Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS038_UPPER BAY RESTORATION PROJECT 150038 Tso3g 1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1416 Tenth Street CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. BOX 1768 Mx Clerk of the Board of NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa NAME OF PROJECT: ' Upper Newport Bay Restoration Project PROJECT LOCATION: Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve,,,Newport Beach, Calif. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED' INITIAL STUDY FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of Fity Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and.determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. , " MITIGATION MEASURES: SEE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach - INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator Date: March 8, 1984 �---�� :•.'i> r=u�`.ws1'-"^�'+`,Stag.SsWn�. 0 Authorized tp Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public ♦ N notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and �( A-24831. dated 11 June, 1963. RECEIVED Planning Q STATE OF CALIFORNIA (( Department ApR 111984 s County of Orange Public Notice Advertising CITY OF S by this affidavit Is "I In 77 Q` rim to pica cutumn width NEWPORT BEACH, ` CALIF. 6 I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of \ Co .4 the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, PUBLIC NOTICE I County of Orange, State of California, and that a PUBLIC NOTICE Public Hearing Negative Dec— f NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN theta Noice Of Negative y the City has been era ion ER NEWPORT BAY RESTOR TION prepared by the city of Newport 1 each 1n conriectlonmith the: PROJECT. City of Newport Beach UPPER NEWPORT BAY RESTORATION PROJECT of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete jacdeptB the nNegative Dn of eclaration. copy,copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, the:The the Cit ygeencouragaQ members of neral public to review and comment on the documentation, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Copies of the Negative Declaration are available for public review and Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Inshectloh at the Planning Depart. ment,City of Newport$each,3300 Beach Issues of said newspaper for one Newport allBouleVard. Newport consecutive weeks to wit the Issue(s) of o llyPu li hf d,byarch he orange coast 1694-64 March 23 198 4 198— 198— - - 198— 198_ 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 23 , 198 4 at Costa Mesa, California. �f n Q!(L Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION 0 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and A-24831, dated 11 June, 1963. I STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange,F Public Notice Advamilong covers ( by this ahldMt b sat In 7 point with to pica column wIdlh I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that a _ Public Hearing Negative Dec— -- Notice of PUBLIC NOTICE larat:ion . TJPrER NEWPORT BAY RESTOR TION PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a non_.7.7+r_m_ _ r_J +-3r trf Naunort: Beach Negetive Declaration has been " � I prepared by the City of Newport of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete each Iri connection with tRT he: copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, RESTORATION UPPER PROJECT It Is the intention of the city to Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, i g accept the Negative Declaration. i The Clly encourages members of Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna the the general public to review and comment on the documentation. Beach Issues of said newspaper for erne, Copies of the Negative Declaration are inspection at theor PPlanrning(ew and Depart. consecutive weeks to wit the Issue(s) of ment,City of Newport Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,Celffornla. Published by the Orange Coast Daily Pilot March 23,1984 1694•e4 tT:trch 23 198 g 198_ - 198_ - — - 198_ 198— I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on wa,- b 91 198 4 at Costa Mesa, C�alliif/ornia. //ff Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION >1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, c3 ` ' 1 GEORGE DEUKMEAAN, GDver 9 nor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION 6809 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 200 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92S06 • � '�.•D PHONE: (714) 684-9330 March 13, 1984 8 AMR 1 . 2 Mr. James H. McJunkin Executive Director The Port of Long Beach P. 0. Box 570 Long Beach, CA 90801 Dear Mr. McJunkin: Newport Bay Restoration Project We have reviewed your Newport Bay Restoration Project described in.your letter of February 28, 1984, and the US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice of Application for Permit No. 84-072-HB dated March 5, 1984. Based on information given in your letter and the Corps of Engineers Permit Notice, we find that an 4PDES Permit will not be required for this project. This finding is conditioned on work proceeding as described in your proposal, particularly the following: 1. Material excavation will be by large truck-mounted backhoe loading into dump trucks; 2. A dike of material will be left in position separating excavation areas from channel flow areas; 3. Areas to be excavated and spoil placement areas shall be only = . those areas described in the two previously mentioned documents; 4. Spoil material will be hauled by truck to the fill area, spread, dried, and compacted. In addition, the following conditions shall be complied with that were not included in the above described documents: 1 . No spoil material shall be placed on the north side of the San Diego Creek near the old landfill ; 2. Drainage from the spoil material in the designated disposal area shall not be allowed to enter San Diego Creek or Upper Newport Bay, nor any other surface waters; ,WA*k, : Mr. James H. McJunkin -2- March 13, 1984 3. Protection shall be provided to prevent any wash out from storm flow of any material in the spoil disposal area. 4. This office shall be notified before any excavation work commences, and notified before any significant change is proposed in any of the above conditions. Based on compliance with the above conditions, the proposed Restoration Project should not cause the discharge of any pollutants to any waters of the State. