal wetlands at the mouth of Big Canyon Creek
will be restored by dredging and realigning the existing Back Bay Drive inland along
the historic extent of tidal marsh, and removing the existing parking lot. The project
will create 7.88 acres of specific vegetated and non - vegetated salt marsh habitats.
Approximately 65,500 cubic yards of material will be excavated with 1,100 cubic
yards of fill. Plantings will be completed in the low marsh, high marsh, and transition
zone (Table 2.3 -2, Figure 2.2 -3, Project Feasibility Report, WRC 2007). The plan will
result in the addition of 6.62 acres of coastal salt marsh.- The restored tidal marsh
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 5
will improve the transition between fresh and saltwater habitat, enhance habitat for
benthic invertebrates, and increase habitat diversity and complexity.
Restoration of the tidal marsh will substantially increase benthic biological
productivity as a consequence of the introduction of tidal creeks, mudflats, salt marsh
habitat and transitional brackish water connecting the tidal habitats and the
freshwater marsh and restored ponds. Invertebrate species likely to colonize the
area will be similar in species composition to that which occurs along the existing
mudflats and tidal channels in the vicinity of Big Canyon. These species are likely to
include opportunistic species such as polychaetes (Polydora nuchalis, Streblospio
benedicti and Polydora comuta), oligochaetes, and amphipods (Grandidierella
japonica and Monocorophium acherusicum). Larger tidal marsh and mudflat marsh
invertebrates will include California horn snails (Cerithidea califomica), yellow shore
crabs (Hemigrapsus oregonensis), and fiddler crabs (Uca crenulata).
b) Realign Back Bay Drive: Back Bay Drive will be realigned to the vicinity of the
historical tidal inundation boundary, which is approximately 500 feet from the existing
road at the maximum inland extent (see Figure 2.2 -1, Project Feasibility Report,
WRC 2007). To avoid flow concentration and provide better transition from tidal
marsh to the freshwater marsh, a series of shallow culverts (seven reinforced box
culverts, each is approximately 3 ft high and 20 ft wide) is planned under the
realigned Back Bay Drive. The new road will maintain the same width for pavement
(20 feet) following the alignment of the existing maintenance road and trail dike. The
length will increase from 1,000 to 1,500 linear feet in length for the improved reach.
Existing wetland communities in Newport Bay will be protected by leaving the
existing Back Bay Drive as a barrier during construction of the new berm and road.
Grading will restore a gradual slope up to the new road. Once the new road is
completed, the existing road will be removed. Since the salt marsh is open to the
tidal flow, there are minimal constraints that could be caused by the road. Tidal
flushing and inundation are highly dependent on the Upper Newport Bay and will be
monitored for maximum tidal exchange and fluctuation that will ensure successful
establishment of tidal- dependent plant communities.
c) Freshwater Marsh Modification: The existing freshwater marsh will be modified to
a transitional marsh complex that will support a more diverse community of native
wetland plants adapted to salt and freshwater conditions. The reduced marsh area
will be regraded to prevent flow concentration and the existing single outlet will be
modified to multiple culverts in order to provide more uniform flow distribution
throughout the marsh. This improvement will result in higher efficiency of pollutant
removal per unit area of the marsh. The modification of freshwater marsh provides
an opportunity to establish rush and bulrush species appropriate to local transitional
marsh complexes that are currently excluded by existing dense cattail growth. The
freshwater marsh will involve approximately 700 cubic yards of grading primarily to
make the incised channel shallow for the growth of water quality marsh plants and
even distribution of the dry weather flows.
d) Lower Freshwater Pond: A series of two freshwater ponds are planned as habitat
areas and elements of the water quality improvement design. The lower freshwater
pond is designed to be entirely excavated to create 1.5 acres of open water habitat.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 6
Approximately 8,$00 cubic yards of materials will be excavated with minimal fill. The
pond will have a 10 -foot wide freshwater marsh bench that transitions from the pond
edge to two feet deep. At the edge of the freshwater marsh bench, the grade will
rapidly increase to create a water depth of up to five feet to discourage cattail
invasion of the transition and open water area.
e) Upper Freshwater Pond: The upper pond is planned primarily to provide a
sediment management function. This will create a 0.5 acre open water and require
excavation of approximately 1,500 cubic yards of materials with 700 cubic yards of fill
for the divided berm between the two ponds. Based on the sediment transport
analysis, it is expected that primary sedimentation problems will be related to fine
materials (the velocity of the creek is not sufficient to cause major sand or gravel
movement and the existing creek bed contains significant fines as the sources of
siltation). Sediment settling will provide reduction benefits for other constituents,
including total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, and metals. The upper
freshwater pond will also provide open water habitat. This pond will be subject to
regular maintenance to remove accumulated sediments.
f) New Planting and Removal of Invasive Exotics: New planting and removal of
invasive exotic species under the restoration project will facilitate restoration of tidal
marsh, freshwater marsh, freshwater pond, riparian and upland habitats.
Riparian habitat throughout Big Canyon will be enhanced through removal of non-
native invasive species such as Brazilian pepper tree. Mapping of invasive exotic
species within native habitats resulted in four general zones for exotic removal (see
Figure 3.1 -3, Project Feasibility Report, WRC 2007). Dense infestations of exotic
species, within approximately 4.3 acres of riparian, 0.99 acres of coastal sage scrub,
and 0.3 acre alkali meadow habitats, will be removed and replaced with native
vegetation (see Areas C and D on Figure 3.1 -3, Project Feasibility Report, WRC
2007). This includes the proposed freshwater pond area with dense Brazilian pepper
trees. Additionally, spot removal of exotic species, with some replanting, will be
applied to areas with less dense infestations, including 4.4 acres of riparian
woodland, riparian scrub, mulefat, and coastal sage scrub and 0.2 acres of alkali
meadow habitats.
Approximately 0.9 acres of riparian habitat will be impacted by this restoration project
(see Table 3.1 -2). The construction of the relocated Back Bay Road, vegetation
clearing and excavation activities to create the open water pond above the new road,
and the construction of a diversion berm at the east end of the canyon will likely
result in the removal of some riparian trees. However, approximately 1.3 acres of
riparian willow woodland will be restored adjacent to the new freshwater marsh and
pond where ornamental pepper trees now exclude native species (areas C2, C3, C4
on Figure 3.1 -3).
g) Long Term Water Quality BMPs: The project intends to enhance the water quality
for dry and wet flows into the Upper Newport Bay (Figure 22-2). Most runoff from
the two square mile Big Canyon Creek watershed enters the canyon via a 120"
diameter pipe culvert under Jamboree Road. The flows were detected with elevated
pollutants in 2004 and the existing creek offer minimal filtration.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 7
Under the proposed project condition, the natural meandering stream flow and
system of riparian habitat, meadows, ponds, freshwater marsh and wetlands will act
as natural filters, trapping pollutants, sediments, metals, bacteria and nutrients. The
combined filtration and impoundment function of the freshwater pond, wetland and
marsh system will help prevent these contaminants from reaching Upper Newport
Bay.
Additionally, water quality improvements can be provided through sand /gravel filters,
erosion control, and end-of -pipe treatment. The mid - canyon service road crossing
area was identified as the most feasible location for placing water quality BMPs.
Surface flows split into two branches: the existing riparian channel near the north
slope of the canyon (North Channel) and the existing freshwater pond and marsh in
the middle of the canyon (South Channel). The north channel was determined to
have high erosion potential in the reach upstream of the Back Bay Drive crossing
(see Section 3, Project Feasibility Report, WRC 2007). Under the proposed Project
condition, the flow, velocity, and erosion potential within the North Channel is
expected to be reduced significantly under high flow conditions (near or larger than
1,000 cfs). This will benefit habitat protection (less root damage) and water quality
improvements (less sediment discharge into the bay).'
An optional BMP element is to provide an earthen berm near the City sewer line
crossing (approximately 20 feet wide, 4 feet high, and 250 linear feet long) with a
flow control weir and pipe near the low flow invert (see Figure 2.2 -2, Project
Feasibility Report, WRC 2007). This is to provide an impoundment area for pollutant
settlement.
From the Jamboree Road culvert outlet to the first creek bed (from Jamboree Road),
the creek has a reverse gradient which prevents positive drainage. This has resulted
in a poor water quality pool and will be improved by minor grading of the low flow
channel through the existing "hump" along the flow line.
Bioswales will be provided as necessary to filter runoff from the proposed roadways
and parking, and parking lots will be covered with pervious materials.
h) Enhance Public Use and Provide Interpretive Opportunities: The Project intends
to enhance public use and educational opportunities as well as provide coordinated
trail access and interpretive signage. Included in the plan are trails, roadways,
parking, interpretive areas and other facilities (Figure 2.2-4, Project Feasibility
Report, WRC 2007). The components of the plan were identified to meet public and
interpretive education needs to the greatest extent possible while not impacting
restoration goals or practical considerations (e.g., access to sewer line for necessary
maintenance).
