HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-46 - Certifying Environmental Impact Report No. ER2021-001; Adopting the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program; Making Facts and Findings; and Approving the Construction of a Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility and Dredging Outside the FederalRESOLUTION NO. 2021-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2021-001;
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM; MAKING FACTS AND
FINDINGS; AND APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY AND
DREDGING OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL CHANNELS IN
LOWER NEWPORT HARBOR
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach ("City") proposes the construction of a
confined aquatic disposal ("CAD") facility, dredging of approximately 300,000 cubic yards
of material, and placing approximately 106,900 cubic yards of unsuitable material from
the Federal Channels plus an additional 50,000 cubic yards from other harbor channels
outside of the Federal Channels within the CAD ("Project") in the central portion of the
Lower Bay between Bay Island, Harbor Island and Lido Isle ("Property");
WHEREAS, the Project requires a standard individual permit, a Clean Water Act
and Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and may require a surface lease agreement
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board and California State Lands Commission, respectively;
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the coastal zone, and will require a coastal
development permit from the California Coastal Commission;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in the
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3
of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"), and City Council Policy K-3
(Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality Act), it was
determined that the Project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment,
and thus warranted the preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR");
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2019, the City, as lead agency sent a Notice of
Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR to responsible and trustee public agencies, organizations
and individuals likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the Project, including any
persons who had previously requested notice in writing;
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2019, the City held a public scoping meeting to present
the Project and to solicit input from responsible and trustee public agencies, organizations
and interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the
EIR;
Resolution No. 2021-46
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR (SCH No. 2019110340) was prepared and circulated on
December 4, 2020, for a 45 -day public comment period in compliance with CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3;
WHEREAS, the City reviewed all comments to the Draft EIR and prepared written
responses to those comments;
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, consisting of the NOP, Initial Study, Draft EIR,
Appendices, Responses to Comments received on the Draft EIR, and any revisions to
the Draft EIR as a result of public comment are attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference as Attachment "A" as the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal
Construction Project Final EIR;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources
Code, on November 13, 2020, the City provided notice to California Native American
tribes that have requested in writing to be informed of projects in the geographic area that
is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe;
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2020, the City engaged in a tribal consultation with
representative(s) for the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation in
accordance with Section 21080.3.1 and, based upon the consultation, determined that
the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians did not have any further issues with the Project and
that native or archaeological monitors would not be requested;
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2020, the City engaged in tribal consultation with
the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. and, based upon that
consultation, incorporated Mitigation Measure MM -CHR -1 which requires a qualified
maritime archaeologist be present when native sediments are dredged to determine
whether prehistoric or historical archaeological resources are encountered;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Harbor Commission on April 14,
2021, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California, in-person and via teleconferencing, observing restrictions due to the
Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to
COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in
accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M.
Brown Act"), and Section 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Harbor Commission at this public
hearing;
Resolution No. 2021-46
Page 3 of 4
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Harbor Commission adopted
Resolution No. HC2020-002 (6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention), recommending the City
Council approve the Project as analyzed in the Final EIR, certify the Final EIR, and adopt
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on May 25, 2021, in the
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, in-
person and via teleconferencing, observing restrictions due to the Declaration of a State
Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown
Act, and Section 21.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to,
and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council hereby approves the construction of the CAD,
dredging of approximately 300,000 cubic yards of material, and placing approximately
106,900 cubic yards of unsuitable material from the Federal Channels plus an additional
50,000 cubic yards from other harbor channels outside of the Federal Channels within
the CAD in the central portion of the Lower Bay between Bay Island, Harbor Island and
Lido Isle.
Section 2: The City Council hereby certifies Final EIR No. ER2021-001 (SCH
No. 2019110340), which is attached here to Attachment "A," and incorporated herein by
reference which includes the NOP, Initial Study, Draft EIR, Appendices, Responses to
Comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR. The City finds that information added to the
Final EIR prior to certification merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant
modifications to the EIR and any changes or alterations incorporated into the Final EIR
which substantially lessen or avoid one or more of the significant adverse environmental
impact does not warrant recirculation of the Final EIR. Rather, all information added to
the Final EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but
before certification, merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to the
Final EIR.
Section 3: The City Council finds that on the basis of the entire environmental
record, the Project, with mitigation measures incorporated in the Mitigation, Monitoring
and Reporting Program which are attached hereto as Attachment "B," and incorporated
herein by reference will result in either no project -level impacts or less -than -significant
project -level impacts, and there are no known significant and unavoidable effects on the
environment that would be caused by the Project. Additionally, the City Council finds that
there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the Project.
Resolution No. 2021-46
Page 4 of 4
Section 4: The City Council hereby adopts the Lower Newport Bay Confined
Aquatic Disposal Construction Project — Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Attachment
"C" and incorporated herein by reference, in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines and Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code.
Section 5: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project —
Final EIR
Exhibit B - Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project —
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Exhibit C - Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project —
Findings of Fact
Exhibit A
Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project —
Final EIR
fir' r ��• � r own+"\T F � _ �y .S' '. / ,:r r
. r+;, ria '•r ,,� ' _` - _ _ i; r .t•�w= -� �� ��� � + tl - "�. � ��,.\
�1 J
i -
May 20, 2021
Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project (PA2019-020)
State Clearinghouse Number: 2019110340
Final Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Prepared by
Anchor QEA, LLC
9700 Research Drive
Irvine, California 92618
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Final Environmental Impact Report Purpose and Organization........................................................1
2.2 Public Comments Received..........................................................................................................................
1.1.1 FEIR Purpose..........................................................................................................................................1
2.2.1 Comments on the DEIR..................................................................................................................
26
1.1.2 Final Environmental Impact Report Organization...................................................................2
28
2.3 Master Responses............................................................................................................................................
1.1.3 California Environmental Quality Act Baseline.........................................................................2
2.3.1 Master Response 1: Coordination with Stakeholders........................................................
29
1.1.4 Project Purpose and Objectives.....................................................................................................6
30
1.2
Project Description.............................................................................................................................................7
2.3.4 Master Response 4: Recreational Impacts..............................................................................
32
1.2.1 Need for Dredging..............................................................................................................................8
33
2.4 Response to Agency Comments................................................................................................................
1.2.2 Project Construction...........................................................................................................................8
2.4.1 Response to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).........
1.3
Regulatory ..............................................................................................................................................................9
1.4
Project Alternatives..........................................................................................................................................
12
61
1.4.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated..................................................................................
13
1.4.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis...............................................................................
13
1.4.3 Comparison of Alternatives..........................................................................................................
16
1.5
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................................17
1.5.1 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................................23
2 DEIR Comments and Responses.........................................................................................
26
2.1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Distribution.................................................................................26
2.2 Public Comments Received..........................................................................................................................
26
2.2.1 Comments on the DEIR..................................................................................................................
26
2.2.2 Comments Received at the Harbor Commission Meeting ...............................................
28
2.3 Master Responses............................................................................................................................................
28
2.3.1 Master Response 1: Coordination with Stakeholders........................................................
29
2.3.2 Master Response 2: Hazardous Waste Risks..........................................................................
30
2.3.3 Master Response 3: Supporting Reports.................................................................................31
2.3.4 Master Response 4: Recreational Impacts..............................................................................
32
2.3.5 Master Response 5: Alternative Disposal Strategies...........................................................
33
2.4 Response to Agency Comments................................................................................................................
35
2.4.1 Response to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).........
35
2.4.2 Response to the California Coastal Commission (CCC).....................................................45
2.4.3 Response to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).........................
52
2.4.4 Response to the Orange County Public Works(OC)..........................................................
61
2.4.5 Response to the City of Irvine (IRV)..........................................................................................
63
Final Environmental Impact Report i May 2021
2.5 Response to Organization Comments.....................................................................................................
65
2.5.1
Response to the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance (CRPA)............
65
2.5.2
Response to the Orange County Coastkeeper(CK)............................................................
67
2.6 Responses
to Individual Comments..........................................................................................................
82
2.6.1
Brent Mardian, Pi Environmental................................................................................................82
2.6.2
Sandy Asper........................................................................................................................................
94
2.6.3
Greg Brown.........................................................................................................................................97
2.6.4
Stacey Brown....................................................................................................................................100
2.6.5
Mary Buckingham..........................................................................................................................102
2.6.6
Jacquelyn Chung.............................................................................................................................104
2.6.7
Ronda Clark......................................................................................................................................107
2.6.8
Brooke Coldren...............................................................................................................................109
2.6.9
Robert Coldren................................................................................................................................111
2.6.10
Mark Conzelman.............................................................................................................................113
2.6.11
Shana Conzelman...........................................................................................................................116
2.6.12
Tom Fischbeck.................................................................................................................................118
2.6.13
Steve Gelb.........................................................................................................................................120
2.6.14
Carol Green.......................................................................................................................................123
2.6.15
Sharon Grimes.................................................................................................................................125
2.6.16
Joelle Hamontree............................................................................................................................127
2.6.17
Randall Hause..................................................................................................................................129
2.6.18
Laurie Hunter...................................................................................................................................133
2.6.19
Jim Huyck...........................................................................................................................................135
2.6.20
Dennis Lockard................................................................................................................................137
2.6.21
Violet Lorenzen...............................................................................................................................140
2.6.22
Julie Luckey.......................................................................................................................................142
2.6.23
Palmer Luckey..................................................................................................................................144
2.6.24
James E. "Kimo" McCormick.......................................................................................................146
2.6.25
Diana Miner......................................................................................................................................149
2.6.26
Pete Rabbitt......................................................................................................................................151
2.6.27
Harry Railton.....................................................................................................................................153
2.6.28
Camille Rizko....................................................................................................................................157
2.6.29
Debbie Robson................................................................................................................................159
2.6.30
Gail Rosenstein................................................................................................................................162
2.6.31
Brooke Sharp....................................................................................................................................164
Final Environmental Impact Report ii May 2021
2.6.32 Greg and Louise Shaver...............................................................................................................166
Regulatory Agencies and Authority Applicable to the Proposed Project .......................
2.6.33 Cary Singleton.................................................................................................................................169
Table 1-2
2.6.34 Will Singleton...................................................................................................................................172
2.6.35 Donald Swanson.............................................................................................................................175
Comparison of Potential Impacts from Proposed Project and Alternatives (with
2.6.36 John Thompson...............................................................................................................................177
2.6.37 Philip Thompson.............................................................................................................................179
2.6.38 Gina Vincent.....................................................................................................................................181
Summary of Proposed Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures...............18
2.6.39 Greg and Nancy Ward..................................................................................................................183
Table2-1
2.6.40 Bob Yates...........................................................................................................................................185
2.7 Harbor Commission Meeting....................................................................................................................187
2.7.1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project......................................................................................188
2.7.2 Impacts to Recreation...................................................................................................................189
2.7.3 Hazardous Materials......................................................................................................................189
2.7.4 Specific Comments........................................................................................................................190
3 Modifications to the DEIR....................................................................................................194
3.1 Modifications Based on Public Comment............................................................................................194
3.2 DEIR Modifications........................................................................................................................................194
3.2.1 Section 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................194
3.2.2 Section 3.2 Biological Resources..............................................................................................197
3.2.3 Section 3.6 Greenhouse Gas......................................................................................................202
3.2.4 Section 3.8 Hydrology/Water Quality.....................................................................................203
3.2.5 Appendix B........................................................................................................................................204
3.2.6 Appendix E........................................................................................................................................204
4 References.............................................................................................................................. 205
TABLES
Table 1-1
Regulatory Agencies and Authority Applicable to the Proposed Project .......................
11
Table 1-2
Comparison of Proposed Alternative Sites...................................................................................15
Table 1-3
Comparison of Potential Impacts from Proposed Project and Alternatives (with
Incorporationof Mitigation)................................................................................................................16
Table 1-4
Summary of Proposed Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures...............18
Table2-1
Comments and Codes............................................................................................................................27
Final Environmental Impact Report iii May 2021
FIGURES
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 1-3
APPENDICES
Appendix B
Appendix E
ProjectSite and Vicinity............................................................................................................................4
Federal Channels Maintenance Dredging Sediment Suitability Map..................................5
CAD Facility Construction Overview...................................................................................................6
Public Comments
2020 Harbor -Wide Eelgrass Survey
Final Environmental Impact Report iv May 2021
ABBREVIATIONS
pg/m3
microgram per cubic meter
Pm
micron
AB
Assembly Bill
AHIP
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
APST
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank
AQMP
Air Quality Management Plan
ARB
California Air Resources Board
Basin Plan
Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan
BMP
best management practice
BODR
Basis of Design Report
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAAQS
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAD
Confined Aquatic Disposal
Cal/OSHA
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalARP
California Accidental Release Prevention
CaIEPA
California Environmental Protection Agency
Caltrans
California Department of Transportation
CAO
Cleanup and Abatement Order
CAPCOA
California Air Pollution Control Officers
CARB
California Air Resource Board
CCA
California Coastal Act
CCAA
California Clean Air Act
CCC
California Coastal Commission
CCR
California Code of Regulations
CDF
Confined Disposal Facility
CDFW
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDP
Coastal Development Permit
CEMP
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CESA
California Endangered Species Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CGS
California Geological Survey
CHa
methane
CHRIS
California Historic Resources Information System
CHSC
California Health and Safety Code
City
City of Newport Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report v May 2021
CLUP
Coastal Land Use Plan
CNDDB
California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL
community noise equivalent level
CNPS
California Native Plant Society
CO
carbon monoxide
CO2
carbon dioxide
CO2e
CO2 equivalence
CRHR
California Register of Historical Resources
CSLC
California State Lands Commission
CSTF LTMS
Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force: Long -Term Management
Strategy
CUPA
Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA
Clean Water Act
cy
cubic yard
dB
decibel
dBA
A -weighted decibel
DEIR
Draft Environmental Impact Report
DMMP
Los Angeles Dredged Material Management Plan Feasibility Study, Baseline
Conditions (F3) Report
DMMT
Dredge Material Management Team
DOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
DPM
diesel particulate matter
DTSC
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EA
Environmental Assessment
EAP
Energy Action Plan
EFH
essential fish habitat
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EO
Executive Order
EOC
Emergency Operations Center
EOP
Emergency Operations Plan
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA
Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FDA
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Fed. Reg.
Federal Register
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FGC
California Fish and Game Code
Final EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report
Final Environmental Impact Report vi May 2021
FMP
Fishery Management Plan
g
ground acceleration rate based on both probabilistic and deterministic
seismic ground motion
GHG
greenhouse gas
GHG Rx
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange
GWP
global warming potential
H:V
horizontal to vertical ratio
Harbor Patrol
Orange County Sheriff's Department Harbor Patrol -Marine Operations Bureau
HHW
higher high water
HLW
higher low water
HMMP
Hazardous Material Management Plan
HMTA
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
HMTUSA
Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
hp
horsepower
HRA
health risk assessment
HW
Hazardous Waste
IS
Initial Study
LA -3
LA -3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
LCP
Local Coastal Program
LHW
lower high water
LLW
lower low water
MATES
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MBTA
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mg/L
milligram per liter
MLLW
mean lower low water
MMPA
Marine Mammal Protection Act
MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND
mitigated negative declaration
MRZ-1
Mineral Resource Zone 1
MSA
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
MSDS
material safety data sheet
mty
metric tons per year
N2O
nitrous oxide
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC
Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP/HCP
Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
Final Environmental Impact Report vii May 2021
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NNCPC
North Newport Center Planned Community
NO2
nitrogen dioxide
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOP
Notice of Preparation
NOx
nitrogen oxides
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
NTU
nephelometric turbidity unit
03
ozone
ODMDS
ocean dredged material disposal site
OEHHA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OMMP
Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
OPR
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
PL
Public Law
PM
particulate matter
PM10
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
Porter -Cologne Act
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
ppm
parts per million
PPV
peak particle velocity
PRC
Public Resources Code
proposed Project
Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility Construction Project
re 1 µPa
relative to 1 micropascal of pressure
RGP 54
Regional General Permit 54
ROG
reactive organic gases
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB
Senate Bill
SCAB
South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
sf
square feet
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SMCA
State Marine Conservation Area
SMP
Sediment Management Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report viii May 2021
SO2
sulfur dioxide
SPCC
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
SMCA
State Marine Conservation Area
SR
State Route
STFATE
Short -Term Fate
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
TAC
toxic air contaminant
TMDL
total maximum daily load
TPH
total petroleum hydrocarbon
TSS
total suspended solids
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC
United States Code
USCG
U.S. Coast Guard
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
UST
Underground Storage Tank
VOC
volatile organic compound
WEC
Watershed Executive Committee
Final Environmental Impact Report ix May 2021
Introduction
1.1 Final Environmental Impact Report Purpose and Organization
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code [PRC] Division 13, Section 21000 et seq.)
and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.) to assist the City of
Newport Beach (City) in considering the approval of the proposed Lower Newport Bay Confined
Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Facility Construction Project (PA2019-020), hereafter referred to as the
proposed Project, in accordance with 22 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 66265 et seq.
Under the proposed Project, the City would construct a CAD facility in the central portion of Lower
Newport Bay between Bay Island, Lido Isle, and Harbor Island where dredged sediment unsuitable
for open ocean disposal or nearshore placement can be contained. Clean material suitable for beach
nourishment generated from constructing the CAD facility will be transported and disposed of at an
approved open ocean disposal site (LA -3 Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site) or along the
nearshore ocean beaches. The City is also proposing
to allow maintenance dredging in sections of the
Harbor outside the Federal Channels maintenance
dredging program area to re-establish safe
navigation.
This document, in conjunction with the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), collectively
constitutes the Final Environmental Impact
Report. The DEIR remains available on
https://www. newportbeachca. gov/horbordredgina
This Final EIR will support the permitting process of all agencies whose discretionary approvals must
be obtained for particular elements of the proposed Project. The Final EIR is intended to provide
decision -makers and the public with the most up-to-date information available regarding the
proposed Project, required mitigation measures, and alternatives.
7.7.7 FEIR Purpose
The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to inform decision -makers and the general
public of the potential environmental impacts resulting from a project, as well as the mitigation
measures or alternatives that would avoid or minimize identified significant impacts. The City has the
principal responsibility for approving the proposed Project and, as the CEQA lead agency, is
responsible for the preparation and distribution of this FEIR pursuant to PRC 21067. The Final EIR will
be used by the City and other responsible agencies in conjunction with all approvals necessary for
the implementation of the proposed Project.
This document, in conjunction with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), collectively
constitutes the Final EIR. As described in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15089, 15090, and 15132, the
Final Environmental Impact Report 1 May 2021
lead agency must prepare and consider the information contained in a Final EIR before approving a
project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, a Final EIR comprises the following materials:
• The DEIR or a revision of the DEIR
• Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR
• A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR
7.7.2 Final Environmental Impact Report Organization
Section 1 presents background and introductory information for the proposed approval and
implementation of the proposed Project. Section 2 presents information regarding the distribution of
and comments received on the DEIR, as well as the responses to all comments received during the
public comment period. Section 3 presents a description of modifications to the DEIR.
7.7.3 California Environmental Quality Act Baseline
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires that an EIR include a description of the physical
environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed Project as they exist at the time the Notice
of Preparation (NOP) is published, or if no NOP is published, at the time the environmental analysis is
commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. These environmental conditions are
referred to as the Environmental Setting. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) states that "the
environmental setting normally constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency
determines whether an impact is significant." The CEQA baseline is the set of conditions that prevail
at the time this NOP is circulated.
1.1.3.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project area is located in the City of
Newport Beach, Orange County, California
(Figure 1-1). The City is located at the western
edge of Orange County, adjacent to the Pacific
Ocean. It is a charter city with approximately
87,182 residents that is bordered by Costa Mesa
to the northwest, Huntington Beach to the west,
Irvine to the northeast, Laguna Beach to the
south, and unincorporated portions of
Orange County to the southeast.
Newport Bay is the coastal body in which Newport
Harbor was developed. The Harbor was developed
in the early 1900s. The Bay is often discussed in
context of location, with the Upper Bay referring to
the area north of the Highway 1 Bridge which
includes the Upper Newport Bay State Marine
Conservation Area (SMCA), and Lower Bay
synonymous with Newport Harbor. The Federal
Channels are the main navigation channels and
include the Entrance Channel.
The proposed Project will occur within the Lower Harbor and offshore waters (Figure 1-1). Upon
entering the Lower Harbor from the Pacific Ocean, the Main Channel runs the 3 -mile length of the
Lower Harbor, down the inside of the Balboa Peninsula, and among the seven harbor islands that
make up several residential communities and villages of the City. The Coast Highway Bridge serves as
Final Environmental Impact Report 2 May 2021
the unofficial boundary of the Lower Harbor and Upper Harbor (i.e., Upper Bay). The Lower Harbor is
a small craft harbor offering a wide range of recreational boating activities ranging from
single -person kayaks to larger sailing and motor vessels capable of transocean navigation. Local
beachfront and harbor -front communities support water -use recreational services.
The location of the proposed CAD facility and non-federal maintenance dredging (shaded yellow) is
shown in Figure 1-2.
Final Environmental Impact Report 3 May 2021
SOURCE: Image from Bing maps.
HORIZONTAL DATUM: California State Plane, Zone 6, NAD83
VERTICAL DATUM: Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)
Approximate Project Location:
33° 36.540', 117° 54.230'
�.ibiish pate: '020/05;9C Y08 ANI I User: bhurry
:eas,0243-City or Newport Beach\Federal --hannelV9243-RP-924 EIR VIC SI4P.dwq Figure ES '
kzANCHOR
QEA
0 1.5
Miles
Figure 1-1
Project Site and Vicinity
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Lower Newport Harbor Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project (PA2019-020)
un a 3 c c v
C
E ¢` N c'c an d Z Z O d d
p p d
moa°'u o d
a 2w 20
rn0 TC Qom$' O in � O C OIC � 01 d p p Lig O
0
��F�C vIZ O� Z a` 0 Z
o d C f _
T o OZ � s W I
00. Two W a a
F
& 6 1
� C
LCq
� L t
V
= C p
5 �z
T O
m
= d /
A C %g V M m
o fz° z
0 2O 9 C N O \
aG�Q a o
v
E c o d
ti
h
¢
L
I d
N
f i
=r
A
�V;
I
i
CNPNc1E
Y
a /
3 c
OIC
V I
I
F
V
E
V
d
w
D o
d 0
Figure 1-3
CAD Facility Construction Overview
redenl CWmeli OW&O Trym
liiiiii IN
1. Existing Conditions
Dnpul S-
4. Unsuitable Material Placement
2. Federal Channels Dredging
; ,1?^F",
7.7.4 Project Purpose and Objectives
3. Excavate CAD (Nearshore Disposal)
6. Additional Material Placement and Final Cap
The fundamental underlying purpose of the proposed Project is to provide a safe, efficient, and
effective dredged material management option that allows for navigation maintenance dredging to
proceed while protecting the marine environment and recreational users of the Lower Harbor.
Additional project objectives are as follows:
Identify a disposal location for dredged material deemed unsuitable for open ocean disposal
that meets the following requirements:
— Contains chemically impacted sediment safely and permanently
— Is located within the southern California area and is available for disposal
— Accommodates a small volume of dredged material from outside the Federal Channels
• Dispose of unsuitable dredged sediment in a manner that is safe to human and ecological
health and minimizes secondary environmental impacts.
• Promote beneficial reuse through beach nourishment.
• Dredge limited areas outside the Federal Channels.
Final Environmental Impact Report 6 May 2021
1.2 Project Description
Newport Harbor is one of the largest recreational harbors in the United States. Natural processes
result in the movement and accumulation of sediment in Lower Newport Bay from Upper Newport
Bay, which must be dredged periodically by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to maintain
channel depth for safe navigation in the Harbor. USACE and the City conduct surveys to determine
the need for federal dredging and to determine the sediment characteristics for disposal options.
The most recent sediment sampling effort, in 2018 and 2019, determined that most dredged material
is suitable for disposal at a permitted ocean disposal location or can be used to nourish the adjacent
beaches. However, dredging in the main Federal Channel and channel offshoots will expose some
sediment that is deemed unsuitable for ocean disposal and therefore requires an alternate
management location.
To manage the unsuitable material, the City proposes constructing a CAD facility in the central
portion of the Lower Harbor between Bay Island, Lido Isle, and Harbor Island where dredged
sediment unsuitable for open ocean disposal or nearshore placement can be contained (Figure 1-3).
Clean material suitable for beach nourishment generated from constructing the CAD facility will be
transported for disposal at an approved open ocean disposal site or along the nearshore ocean
beaches. The City is also proposing to use the CAD facility to accommodate sediment from
maintenance dredging in sections of Newport Harbor outside the Federal Channels to re-establish
safe navigation under and adjacent to private, public, and commercial docks, floats, and piers.
Potential CAD facility locations were selected A CAD facility is a depression in an aquatic
based on preliminary feedback from the City's seafloor used to contain and store sediment.
Harbor Commissioners. The Harbor
Figure 1-3 presents an overview of construction.
Commissioners recommended siting the CAD
facility adjacent to or within locations where
sediment was determined to be unsuitable and will require placement in the CAD facility. Although the
recommendation was integral to the siting process, other factors were evaluated including the
following: 1) analyses of geotechnical data to demonstrate compliance with current engineering
standards and practices; 2) the suitability of the excavated material for beneficial reuse; 3) feasibility to
design and construct the CAD based on the volume of sediment to be managed; 4) logistics during
construction; S) disruption to existing harbor moorings and anchorages; and 6) public outreach. In
addition, the proposed CAD location is in a central area, thereby reducing overall transit distances for
dredged sediments and providing access for deeper water that will enable the barges to be filled to their
capacity. This in turn will reduce construction duration, costs, and air quality/greenhouse gas emissions
that would otherwise result from increased barge travel and tugboat operations.
Final Environmental Impact Report 7 May 2021
7.2.7 Need for Dredging
Lower Newport Bay requires periodic maintenance dredging to remove sediment that accumulates
over time and impedes navigation and full use of the Harbor. Lower Newport Bay was last dredged
between May 2012 and January 2013, when 600,000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment were removed.
Based on USACE harbor -wide bathymetric surveys in 2018, sedimentation has occurred in many
areas of Lower Newport Bay.
USACE is proposing to dredge the Federal Channels to
the currently authorized design depths as part of the
Federal Channels maintenance dredging program
authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937
(maintenance) and 1945, modified by the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986. In preparation for
Technical support for the design and operation
of the CAD facility is included in the Basis of
Design Report (Anchor QEA 2020a)
summarized in this DEIR and available at.
www.newportbeochco.gov/horbordredaina
dredging in Lower Newport Bay, sediment sampling was conducted in 2018 and 2019 to determine the
suitability of the sediments requiring removal during the Federal Channels maintenance dredging
program. The study found that most of the sediments would be approved for open ocean disposal.
However, due to elevated concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and/or mercury, the
Turning Basin and portions of Main Channel 1 and 2 and Newport Channel 1 were deemed not suitable
for open ocean disposal.
7.2.2 Project Construction
Material will be dredged from the Federal Channels to maintain authorized navigational depths.
Material in portions of Main Channel North 1 and 2, Turning Basin, and Newport Channel 1 is
unsuitable for open ocean disposal. Dredging would be accomplished primarily via mechanical
dredge with disposal from a split -hull barge.
The CAD facility is being constructed to accommodate approximately 106,900 cy of unsuitable
dredged material anticipated to be generated by the Federal Channels maintenance dredging
program and an additional 50,000 cy resulting from maintenance dredging primarily of unsuitable
material from outside the Federal Channels, for a total of 156,900 cy. Clean material excavated during
construction of the CAD facility will be transported to, and disposed along, the nearshore ocean
beaches or transported to LA -3 for open ocean disposal.
CAD facility construction will likely occur using mechanical equipment and bottom -dump barges
(also called a dump scow) to excavate the depression and deposit the resulting material within the
nearshore zone along the ocean beaches of Newport Beach. Following construction of the CAD
facility, unsuitable sediment will be dredged using mechanical equipment and placed within the CAD
facility using a bottom -dump barge. During the time that the CAD facility is open (i.e., during
placement of the unsuitable material in the CAD facility), the City and its residents will have an initial
Final Environmental Impact Report 8 May 2021
opportunity to place material dredged from outside the Federal Channels into the CAD facility. This
activity will be permitted through either the City's Regional General Permit 54 (RGP 54) or through an
Individual Permit depending on the scope of work.
Sediment within the CAD facility will then be covered with clean sediment dredged from the
remainder of the Federal Channels as part of USACE's maintenance dredging program. This clean
sediment will serve as an interim cover containment layer to isolate the unsuitable material placed as
part of Federal Channels maintenance dredging.
Approximately 2 years following completion of construction of the CAD facility and placement of an
interim cover containment layer, there will be a second opportunity during a 6 -month period for the
City and its residents to place material determined unsuitable for open ocean disposal in the CAD
facility. The combined total allowance for the initial and second opportunity will be 50,000 cy of
unsuitable material. If there is remaining capacity (within this 50,000 cy allowance) at the end of the
6 -month period, the City and its residents will be able to place material from the RGP 54 Plan Area
determined suitable for open ocean disposal in the CAD facility. This opportunity will provide a more
cost-effective and convenient disposal location within the Lower Harbor and will bolster the CAD
facility's final cap layer.
At the end of the second 6 -month placement period for the public and the City, the final cap layer
will be placed in the CAD facility by the City to chemically isolate the underlying sediments from
burrowing organisms and biota residing in the overlying water column. This clean sediment final cap
layer has been designed to a thickness of 3 feet (or 33,600 cy) of additional sediment sourced by the
City. This layer will likely consist of undredged suitable material within Newport Channel 3. Other
sources of sediment to be considered include future dredging at the Entrance Channel, sediment
dredged under the City's RGP 54 program, and maintenance dredging at the Santa Ana River as a
contingency.'
The final elevation of the CAD facility infill will be restricted to an elevation that is at or below the
water depths necessary for navigation within the Lower Harbor.
1.3 Regulatory
USACE is responsible for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for the Federal
Channels maintenance dredging component of the proposed Project. In September 2020, USACE
released the Final Environmental Assessment for Lower Newport Bay Maintenance Dredging Project
(EA; USACE 2020) to support a portion of the dredging which includes the Entrance Channel
If the City identifies additional sources for the final cap layer, material will require testing and confirmation that the sourced
material meets the performance criteria of sediment tested and modelled as part of the BODR (Appendix Q.
Final Environmental Impact Report 9 May 2021
extending to the first section of the Main Channel, and which is not reliant on the CAD facility. USACE
will need to supplement this EA to support dredging in the rest of the Main Channel and channel
offshoots, as described in the Final EIR. As the lead federal agency and part of the Federal Channels
maintenance dredging program, USACE has assumed responsibility for coordinating with resource
agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) and for ensuring compliance with requirements of statutes such as the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Enhancement Act (MSA).
USACE will also obtain a federal Consistency Determination from the California Coastal Commission
(CCC) to satisfy requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act and a Clean Water Act (Section
401) water quality certification from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
In addition, a review under 33 United States Code Section 408 (Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899, as amended) will be required for approval of any proposed activity that might interfere
with, injure, or impair the use of a river or harbor improvement project. This approach furthers
USACE's interest, expressed throughout the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, in protecting the
navigability of United States waters by prohibiting the use or alteration of navigation or flood control
works where contrary to the public interest or where doing so would impair those works' usefulness.
USACE has also assumed the lead role in addressing cultural and historic resource issues, including
requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Properties Act. The identification, design,
permitting, and construction of an alternate disposal location is the responsibility of the City as the
local sponsor and is assessed in this Final EIR.
Maintenance dredging in most areas of Newport Harbor outside the Federal Channels is authorized
by Regional General Permit 54 (RGP 54), which was issued to the City by the USACE and Santa Ana
RWQCB in 2020, and the CCC in 2015; it is currently anticipated that the CCC permit will be
reauthorized prior to November 2021.
Identification, design, permitting, and construction of an alternate disposal location is the
responsibility of the City as the local sponsor. However, several aspects of the proposed Project
require permitting from other regulatory agencies. Following completion of the EIR, the City will
submit the following permit applications to the specified agencies:
• Coastal Development Permit: The CCC is the agency responsible for this permit.
• Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification: This certification is required by the
Santa Ana RWQCB.
• Surface Lease Agreement: This agreement from the California State Lands Commission (CSLC)
may be required.
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15086, lead agencies must consult with, and request comments on, a
draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from public agencies that are responsible agencies; trustee
agencies with resources affected by the project; and any state, federal, or local agency that has
Final Environmental Impact Report 10 May 2021
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project or that exercises authority over resources that may be
affected by the project as follows:
• Responsible Agency: A responsible agency is a public agency that proposes to carry out or
approve a project for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or a Negative
Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "responsible agency" includes all public
agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary approval authority over a project
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15381).
• Trustee Agency: A trustee agency is a state agency that has jurisdiction over natural
resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the state of California
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). Trustee agencies include the following: 1) The California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), regarding fish and wildlife, native plants designated
as rare or endangered, game refuges, and ecological reserves; 2) The California State Lands
Commission (CSLC), regarding state-owned "sovereign" lands such as the beds of navigable
waters and state school lands; 3) The California Department of Parks and Recreation,
regarding units of the state park system; and 4) The University of California, regarding sites in
the Natural Land and Water Reserves System.
Table 1-1 summarizes the regulatory agencies with potential oversight of the proposed Project and
their statutory authority as it relates to the proposed Project.
Table 1-1
Regulatory Agencies and Authority Applicable to the Proposed Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 11 May 2021
Lead Federal Agency for Federal Channels dredging. Reviews and
authorizes confined aquatic disposal under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section
103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act; subject
to NEPA
Additionally, pursuant to 33 United States Code 408 (Section 14 of
U.S. Army Corps of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended), review under
Engineers
N/A
Section 408 is required for any proposed activity that might
interfere with, injure, or impair the use of a river or harbor
improvement project. This approach furthers the USACE's interest,
expressed throughout the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, in
protecting the navigability of United States waters by prohibiting
the use or alteration of navigation or flood control works where
contrary to the public interest or where it would impair those works'
usefulness
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act and
Administration
N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act;
subject to NEPA.
National Marine
Fisheries Service
Final Environmental Impact Report 11 May 2021
1.4 Project Alternatives
CEQA's requirements for an EIR to evaluate alternatives specifically requires that an EIR present a
range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project, or to the location of a project, that could
feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any
significant effects of a project. Therefore, alternatives generally have fewer environmental impacts
than the proposed project by design. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, an
EIR must also include an analysis of a No Project Alternative. Sections 1.4.1 through 1.4.3 present
brief descriptions of the alternatives to this proposed Project that were carried forward for analysis in
the DEIR.
Final Environmental Impact Report 12 May 2021
u
U.S. Navy
State Agencies
Reviews dredging and dredged material disposal activities in state
California State Lands
tidelands and would oversee development of the CAD facility.
Commission
Trustee Agency
The CSLC would consider the City's EIR in consideration of issuing
the Surface Lease Agreement.
The CCC would reviews the EIR to ensure compliance with the
Coastal Zone Management Act and consistency with the California
California Coastal
Responsible
Coastal Act. The CCC would perform a federal Consistency
Commission
Agency
Determination in support of federal dredging. The CCC would
consider the City's EIR in consideration of issuing a Coastal
Development Permit for the CAD and beach nourishment upon
project approval by the City.
California
Reviews and submits recommendations in accordance with the
Department of Fish
Trustee Agency
California Environmental Quality Act; the City will consult with
and Wildlife
California Department of Fish and Wildlife in accordance with the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Local Agencies
The RWQCB is the permitting authority for water quality, reviews
proposed Project for authorization under the Porter -Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, Waste Discharge Requirements, and Clean
Water Act Section 401 State Certification of Water Quality and
Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Santa Ana Regional
Responsible
Water Quality
Agency
An application for reauthorization of RGP 54 was submitted to the
Control Board
Santa Ana RWQCB on November 27, 2019. The Santa Ana RWQCB
responded to the application in mid-January 2019, requesting a
more detailed analysis under CEQA for sediment dredged under the
RGP 54 and disposed in the CAD facility, and therefore that
component will be included in this DEIR (Section 2.3.2.1). The RGP
54 would be amended assuming certification of this DEIR.
1.4 Project Alternatives
CEQA's requirements for an EIR to evaluate alternatives specifically requires that an EIR present a
range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project, or to the location of a project, that could
feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any
significant effects of a project. Therefore, alternatives generally have fewer environmental impacts
than the proposed project by design. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, an
EIR must also include an analysis of a No Project Alternative. Sections 1.4.1 through 1.4.3 present
brief descriptions of the alternatives to this proposed Project that were carried forward for analysis in
the DEIR.
Final Environmental Impact Report 12 May 2021
1.4.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated
Several alternatives were considered during preparation of the DEIR. This section presents the
alternatives considered but eliminated from further discussion and includes the rationale for
eliminating these alternatives from further detailed analysis.
Use of an Electric Dredger: Several public comments were received during scoping that requested
the DER to consider a using an electric dredger. This analysis also considered emission controls for
dredge equipment, namely an electric dredger. While an electric dredger could reduce emissions,
electric dredge equipment would not be available or practical for use in the Lower Harbor. Use of an
electric cable to power equipment operating in the actively navigated Lower Newport Bay is neither
practical due to the electric cable nor advisable because the cable could create a navigational and
safety hazard.
Disposal of Material at Port Fill Site: Under this scenario, the unsuitable material would be disposed
at a port fill site, similar to the last dredging event in 2012 and 2013, when approximately 120,000 cy
of unsuitable sediment was placed at the Port of Long Beach's Middle Harbor Fill Site. The remaining
sediment was placed at LA -3. The Port of Long Beach Middle Harbor Fill site was constructed and is no
longer available to receive unsuitable material. Additionally, there are no other available fill site options
for the City to use to manage unsuitable material. Therefore, this alternative disposal location is being
dismissed from further analysis because there are no sites within the region currently being considered.
1.4.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis
Through the alternative process, the proposed Project and two other alternatives were found to meet
most of the objectives. In addition, CEQA requires an EIR to consider the No Project Alternative. The four
alternatives to the proposed Project were carried forward for impact analysis in the DEIR. Sections 1.4.2.1
through 1.4.2.5 summarize these alternatives.
1.4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (No Dredging)
The No Project Alternative analyzes what would be expected to occur if the proposed Project were
not approved. Under the No Project Alternative, dredging of unsuitable material within the Federal
Channels or City -managed locations outside of the Federal Channels would not occur, and the CAD
facility would not be constructed. As such, chemically impacted materials would remain in place in an
unconfined manner. Navigation would continue to be impaired, and the Lower Harbor would
continue to experience reduced tidal flushing due the shallower water depths. Not constructing the
CAD facility would mean that beach nourishment would not occur, and as a result, coastal erosion
could be exacerbated. By not removing these sediments and instead allowing them to remain within
the Federal Channels and other areas of Lower Newport Bay where they could be resuspended by
vessel activities, the No Project Alternative does not minimize potential risks to the aquatic biota or
people that recreate within the Lower Harbor. Chemicals in the environment are typically only able to
Final Environmental Impact Report 13 May 2021
cause impacts when they are mobilized within the water column through resuspension or when they
diffuse into the water from the upper layers of the sediment. The proposed Project would seek to
relocate the impacted sediments into a deep hole (CAD facility), which would eliminate those
potential risks for future exposures. One of the added benefits of constructing the CAD facility for
material disposal is that the underlying sediments in the target location for the CAD facility contain
clean, high-quality, beach sand, which can be used to nourish the adjacent ocean shoreline. This
benefit would be eliminated under the No Project Alternative
1.4.2.2 Alternative 2: No CAD Construction
Alternative 2 includes dredging of unsuitable material, but no CAD construction. Under the No CAD
Construction Alternative, any dredged sediment deemed unsuitable for open ocean disposal would
be dewatered and trucked to a permitted upland landfill facility. Because the CAD facility would not
be constructed, clean material suitable for beach nourishment generated from constructing the CAD
facility would not be transported and disposed at an approved open ocean disposal site or along the
nearshore ocean beaches. The City would allow maintenance dredging in sections of the Lower
Harbor outside the Federal Channels to re-establish safe navigation under this alternative.
1.4.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Dredging
Under this scenario, less dredging would occur (likely in Newport Channel), and the CAD facility
would be constructed but with a smaller footprint. Because the CAD facility would be smaller, less
suitable material would be available for beach nourishment. All impacts that would occur as part of
the proposed Project would likely occur under this reduced project scenario, except air and GHG
emissions would likely be less because dredging and construction equipment use would be reduced.
Under this scenario, however, there would be impacts to navigation in the areas where dredging
would not occur.
1.4.2.4 Alternative 4: Upland Trucking of Material
Under this scenario, the same amount of dredging would occur, and the CAD facility would be
constructed but with a smaller footprint. It is assumed that approximately half of the material to be
deposited in the CAD facility would instead be trucked to an upland disposal facility (similar to
Alternative 2). The overall construction schedule would likely increase as the CAD facility would
require a similar construction schedule and equipment list. A new construction element to dewater
and transport a portion of the material by truck would be added. Under this scenario, all impacts that
would occur as part of the proposed Project would likely occur, with several resource areas likely to
have more impacts. Air and GHG emissions would increase because construction equipment uses
and added emissions from truck trips would occur. Air emissions may also be located closer to
sensitive receptors during upland construction elements and truck trips. Increased noise impacts may
occur, and the staging area for dewatering and truck transfer may be located closer to residential
and other sensitive receptors.
Final Environmental Impact Report 14 May 2021
1.4.2.5 Alternative 5: Other CAD Facility Locations Within Newport Harbor
Alternative 5 includes an analysis of alternate locations in the Lower Harbor for the potential CAD
facility. The following three alternate potential locations within Lower Newport Bay are being
evaluated: Turning Basin, Newport Channel 1, and adjacent to Main Channel 1. In reviewing the
alternate locations, factors such as availability of existing sediment data, review of historic
bathymetric surveys to understand the rate of sedimentation since the Lower Harbor's initial
construction, and availability of existing geotechnical data were considered. If the alternate location
is within an area where the existing sediment would likely be determined unsuitable, a dual -cell CAD
concept would be required, wherein an initial temporary CAD cell is created to hold the veneer
sediments, and a second CAD cell receives the remainder of the bay sediments. Once the second
CAD facility is constructed, the veneer sediment from the initial CAD facility would then be excavated
and placed in the second CAD cell, requiring double -handling of the material. Alternatively, both the
initial and second CAD facilities could remain intact permanently. Table 1-2 present a comparison of
the proposed alternative sites.
Table 1-2
Comparison of Proposed Alternative Sites
Site
A
Dknensions
(feet)
TOW
Area
(0)
Advantages
Diltadvantages
Turning
600 x 600
360,000 • Close proximity to unsuitable
• Potential area of unsuitable material:
Basin
material areas (Main Channel
would likely require disposing of
North 1 and 2, Turning
unsuitable layer first or two CAD
Basin)
sites
• In area of commercial
• Additional chemistry and
properties (less public
geotechnical data would be required
housing in Turning Basin)
in central portion of Turning Basin
• Authorized depths within Turning
Basin deeper than other alternative
sites: placement of material in the
CAD facility would be suspended
longer in the water column,
potentially resulting in greater water
quality impacts
Final Environmental Impact Report 15 May 2021
Site
Approx-nnate
Dim
(feet)
Total
Area
('#)
Advantages
Dhadvantages
Main
250 x 1,300
325,000
• Outside the main Federal
Potential area of unsuitable material
Channel
LTS
LTS
Channels
would likely require disposing of
1
LTS-
SU
• Close proximity to other
unsuitable layer first or two CAD
LTS-
Biological Resources
LTS
unsuitable material areas
sites
LTS
LTS
LTS
(Main Channel North 1 and 2
• Additional chemistry and
LTS
LTS
LTS
and Turning Basin)
geotechnical data would be required
Geology/Soils
LTS
NI-
LTS
• Slope stability may be required
LTS
NI -
between the Main Channel (-20 feet
MLLW) and top of CAD (-10 feet
MLLW)
• Narrower channel and adjacent to
residential (Lido Isle) — potential
temporary access restrictions to
residential docks during construction
Newport
590 x 590
348,100
• Close to unsuitable material
Potential area of unsuitable material:
Channel
in Newport Channel 1
would likely require disposing of
1
Close proximity to
unsuitable layer first or two CAD
geotechnical sample
sites
• Adjacent to residential (Lido Isle and
peninsula)
• Existing mooring area
• Additional chemistry sampling
required in this location
7.4.3 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 1-3 provides a summary comparison of the potential environmental impacts after
implementation of mitigation measures resulting from the proposed Project and alternatives relative
to the topics analyzed in the DEIR. The No Project Alternative results in the least environmental
impacts. However, the No Project Alternative does not meet any project objectives.
Table 1-3
Comparison of Potential Impacts from Proposed Project and Alternatives (with Incorporation
of Mitigation)
Resoume Area
Proposed
Project
Alternative
1
Alternative
2
Alternative
3
Alternative
4
Alternative
5
Aesthetics
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
Air Quality
LTS
LTS-
SU
LTS-
LTS-
LTS-
Biological Resources
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
Cultural Resources
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
Geology/Soils
LTS
NI-
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI -
Final Environmental Impact Report 16 May 2021
Itesamce Area
Proposed
Project
Akeroetrve
1
Allteroative
2
Aiterr+aWe
3
AltwmOve
4
Alternative
5
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
LTS
LTS
SU+
LTS
SU+
LTS
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
LTS
SU+
SU+
LTS
SU+
SU+
Hydrology/Water Quality
LTS
LTS
SU+
LTS
SU+
LTS
Land Use and Planning
LTS
NI-
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI -
Noise
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
Recreation
LTS
Ni-
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI -
Tribal Cultural Resources
LTS
NI-
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI -
Notes:
+: Impacts would increase as compared to proposed Project.
- : Impacts would be reduced as compared to proposed Project.
LTS: Less -Than -Significant Impact
NI: No Impact
SU: Significant and Unavoidable
1.5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 1-4 presents a summary of the environmental impacts of, proposed mitigation measures for,
and residual impacts of the proposed Project. Full descriptions of the mitigation measures noted in
Table 1-4 are provided following the table. With incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed
Project would result in either no project -level impacts or less -than -significant project -level impacts
to the following resource areas: aesthetics; agriculture and forestry resources; biological resources;
cultural resources; energy; geology and soils; GHG emissions; hazards and hazardous materials;
hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; mineral resources; noise; population and
housing; public services; recreation; transportation; tribal cultural resources; utilities and service
systems; and wildfire. The proposed Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
Final Environmental Impact Report 17 May 2021
m
h
V
m
a
E
V
�O
a`
0
cv
m
a
u
V
V
V
u
U
U
V
U
u
U
V
i► O
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
2)
LM
a)
rn
rn
rn
N
N
N
N
N
N
� N
N
N
sfa
SET
N
Y
N
N
Y
to
Y
N
�
Y
N
N
Y
N
J
(U
J
)
(U
J
J
W
a)
a)
()
a)
a)
-
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
- -
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
z
z
z
z
Z
z
z
z
cg
L
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C
C
CC
_
V
V
L U
V
n3
� U
u
U
n1
t U
t V
t U
ate+
i'
a) LSl
a) pl
a) LSl
C
() 0)
N i
() U)
C
al
N
a) Ol
N
a) Ol
N
N Ol
a1
O
O
Y
a)_0
N
N
CL
C E a)
(3)
QO
_0
a)
fd – N
O
�p
„
,>
t U L
C
0) N LL
C
Y Q O
1 U
O
y +�' �
Y
D
_
O Q O io
Y
cv
O
��,
N Q
N a)
;o
x 3 s
Y°
a) C v
> •�
N
c
V
C
a)
(p
E
V Q Q
>
°
a)
°
°
E
a`,
o
s u
a
ai
a�
Q
a c _
o 0 o
Ol
E
N
(6 Y N
Y
N
a) C
N N m E
0)
U
>> Ea�
a) N •–
O
U
N ns
vu
= rn
C
O
N+M O
LU
vfO
CcC x
0
c
aO) T
O
•
O
E
U O
-sY0
-
U
>
> C O
-�
a) Cl
a) .0 a) Ol
to
Y
C C U
N
U C
ns
"a
a ii N
a) i)
.v
y O N
2 O
N '
E
-0�.
oil v
L_
a,
s
0
>
�1 *'
v
N O-
C ° �•
o a)
U
N Y
Y
O
N
N
>O
C
O
O Q
N
•vNi
aa)i
O
.N_
O
C N
O
N
fl- �D
cp
Y° C_ C'
aa) '>
E
E a
C:
_Y
a,
> N L
a)
N C
o
N •�
N
a)
a) X
a)
N_0
N a) u
L
VI
N
v E
Y
VI U N
Y N Q>
u Q 0-
u
u
ai
C
Y N Y
Y
u -C
U
N
V U
a) 3 III a)
V C
a) —
-O
a) N N C
-
•O
a) .
'o Q
a) N .Q
-0 >
.O
N p1
•�
O
O O
O .-
w
C ca
Cm
Q
C O
c
Q
Q o s Q
Q C
Q
U
,v_
Q)
(1)
a)
o
a)
E
23xca)
.
CO
7O+
Ol
O
O
O
U
O
aYQ
3
E
U
>m
j
•�
N
Y
r w
y
' a)
a, 0
a)
L
p
CY '' m O'
V °12
O O v
a
a Y
a'> Qu
a
¢
a Fu
a U Nj a
a m
m
m E a
E
L
O
Y
C
m
C
m
C
C
G
N_
u
-E
E
+
V
u
u
U
E
�
u
a
Q
a
Q
ik
E
E
E
E
c
c
c
c
o
m
o
O
o
m
m
o
N
N
VI
VI
Vf
N
J
J
)
J
I
N
N
.._
ce
=
K
=
C
m m
0
m m
C
0
C
0
C
o
v
v
z°
u
u
F' c
° u
m
O v
m
Q
m
m
m
M
_v m
a m
cC:
E
E
c
c:C:
ajc
c
a) E
O .al
OOt
O
O
O
O
O
O
a v
Z
a v
Z
Z
Z
.�
a v
a
Z
m
v I
0
a) O
p1
p
Q
YO
O
v o
L V
a) 2
C
a)
_u
c �,.,
O
to
O
u O O
O c
u L
-p .—
p
L
c
O
N
a
O�_
p
N
O
LE
m L
m
m
Y
w
a)'
> 0'
N
a)
N
pl n
m
c
c
ai_
m
m
a
L
3
c
v,
Y
u
v
m
m
0)
0
ai
(U Q
Q.v w
O p
p p
a)
L c
O
vi
in
` Q
c c
c
a)
L
L
L O O
C
fl
C
c
al
v
_0
C m
> N
p m
a)
'm L+
l SII
O mO
vo
i
m
0)
01
Z)
0
QajO
WO
a
p
nc
mQ
`�
C
U
ta)
U
c
aL3
O
p LL
a).� vi
1 m L
u c p
L m
t c w'
a)
v c
p >
- O
vvi
c
Q a)
is +�..
Y o v
c a
v0�,
m
a)
v �g
o
'3 t
Q�
° a
>
>
� rn c N a)
> O O
> vi
>, • `� C
O
vi m
'p
'.O O
a1
U . c a) a) O-
t 0
L
v 0
O N
m
m
>� Q T Y
-
N
c
c c
c E 2
L .3
o
L
1u
° u
= a a
L 3 D
-6
N
CL
L
L O
In
`� C
Z, 3 a)
lnfl
Q)
al
O
y
Y
,C
O
m N
m V
E
a)
N
U
U
a) iIl
a) C
�
n
a) .
i Q
a)
w o
N
m
ate+
m y .0
O
> Y p
Y a) a)
C L1
O
C m
o
m C
m i
0
-O
7_ Y pl m vl
'O
L
L O
c Q �n
v p
c
0
E
V 7 N
u Y >�
Z3
u a) a)
V a1
u in
U U
u
u
u '^ C O a) 7 0
a) E
a) D L
() `�
a) v
a) c
N to
N i
N
n•
3 Y c p O
.L -
o
Q p m
O_ cr .E
Q •3 a
Q m
Q >, n.
y
fl_
O_ p
Q .�
0--
N U a)
C
fl_
m
L
L C
L N
+�+
L Y m LL a) E
C m
aL�+
ai
m
'6 V m
-o L .E
-o U
a E
o
-O i
-O m
-o E
N
a O a) N
7 m C
� O
7 v=
�
7 E O
d
7 .0
7 U
O
5 y � C N U -a
O c p
.�
O `-' E
O
O
O
O
>>O Q
>O O
>>O 'O
\
>>O m- m Oi E
.�
o
L
U
O
7 m
J
U
O c a)
O N
O
O°
Y c
Q
=
m 0
L
m e
o
K w l!1 V�1
0
m vv
m 3 =o
.°i
m E ou
m
m e Ou
3
U
S
U T
= E
U m
= a)
U -o
d
w U .
N
O
N
9
E
c
Z
m
mm
m
m
m
�
V
U �.
U
V
U
U
,�
It
H-
Y
t
Y
Y
+�`M
C
Ol
C u
L31 Q
Q
Q
C
Ol
C
al
C
L31
C m
_p1CL
m
EE
Evi
of
vi
�n
O
O
Y
O
O
J
J
J
J
J
J
h
e J
O
C
C
C
C
2
C
C
C
C
C
i
Z
Z
Z
Z
p
-
C C:>'
u
u
v
>'
C
C
C
u
u
y m
o m
'Y,
mm
m
Z. m m
U
m m0-
Y u
m m
m m
m
m
`N
a1
CS
0 0)
O
O
o
0
N al
(U 2)
m 2)
O
O
IFF,J
!n
d N
Z
Z
Z
a. Vl
J V1
J •VI
J N
Z
Z
W
O
O
o
u (VN
>,
O
t
tf
mE'
Y N O Q.
O
O
Q
'O O
N 'O
pm
O
O a)
N
C
'O
E
E N 7 VO
o
�,
a
u
o
m
c
c
o
c m o a
o -a o
3
m}
Q��,,
Y a1 OY
a1 m
N
O
�,
u
.0
m
>
CC
> O N p-
a) m
N 7
t in
p
o
C
N
aJ t O
,� N
N''. 0) 0
YO
O
to, Tu
m
cB
O
v c .X
m
m eV
a
CL
},
C C
—CU
(3) C
.Q N Q
v
a1
S
u
O
.Q
7 h.
ai c
7 C j m
O m
-O to
O
.0
N 2 m
_T
.�
O
0-
Q.
Q '> Q 0
N N
u0 N Y
(Ya
C
C h.
O> C
_
zi
t
T
Q N
Y
O o
+L-+
O
c
�= o
w m
a E
c Ln
c
al O > .T
.�- m
N
��
m a1
N C
N Y p 0
m U C
O fl- u 'v�
-5�
O v
-o
N p
V 0
ao
m 0
�
m� �in c
t '_^
� v a1
N E
m
@ c tCm
a1 C m
N
p m
C
>
Y
E
=O C
a
Q. t
m
c L
Y O E Y
? a) C
-O
al m 7
=1 X
'. (U 7
m
Q
E
U
t O_
C
m C
C N
C N
U t
C V N 3
V C VI
•N O
O .
m U >
c c
o rn
u
C Y
C
a, >
v
m
Y rn
c a
�_ v > am+
c -O p m
_ c
O C a�
:3
o c -a Y
T
`o
0)o
3
U)Fz
^
0) u 3
v a
v m
—
5
T
°
V c
.�
^
Q
^ m °
N
o m
aU E
m
=
U
f
n
v
N v�
t
c h. �;
u a1 0
-
o I O
—
a� O
>
u
u
O
c
.�
c
r
m 'a
m m Y O
.E
O>_
O
N
a) in a1 V
m _�
a1 u
m
p .�^
U
10
p
Y
C
v
E
N 9
n C
O
Q—
V
a)
U
Y
b- Y VI
C
o Q
Y
0
.0 '2
'0 3
•0
'0
O
'�aj
0 v ,�
Q
m
Q� Q o
cL 3
a' m
a�
p- m
Q 0)
i
n
a M c' n m
a c p
v
a'
v m v U
Ili
v 3
.�
u+
a U
v c
a
o
a
i
Y
Y Y
Y m
Y O
m
Y C
Y
Y
Y Y a7
Y Q
mN
C2
Y
-0O -O
m
'D
o m
p
o Cp
0)
d
N
o
0—
c
75 -2 tm
p
QE
a
o
a
O
O
C
NE
a
c
in O)
>
C (vj
o%ft
VC
O
Oo O
+o
O
av
w
N c=m
LA
w
Q m
l7
C7 ° (7 2
0 O -O
0 o
0
E
m
U
V
U
�...
w
V
U
Q
V
0-
2)
U
V
V
cQc
CQ
CQ
CQ
cQ..
CQ
�!
i ^
Z
Z
Z
s Z
z
Z
Z
Z
}�
N
J
O O OII
K K
O
O
O}}}
2= 2
O
O
O
O
O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
L'
2: I
v°
u
u
v
u
v
CL
a
a
a
a
a
Q
a
�3r
E
E
E
c
E
E
E
E
E
aci
0
0
0
o a,
0
0
0
0
0
z
z
z
a
z
z
z
z
z
C to
ra n•
O
.�
Q '
'v O 7 -p O
aj c
c
O
s
a
o cp c i
u
L
O
_0
in 'a
N
m
0
v '.. O m
It
7 Q-
7
0
(u t0
v
to
T
—
.s
ca �`' a) m
t 3 O
+-' O
v
a)
3 o to
Y
Y C VI
_
`0 Y N Q-
°
�
a)
ate,
Y
u
3
to —
-o D o
L y 0
p� X°
(a
3
o .�
t0
iJ
C
a)
N -p
°Y' 7 a) N
m o
0
o
Y a,
o° I Q Q
Y o
a y 0 7
i
°
a)
C u s
a)
�,
T
3 3 Q
o
a) E
vi
N
c
p
n
-a *'
v
p -0 v7i T
° m u
p
_
fl-
i
•�
N
O Q 0)
75-
'o
p +�'
R
> O
�' C u
a)
c
7
7 0 Y
v
v
p of 3 a)
a v
U
E
_rz°
°
c O o
a 3
Q c
� '�
° O j o
wu
E Y ns
N m O° a)
o
Q
E
u
_0
O
Q
o°
aT+ L
•ca
u .�
'� N O R
•Y
0.�
0)
Q
0 �
7 -0
a1
a) ate..
i C
•�
.0
C
. U Q -a
O
oO •m
Y —
i
+Y+
7 V1 M
6 al N
L
Y 0 vi .ti.
7
Q
m Q 9
s u
n
+�+
Y N�
O
w -O O O
*�
o c
N
c—
c>!
>
of
m i 5 c 3
-
p a)
c
E 0 Q
a) (V 1
O
3 >, vi
T O O 0 O m -5
N
t E
m
O
O
v
Q c
-
c T N 0) C
u t y m +�-� o
t
Y a1
3
_0
E Q
Q
L
m— Y
N
• n3
@15
v — Q
V
ns
Y
1
N
E 6i
Q Y
�m L
1
ice-+ t O Y p n.
O
f
'
`^ 0
o
v c E
o a,
a E:
N 7 t
7 c n. o
oo v
a
V
— y
) O0
Q p
N
Vl O a) ice+
c n = o
U Y
a
3
E O
N �,
u in v m 0
v v Y
•O •O
u M m O vi �, Q
0 E
a1
v
u 3
T
>
:�
•iO
-
Ln
O Y m vi 0 p a) cO
m ns fa �
o 0
O
o :o:,
Q
Y
O-
_
O
Q 2 Q
C 7 E
Q Y
c a) 7 �a v
Q- +�
Q- o
avi
Q u
Q
Q
/3�/
c-
N
Q
0
O
t tr a
Y Y aJ , c+
Y
C1
0
L 0 N
O
,�
-p O ,, a s C
-p m@ T Q -p N
-p
-p Q
=
Q
Y O
-o
n':
'OI;
Y °
-a
R
7 p 7 Y E
7 7
`" `6 °
aJ
C
N
O N O 3
o 0 7 O
o nz
O v
O
v
7
7
>,
v• c o, a,
2 Y°
a
u
O ca
-Q
p
O
>
N
�O
O E
.0
73:u
vi 0
°
O (D
0)7
0 °
v� °1
O o
6
0.
c—
a' Y
Cf Of Ln
r,
Q ,n v
Q E
Q p>
>,
} } o
} u • • • •
m
C
} 7
-0
}
2 Q
J
9
tf
O
Q
a)
M
Q
00
0
0-
v
N
Q
C
C
C
U
N
V
u
V
is O
U
E
C
V
U
w
C
U
C
'
CLr
CL
Q
•
"
C
CQ
C
C
O
O
O
O
a)
J
v
J
a
J
V
I
+- §
O
O
O
O
LU
O
V
u
c
v
u
u
()0)
O
O
p 0)
O
Z
J v
Z
Z
a v
Z
a
V
a)
u '0
T
v N
r'1
°
O°_6
o
N V .E
7
`^
is a5 c v i a) E
V
C
.
