HomeMy WebLinkAbout36 - Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Wetlands Water Suppy Project - Status ReportBY THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
NOV 1 31995
November 13, 1995
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) WETLANDS WATER
SUPPLY PROJECT - STATUS REPORT
PROJECT:
IRWD produces excess reclaimed water during winter months (October 1 to April 1) and
rather than sending treated water from the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant to the
Orange County Sanitation District Plant in Huntington Beach they have proposed to:
a. Circulate the treated reclaimed water through 67 acres of duck ponds
adjacent to their plant.
b. After 7 days in the ponds discharge 5 million gallons per day (MGD) into
San Diego Creek which flows to the Upper Newport Bay.
ISSUES:
• Concern about increased nitrates in the bay and algae blooms
• Concern about the biological impact of additional fresh water on fish and wildlife
• Concern about the Public Health impact of treated reclaimed water on recreation
use in the bay
• Concern about projects negative perception
1. Reclaimed water in bay
2. IRWD presentation of the project
On August 28, 1995, the City Council authorized the Mayor to send a letter to IRWD
and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) communicating
the Council's concern that protection and enhancement of water quality should be
adequately provided for in the project. The City Council's position was that when all the
EIR's were completed and when the low flow diversion project is decided upon, a net
reduction in nitrates delivered to the bay should be accomplished at no cost to the City
of Newport Beach. (August 28, 1995, Council Report and September 11, 1995, letter to
IRWD attached, Exhibit A.)
SUBJECT: IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT - STATUS
REPORT
November 13, 1995
Page 2
Since the Council's action on August 28, 1995, there have been many meetings
regarding the project involving the City Utility/Public Works Committee, the Citizen
Harbor Water Quality Committee, IRWD Board of Directors, IRWD staff, City of Irvine
staff, Newport Beach staff and the public. (Meeting summary attached - Exhibit B). In
addition to the many meetings, the following significant items have taken place:
1. SARWQCB letter dated September 11, 1995, was submitted to the City regarding
the project and a committment to protect the water quality of the bay (attached
Exhibit C).
2. City Attorney letter dated September 22, 1995, to IRWD submitting additional
comments on IRWD Draft EIR (attached Exhibit E).
3. Councilperson Jean Watt letter dated September 22, 1995, to IRWD requesting
District to delay action on EIR (attached Exhibit F).
4. The Utility/Public Works Committee reviewed the City of Irvine San Joaquin Marsh
Enhancement Plan and Draft EIR at their October 6, 1995, meeting. (Public Works
Department overview and executive summaries - attached Exhibit D).
5. Consultant/Experts requested to comment on IRWD Project EIR.
a. Gib Bogle Ph.D., Water Engineering and Modeling Inc., was retained to perform
an independent model run to predict nitrate and salinity concentrations in the bay
associated with IRWD proposed discharge.
Report submitted October 23, 1995
1. Absolute values for salinity and nitrate differ from IRWD report.
2. Model concurs with IRWD results that nitrate concentrations are slightly
reduced in bay (attached Exhibit G).
b. Joy B. Zedler Ph.D., San Diego State University - Biological Impacts Report due
November 20, 1995.
c. Peggy Fong Ph.D., UCLA - Nitrates Impacts Report due November 20, 1995.
d. Robert C. Cooper Ph.D., BioVir Laboratories, Inc. (Prof. Emeritus, U.C. Berkeley)
- Public Health concerns report due November 20, 1995.
CURRENT PROJECT SCHEDULE:
1. November 27, 1995 - IRWD Board to consider action on Draft EIR
2. December 1995 - City of Irvine Public Hearings on San Joaquin
Enhancement Plan EIR
3. January 5, 1996 - SARWQCB to consider IRWD Project NPDES Permit
SUBJECT: IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT - STATUS
REPORT
November 13, 1995
Page 3
IRWD HAS PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS:
1. IRWD will delay the discharge of treated reclaimed water until fall 1996 and fall
1997.
2. Implement temporary facilities to divert San Diego Creek low flow into IRWD duck
ponds for treatment and discharge back into San Diego Creek during summer 1996
and 1997.
3. Design, obtain permits, construct maintain and operate low flow diversion structure
in San Diego Creek. Estimate is 2 years to complete.
4. Design, obtain permits, construct, maintain and operate San Joaquin Marsh facility
necessary to channel or pipe San Diego Creek low flow water into duck ponds for
treatment during summer months.
This proposal was presented by IRWD personnel to members of Harbor Water Quality
Committee, City of Irvine staff, and Newport Beach staff at a meeting on October 18,
1995, requested by the Harbor Water Quality Committee.
IRWD consultants continue to work on details necessary to evaluate the diversion of
the San Diego Creek low flows to duck ponds for treatment during summer months.
IRWD to present firmer proposal at meeting of same group scheduled for November 9,
1995. Also they plan to discuss following issues:
1. Development and make-up of a Joint Powers/Oversight Committee to participate in
and manage summer diversions, winter discharges and monitoring.
2. Develop strategy and program to respond to the public's negative perception of the
reclaimed water discharge.
HARBOR QUALITY COMMITTEE:
The Harbor Quality Committee discussed this project at their October 9th and October
19th meetings and they plan to continue meeting every two weeks until a resolution of
the issues are reached. They have been working to gather information on both the
IRWD project and the City of Irvine San Joaquin Marsh project. In addition they
recommended selection of Gib Bogle Ph.D. to review the IRWD model and run his
model at the October 9th meeting. On October 19th the committee recommended
having Joy B. Zedler Ph.D. from San Diego State University review biological impact
and Peggy Fong Ph.D. from UCLA review nitrate impacts of the IRWD project.
SUBJECT: IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT - STATUS
REPORT
November 13, 1995
Page 4
The committee members have remained very concerned about the negative perception
the public has with this project and at the October 19th meeting the committee adopted
the following motion:
"The Harbor Qualiy Committee does not support any reclaimed
water coming into the Bay or its tributaries and will make all efforts
to oppose it."
Respectfully submitted,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don Webb, Director
By i
hn Wolter
Cooperative Projects Engineer
SEW Ppb\
cq� R �P
Mayor
John W. Hedges
Mayor Pro Tem
Jan Debay
Council Members
John C. Cox, Jr.
Thomas Edwards
Norma J. Glover
Dennis D. O'Neil
Jean Watt
September 11, 1995
LEvfil''•TT r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Mr. Peer Swan, President
Board of Directors, Irvine Ranch Water District
P.O. Box 57000
Irvine, CA 92619-700
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
(714) 644-3004
Attn: Mr. Jim Hyde, Environmental Compliance Specialist
Subject: Wetlands Water Supply Demonstration Project
Dear Mr. Swan:
The City Council received a Status Report regarding your project from the Public Works Department at our
August 28,1995, meeting. (Copy attached for information.) After reviewing the City's response letter dated
August 2, 1995, to the Project DER and comments from our Harbor Water Quality Committee, the City
Council wishes to communicate to you our concern for and determination that the protection and
enhancement of water quality in the Bay should be adequately provided for in your project. The City
Council's position is that when all the EIR's are completed and when the low flow diversion project is
decided upon, a net reduction in nitrates delivered to the Bay should be accomplished at no cost to the
City of Newport Beach.
Very truly yours,
Aq
John W. Hedges
Mayor
JW:kc
cc: Ms. Joanne Schneider, Environmental Program Manager
California Registered Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region
Mr. Kevin Murphy, City Manager
Mr. Don Webb, Public Works Director
City Hall * 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, California 92663-3884
1
August 28, 1995
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. 16
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) WETLANDS WATER
SUPPLY PROJECT - STATUS REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
DISCUSSION:
IRWD has proposed a 2 -year demonstration project to circulate treated
reclaimed water through 67 acres of duck ponds adjacent to their Michelson
Reclamation Plant with discharge into San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. The
project requires an NPDES Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
proposes the discharge during fall and winter months (October 1 to April 1) when
demand for reclaimed water is low.
When a Negative Declaration for the proposed project was circulated in
1994, Newport Beach responded with concern for possible adverse effects to the water
quality in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. Staff recommended that 1) a
focused EIR should be prepared for the project; 2) a plan to monitor water quality in
San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay should be implemented; and 3) consideration
should be given to a structure in San Diego Creek, which could divert summer low flows
through the adjacent marsh in order to reduce the amount of nutrients and other
pollutants entering the Bay as mitigation.
IRWD has now completed the Focused EIR. Utilities/Public Works
Council Committee Members Jean Watt and Jan Debay and Cooperative Projects
Engineer John Wolter met with IRWD representatives at the Michelson Plant to discuss
their revised proposal. As a result of the additional environmental work IRWD now
proposes 1) to discharge 1/5 the nutrient loading as previously proposed; 2) implement
a monitoring program to test water quality in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay
during the demonstration project and if adverse effects are observed, to stop discharge;
and 3) IRWD has submitted a grant application to State Water Resources Control
Board for funds to construct a diversion structure. Construction of the structure is
included in a City of Irvine EIR currently being prepared for development of the San
Joaquin Marsh.
SUBJECT: IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT -
STATUS REPORT
August 28, 1995
Page 2
Based on these favorable modifications to the proposed project, the City
submitted a response supporting the demonstration project with conditions, see
attached letter.
Respectfully submitted,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don Webb, Director
By
J¢ n Wolter
Cooperative Projects Engineer
Attachment
Shauna\CC-1995\Aug\IRWD.doc
August 2, 1995
a e
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
PL&NNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
Mr. James Hyde
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Irvine Ranch Water District
PO Box 57000
Irvine, CA 92619-7000
RE: DEIR for IRNVD Wetlands Water Supply Project
Dear Jim,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR for this project. As you
know, the City has a high level of interest and concern for this project due to its potential for impacts to
Upper Newport Bay.
The City's primary concern is with the possible adverse effects caused by the addition of nutrients to
San Diego Creek and the bay. We are pleased that the proposed concentrations of nutrient Ioading to
be discharged into San Diego Creek has been reduced. With the reduced nutrient discharge and the
mitigation monitoring program described in the DEER, we believe that this concern will be adequately
addressed. However, the City also believes that the construction of a diversion structure to bypass
summer low flows from San Diego Creek into the wetlands is critical to the long-term maintenance of
water quality in Newport Bay. Therefore the City supports the demonstration project contingent on
IRWD's concurrence that the project will not extend beyond 2 years unless a summer low -flow
diversion structure is implemented.
If you have any questions, please John Wolter (6443326) or me (644-3230).