Two new minor trails are planned to connect existing trail systems within the canyon
(see Figure 2.24). One trail is to -connect the existing service road crossing to the
existing north trail from the boardwalk bridge to the Back Bay Drive (approximately
550 linear feet). Another is to provide an access between the upper and lower ponds
(335 linear feet maintenance access and additional 275 linear feet foot access)
(Figure 2..24). Within the interpretive area, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
trails (1,500 linear feet) and an amphitheater (for 100 visitors, 1,110 square feet) will
be provided. The trails will be paved for ADA access or armored for erosion control.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 8
The existing parking lot (24,000 square feet and 40 parking stalls) and restroom
facilities (2 to 4 portable toilets) will be moved out of the sensitive tidal wetlands area
and relocated to the existing disturbed area between the previously mitigated and
enhanced coastal sage scrub and the degraded freshwater marsh. The proposed
parking will have similar capacity as the existing (40 stalls).. In lieu of asphalt
pavement, partial pervious materials such as decomposed granite will be applied to
most parking area except for ADA parking. Additionally, there will be an observation
deck and six overlook areas along the trail and roads as rest stops where visitors can
observe key natural features of the restored canyon and watch birds. Materials
excavated during tidal marsh restoration and other activities will be reused at the
central interpretive area to the maximum extent possible (Figure 2.24).
i) Upper Canyon Manhole Maintenance Road:
The existing upper canyon sewer maintenance road along jamboree Road will be
preserved and provided with surface erosion control. This is to facilitate sewer line
maintenance that is coordinated and compatible with existing public use. A new
entrance from Jamboree Road to the existing maintenance road will be constructed.
Additionally, a maintenance road creek crossing will be constructed to allow routine
access to the sewer manhole located on the north bank of the creek near Jamboree
Road (see Figure 2.2 -2, Project Feasibility Report, WRC 2007).
The existing maintenance road will be protected with compacted and hardened
aggregate base to reduce current erosion conditions while allowing for surface water
infiltration. To construct the new service road crossing the creek, the existing 144 -
inch diameter corrugated metal pipe will be extended approximately 30 feet with a
reinforced concrete pipe of the same dimension. The headwall of the pipe will be
extended to the banks to create a level pad for maintenance trucks and crews to
access and serve the north bank manhole. The manhole will be adjusted to match
the access road surface. Where the access ramp exists, natural logs or other
environmental friendly erosion control methods will be placed to anchor the gravel
pad. A maintenance truck turnaround will be provided on the south bank to allow
trucks to back into the ramp and pad area and service the north bank manhole.
The new maintenance road entrance from Jamboree Road will include a 20 -foot wide
new driveway.and a transition to the existing 12 to 15 -foot wide ramp. The ramp is
part of the existing access road described above. The steep slope adjacent to the
new entrance and ramp will be protected with bioengineering measures and planting.
Between the new service road at the creek crossing and new entrance from
Jamboree Road, the existing service road is approximately 900 feet long and 10 feet
wide.
The disturbance area for the new entrance, creek crossing and turnaround is
estimated at 0.4 acres, including temporary grading daylight. The total length of the
existing maintenance road is approximately 900 linear feet which will be increased to
nearly 1,000 feet including the new road and new entrance. Including the existing
road erosion protection work, the total construction area is approximately 0.8 acre.
There are no known sensitive species within and near the construction area and no
mitigation is expected.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 9
j) Incidental Repair and Upgrade to Meet Safety Requirements
In addition to the proposed project elements stated above, incidental repair and
upgrade to current facilities such as the boardwalk bridge crossing the riparian
channel may be included in the construction or deferred to future phases. As needed
repair and upgrade will be determined based on the safety requirements and code
compliance.
k) Construction:
Construction is likely to occur in fall and winter (September 1 to February 15) to
avoid habitat impact. Project construction is expected to begin in 2008 (assuming
funding is available) and may extend two to three years. In general, the following
sequence of construction is recommended with the critical path to finish tidal marsh
grading for open tidal flushing prior to planting in the subsequent year.
Exotic Removal (First Phase in 2008 fall or prior to construction)
1. Remove exotic plants along the upper northern slopes of Big Canyon and on
private property. These trees and shrubs likely are the source of seed that
has led to the degradation of native habitats, and must be removed as soon
as funding is available (and private owners are notified) to avoid degradation
of restored habitats.
2. Remove exotic plants within the existing riparian channel and enhance with
native groundcover. This can be performed following Item a shown above
independent of other elements and as soon as funding is available.
Staging Area (Prior to Construction)
1. Prepare construction staging within the proposed central gathering area. This
area is for construction equipment storage and dredged material stockpile.
Lower Creek Restoration: Tidal Marsh and Freshwater Marsh (2008 fall and
winter and 2009 fall)
1. Construct new Back Bay Drive, culvert, and modify upstream freshwater
marsh.
2. Grade new tidal marsh and plant on the road slopes and in the transitional
zones.
3. Remove existing freshwater pond embankment (existing trail), weir, concrete
drop structure, trail bridge, Back Bay Drive .(in four segments), roadside
berms, and existing interpretive kiosk, and parking lots.
4. Expose the graded .area to tidal flushing and refine grading if needed (delay
low marsh planting to 2009 later winter or 2010 fall).
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 10
Upper Canyon Restoration (2008 fall and winter)
1. Grade upper channel invert to drain.
2. Extend pipe culvert and construct new maintenance access crossing the
creek to serve the sewer manhole on the north bank. Construct a new
driveway to access the existing access ramp from Jamboree. Improve the
existing sewer maintenance road with erosion control. The access route must
be defined prior to restoration to avoid unintentional degradation by the
maintenance crew.
3. Construct temporary water supply — a water line from Jamboree Road to
Back Bay Drive along the existing maintenance road.
4. Provide slope stabilization and native planting near the new road (high
canyon bank is not included in the project)
5. Provide native planting in the remaining upper canyon floodplain area
Middle Canyon Restoration (2009 fall and winter, 2010 fall)
1. Remove concrete armor and pipes at the service road crossing and replace
with freshwater pond embankment (plus the upper pond embankment) and
water quality filters.
2. Construct energy dissipater basin and open water zone for the freshwater
marsh downstream of the embankment.
3. Remove pepper trees and construct freshwater ponds. This activity includes
excavation, lining, and planting.
4. Construct a trail link on the northern bank from the service road to the
existing trail near the boardwalk bridge. This element can be performed as
soon as funding is available, independent of other work.
Central Gathering /Interpretive Area (2009 winter and 2010 fall)
1. Grade central gathering and interpretive area, parking, and loop road access.
2. Remove excess material.
3. Furnish interpretive facilities, parking, loop road, ADA trails and toilet pad.
4. Pave access road and furnish portable chemical toilets.
-5. Provide native planting surrounding facilities.
Signage (2010 fall and winter)
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 11
1. Speed control and traffic warning signs will be provided along Back Bay Drive
and the loop road.
2. Directional, interpretive and regulatory signage will be provided if funding is
provided.
Construction activities will be coordinated with erosion control and surface water
diversion to prevent soils loss, channel instability, discontinuity of water supply during
dry weather season, and flood damages during major wet season events. A Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be developed and a Construction
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be part of the project elements
to be implemented from the onset of the construction to post construction.
Disturbance to biological resources will not be permitted and will be monitored prior
to and during construction. Water quality protection during construction will be
monitored based on a pre - construction Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), to be developed prior to construction.
Approximately 75,000 cubic yards of soils are expected to be excavated and 50% of
this amount (40,000 cubic yards) will need to be hauled off during the creation of the
tidal wetlands. Removal of dredge material is expected to begin in 2008 and will
take approximately 125 days per year for two years. These materials are to be
disposed of at Frank R. Bowerman Landfill at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road,
Irvine, CA, approximately 15 miles from the Project Area. The haul route will be from
the site to Bee Canyon Access Road via Jamboree Road, Ford Road /Bonita Canyon
Road, University /Jeffrey Road, and Portola Parkway.
1) Project Maintenance:
After construction, plants are expected to be established within two years (with
temporary irrigation). Post construction biology monitoring will be performed to
measure the success of the restoration project.
In addition, freshwater ponds will require routine inspection for vector control, as well
as debris and sediment management. Sediment removal is expected only after major
rainfall events. Other routine maintenance will be performed to keep the culverts
clear of debris and sediments. Erosion control materials for embankment and slope
protection will be inspected routinely and repaired or replaced, as necessary.
Inspection will include water quality BMPs at the storm outlets for erosion protection.
Additionally, BMPs involving filtration functions will be inspected to ensure their
pollutant reduction efficiency.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services. Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 12
CHAPTER
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
AESTHETICS
Environmental Setting
The Project Area provides great views of Upper Newport Bay and tidal flats, freshwater marsh,
and coastal bluffs. Views and aesthetics will be further enhanced with the proposed project.
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT NO
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT IMFACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
❑
❑
El
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
❑
❑
®
❑
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
❑
❑
®
❑
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
❑
❑
❑
El
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Discussion
a) The proposed project would not impact scenic vistas. Restoration activities proposed for
the project would in the long -term improve the visual character of the area. Scenic
overlooks at the north edge of the restored tidal wetlands, on the new berm at Back Bay
Drive, at the southern end of the new freshwater pond and at the upper end of the
freshwater pond would provide views of the restored canyon.
b,c) The Project Area is located approximately one mile north of Coast Highway. Relatively
undisturbed natural areas associated with the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
surround the Project Area to the north, south, and west. Temporary impacts to views of
these surrounding scenic resources. during restoration activities would be less than
significant.
d) The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Lights
located within the Project Area and near streets would not adversely alter the day or
nighttime views because they would represent an incremental addition to light emitted in
the area.
Mitigation Measure Aesthetics:
• None Required
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 13
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is located within an urbanized area consisting of a nature park bounded
by residential developments, golf courses, commercial developments and the Upper Newport
Bay Ecological Reserve. The Project Area does not contain any farmlands.
*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 for use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland.