� � � •a+ 7 i O
C
a)
�n
X (�•
(O N In V
O-0 a)
.'^ n
C
—
•�- "
m °
a)
° •V � m
4 'U i �
c .o'
E
0
Y
3
C
aJ v7i
C T-0 •`—' O
°; O
a
v
c0 Y
c
.� p
O7
v 7
o Q
3
v
°�
0 s
>
a) ° N v o 7
aci
c > U a) �O O 0
c
c
'c 3 0)
a)
c v
rn � p o Q v
o aL-
v
•� an Z +O ° O_ C a)
n
0
a
0
O °
o
O
c o a1
'�
v N
7
0 _ C 0 v
o
v'
a) N
c O-
p
o
O a)
c O U +' O In c
C a) 7 0
ax
p
O a)
-0 O
a)
n
a 0 n M � v c v v
v 7
V a)
-d
—
.�
v ° 1 V .c
al
.Y Q
a) .� i °
Y
•>
c0 a)
•�
a)
p N
—
•B
a)
>
O V
w
O
v +�
v_i VI
v N
Q .� c i+
co u a)
0
c fl E
c
v m v
'Q
T
X t
(3)
a)
>
_
^ c 0 0 a °
N a) `� 7 >; tp
3 U c
0 a) Q
t-Fz
O
a'
Q
v 'o
V Q
+
R
N
O_ (6 O_
( •4--,
O C
p T v Lti, -0
a) p O
N
co t a)
,� c
'+J ro
��.,
v� 0 — s O
is In ro O u v
c
c
0i c c
0)
^ 0
v
n t a m
O
) °(u
7 N
7
7
7 3
vi a+
N fa
a1 t
ai 7 a) i C T
d 0
7
a)
In O
vl
in
2 S•
_01
C
C
7 0
to C a) ° O T fl- O_
V —
t\..
° ° v
c t
c +�
N
d
+-� a v, ° a) c M
p
N I^
N>
N tC6 •rp N
,7n
o
v Y
u
3
N C v •v U n.
O>
O
O Q v
a) In
a) vl
O
O s ns ._ `p '� N_0
Q . V a)
O_ °
c- N
Q. a) `^
O . a)
p a)
Q -p +' O_ a) E
v o
0 0
a) 'o
0 7 0
a=
a'
0- 0 o f ° .� N Y b
r-+
O
�C
-,- '— �
a O
U �'
a) 'V
L
+' i to — a) O� tCp
a O
-°
-O °
C
-p a)
-6 C in
y w
7 vi a) -O C V
-O
7
7
7 m Q tOJ
C
O
•a N Na3+
C
c
7 O �n v'�i Y o O N N
° N J v_i O
p
O
O
0 O
7 al
7
3
(a 7 U Ln
c- 0
`v
7 O
d
•.
C
W
;a U
0
V vi v c p a)
"> -0
c 0 u a • V N
V
00
0
0-
v
N
Q
1.5.1 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) that will be considered by the City as part of the Final EIR approval process:
MM -AQ -1 Tugboats Used During Construction: The tugboats used during construction must meet
USEPA Tier 4 engine standards by 2024; if Tier 4 tugboats are not available in years 2021 and 2022,
tugboats must meet Tier 3 compliant standards. If applicable Tier -compliant tugboats are not
available, the City shall purchase Emission Reduction Credits from South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) to offset the exceedance of NOx emissions.
MM -BIO -1 Pre- and Post -Construction Survey: Consistent with the California Eelgrass Mitigation
Policy (CEMP) (NOAH 2014) and Caulerpa Control Protocol (NOAH 2008), a pre -construction eelgrass
and Caulerpa survey shall be performed by the City in the proposed Project area 30 to 60 days prior
to commencement of proposed construction activities in the Harbor.
— If eelgrass is located during the pre -construction survey, a post -construction survey
shall also be performed by the City within 30 days following completion of construction
to evaluate any immediate effects to eelgrass habitat.
— If Caulerpa is found, the City will immediately notify the Southern California Caulerpa
Action Team, and construction shall not be conducted until such time as the infestation
has been isolated and treated, or the risk of spread from the proposed construction is
eliminated.
MM -BIO -2 Eelgrass Mitigation: If a post -construction survey is required and indicates loss of
eelgrass habitat within the proposed Project area, any impacts to eelgrass that have not previously
been mitigated for will be mitigated in accordance with the CEMP (NOAA 2014). In-kind
compensatory mitigation is the creation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat to mitigate for
adverse impacts to the same type of habitat. Per the CEMP guidelines for southern California, for
each square meter of vegetated eelgrass cover adversely impacted, 1.38 square meters of new
habitat with suitable conditions to support eelgrass should be planted with a comparable bottom
coverage and eelgrass density as impacted habitat (NOAA 2014). The 1.38:1 ratio assumes the
following: 1) there is no eelgrass function at the mitigation site prior to mitigation efforts; 2) eelgrass
function at the mitigation site is achieved within 3 years; 3) mitigation efforts are successful; and 4)
there are no landscape differences (e.g., degree of urban influence, proximity to freshwater source)
between the impact site and the mitigation site.
MM -CHR -1: Stop Work in the Area If Prehistoric or Historical Archaeological Resources Are
Encountered. In the event that any artifact, or an unusual amount of bone, shell, or non-native
stone, is encountered during construction, work would be immediately stopped and relocated to
another area. The contractor would stop dredging until a qualified archaeologist can be retained by
the City to evaluate the find (36 CFR 800.11.1 and 14 CCR 15064.5[f]). Examples of such cultural
materials might include ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped
Final Environmental Impact Report 23 May 2021
stone tools such as projectile points or choppers; historic artifacts such as bottles or ceramics; or
resource gathering items such as fish weir stakes. Native American tribes and the Office of Historic
Preservation would be notified of the find. Native American tribes consulted on the proposed Project
to date include the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, and the Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation. If the resources are found to be significant, they would be
avoided or mitigated.
MM-GEO-1: Periodic Monitoring of the CAD Facility. An OMMP (Appendix H to the BODR) has
been developed for the proposed Project to conduct periodic monitoring of the CAD facility,
including bathymetric surveys and cap coring. In the event of a significant earthquake,' these
techniques could be used to monitor the integrity of the CAD facility final cap layer. As noted, if any
changes in environmental conditions or design assumptions become apparent, then management
actions will be considered for the CAD facility. Initial management actions would likely include
increasing the level or frequency of monitoring. If indicated, the CAD facility cap design would be
augmented in one or more of the following ways:
— Adding more sediment to form a thicker cap
— Changing the cap material to a coarser, more erosion -resistant material type (coarse
sand or gravel)
— Adding enhanced materials to the cap, such as less porous or chemically absorbent
materials
MM-GHG-1 Purchase GHG Emission Offsets: The City of Newport Beach shall purchase annual
GHG offset credits to offset GHG emissions during the life of the project. The amount of credits
purchased shall be determined based on updated emission calculations as determined by the final
equipment list secured by the contractor and using industry accepted GHG calculation methods. Off-
site mitigation credits shall be real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional,
consistent with the standards set forth in Health and Safety Code section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1)
and (d)(2). Such credits shall be based on protocols consistent with the criteria set forth in Section
95972, subdivision (a), of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, and shall not allow the use of
offset projects originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets,
and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by SCAQMD. Such credits
must be purchased within 90 -days following the conclusion of each operational year through one of
the following: (i) a CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon
Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry
under the California Cap and Trade program; or (iii) through the CAPCOA GHG Rx and the SCAQMD.
Proof of purchase of the off-site mitigation credits shall be retained by the City.
According to NCAA National Centers for Environmental Information, a significant earthquake "is classified as one that meets at
least one of the following criteria: caused deaths, caused moderate damage (approximately $1 million or more), magnitude 7.5 or
greater, Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) X or greater, or the earthquake generated a tsunami." (NOAA 2020).
Final Environmental Impact Report 24 May 2021
• MM -HYDRO -1: Conduct water quality monitoring during all construction activities. The
project will obtain the required permits under the RWQCB and/or the USACE. Water quality
monitoring will be implemented to comply with numeric receiving water limitations
(Table HYDRO -1) and other permit requirements during construction activities to minimize
potential water quality impacts to Lower Newport Bay.
Table HYDRO -1
MM -HYDRO -2: Implement Water Quality BMPs. Construction contractors shall use BMP water
quality controls to ensure compliance with the water quality standards identified herein. Measures
could include use of a silt curtain during dredging and/or material placement, a floating boom to be
maintained around the proposed Project area, and daily inspection of construction equipment for
leaks or malfunction. Storage or stockpiling of materials related to construction may be prohibited
where such materials could enter the waters of Lower Newport Bay.
MM -HYDRO -3: Material placement will take place outside tidal extremes. Material placement
activities should be limited to neap and non -peak tides (i.e., plus or minus 2 hours from slack tide) to
limit the horizontal distribution of fill material due to reduced current speeds, where possible. In
addition, placement activities should be conducted during a non -peak flood tide versus a non -peak
ebb tide. These measures will limit the loss of fill material outside the CAD facility during placement
operations.
MM-REC-1 Coordinate with Sailing Centers: The City would coordinate with the sailing
organizations and yacht clubs to relocate recreational and mooring activities and minimize the
disruption to marine recreational activities.
Final Environmental Impact Report 2S May 2021
2 DEIR Comments and Responses
2.1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Distribution
The DEIR was released and distributed on December 4, 2020, for a 47 -day review period, which
ended on January 20, 2021. The DEIR includes a full analysis and an Executive Summary that
summarizes the proposed Project, alternatives, and findings. The DEIR was posted on the City's
website at www.newportbeachca.gov/cega where it remains available. It was also posted on the State
Clearinghouse's website at https://ceganet.ol2r.ca.gov/2019110340/2. Hard copies of the DEIR and
electronic copies of the technical appendices are available at the following Newport Beach Public
Library locations:
• Central Library
1000 Avocado Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92660
• Crean Mariners Library
1300 Irvine Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92660
• Balboa Library
100 East Balboa Boulevard
Balboa, California 92661
• Corona Del Mar Library
410 Marigold Avenue
Corona Del Mar, California 92625
In addition, a hard copy of the DEIR and electronic copies of the technical appendices are available
for review at the City Public Works Department counter located at the Civic Center, Bay 2-D at
100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660.
2.2 Public Comments Received
2.2.1 Comments on the DEIR
The City received SO comment letters on the DEIR. Several agencies and individuals submitted
multiple comment letters. All comments received were coded as shown in Table 2-1.
Final Environmental Impact Report 26 May 2021
Table 2-1
Comments and Codes
Letter Code
State Government
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWQCB (1)
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWQCB (2)
California Coastal Commission
CCC
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW (1)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW (2)
Local Government
Orange County Public Works
OC
City of Irvine
Irvine
Organizations
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance
CRPA
Orange County Coastkeeper
CK (1)
Coastkeeper
CK (2)
Individuals
Brent Mardian, Pi Environmental
PE
Sandy Asper
Asper
Greg Brown
G. Brown
Stacey Brown
S. Brown
Mary Buckingham
Buckingham
Jacquelyn Chung
Chung
Ronda Clark
Clark
Brooke Coldren
B. Coldren
Robert Coldren
R. Coldren
Mark Conzelman
M. Conzelman
Shana Conzelman
S. Conzelman
Tom Fischbeck
Fischbeck
Steven Gelb
Gelb
Carol Green
Green
Sharon Grimes
Grimes
Joelle Hamontree
Hamontree
Randall Hause
Hause
Laurie Hunter
Hunter
Jim Huyck
Huyck
Dennis Lockard
Lockard
Violet Lorenzen
Lorenzen
Julie Luckey
J. Luckey
Final Environmental Impact Report 27 May 2021
Orgar iorVirrtWidual
Letter Code
Palmer Luckey
P. Luckey
James E. "Kimo" McCormick
McCormick
Diana Miner
Miner
Pete Rabbitt
Rabbitt
Harry Railton
Railton
Camille Rizko
Rizko
Debbie Robson
Robson
Gail Rosenstein
Rosenstein
Brooke Sharp
Sharp
Greg and Louise Shaver
Shaver
Cary Singleton
C. Singleton
Will Singleton
W. Singleton
Donald Swanson
Swanson
John Thompson
J. Thompson
Philip Thompson
P. Thompson
Gina Vincent
Vincent
Greg and Nancy Ward
Ward
Bob Yates
Yates
2.2.2 Comments Received at the Harbor Commission Meeting
In addition to the DEIR review period, the Harbor Commission held a public hearing on
April 14, 2021, to consider recommending the City Council certify the EIR, adopt the MMRP, and
approve the proposed Project. All public comments received at this meeting are included in
Appendix B. While not required under CEQA, comments to CEQA issues received during the Harbor
Commission meeting are addressed in Section 2.7.
2.3 Master Responses
Because many of the comment letters received had similar concerns, a set of Master Responses was
developed to address common topics in a comprehensive manner. The following master response
subsections include the City's feedback on the following topics:
• Stakeholder outreach and coordination
• The possibility of creating a hazardous waste facility within the Harbor by developing the CAD
facility
• Adequacy of the supporting reports and documents, including the Sediment Management
Plan (SMP), and the coordination with agencies other stakeholders
• The possible impacts to recreation during construction and management of the CAD facility
Final Environmental Impact Report 28 May 2021
• Additional alternatives to the proposed Project
Individual responses to all comment letters received on the DEIR are presented following the Master
Responses and may refer to the Master Responses in total or in part.
2.3.1 Master Response 1: Coordination with Stakeholders
Several comments were received regarding the adequacy of coordination with stakeholders
including regulatory agencies and the public.
As discussed in the DEIR, the City met extensively with agencies on development of the CAD and
supporting documents. The City and USACE met with the Dredged Material Management Team
(DMMT) on several occasions through the sediment characterization process. In April 2020, the City
provided a draft of the BODR to the USEPA for preliminary review. Coordination included several
tele -conference calls in addition to an in-person meeting with USEPA, USACE, and RWQCB in
San Francisco in April 2019. The final meeting with the DMMT was in August 2019 where the final
sediment suitability was determined, including the design and development of a CAD facility as the
most appropriate option to manage the sediment determined unsuitable for open ocean disposal.
Stakeholder outreach has also been extensive and above and beyond what is simply required by
CEQA. Outreach began prior to release of the NOP and continued throughout the development of
the DEIR. Beginning in spring 2019, the City engaged the public to solicit input in development of
the conceptual level design of the proposed project. This included in-person meetings with residents
and stakeholders, presentations and updates at Harbor Commission meetings, and publications
through various local and regional newspapers. Following the NOP scoping meeting on
December 4, 2019, the City continued to engage the community and its residents through in-person
meetings to discuss specific comments presented or submitted at or following the scoping meeting.
The list of outreach meetings, presentations and newspaper articles is as follows:
• March 13, 2019: Harbor Commission
• September 30, 2019: Local stakeholders
• October 8, 2019: Local stakeholders
• October 16, 2019: Local stakeholders
• October 17, 2019: Local stakeholders
• November 7, 2019: Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee
• October 17, 2019: Chamber of Commerce
• November 12, 2019: Mayor Dixon's Lido Town Hall
• November 13, 2019: Harbor Commission
• November 14, 2019: Local stakeholders
• November 15, 2019: Media article - Newport Beach Independent
Final Environmental Impact Report 29 May 2021
• November 16, 2019: Media article - Daily Pilot
• November 18, 2019: Media article - Los Angeles Times
• November 18, 2019: Media article - City News Splash
• November 19, 2019: City Council - announcement (Duffield)
• November 20, 2019: Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON)
• November 21, 2019: Media article - City Manager Week in Review
• December 4, 2019: Local stakeholders
• December 5, 2019: Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee
• December 13, 2019: Local stakeholders
• January 31, 2020: Lido Isle Community Association Board
• February 3, 2020: Council Member Dixon's Town Hall
• February 19, 2020: Yachtsman's Luncheon
• March 11, 2020: Speak Up Newport
• June 10, 2020: Harbor Commission
• November 19, 2020: Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation
• January 29, 2021: Media article - Stu News Newport
• February 9, 2021: Media article - Newport Navigator
• February 10, 2021: Mayor's State of the City Address
• February 12, 2021: Media article - City Manager Week in Review
• February 16, 2021: Media article - Stu News Newport
2.3.2 Master Response 2: Hazardous Waste Risks
Several comments were received regarding the possibility of creating a hazardous waste facility
within the Harbor by developing the CAD facility.
As fully analyzed in the DEIR, through careful design and inclusion of best management practices
(BMPs), the CAD facility would not result in impacts to water quality or have the potential to release
hazardous materials during initial placement of sediment or after being capped.
One of the goals of the proposed Project is to remove and contain areas of contaminated material
within navigational channels. Several commenters suggested that sediment should be left where it is
as it is essentially already capped. However, this assumption is not correct. As discussed in the DEIR,
the areas targeted for dredging are within navigational channels that have become shallow and
impact navigation; sediments in these areas could be resuspended by vessel activities. The proposed
Project would seek to relocate the impacted sediments into a deep hole (CAD facility), which would
eliminate those potential risks to water quality thereby resulting in a long-term benefit to the
environment.
Final Environmental Impact Report 30 May 2021
Long-term water quality impacts were considered as part of the permanent cap design for the CAD
facility. Various technical studies were conducted to ensure long-term isolation of chemically
impacted sediments (Anchor QEA 2020a). These studies evaluated physical disturbances of the cap
(i.e., propeller wash, anchoring, bioturbation, and chemical breakthrough). Chemical isolation
modeling was conducted following USEPA and USACE guidance to simulate the transport of
mercury, DDTs, and PCBs through the final cap layer (Palermo et al. 1998). Modeling indicated that
within 100 years, porewater concentrations near the final cap layer's surface would not exceed
porewater criteria (California Toxics Rule for porewater) and sorbed phase criteria (effects range
median). Porewater is the water contained within the interstitial space (i.e., pores) of soil or sediment,
and sorbed phase refers to the chemical that is adsorbed to the solid material (soil or sediment). In
this case, the modeling indicates that the chemicals would not be found to exceed allowable levels
within the porewater or be adsorbed within the organic materials. Based on results of these studies, a
3 -foot -thick cap would be used to ensure underlying sediments remain isolated and there are no
long-term impacts to water quality or benthic organisms. In addition, by removing these sediments
from the Federal Channels and other areas of the Lower Harbor where they could be resuspended by
vessel activities, the proposed Project reduces the potential for resuspension. The proposed Project
seeks to relocate the impacted sediments into a deep hole (CAD facility) that would eliminate those
potential risks to water quality, thereby resulting a long-term benefit to the environment.
2.3.3 Master Response 3: Supporting Reports
Several comments were received regarding the adequacy of supporting reports and documents,
including the Sediment Management Plan.
As discussed in Section 2.1, dredged sediment is managed in southern California by the Dredged
Material Management Team (DMMT), an interagency team that provides coordinated reviews of
dredging projects and policy issues in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Santa Barbara
counties and parts of San Luis Obispo County. This regional approach provides comprehensive
management as well as long-term planning. Prior to dredging, sediment must be tested in
accordance with the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal — Testing Manual
(USEPA/USACE 1991) to determine its suitability for unconfined aquatic disposal. Based on results of
each test and coordination with the USEPA and other DMMT agencies, sediments are determined to
be either suitable or unsuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal. In preparation for dredging in Lower
Newport Bay, and consistent with the DMMT approach, sediment sampling was conducted in 2018
and 2019 to determine the suitability of the sediments requiring removal during the Federal
Channels maintenance dredging program. The study found that most of the sediments would be
approved for open ocean disposal, although sediment from some areas would be unsuitable for
nearshore or open ocean disposal. The DMMT's review of sediment chemistry results and effects -
Final Environmental Impact Report 31 May 2021
based testing (i.e., toxicity and bioaccumulation) determined sediments from sections of Main
Channel 1 and 2; Main Channel 3, 4, and 5; the Bay Island Area; Newport Channel 3; and the Entrance
Channel were suitable for open ocean disposal.
As discussed in the DEIR, the City and USACE met with the DMMT on several occasions through the
sediment characterization process, and throughout this process, the City committed to developing
an SMP. The SMP is a planning document that builds on previous harbor -wide planning tools (e.g.,
the Harbor Area Management Plan; City 2010) to assist the City in managing sediment in Newport
Harbor. Specifically, the SMP creates an inventory of all sediment in Newport Harbor that needs to
be dredged, both within and outside the Federal Channels. The SMP identifies sediment
management options depending on sediment characteristics, including developing alternate disposal
locations, and permitting requirements.
Within the Harbor, there are many scenarios to manage sediment that are dependent on the location
and recent sediment characterizations, including most recently in 2017 as part of the RGP 54
program. The SMP was developed to address each of the scenarios to manage the different types of
sediment within the harbor, including sediments that could be appropriate for placement within the
CAD facility. Coordination included several tele -conference calls in addition to an in-person meeting
with USEPA, USACE, and RWQCB in San Francisco in April 2019. The final meeting with the DMMT
was in August 2019 where the final sediment suitability was determined, including the design and
development of a CAD facility as the most appropriate option to manage the sediment determined
unsuitable for open ocean disposal. The development of an SMP was also part of the agreement
discussed during the August 2019 DMMT meeting. As detailed in the DEIR, the SMP was fully vetted
through the DMMT process and adequately supports the design of the proposed Project.
2.3.4 Master Response 4: Recreational Impacts
Several comments were received regarding the possible impacts to recreation during construction
and management of the CAD facility.
Please see Section 3.11 of the DEIR, which considers the potential for the proposed Project to affect
recreational activities, including boating. The recreational analysis found that there would be a short-
term impact to recreational boaters during initial CAD site construction and for the 6 -month window
in which residents could add materials to the CAD. Mitigation Measure-REC-1 was provided to
reduce the potential for conflicts. The City will need to consider this and other potential impacts
against the proposed Project benefits prior to certifying the EIR and approving (or disapproving) the
proposed Project. As discussed, the City would coordinate with the Newport Harbor Yacht Club
ahead of dredging and would help coordinate relocation of yacht club's moored vessels and
moorings to other locations during dredging. In addition, the Anchorage area would be unavailable
Final Environmental Impact Report 32 May 2021
during CAD facility construction. Because the Anchorage area is used by many boaters, the City
would relocate it to the Turning Basin during construction of the CAD facility. A Notice to Mariners
would be issued via the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and notices would be posted on the City's website.
There would be a temporary access inconvenience for boaters having to travel to the Turning Basin
rather than travel to the Anchorage area. However, this impact would be limited to the 12 months of
initial construction, placement of material and interim cap placement, and the 6 -month period to
place additional material. In addition, a Navigation Study Memorandum was developed and is
included in Appendix I to the DEIR.
2.3.5 Master Response 5: Alternative Disposal Strategies
Several comments were received regarding alternative disposal strategies, including disposing the
dredged material far out to sea, upland disposal, and disposal in a Confined Disposal Facility
(CDF).
All comments received during public scoping regarding alternative dredge material management
strategies were considered in development of the DEIR. Please see Appendix B, which includes all
comments received as part of public scoping. Please also see Section 6.2.2 of the DEIR, which
addresses alternative disposal sites. Consistent with CEQA, an EIR must describe a reasonable range
of potentially feasible alternatives to a project that could attain most of the basic project objectives
and would avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant adverse effects. The range of
alternatives in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires an EIR to set forth only those
alternatives necessary to permit a reasonable choice. An EIR need not consider every conceivable
alternative to a project. Rather, the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet the project
objectives, are potentially feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the
significant environmental effects of the project.
Regarding the possibility of not dredging material at all or only dredging areas of clean material and
leaving other material in place, please see Section 6.3.1 for analysis of the No Project Alternative. As
discussed, under the No Project dredging of unsuitable material within the Federal Channels or City -
managed locations outside of the Federal Channels would not occur, and the CAD facility would not
be constructed. As such, chemically impacted materials would remain in place in an unconfined
manner. Because the material is within navigation channels, which has become shallow in areas due
to sediment build-up, material could be resuspended by propellor wash and vessel wake. Navigation
would continue to be impaired, and the Lower Harbor would continue to experience reduced tidal
flushing due the shallower water depths. Not constructing the CAD facility would mean that beach
nourishment would not occur, and as a result, coastal erosion could be exacerbated. In response to
comments requesting only certain areas of the Harbor be dredged, please see Figure 1-2, which
illustrates the areas of known contaminants in the sediment. As shown, dredging only certain areas
Final Environmental Impact Report 33 May 2021
of the Harbor would leave stretches of Lido Channel and Newport Channel with navigational
constraints.
Regarding the possibility of disposing the material at sea, please see Section 2.1.1 for analysis of the
available options for dredged material. As discussed, dredged sediment is managed in southern
California by the DMMT, an interagency team that provides coordinated reviews of dredging projects
and policy issues in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Santa Barbara counties and parts of
San Luis Obispo County. Sediment management options in southern California have been studied
thoroughly and documented in two key regional documents: the Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments
Task Force Long -Term Management Strategy (CSTF LTMS; CSTF 2005) and the Los Angeles Dredged
Material Management Plan Feasibility Study, Baseline Conditions (F3) Report (DMMP; USACE 2004). Prior
to ocean disposal or beach nourishment, sediment must be tested in accordance with the Evaluation of
Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal — Testing Manual (USEPA/USACE 1991) to determine its
suitability for unconfined aquatic disposal. Testing for ocean disposal includes physical and chemical
analyses and biological testing. There are no specific sediment chemistry thresholds for ocean disposal.
As discussed in the DEIR, sediment sampling conducted in 2018 in coordination with the DMMT has
determined that a portion of the sediment is unsuitable for open ocean disposal. Therefore, the
sediment cannot be disposed of at sea.
Regarding the possibility of disposing the material at a CDF, please see Response to Comment PE -3,
which discusses use of a CDF as an alternative sediment management option, including the CDF. As
noted, there is currently no available CDF that could accept the material. As discussed in Section 6.2.2, a
CDF at the Port of Long Beach was available for material during the last dredging event but has since
been closed and no other CDFs are currently available in the region. A CDF has been evaluated as a
sediment management tool in Newport Harbor on past occasions and was discounted for numerous
reasons, unrelated to the current project. In 2005 during the feasibility study for the Rhine Channel
remediation project, a CDF was evaluated and eliminated for the following reasons: 1) the amount of
space needed to construct a containment structure was too large to accommodate given the highly
developed shoreline and lack of City -owned property; 2) the mitigation requirements to offset the loss
of submerged tidelands would create a significant and unavoidable challenge to the program for which
there were no areas in the harbor suitable for such a large mitigation area; and 3) public opposition to
the construction of a highly visible fill area within the Harbor.
Regarding the possibility of upland disposal, this alternative was addressed in Section 6.3.2. As
discussed, upland disposal would likely result in several significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts making it less environmentally preferable to the proposed Project.
Final Environmental Impact Report 34 May 2021
2.4 Response to Agency Comments
2.4.7 Response to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
Please note, two comments were received from the Santa Ana RWQCB—an email (RWQCB-(1)) and a
letter (RWQCB-(2)).
Final Environmental Impact Report 3S May 2021
Marine Vie
From: Adam Gale
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:16 PM
To: Marine Vie; Lena DeSantis
Subject: FW: Requesting extension for review of DEIR, SCH # 2019110340
From: Miller, Chris <CMiller@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 20213:57 PM
To:'Willis, Lauma@Waterboards' <Lauma.Willis@Waterboards.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Requesting extension for review of DEIR, SCH # 2019110340
CAUTION — EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of Anchor QEA. Please exercise caution with links and
attachments.
Hi Lauma,
Thank you for inquiring, and for taking the time to respond to the Draft EIR. Indeed, it is an extensive document —
there's a lot of information to convey.
We released the Draft EIR on December 4 for the required 45 days (plus 2 extra days for the holidays). We are doing our
best to maintain our schedule, and have published the deadline date on all of our notices with the state and all
stakeholders, as required.
I am hoping that all of the meetings and conversations we have had with Water Board staff over the past couple of years
will assist you with the review so that it's not a new project scope for you to consider. In addition, a lot of supporting
documentation has already been reviewed by the Water Board via various permits and agency meetings, so I would
hope that helps, a little.
While I value our relationship and hope I have demonstrated a collaborative approach over the years, I will respectfully
continue to maintain our January 20, 2021 deadline as originally planned. I sincerely hope you understand my desire to
keep the project on track as best I can.
As always, we are available to discuss the project or any questions you may have.
Thank you for inquiring.
Chris
From: Willis, Lauma@Waterboards <Lauma.Willis@Waterboards.ca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 202111:56 AM
To: Miller, Chris <CMiller@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Requesting extension for review of DEIR, SCH # 2019110340
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Draft Environmental Impact Report, "Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction
Project" - SCH # 2019110340
RWQCB (1)-1
Hi, Chris.
I'm noticing that there is quite a bit of information associated with this DEIR, including some 1000+ pages of
appendices and supporting documentation.
In addition, the DEIR was released during the holiday season, which has cut into the timeline for reviewing this
extensive document.
As a result, I'm requesting a 30 -day extension to provide you and your agency with more productive
comments on this important project.
Thank you for your consideration.
L.
Lauma M. Willis
Environmental Program Manager
Division Chief of Planning, Implementation, and Permitting
Santa Ana Water Board
Lauma.Willis@waterboards.ca.gov
-or., Oa N1A
Water Boards
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
"Q—CB
(2)-1
RWQCB
(2)-2
January 20, 2021
Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
cmiller(a)-newportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'S DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LOWER NEWPORT BAY
CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Dear Mr. Miller:
{I �I GAVIN NEWSOM
GOVERNOR
JARED BLUMENFELD
SECRETARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
This letter provides comments from Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Santa Ana Water Board) staff on the City of Newport Beach's (City) Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic
Disposal (CAD) Construction Project. We are providing these comments by close of the
comment period (January 20, 2021). The purpose of this letter is to outline staffs' main
comments and concerns regarding the City's California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) analysis contained in the DEIR for the proposed CAD. Given the large size of
the DEIR (10,479 pages including all appendices) and the limited review time available
to staff since the documents were released during the 2020 holiday season, Santa Ana
Water Board staffs' comments are limited to a few main issues.
On January 15, 2020, Santa Ana Water Board staff recommended that the City of
Newport Beach (City) organize and convene a Technical Advisory Committee or use the
existing Southern California Dredged Material Management Team (SC-DMMT) to
provide input into the proposed CAD project design, the proposed Sediment
Management Plan (SMP), and the Operations Management and Monitoring Plan
(OMP). This was also previously suggested in emails sent by Santa Ana Water Board
staff to City staff in June and August of 2019.
A Technical Advisory Committee was not formed by the City. The City's proposed CAD
project has never appeared as an agenda item in any SC-DMMT meeting. In addition,
neither the SC-DMMT as a group, nor Santa Ana Water Board staff were allowed the
WILLIAM RUII, CHAIR 1 HOP(i SMYIH!:, EXECUTIVE OFFICER
3737 Main St- Suite 500, Riverside, GA 92501 ( www.waterboards.ca.gov/santasna
C3 Ro—ry , Eu o-'PrR
Chris Miller - 2 - January 20, 2021
City of Newport Beach
opportunity to provide input on the contents of the SMP or the OMP and were not
aware that the City was also having an engineering basis of design documents being
prepared. Santa Ana Water Board staff only learned of the existence of the majority of
these documents after the City's notification that the DER and supporting documents
were available for review on December 4, 2020.
In our January 15, 2020 comment letter on the initial Notice of Preparation (NOP),
Santa Ana Water Board staff notified the City that we did not approve of the ambiguity
of the proposed timeline for the project, a period of "up to ten years" that the CAD would
be open for residents to use to dispose of contaminated sediments from dock, pier and
slip maintenance that may fail to meet the RGP-54 401 certification requirements. In
addition, there were no details provided regarding coordinating logistics with residents
RWQCB that would need access to the CAD for disposal of contaminated dredge materials.
The December 4, 2020 DEIR indicates that approximately 2 years following
completion of construction of the CAD there would be a second opportunity to place
contaminated sediment in the facility. The Santa Ana Water Board was not previously
informed of this operational plan, and therefore staff has not provided any input on its
feasibility. In addition, there has been no environmental impact analysis of potential
projects that may not meet conditions for coverage under the RGP-54 401 Certification.
Many future dock and pier maintenance projects are expected to be excluded from
RGP-54 401 Certification coverage due to failure to meet zdayer contaminant threshold
requirements. This DER does not sufficiently address the magnitude and nature of
potential impacts to the environment or water quality due to point -source discharges
over the applicant's proposed project timeline.
In the DER section 3.8.3.1 "Baseline", the applicants claim that Bay waters met
applicable standards in baseline conditions. This claim does not appear to be justified.
The Lower Newport Bay is and will continue to be listed on the Clean Water Act section
RWQCB 303(d) priority list for chlordane, copper, DDT, indicator bacteria, nutrients, PCBs, and
(2)-4 toxicity. The Santa Ana Water Board expects the applicants to substantiate any claim
of the attainment of water quality objectives, which would be in contrast to the current
USEPA-approved impairment listings. All lines of evidence used by the Santa Ana
Water Board staff for evaluation for current 303(d) listing indicate that "applicable
standards" are not being met.
Section 2.5 of the DER Proposed Project Construction indicates that "clean material
excavated during construction of the CAD facility will be transported to, and disposed
along, the nearshore ocean beaches or transported to LA -3 for open ocean disposal."
There is no indication of what would be done with the dredge material removed during
the construction of the CAD if it is contaminated. There is evidence that the area
RWQCB proposed as the physical footprint of the CAD falls in an area where there are high
(2)-5 levels of DDT, and potentially other contaminants. There was no indication of where
this unsuitable material would be placed, or whether there were any mitigation
measures proposed to manage contamination associated with the dredging of material
Chris Miller - 3 - January 20, 2021
City of Newport Beach
during the construction of the CAD that could have potentially significant impacts to the
environment.
Section 2.5 indicates that "CAD facility construction will likely occur using mechanical
RWQCB equipment and bottom -dump barges". Since this has not been scoped sufficiently for
(2)-6 the applicants to make a definitive declaration of the method planned for the CAD
project dredging, the Santa Ana Water Board staff considers the CEQA analysis in the
DEIR to be incomplete.
The aforementioned comments and concerns summarize key points that should be
RWQCB addressed before the Santa Ana Water Board staff considers the CEQA analysis
presented in the DEIR to adequately address water quality -related concerns, which
(2)-� include beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and antidegradation. The DEIR must
sufficiently address the magnitude and nature of potential impacts to water quality and
the environment due to point -source discharges that may occur during the course of the
applicant's proposed project timeline.
If you require further assistance or have questions, please contact me at
David. Woe lfel(c)-waterboards.ca. gov or Terri Reeder, Chief of the Coastal TMDL
Section at Terri. Reeder(d-)waterboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
David Woelfel
Chief of the Regional Planning Programs Section
Santa Ana Water Regional Water Quality Control Board
cc: City of Newport Beach, Dave Webb —
dawebb ,newportbeachca.gov
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carol Roberts
— carol a roberts(a�fws.gov
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Melissa Scianni — Scianni.rnelissa(a epa.gov
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Larry Smith —
Lawrence.i.smithC@usace.army.mil
California Coastal Commission, John Weber
iohn.weber(aD-coastal.ca.goy
Anchor QEA LLC, Adam Gale
agale(o-)anchorgea.com
Chris Miller - 4 - January 20, 2021
City of Newport Beach
COnNVAMt
fD
Text
RWQCB
The comment was an email from the RWQCB requesting an extension of the public comment period.
(1)-1
An email response was provided as follows:
Thank you for inquiring, and for taking the time to respond to the Draft EIR. Indeed, it is an extensive
document —there is a lot of information to convey. We released the Draft EIR on December 4 for the
required 45 days (plus 2 extra days for the holidays). We are doing our best to maintain our schedule
and have published the deadline date on all our notices with the state and all stakeholders, as required.
I am hoping that all the meetings and conversations we have had with Water Board staff over the past
couple of years will assist you with the review so that it is not a new project scope for you to consider. In
addition, a lot of supporting documentation has already been reviewed by the Water Board via various
permits and agency meetings, so I would hope that helps, a little. While I value our relationship and
hope I have demonstrated a collaborative approach over the years, I will respectfully continue to
maintain our January 20, 2021 deadline as originally planned. I sincerely hope you understand my
desire to keep the project on track as best I can. As always, we are available to discuss the project or
any questions you may have.
RWQCB
Thank you for your review and comments. Consistent with CEQA requirements, copies of the DEIR
(2)-1
were available for a 45-day public review period beginning December 4, 2020, and ending January
20, 2021, with 2 days added to the review period to accommodate the two federal holidays that
occurred during the review period. See also Response to Comments RWQCB (1)-1.
RWQCB
The comment suggests that the City did not coordinate with regulatory agencies and did not
(2)-2
convene a Technical Advisory Committee or use the existing Southern California DMMT to provide
input on the CAD project design, the SMP, and the OMMP.
Please see Master Responses 1 and 3, which address outreach with stakeholders and development of
supporting reports, respectively.
In response to the comment regarding a Technical Advisory Committee, the City did not feel it was
necessary to convene a Technical Advisory Committee as the DMMT process already provided an
opportunity to meet with regulatory and technical experts to discuss project goals and address
sediment management options.
As discussed in the DEIR, the City met with the DMMT on several occasions and incorporated
feedback into documents referenced. The City and USACE met with the DMMT on several occasions
through the sediment characterization process. Coordination included several tele-conference calls in
addition to an in-person meeting with the USEPA, USACE, and RWQCB in San Francisco in April 2019.
The final meeting with the DMMT was in August 2019 where the final sediment suitability was
determined, including the design and development of a CAD facility as the most appropriate option
to manage the sediment determined unsuitable for open ocean disposal. The development of an
SMP was also part of the agreement discussed during the August 2019 DMMT meeting.
In April 2020, the City provided a draft of the BODR to the USEPA for preliminary review. The BODR,
including the OMMP, is a necessary component to support the design and development of a CAD
facility and long-term management. Based on the USEPA's extensive experience overseeing design
and implementation of CAD facilities on the West Coast (most recently at Port Hueneme in 2009), it
was the City's intent to request a focused review from the USEPA. The USEPA provided preliminary
Final Environmental Impact Report 42 May 2021
- comment
ED
Text
comments in May 2020, and these comments were incorporated into the version included in the
DEIR. It should also be noted that the DEIR included the full BODR for review and public input.
The City believes that the extensive public and stakeholder outreach, as well as resource and
regulatory agency meetings, meet the intentions of a Technical Advisory Committee.
RWQCB
The comment reiterates the commenter's prior concern expressed in response to the NOP, that the
(2)-3
then proposed timeline for the project "up to ten years" was ambiguous.
As discussed in the DEIR (Section 2.5), the City's original proposal was to allow the City and its
residents an opportunity for up to 10 years to place material within the CAD facility. In response to
public comments received on the NOP, the City modified that approach to an abbreviated timeline
of 6 months approximately 2 years after the CAD facility was constructed. The intention of this 2 -year
period is to allow the City and its residents time to develop a dredge design, obtain applicable
permits and approvals, and select a contractor so dredging can be coordinated within that 6 -month
window. As discussed in Section 2.3 of the DEIR, if the Final EIR is certified and permitted, the City
would seek to modify the RGP 54 to allow dredging and disposal within the CAD facility.
Alternatively, applicants may apply directly to the regulatory agencies through an Individual Permit
process to dredge and dispose of their material within the CAD facility, if certified and permitted, or
elsewhere if required after consideration of the sediment material.
The comment further claims that there has been no environmental impact analysis of potential
projects that may not meet conditions for coverage under the RGP 54 or the Clean Water Act
(Section 401) water quality certification and that the DEIR does not sufficiently address the
magnitude and nature of potential impacts to the environment or water quality due to point -source
discharges over the applicant's proposed Project timeline. The City recently renewed the RGP 54,
which was set to expire in December 2020. As part of the renewal, the RWQCB included in the permit
an allowance to dredge deeper to achieve a clean sand cover (Z layer). While the City is still in
negotiations with other agencies, allowing for deeper dredging to achieve a clean sand cover is a key
element to manage sediment within the Harbor. The USEPA and USACE also concurred with the
allowance to dredge deeper with additional testing requirements. There are many scenarios to
manage sediment within the Harbor that are dependent on the location and recent sediment
characterizations, including most recently in 2017 as part of the RGP 54 program. The SMP was
developed to address each of the scenarios to manage the different types of sediment within the
Harbor, including sediments that could be appropriate for placement within the CAD facility.
Final Environmental Impact Report 43 May 2021
Comment
ID
Text
RWQCB
As the comment notes, the DEIR summarizes the baseline conditions in Section 3.8.3.1 as follows: The
(2)-4
proposed Project area encompasses Lower Newport Bay and the nearshore Pacific Ocean waters.
Newport Harbor is an active recreational harbor and public beach with no ongoing dredging
operations except periodic and limited RGP 54 maintenance dredging. Santa Ana RWQCB and USEPA
have developed TMDLs for sediments, nutrients, bacteria, and toxic pollutants (i.e., heavy metals and
organics) in Newport Bay. Bay waters met applicable standards in baseline conditions.
The comment is correct, and the last sentence of Section 3.8.3.1 requires modification. As discussed
in Section 3.8.1, which presents the full environmental setting used as baseline conditions, Newport
Bay is designated as water quality -limited for four impairments in the federal CWA Section 303(d)
List, with Section 3.8.1.2 describing the impairments and applicable TMDLs. These conditions
described in the Environmental Setting were used as the basis of the analysis in Section 3.8.3. Section
3.8.3.1 has been updated appropriately as follows:
The proposed Project area encompasses Lower Newport Bay and the nearshore Pacific Ocean waters.
Newport Harbor is an active recreational harbor and public beach with no ongoing dredging
operations except periodic and limited RGP 54 maintenance dredging. Santa Ana RWQCB and USEPA
have developed TMDLs for sediments, nutrients, bacteria, and toxic pollutants (i.e., heavy metals and
organics) in Newport Bay. As described in Section 3.8.3, bay waters did not meet all R4et applicable
standards in baseline conditions.
RWQCB
The comment notes that Section 2.5 of the DEIR indicates that "clean material excavated during
(2)-5
construction of the CAD facility will be transported to, and disposed along, the nearshore ocean
beaches or transported to LA -3 for open ocean disposal', but that there is no indication of what
would be done with the dredge material removed during the construction of the CAD if it is
contaminated.
As discussed in the DEIR, the overlying sediment (existing elevation down to the design depth) within
the footprint of the CAD facility, and proposed for, was determined by the DMMT in August 2019 as
suitable for open ocean disposal and, as such, would be disposed of accordingly and in compliance
with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 United States Code Section
1401) and USACE approval (see also https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
10/documents/r9 la 235 smmp 01-11.pdfl.
Sediments within the CAD footprint below the federally authorized design depth are "native
sediments" and have never been dredged. Deep (>50 feet in depth) core samples have been
collected in the vicinity of the proposed CAD location and elsewhere in Newport Bay and show that
material at this depth is composed of fine- to medium -grained sand and free of contaminants. This
material (material dredged below the federally authorized design depth) would be placed in the
nearshore zone or at the ocean disposal site.
RWQCB
The DEIR includes detailed information about the dredging equipment that would be used for CAD
(2)-6
construction. Section 2.5.1 of the DEIR clearly identifies what equipment would be used and why it
would be used. This equipment is carried through the environmental analysis. No changes to the
DEIR are warranted.
Final Environmental Impact Report 44 May 2021
Comet
ID
Teld
RWQCB
Responses to this summary comment are provided in Responses to Comments RWQCB (2)-1
(2)-7
through RWQCB (2)-6. As discussed in the responses to these comments, the DEIR sufficiently
addresses the magnitude and nature of potential impacts to water quality and the environment due
to point -source discharges.
2.4.2 Response to the California Coastal Commission (CCC)
Final Environmental Impact Report 45 May 2021
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
301 E. Ocean Blvd.,Suite 300 ...
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
(562)590-5071
SENT VIA EMAIL
Mr. Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
January 20, 2020
Re: Coastal Commission Staff Comments on Draft EIR for the Lower Newport
Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project, SCH No. 2019110340
Dear Mr. Miller:
Coastal Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comment
CCC -1 on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic
Disposal Construction Project. The following comments address, in a preliminary
manner, the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of
the California Coastal Act of 1976. This letter is an overview of the main issues
Commission staff has identified at this time based on the information we have been
presented and is not an exhaustive analysis. The comments contained herein are
preliminary in nature, and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be
construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself. The following
are Commission staffs comments in the order presented in the Draft EIR.
CCC -2 12.5 Proposed Project Construction
In this section and in various sections throughout the document, the impression is given
that the proposed use of near -shore ocean beaches is currently an approved location
for the City to deposit dredged sediment. To clarify, the near -shore ocean beaches
disposal option will require approval by State and Federal agencies. Although the City
has submitted Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5-19-1296 seeking
reauthorization for dredging activities within Newport Bay, which includes a request to
utilize offshore ocean beaches as an optional disposal location, that coastal
development permit application is still incomplete. Other agencies may or may not
provide their concurrence with the proposed activities through the pending Regional
General Permit 54.
2.5.1 Construction Best Management Practices
CCC -3 With regard to the bottom -dump barge that will transport the dredged material
unsuitable for open ocean disposal to the proposed CAD facility, the EIR should identify
Best Management Practices to ensure chemical constituents of concern do not become
CCC -4
CCC -5
CCC -6
CCC Staff Comments on DER for Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project
Page 2of3
released into the water column after they have been released from the bottom of the
barge during deposition.
2.5.2.2 Unsuitable Material Placement and Interim Cover Containment Layer
Placement
During the time the CAD facility is "open", in other words, when unsuitable material is
being placed in the CAD facility, how often will the 1 -foot thick interim cover containment
layer be placed over the CAD to provide temporary isolation of the underlying sediments
in between disposal episodes? The EIR should analyze alternative construction
methods for their potential to safely isolate contaminated material and their potential for
failure or leakage.
3.3 Biological Resources
This section states that potential impacts on biological resources were qualitatively
evaluated based on the habitat preferences for various species known or presumed to
be present in the proposed Project area, as well as the quantity and quality of existing
habitat. Were there any recent in-situ subtidal surveys conducted for this project? After
reviewing the 2009 Marina Park Final EIR prepared in support of the City of Newport
Beach Marina Park Project that is referenced in this section to be representative of the
proposed project impacts, it appears that no "on -the -ground" quantitative diver or ROV
surveys or grab samples were conducted to adequately describe the species living
there. Rather, the descriptions of potential bottom habitat and Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) were based on what was likely to be there, not on what was surveyed there. In
order to understand the current status of the bottom habitat where the City of Newport
Beach now wants to construct the CAD, please provide quantitative subtidal and
biological surveys in and near the proposed project location footprint that would
describe the nature of the bottom habitat and fish and invertebrate species populations
specific to the project area. In addition, the EIR should include a thorough assessment
of potential direct effects on benthic infauna, and also indirect effects that may result
from bioaccumulation and biomagnification of contaminants of concern in higher trophic
levels of marine life and marine -dependent wildlife.
3.9.3.4.2.1 California Coastal Act
As stated, Section 30221 of the Coastal Act requires that oceanfront land suitable for
recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present
and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that
could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area.
According to the comments section, during construction, public and private access to
the water in potions of the Project Area may be temporarily restricted during dredging,
but what about during construction of the CAD? The proposed location is in the center
of the harbor's turning basin. Will the public be able to safely recreate in this area
during construction of the CAD and during disposal to occur over the span of 10 years?
CCC Staff Comments on DEIR for Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project
Page 3 of 3
The EIR should identify any potential impacts to public access and recreation and
provide a plan for avoiding such impacts by orienting and timing project activities so that
watercraft may still access the harbor.
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act allows dredging and filling of coastal waters or
CCC -7 wetlands only where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize
adverse environmental effects, and for only eight uses listed in the Coastal Act. Section
30233 of the Coastal Act also requires that the proposed dredging and fill of coastal
waters be the least environmentally -damaging feasible alternative including the use
of feasible mitigation measures to reduce adverse environmental effects (emphasis
added). Please ensure that the final EIR includes a thorough analysis of all alternatives.
If the CAD is the only place where certain contaminated sediments may be safely
deposited, please include evidence of other disposal sites that were considered and
deemed infeasible, including upland (landfill) disposal sites. Please also reference the
processes and procedures that will determine which dredged materials are deposited in
the CAD, which materials are deposited in open ocean sites, and which clean materials
are deposited in areas suitable for beach use.
Please note the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. More specific
comments may be appropriate as the project develops and an alternative is selected.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. We look forward to
future collaboration on preservation of coastal resources within the South Coast region.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at the
Coastal Commission's Long Beach office.
Sincerely,
4"toyw
Mandy Revell
Coastal Program Analyst
conwamt
ID
Tem
CCC-1
The comment generally summarizes the commenter's mission and introduces its comments on the
DEIR. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is
warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the
CCC for its review and comments.
CCC-2
The comment claims that the DEIR prematurely assumes that proposed use of nearshore ocean
beaches is currently an approved location for the City to deposit dredged sediment. Please see the
Response to Comment RWQCB (2)-3. An EIR does not allow any aspect of the proposed Project to
move forward, but acts as the environmental analysis upon which decision-makers, including the lead
and responsible agencies, can use to approve or disapprove a project and/or related permits. The
DEIR properly discloses that several agencies need to permit several aspects of the proposed Project,
including use of nearshore beaches. As discussed in Section 1.3 of the DEIR, as lead agency, the City
has the primary responsibility to perform the environmental analysis. Under CEQA Guidelines Section
15086, lead agencies must "consult with, and request comments on, a draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) from public agencies that are responsible agencies; trustee agencies with resources
affected by the project; and any state, federal, or local agency that hasjurisdiction by law with
respect to the project or that exercises authority over resources that may be affected by the project."
Table of the DEIR 1-1 notes that the CCC would be responsible for any placement of material in state
tidelands (including nearshore beaches) and includes a discussion of the RGP 54 approval process.
Accordingly, the DEIR presents a full analysis of the proposed Project, including all aspects requiring
agency approval, for responsible and trustee agencies to review and provide comments, as well as for
use in considering approval of applicable permits. Table 1-1 has been updated to clarify those
aspects of the proposed Project that require approval by responsible agencies.
CCC-3
The comment recommends that the DEIR identify BMPs to ensure chemical constituents of concern
do not become released into the water column after they have been released from the bottom of the
barge during deposition. Please see Section 2.5.4, which provides a summary of BMPs that will be
required as a condition of the proposed Project and incorporated into the proposed Project plans
and contract specifications as appropriate. In addition, Section 3.8.3.4.1 presents a comprehensive
analysis of the potential environmental effects of nearshore placement and includes specific BMPs
and mitigation measures focused on reducing any potential for impacts. The following mitigation
measures were identified:
• MM-HYDRO-1: Conduct water quality monitoring during all construction activities. The project will
obtain the required permits under the RWQCB and/or the USACE. Water quality monitoring will be
implemented to comply with numeric receiving water limitations (Table 3-10) and other permit
requirements during construction activities to minimize potential water quality impacts to Lower
Newport Bay.
• MM-HYDRO-2: Implement Water Quality BMPs. Construction contractors shall use BMP water
quality controls to ensure compliance with the water quality standards identified herein. Measures
could include use of a silt curtain during dredging and/or material placement, a floating boom to
be maintained around the proposed Project area, and daily inspection of construction equipment
for leaks or malfunction. Storage or stockpiling of materials related to construction may be
prohibited where such materials could enter the waters of Lower Newport Bay.
Final Environmental Impact Report 49 May 2021
c
ID
Tent
Inclusion of BMPs and MM -HYDRO 1 and MM -HYDRO 2 were found to reduce the potential for
impacts to water quality to less than significant, fully addressing the CCC's comment.
CCC -4
Please see comment CCC -3. Placement within the CAD facility would occur over a 6 -month period
with no proposed interim clean cover placement within that defined window. A similar approach was
used during CAD facility placement at Port Hueneme, the City of Long Beach, and the Port of Long
Beach during similar project construction events without the release of contaminants into the water
column. During the modeling work to support the proposed Project, estimates for potential water
column release were calculated and determined to be negligible. Water quality monitoring is
standard during disposal events to look for potential sediment turbidity and chemical releases as a
final precaution.
CCC -5
The comment accurately notes that no physical, recent, quantifiable survey has been conducted to
assess existing conditions and to evaluate impacts that could occur with implementation of the
proposed Project. Rather, potential impacts to aquatic flora and fauna from the proposed nearshore
ocean disposal were described in Section 3.3 of the DEIR. The analysis presented instead relies on
existing information, including most notably the biological survey completed to support the City's
Marina Park project (City 2009). The biological survey was later augmented based on public input
received during the DEIR process through the preparation of a biological assessment that evaluated
sensitive habitats and species in the vicinity of beach replacement sites used for disposal of dredged
sediment in support of the project.
While the Marina Park biological survey was completed in 2009, conditions in the nearshore
environment have likely not changed and the survey results remain accurate. In 2015, side -scan and
underwater surveys were conducted in western Newport Beach to update information from the 1988
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report 583 for the Phase II
General Design Memorandum on the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project (Chambers Group, Inc., and
Moffatt & Nichol 2016) on nearshore resources at disposal areas. The survey confirmed habitat types
(mostly sandy bottom) and habitat conditions remained the same. Additionally, the nearshore
community tends to include a similar set of species throughout mainland southern California
because only a limited number of species are adapted to the harsh open coast sand bottom
environment (USACE 2012).
The City believes that the analysis described in Section 3.3 and supporting documentation fully
referenced in the DEIR are adequate to assess impacts that could result from the proposed Project.
The comment requests an assessment on potential effects to benthic infauna as well as the indirect
effects that may result from bioaccumulation and biomagnification of contaminants of concern.
Benthic infauna at the CAD location would be displaced during excavation. Benthic organisms and
other biota (fish, birds, etc.) adjacent to the site are not predicted to be impacted based on the
studies that have been conducted (as noted in the Lower Newport Bay Federal Channels Dredging,
Sampling and Analysis Program Report [Anchor QEA 2019a; Appendix B to the BODR]). Bioassays
showed the materials to be placed into the CAD are not harmful to animals when placed in direct
and indirect contact with the sediments. Also, chemical accumulation in animal tissues was also not
at a level that would suggest that there are risks to the higher trophic level animals that might
consume them. The results of water quality partitioning calculations also suggest that chemicals of
concern will not be released into the overlying water either during placement or over time after
placement.
Final Environmental Impact Report 50 May 2021
Dont'
16
Tett
CCC -6
The comment requests information related to the potential impacts to recreation in the Harbor
during construction of the CAD. Please see Master Response 4. The potential impacts to recreation
during construction and over the life of the proposed Project were fully analyzed in Section 3.11.
Section 3.11 fully discloses the potential impacts to recreation both during initial CAD construction as
well as during the periods when the CAD facility will be open for residents' use. As discussed in
Section 3.11, there would be short-term restrictions on some recreational activities in the immediate
area of the CAD during construction. Most recreational activities could be sufficiently relocated to
other appropriate areas within Lower Newport Harbor. Approximately 2 years following construction
of the CAD facility and placement of an interim cap, the City and its residents would have a second
opportunity for a 6 -month period to place additional material (Phase 6). During this 6 -month period,
boating in the immediate area of the CAD facility would also be restricted.
While most recreational activities could be relocated, interference with recreational sailing and
regattas in Newport Harbor is anticipated during CAD facility construction, which could result in a
potentially significant impact. Mitigation measure MM-REC-1, Coordinate with Sailing Centers, would
be implemented to reduce this potential impact to less than significant. The comment suggests that
disposal could be continuous over 10 years. As discussed in the DEIR (Section 2.5), the City's original
proposal was to allow the City and its residents an opportunity for up to 10 years to place material
within the CAD facility. In response to public comments received on the NOP, the City modified that
approach to an abbreviated timeline of 6 months approximately 2 years after the CAD facility was
constructed. The intention of this 2 -year period is to allow the City and its residents time to develop
a dredge design, obtain applicable permits and approvals, and select a contractor so dredging can
be coordinated within that 6 -month window. As discussed in Section 2.3.2.1 of the DEIR, if the Final
EIR is certified and permitted, the City would seek to modify the Regional General Permit 54 (RGP 54)
for dredging with the RGP 54 Plan Area and to include disposal within the CAD facility. Alternatively,
applicants may apply directly to the regulatory agencies, and dispose of their material within the CAD
facility (assuming the CAD facility is certified and permitted).
CCC -7
The comment recommends that the Final EIR include feasible mitigation measures to reduce
potential environmental impacts and include a thorough analysis of all alternatives. Please see
Section 6 of the DEIR, which includes a robust alternatives analysis considering a no project scenario
as well as alternative disposal sites, including a discussion of other disposal sites that were
considered and deemed infeasible. Section 6.2.2 analyzes the disposal of Material at Port Fill Site,
while Section 6.3.2 analyzes upland disposal.
In response to referencing the processes and procedures that will determine which materials are
deposited in the CAD, deposited in open ocean sites, and deposited in areas suitable for beach use,
please see Section 2.1 of the DEIR, which outlines the process for determining sediment suitability
and placement options. Figure 1-2 presents the results of DMMT coordination and identifies
sediment that is suitable for open ocean disposal or requires an alternate disposal option. Section 6.4
includes a clear comparison of all alternatives. In addition, the comment requests that the Final EIR
reference the processes and procedures that will determine which dredged materials are deposited
in the CAD, which materials are deposited in open ocean sites, and which clean materials are
deposited in areas suitable for beach use.
Final Environmental Impact Report 51 May 2021
2.4.3 Response to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Please note, two comments were received from CDFW—an email (CDFW (1)) and a letter (CDFW (2)).
Final Environmental Impact Report 52 May 2021
Marine Vie
From: Adam Gale
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 3:33 PM
To: Lena DeSantis; Marine Vie
Subject: FW: Lower Newport Bay CAD DEIR - request to extend review period
From: Miller, Chris <CMiller@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 20213:27 PM
To: 'Flannery, Corianna@Wildlife' <Corianna.Fla nnery@WiIdlife.ca.gov>
Cc: Wilkins, Eric@Wildlife <Eric.Wilkins@wildlife.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Lower Newport Bay CAD DEIR - request to extend review period
CAUTION — EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of Anchor QEA. Please exercise caution with links and
attachments
Hi Corianna,
Thank you for inquiring, and for taking the time to respond to the Draft EIR.
We released the Draft EIR on December 4 for the required 45 days (plus 2 extra days for the holidays). We are doing our
best to maintain our schedule, and have published the deadline date on all of our notices with the state and all
stakeholders, as required.
Respectfully, I will continue to maintain our January 20, 2021 deadline as originally planned. I sincerely hope you
understand my desire to keep the project on track as best I can.
Thank you for inquiring.
Chris Miller
From: Flannery, Corianna@Wildlife <Corianna.Flannery@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 20214:53 PM
To: Miller, Chris <CMiller@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Wilkins, Eric@Wildlife <Eric.Wilkins@wildlife.ca.gov>
Subject: Lower Newport Bay CAD DEIR - request to extend review period
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
DearMr. Miller,
CDFW (1.). -1 1
The Department requests a one-week extension to review the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal
Construction Project DEIR. There has been a delay in the review due to upper management schedules and the state
holiday. Please let us know if you approve this extension request. Thanks for your consideration.
Best,
Corianna Flannery I Environmental Scientist
California Department of Fish and Wildlife — Marine Region
Environmental Review and Water Quality Project
619 Second St., Eureka, CA 95501
Cell: (707) 499-0354
Corianna.Flannery@wildlife.ca.gov
www.wildlife.ca.gov
CDFW
(2)-1
CDFW
(2)-2
From: Flannery, Corianna@Wildlife <Corianna.Fla nnery@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 20213:40 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Cc: Wilkins, Eric@Wildlife; Ota, Becky@Wildlife; Lane, Jessie@Wildlife;
Scianni, Melissa; Bryant Chesney - NOAA Federal; Brown,
Marc@Waterboards; Weber, John@Coastal
Subject: CDFW Comments - Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Project
DEIR (SCH# 2019110340)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Mr. Miller,
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) received a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) from the City of Newport Beach for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal
Construction Project (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA
Guidelines. The objective of the Project is to construct a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) facility to
contain sediment that is unsuitable for ocean disposal or nearshore placement due to elevated
concentrations of mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, and other
contaminants. The Department offers the following comments:
Special Status Species
The Department has regulatory authority over projects that could result in the "take" of any species
listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as threatened or endangered, or designated
as a candidate for listing, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081. The Department also has
jurisdiction over fully protected (FP) species pursuant to Fish and Game Code Sections 3511. Take of any
fully protected animal species is prohibited and must be avoided by the Project. CESA-listed and fully
protected species that occur in the Project area include:
• California least tern, Sterna antillarum browni, State and Federally Endangered, State FP
• California brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis californicus, State FP
Newport Bay and the surrounding beaches provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for California
least tern (least tern). The least tern was listed as endangered in 1970 under the authority of the Federal
Endangered Species Act and designated by the State of California as Fully Protected in 1970, as well as
endangered in 1971 under the authority of CESA. The least tern is migratory and uses habitat within and
adjacent to Newport Bay during the breeding season (April 1 through September 1). The DEIR addresses
temporary and minimal impacts to foraging habitat for least tern resulting from suspended sediment
and increased turbidity related to dredging activities. The DEIR also acknowledges that noise and
operation of equipment could deter tern from resting on surrounding beaches. Although nesting sites
have primarily been documented in Upper Newport Bay, there is potential for least tern nest
abandonment resulting from construction noise. Adult abandonment of active nests may lead to
starvation or increased predation of chicks, a decline in breeding success, and an overall population
decline.
CDFW
(2)-3
CDFW
(2)-4
Recommendation: To avoid impacts to nesting California least tern, we recommend that dredging and
CAD facility construction occur outside of California least tern nesting season (typically April -
September), as feasible.
Upper Newport Bay State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA)
The Upper Newport Bay SMCA provides protected nursery habitat for several fish species of commercial
and recreational importance, such as halibut and sand bass. The lower boundary of the Upper Newport
Bay SMCA is approximately 0.5 -mile northeast of the proposed CAD facility. The Department is
concerned that movement of contaminated sediment during dredging operations and sediment
placement into the CAD facility may impact habitat, water quality, and species within the Upper
Newport Bay SMCA. The DEIR does not discuss the proximity of the proposed CAD facility to the Upper
Newport Bay SMCA and does not provide an analysis of potential impacts to the SMCA that might occur
from Project activities.