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
KENNETH J. DELINO; Assistant City Manager- Planning and Building
By:
�\�-
L
Dpi
onmdn�LAICP
rdinator
CC: Courr i1wrnba Jean Watt
CouwUrrxcrriber Jan Dcbay
Kevin Murphy, City Manager
Doa Webb, Public Works Director
John Wolter, Coopc ve Projects Erginca
Tony Mclum, Marine Dire
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
EXHIBIT "B"
IRWD
WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
MEETINGS
SINCE AUGUST 18, 1995
September 8, 1995
Utilities/Public Works Committee (Requested IRWD to hold
public informational meeting and provide information on San
Joaquin Marsh EIR)
September 18, 1995
Public information meeting - IRWD presented project and
answered questions from the public in the Newport Beach
Council Chambers
September 20, 1995
Utilities/Public Works Committee - IRWD staff briefing on
status of the City of Irvine San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement
Plan EIR
September 25, 1995
IRWD Board Meeting - delayed consideration of project EIR
September 29, 1995
San Joaquin Marsh Plan and IRWD project - presentation of
the two separate projects and discussion of possibilities to
combined projects. IRWD staff, City of Irvine staff and City of
Newport Beach staff
October 6, 1995
Utilities/Public Works Committee presentation on IRWD
project and City of Irvine San Joaquin Marsh project
1. Discussion of possibilities to combined projects
2. Discussion regarding negative public perception
3. Discussion of expert/consultant selection to review IRWD
project
4. Public comments
October 9, 1995
Harbor Water Quality Committee
1. Discussed consultant selection recommended starting with
Gib Bogle Ph.D. modeling evaluation
2. Discussed negative perception of project
October 18, 1995
Harbor Water Quality Committee representative meeting with
City of Irvine staff, IRWD staff and City of Newport Beach staff
to discuss both projects. IRWD project and City of Irvine
Marsh project.
1. IRWD proposal to provide temporary San Diego Creek
diversion and permanent San Diego Creek diversion
2. Discussed concern with negative public perception
3. Discussed development of Joint Powers/Oversight
Committee
October 19, 1995
Harbor Water Quality Committee meeting
1. Received Preliminary Modeling Report from Dr. Bogle -
while differing in absolute values, concurs with IRWD that
there is slight reduction in nitrates
2. Determined to request additional consultant selection
a. Joy Zedler Ph.D., San Diego State University -
biological impact
b. Peggy Fong Ph.D., UCLA - nitrate impact
3. Committee adopted motion to oppose IRWD project
09/11/1995 14:36 909686801 CRWOCB-REGION 8 PAGE 02
EXHIBIT C
STATE OF CALIFORNIA --CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PETE WILSON. Gow.nor
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SANTA ANA LEGION
2010 IOWA AVENUE. SUrrE too
rA
RSIDE. GA 92507.2409 i
`_: (p00) 782.4110
(WQ) 781.8284
September 11, 1995
Kevin Murphy, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
PROPOSED IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) WETLANDS WATER
SUPPLY PROJECT
Dear Mr. Murphy:
We are aware of the significant concerns among the local community about this
project, which we understand will be the subject of discussion by the City Council
this evening. It is also our understanding that a member of the community has
disseminated information concerning this project to the effect that when and if IRWD
discharges from the wetlands to San.Diego Creek and thence Newport Bay, the Bay
will have to be posted to warn of contamination. This information is Incorrect. We
wish to clarify this matter to assure that further consideration of this project is made
in an accurutCly informed manner.
As you know, the Regional Board will be asked to consider a discharge permit (in this
case, a so-called National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or NPDES permit)
for the IRWD discharge to San Diego Creek. Pursuant to the federal Clean Water
Act and the California Water Code, the Board must establish permit requirements for
the discharge which assure that the quality and beneficial uses of the receiving
waters (San Diego Creek and Newport Bay) will not be adversely affected. The
Regional Board cannot and will not condone or permit any discharge which would
result in conditions of contamination. If and when the Board issues a permit for the
IRWD discharge, that permit will specify discharge requirements and limitations which
in the Board's judgement will assure that the water quality and beneficial uses of the
Bay (including water contact and non -contact recreation, shellfish harvesting, etc.) will
be protected.
Let me emphasize that this letter is not intended as an endorsement of the IRWD
project, but rather, to assure that the facts surrounding it are clearly understood. The
Board will make its decision concerning a permit for the IRWD discharge at a public
hearing which will be held once the requirements of CEQA have been satisfied. The
Board will consider all comments provided at and prior to the hearing in making its
final determination. I can assure you that the quality of Newport Bay is of paramount
b7/ 11/ 177 14. 30
Kevin Murphy 2 September 11, 1995
City of Newport Beach
interest to the Board and that the Board will make a decision based on careful,
thorough consideration of all the evidence presented.
If I can provide any additional clarification, please contact me at (909) 782-3284 or
Joanne Schneider (909-782-3287), Hope Smythe (909-782-4493) or Gary Stewart
(909-782-4379).
Sincerely,
4Ged J. AThibeaUufto
Executive Officer
cc: Regional Board
Ronald Young, IRWD
Ken Thompson, IRWD
EXHI51T D
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
UTILITIES/PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
/a/& /95 -
SPECIAL AGENDA ITEM
I. DISCUSSION OF SAN JOAQUIN FRESHWATER MARSH ENHANCEMENT
PLAN AND IRWD WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
At the meeting of September 8, 1995, Committee members requested additional
information regarding the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Enhancement Plan
(Plan). An overview of the Plan and the EIR Executive Summaries are attached.
In summary, the primary purpose of the Marsh Enhancement Plan is to improve
the habitat values of the Marsh. These improvements come in many forms
including the enhancement of existing wetland areas, creation of new wetland
areas, creation of open water ponds, enhanced water supply, improved
operational flexibility in managing water in the Marsh, improved animal migration
across (under) Campus Drive, reduced light and sound impacts from vehicular
traffic along Campus Drive, and the introduction of public trails.
It should be pointed out that IRWD's "Wetlands Water Supply Project," although
briefly discussed in the Marsh Enhancement Plan and related Environmental
Impact Report, is not a part of the Marsh Enhancement Plan. IRWD is presently
pursuing separate environmental clearance for it's project.
The Marsh Enhancement Plan and Environmental Impact Report does discuss
the possible reconfiguration of the ponds which are part of IRWD's "Wetlands
Water Supply Project." There is an interest in reconfiguring the existing ponds
to have a more natural (rounded) pond appearance. IRWD has indicated that if
the ponds are reconfigured, IRWD will adjust its "Wetlands Water Supply
Project" flow regime utilizing the reconfigured ponds.
San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Enhancement Plan
and related
Environmental Impact Report
Public Works Department
Overview
Project Purpose
Primarily, the purpose of the Marsh Enhancement Plan is to improve the habitat
values of the Marsh. These improvements come in many forms including the
enhancement of existing wetland areas, creation of new wetland areas, creation
of open water ponds, enhanced water supply, improved operational flexibility in
managing water in the Marsh, improved animal migration across (under)
Campus Drive, reduced light and sound impacts from vehicular traffic along
Campus Drive, and the introduction of public trails.
Summary of Projects
The following briefly describes the various projects of the Marsh Enhancement
Plan. Please refer to the attached schematic which shows the hydraulic
interrelationship of these various projects.
■ San Joaquin Marsh Mitigation Bank: A 15+ acre mitigation bank to
be built by TIC. The site will be a series of shallow ponds which will
be planted with riparian wetland vegetation. The proposed riparian
vegetation will initially be drip irrigated and later flood irrigated.
Water will be provided by IRWD from the shallow groundwater
which it is required to pump from beneath its treatment plant.
■ "First -Flush" System: A water quality wetland system to detain and
cleanse off-site "first -flush" runoff from at least three storm drain
inlets. Planted riparian and emergent wetland vegetation
throughout the system will help cleanse the runoff through
sedimentation, adsorption, infiltration, decomposition, and
assimilation. The wetlands also provide wetland mitigation credits
for Planning Area 23. The project was to be funded by adjacent
developers and the land dedicated by The Irvine Company (TIC).
■ San Diego Creek Low -Flow Diversion: The project will result in the
Marsh managers being able to divert up to ten cubic feet per second
(10 cfs) into the Marsh. The water will be diverted from San Diego
Creek into a desilting basin/forebay. From the forebay, the water
can flow by gravity into the Open Water Ponds and into the existing
wetland areas downstream. By pump, water can be distributed to:
(1) the "First -Flush" Basin to supplement off-site water to sustain the
emergent vegetation, (2) the San Joaquin Marsh Mitigation Bank to
irrigate the riparian vegetation, (3) the Open Water Ponds, and (4) a
portion of the existing wetland areas.
■ Existing Wetlands Area: Although no physical modifications to this
area are proposed, the wetlands within this area will be enhanced
by the introduction of water from new sources.
■ Open Water Ponds: A series of open water ponds on TIC property
immediately adjacent to the IRWD Michelson Treatment Plant. The
ponds will receive water from the forebay which receives water
from the San Diego Creek Low -Flow Diversion or reclaimed water
from IRWD. This project is not a part of IRWD's "Wetlands Water
Supply Project."
■ Return Flow System: The purpose of this system is remove "new"
water, brought into the Marsh via the San Diego Creek Low -Flow
Diversion, before flowing onto University of California Natural
Reserve System property. If the San Diego Creek Low -Flow
Diversion is diverting water into the Marsh such that some portion of
that water could flow under Campus Drive, the Return Flow System
will be activated to pump the increased flow (at Campus Drive) back
to San Diego Creek. If IRWD's "Wetlands Water Supply Project" is in
place, the Return Flow System could be integrated with IRWD's
pumping system for carrying flows to San Diego Creek. If the
Wetlands Water Supply Project is not in place at the time the San
Diego Creek Low -Flow Diversion is operational, a separate system
would be developed to pump water directly to San Diego Creek.
■ Light/Sound Berm: A berm along the east side of Campus Drive will
be constructed to visually and acoustically buffer the eastern
portion of the Marsh from vehicular light and sound.
■ Wildlife Crossing: A 60 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe will
be "jacked" under Campus Drive near Carlson Avenue. This will
provide a place for wildlife to safely cross under Campus Drive.
■ Interpretative Trails: A network of trails and interpretative centers
are proposed in and around the eastern portion of the Marsh. These
trails and centers, some accessible under supervised tours and
some open to the public, provide educational and experiential
opportunities for the public.
It should be pointed out that IRWD's "Wetlands Water Supply Project," although
briefly discussed in the Marsh Enhancement Plan and related Environmental
Impact Report, is not a part of the Marsh Enhancement Plan. IRWD is presently
pursuing separate environmental clearance for it's project.
The Marsh Enhancement Plan and Environmental Impact Report does discuss
the possible reconfiguration of the ponds which are part of IRWD's "Wetlands
Water Supply Project." There is an interest in reconfiguring the existing ponds
to have a more natural (rounded) pond appearance. IRWD has indicated that if
the ponds are reconfigured, IRWD will adjust its "Wetlands Water Supply
Project" flow regime utilizing the reconfigured ponds.
Project (Schedule, estimates and sponsor)
The following lists the proposed projects of the Marsh Enhancement Plan, the
group sponsoring and/or funding the project, the estimated cost to construct
that project, and its construction schedule. It should be noted that the cost
estimates, which were developed for the Enhancement Plan, are in some cases
based on conceptual design only.