Discussion
a, b, c) The proposed Project would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland
of statewide importance. The Project would also not conflict with existing zoning for
agicultural use or a Williamson Act contract, or result in the conversion of any Farmland
to non - agricultural uses. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measure Agricultural Resources:
• None Required
Ill. AIR QUALITY
Environmental Setting
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) governs air quality in the South
Coast Air Basin, which includes Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties. Air pollution is significant in this region due to high population density
(approximately 15 million people), and tends to stagnate within this basin due to natural barriers,
such as mountains. SCAOMD has a comprehensive strategy for reducing air pollution from all
sources to compliance with federal and state health -based standards.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 14
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
I ACT
WOULD THE PROJECT'*:
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) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑
❑
❑
which, due to their location or nature, Could result in
conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use?
*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 for use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland.
Discussion
a, b, c) The proposed Project would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland
of statewide importance. The Project would also not conflict with existing zoning for
agicultural use or a Williamson Act contract, or result in the conversion of any Farmland
to non - agricultural uses. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measure Agricultural Resources:
• None Required
Ill. AIR QUALITY
Environmental Setting
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) governs air quality in the South
Coast Air Basin, which includes Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties. Air pollution is significant in this region due to high population density
(approximately 15 million people), and tends to stagnate within this basin due to natural barriers,
such as mountains. SCAOMD has a comprehensive strategy for reducing air pollution from all
sources to compliance with federal and state health -based standards.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 14
Ambient air monitoring data indicate that the South Coast area is currently in nonattainment
status for two of six criteria air�pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act: ozone (8 -hour standard) and
small particulate matter (PM2_5). The remaining criteria air pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SCIA and lead. SCAQMD has attained federal and state
standards for all these pollutants, as well as for larger particulate matter (PMIo10).
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT NO
WOULD THE PROJECT *; IM
IMPACT MITIGATION PACT IMPACT
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
❑
❑
❑
applicable air quality plan or regulation?
b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
❑
®
❑ ❑
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
C)
Result in a cumulatively Considerable net increase
❑
®
❑ ❑
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
❑
❑
❑
concentrations (e.g., children, the elderly, individuals
with compromised respiratory or immune systems)?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
❑
❑
❑
number of people?
'Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control
district may be relied on to make these determinations.
Discussion
a) The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality
plans or regulations. The project area is governed by the Southern California Air Quality
Management Plan. The region currently exceeds standards for ozone and PM2.5. The
most significant sources of these pollutants are vehicle and other mobile source
emissions. This Project will restore a degraded tidal wetland and creek watershed area
for ecological value and public use. The functioning of this natural area will not generate
air emissions nor obstruct implementation of air quality plans.
b) The South Coast region is currently in violation of air quality standards for ozone and PM2,5,
and is anticipated to reach attainment in 2010. The Project is not expected to result in
significantly increased air emissions during operations. During construction and
restoration operations, dust resulting from vehicle travel and fuel combustion from
vehicles may cause locally increased levels of particulate matter. Approximately 75,000
cubic yards are expected to be excavated and 50% of this amount (40,000 cubic yards)
will need to be hauled off during the creation of the tidal wetlands. Removal of dredge
material is expected to begin in 2008 and will take approximately 125 days per year for
two years. These materials are to be disposed of at Frank R. =Bowerman Landfill at
11002 Bee Canyon Access Road, Irvine, CA, approximately 15 miles from the Project
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & 1NRA Inc. Page 15
Area. The haul route will be from the site to Bee Canyon Access Road via Jamboree
Road, Ford Road /Bonita Canyon Road, University /Jeffrey Road, and Portola Parkway.
Approximately 20 cubic yards of material would be hauled per truck, eight truck trips per
day in average. This may yield approximately 0.24 lb PM2.5 emitted per day (SCAQMD
2007) in average for the duration of the removal process. Considering possible excess
material removal during a shorter duration and transportation of other construction
materials, it is necessary to define maximum truck traffic allowance per day in the
construction specifications.
For 40 truck trips per day maximum, the maximum daily PM2.5 emission level may be
increased to 1.20 lb/day. This value is significantly less than 760 lb/day which is the
average PM2.5 emission level for heavy diesel trucks across Orange County, (GARB
2006). Based on this analysis, potential emissions from truck traffic associated with this
project would represent insignificant sources of pollutant contributing the overall PM2.5
emissions. Nonetheless, because the South Coast airshed is a nonattainment area for
PM2.5, mitigation should be employed to minimize particulate emissions during
construction (MMAQ -1). (SCAQMD 2003, SCAQMD 2007, California Air Resources
Board 2006)
c) The Project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in air
emissions during operations. However, construction may cause locally increased dust
emissions from vehicle travel, as discussed in b) above. The South Coast area is a
nonattainment area for PM2.5, and therefore mitigation measure should be employed to
minimize particulate emissions (MMAQ -1).
d) The Project will not expose sensitive human receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. There are no residences in Big Canyon, and best management practices
will be used to curtail locally increased dust levels resulting from construction, so there
will be minimal off -site transfer of particulate matter from the site.
e) The Project will not create objectionable odors impacting a substantial number of people.
There are no residences within the Big Canyon area, and odor emissions will not be
changed after implementation of the restoration project.
Mitigation Measure Air Quality -1:
• Best management practices (BMPs) should be employed to minimize dust emissions
from vehicle travel during site restoration. Dust control BMPs typically include the
following:
o Cover all trucks hauling soil and other loose materials or require al trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
o Roadways should be watered down to reduce dust emissions and vehicle trips to
and from the site should be minimized.
o Remove loose soil from truck surfaces before leaving the Project Area.
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph.
• Minimize idling time.
• Maintain properly tuned equipment.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 16
o Limit the hours of operation of heavy -duty equipment and /or the amount of
equipment in use. -
As part of the BMPs, construction activities will need to comply with all applicable
SCAQMD rules and regulations from the 2007 "Air Quality Analysis Guidance
Handbook ", which is currently being developed to replace the 2003 Handbook.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Habitats present within the Project Area were identified and mapped as part of the Phase I
study for the project. Forty -two native plant communities are present in the Project Area. Many
of these communities are fragmented, discontinuous, and threatened by invasive weeds such
as Brazilian peppertree and lollipop tree. Native plant communities in the upper part of Big
Canyon include arroyo willow scrub, alkali meadow, freshwater marsh, and sagebrush scrub.
The lower (western) portion of the canyon is dominated by a large area of freshwater marsh,
along with cottonwood- willow riparian forest, alkali meadow, brackish marsh, mulefat scrub,
alkali grassland, chenopod scrub, coyote brush scrub, and sagebrush scrub. The canyon
slopes contain areas of coastal bluff scrub and coyote brush scrub.
The tidal wetlands on the bayside of Back Bay Drive are dominated by saltmarsh, with smaller
areas of alkali grassland, alkali meadow, alkali marsh, brackish marsh, mulefat scrub and
sagebrush scrub along the edges of the roadway. Mudflats and shallow tidal channels are
present in Upper Newport Bay. In addition, a freshwater marsh, riparian areas, and stream
channel occur on the project site. Wetlands, streams, and riparian areas that are subject to
jurisdiction by the Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the
City of Newport LCP have been determined. As described in the project description, these
areas will be impacted by project construction; however, overall, a net increase in wetland and
riparian habitats will be present following project implementation.
The Project Area contains approximately 13.9. acres of Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands and
5.8 acres of "other waters ". This restoration project includes permanently filling 0.9 acres of
wetlands and 0.1 acres of waters. Approximately 3.8 acres of wetlands and 2.3 acres of waters
will be temporarily impacted during Project construction. However, a net gain of 4.0 acres of
Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands is expected to occur as a result of this project while 1.0 acres
of waters will be lost (Table 3.1 -1).
Approximately 14.2 acres of wetlands and 5.8 acres of open waters as defined by the City of
Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LPC) occur in the Project Area. Approximately 0.9
acres of wetlands and 0.13 acres of waters will be permanently filled. Approximately 3.8 acres
of wetlands and 2.3 acres of waters will be temporarily impacted during Project construction. A
net loss of 2.4 acres of freshwater marsh, 0.3 acres of seasonal alkali wetlands, and 1.0 acres
of open waters are expected to result from this restoration project. However, a net gain of 6.6
acres of coastal salt marsh and 0.4 acres of riparian habitat will result from this Project. (Table
3.1 -2)
Several federally listed plant and avian species associated with wetland and salt marsh habitats
have been observed or have a high potential to occur within the Project Area. Patches of salt
marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus; FE, SE) occurs in salt marsh near
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 17
the mouth of Big Canyon. With 30,000 individuals counted in 2003, Big Canyon has the most
significant population in Southern California. The project is designed to avoid impacts to this
species. Five additional special status plant species occur within the Project Area: southern
tarplant (Hemizonia panyi spp. australis; CNPS List 1B), California boxthom (Lycium
californicum; CNPS List 4.2), southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii; CNPS List
4.2), estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa; CNPS List 1B), and woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia;
CNPS List 4.2).
The Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica califomica; FT) has been observed in
saltbrush scrub habitat. The Light - footed Clapper Rail (Ralius longirostris levipes; FE, SE, State
Fully Protected) has been observed in cordgrass dominated habitats and Beldings Savannah
Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi; ST, State Fully Protected) has been observed in
pickleweed habitat within the Project Area. In addition, the California Brown Pelican (Pelicanus
occidentalis, FE, SE) was observed foraging in channels west of the salt marsh in Upper
Newport Bay and California least tem (Sterna antilarum browni, FT) was observed foraging in
tidal water areas near the Project Area. Neither species has been observed within the Project
Area.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
LESS THAN
®
❑
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑
®
❑
❑
through habitat modification, on any species
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
❑
®
identified as a sensitive, candidate, or special status
❑
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
or with established native resident or migratory
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑
®
❑
❑
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
❑
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
by the California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
❑
®
❑
❑
protected wetlands, as defined by §404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
❑
®
❑
❑
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
❑
❑
❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
1] Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
- ❑
❑
❑
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 18
Discussion
a) In 2004, Keane Biological Consulting (KBC) conducted surveys for rare species with
potential to occur within the Project Area. There are six special status plant species that
were observed or are expected to occur in the Project Area and twelve species that are
present in Upper Newport Bay and therefore could potentially occur at Big Canyon.