Recommendations: The Department recommends the proposed Project include measures to avoid and
minimize impacts to the Upper Newport Bay SMCA and provide mitigation for any remaining impacts. To
reduce impacts to the SMCA to a level less than significant, the Department recommends the following:
• Include an analysis in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) of potential impacts from
contaminated sediment to habitat, water quality, and species within the Upper Newport Bay
SMCA. The analysis should consider impacts occurring from dredging activities, CAD
construction, placement of contaminated sediment into the CAD facility, and potential
movement of contaminated sediment during the interim period and during the disposal periods
when the CAD facility has exposed contaminated sediment for extended periods of time.
• Use of silt curtains during active dredging and placement of sediment into the CAD facility to
minimize environmental impacts of contaminated sediment and turbidity to surrounding
habitats, including the Upper Newport Bay SMCA.
Mobilization of Contaminated Sediment During the Interim Period
The Department is concerned with potential exposure and mobilization of contaminated sediment from
vessels anchoring and mooring within the CAD facility. Lower Newport is a busy recreational marine
harbor, and the proposed CAD facility overlaps with the mooring area for the Newport Harbor Yacht
Club and anchorage area east of Lido Isle. It is stated within the DEIR that private vessels anchoring in
the area are likely to penetrate up to one foot into the seabed. While the CAD boundary will be closed
off to anchoring and mooring during CAD construction, vessels that anchor and moor within the CAD
facility during the two-year interim period might expose contaminated sediment buried under the one -
foot -deep interim layer. The Operations, Management, and Monitoring Plan for the Project proposes to
conduct water column monitoring during disposal operations, bathymetry surveys throughout the
Project, and long-term monitoring following placement of the final cap. However, other than conducting
a bathymetry survey after placement of the interim layer, the DEIR does not propose monitoring of the
CAD facility during the two-year period when contaminated sediment is covered with a one -foot -thick
ca p.
Recommendations:
Use of a thicker interim containment layer (>one -foot -thick) to minimize mobilization of
contaminated sediments that could occur from vessels anchoring or mooring in the CAD area.
Conduct water quality and sediment core monitoring during the two-year interim layer period to
ensure there is no mobilization of contaminated sediment outside of the CAD boundary and that
chemicals in the sediment remain fully isolated and do not affect resident aquatic organisms.
Submit all monitoring reports, including construction monitoring and long-term monitoring
reports, to the Department for review.
Native Eelgrass
CDFW Native eelgrass beds (Zostera marina and Z. pacifica) are an important part of the Newport Bay
(2)-5 ecosystem and are recognized by state and federal statutes as both highly valuable and sensitive
habitats. Eelgrass provides primary production and nutrients to the ecosystem along with spawning,
foraging, and nursery habitat for fish and other species. Pursuant to the federal Magnuson -Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, eelgrass is designated as Essential Fish Habitat for various
federally managed fish species within the Pacific Coast Groundfish and Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries
Management Plans (FMP). Eelgrass is also considered a habitat area of particular concern for various
species within the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Eelgrass habitats are further protected under state and
federal "no -net -loss" policies for wetland habitats. Additionally, the importance of eelgrass protection
and restoration, as well as the ecological benefits of eelgrass is identified in the California Public
Resources Code (PRC Section 35630).
The DEIR includes shallow -water eelgrass survey results from 2018 and acknowledges a more recent
harbor -wide eelgrass survey was completed in 2020. The DEIR states that eelgrass beds are not present
in the area proposed for the CAD facility or in the areas proposed for dredging, and that any impacts to
eelgrass will be mitigated for in accordance with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. However,
maps provided in the 2018 Newport Bay Eelgrass Resources Report show extensive eelgrass habitat
within the RGP 54 Plan Area (Figures 10-18, Appendix H). It is unclear whether impacts to eelgrass
analyzed in the DEIR include impacts associated with dredging the RGP 54 Plan Area, or if those impacts
are analyzed in a separate document. The Department is concerned with direct and/or indirect impacts
to eelgrass habitat from dredging activities.
Recommendations: The Department recommends the proposed Project avoid and minimize impacts to
eelgrass and fully mitigate for any remaining impacts. To reduce the impact to eelgrass to a level of less
than significant, the FEIR should include the following:
• A comprehensive analysis of impacts to eelgrass habitat using the 2020 eelgrass survey results.
The Department recommends the City include detailed maps of the proposed dredge sites and
footprints overlaid with current (2020) and historic eelgrass distribution data. The Department
recommends the maps delineate which sites have already implemented successful eelgrass
mitigation versus sites that will require mitigation. The Department recommends the RGP 54
Plan Area dredge sites are included in this analysis.
• A comprehensive bay -wide eelgrass mitigation and monitoring plan to ensure not net loss of
eelgrass habitat. This plan should include mitigation for any direct and indirect impacts to
eelgrass associated with dredging and CAD construction. The Department recommends that the
City, prior to commencement of any Project activities, consult with the Department and other
state and federal resource agencies in a review of all eelgrass habitat surveys, impact analyses,
appropriate monitoring, and any mitigation for impacts to eelgrass habitat. Prior to
commencement of Project activities, the City should provide to all applicable agencies, including
the Department, any survey results, impact analyses, and monitoring and mitigation protocols
determined through the multiagency process and required by permitting agencies.
If transplanting of eelgrass is required for mitigation, a Scientific Collecting Permit (SCP) from the
Department will be required prior to harvest and transplanting activities. The SCP may include
conditions such as donor bed surveys, limits on number and density of turions collected, methods for
CDFW
(2)-6
collection and transplanting, notification of activities, and reporting requirements. Please visit the
Department's SCP webpage for more information: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting.
Sediment Management Plan
The City developed a Sediment Management Plan (SMP; Appendix D) to address management of
dredged material determined to be unsuitable for open ocean disposal. However, the SMP does not
disclose how future material determined to be unsuitable for open ocean or nearshore disposal will be
dealt with after completion of the CAD facility. The SMP also does not address how the City plans to
meet Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) water quality targets for toxic pollutants and those in
development such as fecal coliform. It is unclear to the Department from the SMP and the DEIR whether
the SMP was developed in consultation with other state and federal resource and permitting agencies.
Recommendations:
• The Department recommends the SMP address TMDL water quality targets and disposal of
future unsuitable material after completion of the CAD facility.
• Prior to completion of the FEIR, the Department recommends the City consult with the
Department and other state and federal agencies in a review of the SMP.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic
Disposal Construction Project to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological
resources. Questions and further coordination should be directed to Corianna Flannery, Environmental
Scientist at 707-499-0354 or Corianna.Flannery@wildlife.ca.gov.
Corianna Flannery I Environmental Scientist
California Department of Fish and Wildlife — Marine Region
Environmental Review and Water Quality Project
619 Second St., Eureka, CA 95501
Cell: (707) 499-0354
Corianna.Flannery@wildlife.ca.gov
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Comment
tD
Text,
CDFW (1)-
The comment was an email from the CDFW requesting an extension of the public comment period.
1
An email response was provided as follows:
Thank you for inquiring, and for taking the time to respond to the Draft EIR. We released the Draft EIR
on December 4 for the required 45 days (plus 2 extra days for the holidays). We are doing our best to
maintain our schedule and have published the deadline date on all our notices with the state and all
stakeholders, as required. Respectfully, / will continue to maintain our January 20, 2021 deadline as
originally planned. I sincerely hope you understand my desire to keep the project on track as best I can.
CDFW (2)-
The comment generally summarizes the commenter's mission and introduces its comments on the
1
DEIR. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is
warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank
CDFW for its review and comments.
CDFW (2)-
The comment is suggesting that the proposed Project avoid work during the least tern nesting
2
season, if feasible. As noted in Section 3.3.4 of the DEIR, proposed activities at the CAD facility and
maintenance dredging sites would not result in a significant impact on any special -status species,
including least terns. The proposed Project areas are not important foraging or breeding areas for
special -status species, and few, if any, individuals of this species would be present. Noise impacts
would be temporary and likely within ambient levels. Impacts from proposed Project activities would
be less than significant because no loss of individuals or a substantial reduction of habitat for the
California least tern, western snowy plover, sea turtles, marine mammals, or other special -status
species would occur, nor would loss of any critical habitat for federally listed species occur. Given the
anticipated construction duration, limiting construction to outside the tern nesting season would
result in extended construction delays and other impacts. Therefore, it is not a feasible measure and
it is not necessary, as there is not anticipated to be any significant impacts to special -status species.
CDFW (2)-
The comment notes that the DEIR does not discuss the proximity of the proposed CAD facility to the
3
Upper Newport Bay State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) and does not provide an analysis of
potential impacts to SMCA that might occur from proposed Project activities. While the DEIR does
not specifically identify the Upper Newport Bay as the SMCA, the DEIR includes information related
to the Upper Bay in various sections of the DEIR and the potential to impact such resources,
including aesthetics, biological resources, and hydrology and water quality. The DEIR presents several
project overview figures that show the project site in relation to other areas in the City, including the
Upper Bay. The Final EIR has been amended to clarify that the Upper Bay is part of the SMCA, and
the SMCA has been clearly identified in project figures where appropriate.
The comment also recommends the use of various best management practices (BMPs) and measures,
including the use of a silt curtain. Please see Section 2.5.4, which provides a summary of BMPs that
will be required as a condition of the proposed Project and incorporated into the proposed Project
plans and contract specifications as appropriate. In addition, Mitigation Measure HYDRO -2
references the use of a silt curtain during dredging and/or material placement, use of a floating
boom maintained around the proposed Project area, and daily inspection of construction equipment
for leaks or malfunction. These measures will ensure that there are no potential impacts to the SMCA.
Final Environmental Impact Report 59 May 2021
Comment
ID
Tent
CDFW (2)-
The comments suggest concern of potential exposure and mobilization of contaminated sediment
4
from vessels anchoring and mooring within the CAD facility. As discussed in Section 3.7.4.4.2, the
results of our chemical breakthrough modeling do not suggest that a cap greater than 1 foot in
thickness is needed to prevent chemicals from migrating into the overlying water or to prevent
propwash erosion. Monitoring the porewater in the overlying cap is a common technique to ensure
that the cap is functioning properly and would be a beneficial component of the final site monitoring
plan. At other CAD locations in southern California, this approach was employed for the first 5 years
post -construction, and no breakthrough of contaminants was observed. Monitoring the porewater
after the interim cap is placed is likely not necessary because its primary function is just to provide a
short-term layer of protection from potential bioturbation or disturbance from vessels operating over
the site.
CDFW (2)-
The comment recommends that the DEIR include updated information regarding eelgrass. As
5
discussed in Section 3.3.1.1.2 of the DEIR, the City conducts shallow -water eelgrass surveys every 2
years in Lower Newport Bay, and harbor -wide surveys—including the deepwater habitat—are
conducted every 4 years. At the time of the DEIR release, the most recent harbor -wide survey was
conducted in summer 2020, but the results were not yet available. The 2020 survey results are now
available and have been added to the Final EIR. As discussed further in the DEIR, and consistent with
the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP; NOAA 2014), a pre -construction eelgrass survey will
be performed by the City in the proposed Project area 30 to 60 days prior to commencement of
dredging and CAD construction activities. If eelgrass is located during the pre -construction survey, a
post -construction survey will also be performed by the City within 30 days following completion of
construction to evaluate any immediate effects to eelgrass habitat. If the post -construction survey
indicates loss of eelgrass habitat within the proposed Project area, any impacts to eelgrass that have
not previously been mitigated for will be mitigated in accordance with the CEMP. This procedure will
ensure that the proposed Project avoids and minimizes impacts to eelgrass and fully mitigates for
any remaining impacts.
CDFW (2)-
The comment questions the adequacy of the SMP. Please see Master Response 3. Section 5.2 of the
6
SMP presents disposal options for sediment determined unsuitable for open ocean disposal. The
SMP notes that contaminated material from the previous dredge event was disposed of at the Port of
Long Beach's Middle Harbor Fill Site. However, this site is closed and no longer an option for future
sediment management needs. The SMP recommends that the City continue to track potential port fill
opportunities in the region that may provide capacity for third -party material. The SMP also identifies
upland disposal as a viable option. The DEIR considered both scenarios as alternative to the
proposed Project. As described in Section 3.2.3 of the DEIR, upland landfill disposal is the costliest
disposal option and should only be used for small volumes of sediment when other options are
unavailable or not viable. Transporting and disposing of this material to an upland landfill is
expensive and would cause impacts to air quality, traffic, noise, and other aspects associated with
hauling the material via trucks on the local roads and highways.
Lastly, the SMP identifies construction of a CAD facility within the Harbor. The CAD facility would
thereby accommodate additional fill volume from future maintenance dredging projects conducted
as part of the City's RGP 54 programs, along with sediment that is not covered as part of the
programs (e.g., Balboa Yacht Basin and Promontory Bay) and thus requires an alternative disposal
option.
Final Environmental Impact Report 60 May 2021
Corrunent
W
Text
The SMP was prepared in response to discussions during the August 2019 DMMT meeting where the
final sediment suitability was determined. As part of that determination, the DMMT also concurred
that a CAD facility was an appropriate disposal option to manage material determined unsuitable for
open ocean disposal. The City presented the concept to manage other material—outside the Federal
Channels—as described in the SMP.
If the Final EIR is certified, the City will prepare regulatory permit applications that will require
extensive resource and regulatory agency consultation, including further discussions on management
of unsuitable material in the Harbor. Further, the SMP is intended as a living document that will be
updated as new information becomes available.
2.4.4 Response to the Orange County Public Works (OC)
Final Environmental Impact Report 61 May 2021
O R A N G E C OU N T Y
OCPublic Works
January 20, 2021
NCL -20-0020
Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
loo Civic Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 9266o
Subject: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project
Dear Chris:
The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
OC -1 Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project and has no comments at
this time. We would like to be advised of further developments on the project. Please continue to keep
us on the distribution list for future notifications related to the project.
If you have any questions, please contact Steven Giang at (714) 667-8816 in OC Development Services.
Sincerely,
Richard Vuong, Planning Division Manager
OC Public Works Service Area/OC Development Services
6o1 North Ross Street
Santa Ana, California 92701
Richard. Vuong(�ocpw.ocgov.com
") " O
- "'
V+ "�
OF00
(o Couniy Aarninisrraron youth
� 601 North Ross Street
Santa Ana, California 92701
vP.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
E info:socpw.ocgov.com
(714) 667-8800
00 OCPublicworks.com
Com
ID
Text
OC-1
The comment generally summarizes the commenter's mission and requests to be kept updated on
future notifications. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional
response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). The City appreciates Orange County Public
Works' time and efforts in reviewing the DEIR and will continue to keep the County on the
distribution list for future notifications related to the proposed Project.
2.4.5 Response to the City of Irvine (IRV)
Final Environmental Impact Report 63 May 2021
-4OF14
Community Development
cityofirvine.org
City of Irvine; One Civic Center Plaza; P.O. Box 19575; Irvine, California 92623-9575 949-724-6000
January 14, 2021
Mr. Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
cmiller()-newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Lower Newport Bay
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project in the City of
Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Miller:
The City of Irvine is in receipt of a notice for a DEIR for the proposed Lower Newport
Bay CAD Construction project. The intent of the project is to improve navigation in
Newport Harbor and identify a safe and effective disposal location to manage dredged
sediments. To accomplish this, the project proposes a CAD facility that will contain
dredged sediment that is unsuitable for open ocean disposal.
Staff completed its review and has no comments. If you have any questions, please
contact me at 949-724-6364 or by email at iequina(aD-cityofirvine.orq. Thank you for the
opportunity to review this project.
Sincerely,
Justin Equina
Associate Planner
ec: Marika Poynter, Principal Planner
coat
ED
_ Text
IRV-1
The comment generally summarizes the commenter's mission. Because the comment omits any
significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section
15088). The City appreciates the City of Irvine's time and efforts in reviewing the DEIR.
2.5 Response to Organization Comments
2.5.7 Response to the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance
(CRPA)
Final Environmental Impact Report 65 May 2021
aJ!,
C.C.R.P.A
r,. �.,, w u. w, e,. N. R.—
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, ins.
P.O. Box 54132
An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for
Irvine, CA 92619-4132
the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources.
December 19, 2020
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department, Chris Miller
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport beach, California 92660
Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project
Dear Mr. Miller:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS) for the above-
CRmentioned project. We concur with the determination that, although low, there is the potential for the
I I presence of archaeological resources in native sediment. In addition to isolated artifacts, there could be
more substantial cultural deposits representing paleo occupation during the Pleistocene, as prior to about
8,000 years ago lower sea levels significantly extended the width of the coastal plain along the entire
California coast.
Regarding Mitigation Measure -CHR -1, having monitored a dredging project in the San Pedro Harbor, I
0have doubts about the ability of the dredging contractors to observe ground stone tools such as mortars,
bowls, pestles, and manor, and they are even less likely to recognize chipped stone tools or an
archaeological shell midden as everything is coated in mud. Therefore, for the mitigation measure to be
meaningful, it is recommended that a qualified maritime archaeologist be present to monitor when native
sediments are dredged.
Sincerely,
Patricia Martz, Ph.D.
President
Cmument
ID
Te3d
CRPA-1
The comment generally summarizes the commenter's mission. Because the comment omits any
significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section
15088). The City appreciates the CRPA's time and efforts in reviewing the DEIR.
CRPA-2
As discussed in the DEIR, because ground-disturbing activities to be undertaken as part of the
proposed Project would occur only in water in previously dredged areas, the proposed Project is not
expected to encounter archaeological resources. However, in the unlikely event of such a discovery,
MM-CHR-1, Stop Work in the Area If Prehistoric or Historical Archaeological Resources Are
Encountered, was added to the DEIR. This mitigation measure is a commonly used measure in the
region, and construction contractors are familiar with the process and controls. Therefore, this
measure would adequately reduce the potential for impacts, and no changes are necessary.
2.5.2 Response to the Orange County Coastkeeper (CK)
Please note, two comments were received from Orange County Coastkeeper—an email (CK (1)) and a
letter (CK (2)).
Final Environmental Impact Report 67 May 2021
Subject: FW: RE:Draft EIR of Newport's Proposed CAD System
From: Ray Hiemstra <ray@coastkeeper.org>
Sent: Monday, January 04, 20213:24 PM
To: Miller, Chris <CMiller@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Garry Brown <garry@coastkeeper.org>; Sarah Spinuzzi <sarah@coastkeeper.org>
Subject: RE:Draft EIR of Newport's Proposed CAD System
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Chris,
CK (1)-1
Happy New Year, I hope you enjoyed your Holiday Break. I see you are the contact person for the Lower Newport Bay
Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project.
OC Coastkeeper is planning to comment on this Draft EIR but with it being released over the Holidays we need some
more time. We are requesting an extension to the public comment period to January 29th. Let me know if that is OK.
Thanks,
Ray Hiemstra
Associate Director of Programs
Orange County Coastkeeper
714-850-1965 x 1003
www.coastkeeper.org
From: Gallagher, Karen <KGallagher@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 10:20 AM
Subject: City of Newport Beach: Notice of Availability
Notice of Availability
Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project
Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project
Post Date: 12/04/2020 8:00 am
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
LOWER NEWPORT BAY CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL (CAD) CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Access Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) here.
Date: December 4, 2020
To: All Interested Parties
From: City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA
92660
Project Title/Subject: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project
Project Applicant: City of Newport Beach
Notice of AVAILABILITY Review Period: December 4, 2020 through January 20, 2021 (47 days)
The purpose of this notice is to notify any interested parties that the Lead Agency, the City of Newport
Beach, has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Lower Newport Bay
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project ("Project"), and to solicit comments on the
environmental issues and alternatives addressed in the DEIR (California Environmental Quality Act
[CEQA] Guidelines §15082). Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response to this DEIR
must be sent to the City of Newport Beach at the earliest possible date, but no later than January 20,
2021.
Consistent with CEQA requirements, copies of the DEIR and technical appendices are available for public
review beginning December 4, 2020 in several locations both electronically and in hard copy. The DEIR is
available on the City's website at www.newportbeachca.gov/cega. It is also posted on the State
Clearinghouse's website at https://ceganet.opr.ca.gov/2019110340/2. Hard copies of the DEIR and
electronic copies of the technical appendices are available at the following Newport Beach Public Library
locations:
Central Library
1000 Avocado Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92660
Balboa Library
100 East Balboa Boulevard
Balboa, California 92661
Crean Mariners Library
1300 Irvine Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92660
Corona Del Mar Library
410 Marigold Avenue
Corona Del Mar, California 92625
In addition, a hard copy of the DEIR and electronic copies of the technical appendices are available for
review at the City Public Works Department counter.located at the Civic Center, Bay 2-D at 100
Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. Please submit all comments or other responses to
this notice in writing by mail or e-mail to:
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department, Chris Miller
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
cmitler@newportbeachca.gov
(949) 644-3043
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Newport Harbor, located in Newport Bay, is one of the largest recreational harbors in the United States.
Natural processes result in the movement and accumulation of sediment which must be dredged
periodically to maintain channel depth for safe navigation. The Federal Channels are maintained by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The remainder of the Harbor is managed and maintained by the
City and Orange County. USACE conducts annual bathymetric surveys to determine the amount of
sediment that has accumulated in the Federal Channels and to assess the need for maintenance
dredging. The most recent sediment sampling effort conducted in 2018 and 2019 determined that most
of the material was determined suitable for disposal at a permitted open ocean location (or nearshore).
However, dredging in the Main Channel and channel offshoots will expose some sediment that has been
determined to be unsuitable for ocean disposal and therefore requires an alternate disposal location.
Therefore, dredging of these areas is not feasible without also identifying a practicable management
option for the unsuitable sediment.
To manage the unsuitable material, the City proposes to construct a confined aquatic disposal (CAD)
facility in the central portion of the Lower Harbor between Bay Island, Lido Isle and Harbor Island where
dredged sediment unsuitable for open ocean disposal or nearshore placement can be contained. Clean
material suitable for beach nourishment generated from constructing the CAD facility will be
transported and disposed at an approved open ocean disposal site or along the nearshore ocean
beaches. The City is also proposing to allow maintenance dredging in sections of Newport Harbor
outside the Federal Channels to re-establish safe navigation. Please refer to the Draft EIR posted on our
website for a detailed project description.
Please note: This is an automated message from the City of Newport Beach. Subscription preferences may
be changed by accessing your News & Alerts account from the City website.
Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead.
Change your eNotification preference.
Unsubscribe from all City of Newport Beach eNotifications.
Vince Zimmerer
to me, Jim, SCLAFANI, Alan, Bob
Thanks Garry for reaching out.
Dec 4, 2020, 12:43 PM (7
days ago)
My personal feeling is that OCCK should be strongly against it. Why wouldn't the toxic sediment be
brought to a landfill that can handle the toxic materials subject to EPA approval and not put the harbor
at risk?
I am open to a meeting.
Regards,
Vince Zimmerer I Executive Vice President
W. Brown & Associates 1 19000 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 600 1 Irvine, CA 92612
Tel: (949) 851-2060 1 Fax: (949) 851-2155 1 License #: 0731207
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual and/or entity
identified in the address of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete
the original message and any copies of it from your system.
Garry Brown, Founding Director
Orange County Coastkeeper
Inland Empire Waterkeeper
Coachella Valley Waterkeeper
3151 Airway Ave. Suite F-110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 850-1965
www.coastkeeper.org
garrv@coastkeeper.org
CK (2)-1
CK (2)-2
' O R A\ G F C O U N T Y
COASTKEEPER .
3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F-110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone 714-850-1965
www.coastkeeper.org
January 20, 2021
Mr. Chris Miller, Public Works Manager
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Email: cmiller@newportbeachca.gov
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report — Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal
Construction Project
Dear Mr. Miller:
Orange County Coastkeeper is a non-profit environmental organization with the mission to protect
and promote sustainable water resources that are swimmable, drinkable, and fishable. Coastkeeper
represents thousands of members, including Orange County residents and strong supporters of
environmental quality and public health. In addition, Coastkeeper conducts a variety of marine habitat
restoration projects within Newport Bay (the "Bay"). Coastkeeper respectfully submits the following
comments on behalf of our organizational interests and our membership to express our procedural
and substantive reservations regarding the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and
Appendices (DEIR) issued by the City of Newport Beach (the "City") for the Lower Newport Bay
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project (the "Project") pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
As a preliminary matter, Coastkeeper objects to the City's failure to provide adequate time for review
and comment of the DEIR. The DEIR and corresponding Appendices were uploaded on December
4, 2020 and comprise over 10,500 pages of various documents, including numerous technical studies.
Notwithstanding that "City Hall and most City facilities [were] closed for the holidays from Dec. 24
through Jan. 1" and again for Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday, January 18, 2021, the City
provided just two extra days to account for holiday closures.' A two-day extension is insufficient to
account for ten officially calendared City holidays. Likewise, the City failed to provide reasonable
accommodations to account for COVID-19-related access restrictions. While hard copies of the
DEIR were purportedly available at the City Public Works Department counter and different branches
of the Newport Beach Public Library, all of these facilities were either closed to the public entirely or
operating on limited capacity during the review period. These facilities were also subject to the holiday
closures mentioned above. These closures and limitations frustrated Coastkeeper and the public's
ability to review the voluminous DEIR. While Coastkeeper does not take issue with the City
modifying its services in the interest of public health, Coastkeeper underscores that these
modifications impart further reason for the City to provide additional time for review and comment.
' City of Newport Beach, City Calendar, https://newportbeachca.gov/jzovernment/data-hub/city-calendar/-cunn-1/-
cury-2021 (last visited January 20, 2021).
CK(2)-2
cont.
Orange County Coastkeeper DEIR Comment Letter
January 20, 2021
Page 2 of 6
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research underscores that "CEQA establishes a floor and
not a ceiling for public review and comment periods. Lead and responsible agencies may use their
discretion to extend such time periods to allow for additional public review and comments." 2 While
Coastkeeper and other interested parties requested short extensions of the comment period, the City
denied these requests. This reflects a lack of honest engagement with interested parties and runs
counter to the spirit of CEQA. Coastkeeper urges the City to revisit its decision and provide additional
time for more meaningful public comment.
Understanding the limitations discussed above, Coastkeeper provides the following substantive
comments to the DEIR for the City's consideration. As discussed in greater detail below, the DEIR
fails to provide adequate protections for water quality and biological resources. The DEIR is legally
inadequate under CEQA as it fails to provide adequate analysis, cumulative impacts, feasible
alternatives, and appropriate mitigation with respect to Project impacts on water quality and the
Newport Bay. Coastkeeper urges the City to require that the DEIR be modified in accordance with
the comments below.
INTRODUCTION — APPLICABLE LAW
CK (2)-31 An Environmental Impact Report (an "EIR") must disclose all potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts of a project. Pub. Res. Code, 5 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126(a);
Berkeley Keep Jets Over The Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland (2001) 91 Cal.
App. 4th 1344, 1354. CEQA requires that an EIR not only identify the impacts, but also provide
"information about how adverse the impacts will be." Santiago County Dater Dist. v. County of Orange
(1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 831. The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant
only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. Kings
County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 731. CEQA requires public agencies
to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring mitigation measures. CEQA
Guidelines, 5 15002(a)(2)-(3); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1354. The
EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of
a proposed project and to "identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or
significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(a)(2). If the project will have a significant effect
on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or
substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that unavoidable
significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21081; CEQA Guidelines, § 15092(b)(2)(A)-(B).
In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce, or avoid an identified
environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. CEQA Guidelines, � 15370. Where
several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis
for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Id. at § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). CEQA requires the
lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the project's
potentially significant environmental impacts and describe those mitigation measures in the CEQA
document. Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100(b)(3), 21002, 21081(a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4.
I California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act,
https://opr.ca. og v/cepa/ (last accessed January 20, 2021).
2
Orange County Coastkeeper DEIR Comment Letter
January 20, 2021
Page 3of6
It is improper and harmful to the goals of CEQA for an agency to rely "on tentative plans for future
mitigation after completion of the CEQA process." Communities for a Better Environment, et al. V. City of
Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 92 (internal citations and references omitted). Likewise, a public
agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. Kings County, 221 Cal.
App. 3d at 727. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and
technological factors. CEQA Guidelines, � 15364. "Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments." CEQA Guidelines,
15126.4(a) (2).
II. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT WATER QUALITY AND
CK
(2)-41I BIOLOGICAL RESOUCES.
The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the Project's cumulative impacts on the biological resources of
Newport Bay. Newport Bay is an ecologically rich area that provides key habitat, including key nursery
habitat, for a variety of species. As the DEIR acknowledges, many species which have historically
called the Newport Bay home have been harmfully impacted by development and human activity over
the years. (DEIR � 3.3.1.2). These historic impacts create all the more reason to carefully protect and
preserve the Bay's biological resources.
As a general comment, Coastkeeper is concerned about the City's blase "what's one more project"
approach adopted throughout the DEIR. For example, the DEIR describes the proposed Project site
as "an already disturbed area" and downplays impacts on marine life because of "the existing
environmental baseline of almost constant human presence and recreational activity that already
occurs in the area." (DEIR §5 3.3.4.1, 3.5.3.4.6). The DEIR also states that "[t]he proposed Project
site's highly developed condition precludes the presence of most special -status species." (DEIR
3.3.1.2). Nonetheless, the DEIR goes on to discuss a handful of special -status species present in the
area, but minimizes their significance in each instance. (DEIR § 3.3.1.2.1 — 3.3.1.2.6). According to
the DEIR, the least tern is only "present in small numbers," the western snowy plover unsuccessful
in nesting, tidewater goby "extirpated ... due to habitat degradation," sea turtles "rare," dolphins "not
expected to be present," and whales, which have been occasionally sighted in Newport Bay,' are
entirely left out of the analysis. Id. (discussing occasional gray whale visits in the nearshore zone and
LA -3, but not the proposed CAD facility and maintaining that "[t]he only marine mammals expected
in proposed CAD facility or dredging areas would be California sea lions and harbor seals").
The DEIR declares that "[t]he proposed Project area, nearshore disposal sites, and LA -3 do not
support unique or rare habitats whose alteration would significantly impact sensitive species in the
area." (DEIR § 3.3.3.4.1). This declaration is made within paragraphs of a statement that "[v]arious
dolphin species are known to enter Lower Newport Bay but are not expected to be present at the
proposed CAD facility or dredging areas, as general activity and noise during dredging activities
typically act as a deterrent." (DEIR � 3.3.1.2.6) (emphasis added). Notably, noise impacts on dolphin
species are not addressed in the "Impact Analysis — Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals" section. (DEIR
3.3.4.1). Coastkeeper urges the City to revise the DEIR to adequately account for cumulative
impacts on marine life.
'See, e.g., CBS Los Angeles, Gray Whale Spotted in Newport Beach Harbor (2017) https://youtu.be/HoYLOLEK_sO
(last accessed January 20, 2021).
CK (2)-6
CK (2)-7
CK (2)-8
Orange County Coastkeeper DEIR Comment Letter
January 20, 2021
Page 4 of 6
Coastkeeper also notes that various sections of the DEIR rely on outdated data and unsupported
assumptions for impact and feasibility analyses. For example, the DEIR presumes the existence or
nonexistence of species based on existing reports and assumes "the Newport Beach nearshore habitat
is not anticipated to have changed since 2009." (DEIR § 3.3.1). The DEIR also references, but does
not account for, results from a harbor -wide eelgrass survey conducted in summer 2020 with "results
expected in late 2020 or early 2021." (DEIR � 3.3.1.1.2). The DEIR should be updated to include
the results of this survey, particularly in light of (i) the retroactive eelgrass mitigation approach
contemplated in 5 3.3.4.1 and (ii) the applicability of this study to receiving water limitations per �
3.8.3.4.1. (DEIR 5 3.3.4.1, 3.8.3.4.1) (discussing how if eelgrass is located during a pre -construction
survey, construction shall continue with a post -construction survey required to determine habitat loss
and mitigation only after the fact). As a final example, the DEIR relies on bathymetric surveys from
1936 in its "analysis" of alternative CAD sites. (DEIR 5 6.3.4.1 — 6.3.4.3). The DEIR should be
updated to reference only the most current data, including newly obtained data if need be.
III. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
The DEIR fails to adequately address previously received public comments. First, Coastkeeper notes
that the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (the "RWQCB") previously recommended
that "the City put together a Technical Advisory committee or use the existing Southern California
Dredged Material Management Team (SC-DMMT) to provide input." (DEIR, Appx. B, p. 2).
Information available to Coastkeeper indicates that neither of these actions have been taken. Instead,
information available to Coastkeeper indicates that the City has been bypassing SC-DMMT and
consulting with applicable agencies on a piecemeal, ad hoc basis. Coastkeeper echoes the RWQCB's
request for committee and SC-DMMT input and urges the City to take the necessary actions and
revise the DEIR accordingly.
Next, with respect to the availability of the CAD facility for resident disposal, the RWQCB previously
objected to "the impression that this proposed use of the CAD has been approved." Id. at p.3. Even
after receiving this comment, the DEIR maintains that "[d]uring the time that the CAD facility is open
... the City and its residents will have an initial opportunity to place material dredged from outside
the Federal Channels into the CAD facility. This activity will be permitted through either the City's
RGP 54 or through an Individual Permit depending on the scope of the work." (DEIR � 2.5).
Coastkeeper encourages the City to work cooperatively with the RWQCB regarding any required
permits. Coastkeeper urges the City to revise the DEIR to adequately assess and analyze the
cumulative impacts of any required permit issuances/expansions.
Additionally, the City failed to adequately address public comments regarding alternatives. The
inadequacies of the DEIR's proposed alternatives are discussed in greater detail in Section IV below.
Coastkeeper echoes and renews prior comments made by the RWQCB, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, the Surfrider Foundation, and others urging the City to fully and sufficiently
address all feasible alternatives with sufficient information to allow meaningful comparison iin
accordance with CEQA. See, e.g., (DEIR, Appx. B, p. 6, 16, 23).
CK (2)-9 I IV. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES.
The DEIR purports to present and analyze five alternatives:
4
Orange County Coastkeeper DEIR Comment Letter
January 20, 2021
Page 5 of 6
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative/No Dredging
CK (2)- 9 • Alternative 2: No CAD Construction Alternative
Cont. • Alternative 3: Reduced Dredging
• Alternative 4: Upland Trucking of Material
• Alternative 5: Alternative Location within Newport Harbor.
(DEIR § 6.3). In reality, the DEIR only addresses two of the above: Alternative 1, which is the "No
Project Alternative" required per CEQA, and Alternative 2, "No CAD Construction Alternative." Id.
The "analysis" of Alternatives 3 and 4 amounts to a mere one-page, three paragraph discussion
concluding that "both scenarios [of Alternatives 3 and 4] were essentially analyzed in Alternative 1
(less dredging) and Alternative 2 ..." (DEIR � 6.3.3). Duplication of prior analyses does not
constitute new alternatives.
Alternative 5 proposes siting the CAD facility in closer proximity to the unsuitable sediment. (DEIR
� 6.3.4). Per the DEIR, this alternative was specifically recommended by the Harbor Commissioners.
Id. Disappointingly, "[b]ecause the alternative locations would require chemistry sampling to define
design depths and sizes of CAD facilities, a full alternatives analysis [of Alternative 5] could not be
completed." (DEIR § 6.3.4.4). Coastkeeper contends that, contrary to the DEIR, a full alternatives
analysis could, in fact, be completed, but the City chose not to do so. Rather than collect the necessary
samples, the City relied on outdated data (including bathymetric surveys from 1936 as mentioned
above) and made assumptions about what might be expected. (DEIR � 6.3.4.1 — 6.3.4.3). If additional
testing is required to fully analyze this alternative, the City should conduct the additional tests. As this
specifically -requested alternative has not been adequately analyzed in the DEIR and a complete
analysis would be highly influential to Project siting, Coastkeeper requests the approval of the DEIR
be postponed until the required sampling is complete and Alternative 5 is fully analyzed.
Coastkeeper also notes a number of feasible alternatives left out of the DEIR — including alternatives
specifically recommended by City residents and the RWQCB in CEQA scoping meetings. See, e.g.,
(DEIR, Appx. B, p. 5-6) (suggesting two smaller CADS be constructed in areas closer to unsuitable
material, such as at the mouth of the Rhine Channel). Additionally, the City is aware of the significant
amount of contaminated sediment remaining in the Rhine Channel but is not sizing the CAD to accept
that volume of sediment. All alternatives should incorporate removal of the remaining contaminated
sediment in the Rhine Channel into their analysis.
The DEIR fails to adequately evaluate alternatives in accordance with CEQA. Coastkeeper urges the
City to revise the DEIR to fully and sufficiently address all feasible alternatives.
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Orange County Coastkeeper is concerned that the City failed to provide adequate time
for review and comment of the DEIR. Coastkeeper is also concerned that the DEIR fails to (i)
adequately protect water quality and biological resources, (ii) address previously received public
comments, and (iii) adequately evaluate alternatives.
Orange County Coastkeeper urges the City of Newport Beach to (i) allow additional time for more
meaningful public review and (ii) require the DEIR to be modified in accordance with the comments
submitted above. Coastkeeper thanks the City of Newport Beach for its consideration of our
Orange County Coastkeeper DEIR Comment Letter
January 20, 2021
Page 6of6
comments. If you have any questions regarding Coastkeeper's comments, please feel free to call me
at (714) 850-1965 or email me at lauren@coastkeeper.org.
Regards,
i
Lauren Chase
Staff Attorney
Orange County Coastkeeper
0
Comment
ID
Text
CK (1)-1
The comment was an email from Orange County Coastkeeper requesting an extension of the public
comment period. An email response was provided as follows:
Thank you for inquiring, and for taking the time to respond to the Draft EIR. As you know, it is an
extensive document and I am confident it addresses the issues. However, I am available to discuss if
needed - please feel free to call anytime. We released the draft EIR on December 4 for the required 45
days (plus 2 extra days for the holidays). Unfortunately, we are trying to maintain our schedule as best
we can, so I would like to keep the public comment period open to the published date of January 20. I
sincerely hope you understand my desire to keep the process on track as best I can.
CK (2)-1
The comment generally summarizes the commenter's mission and introduces its comments on the
DEIR. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is
warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.) Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank
Orange County Coastkeeper for its review and comments.
CK (2)-2
Comment CK (2)-2 addresses the commenter's dissatisfaction with the amount of time provided for
public review and comment on the DEIR and how the City made the DEIR available. Please see
Master Response 1. The City complied with all requirements of CEQA in connection with the public
notice of availability and review of the EIR. Consistent with CEQA, copies of the DEIR were available
for a 45 -day public review period beginning December 4, 2020, and ending January 20, 2021, with
2 days added to the review period to accommodate the two federal holidays that occurred during
the review period. As noted, hard copies of the DEIR were available at several locations throughout
the comment period to facilitate document availability during COVID restrictions. Central Library
was open for in-person services from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. In
addition, the DEIR and other project -related documents were available online on the City of
Newport Beach's website and on the State Clearinghouse's website (see
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/harbordredging and https:Hceganet.opr.ca.gov/2019110340/3).
Because the remainder of the comment does not relate to a significant environmental issue, no
additional response is required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088).
CK (2)-3
Comment CK (2)-3 summarizes the requirements of CEQA and the legal standards of review used by
courts in reviewing CEQA claims. It does not contain any comments that relate to an environmental
issue; therefore, no response is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
CK (2)-4
The comment opines that the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the proposed Project's cumulative
impacts on the biological resources of Newport Bay and that the description of baseline conditions
related to biological conditions is flawed. With respect to the DEIR's description of the existing baseline
conditions, the commenter's disagreement with the DEIR's description and substantial evidence
supporting the established baseline is noted. As required by CEQA, however, the EIR includes a
description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed Project, as
they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published,
at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15125). Where, as here, existing conditions fluctuate overtime, "a lead agency may
define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project
becomes operational, or both, that are supported by substantial evidence." (CEQA Guidelines Section
Final Environmental Impact Report 79 May 2021
Conunea
ID
TWd
15125 (a)(1).) Consequently, the rare transitory presence of dolphins and whales in the Newport Beach
Harbor and, rarely, the Newport Bay, does not equate to substantial evidence that those species are
likely to be present, or remain present in the Project area, during the life of the Project. The DEIR
therefore properly focused its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant
adverse impacts that could result from the proposed Project. This did not include assuming a
residential/full-time presence of gray whales, dolphins, or other species listed by the commenter when,
in fact, no evidence supports a conclusion that those species would be present during the life of the
proposed Project. Even if such transitory species are present at some point during the construction and
operation of the proposed Project, the potential effects from noise are anticipated to be less than
significant as discussed in Section 3.3.3.4.1.
As such, DEIR Section 3.3.1 presents a thorough and referenced summary of the existing conditions in
Lower Newport Harbor and the nearshore environment.
CK (2)-5
The comment also claims that various sections of the DEIR rely on outdated data and unsupported
assumptions for impact and feasibility analyses, specifically regarding the Newport Beach nearshore
habitat and eelgrass.
Regarding the DEIR's conclusions regarding nearshore habitat being substantially like that identified in
2009, and the EIR's citation to prior bathymetric surveys, the comment offers no substantial evidence
to the contrary. Thus, substantial evidence supports the EIR's incorporation and reliance on this
information.
Regarding eelgrass, please see Response to Comment CDFW (2)-5. As discussed in Section 3.3.1.1.2 of
the DEIR, the City conducts shallow-water eelgrass surveys every 2 years in Lower Newport Bay, and
harbor-wide surveys—including the deepwater habitat—are conducted every 4 years. At the time of
the DEIR release, the most recent harbor-wide survey was conducted in summer 2020, but the results
were not yet available. The 2020 survey results are now available and have been added to the Final EIR
as requested by the commenter. The conclusions of the DEIR considering this additional information
remain unchanged.
CK (2)-6
Please see response to RWQCB (2)-2, which addresses the RWQCB's comments.
CK (2)-7
The comment suggests that the DEIR prematurely asserts that the CAD is permitted for public use.
Please see Response to Comments RWQCB (2)-3 and CCC-2. An EIR does not permit a project, it is a
public disclosure document that analyzes a proposed project in terms of environmental effects that
can be used, if certified, for necessary project approvals. Appropriately, the DEIR discloses that several
agencies need to permit several aspects of the proposed Project, including public use of the CAD
facility.
Because CEQA requires lead agencies to consider "the whole of the project," moreover, the potential
for residential disposal and use of the CAD was incorporated into the DEIR's analysis.
CK (2)-8
The comment claims that the City failed to adequately consider alternatives to the proposed Project.
Please see Master Response 5. Consistent with CEQA, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of
potentially feasible alternatives to a project that could attain most of the basic project objectives and
would avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant adverse effects. The range of alternatives in
an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives
necessary to permit a reasonable choice. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a
project. Rather, the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet the project objectives, are
Final Environmental Impact Report 80 May 2021
CAMMMd
W
Text
potentially feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant
environmental effects of the project.
Here, the DEIR includes a summary of all public comments received during the scoping period and
where comments were addressed in the DEIR (see Table 1-2), Appendix B to the DEIR provides a copy
of all comment received. All comments received regarding alternatives were considered in
development of the DEIR. The comment fails to identify any recommended alternatives that were not
addressed beside a scenario where two smaller CADS be constructed in areas closer to unsuitable
material, such as at the mouth of the Rhine Channel. However, Alternative 5 does consider alternative
locations within for CAD siting. The suggestion to consider two smaller CADS in the Rhine Channel is
substantially like the analysis already existing in the DEIR and, moreover, would not avoid or
substantially lessen a significant adverse impact of the Project. Consequently, such additional analysis
was deemed unnecessary.
In addition, as described in Section 2.3.2 of Appendix D to the DEIR (Sediment Management Plan),
approximately 80,000 cy of material was dredged from the Rhine Channel and disposed of at the Port
of Long Beach Middle Harbor Fill site. Because the previous work included a bulk removal of sediment
from the Rhine Channel, any potential future management actions would likely be limited to one or
more alternate management techniques such as thin-layer capping or in situ treatment. As such, it is
not reasonably foreseeable that material from the Rhine Channel would be placed into the proposed
CAD; thus, the EIR did not need to consider this hypothetical scenario.
The comment also claims that the alternatives section is not robust because Alternatives 3 and 4 are
essentially the same as Alternative 1 and that Alternative 5 was not a standalone Alternative because it
would require additional sampling. While there is overlap among the environmental effects associated
with Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, each would involve different construction methods and would have
different environmental effects. For example, as discussed in Section 6.3.3., Alternative 4 would result in
increased environmental impacts as compared to the Alternative 1. Elucidating these differences allows
decision-makers and the public to evaluate the different alternatives consistent with the requirements
of CEQA.
Regarding Alternative 5, alternatives under CEQA need not be co-equal assessments; rather, they need
to allow for a meaningful comparison and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Table 6-
1 of the DEIR provides a clear and meaningful way of comparing the alternative locations identified in
Table 5 of the DEIR. As provided, the alterative locations have several physical constraints that would
limit the size of the CAD and present construction challenges. However, these alternatives were not
dismissed from consideration due to the need for additional sampling and were carried through for
decision-maker consideration. Therefore, if the Board of Harbor Commissioners wanted to select one
or more of the locations of Alternative 5, additional sampling would be needed to inform the design
and determine if any additional analysis was needed in terms of the EIR. This process meets the
requirements of CEQA.
CK (2)-9
Responses to this summary comment are provided in Responses to Comments CK (2)-1 through CK
(2)-8.
Final Environmental Impact Report 81 May 2021
2.6 Responses to Individual Comments
2.6.7 Brent Mardian, Pi Environmental
Final Environmental Impact Report 82 May 2021
Pi Environmental
AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTANT
www.pienvironmental.com
Mr. Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach
Harbor Resources Manager
949-644-3043
cmiller@newportbeachca.gov
Comments to DEIR for CAD Construction
As a small busines practitioner and marine environmental consultant, I feel that I have a unique
perspective on the many of the issues of Newport Bay. My recent work in Newport Beach has been
supporting homeowners, dock builders, and dredgers. Most of whom get mired in the supposedly
expeditious Regional General Permit 54 (RGP54) dredging program and end up paying large sums of
money to maintain their property due to contaminant transport from other places, and the
`agreements' the City and it's Consultants have made with regulators. The City has shown through the
RGP54 process that they are more than willing to pass the exorbitant costs for dredging contaminated
sediment on to the homeowners and d taxpayers of Newport Beach, but have also shown through this
process, that the standards they hold everyone else too, do not apply to them.
Purposely, the City and it's sediment consultant have pushed bay -wide sediment management issues
onto Newport homeowners to meet future sediment quality standards. So the idea of 'doing in the
homeowners best interest', or even 'the best interest of the Bay,' hasn't been a focus of the City, as
much as finding a way to pass -the -buck has been. The City, through bad consultation and conflicts, have
developed a contentious relationship with the public the serve, which has limited the ability of the CEQA
preparers to seek consensus for the purposes of sediment management, and has limited the ability of
City CEQA staff to reach across the aisle to other Bay stakeholders and build partnerships for the long-
term stewardship of Newport Bay.
I am compelled to comment on the Draft EIR because I am a practitioner in this industry, and moreover I
am an owner of a small business that has worked on hundreds of sediment management related
projects. I have 25 years of experience in all facets of marine science and investigations, including the
main issue presented here, sediment, water quality, and biological resources. I have over a decade of
working directly with regulators on many of these same issue Newport Beach faces in other parts of the
region. Having said that, I can tell you with all honesty, that if my firm had brought a project like this to
the regulatory agencies, tried to push the faulty conclusions and defend the obviously slanted results,
we would have been laughed out of the room. And deservedly so.
I have watched this process as an interested participant, but have been disappointed in my industry, and
in the public servants who are charged with finding the preferred solution for sediment management in
Newport Bay. Further, the City and it's CEQA Consultants have engaged is a systematic conflation of
terms, have presented a general lack of candor during the process, and has misled the Harbor
Commissioners, Bay stakeholders, and homeowners on the benefits, the risks, and the long-term issues
with a Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD).
PE -2
PT3
Pi Environmental
AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTANT
www.pienvironmental.com
As stated in the City of Newport Beach (City) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Lower
Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction project (Project), the fundamental purpose
of the proposed Project is to provide a safe, efficient, and effective dredged material management option
that allows navigation maintenance dredging to proceed while protecting the marine environment and
recreational users of the Lower Harbor. (DEIR, Page ES -4).
However, the proposed CAD project fails to accomplish the stated objectives to provide a safe, efficient,
and effective dredged material management option, but also, highlights the lengths at which the City
and its Consultants have deviated from a systematic and concerted good -faith effort to identify a
practicable solution for effective dredge material management, and focuses in on a less than preferred
alternative, using conflating language and false narratives to advance the project through the regulatory
arena. The purpose of the DERI is not to explore dredging, as impacts from and associated with in water
construction of that type are well documented. The issue at hand is the City's preferred alternative for
sediment management, the Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD), and not dredging as continually
commingled throughout the DEIR.
A CDF, or out -of -water confided disposal facility, is summarily dismissed after a false and factually
inaccurate narrative is presented in Section 6.2 of the DEIR on page 230. The false statement made by
the DEIR is that public comments for Alternatives were specific to the idea that the unsuitable material
would be disposed at a port fill site. This is a mischaracterization of the comments and a falsehood.
Public comment was offered for the City and its Consultant to investigate a CDF, or confined disposal
facility Alternative, but it was not specific to a port facility.
This was requested of the City, because a CDF Alternative, or out -of -water disposal option, has several
distinct advantages over the current CAD Alternative presented. Several of the CEQA evaluation areas of
Aesthetics, Biological Resources, and Bay Water Quality are less impacted by a reasonable and feasible
CDF option. Further, a CDF Alternative has more flexibility to deal with long-term sediment management
issues, has a much higher potential to be permitted to take all homeowner material currently too
impacted for coverage under RGP54, and the CDF does not incur annual waste discharge fees like a CAD.
Annual fees could be greater than $100,000 per year for just having the CAD. Perhaps the biggest plus of
a CDF versus a CAD is that a CDF removes the unsuitable material from the Bay, versus simply
consolidating it in the middle of Lower Newport Bay with extended in -water construction.
A CDF is a preferred management Alterative to a CAD for all the stated reasons and more but was
seemingly purposely omitted from CEQA or Alternatives analysis. As an example, if a viewing area (or
multiple viewing areas) were engineered using the unsuitable material, or perhaps a bike path, those
additions to the Bay would serve a public good as well as an effective local sediment management
Alterative.
Unfortunately, a CDF Alternative has never been fully vetted or investigated by the City or its
Consultants. Rather, both parties have engaged in a concerted effort to bias the potential management
options available and prejudice subsequent environmental review in support of the CAD. The level of
prejudice is palpable, so blatant that even the supporting documents put forth by the City and its Agents
in support of the CAD Alternative intentionally and overtly omit the CDF method of managing unsuitable
material (Basis of Design [BOD], Appendix C). This is particularly egregious given that a CDF at Pier G in
Pi Environmental
AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTANT
www.pienvironmenta1.com
PE -3 1 the Port of Long Beach was the final disposal location during the 2012 federal dredging event, negating
Cont. the need for a CAD at the time. Leaving out a CDF option in the Basis of Design nullifies any reliance
upon this document or its conclusions, due to the misleading and patent partiality of the information
presented, which is for the sole purpose of supporting the CAD alternative, and not for adhering to
existing City plans and policies.
Through a series of CAD -approval focused documents and a seemingly purposeful and intentional
marginalization of materially important environmental significance, the City staff responsible for CEQA
review and their Consultants are operating outside of normal environmental analysis, and bordering on
conflict of interest boundaries, that does not allow for Consultants who are capable of providing
accurate and honest information in the their analysis of CEQA Alternatives and discharge of their
professional responsibilities. The CAD permitting effort has unnecessarily attempted to lock the City,
Harbor commissioners, and the taxpayers of Newport Beach into an expensive, unimaginative, and
consultant -driven sediment management alternative, one that is not the safest, the most efficient, or
the most effective dredged management option.
PE -4 What the CEQA process has clearly identified is that when it comes to in -water and harbor sediment,
biological, and water quality issues, City Staff and their CAD Consultant are engaged in a deceptive
endeavor which has conflated dredging and CAD construction, over -inflated the potential benefits to the
Bay, and has sought to minimize the immediate environmental impacts associated with the City's
preferred CAD Alternative. The City and its Agents have singularly focused on a bad and costly
Alternative and have forced that option through the environmental review process.
In spite of the DEIR statement that The proposed Project is consistent with the applicable goals and
PE -5 policies of the CCA, CLOP, and General Plan (DEIR, Page 223), a more detailed look at the at the factual
nature of this statement suggests the opposite is true. The proposed CAD project is not consistent with
the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), and also not consistent with the intent and stated natural
resources goals and objectives of the City of Newport Beach's General Plan:
CLUP 4.4.1-1: Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal
zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and
other scenic coastal areas.
A non -aquatic CDF alternative, as in an engineered or network of above -water viewing areas, bike trails,
etc. The Basis of Design (BOD, appendix C) references engineered options in Table 3.1 as Typical Options
for Dredged Material Reuse, however, the typical reuse Alternatives of engineered fill, to create parks,
roadways, or tails, was not included in the DEIR Alternatives analysis. Unlike a CAD, or below water
disposal option, a functional CDF Alternative additionally offers an opportunity to enhance the scenic
and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor
and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas, consistent with CLUP 4.4.1-1.
PE -6 But scenic viewings are not the only subject area the CAD Alternative is in disagreement with among the
City's plans and priorities. Other areas in which the proposed CAD Alternative are counter to the
established CLUP include:
31
Pi Environmental
AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTANT
www.pienvironmental.com
FP—E--6-1 CLUP 4.1.2-2. Provide special protection to marine resource areas and species of special biological
or economic significance.
The CAD Alternative is in conflict with providing special protection to marine resource areas as the
project will require in -bay disposal, which would not be necessary with a feasible and realistic project
Alternative like a CDF. The in -bay disposal alternative associated with the CAD includes the release of
dissolved DDT above regulatory criteria.
PE -7 CLUP 4.1.2-3. Require that uses of the marine environment be carried out in a manner that will
sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations
of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific,
and educational purposes.
The CAD alternative is in conflict with 4.1.2-3 as its justification is not based on a sustainable long-term
plan, but rather promulgated ad hoc by the City, and its Consultants who stand to profit greatly from a
permitted CAD. Further, the regulatory preferred CDF Alternative, not looked at by the City or its
Consultant, could create a viewing area for the public and scientists to observe and enjoy the biological
resources of Newport Bay, and offers an opportunity to enhance the educational and recreational uses,
consistent with CLUP 4.1.2-3. A CDF removes material from the system entirely and could have the
capacity to handle more types of material than that which could be disposed of in the aquatic
environment if designed with intent. The proposed CAD Alternative offers none of that.
FPE-g CLUP 4.1.2-4. Continue to cooperate with the state and federal resource protection agencies and
private organizations to protect marine resources.
The City and its Consultants have done everything possible to avoid input, reasonable Alternatives
analysis, and discussions with private organizations to protect marine resources. The lack of a
stakeholder involved Sediment Management Plan and the vocal opposition from homeowners in the Bay
have largely been ignored, or in the case of a reasonable CDF alternative, have been misrepresented to
fit the CAD permitting narrative. The desire to avoid public input is exemplified by the City's denial to
extend the CEQA review process in light of the holiday season and the pandemic.
FP -E--97 CLUP4.1.4-1. Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important ecological function as a
nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem.
The proposed CAD Alternative involves in -bay disposal, which increases the amount of turbidity and
dissolved contaminants in the Bay. While there is not eelgrass within the CAD footprint, the areas
adjacent to the site do in fact have eelgrass, counter to the misinformation presented in the DEIR. New
and prospering eelgrass beds have been detected at the south eastern end of Lido Isle. Beyond the
obvious misrepresenting of facts and status of special status species around the CAD, when compared to
a CDF alternative, the proposed CAD project fails to protect eelgrass in a manner consistent with CLUP
4.1.2-4, in that the CAD Alternative needlessly exposes eelgrass beds and Essential Fish habitat (EFH) to
unnecessary toxic plumes and turbidity not associated with a reasonable and functional equivalent to
the CAD. A CDF by design is not aquatic disposal, and therefore does not have potential deleterious
effects on adjacent eelgrass or bay biota.
41
Pi Environmental
AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTANT
www.pienvironmental.com
The proposed CAD Alternative also conflicts with established goals of the City of Newport Beach as
identified in the General Plan:
NR 3.2 Water Pollution Prevention: Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that
PE -10 minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural waterbodies (Goal HB 8.2).
Through modeling disposal scenarios that were largely the result of public comment, the CAD has been
shown to cause contaminant plumes above established water quality criteria. The City and its
Consultants are again deceptively skewing the modeling results to support their preferred Alternative,
the CAD. The STFATE model used to predict the potential for toxic plumes was not developed for use in
enclosed bays and estuaries. The STFATE model was developed for offshore disposal efforts and does
not take into account the site-specific realities of Newport Bay, like low circulation, and residence time
in the Bay, Islands, and differential flow patterns.
However, even with the wrong model, which was tweaked with some Newport Beach parameters,
(depth, etc.), the less sensitive offshore model (STFATE) suggests that toxic levels of DDT will be created.
Unfortunately for the City and the CAD, the results of site-specific modeling, using a smaller grid and
accounting for Newport Bay hydrodynamics, would likely yield even worse water quality results.
However, a reasonable and feasible alternative of a CAD, or a confined disposal facility, would remove a
majority of the in -water toxic plumes, thereby adhering to City General Plan goals. But the City and its
Consultant did not evaluate an out -of -water disposal option (i.e., CDF) in spite of the need to adhere to
NR 3.2. The continued insistence on an in -bay disposal Alternative, like the CAD, puts the entire Bay
needlessly at risk, when a no -plume forming Alternative is available, just not looked at.
NR 15.1 states that for Dredging Projects: [The City will] Monitor dredging projects within the
PE -11 region to identify opportunities to reduce disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach
nourishment.
NR 15.1 is in direct conflict with the proposed CAD alternative, because it includes a mandate to dredge
an additional 300,000 cubic yards (CY) of material, which is not a method to reduce disposal costs, and
instead, the CAD increases them over time. To permit the CAD, the City has already spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars on additional support documents like Basis of Design reports, hydrodynamic
modeling, and long-term monitoring plans. Couple those costs with extended Consultant fees for
permitting and monitoring, and the CAD alternative is not consistent with reduced disposal costs, even if
the City and its Agents disingenuously claim the extra dredging, permitting, monitoring, and
environmental impact are less costly than landside material rehandling at a CDF. The truth is, a CDF
alternative would not need to include the additional dredging, all the extra studies, the waste discharge
fee, or the long-term consultant support. A CDF Alternative could capture more and varying types of
material, leading to overall reduction in disposal costs for everyone in the Bay, including those impacted
by DDT within the RGP54 coverage areas. Therefore, it is more in agreement with the intent of the City
of Newport Beach General Plan, and a preferred Alternative to the CAD.
As there is no geotechnical data from the proposed CAD placement site, any perceived benefits of sand
replenishment presented in the DEIR from material dredged to build the CAD needs to be stricken from
51
PE -12
PE -13
Pi Environmental
AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTANT
www.pienvironmental.com
the DEIR. There is no data from the proposed CAD site to confirm beach replenishment. The City and its
Consultants are not authorized to make suitability determinations; the USACE and EPA govern dredge
and fill permitting and approvals. Therefore, the perceived benefits to Newport Beach from potential
sand replenishment activities associated with CAD construction are a gross exaggeration at best and
factually incorrect at worst.
This is a very important oversight by the City and its Consultants, in that there are recent examples from
other areas around Newport, including Yacht Clubs and waterfront homeowners, in which dredgers
have run into disposal issues when the material type changes at depth, thereby restricting disposal
options during the project. The truth is that currently, the City and its Consultants have not provided
data from the CAD site to support suitability analysis, and therefore have not gained regulatory approval
for the material to go to the beach or nearshore environment. Therefore the "benefits" of dredging an
additional 300,000 CY cannot be applied to the CAD Alternative until suitability has been determined.
FUrther, since the City's General Plan identifies sand replenishment as a priority under General Plan NR
15.1, a CDF Alternative that was appropriately presented for the purposes of unbiased and honest
analysis would still be able to locate and dredge sources of sand for replenishment. The unexplored CDF
Alternative would likely be in complete agreement with the intent of the General Plan, whereas a CAD is
clearly not.
What is known now is that a CDF has been purposely unexplored by the City and its Consultants, in spite
of its obvious environmental, water quality, and long-term sediment management benefits an
Alternative like this represents. Further, the City and its Consultants have continued to charge ahead
with CAD permitting, doubling down on expensive and unnecessary "support" documents which
intentionally neglect the benefits of a non -aquatic disposal Alternative, like a CDF, one that does not
require the agency concurrence or excessive permitting fees and Consultant costs associated with
continual sediment management activities.
A reasonable and feasible CDF alternative is cheaper, better for the environment, and ensures the long-
term health of the Bay by removing the unsuitable material. A CDF, or non -aquatic disposal facility, is
also consistent with City priorities and plans already part of the City's management direction. Based on
non -biased analysis, the real question is not why -not a CDF, but why haven't the City and its Consultants
looked at it?
Perhaps the most significant issue surrounding a CAD is what is not encompassed by CEQA analysis, and
something the DEIR makes no mention of. Negatives of a CAD are an issue the City and Port of San Diego
know all too well. The City of San Diego had put an engineered CAD in the Port of San Diego, along the
waterfront, and has since spent millions of dollars examining recontamination from outside sources, has
had countless discussions with regulators, and has effectively lost access to a portion of their waterfront
due to bad consultant recommendations and permit expediency. In fact, there are several examples of
bad CAD ideas implemented along waterfronts and in ports that city and/or port managers would love
to get back, including the annual fees (>$100,000), and the long-term Consultants fees for monitoring,
reports, plans, etc. None of which is necessary with a more regulatory preferred approach to sediment
management, like a CDF.