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Robert Nicklen of this office. Sincerely, i DAMES W. ANDERSON Executive Officer cc: Environmental Protection Agency - Permits Branch U. S. Army District, Los Angeles, Corps of Engineers NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service• U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Water Resources Control Board, ,John Richards, Office of the Chief Counsel { State Department of Water Resources State Department of Fish and Game - Marine Resources Region (Rolf Mall), State Department of Health Services - Santa Ana State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, South Coast Region Orange County Environmental Management Agency/Regulation, Attention: Assistant Director Orange County Health Department Orange County Water District City of Newport Beach RRN:kyb -.e:«�+V�•..+:._ -. .. , .. . . ..._ _ ..'✓` .. -. - ., 'h`iWa:..'.:'..- . � -w.%.'..-1",4-an�..'cvt.:�:.e.C..:' - �:.z..r.-� _...::s •— -�N Q SEW Pp�,T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH.CA 92663-3884 c���Foaa`r PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2218 February 9, 1984 Dr. Geraldine Knatz The Port of Long Beach P.O. Box 570 Long Beach, CA 90801 SUBJECT: Restoration Project in Newport Back Bay Dear Geraldine: Pursuant to our recent conversations concerning the above referenced project, staff has requested that the firm of Culbertson, Adams and Associates submit a bid for the required environmental documentation. Inasmuch as Culbertson, Adams- and Associates prepared the early action and interim plan EIR for the 208 Water Quality Program, it was determined that they could fulfill all of your requirements as well as these of the City of Newport peach, in a timely manner. . , At this time it is the intention of the City of Newport Beach to enter into an agreement with Culbertson, Adams and Associates for the preparation of an expanded Initial Study encompassing the following: 1. A summary of the early action and interim plan improvements, with an up date for the comprehensive plan decision-making. 2. A careful evaluation of the particular circumstances surrounding the City of Long Beach proposal, and 3. An inventory of the appropriate mitigation to assign to the Reclamation Project based on our comprehensive review of the necessary mitigation for the early action and interim plan. It is anticipated that the consultant's work effort will consist of the following components and quantities: 1. 10 copies of the screencheck Initial Study delivered to the City of Newport Beach. 2. One set of revisions to the screencheck to produce the draft Initial Study. 3. 20 copies of the draft Initial Study to the City of Newport Beach. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Dr. Knatz February 9, 1984 Page 2. 4. Administration of all CEQA noticing provisions such as Notice of Preparation (NOP) , etc. 5. 3 meetings with the City staff. 6. 1 meeting with the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission. 7. One meeting with the City of Newport Beach Citizen's Environmental Quality and Action Council (CEQAC) . We do not anticipate that any specific studies will be -needed for traffic, air quality or noise, as sufficient base data exists in the EIR for the early action and interim plan, as well as standard City policy. Based upon our conversations, the consultant has already begun the necessary work. It is anticipated that the first screencheck Initial Study will be submitted for City review on February 16, 1984. In order to keep this schedule we will need an accurate project description of the proposed improvements as well as a plan showing the specific locations of the excavation areas, haul routes, and dragline locations. This proposal does not include involvement of the County of Orange as a permitting jurisdiction should any of the excavation areas fall within their boundaries. The cost to the Port of Long Beach for this work shall not exceed a cost of $3,520.00. Please remit this amount to the City of Newport Beach, through this office, as soon as possible, assuming the above meets with your approval. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to call anytime. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMESS D. HEWICKER, Director By Chris Gustin, j ( Associate Planner CG:tn � I 1 SC6LE:I'•600' :�:,OISr45Al•••SItF•••'•A':::,:::�`;:;• I I i� o : • /:{•:i::j:{:i: OISrO3Al SIiE '6' :; :;{;:;}:�i:•7}:; � I / I MARINE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY FOR PORT OF LONG BEACH EXPANSION COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' APPLICATION BY PORT OF LONG BEACH SHEET 3 OF 3 DATE : FEB., 1984 REVISION I • I ' I 40 40 "America's moat Modern Port" P.O.BOX 570 - LONG BEACH.CALIFORNIA 90801 • TELEPHONES:(213) 437-0041•(213) 775-3469 TELEX.65-6452 PORTOBEACH LOB January 25, 1984 Christopher Gustin Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Restoration Project in Newport Back Bay Dear Chris, The Port of Long Beach would like to request that your office begin processing an environmental assessment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Port of Long Beach restoration project in Newport Bay. Enclosed find a project description to supplement the drawing we gave you on this date. Also enclosed is an "Approval in Concept" form that we will need to have signed by your Planning Director and returned to us for inclusion in our Coastal Permit application. We also understand that you will be notifying us regarding your costs for the environmental assessment. Any questions regarding this project can be directed to Dr. Geraldine Knatz at (213) 437-0041, extension 283. Sincerely, J. H. McJunkin Executive Director �/ .Q Leland R. Hill cE�vFo Director of Port Planning 9 8q� JHM:GK:pah 9 utst°'S;cN' 12 Enclosures N cP�F GJ N PRESIDENT'S "E"AND"E-STAR" AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN EXPORT CIE60 CREEL UPPER NEWPORT 30± ACRES BAY RADE FOR TIDAL SCALE I'•1120' FLOW i easrs�r nR —' m i I CITY OF NEW'PORT BEACH �. %• S~ B,�OyfF, O • , ORANGE COUNTY Yam• - I E F, XTAII �S VALLEY �FQ° j UPPEP. SING/E`0 fQr I-Tpo'r.T SAT ii:h7ie:TCN CCSTA ►ESA aE;se (VINE MARINE ENVIRON14ENT MITIGATION IN UPPER PROJECT LOCATION NEW'PORT BAY FOR PORT OF LONG BEACH PIER J EXPANSION AEL?CiT 6AT COUNTY OF ORANGE WIM C.EA" STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPLICATION BY PORT OF LONG BEACH C 1 2 3 4 5 SHEET I OF DATE: JULY, 1983 sa._E IA WILES VICINITY MAP . { V. /Gr/' ��it�oLG"l/GC�/ �/✓C�tGC:C2./ L "America's most Modsm Port' P.O. BOX 570 • LONG BEACH.CALIFORN IA 90801 • TELEPHONES:1213) 437-0041•(213) 775-3469 TELEX:65-0452 PORTOSEACH LOB July 28, 1983 Mr. Chuck Holt Regulatory Functions Branch Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Subject: Compliance with Permit No. 79-133 / Restoration of Upper Newport Bay Dear Mr. Holt: On September 1 , 1982, the Port requested your approval for the construction of an artificial reef as habitat mitigation to satisfy the Special Condition of Permit No. 79-133. The Port is now requesting that in lieu of the 1 .6 acre artificial reef, the Port be allowed to restore a portion of Upper Newport Bay (see attached map) . The 30 acre site proposed for restoration •has been identified by Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service as a suitable restoration project. Because-this area provides more acres of mitigation than is currently required under Permit No. 79-133, the Port is proposing to establish a "habitat mitigation bank". Thus, the "credits" for this restoration project will be used as mitigation for future ACOE permit applications for small landfill projects. In order to establish this habitat "bank", the Port is proposing that a Memorandum of-Understanding (MOU) be prepared between the Port, wildlife agencies and ACOE. We would like to request your approval and support for this project, as we believe it will facilitate permit processing and eliminate EIS requirements for minor landfill projects. In addition , we will need to know if another ACE permit will be required, or if the provision for a Special Condition on Permit No. 79-133 will be sufficient for your regulatory functions (in the case of the artificial reef, you required no additional permit) . PRESIDENT'S "E"AND•'E-STAR" .� AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN EXPORT July 28, 1983 Chuck Holt Page Two Dr. Geraldine Knatz of my staff will be coordinating this project. She will be contacting your staff shortly to set up a meeting with all parties to discuss details of the MOU. If you or your staff have any questions, you may contact Dr. Geraldine Knatz at (213) 437-0041 , extension 283. James H. McJunkin Executive Director " Leland R. Hill Director of Port Planning LRH:GK:dlt Attachment cc: Colonel Paul Taylor, ACOE Harvey Beverly, ACOE Frank Manago, ACOE M DIE6p CREED UPPER NEWPORT 30± ACRES _ BAY RARE FOR TIDAL SCALEd'•1120' FLOW o eAcrsAT m l i Wiz' CITY OF NEI4PORT BEACH DF.AHGE CGOHTT .F: KTA1I S� ti WE? �F��jr E:T?GiT BIT E:A F.77AE MARINE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION IN UPPER ::•:r' `PIkOJECT LOCATION NEW'PORT BAY FOR PORT OF LONG BEACH PIER J EXPANSION bE+%:tT cAT COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPLICATION BY PORT OF LONG BEACH , 2 • • SHEET I OF DATE: JULY 1983 VIC*NITY VAP • I r� ,t ca l MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, AND THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR ADVANCE COMPENSATION OF MARINE HABITAT LOSSES INCURRED BY PORT DEVELOPMENT LANDFILLS WITHIN THE HARBOR DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)• is entered into by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through the FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE. INTERIOR ( "FWS" ) , AND THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ("NMFS" ) , the STATE OF CALI4ORNIA, acting by and through the DEPART- MENT OF FISH AND GAME, RESOURCES AGENCY ( "CDFG" ) , and the CITY OF LONG BEACH, acting by and through the BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS ( "Board" ) . WHEREAS, the Board is mandated to foster the orderly and necessary development of the Port of Long Beach, including the crea- tion of new land in the Harbor District of the City of Long Beach ( "Harbor District" ) by landfill; and WHEREAS, FWS and CDFG have as their primary mandate in this matter the conservation, protection, and enhancement of marine fish and migratory birds and their habitat, including the planning of biological loss avoidance, the minimization of adverse project impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and their