Project: San Joaquin Marsh Mitigation Bank
Sponsor: The Irvine Company
Estimated Cost: $513,475
Schedule: There are three parts to the project: Part I is the
removal of existing Giant Reed (Arundo donax) which
could be done within one month, Part II (Phase 1) is the
planting of a portion of the 15+ acre "creation" area,
Part III (Phase 11) will be the completion of the 15+ acre
"creation" area. The schedule for Part II and III is
unknown. Tentatively, Part II (Phase I of the "creation"
area) will be planted next spring.
Project: "First -Flush" System
Sponsor: City of Irvine
Estimated Cost: $300,000 - $500,000
Schedule: Unknown. The project was originally to be built by
developers adjacent to the Marsh whose "urban runoff"
flows into the eastern portion of the Marsh. The City
required that bonds be put up by the developers to
assure the construction of this system.
Project: San Diego Creek Low -Flow Diversion
Sponsor: Unknown. IRWD is seeking federal grant money to
assist with the project.
Estimated Cost: $533,000
Schedule: Unknown.
Project: Existing Wetlands Area
Sponsor: None.
Estimated Cost: $0
Schedule: Not applicable. There are no proposed physical
modifications to this area of the Marsh. The area will
benefit by receiving additional water being imported for
other adjacent projects.
Project: Open Water Ponds
Sponsor: IRWD
Estimated Cost: $70,000
Schedule: Unknown.
Project: Return Flow System
Sponsor: Unknown.
Estimated Cost: $112,116
Schedule: Unknown - to be built in conjunction with the San Diego
Creek Low -Flow Diversion. Although this project is
shown separately, it is essentially a part of the San
Diego Creek Low -Flow Diversion.
S
Project: Light/Sound Berm
Sponsor: Unknown. In the past IRWD has had an interest in this
project and may want to take the lead role.
Estimated Cost: $478,211
Schedule: Unknown.
Project: Wildlife Crossing
Sponsor: Unknown. Possibly the City of Irvine.
Estimated Cost: $135,000
Schedule: Unknown.
Project:
Sponsor:
Estimated Cost:
Schedule:
Interpretative Trails/Centers
Unknown. Possibly IRWD.
Unknown by JMTA
Unknown.
N 0
p > LLa
W 0 a
J�
9
rd
Z
t
}
00 s
�
Y
W
zz
U
� a
wp
TZ
LLI
.o
0
oll
Z V
FN W
,.,.��..
e QNn�s���17
I
I
ME
I
SAN JOAQUIN FRESHWATER MARSH
ENHANCEMENT PLAN
September 22, 1995
Contributors:
City of Irvine Community Development Department
Dangermond & Associates
Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc
Hyden Associates, Inc
John Tettemer and Associates, Ltd.
LSA Associates, Inc
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc
1 Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 553-0666
LSA Project #CIV501
LSA Aswdates, I—
SAN JOAQUIN FRESHWATER MARSH
ENHANCEMENT PLAN
7-1
09/20/95(t:.clv50l%ENHA CE-PL14)
LSA Associates, Inc-
EXECUTIVE
nc
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT SISTORYAAD RACKGR0UND
In 1992, the Irvine City Council approved in concept a plan for enhancement
of the San Joaquin Marsh with direction to fully develop a plan based on that
concept. This plan is the culmination of a major effort started by the Califor-
nia State Coastal Conservancy to bring all interested natural resource agen-
cies, the University of California Natural Reserve System (UCNRS), and land-
owners in the Marsh to a consensus on future direction for Marsh enhance-
ment and coordination of enhancement activities. Based on that effort, the
UCNRS is developing a plan for the Marsh lands west of Campus Drive, and
the City has prepared this Marsh Enhancement Plan for the area east of
Campus Drive.
The San Joaquin Marsh is an important ecological and open space resource
in the region. Wetland habitats, open water areas and riparian habitats are
important wintering grounds for species of birds dependent on marsh habi-
tats. In addition, the Marsh supports several sensitive species of birds pres-
ent year round and several other species important to area biodiversity such
as the coyote, raptors and shorebirds.
The Marsh Enhancement Plan proposes to provide changes to water delivery,
habitat plantings and pond/habitat configuration to increase the habitat value
of the Marsh. The Marsh Enhancement Plan also considers the value of this
open space resource for 1) scientific study, 2) experimentation, 3) public
wildlife viewing, 4) recreational trail connections, 5) cooperative planning of
proper buffers between The Irvine Company residential development areas
within Planning Area 23 and the Marsh, and 6) docent led habitat/wildlife
access, and includes important elements to attain these objectives.
SANJOAQUEV FRESHWATER MARSH OPPORYVN17-LES
The Marsh is owned by The Irvine Company, the University of California
Natural Reserve System and the Irvine Ranch Water District. As indicated
above, UCNRS has withdrawn from the Marsh planning process. All referenc-
es to the Marsh Enhancement Plan that follows deal only with the parcels
owned by The Irvine Company and the Irvine Ranch Water District, all east of
Campus Drive. As conditioned in development approvals for PA 23, future
ownership of mitigation parcels will be deeded to the City of Irvine. As a
future party in interest, the City of Irvine is interested in coordinating Marsh
Enhancement programs with other property owners. Cooperation among
the property owners is required to optimize Marsh enhancement opportuni-
ties related to 1) provision of water resources to enable Marsh refurbishment
and to supply newly planted wetlands with water, 2) coordinated facilities
and funding opportunities for revegetation, engineered water supply tacili-
ties, pumped and/or diverted water supply and treated water delivery bxili-
ties, 3) coordination with Irvine Company wetlands habitat mitigation pro-
09/2Q�95(L• ,Cry 50l -,ENRkNC"LM vii
ISA Arsodvtts, Inc
jects currently within the Marsh and those planned for the Marsh, and 4)
provision of Marsh improvements consistent with City of Irvine open space
preservation policies. Because the San Joaquin Marsh has been physically al-
tered over the past 125 years from ranching and water control activities,
much of the Marsh has been disturbed and cut off from reliable water sourc-
es. Restoration of the Marsh provides a unique opportunity to build on
Marsh habitats and existing water delivery systems to augment existing bio-
logical resources in a coordinated manner through a master planned ap-
proach.
EMIANCF�KENT PIAN ELEMENTS
The refined plan addresses the 3611 acre area bounded by Campus Drive,
Carlson Avenue, Michelson Drive, and San Diego Creek. Implementation of
the Enhancement Plan will result in the following:
• Increased planted natural habitat;
• Increased planted riparian woodland;
• Reconfigured open water seasonal ponds benefitting waterfowl and
other sensitive bird species;
• Construction of reliable water supplies for Marsh Enhancement;
• Creation of a manageable water supply system compatible with using
combinations of stormwater runoff, pumped water, tertiary treated
water Erom IRWD, San Diego Creek diversion and seasonal rain water;
• Construction of water supply and reconfigured Marsh systems that
reduce stormwater pollutants;
• Construction of a light and sound barrier along the east side of Cam-
pus Drive;
• Designation of existing trails and creation of new trails for public
access;
• Creation of a public access control features for the protection of
sensitive species;
1 Includes the 25 acre Planning Area 23A anticipated for future residen-
tial development. Planning Area 23A is not a part of the Marsh En-
hancement area, but has been included to identify the conceptual
boundary between development and Marsh areas, and appropriate
buffer treatments between development and the Marsh.
09/20/95(L. ,cr6ol%MLANCEM) viii
LM Assodates, Inc
• Construction of viewing areas and access enhancement to allow in-
creased wildlife viewing;
• Construction of a wildlife crossing under Campus Drive;
• Adoption of a management program; and
• Adoption of a monitoring program to enable well informed and
thoughtful plan modification to ensure achievement of Marsh
enhancement objectives.
Plan implementation will follow the concepts included in the plan depicted
in Figure E-1.
09/M%(I:,,Cr6o t -,PNHANCE.PIN) Lx
� a u
=uC,N
U'o > C
L -
" Q a E
3 a
E
C4
E
W u
C T
•V, vi
0
U o o
O LL.
E
3 � u
c
R
G
4 v°
Q' V,
' e
u
W
V
ce
'o
'•J
y
=
G
3
cn
�d
C �
•�
O
u v
Rq
e
C/� W
'r,41
a
e Q
a
vv
v
n
-�
p°• �
e
C
a
a u
°aE 3
U Q
t=om
a
a
Q
uU
� r
uU
C
p
R
3
" Q a E
3 a
E
C4
E
W u
C T
•V, vi
0
U o o
O LL.
E
3 � u
c
R
G
4 v°
Q' V,
' e
u
W
�
ce
'o
'•J
�
=
G
3
cn
�d
C �
•�
O
U
ti
a I
C/� W
u �
o
C
4
vv
u u
C3
>:
c
c c
001 \
to
uU
� r
uU
C
p
R
3
3
,
1
" Q a E
3 a
E
C4
E
W u
C T
•V, vi
0
U o o
O LL.
E
3 � u
c
R
G
4 v°
Q' V,
' e
u
W
�
ce
'o
c
O
Y
�
=
G
3
cn
C3 Q c
00 cl
C �
•�
3�n
U
ti
a I
C/� W
o
C
4
C3
�g
cz EI
a
R
R s
" Q a E
3 a
E
C4
E
W u
C T
•V, vi
0
U o o
O LL.
E
3 � u
c
R
G
4 v°
Q' V,
' e
u
W
�
�1
w
�
3
cn
C �
•�
U
ti
cd
.0
C/� W
DRAFT EIR FOR
SAN JOAQUIN MARSH ENHANCEMENT PLAN
September 22, 1995
Prepared for:
City of Irvine
One Civic Center Plaza
Irvine, California 92714
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc
1 Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 553-0666
LSA Project #CIV501
LSA Assodates, Inc
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to analyze
the environmental consequences associated with implementation and con-
struction of improvements included in the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh
Enhancement Plan and associated projects.
This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA: Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seg.),
the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15000 et. §eq. of the California Adminis-
trative Code), and with the guidelines adopted by the City of Irvine.
The Irvine City Council will review and take action on the adequacy of the
environmental document prior to approving (or denying) the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION
The San Joaquin Marsh is an important ecological and open space resource
in the region. The Marsh contains wetland habitats, open water areas and
riparian habitats that are important wintering grounds and year-round habitat
for species of birds and other animal species dependent on marsh habitats
and on this particular natural open space. In addition, the Marsh supports '
several sensitive species of birds present year round and several other species
important to area biodiversity such as the coyote, raptors and shorebirds.
The Marsh area covered by the proposed Enhancement Plan is generally
bounded by Campus Drive to the west, Carlson Avenue to the north,
Michelson Drive to the east, and San Diego Creek to the south. The site is
within the City of Irvine, in the County of Orange. Maps showing project
location are provided in Chapter 3.0 of this document.
The Marsh Enhancement Plan proposes to provide changes to water delivery,
habitat plantings and pond/habitat configuration to increase the habitat value
of the Marsh. The Marsh Enhancement Plan, depicted in Figure 3.3-2, also
recognizes the value of this open space resource for 1) scientific study, 2)
experimentation, 3) public wildlife viewing, 4) recreational trail access and 5)
docent lead habitat/Mldlife access.