PE -14
Pi Environmental
AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTANT
www.pienvironmentaI.com
Based on the clearly biased and inadequate levels of environmental review conducted by the City and its
Consultants, it is recommended that:
• The City should continue with dredging of the federal sediments suitable for offshore and/or
nearshore placement.
• Further, the City should compile and disseminate a comprehensive Sediment Management Plan
that can be reviewed by Newport Beach stakeholders, to elicit regional concurrence and to
remove Consultant subjectivity with regard to effective sediment management decisions in the
Bay.
• A re-evaluation of feasible and reasonable project Alternatives for managing sediments in
Newport Bay should be undertaken after the development of a comprehensive Sediment
Management Plan. The CEQA process should be led by a third -party preparer if the City's CEQA
agent has a financial incentive for recommended a given Alternative.
Respectfully,
Brent Mardian
Owner/ Senior Marine Scientist
Pi Environmental, LLC
C: 805.705.5632
0:760.730.5909
bmardian@pienvironmental.com
71
C
ID
Tend
PE -1
The comment generally summarizes the commenter's mission. Because the comment omits any
significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section
15088).
PE -2
Comment PE -2 is composed entirely of allegations regarding the purpose of the EIR. Because the
comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088).
PE -3
The comment suggests that the DEIR did not consider a CDF as an alternative sediment
management strategy and that the DEIR did not fully consider or address public comments. In
response to the comment related to public comments, all comments received during public scoping
were considered in development of the DEIR. All comments were included in Appendix B of the
DEIR. As indicated, the only comment received regarding a CDF was from the Santa Ana RWQCB
regarding the permitting of CDFs in relationship to CDFs.
Regarding the comment about the lack of analysis of a CDF in the DEIR, please see Master Response
5. Section 6.2.2 of the DEIR addresses alternative disposal sites, including the CDF. As noted, there is
currently no available CDF that could accept the material. As discussed in Section 6.2.2, a CDF at the
Port of Long Beach was available for material during the last dredging event but has since been
closed, and no other CDFs are currently available in the region. A CDF has been evaluated as a
sediment management tool in Newport Harbor on past occasions and was discounted for numerous
reasons unrelated to the current project. In 2005 during the feasibility study for the Rhine Channel
remediation project, a CDF was evaluated and eliminated for the following reasons: 1) the amount
of space needed to construct a containment structure was too large to accommodate given the
highly developed shoreline and lack of City -owned property; 2) the mitigation requirements to
offset the loss of submerged tidelands would create a significant and unavoidable challenge to the
program for which there were no areas in the harbor suitable for such a large mitigation area; and
3) public opposition to the construction of a highly visible fill area within the Harbor.
As discussed in the DEIR, the proposed CAD facility would accommodate approximately 106,900 cy
of unsuitable dredged material anticipated to be generated by the Federal Channels maintenance
dredging program and an additional 50,000 cy resulting from maintenance dredging primarily of
unsuitable material from outside the Federal Channels, for a total of 156,900 cy. To accommodate
the required volumes of expected unsuitable material and sediment capping material, the estimated
size of the CAD facility is approximately 590 feet by 590 feet at the assumed top of the CAD facility
footprint and approximately 435 feet by 435 feet at the base footprint. Building a CDF above the
mudline to hold that same volume of material would need to be approximately 30% to 40% larger
in size to allow for rock dikes and clean sand buffer layers between the dredge material and the
porous rock dike. It is for this reason that the City chose to eliminate the use of an "on-site" CDF in
the past, and to only consider a CDF fill option if one were to be available in the region, such as at a
port facility. For these reasons, a CDF is not a viable alternative. This information has been added to
the Final EIR.
PE -4
Comment PE -4 is composed entirely of allegations regarding the purpose of the EIR. It does not
contain any comments that relate to an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Final Environmental Impact Report 90 May 2021
COMMA
ID
Tod
PE -5
The comment claims that the proposed Project is not consistent with the CLUP, specifically CLUP
4.4.1-1, because a CDF would offer an opportunity to enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the
coastal zone. Please see the Response to Comment PE -3, which provides an overview of the
feasibility of the proffered CDF alternative. The comment does not present any basis for its claim
that the proposed Project is not consistent with the CLUP and instead provides opinion; therefore,
no response is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
PE -6
The comment claims that the proposed Project is not consistent with CLUP Section 4.1.2-2 because
disposal of material in the CAD would release DDT above regulatory criteria. Contrary to the
comment, the proposed Project seeks to relocate the impacted sediments into the CAD facility,
which would eliminate those potential risks to water quality and result in a long-term benefit to the
environment.
As noted in Response to Comment RWQCB (2)-2, the City coordinated extensively with the DMMT
through the final sediment suitability determination in August 2019. The DMMT determined the
sediment within the footprint of the CAD facility to be suitable for open ocean disposal. The
Response to Comment PE -11 includes a discussion on the suitability of the underlying "native
material." Additionally, Appendix G to the BODR includes an analysis of short-term water quality
impacts during construction activities. The analysis notes that acute condition water quality
standards and TMDL water quality targets (where established) for dissolved copper, dissolved
mercury, total PCBs, and total DDX were not violated. Although the dredging operation is
anticipated to be short-term and intermittent, it is noted that the chronic condition water quality
standard for total DDx was exceeded during disposal events of all material types. However, the
existing background water quality is also greater than this standard and predicted total DDx
concentrations are expected to be at or near background concentrations within 4 hours of
dredging.
PE -7
The comment claims that the proposed Project is not consistent with CLUP Section 4.1.2-3 because
the CAD facility is not based on a sustainable long-term plan. Please see Response to Comment PE -
3, which describes why the proposed CDF is not a viable alternative to the proposed Project. In
response to the allegations that the proposed Project is not based on a sustainable plan, the
comment does not relate to an environmental issue; therefore, no response is required pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
PE -8
Comment PE -4 is composed entirely of allegations regarding public outreach and coordination.
Please see Master Response 1. Contrary to the allegations, the City has fully complied with the
requirements of CEQA. As detailed in Section 1.5 of the DEIR, the City fully noticed the availability of
the NOP and DEIR and has fully considered all comments received, including those received outside
of the formal comment periods. Sections 1.5.1 through 1.5.5 of the DEIR describe the actions
undertaken by the City to ensure public participation; consultation sought with the public and local,
state, and federal agencies; and public comments received to date, whether during the NOP public
scoping meeting, or separately though direct or indirect email communication.
Regarding the comment specific to stakeholder engagement in development of the SMP, the SMP
was developed in conjunction with the DMMT and was included in full as an appendix in the DEIR
for public review and comment. Regarding the DEIR comment period, please see the Response to
Comment RWQCB-1. Consistent with CEQA requirements, copies of the DEIR were available for a
45 -day public review period beginning December 4, 2020, and ending January 20, 2021, with 2 days
Final Environmental Impact Report 91 May 2021
Comment
!D
Text
added to the review period to accommodate the two federal holidays that occurred during the
review period.
PE -9
Please see Response to Comment CDFW (2)-5. As discussed in Section 3.3.1.1.2 of the DEIR, the City
conducts shallow -water eelgrass surveys every 2 years in Lower Newport Bay, and harbor -wide
surveys—including the deepwater habitat—are conducted every 4 years. At the time of the DEIR
release, the most recent harbor -wide survey was conducted in summer 2020, but the results were
not yet available. The 2020 survey results are now available and have been added to the Final EIR.
As discussed further in the DEIR, consistent with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP;
NOAA 2014) a pre -construction eelgrass survey will be performed by the City in the proposed
Project area 30 to 60 days prior to commencement of dredging and CAD construction activities. If
eelgrass is located during the pre -construction survey, a post -construction survey will also be
performed by the City within 30 days following completion of construction to evaluate any
immediate effects to eelgrass habitat. If the post -construction survey indicates loss of eelgrass
habitat within the proposed Project area, any impacts to eelgrass that have not previously been
mitigated for will be mitigated in accordance with the CEMP. Please see Response to Comment PE -
3. A CDF is not a feasible alternative to the proposed Project.
PE -10
The water quality models presented in Appendix G to the BODR include an analysis of short-term
water quality impacts during construction activities. The models have been customized for use
within enclosed waterbodies like Newport Bay through years of development with staff from the
USACE and USEPA. The models have been validated with years of actual monitoring data and are
very accurate in predicting potential water quality impacts. These models have been used in the
past within Newport and other adjacent harbors. Placing dredge material inside of a CDF does not
reduce the potential for water column impacts. In fact, during some phases of CDF development,
the potential for impacts to water quality is high. A CDF is essentially a three -sided box full of water.
At first, sediment is transported inside the "box" via a barge positioned in the footprint of the CDF
and deposited. As the material levels rise within the CDF and the water level drops, there becomes a
point where the barge will no longer fit inside the CDF footprint, and construction shifts to pumping
in sediment over the top of the wall. Pumping in sediment also adds a significant amount of water
that needs to drain back out of the CDF footprint. The return flow has the potential to contain
suspended sediment and contaminants and must be carefully managed. CDF construction projects
typically include cleanup programs required to collect all the "lost" material after the CDF is
completed. Ports use this approach frequently and have numerous examples of its occurrence.
As noted in Response to Comment RWQCB (2)-2, in April 2020, the City provided a draft of the
BODR to the USEPA for preliminary review. The BODR, including the OMP, is a necessary
component to support the design and development of a CAD facility and long-term management.
Based on the USEPA's extensive experience overseeing design and implementation of CAD facilities
on the West Coast (most recently at Port Hueneme in 2009), it was the City's intent to request a
focused review from the USEPA. The USEPA provided preliminary comments on the BODR in May
2020, and those were incorporated into the version included in the DEIR. It should also be noted
that the NOP and the DEIR included the full BODR for review and public input.
Final Environmental Impact Report 92 May 2021
Cetrt
ID
Tod
PE -11
Response to Comment PE -3 addresses the consideration of a CDF as an alternate sediment
management option. As noted in Response to Comment RWQCB (2)-5, the overlying sediment
(existing elevation down to the federally authorized design depth) within the footprint of the CAD
facility was determined by the DMMT in August 2019 as suitable for open ocean disposal.
Sediments within the CAD footprint below this depth are "native sediments" and have never been
dredged. Deep (greater than 50 feet) core samples have been collected in the vicinity of the
proposed CAD location and elsewhere in Newport Bay and show that this material is composed of
fine- to medium -grained sand and free of contaminants. This material would be placed in the
nearshore zone or at the ocean disposal site.
PE -12
Please see Response to Comment PE -3, which addresses the consideration of a CDF as an alternate
sediment management option. At the time of developing responses to public comments received
during the DEIR process, the City has not filed regulatory permit applications.
PE -13
This comment suggests that the DEIR analysis is faulty due to comparisons with an unnamed project
in San Diego. We believe that this comment is about the Convair Lagoon CDF project, located in San
Diego. Convair Lagoon is a shallow embayment that was the site of a PCB remedial action that
included the construction of a sediment cap that was completed in 1997. During post -construction
monitoring of the sand cap, the data indicated PCB contamination on top of the cap but not at
depths immediately below the cap surface, presumably the result of ongoing contaminated
sediment being deposited over the site. Subsequent investigations confirmed that material from an
adjacent 60 -inch storm drain had, in fact, re -contaminated the surface of the cap. That cap did not
fail, in that chemicals were not migrating up through the cap but instead deposited on top of the
newly placed cap surface. In 2012, the San Diego Unified Port District removed this PCB source by
demolishing the facility and cleaning up the storm drains. Costs associated with this remediation
were higher than normal due to regulatory fees for ongoing monitoring and by having an open
Waste Discharge Requirement for the full 15 -year duration of the investigation. This example is not
relevant to the situation in Newport Bay because it is not an example of a cap failure but instead of
a failed remediation strategy for the site where the bay sediments were capped before the ongoing
source of contamination was addressed. In Newport Bay, the City, County, and other stakeholders
have worked diligently to eliminate ongoing sources from the watershed.
PE -14
Please see Response to Comment CDFW-6. The SMP is included in full as Appendix D to the DEIR,
which was available for review. Please see Response to Comment CCC -2, which discussed the
process for coordination with regulatory agencies.
Final Environmental Impact Report 93 May 2021
2.6.2 Sandy Asper
Final Environmental Impact Report 94 May 2021
From: sandy asper <sasper@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 202111:05 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: CAD
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
SPEAK UP NOW!
Z1923 IN OUR BAY
RESPONSES TO THE'EIR'MUST BE RECEIVED
BY JANUARY 20, 2021
Do not remove the unsuitable materials in our bay, unfit for ocean disposal and
consolidate them in a 450' x 450' x 47' deep hole in the middle of our beautiful, clean
anchorage. This is not removal, it is a plan to take our good base and replace it with
the bad, unsuitable materials from the entire harbor. The City has a long term plan
of opening this 'CAD' up and allowing future dumps. The City of Newport Beach
needs to research alternatives and open up discussion from more than one
consultant that is CAD driven.
From the perspective of a local Marine Scientist experienced in this field:
Asper -1 1. The City does not have a sediment management plan to guide their direction
and have therefore, become a willing victim to bad engineering and environmentally
intrusive project alternatives. The idea of designing a tool for sediment management
(i.e. the'CAD') and then developing a plan around it, is backwards. The City and their
consultants know this.
Asper -2 2• When the City has evaluated project alternatives, they have biased the alternative
to suit their determination. The case for a CAD was made long ago, and in lieu of
changing science, more recent studies and regional norms with respect to sediment
management, the CAD has been pushed by the City's consultant from day one. For
almost a decade the City has gone down this path, and likely would have installed a
CAD if Port of Long Beach, Pier G hadn't become available in the 2012
timeframe. However, in spite of the costs and environmental damage, there
have been no additional feasibility studies or steps taken by the City to honestly
explore project alternatives. The City and its consultants have been singularly
focusing on the CAD.
Asper -3 3. The water quality impacts not discussed by the DER have the potential to cause
even more impact than a normal dredge project, due to the re -handling of unsuitable
material in the bay. The City's DER glosses over so me really major issues with
plumes, sediment transport, and dilution of contaminants in a slow circulating
bay. The analysis offers no hydrodynamic data to model and predict if a toxic plume
would be an issue. The evaluation of water quality for the purposes of CEQA is
incomplete and purposely vague by design.
Corm
N;
Tett
Asper -1
The comment opines that the City developed the SMP tojustify the CAD facility. Please see Master
Response 3 and Section 2.1 of the DEIR, which presents the process of project development.
Asper -2
The comment opines that the City has not adequately analyzed alternatives to the proposed Project.
Please see Master Response 5 as well as Response to Comment PE -3. As noted in the DEIR, the
USEPA and other DMMT determine whether sediment is suitable for ocean disposal.
Asper -3
The comment notes concerns with the proposed Project, including the potential for increasing
hazardous risk. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional
response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). The preparers direct the commenter to
Master Response 2. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commentor for their
review and comments.
2.6.3 Greg Brown
Final Environmental Impact Report 97 May 2021
G.Brown-1
From: Gregory Brown <gbrown@mac.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 20219:10 PM
To: Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin
Cc: Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William; Miller, Chris
Subject: No CAD in our Bay
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
City Council and Public Works Manager:
Please look at this solution of putting a whole (CAD) in the ground for unfit disposal that is unfit for the
ocean. The fact that we even put this in the ocean is bad enough. If you think our oceans are polluted,
just dumb this stuff in the bay and wait a few years. Gosh, are we not smarter than this? Haven't we
learned from all the pollution in our rivers?
Just use common sense here and stop this non solution. Have a plan that takes in consideration for
future generations. Your kids, their kids, kids from everywhere.
This just doesn't seem like the best plan you can bring forward. We can do better. Please review this and
find the best solution for our community, families and the earth.
Thank you,
Greg Brown
211 Via Ravenna
Newport Beach CA 92663
PRODUCTIVITY DJ
Greg D. Brown • Advisor, Coach
US 949.293.3672
Productive Minute: Text TPDJ to 55678
Do not remove the unsuitable materials in our bay, unfit for ocean disposal and
consolidate them in a 450'x 450'x 47' deep hole in the middle of our beautiful, clean
anchorage. This is not removal, it is a plan to take our good base and replace it with
the bad, unsuitable materials from the entire harbor. The City has a long term plan
of opening this 'CAD' up and allowing future dumps. The City of Newport Beach
needs to research alternatives and open up discussion from more than one
consultant that is CAD driven.
From the perspective of a local Marine Scientist experienced in this field:
1. The City does not have a sediment management plan to guide their direction
and have therefore, become a willing victim to bad engineering and environmentally
intrusive project alternatives. The idea of designing a tool for sediment management
(i.e. the'CAD') and then developing a plan around it, is backwards. The City and their
consultants know this.
2. When the City has evaluated project alternatives, they have biased the alternative
to suit their determination. The case for a CAD was made long ago, and in lieu of
changing science, more recent studies and regional norms with respect to sediment
management, the CAD has been pushed by the City's consultant from day one. For
almost a decade the City has gone down this path, and likely would have installed a
CAD if Port of Long Beach, Pier G hadn't become available in the 2012
timeframe. However, in spite of the costs and environmental damage, there
have been no additional feasibility studies or steps taken by the City to honestly
explore project alternatives. The City and its consultants have been singularly
focusing on the CAD.
3. The water quality impacts not discussed by the DER have the potential to cause
even more impact than a normal dredge project, due to the re -handling of unsuitable
material in the bay. The City's DER glosses over so me really major issues with
plumes, sediment transport, and dilution of contaminants in a slow circulating
bay. The analysis offers no hydrodynamic data to model and predict if a toxic plume
would be an issue. The evaluation of water quality for the purposes of CEQA is
incomplete and purposely vague by design.
ID
Tesd
G. Brown-1
The comment notes concerns with the proposed Project, including the potential for causing
pollution in the Harbor. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no
additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.) Generally, however, the
preparers direct commenter to Master Responses 1 through S, which relate to these general
concerns and Section 3 of the DEIR, which fully analyzes the potential impacts to environment
because of the proposed Project. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commenter
for their review and comments.
2.6.4 Stacey Brown
Final Environmental Impact Report 100 May 2021
From: Stacey Brown <staceybrown@me.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 20214:46 PM
To: Miller, Chris; Dixon, Diane
Subject: CAD aquatic disposal facility - NO TO A CAD in Newport Bay
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Chris, Diane and City of Newport Beach Public Works
I'm writing to voice my concern over the move to construct and place a CAD disposal facility in Newport
S.Brown-1 I Bay.
I have a hard time understanding construction of a CAD facility in one of the most beautiful local
recreation areas, ( as well as the bay as an important tourism draw for business,) creating risk for
potential long term
health, wellness for people and the waterway, as well as the potential business impact on tourism with
the bay being such a draw for the city. Our waterways are important ecological systems. We need to
protect the bay.
I want to flag my concern and ask that the City of Newport Beach DOES NOT move forward on the
current proposal.
Other alternatives should be explored and other options made visible to the public.
Thank you for the time and consideration.
Stacey Brown
Resident, Newport Beach 92663
staceybrown@mac.com
CwOment
Text
S. Brown-1
The comment notes concerns with the proposed Project, including impacts to the local recreation
areas and ecology, creating risk for potential long-term health, wellness for people and the
waterway, as well as the potential business impact on tourism with the bay being such a draw for
the city. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is
warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Responses 1 through 5, which relate
to the general concerns and Section 3 of the DEIR, which fully analyzes the potential impacts to
environment because of the proposed Project. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank
the commenter for their review and comments.
2.6.5 Mary Buckingham
Final Environmental Impact Report 102 May 2021
January 15, 2020
Chris Miller, Public Works Manager
City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
SUBJECT: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)
Dear Mr. Miller,
Buckingham- Please record this as my opposition to the proposed CAD during the next dredging process in
1 the Newport Harbor turning basin. I studied the materials and in brief, am stunned the EPA,
OSHA or Coastal would consider any of the alternatives suitable.
As Bay residents we dutifully abide by the logical restrictions of paint, chemicals and toxic
cleaners entering our water. Because of eel grass, residents cannot reconfigure their docks so it
is hard to imagine "unsuitable material' would be acceptable to the watchdogs.
Thank you for the opportunity to register my concerns.
Respectfully,
Mary Buckingham
19 Bay Island
Newport Beach, CA 92661
Carameryt
IID
TeitE
Buckingham-
The comment notes the commentor's concerns with the proposed Project, including the potential
1
for increasing hazardous risk. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no
additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Response 2.
Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and comments.
2.6.6 Jacquelyn Chung
Final Environmental Impact Report 104 May 2021
From: Jacquelyn Chung <jacquelyn@cpscoastalpermits.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 202111:11 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: LOWER NEWPORT BAY CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL (CAD)
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Chris,
Chung -1 I After a quick review of the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction
Project my initial reaction was FANTASTIC! Finally a place we can put less desirable dredged
material. However, as I read further I questioned whether this was the best environmental
option for Newport Harbor. What other options has the City of Newport Beach
considered? The alternatives as presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Report
insinuates no other options were entertained other than upland disposal.
When I think about this less desirable material in the direct path of all waters moving within
the bay I question the ability to contain this material regardless of the depth of the CAD.
cnung-2 I looked into how other bays manage less desirable dredged material each city seems to be
different from one another. But, one thing these other bays had that Newport Beach does
not have is a Sediment Management Plan (SMP). The CAD may be a quick easy solution for
today. But, without a SMP how can we protect the future of Newport Harbor?
I'm not saying the CAD isn't the best option for our community and I'm not saying it is. I
would like to understand better the options reviewed prior to the City of Newport Beach
supporting this choice. And, I would like to understand why one of the largest recreational
harbors in Southern California doesn't have a Sediment Management Plan to maintain and
protect it.
Sincerely,
Jacquelyn
Jacquelyn Chung
C Q N $ U11T 1 N G
Coastal Permit Specialist
4010 Channel Place
Newport Beach, California 92663
949274.4214
CPSCoastalPerm its.com
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this communication and included attachments may contain confidential, proprietary,
trademarked, copyrighted, privileged or private information and/or attorney work -product, or is legally protected
from disclosure. It is only for the use of the intended recipient(s) to which it is addressed. Electronic transmissions may be
monitored for misuse and/or abuse of e-mails and system networks. Liability arising out of the content of
any communication will not be accepted. The safety and integrity of electronic communications cannot be guaranteed, and
sender will not accept liability for any damage or loss arising out of this communication. Unless officially authorized, any
views expressed are the personal views of the sender. If you are not an intended recipient or their authorized agent, or it
was sent to you in error, you may not use, review, act in reliance or forbearance on, disseminate, disclose, reproduce,
forward, copy or store any part or portion of this communication and/or attachment(s) without the express consent of
the sender, must notify the sender immediately, and promptly delete the communication along with any attachments from
all media and/or medium on which it may exist.
Com_ t
[D
Text
Chung -1
The comment opines that the City should study alternatives to the proposed Project. Please see
Master Response 3, which addresses the Alternatives analysis.
Chung -2
The comment requests more information regarding the SMP. Please see Master Response 3, which
addresses the City's SMP. Please also note that the SMP is included as Appendix D to the DEIR.
2.6.7 Ronda Clark
Final Environmental Impact Report 107 May 2021
Clark -1
From: rondaclark09@gmaiI.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 202110:30 AM
To: Miller, Chris; 'Diane Dixon'; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin;
woneill@newporteachca.gov; Brenner, Joy; Blom, Noah
Subject: DO NOT SUPPORT CAD -Dredging in the Bay
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Mr. Miller, Ms. Dixon, Mr. Duffield, Mr. Muldoon, Mr. Blom, Ms. Brenner, and Mr. O'Neil:
Please note that I do not support the proposed construction of a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) facility
in the central portion of the Lower Harbor between Bay Island, Lido Isle and Harbor Island. Please
conduct additional studies to find an alternative solution.
The construction of a CAD poses an ADDITIONAL undue RISK to the residents of this area due to
possible exposure and potential health related issues. This area of the City already endures continued
and increasing pollution exposure from the airport. The health of the citizens that live in this area of the
City deserve a better solution with less risk. Additionally the residents of this area of the City should not
continue to endure an unfair burden and risk for the benefit of the greater City and County residents when
there are alternative solutions that can be identified with further study.
Please do the right thing, do not approve the CAD and instead proceed with studies for alternative
solutions.
Thank you!
Best Regards,
Ronda Clark
Newport Beach Resident and Voter
Cxwnmerd
- Teld
Clark -1
The comment notes their opposition to the proposed Project based on the possible additional
potential health-related issues and increasing pollution exposure from the airport. Because the
comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for
their review and comments and direct them to Sections 3.2 and 4.2.2.2 of the DEIR, which address
both project -specific and cumulative impacts from air pollution.
2.6.8 Brooke Coldren
Final Environmental Impact Report 109 May 2021
From: Brooke C <brookecoldren@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 20213:11 PM
To: cmiller@newportbeach.gov; Miller, Chris
Subject: Fwd: Turning basin pollution
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Chris - this is a comment to the city as lead agency in the current CAD plan respecting the DEIR
I understand this is timely as comment period closes end of this month. Note I have " borrowed" text
from "next door" heavily and many share my view .
The City of Newport Beach needs to research alternatives and open up discussion from more than one
consultant that is CAD driven.
From the perspective of a local Marine Scientist experienced in this field:
1. The City does not have a sediment management plan to guide their direction and have therefore,
B.Coldren-1 become a willing victim to bad engineering and environmentally intrusive project alternatives. The idea
of designing a tool for sediment management (i.e. the'CAD') and then developing a plan around it, is
backwards. The City and their consultants know this.
2. When the City has evaluated project alternatives, they have biased the alternative to suit their
B.Coldren 2 determination. The case for a CAD was made long ago, and in lieu of changing science, more recent
studies and regional norms with respect to sediment management, the CAD has been pushed by the
City's consultant from day one. For almost a decade the City has gone down this path, and likely would
have installed a CAD if Port of Long Beach, Pier G hadn't become available in the 2012 timeframe.
However, in spite of the costs and environmental damage, there have been no additional feasibility
studies or steps taken by the City to honestly explore project alternatives. The City and its consultants
have been singularly focusing on the CAD.
B.Coldren 3 3. The water quality impacts not discussed by the DEIR have the potential to cause even more impact
than a normal dredge project, due to the re -handling of unsuitable material in the bay. The City's DEIR
glosses over so me really major issues with plumes, sediment transport, and dilution of contaminants in
a slow circulating bay. The analysis offers no hydrodynamic data to model and predict if a toxic plume
would be an issue. The evaluation of water quality for the purposes of CEQA is incomplete and
purposely vague by design.
Respectfully submitted
• OWE
Brooke Rogers Coldren
815 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach, CA 92663
714-606-8449
CAnweent
Text
B. Coldren-
The comment opines that the City developed an SMP tojustify the CAD facility. Please see Master
1
Response 3 and Section 2.1 of the DEIR, which present the process of project development.
B. Coldren-
The comment opines that the City has not adequately analyzed alternatives to the proposed Project.
2
Please see Master Response 5 as well as Response to Comment PE-3.
B. Coldren-
The comment opines that the water quality analysis in the DEIR is inadequate because it did not
3
include hydrodynamic modeling to fully analyze how a slow circulating bay may affect water quality
issues such as sediment plumes. Appendix G to the BODR includes an analysis of short-term water
quality impacts during construction activities.
2.6.9 Robert Coldren
Final Environmental Impact Report 111 May 2021
From: rob coldren <robcoldren@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 202112:08 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Cc: Brooke Coldren
Subject: Turning basin pollution
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Chris - this is a comment to the city as lead agency in the current CAD plan respecting the DEIR
I understand this is timely as comment period closes end of this month. Note I have " borrowed" text
from "next door" heavily and many share my view .
The City of Newport Beach needs to research alternatives and open up discussion from more than one
consultant that is CAD driven.
From the perspective of a local Marine Scientist experienced in this field:
R.Coldre7 1. The City does not have a sediment management plan to guide their direction and have therefore,
become a willing victim to bad engineering and environmentally intrusive project alternatives. The idea
of designing a tool for sediment management (i.e. the 'CAD') and then developing a plan around it, is
backwards. The City and their consultants know this.
R.Coldren 2
2. When the City has evaluated project alternatives, they have biased the alternative to suit their
determination. The case for a CAD was made long ago, and in lieu of changing science, more recent
studies and regional norms with respect to sediment management, the CAD has been pushed by the
City's consultant from day one. For almost a decade the City has gone down this path, and likely would
have installed a CAD if Port of Long Beach, Pier G hadn't become available in the 2012 timeframe.
However, in spite of the costs and environmental damage, there have been no additional feasibility
studies or steps taken by the City to honestly explore project alternatives. The City and its consultants
have been singularly focusing on the CAD.
3. The water quality impacts not discussed by the DEIR have the potential to cause even more impact
than a normal dredge project, due to the re -handling of unsuitable material in the bay. The City's DEIR
glosses over so me really major issues with plumes, sediment transport, and dilution of contaminants in
a slow circulating bay. The analysis offers no hydrodynamic data to model and predict if a toxic plume
would be an issue. The evaluation of water quality for the purposes of CEQA is incomplete and
purposely vague by design.
Respectfully submitted
Rob
Robert S Coldren, Esq.
Coldren Law Offices
3 Hutton Centre Drive 9th Floor
Santa Ana CA 92707
Office (714) 955-6106
Mobile (949) 220-6241
Qeat
ID
Te)d
R. Coldren-
The comment opines that the City developed an SMP to justify the CAD facility. Please see Master
1
Response 3 and Section 2.1 of the DEIR, which present the process of project development.
R. Coldren-
The comment opines that the City has not adequately analyzed alternatives to the proposed Project.
2
Please see Master Response 5 as well as Response to Comment PE -3.
2.6.70 Mark Conze(man
Final Environmental Impact Report 113 May 2021
Conzelman I ]
From: Mark Conzelman <mark@scdevelopment.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 202111:52 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: DEIR 2019110340/2 Lower Newport Bay CAD
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Chris Miller, Public Works Manager
City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal CAD Construction Project Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR 2019110340/2)
Dear Mr. Miller,
Thank you for the opportunity to register my concerns regarding the use of a CAD to manage
unsuitable material during the next dredging process. The Newport Beach Harbor is a jewel to
the city and state due to its diversity of residential, commercial and recreational
activities. Placing a CAD as proposed would be unprecedented in a west coast harbor as
beautiful and active as Newport Beach. The CAD will not provide a method for completely
cleaning up the harbor, water front homeowners should not be held hostage for toxic waste
clean-up that someone else caused and the alternatives have not been properly considered.
M. In addition, the Sediment Management Plan referenced in the Draft EIR is grossly inadequate,
Conzelman2lacking scientific data and reports that would be required by any private developer. A project of
this sensitivity should not be allowed to proceed without first doing all appropriate scientific
studies.
Conzelman-3 The EPA indicated some flexibility for ocean disposal such as LA 3 if the Water Quality is
properly monitored to assure methyl -mercury is not occurring. This should be further vetted as
a viable alternative.
OThe DEIR lacks a comprehensive cleanup plan. Toxic materials along all water front edges, including
Conzelman-4 residential, should be a part of the cleanup. In addition, alternatives listed are not exhaustive and lack
realistic assumptions with supportive scientific data. For example, a Confined Disposal Facility, CDF,
which I believe to be the best solution isn't even included.
M. I Conzelman-5 fully support dredging and therefore would like the Army Corp.To move forward with dredging
9
all areas possible and taking the suitable materials to ocean approved dumpsites. Areas with
toxic materials should be left in place until further scientific studies are done.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Conzelman
939 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
Sent from my Wad
comam'd
ID
Text
M.
The commenter notes their opposition to the proposed Project based on general comments related
Conzelman
to hazardous risks. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional
-1
response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Response 2, which
describes the potential for hazardous risk and recreation.
M.
The comment opines that the City developed an SMP tojustify the CAD facility. Please see Master
Conzelman
Response 3 and Section 2.1 of the DEIR, which presents the process of project development.
-2
M.
The comment opines that the USEPA has indicated some flexibility for ocean disposal and ocean
Conzelman-
disposal should be added as an alternative. Please see Master Response 3, which addresses the
3
Alternatives analysis. As noted in the DEIR, the USEPA and other DMMT determine whether
sediment is suitable for Ocean disposal.
M.
The comment requests that the City consider a CDF to repurpose unsuitable materials. Please see
Conzelman
Master Response 5 and Response to Comment PE -3, which address the feasibility of a CDF.
-4
M.
The comment opines that contaminated material should just be left in place. As discussed in the
Conzelman
DEIR, the areas targeted for dredging are within navigational channels that have become too
-5
shallow for safe vessel navigation; sediments in these areas could be resuspended by vessel
activities. The proposed Project would seek to relocate the impacted sediments into a deep hole
(CAD facility), which would eliminate those potential risks to water quality thereby resulting a long-
term benefit to the environment.
2.6.11 Shana Conzelman
Final Environmental Impact Report 116 May 2021
From: Shana Conzelman <sconzelman@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 20217:39 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal CAD Construction Project
Environmental Impact Report
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Chris Miller, Public Works Manager
City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal CAD Construction Project Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR 2019110340/2)
Dear Mr. Miller,
S. In DEIR 2019110340/2 there are extensive environmental issues without adequate investigation into
Conzelman alternative solutions.
1 Please record this as my opposition to the CAD in the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal
construction project.
Respectfully submitted,
Shana Conzelman
939 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Coat
ID
'fent
S.
The commenter notes their concerns with the Project, including the potential for increasing
Conzelman-
hazardous risk. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional
1
response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.) Generally, however, the preparers direct
commenter to Master Response 2. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the
commentor for their review and comments.
2.6.72 Tom Fischbeck
Final Environmental Impact Report 118 May 2021
From: Tom Fischbeck <tf@olympicequipment.com>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 20218:55 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: Castaways
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
The City is planning to dig a 450' x 450' hole in the harbor anchorage. Dredge contaminated
soil from one part of the harbor, dump it in the hole and then cover it over. The soil is too
contaminated to be dumped in the ocean!! There are lots of other places it can be dumped.
a) Lower Casterways is a 5 acre site. The soil would raise the level 2'. b) the new proposed
Golf Course over the top of an existing dump site! c) Low lying areas subject to the rising
ocean level we keep getting told about.
Dear Mr Miller: I Paddle my canoe (human Craft) out of castaways and feel this is the perfect spot for
Fischbeck 1 our citizens to play on the bay with paddlecraft. The SUP boards, outriggers, canoes, fishing coanoes,
are more popluar than ever! Espaecially with all the covid pandemic! The thought of dumping
contaminated soil onto this 5 acre area is Ludicrous. I feel this soild could be trucked to a Land fill? Or a
beter solution than to fill up a 5 acre park with contamination.
Warmest regards,
Tom Fischbeck
Tel#: (310) 923-1094
Fax#: (949) 660-9805
TOTAL EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS FOR THE WASTE AND RECYCLING INDUSTRY
Web Site: www.olympiceguipment.com
Olympic
rrlr Yn/ [Juipnrn/, Iqi.
Save a tree... please don't print this email unless you really need to.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for the person(s) or entity(ies) to which
it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this email or the information herein or attached by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s), or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and destroy the original message, attachments, if applicable, and
all copies. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any
computer system into which it is received or opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no
responsibility is accepted by Olympic Wire and Equipment, Inc. for any damage or loss arising in any way from its use.
http://www.olympiceguipment.com
caftunwd
ID
Teat
Fischbeck-1
The comment opines that the City has not adequately analyzed alternatives to the proposed Project,
specifically a CDF. Please see Master Response 5 as well as Response to Comment PE-3. Please see
Master Response 5 and Response to Comment PE-3, which both address the availability of a CDF.
As noted in the DEIR, no CDF is currently open for disposal in the region. As fully discussed in
Comment PE-3, the City chose to eliminate the use of an "on-site" CDF in the past, and to only
consider a CDF fill option if one were to be available in the region, such as at a port facility.
2.6.13 Steve Gelb
Final Environmental Impact Report 120 May 2021
From: Steve Gelb <sgelb@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 202110:16 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Cc: Dept -City Council; Blom, Noah
Subject: Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Cells in Newport Harbor - Bad
Environmental Impact vs Alternatives?
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Chris Miller Public Works Manager City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 100 Civic
Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 cmiller(a)-newportbeachca.gov
Dear Mr. Miller
Please do not act to remove the unsuitable materials in our bay, unfit for ocean disposal and
consolidate them in a 450'x 450'x 47' deep hole in the middle of our beautiful, clean anchorage.
This is not removal, it is a plan to take our good base and replace it with the bad, unsuitable
materials from the entire harbor.
Gelb -1 My understanding is that the City has a long term plan of opening this `CAD' up and allowing
future dumps. The City of Newport Beach should research alternatives and open up discussion
from more than one consultant that is CAD driven. I've been informed that, from the perspective
of a local Marine Scientist experienced in this field: 1. The City does not have a sediment
management plan to guide their direction and have therefore, become a willing victim to bad
engineering and environmentally intrusive project alternatives. The idea of designing a tool for
sediment management (i.e. the 'CAD') and then developing a plan around it, is backwards. The
City and their consultants know this. 2. When the City has evaluated project alternatives; they
Gelb -2 have biased the alternative to suit their determination. The case for a CAD was made long ago,
and in lieu of changing science, more recent studies and regional norms with respect to
sediment management, the CAD has been pushed by the City's consultant from day one. For
almost a decade the City has gone down this path, and likely would have installed a CAD if Port
of Long Beach, Pier G hadn't become available in the 2012 timeframe. However, in spite of the
costs and environmental damage, there have been no additional feasibility studies or steps
taken by the City to honestly explore project alternatives. The City and its consultants have been
singularly focusing on the CAD. 3. The water quality impacts not discussed by the DEIR have
Gelb -3 the potential to cause even more impact than a normal dredge project, due to the re -handling of
unsuitable material in the bay. The City's DEIR glosses over so many really major issues with
plumes, sediment transport, and dilution of contaminants in a slow circulating bay. The analysis
offers no hydrodynamic data to model and predict if a toxic plume would be an issue. The
evaluation of water quality for the purposes of CEQA is incomplete and purposely vague by
design.
I would appreciate seeing your response to these concerns that have been brought to the
attention of a great many resident over the past few weeks.
Sincerely,
Steven Gelb
Lido Isle
cc:
Newport Beach Administration and City Council
citycouncilCaD-newportbeachca.gov
Noah Blom
nblom(d.newportbeachca.gov
ID
TNd
Gelb -1
The comment opines that the City developed a sediment management plan to justify the CAD
facility. Please see Master Response 3 and Section 2.1 of the DEIR, which presents the process of
project development.
Galb-2
The comment opines that the City has not adequately analyzed alternatives to the proposed Project.
Please see Master Response 5 as well as Response to Comment PE -3.
Gelb -3
The comment opines that the water quality analysis in the DEIR is inadequate because not did not
include hydrodynamic modeling to fully analyze how a slow circulating bay may affect water quality
issues such as sediment plumes. Appendix G to the BODR includes an analysis of short-term water
quality impacts during construction activities.
2.6.74 Carol Green
Final Environmental Impact Report 123 May 2021
Green -1
January 8, 2021
Carol Green
Phone Message left to Chris Miller (transcribed)
"Hi, I'm Carol Green, and I live on Lido Island. My husband is Charlie Green. And I'm
reading about the dredging in our bay, and I'm against.
I wish you'd find another solution about the CAD, the 450 x 450 with a depth of 47' hole
in the middle of the anchorage in the Lower Harbor between Bay Island, Lido Island and
Harbor Island. Their plan is to place all unsuitable for ocean disposal sediment in this
area. Highlighted below you will note that the clean material suitable for beach
nourishment, our clean anchorage, will be transported to the ocean. Well, I don't want
the sediment placed right out here at the end the Lido Island, and Bay Island and
Harbor Island. I am against it, opposed, and I wish you would find another solution for
this toxic sediment.
And I will text, not text, I have to email the District 1, Diane Dixon, and all the other
ones. But I just noticed it. And it's just unsuitable. Just sounds terrible. I don't know why
they're doing it. Okay, but thank you Chris Miller. Please, I know you're going to be
doing the work but I wish you'd find some other way to do it. So, I'm opposed, and I
know a lot of other people on Lido Island all say they're opposed, but they go you can't
do anything about it. But, and then, you know, it's just terrible. So, anyway, just (phone
number). I don't know what else I can do. So, thank you very much for listening.
Comment
ID
Text
Green -1
The comment notes the commentor's concerns with the Project including the potential for
increasing hazardous risk. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no
additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Response 2.
Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commentor review and comments.
2.6.75 Sharon Grimes
Final Environmental Impact Report 125 May 2021
Grtrnes 1
Sharon M. Grimes
219 Via Eboli
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
January 19, 2021
Dear Mr. Miller, and All Newport Beach Council Members;
Please register my concerns regarding the use of a CAD to manage unsuitable material
during the next dredging process. Newport Beach Harbor must be kept safe for our
families, our city, and surrounding communities. Placing a CAD as proposed would be
unprecedented in a west coast harbor or any waters used by our citizens. Our Bay is
beautiful and active providing enjoyment to residents and visitors to Newport
Beach. The whole idea of BURYING CONTAMINATED TRASH is unbelievable.
Grimes -2] In addition, the Sediment Management Plan referenced in the Draft EIR is extremely
inadequate, lacking scientific data and reports that would be required by any private
developer. A project of this magnitude should not be allowed to proceed without
first doing all appropriate scientific studies.
Grimes -3 I The EPA indicated some flexibility for ocean disposal such as LA 3 if the Water Quality
is properly monitored to assure methylmercury is not occurring. Perhaps there are
other Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) locations that have not been considered that
would provide more appropriate solutions.
Grimes -4 Please STOP this endeavor DO YOUR Duty for the Citizens who pay your salary and
give more time to investigate to all other potential alternatives. As I said, the idea that
the best solution to the problem is to put a toxic waste dump in the middle of Newport
Harbor is beyond comprehension especially by those paid to protect our environment.
Sincerely,
Sharon -M. Grimes
comment
iD
Text
S. Grimes -1
The commenter notes their opposition to the proposed Project based on general comments related
to hazardous risks. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional
response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088).
S. Grimes -2
The comment opines that the USEPA has indicated some flexibility for ocean disposal and ocean
disposal should be added as an alternative. Please see Master Response 3, which addresses the
Alternatives analysis. As noted in the DEIR, the USEPA and other DMMT determine whether
sediment is suitable for Ocean disposal.
S. Grimes -3
The comment opines that the City developed a sediment management plan tojustify the CAD
facility. Please see Master Response 3 and Section 2.1 of the DEIR, which presents the process of
project development.
S. Grimes -4
The commenter notes their opposition to the proposed Project based on general comments related
to hazardous risks. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional
response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the preparers of this
EIR thank the commenter for their review and comments.
2.6.76 Joe((e Hamontree
Final Environmental Impact Report 127 May 2021
From:
Joelle Hamontree <Joelle@hamontree.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 13, 20213:30 PM
To:
Miller, Chris; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy
Cc:
Muldoon, Kevin; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William; Blom, Noah
Subject:
Begging you to rethink this CAD in our bay!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear City Council,
If it wasn't already clear, it is certainly clear now that we live in a very special place. During this
Hamontree 1 pandemic, me, my family and many others took to the bay for water sports, boating and enjoyment. If
this very understudied plan of opening up a CAD and dumping toxic waste into our bay goes through,
you will be risking the quality of our water and possibly making people sick. THAT IS THE LAST THING
WE NEED!
I'M BEGGING YOU TO PLEASE RESEARCH ALTERNATIVES AND STOP THIS PLAN NOW!
Thank you,
Joelle Hamontree
Lido Resident
Qi
Tact
Hamontree
The commenter notes their opposition to the proposed Project based on general comments related
-1
to hazardous risks and recreation. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues,
no additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Responses
2 and 4, which relate the potential for hazardous risk and recreation. Generally, however, the
preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and comments.
2.6.17 Randall Hause
Final Environmental Impact Report 129 May 2021
From: randall@scdevelopment.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 20219:57 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal CAD Construction
Project Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 2019110340/2)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Chris Miller,
Chris Miller, Public Works Manager
City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal CAD Construction Project Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR 2019110340/2)
Please accept this notification as my opposition to a CAD being considered to manage unsuitable
material in Newport Beach bay. Placing a dumpsite in the middle of our harbor is a bad idea for the
following reasons:
Hause 1 1. Very disruptive to boating activities and the surrounding communities. A CAD is not appropriate
for our harbor.
Hause-2 2. Water quality will be negatively impacted from unsuitable material being handled twice thru the
water column, once digging up and once dumping.
Hause-3 3. The Draft EIR lacks a comprehensive clean-up plan. Toxic materials along all water front edges
including residential should be a part of the clean-up.
Hau—se-41 4. The Sediment Management Plan is grossly inadequate.
Hause-5 5. Alternatives have not been seriously considered due to the City's strong desire to utilize a CAD.
FHause-6 6. Further investigations to determine how more "unsuitable" materials can be dumped at LA3.
Hause _771 7. Confined Facility Disposal 'CFD' should be evaluated and utilized to repurpose unsuitable
materials.
Hause-S g. Removing the unsuitable material and hauling it upland has not been seriously vetted.
FHause-9 9• Newport Harbor is a crown jewel of the world. Why crap where we eat? The fact that this is
even being considered is absolutely appalling. I am ashamed to even have to argue against
something like this.
Because of the city's strong desire to utilize a CAD, they continue to be intentionally deceptive
throughout the CEQA process and fail to follow proper protocol. I support dredging and would like the
Army Corp to move forward with dredging all acceptable areas and leaving unsuitable materials in place
or develop an alternative plan.
Best Regards,
Randall Hause
Acquisition & Development Associate
SC Development
O: (714) 617-9824
C: (949) 878-6781
2151 Michelson Dr., Ste. 140
Irvine, CA 92612
www.scdevelopment.net
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and
purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited.
com"e"t
ID'
Tett
Hause-1
The comment opines that a CAD would be disruptive to boating. Please see Master Response 4 and
Response to Comment Yates 2, which addresses the potential impacts to recreational resources,
including boating.
Hause-2
The comment opines that water quality will be negatively impacted from unsuitable material being
handled twice. Please see Master Response 2.
Regarding the suggestion that the sediment should be left where it as its essentially capped, this
assumption is not correct. As discussed in the DEIR, the areas targeted for dredging are within
navigational channels that have become too shallow for safe vessel navigation; sediments in these
areas could be resuspended by vessel activities.
Please also see Comments RWQCB (2) -1 through RWQCB (2)-6. As discussed in the response to
these comments, the DEIR sufficiently addresses the magnitude and nature of potential impacts to
water quality and the environment.
Hause-3
The comment opines that the proposed Project be expanded to address all contaminated material
in the Harbor. The CAD facility was designed to accommodate the approximately 106,900 cy
determined unsuitable for open ocean disposal. To increase the benefits of the CAD facility for the
Newport Beach community, the City also intends to provide additional capacity for subsequent
placement of materials dredged from other locations within Lower Newport Bay, which are also
unsuitable for open ocean or nearshore disposal. The CAD facility would thereby accommodate
additional fill volume from future maintenance dredging projects conducted as part of the City's
RGP 54 programs as well as sediment that is not covered as part of the program and thus requires
an alternative disposal option. At this stage of the design, the City considers 50,000 cy to be a
reasonable target capacity for this nonfederal sediment.
Hause-4
The comment opines that the SMP is grossly inadequate. Please see Master Response 3, which
addresses the adequacy of the SMP.
Hause-5
The comment opines that the DEIR did not include a thorough alternatives analysis. Please see
Master Response 3, which addresses the alternatives analysis.
Hause-6
The comment requests further investigations to determine how more "unsuitable" materials can be
dumped at LA-3. This comment is beyond the scope of this environmental analysis.
Hause-7
The comment requests that the City consider a CDF to repurpose unsuitable materials. Please see
Master Response 5 and Response to Comment PE-3, which address the feasibility of a CDF.
Hause-8
The comment opines that upland disposal has not been analyzed. Please see Section 6.3.2, which
addresses the possibility of upland disposal. The alternative was carried through for analysis and
remains a viable alternative for consideration.
Hause-9
The comment generally summarizes the commenter's comments on the DEIR and notes opposition
to the proposed Project. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no
additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the
preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and comments.
Final Environmental Impact Report 132 May 2021
2.6.78 Laurie Hunter
Final Environmental Impact Report 133 May 2021
From:
Laurie Hunter <laurie.hunter@sbcglobal. net>
Sent:
Saturday, January 23, 20218:56 AM
To:
Miller, Chris
Cc:
Dixon, Diane
Subject:
CAD in the Bay: No Superfund in a Box
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Miller:
I see that I missed the formal deadline, but want to register my sincere horror that the City is
considering boxing up toxins to bury in the neighborhood.
I imagine when they put the iron pipes underground on Lido Isle, where I own and live, they thought it
would be safe forever. These things will leak, if not in my lifetime, in our children's or future
generations'.
Have you surveyed the property owners to see if you could seek an assessment to properly dispose of
the filthy toxins by hauling them away from our families and neighbors? I did not see any poll or survey,
but did you?
Please don't do this CAD for the "unsuitable" materials..
Sincerely,
Laurie Hunter
228 Via Orvieto
Lido Isle
C
tD
Text
Hunter-1
The comment opines that the proposed Project would create a hazardous waters site in the Harbor.
Please see Master Response 2, which addresses the potential for hazardous waste risks.
2.6.19 Jim Huyck
Final Environmental Impact Report 135 May 2021
From: Jim Huyck <Jimonpv@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 20218:38 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: No CAD in our bay
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Chris Miller,
I don't know the details, but CAD sounds like a ridiculous plan to relocate contaminated dredge material
from one spot in Newport Harbor to another spot in Newport Harbor. I suspect CAD is mostly a
politically motivated attempt to restrict future development and "human activities" in general. I assume
the word "environmental", in this case, is merely an attempt to give the plan credibility with people who
support anything labeled "environmental".
Huyck-1I My idea would be to haul the dredged material far out to sea and dump it there. This would seem to be
safer for local residents and I would challenge CAD planners to show me how this would "contaminate"
the Pacific Ocean.
So my opinion, unless I can be convinced otherwise by an actual reasonable argument, is that there
should be no CAD in our bay.
Thank you.
Jim Huyck.
Cwt
[Q
Tea,
Huyck-1
The comment opines that the City should study alternatives to the proposed Project, namely
disposal at sea. Please see Master Response 3, which addresses the Alternatives analysis. As noted in
the DEIR, the USEPA and other DMMT determine whether sediment is suitable for Ocean disposal.
2.6.20 Dennis Lockard
Final Environmental Impact Report 137 May 2021
January 18, 2021
Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
SUBJECT: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project (PA2019-020)
State Clearinghouse Number: 2019110340
Mr. Miller,
Please register opposition to the Lower Newport Bay CAD Construction Project PA2019-020 based on
the incomplete and incorrect Environmental Impact Report.
Lockard 1 The draft EIR prepared December 2020 by Anchor QEA, LLC does not identify significant impacts to the
bay and surrounding community. The bay throughout my life has provided recreation, and community.
cannot imagine the use of this priceless part of the California coast being used as a hazardous waste
dump site.
Alternatives including upland locations, off shore disposal and landfill locations within Newport Beach
have not been fully disclosed in the EIR that would protect the fragile bay environment and conceivably
lower the costs associated with the disposal of the hazardous waste identified to be remediated in this
project.
The bottom line is that the City of Newport Beach and the impacted community that enjoys and uses
the Newport Bay should not be responsible for the contingent liability being created by this proposed
project in perpetuity.
Please reject the EIR and commission a new EIR that uses independent thinking and judgement in
abating the hazardous waste to a sensible location outside the waterways of Newport Bay.
Regards,
< QL-1
Dennis Lockard, Deputy Chief -Fire Marshal
Newport Beach Fire Department (Retired)
chieflockard@gmail.com
714-306-3355
From: chieflockard@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:13 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Cc: state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov; City Clerk's Office
Subject: OPPSITION TO Construction Project PA2019-020
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Good afternoon Mr. Miler,
This email and attachment are in opposition to the proposed Lower
Newport Bay CAD project which proposes the dumping of hazardous
waste into Newport Bay.
I know you have longstanding experience with the bay and all of the
associated boating, recreation, commerce and revenues this bay
provides the City and Orange County. Based on the comments by
others and myself I hope you will take a leadership role in identifying
new and better alternatives to the proposed CAD.
Kindest Regards,
Dennis Lockard
2.6.21 Violet Lorenzen
Final Environmental Impact Report 140 May 2021
Text
Lockard-1
The commenter notes their opposition to the Project based on objections related to hazardous
waste, alternatives, and recreation. Please see Master Responses 1 through 3. Because the comment
omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088). Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review
and comments.
2.6.21 Violet Lorenzen
Final Environmental Impact Report 140 May 2021
Coe�ne�t
®'
Text
Lorenzen -1
The comment opines that the proposed Project would create a hazardous waters site in the Harbor.
Please see Master Response 2, which addresses this issue.
2.6.22 Julie Luckey
Final Environmental Impact Report 142 May 2021
From: Julie Luckey <theluckeys@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 202110:09 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: CAD Proposal
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Chris Miller,
J.Luckey-1 I oppose the current CAD proposal and think that other alternatives need to be presented.
Please put me on the mailing list for further notices.
Julie Luckey
949-662-8400
co>
1D
Test
J.Luckey-1
The comment opines that the City should study alternatives to the proposed Project. Please see
Master Response 3, which addresses the Alternatives analysis.
2.6.23 Palmer Luckey
Final Environmental Impact Report 144 May 2021
From: Palmer Luckey <palmertech@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 202111:57 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: Comment on Newport Bay CAD Project, Jan 19
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Having reviewed all publicly available materials, I believe that relevant technological advancements have
been developed since the CAD and other alternatives underwent analysis, particularly
hydraulic dredging and transport technology.
P.Luckey 1 I support dredging, and want to dredge deeply and quickly and safely across as much of the bay as
possible. The current proposal is based on outdated analysis. Taking a fresh look at the problem
starting from first principles should be a priority, and I would be down to fund that type of analysis out
of my own pocket in a timely manner.
Ca�ta�tt
IID
Tcsc
P.Luckey-1
The commenter notes their opposition to the proposed Project based on the possible additional
alternatives, namely hydraulic dredging, and transport technology. Please see Master Response 5,
which addresses the scope of the Alternatives analysis. Because the comment omits any significant
environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088).
Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and comments.
2.6.24 James E. "Kimo" McCormick
Final Environmental Impact Report 146 May 2021
James E. "Kimo" McCormick
808 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach, CA
(949) 729-8000
kmccormicl<@I<irnolaw.com
January 16, 2021
SENT BY US MAIL AND EMAIL
Chris Miller
Public Works Director
City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
cmiller@newportbeachca.gov
Re: Notice of Availability Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)
Construction Project
Dear Manager Miller:
Cccormick I have lived on Lido Isle since 1984 but first visited and stayed on Lido in the 1960s when I was in high
school. My wife and I raised our three children on Lido. My parents bought a home on Lido in 1969 and
owned it continuously until 2011 when my mother passed. My wife's grandparents owned a home on
Lido and her parents have lived on the island since 1974 (her father passed in 2004 but her mother is
still living here in her own home). Our families and children have played in and enjoyed the bay and all
of its amenities. It is central to the Lido and Newport bay lifestyle. Our children were exceptional
sailors, spending every summer day in and on the water and many other days throughout the year.
Needless to say, we love and are extremely attached to Lido Isle and jealously guard against decisions
that may adversely impact our health and safety.
Mccormic1
1
I recall in the past that a proposal to dredge the Rhine Channel resulted in a similar project to dredge
and dispose of the hazardous heavy metal sediment in a confined aquatic disposal area off the south
side of Lido Isle—directly across from the Lido clubhouse. Resistance from residents of Lido Isle and
other bayfront communities convinced the City and other applicable agencies to alter the project. The
contaminated sediment that was unsuitable for open ocean disposal was dredged and barged to either
Long Beach or Los Angeles Harbor and used for landfill purposes. This was clearly a "win-win" for
everyone involved. One of the original objections to this proposal was the cost, but eventually rationale
minds agreed that this was the best way to handle that situation.
McCormick -3 I remind you of this past project as the approach and solution seems equally relevant and applicable to
the current proposal. Dredging and relocating sediment that is unsuitable for open ocean disposal in a
CAD in the very center of our busy recreational harbor is not solving the problem, it is merely disturbing
the unsuitable sediment and relocating it. I am not an expert in marine dredging, but I have to believe
McCormick -3 that the process of scooping the unsuitable sediment and dumping it presents its own adverse
(continued) environmental impacts, further spreading and dispersing the unsuitable sediment. I do not believe that
there is technology available today that mitigates this exposure, nor do I believe that you, as a City
employee with responsibility for this project, can honestly look me in the eye and assure me that the
CAD is 100% foolproof and safe or that the health of my family and neighbors will never be adversely
impacted. We have to continue to vigilantly guard our precious bay and environment.
Another alternative is to find a City that would be happy to have the sediment for landfill to expand its
footprint, similar to what was done years ago,
IMcCormick-4 If that is not available, then there have to be other alternatives that have less potential environmental,
�� health and safety impacts. If the CAD in the very center of our busy recreational harbor is deemed by
the experts to be not dangerous, and, in fact, safe, then why would it not be true if a similar CAD project
were undertaken in the ocean outside of our bay away from the coastline where there is much less
potential immediate contact with the human population. Sometimes you have to do a balancing of
interests.
My wife and I object to this CAD facility project as proposed. Thank you for your consideration of our
comments.
Very truly yours, LU Ad
K406vw Irw
James E. "Kimo" McCormick
cc Diane Dixon (District 1)
ddixon@neweportbeachca.gov
C nK*
IID
Tom#
McCormick-
The commenter notes their concerns about the Project, including the potential for impacts to
1
residents' health and safety. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no
additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the
preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and comments and direct them to
Master Responses 1 through 5, which address several public concerns
McCormick
The comment suggest that the City consider forgoing the CAD and instead disposing the material
-2
at a CDF. Please see Master Response 5 and Response to Comment PE -3, which both address the
availability of a CDF. As noted in the DEIR, no CDF is currently open for disposal in the region. As
fully discussed in Comment PE -3, the City chose to eliminate the use of an "on-site" CDF in the past,
and to only consider a CDF fill option if one were to be available in the region, such as at a port
facility. Regarding the potential to place material at Lower Castaways, while this area was used in
the past as a staging area for the LNB 2012 dredging, it is not a CDF and would pose additional
environmental impacts as discussed in PE -3.
McCormick
The comment opines that dredging will merely disturb the unsuitable sediment and relocating it.
-3
However, this assumption is not correct. As discussed in the DEIR, the areas targeted for dredging
are within navigational channels that have become too shallow for safe vessel navigation; sediments
in these areas could be resuspended by vessel activities. The proposed Project would seek to
relocate the impacted sediments into a deep hole (CAD facility), which would eliminate those
potential risks to water quality thereby resulting a long-term benefit to the environment.
McCormick
The comment questions if the CAD could be relocated out of the Harbor and into the ocean. A CAD
-4
is a viable alternative in a calm bay such as the Harbor but would not be viable in a dynamic system
such as the open ocean. Wind, waves, and currents would be too variable, and material could not
be as easily contained as in less dynamic systems, Additionally, constructing a CAD facility in the
open ocean would conflict with existing federal policies and federal agencies would likely not issue
regulatory permits.
2.6.25 Diana Miner
Final Environmental Impact Report 149 May 2021
From: Diana Miner <daminer99@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 20213:13 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: NO CAD IN OUR BAY!!!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Miner 1 NO CAD IN OUR BAY!!
DO THE RIGHT THING PLEASE
Diana Miner
949.394.6212
Sales Partner I Bradshaw Residential Group
Coldwell Banker Global Realty
840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
CalBRE #01919429
Connnent
tD
Text
Miner-1
The commenter notes their opposition to the proposed Project. Because the comment omits any
significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section
15088). Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and
comments.
2.6.26 Pete Rabbitt
Final Environmental Impact Report 151 May 2021
Gmail - Bay Dredging Issues
Bay Dredging Issues
3 messages
Pete Rabbitt <prabbitt4l @gmail.com>
To: cmilller@newportbeachca.gov
Pete Rabbitt <prabbitt41@gmai11.com>
Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:46 PM
Hello Chris:
I see you're busy as always!
Re: dredging, I received a flyer but not sure the ramifications? Are you saying "IF" there is contaminated
sediment, the city has to dispose of this by building a bin in the middle of the bay?? rather than barging out
to ocean? Being a 70 year bayfront resident when city would just dredge on to nearest beach this
appears ridiculous, if in fact true! What types of contaminated sediment would cause this condition, and
how would material then be disposed of?
Can you enlighten me on this civic opportunity to broaden project scope and spend a huge amount
of taxpayer funds?
Thanks Chris, I'll look forward to hearing from you.
Pete Rabbitt
949 351 8484
Mail Delivery System <noreply@cisco.com>
To: prabbitt4l@gmail.com
Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:47 PM
The following message to <cmilller@newportbeachca.gov> was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied. AS(201806281)
[DM3GCCO2FT013.eop-gcc02.prod. protection. outlook. com]'
Final -Recipient: rfc822:cmilllerC�newportbeachca.aov
2
Cormnewt
Text
P. Rabbitt-1
The comment notes questions about the proposed Project and whether there is known
contamination. Please see Master Responses 2 and 5. In addition, Section 2 of the DEIR presents the
full project description along with the regulatory oversight involved with managing contaminated
sediment. As noted in the DEIR, the USEPA and other DMMT determine whether sediment is suitable
for Ocean disposal.