habitat, 1 and assuring full compensation for any unavoidable losses of fish and wildlife and their habitat resulting from project construction and operation; and NMFS has as its primary mandate, the conservation, protection and enhancement of marine fishery resources, including the planning of biological loss avoidance, minimization of adverse project impacts, and assuring full compensation for any unavoidable losses of fishery resources and their habitat; and WHEREAS, port development landfills are subject- to State regulation pursuant to the California Coastal Act and Federal regula- tion pursuant to the River and Harbor Act and Clean Water Act; and WHEREAS, the Board contemplates imminent harbor developments within the Harbor District, consisting of .several small landfills, totaling approximately 40 acres; and WHEREAS, the contemplated harbor development landfills are expected to be necessary and I water-dependent port improvements, and the minimum landfill to fulfill the purpose; and WHEREAS, the Board„ has agreed, by approval of Corps of Engineers Permit No. 79-133, to provide 1. 6 acres of marine habitat restoration in order to offset the habitat- loss incurred by the com- pleted landfill at Berth 83; and WHEREAS, the landfill at Berth 83 has eliminated, and ' future contemplated Harbor District landfills will eliminate marine habitat value that FWS, CDFG, and NMFS want to be replaced; and WHEREAS, delay in implementing port developments and their mitigation measures serves no public interest and the parties would like to facilitate permit processing for contemplated small landfills which permanently eliminate marine habitat by providing habitat loss 2 compensation for the impacts on the marine environment in advance of the habitat losses predicted for the contemplated small landfills ; and WHEREAS, the parties concur that creation of appropriate fish and wildlife habitat values could constitute a bank of habitat credits ( "bank" ) which may be charged against the habitat debits or losses incurred by future landfill developments in •the Harbor District; and WHEREAS, the parties concur that the creation of new habitat values within the Harbor District to offset habitat losses within the Harbor District could render future, necessary harbor developments more difficult; and WHEREAS, shallow, estuarine coastal embayment habitat in Southern California with its relatively high value to marine fish , and migratory birds has been reduced in area at a faster rate than that of deep water habitat, �7MFS, CDFG, and FWS judge that compensa- tion for adverse project impacts upon the marine ecosystem should emphasize the creation of shallow water, coastal embayment habitat (see Exhibit "A" ) ; NOW, ' THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED THAT: 1. The Board, at its cost, shall restore tidal influence to a predominately barren, supralittoral area in the "old salt ponds" region of the CDFG Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve ( "UNBER" ) , located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California, as shown as Area A on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. The restoration work in Area A shown on Exhibit "B" will create intertidal/subtidal areas of 21 .021 acres below the elevation of mean sea level (+-2. 8 feet Mean Lower Low Water) . In 3 addition, within one year from the date of execution of this MOU by the last party to sign, the Board may elect, at its cost , to restore Area B consisting of 7. 06 acres shown on Exhibit "B" in accordance with the provisions of this MOU. 2. The .Board shall be responsible for all aspects of the restoration work including acquisition of permits and contractor selection and supervision. FWS , CDFG and NMFS each agree to cooperate with and assist the Board, procedurally, with the acquisition of per- mits or approvals for the restoration work and for an appropriate dredge spoil disposal site outside the UNBER. 3. All restoration work performed by the Board pursuant to this MOU will be accomplished at sites within UNBER designated by the CDFG. 4. The Board agrees that its work will be scheduled and con- ducted so as not to incur significant habitat loss or degradation elsewhere within the UNBER and so as not to adversely impact any State or Federal endangered species which utilizes the UNBER, including the California Least Tern, the Light-footed Clapper Rail, Relding ' s Savannah Sparrow, or Salt Marsh Bird 's Beak. S. All parties agree that each acre of deep water substrate ( located at depths of minus 20. 0 feet MLLW or deeper ) within the Harbor . District lying either beneath the footprint of a landfill or beneath . a piling-supported wharf and more than 35 lineal feet back from the wharf face shall be considered to have a habitat value rated at 1 . 0 habitat units. 6. All parties agree that each acre in the UNBER, after being regularly influenced by tidal waters of th e Pacific Ocean by 4 • far � • the restoration projects described in paragraph 1 and Exhibit "B" and after certification and approval described in paragraph 10 shall be considered to have a habitat value of 1. 5 habitat units. Additional habitat value credits totaling 10.59 will accrue upon completion of similar restoration work within Area B of the UNBER. 7. The Board may charge marine habitat losses resulting• from port development landfills against the banked habitat unit credits established at the UNBER in a manner consistent with the relative habitat values stipulated in paragraphs 5 and 6. 8. All parties agree that the UNBER restoration work will fulfill the existing special condition of Corps of Engineers Permit No. 79-133, and will consume 1. 