The goal of the Marsh Enhancement Plan is, through coordination efforts
among several public agencies and property owners, to preserve, enhance
and manage over half of the largest freshwater marsh in Orange County. Be- ;
cause of close proximity and interrelated project components, this EIR ad-
dresses not only the environmental effects of the Marsh Enhancement Plan,
but also conceptual plans for widening Campus Drive from two lanes to four I
lanes over the Marsh and San Diego Creek.
o9/2o/95 (1: •••CIV501 ••.SECTl-0.M) 1-1
1
I.SAAs"mWes, Inc-
The
nc
The San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan effort has been undertaken to
develop a comprehensive plan for the enhancement and future management
of a 336 acre (361 acres with the planned residential area in PA 23A) portion
of the San Joaquin Marsh, which is currently owned by The Irvine Company
and the Irvine Ranch Water District. The City of Irvine is expected to take
ownership of certain Irvine Company parcels as stipulated in a two party
agreement. The City of Irvine, as Lead Agency in coordinating this planning
program and EIR, is committed to preserving this open space resource and
the biodiversity this habitat provides.
SUABIARY OF LIIPACTS AND bfMGATION afEASURES
Please see Table 1.1 A for a description of impactst mitigation, and the signifi-
cance of impacts after mitigation.
AREAS OF COA7ROVERSY
Several areas of controversy already exist regarding this Enhancement Plan
and its implementation. The actions contemplated in the Plan and addres.Pd
in this EIR are all designed to be ecologically beneficial to the M_1�sn. How-
ever, as with many plans to improve something, there pA-,;.= disagreem(M. 43 as
to which improvements are necessary, which method of implimcniation
might be better, and which plan might be best_ Are�ls ctf coatrovm--y, are
expected to be. biological implicatzolts of -tile project, wetlands impacts
resulting from the physical alterations yplaaned Mdhin the Marsh, crater quali-
ty within the Marsh east of Campus Drive, implications of the Plan to water
supply and water quality on the wit side of Campus Drive, downstream
water quality effects of the Plan as they relate to San Diego Creek and the
Upper Newport Bay, the relationship of this Plan to the Irvine Ranch fi Ater
District's proposed Wetlands Water Supply Project, and animal movement
within the Marsh.
This EIR addresses the proposed Enhancement Plan's environmental. effects
on the Marsh and its environs in a thorough and understandable manner,
and takes into consideration the biological and water quality isstx�es prnown to
the preparers at the time of document preparation. AR aspeM of'the Plan's
effects on the biological resources of the Marsh are addressed in a compre-
hensive manner, consistent with the requirements of CEQX Water quality
effects, water delivery methods and water movement through the Marsh 'ire,
likewise, addressed in a comprehensive and thorough manner, to the extent
required by CEQA.
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The City of Irvine has determined
port (EIR) would be required for
09no/95(1: •,ctvso t -.SECT1-o. EIR)
that this Draft Environmental Impact Re -
the project described in the Notice of
1-2
G
E�
H_
E___
P-1
w
LSA Associates, Inc
Preparation. Based on preliminary analysis of the project and its potential
impacts on the environment, the City identified environmental issues associ-
ated with the Marsh Enhancement Plan and associated projects that should
be addressed in this Draft EIR.
Issues to be resolved in this Draft EIR include: 1) impacts to wetlands,
groundwater, surface water and soil saturation from the proposed water
delivery systems; 2) effects on all critical habitats and species; 3) hydrologic
effects of the Plan; 4) land use compatibility; 5) traffic effects of Marsh relat-
ed projects (e.g., Campus Drive widening); 6) water quality in the Marsh; 7)
noise; 8) air quality; 9) cultural resources; 10) earth resource/soils impacts
resulting from project grading; 11) aesthetics; 12) risk of upset; and 13)
human healthhector control. Project impacts not found to cause a signifi-
cant impact on the environment and, therefore,- not addressed in this EIR
include 1) light and glare, 2) depletion of natural resources, 3) population
increase, 4) impacts to housing supply, 5) public services impacts, and 6)
effects to utilities and service systems.
A0920/95(1: \crvsot % SEM-O.mz) 1-3
2
Dii
'Yt
H
'0 10
u v
,✓ dj C 00 C y F fA
W
ao Y}o.�
ti
a a
O V 0 cOa a v uv u U v G C
LL v ...0 �j ., ...O or -
or --4 cA
u
.+ � � � � �.. V v � �
� -a e' cs O p O O, .0 0 4. C Po
L•.� C.. � � a � � � � '� � � O � o wtoo m
O
cd
a0i 4Yaa '
O uv
d . 'Cu v O u,d0 a o cdc.O p O y0 u 'o c:
�rsis uat,—:3h cuucME
C .� 0 0
V u 'ti 0 'DO h U �� .iG -,6
u
'� W c V to 0 p .G E tes 0 CUA ' .
0 F` c, cs r io u cd u a u, d h'. on 0 o
Ef�Y g��cc
W 04
Qu T: '2 '[mac u G
M a to E G, c�t o ff
4"
c 0 �
0.0 a�
u ac
o�
Or.,
u 0 C! b
4114C
CO
4.0y cit O v N[ aC i
c:
V
lu
N
a°
E E
,w W a
,,
►3
a0a
v
too
w �
.0
0
3
0
o v c
W
;
v
a
4t
h
C:
�
o
C:
v
C
i
� > v
u
u
F
ca
.tl
u
'L7
0o :„ w � t• 6kv S u 0 x .c ° c� a r 0 -[ u v
u cd
uE aN on �a %o u
v v:3 -00 � 8��c0� v
o
Gou,ao duF. u' �' a v 0
O O
rsC, ca cuu �00 y0'
000 a o� y u o ° p Xu °21
� �
u c.
o ° [uw S uv c S. °
%.
o
to 0
E :3 C cd 0 ,�: u O
a��v o .� o �3 ° v o a °'es 5 o
V E
H 0 .: F G. r°n ; a v, c°i F. vii 40.oF
E ve� e�
v
L x
G ' 0 G
0
o
w VV[i
a4°>`
0 G .°0
aovau
0 u
Q y
V h o
'Q h o
�o��Cf3
ai
w
tb
c E
.�
0
Q
��y
o
a
y 0
G. N
3 cd
w � � 4
:112
N
o
Cl
c 0
1.
C%
°xw�
v
v 'b Cd
x
z E
a�a~a�Na
x x �'d
cd
QJ V, w
otii
8vc`bv)�
go y
tb
v
��y
a
V
G. N
�
N
C:. b
Cl
c 0
1.
C%
°xw�
y 04 0.
O V � 2.5
z E
u
�C5
C: a,� b u w u u cd
0
w oOO 4sbaa R
� �ts u0
O aQE .0 C %- C"
v 0 0 v MU, �Hu c vba
Qc
u 0G OOAa u s i 0 p C c�� 8 00 �; c, x O
u
04 19 �C c< .V3 Q,a� c 3 0 *.-0,z,�
a M Cc: c a b :: 2% u a E vu u 0 .0 .0 °
W v C w X. ca �Q / v� C�
to si 0 04
O 0 h O'O 4 V N u G 0 E��J
0 :Nri ..r j — C,h h O
1� u c
a on l p"
0° to M _ c �, V h G p cus
cto.o .cgyaG - 'E,-C—z Vou o%
c-0 0
�., rr O M w u ° u a °
o�.nc� ,o 0 07�.� CI. 14 C4 Z. uc��v0
p O a 0 ?` GV 0 v a v Crw
w ? L
pO M F H N Our .7
F. O n' u 0 b �. v ��. 0 v C:A
04—C ch
C
CO• ,G •t7 >, 'd V ? O v V v, 0v o0 «f
V v0 u '; �«% 0vu 00 U O
0 O C;0 0
V
Z � 0 G A =� -�- u 0 cs O 0
aC: El EaV0z �oaveaV�cavAm
N N M
N
u �
�80
E E
n �
s o
A4
E
u �4)
qsu cru v 't%c�
u
G'5 [ C4dOa
►-� a. C
IYJ to ' � u
as �-0 �-0 v 8...
ON
r.
CC O4
! F W
v � �
a u
0
7 u CLC Q 04 Ca 00 " u w 0� vai .t U G O x
u� c 0.. u u
C U2 aa moo.,o Tu
>a�s4�Ov
V u 0 u 8 w z C b OCO 'b E v C a vi
0 .4
41
cs
EE0. 'CoG)oAL�. rCO 'U CC .
0y c, 3.p O '3O O 104O«2fO0 0
0 O Ed 7 2 C G 0ON G
Ci
L C4
t! .+ U O• ++ C A U C .dam, u .7 N O V v u Qv'.
4. 0 s �' •0 ��j 0A a u Uu.
u v ~'u L a C a v O 0 E G O 0
F" cl U u e4 0 u 0" U
rG 4 L"t x
L.
o H u O T3 �. V 7 '� u ., in O h Q, 0 a A H a f4
r
to N
w M
M
u '
u 0
0
Q N it
4, o �.
A.
C% JQ iS
Cl u 0 u
04 94
1
4 }}y 'yy
V y y
b
q 0
�'3u �aci
-voY��uyo a C q
C: g, v.d��A c'bbu o
ao ua �x 0,� °�=� �.�a��x �nw
-�
a. c
0 ��zu;. a
er? b G u .n :: u Q G ca h °" ,d Cn• m cd_ con
uto cS a s �, d j u W ii y 4 a �: s 0 cl
'� O cr.
�
0' Gj' V xVl IxA y y Ti 'r} �V.. ri .0 C' pip b Ou h O V .::
.i1 V U w c C! 04 ,fit' v a a+ O C', M "
D o c,
—V'E o h ti,:0..a.ti�.
.c o"ouv� vv u�o�c'�aa�
u 'w00ccucd .n 4 'o °ouu
40 ; H y ..0 j; i
h i.. y ''. : co
�Sv 0 O v .. G.Oj O a a D u u
H V h u� gib°; u yw c0_,o'ti ns
V 11 F w u h a. 0 0 0 w q cs O .+ u> 'd
M
H
M fit eA
VOC: 0 c
� u 0 0� O u 0 '0
° 0— V V cE a
Cc
o -moi, u o - m� u� v '0
c
td
V Cdcl
x c C
0 b v o _0 'b O 0 'C 'b
v � � a � � =
0 s �. g. � c v n. �
s
h
vco
v�
.ti
Cd
r �
'►'
M
U4
0
YJ O
u
U
o
eua
w w' w
a
� y
..,�
�cd
4
q 8. Q y pUq ii
Cd
r �
1
4 U U
M
, �^ ,r w 4
dA w -5 , C LL
uoa
,a�
4,ca
� �
S; p
�
���a
ti h � �
w w' w
a
� y
0
cl u v' a b f.