2.6.27 Harry Railton
Final Environmental Impact Report 153 May 2021
From: oringseal@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 20216:21 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Cc: sconzelman@gmail.com; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy;
Duffield, Duffy; Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: No CAD in our BAY
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Mr Miller
I totally agree with what is stated below. No further action
should be taken on the project until there has been further
study. I do not like the current idea at all.
Harry Railton
619, Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach CA 92663
Do not remove the unsuitable materials in our bay, unfit for ocean disposal and
consolidate them in a 450'x 450'x 47' deep hole in the middle of our beautiful, clean
anchorage. This is not removal, it is a plan to take our good base and replace it with
the bad, unsuitable materials from the entire harbor. The City has a long term plan
of opening this 'CAD' up and allowing future dumps. The City of Newport Beach
needs to research alternatives and open up discussion from more than one
consultant that is CAD driven.
From the perspective of a local Marine Scientist experienced in this field:
Railton -1 1. The City does not have a sediment management plan to guide their direction
and have therefore, become a willing victim to bad engineering and environmentally
intrusive project alternatives. The idea of designing a tool for sediment management
(i.e. the'CAD') and then developing a plan around it, is backwards. The City and their
consultants know this.
Railton -2 2. When the City has evaluated project alternatives, they have biased the alternative
to suit their determination. The case for a CAD was made long ago, and in lieu of
changing science, more recent studies and regional norms with respect to sediment
management, the CAD has been pushed by the City's consultant from day one. For
almost a decade the City has gone down this path, and likely would have installed a
CAD if Port of Long Beach, Pier G hadn't become available in the 2012
Railton -3
timeframe. However, in spite of the costs and environmental damage, there
have been no additional feasibility studies or steps taken by the City to honestly
explore project alternatives. The City and its consultants have been singularly
focusing on the CAD.
3. The water quality impacts not discussed by the DER have the potential to cause
even more impact than a normal dredge project, due to the re -handling of unsuitable
material in the bay. The City's DER glosses over so me really major issues with
plumes, sediment transport, and dilution of contaminants in a slow circulating
bay. The analysis offers no hydrodynamic data to model and predict if a toxic plume
would be an issue. The evaluation of water quality for the purposes of CEQA is
incomplete and purposely vague by design.
SUBMIT ALL COMMENTS
BY JANUARY 20, 2021 TO:
Chris Miller
Public Works Manager
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
cmiller ,newportbeachca.gov 949.644.3043
Be sure to notify the
City Council as well:
District 1
Diane B. Dixon
ddixon(a)_newportbeachca.gov
District 2
Mayor Brad Avery
bavery(a-)newportbeachca.gov
District 3
Duffy Duffield
dduffield(d)newportbeachca.gov
District 4
Mayor Pro Tem
Kevin Muldoon
kmuldoon(Dnewportbeachca.gov
District 5
Noah Blom
nblom aAnewportbeachca.gov
District 6
Joy Brenner
loycd-)newportbeachca.gov
District 7
Will O'Neill
woneill(o)newportbeachca.gov
C nnmeett
ID
Text
Railton -1
The comment opines that the City developed a sediment management plan to justify the CAD
facility. Please see Master Response 3 and Section 2.1 of the DEIR, which presents the process of
project development.
Railton -2
The comment opines that the City has not adequately analyzed alternatives to the proposed Project.
Please see Master Response S as well as Response to Comment PE -3.
Railton -3
The comment opines that the water quality analysis in the DEIR is inadequate because not did not
include hydrodynamic modeling to fully analyze how a slow circulating bay may affect water quality
issues such as sediment plumes. Appendix G to the BODR includes an analysis of short-term water
quality impacts during construction activities.
2.6.28 Camille Rizko
Final Environmental Impact Report 1S7 May 2021
From: Camille Rizko <camille@rizkocircle.com>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 202111:23 AM
To: Miller, Chris; Dixon, Diane
Subject: I am against dumping the dredging refuse in the turning basin
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear sir and Madam,
Rizko 1 I have lived on Lido Isle since 2009. 1 am against dumping the contaminated material in the turning
basin. We should dump it outside the bay as has been done in the past.
Best Regards,
Camille Rizko
Connuerit-
ID'
Text
Rizko-1
The comment opines that the proposed Project would create a hazardous waters site in the Harbor.
Please see Master Response 2. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no
additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the
preparers direct commenter to Master Response 2. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR
thank the commentor for their review and comments.
2.6.29 Debbie Robson
Final Environmental Impact Report 159 May 2021
From: Debbie Robson <drobson@salushomecare.com>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 10:11 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Cc: Mark Robson
Subject: LOWER NEWPORT BAY CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL (CAD)
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Mr. Miller,
Robson 1 How can it possibly be healthy for the residents of Lido Isle, Bay Isle, and
other nearby populated areas to have waste material that has been deemed
unfit for swimmers in the ocean to be near their homes? This seems like a
very bad idea and not well thought out.
Robson 2 I would like to vote NOT to see this as a solution. There must be a better
idea. what about taking the toxic material out in the ocean a few
miles? Similar to being a place where boats can dump their holding tanks.
Sincerely,
Debbie
Debbie Robson
Vice President/ Horne Health and Hospice
Office: (949) 390-7308
Direct: (949) 390-7370
Fax: (949) 407-5141
630 Roosevelt
Irvine, CA 92620
salushomecare. com
NOTE: This e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s)
listed. Unauthorized use or disclosure of this e-mail or any of the information in it is
strictly prohibited. If you are not a listed recipient or someone authorized to receive e-
mail on behalf of a listed recipient, please reply to the sender that the e-mail was
misdirected and delete the e-mail. Thank you.
Notice: This email transmission (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you
have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
t'O
#D
Tett
Robson -1
The commenter notes their concerns to the Project regarding hazardous risks. Because the
comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Response 2, which relate the potential for hazardous
risk. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commentor for their review and
comments.
Robson -2
The comment opines that the City should study alternatives to the proposed Project, namely
disposal at sea. Please see Master Response 3, which addresses the Alternatives analysis. As noted in
the DEIR, the USEPA and other DMMT determine whether sediment is suitable for Ocean disposal.
2.6.30 Gail Rosenstein
Final Environmental Impact Report 162 May 2021
From: gail rosenstein <gailboom@me.com>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 12:34 PM
To: Miller, Chris; Dept - City Council
Subject: Cad trash can
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
I hope you all know what you are doing !
Rosenstein tl If a leak in this cad should happen, and contaminates the bay.
Newport Beach is ruined
and all business and homes and restaurants With it.
Gail Rosenstein
933 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach Ca
Connnent
ID
Text
Rosenstein-
The commenter notes their concerns to the Project regarding hazardous risks. Because the
1
comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Response 2, which relate the potential for hazardous
risk. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and
comments.
2.6.3 7 Brooke Sharp
Final Environmental Impact Report 164 May 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
Sharp -1 I am writing in opposition to the CAD placement within Newport Harbor. The Draft EIR does not
adequately reflect the impact of the project on Recreation. The Draft EIR states that 3 yacht clubs are in
the vicinity of the project when, in actuality, Balboa Island Yacht Club, Balboa Yacht Club and Bahia
Corinthian Yacht Club all use the proposed site as well. The site is not only used as an anchorage but is
actively used by the boating community for local and national regattas. Six yacht clubs and multiple
sailing associations use the proposed site regularly throughout the year. The Draft EIR's mitigation
method for this is not thoroughly analyzed. It ignores the location of the proposed relocation of sailing
activities in the Harbor. There is not another area of Newport Harbor that is appropriate for such
activities with 100+ boat fleets without interfering with boat traffic and navigational channels.
Sharp -2 Appendix I claims that 120 boats (15% of vessels berthed in the area) can use the Lido Channel and that
that percentage of boat use "is high even for a summer weekend." I would like to see the research
associated with this claim. This also does not account for the fact that boats berthed in that area are not
the only users, especially with the proposed relocation of the Anchorage to the Turning Basin. As
someone who works on the water and sees firsthand, the boating activity has increased on the Harbor
due to the coronavirus pandemic and the need for social distancing.
Sharp -3 In addition, the Draft EIR also states that question AQ -4 (odors adversely affecting a substantial number
of people) is of "less than significant impact". Dredging up any part of Newport Bay draws a strong odor
as any resident can attest from years of dredging projects. This question is not adequately researched if
deemed less than significant.
Sharp -4 With reference to GEO-3 (soil that is unstable or that would become unstable), multiple houses on Lido
have broken foundations of nearby structures when building basements — what is the potential for
damage to nearby structures if there is a collapse either during construction or due to an earthquake?
This project should not go forward until the effects on Recreation, Air Quality and Geology are further
analyzed.
Sincerely,
Brooke Sharp
Sailing Director, LIYC
sailin2director(@Iivc.net
949.673.5119
Comment
ID
Tutt
Sharp -1
The comment opines that the proposed Project would impact recreational resources, especially
sailing. Please see Master Response 2.
Sharp -2
The comment requests the research associated with the number of boats presented in Appendix 1
(120 boats (15% of vessels berthed in the area) can use the Lido Channel). Appendix I presents the
formula for calculating the number of vessels that can use the Main Navigation Channel between
Mariners' Mile and Lido Isle, which comes out to be 20 vessels, or approximately 15% of the total
number of vessels berthed in this area. The calculation assumes a 35 -foot average vessel length,
four 50 -foot -wide design lanes, and adequate spacing between vessels.
Sharp -3
The comment opined that odors would be an issue during construction of the CAD. This issue was
addressed in Section 3.2.3.4.4. of the DEIR. As discussed in the DEIR, residential receptors would be
approximately 500 feet from the CAD facility construction and at that distance any odor would
dissipate.
Sharp -4
The comment raises a question on the potential for damage to nearby structures if there is a nearby
home collapse either during construction or due to an earthquake. It is unclear if the commentor is
questioning whether there would be damage to the CAD structure in case of failure of a landside
home, or whether construction under the proposed Project could lead to home failure in case of an
earthquake. In either scenario, the CAD site not likely be directly affect nor directly affect landside
homes in case of a geological event. As discussed in Section 3.5.3.4, if slope instability occurs along
the slopes of the CAD facility due to ground shaking and causes material migration onto the cap, it
is expected that the material sloughing onto the final cap layer would enhance the thickness and
thus the effectiveness of the final cap because these sediments are not chemically impacted. As
discussed in Section 3.5.1.2, bathymetric surveys would be used to monitor for changes to the final
cap if a significantly large ground shaking event were to occur.
2.6.32 Greg and Louise Shaver
Final Environmental Impact Report 166 May 2021
From: G. Shaver <shaverman@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 20213:21 PM
To: Miller, Chris; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Newport Harbor CAD 2021
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Jan 19, 2021
Regarding the proposed Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) for the upcoming dredging of Newport
Harbor...
ffv _e I will attempt to be brief, as your time is valuable, but this issue is of a serious note. As a 50+ year
resident of Newport Beach, I am strongly opposed to this proposal. This so-called "solution" reflects an
"out of sight, out of mind" mentality, to sweep hazardous materials under the rug by dumping them
beneath the water in the middle of Newport Harbor and pretending that's the end of it.
�haver__J
Within living memory, the ecology of Newport Harbor has seen its ups and downs. In the 60's, it was
vibrant, with barracuda feeding on schools of anchovies, delicate octopus and sea slugs, fat (and edible)
halibut, and colorful anemones and sea urchins on every dock. In the 70's and 80's, this declined
shockingly, until mostly only garbage fish could be found in the bay and a thriving and picturesque dorey
fleet dwindled to a handful of active boats. This was turned around in the 90's, and slowly a more
thriving ecosystem has been returning. This in turn has promoted more public use of the bay, as
"swimming in this Harbor" was not something the wise did for a couple decades, but of late has become
a concern of the past. Paddle boards and other in -the -water activities have seen an upturn, all directly
related to the public's returning confidence in the cleanliness of our waters.
The recent dredging of the Rhine channel was a long-term boon for this, as the various heavy metals
associated with the boatworks at that end of the harbor were doing no favors for the health of the
bay. With respect to the upcoming dredging, I have to believe that the "unsuitable" sediment is related
to the historic underwater runoff from this area.
To dredge those toxins up, giving them a good stirring, and then splash them back into the center of the
bay is short-sighted and counter-productive to both the water sports of Newport and the casual
appreciation of the abundant wildlife associated with our shores. Without those irreplaceable elements,
it should be obvious that the tourism of Newport would suffer. There is an Instagram account,
#NewportBeach (associated with the NB Tourist board), that posts picturesque images of the harbor
and beaches, of dolphin, whales, pelicans, beaches, surfers, sailboats, and other water -related images.
Simply put, none of these would be as prevalent without a clean, inviting harbor, and the CAD would
harm that goal immeasurably and irrevocably. Currently, any sediment has naturally compacted and
been sealed under additional sediment and thus is (relatively) stable; once dredged, these layers would
be changed from something resembling mud to more pudding -like, and then be exposed to the flow of
harbor water, and would leach out for decades to come.
An apt analogy would be a beautiful and popular park - and a proposition to dig a 47' deep by 450'
square hole, fill it with toxic waste, and then top if off with a layer of topsoil and nice green grass - and
Shaver -2 then expect our children and citizens to continue using it without repercussions. Because they would
continued use it - until the adverse effects became undeniable public knowledge, and those responsible for not
preventing such a travesty held accountable, on a public if not a legal level.
The 2 main differences in the above analogy are, first, that the addition of water which would not only
promote the spread of the toxic material but also put it in direct and immediate contact with any who
take their recreation there. And, second, that while an above -ground toxic dumpsite can be dug up
again, the same underwater is, practically speaking, not feasible to recover. So this CAD, once put in
place, would set in motion a pernicious force that would have an adverse effect on Newport Bay and the
inhabitants - and economy - of Newport for decades to come, if not longer. And the legacy of same
would echo in the hearts and minds of its citizens likewise.
Shaver -3 Nearby harbors such as Los Alamitos and Long Beach are not considered "as clean" as Newport for a
reason - they are industrial. Their waters are polluted because of short-sighted, short-term profit -
minded decisions that haunt those who would use those waters and beaches. This CAD is an industrial
solution in a residential -use area. Please do not allow this CAD to destroy the progress that our harbor
has made for the public's enjoyment of the water or its wildlife, do not allow it to threaten the health
and peace of mind of its citizens and tourists, or to handicap the broader, long-term economic benefits
of that enjoyment.
Thank you for your time, and your service to Newport Beach, its residents, and our guests,
Greg Shaver (949) 697-7739
Louise Shaver (949) 673-5580
(both residents of Newport Beach since '67)
comment
ID
_ Text
Shaver -1
The comment suggests that dredging will resuspend material and the material should be left in
place. Please see Master Responses 2 and S.
Shaver -2
The comment suggests that the DEIR did not consider a CDF as an alternative sediment
management strategy. Please see response to Comment PE -3. As fully discussed in Comment PE -3,
the City chose to eliminate the use of an "on-site" CDF in the past, and to only consider a CDF fill
option if one were to be available in the region, such as at a port facility.
Shaver -3
The commenters note their opposition to the proposed Project. Because the comment omits any
significant environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section
15088). Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commentors for their reviews and
comments.
2.6.33 Cary Singleton
Final Environmental Impact Report 169 May 2021
Singleton 1
From: Cary Singleton <carysingletonl@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 202111:10 AM
To: Miller, Chris; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; dduffiled@newportbeachca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Muldoon, Kevin; O'Neill, William; Brenner, Joy
Cc: Will Singleton
Subject: Re: Newport Bay CAD Project Environmental Impact Report
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
A few days ago, my husband, Will Singleton, addressed our concerns about the proposed CAD
project. In addition to those reasons, it is surprising that such a serious decision is being made during a
time when affected residents cannot meet to discuss. The meeting last March only had a handful of
attendees, since the entire country was advised to be "safer at home" rather than going to community
meetings. It is difficult to imagine that this very critical decision will be made without the
involvement and knowledge of the potentially affected residents and visitors.
We hope you will put this on hold until more research can be conducted and shared with the residents
you represent.
Cary Singleton
CarySingletonl@gmall.com
Create Vision > Inspire Action
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:25 AM Will Singleton <ws.singleton@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Miller, Public Works Manager
City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
(by email)
Dear Mr. Miller,
I'd like to register my concerns regarding the use of a CAD to manage unsuitable
material during the next dredging process. Newport Beach Harbor is a special place,
very important to the city and surrounding communities. Placing a CAD as proposed
would be unprecedented in a west coast harbor as beautiful and active as Newport
Beach. The whole idea borders on the unbelievable.
In addition, the Sediment Management Plan referenced in the Draft EIR is grossly
inadequate, lacking scientific data and reports that would be required by any private
developer. A project of this sensitivity should not be allowed to proceed without first
doing all appropriate scientific studies.
The EPA indicated some flexibility for ocean disposal such as LA 3 if the Water Quality
is properly monitored to assure methyl -mercury is not occurring. Perhaps there are
other Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) locations that have not been considered that
would provide more appropriate solutions.
I would appreciate it if the city would give further consideration to all other potential
alternatives. As I said, the idea that the best solution to the problem is to put a toxic
waste dump in the middle of Newport Harbor is truly unbelievable.
Sincerely,
Will Singleton
844 Via Lido Nord
Newport Beach 92663
Comment
ID
rem
Singleton -1
The comment opines that there has not been adequate stakeholder outreach. Please see Master
Response 1, which outlines the stakeholder outreach associated with the proposed Project.
2.6.34 Will Singleton
Final Environmental Impact Report 172 May 2021
From: Will Singleton <ws.singleton@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 202110:25 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Cc: Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; dduffiled@newportbeachca.gov; Muldoon,
Kevin; Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Newport Bay CAD Project Environmental Impact Report
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Chris Miller, Public Works Manager
City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
(by email)
Dear Mr. Miller,
Singleton- i I'd like to register my concerns regarding the use of a CAD to manage unsuitable
material during the next dredging process. Newport Beach Harbor is a special place,
very important to the city and surrounding communities. Placing a CAD as proposed
would be unprecedented in a west coast harbor as beautiful and active as Newport
Beach. The whole idea borders on the unbelievable.
Singleton -2 In addition, the Sediment Management Plan referenced in the Draft EIR is grossly
inadequate, lacking scientific data and reports that would be required by any private
developer. A project of this sensitivity should not be allowed to proceed without first
doing all appropriate scientific studies.
singleton -3 The EPA indicated some flexibility for ocean disposal such as LA 3 if the Water Quality
Is properly monitored to assure methyl -mercury is not occurring. Perhaps there are
other Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) locations that have not been considered that
would provide more appropriate solutions.
Singleton -4 I would appreciate it if the city would give further consideration to all other potential
alternatives. As I said, the idea that the best solution to the problem is to put a toxic
waste dump in the middle of Newport Harbor is truly unbelievable.
Sincerely,
Will Singleton
844 Via Lido Nord
Newport Beach 92663
Comment
ID
Text`
Singleton -1
The commenter notes concerns about the Project, including the potential for aesthetic impacts.
Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is
warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Section 3.1 of the DEIR, which considers
aesthetic resources. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commentor for their
review and comments.
Singleton -2
The comment opines that the City developed a sediment management plan to justify the CAD
facility. Please see Master Response 3 and Section 2.1 of the DEIR, which presents the process of
project development.
Singleton -
The comment opines that the City has not adequately analyzed alternatives to the proposed Project.
3
Please see Master Response 5 as well as Response to Comment PE -3. As noted in the DEIR, the
USEPA and other DMMT determine whether sediment is suitable for Ocean disposal.
Singleton -
The commenter notes their concerns to the Project, including the potential for increasing hazardous
4
risk. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is
warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Response 2. Generally, however, the
preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and comments.
2.6.35 Donald Swanson
Final Environmental Impact Report 175 May 2021
From: donald swanson <donswanson1111@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 20213:48 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: NO CAD!!!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Swanson 1 I strongly urge the city of Newport Beach to continue with researching alternatives in an open forum. Do
not proceed with the underwater trash can in our bay.
Don swanson
Sent from my Phone
Cvmment
ID
Text
Swanson-1
The commenter notes their opposition to the proposed Project based on general comments related
to hazardous risks. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional
response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Response 2, which relate
the potential for hazardous risk. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commentor
for their review and comments.
2.6.36 John Thompson
Final Environmental Impact Report 177 May 2021
Chris Miller, Public Works Manager
City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA. 9266
Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal CAD Construction Project Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR 2019110340/2)
Dear Mr. Miller,
Growing up on Lido Island as a sailor, I spent a tremendous amount of time on the harbor. I have
experienced firsthand the beauty and diversity found in this small, but unique body of water. Both
people and animals depend on the harbor for their livelihood. Others travel from all over just to
experience it for an afternoon. Our harbor is known across the nation and even the world by people
who have never forgotten the time they got to see it. If you think this is an exaggeration, look deeper
am not the only one who feels this way.
J.Thompson- The harbor is a treasure that is ours to protect. The decisions we make for it will impact generations and
1 reach communities far beyond our foresight today. Therefore, it is our duty to properly consider the
impact of a decision while we have the chance. The CAD concerns me for a number of reasons including
the health of our harbor and our people, the useability of our harbor for recreation, the revenue impact
to local businesses, and the value of homes in the area. We cannot damage our harbor and our residents
simply because we haven't found a better alternative.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns,
John (Jack) Thompson
104 Via Lorca
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Conwaent
ED
Tea
J.
The commenter notes their concerns to the Project, including the health of our Harbor and our
Thompson-
people, the usability of our Harbor for recreation, the revenue impact to local businesses, and the
1
value of homes in the area. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no
additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the
preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and comments and direct them to
Master Responses 1 through 5, which relate to their general concerns.
2.6.37 Philip Thompson
Final Environmental Impact Report 179 May 2021
From: phiIipcthompson@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 20219:00 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: NEWPORT HARBOR CAD
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Chris,
P.Thompson I want to register my protest to the proposed CAD plan for Newport Harbor. I believe there are a
number of sites more suitable to dump the toxic soil. This includes Lower Casterway's, possibly the new
golf course planned for Newport Beach that is already a contaminated dump site and likely others.
Please add me to all emailing's related to this proposal.
Philip Thompson
Comment
ID:
Teut
P.
The commenter notes their opposition to the proposed Project based on general comments related
Thompson-
to hazardous risks. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional
1
response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Please see Master Response 2, which relate
the potential for hazardous risk and recreation. Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank
the commenter for their review and comments.
2.6.38 Gina Vincent
Final Environmental Impact Report 181 May 2021
From: gina vincent <ginavin@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 20217:36 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: No cad in our bay
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Vincent -
No cad in our bay Please.
i Thanks,
�J Gina Vincent
1502 S Bay Front
Newport Beach
92662
Sent from my iPhone
CAnUrARt
tU
Te)ct
Vincent-1
The commenter notes their opposition to the Project. Because the comment omits any significant
environmental issues, no additional response is warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088).
Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the commenter for their review and comments.
2.6.39 Greg and Nancy Ward
Final Environmental Impact Report 183 May 2021
From: Greg Ward <gregoryaward@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 20216:19 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: No CAD
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
My wife and I are residents of Lido Isle and have been boating in the bay for 50 years
now. Currently we use our 25 -foot boat 1-2 times a week in our beautiful harbor. We
are members of the Lido Isle Yacht Club and the Balboa Yacht Club for 5 and 22 years
respectively. We also vote in every election.
Ward -1 The proposal to dig a big hole in our bay, place contaminants form our bay in the hole
and then cover up the hole makes no sense. It seems a much better solution would be
to take these contaminants far offshore or to the desert for remediation.
We are asking you to block the CAD project in Newport Harbor and find a better solution
for the millions of people that will use and enjoy Newport Harbor for decades to come.
Sincerely,
Greg and Nancy Ward
218 Via Quito
Newport Beach, CA 90603
949.723.0664
CerEt
1D
Text
Ward -1
The commenters note their concerns to the Project regarding alternative management strategies.
Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is
warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank
them for their review and comments and direct them to Master Response 5, which relate Project
alternatives.
2.6.40 Bob Yates
Final Environmental Impact Report 185 May 2021
Yates -2
To: Chris Miller, Public Works Department, City of Newport Beach
From: Bob Yates, resident and Harbor 20 Fleet Captain, 128 Via Havre, Newport Beach, Ca
Date: December 10th, 2020; Revised December 301h, 2020
Thank you for forwarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report regarding the Lower
Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Proposal.
There are several items that I believe need further investigation and discussion. First, let's
consider the environmental Impacts to "housing, recreation, transportation" which were not
addressed adequately in the report. Your cover letter states that this Project will "have no
project -level impacts or less -than significant project -level impacts on the following" areas. I
differ on this conclusion. The CAD site will have a significant negative Environmental impact.
The "Five Corners" section of the Bay where you propose putting the CAD site is the center of
the Bay, and all traffic that goes through the Bay must transit that space. Tour boats must pass
through, along with all the boats which move from moorings to the ocean and back. This
involves many hundreds of boats on any given day that must navigate around the site itself and
the large tugs, dredgers, and barges which service the site. The site is a hazard to boating.
Nearly every weekend there are Regattas with fifty or more sailboats in the vicinity. The fleets,
which include sailors from eight years to eighty years of age, vie for the schedule times to use
the limited space. The area is unique in that it is the only part of the Bay where we can hold
Regattas when there is a southerly breeze which is about sixty percent of the time. In addition,
every day there are recreational sailors, electric boats, kayakers, paddle boarders, and other
types of recreational craft. There is sailing school classes being run daily from the several Yacht
Clubs, the Boy Scouts and Orange Coast College sailing center. Also, there are the rowing
classes from Newport Aquatic Center and from other rowing schools. This area is already
crowded with many hundreds of these boats on any given day. Building and operating a CAD
site with all the support vessels in this area will severely limit the recreational use of this
space, and create numerous safety problems for everyone concerned.
Yates -3 The area is surrounded by beautiful homes. I can't see the logic of creating a new burial site for
contaminated mercury in front of these homes, especially since the contaminated soil is already
buried and safe in another commercial part of the Bay. The proposed solution of building the
CAD site is worse than the problem itself. In the future, when there is an available site this soil
can be mined up and disposed of, but not now and not in the middle of the center of the Bay.
Yates -4 Your Report mentions four plausible Alternatives. Every one of them offers a potential solution
which will not have a significant negative impact the recreational use of our Bay. But the Report
ignores these Alternatives. Why? I strongly recommend that these Alternatives be given front
and center attention so we can develop a plan which will continue to give us the full use and
enjoyment of our wonderful Bay. Thank you for your consideration. I await your reply.
Comment
[D
Text
Yates -1
The comment generally summarizes the commenter's mission and introduces its comments on the
DEIR. Because the comment omits any significant environmental issues, no additional response is
warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Generally, however, the preparers of this EIR thank the
commenter for their review and comments.
Yates -2
The comment opines that the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the Project's impact to recreational
resources. Please see Master Response 2. Please see Section 3.11.3.4.1, which considers the potential
for the proposed Project to affect recreational and other boating in the Harbor. As discussed, the
City would coordinate with the Newport Harbor Yacht Club ahead of dredging and would relocate
the mooring tackle to another area (Turning Basin) of Newport Harbor during dredging. In addition,
the Anchorage area would be unavailable during CAD facility construction. Because the Anchorage
area is used by many boaters, the City would relocate it to the Turning Basin during construction of
the CAD facility. A Notice to Mariners would be issued via the USCG, and notices would be posted
on the City's website. There would be a temporary access inconvenience for boaters having to travel
to the Turning Basin rather than travel to the Anchorage area. However, this impact would be
limited to the 12 months of initial construction, placement of material and interim cap placement,
and the 6 -month period to place additional material. In addition, a Navigation Study Memorandum
was developed and is included in Appendix I to the DEIR.
The recreational analysis found that there would be a short-term impact to recreational boaters
during initial CAD site construction and for the 6 -month window in which residents could add
materials. Mitigation Measure-REC-1 was provided to reduce the potential for conflicts. The City will
need to consider this and other potential impacts against the project benefits prior to certifying the
EIR and approving (or disapproving) the proposed Project.
Yates -3
The comment opines that the proposed Project would affect the aesthetics of area homes. Please
see Master Response 1. In addition, please see Section 3.1.3, which analyzes the potential loss of
scenic resources or the introduction of contrasting features that could substantially degrade the
visual character of the proposed Project area. As discussed, following construction of the CAD
facility, and dredging activities, the surface water views of the proposed Project area would return to
existing baseline conditions and therefore, there would be no long-term impacts to visual resources.
Yates -4
The comment opines that the DEIR prematurely dismissed alternatives. Please see Master
Response 3.
2.7 Harbor Commission Meeting
Seven comment letters were received in advance of the public hearing from the following
commentors:
• Brent Anderson
• Mary Buckingham
• Shana Conzelman
• Sharon Grimes
• Brent Mardian
Final Environmental Impact Report 187 May 2021
• Will Singleton
• Cary Singleton
In addition, the following individuals provided public comments:
• Gary Hill
• Shana Conzelman
• Brent Mardian
• Palmer Luckey
• Lauren Chase, Orange County Coastkeeper
• Brooke De La Rosa
• James Mosher
• Terri Reeder, RWQCB
Several commentors raised CEQA-related issues, specifically regarding the extent of the Alternatives
analysis, the potential for impacts to recreation, and the potential for impacts from hazardous
material. Many of the comments raised were similar to those received during the DEIR public review
period. Therefore, general responses that refer to the DEIR response letters are provided as follows.
2.7.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Several comments suggested that all alternatives were not considered in the EIR. Several
commentors requested the City consider a CDF, and one commentor requested that the City give the
material to him and/or work with the private sector to accept the material.
Please see Master Response 5 and Response to Comment PE -3. Consistent with CEQA, an EIR must
describe a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to a project that could attain most of
the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant adverse
effects. The range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires an EIR to
set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasonable choice. An EIR need not consider
every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet
the project objectives, are potentially feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of
the significant environmental effects of the project. The DEIR adequately considered a reasonable
range of project alternatives.
As noted, there is currently no available CDF that could accept the material. As discussed, a CDF has
been evaluated as a sediment management tool in Newport Harbor on past occasions and was
discounted for numerous reasons, which remain today as follows: 1) the amount of space needed to
construct a containment structure was too large to accommodate given the highly developed
shoreline and lack of City -owned property; 2) the mitigation requirements to offset the loss of
submerged tidelands would create a significant and unavoidable challenge to the program for which
Final Environmental Impact Report 188 May 2021
there were no areas in the harbor suitable for such a large mitigation area; and 3) public opposition
to the construction of a highly visible fill area within the Harbor. Therefore, a CDF within the Harbor
is not considered a feasible alternative.
One commentor suggested that the private sector be engaged to accept the material and manage
for disposal. The possibility of an alternative disposal approach—including upland disposal as an
alternative—was addressed in Section 6.3.2 of the DEIR. As discussed, upland disposal would likely
result in several significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to air quality, traffic and
transportation, and hazardous materials, making it less environmentally preferable to the proposed
Project. In addition, there would be liability issues associated with the material that would make such
a transfer unlikely.
2.7.2 Impacts to Recreation
Several comments noted an impact to recreation, specifically to the sailing community.
Please see Master Response 4. As disclosed in the DEIR, the recreational analysis found that there
would be a short-term impact to recreational boaters during initial CAD site construction and for the
6 -month window in which residents could add materials to the CAD. Mitigation Measure-REC-1 was
provided to reduce the potential for conflicts. The City will need to consider this and other potential
impacts against the proposed Project benefits prior to certifying the EIR and approving (or
disapproving) the proposed Project.
2.7.3 Hazardous Materials
Several commentors raised the issue of re -contamination and creating a hazardous waste facility
within the Harbor by developing the CAD facility. There were also several questions regarding the
level of toxicity of the material.
Please see Master Response 2. As fully disclosed in the DEIR, sediments from the Federal Channels
were characterized in 2018 and 2019 to determine suitability for open ocean disposal or nearshore
placement. Based on composite sample results, archives from individual cores were analyzed for
mercury, PCBs, and/or DDTs to further delineate the extent of contamination. Testing for ocean
disposal included physical, chemical, and biological analyses in accordance with guidelines specified
in the Evaluation for Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal – Testing Manual (USEPA/
USACE 1991). The evaluation for nearshore placement followed guidance provided in the Evaluation
of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. – Testing Manual: Inland Testing
Manual (USEPA/USACE 1998), the Sand Compatibility Opportunistic Use Program (Moffatt & Nichol
2006), and Requirements for Sampling, Testing and Data Analysis of Dredged Material (USACE 1989).
Final Environmental Impact Report 189 May 2021
Areas in the Turning Basin and portions of Main Channel North and Newport Channel were
determined to be unsuitable for nearshore or open ocean disposal due to elevated concentrations of
mercury and/or PCBs. However, all concentrations of mercury and PCBs were less than State of
California Title 22 Total Threshold Limit Concentrations, and sediments are not considered a
hazardous waste under state or federal regulatory standards. In addition, all effects -based testing,
including toxicity and bioaccumulation, passed open ocean disposal requirements. As fully analyzed
in the DEIR, through careful design and inclusion of BMPs, the CAD facility would not result in
impacts to water quality or have the potential to release hazardous materials during initial placement
of sediment or after being capped.
2.7.4 Specific Comments
There were several specific comments regarding the accuracy of modeling and/or methods to
determine impacts. Specific responses to those questions are provided in Sections 2.7.4.1 through
2.7.4.5.
2.7.4.1 Public Hearing Comment 1
Has the City collected geotechnical data to design depth from the Proposed CAD location? How do they
know with certainty the material to the bottom is sand and is suitable for beach replenishment?
The comment is inquiring about the characteristics of the sediment within the CAD facility footprint.
As described in the DEIR, the Basis of Design Report (Appendix C to the DEIR) includes a
geotechnical analysis to support the design and engineering of the CAD facility. The BODR notes that
several sub -surface condition studies have been conducted over the past 15 years in the vicinity of
proposed location for the CAD facility, including the following:
• Geotechnical investigation in 2005 at Bay Island for a proposed seawall rehabilitation project
• Geotechnical investigation in 2009 for CAD facility locations during the feasibility stage of the
project: Borings were conducted in Newport and Main Channel
• Sediment sampling in 2018 and 2019 to below the design depth of the Federal Channels
limits to determine the extent of the non-native and native sediment
As discussed in the DEIR, and as addressed in RWQCB (2)-5, the overlying sediment (existing
elevation down to the design depth) within the footprint of the CAD facility was determined by the
DMMT in August 2019 as suitable for open ocean disposal. As such, this sediment would be disposed
of accordingly and in compliance with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(33 United States Code Section 1401) and USACE approval (see also
https://www.epa.g ov/s ites/p rod u ctio n/f i I es/201 5 -1 O/documents r9 la 235 smmp 01-11.pdf).
Sediments within the CAD footprint below the federally authorized design depth are "native
sediments" and have never been dredged. Deep (i.e., greater than 50 feet in depth) core samples
Final Environmental Impact Report 190 May 2021
collected in the vicinity of the proposed CAD location and elsewhere in Newport Bay show that
material at this depth is composed of fine- to medium -grained sand that is free of contaminants.
This material (material dredged below the federally authorized design depth) would be placed in the
nearshore zone or at the ocean disposal site.
2.7.4.2 Public Hearing Comment 2
Why was an inappropriate offshore sediment disposal model developed by the USACE tweaked and
used to predict contaminant plumes in the bay? The tweaked USACE model does not account for site-
specific hydrodynamic effects in Newport Bay, are there plans to model plume dynamics using a site-
specific model that is representative of Newport Bay?
Please refer to response to PE -10. The water quality models presented in Appendix G to the BODR
include an analysis of short-term water quality impacts during construction activities. The models
have been customized for use within enclosed waterbodies like Newport Bay through years of
development with staff from USACE and USEPA. The models have been validated with years of actual
monitoring data and are very accurate in predicting potential water quality impacts. These models
have been used in the past within Newport and other adjacent harbors.
2.7.4.3 Public Hearing Comment 3
According to the Basis of Design document (Appendix Q DDT disposal in Lower Newport Bay will result
in a violation of water quality limits of the toxic banned pesticide. Will the City please describe how
toxic plumes of contaminants will be mitigated for and how a monitoring program, which, just identifies
the problem after the fact, will ensure that dissolved organic contaminants are not migrating through
the entirety of Newport Bay?
As noted in response to PE -6, Appendix G (not appendix C as stated in the comment) to the BODR
includes an analysis of short-term water quality impacts during construction activities. Water quality
impacts are defined either as short-term (acute) impacts such as those experienced during
construction activities, which are intermittent in nature and short in duration, or long-term (chronic),
which are continuous, ongoing impacts such as through watershed inputs or industrial discharges.
For dredging and other marine construction projects, the proper analysis would be to assume an
acute exposure, but to also consider comparison to the more conservative chronic standards for each
chemical of concern.
For this study, potential water quality impacts were evaluated for dissolved copper, dissolved
mercury, total PCBs, and total DDT compounds (referred to as DDx). In all instances, predicted
chemicals of concern would all be below RWQCB acute standards and, except for DDT, would all be
below the much more conservative chronic standards as well. DDT water column concentrations are
predicted to slightly exceed the chronic water quality standard by a fraction of a percent but be at or
similar to the ambient water column concentrations that are already occurring in the Bay (Scenario 5
Final Environmental Impact Report 191 May 2021
that evaluated the maximum fine grained scenario was above ambient conditions). Because
significant amounts of sediments containing DDT will be removed and/or sequestered as a result of
this project so that long-term water quality improvements will occur, the slight exceedance to the
standard was not found to be significant.
Mitigation Measure Hydro -1 requires dredging operations to implement project -specific BMPs that
reduce potential impacts to surrounding waters of Newport Bay. During dredging and disposal
operations in the CAD facility, water quality monitoring would be conducted consistent with the
special study developed as part of the previous Federal Channels maintenance dredging program in
Lower Newport Bay (Anchor QEA 2012). Numeric limits for physical and chemical characteristics must
comply with the numeric receiving water limitations specified in Table 3-10 of the DEIR. BMPs are
further defined in Mitigation Measure Hydro -2 that will require contractors to use BMP water quality
controls to ensure compliance with the water quality standards identified herein. Measures could
include use of a silt curtain during dredging and/or material placement, a floating boom to be
maintained around the proposed Project area, and daily inspection of construction equipment for
leaks or malfunction. Storage or stockpiling of materials related to construction may be prohibited
where such materials could enter the waters of Lower Newport Bay. These monitoring activities rely
on the use of turbidity screening to estimate potential material releases that could also signify a
chemical release. Exceedance of the turbidity screening values would then trigger follow-on
sampling to test for a potential release of chemicals. In these instances, samples are subjected to
"rush" analyses so that management decisions can be made based on their results.
2.7.4.4 Public Hearing Comment 4
The turbidity and light transmission monitoring limits identified in Table 3-10 (page 163 of the DEIR
PDF) are from the Regional General Permit (RGP) 54, which does not apply to these sediments. The
actual monitoring standards are described in the Santa Ana Basin Plan. Therefore, the water quality
monitoring and mitigation analysis presented in the DEIR is not accurate.
The comment suggests that incorrect water quality monitoring standards are being applied. In 2012,
a special study was conducted in Lower Newport Bay during active federal dredging operations to
determine how real-time parameters monitored in the field (turbidity and transmissivity) relate to the
protective target total suspended solids water quality standards. As noted in the comment, this same
monitoring approach—at the request of the RWQCB—was included in the current iteration of the
RGP 54. Additionally, with the USACE current maintenance dredging of the Federal Channels, this
same methodology was applied and approved.
Final Environmental Impact Report 192 May 2021
2.7.4.5 Public Hearing Comment 5
The City DEIR evaluation for Aesthetics used a much smaller piece of equipment. Understanding the
preparers are 'dredge experts, why was a small sheet pile barge used as a demonstration image instead
of an actual dredge barge (which is significantly larger 2-3 times plus disposal scows)?
As identified in the DEIR, the intent of the image was to depict typical dredging equipment that
would be in the Harbor during construction. A dredge barge was depicted.
Final Environmental Impact Report 193 May 2021
3 Modifications to the DEIR
This section of the Final EIR documents changes and additions to the DEIR that have been made to
clarify, correct, or add to the information provided in that document. Text and table changes
presented in Section 3 are incorporated into the Final EIR. Deleted text is marked as stFikeeut and
new text is marked as underlined.
3.1 Modifications Based on Public Comment
The changes and additions listed in Section 3 are a result of public and agency comments received in
response to the DEIR and/or new information that has become available since publication of the
DEIR. Any revisions to supporting documentation, such as the references, list of preparers, acronyms
and abbreviations, and appendices, are also presented. The numbering format from the DEIR is
maintained in the sections presented here.
3.2 DEIR Modifications
3.2.1 Section I Introduction
3.2.1.1 Section 1.3 Agency Roles and Responsibilities
The CEQA Guidelines defines the lead agency as the public agency with the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15367). The City is the CEQA lead
agency for the proposed Project. In accordance with its responsibilities as lead agency, the City aims
to do the following in this DEIR:
• Describe the proposed Project and regulatory background.
• Identify any significant environmental effects associated with construction and operation of
the proposed Project.
• Discuss alternatives and feasible mitigation measures for environmental resources where
significant effects are identified.
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15086, lead agencies must consult with, and request comments on, a
draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from public agencies that are responsible agencies; trustee
agencies with resources affected by the project; and any state, federal, or local agency that has
jurisdiction by law with respect to the project or that exercises authority over resources that may be
affected by the project as follows:
• Responsible Agency: A responsible agency is a public agency that proposes to carry out or
approve a project for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or a Negative
Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "responsible agency" includes all public
agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary approval authority over a project
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15381).
Final Environmental Impact Report 194 May 2021
• Trustee Agency: A trustee agency is a state agency that has jurisdiction over natural
resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the state of California
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). Trustee agencies include the following: 1) The California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), regarding fish and wildlife, native plants designated
as rare or endangered, game refuges, and ecological reserves; 2) The California State Lands
Commission (CSLC), regarding state-owned "sovereign" lands such as the beds of navigable
waters and state school lands; 3) The California Department of Parks and Recreation,
regarding units of the state park system; and 4) The University of California, regarding sites in
the Natural Land and Water Reserves System.
USACE is responsible for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for the Federal
Channels maintenance dredging component of the proposed Project. USACE released the Final
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Lower Newport Bay Maintenance Dredging Project
(September 2020) to support a portion of the dredging which is the Entrance Channel extending to
the first section of the Main Channel and which is not reliant on the CAD facility. USACE will need to
supplement this EA to support dredging in the rest of the Main Channel and channel offshoots, as
described in this DEIR. As the lead federal agency and part of the Federal Channels maintenance
dredging program, the USACE has assumed responsibility for coordinating with resource agencies
such as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and CDFW and for ensuring compliance with
requirements of statutes such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson -Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Enhancement Act (MSA). The USACE will also obtain a federal Consistency
Determination from the California Coastal Commission to satisfy requirements of the Coastal Zone
Management Act and a Clean Water Act (Section 401) water quality certification from the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The identification, design, permitting, and construction of an
alternate disposal location is the responsibility of the City as the local sponsor and is assessed in this
DEIR.
Maintenance dredging in most areas of Newport Harbor outside the Federal Channels is authorized
by Regional General Permit 54 (RGP 54), which was issued to the City by the USACE, California
Coastal Commission (CCC), and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in 2015
and amended in 2019; it is currently anticipated to be reauthorized in December 2020.
Table 1-1 summarizes the regulatory agencies with potential oversight of the proposed Project and
their statutory authority as it relates to the proposed Project.
Final Environmental Impact Report 195 May 2021
Table 1-1
Regulatory Agencies and Authority Applicable to the Proposed Project
Regulatory Agency
Jurisdiction
StatutoryAud nting Regulations
Lead Federal Agency for Federal Channels dredging. Reviews and
authorizes confined aquatic disposal under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section
103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act; subject
to NEPA
Additionally, pursuant to 33 United States Code 408 (Section 14 of
U.S. Army Corps of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended), review under
Engineers
N/A
Section 408 is required for any proposed activity that might
interfere with, injure, or impair the use of a river or harbor
improvement project. This approach furthers the USACE's interest,
expressed throughout the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, in
protecting the navigability of United States waters by prohibiting
the use or alteration of navigation or flood control works where
contrary to the public interest or where it would impair those works'
usefulness
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration
N/A
Ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act and
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act;
National Marine
Fisheries Service
subject to NEPA
U.S. Navy
State Agencies
Reviews dredging and dredged material disposal activities in state
California State Lands
tidelands and would oversee development of the CAD facility.
Commission
Trustee Agency
The CSLC would consider the City's EIR in consideration of issuing
the Surface Lease Agreement.
Reviews DEIR to ensure compliance with the Coastal Zone
Management Act and consistency with the California Coastal Act;
performs a federal Consistency Determination; and reviews and
issues Coastal Development Permit upon project approval. A
Surface Lease Agreement may be required from the California State
California Coastal
Responsible
Lands Commission. The CCC would review the EIR to ensure
Commission (CCC)
Agency
compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and
consistency with the California Coastal Act. The CCC would perform
a federal Consistency Determination in support of federal dredging.
The CCC would consider the City's EIR in consideration of issuing a
Coastal Development Permit for the CAD and beach nourishment
upon project approval by the City.
California
Reviews and submits recommendations in accordance with the
Department of Fish
Trustee Agency
California Environmental Quality Act; the City will consult with
and Wildlife
California Department of Fish and Wildlife in accordance with the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Final Environmental Impact Report 196 May 2021
Local Agencies
Permitting authority for water quality, reviews proposed Project for
authorization under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
Waste Discharge Requirements, and Clean Water Act Section 401
State Certification of Water Quality and Section 402: National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Santa Ana Regional
Responsible
Water Quality
Agency
An application for reauthorization of RGP 54 was submitted to the
Control Board
Santa Ana RWQCB on November 27, 2019. The Santa Ana RWQCB
responded to the application in mid-January 2019, requesting a
more detailed analysis under CEQA for sediment dredged under the
RGP 54 and disposed in the CAD facility, and therefore that
component will be included in this DEIR (Section 2.3.2.1). The RGP
54 would be amended assuming certification of this DEIR.
3.2.2 Section 3.2 Biological Resources
3.2.2.1 Section 3.3.1.1.2 Eelgrass
Eelgrass is both an important marine plant species and an important habitat when found in beds.
Eelgrass is a highly productive species and is considered a "foundation" or habitat -forming species
due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes. Eelgrass contributes to ecosystem functions
at multiple levels as a primary and secondary producer, as a habitat structuring element, as a
substrate for epiphytes and epifauna, and as a sediment stabilizer and nutrient cycling facilitator.
Eelgrass provides important foraging areas and shelter to young fish and invertebrates, food for
migratory waterfowl and sea turtles, and spawning surfaces for invertebrates and fishes such as the
Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii). Eelgrass occurs in the temperate unconsolidated substrate of shallow
coastal environments, enclosed bays, and estuaries.
The City conducts shallow -water eelgrass surveys every 2 years in Lower Newport Bay, and
harbor -wide surveys—including the deepwater habitat—are conducted every 4 years. The most
recent shallow -water survey was completed in 2018 (Appendix E; MTS 2018). The most recent
harbor -wide survey was conducted in summer 2020, and the results aro expected iR late 2020 OF
eady 2024-. are included in Appendix E. Figure 3-5 presents the results of recent deepwater (2012 and
2016) and shallow -water (2018) surveys. Figure 3-6 presents the results of the 2020 deepwater
s u rvey.
Final Environmental Impact Report 197 May 2021
Figure 3-6
City of Newport Beach Eelgrass Survey 2020
CLIFF OR
O
�� a .: \•�`\-..
1`
SAL804 gtVp
W
3.2.2.2 Section 3.3.3.4.1: 13I0-1
13I0-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed Project would be constructed within an active marine harbor supporting recreational
activities that has previously been subject to dredging activities. The proposed Project area,
nearshore disposal sites, and LA -3 do not support unique or rare habitats whose alteration would
significantly impact sensitive species in the area.
Final Environmental Impact Report 198 May 2021
Dredging and CAD construction have the potential to directly impact benthic flora and fauna, as well
as lead to sediment plumes. Noise from construction activities also has the potential to indirectly
affect water column species.
Nearshore placement has the potential to affect benthic and water column species. Waves and wave -
related currents in the nearshore environment suspend and transport sediment along the shore as a
natural process, creating an unstable environment of shifting sands. Because the nearshore is a
dynamic and unstable environment, nearshore placement is not anticipated to significantly alter the
environmental conditions for flora or fauna in the vicinity of the nearshore disposal.
The effects of construction activities related to dredging and construction of the CAD facility on
specific special -status species directly or indirectly are described below.
Eelgrass Beds
As noted in Section 3.3.1.1.2, eelgrass is a highly productive species and serves as important habitat.
Consistent with state and federal protocols, the City conducts shallow -water eelgrass surveys every
2 years and harbor -wide surveys every 4 years. The most recent shallow -water eelgrass survey was
conducted in 2018, and the most recent harbor -wide survey was conducted in 2020. The results of
the surveys k T 2-0 ; are included as Appendix E. As described in this appendix, eelgrass is not
present in or adjacent to the area proposed for the CAD facility or in the areas proposed for
dredging. Impact BIO -2 addresses the impact to eelgrass habitat.
3.2.2.3 Section 3.3.3.4.2 13I0-2
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed Project would be constructed within an active marine harbor supporting recreational
activities. Construction activities have the potential to affect special natural communities as described
below.
Caulerpa
A substantial threat to the productive marine ecosystems in California is Caulerpa, a highly invasive
green alga. This tropical species, which was introduced to natural systems through the aquarium
trade, can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems because it invades, out -competes, and
eliminates native algae, seagrasses, kelp forests, and reef systems by forming a dense blanket of
growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces. It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper
waters and has a wide range of environmental tolerance. In order to detect existing infestations as
well as avoid the spread of Caulerpa within other systems, NOAA has developed a survey and
Final Environmental Impact Report 199 May 2021
reporting protocol for California nearshore coastal and enclosed bays, estuaries, and harbors
(NOAA 2008). No Caulerpa was found in the 2018 Newport Bay eelgrass survey (Appendix E).
However, a public notice was released by CDFW in April 2021 noticing identification of Caulerpa
prolifera in an area of Newport Bak While the initial identification is outside the area of the proposed
CAD site, HeweveF7 consistent with the Caulerpa Control Protocol (NOAA 2008), a pre -construction
Caulerpa survey will be performed by the City in the proposed Project area 30 to 60 days prior to
commencement of dredging and CAD construction activities. If Caulerpa is found, the City will notify
NOAA and comply with any control requirements.
Impact Determination: There are no known eelgrass beds elan the proposed Project area.
Therefore, the proposed Project would have less -than -significant impacts on eelgrass or
While recent surveys have identified the presence of Caulerpa in
Newport Bay, none has been identified in the proposed CAD site at this time. Pre -construction
surveys would be completed prior to all phases of dredging and construction to ensure Caulerpa is
not present in the proposed Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less -than -
significant impacts on Caulerpa.
Effects to Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and Coastal Pelagic FMP species from sediment suspension
and turbidity would be temporary and minimal, and the effects would be limited to the immediate
project vicinity during construction. Noise is expected to temporarily impact fish behavior in the
immediate project area during construction activities, but it is unlikely to result in significant
ecological effects to EFH fish species given the steady nature of the noise and the background noise
generated by vessel traffic.
Impacts to benthic habitat are expected to be temporary, limited to the dredging footprint and
disposal areas, and unlikely to result in significant ecological effects to EFH fish species. Dredging is
not expected to exceed temporary and minor impacts to Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and Coastal
Pelagic FMP species, eelgrass, or estuarine habitat from construction -related water and sediment
quality impacts. Additionally, the number of organisms that would be affected would be small; none
of the Pacific groundfish species would occur near the project site except as stray individuals, and the
only member of the Coastal Pelagics likely to be present in substantial numbers is northern anchovy,
a widespread and abundant species. Because of the minor, temporary, and localized nature of the
activities proposed, and the adherence to established special conditions, the proposed Project would
have less -than -significant impacts on EFH and EFH species.
Final Environmental Impact Report 200 May 2021
Mitigation Measures: While there are no known eelgrass beds or Caulerpa within the proposed
Project area , the following mitigation measures would be implemented
during construction to Fedtce petential imp ensure there is no potential for impact:
• MM -13I0-1 Pre- and Post -Construction Survey: Consistent with the CEMP (NOAA 2014) and
Caulerpa Control Protocol (NOAA 2008), a pre -construction eelgrass and Caulerpa survey shall
be performed by the City in the proposed Project area 30 to 60 days prior to commencement
of proposed construction activities in the Harbor.
- If eelgrass is located during the pre -construction survey, a post -construction survey
shall also be performed by the City within 30 days following completion of construction
to evaluate any immediate effects to eelgrass habitat.
- If Caulerpa is found, the City will immediately notify SCCAT, and construction shall not
be conducted until such time as the infestation has been isolated and treated, or the
risk of spread from the proposed construction is eliminated.
• MM -BIO -2 Eelgrass Mitigation: If a post -construction survey is required and indicates loss
of eelgrass habitat within the proposed Project area, any impacts to eelgrass that have not
previously been mitigated for will be mitigated in accordance with the CEMP (NOAA 2014).
In-kind compensatory mitigation is the creation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat to
mitigate for adverse impacts to the same type of habitat. Per the CEMP guidelines for
southern California, for each square meter of vegetated eelgrass cover adversely impacted,
1.38 square meters of new habitat with suitable conditions to support eelgrass should be
planted with a comparable bottom coverage and eelgrass density as impacted habitat
(NOAA 2014). The 1.38:1 ratio assumes the following: 1) there is no eelgrass function at the
mitigation site prior to mitigation efforts; 2) eelgrass function at the mitigation site is achieved
within 3 years; 3) mitigation efforts are successful; and 4) there are no landscape differences
(e.g., degree of urban influence, proximity to freshwater source) between the impact site and
the mitigation site.
MM -13I0-1 and MM -13I0-2 would ensure that if eelgrass was identified through pre -construction
surveys, no net loss would occur after completion of the proposed Project. If loss was indicated,
mitigation would occur consistent with the CEMP. Therefore, impacts to eelgrass would be less than
significant. MM -13I0-1 would ensure that the proposed Project would not lead to the spread of
Caulerpa. If any Caulerpa was identified in the Project footprint through Harbor -wide surveys or
pre -construction surveys construction would not occur until Caulerpa was eradicated
Residual Impact: Less than significant.
Final Environmental Impact Report 201 May 2021
3.2.3 Section 3.6 Greenhouse Gas
3.2.3.1 Section 3.6.3.4.1: GHG-1
GHG-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment?
GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would come almost exclusively from direct
engine emissions (Table 3-9). Table 2-1 provides the construction schedule and equipment used
during construction. A full description of emission calculations is included in Appendix F.
Table 3-9
Proposed Project Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per
year)
Notes:
Emissions may not add precisely due to rounding.
NA: not applicable
The proposed Project would result in 1,448.7 metric tons of GHG emissions during 2022, the
maximum year of construction. The bulk of the proposed Project's GHG emissions would be from
tugboats and mechanical dredge equipment.
Impact Determination: As shown in Table 3-9, construction would result in up to 1,448.7 mty during
2022. While GHG emissions associated with construction are temporary, because there is no
applicable numerical threshold for construction, this level of emissions is considered significant.
Mitigation Measures: As shown in Table 3-9, emissions would be generated throughout
construction. The following mitigation measure would be implemented annually during years of
construction to ensure no net increase in Greenhouse Gas Reduc+,„n Exchange (GHG Rx) and the
SCAQMD. PFeef ef purchase ef the off sate mitigation cFedits shall be Fetained by the emissions:
• MM-GHG-1 Purchase GHG Emission Offsets: The Citv of Newport Beach shall purchase
annual GHG offset credits to offset GHG emissions during the life of the project The amount
of credits purchased shall be determined based on updated emission calculations as
determined by the final equipment list secured by the contractor and using industry
Final Environmental Impact Report 202 May 2021
CO2
Ct4
11420
CO2e
2021
119.5
0.001
0.006
119.5
2022
1,448.7
0.017
0.069
1,448.7
2024
119.5
0.001
0.006
119.5
2025
203
0.012
0.010
203
Notes:
Emissions may not add precisely due to rounding.
NA: not applicable
The proposed Project would result in 1,448.7 metric tons of GHG emissions during 2022, the
maximum year of construction. The bulk of the proposed Project's GHG emissions would be from
tugboats and mechanical dredge equipment.
Impact Determination: As shown in Table 3-9, construction would result in up to 1,448.7 mty during
2022. While GHG emissions associated with construction are temporary, because there is no
applicable numerical threshold for construction, this level of emissions is considered significant.
Mitigation Measures: As shown in Table 3-9, emissions would be generated throughout
construction. The following mitigation measure would be implemented annually during years of
construction to ensure no net increase in Greenhouse Gas Reduc+,„n Exchange (GHG Rx) and the
SCAQMD. PFeef ef purchase ef the off sate mitigation cFedits shall be Fetained by the emissions:
• MM-GHG-1 Purchase GHG Emission Offsets: The Citv of Newport Beach shall purchase
annual GHG offset credits to offset GHG emissions during the life of the project The amount
of credits purchased shall be determined based on updated emission calculations as
determined by the final equipment list secured by the contractor and using industry
Final Environmental Impact Report 202 May 2021
accepted GHG calculation methods. Off-site mitigation credits shall be real quantifiable
permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional, consistent with the standards set forth in
Health and Safety Code section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2). Such credits shall be
based on protocols consistent with the criteria set forth in Section 95972 subdivision (a) of
Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, and shall not allow the use of offset projects
originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets and their
sufficiency under the standards set forth herein can be verified by SCAQMD Such credits
must be purchased within 90 -days following the conclusion of each operational ,year through
one of the following: (i) a CARB-approved regist! such as the Climate Action Reserve the
American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry approved by
CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or (iii) through the
CAPCOA GHG Rx and the SCAQMD. Proof of purchase of the off-site mitigation credits shall
be retained by the City
As discussed in Section 3.2, emissions controls for construction equipment were considered.
MM -AQ -1 requires the use of Tier 4 tugboats. While Tier 4 standards do not address GHG directly,
more efficient Tier 4 engines may use less fuel, which would also reduce GHG emissions. Therefore,
depending on the specific construction equipment procured, emissions may be lower than reported.
Consistent with this mitigation measure, emissions calculations will be updated, and the City will
purchase credits to offset the resultant emissions. Offset credits would be procured from a broker
certified by ARB to ensure credits are real, verified, additional, and permanent,
This analysis also considered emission controls for the dredger, namely an electric dredger, which
has been required for dredging projects at southern California ports. While an electric dredger could
reduce criteria air pollutant emissions, electric dredge equipment would result in GHG emissions
from electricity production. In addition, electric dredgers may not be available or practical for use in
the Lower Harbor as discussed in Section 3.2.3.4.2.
Residual Impact: With the inclusion of MM-GHG-1, impacts would be less than significant.
3.2.4 Section 3.8 Hydrology/Water Quality
3.2.4.1 Section 3.8.3.1 Baseline
The proposed Project area encompasses Lower Newport Bay and the nearshore Pacific Ocean waters.
Newport Harbor is an active recreational harbor and public beach with no ongoing dredging
operations except periodic and limited RGP 54 maintenance dredging. Santa Ana RWQCB and USEPA
have developed TMDLs for sediments, nutrients, bacteria, and toxic pollutants (i.e., heavy metals and
organics) in Newport Bay. As described in Section 3.8.3, bay waters did not meet all met applicable
standards in baseline conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Report 203 May 2021
3.2.5 Section 4 Cumulative Impacts
3.2.5.1 Section 4.2.2.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Several construction projects would occur concurrently in the Lower Harbor area, and these include
Back Bay Landing Project 19 and Balboa Marina Expansion Project 20. The construction impacts of
the related projects would be cumulatively significant if their combined construction ambient
pollutant concentrations would exceed the ambient concentration thresholds for construction.
However, with inclusion of MM AQ -1, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant
ni rolifi, imn�c+c aro Iik@ly to @xceed tho +hrocholds Alllxbecause the ectire W412oi min nnnQ tRinPm(on+
fnr llre�--e IG" is o nro,-ircnr\ ['nnconi @ tly, ,-nnc+r6IG%inn of +ho n nio,-+c V.101-Ilrocs il+ n
Sinnifi ,.. �„m„I�+i„o sir n„�li+ imn��+ fnr nlnxom � � Because the proposed Project would not
result in significant air quality impacts following mitigation or health risk impacts, it would not result
in a cumulative health risk impact.
3.2.5.2 Conclusion
The proposed Project's emissions would not exceed thresholds with inclusion of mitigation. Its
implementation combined with other related past, present, or probable future projects, would not
result in substantial combined cumulative adverse effects related to air quality. Thorofnro imps-+&
3.2 6 Executive Summary
Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with the related past, present, or probable
future projects, would not result in significant and unavoidable cumulative a+rquali impacts.
3.2.7 AppendixB
Public comments received at the April 14, 2021, Harbor Commission meeting have been added to
Appendix B (see Appendix B of the Final EIR).
3.28 AppendixE
The 2020 EelQrass Survey Report has been added to Appendix E (see Appendix E of the Final EIR)
Final Environmental Impact Report 204 May 2021
4 References
AECOM, 2017. Soil and Groundwater Investigation Report, Chevron Site No. 378707, 1920 West Balboa
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. OCHCA Case No. 16UT002. March 2017.
Anchor Environmental (Anchor Environmental CA, L.P.), 2006. Rhine Channel Sediment Remediation
Feasibility Study and Alternatives Evaluation Newport Bay, California. Prepared for Orange
County Coastkeeper, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and City of Newport
Beach. January 2006.
Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, L.P.), 2009. Lower Newport Bay CAD Site Feasibility Study, Conceptual
Development Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. April 2009.