6 habitat value credits from the bank. Thus, the initial balance available for offsetting future harbor development losses will be 29.93 habitat value credits, unless the Board elects within the period provided in paragraph 1 to restore Area B, in which case, after restoration thereof, the number of habitat value credits remaining shall be 40. 52. 9. All parties agree that credits remaining in the bank created by this MOU shall be used to offset losses to the marine habitats resulting from port development landfill projects within the Harbor District that are shown to be necessary, the minimum ' possible, and water dependent and port related. Such agreement shall be indicated by all parties in an official and public manner, during completion of the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act or the National Environmental Policy Act, and/or of the regulatory process required under the Cali- fornia Coastal Act, the River and Harbor Act or the Clean Water Act. 5 10. Habitat value credits may not be charged and -the con- templated landfills may not be placed until the UNBER restoration work has been inspected and certified complete by the Chief Harbor Engineer of the Harbor Department of the City of Long Beach and the CDFG, and approved by the CDFG, NMFS and FWS. The Board shall have no responsibility for maintenance or monitoring of the UNBER restored area following this inspection, certification, and approval. 11. The contemplated Board landfill projects likely to consume the habitat value credits include: a. THUMS Consolidation at Pier J (15 acres) ; b. Pier A Terminal Expansion ( 24 acres ) ; Other Board landfill projects may be added or deleted with the written consent of all parties. 12. All landfill projects' outside the Harbor District boundaries in effect on January 1, 1984 are excluded from consideration under this MOU. 13. The Board, with 'the written consent of all parties may allow the consumption of habitat value credits by others proposing a landfill in the Harbor District with the prior approval of the Board when the authorized person or entity is an applicant for a Corps of Engineer's permit.. 14. No contemplated landfill, considered under this MOU, shall exceed in area the then remaining balance of habitat value credits. 15. This MOU shall remain valid until the balance of habitat value credits has been consumed or until rescinded by written consent of all parties. Nothing contained in this MOU shall be deemed or construed as an agreement by any of the• parties that the habitat values- set forth 6 �'W' Y✓.nY'rMlnYti°Pw."++1aVw°..�7ylyn.ecM M�/.n'Nrr..v+v ^n^4'n�Wws...�.n�.. �+ vn. n.�.r.+-r..�-pwn��w.n.��.� in paragraphs 5 and 6 shall be applicable to any port landfill project other than those expressly described or referred to in paragraph 11. THIS MEMORANDUM° OF UNDERSTANDING SHALL BE IN' FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM THE DATE WHICH ALL PARTICIPANTS HAVE SIGNIFIED AGREEMENT BY SIGNATURE. OF THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. CITY OF LONG BEACH, acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commis- sioners By: James H. McJunkin, Date Executive Director THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE U.S: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Joseph R. Blum, Assistant Regional Date Director, Region I THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OF THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA H. Donald Carper, Director Date THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE E. C. Fullerton, Regional Director Date ECP:ja 3-5-84 C-16 7 EXHIBIT A FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE PORT OF LONG BEACH• AND UPPER NEWPORT BAY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP The Long Beach Harbor District occupies part of the 6000-acre marine coastal embayment known as San Pedro Bay, which is seml- enclosed by 9 miles of breakwater: Within Long Beach Harbor, a major commercial port,• the water depths are mostly greater than twenty feet deep, most shoreline is protected with rock or bulkhead, and land uses are urban/ industrial to nature. The main groups of public fish and wildlife resources of significance relying on San Pedro Bay, are marine fishes and water-associated migratory birds. Fish populations are diverse and abundant, with 130 species reported and 70 considered common in occurrence. Seven species rank high in abundance and are : white croaker, queenftsh, white seaperch, northern anchovy, tonguefish, speckled sanddab, and shiner perch. A ranking by biomass would usually Include: jacksmeit, white croaker, bat ray, brown smoothhound, corbina, California hatibut, and white seabass. The area also a supports nursery function for a variety of coastai • martne fishes. The migratory bird community of San Pedro Bay Is also large and diverse, including about 150 species. The most abundant birds are water-associated and include several gull species, brown pelican, surf scoter, cormorant s ecies,' grebe species, tern species, scaups, sander [ Ingo and wallet. About• 840,000 annual bird-use- days have been estimated. The 741 -acre Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (UNBER), managed by the -California Department of Fish and Game for the benefit of fish and wildiif•e resources, occupies about half of the With the U,NBER are grass and pick eweedrdominated saltt Bay estuary� marsh,in d intertidal mudflats, and shallow subtidai estuarine channels. About 78 species of fish have been reported and seven are numerically dominant: topsmelt, killifish, mosqultofish, deep body and slough anchovy, arrow goby, and shiner perch. A biomass ranking would usually include striped