G e s
4
q 8. Q y pUq ii
Ej
a gn 0
ac x u
cut
0
:3
u ca
xr.aA.�04
0
00�4,0��
w u O c „�[ .b G
v
0 q �. u a>$
0
w G h O
O
O G
C v R
as aa,av ° a.
a a 0.�
cps
N
4
w
Q
e�
.. G u
0u
� y
��o4uiq
'd � M
u
_
w 'U
O '[
w
Ej
a gn 0
b
b
w
00
o.3 v u
�Ou u0� _aav
vn
pV obc
a
C
0
034- cs o 0
[ on O o u o 3 .v, v .qc N
N o4) Zb °'v c •.vb v Loi v a v v
4-1
_off, a 0 'C7 -5 h C O O
Cd
r.
b �
r C 10 Cd
-C .UC C O 9 U .0
O of h aC C �• o0 10
�v..��'� qua vv�
cGa w ' v ~ c 3 b "
o WO O b U 04 w u
C v�i.c 00 oaf o�$g,�°"� A�oCd U
u�
V c= O
rd .W v G v $,v -
C:6 ono ooa
V
Q °� 1 O XV c° O vcl
ok V 4 ;, O — o A
v °
O T'' ca a L M G .� Q V v
uv�io o.fj
C. u V G, w Fri v 61
Mw�
v u O oo C.
o�u�o� �cuw tlo
�.5c
U:3. to �, '� o ma °
cva ��ovabv.[ o
c F.Q
co
SC:F8 IV oVOnG
U�-11QM0
CL4 = &'b C A.
c
w v
M
n
a-
0 �
u S30
V
►� C. a u
�u au
0
r.o�x0uo,
u u E O� Cc v C u C
to
v ��tr,r.
ao hQ, v c[ to
'Dy ~ Q v� 0.0
A_ ~ C:i V ; 0
tLi
to w
V Op Sf V v� �a "" v
r. u X. '[ u � x � �
u u� °� Q Cv y�� u vyo�
to a
� O�uu� 4 H ��o.��A u
o f1 u° �x M Y E� C 0 0 0 L aV
u o u
ox
v0 aveo o °'�ytox="
x r-.[ .G
is � . 4, C 0 U
"
4i Cw (5C"O C
0 04 L ^ a
0 ci4 u `c� « '� O V5
M M
M �
«
N
� V
O V
u u
a�
u C Cl
� h h
M
a
g,
C
u� oCd:
W 04 4. w 6'
J
w
C
t
r
t
L -I'
L
i`
s
0
v
� .yr ar OFiQ i
C3 cl ea
Cl.b O o u
cd
N ""'
Cq O
cl
Cd wo cd cd
b u� obi oM" o Ddb ub o
�f oa a w
H o 0to-
acv
o
V tEpo
aouu hCG
apt Z" W O
.Oq�CSS V ii
a .... � .Q � A CL u -Q v a `'� .�,. v r' � w � ►- v :�'s M u
cm
, O u o ui O -0 O 5 u
G .0 •iay
8.
u pn C1A 'C H D
V wO �,
CJ�
v cL, m �: O 2 b u c .. r C7 w v CdN h" GC
o,�vS"aui v a 2wa$a
.." 0
1
Cl
v� O12,
q u o0
0
a
cl
co
tio
aotj
cc
« d0 V c�,
Ca C
tj C `+ V
0
as G.w
u 10
M
b�� �
E04
www
a� E E
u �
p° too °u��^oo�
co °°Z cd r. c a,u .5 0 0 u ca
uC:c'cc,cb
hoc °
�D .t'"
pp CO
0 u Cd
0 v 'G p ca " y G G r.
y p c a V v u h v V 0 -,j
G w ed a u
b °°
D
v, .0 cs -0 u O
�
a41 � u O u Z; u h w � �'o,� y
o �' � U
0 2c� 2 o H
hu�a.ixG�
" a a° -- w� cb E n G oo �'0 �,°G'd cl �'�'V
lu
--G�� u Goy, cv�Nvw�.n�'b
vpi U y n. v G 0. °uM 41 0
u o ° u `l p ti cd
zcGo u�Oug o �>
A a 0 Ck x cs
a o ;, p p b G
° 'd ti A h cl A u c� G u o .g o .• cn v, .�
�c r.
G
si
G u
cc
to .0 a u ° top
0 Gu �qG
i 4 a C:tr
Vi b y a ... 'd .+� ca ca
C. O O °Y, GO CdOco
2ciw% 2-0b 2~vim
a vy2
Gp a T, O G> 'K G
CL4 4�i V u b v, O Q' U b
a
4
CIO
v v
g6
W W
0
G� E E uc--,
lu cd
0 C O
: a
V
C r O
C >.0 O
tj cd
C Q U Z vO. � �j �C,,C .n
O C u eCd 'C7
C. ° °
h t.
go
h � .O V = to
cs
y> C CO u C
v E z GO ua 'a�y�
G ..o go -'o
�o
�'
a u O O O c:u .80
�° �
V
Or. ,o F to �C .ui. or -
'0
� V O 0
u o6Gv OCH v xao.0 GE
V u C O Q C ..
a u.��Eg� 0
F>cr.
r� N
CO z
G>' a u
a u �
CC
'
V U V 'd V y r. M cd
cd
to �u oG�hV h c4; �E
C u G G u G ?. _ �j t�
cis
cl
to .0 C p G C G .�
'U .0 en's cc 'b x >M r �' ,v Lr' O cit
r- n E z3 CC4: �. � " G W
O+ 0 0� uS a E x� "b O
►+ u .0 U ° ea tvi, U e6 Rf e+S 0 C
p �+ C 4 .. G 4, U 0 0 0 v v v>
CITY OF NEWPORT �EACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
(714) 644-3131
September 22, 1995
Jim Hyde
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine, CA 92718
RE: Wetlands Water Supply Project qIR
Clearinghouse No. 951011047
Dear Mr. Hyde:
The City of Newport Beach appreciates the opportunity to
submit comments to Wetlands Water Supply Project after expiration
of the public comment period. We have been advised that IRWD will
accept our comments assuming they are received on or before
September 25, 1995. Comments which accompany this letter will be
hand delivered on September 22, 1995. Please call me as soon as
possible if our understanding is incorrect.
de\hyde.l[r
Very,,4-ruly yours,
ert H. Burnham
City Attorney for the
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
EXHIBIT E
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ON THE IRVINE WATER DISTRICT EIR
FOR THE WETLANDS WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
(STATE CLEARING HOUSE NO. 95011047)
I. Introduction
This document contains the comments of the City of Newport
Beach on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the
Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) for the Wetlands Water Supply
Project (Project) . The City of Newport Beabh does not have the
technical knowledge sufficient to critically evaluate much of the
scientific discussion that comprises the water quality analysis.
Accordingly, our comments focus on the adequacy of the EIR as an
information document and the extent to which the EIR "demonstrates
to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed
and considered the ecological implications of its action."
Department of Public Works vs. Bosio 47 Cal. App. 3d 495.
II. General Comments
(a) Technical Detail - CEQA Guidelines strongly suggest that
"the body of an EIR" should not contain "highly technical and
specialized analyzed analysis and data." Since the primary purpose
of an EIR is to inform the decision maker - at least some of whom
may not have technical backgrounds - every effort should be made to
simplify technical analysis to the extent possible. While water
quality issues can be complex, this EIR makes no apparent effort to
simplify the discussion or analysis. Accordingly, we believe the
water quality analysis, and to a lesser extent the salinity
1
analysis, provide the decision maker with data which do not inform
the decision maker on these critical issues.
(b) Staged EIR - According to the CEQA Guidelines, a staged
EIR is appropriate:
"Where a large capital Project will
require a number of discretionary
approvals from government agencies
and one of the approvals will occur
more than two years before cohstruction
will begin, a staged EIR may be prepared
covering the entire—Project in a general form."
According to the EIR, the vast majority of improvements
necessary to implement the Project have already been constructed
without environmental analysis (these improvements were determined
to be categorically exempt) and the only remaining construction
involves the outlet into. San Diego Creek. According to IRWD staff,
discretionary approvals are expected from the Department of Fish
and Game (DFG) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) prior to January 1, 1996. We do not believe that a
staged EIR is appropriate under the circumstances."
(c) Phase II - There is virtually no discussion of Phase II
of the Project and no information regarding the possible (likely?)
increases in winter time discharges in the future to accommodate
�I
increases in demand for waste water treatment and disposal
resulting from development in the IRWD service area.
III. Executive Summary
(a) In the summary of the Project description, the EIR states
2
that:
/ 1 �
"Phase 1 of the Project, the two year
demonstration phase, is designed to
evaluate the use of reclaimed water as
an economically viable, sustainable
water supply for the existing migratory
waterfowl ponds in the San Joaquin marsh."
The second phase of the Project is implementation of "the
long term operation of the migratory waterfowl ponds under
conditions determined during the demonstration phase." This
description is clearly incomplete and could mislead the decision
maker even though this language is quoted from the executive
summary section.
(b) Impact and Mitigation Summary - According to the Impact
and Mitigation Summary, the Project will have no significant impact
on the environment. However, Table 1.4-1 also references I
mitigation measures and significance after mitigation. IRWD is not
obligated to implement mitigation measures unless necessary to
mitigate potential adverse impacts to a level of insignificance.
We believe that the internal and external monitoring programs
should be incorporated into the description of the Project. We are
concerned about IRWD's commitment to the internal and external
monitoring programs in light of the additional language in Chapter
8 to the effect that:
"The mitigation monitoring/reporting
program will ensthat all mitigation
measures, which fav include compliance
with the interna nd external monitoring
programs, are implemented."
3
IV. Project Description
(a) Purposes and Objectives - The EIR defines the Project
objectives solely in terms of providing a beneficial use of
reclaimed water as the principal supply for migratory waterfowl
ponds in the San Joaquin marsh. However, an objective which would
appear to be of equal or greater significance is the defacto
expansion of IRWD's waster water treatment capacity. IRWD contends
that it is "not fully utilizing its 15 mgd purchased capacity at
CSDOC and its 15 mgd capacity at MWRP." (2-7) The EIR does not
indicate how much of the 15 mgd capacity at CSDOC remains available
to IRWD in the winter. The EIR does concede that "during the
winter season, IRWD has more raw sewage available for treatment
then it has customers for its reclaimed water." We assume that
substantially more raw sewage is transferred directly to CSDOC in
the winter than during the summer when IRWD can easily sell
reclaimed water. Accordingly, the purposed Project effectively
t
enhances IRWD's sewage treatment capacity in the winter (when
capacity is more critical) by five million gallons a day. This
reduction would allow IRWD to avoid purchase of additional capacity
at CSDOC as development proceeds within its service area. The
statement that "the reduction in winter time flows to CSDOC is a
result of the Project that has no affect on the IRWD capacity," is
simply not correct (2-7)
(b) Project Scope - The EIR does not provide any information
on the amount of raw sewage currently generated by development
within IRWD's service area and no information on the increases in
4
k
raw sewage that can be expected from projected development in the
service area. The City has been informed that IRWD would like to
increase its capacity to 30 million gallons a day. This increase
in capacity can be accomplished by combining the current 15 mgd
capacity at CSDOC, with the 15 mgd capacity of the MWRP, and, in
the winter discharging 15 mgd into the ponds and eventually into
San Diego Creek. The EIR does not provide any information
regarding the capacity of the ponds or outlet system and, absent
such information, one must assume- that the Project poses the
potential for substantially greater discharges into San Diego Creek
than currently proposed or assumed. At the very least, the Project
description should be supplemented with specific information
regarding the true capacity of the 18 inch pipeline through which
the denitrified water would be discharged into San Diego Creek and
current information regarding growth projections and treatment
demand for the service area.