Anchor QEA, 2012. Memorandum to: Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Regarding:
Lower Newport Bay Water Quality Monitoring Suspended Sediment Special Study
Memorandum. May 2012.
Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2016. Memorandum to: Leonie Mulvihill and Chris Miller, City of
Newport Beach. Regarding: Current and Relevant Sediment, Water, and Tissue Data to
Support the Newport Bay Copper (Cu) TMDLs and Non-TMDL Action Plans for Zinc (Zn),
Mercury (Hg), Arsenic (As), and Chromium (Cr). October 13, 2016.
Anchor QEA, 2019a. Lower Newport Bay Federal Channels Dredging, Sampling and Analysis Program
Report. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. June 2019.
Anchor QEA, 2019b. Southern California Dredged Material Management Team (SC-DMMT) Meeting.
Notes for August 28, 2019.
Anchor QEA, 2020a. Basis of Design Report Sediment Dredging and Confined Aquatic Disposal.
April 2020. Prepared for City of Newport Beach.
Anchor QEA, 2020b. Lehigh Southwest Stockton Terminal Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Prepared for the Port of Stockton, February 2020.
Anchor QEA, 2020c. Memorandum to: Chris Miller, City of Newport Beach. Regarding: Navigation
Study for the Proposed West Anchorage in the Turning Basin - Update. October 16, 2020.
ARB (California Air Resources Board), 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions
from Diesel -Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.
ov_sites default/files/classic//diesel/documents rrpfina_I df.
ARB, 2017a. "Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area." California Air Resources Board. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
Final Environmental Impact Report 205 May 2021
ARB, 2017b. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update the Proposed Strategy for Achieving
California's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 2017. Available at: https://ww2.
arb ca gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/`scopingplan/2030sp pp final pdf.
ARB, 2020. California Ambient Air Standards. Accessed April 23, 2020.
Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/caags/caags.htm
Arcadis, 2020. Revised Vapor Intrusion Evaluation and Site Assessment Report From Chevron Service
Station N. 378707, 1920 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663. OCHCA
Case No. 16UT002. Revised January 27, 2020.
BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2007. Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYQ System for
Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009.
Washington D.C.: Department of the Interior. October 15, 2007.
BLM, 2008. Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Instruction
Memorandum No. 2009-011. Washington D.C.: Department of the Interior. October 10, 2008.
CaIEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), 2019. State Agency Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Report Card. Available at https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
08/2019 CaIEPA Report Card ada.pdf.
Cal Fire (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones in LRA, As Recommended by Cal Fire (map). October 2011. Available at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/S891/``c3O..newportbeacii. vhfhsz.pdf.
CCC (California Coastal Commission), 2011. Staff Report: Regular Calendar. Coastal Development
Permit No. 5 -11 -006 -[OC Parks]. Exhibit 6: "Grunion Protection Plan for Necessary
Maintenance During the Grunion Spawning Season of March through September Document
Dated September 7, 2006." May 2011.
CCCC (California Climate Change Center), 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012.• Vulnerability &
Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. July 2012. Available at
htt s: Lwww.cakex.orq/sites/default/files/documents/CEC-500-2012-007.Ddf.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2020a. "Biogeographic Information and
Observation System (BIOS)." Accessed March 23, 2020. Available at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.
CDFW, 2020b. "California Grunion Facts and Expected Runs." Accessed April 9, 2020. Available at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Ocean/Grunion.
Final Environmental Impact Report 206 May 2021
CGS, 2020. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed April 23, 2020. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/`EQZApp/app/.
Chambers Group, Inc., and Moffatt & Nichol, 2016. Addendum IP 15-359 to the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report 583 for the Phase II General
Design Memorandum on the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project, Lower Santa Ana River.
Prepared for the County of Orange. April 2016.
DieselNet, 2016. Nonroad Diesel Engine Emission Standards. Last updated August 2016.
Available at:.https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/`nonroad.php.
City (City of Newport Beach), 2006a. City of Newport Beach General Plan. Adopted July 25, 2006.
Accessed October 3, 2019. Available at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/
departments/community-development/planning-division/general-plan-codes-and-
regulations/meq neral -plan.
City, 2006b. Draft Environmental Impact Report, General Plan 2006 Update. State Clearinghouse
Number 2006011119. Accessed October 3, 2019. Available at: https://www.newport
beachca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-division/general-
plan-codes-and-regulations/general-plan/general-plan-environmental-impact-repor
City, 2009. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Marina Park. State Clearinghouse Number
2008051096. Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. Prepared for the City of Newport
Beach Planning Department. February 2009. Available at: htti2s://www.newportbeach
ca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning-division/proiects-
environmental-document-download-page/environmental-document-download-page-arch.
City, 2010. Harbor Area Management Plan. Prepared by Weston Solutions, Inc., Everest International
Consultants, Inc., Coastal Resources Management, Inc., NewFields, LLC, and Tom Johnson,
Ph.D. Prepared for Harbor Resources Division. April 2010. Accessed October 7, 2020.
Available at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=9186.
City, 2019a. Newport Beach GIS. Map Viewer. Accessed October 3, 2019. Available at:
https://nbgis.newl2ortbeachca.gov/NewportHTM L5Viewer/?viewer=publicsite.
City, 2019b. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan. Amended by the
California Coastal Commission on October 12, 2018. Adopted January 22, 2019, Resolution
No. 2019-08.
City, 2020a. "Anchorages." Accessed February 24, 2020. Available at: https://www.newport
beachca.gov/government/departments/harbor/anchorages.
Final Environmental Impact Report 207 May 2021
City, 2020b. "Walking Trail Maps." Accessed February 25, 2020. Available at: https://www.newport
beachca.gov/government/departments/recreation-senior-services/bike-walking-trails/
walking -trail -maps
CRM (Coastal Resource Management, Inc.), 2009. Revised Marine Biological Impact Assessment
Marina Park Project, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach.
December 2009.
CSTF (Los Angeles Region Contaminated Sediments Task Force), 2005. Los Angeles Contaminated
Sediments Task Force: Long -Term Management Strategy. May 2005. Accessed April 23, 2020.
Available at: https //www coastal ca gov/sediment/long-term-mgmt-strategy-5-2005 pdf.
Diaz Yourman & Associates, 2007. Geotechnical Investigation Bay Island Sea Wall and Bridge Newport
Beach, California. January 2007.
DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control), 2020. DTSC EnviroStor Database. Website
search. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
Fredette, T.J., 2005. "Why Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells Often Make Sense." Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management 2(1):35-38.
Frost, N. 2017. California Least Tern Breeding Survey, 2016 Season. Final Report. Prepared for the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Program
Report, 2017-03. June 2017.
Glenn Lukos Associates, 2020. Western Snowy Plover Management Plan for East Balboa Peninsula
Beaches. Prepared for City of Newport Beach. July 2019, revised January 2020. Accessed April
23, 2020. Available at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/`showdocument?id=66308.
Group Delta Consultants, Inc., 2020. Soil and Groundwater Assessment Report, Former Newport
Plating. Prepared for Patterson -Kahle, LLC. January 20, 2020. Available at:
https://geotracker waterboards ca gov/getfile?filename=/esi/uploads/geo report/934747970
1/SL0605980961.PDF
Hirsch, N.D., L.H. DiSalvo, and R. Peddicord, 1978. Effects of Dredging and Disposal on Aquatic
Organisms. Technical Report DS -78 55. NTIS No. AD A058 989. Vicksburg, Mississippi:
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups 1, ll, and III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva.
Final Environmental Impact Report 208 May 2021
Jones & Stokes, 2004. Transportation- and Construction -Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.
Prepared for California Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste
Management Office, Sacramento, California. June 2004.
Kroeber, A.L., 1976. Handbook of the Indians of California. New York: Dover Publications.
Love, M.S., 2011. Certainly More Than You Want To Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast.
Santa Barbara: Really Big Press.
MALSF (Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund), 2009. A Generic Investigation into Noise Profiles
of Marine Dredging in Relation to the Acoustic Sensitivity of the Marine Fauna in UK waters
with Particular Emphasis on Aggregate Dredging: Phase 1 Scoping and Review of Key Issues.
Report Number: MEPF Ref No. MEPF/08/P21. February 2009. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank Thomsen/publication/272740795 A generic investiga
tion into noise profiles of marine dredging in relation to the acoustic sensitivity of the marine
fauna in UK waters PHASE 1 Scoping and review of key issues/links/54ec97c40cf27fbfd77116S
d/A-generic-investigation-into-noise-profiles-of-marine-dredging_ in-relation-to-the-acoustic-
sensitiviiy-of-the-marine-fauna-in-UK-waters-PHASE-1-Scoping-and-review-of-key-issues.pdf.
Moffatt & Nichol, 2006. Sand Compatibility Opportunistic Use Program. Prepared for the San Diego
Association of Governments. March 2006. Available at: https://www.sandag.org/uploads/
publication id/publicationid 1203 53S5.pdf
MTS (Marine Taxonomic Services, Ltd.), 2018.2018 Monitoring of Eelgrass Resources in Newport Bay
Newport Beach, California. December 20, 2018. Accessed April 23, 2020. Accessible at:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=62623.
MTS (Marine Taxonomic Services, Ltd.), 2020. 2020 Monitoring of Eelgrass Resources in Newport Bay
Newport Beach, California. December 20, 2020. Accessed March 29, 2021. Available at:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=69415.
National Forest, 2019. "Find A Forest." Accessed October 3, 2019. Available at:
https://www. nationalforests.org/our-forests/find-a-forest.
Navy (U.S. Navy), 2018. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact
Statement Hawaii -Southern California Training and Testing. October 2018. Available at:
https://www.hstteis.com/portals/hstteis/files/hstteis p3/feis/section/HSTT FEIS 3.08 Reptiles
October 2018.pdf.
Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, and D.R. Hitchcock, 1998. "The Impacts of Dredging Works in Coastal
Waters: A Review of the Sensitivity to Disturbance and Subsequent Recovery of Biological
Resources on the Sea Bed." Oceanography and Marine Biology 36 (Annual Review). -1 27-178.
Final Environmental Impact Report 209 May 2021
Newport Beach Fire Department, 2011. City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan. Available
at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=17901.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2008. Coulerpa Control Protocol.
Version 4. February 25, 2008. Available at: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
publications/habitat/caulerpa taxifolia/caulerpa control protocol 4 .pdf.
NOAA, 2014. California Eelgross Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines. October 2014.
Available at: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/habitat/caIifornia
eelgrass mitigation/Final%20CEMP%20October%202014/cemp oct 2014 final.odf.
NOAA, 2020. NCEI/WDS Global Significant Earthquake Database, 2150 BC to Present. Last Modified
September 3, 2020. Available at: https://data.noaa.gov//metaview/page?xml=NOAA/NESDIS/
NGDC/MGG/Hazards/iso/xml/G012153.xm1&view=get DataView&header=none#:—:text= A%2
Osignificant%20earthqua ke%20is%20class ified,the%20earthquake%20generated%20a%20tsu
nami.
OCHCA (Orange County Health Care Agency), 2016. Letter to Eric Roehl, Chevron Environmental
Management Company. Regarding: Notice of Responsibility, Newport Gulf Station.
July 5, 2016
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Risk Assessment Guidelines. August 2003.
OPR (Governor's Office of Planning and Research), 2003. State of California General Plan Guidelines.
Available at:.http://opr.ca.gov/docs/General Plan Guidelines 2003.pdf.
OC Watersheds, 2018. The OC Plan, Integrated Regional Water Management for the North and Central
Orange County Watershed Management Areas. March 2018. Available at: http://prggoc.
publicworks.com/Docmgmtlnternet/Download.aspx?id =1489.
Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2019. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for The
California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery: Appendix B Part 2. Available at:
https://www.pcou ncilorg/documents/2019/06/groundfish-fmp-appendix-b-part-2 pdf/.
Palermo, M.R., J.E. Clausner, M.P. Rollings, G.L. Williams, T.E. Myers, T.J. Fredette, and R. Randall, 1998.
Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping. Technical Report DOER -1, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Popper, A.N., A.D. Hawkins, R.R. Fay, D.A. Mann, S.M. Bartol, T.J. Carlson, S. Coombs, W.T. Ellison,
R.L. Gentry, M.B. Halvorsen, S. Lokkeborg, P.H. Rogers, B.L. Southall, D.G. Zeddies, and
Final Environmental Impact Report 210 May 2021
W.N. Tavolga, 2014. ASA S3/SC1.4 TR -2014 Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea
Turtles: A Technical Report prepared by ANSI -Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and
registered with ANSI. New York, New York, and London, United Kingdom: Acoustical Society
of America Press and Springer Briefs in Oceanography.
Ritchie, E.I., 2019. "Did You Know Hundreds of Sea Turtles Are Now Southern California Residents?"
The Orange County Register. Updated April 23, 2019. Accessed May 5, 2020. Available at:
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/04/23/did-you-know-hundreds-of-sea-turtles-are-now-
southern-cal ifornia-residents /.
RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 1998a. Resolution No. 98-69. Amendment to the
Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin Establishing a Total Maximum Daily
Load for Sediment for the Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Watershed and Rescinding and
Replacing Resolution No. 97-77.
RWQCB, 1998b. Resolution No. 98-101. Resolution Revising the Amendment to the Water Quality
Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin Incorporating a Total Maximum Daily Load for
Sediment in Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Watershed (Resolution No. 98-69).
RWQCB, 1998c. Attachment to Resolution No. 98-9, as amended by Resolution No. 98-100.
Resolution Amending the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin to
Incorporate a Nutrient TMDL for the Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Watershed.
RWQCB, 1998d. Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Newport Bay, California.
November 24, 1998.
RWQCB, 2012. Total Maximum Daily Load Progress Report Rhine Channel (Lower Newport Bay)
Metals -Organics TMDL. Updated September 2012. Accessed April 23, 2020. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/about us/performance report 1718/plan assess/docs/ , 131
44/11112 r8 rhinechannel metals organics.pdf.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District), 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing
Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. May 2005. Available at:
http://www,agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/cornplete-
guidance-document.pdf.
SCAQMD, 2011. South CoastAQMDAir Quality Significance Thresholds. Revised April 2019. Available
at: http:/jwww,a q md.gov/d ocs/d efa u It -sou rce/ceq a/h and boo k/scaq md -a I r -q u a I ity-
significance-thresholds.pfdf?sfvrsn=2.
Final Environmental Impact Report 211 May 2021
SCAQMD, 201 S. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin "Mates IV." May
2015. Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-toxic-
studies/mates-iv/mates-iv-final-draft-report-4-1-15 pdf?sfvrsn=7.
SCAQMD, 2016. Final Air Quality Management Plan. October 2016. Available at:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-
plans/2016-air-duality-management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/fina120l6agmp pdf?sfvrsn=15.
SCAQMD, 2018. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Accessed January 24, 2020.
Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans.
Smith, L., 2014. Personal communication between Larry Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los
Angeles District and Steve Cappellino, Anchor QEA. May 23, 2014.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board), 2020. GeoTracker database search. Accessed
March 4, 2020. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1989. Requirements for Sampling, Testing and Data Analysis of
Dredged Material. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
USACE, 1999. Defense Environmental Restoration Program, Formerly Used Defense Sites Findings and
Determination of Eligibility. U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Base, Newport Beach, California, Site
No. J09CA745500. September 1999.
USACE, 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.
Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project. April 2000. Available at: https://www.portof
losangeles.org/environment/environmental-documents.
USACE, 2004. Los Angeles Dredged Material Management Plan Feasibility Study, Baseline Conditions
(F3) Report. August 2004. Accessed April 23, 2020. Available at: https://www.coastal.ca.
gov/sediment/DMMPF3Report.pdf.
USACE, 2011. Final Environmental Assessment for Lower Newport Bay Maintenance Dredging Project.
September 2020. Available at: https://www.spl,usace.army.mil/Portals/17/docs/publicnotices/
Lower%20Newport Maintenance%20Dredging%20Final%20EA%20signed.pdf?ver=02 zVV3L
cMeWIZgQTQBQow%3d%3d.
USACE, 2012a. Final Environmental Assessment for the Santa Ana River Marsh Dredging Project
Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Prepared by USACE South Pacific Division Los
Angeles District. July 2012.
Final Environmental Impact Report 212 May 2021
USACE, 2012b. Public Notice. Application for Regional General Permit (RGP). Public Notice/
Application No. SPL -2010 -00868 -SME. Orange County Public Works Ocean Outlet
Maintenance Program.
USACE, 2020. Final Environmental Assessment for Lower Newport Bay Maintenance Dredging Project.
September 2020. Available at https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/docs/
publicnotices/Lower%20Newport Maintenance%20Dredging%20Final%20EA%20signed pdf?
ver=02 zVV3LcMeWIZgQTQBQow%3d%3d.
USACE/USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Proposed Site Designation of the LA -3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Off Newport
Bay, Orange County, California. December 2004. Available at: https://archive.epa,gov/
region9/water/archive/web/pdf/la3deis web.pdf
USEPA, 2019. Integrated Risk Information System. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/iris.
USEPA, 2002. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Toxic Pollutants, San Diego Creek and Newport Bay,
California. June 14, 2002.USEPA/USACE, 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean Disposal — Testing Manual. EPA- 503/8-91/001. USEPA Office of Water (4504F).
February 1991.
USEPA/USACE, 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal — Testing Manual.
EPA- 503/8-91/001. USEPA Office of Water (4SO4F). February 1991.
USEPA/USACE, 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. —
Testing Manual: Inland Testing Manual. EPA -823-B-94-004. USEPA Office of Water (4305).
February 1998.
Final Environmental Impact Report 213 May 2021
Appendix 6
Public Comments
Please note, this appendix supplements Appendix 8 of the DER to incorporate public comments from
the Harbor Commission meeting held on April 14, 2021.
Biddle, Jennifer
From: Jacobs, Carol
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 8:57 PM
To: Biddle, Jennifer
Subject: Fwd: Harbor Commission Meeting April 14, 2021
Carol Jacobs
Assistant City Manager
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949)644-3313
From: Brent Anderson <banderson_pire@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 20218:18:06 PM
To: Jacobs, Carol <cjacobs@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Harbor Commission Meeting April 14, 2021
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
City of Newport Beach City Council
Re: CAD Dredging and Placement in Newport Harbor - PROPOSAL
Dear Commission and Council Members:
My wife Carla and I have lived in Newport Coast since 1993 and on Lido Isle since 2017. We
attended a meeting sponsored by Diane Dixon at the Lido Isle Community Center a couple of years
ago where the options to remove dangerous materials from the Harbor were presented and
discussed. After hearing the proposals, it was clear to most of the residents who attended the
meeting that the proposal to move dangerous materials from their current locations and place them in
a pristine area of the Harbor was preposterous and made absolutely no sense at all.
Now we understand that proposal is being considered as the proper "solution" to the issue of
dangerous materials in the Harbor.
We completely disagree! Moving contaminants from their current locations to a pristine, clean area of
the Harbor makes no sense. The proposed "dump site", and that is what it is, would be in the area
most used for recreational sailing. It is an area where residents may anchor their crafts, swim, and
enjoy the beauty of the bay.
We urge you to vote NO on this proposal. The Harbor Commission needs to send their staff back to
the drawing board to negotiate a location with the Army Corps of Engineers and Coastal Commission,
and whatever other agency that may be involved, to safely dispose of the dangerous materials
outside of the Harbor in the Pacific Ocean. This was previously allowed. No one in their right mind
would think it makes sense to contaminate an existing clean area that is currently used by residents
of Newport Beach and visitors for recreational and business purposes.
VOTE NO and find a better solution!
Brent & Carla Anderson
232 Via Eboli
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Miller, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:54 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: FW: Harbor Commission vote to adopt EIR re: CAD/Dredging
Attachments: Letter from Cary Singleton, Lido, CAD Proposal Opposition.pdf
From: Mary 0 <maryobuck@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 20212:57 PM
To: Jacobs, Carol <ciacobs@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Harbor Commission vote to adopt EIR re: CAD/Dredging
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
I am against approval of the EIR for the CAD, Confined Aquatic Device placement in
our clean Bay (anchorage at East end of Lido). Research says that the CAD would
be a 47' hole by 450' square dug in the anchorage for the purpose of dumping all
unsuitable waste dredged from the bay. It would be covered with a layer of good
sand and reopened throughout time for future placement of waste. The designated
area for the CAD is currently clean suitable sand that will be taken and placed
elsewhere making room for the unsuitable materials. This is not removal, it is
replacement and is unacceptable.
Questions:
1) Why here in our clean bay where people swim, sail, fish?
2) What alternatives and cost comparisons have been studied?
3) What do groups such as the EPA, OSHA, COASTAL, CLEAN ENERGY, EEL GRASS
WATCH DOGS, etc. have to say about it?
-A homeowner cannot change a dock, sea wall, renovate or build a house here
without dealing with at least 2 of these groups so it would be fruitful to know how
the CAD project can even be conceived.
Attachment:
Letter from Cary Singleton, Lido, detailing her bout with cancer after exposure to
TCE(trichloroethylene.)
Note:
I have submitted the above mentioned letter along with the CAD proposal to Dr.
Burt Eisenberg, Executive Medical Director Hoag Family Cancer Institute.
Respectfully,
Mary O. Buckingham
Mary O
Fwd: Letter from Lido Neighbor: Opposition to CAD Proposal
April 13, 2021 at 2:12 PM
James Buckingham
To. The Harbor Commission
I was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer for a 26 year old - endometrial - in 1982 and
given 6-9 months. No time for chemo or radiation. Surgery. a hysterectomy, was the only
option. after the diagnosis which had been confirmed by four cancer centers around the
country since it was so unusual. We learned many years later that the cancer was likely to
have been caused by environmental causes, the dumping of trichloroethylene in the
water system at Hughes Aircraft, Tucson Arizona, where I worked from 1977-79. "Hughes
Aircraft and the city of Tucson were accused of dumping TCE in the water table for 29 years,
beginning in 1952. A lawsuit against the city was settled in 1981 for $31 million, and in
1991 a suit against Hughes Aircraft was settled for $84.5 million. In 1981 the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tested water wells on the south side of Tucson and
found TCE levels were beyond the EPA limits."* Since I was unaware of this lawsuit having
moved out of the area, I didn't participate in the suit, but I can assure that NO AMOUNT OF
MONEY would have compensated me for the loss of the opportunity to bear biological
children.
So, it is incredible that the City of Newport Beach would consider moving potentially cancer-
causing material ANYWHERE in our harbor: a harbor where residents and visitors from all
over the world swim and enjoy boating activities. This could affect the city's tourist income
when this becomes widely known. Furthermore, how can we be ASSURED that an
earthquake or other seismic activity won't disturb this site? What if a large boat sinks into
the open CAD?
In addition, since this is such a controversial subject, it is surprising that our City Council
would even consider such an option affecting its voters when they cannot safely meet in
public to discuss this with each other and consult environmental specialists. We ask you to
please reconsider this plan.
*Ref: https:/vvvvw.library__pima.goviblogs�post/tncrilorethylene-toe-pollution-in-tucson-
water/# --:text= Hug hes%20Aircraft%20and%201helo20city;wasOo20settled`',o20foi- -6201!6248
4.50/1020million.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Singleton
Cary&ngleton l 4ginail.corn
844 Via Lido Nord, Newport Beach 92663
From: Miller, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 202112:58 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: Harbor Commission 4/14/21 CAD/Dredging Questions
From: Shana Conzelman <sconzelman@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 20212:04 PM
To: Jacobs, Carol <cjacobs@newportbeachca.gov>; DIANEBDIXON <dianebdixon@gmail.com>; Will
O'Neill <oneill4newport@gmail.com>; duffy@duffyboats.com; Brad S/C Avery <brad@occsailing.com>;
Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom, Noah <NBlom@newportbeachca.gov>;
Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Harbor Commission 4/14/21 CAD/Dredging Questions
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Carol,
Thank you for fielding all questions for the Harbor
Commission meeting tomorrow evening. Please
find below just a few of my questions I would like
answered being respectful of this meeting being
changed to a zoom format. I'm also curious why I
did not receive any response regarding the letter
of opposition I sent regarding the findings of the
EIR report. For many of the frustrated residents
who are directly affected by this CAD decision the
method of notifications seems to be oddly
inappropriate. During Covid and right before the
holidays we are given notice of the comment
deadline for the EIR and this notification was sent
on the day before Easter, late in the day on a
Saturday. So easily missed for those of us who
are living our lives wishing we did not have to deal
with issues such as these.
Here are my questions:
1) Why hasn't a local Confined Disposal Facility
(CDF) been evaluated?
2) What
levels of
contaminants
would be allowed in
the CAD
such as
DDT & PBC's?
(for homeowners?)
3) Why is the proposed dredging from the seawall
to the pierhead line on commercial properties only?
Bringing up the question of; Why are waterfront
homeowners being forced to pay to dredge and
dispose of toxic materials that they did not
discharge from their properties?
4) According to the EPA, the unsuitable material
you are proposing to put in the CAD, was possibly
suitable for open ocean disposal if monitored
properly; Why wasn't this researched?
Shana Conzelman
939 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
(714) 651-2044
Biddle, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Harbor Commission CAD Meeting Questions
From: Sharon Grimes <sharongrimesl@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 20215:50:23 PM
To: Jacobs, Carol <cjacobs@newportbeachca.gov>; kmuldon@newportbeachca.gov <kmuldon@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Harbor Commission CAD Meeting Questions
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
April 13, 2021
Dear Grace Leung, Carol Jacobs, and Members of the Newport Beach City Council,
This is my second letter asking you to consider what this proposed disposal site will do to our bay. No response was
received from my first letter. I know that Mrs. Leung should understand what waste disposal sites can do even
unintentionally to a city. As I see she has worked for the city of Sunnyvale, CA. Sunnyvale has several active NPL
superfund sites. Sunnyvale is where Silicon Valley Toxic Past Haunts the residents. Everyone there thought burying
that waste was a great idea at the time. Now the American Taxpayers are funding the cleanup, and lawyers are filing
lawsuits on behalf of those who have become ill from the contamination.
1. Has there been a study by a third -party environmental/chemical-based company on the waste you propose
that we bury in our beautiful bay?
2. Have You been provided a list of the contaminates to be buried?
3. Why is this contamination not being buried in the ocean?
4. Where did the contamination come from?
5. Is it from runoff?
6. Commercial business?
7. Who should pay for the cleanup?
8. EPA suggested the CAD be buried in the ocean, has that been researched?
Our children play, swim, and sail in our bay. Please let us do all we can to keep it. Clean.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sharon Grimes
Newport Beach, CA.
219 Via Eboli
949-466-5756
From: Miller, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 20211:01 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: DEIR Questions for the Wed Meeting
Attachments: D EI R_q uestio ns_4-13-2021_v1. pdf
Importance: Low
From: bmardian@pienvironmental.com <bmardian@pienvironmental.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 20214:00 PM
To: Jacobs, Carol <ciacobs@newportbeachca.aov>
Subject: DEIR Questions for the Wed Meeting
Importance: Low
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Good afternoon Carol. Attached are 20 questions for the harbor commissioners about the CAD.
Needless to say, you guys deserve a better option to manage your sediment.
Thanks and be well,
Brent
Brent Mardian
Senior Marine Scientist
Pi Environmental, LLC
0:760.593.3141
C:805.705.5632
1. Has the City collected Geotechnical data to design depth from the Proposed CAD location? If
not, how do they know with certainty the material to the bottom is sand and is suitable for
beach replenishment? If it isn't, where does that material go if it can't go to the beach or
nearshore?
2. Has the EPA and USACE expressed a willingness to permit the CAD site material for
beach/nearshore replenishment without samples to project depth?
3. What are the downsides of the CAD?
4. Can the area with the CAD ever be dredged in the future, and at what level of effort and cost?
5. Since 2018-2019, has the City engaged in any additional sediment characterizations in these
areas to try to limit the amount of material to be disposed of in the CAD?
6. Have there been any discussion by the City or it's Consultants to put TMDL sediment in the CAD?
Will the Harbor Commissioners commit to not put TMDL material into the CAD?
7. Does the Harbor Commission understand that a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) and a Confined
Aquatic Disposal site (CAD) are two entirely different ways to handle contaminated sediment? A
CDF does not involve in water sediment disposal, removes the contaminated sediment, and is
deemed a beneficial reuse by the regulatory agencies. A CAD is none of those things.
8. Why was an inappropriate offshore sediment disposal model developed by the USACE tweeked
and used to predict contaminant plumes in the bay? The tweeked USACE model the does not
account for site-specific hydrodynamic effects in Newport Bay, are there plans to model plume
dynamics using a site-specific model that is representative of Newport Bay?
9. According to the Basis of Design document (Appendix C) DDT disposal in Lower Newport Bay will
result in a violation of water quality limits of the toxic banned pesticide. Will the City please
describe how toxic plumes of contaminants will be mitigated for and how a monitoring program,
which just identifies the problem after the fact will ensure that dissolved organic contaminants
are not migrating through the entirety of Newport Bay?
10. The turbidity and light transmission monitoring limits identified in Table 3-10 (page 163 of the
DEIR PDF) are from the Regional General Permit (RGP) 54, which does not apply to these
sediments. The actual monitoring standards are described in the Santa Ana Basin Plan.
Therefore, the water quality monitoring and mitigation analysis presented in the DEIR is not
accurate. Can the harbor commissioners describe their comfort level with inaccurate monitoring
criteria and analysis given the likelihood of toxic DDT plumes in the Bay?
11. Does the City see a single consultant who plans, proposes, designs, serves as the CEQA agent,
and will likely be the beneficiary of long term monitoring and permitting, as having a conflict of
interest in the permitting/approval of that project?
12. Is it standard practice for City employees to send vital CEQA Public Notice information at night,
on the weekend, and the day before a religious holiday?
13. The City DEIR evaluation for Aesthetics used a much smaller piece of equipment. Understanding
the preparers are 'dredge experts', why was a small sheet pile barge used as a demonstration
image instead of an actual dredge barge (which is significantly larger 2-3 times plus disposal
scows)?
14. What is the downside of letting the Federal dredging happen, and re-evaluating alternatives
based on the industry and regional practice of trying to identify beneficial reuse alternatives, like
parks and viewing areas that serve a community function, as well as permanently clean-up the
Bay?
15. Is the argument for not identifying a CDF alternative in Newport Bay because it was too hard?
Too involved, or too expensive?
16. In this case, an integrated sediment management plan that deals with the Bay wholistically
(TMDLs, Contaminated sediment, transport, etc) was not prepared separate from the CAD,
rather, an ad hoc sediment plan was added as an Appendix to the CAD DEIR. In the Harbor
Commissioners minds, what should come first, the Plan or the Remedy?
17. Why do the Harbor Commissioners want to dredge to the historical depths in the Bay?
18. Has there been any modeling to support the expected levels of improvement in water quality in
the Bay post dredging (after all the toxic DDT plume has dissipated of course)?
19. What is the annual waste discharge fee for this site?
20. What would be the one thing that would cause the Harbor Commissioners not to approve the
CAD?
Biddle, Jennifer
Subject: FW: CAD project
From: Will Singleton <ws.singleton@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 20218:52:19 AM
To: Jacobs, Carol <cjacobs@newportbeachca.gov>; Cary Singleton <CarySingletonl@gmail.com>
Subject: CAD project
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ms. Jacobs,
I'm opposed to a CAD being considered to manage waste material in Newport Harbor. Placing a dumpsite in the
middle of the harbor will cause disruption to harbor activities for years to come. It also doesn't solve the
problem, it merely covers it up. Literally.
Alternatives have not been seriously considered due to the City's strong desire to utilize a CAD. There must be a
way to remove the material from Newport Beach entirely, even if it costs more money.
Sincerely,
Will Singleton
844 Via Lido Nord
Newport Beach
Mary O
Fwd: Letter from Lido Neighbor: Opposition to CAD Proposal
April 13, 2021 at 2:12 PM
James Buckingham
To: The Harbor Commission
I was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer for a 26 year old - endometrial - in 1982 and
given 6-9 months. No time for chemo or radiation. Surgery, a hysterectomy, was the only
option. after the diagnosis which had been confirmed by four cancer centers around the
country since it was so unusual. We learned many years later that the cancer was likely to
have been caused by environmental causes, the dumping of trichloroethylene in the
water system at Hughes Aircraft, Tucson Arizona, where I worked from 1977-79. "Hughes
Aircraft and the city of Tucson were accused of dumping TCE in the water table for 29 years,
beginning in 1952. A lawsuit against the city was settled in 1981 for $31 million, and in
1991 a suit against Hughes Aircraft was settled for $84.5 million. In 1981 the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tested water wells on the south side of Tucson and
found TCE levels were beyond the EPA limits."* Since I was unaware of this lawsuit having
moved out of the area, I didn't participate in the suit, but I can assure that NO AMOUNT OF
MONEY would have compensated me for the loss of the opportunity to bear biological
children.
So, it is incredible that the City of Newport Beach would consider moving potentially cancer-
causing material ANYWHERE in our harbor: a harbor where residents and visitors from all
over the world swim and enjoy boating activities. This could affect the city's tourist income
when this becomes widely known. Furthermore; how can we be ASSURED that an
earthquake or other seismic activity won't disturb this site? What if a large boat sinks into
the open CAD?
In addition; since this is such a controversial subject, it is surprising that our City Council
would even consider such an option affecting its voters when they cannot safely meet in
public to discuss this with each other and consult environmental specialists. We ask you to
please reconsider this plan.
*Ref: https:r_%vnjvw.library_pima.gov%blogs/_post,trichlorethyiene-tce-pollution-in-tucsori-
vvater* --: text= Hua hes%20Aircr aft%20and%20the°o20city,�was�o20sattled°o20for°��20°0248
4.2%20m !Ilion.
Sincerely.
Carolyn singleton
(;arySingietoi-;Abgmail.coi
844 Via Lido Nord, Newport Beach 92663
Appendix E
2020 Harbor -Wide Eelgrass Survey
Please note, this appendix supplements Appendix E of the DEIR to incorporate the 2020 Eelgrass Survey
Results.
MARINE TAXONOMIC SERVICES, LTD
2020 Monitoring of Eelgrass Resources in
Newport Bay
Newport Beach, California
December 25, 2020
Prepared For:
City of Newport Beach Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Contact: Chris Miller, Public Works Manager
CMiller@newportbeachca.gov, (949) 644-3043
Newport Harbor Shallow -Water and Deep -Water Eelgrass Survey
Prepared By:
MARINE TAXONOMIC SERVICES, LLC COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC
Marine Taxonornic Services, Ltd.
920 RANCHEROS DRIVE, STE F-1 23 Morning Wood Drive
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
2020 NEWPORT BAY EELGRASS RESOURCES REPORT
Contents
Contents........................................................................................................................................................................
Appendices..................................................................................................................................................................
Abbreviations...............................................................................................................................................................iv
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................1
ProjectPurpose..........................................................................................................................................................
l
Background................................................................................................................................................................
2
ProjectSetting...........................................................................................................................................................3
EelgrassBiology........................................................................................................................................................4
EelgrassRegulatory Setting.......................................................................................................................................5
GeneralEelgrass Regulations................................................................................................................................5
Newport Beach Eelgrass Regulations....................................................................................................................6
Methods.........................................................................................................................................................................
7
ProjectStaff...............................................................................................................................................................7
ProjectLocation.........................................................................................................................................................7
EelgrassSurvey Methods..........................................................................................................................................9
EnvironmentalParameters.....................................................................................................................................9
SonarSurvey..........................................................................................................................................................9
SCUBADiver Survey..........................................................................................................................................12
EelgrassDensity..................................................................................................................................................13
Eelgrass Habitat Mapping Survey Results...................................................................................................................14
Underwater Visibility and Temperature Measurements..........................................................................................14
UnderwaterVisibility..........................................................................................................................................14
WaterTemperature..............................................................................................................................................16
Eelgrass Distribution and Abundance......................................................................................................................17
Deep Water Eelgrass Distribution...........................................................................................................................19
Region 23. Deep Water Eelgrass Habitat (37.94 ac)...........................................................................................19
Shallow Water Eelgrass Distribution by Region.....................................................................................................20
Region1. Corona del Mar (13.85 ac)..................................................................................................................21
Region 3. Balboa Peninsula - East (3.39 ac)........................................................................................................22
Region4. Grand Canal (1.29 ac).........................................................................................................................22
Region 5. Balboa Island and Collins Isle (10.11 ac)............................................................................................22
Region 7. Balboa Peninsula— West (0.57 ac)......................................................................................................24
Region 8. North Balboa Channel and Yacht Basin (0.90 ac)...............................................................................24
Region 10. Linda Isle - Outer (4.07 ac)...............................................................................................................25
Region 11. Linda Isle - Inner (4.84 ac)................................................................................................................25
Region 12. DeAnza Peninsula - Inner (9.09 ac)..................................................................................................25
Region 13. DeAnza Peninsula - Outer (7.27 ac)..................................................................................................25
Region14. Castaways (5.24 ac)...........................................................................................................................25
2020 NEWPORT BAY EELGRASS RESOURCES REPORT
Region15. B ayshores (1.01 ac)...........................................................................................................................27
Region 16. Mariner's Mile (1.24 ac)....................................................................................................................27
Region17. Lido Isle (0.92 ac).............................................................................................................................27
Region18. Lido Peninsula (0.07 ac)....................................................................................................................27
Region19. West Newport (0.0 ac)......................................................................................................................27
Region20. Dover Shores (1.38 ac)......................................................................................................................29
Region 21. Dunes Marina and Channel (1.69 ac)................................................................................................29
Region22. Northstar Beach (0.01 ac)..................................................................................................................29
Region 24. Back Bay Science Center and Launch Ramp (0.22 ac).....................................................................29
HistoricalEelgrass Coverage...................................................................................................................................31
Eelgrass Distributional Zones in Newport Bay.......................................................................................................19
Density..................................................................................................................................................................... 32
OtherMarine Life........................................................................................................................................................35
MarineLife Observed..............................................................................................................................................35
LiteratureCited............................................................................................................................................................42
Appendix A: DWEH Sidescan Sonar Track Lines................................................................................................... A-1
AppendixB: Photographs..........................................................................................................................................B-1
Appendices
Appendix A — DWEH Sidescan Sonar Track Lines
Appendix B - Photographs
5
2020 NEWPORT BAY EELGRASS RESOURCES REPORT
Abbreviations
ac
Acre
Bay
Newport Bay
CEQA
State of California Environmental Quality Act
CEMP
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy
City
City of Newport Beach
CRM
Coastal Resources Management Inc.
DWEH
Deep Water Eelgrass Habitat
dGPS
Differential Global Positioning System
EFH
Essential Fish Habitat
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPMP
Eelgrass Protection and Mitigation Plan for Shallow Waters in Lower Newport Bay:
An Ecosystem Based Management Program
ft
Feet/Foot
OF
Degrees Fahrenheit
GPS
Global Positioning System
HAMP
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
HAPC
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
MLLW
Mean Lower Low Water
m
Meter(s)
MTS
Marine Taxonomic Services, Ltd.
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
OTS
Ocean Technology Systems
RGP
Regional General Permit
sq
Square
SAV
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SWEH
Shallow Water Eelgrass Habitat
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Introduction
Marine Taxonomic Services, Ltd. (MTS) and its sub -contractor, Coastal Resources Management,
Inc, (CRM) was contracted by the City of Newport Beach (City) to provide eelgrass-mapping
services in Newport Bay as part of the 2020 harbor -wide eelgrass assessment. The survey
consisted of mapping shallow -water eelgrass habitat (SWEH) and deep -water eelgrass habitat
(DWEH) in support of the City's Eelgrass Protection and Mitigation Plan for Shallow Waters in
Lower Newport Bay: An Ecosystem Based Management Program (EPMP; City of Newport Beach
2015) and the City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP; City of Newport
Beach 2010). MTS was responsible for surveying the SWEH, data analysis, and report
composition. CRM was responsible for providing MTS with survey results from DWEH and SWEH
using sonar -based methods beyond 20 feet (ft) bayward of all dock structures and in areas where
it was not safe to perform diver -based surveys. This was the seventh SWEH survey and fourth
DWEH survey since the program was initiated in 2003. Previous eelgrass habitat assessments
were conducted in 2003-2004 (CRM 2005), 2006-2008 (CRM 2010), 2009-2010 (CRM 2012),
2012-2014 (CRM 2015), 2016 (CRM 2017), and 2018 (MTS 2018).
Project Purpose
The purpose of this assessment is to provide the City with detailed information on the distribution
and abundance of eelgrass within Newport Harbor, including Lower and Upper Newport Bay
(Bay) (Figure 1). Monitoring and maintaining a database of the Bay's eelgrass resources is
essential for the City and regulatory and resource agencies to manage these resources. The City
is committed to monitor these resources by their HAMP and EPMP. Additionally, data provided
in this report will be used by the City in support of their Regional General Permit (RGP) 54
collectively issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2020), the California Coastal
Commission and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. This dataset is valued as it
helps to inform the public of existing sensitive resources regarding infrastructure improvement
projects such as construction, repair, and maintenance for bulkheads, docks, and piers, as well
as activities involving beach nourishment and harbor dredging.
MT .
Figure 1. Regional map of Newport Bay in Newport Beach, California.
Background
Comprehensive historical surveys of eelgrass resources have occurred since 2003. These surveys
were conducted by CRM until the 2018 survey which was completed by MTS. Summaries of their
eelgrass mapping results in Newport Bay are provided below.
2003-2004 Survey Summary
A total of 30.4 acres (ac) of eelgrass were mapped in shallow water at depths between 0 -ft and -
12 -feet (ft) Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Mean station density averaged 212.8 turions per
square (sq) meter (m) and ranged between 94 and 273.8 per sq m across 15 stations (CRM 2005).
2006-2008 Survey Summary
A total of 23.1 ac of eelgrass were mapped between +0.7 -ft and -12-ft MLLW. Turion density
averaged 130.7 turions per sq m and varied between 67.1 and 221.9 turions per sq m across 10
stations (CRM 2010).
2009-2010 Survey Summary
A total of 19.92 ac of SWEH was mapped between 2009 and 2010. Turion density averaged 123.5
and ranged between 14.3 and 629 turions per sq m (CRM 2012). CRM also conducted DWEH
mapping surveys in the Harbor entrance channel and navigation channels leading into Newport
Harbor using sidescan sonar and mapped 45.4 acers of DWEH to depths of -28ft MLLW.
2012-2014 Survey Summary
This survey encompassed deep and shallow water eelgrass habitats within the Bay. A total of
88.27 ac of bottom habitat was covered by eelgrass between the low tide zone and -28.5-ft
MLLW. Of this a total of 42.35 ac of vegetated SWEH was mapped between 0.0 -ft and -15-ft
MLLW. Turion density averaged 117 turions and ranged between 39.1 and 259.3 turions per sq
m (CRM 2015).
As a result of the surveys performed between 2003 and 2014 three eelgrass stability zones were
identified in the Bay. The first zone is the stable eelgrass zone, where eelgrass distribution and
density have been relatively constant and underwater light levels were highest. The second zone
is the transitional eelgrass zone where eelgrass acreage has been highly variable and underwater
light levels appeared to have had higher variation. The unvegetated eelgrass zone represents
areas where eelgrass was not documented between 2003 and 2014 (CRM 2015).
2016 Survey Summary
This survey encompassed deep and shallow water eelgrass habitats within the Bay. A total of
104.5 ac of bottom habitat was covered by eelgrass between +0.5 -ft and -29.5-ft MLLW. Of this
a total of 53.0 ac of vegetated SWEH was mapped between +0.5 -ft and -15-ft MLLW. Eelgrass
turion density averaged 163.5 turions per sq m and ranged between 86.8 and 287.7 turions per
sq m (CRM 2017).
2018 Survey Summary
This survey encompassed shallow water eelgrass habitats within the Bay. A total of 58.18 ac of
eelgrass were mapped between +0.5 -ft and -15-ft MLLW during the 2018 survey. Eelgrass turion
density averaged 223 turions per sq m and ranged between 32 and 416 turions per sq m (MTS
2018).
2
MT.
Project Setting
Newport Bay is located within the City of Newport Beach, California (Figure 1). The City is
bordered by three coastal cities, Huntington Beach to the northwest, Costa Mesa to the north,
and Laguna Beach to the southeast. Newport Bay is generally divided into two regions: Lower
Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay. Prior to major development, Lower Newport Bay was a
coastal lagoon. The lagoon was initially formed between 1824 and 1862 as a consequence of
down current sand deposition from the Santa Ana River that formed a sand spit across the mouth
of Upper Newport Bay. The sand spit eventually developed into present-day Balboa Peninsula
(Stevenson and Emery 1958). Lower Newport Bay is a four -mile -long body of water orientated in
a northwest -to -southeast direction, parallel to the coastline. Currently, the Bay is a multi-user
system with both recreational and commercial uses. The Bay functions as a major navigational
harbor and anchorage for approximately 4,500 small boats and larger vessels as well as a business
center for marine -related activities and tourism. The Bay is also utilized as a transitional corridor
where wildlife can move between the tidally influenced channel and the more protected marsh
ecosystem of Upper Newport Bay or gain access to the open coastal marine environment.
Periodic dredging within the Bay is necessary to maintain navigation for vessel traffic, particularly
in active portions of the Bay (Anchor QEA 2009). The Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) in the Bay
is maintained by the USACE. While dredging for the FNC may occur at -12-ft MLLW it generally
occurs at depths deeper than -15-ft MLLW. Thus, most dredging activities for the FNC are largely
outside of SWEH areas. On occasion, dredging for the FNC can impact eelgrass habitat that occurs
at deeper depths (CRM 2017). Outside the FNC, maintenance dredging is also necessary and is
generally authorized under the City's RGP 54 (USACE 2020). A portion of the RGP 54 — known as
the RGP 54 Plan Area — is within the SWEH. The RGP 54 Plan Area is generally described as "The
bulkhead to pierhead line plus 20 feet bayward, including those exceptions for structures that
extend beyond this boundary as of 2013 in conformance with harbor development regulations
or policy."
Upper Newport Bay is characterized by mudflat, salt marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian, and
upland habitats (CDFW 2018). Most of this area is primarily a salt marsh system with freshwater
influence. The lower one-third of Upper Newport Bay, below Shellmaker Island, has undergone
continued anthropogenic influence by dredging and filling for housing development, recreational
swimming, marinas, and a boat launch. The Newport Bay watershed (— 154 square miles),
bounded by the Newport Mesa bluffs to the west and the San Joaquin Terrace to the east, drains
towards the Pacific Ocean via Upper Newport Bay. The watershed is a major contributor of
suspended sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants into the Bay ecosystem (EPA 2017). Major
large-scale, upstream projects coupled with the sediment catch basins maintained in the Upper
Newport Bay have significantly reduced sediment loading into the Upper Newport Bay.
MTS.
Eelgrass Biology
Eelgrass, Zostera, is a marine angiosperm (Kuo et al. 2006; Hemminga and Duarte 2000). This
marine plant is one of 13 genera within 5 families of seagrasses (Les et al. 1997). Seagrasses are
one of the most productive and valuable resources on earth. Seagrass beds absorb large
quantities of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere and store it, resulting in
carbon sequestration and storage (Kuwae and Hori 2019). Economically important, eelgrass
provides habitat to sustain commercially important fisheries further supporting the recreational
and commercial fishing industry and associated tourism industries (Phillips 1985; Dewsbury et al.
2016). In Southern California, eelgrass grows at depths ranging from the mid -to -low intertidal
extending to -30-m MLLW at some protected offshore areas of the eastern Pacific Ocean (Phillips
and Mendez 1988; Phillips and Echeverria 1990; Mason 1957; Coyer et al. 2007).
Zostera japonica, dwarf eelgrass, is an introduced seagrass found along the west -coast, originally
from Asia (Posey, 1988). Z. japonica has been known to inhabit the waters of the Pacific
Northwest since the early 1900s (Phillips, 1985). Its presence in California has only been known
for a short time (Shafer et al. 2008). Two types of eelgrass are found offshore in the Channel
Islands and along the coast of Santa Barbara County, Z. pacifica and Z. marina (Coyer et al. 2007).
Since eelgrass varies greatly given different environmental parameters, species of Zostera can be
challenging to identify in situ (Olesen and Sand -Jensen 1993). Zostera species observed during
the majority of this 2018 survey were believed to be Z. marina. However, Z. pacifica was likely
observed near the entrance to the channel. Hybridization of Z. marina and Z. pacifica has been
observed in other settings (Olsen et al. 2014). If hybridization is occurring within Newport Bay,
identification of these two species in situ may not be possible and further genetic testing may be
required.
Eelgrass is a photosynthetic organism that sustains fish and other marine life through nutrient
transformation and by releasing oxygen into the marine environment (Yarbro and Carlson 2008).
These plants can support a diversity of life by creating structure over otherwise featureless soft -
bottom habitats. Eelgrasses can form extensive beds in shallow, protected, estuarine, or other
near shore environments. These seagrasses host a variety of marine species including microbes,
algae, invertebrates (including lobsters, crabs, worms, snail, clams, sea stars, and octopus), and
fishes (Thresher et al. 1992; Valentine and Heck 1999). Some fish species are present throughout
their life stages while other fishes utilize eelgrass beds during periods of juvenile development.
Other vertebrates including fishes, seabirds, and sea lions utilize eelgrass beds as foraging
grounds. Green sea turtles also utilize eelgrass beds. Green sea turtle occurrence in Newport Bay
is not well documented. However, MTS made three separate observations of green sea turtles in
Upper Newport Bay between May and October 2020.
In addition to sustaining many forms of marine life, eelgrass reduces erosion processes and
increases seafloor stability (de Boer 2007). Other marine plants, sessile organisms, and sediments
are secured to the seafloor by the dense rhizome mats that penetrate these areas. Additionally,
the three-dimensional blade structure of eelgrass acts to dampen waves and softens the impacts
of wave action. In some areas of extreme reduction in wave action, sediments and organic matter
may begin to be deposited.
4
MTS.
In Newport Bay, Z. japonica is not known to occur. Z. marina has historically grown in both Lower
Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay. However, the distribution and abundance of eelgrass in
this area has varied greatly over time (CRM 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017, MTS 2018).
The importance of this habitat for marine life can sometimes conflict with the need for the City
of Newport Beach to maintain and sustain a viable commercial and recreational harbor, maintain
safe navigation, and for the City and its residents to maintain the integrity of their boat docks and
piers. Consequently, the City has committed to consistently conduct these surveys to better
understand the distribution of eelgrass over time and that facilitates both the City's and resource
and regulatory agencies' support of long-term planning and management of eelgrass within the
harbor.
Eelgrass Regulatory Setting
General Eelgrass Regulations
The federal government designates eelgrass as an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and a Habitat Area
of Particular Concern (HAPC) under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act in 1996 (FR 62, 244, December 19, 1997; Pacific Fishery Management Council,
2008). Eelgrass habitat is considered as EFH and a HAPC as it is a key foundation to a healthy
marine habitat and provides necessary ecosystem functions to sustain populations of marine
organisms. The designation as an EFH requires federal agencies to consult with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Fisheries on ways to avoid or minimize the adverse
effects of their actions on eelgrass.
NOAA provides guidelines for eelgrass management under the California Eelgrass Mitigation
Policy and Implementing Guidelines (CEMP) (NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region, 2014). These
guidelines provide comprehensive and consistent information to ensure the actions taken by
federal agencies result in "no net loss" of eelgrass habitat or function. Under the CEMP, biologists
will assist federal agencies to mitigate for unavoidable impacts and create 20 percent more
eelgrass habitat than was destroyed.
Eelgrass does not have a formal listing as a state or federal endangered, rare, or sensitive species.
However, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA
Fisheries understand the importance of protecting this resource. Additionally, eelgrass is
protected under the Clean Water Act, 1972, as it is considered vegetated shallow water habitat.
Environmental legislation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) dictates that project designs for coastal projects
should:
• Make all possible attempts to avoid impacts to eelgrass.
• Minimize the degree or magnitude of impacts to eelgrass.
• Rectify or compensate for unavoidable eelgrass habitat loss by restoring soft -bottom
habitat with eelgrass using transplant techniques.
• Reduce or eliminate impacts to eelgrass over time by preservation and maintaining
eelgrass over the life of the project.
MTS'.
The 2018 Department of Fish and Wildlife Ocean Fishing Regulations include regulations on the
collection of marine plants such as:
• There is no closed season, closed hours or minimum size limit for any species of marine
aquatic plant that can be collected.
• The daily bag limit on all marine aquatic plants for which the take is authorized is 10
pounds wet weight in the aggregate.
• Marine aquatic plants may not be cut or harvested in state marine reserves.
• No eelgrass (Zostera), surf grass (Phyllospadix), or sea palm (Postelsia) may be cut or
disturbed at any time.
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, 650. Natural Resources, Division 1. Fish and Game
Commission -Department of Fish and Wildlife. Subdivision 3, General Regulations. Chapter 1,
Collecting Permits states, "Except as otherwise provided, it is unlawful to take or possess marine
plants, live or dead birds, mammals, fishes, amphibians, or reptiles for scientific, educational, or
propagation purposes except as authorized by a permit issues by the department."
Newport Beach Eelgrass Regulations
Additional protection is afforded under both State and local City of Newport Beach codes and
plans. The City of Newport Beach Policies state that the City of Newport Beach, within its adopted
Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Newport Beach 2019), acknowledges the importance of eelgrass
in Newport Harbor, as well as the "...need to maintain and develop coastal -development uses in
Newport Harbor that may result in impacts to eelgrass" and "Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera
marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass at 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio
and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the
restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible" (CLUP 4.2.5-1). The Southern
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy was superseded by the CEMP in 2014.
The City of Newport Beach adopted a Newport Bay specific eelgrass mitigation plan (EPMP) in
2015 (City of Newport Beach, 2015). The EPMP is an outcome of the City of Newport Beach
HAMP, as issued in April 2010 and approved by City Council in November 2010 (Weston Solutions
Inc. et al. 2010). The HAMP was established to set goals and best management practices (BMPs)
to ensure a healthy eelgrass population within Lower Newport Bay. The EPMP seeks to protect
and promote a long-term sustainable eelgrass population while serving Lower Newport Bay's
navigational and recreational beneficial uses. The goal of the EPMP is an ecosystem -based
approach that works by protecting a sustainable eelgrass population in the Lower Newport Bay
and enforcing BMPs that will promote eelgrass growth.
Under the RGP 54, the EPMP authorizes temporary impacts to eelgrass resulting from minor
maintenance dredging activity under and adjacent to private, public, and commercial docks,
floats, and piers. The amount of temporary impacts authorized under the RGP 54 is based on
these biannual eelgrass surveys and dependent on the area of eelgrass within the harbor.
Demolition, repair, and in-kind replacement of docks (including piers, gangways, floats, and
piles), bulkheads, and piles with similar structures are excluded from the RGP 54 and the EPMP.
6
MTS.
Impacts to eelgrass not authorized under the RGP 54 requires individual mitigation pursuant to
the CEMP.
Methods
Project Staff
This report relies on a combination of previously collected data by CRM and results from this
year's, 2020, survey efforts conducted by MTS. Integral staff for this survey included Dr. Robert
Mooney (Principal Investigator), Grace Teller (Biologist, M.Sc.), Hannah Joss (Dive Technician,
B.Sc.), and Raelynn Heinitz (Field Technician, B.Sc.). Dr. Mooney contributed to project oversight,
client communication, and report review. Grace acted as the field team project manager
responsible for training staff, scheduling, and ensuring the quality of work conducted daily.
Hannah acted as the primary field team diver with additional topside support from MTS
personnel, Raelynn Heinitz. Additionally, Grace was responsible for drafting the 2020 report
summary. CRM staff, Rick Ware and Tom Gerlinger, supported the 2020 survey through collection
of sonar data, mapping support, and review of deliverables.
Project Location
The surveys were conducted in Newport Bay, located within Newport Beach, Orange County,
California. Observations and mapping occurred between June 19, 2020 and November 9, 2020.
Density measurements were taken across the Bay on October 1 and 2, 2020. The survey area
included intertidal and subtidal soft -bottom habitats of Newport Bay. Many of these areas
paralleled rip -rap shorelines and/or headwalls. Shallow water eelgrass habitat is defined as the
area extending from the intertidal zone to a depth of -15-ft MLLW. For comparison to previous
surveys performed by CRM, and to allow for simplified acreage accounting, the Bay was divided
into 23 SWEH mapping regions and 1 DWEH mapping region (Figure 2).
7
MTS.
I"- D
`g
m
_`= o f
ev
R
00
Eelgrass Survey Methods
Environmental Parameters
Horizontal and vertical visibility observations were recorded daily. After completing a continuous
section of survey area, where the visibility underwent no noticeable change, horizontal visibility
observations were approximated at depth. Vertical visibility was taken at the beginning of each
survey day and on occasion, at the end of the survey day. This measurement was taken by using
a fiberglass measuring tape to slowly lower a Secchi disk into the water. Once the Secchi disk was
no longer visible in the water column the depth of the Secchi disk was recorded. Mean
underwater visibility was calculated for horizontal and vertical visibility per region. The mean and
standard deviation was calculated across all survey dates and compared to historical visibility
values.
Surface water temperature was taken at the start and end of most survey days. A digital probe
style thermometer was held at the surface of the water for at least 30 seconds or until reaching
equilibrium, and then the temperature was recorded. Mean and standard deviation was
calculated for surface water temperature recordings collected in each region.
Sonar Survey
CRM used remote sensing techniques, (traditional sonar and down -looking sonar) to supplement
the diver eelgrass survey. The traditional sonar and down -looking sonar systems were used to
survey areas within -26-ft to -15-ft contours where diver survey areas were either extremely large
and/or where dive conditions were considered hazardous due to currents or vessel traffic.
Sonar methods were used to augment the diver mapping surveys in the larger SWEH areas and/or
in SWEH navigational areas considered a risk to divers (Regions 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 21). CRM's
Lowrance HDS-12 Gent Touch Chartplotter/Ecosounder was used to acoustically collect data on
bottom depth and plant height from the unit's 200 -kilohertz (kHz) transducer acoustic signal
associated with a Wide Area Augmentation System -corrected GPS position. In addition, a
455/800 kHz transducer and power module with dual channels (Structure scan and down -
looking) provide a 180 -degree view and a down -looking view of the seafloor (data were logged
on the 800 -kHz channel).
Acoustic beam angle for the 200 -kHz signal on the 83/200 -kHz dual frequency transducer
(standard transducer on HDS units) was 20 degrees; the beam coverage for the 455/800 dual
frequency transducer was 180 degrees with side lobe angles of 0.9 degree and the down -looking
lobe of 1.1 degrees. This narrow elliptical beam essentially "scans" seafloor bottoms. Ping rates
were set at 15 per second. Pulse width was dynamic and varied depending on depth, which varied
between 2 -ft and 30 -ft. Acoustic data were collected at the Lowrance default of 3,200 bytes per
second. The range window on the unit was set to Auto, which maximized the resolution of the
acoustic envelope at the full range of depths sampled (approximately 2 -ft and 30 -ft).
GPS positions were recorded every one second, and bottom features from pings that elapsed
between positional reports were averaged for each coordinate/data point. Therefore, the
attribute value (e.g., depth and plant height) of each data point along a traveled path comprised
9
MT$
a summary of 5 to 30 pings. Each ping went through a quality test to determine whether features
could be extracted and, if so, was sent on to feature detection algorithms. Those failing quality
assurance tests were removed from the set considered for summarization.
Vegetation detection using down -looking sonar methods were analyzed using cloud -based
software models and statistical algorithms incorporated into Navico BioBase software developed
by Contour Innovations, LLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (Contour Innovations LLC 2013).
Acoustic signals from HDS 200 -kHz transducers travel through submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) on their way to the bottom. Seafloor typically registers a sharper echo return than the
vegetation above. The distance between the seafloor acoustic signature and top of the plant
canopy was recorded as the plant height for each ping. In the study area, depth profile and
vegetation information were collected on soft -bottom features.
Plant height data included for analysis was limited to a minimum detection limit of 1% of bottom
depth. Thus, at a three-foot depth, the minimum plant height detection was 0.4 inches whereas
along the offshore track lines at 20 -ft depths, minimum plant height was approximately 2.4
inches. Thus, the ability to detect SAV, including eelgrass was good.
Processed acoustical signal depth and vegetation point features were uploaded to the BioBase
ordinary point kriging algorithm that predicted values in unsampled locations based on the
geostatistical relationship of the input points. The kriging algorithm is an "exact" interpolator in
locations where sample points are close in proximity and do not vary widely. Kriging smooths
bottom feature values where the variability of neighborhood points is high. On sandy and mud
bottom habitats echo returns may register eelgrass and the red algae such as Acrosorium sp,
Gracilaria spp. and Ulva spp. These species are generally shorter than eelgrass. To minimize the
potential for other species to be included in the mapping effort, SAV plant height data used in
the data reduction process were limited to between 0.3 ft and 3.5 ft. to maximize the probability
of occurrence for Zostera. Eelgrass polygons were then traced around the perimeter of the
eelgrass point data using ArcMap to illustrate the distribution of eelgrass quantified by these
acoustical data collection methods.
Combined with remote underwater camera target verification, this data reduction step reduced
the potential for other species of SAV to be included in the mapping process.
Sidescan sonar methods were used to document the DWEH within the deeper channels of
Newport Bay in the Entrance Channel, Balboa Reach, and the East Balboa Channel. Designated
as Region 23. The DWEH data collection occurred between July 6 and August 25, 2020. The
following sidescan sonar equipment was used during the survey:
• Hemisphere VS330 Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver,
• Edgetech 4125D Sidescan Sonar System with 400/900 kHz Towfish,
• Odom Hydrographic Hydrocrack II Depth Sounder,
• Digibar Pro Sound Velocity Recorder, and
• Hypack Max Hydrographic Data Acquisition and Processing Software.
10
n /� T-S
LY.l.
Horizontal positioning for the survey was achieved using a real time DGPS positioning system.