mullet, topsmelt, yellow-fin croaker, deep body anchovy, diamond turbot, striped bass, black perch, and shiner perch. The area also supports a nursery function for a variety of coastal marine fishes. The migratory bird community of Upper Newport Bay is also large and about 159 ost abundant birds are dshorebirds including as sandpipers,i m w i l l et, dow i tchers, marbled godwit, avocet, egrets and herons, and waterfowl such as pintail , mallard, ruddy duck, wigeon, green-winged teal , northern shoveler, as well as gull , cormorant and tern species. About 4 million annual bird-use-days have been estimated. Five State and/or Federal endangered species make significant use of the bay, as. well , and they are: The light-footed clapper rail , California least tern, California brown pelican, Beldingts savannah sparrow, and salt marsh bird' s beak. Southern Cat ifornials highly productive, relatively shallow, marine or estuarine, semi-enclosed, coastal embayments have been modified and greatly diminished in extent during the last century. In particular, about 90 percent of the area of river and creek mouth lagoons and their w-etiands in Los Angeles and Orange Counties have been filled and developed. San Pedro Bay and Newport Bay are each considered to provide high habitat value for their respective fish and wildlife resources and to be scarce in extent in the region. (Both correspond to the Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy Resource Category 2, • with a Mitigation Goal of no net loss of in-kind habitat value. In-kind can be described as: the substitute habitat is equal in value to fish and wildlife resources which are physically and btologicaily the same as or closely approximate to those impacted.) The distance between Long Beach Harbor and the UNBER is about 25 miles and they share many common bird and fish species, although the population sizes and total species Itsts are somewhat different.In establishing the relative habitat value of the harbor waters slated for filling versus the estuarine area to be restored, the public fish and wildlife agency biologists (FWS,CDFG,NMFS) used all available information. Such information • included•: bird (prtmarily waterfowl , rather than shorebirds) and fFsh (primarily demersal , but also surface associated) sampling data for both areas, shared species, common biological functions , productivity, fish nursery function, ecosystem physiography and areal extent. The data, refer.ences, and analysis for the comparison had been sum��ryrya� rized and presented in two lengthy planning aid reports (datep June 1981 and Sept. 1983) prepared by FWS for the Corps of Engineers, Los- Angeles District, as part of the CE Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Long-Range Planning Project. This MOU actually stems from a need of the Port to address, on a more immediate and much, sma_iler scale, the same biological matters of the CE planning project which predicts about 2600 acres of new landfills over the next several decades within Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. The Newport Bay restoration site, a largely barren floodpiain area above the reach of the tides, presently provides minimal habitat value. (An existing least tern amd avocet nesting area would be improved, but is not considered as part of -the mitigation tradeoff. Further, a recent history of sediment loading is being remedied b.y a task force of State and local agencies charged with that responsibiII.ty.) The fish and wildlife agencies assisted the Port with the pia.nning' of the UNBER project, including the configuration of the site, manner and timing of construction, so that adverse impacts to the UNBER ecosystem and, particularly, the endangered species it supports, would be avoided. The fishery and waterfowl habitat improvement at the restoration site would be virtually 100 percent. Similarly, the loss of habitat value within the "footprint" of a port landfill would be r 100 percent. The relative habitat value of the habitat to be " lost" compared to the habitat to be "gained" was formulated as described above by professiohal public agency biologists. This synthesis had been developed over several years of involvement with other long-range or Port Master Plan efforts. (The Habitat Evaluation Procedure promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Service was not literally employed d'ue to the absence of species models for appropriate marine and estuarine species, unavatlablity of non-FWS HEP trained personnel , -and the lack of time or funds to garner either of the former. An analogous evaluation process was employed. ) It is worth noting that the habitat "tradeoff" formalized in this MOU actually represents the fourth specific attempt by all parties, over several years, to define and implement a suitable habitat loss compensation measure for the completed landfill at Long Beach Harbor Berth 83 and/or a mitigation bank for future port developments. (As already mentioned, concurrent port planning efforts with larger scopes or longer planning horizons are in progress.) • The first attempt involved an effort by the Port to design within-port projects which balanced cut and flit such that the net area of marine habitats remained unchanged. Such a balancing of Port land/water area has been practicable for only a few, relatively small projects. Also, onsite or within-port loss compensation measures are further complicated. Through predictions of cargo throughput needs, the Port indicates that land will likely be the factor limiting the Port'-s functions and that now landfills are ecessary to increase the land area available for them. Establlgshment of a mitigation area within a developing