(c) Reclaimed Water Quality - The discussion of reclaimed
water quality in the Project Description" section of the EIR is
confusing and replete with references to criteria and restrictions
to be imposed by other agencies. The EIR states that:
"The consistency of supply in
quality and flexibility of
disposal options designed into
the Project, guarantee a high level
of reliability that the water
leaving the migratory waterfowl
ponds would meet discharge criteria
imposed on the project."
This section of the EIR omits any discussion of "disposal
5
options" and does not identify the "discharge criteria" referenced,
other than by reference to TItle 22„ the "Gold Book" and other
responsible agencies. (2-13).
In Section 2.6.3, the discussion of the monitoring program
lacks specific information regarding the water quality criteria or
guidelines that IRWD must satisfy to obtain permits from other
agencies. In fact, this section indicates •that "water quality
monitoring requirements for this discharge (into San Diego Creek)
would be determined through the NPDES permit application process"
rather than criteria necessary to satisfy Title 22 requirements
established to protect human health. This section also indicates
the "internal monitoring program is incorporated into the
operations plan for the Project" which is inconsistent with
provisions of Chapter 8. In summary, while there is a statement
that various agencies responsible for ensuring water quality will
review these applications and the Project prior to approval, there
is no clear statement -in lay terms- which describes the criteria
that must satisfied before reclaimed water is discharged into San
Diego Creek.
V. Water Quality
1. Nitrate Loading/Nitrate Concentration
As stated above, the discussion of nitrate loading and
concentrations is extremely complex and very difficult to
understand. This confusion is compounded by various assumptions
regarding the nitrate level of the proposed discharge. The nitrate
2
t
concentration is assumed at various points in the discussion to be
less than 1 N/L on occasion, between one and 5 N/L on other
occasions, and between one and 3 N/L on other occasions. The
nitrate level of the discharge is critical to conclusions regarding
no significant impact and constitutes the single most important
assumption in the EIR. Assumptions regarding N/L are critical and
must be consistent.
2. Denitifrication Assumptions
The assumptions regarding.,the amount of nitrates removed
from the reclaimed water by circulation through the marsh are
based, in large part, upon data from studies in the marsh behind
Prado Dam. However, these studies were conducted annually in an
area where climatological conditions are substantially different
than those in the Project area. Ambient area temperatures and
other factors relevant to denitrification could differ greatly
between the two sites.
3. Nitrate Loading - The EIR states that "the impacts are
different" if "concentrations of nitrate in the Project's Wetlands
discharge are higher than expected..." According to the EIR, in
such event, the lower portions of Upper Newport Bay could
experience a net increase in loading. This increase in loading has
dismissed in terms of significance because it is smaller then the
existing variability of nitrate loading and would occur when
"impacts associated with eutrophication would be minimum."
However, there is no analysis or information to support these
conclusions.
7
4. Pathogens - In Section 3.3.2.4 the EIR states that "since
the input to the fresh water marsh is free of human pathogens it
can be reasonably predicted that the discharge from the marsh would
also be free of human pathogens." According to our sources,
certain pathogens, such as viruses, are not totally removed by the
treatment and disinfection processes used at MWRP. Also, there is
no indication of the potential impact on human health resulting
from the assumed "bacteriological contamination from avian or
wildlife sources due to habitat use -of the marsh." The EIR should
explain the ongoing discussions regarding possible modification to
Title 22 regulations and water quality criteria as well as the
nature of those pathogens which are not removed through the
treatment and disinfectant process.
5. Biological Resources - The EIR concedes that "the natural
variability and complexity of estuarine habitat such as Upper
Newport Bay makes them difficult to model." The EIR also confirms
that "winter fresh water outflows cause marked population declines"
with "increases in fish populations when higher salinity
conditions" return in the Spring. We believe the Project should
include regular reporting to the City of Newport Beach, DFG and
other resource agencies, that the information be evaluated by
consultants independent of IRWD, and that the reports reflect
comparisons with the pre -project conditions as established by
studies referenced in the EIR and the bioassay conducted for the
Upper Newport Bay dredging Project referenced in the minutes of the
offsite monitoring meeting of April 20, 1995.
1*1
6. Human Health Impacts
(a) Title 22 criteria �-
The discussion of human health impact should be
.expanded to include information regarding the extent to which
certain pathogens - such as viruses - may be present in water that
otherwise meets the criteria specified in Title 22 of the
California Administrative Code and EPA Gold Book. The EIR should
also address ongoing discussions regarding possible amendments to
Title 22 relative to testing for pathogens such as viruses.
(b) The internal monitoring program does appear adequate
for its stated purpose - "to validate the effectiveness of Wetlands
treatment and enhancement of the biological resources in the
migratory waterfowl ponds." However, the only human health
component of the internal monitoring program is coliform and
enterococcus monitoring on a monthly basis at eight locations
exclusive of the monitoring station at the outlet_ structure. The
external monitoring plan specifically states that "no
microbiological analysis will be performed beyond Title 22
requirements." (Assumed to be satisfied at time of waste water
treatment) The EIR concludes that no significant health risks are
predicted assuming:
1. All permitting standards and requirements are met;
and
2. The extensive monitoring program is adhered to; and \
3. The "Proiect retains the ability to identify and
correct problems and terminate Project activities which cause
7
persistent problems"...
The EIR should be augmented with a more thorough
discussion of the means by which IRWD will strictly adhere to these
criteria.
7. Cumulative Impacts
(a) San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan
The discussion of the relat-lonship between the
Project and the San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan is inadequate.
Section 4.1.1 fails to inform the reader that IRWD is a major
player in the Marsh Enhancement Plan or that reclaimed water from
MWRP is one of the options being explored as a source of water for
that marsh. The impacts of the proposed Project will, in all
probability, be influenced by implementation of the Marsh
Enhancement Plan. The EIR should be revised to thoroughly analyze
the relationship between the Project and the Marsh Enhancement
Plan, thoroughly discuss the possibility of using MWRP reclaimed
water to implement the Marsh Enhancement Plan, and integrate the
proposed low flow diversion structure into the Project to ensure an
overall reduction in nitrates entering Upper Newport Bay.
(b) Upper Newport Bay Dredging Projects
The EIR generally describes dredging Projects in the
Upper Bay but does not discuss the cumulative impacts on flora and
fauna of the Project and dredging in the Upper Bay. Maintenance
dredging will have some impact on flora and fauna in the Upper Bay,
will in all probability be underway when the Project is scheduled
10
to be in (January 1996) . The City of Newport Beach is the lead
agency for the EIR evaluating the impacts of this proposed dredging �-
and the cumulative impacts of the Project should be evaluated prior
to a decision on the Project.
8. Alternatives
(a) San Diego Creek Water Source
According to the EIR, the use of San Diego Creek
water is a source for the migratory waterfowl ponds was rejected
without analysis. The rejection was predicated on a number of
factors - no beneficial use of reclaimed water, prohibitive cost of
building a diversion structure, high nutrient concentrations during
the wet season, and inconsistent water quality. This alternative
would not necessarily preclude beneficial use of reclaimed water
but would meet all other Project objectives and ensure the Project
enhance the environment by removing a large percentage of nutrients
before introduction into the Upper Bay. Moreover, IRWD and the
City of Irvine are considering a low flow diversion structure as a
part of the Marsh Enhancement Plan so the prohibitive cost of that
improvement may not be a factor. This alternative should be
thoroughly evaluated.
(b) Ground Water Injection - IRWD also rejected out of
hand the concept of injecting reclaimed water into the ground water
basin after treatment and after circulation through the pond
system. The EIR contends the water "would need to be treated a
second time" and "the cost of retreatment as well as the cost
associated with developing and operating a ground water injection
11
Project would be economically infeasible." The EIR fails to
contain any information to support the reasons for rejection. This
alternative should also be evaluated.
9. Growth Inducing Impacts - The EIR contends "the Project
will not create growth inducing impacts. According to the CEQA
Guidelines, an EIR is required to:
"Discuss the ways in which the proposed
Project could foster economic or population
growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly,
in the surrounding environment. Included
in this are Projects which would remove
obstacles to population growth (a major
expansion of a waste water treatment plan
might, for example, allow for more
construction in service areas)." 15126(8)
The proposed Project does constitute a defacto increase
in IRWD's waste water capacity. IRWD admits they have "more raw
sewage available for treatment than... customers" during the winter
time. The IRWD proposal to discharge five mgd of reclaimed water
into San Diego Creek during the water means they have at least 5
mgd in reclaimed water that would otherwise be diverted to CSDOC
for disposal. The discharge of 5 mgd into San Diego Creek
effectively increases IRWD's winter time capacity by 5 mgd.
Moreover, the EIR does not specify the capacity of the Project in
terms of the potential volumes of reclaimed water that could be
discharged into San Diego Creek. MWRP capacity is 15 mgd and,
assuming no demand for reclaimed water in the winter and a 10 mgd
capacity of the 18 inch pipe with an enhanced pumping system
(confirmed by engineers), the Project has the potential to
12
effectively increase IRWD's capacity by 10 mgd per day in the
winter. This is a Project of regional significance that will
enable IRWD to significantly enhance its service capacity in the
near term and avoid the expense of major capital improvements.
Growth inducing impacts of t Project must be evaluated.
9112 2%�
Ebert Burnham
City Attorney
de\commentsl.eir
13
EXHIBIT F
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
C`'141 FO FRN�P
September 22, 1995
Ron Young
General Manager
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon Ave
Irvine, CA 92718
Re: Wetland Water Supply Project
Dear Mr. Young:
On September 25, 1995, the Newport Beach City Council asked
the Utilities Committee to thoroughly evaluate your proposed
Wetland Water Supply Project, as well as the related Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), submit appropriate comments on the EIR, and
express the position of the City with respect to the project. Our
comments on the EIR accompany this letter. In summary, we believe
that IRWD should defer any decision on the project until:
1. IRWD has revised the EIR for the Wetlands Water Supply
Project to reflect the additional information and
analysis contained in responses to comments, and to
correct the deficiencies identified in our comments; and
2. The City and IRWD have fully explored the relationship
between the Wetland Water Supply Project and the related
San Joaquin Marsh Enhancement Plan to determine if there
is the potential for integrating components of the two
plans to ensure environmental benefits.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard * P.O. Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659-1768
1
The fragile nature of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological /
Reserve, and the heavy recreational use of the Lower Bay require
IRWD to establish, with certainty, that the proposed Project will
not cause any adverse impact on the environment or pose any health
risk to humans. The City Council, this Committee, and the public
are not convinced that these criteria have bee�i satisfied and a
delay in the decision on the project and the EIR will provide both
agencies with the opportunity to� ensure the public and the
environment are protected. At a minimum, the delay should coincide
with the comment period for the San Joaquin Marsh Project EIR.