Differential Corrections, broadcast by US Coast Guard were used to correct the raw GPS data.
The horizontal datum was North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), epoch 2011.0, the projection
was California State Plane Coordinate System Zone VI, and the units were US Survey feet. The
vertical datum was Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), epoch 83-01 based on recorded water level
data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Outer Los Angeles
Harbor tide gauge and corrected for Newport Bay).
To minimize turns during data collection, the survey area was divided in three overlapping sub-
regions that were covered with straight line segments. Using the navigation display of the Hypack
online software, the vessel was steered along pre -planned shore -parallel track lines spaced 100
ft apart. Vessel track lines are shown in Appendix A.
The Edgetech 4215D Sidescan Sonar System with the 400/900 kHz towfish was operated at the
30 -meter (100 ft) range (each channel) providing 100% data overlap. Sidescan sonar and DGPS
data were recorded using the Edgetech Discover software and processed using Chesapeake
SonarWiz 7 software to produce a compilation of rectilinear corrected composite image mosaics.
The position of the towfish was determined by applying an offset to the vessel's position based
on a layback as resolved from the vessel's heading and the amount of sonar tow cable laid out.
Towfish altitude above the seabed was recorded continuously and used for data slant range
correction. Sounding data were obtained at the same time as the sidescan sonar data.
While the DWEH sidescan and downlooking sonar survey lines were being run, GPS waypoints
were marked at locations that depicted the potential presence of SAV based on the real-time
downlooking sonar views. These waypoints were then used to conduct follow-up video target
surveys.
The target verification survey was conducted by remote underwater video. An Ocean Systems
Deep Blue "Splash Cam" was used to view the seafloor in real time using the Lowrance navigation
unit's display, for target verification of waypoints collected during the sidescan and downlooking
sonar survey. The unit was deployed from the vessel's davit. Run times were standardized to
approximate 30 second bottom times.
A total of 276 waypoint targets were evaluated by this method to verify the presence or absence
of eelgrass vegetation. This visual analysis was then used to go back into the sidescan and
downlooking sonar data and refine the final DWEH maps.
MTS.
SCUBA Diver Survev
The survey involved visual SCUBA diver surveys within all SWEH extending from the intertidal
zone to 20 -ft in -Bay beyond the end of all channels and dock structures within Upper and Lower
Newport Bay as proposed by the City.
The diver was outfitted with a full -face -mask compatible with an Ocean Technology Systems
(OTS) surface -to -diver communication system. In addition to the OTS underwater
communication system the diver towed a surface marker mounted with a differential global
positioning system (dGPS). The topside personnel connected to the diver -towed dGPS using a
computer tablet for mapping eelgrass polygons and patches, marking waypoints, and taking
notes. A Juniper Systems Geode dGPS was used for the entirety of the survey. The estimated
global positioning system (GPS) error of the Geode GPS is less than half -meter accuracy. The error
is based on how the GPS functions in clear open skies without any interference from structures.
However, on some occasions the error was higher because the survey area occurred near
bulkheads, underneath piers, and between docks where open skies were not always possible. In
these instances, error was estimated to be a maximum of 1 m. In cases where GPS error produced
obviously erroneous results, edits were made manually using landmarks. The dGPS in use was
connected to the tablet via Bluetooth. Once the tablet and dGPS were connected an application,
mapitGlS, was opened on the tablet and used to collect waypoints from the dGPS and map the
extent of eelgrass within the survey area.
At a survey site, the diver would enter the water and be followed by the topside person on a
kayak until eelgrass was found. If eelgrass was not readily observed upon entry to the survey site,
the topside person would then use compass navigation to direct the diver in the direction to
continue searching. Once the diver, using underwater communications, signaled to the topside
person that they were on the edge of an eelgrass bed, the topside person would ready the
mapitGlS application to begin mapping a new polygon. GPS signals were collected every 2
seconds via the mapitGlS application as the topside kayaker stayed near the diver -towed GPS as
the diver swam around the eelgrass bed. Once the diver got back to the first GPS recording and
the entirety of the eelgrass bed was outlined, the polygon was ended. The diver then relayed
details about the eelgrass bed to the topside kayaker. This information included scaled high -low
density, blade height, sediment, and other marine life present. The topside kayaker would then
take water depth measurements using a weighted tape measure on both the inshore and
offshore edge of the polygon. If the area of eelgrass was less than 2 sq ft it was marked as a single
patch waypoint and the dimensions were recorded in the mapitGlS App. At the end of each
survey day, all polygons, patches, waypoints, and notes were exported as ESRI shapefiles (SHP)
and in Google Earth (KML) file formats for validation and post processing.
Data validation consisted of importing the KML files into Google Earth Pro to review the polygon
shapes. The surveyed area was segmented into close-up sections and converted to PDF format
for document annotation. Areas where outlier signals were detected, locations where merger of
two or more polygons or cut outs of polygons were needed, and segments of polygons where
they were mapped more than once were redlined on the PDF document. These revisions guided
post -processing eelgrass survey efforts. Post processing of data used exported SHP files and
12
MTS.
referenced the redlined PDF documents to finalize eelgrass polygons using ArcMap. This
combination of formats allowed the biologists who performed the survey to view and annotate
data which were then processed in ArcMap by a GIS Specialist.
Eelgrass Density
Turions are eelgrass units consisting of the above -sediment portion of the eelgrass. Turions
consist of a single shoot and "blades" (leaves) that sprout from each shoot. To assess eelgrass
habitat vegetation cover, 10 density measurements were collected at 23 stations throughout the
study area. The 23 stations included all surveyed regions, excluding Region 19, West Newport.
The diver counted the number of live, green shoots "turions" at the sediment/shoot interface,
within replicated 1/16th sq m quadrats, at each station. These counts were collected along a
transect, extending from the shallow to deep edge of an eelgrass bed at each sampling station.
Along each transect, density measurements were collected at the same interval extending from
shallow to deep. The collection interval was dependent on the length of the transect and ability
to collect 10 measurements along the transect. All biologists taking density measurements of
eelgrass were trained previously on how to appropriately assess the number of living eelgrass
turions per quadrat. Coordinates of the 23 surveyed sites are provided within the results for
eelgrass density.
Field -collected density counts were entered into an Excel spreadsheet by station and by shallow
or deep location and converted into density per sq m. Summary statistics where then calculated
(mean and standard deviation) for each station and location. This information was summarized
in tabular and graphic format.
13
MTS.
Eelgrass Habitat Mapping Survey Results
Underwater Visibility and 'Temperature Measurements
Underwater Visibility
The range of horizontal and vertical visibility was dependent on environmental conditions and
distance from the mouth. In cloudy sky conditions, less light penetration occurred at depth
resulting in overall lower visibility conditions. Vertical visibility seemed to be related to a
combination of proximity to the Bay entrance and sediment disturbance. Water was generally
clearer close to the Bay entrance unless currents were able to suspend sediment. Moving away
from the entrance, visibility generally declined except in areas where calm water meant minimal
suspension of sediment. Vertical visibility ranged from 1 -ft to 8 -ft (Figure 3). Patterns of
horizontal visibility were like vertical visibility. Horizontal visibility was largely impacted by tidal
conditions. Two parameters, direction of tidal flow and rate of tidal exchange, influenced
horizontal visibility. The best visibility was observed during periods of rising tides with moderate
to low tidal exchange. Tidal influence was reduced north of the Highway 1 bridge and in protected
areas around Linda Isle. In these areas, visibility was generally moderate as the more stagnant
water reduced sediment suspension. Horizontal visibility was between 1 -ft and 10 -ft (Figure 4).
However, on occasion less than 1 -ft of horizontal visibility was observed for short periods of time.
Average horizontal visibility is comparable to historical averages and is equal to the average
reported in the prior 2018 survey (Figure 5).
Underwater Vertical Visibility
9.0
8.0
7.0
$ 6.0
.� 5.0
4.0
2 3.0
��.0
0.0
h (Z'�
c m a o c a o
vJ ��
4111 Oo2 ti� a� �Q2 a° ¢ iia adv° me `oc
Qa
< < c a
J� OJ�� CC �°
�a
p oa
�a
w
o`
Z
Figure 3. Underwater vertical visibility in feet at survey areas throughout Newport Bay in 2020. Note that
vertical visibility is a function of conditions at the time of the survey and does not necessarily indicate a
consistent poor water quality condition at any given location.
14
M -M
12
I
8
a
6
4
PA
W
Underwater Horizontal Visibility
a `�0 C� 0� ipr O� CSC J J J \yam C� �y �� 2y •�Cy J a +��� h Ca J
a V C
o��O as o��
ca
�
�o ���a ��y�
CST
���w T
o�D
°,��ow
�at�000
O
m�
0�,,�,P
o�
2
Figure 4. Underwater horizontal visibility in feet at survey areas throughout Newport Bay in 2020. Note
that horizontal visibility is a function of conditions at the time of the survey and does not necessarily
indicate a consistent poor water quality condition at any given location.
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
.N
> 4.0
2.0
0.0
Historical Average
Underwater Horizontal Visibility
Figure S. Historical averages of underwater horizontal visibility from 2003 through 2020. Error bars are
one standard deviation.
nn 15
�o ���a ��y�
CST
���w T
°,��ow
�at�000
O
0�,,�,P
�a
��Q� Q�� atti
Figure S. Historical averages of underwater horizontal visibility from 2003 through 2020. Error bars are
one standard deviation.
nn 15
Water Temperature
Location within the Bay and time of year affect the surface temperature readings collected.
Surface water temperature ranged from a low of 64 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in Region 16,
Mariners Mile, during mid-August, to a high of 75 OF in Region 8, North Balboa Channel and Yacht
Basin, near the end of August (Figure 6). Overall, average surface water temperature was greatest
in Region 16, Mariners Mile, and lowest in Region 8, North Balboa Channel and Yacht Basin.
Surface water temperature was not consistent throughout the survey (Figure 7). Spikes in water
temperature were recorded near the end of August and mid-September. Surface water
temperature became more consistent near the end of September.
Average Surface Water Temperature per Region
78
2 76 - — - -
-- 74 A--- -
°' 72 - --
370
M 68
(U 66
E 64
62
60
58
a
�,, Q. ao "� Z. �Z, 0 c �Z m�
Z3 p`a 4Z- v 2C \ m� �C hQ, a y
L
a�0o
0
Figure 6. Average surface water temperature by region during the 2020 eelgrass mapping survey. Error
bars are one standard deviation.
Average Surface Water Temperature by Date
90
80
70
LL
-- 60
v
50
m
a 40
CL
E 30
CD
~ 20
10
0
�c ��O �aO �aO JPO �aO �aO �°p �Q zQ �Q 2Q aQ aQ oQ eQ �o
Q P Q Q Q Q Q h O O O O O
Figure 7. Average surface water temperature by date during the 2020 eelgrass mapping survey. Error bars
are one standard deviation.
16
MTS.
Eelgrass Distribution and Abundance
A total of 112.38 ac of eelgrass was mapped in Newport Bay during the 2020 survey. This included
74.44 acres of SWEH and 37.94 acres of DWEH. Total acreage and percent of total reported
eelgrass acreage by Region are provided in Table 1. A summary of eelgrass polygons and patches
mapped within SWEH are provided in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively. Region 24, Back Bay
Science Center and Launch Ramp was added this survey period.
SWEH was mapped at depths between +0.5 and -15-feet MLLW. The -15-feet MLLW limit was a
survey limit for the SWEH and not an eelgrass depth limit. DWEH was mapped at depths between
-15 and -28-feet MLLW that include the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel and the Balboa Reach
located in the Federal navigation Channel. To compile this information, the survey team used a
combination of Diver/GPS tracking methods and down looking sonar survey methods.
Zostera marina was the most widespread species of eelgrass within the Bay. MTS corroborates
CRM 2016 findings that a second species of eelgrass was also present. Zostera pacifica was
present and was observed in the entrance channel and along Corona del Mar. There was no
indication that Z. pacifica was localized to certain depth ranges within the regions it was
observed.
Table 1. Table summarizing eelgrass acreage and percent of total reported eelgrass within the 24 survey
regions.
1
Corona del Mar (Bayside)
13.85
12.33%
2
Yacht Club/Basins
2.78
2.48%
3
East Balboa Peninsula
3.39
3.01%
4
Grand Canal
1.29
1.15%
5
Balboa Island/Collins Isle
10.11
9.00%
6
Bay Island
1.67
1.48%
7
West Balboa Peninsula
0.57
0.51%
8
North Balboa Channel and Yacht Basin
0.90
0.80%
9
Harbor Island
2.83
2.52%
10
Linda Isle Outer
4.07
3.62%
11
Linda Isle Inner
4.84
4.30%
12
Inner DeAnza Peninsula
9.09
8.09%
13
Outer DeAnza Peninsula
7.27
6.47%
14
Castaways
5.24
4.66%
15
Bayshores
1.01
0.90%
16
Mariner's Mile
1.24
1.10%
17
Lido Isle
0.92
0.82%
18
Lido Peninsula
0.07
0.06%
19
West Newport
0.00
0.00%
20
Dover Shores
1.38
1.23%
21
Dunes Marina and Channel
1.69
1.51%
22
Northstar Beach
0.01
0.01%
23
Deep Water Eelgrass
37.94
33.76%
24
Back Bay Science Center and Launch Ramp
0.22
0.20%
nn _
17
wj
C
(LD)
0 LL
0
O
O
NO
C
Cv7�
Ar
0111, MR,
oc
Deep Water Eelgrass Distribution
Region 23. Deep Water Eelgrass Habitat (37.9=1 ac)
The results of the detailed sidescan and downlooking sonar surveys identified 37.94 ac of DWEH
within the Newport Bay Entrance Channel and Balboa Reach (Figure 10). DWEH was mapped
between -7-ft and -24.5-ft MLLW in the Entrance channel and occurred slightly shallower
extending away from the harbor entrance. DWEH accounted for 4.72% of the Newport Bay soft
bottom habitat during the 2020 survey.
.
;- r r•s°'ill , Ir��,�r
� -. �
.._ _,. ,.._�
Eelgrass Study Areas
RGP54 Plan Area
'
IL Eelgrass (2020)
Eelgrass 5nn Buffer
♦ •�4
�
00
.� f
ft. $ a
t {
�
�.
J
00 OcZX%
23
Region 23a
%.:
Deep Water Sidescan Sonar
�1�
r
h
jjI 1 V
_ 0 250500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feel
Figure 10. Eelgrass Habitat Map. Region 23 (Deep Water Eelgrass Habitat)
19
MTS
Shallow Water Eelgrass Distribution by Region
The greatest eelgrass coverage was observed in Region 1, Corona del Mar (Bayside). Here
eelgrass covered 13.85 ac and accounted for 18.61% of the total mapped SWEH. Any eelgrass
mapped within SWEH that fell outside the Region boundary is included within the total acreage
for the nearest associated region.
Three regions accounted for 44.41% of total eelgrass mapped:
• Corona del Mar (Bayside) (13.85 ac)
• Balboa Island/Collins Isle (10.11 ac)
• DeAnza Peninsula - Inner (9.09 ac)
Table 2. Table summarizing eelgrass acreage and percent of total SWEH reported the 23 -shallow water
survey regions. Region #23 excluded from table because that was the DWEH region.
ID
Region
Acres
% of Total SWEH
1
Corona del Mar (Bayside)
13.85
18.61%
2
Yacht Club/Basins
2.78
3.74%
3
East Balboa Peninsula
3.39
4.55%
4
Grand Canal
1.29
1.73%
5
Balboa Island/Collins Isle
10.11
13.59%
6
Bay Island
1.67
2.24%
7
West Balboa Peninsula
0.57
0.77%
8
North Balboa Channel and Yacht Basin
0.90
1.21%
9
Harbor Island
2.83
3.80%
10
Linda Isle Outer
4.07
5.46%
11
Linda Isle Inner
4.84
6.50%
12
Inner DeAnza Peninsula
9.09
12.21%
13
Outer DeAnza Peninsula
7.27
9.77%
14
Castaways
5.24
7.04%
15
Bayshores
1.01
1.35%
16
Mariner's Mile
1.24
1.67%
17
Lido Isle
0.92
1.23%
18
Lido Peninsula
0.07
0.09%
19
West Newport
0.00
0.00%
20
Dover Shores
1.38
1.85%
21
Dunes Marina and Channel
1.69
2.27%
22
Northstar Beach
0.01
0.02%
24
Back Bay Science Center and Launch Ramp
0.22
0.29%
20
11L1T.
Region 1-. Corona del Mar (13.85 ac)
The most expansive eelgrass beds were mapped in Region 1 (Figure 11).
The 2020 mapping results indicate a continued decline in eelgrass since the 2013-2014 CRM
survey (CRM 2015). A total of 8.5 ac decrease over the past six years. The amount of eelgrass
within Region 1 declined from 21.65 ac in 2016 to 14.47 ac in 2018 (7.4 ac loss) and showed
continued decline to 13.85 ac in 2020 (8.5 ac loss relative to 2016). The depth range of eelgrass
generally extended between the low intertidal and the -15-ft MLLW survey limit.
Most of the eelgrass decline occurred along the northern portion of the Bay -front side of Region
1. Many of the polygons beyond the RGP 54 Plan Area have become patchier and less of a
continuous bed as noted in CRM 2017. Eelgrass meadows covered a large continuous area within
the dockside areas of this Region. Due to the height of the dock piers in this area, sunlight can
penetrate areas underneath these dock features which promotes eelgrass growth and bed
connectivity.
Q EelgrassStudyAreas
RGP54 Plan Area
° q o I? Eelgrass (2020)
O O ---' - ' - F-7Eelgrass 5m Buffer
O00
oc % o Region 1
�o �o oO tiw �— Corona Del Mar (Bayside)
c
r.. V >F
C5
Region 3
East Balboa Peninsula
Ot. }
y
1 U
-0 .250 500 1,000
Feet 1
visu1C - Gv4v cuigidbb ndUlldt IVld)J. r%eg'lan i tt.orona ael Mar/tsaysiae) ana Kegion i (tsalDoa
Peninsula -East of Bay Island, Partial). See Figure 13 for remainder of Region 3.
21
M 5 AL
;"
Region 2. Yacht Club Basins and Marinas (2.78 ac)
Region 2 supported eelgrass throughout much of the area, extending from the Balboa Yacht Club
to the Balboa Island Bridge (Figure 12). Eelgrass in this area occurred at depths extending from -
0.51 -ft to -12.7-ft MLLW. Region 2 was ranked 10th for eelgrass acreage, containing 2.78 ac.
Eelgrass in this area covers 3.74% of total eelgrass reported. Much of Region 2 eelgrass was
contained within the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club boat basin, the Balboa Yacht Club basin, and
the Bayside Marina. Eelgrass in this area has continued to increase since the 2009-2010 survey
(CRM 2011) and is 0.11 ac greater than reported during the previous 2018 survey (MTS 2018).
Region 3. Balboa Peninsula - East (3.39 ac)
Region 3 includes SWEH between the bulkhead and the bayward ends of docks from the Entrance
Channel to Bay Island (not including Bay Island) (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Region 3 was ranked
8th for eelgrass acreage, containing 3.39 ac. Eelgrass in this region occurred at depths between
0.05 -ft and -15.2-ft MLLW. Eelgrass here constitutes 4.55% of total reported SWEH. Eelgrass
coverage in Region 3 has increased by 0.31 ac since the 2018 survey (MTS 2018).
Region 4. Grand Canal (1.29 ac)
The Grand Canal, Region 4, separating "Little Balboa" and "Balboa Island" was almost completely
covered by eelgrass (Figure 12). Eelgrass beds extended between depths of 1.34 -ft to -7.8-ft
MLLW. Region 4 was ranked 14th for SWEH coverage and accounted for 1.73% of total SWEH
reported. Eelgrass here has been consistent with little fluctuation among the survey years. The
1.29 ac of eelgrass mapped here represents an increase of 0.16 ac since the 2018 survey (MTS
2018). Eelgrass appears to have expanded throughout the channel, particularly the southernmost
channel section.
Region 5. Balboa Island and Collins Isle (10.11 ac)
Region 5 extends around the perimeter of Balboa Island and Collins Isle (Figure 12). Eelgrass in
this area ranked 2nd, covering 10.11 ac, and accounted for 13.59% of total SWEH reported.
Eelgrass beds extend between depths of 1.88 -ft to -15.3-ft MLLW. Eelgrass has continued to
increase since the 2009-2010 survey (CRM 2011, CRM 2015, CRM 2017, MTS 2018). Since the
2018 survey, eelgrass has increased by 1.82 ac. Overall, eelgrass coverage underwent bed
expansion and growth of eelgrass patches into eelgrass beds.
22
MTS.
EelgrassStudyAreas
i Q RGP54 Plan Area
1 Eelgrass (2020)
Eelgrass 5m Buffer
f
Region 2
e.r•} (, J, Yacht Club/Basins
Region 4 t -
Grand Canal
Region 5
Balboa Island/Collins Isle
QD
o
`a3 0 O�
r0
o db Y
� . ' O O 0� l�-_vho Q
0 259, i500� fcFo �N 0 Q U G �Op
Figure 12. 2020 Eelgrass Habitat Map. Regions 2 (East Balboa Channel Yacht Clubs/Basins), 4 (Grand
Canal), and 5 (Balboa and Collins Islands).
,d
�'��Tr1� EelgrassStudyAreas
RGP54 Plan Area
>' r k_
Eelgrass 2020
' Eelgrass 5m Buffer
rr ^} 1 k
�Ja4 �r4 40
y -
'rAY•i_ /�,3 {{Z�� tg ;' jl°l;j ; •.� 1 ++F
f p � o
0 Region 3 J �o
East Balboa Peninsula
n
0 0 00Q
a�}O �o o
r
O o
l�
0 250 500 1,000 - -
Feet -
Figure 13. 2020 Eelgrass Habitat Map. Region 3 (Balboa Peninsula -East of Bay Island, Partial).
23
Region 6. Bay Island (1.67 ac)
Bay Island, Region 6, accounts for a small amount of eelgrass habitat, 1.67 ac (Figure 14). This
region is ranked 12th and accounts for 2.24% of total eelgrass reported. Eelgrass beds in this area
extend from 0.86 -ft to -14.9-ft MLLW. Eelgrass around Bay Island has continued to increase since
the 2013-2014 survey (CRM 2015). Since the 2018 survey, eelgrass has increased by 0.86 ac (MTS
2018). The new acreage emerged around the western extent of the island.
Region 7. Balboa Peninsula - West (0.57 ac)
Region 7 eelgrass extended from the Bay Island Bridge to 11th street, covering 0.57 ac (Figure
14). Region 7 was ranked 19th for eelgrass coverage and accounts for 0.77% of total eelgrass
reported. Eelgrass extends from 0.77 -ft to -10.9-ft MLLW in the region. Eelgrass here has
continued to increase since the 2013-2014 survey (CRM 2015). Since the 2018 survey, eelgrass
coverage has increased by 0.22 ac (MTS 2018).
Figure 14. ZOZO Eelgrass Habitat Map. West Balboa Peninsula. Region 6 (Bay Island) and Region 7
(Balboa Peninsula -West, Partial).
Region 8. North Balboa Channel and Yacht Basin (0.90 ac)
Region 8 includes eelgrass from the north side of the North Balboa Channel between the Balboa
Island Bridge and Beacon Bay, covering 0.90 ac (Figure 15). Eelgrass occurred between 0.50 -ft
and -12.5-ft MLLW between the bulkhead and dock head walk, and fairways of the marina.
Eelgrass here contributed to 1.21% of total reported SWEH. Since the previous 2018 survey,
eelgrass coverage has expanded by 0.35 ac (MTS 2018). Much of the eelgrass growth appears to
have occurred in the fairways of Balboa Yacht Basin, the shallows of Bayside Cove behind the
marina, and within the marina fairways.
24
Mn
Y 1T.
'}RGP54 PI.,r'.•r
Eelgrass 1 1
+i,
t�
1 1 11
111
Figure 14. ZOZO Eelgrass Habitat Map. West Balboa Peninsula. Region 6 (Bay Island) and Region 7
(Balboa Peninsula -West, Partial).
Region 8. North Balboa Channel and Yacht Basin (0.90 ac)
Region 8 includes eelgrass from the north side of the North Balboa Channel between the Balboa
Island Bridge and Beacon Bay, covering 0.90 ac (Figure 15). Eelgrass occurred between 0.50 -ft
and -12.5-ft MLLW between the bulkhead and dock head walk, and fairways of the marina.
Eelgrass here contributed to 1.21% of total reported SWEH. Since the previous 2018 survey,
eelgrass coverage has expanded by 0.35 ac (MTS 2018). Much of the eelgrass growth appears to
have occurred in the fairways of Balboa Yacht Basin, the shallows of Bayside Cove behind the
marina, and within the marina fairways.
24
Mn
Y 1T.
Region 9. Harbor Island (2.83 ac)
Eelgrass around Harbor Island, Region 9, accounted for 2.83 ac of mapped SWEH (Figure 15).
Eelgrass extended from 0.88 -ft to -12.3-ft MLLW and contributed to 3.80% of total SWEH
reported. Total eelgrass coverage here has continued to increase since the second survey in 2006-
2007 (CRM 2008). Since the 2018 survey, eelgrass has increased by 1.05 ac (MTS 2018). Significant
increases in bed coverage appear to have occurred along the northern and western sections of
Harbor Island.
Region 10. Linda Isle - Outer (4,07 ac)
Eelgrass in Region 10, Linda Isle - Outer, covered 4.07 ac (Figure 15). Region 10 was ranked 7th
and account for 5.46% of total SWEH reported. Eelgrass in this region occurs at depths from 1.20 -
ft to -12.5-ft MLLW. Eelgrass coverage has fluctuated since the first survey in 2003-2004 (CRM
2005), however, coverage has continuously increased since the 2013-2014 survey (CRM 2015).
Since the 2018 survey, eelgrass coverage in Region 10 has increased by 1.84 ac (MTS 2018).
Region 11. Linda Isle - Inner (4.84 ac)
Region 11, Linda Isle - Inner, eelgrass covers 4.84 ac and accounts for 6.50% of total SWEH
reported (Figure 15). Eelgrass occurs from -2.0 -ft to -10.2-ft MLLW. Episodic dredge events at
Linda Isle, likely contributed to historical fluctuations of eelgrass cover. However, since the 2018
survey, eelgrass has increased by 1.74 ac (MTS 2018).
Region 12. DeAnza Peninsula - Inner (9.09 ac)
Region 12, DeAnza Peninsula - Inner, eelgrass covers 9.09 ac (Figure 16). Eelgrass beds occurred
from 1.02 -ft to -12.9-ft MLLW and account for 12.21% of total reported SWEH. Since the most
recent survey in 2018, eelgrass has increased by 2.77 ac (MTS 2018). Reported increases to SWEH
are likely a factor of fringing eelgrass patch expansion.
Region 13. DeAnza Peninsula - Outer (7.27 ac)
Ranked 4th, Region 13, DeAnza Peninsula - Outer, has 7.27 ac of eelgrass coverage (Figure 16).
Eelgrass here accounts for 9.77% of total SWEH reported. Depth data is not available as Region
13 eelgrass bed outlines were not collected by diver. This was a sonar only area. Eelgrass currently
covers approximately six times the area since it was first mapped in 2003-2004 (CRM 2005). Since
the 2018 survey, eelgrass coverage decreased by 0.48 ac (MTS 2018). Reported changes to SWEH
may be attributed to minor changes in eelgrass coverage along the periphery of the mapped bed.
The depth range of eelgrass mapped in this region ranged between 0.1 -ft and -12-ft MLLW.
Region 14. Castaways (5.24 ac)
Region 14, Castaways, contributes 5.24 ac of eelgrass coverage, accounting for 7.04% of total
eelgrass reported. Eelgrass here occurs at depths extending from 0.24 -ft to -11.5-ft MLLW. The
majority of previous year's survey efforts performed here resulted in less than 1.00 ac. Since the
2018 survey, where 0.84 ac were mapped, eelgrass has more than quadrupled (MTS 2018).
Eelgrass beds mapped in 2018 are now connected, extending alongshore, resulting in a significant
increase of mapped eelgrass cover.
25
MTS.
Aviv -VV
DYEelgrassStudyAreas
—
F
RGP54 Plan Area
Eelgrass (2020)
Eelgrass 5m Buffer
Region 11
Linda Isle Inner
-S O o
n
Region 10
Linda Isle Outer
;
Region 8
North Balboa Channel and
r
Yacht Basin
~
o O
Region 9
Harbor Island
--,
0 250 500
1.000
'f~
Peet
-
Figure 15. 2018 Eelgrass Habitat Map. Regions 8 (North Balboa Channel and Yacht Basins), 9 (Harbor
Island), 10 (Linda Isle, Outer), and 11 (Linda Isle, Inner),
Figure 16. 2018 Eelgrass Habitat Map. Regions 12 (DeAnza/Bayside Peninsula, East -Inner), 13
(DeAnza/Bayside Peninsula, West -Outer), and 14 (Castaways to Dover Shores).
26
Region 15. Bayshores (1.01 ac)
Region 15 extends from the Coast Highway Bridge to the junction of the Lido reach (Figure 17).
The eelgrass in Region 15 covered 1.01 ac and accounted for 1.35% of total eelgrass reported.
Eelgrass occurs between 0.60 -ft and -10.5-ft MLLW within the Bayshores area. Eelgrass in this
area has generally fluctuated, but remained less than 1.00 ac, since the initial survey in 2003-
2004 (CRM 2005). Since the 2018 survey, eelgrass has increased by 0.10 ac. Eelgrass within this
area generally occurs as small patches between the head wall and dock structures, and in marina
fairways.
Region 16. Mariner's Mile (1.24 ac)
Along the southern portion of Bayshores and Mariner's Mile, Region 16, eelgrass covered 1.24 ac
and accounted for 1.67% total eelgrass reported (Figure 17). Eelgrass here extended from 0.50 -
ft to -11.5-ft MLLW. In past survey efforts, eelgrass was less than 0.69 ac (CRM 2005, 2008, 2011,
2017). Since the recent 2018 survey eelgrass increased by 0.27 ac.
Region 17. Lido Isle (0.92 ac)
Region 17, Lido Isle, eelgrass cover was most noticeable extending from the northwest to the
southeast portion of the island (Figure 17). Eelgrass here covered 0.92 ac, accounted for 1.23%
of total reported SWEH, and extended from a depth of 0.63 -ft to -10.2-ft MLLW. Much of the
southwestern and western portion of the island was unvegetated. Eelgrass mapped during this
survey represents the greatest amount of eelgrass mapped in recent surveys around Lido Isle.
Since the 2018 survey, eelgrass has increased by 0.51 ac.
Region 18. Lido Peninsula (0.07 ac)
No eelgrass has been reported in Region 18, Lido Peninsula, during any survey performed prior
to 2018. During the 2018 survey a 0.13 ac eelgrass bed was discovered for the first time between
Lido Peninsula and Lido Isle. Eelgrass here occurs between -3.09-ft to-10.8ft. This same eelgrass
bed was mapped at 0.07 ac during this survey. A decline of 0.06 ac of SWEH.
Region 19. West Newport (0.0 ac)
Eelgrass surveys were last conducted in Region 19 in April 2014 (CRM 2017). No eelgrass was
reported during that survey, nor has been reported here in this summary. Region 19 continues
to be absent of eelgrass (Figure 18).
27
MTS.
y
Q EelgrassStudykeas
= RGF Plan Area
� Eelgrass (2020) �
r ! Eelgrass 5m Buffer
Region 76. LJ
Mariners Mile
��i
Region 15 ; J1
\\>, Bayshores
Region 18 ) \< Region 17
Lido Peninsula Lido Isle
o z5o_5oa- �,oaii s `
Figure 17. 2020 Eelgrass Habitat Map. Regions 7 (Balboa Peninsula -West of Bay Island, Partial), 15
(Bayshores), 16 (Mariner's Mile), 17 (Lido Isle), and 18 (Lido Peninsula).
Figure 18. 2020 Eelgrass Habitat Map. Region 19 (West Newport).
n n 28
Region 20. Dover Shores (1.38 ac)
Region 20, Dover shores, was first surveyed in 2013-2014 (Figure 19; CRM 2015). Since this
survey, eelgrass cover has continued to increase. Much of the eelgrass contributing to this
acreage occurs within the western portion of this region. Eelgrass covers 1.38 ac, accounting for
1.58% of total SWEH, and occurs at depths from 0.35 -ft to -12.5-ft MLLW. Since the 2018 survey,
eelgrass has increased by 1.06 ac.
Region 21. Dunes Marina and Channel (1.69 ac)
Dunes Marina, Region 21, was first surveyed in 2013-2014 (Figure 19; CRM 2015). Since that
survey, eelgrass has continued to increase. While instances of small eelgrass beds are present
within the marina's fairways, much of the total acreage for Region 21 is attributed to eelgrass
extending from Region 13 into Region 21. Eelgrass here covers 1.69 ac, accounts for 2.27% of
total reported SWEH, and extends from 0.49 -ft to -8.2-ft MLLW.
Region 22. Northstar Beach (0.01 ac)
Northstar Beach, Region 22, was first surveyed in 2016 (Figure 19; CRM 2017). During the first
survey 0.003 ac of eelgrass were reported. During the following 2018 survey, no eelgrass was
observed. However, during this 2020 survey, 0.01 ac of SWEH was mapped in Region 22. Eelgrass
in this region occurred at depths from -2.8 -ft to -5.10-ft MLLW.
Region 24. Back Bay Science Center and Launch Ramp (0.22 ac)
The Back Bay Science Center and Launch ramp was first surveyed in 2016 and was included under
Region 21 eelgrass acreage (CRM 2017). During that survey one small eelgrass bed was mapped
between the CDFW boat dock and Shellmaker Island. Due to the amount of eelgrass mapped
around Region 21 and 24, it is appropriate to delineate these areas as separate regions. During
this 2020 survey, 0.22 ac of SWEH was discovered in Region 24. Eelgrass in this region occurred
at depths from -5.7 -ft to -10.9 ft MLLW.
29
MTS.
Q Eelgrass Study Areas
Q RGP54 Plan Area
Eelgrass (2020)
0 Eelgrass 5m Buffer
i r
Region 22
Northstar Beach
Region 20
Dover Shores \ i
Region 24
Back Bay Science Center
/ and Launch Ramp
Region 21
Dunes Marina
and Channel
0 250 500 1.000
Re
rlgure iv. zuzu teigrass Habitat Map. Regions 20 (Dover Shores), 21 (Dunes Marina and Channel), and
22 (Northstar Beach Area).
30
MT_
Historical Eelgrass Coverage
In general, eelgrass in the Bay has undergone periods of decrease and increase (Figure 20, Table
3). For all survey periods, Corona de Mar, Region 1, accounted for most of the eelgrass cover
reported. From 2003 to 2010 the Bay's eelgrass was declining overall. However, coverage in
Region 1 remained consistent with little fluctuation in eelgrass cover, indicating that other areas
of the Bay were undergoing eelgrass die -off and contributing to the overall reduction in eelgrass
coverage. Conversely, since the 2009-2010 survey, eelgrass across the entire Bay has increased
considerably. This dramatic increase can be attributed to overall eelgrass expansion throughout
the Bay, most notably in Regions 5, 7 through 12, 14, and 20, including areas around Balboa
Island, Harbor Island, Linda Isle, Castaways, and Dover Shores.
The most recent survey, summarized here, indicates that eelgrass acreage, again, is largely
controlled by Region 1, however the overall increase in Newport Bay shallow water eelgrass can
be attributed to eelgrass bed expansion in other areas of the Bay. Eelgrass expansion is most
notable Region 14, Castaways, where a 4.63 ac increase to eelgrass coverage was reported. Other
notable increases were reported in Regions 5, 7 through 12, and 20, including areas around
Balboa Island, Harbor Island, Linda Isle, and Dover Shores, where all areas reported at least an
acre increase in eelgrass coverage since the 2018 survey (MTS 2018). In general, eelgrass has
expanded to some degree within most regions surveyed. This indicates that conditions in the Bay
are suitable for eelgrass growth and expansion. Future surveys will provide additional insight as
to the progression and regression of eelgrass coverage within the Bay.
31
MTS.
GJ
OD
m
L
O
u
N
L
W
ti
U
�L
O
H
00
0
CL
C Y
a U cfu L O
c c O ca m c c
m VI Y 1Y/1 t1 Y c N
N N N -0 L
> ; > w 3 _ J 3
m CO N •— -- �— V } Y
N m w w m m ai Y -O
L m 2
0 O N N N c U t N W
a cc }
v1 N Gl Vl '^C •C
N C 0i N 0
3 >W MD a a -UO c c Q v m
C In
10 0 i N C C L L N GO Y
O v=i I�i1 m a 'O t m G7 ,�, N U tU0 .� C 2
a c 'c v v— c c � m m a u "' w a
rz m m N _ O O
tca a a c v M -----C m M v, •� v v i +
m m m f0 O m m m v1 m U ai H v1 y co vi Z m + N ip
O O O N H 'MM co 'O O v1 0_ m m C L L Y m 2 2 N N
} vV O` Q Q > C N M O O 'O "O t t U w w i 0
m m m m mm
o N w O ' '
c0 ca c0 m m V V 0 0 w V' S J J Z Z m 0 N N bA N
00)
m
3 w
a �
(D N
°'
o tc
�
0 0
p m N
/ N co L
O N
fl. V
N 'N
/ � Z v
C) _ y
/ N >
L
3 0
/ 0 0
o w
— � - on
c
C) v m
> u
G/
m
L N >
o a •a o
M ? m N
0 O! L
O > C Y
N 3 O_ Y
kn 4 c
O N
CD T 41
�N d a
s Q1 N v
O N
C) m N
N Gl
t y _
� v �
- oo 0 y
s N O L
N
l0 m
O m O
O
N � N
> 7
s
O Y
- O V
C1
N m
O
M N
O C
N N
= O
w
O 0 O o 0 o G II
O 00
(saa:)e) aanO:) sseJ2103 w
3 `
OA O
LL N
z
v r, � U1 w M 0 Ul 0 rn t M Ln M e v ci ci M 0 r�M ci r,
ri O M -i V U) M M r\ O M l3.D U1 N O O M O O
-14 N N t0 O O -I m N M O O O O O O O O O O
O U1 w M M i -i n n O M ^ V M n V ri -zt N n O 00 Ql ri N
N W n M N LD Ul M 00 O 00 O N N O N 01 O O M W O N
ry - N m r -i r-ic-i O O N V 4 ci ^ Ul .--i ri O O O c -i c -i O O
^ r- oo m O O U1 Ln oo M Ol N U1 V .-i r, ri M O N M O O
'i w O ci M 00 m U1 n N O M n 00 Ol Q1 Q -4 O m N O O
ON ci o0 O O O r4 l0 O O O O O O O N O O
,�-I N m N m n
m
ko U) N w M V O .-i Ul M lD U1 M ci V w i-1 r� O 00 M O O
wM C O ^ oo ^ U1 N N m -4 Ul W O m ^ r, O O Q c -I O O O
ry N N M O U1 O O O .-i c -I U1 M 4 O O O O O O O O O O
0! Z
u
U
Q a
N
i N M lD ^ lD W O O V .-i M 0 00 O ri w ci N O 0 ci O r�0 Y6
p0 O N O M M c -I N M M Ul O W O ci M
M O O O O O Q
N N N N e -I Ul O O O O O O ri O O O O O O O O O O
W N Z Z
R
U
L
> O O
m O w ',D M N U) G1 ci N U) ^ ^ O O O O r\ O O (d (0 (6 (D N
_ , o r� m� 0 0 0 ri �t O M O o 0 0 0 0 ocn
p p p p p
`o O r ri ci o m o 0 0 0 0 -i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o
CL N Z Z Z Z Z
3
v
z
c ^
o N 00 d D U1 U1 M N .--I m N .1 O O w n O O
O o Ln m ri In o o ci ^ m N o o O w O o o p p p p p
O O O
cu
CL N Z Z Z Z Z
a
a)
vOi N N r\ ^ O M M M O N N w ci M M M M M - - - - - -
` U) W M W -1 O n n m N N n ci m N O Q Q p Q Q p
G
(3i r� .-i6 iD O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O Z Z Z Z Z Z
O N
O
d Q
'O
M c m
ar O m M —° m O _ L
to in �' �n u
f0 �O r-+
(UaJ �0 c N u [a N O C
> > U 00 0 m} w L
NO p ++ o
V) Qoo o o v o M U
m + c c O =5 O L
a v
aC
m c ca ca p c > v v c Q o o
(6 — (O Vl �- C O L C M
i .fl' — w U O of aJ a1 c '� p L N O O Ul m m +O+
vui CIO 5 : -a T N (tea .Q '^ V' d � �O > C -oa_ d Z ` � ` C
a) a v
0 i @ C m U m 'D � aJ aJ ;. m m J -OO N O v
m ° v ,C O c cB _ c -a m J O L u
v o c o > , 3 c
m c 0
O "O -0 Mr0 m m Z
O mp m
c m -0 -0 L N N M
t O — m M i Q O m
G O m m O a) N Y
U w Z p Q u
m
.fl
m
H
C
M O O ri N m Ul lD r- W Ol 0
m �
F
Ill O In
M (Dl N
N U1 00
V �t 00
N O N
O� rl� IR
rn Ui Ln
r1 I:t %D
o OC) i rn
M Ol N
N ci
M
rH a-''
O O
M Z M
f0
O
z
W
mI,
ml
N
rn
ci
O
'cF
�
�
M
r�
M
(a
00
�
O
N
00
Lr'
00
LA
Z
N
N0
O
U1
a
Lmn
Lin
0
Ill O In
M (Dl N
N U1 00
V �t 00
N O N
O� rl� IR
rn Ui Ln
r1 I:t %D
o OC) i rn
M Ol N
N ci
M
rH a-''
O O
M Z M
f0
O
z
W
mI,
ml
N
Eelgrass Distributional Zones in Newport Bay
Previous CRM surveys developed a second grouping for summarizing eelgrass coverage (CRM
2017). The zones were developed using an eelgrass distributional model predicated upon
knowledge gathered during the 2003-2004 and 2006-2007 Bay -wide eelgrass surveys (CRM 2005
& CRM 2008). This included the modeled tidal residence time periods in the Bay (Everest
International, 2009) and the 2008-2009 Newport Bay oceanographic survey results (CRM 2010).
The model identified three distributional zones (Figure 21), which describe stable, transitional,
and unvegetated sections of the Bay.
The Stable Eelgrass Zone, describes locations where eelgrass distribution appears relatively
stable from year-to-year. This zone encompasses the lower Bay, including the entrance channel,
southern and eastern portions of Balboa Island and Grand Canal, Corona del Mar, and the eastern
portion of the Balboa Peninsula. This zone is characterized by a tidal flushing time of less than six
days. The short flushing time is thought to contribute to higher water clarity and near -bottom
underwater light levels that promote eelgrass growth. Linda Isle inner is also grouped into this
zone because of the long-term presence and large amount of eelgrass present between 2006 and
2016.
The Transitional Eelgrass Zone, describes areas where eelgrass is susceptible to year-to-year
variation in coverage and density. This zone encompasses much of the central part of the Lower
Bay including Harbor Island, Linda Isle, northern and western portions of Balboa Island, and the
northern side of Lido Channel. This zone is characterized by flushing times of 7 to 14 days.
Influenced by the San Diego Creek discharges during the winter months, turbidity impacts this
zone by lowering water clarity and lowering near -bottom light levels. This area will expand or
contract depending on environmental conditions and other influences on eelgrass growth.
The Unvegetated Zone describes areas where eelgrass has historically not been found or is only
incidentally found. This zone is located within the western portion of Lower Newport Bay and in
Upper Newport Bay above the DeAnza Bayside Peninsula and north of Castaways Park and the
Dunes Marina. These areas are characterized by tidal flushing greater than 14 days.
During this survey, a total of 74.44 ac of SWEH was mapped within the three eelgrass zones
(Figure 22). In the Stable Eelgrass Zone 32.27 ac of eelgrass was mapped. The Transition Eelgrass
Zone accounted for 42.02 ac of eelgrass. Lastly, the Unvegetated Zone had only 0.15 ac. If DWEH
was included in the eelgrass assessment by zones, the Stable Zone would total 69.89 ac and the
Transitional zone would total 42.34 ac. Stable Zone eelgrass cover is impacted more by the
inclusion of DWEH.
Since the 2018 survey, eelgrass has remained about the same in the Stable and Unvegetated
Eelgrass Zones, increasing by 2.30 ac and 0.02ac, respectively. Transitional Zone eelgrass
continues to expand at a high rate and is what has contributed the most to overall increases to
SWEH. This is the first time total SWEH cover within the Transition Zone has surpassed coverage
in the Stable Eelgrass Zone. It should be noted that the Transition Zone is larger than the Stable
Eelgrass Zone.
19
MTS.
RGP54 Plan Area
Eelgrass Zones
Stable Eeigrass Zone
Transitional E.1grass Zone
Unvegetaled Eelgrass Zone
Figure 21. Map of three distributional zones within Newport Bay.
Historical SWEH Acreage by Zone
80
74.44 Stable
70
Total
60
Transitional
50
)E Unvegetated
0 40 42.02
30 35.27
-�P
(V
LU
20 11��
10
0 X- 41E1 0.15
2003-2004 2006-2007 2009-2010 2012-2014 2016 2018 2020
Survey Period
Figure 22. Historical SWEH coverage by zone in Newport Bay.
31
m I nJ;
Density
Density measurements were taken at 23
stations throughout the Bay and represent
the 23 Regions (Figure 23). Region 9, Harbor
Island, had the highest reported inshore and
offshore density. Density measurements
were not collected in West Newport (Region
19) because eelgrass was not mapped during
the survey.
The average density for all 23 stations was
98.6 turions/sq m and ranged between 336
and 16 turions/sq m. Density averages by
station and region consistently agree that
eelgrass density throughout the Bay is higher
in areas where eelgrass polygons are
shallow/inshore when compared to
deeper/offshore areas of eelgrass polygons.
Per station, average inshore density was
111.9 turions/sq m and average offshore
density was 86.8 turions/sq m (Figure 24).
Region 9 had the highest reported average
inshore density at 262.4 turions/sq m,
followed by stations 13 and 1 where eelgrass
density was 259.2 turions/sq m and 182.4
turions/sq m, respectively. Offshore eelgrass
density was greatest for Region 9, 172.8
turions/sq m followed by stations 1 and 13,
156.0 turions/sq m and 144.0 turions/ sq m,
respectively.
Table 4. Table of 23 stations where eelgrass density
measurements occurred.
1
33.600122
-117.880116
2
33.607626
-117.886208
3
33.599984
-117.888688
4
33.60473931
-117.8890168
5
33.60882133
-117.8982086
6
33.606363
-117.905925
7
33.606416
-117.911454
8
33.60965838
-117.8914983
9
33.60950288
-117.9016533
10
33.61437471
-117.904743
11
33.613605
-117.902026
12
33.619157
-117.900181
13
33.620098
-117.90226
14
33.621305
-117.898392
15
33.61540611
-117.9064908
16
33.615301
-117.915756
17
33.608487
-117.910513
18
33.61675
-117.925956
19
N/A
N/A
20
33.621422
-117.89534
21
33.619943
-117.895728
22
33.624261
-117.893279
23
33.604065
-117.885473
24
33.621532
-117.892803
Over time, eelgrass density has fluctuated (Figure 25). The initial survey performed in 2004
reported the highest average density of 231.2 turions/sq m. Eelgrass density decreased between
the 2004 and 2008 survey periods and continued to show signs of decay through 2014. The 2016
survey marked the first instance of eelgrass average density increase from 117.6 turions/sq m in
2013-2014 to 161.8 turions/sq m in 2016. Eelgrass density was stable through 2018 where values
were 159.8 turions/sq m. Eelgrass density has continued to fluctuate. During this survey eelgrass
density measurements indicated a decline. Average eelgrass density was lower than reported
during any previous survey, however the average and range of values reported during this survey
fell within similar ranges historically reported.
32
MTS.
Figure 23. Map of locations where density measurements were taken in Newport Bay during the 2020
survey.
Average Eelgrass Density in Newport Bay per
Region
❑Inshore ■ Offshore
400
350 -
300 — -- — — -- -
.N
250
0 200 -
v 150
o`o
100
50
0 r :<
ti ti R W yO yy yL y� yR y� y�O ti� ti� ti0 Lti LL tiii ��ea�
Region
Figure 24. Average eelgrass density per Region in Newport Bay. Error bars are one standard deviation.
33
M—M
350
300
N
250
;P-
200 200
G!
m
150
m
tw 100
a
"' 50
Historical Average Density per Survey
2004 2008 2011 2013-2014 2016 2018 2020
Survey
Figure 25. Historical average eelgrass density per survey in Newport Bay. Error bars represent one
standard deviation.
n n 34
Other Marine Life
Marine Life Observed
Numerous marine species were observed during the 2020 eelgrass habitat mapping survey (Table
5). Species presence varied with distance and direction from the mouth of the Bay. However,
many species were present throughout most surveyed areas in the Bay. Most species observed
were associated with either hard substrate including, dock structures, seawalls, and riprap, or
soft bottom habitat including both vegetated and unvegetated habitats. Images of select species
taken by an underwater camera during the survey are included in Appendix B.
A few species were only observed within Zone 1 at the entrance to the Bay. These species include
the California garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus), rock wrasse (Halichoeres semicinctus), eelgrass
(Zostera pacifica), and the chestnut cowrie (Cypraea spadicea). The entrance to the Bay is the
only area where two species of eelgrass (Z. marina and Z. pacifica) were observed together.
When moving farther away from the mouth of the Bay the biodiversity appeared to decrease.
When moving farther away from the entrance channel fewer fish species were observed.
However, some invertebrate and vertebrate species remained present when moving from Zone
2 to Zone 3. Organisms present in abundance away from the entrance channel included round
rays (Urobatis halleri), California aglaja (Navanax inermis), and anemones (Diadumene sp. and
Pachycerian this fimbriatus).
Two species were only observed along Bay -ward portions of eelgrass beds where water depth
was greater than 11 -ft MLLW, the sea whip (ealticina sp.) and the golden phoronid (Phoronopsis
californica), reported for the first time in 2018 (MTS 2018). In rocky habitats, as found along
Bayshores and western Balboa Island/Collins Isle, East Pacific red octopus (Octopus rubenscens)
and California two spot octopus (Octopus bimaculatus) were common.
On multiple occasions California sea lion (Zolopphus californicus) and sea birds such as surf scoter
(Melanitta perspicillata), western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), California brown pelican
(Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), Brant's cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus), double
crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), California gull (Larus californicus), Heermann's gull
(Larus heermanni), western gull (Larus occidentalis), glaucous -winged gull (Larus glaucescens),
great blue heron (Ardea herodias), snowy egret (Egretto thula), and black crowned night heron
(Nycticorax nycticorax) were observed.
One observation of concern was the presence of sand stars throughout the Bay. This species was
clearly in distress as many individuals observed were showing signs of withering. Only individuals
observed within the entrance channel appeared to be healthy.
Caulerpa taxifolia
Caulerpa taxifolia is a noxious species of marine algae. This species was eradicated from nearby
Huntington Harbor (Anderson et al. 2005). This species of marine algae was not observed at any
time within the bounds of the area surveyed in Newport Bay.
35
MTS.
36
MIS
Table 5. Table of species observed during the 2018 Newport Bay shallow water eelgrass survey. (table
Bacteria
red/rust bacteria, unlD
rust bacteria, unlD
X X
white sulfer bacteria, unlD
sulfer bacteria, unlD
X X
Algae-Phaeophyta
brown algae
Colpomenia sinuosa
X
brown algae
Cystoseira osmundocea
X
brown algae
Dictyopteris unduloto
X
brown algae
Dictyota flobellato
X
sargassum weed
Sorgassum muticum
X
Crustacean -Arthropoda
Aorid amphipod
Grondidierello japonica
X
barnacle
Balanus glandula
X
buckshot barnacle
Chthomalus fissus/dalli
X
California spiny lobster
Ponulirus interruptus
X
X
cancer crab
Cancer sp.
X
lined shore crab
Pachygrapsus crossipes
X
Mysid shrimp
Mysidacea unlD
X
Fish -Pisces
barred sand bass
Paralabrax nebulifer
X
barred surfperch
Amphistichus argenteus
X
X
black croaker
Cheilotrema saturnum
X
X
black surfperch
Embiotoca jocksoni
X
X
blacksmith
Chromis punctipinnis
X
X
California garibaldi
Hypsypops rubicundus
X
California halibut
Paralichthys californicus
X
X
California lizardfish
Synodus lucioceps
X
X
California salema
Xenistius californiensis
X
X
California sargo
Anisotremus davidsonii
X
X
kelp bass
Paralabrax clothrotus
X
X
kelp surfperch
Brachyistius frenatus
X
X
mullet
Mugil cepholus
X
opaleye
Girella nigricans
X
pile surfperch
Domalichthys vocca
X
X
rock wrasse
Halichoeres semicinctus
X
rockfish, unlD
Scorpoenidae, unlD
X
rock -pool blenny
Parablennius parvicornis
X
round stingray
Urobatis halleri
X
rubberlip surfperch
Rhocochilus toxotes
X
X
senorita
Oxyjulis californica
X
X
speckled sanddab
Citharichthysstigmoeus
X
spotted sand bass
Paralabrax maculatofasciatus
X
X
topsmelt
Atherinops affinis
X
X
turbot, unlD
Pleuronichthys, unlD
X
yellowfin croaker
Umbrino roncador
X
X
Flatworms -Platyhelminthes
Polyclad worm
Prostheceroeus bellostriotus
X X
Polyclad worm, unlD
polyclad worm, unlD
X X
Gorgonians-Cnidaria
Brown gorgonian
Muricea fruticoso
X
California golden gorgonian
Muriceo californica
X
Green Algae-Chlorophyta
37
MTS.
green algae
Ulva intestinalis X
X
Codium fragile spp.
green algae
tomentosoides X
green algae
Ulva lactuca X
green algae
Bryopsis corticulans X
green algae
Choetomorpha aerea
Jellyfish and Anemones-Cnidaria
anemone
Diadumene sp. X
burrowing anemone
Pachycerian this fimbriotus
fairy palm hydroid
Corymorpha palma
hydroid
Agloophenia dispar X
sea pen
Styalatula elongata (> lift MLLW only)
Marine Worms-Phoronid
golden phoronid
Phoronopsis californica (>11ft MLLW only)
Moss Animals-Bryozoa/Ectoprocta
38
bryozoan
Tholamoporella californica X
Red"= "chip" bryozoan
Watersipora subtorquata X
Zoobotryon verticillatum,
stoloniferan bryozoan and
Bulgula neritino, Bulgula
arborescent bryozoans
californica X
Zoobotryon verticillatum,
stoloniferan bryozoan and
Bulgula neritina, Bulgula
arborescent bryozoans
californica
Red Algae-Rhodophyta
red algae
Gelidium sp. X
red algae
Grateloupia sp. X
red algae
Microcladia sp. X
red algae
Polysiphonia sp. X
red algae
Gracilariopsis sjoestedtii
red algae
Gracilaria sp.
red coralline algae
Corrolina sp. X
Seagrasses-Zosteracea
ditchgrass
Ruppia maritima
eelgrass
Zostera pacifica
eelgrass
Zostera marina
surf grass
Phyllospadix torreyi
Sea stars, urchins, and cucumbers
bat star
Asterina miniota
sand star
Astropecten armatus
Snails and Octopus -Mollusca
Asian date mussel
Musculista senhousia X
Bay mussel
Mytilus galloprovincialis X
calcareous tube snail
Serpulorbis squamigerus
California horn snail
Cerithidea californica
California two -spot octopus
Octopus bimaculatus
carinate gastropod
Alia carinata
chestnut cowrie
Cypraea spadicea
dorid nudibranch
Doriopsilla albopunctato
East Pacific red octopus
Octopus rubescens
giant Pacific oyster
Crassostrea gigas X
giant rock scallop
Crossadoma gigantea X
Gould's bubble snail
Bulla gouldiana
hermit crab
Pagurus sp.
MTS,
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
38
Kellet's whelk
Kelletia kelletii
X
X
kelp scallop
Leptopecten latiatouratus
X
Lewis' moon snail
Polinices lewisii
X
X
mossy chiton
Mopolia muscoso
X
native oyster
Ostrea lurida
X
predatory sea slug
novanox inermis
X
rock jingle
Choma sp.
X
rough limpet
Lottie limatula
X
speckled scallop
Argopecten ventricose
X
wavy chione
Chione undatella
X
wavy top snail
Lithopoma undoso
X
X
Sponges -Porifera
Porifera, unlD
Sponge, unlD
X
X
X X
yellow sponge
Cliona sp.
X
X
X X
yellow sponge
Holiclono sp.
X
X
X X
Tun icates-U rochordata
colonial sea squirt, unlD
colonial Ascidiacea, unlD
X
colonial tunicate
Botryllus/Botrylloides complex
X
sea squirt, unlD
Ascidiacea unlD
X
solitary tunicate
Styela montereyensis
X
solitary tunicate
Styela plicato
X
X
39
MTS.
Conclusions
Eelgrass plays an important role for many organisms and environmental processes in bays and
near shore estuaries. There are many important roles performed by eelgrass which include:
• Providing habitat for marine fish and invertebrate species.
• Providing protective cover and refuge for its inhabitants.
• Providing spawning areas for many species, including commercially important California
halibut and barred sand bass.
• Providing foraging center for sea birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals.
• Contribute to decaying organic material as part of marine/estuary food web.
• Filters pollutants from the water, sequesters carbon dioxide gas.
• Protects shorelines from erosion by dampening wave energy.
Shallow -water and deep -water eelgrass surveys were conducted in Newport Bay in support of
the City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan between June and November 2020.
This was the seventh survey conducted in a series of surveys since 2003.
The Bay was divided into three zones enveloping 23 shallow water -mapping regions and 1 deep
water mapping region. The results of this survey indicate that eelgrass is present in many parts
of Newport Bay and covers 74.44 ac within the SWEH regions and 37.94 ac within the DWEH
region. Eelgrass was found to extend from intertidal areas to -24.5-ft MLLW. Eelgrass occupied
sediment ranging from fine silt to coarse sand and shell hash.
SWEH and DWEH eelgrass was abundant in Zone 1 near the entrance channel between Corona
del Mar and Balboa Island extending to Bay Island at depths between low intertidal to -24.5-ft
MLLW. Significant amounts of eelgrass were also reported in Linda Isle -Inner and Outer, DeAnza
Peninsula -Inner and Outer, Castaways, and Balboa Island. Of the majority of eelgrass reported,
44.41%, was found in Corona del Mar (Region 1), Balboa Island/Collins Isle (Region 5), and DeAnza
Peninsula (Regions 12 & 13).
Reductions in eelgrass cover were reported for Regions 1, 13, 18, and 21. In all other regions,
eelgrass coverage was greater than values reported in the previous 2018 survey. Many of the
Regions where eelgrass increased occurred within the Transitional Eelgrass Zone (Zone 2). No
trend was observed for losses to eelgrass coverage, as small losses to eelgrass cover were
observed in the Stable Eelgrass Zone (Zone 1). Transitional Zone eelgrass cover surpassed Stable
Zone eelgrass cover for the first time since Newport Bay began conducting Bay wide eelgrass
surveys and since data have been tracked by these zones.
Eelgrass density collected at 23 regions indicates that density has declined when compared to
the previous 2018 survey (MTS 2018). Generally, density was greatest along the shallower
portions of mapped eelgrass polygons. While density was greatest in these shallow areas,
Regions 9 and 13 displayed values far above all other densities collected in other regions. Overall,
average density was historically low, but fell within the range of values historically reported.
40
MTS.
Density measurements were not collected in Region 19, West Newport, as no eelgrass was
observed in that region.
Many species were observed throughout the survey effort. Species diversity generally decreased
moving away from the entrance channel. Uncommon species observed included the golden
phoronid (Phoronopsis californica). The noxious alga, Coulerpa taxifolia, was not found in
Newport Bay.
41
MTS.
Literature Cited
Anchor QEA, 2009. Conceptual development plan. Lower Newport Bay CAD site feasibility study.
Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. April 2009. 47pp.
Anderson L., W.L. Tan, R. Woodfield, R. Mooney, K. Merkel. 2005. Use of Sediment Bioassays to
Verify Efficacy of Caulerpa taxifolia Eradication Treatments. Journal of Plant Management. 43.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/lands/places-to-visit/upper-newport-Bay-er. October 5th, 2018.
City of Newport Beach. 2010. Harbor Area Management Plan. Prepared by: Weston Solutions
Inc., Everest International Consultants, Inc., Coastal Resources Management, Inc., NewFields LLC,
and Tom Johnson, Ph.D. Prepared for: Harbor Resources Division, City of Newport Beach. 99pp.
City of Newport Beach 2015. Eelgrass protection and mitigation plan for shallow waters in Lower
Newport Bay. An ecosystem based management program. Resource agency review draft. City of
Newport Beach Public Works Department, Harbor Resources Division. November 2013. 22pp plus
appendix.
City, 2019. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan. Amended by the
California Coastal Commission on October 12, 2018. Adopted January 22, 2019, Resolution
No. 2019-08.
Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) 2002. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan.
Biological Appendix. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Various
Paging. December 2002.
Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) 2005. Final Report. Distribution and abundance of
eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Newport Bay. 2003-2004 eelgrass habitat mapping project. Bulkhead
to pierhead line surveys. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. April
2005. 30pp.
Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) 2008. Letter report. Eelgrass habitat survey results
for the Dover Shores Community Association Dover Shores Dredging Project. Prepared for Anchor
Environmental LLC. November 11, 2008. 10pp.