Eleven special status bird species were observed within the Project Area and ten bird
species have potential to occur. Two herpetological species have potential to occur and
one special status insect species was observed. Twenty additional insect species have
potential to occur within the Project Area. Mitigation measures have been established
for those species impacted during restoration construction (see Mitigation Measure
Biological Resource -1 MMBR -1 and MMBR4).
b) 11.2 acres of riparian habitat are present in the Project Area (Table 3.1 -3). Approximately
0.9 acres of riparian habitat will be impacted by the restoration project. Coastal sage
scrub habitat, which is an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), is also present
in the Project Area: Of the 14.7 acres of coastal sage scrub found in the Project Area,
approximately 1.8 acres will be permanently removed. (see MMBR -2).
c) The Project Area contains approximately 13.8 acres of Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands
and 5.8 acres of `other waters". This restoration project includes permanently filling 0.9
acres of wetlands and 0.1 acres of waters as a result of the Back Bay Road realignment,
non - native plant removal, and grading in stream, pond, and marsh areas for their
conversion to salt marsh or pond habitat. Approximately 3.8 acres of wetlands and 2.3
acres of waters will be temporarily impacted during Project construction.
Approximately 25.3 acres of wetlands as defined by the City of Newport Beach LCP
occur in the Project Area. Approximately 1.3 acres of wetlands will be dredged or filled,
including 0.3 acres of seasonal alkali wetland, 2.4 acres of freshwater marsh, and 1.0
acres of open water areas. (see MMBR -3)
d) Removal of riparian habitat would occur as a result of the relocation of Back Bay Road, the
creation of the open water pond above the new road, and construction of a diversion
berm near the east end of the canyon. The removal of riparian habitat may interfere with
the movement of migratory fish species and wildlife species (see MMBR4).
e,f) The proposed Project would not conflict with protection of biological resources under the
City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (as Adopted
December 13, 2005). The proposed tidal marsh restoration would serve to enhance and
restore marine resources. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters,
tidal marsh, Big Canyon Creek, and wetlands would be enhanced and restored. The
proposed Project would control runoff, maintain natural vegetation buffer areas that
protect riparian habitats and provide erosion control to protect Big Canyon Creek. The
proposed Project would protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas against
significant disruption of habitat values by carefully controlling public use. Recreation,
interpretation and educational areas would be sited and designed to prevent impacts to
environmentally sensitive habitats. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of
any local policies and ordinances.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 19
Mitigation Measure Biological Resources -1
The restoration of the Project Area would create native transitional and wetland habitats,
which would increase the nesting and foraging habitats for wildlife species. The
restoration of native habitats would also improve habitat for special status plants.
Impacts to special status species may occur during the construction of the restored
creek.
• Project construction will be limited to the non - breeding period for sensitive
wildlife, generally between September 1st to February 15t ". However, should
work be conducted outside this period, a qualified biologist will conduct
preconstruction surveys within two weeks prior to the commencement of
construction to verify the presence or absence of birds, including raptors,
passerines, and their nests. If the survey indicates the potential presence of
nesting raptors or protected passerines, construction workers will adhere to
CDFG avoidance guidelines, which are typically a minimum 500 -foot buffer zone
surrounding active raptor nests and a 250 -buffer zone surrounding nests of other
birds.
• Populations of Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus within 100 feet of project
construction will be marked and construction fencing will be erected to protect
these areas during construction. No take of this species is anticipated with the
project.
Mitigation Measure Biological Resources -2
Approximately 1.3 acres of riparian willow woodland will be restored and enhanced
through removal of invasive exotic plant species. Native riparian species will be planted
and seeded in areas that are opened up with the removal of exotic species. A mix of
each canopy layer will be planted. Specific placement of species will depend on soil and
hydrologic conditions. In addition, 3.3 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat will be
restored and 2.3 acres will be enhanced with the implementation of this project
Therefore it is self- mitigating and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Mitigation Measure Biological Resources -3
A net gain of 4.0 acres of Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands is expected to occur as a
result of this project by restoring tidal influence to Big Canyon Creek, and converting the
degraded freshwater pond to freshwater marsh. (Table 3.1 -1) A net gain of 6.6 acres of
coastal salt marsh habitat and an overall 2.1 acres of wetland features subject to LCP
policies are expected to result from this restoration project (Table 3.1 -2). Wetlands will
be restored and enhanced through improving drainage and planting native wetland
species. Because additional wetland habitat will be created with the implementation of
the Project, it is self- mitigating and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Mitigation Measure Biological Resources -4
Restoration of the riparian habitats will improve habitat and water quality for migratory
fish and wildlife species and restore migratory corridors within the Project Area.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 20
Mitigation Measure Biological Resources-5
Permit applications to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, the Department of Fish and Game, and the City of Newport Beach must be filed
prior to construction of the project and all conditions associated with those permits will
be adhered to during and following construction activities.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
The Project Area is in an area of known resources according to the Environmental Assessment
of Back Bay Trunk Sewer (East Side) (1976). A resource site does exist on the landward side
of the road at the base of the bluff near Big Canyon.
Discussion
a, b, c) The resource site would be fenced so that there will be no trespassing or construction in
this area. The Project will have no permanent impact on known
archaeological /paleontological resources.
d) No known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries would be
disturbed by the Project.
Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources:
• Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources -1
An. archaeological observer will be present during excavation to inspect the materials. If a
significant resource is found, contract provisions will be made to halt construction for three days .
to facilitate resource removal.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 21
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
MI PACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑
❑
❑
significance of a historical resource, as defined in
§15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑
❑
®
❑
significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant
to §15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑
❑
❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those ❑
❑
❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a, b, c) The resource site would be fenced so that there will be no trespassing or construction in
this area. The Project will have no permanent impact on known
archaeological /paleontological resources.
d) No known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries would be
disturbed by the Project.
Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources:
• Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources -1
An. archaeological observer will be present during excavation to inspect the materials. If a
significant resource is found, contract provisions will be made to halt construction for three days .
to facilitate resource removal.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 21
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Setting
Surface materials at the Project Area generally consist of dredged fill which is typically silty
sand. Native site material contains sandy clay. The deposition of dredge materials in Big
Canyon combined with the construction of Back Bay Drive have apparently modified the
topographic features of the canyon and influenced the establishment of both native and non-
native plant communities. The specific chemistry and soil characteristics of the dredge spoil
locations have created large infertile areas and areas dominated by exotic species.
Discussion
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 22
LESS THAN
PQLENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMP ACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
❑
❑
❑
delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
(Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.)
ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
iii)
Seismic - related ground failure, including
❑
❑
❑
liquefaction?
IV)
Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
❑
®
❑
❑
topsoil?
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
❑
❑
❑
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
❑
❑
®
❑
18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
❑
❑
❑
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
_
Discussion
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 22
a) The Project Area is located in the City of Newport Beach. There are a number of faults in
the southern California area which are considered active and will have an effect on the
Project Area in the form of moderate to strong ground shaking, should they be the
source of an earthquake.
i) The Project Area is not located within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No
known active or potentially active faults are shown crossing the Project Area on
published maps. No evidence for active or potentially active faulting was
encountered during the onsite geotechnical evaluation (GSI 2006).
ii) Based on the analyses by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI 2006) historical seismic activity in
the area surrounding the proposed Project shows that the largest earthquake
magnitude within a 100 -mile radius of the Project Area between 1800 and 2006
was 7.6. The Project Area would be subject to varying groundshaking intensities
in the event of an earthquake on any of the potentially active faults in the region.
However, the project does not include any buildings or critical facilities which
could be damaged and result in loss, injury, or death.
iii) Liquefaction, a secondary earthquake- induced hazard, occurs when water -
saturated soils lose their strength and liquefy during intense and prolonged
groundshaking. According to analyses by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI 2006), areas
within the middle of the canyon have liquefaction potential in the Seismic Hazard
Zone. However, there are no buildings or critical structures within the Big
Canyon Creek which could expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects.
iv) The Project Area does not contain any existing landslide hazards.
b) During Project construction, excavation and grading will be required. Construction is likely
to occur in and near the winter due to habitat impact restrictions (March to August). An
Erosion Control Plan will be included in the Construction SWPPP and implemented at
the onset of the construction to avoid temporary erosion caused by rainstorms. The
contractor will provide a surface flow control plan to avoid erosion for approval prior to
construction.
The Proposed Project involves beneficial changes to creek topography, including
creation of upper and lower ponds and modification to the freshwater marsh, Back Bay
Drive, and tidal marsh. This will result in a more stable channel condition and reduce
erosion potential as summarized below. A complete description is provided in the
feasibility study report (WRC 2007).
The north channel, which is currently subject to severe erosion, will have lesser flows
and lower velocities during high flow events due to reduction in both the trail dike length
and overtopping flows from the south channel.
Back Bay Drive will have relatively higher elevations compared to the 100 -year flood
level. Drainage culverts will be much wider than the existing weir and pipe culverts to
avoid flow concentration and reduce scour potential.