Very truly yours,
Jean Watt
Council Member for the
City of Newport Beach
wb\irwd.ltr
EXHIBIT G
From : W.E.M., Pasadena, CA (818)398-9735 P02
W.im
PATER ENGYNEERING is HODELING
766 North Mentor Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91104
(818) 398-9735 (Tel. & FAX)
October 23, 1995
John Walter
Public works Department
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Dear John,
The following is my review of the numerical- modeling performed
as part of the ETR prepared for the :Cr.vine Ranch Water District to
assess the impacts of the proposed discharge of treated wastewater
into Newport Bay via San Diego Cree:k..
The report is in two parts. The first part concerns the
characteristics of the Branched Tidal Channel Model (TC111) model
used in the study, while the second bast compares results reported
in the EIR with those obtained using; nother model, for two basic
cases.
TC111 Model Review
As a preface., I would like to point out that most of the
limitations of the TC111 model that are discussed here are also
acknowledged in a Technical Memorandum that was an appendix to the
EIR.
Newport Bay is a complex hydrodynamic system, particularly the
upper reach. The appearance of the upper bay changes dramatically
from high tide to low tide, as the extensive shallow areas are left
exposed by the receding water. At low tide the flow is in the
relatively deep channels, which could reasonably be represented as
having rectangular cross-section, as is done in the TC111
formulation. However, as the water level rises the cross-section
departs markedly from a rectangular shape. The TC111 model, as a
one-dimensional treatment, is forced to constrain the channel
cross-section to be rectangular. The area of the cross-section in
the model is forced to conform with the actual area at two points
in the tidal cycle - low tide and hi.gi-r tide - and interpolation is
used to fix the dimensions of the rectangular channel at all
intermediate water levels. Coupled with the very coarse
discretization of the upper bay into only 8 channel segments, it is
clear that the geometrical representation of the bay is extremely
�r�trin . nno Wnill d hAvP t -.n cmv 4-hv.+ r F. i c i c t -ho:, ci mn1 Pq1'.
From : W.E.M., Pasadena, CA 0818)398-9735
possible numerical model of the bay.
P03
In some parts of the bay, the simple treatment of the geometry
does not depart very much from reality, but in the upper end of the
bay the omission of wetting and dryisig of shallow areas is a major
limitation. The geometrical assumptions make it necessary to
ignore features like the Newport Dunce embayment, the constriction
of the flow at the gap in the Salt DiRe, and the channel loops that
occur in several places.
Because the bay is short in comparison to a tidal wavelength,
water surface elevations throughout the bay track the: variation in
water surface elevation at the ocean k)oundary (with a time lag that
depends on distance from the ocean entrance). This means that
provided the cell dimensions were corre.-t-_tly specified (not possible
to verify, but presumably true), the model is capable of correctly
predicting the total flow volumes in and out of the different parts
of the bay as the water surface elevation varies between low and
high tide. There is no guarantee thiit the volumes will be correct
for intermediate tidal stages, however, because the linear
interpolation that. is used to computethe channel widths from water
depth will in general not yield the correct cross-section areas.
For this reason velocities predicted by the model can not be
expected to be reliable even as cross --section averages - in any
case the fact that a channel segment or cell usually represents a
section of the bay with a varying cross-section means that the
modeled velocities are averages a:tong as well as across the
channel.
The fact that the TC111 model i:.; cjtriented towards reproducing
flows rather than velocities is cons stent with the water quality
part of the model, which effectively treats the bay as a set of
tanks, each fully mixed, with flowE; ::end mixing between adjacent
tanks. This is obviously a great sing:,. i.fication of the reality of
transport and mixing in the bay.
The foregoing comments focus on J.mitations of TC111 which are
the limitations of any one-dimensional model in the estuarial
context. Implicitly, the model is cr.,igpar.ed with a two-dimensional
depth -averaged model such as RMA2, which has the capability to
represent the geometry to the desired :level of detail, including in
the case of the RMA2 model the wetting and drying of mudflats.
There is another serious limitation of the one-dimensional approach
which is shared by depth -averaged two-dimensional models: the
vertical variation in density that results from freshwater inflows
into a saline bay. At low levels of inflow from San Diego Creek,
there is a tendency for the less denfisi -Inflow to float on and flow
over the surface of the denser wager, in the bay, which has a.
salinity approaching that of seawater.. it has been shown that this -
leads to the creation of a' saline "wedge", a situation in which the
isohalines (surfaces of equal se-01nity) are tilted at a
considerable angle from the vertical (which is the orientation they
From : W.E.M., Pasadena, CA 0818)398-9735
1001
would have if the bay were well mixed vertically). Near the. -upper
end of the bay the isohalines can b(.--r..ome almost horizontal. No
depth -averaged model can account for this effect, and in fact it
presents a rather intractable probiter with the current state of
numerical models.
While the above criticisms migtit be interpreted as severe,
they must be placed in the context ofwhat is required and expected
of a model of this kind. TC111 could be looked upon as a kind of
level 1 model (leaving aside strictly analytical approaches), in a
ranking in which a two-dimensional. leapth-averaged model would be
level 2, and a full three-dimensional treatment (whish may not be
available yet) would be level 3. Si-ctpping from one level to the
next implies a significant increase in difficulty, data
requirements, and cost. Depending the issues to be studied, a
simpler model may be adequate for certain purposes, even if its
accuracy is known to be limited. ref: this point the issue of
calibration becomes important.
The TC111 model. includes two parimeters (friction coefficient
and mixing coefficient) that can br- varied to adjust the model
performance in order to improve agre:(nilent with measured data, i.e.
to calibrate the model. The EIk :~•eports that the model was
relatively insensitive to the friction coefficient, which is to be
expected in this case, particularly .since shallow areas have been
eliminated from the model. The main (.a ibration "knob", therefore,
is the mixing coefficient. The modelers adjusted mixing while
simulating steady state low flow con(t::ions, using salinity as the
modeled water quality constituent. Using available historic
salinity data, they arrived at a value of the mixing coefficient
that matched resulted in model predictions of salinity that were as
close as possible to the measured si&'_,_i..nities. For this exercise
the San Diego Creek flow was held at:. a steady level that was
estimated to have existed at the tine {.if the salinity measurements.
This procedure was conducted for two p,,.! ; i.ods of relatively constant
stream flow. The streamf low levels a.re not reported, but it seems
likely that they were 16 cfs and 45
All the details of the salinit;b
rwased calibration are not
available, but it appears that the sa lAn.ity at the upper end of the
bay (cell 58, Unit 1 Basin), was L2Se!d. as the main calibration
target. The report is a little confusing because it appears that
different results are reported in di a'f'orent places. Focusing on a
steady stream flow of 16 cfs (dry .wi.rit:er conditions) and assuming
34 ppt ocean salinity: Table 3.3-9 :sr-,ow.s salinity in cell 58 as in
the range 26.7 - 30.0 ppt over a tidal. cycle, while Table 3.4-3
(revised) indicates that the range o.<: variation in cell 58 (Unit 1
Basin) is 23 - 31 ppt.
Calibration in the Newport Bay ik a rather thorny problem, for
five reasons. First, only a limited number of simultaneous flow
and salinity measurements are avail.rirjly. Second, many of those
i
From : W. E. M. , Pasadena, CA C818)398-9735
O1
measurements were taken when the anownt of sediment in the supper
basins was different from what it is now, and salt water intrusion
into the upper bay is affected consi-derably by -the channel depth.
Third, long periods of constant m.zeam flow are required to
calibrate the model, because it takers the bay many tidal cycles to
return to equilibrium (in the salinity distribution) after it has
been disturbed. To be most useful, meetsurements need to have been
taken after such steady flow periods. Fourth, because of the
variation of salinity over a tidal cyale (which near Jamboree Road
is much greater than that predicted. by TC111.j, it is necessary to
take salinity measurements over a fu). ). tidal cycle. This is seldom
done. Lastly, since the numerical models that are being used and
are likely to be used in. the forese-eable future in Newport Bay
assume full vertical mixing (i.e. are. depth averaged) , the salinity
measurements used to calibrate the models should also be of the
average salinity throughout the watc-or column.
In a final calibration step that. was relevant only to nitrate,
measured nitrate concentrations were t�sed to set the nitrate decay
rate in the model at 0.005/day.
The suitability of TC111 to the task of modeling salinity and
nitrate levels in Newport Bay is pilt.. in question because of the
simplifying assumptions used in the: model, particularly the one-
dimensional approximation, which sevc;rely distorts' the geometry of
the bay. The shortcomings of this particular model must be kept in
perspective, however, considering the. difficult modeling issues
that must be confronted regardle:r--, of the modeling approach
adopted: calibration with incomplr-J;(,! data and the problem of
density stratification at low flows
It is doubtful whether TC111 capable of making accurate
predictions of salinity or NO3 in an :kbsolute sense, but the model
predictions are still likely to be us;Fsful in a relative sense. To
give an example, if the model predict.uy (as it does for the IRWD 7.7
cfs discharge) that a particular scenario will result in reduced
nitrate levels everywhere in the bay; it: is probably predicting the
direction of change correctly. Whather the model correctly
predicts the actual nitrate levels, r,> -i- the magnitude of the change
in nitrate level at any location, iE- mtach more open to question.
From : W.E.M., Pasadena, cA (818)398-9735 P06
N
RMA2/RMA4 Modeling of Salinity and 19'i.t:rate in Newport Bay k
Water Engineering & Modeling dr:vel.oped hydrodynamics (RMA2)
and water quality (RMA4) models of N'c}wport Bay in 1992 as part of
a previous study conducted for th6' USACOE. A report of the
modeling was released as Appendix to the Upper Newport Bay
Reconnaissance Study. That appendix :oritains a description of the
models, a picture of the finite element grid used in the model, and
graphical depictions of model resu1•,-s, Briefly, the RMA2 model
uses a two-dimensional depth averaged formulation to solve the
equations of motion (depth averaged Na vier -Stokes equations) for
currents and water surface elevatiu!! _ever a region of arbitrary
shape. The finite element method the geometry of the region
to be represented to any desired le:viii of accuracy, and the model
can account for the wetting and drying of shallow areas. The
companion model, RMA4, solves the (.'-onvective-diffusion equation
that governs transport of a disso':vetd constituent, using the
hydrodynamic results from RMA2. Vb e hydrodynamic model was
calibrated using data from a water �-iurface elevation and current
measurement program conducted by Coas.t.a.'( Frontiers Corporation. At
that time, the lack of suitable datz pr c..!cluded calibration of the
water quality model, and the model w=::s -run with typical parameter
values used in other estuary studies
For the purposes of comparing thc:: salinity and nitrate results
predicted by the TC111 with RMA mo -'.lel predictions, a rough
calibration of the RMA4 model was pc -,a. f'nrmed using the results of
salinity data analysis performed by John M. Tettemer & Associates,
on OCEMA measurements. This calibr All--a.on effort was conducted at
short notice and should be considered provisional, and all the
reservations expressed in the foregoi-uj about salinity .data apply.