Port greatly increases the •likelihood that the compensation area may later be threatened with destruction by future port I andf i i Is and/or could impede or prevent necessary port development projects. The second attempt focused on the restoration of tidal influence to a 16-acre parcel of diked, historic coastal wetland in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County. The necessary change of ownership, purchase, or easement which would allow the mitigation work could not be accomplished, though. Thirdly, an artificial reef construction project in San Pedro Bay was designed. However, uncertainty regarding the net biological "improvement" offered by the artificial reef project caused it to be constdered Impracticable, at that time. Then , CDFG, NMFS, and FWS reanalyzed coastal watland "restoration" as •a port mitt-gation measure, considering such factors as nearness of the restorable site to the site of the loss, technical feasibility of tidal restoration, willingness of the land owner, and ecosystem and fish and wildlife resource similarity. It was concluded that the Newport Bay site was most feasible, at that time. EXHIBIT B AREAS 10 BE EXCAVATED '/ j•: ' ` '' <n I ' „4 ''••ail I • O 9 5AK CIE60 CREEK • ' i N PROPOSED DESIGN SCALE:I0•400' EBB - �` FL000 ;/ ,,• ................. •: :;�.•1� ��/if , sill • i! RE A I I it ORANGE COUNTY "`s`'`'"` 14 j FOUNTAIN dye, VALLEY NSL-0.00' RUNTINCTON UPPER AEACN REIPOAT I IRVINE COSTA NES A LATITUDE 33'-38'-55•N NEIRPORT IEACN PROJECT AEBORT MYLOCATION MARINE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY FOR PACIFIC OCEAN = - PORT OF LONG BEACH EXPANSION COUNTY OF ORANGE s = STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPLICATION BY PORT OF LONG BEACH VICINITY MAP N SHEET 1, OF -2 DATE' JAN., 1984 a I 2�3 4 s SCALE It NILES wr - EXHIBIT B - 0��60 _ N 1 bi I I SCALE: I'•400' DISPOSii.. .s s J O m G y N OC • S W V W t Q 2 O v I MARINE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY FOR PORT OF LONG BEACH EXPANSION COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPLICATION BY PORT OF LONG BEACH SHEET 2: OF 2' DATE : JAN., 1984 rah- Culbertson, Adams & Associates Planning Consultants ""%NOW February 3, 1984 Mr . Chris Guston The City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Proposal , Expanded Initial Study, Reclamation Project of the City of Long Beach Dear Mr . Guston: Thank you for inviting us to participate on the above captioned project, which consists of a reclamation project within the limits of the Upper Newport Bay. It is our understanding that the reclamation project is being undertaken by the City of Long Beach, with the permission of the City of Newport Beach, as offset mitigation to a project the City of Long Beach has implemented within its own jurisdiction. As you know, we are very familiar with the issues in the Upper Newport Bay, having prepared the early action and interim plan EIR for the 208 Water Quality Program. We anticipate our work effort to be devoted to the preparation of an expanded initial study encompassing - 1. A summary of the early action and interim plan improvements, with an up date for the comprehensive plan decision-making. 2. A careful evaluation of the particular circumstances sur- rounding the City of Long Beach proposal, and 3. An inventory of the appropriate mitigation to assign to the Reclamation Project based on our comprehensive review of the necessary mitigation for the early action and interim plan. We would anticipate that the work effort would consist of the following components and quantities: 1. 10 copies of the screencheck initial study delivered to the City of Newport Beach 26141 Marguerite Parkway, Suite C, Mission Viejo, CA 92692 (714) 643-1622 r . 1 Mr. Chris Guston February 3, 1984 Page Two ------------------------- 2. One set of revisions to the screencheck to produce the draft initial study 3 . 20 copies of the draft initial study to the City of Newport Beach 4. Administration of all CEQA noticing provisions such as Notice of Preparation (NOP) , etc. 4. 3 meetings with City staff. 5 . 1 meeting with the City of Newport Beach Planning Commiss- ion. 6. One meeting with the City of Newport Beach Citizen' s Envir- onmental Quality and Action Council (CEQAC) . We do not anticipate that any specific studies will be needed for traffic, air quality or noise, as sufficient base data exists in the EIR for the early action and interim plan, as well as standard City policy. Assuming a start work date of February 2, 1984, we anticipate submission of the first Screencheck Initial Study for City review on February 16, 1984. We anticipate a one week City review of the Screencheck Initial Study and 3 days for revisions prior to submitting the 20 copies of the Draft Initial Study. The City will need to determine the scope of notification necessary for the various responsible agencies involved in this project. Incorporation of any 45-day review periods for notices of preparation may alter the schedule contained herein. We propose this work effort for a cost not to exceed $3, 200. Prior to commencing work we will need an accurate project description of the proposed improvements as well as a plan showing the specific locations of the excavation areas, haul routes, and dragline locations. This proposal does not include involvement of the County of Orange as a permitting jurisdiction should any of the excavation areas fall within their boundaries . We have attached our schedule of fees for your information in the event that the County of Orange becomes involved as a permitting jurisdiction. We would then charge only that time incurred working with the County itself in enabling the successful