The freshwater ponds created above the service road crossing, partially by fill at the
service road (embankment) and partially by excavation, will maintain similar hydraulic
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 23
features as the existing condition — as described in Section 3.2 and Appendix B of the
feasibility study report (WRC 2007). Therefore, no negative impacts on channel stability
and erosion /sedimentation will result from the construction of freshwater ponds.
The creek bed upstream of the existing service road is much higher than the
downstream marsh area. Creek soils may become unstable during future major
rainstorm events as the service road is only protected locally and partially near the pipe
culvert outlet. Under the Proposed Condition, stabilization of the road embankment will
ensure the gross stability of the creek and no mass erosion will occur and impact the
tidal marsh and Upper Newport Bay (MMGS -1).
c) The canyon slope near the central gathering area has been identified as potentially
unstable; however, Project elements will be placed with sufficient setback (20 feet at
minimum) and will not cause any impact to the slope stability. Based on the feasibility
study report (WRC 2007), no active fault zones exist in the area (see Section 3.5 and
Appendix C of the report). With only minor, temporary alterations to site topography
resulting from Project construction, no impacts to unique geologic features will occur.
d) The Project area contains previously dredged materials from Upper Newport Bay and may
contain expansive soils. However, there are no habitable structures and buildings
existing and proposed within the project site which can expose people to hazards related
to expansive soils. All concrete work, boardwalk, and roadway pavement must be
constructed with adequate foundation preparation following City standards and
geotechnical engineer's recommendation (MMGS -2)
e) The Proposed Project does not include septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems.
As such, there is no potential for soil failure associated with the installation of septic
tanks or alternative waste disposal systems.
Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils -1:
Soil loss prevention will be provided through the implementation of the erosion control plan and
surface flow control plan, as described under Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality -
2.
Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils -2:
A licensed geotechnical engineer will prepare a foundation recommendation report for roadways
and minor structures, such as overlooks and the amphitheater. A registered civil engineer will
prepare structural and facility foundation details per the geotechnical engineer's
recommendation or City standards (if more conservative). Other excavation and competent
materials will be described on the detailed plans to guide the contractors where needed (such
as roadways and minor structures), as recommended by the soils engineer. The Project will
result in no significant impacts. Design and construction will follow the currently available public
work construction standards, including City's standards.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 24
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Setting
A preliminary soil contaminant analysis of soils within the Project Area was conducted by
Weston Solutions, Inc. during November 15 -17, 2006. , In addition and water quality was also
assessed on August 10, 2004 and August 20, 2004.
The results of the soil contaminant analysis show that metals including arsenic, barium,
Cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver were all detected at levels below
effects range -low (ERL) for marine sediment and within background levels for soil established
by NOAA (WRC 2007). Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs and organotins were not
detected. These results suggest that the soils in the tidal marsh and freshwater marsh are not
considered contaminated. Therefore, these soils are likely to be suitable for on -site fill. With the
creation of tidal wetlands, approximately 37,500 cubic yards of dredged fill material will be
disposed offsite. Offsite disposal of these soils is not expected to require additional costs due to
soil Contaminants. However, the analysis is based on a single sample which may not be
representative of general site conditions. The analysis results will need to be verified during the
construction phase.
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and/or accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials, substances, or waste 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 §65962.5, and, as a result, create
a significant hazard to the public or environment?
e) Be 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? If so, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
t) Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, ❑
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Big Canyon Restoration Project
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc.
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN
WITH SIGNIFICANT NO
MITIGATION IMPACT IMPACT
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑
City of Newport Beach
Page 25
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ El
loss, injury, or death from wildland fires, including
areas where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
a) No known hazardous materials are present within the Project Area and the Project would
not involve the transport, use, or disposal of any hazardous materials. Soil toxicity
testing conducted to date by Weston Solutions, Inc. has shown that contaminant
concentrations in site soils are within background levels, and the soils are considered
non -toxic and suitable for use as fill or disposal at solid waste landfills or dredge disposal
areas. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) No foreseeable upset and /or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials, substances, or waste into the environment is anticipated with the
implementation of this Project.
c) No schools are. present or proposed within one - quarter mile of the Project Area, nor are
hazardous emissions expected to be emitted or handled through the implementation of
this Project.
d) No portion of the Project Area is included on a list of hazardous materials sites that would
create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
e, f) The project area is within two miles from John Wayne Airport. However, given the nature
of the project (habitat restoration and installation of recreational and interpretive
facilities), safety hazards are not expected for people working, visiting, or residing the
Project Area.
g) The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
h) Since the proposed Project is a restoration project covering a 60 -acre site of open space
and includes the preservation of native plant communities susceptible to wildland fires
such as chaparral and coastal sage scrub, there would be less than significant impact on
exposure to people or structures to fire.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Setting:
Big Canyon Creek's watershed of approximately
completely developed and contributes significant
drains this watershed directly into Upper Newport
San Joaquin Reservoir east of MacArthur Blvd.
Big Canyon Restoration Project
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services. Inc. & WRA Inc.
two square miles is highly urbanized and
water flow to the Project Area. The Creek
Bay. The headwaters are located near the
City of Newport Beach
Page 26
Le
C
Big Canyon Creek is in a natural, un- channelized condition within the Project Area. The natural
function of Big Canyon includes accommodating storm events and flooding; during large floods,
such as a 100 -year flood, the entire canyon floor is inundated. This natural flooding process
provides the necessary soil moisture for plant growth. However, the channel banks and inverts
are subject to erosion and sedimentation during flood events which may cause damages to
roadways, boardwalk bridge, and other infrastructures. This may also impact the existing
habitats. The Project intends to improve the creek stability and prevent major erosion hazards
during future flood events. Recognizing the environmental sensitivity, no major engineering work
is allowed to entirely armor the creek and canyon. The Project's goal is to protect the
infrastructure and reduce potential habitat loss with erosion and sedimentation management
acceptable to the regulatory agencies.
Tidal inundation in the Project Area is limited to the bayside of Back Bay Drive. Previous
construction of Back Bay Drive cut off tidal flow but historic aerial photographs and maps of Big
Canyon show that the historic range of the tidal wetlands once extended approximately 500 feet
inland from Back Bay Drive and reached across the entire canyon mouth. Big Canyon currently
drains through three 15 -inch pipes under Back Bay Drive. The Project intends to restore the
historical tidal inundation while preserving the existing sensitive habitats.
The water in Big Canyon Creek is unfiltered urban runoff draining a two- square mile.developed
watershed. The creek carries fertilizers and pesticides from lawns, landscaping and golf
courses and pollutants from cars, streets and paved areas upstream of the Project Area. During
storms, water sampling has shown very high levels of fecal bacteria at the Big Canyon Creek
outlet in Upper Newport Bay based on the 2004 monitoring results. Upper Newport Bay is listed
as an impaired water body under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. According to this
classification, the following contaminants occur in both Upper and Lower Newport Bay:
pesticides and metals, nutrients, pathogens, and sediments /siltation. Total Minimum Daily
Loads (TMDL) for Newport Bay have been established for sediments, nutrients, and fecal
coliform.
The Project intends to help meet these TMDLs by addressing the polluted runoff in the creek
before contaminated water reach Upper Newport Bay. The proposed Project includes an
integrated system of water quality improvement components, erosion and sedimentation control
and use of natural habitats. (Community Conservancy International 2004)
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 27
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑
❑
❑
discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑
❑
❑
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
such that there would be a net. deficit in aquifer
volume or lowering of the local groundwater table.
level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby
wells would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑
®
❑
❑
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 27
the site or area, including through alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial on- or off -site erosion
or siltation?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ❑
site or area, including through alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in on- or off -site flooding?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ ❑ ❑
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f)
Substantially degrade water quality?
❑
®
❑
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area,
❑
❑
❑
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h)
Place structures that would impede or redirect flood
❑
❑
❑
flows within a 100 -year flood hazard area?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
❑
❑
❑
loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding
resulting from the failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
Discussion
a) The Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
b) No groundwater resources would be affected. Therefore, the direction or rate of flow of
groundwater would not be affected by the Proposed Project. The Project would not
introduce artificial recharge or create a significant barrier. Therefore, the groundwater
and subsurface flows would remain the same in both magnitudes and directions.
c) The existing creek shows moderate sedimentation potential upstream of the service road
crossing and within the freshwater marsh area. Under the project condition, the fresh
water ponds would be constructed in the existing sedimentation area upstream of the
service road crossing. The ponds would trap sediments as the flows move through;
however, the project includes an upper pond for sediment management. The upper pond
will serve as a debris /sediment management area which will significantly reduce the
sedimentation levels within the lower pond and protect its habitat value. The upper pond
will be routinely maintained by the City to achieve the desired restoration objectives
(MMHWQ -1)
No development exists downstream which would be impacted by the sediment levels
within the pond. Since the upper watershed is heavily urbanized, it is expected that
sediment removal is feasible and may need to be performed only after major rainstorms.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 28
0
1 ■
1A
//
0
d) The Project would maintain the same drainage paths and patterns as currently exist. The
surface flow rates would also remain the same with the implementation of the Project.
e) The additional impervious surfaces or other similar features are insignificant to cause any
noticeable increase in surface runoff.
f) The Project would result in positive water quality improvement. This project does not
involve major riparian woodland creation work which might result in negative impacts
associated with wildlife pollutants. The restoration elements provide an integral system
of water quality filtration: riparian wetlands, freshwater ponds (upper pond also serves
sediment detention), freshwater marsh, and additional end of the pipe BMPs. Optional
BMPs can be offered through formation of a detention area behind the water quality
berm at the City sewer crossing in the upper canyon. In addition, the riparian channel
(North Channel) would receive less flows, therefore, reduce the erosion potential during
high flows (approximate at or larger than 1,000 cfs).