The crux of the problem, as faced 1-y the TC111 modelers, is to
choose salinity and flow measurement:, that represent steady state
conditions. From the results rcq.-,ortied by Tettemer, it was
estimated that a steady flow of 1.t f.s in San Diego Creek is
associated with a mean salinity (t.id:i a ly-- and depth -averaged) of
about 26 ppt in the middle of the Un:; •:. basin (cell 58 in TC111).
This was used as the target in the calibration. In an attempt to
account for the surface flow of fre.h water near the top of the
upper bay, which has the effect of i:ic:reasing the rate of lateral
mixing of the freshwater inflow, eletjerits in that area were given
mixing parameter values much higher 1.han those in the rest of the
bay. Nitrate decay was incorporated by using the same decay rate
of 0.005/day that the TC111 modelers :,dopted.
Two cases have been modeled for .-: ison with TC111 results:
Case A: existing conditions with 16 c:i s f low in San Diego Creek and.
a nitrate level of 16.3 mg/L (this i::;the calibration condition),
Case B: 16 cfs base flow + IRWD 6.%scharge of 7.7 cfs, 1 mg/L
nitrate, giving a net San Diego Gr"- e'l flow of 23.7 cfs, and a
From : W.E.M. , Pasadena, CA C818)398-9735
nitrate level of 11.3 mg/L.
P07
To facilitate comparison wit'+ the TC111 model results,
locations have been selected in the middle of each of the TC111
cells (RMA4 computes concentrations gat nodal points rather than
averages over regions). in the ttabIQS that follow, the locations
have been labeled by the correspondin?,- TC111 cell number. For each
location, the tidal average (mean), th(:' tidal low value (min) and
the tidal high value (max) of the coy1ce:ntrati•on is reported. Table
1 shows the salinity results for thr.'rwo cares, and Table 2 shows
the nitrate results for the two cas�!r-
Table 1.
Modeled
salinity at selecu: d locations
for winter low
flow: existing
conditions.
7.7
cfs IRWD discharge
(1 mg/L)
.
Cell
Existing
Conditions
IRWD Discharge
7.7 cfs
No.
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
58
23.2
13.3
26.6
20.5
10.2
24.5
57
25.8
21.5
27.6
23.4
18.6
25.7
56
27.0
25.6
28.2
24.9
23.2
26.4
55
27.8
26.8
29.2
25.9
24.6
27.7
54
28.9
27.4
31.4
27.4
25.4
30.5
53
30.1
28.0
32.2
28.9
26.2
31.5
52
31.1
28.9
32.7
30.2
27.3
32.3
51
31.9
30.0
33.0
31.2
28.7
32.7
50
32.6
31.7
33.3
32.2
30.9
33.1
40
33.2
32.3
33.8
33.0
31.8
33.8
30
33.6
32.7
34.0
33.4
32.2
34.0
20
33.7
32.9
34.0
33.6
32.6
34.0
80
32.4
32.3
32.4
31.8
31.8
31.8
70
32.4
32.4
32.4
31.8
31.8
31.9
60
32.4
32.3
32.5
31.9
31.7
32.0
Table 2.
Modeled
nitrate concentrai;:;,n
at selected locations for
winter
low flow:
existing .;-.Onditions
and
7.7 cfs ZRWD
discharge (1
mg/L).
Cell
Existing Conditions
XRWD
Discharge
7.7 cfs
No.
Mean
Min
Max
Mean.
Min
Max
58
5.06
3.40
9.78
4.48
3.15
7.91
57
3.83
2.94
5.872
3.49
2.74
5.09
56
3.25
2.68
3.91
3.01
2.51
3.86
55
2.88
2.21
3.35
2.69
2.09
3.11
54
2.33
1.19
3.04
2.19
1.14
2.84
53
1.76
0.63
2.75
1.67
0.81
2.58
52
1.32
0.58
2.26
1.26
0-.56
2.22
51
0.96
0.44
1.85
0.92
0.43
1.75
50
0.62
0.30
1.05
0.61
0.29
1.01
40
0.34
0.07
0.75
0.33
0.07
0.72
30
0.20
0.02
0.59
0.19
0.02
0.58
20
0.12
0.00
0.48
0.12
0.00
0.46
80
0.73
0.72
0.74
0.72
0.70
0.72
70
0.72
0.71
0.73
0.70
0.69
0.71
60
0.70
0.65
01'76
0.69
0.64
0.74
The salinity results in Table . are to be compared with the
TC111 results in Table 3.3--9 of the The two sets of results
are similar. The TC111 model has be( -.--Ir) c:alibxated to give slightly
lower salinities at the top of the The RMA4 results near the
top of the bay show a wider spread be<K•ween the high and low values
of salinity over a tidal cycle. The.t. is a reflection of the fact
that TC111 averages salinity over .� .vide region, which has the
effect of reducing fluctuations. 1:0th sets of results show a
similar amount of salinity decrease -;•,i.th the change in streamflow
from 16 cfs to 23.7 cfs.
The existing conditions case in '::'able 2 corresponds to Case I
in Table A-1 of the EIR, while the 'FWD discharge case in Table 2
corresponds to Case IV in Table A-2 of the EIR. The RMA4 results
exhibit more variation from low to iiilqh values at each location.
The RMA4 concentration gradient is s4ghtly greater than the TC111
gradient, with significantly higher values at the top of the bay
and slightly lower values near the entrance. Like the TC111
results, the RMA4 results indicate •-i •eduction in nitrate levels
everywhere in the bay with the add!,: -(-.,n of a 7.7 cfs, 1mg/L ZRWD
discharge.
In summary, while the RMA4 and 11' ..j .t 1 models differ somewhat in
the 1_eels of nitrate that they preit.i-(A. throughout the bay, they
agree qualitatively in their predict ,:,« of the effect of the XRWD
discharge.
7
Draft
Environmental Impact Report
for the
Irvine Ranch Water District
Wetlands Water Supply Project
State Clearinghouse No. 95011047
Lead Agency:
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine, CA 92718
Contact: Mr. Jim Hyde, Environmental Compliance Specialist
Irvine Ranch Water District
714/453-5866
June 1995
Prepared by:
C WHILL
2510 Red Hill Avenue
P.O. Box 15960
Santa Ana, CA 92735
714/250-1900
Figure 3.3-5 ®�
Segments Used for
Water Quality Analyses
IRWD Wetlands
Table 3.3-9
NEWPORT BAY SALINITIES
RESULTS OF
MODEL SIMULATION
Model
Segment
Flow
(cfs)
Number
Winter Dry
Weather
Winter Average
Flow
Flow with
Flow
Flow With
withoutw
Project
ithout
.
Project
Project
Project
16.0
23.7_
45.2
52.9
Average Segment Salinity-- parts per
thousand
51
31.7
30.9
28.8
28.2
52
31.2
30.1
27.6
26.9
53
30.8
29.6
26.7
25.8
54
30.5
29.1
25.9
25.0
55
30.2
28.7
25.4
24.4
56
29.5
27.8
23.9
22.7
57
28.4
26.3
21.7
20.4
58
26.7
24.1
18.4
16.9
51
32.8
32.3
31.1
30.8
52
32.4
31.8
30.4
29.9
53
32.1
31.4
29.6
29.1
54
31.7
30.8
28.7
28.1
55
31.2
30.2
27.7
27.0
56
30.7
29.5
26.5
25.7
57.
30.2
28.7
25.4
24.5
58
30.0
28.4
24.8
23.8
10
33.2
32.9
32.1
31.9
20
32.9
32.5
31.5
31.3
30
32.7
32.3
31.1
30.8
40
32.6
32.0
30.1
30.2
50
32.4
31.7
30.3
29.9
60
32.6
32.0
30.7
30.3
70
32.6
32.0
30.8
30.5
80
32.6
32.1
30.9
30.5
10
34.0
33.9
33.9
33.9
20
33.8
33.8
33.6
33.6
30
33.7
33.5
33.2
33.1
40
33.4
33.2
32.6
32.4
50
33.1
32.7
31.8
31.6
60
32.9
32.5
31.5
31.3
70
32.9
32.4
31.4
31.1
80
32.9
32.4
31.4
302
Final Environmental Impact Report
for the
Irvine Ranch Water District
Wetlands Water Supply Project
State Clearinghouse No. 95011047
Lead Agency
Irvine Ranch Water District
15600 Sand Canyon Avenue
Irvine, CA 92718
Contact: Mr. Jim Hyde, Environmental Compliance Specialist
Irvine Ranch Water District
714/453-5866
September, 1995
Prepared by:
CH2M HILL
2510 Red Hill Avenue
P.O.Box 15960
Santa Ana, CA 92735
714/250-1900
Appendix A
Summary of Draft EIR Water Quality Analysis
Prepared in Response to Comments
c
Table A4.
NEWPORT BAY NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS
RESULTS OF MODEL SIMULATION'
Non -Project Base Cases
Nitrate Concentrations in mg -l" for
dicated Case and 16 cfs (Dry
zather Flow)
Segmeilf Case 1: Case II:
Number 6.3 mg -NII )5.4 mg -M
Case III:
13 mg-N/I
51
0.59
0.49
51
1.05
0.88
52
1.29
1.09
53
1.58
IA9
1.26
54
133
1.63
1.38
VC
10
0A1
0.39
0.33
Table
NEWPORT BAY NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS
RESULTS -OF MODEL SIMULATION
. Project Cases
Nitrate Concentrations in mg -NA for
Indicated Case, 16 cfs. (Dry Weather
Flow), San Diego Creek Input of 16.3
mq-N11, and Project Flows of 5 m
Segment Case IV:
Number I mg-N/I
...............
154
Case V: Case VI:
-2 mg -NA 3 mq-N/I
3 z
.... .... ........ ..........
51
0.6(�
0.62-
0.6 . 3
52
0.76
.0.77
0.79
53
0.90
0.94
0.95
1.08
1.12
1.14
55
1.30
1.35
1.37
56
1.56
1.61
1.64
57
1.77
1.84
1.87
58
1.89-
1.95.
1.99
M
51
1.07
1.11
1.13
52
1.32
1.37
1.39
53
1.51
1.57
1.59
54
1.66
1.72
1.75
55
1.79
1.85
1.88
56
2.10
2.18
221
57
2.59
2-68
2.73
58
3.33,,
3.45
3.51
.... ...... ..................
10
0.02
0.02
0.02
20
0.08
0.08
0.08
30
0.16
0.16
0.17
40
0.29
0.30
0.31
50
0.46
0.48
0.49
60
0.51
0.53
0.54
70
0.54
0.56
0.57
80
0.55
0.57
0.58
....... ..... ....
10
0.40
0.41
0.42
20
0.52
0.54
0.55
30
0.61
0.63
0.64
40
0.68
0.70
0.71
50
0.77
0.80
0.81
60
0.69
0.71
0.73
70
0.67
0.69
0.70
80
0.66
0.68
0.69