completion of the initial study. Mr . Chris Guston February 3, 1984 Page Three ------------------------- Thank you for this opportunity to submit a proposal on the excavation project within the Upper Newport Bay. We look forward', as always, to improvement and restoration projects in the Upper Newport Bay which carry out the objectives of the 208 Water Quality Program, as well as once again working with the City of Newport Beach. This letter may serve as our memorandum agreement and author- ization to proceed. Please sign the original and return it to our office retaining the copy for your files. Sincerely ' "iG Anddii Adams Vice President Date: Name: Title: Agency: Culbertson, ARMS & Associates Planning Consultants 27072 El Renro.Mmion Veep. CA 92692 (714)831.0039 TO : Fred Talarico FROM : Andi Adams SUBJECT : CEQA Compliance for Upper Newport Bay Project Proposed by Port of Long Beach Here is my shot on the Upper Newport Bay Project in terms of CEQA compliance: APPROACH I . - Section 15308, Class 8, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment The project could be declared categorically exempt by the City of Newport Beach as an action taken by a regulatory agency to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment w ere t e regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environ- ment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. This exemption could be used to exempt the project from CEQA on the basis of the grading permit for the City of Newport Beach including special conditions as were disuss- ed in the Environmental Impact Report for the early action and interim plan relating to time of grading, sedimenta- tion, noise, etc. A notice of exemption must be filed in this case pursuant to Section 15061 and 15062 of the CEQA Guidelines . APPROACH II . - Negative Declaration A negative declaration could be granted which provides that the mitigation measure shall include restriction of hours into truck traffic and all the mitigation measures for basin 3 that were adopted in the EIR for the early action and in plans . One of the difficulties with this is that the basin 3 in the early action and interim plan which could provide a basis for use of a single EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15153) is complicated by two factors . First, the basin which Port of Long Beach is discussing is 30 acres in size. Secondly, it occurs in the County of Orange jurisdiction for the extreme northwesterly portion and in the Orange County Flood Control District jurisdic- tion for the extreme easterly portion. This would require that the City of Newport Beach consult with responsible agencies in their determination. However, even with the increase in acreage, the environmental impacts of the project are essentially the same as those which were dis- cussed in the early action and' interim plan EIR. Further, in that EIR the City found that the mitigation measures particularly with respect to Basin 3 eliminated the poten- tial environmental impacts that were originally considered in the EIR. Therefore a negative declaration with mitiga- tion measures can be ligitimately issued. The negative declaration is further supported by the fact that Basin 3 is now existent and a walk over by someone like Sandy Genis who has a background in biology, etc . would be able to determine that the basin was substantially mitigated in terms of the conditions, that they were actually effective. APPROACH III . - Previous EIR Finding It is possible pursuant to Section 15153 of the Guidelines to use an EIR prepared for a previous project to discuss a project at hand provided the projects are essentially the same in terms of environmental impact. However, when this approach is used the Guidelines which went into effect August 1st provide that essentially the same review process should be conducted as is conducted with the EIR. The process itself takes at least 2 months . APPROACH IV. - Prepare an Environmental Impact Report This approach would acknowledge that the EIR should be prepared to discuss the additional 30 acres of basin miti- gation. The length of time and the cost of the EIR will be considerations of a significant nature, particularly since its for a mitigation measure that assists the viabil- ity of the Bay. Several considerations are relevant in determining what CEQA compliance is necessary for the project . First, for some time the Department of Fish and Game has endorsed the management plan for the Bay; therefore it is nothing new to continue to restore the Bay. As a matter of fact the . • -3- • city is action in moving this schedule of restoration for- ward actually has a positive environmental impact. Secondly, the public disclosure requirements of CEQA have already been met by the early action and interim plan. A large EIR was prepared on that and for purposes of Basin 3 the EIR basically showed that there was no need to prepare an EIR essentially for Basin 3 . The impacts to Basin 3 were more than mitigated by the biological mitigation and by the traffic control mitigation. As long as this project were consistent with the mitigation measures that the City of Newport Beach imposed on itself for its project I would think that this EIR would be substantially acceptable to rely on either initialing a negative declaration or initial- ing a previous EIR. A tremendous influence on the CEQA determination will be the role of the County of Orange and the Orange County Flood Control District as responsible agencies . I suggest you contact those agencies prior to making a determination as required by CEQA to determine their support. If there is anything else I can help you with Fred, please let me know.