The Project would be required to comply with .applicable construction activity through
preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for urban
runoff pollutants (MMHWQ -2)
g) All residential properties are on the high banks above the 100 -year floodplain. These
banks will not be impacted by the Proposed Project.
h) The existing Project Area is within the Big Canyon Creek 100 -year floodplain and would
maintain nearly the same floodplain footprint and water surface elevations under the
Proposed Project conditions. The water surface elevations in.most of excavated area
below the proposed Back Bay Drive would be reduced to the tidal level and the realigned
portion of Back Bay Drive would not be subject to riverine or tidal flooding.
The embankments of the freshwater ponds would be constructed with sufficient stability
against erosion by a 10 -100 year flood. Note that the design requirements do not
require 100 -year flood protection since it is a restoration project, but the City has elected
to increase its stability level. The park will be closed during significant rainstorms and no
risk associated with property loss or life threatening conditions would result from the
project since no development is below the pond embankment. The Proposed Project
would not increase the risk of people or structures to loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
j) The Proposed Project would not increase the risk of the Project Area or surrounding land
to be inundated as a result of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The watershed is heavily
urbanized and the Upper Newport Bay is protected against ocean waves.
Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality -1:
A California State registered civil engineer with sufficient knowledge of Big Canyon Creek
erosion and sedimentation issues will develop a maintenance program prior to construction
completion. The City will inspect and maintain the freshwater ponds per the guidelines stated in
the maintenance program.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 29
Mitigation Measure Hydrology and Water Quality -2:
The WQMP would implement all applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) as outlined in
the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan to ensure that potential adverse
effects on water quality are minimized.
A California State registered civil engineer with knowledge of the erosion, sedimentation, and
water quality issues of Big Canyon Creek will prepare a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) according to the Orange County Resources and Development Management
Department's Drainage Area Management Plan guidelines and specific project needs for
construction water quality management. Construction phasing, construction SWPPP, and
surface flow control will be part of the WQMP. The contractor will prepare a final plan based on
the civil engineer's draft and review comments. A resident engineer or City representative will
certify plan implementation and will monitor the construction activities from preparation for
construction to construction completion.
Weston Solutions, Inc. (2006) has prepared a Monitoring Plan and Quality Assurance Project
Plan for assessing baseline water quality data and to assess the water and sediment quality that
need to be addressed in the design and long -term sustainability of the Project.
The project itself is a water quality enhancement project and no additional long term mitigation
is required.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The Project Area is currently a primary access point to Upper Newport Bay. The estuary is
used by the public for recreation, wildlife observation and wetland -based education. Hikers,
joggers, and bicyclists typically concentrate their activities along Back Bay Drive. The parking
lot can currently accommodate 35 cars and two buses. A wood timber kiosk is located a short
walk from the parking lot. The trails leading to the kiosk have been damaged by flooding and
are not clearly marked. The Project would maintain the current open space land use and
restore the Project Area to improve open space activities for the public.
Environmental Setting
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 30
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a)
Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
b)
Conflict with the applicable land use plan, policy,
❑
❑
❑
or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to, a general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
❑
❑
❑
plan or natural community conservation plan?
"
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 30
Discussion
a) The proposed Project would restore Big Canyon Creek and the surrounding open space. It
would not involve dividing an established community.
b) This restoration project would not conflict with the current City of Newport Beach General
Plan and any policies or regulations of any agency with jurisdiction over the Project
Area. The City of Newport Beach and the Department of Fish and Game are the present
owners and managers of the Project Area and are involved in the restoration efforts of
this Project.
c) The proposed Project would restore tidal influence to Big Canyon Creek and re- establish
natural transitions between wetland and upland communities. In addition, the Project
would involve the removal of infertile soils, repair flood damage, address urban runoff,
remove non - native plant species, restore native habitats and restore the freshwater
pond. None of these activities conflict with the City of Newport Beach LCP.
Mitigation Measure Land Use and Planning:
• None Required
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
The Project Area is located primarily on dredged fill. There are no known mineral resources of
value to the region or the state.
Discussion
a) Because the Project does not contain any mineral resources, there would not be any
potential for the loss of known mineral resources and no impact would occur.
b) Based on the type of underlying soils, there is no known locally important mineral resource
within the Project Area. As such, there would not be any potential for the loss of known
mineral resources and no impact would occur.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page. 31
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
❑
❑
❑
N
mineral resource that is or 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?
Discussion
a) Because the Project does not contain any mineral resources, there would not be any
potential for the loss of known mineral resources and no impact would occur.
b) Based on the type of underlying soils, there is no known locally important mineral resource
within the Project Area. As such, there would not be any potential for the loss of known
mineral resources and no impact would occur.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page. 31
Mitigation Measure Mineral Resources:
• None Required
XI. NOISE
Environmental Setting
The project is located in a canyon, which is surrounded on both sides by residences. The
closest residences are approximately 500 feet from the Project Area and elevated above the
site. The project is an ecological restoration of a creek and wetland area, which will not
generate any noise when completed.
d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ® ❑ ❑
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project,
in excess of noise levels existing without the
project?
e) Be 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? If so,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) Be in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a, b, C) The project would not generate or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards
established in a local general plan, noise ordinance, or other applicable federal, state or
local standards. The project would also not expose people to excessive ground -borne
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. R WRA Inc. Page 32
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
WO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a)
Generate or expose people to noise levels in excess ❑
❑
❑
of standards established in a local general plan or
noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state,
or federal standards?
b)
Generate or expose people to excessive groundborne ❑
❑
❑
vibrations or groundborne noise levels?
c)
Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑
❑
❑
noise levels in the vicinity of the project (above
levels without the project)?
d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ® ❑ ❑
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project,
in excess of noise levels existing without the
project?
e) Be 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? If so,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) Be in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a, b, C) The project would not generate or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards
established in a local general plan, noise ordinance, or other applicable federal, state or
local standards. The project would also not expose people to excessive ground -borne
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. R WRA Inc. Page 32
vibrations or ground -borne noise levels, or create a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels.
d) The project could create 'a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity during Construction of tidal marshes and riparian habitat,
removal of fill material, trail- building and other activities. Other than roadway pavement
and erosion control work, grading operation is the only other significant activity and no
other development activities will be involved. Several elements such as restrooms and
amphitheaters have been changed to involve portable equipments and more
environmentally friendly facilities. This will reduce construction noise significantly. In
addition, proper scheduling of construction activities and control of Construction
equipments are planned to reduce noise to the extent possible (MNNS -1).
e) The Project is within two miles from John Wayne Airport. However, the nature of the
project involving restoration in the creek bed which is 20 feet below the surrounding
residential neighborhood will not expose people residing or working in the Project Area
to excessive noise levels.
f) The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip
Mitigation Measure Noise -1:
Construction will be scheduled for normal work hours when most neighboring residents are at work.
Construction will occur during fall and winter seasons only for a two to three year time period but about
50% time period will involve only planting without noise concern. Construction materials and methods
which do not require heavy and noisy equipments will be applied to the extent possible.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is a creek restoration project and does not contain any housing developments.
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a) Induce substantial 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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
❑
❑
❑
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
❑
❑
❑
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 33
Discussion
a) The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth through the
provision of new homes, businesses, infrastructure, or service.
b,c) No existing housing would be displaced as a result of implementing the proposed
Project, nor would the Project result in the displacement of people. Therefore, no
replacement housing would be required and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measure Population and Housing:
• None Required
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Setting
Police and fire protection are provided by the City of Newport Beach. The Project Area is
managed by the Department of Fish and Game. Schools in the vicinity are managed by the
Newport Mesa Unified School District.
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT MITIGATION
IM ACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a) Result in significant environmental impacts from
construction associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, or the
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion
NQ
IMPACT
a) The Project would not result in the construction of new or altered fire protection, police
protection, school, or other public facilities. The Project would not induce population
growth, and therefore, the need for new or physically- altered governmental facilities (fire
and police protection, schools, and other public facilities) would not be required.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 34
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
a) The Project would not result in the construction of new or altered fire protection, police
protection, school, or other public facilities. The Project would not induce population
growth, and therefore, the need for new or physically- altered governmental facilities (fire
and police protection, schools, and other public facilities) would not be required.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 34
Mitigation Measure Public Services:
e None Required
XIV. RECREATION
Environmental Setting
The Project would restore Big Canyon Creek and provide opportunities for recreation by means
of trails, bike paths, overlook sites and interpretative media.
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a) 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) Include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ®
❑
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect On the environment?
Discussion
a) The Project would result in a beneficial impact and would not cause deterioration of Big
Canyon Park and other adjacent facilities. The Project will maintain and enhance its
current function for outdoor education and passive recreation. The trail network in Big
Canyon would be improved to provide continuous ADA access within the central
gathering area and the public viewing of the freshwater pond and wetlands. In addition
to ADA trails, two -way bike trails along Back Bay Drive and the loop road (connecting to
parking. and the central gathering area) will also function as hiking and jogging trails for
physical fitness.
b) The new trails and interpretive facilities would be constructed in areas without
environmental significance under existing and Project conditions; therefore, no
significant impact is expected. The Project would provide outdoor education and
passive recreation for nearby residents, school children in Orange County and other
public groups. A major objective of the project is to increase environmental awareness.
Interpretive, regulatory, and directional signs would be posted to educate visitors on
biological resources and water quality protection, while avoiding any unintentional
disturbance.
Mitigation Measure Recreation:
• None Required
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 35
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
Environmental Setting
The Project Area is currently accessible by the public through San Joaquin Hills Road and
Back Bay Drive, which is also a primary access to Upper Newport Bay. The Project Area
and estuary are used by the public for recreation, wildlife observation and outdoor
education. The existing.daily vehicular traffic on the Back Bay Drive was measured at 136
and 164 on April 17 and 18, 2007, respectively, by the City of Newport Beach. There are
35 existing parking lots and two buses to accommodate the existing traffic with less than
50% of these lots occupied most of time. The Back Bay Drive has a one -way lane (toward
north) with a two -way dedicated bike trails on the bayside. This will be maintained under
the Project condition except for realignment of the road except for tidal marsh creation.
Vehicular access to the Big Canyon will continue via Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive will
continue to function as a throughway along the edge of Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Preserve (Community Conservancy International 2004).
Discussion
a) As a goal of this Project is to promote public use through recreation and education, visitor
counts are expected to increase with-the implementation of the Project. The vehicular
traffic, however, will be managed by advanced scheduling of the public and school tours
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 36
LESS THAN
P_QSENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
a)
Cause a substantial increase in traffic, in relation
❑
❑
®
❑
to existing traffic and the Capacity of the street
system (i.e., a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to Capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b)
Exceed, individually or Cumulatively, the level of
❑
❑
❑
ED
service standards established by the County
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
C)
Cause a change in air traffic patterns, including
❑
❑
❑
ED
either an increase in traffic levels or a Change in
location, that results in substantial safety risks?
d)
Contain a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or a
❑
❑
❑
dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment) that would substantially
increase hazards?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
❑
❑
❑
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
a) As a goal of this Project is to promote public use through recreation and education, visitor
counts are expected to increase with-the implementation of the Project. The vehicular
traffic, however, will be managed by advanced scheduling of the public and school tours
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 36
through Inside the Outdoor, which has been conducting educational tours to the project
site. By proper scheduling visitor groups, it is expected that vehicular traffic increase will
be insignificant and will be monitored yearly for at least three years after Project
construction. Since the land use is preserved under the Project condition, it is expected
that traffic changes or associated hazards would not occur due to design features or
incompatible use.
During the construction phase of the Project, trucks will be used to haul off
approximately 40,000 cubic yards of dredge material. Removal of dredge material is
expected to begin in 2008 and will take approximately 125 days per year for two years.
The dredged material is expected to be disposed of at Frank R. Bowerman Landfill,
located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road, Irvine, CA, approximately 15 miles from the
Project Area. Approximately 20 cubic yards of material would be hauled per truck, an
average of eight truck trips per day with 40 truck trips per day maximum (See Air Quality
section, discussion (b) for details on construction traffic). This will not cause significant
impacts on Back Bay Drive or adjoining streets.
b) The Project would not exceed the level of service standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
c) The construction of the Project and related facilities would not affect air traffic facilities.
The Project Area is not in the immediate vicinity of any air traffic facility or function.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
d) To create the tidal marsh, Back Bay Drive has to be lengthened with a large curve
crossing freshwater marsh as shown in Figure 2.2 -2 of the Project Feasibility Study
Report (WRC 2007). No major obstruction within the driving distance of this crossing
will cause visibility issue. Traffic speed will be limited to ten miles per hour generally with
stop signs at pedestrian crossings. Numerous speed limit and warning signs will be
posted along the road to enforce traffic safety. No significant impacts are expected for
the realigned roadways.
e) The Project Area is accessible to and from Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hill Road /Big
Canyon Drive, and several service roads on the high banks. The Project would maintain
all these access points.
f) The parking lot Will be moved out of the sensitive tidal wetlands area and relocated to the
opposite side of the road in an infertile, barren area where dredge spoils were dumped
as shown in Figures 4.2 -3 and 4.24 of the Project Feasibility Report (WRC 2007).
Relocation of the parking lot will allow school groups and other visitors to assemble
safely away from traffic on Back Bay Drive. Forty parking lots including bus pads and
ADA stalls will be provided. This should be sufficient as any increased activities for
school tours will be scheduled properly to maintain the traffic and visitor intensity.
g) Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with any adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation.
Mitigation Measure Transportation /Traffic:
• None Required
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 37
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Setting
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) sewer main is the only major utility crossing the
Project Area. The sewer main and manholes will not interfere project construction. The sewer
lines are deep below the proposed grade without potential damage. OCSD is extending the
maintenance to the manhole north of the channel bank near Jamboree Road. City's sewer lines
are, on the high bank and will not be impacted. Temporary irrigation water for construction and
plant establishment will be tapped to those along Jamboree Road under the agreement with the
City.
c)
Require or result in the construction of new
LESS THAN
❑
❑
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH
SIGNIFICANT
No
IMPACT
MITIGATION
IMPACT
IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
d)
a) Exceed wastewater treatment restrictions or
❑
❑
❑
standards of the applicable Regional Water
the project from existing entitlements and resources,
Quality Control Board?
or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
❑
❑
❑
❑
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
❑
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
the project's anticipated demand, in addition to the
c)
Require or result in the construction of new
❑
❑
❑
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
❑
❑
❑
the project from existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
❑
❑
❑
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project, that it has adequate capacity to service
the project's anticipated demand, in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
❑
❑
®
❑
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
❑
❑
❑
regulations as they relate to solid waste?
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 38
Discussion
a,b) The Project would not require construction of a new water treatment or wastewater
treatment facility or expansion of the existing treatment facilities serving the project
vicinity. The project would not impact the wastewater treatment quality based on the
restrictions or standards of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The project does not require long -term potable water supply and all plants will be native
with low water needs. However, short -term irrigation would be needed to establish the
plants outside of the creek or outside tidal inundation areas. Temporary water may be
needed during construction. A temporary water lateral from the Jamboree Road water
main will be provided during construction and the two year plant establishment period.
Reclaimed water may be considered but will require investigation regarding its quality for
native plant establishment. Solar power could be used to operate the temporary
irrigation system.
The restroom facility included in the Project contains four unisex portable chemical
toilets. The toilets are near the existing sewer manhole but there is no immediate plan
for gravity sewer connection.
c) The Project is within and near Big Canyon Creek. No new storm water system is required.
d) The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the implementation of
the restoration. No new entitlements would be needed.
e) The restroom facility included in the Project contains four unisex portable chemical toilets.
The toilets are near the existing sewer manhole but there is no immediate plan for
gravity sewer connection. The existing sewer has the capacity to accommodate the
toilet discharge and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has approved the
connection per OCSD standards.
f) Project construction will produce debris and dirt. The Bowerman Landfill located at 11002
Bee Canyon Access Road, Irvine, CA 92602 would be the closest disposal site.
Approximately 75,000 cubic yards of excavated materials would be generated; of which,
approximately 50% would be disposed at the closest landfill, Bowerman Landfill in Irvine,
California. Based on the available soils toxicity test, the soils do not contain toxicity and
other hazardous materials (Project Feasibility Report, WRC 2007). The project waste
will not exceed the existing landfill capacity. In fact, the site materials have high content
of silt and clay and are suitable as landfill cap.
g) Based on the available soil toxicity analysis (WRC 2007), there is not contamination in the
soils that would be excavated during construction. The Proposed Project would not
result in significant impacts related to solid waste.
Mitigation Measure Utilities and Service Systems:
• None Required
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services. Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 39
XVII.- MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, other current projects,
and probably future projects ?)
c) Have environmental effects that will cause ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial adverse effects on humans, either
directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a) The proposed Project was evaluated for potential significant adverse impacts to the natural
environment and its plant and animal communities. It was determined that the project
could potentially impact birds and other sensitive wildlife species as well and sensitive
plant species and communities. However, implementation of all conditions and
mitigation measures incorporated into this document would reduce those impacts, both
individually and cumulatively, to a less than significant level.
b) The proposed Project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts.
c) The proposed Project would not have environmental effects that would Cause substantial
adverse effects on humans.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 40
LESS THAN
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
WITH SIGNIFICANT NO
IMPACT
MITIGATION IMPACT IMPACT
WOULD THE PROJECT:
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, substantially 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) Have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, other current projects,
and probably future projects ?)
c) Have environmental effects that will cause ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial adverse effects on humans, either
directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a) The proposed Project was evaluated for potential significant adverse impacts to the natural
environment and its plant and animal communities. It was determined that the project
could potentially impact birds and other sensitive wildlife species as well and sensitive
plant species and communities. However, implementation of all conditions and
mitigation measures incorporated into this document would reduce those impacts, both
individually and cumulatively, to a less than significant level.
b) The proposed Project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts.
c) The proposed Project would not have environmental effects that would Cause substantial
adverse effects on humans.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 40
CHAPTER 4
REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. 2006. Almanac Emissions Projection Data, Annual Average
Emissions (2005), Orange County.
Community Conservancy International. 2004. Big Canyon Creek: Historic Tidal Wetlands
Conceptual Restoration Plan.
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. 1976. Environmental Assessment of Back Bay
Trunk Sewer (East Side).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1978. Protective Noise Levels. Condensed
Version of US EPA Levels Document. USEPA 550/9-79-100.
Geosoils, Inc. 2006. Geotechnical Feasibility Report: Big Canyon Creek Restoration,
Upper Newport Bay, Newport Beach, County of Orange, California.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2007. Emissions Factors (EMFAC)
Version 2.3. Onroad, Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks,
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.htmi.
SCAQMD. 2003. Air Quality Management Plan.
Weston Solutions, Inc. 2006. Monitoring Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan for Big
Canyon Creek Flow and Water Quality Assessment.
WRC Consulting Services, Inc. 2007. Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project Phase II:
Feasibility Study Report.
Big Canyon Restoration Project City of Newport Beach
Prepared by WRC Consulting Services, Inc. & WRA Inc. Page 41
TABLE 2.3 -2
PROPOSED TIDAL AND
FRESHWATER MARSH PLANTING
PLAN
Plant Species/Zones
Elevation
Ranges
(feet)
Low Marsh
Spartina foliosa
3.5-4.5
Mid Marsh
Distichlis spicata
4.5-5.25
Jaumea carnosa
4.5-5.25
Salicomia virginica
4.5-5.25
Scirpus maritimus*
4.5-5.25
High Marsh
Distichlis spicata
5.25-8.5
Frankenia Salina
5-25-8.5
Juncus acutus*
6-0-6.25
Juncus acutus spp.
leopoldii*
6.0-6.25
Limonium californicum
6.0-6.25
Salicornia subterminalis
5.25-8.5
Salicornia virginica
5-25-5.5
Suaeda esteroa
5.25-6.5
Suaeda taxifolia
5-25-6.5
Marsh Transition
Distichlis spicata
515 — 8.5
Frankenia Salina
5.25 — 8.5
Salicornia subterminalis
5.25-8.5
Coastal Saqe Scrub Upland Buffer
TABLE 2.3 -2
PROPOSED TIDAL AND
FRESHWATER MARSH PLANTING
PLAN
Plant Species/Zones
Elevation
Ranges
(feet)
Artemisia calif6mica
8.5 and above
Atriplex canescens
8.5 and above
Baccharis pilularis
8.5 and above
Isomeris arborea
8.5 and above
Freshwater Marsh
Eleocharis palustras
NIA
Juncus balticus
NIA
Scirpus americanus
NIA
Scirpus californicus
NIA
* Will be planted only in areas adjacent to
freshwater inputs or brackish areas.
of Newport Beach WRC Consulting Services, Inc.
BIG CANYON CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PHASE 11
Feasibility Study Report
Page 20
TABLE 3.1 -1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT - RELATED IMPACTS AND BENEFITS
TO FEATURES POTENTIALLY UNDER CORPS JURISDICTION
# Acres:
Potentially Impacted
Jurisdictional
# Acres:
# Acres to
Net Gain or
Feature
Existing
Temporary
Permanent
be Created
Loss
Freshwater
Marsh
7 39
2.32
0.84
0.74
-2.36
Coastal Salt
Marsh
5.93
1.26
0
7.88
+6.62
Seasonal Alkali
Welland
0.54
0.23
0.07
0
0.3
Waters
5.78
2.33
0.13
1.48
-0.98
Totals
19.59
6.08
1.04
10.1
+2,98
City Of Newport Beach WRC Consulting Services, Inc.
BIG CANYON CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PHASE II
Feasibility Study Report Page 25
TABLE 3.1 -2
SUMMARY OF PROJECT - RELATED IMPACTS AND BENEFITS TO FEATURES
POTENTIALLY UNDER CCC JURISDICTION
# Acres:
Potentially Impacted
Jurisdictional
# Acres:
# Acres to
Net Gain or
Feature
Existing
Temporary
Permanent
be Created
Loss
Freshwater
7.39
2.32
0.82
0.74
-2.4
Marsh
Riparian
11.2
0.54
0.33
1.29
+0.42
Coastal Salt
5.93
1.26
0
7.88
+6.62
Marsh
Seasonal Alkali
0.91
0.17
0.12
0
-0.29
Wetland
pen Waters
5.78
2.33
0.13
1.48
-0.98
otals
33.21
6.62
1.4
10.1
+2.08
of Newport Beach WRC Consulting Services. Inc.
BIG CANYON CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PHASE II
Feasibility Study Report
Page 27
TABLE 3.1-3
RIPARIAN, ALKALI MEADOW, AND COASTAL SAGE SCRUB HABITAT RESTORATION
Restoration Action — Replant Areas Dominated by Exotic Species and Areas of Project
Grading
Existing Habitat
Acres
Restored Habitat*
Acres
Ornamental
Pe r Tree Woodland
1.29
Willow Riparian Woodland
1.29
Annual grassland
0.08
Mulefat Scrub
0.08
Annual grassland
0.67
Alkali Forb /Meadow
1.43
Alkali forb /exotic (orbs
.
076
Ornamental (Pepper tree
0.24
Coastal Sage Scrub
2.43
Alkali forb /exotic (orbs
0.64
Annual grass/exotic fortis
0.78
Annual grass/ Ornamental
0.78
Various Habitats (marsh, pond and
paved)
0 87
Upland Buffer/ Coastal Sage
Scrub
0 87
*See Planting/Habitat Plan for location of each habitat type.
Enhancement Action —
Invasive Exotic Species Removal and Planting with Native Species
Existing Habitat
Removal
Zones*
Acres
Riparian Scrub
C1, C2, C6
4.32
Alkali Forb /Meadow
C5
0.25
Coastal Sage Scrub
C6
0.99
Enhancement Action —
Spot Removal of Invasive Exotic Species and Seeding with Native Species
Existing Habitat
Removal
Zones*
Acres
Willow Riparian Woodland
D2
0.67
Willow Riparian Scrub
D1, D3
3.19
Mulefat Scrub
D1, D2, D3
0.37
Alkali Forb /Meadow
D1, D4
0.16
Coastal Sage Scrub
A, D1
1.32
*See Invasive Exotic Removal Plan
City of Newport Beach WRC Consulting Services, Inc.
SIG CANYON CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT PHASE It
Feasibility Study Report Page 28
vp
X E
jj:
Ts-
\
�
«�
� � /�f
~d
:��
\ \
\
\.
. IMM
X E
jj:
Ts-
c
I
t
ra
I 'A
1P
e
f
N4
R-
4r
J.
"Him, kx�ffyh
uk
-,A
;k 4.
LIM
P",
4,
77 17.1
Legend
Study Area: (70.43 Acres) 0 0.5 1 1.5
Miles a "i
'
Figur6 1. Location Map
Owra
Big Canyon Study Area
Newport Beach, Califomia
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
pate: MveidWr 2006
easamw USGS To" Quad
Map By: sundamn Gillespie
Filepath; 1:\ld:Hp2000N1307SNGISV M.pNi- m .n Map.mxd
9 OST
is
4
.
let-
ra
I 'A
1P
e
f
N4
R-
4r
J.
"Him, kx�ffyh
uk
-,A
;k 4.
LIM
P",
4,
77 17.1
Legend
Study Area: (70.43 Acres) 0 0.5 1 1.5
Miles a "i
'
Figur6 1. Location Map
Owra
Big Canyon Study Area
Newport Beach, Califomia
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
pate: MveidWr 2006
easamw USGS To" Quad
Map By: sundamn Gillespie
Filepath; 1:\ld:Hp2000N1307SNGISV M.pNi- m .n Map.mxd
C
O
a
v
rn
N
[Y �
K' w
N
x
� W
mss, is_
q .ti
Exisling & Restored Plant Communities
ram rbomw:: u:d no:,
xlmdk so': uo.ri
F +¢sM1wer Pe =:I
ixfM1 -w k: AW:i`:
Mk FO: Scw
C.osso.,d
Coos.: 5, Yr�b
Pion Legend
Cemron:+k.rHae+:eo a N.: ecd
� Yee.[ O.ed[o4 S lr+e p +Hive Nede
Ymn
k 1 Twil
%A •e Ik,j
Gee4 Cul.en[
Creek Wco:olmu doe+a +d-
epillxvy k+relocnkd paid
Pmdde m
occas m dam pndapxd �
Nlo.r dog:odeA uard w I+mui ' -�
IO lred:V:p+W morsF OrN rip]rian 6.Wl \
R.,. and enhance
e .Mi, rlp¢nan and •-
Irxh.vler r+msh nobi a +s
Sall MO,sM1 averlod �
mSouroa. CCI: 2004
o�
emo-`
?ems,
9E0.
Je
BAH iii
..de .om..eel Foamt
fx::o dlves:r beets k +n:Bi:ruaun�,.`
pres[locd c d I s
i -b3on
l
1 "Preis eoed enh l:ng dpo6an.
:+w•sh, wee erevdo+. u:+J
�msrol mge xmh bobiq:z
.'. _ _�__ .Raonsvx besF.wO:e +pa::d; remo +e
':niMile itils nM no:+^Olive Olonia
- Gock Cmss %ng Omdmk
W A 6 Ikaed d .al:mnynbe ortc
�' al "LI I' 0.kd rec
� nor can. euus nd Mkes
- iN+nma:8u::dwik
Rerro•e porR.+g b:Irom
— u!:dcl,nd�:ps
Ix : +cynr
+�Obr+.a�d'd:c oe le.
FIGURE 2.2 -1
Phase 1 Conceptual Restoration Plan
MMWill CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
1800 E. GARY AVE, SUITE 213
WRCSANTA ANA, CA 92705
I
�
�
\�
/
�
^
�
�
�
!
:
\ ^ \� ��
}/
�
°.
�
13
yn
�S
' t
4:�
f
s
y
�
'
P
d'
l�
1
s
t
YZ'k
2
O
e
.w
a
a
Z
-
a
)�
Z
CY
K
V
N
w ��
i
a
a
a
c LL
N
w a
LL �
a V
ktJ Yf i
K
c1
y !i.
x
r
0
fy»
C
a
Z
y
s
r N
C .V O
15 E
7
t� W c
S y;
X
1
�
yr
orb
t
S y;
X