Coastal Resources Management Inc. (CRM) 2010. Results of the second Newport Bay eelgrass
(Zostera marina) Bay -wide habitat mapping survey: Status and distribution between 2006-2008
and oceanographic conditions in Newport Bay between 2008 and 2009. Prepared for the City of
Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. August 10th, 2010. 126pp.
Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) 2012. Results of the third Newport Bay eelgrass
(Zostera marina) Bay -wide habitat mapping survey: Status and distribution between 2009-2010
42
MTS
1 �l 1T.
with additional observations in 2011. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources
Division. January 2012. 52pp.
Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) 2015. Results of the fourth Newport Bay eelgrass
(Zostera marina) Bay -wide habitat mapping survey: Status and distribution between 2013-2014.
Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. January 2015. 66pp.
Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) 2017. Results of the fifth eelgrass (Zostera marina)
mapping survey: Status and distribution in Newport Bay, Newport Beach, California, 2016 Survey.
Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. July 2017. 79pp.
Coyer, J.A., K.A. Miller, J.M. Engle, J. Veldsink, A. Cabello -Pasini, W.T. Stam, and J.L Olsen. Eelgrass
meadows in the California Channel Islands and adjacent coast reveal a mosaic of two species,
evidence for introgression and variable clonality. Annals of Botany 101:73-87, 2008.
de Boer, W.F. 2007. Seagrass-sediment interactions, positive feedbacks and critical thresholds
for occurrence: a review. Hydrobiologia 591 (1): 5-24.
Everest International Consultants. 2009. Appendix F: Hydrodynamic and water quality
monitoring requirements technical report for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Area
Management Plan (HAMP). Prepared for City of Newport Beach Harbor resources Division. June
2009. 20 pp.
Dewsbury, B.M.; Bhat, M.; Fourqurean, J.W.2016. A review of seagrass economic valuations:
Gaps and progress in valuation approaches. Ecosystem Services. Vol. 18, April 2016. 68-77pp.
Donald H. Les, Maryke A. Cleland, and Michelle Waycott. 1997. Phylogenetic studies in
Alismatidae, ll: Evolution of marine angiosperms (Seagrasses) and Hydrophily. Systematic Botany.
Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1997), pp. 443-463.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017. Newport Bay Watershed. Environmental
Protection Agency Pacific Southwest, Region 9.
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/region9/water/watershed/measurew/newport
-Bay/index.html. February 14th, 2017.
Hemminga, M.A. and Duarte, C.M. 2000. Seagrass Ecology. Cambridge University Press. 2000.
Kuo, J.; den Hartog, C.; Larkum, A.W.D.; Orth, R.J.; Duarte, C.M. 2006. Seagrasses: biology,
ecology, and conservation. 2006.
Kuwae, T. and Hori, M. 2019. Blue Carbon in Shallow Coastal Ecosystems: Carbon Dynamics,
Policy, and Implementation. Springer. ISBN 978-981-13-1295-3. Due: October 3, 2018 eBook.
Marine Taxonomic Services, Ltd. 2018. 2018 Monitoring of Eelgrass Resources in Newport Bay,
Newport Beach, California. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Public Works, Harbor
resources Division. November 2018.
43
MTS.
Mason, H.L. 1957. A Flora of the Southern California Marshes. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 878 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. 11th Revision.
NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region. 2014. California eelgrass mitigation policy. October 2014. 45
PP.
Olesen, B. and Sand -Jensen, K. 199). Seasonal acclimatization of eelgrass Zostera marina growth
to light. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 94. March 31st, 1993. 91-99pp.
Olsen, J.L., J.A. Coyer, B. Chesney. 2014. Numerous mitigation transplants of the eelgrass Zostera
marina in southern California shuffle genetic diversity and may promote hybridization with
Zostera pacific. Biological Conservation. Vol. 176: 133-143.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) 2008. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management
Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery as Amended Through
Amendment 19.
Phillips, R.C. 1985. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows of the Pacific Northwest: A Community
Profile. Contributors: national Coastal Ecosystem Team, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Team.
1985. 85 pp.
Phillips, R.C. and E.G. Menez. 1988. Seagrasses. Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine
Sciences: 34.
Phillips, R.C. and S.W. Echeverria. 1990. Zostera asiatica Miki on the Pacific Coast of North
America. Pacific Science Vol 44 (2):130-134.
Posey, M.H. 1988. Community changes associated with the spread of an introduced seagrass,
Zostera japonica. Ecology 69(4): 974-983.
Shafer, D.J; Wyllie-Echeverria, S.; Sherman, T.D. (Shafer et al.). 2008. The potential role of climate
in the distribution and zonation of the introduced seagrass Zostera japonica in North America.
Aquatic Biology. Vol. 89, Issue 3. October 2008. 297-302 pp.
Stevenson, R.E. and K.O. Emery. 1958. Marshlands at Newport Bay. Allan Hancock Foundation
Publications. Occasional Paper No. 20. University of Southern California Press. Los Angeles,
California.
Thresher, R.E., P.D. Nichols, J.S. Gunn, B.D. Bruce, and D.M. Furlani. 1992. Seagrass detritus as
the basis of a coastal planktonic food chain. Limnology and oceanography 37(8):1754-1758.
44
MTS.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. Department of The Army Regional General Permit
54. Prepared by: Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared for: City of Newport
Beach. December 22, 2020.
Valentine, J.F., and K.L. Heck. 1999. Seagrass herbivory: Evidence for the continued grazing of
marine grasses. Marine ecology progress series 176:291-302.
Weston Solutions, Inc. Everest International Consultants, Inc., Coastal Resources Management,
Inc., Newfields LLC, and Tom Johnson, Ph.D. Harbor Area Management Plan. Prepared for Harbor
Resources Division, City of Newport Beach. April 2010. 99pp. plus 8 appendices.
Yarbro, L.A., and P.R. Carlson. 2008. Community oxygen and nutrient fluxes in seagrass beds of
Florida Bay, USA. Estuaries and coasts 31(5):877-897.
45
MTS.
Appendix A: DWEH Sidescan Sonar Track Lines
M
A-1
Appendix B: Photographs
I UV 10a �,
FISM
Colonial Anemone surrounding Eelgrass
(Diadumene sp.) (Zostera marina)
Burrowing Anemone
(Pachycerianthis fimbriatus)
Bat Star
(Asterina miniata)
Predatory Sea Slug
(Navanax inermis)
Gould's Bubble Snail
(Bulla gouldiana)
Bryozoan
(Zoobotryon verticillatum)
B-2
MTS.
'00,r
f4
f(. ' a
Mossy Chiton and Red Corralline Algae
(Mopalia muscosa) and (Corralina sp.)
Hermit Crab
(Pagurus sp.)
Solitary Tunicate
(Styela plicata)
Sea Whip
(Balticina sp.)
Golden Phoronid
(Phoronopsis californica)
Giant Keyhole Limpet
(Megathura crenulata)
Dead and Decaying Sand Stars - present
beyond zone 1 (left)
Healthy and Living Sand Stars - present in
eelgrass beds near entrance to Bay (right)
(Astropecten armatus)
Round Stingray
(Urobatis Halleri)
Juvenile Urchin Living on Eelgrass
(Stringylocentrotus sp.) (Zostera marina)
B-4
MTS.
California Spiny Lobster
(Panulirus interruptus)
California Sargo and Opaleye
(Anisotremus davidsonii) (Girella nigricans)
Kelp Bass in Eelgrass
(Paralabrax clathratus) (Zostera Marina)
Barred Surfperch in Eelgrass
(Amphistichus argenteus) (Zostera marina)
Diamond Turbot
(Hypsopsetta guttata)
B-6
MT_.
Multiple Species of Blenny
(Parablennius spp.)
California Halibut
(Paralichthys californicus)
California Garibaldi and Kelp Bass
(Hypsypops rubicundus) (Paralax clathratus)
B-7
�
n �
1 Y l
Barred Sand Bass in Eelgrass
(Paralabrax nebulifer) (Zostera marina)
MTS.
Black Surfperch and Sargassum Weed
(Embiotoca jacksoni) (Sargassum muticum)
Delete in PDF
MTS
Exhibit B
Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project -
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
>. � � f.- v `_� ♦. ' ..0 �� , / .K � f.. Com' y.0 �,s;//� _
,'�+ / ,~ "mow. .. � . �]l�Af �y. Y Y..�� ." �M,� �^ •� °�, � � s. ; � ''
Ito y>''
� i
May 20, 2021
Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project (PA2019-020)
State Clearinghouse Number: 2019110340
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
Prepared for
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Pr oiect Pjumihei ',,0377-01 -)�
Prepared by
Anchor QEA, LLC
9700 Research Drive
Irvine, California 92618
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1
2 Monitoring Program.................................................................................................................2
TABLES
Table 1 Mitigation and Monitoring Program..................................................................................................3
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program i May 2021
Introduction
On May XX, 2021, the City of Newport Beach (City) in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA
Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.) certified a Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to support the approval of the proposed Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic
Disposal (CAD) Facility Construction Project (PA2019-020), hereafter referred to as the proposed
Project, in accordance with 22 CCR Section 66265 et seq. Under the proposed Project, the City would
construct a CAD facility in the central portion of Lower Newport Bay between Bay Island, Lido Isle,
and Harbor Island where dredged sediment unsuitable for open ocean disposal or nearshore
placement can be contained. Clean material suitable for beach nourishment generated from
constructing the CAD facility will be transported and disposed of at an approved open ocean
disposal site (LA -3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site) or along the nearshore ocean beaches.
The City is also proposing to allow maintenance dredging in sections of the Harbor outside the
Federal Channels maintenance dredging program area to re-establish safe navigation.
Assembly Bill 3180 (AB 3180), codified in Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, became effective
January 1, 1989, and requires a Lead or Responsible Agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program (MMRP) when approving or carrying out a project. The purpose of this program is
to ensure that when an environmental document, either an EIR or a negative declaration, identifies
measures to reduce potential adverse environmental impacts to less -than -significant levels, that
those measures are implemented as detailed in the environmental document. As lead agency for the
EIR, the City is responsible for implementation of this MMRP.
The EIR prepared for the proposed Project addresses the potential environmental impacts and,
where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts. As such, this MMRP is required
to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented and a monitoring strategy
is prepared for each mitigation measure. Once the City adopts the MMRP, the applicable City
departments will include the mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements in the appropriate
documents. Therefore, in accordance with the aforementioned requirements, this document lists
each mitigation measure, describes the methods for implementation and verification, and identifies
the responsible party or parties.
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program 1 May 2021
2 Monitoring Program
Pursuant to AB 3180, this MMRP was prepared and is accompanied by the associated reporting
forms used to verify compliance with individual mitigation measures. This MMRP identifies each
mitigation measure or project condition by discipline, the entity or organization responsible for
implementation, and the monitoring phase required for each measure. Certain inspections and
reports may require preparation by qualified individuals; these are specified as needed. The method
of verification for each measure is also specified.
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program 2 May 2021
C
�
N
) U
O
V
i-
c
O
U
7
y
c
0
C
c
p
V
7
p
V
6
'c
Q
0)
T-0
U
C:
T
j
y-0
2
'^
O
U
Y—
a)
Z
>
O
O
-C
vii
m
0
o)
V)
O
C
O
V
J.
N
Q)
- _ -i
N
C
'�
Y
7
H
to
_�
X
O
ut
C
,�_�
O
C
c
N
C
_ ut
Q
'N
Q
—
4)
6
c'
'm
C
U
'�
o
U
O
'Y
c
O
O
U
Y
a
>
a
m
O
O
c
`
v
O
o
'++
O
N
L
c
N
:
t
o)
j,
Y
i
c
f�6
m
_0
C
ut
)
O
a)
N
pco
vi
'O
i
v
C
p
m
O
O_
N
N
o
L
r°
o
O
Y
Io
m
aa)
Q
�_
.�
a
v)
Y
Y
O
Y
Y
..0
Y
Y
Y
p
U
O
°
0-
°
V
N
- -
0O
N
N
m
Q
Vl
c
0)
N
Y
Y
O
N
m
C
p
m
t
C
Ham-
c
Y
O
O
_
C
O
o
a
of
m
O
v
'3
°°
U
�'
=
E
t
o
—
�o
D
'
Q°
o
U
L
m
�
Y
of
3
ao,
N
E
V)i
a
o
o
_
M
rn
a
o
�_
o
N
E
T
vi
ut
Y
0
v
0
�
v
U
c0
N
N
°
°
o)
o
U
v
u
w
c
v
Q)
'rn
o
v
a
n
i
Y
o
Y
w
v�
c
a)
p
Y
O
C
`�
O
N
ro
E
c
•o
p
O
N
c
•C
c
O
N
C
O
-6>>
T
co
=
N
N
t
N>
O_
Y
i
,ut
Q
c
n1
U
ut
x
C
3
N
-6
N
`�
ut
ut
co
C)
41
N
N
O
4)
.*T'
i
m
-0
m
v
Q
Q
E
W
�6
.LA
.
-PO
io
E
E
Q_
°'
Q
L
'
u
C°
al
m
c
E
E
d
c
O
7
-p
N
ms
C_
C
c
N
c'
ip
X
c
V
p
`C
7
N
—
L
a
w
_6
0
O
o
N
p
a)
-
7
a
Y
T
U
c
tY6
E
H
p
U
ut
N
"-'-
L
ut
Z
3
Q
ut
O
O_
N
V
m
O_
t
m
Q)
T
O
m
o
u
v
i=
>
E
L
o
o
m
m
o
a
CX
-=
CL
w
O
m
oU
a
v
c
O
a)O
O
a
u
;
a1
T
s
�
Y
to
E
vY
o
E
y
C
a
SLO
°
O_
U
c
E
Ol
in
c
O
u
N
m
o')
0
c
E
U
L
Vac
L
-0
a)
O
Y
C
E
Y
V
uY
V
IA
o
E
O
N
a
Y
>'
O
Q
O
OU
0
f0
.�
N
N
01
_0
"
o
°
`°
z0
Q
v
E
°
_
O
N
~
vOi
6
N
a
2
00
't -
Q
+-
r
fp
Y
CD
N
r-
w
u
O
U
C
c�
O
o
Q>
a
O
fo
m
=
Q
-0
0)o,
,
Q)
>
Q
O
-0
_
o
�(3)-,
>
0
Q)
z
0
m
.c
L
m
A
m
rn
0
L
0)
c
O
O_
N
0)
O
C
O
c
0
0)
2
c
v
`
C
p
E
a
w
C
v
L
Ln
aa))
u
a)
o
U
YO
O
a`
Z3
O
dl
C
7
-p
m
p
a
3
m
t
v
>
a)
a
CU
U
C
U
C
ca
Z
O
'O
v
.E
O
C
p
N
T
°O
m
O
c
N
a)
a)
m
3
C
f6
c'�a
Y
v
Y
U
`^
c
V
0
°
�c
w
0
Y
-p
a)
Q-
>,
Q
c°
o
a)
v
o
Y
v
v
c
a)
6
a°1,
O
C
O
z
o
T
O
cp
Y
g
m
o
a)
ul
L
O
v
Y
n
°
c
ns
`°
a)_0
O
p
.3
c
U
'�
l7
°
a)
ns
^
,°),
0
3
a
a)
Y
cp
m
m
U
o
E
f
o
a,
m
3
a
a)
a)
a
a,
o
o
-
7
6
_rn
Y
c0
_
.�'-
v
o
_0
a,
°-
7
6
v)
a)
a)
c
cp
t
cn
.�
m
a)
u
C
v
°
m
Z
.�
a1
'a
m
a)
o
�
o
0
o)U
T
of
:+
o
v
c
+�'
w
o
_
0-
mQ)
_�
ajO
C
O
a)
m
0
a)
'.
CO
v0i
O
O
N
p
Y
u
Z
ca
m
O
u
V
0
a)
E
V
O
Z
7
'�
m
E
c
o
0
0
°
�'
7
�'
tp
m°
cd
a
Y
3
N
-0
U
.a
.mss m
-0
ca
a)
Q
'O
},
;�
a)
y
o
cc
u
C
t
cn
C
U
a)
p
C
u
;
°
-o
. m
C
>
U
-0
Z
RS
VI
N
Y
C
CL
C
U
C
co
Y
t
v
I
a)
u
�
Q
Y
7>
Q
E
u
LE
a)
O
u_
m
ca
7
a)
v
O
'
C
;u
°°
Q°
g
Ln °u
m
tL—
a
m
a>>
o
.
Y
0
o
E
a)
0
'a
v
°°
G
Z
a)
o
C
u
c
p
a`,
d
�'cc)
n3
°
Y
a
M
a)
L
u
v
•�,
o
7
0
7
ca
m
0
s
^
Y
C
ai
u
p
(D
O
E
Y
am -
:�'
VI
U
aa))
C
Q)
-0
0)
f —C
Cp
M
-6
C
4-
. C
(6
°-
L
O
L
w
°
VI
C
�
N
C
C2
Q
u
7
`
3
M
u
°
ca
C
+�
.�'
c
=
o
ca
O
Y
C
°
t
°
Q
c6
Y
,co
_v
�L
O
7
O
Y
C
��,,
C
E
U
N
c
°u
'o
a,
c
•.-
o
a)
O
E
o
E
M
O
o
.�
a
Y
7
-
c
o
u
o�
-O
c°
o
-
i
a)
Q
Y
Q
Y
t6
T
u
a)
0
L
w
a)
a1
Y
c
o
u
`�
°
C
Q
t
L
L•�
fu
7
-0
0
0)
E
cp
Vf
C
u
Y
o�
a)
a,
cil
.Y
o
f
`
a
m-0
�
a�0i
3
a
w
Q
o
0-
E
°
o
-O
ns
3
Q)
'�,
•
p1
a)
-0
c
C
m
v
a
7
p_
E
E
o
a)
o
-0
m
41
v
7
Y
c
4)
fl-
+
a)
u
�C
m
v
v
—_
,e
t
°
y
E
N
-o
Y
'^
N
y
t
7
c
7
O
a)
°-
ns
cn
v
cn
S c_
o
p
Q
3
c
v
o
L
,
o
3
c
m°
vc
ns
:�
Y
o
ai
7
a
a,
m
u
c
°-
p
E
3
o
o
o
a,
f.; m
E
.T
O
O
Y
70
u
Y
a)
n
o
•c*a
v
a,
°
s
+'
w
Q°
3
M
0
Ca
N
C
C
a,
°
cn
T
y
0
-C
N
°
�"
N
M-0
ca
O
a)
Y
V
•C1
Imi
C
cOo
u
u
0
L
RS11
Q
12
,E
-
a)
:
3
7
�
C
c
cp
dl
a1
Y
O
o
`c-
O
V
'a
L
u
O
7
cp
cp
N
u
=°
a)
Q
O°
°��'
a)
0
c
o
c
m
o
Y
7
:�
E
�
°)
^
o
ns
v
a)
E
E
v
u
m
L
E
Z
`1
v
aO-�
,�
al
a)
C
vii
p
C
CL
d
T>
,�-
m
O
v7i
c
>
a)
a
O
v�
a0i
H
m
m
Q
'�
O
t
m
a°
v
n
-. {y)
O
d
C
0
'6
a1
N
cD
-°
cn
61
cu0
,�
Y
c9
D—
H
i
Y
C
a)
7
a)
C
U
E
_ N
d
w
O
O
Ol
0
LS1
al
C
caO
V
m
N
a)
cp
cn
EE
a
Y
C
°
Q
tea)
-O
>,
U
N
a
>
a1
E
a)
N
LS1
N
T
GC
m
c
7
E
o
v
ai
- m
7
vOi
p
7
°
N
y
l.J
W
O
v
O
fp
Q
_
N
a)
VI
m
7
@
°
O
a1
2
(J
U
�L
C
>
O
>O
>
X
W
o
�'
-O
a1
U
C
C37Q
'�
c
v
of
U
O
m
a
v
O
c
°
O
v_
Y
°
v
c
a
o
v
°1
o
a)
v
a
7
0_
>
O
c
o
v
a
0
N
v
v
E
6
o
Z
.�
v
.3
m
m
m
2
3
`a
u
of
E
m
m
0
L
0)
c
tf
O
Q
a)
0)
c
O
'E
O
2
C:
O
2
l
"M
rc
T
++
Ec
o
Q
C
E
T m O
O
E
p t
�O N v�
o,
L
O O
T u
c c
Q O
Y
C07
t-
m
'O
T
O
u
-O
C
O1
vi
O
,=
-O
N
_
C
C
°
C
'O
iC
Q
y
N
E
C
O
�.+
k'
C
O
c
O
'Q
N
E
Y
'^
M
N
V
v
Y
�,
c
N
O
�'
E>°
N
_o
r
O
u
u
V
O
C
Q
`�
rp
Q
C
u
N
s
`t
Q
p
ra
E
y'
°
O
>
N�
C
N
U
O
0
a
C
a�
u
a
Y
E
12
vCi
°
to
n
v
o
aci
c
v+CY
CD
a
0 -
Q
v
o
°
u
N
"
N
O
-0
u
a)
U
"
O
•�
C
O1
6
O
•-•
al
`�
v
>
U
T
6
Y
L
t
in
00)
O
u
}'
C
o-
-O
C
C
o
E
rn
m
vii
o
1E
_
_
'rn
O
°
L
7
�O
C
u
o
c
7
-.
a°,
o
o
o
a
3
-0
m
6
m
a
0
'6
tp
O
(a
ca
E
-6
r6
.,LN
,h
N
tf
O
U
Ol
C
N
O
C
`^
N
C
LA
U
v
C
N
T
7
O
cp
�
v
Q
°'
°'
c
°;
`g
°
co
c_
�
m
u
°
�°
o
o
u
c
CL
°
o
Q
�a
Q
o
j
E
o
Fo
.0
v
c
a�
�'
v
°+3
u
�,
m
v
U
O
c
u
a
ai
v"
;
c
v
`v
Q
Y
O
c
m
Q
a
a
v
�=
E
+�
c
u
E
v
_�
°°
v
�
°
a°
u°
>
a
c_
�
Q
O
l7
y�
_
a°�
a)
°
-6
+�
Q)
5)
rco
a
p
v
0
t
_c
S
u
fir.
.L
m
D_
O
_O
'O
.'n
'a
u
=
C
C
Y
'^
+�
v
u
H
l7
c0
at
N
O
c
E
Q
U
Q
O
.O
of
c
to
c
C
p
�_
c�
'+
c
°
u
c
O
OV
Q
p
0
O
T
u
u
O
.O
.sn
7
U
C
al
t
t
N
U
'O
•
•
•
_
CO
u
(p
Q)Ta
(2
t
E
Q'
H
v-
u
u
.�
Q
U
+�
F-
�n
v
..�
t r
'k
)
ca
C
_
N
L
r\l
o
I-
°
Y
-o
r6
L
Y
N
•'y
N
N
N
C
m
O
u
C
a1
LL
Q
l7
V
i
L
`�
N
p
X+
zs
G
v
r
2
l7
C
p
O
o
_
•N
m
°
N
N
'O
V
O
C
H
N
m
N
c
o'°
cv
aL-+
j
C
d
O
v4-
�
.p
N
vi
p
u
.'^
vii
T
`
L
o
u
O
p
-0s^
'in
o
?
o
�O
u
CY
a
C
O
E
m
O
O
Q
Q
G
u
C
Y
6
VO
-0
V
'
U
_0
C
s,
C
tf
C
Y
in
CL
(V
I�
Ncp
7
L
W
u
N
N
C
M
I--
C
�
�
E
N
l7
@
�
°
rn
30
p`
�
w
C
'O
E+
(n
p
o
O
C
m
o
'u
o-
>
p
V
. V
N
2
N
0
`0
o
O
o
a)t
C�
ai
aa)
aVi
C
c
v
l
C
.
v
E
`
m
_
,_
-p
�
u
OO
O
_O
O
a/
:3
Y
0.)
4--
W
�p
_
(1)0
C
N
N
vOi
O
c
co
V
U
C
t'
C
7
C
C
i
L
a-+
In
L
U
O
U
u
.0
7
Q
-O
m
ra
Vl
V
O
6
vOi
K
L
E
2
d
C
t
O
0-
v
o,
c
0
C
O
2-
C:
0
C)
°
O
u
rO
C
V
E
.O
V
L
U
i
yYj
u
C
`
a-'
N
C
E
C
O
a)
E
o
—
L
E
v
E
V
a)
3
..:. 0
0)
O
u
c
+
c
oa)
0
70
of
E
-6
-
r
O
..a
V
—
`-'
ax,
C
Y
y
7
Fp
o
O D_
N
0)
_
c
c
°
_O
t
o
o
a)
0
7
0
E
o
a
K2
i a)
C-
—
m
r=
°u
E
c—
c
O
a=
3
�,
Z)
7
m
ca
o
a
a)
Y
c�
Oc
,j a)
u
0
al
7
7
fn
N
a)
+�
a)
1p
�O
E
O
m
0
3
°'
O
al
n
j°
`4 >.
O
> E
O
+�
-O
°
-0
7
7
to
o
RS
co
an
a�
N
t
Y
Y
3
OV
O
E
E
N
'�+
_0
Q'
*'
L
-a+
6
C
'C
`
—
a)
C
u
{a : a
LO
7
N
c
W
-7
V
a)
'O
6
0_
E
-°
m
N
E
3
co
3
0
.N
0
Q-
-6
a6i
-0
-a-+
u
C N E
+'
4J
C
m
a)
Q
a)
C:
mC
L
O
�
7
.�
Y
y
i
a)-0
N
.3 a) E
c
c-
o
-p
fb
ul
Y
c
a)
`)
ca
co
Y
t
C
c
c-
in
7
'
•C
Q ° O
>.
u
v7i
)
m
C
o
0
Z
°u
-O
a''
C
L
,C
+L+
r c
>,
0
a) m
o
a)
•Cl
.�
o
0)
E
N
v
4=
ccv
.�
�O
Ll)
-0
O
u
U
p
u
6'o
-o
c
O
12
>,
ns
�
ns
v
O
u
a
O
`a
Vcif
O_
v
'n
C
of
co
E
C
O
vl
O
J
a)
c
O
O
a)
fa
C
Z
m
C
an
7
a)
O
°
i
N
Ya)
-6
u
aj
aj
2a
Ln
J
p
>
w
3
v
u
a
v
-:3
w
aVi
O
' H
6
vYmi
v
m
F-
Q
d'
-p
c
�
c
Q
i
-0
0
=
N
rs
m
w
C
o
H
p
O
0
n
1O
O
a
a
r
°
E
p
L
U)
m
R
m
J
�EE
0
0
Lr)
,
3
of
3
=
a
..
q)
7
; a
�
v
a
L
I..
m
U
Y
_
3
N
!M1
z
V
i+
V
�
_
a
v
Q
E
3
>
co
Q
v
v
w
0
¢
a
t
Y
A:!N
Y O
M
d
a)
'o
£
o
}
c
x
E
a
Ln
W
0'
=
.m
a
F
o
m
Q
~
E
L
E
2
d
C
t
O
0-
v
o,
c
0
C
O
2-
C:
0
�
�
3
0
.
0
}
(
E
E
o
7
6
3
_
.g
.
:
0
§
)
7
8
\
-
%
/
\
&
]
\]
\%6
%7
3`±
\ \
�
E
_
.cu u
_
§)\
\w
:E%
\
-2
/ 3 §
}
t
c
m
\
q
.}Gj ))
2
c
-
*\
agQj
`
/�
/
0
c
0
0
0
2
\
:
CL
_
.m
k
ƒ
\
0
/
®
m
E
@
0
§
2
E
k/
7
m
/\\
2
2=
c
cm
e.
cu )�±1
@§
2
E
k
3]]m
��
�4\}
!
m
°
7
v
§
9
/
t
E
k
\0
(
°
t;=/
jG)\
'E%
)//\
k
«
2- E
\
\
_
(%
jda%
E
J\&&
0s
}
/ y / \
3
2
/
�()E
§
\
M
\
.2fR/
\
]c
-
E0
5
m
®°&'o_
0E
§
c
{: y/E
_,,_:
E
0
/a
�
E
6 &
g-
ƒ/ja%
G°
2 / 2<
ƒ
2 o
.— c
0w\ao
m \2,§ §/
2
%&
_=
w
umG§, {7{
`
7®-
-q°t2§ � =w)
0
\/
7ƒ\§t�k\§$§12
»dD
E
JE
;aLgZc:
0"' c
<g
c
o: %2 .2 a`
2
/a
�E\J%/\\\»7338\/�;(0c
0
z,
d
e
aaEE/\11—c-0
\�±!»`E:§/ay
`
o
>
20~G
E3\e§\:Fe�oE/%�9c2,°o0
z:/e2comc
-
�w<
0
«u«2 -mo - 0
)0 =»/ƒa/
c
g
§/<�mm
o«k+
um 0ZE-
o.Jauo�S.�-E
2:600)
§
§$\\§3E#§))0 ULn
2)a
7
zzz
uuuuuuowoE>zzz=
K
\
�
2
)
0
�
\
m
§
u
Lu
k
�
\
-
%
\f
&
]
\]
\%6
2=
3`±
\ \
_
.cu u
_
§)\
\w
:E%
-2
/ 3 §
}
.}Gj ))
6))
*\
agQj
`
( £
0
\ \
:
/$
\±2
E\
6<
§
E /
\%
m
/\\
2=
2c
}\§9
cu )�±1
-/
3]]m
j\
�4\}
m
»ao:
/\
\0
t;=/
jG)\
'E%
)//\
2- E
_
(%
jda%
E
J\&&
}
/ y / \
\
�()E
/E
.2fR/
]c
E0
®°&'o_
0E
§
c
{: y/E
_,,_:
E
0
/a
«ate
2�2//
E
6 &
g-
ƒ/ja%
G°
2 / 2<
ƒ
2 o
.— c
0w\ao
m \2,§ §/
2
%&
_=
E«2\\a
umG§, {7{
`
7®-
-q°t2§ � =w)
0
\/
7ƒ\§t�k\§$§12
»dD
E
JE
;aLgZc:
0"' c
<g
c
o: %2 .2 a`
g
/a
�E\J%/\\\»7338\/�;(0c
0
z,
/2=osG�aao�»��m�/�«°)
e
aaEE/\11—c-0
\�±!»`E:§/ay
`
o
>
20~G
E3\e§\:Fe�oE/%�9c2,°o0
z:/e2comc
-
�w<
rIj
«u«2 -mo - 0
)0 =»/ƒa/
c
g
§/<�mm
o«k+
um 0ZE-
o.Jauo�S.�-E
2:600)
§$\\§3E#§))0 ULn
2)a
7
zzz
uuuuuuowoE>zzz=
Exhibit C
Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project -
Findings of Fact
Findings of Fact
In Support of the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal
(CAD) Construction Project (PA2019-020) Final Environmental
Impact Report
State Clearinghouse Number: 2019110340
Certification
In accordance with Section 15090 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the
City of Newport Beach (City), as Lead Agency for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal
(CAD) Construction Project (proposed Project), certifies that:
a. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Project has been completed and
processed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA;
b. The FEIR was presented to the City Council who reviewed and considered the information
contained in the FEIR prior to approving the proposed Project; and
c. The FEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis.
The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21082.1(c) in retaining its own environmental consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of
the EIR, and reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant.
As required by CEQA, the City expressly finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed and information
contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the proposed Project. Based on its review of
the EIR, the City finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposed Project, represents the independent judgment of the
Lead Agency, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to the proposed Project.
In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these Findings
of Fact as part of its certification of the FEIR.
The City is certifying an EIR for, and is approving and adopting findings for, the entirety of the
proposed Project described in the EIR, which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by
government agencies acting as responsible agencies under CEQA. It is contemplated that, in addition
to being used by the Lead Agency, other responsible agencies will use the Certified FEIR for CEQA
compliance purposes in connection with their consideration of discretionary approvals for the
proposed Project.
Findings of Fact 1 May 2021
1 Introduction
These Findings of Fact has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach (City) as the lead agency for
assessing the potential environmental effects associated with approving the Lower Newport Bay
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project (proposed Project), located in the City of
Newport Beach, Orange County, California, pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code
(PRC) and Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines.
Section 21081 of the PRC and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency
shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied
by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
The possible findings are the following:
• Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (FEIR).
• Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
• Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR.
When making the findings, the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the
changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or
substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]
Section 15091). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the
proposed Project.
Additionally, the Lead Agency must not approve a project that will have a significant effect on the
environment unless it finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects
(PRC Section 21081(b); 14 CCR Section 15093).
Findings of Fact 2 May 2021
1.1 Project Overview
1.1.1 Proposed Project
The proposed Project includes construction of a CAD facility in the central portion of Lower Newport
Bay between Bay Island, Lido Isle, and Harbor Island where dredged sediment unsuitable for open
ocean disposal or nearshore placement can be contained. Clean material suitable for beach
nourishment generated from constructing the CAD facility will be transported and disposed of at an
approved open ocean disposal site (LA 3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site) or along the
nearshore ocean beaches. The City is also proposing to allow maintenance dredging in sections of
the Harbor outside the Federal Channels maintenance dredging program area to re-establish safe
navigation.
1.1.2 Project Objectives
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines and 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 15124, a "statement of
the objectives sought by the proposed project" must be provided as part of the project description
in an EIR. The fundamental underlying purpose of the proposed Project is to provide a safe, efficient,
and effective dredged material management option that allows for navigation maintenance dredging
to proceed while protecting the marine environment and recreational users of the Lower Harbor.
Additional project objectives are as follows:
• Identify a disposal location for dredged material deemed unsuitable for open ocean disposal
that meets the following requirements:
— Contains chemically impacted sediment safely and permanently
— Is located within the southern California area and is available for disposal
— Accommodates a small volume of dredged material from outside the Federal Channels
• Dispose of unsuitable dredged sediment in a manner that is safe to human and ecological
health and minimizes secondary environmental impacts.
• Promote beneficial reuse through beach nourishment.
• Dredge limited areas outside the Federal Channels.
Findings of Fact 3 May 2021
1.1.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
CEQA's requirements for an EIR to evaluate alternatives specifically requires that an EIR present a
range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project, or to the location of a project, that could
feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any
significant effects of a project. Therefore, alternatives generally have fewer environmental impacts
than the proposed project by design. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, an
EIR must also include an analysis of a No Project Alternative. Accordingly, the proposed action and
five alternatives that meet most of the proposed Project objectives (described in Section 2.4) include:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative/No Dredging
• Alternative 2: No CAD Construction Alternative
• Alternative 3: Reduced Dredging
• Alternative 4: Upland Trucking of Material
• Alternative 5: Alternative Location within Newport Harbor
The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from the analysis (discussed in
Section 6.2):
• Use of an Electric Dredger
• Disposal of Material at Port Fill Site
1.1.4 CEQA Review
The proposed Project was reviewed by the City in accordance with the requirements of CEQA
(PRC Section 21000 et seq.; 14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.). The City has provided opportunities for
the public to participate in the environmental review process.
The DEIR was released and distributed on December 4, 2020, for a 47 -day review period, which
ended on January 20, 2021. The DEIR includes a full analysis and an Executive Summary that
summarizes the proposed Project, alternatives, and findings. The DEIR was posted on the City's
website at https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community-
development/planning-division/projects-environmental-document-download-page/environmental-
document-download-page where it remains available. It was also posted on the State
Clearinghouse's website at https://ceganet.opr.ca. ovg /2019110340/2. Hard copies of the DEIR and
electronic copies of the technical appendices are available at the following Newport Beach Public
Library locations:
• Central Library
1000 Avocado Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92660
• Crean Mariners Library
Findings of Fact 4 May 2021
1300 Irvine Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92660
• Balboa Library
100 East Balboa Boulevard
Balboa, California 92661
• Corona Del Mar Library
410 Marigold Avenue
Corona Del Mar, California 92625
In addition, a hard copy of the DEIR and electronic copies of the technical appendices are available
for review at the City Public Works Department counter located at the Civic Center, Bay 2-D at
100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660.
The City received 50 comment letters on the DEIR. Several agencies and individuals submitted
multiple comment letters.
On April 14, 2021, the City presented the draft FEIR during a public hearing to the Harbor
Commission with the recommendation to adopt Resolution No. HC2021-002 of the Harbor
Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, recommending the City Council certify
Environmental Impact Report No. ER2021-001, adopt the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and approve the construction of a confined aquatic disposal facility and dredging outside
the Federal Channels in Lower Newport Harbor (PA2019-020). Seven comment letters were received
in advance of the public hearing and eight individuals provided public comments at the meeting.
Pursuant to Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City reviewed all comments received during
the review periods for the DEIR and responded to each comment related to an environmental impact
in Chapter 2 of the FEIR.
Findings of Fact 5 May 2021
2 Project Findings
This section presents the findings for the proposed Project.
2.1 Findings of No Significance and Less -than -Significant Impacts
The proposed Project is not expected to result in environmental impacts or impacts were found to be
less than significant in several resource areas, as summarized in the DEIR.
2.1.1 No Significance
The following resource areas were determined to have findings of no significance in totality:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Energy
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
2.1.2 Findings of Less -than -Significant Impacts
With respect to a number of environmental topics discussed in the DEIR, the City found that the
proposed Project would have no impact or a less -than -significant impact, either directly or
cumulatively, without the need for mitigation. For some resource topics, mitigation measures are
recommended to further ensure impacts would be less than significant. The following sections were
found to have less -than -significant impacts:
2.1.2.1 Aesthetics
• A-1: The proposed Project would have no substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• A-2: The proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway.
• A-3: The proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). The project is not an urbanized area and
would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
• A-4: The proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.
Findings of Fact 6 May 2021
2.1.2.2 Air Quality
• AQ -1: The proposed Project's emissions would not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan.
• AQ -3: The proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
• AQ -4: The proposed Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
2.1.2.3 Biological Resources
• BIO -1: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• BIO -3: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means.
• BIO -5: The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• BIO -6: The proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan.
2.1.2.4 Cultural Resources
• CHR -1: The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
2.1.2.5 Geology and Soils
• GEO-1: The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
— Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault
— Strong seismic ground shaking
— Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction
— Landslides
• GEO-2: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect from substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Findings of Fact 7 May 2021
• GEO-4: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect by being located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property.
• GEO-5: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect related to a location
with soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
• GEO-6: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect by directly or
indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
2.1.2.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• GHG-2: The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
2.1.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• HAZ-1: The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
• HAZ-2: The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• HAZ-3: The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school.
• HAZ-4: The proposed Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
• HAZ-5: The proposed Project would not be located within an airport land use plan area or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
• HAZ-6: The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• HAZ-7: The proposed Project would not involve people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
2.1.2.8 Noise
• NV -1: The proposed Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies.
Findings of Fact 8 May 2021
• NV -2: The proposed Project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.
• NV -3: The proposed Project would not result in, for a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
2.1.2.9 Recreation
• R-2: The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
2.1.3 Findings of Less -than -Significant Impacts Following Mitigation
With respect to the following resource areas, the City found that the proposed Project would have
significant impacts that could be reduced to less than significant following mitigation. For some
resource topics, mitigation measures are recommended to further ensure impacts would be less than
significant. The following sections were found to have less -than -significant impacts after mitigation:
2.1.3.1 Air Quality
2.1.3.1.1 AQ -2: The proposed Project's emissions result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
The SCAQMD has developed quantitative criteria to evaluate the significance of project -related air
emissions. Specifically, the City presumes that a cumulatively considerable net increase would occur
if implementation of the proposed Project would result in emissions that exceed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-established thresholds provided in Table 1 (Table 3-7 in
DEIR). Table 1 shows that the proposed Project would generate construction emissions that exceed
SCAQMD's NOx thresholds. Table 1 includes the entire project, including components of the Federal
Channels maintenance dredging program that would generate the material for the CAD facility
(construction of the CAD facility would begin in 2022).
Table 1
Construction Emissions for Entire Project as Compared to SCAQMD Mass Daily Thresholds
(Pounds per Day)
Project Equipment
CO
NOx
VOCs
I PM.
PM2,
SOx
2021
Mechanical Dredge
16.1
38.0
3.1
0.9
0.9
0.1
Crew/Work Boat
3.1
4.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
<0.1
Findings of Fact 9 May 2021
Notes:
Emissions may not add precisely due to rounding.
Emissions were estimated using CalEEMod 2016.3.1.
The following mitigation measure would be implemented during construction:
• MM -AQ -1 Tugboats Used During Construction: The tugboats used during construction
must meet USEPA Tier 4 engine standards by 2024; if Tier 4 tugboats are not available in years
2021 and 2022, tugboats must meet Tier 3 compliant standards. If applicable Tier -compliant
Findings of Fact 10 May 2021
CO
NOX
VOCs
PUIV
wMZS
sox
Tugboat
40.8
60.2
3.3
2.0
2.0
<0.1
Split -Hull Barge
6.6
9.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
<0.1
Total
66.6
112.4
7.2
3.3
3.3
0.1
SCAQMD Thresholds
550
100
75
150
55
150
Significant?
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
2022
Mechanical Dredge
16.2
38.1
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.1
Crew/Work Boat
3.1
4.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
<0.1
Tugboat
40.8
60.2
3.3
2.2
2.0
0.1
Split -Hull Barge
6.6
9.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
<0.1
Total
66.7
112.6
7.4
3.7
3.4
0.1
SCAQMD Thresholds
550
100
75
150
55
150
Significant?
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
2024
Mechanical Dredge
10.9
53.5
2.2
0.7
0.6
0.1
Crew/Work Boat
6.3
9.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
<0.1
Tugboat
51.0
53.9
3.5
2.8
2.5
0.1
Split -Hull Barge
13.1
19.4
1.1
0.7
0.6
<0.1
Total
81.2
136.0
7.2
4.5
4.0
0.1
SCAQMD Thresholds
550
100
75
150
55
150
Significant?
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
2025
Mechanical Dredge
18.2
70.6
3.6
1.0
1.0
0.1
Crew/Work Boat
6.3
9.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
<0.1
Tugboat
51.0
53.9
3.5
2.5
2.5
0.1
Split -Hull Barge
13.1
19.4
1.1
0.6
0.6
<0.1
Total
88.5
153.1
8.7
4.4
4.4
0.2
SCAQMD Thresholds
550
100
75
150
55
150
Significant?
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Notes:
Emissions may not add precisely due to rounding.
Emissions were estimated using CalEEMod 2016.3.1.
The following mitigation measure would be implemented during construction:
• MM -AQ -1 Tugboats Used During Construction: The tugboats used during construction
must meet USEPA Tier 4 engine standards by 2024; if Tier 4 tugboats are not available in years
2021 and 2022, tugboats must meet Tier 3 compliant standards. If applicable Tier -compliant
Findings of Fact 10 May 2021
tugboats are not available, the City shall purchase Emission Reduction Credits from South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to offset the exceedance of NOx emissions.
Finding: Following the implementation of MM -AQ -1, impacts would be less than significant. USEPA
Tier 4 standards would reduce emissions of PM and NOX by about 90%. Such emission reductions
can be achieved using control technologies, including advanced exhaust gas after treatment on
Tier 1, 2, and 3 engines and novel engine design. While Tier 4 tugboats exist, most of the Tier 4
compliant tugboats are currently used at commercial ports and may not be available for use in
Newport Harbor (Similar to Tier 4 compliant tugboats, hybrid -electric tugboats have been developed
and are being used at southern California ports. However, these tugboats are large ocean going
tugboats used to assist commercial vessels). Therefore, the mitigation allows for Tier 3 standards if
no Tier 4 compliant tugboats are available during the first 2 years of construction. Use of Tier 3
engines in tugboats would reduce emissions below significance in Years 2021 and 2022. Tier 4
compliant tugboats are assumed to be more available by 2024, as more tugboats are retrofitted. Use
of Tier 4 tugboats would also reduce emissions below significance. It should also be noted that the
air analysis is conservative and assumes a longer period of dredging than would likely occur in 2024
and 2025. As noted, if applicable Tier -complaint tugboats are not available, the City would purchase
Emission Reduction Credits from SCAQMD to offset NOX exceedances. Under SCAQMD's Emission
Reduction Credit Program, project applicants can purchase Emission Reduction Credits that have
been verified by the SCAQMD as being real and verified in lieu of direct mitigation. All credits are
generated by projects that lead to emission reductions within the SCAB.
2.1.3.2 Biological Resources
2.1.3.2.1 BI0-2: The proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
There are no known eelgrass beds and therefore, the proposed Project would have less -than -
significant impacts on eelgrass during dredging. While recent surveys have identified the presence of
Caulerpa in Newport Bay, none has been identified in the proposed CAD site at this time. Pre -
construction surveys would be completed prior to all phases of dredging and construction to ensure
Caulerpa is not present in the proposed Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would have
less -than -significant impacts on Caulerpo.
Effects to Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and Coastal Pelagic FMP species from sediment suspension
and turbidity would be temporary and minimal, and the effects would be limited to the immediate
project vicinity during construction. Noise is expected to temporarily impact fish behavior in the
immediate project area during construction activities, but it is unlikely to result in significant
Findings of Fact 11 May 2021
ecological effects to EFH fish species given the steady nature of the noise and the background noise
generated by vessel traffic.
Impacts to benthic habitat are expected to be temporary, limited to the dredging footprint and
disposal areas, and unlikely to result in significant ecological effects to EFH fish species. Dredging is
not expected to exceed temporary and minor impacts to Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and Coastal
Pelagic FMP species, eelgrass, or estuarine habitat from construction -related water and sediment
quality impacts. Additionally, the number of organisms that would be affected would be small; none
of the Pacific groundfish species would occur near the project site except as stray individuals, and the
only member of the Coastal Pelagics likely to be present in substantial numbers is northern anchovy,
a widespread and abundant species. Because of the minor, temporary, and localized nature of the
activities proposed, and the adherence to established special conditions, the proposed Project would
have less -than -significant impacts on EFH and EFH species.
While ere are no known eelgrass beds or Caulerpa within the proposed Project area, the following
mitigation measures would be implemented during construction to ensure there is no potential for
impact:
MM -113I0-1 Pre- and Post -Construction Survey: Consistent with the California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy (CEMP) (NOAA 2014) and Caulerpo Control Protocol (NOAA 2008), a pre -
construction eelgrass and Caulerpa survey shall be performed by the City in the proposed
Project area 30 to 60 days prior to commencement of proposed construction activities in the
Harbor.
— If eelgrass is located during the pre -construction survey, a post -construction survey
shall also be performed by the City within 30 days following completion of construction
to evaluate any immediate effects to eelgrass habitat.
— If Caulerpa is found, the City will immediately notify the Southern California Caulerpa
Action Team, and construction shall not be conducted until such time as the infestation
has been isolated and treated, or the risk of spread from the proposed construction is
eliminated.
• MM -13I0-2 Eelgrass Mitigation: If a post -construction survey is required and indicates loss
of eelgrass habitat within the proposed Project area, any impacts to eelgrass that have not
previously been mitigated for will be mitigated in accordance with the CEMP (NOAA 2014).
In-kind compensatory mitigation is the creation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat to
mitigate for adverse impacts to the same type of habitat. Per the CEMP guidelines for
southern California, for each square meter of vegetated eelgrass cover adversely impacted,
1.38 square meters of new habitat with suitable conditions to support eelgrass should be
planted with a comparable bottom coverage and eelgrass density as impacted habitat
(NOAA 2014). The 1.38:1 ratio assumes the following: 1) there is no eelgrass function at the
Findings of Fact 12 May 2021
mitigation site prior to mitigation efforts; 2) eelgrass function at the mitigation site is achieved
within 3 years; 3) mitigation efforts are successful; and 4) there are no landscape differences
(e.g., degree of urban influence, proximity to freshwater source) between the impact site and
the mitigation site.
Finding: MM -BIO -1 and MM -BIO -2 would ensure that if eelgrass was identified through pre -
construction surveys, no net loss would occur after completion of the proposed Project. If loss was
indicated, mitigation would occur consistent with the CEMP. Therefore, impacts to eelgrass would be
less than significant. MM -BIO -1 would ensure that the proposed Project would not lead to the
spread of Caulerpa.
2.1.3.2.2 BI0-4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Although the proposed Project area is along the Pacific Flyway, an established air route of waterfowl
and other birds migrating between wintering grounds in Central and South America and nesting
grounds in Pacific Coast states and provinces of North America, the developed nature of Lower
Newport Bay likely precludes migratory bird species from using the proposed Project area as a
stopover during their migration.
As discussed in BIO -1, California grunion leave the water at night to spawn on beaches during the
spring and summer months. Nearshore placement is not expected to overlap with spawning. In
addition, sediment placed within the nearshore marine environment will be placed at a safe distance
from the shoreline and with sufficient depth for a tugboat and bottom -dump scow to operate.
Therefore, grunion spawning is not anticipated to be affected.
As discussed in BIO -2, eelgrass provides important foraging areas and shelter to young fish and
invertebrates, food for migratory waterfowl and sea turtles, and spawning surfaces for invertebrates
and fish such as the Pacific herring. There are no known eelgrass beds within the proposed Project
area. However, consistent with the CEMP, pre- and post -construction surveys will be conducted. Any
eelgrass determined to be lost as a result of maintenance dredging activities would be mitigated in
accordance with the CEMP (NOAA 2014).
Based on the analysis presented previously, the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts to movement of fish or wildlife species or wildlife corridors.
Findings: MM -BIO -1 and MM -BIO -2 would ensure that any eelgrass was identified through pre -
construction surveys, and if loss was indicated, mitigation would occur in accordance with the CEMP.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Findings of Fact 13 May 2021
2.1.3.3 Cultural Resources
2.1.3.3.1 CHR -2: The proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Ground -disturbing activities to be undertaken as part of the proposed Project would occur only in
water in previously dredged areas. Federal Channels dredging would extend beyond the vertical
limits of previous dredging, so native sediments may be encountered. The native sediments that
would be encountered have little potential to contain archaeological materials. However, in the
unlikely event that such materials are present, disturbance during construction could constitute a
potentially significant impact.
While the proposed Project is not expected to encounter archaeological resources, in the unlikely
event of such a discovery, the following mitigation measure would be implemented to reduce any
impacts:
• MM -CHR -1: Stop Work in the Area If Prehistoric or Historical Archaeological Resources
Are Encountered. In the event that any artifact, or an unusual amount of bone, shell, or
non-native stone, is encountered during construction, work would be immediately stopped
and relocated to another area. The contractor would stop dredging until a qualified
archaeologist can be retained by the City to evaluate the find (36 CFR 800.11.1 and
14 CCR 15064.5[f]). Examples of such cultural materials might include ground stone tools such
as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped stone tools such as projectile points or
choppers; historic artifacts such as bottles or ceramics; or resource gathering items such as
fish weir stakes. Native American tribes and the Office of Historic Preservation would be
notified of the find. Native American tribes consulted on the proposed Project to date include
the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, and the Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation. If the resources are found to be significant, they would be
avoided or mitigated.
Findings: Adherence to MM -CHR -1 would ensure that any unanticipated find would be protected.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
2.1.3.3.2 CHR -3: The proposed Project would disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
As described under CHR -2, the proposed Project has minimal potential to encounter human remains.
However, in the unlikely event that remains are present in previously undisturbed native sediments,
they could potentially be disturbed during construction, which would constitute a potentially
significant impact.
Findings of Fact 14 May 2021
• MM -CHR -1: In the event that any artifact, or an unusual amount of bone, shell, or non-native
stone, is encountered during construction, work would be immediately stopped and relocated
to another area. The contractor would stop dredging until a qualified archaeologist can be
retained by the City to evaluate the find (36 CFR 800.11.1 and 14 CCR 15064.5[f]). Examples of
such cultural materials might include ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and
manos; chipped stone tools such as projectile points or choppers; historic artifacts such as
bottles or ceramics; or resource gathering items such as fish weir stakes. Native American
tribes and the Office of Historic Preservation would be notified of the find. Native American
tribes consulted on the proposed Project to date include the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians — Kizh Nation, and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation. If the
resources are found to be significant, they would be avoided or mitigated.
Findings: Adherence to MM -CHR -1 would ensure that any unanticipated find would be protected.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
2.1.3.4 Geology/Soils
2.1.3.4.1 GEO-3: The proposed Project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and
potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Because the proposed Project is located in a seismically active area, seismic activity has the potential
to cause accelerations severe enough to cause liquefaction and induce lateral spreading or slope
instability of the CAD facility. While not anticipated, the CAD facility could become unstable during
construction in the case of a major earthquake, which constitutes a potentially significant impact.
• MM-GEO-1: Periodic Monitoring of the CAD Facility. An Operations, Maintenance, and
Monitoring Plan (OMMP) has been developed for the proposed Project to conduct periodic
monitoring of the CAD facility, including bathymetric surveys and cap coring. In the event of a
significant earthquake,' these techniques could be used to monitor the integrity of the CAD
facility final cap layer. As noted, if any changes in environmental conditions or design
assumptions become apparent, then management actions will be considered for the CAD
facility. Initial management actions would likely include increasing the level or frequency of
monitoring. If indicated, the CAD facility cap design would be augmented in one or more of
the following ways:
- Adding more sediment to form a thicker cap
According to NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, a significant earthquake "is classified as one that meets at
least one of the following criteria: caused deaths, caused moderate damage (approximately $1 million or more), magnitude 7.5 or
greater, Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) X or greater, or the earthquake generated a tsunami." (NOAH 2020).
Findings of Fact 15 May 2021
- Changing the cap material to a coarser, more erosion -resistant material type (coarse
sand or gravel)
- Adding enhanced materials to the cap, such as less porous or chemically absorbent
materials
Findings: Adherence to MM-GEO-1 would ensure the CAD facility final containment layer cap is
maintained as designed and impacts would be less than significant,
2.1.3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.1.3.5.1 GHG-1: The proposed Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would come almost exclusively from direct
engine emissions (Table 2; Table 3-9 in Draft EIR). A full description of emission calculations is
included in Appendix F to the Draft EIR.
Table 2
Proposed Project Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per
year)
Anmud
CO2
GHa
N20
COze
2021
119.5
0.001
0.006
119.5
2022
1,448.7
0.017
0.069
1,448.7
2024
119.5
0.001
0.006
119.5
2025
203
0.012
0.010
203
N otes:
Emissions may not add precisely due to rounding.
NA: not applicable
The proposed Project would result in 1,448.7 metric tons of GHG emissions during 2022, the
maximum year of construction. The bulk of the proposed Project's GHG emissions would be from
tugboats and mechanical dredge equipment.
Impact Determination: As shown in Table 2, construction would result in up to 1,448.7 mty during
2022. While GHG emissions associated with construction are temporary, because there is no
applicable numerical threshold for construction, this level of emissions is considered significant.
• MM-GHG-1 Purchase GHG Emission Offsets: The City of Newport Beach shall purchase
annual GHG offset credits to offset GHG emissions during the life of the project. The amount
of credits purchased shall be determined based on updated emission calculations as
determined by the final equipment list secured by the contractor and using industry accepted
GHG calculation methods. Off-site mitigation credits shall be real, quantifiable, permanent,
Findings of Fact 16 May 2021
verifiable, enforceable, and additional, consistent with the standards set forth in Health and
Safety Code section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2). Such credits shall be based on
protocols consistent with the criteria set forth in Section 95972, subdivision (a), of Title 17 of
the California Code of Regulations, and shall not allow the use of offset projects originating
outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency
under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by SCAQMD. Such credits must be
purchased within 90 -days following the conclusion of each operational year through one of
the following: (i) a CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American
Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry approved by CARB to act
as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or (iii) through the CAPCOA GHG Rx
and the SCAQMD. Proof of purchase of the off-site mitigation credits shall be retained by the
City.
Emissions controls for construction equipment were considered. MM -AQ -1 requires the use of Tier 4
tugboats. While Tier 4 standards do not address GHG directly, more efficient Tier 4 engines may use
less fuel, which would also reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, depending on the specific construction
equipment procured, emissions may be lower than reported. Consistent with this mitigation
measure, emissions calculations will be updated, and the City will purchase credits to offset the
resultant emissions. Offset credits would be procured from a broker certified by ARB to ensure
credits are real, verified, additional, and permanent,
This analysis also considered emission controls for the dredger, namely an electric dredger, which
has been required for dredging projects at southern California ports. While an electric dredger could
reduce criteria air pollutant emissions, electric dredge equipment would result in GHG emissions
from electricity production. In addition, electric dredgers may not be available or practical for use in
the Lower Harbor.
Findings: With the inclusion of MM-GHG-1, impacts would be less than significant.
2.1.3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
2.1.3.6.1 HYDRO -1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
The proposed Project has the potential to impact water quality temporarily during proposed
construction and marine -based operations (i.e., dredging and material placement for nearshore
disposal and at the CAD facility site). The long-term use of a CAD facility would not have any
significant impact on water quality. The stability and placement of the final cap layer for the CAD
facility was analyzed and modeled to ensure proper stability for construction and design thickness.
Nearshore disposal of sediments for beneficial reuse by beach nourishment has the potential to
Findings of Fact 17 May 2021
impact water quality temporarily during disposal operations. While overly conservative,
environmental monitoring will be performed during disposal events (i.e., nearshore disposal for
beach nourishment and material placement at the CAD facility) to confirm compliance with water
quality standards. Material placement within the CAD facility should be timed based on the tides to
limit material loss outside the CAD facility as determined by STFATE model runs (Appendix G to the
BODR) and detailed in the mitigation measures. These activities would constitute a potentially
significant impact.
MM -HYDRO -1: Conduct water quality monitoring during all construction activities. The
project will obtain the required permits under the RWQCB and/or the USACE. Water quality
monitoring will be implemented to comply with numeric receiving water limitations
(Table HYDRO -1) and other permit requirements during construction activities to minimize
potential water quality impacts to Lower Newport Bay.
Table HYRO-1
Numeric Receiving Water Limitations
• MM -HYDRO -2: Implement Water Quality BMPs. Construction contractors shall use BMP
water quality controls to ensure compliance with the water quality standards identified herein.
Measures could include use of a silt curtain during dredging and/or material placement, a
floating boom to be maintained around the proposed Project area, and daily inspection of
construction equipment for leaks or malfunction. Storage or stockpiling of materials related to
construction may be prohibited where such materials could enter the waters of Lower
Newport Bay.
• MM -HYDRO -3: Material placement will take place outside tidal extremes. Material placement
activities should be limited to neap and non -peak tides (i.e., plus or minus 2 hours from slack
tide) to limit the horizontal distribution of fill material due to reduced current speeds, where
possible. In addition, placement activities should be conducted during a non -peak flood tide
versus a non -peak ebb tide. These measures will limit the loss of fill material outside the CAD
facility during placement operations.
Findings of Fact 18 May 2021
Pyr
Eelgrm Present Wilithilin 300 Feet
ftlWan Not Present Within 300 Feet
Transmissivity
38%
16%
Turbidity
16 NTU
47 NTU
pH
7 < pH < 8.6; < 0.2 change from ambient
Dissolved Oxygen
>5 mg/L
• MM -HYDRO -2: Implement Water Quality BMPs. Construction contractors shall use BMP
water quality controls to ensure compliance with the water quality standards identified herein.
Measures could include use of a silt curtain during dredging and/or material placement, a
floating boom to be maintained around the proposed Project area, and daily inspection of
construction equipment for leaks or malfunction. Storage or stockpiling of materials related to
construction may be prohibited where such materials could enter the waters of Lower
Newport Bay.
• MM -HYDRO -3: Material placement will take place outside tidal extremes. Material placement
activities should be limited to neap and non -peak tides (i.e., plus or minus 2 hours from slack
tide) to limit the horizontal distribution of fill material due to reduced current speeds, where
possible. In addition, placement activities should be conducted during a non -peak flood tide
versus a non -peak ebb tide. These measures will limit the loss of fill material outside the CAD
facility during placement operations.
Findings of Fact 18 May 2021
Findings: Water quality monitoring during proposed construction activities would ensure
compliance with water quality standards and minimize impacts to the surrounding water column and
marine communities. Implementing specific BMPs would minimize impacts to surrounding waters
during dredging, nearshore placement, and excavation of the CAD facility. Limiting material
placement based on tidal activity would reduce impacts to surrounding water quality and marine
communities by ensuring material is placed accurately. These mitigation measures would result in
the aforementioned activities being less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
2.1.3.7 Recreation
2.1.3.7.1 R-1: The proposed Project would increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The waters within Lower Newport Bay, as well as within the nearshore Pacific Ocean, are used for a
wide range of recreational boating activities such as sport fishing, kayaking, diving, wind surfing,
sailboat racing, and excursion and entertainment boat activities. These uses would be maintained
and enhanced with the proposed Project in the long term. The proposed Project would not result in
growth that would increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities or result in the
physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities. While there would be short-term restrictions
on some recreational activities in the immediate area, removal of unsuitable sediments and
placement into the CAD facility preserves the existing uses of the Lower Harbor, including navigation,
which contributes to providing needed support for recreational and commercial boaters. Most
recreational activities could be sufficiently relocated to other appropriate areas within Lower
Newport Harbor.
However, although temporary, interference with recreational sailing and regattas in Newport Harbor
are anticipated during CAD facility construction, which could result in a potentially significant impact.
• MM-REC-1 Coordinate with Sailing Centers: The City would coordinate with the sailing
organizations and yacht clubs to relocate recreational and mooring activities and minimize
the disruption to marine recreational activities.
Findings: Following implementation of MM-REC-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Findings of Fact 19 May 2021
2.1.3.8 Tribal Cultural Resources
2.1.3.8.1 TCR -1: The proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No impacts to tribal cultural resources are expected. If archaeological materials or human remains
are encountered during construction, these could be considered tribal cultural resources. However, in
the unlikely event that such materials are present, disturbance during construction could constitute a
potentially significant impact. While the proposed Project is not expected to encounter tribal
resources, in the unlikely event of such a discovery, MM -CHR -1 would be implemented to reduce any
impacts.
Findings: With implementation of MM -CHR -1, there would be a less -than -significant impact on
tribal cultural resources.
2.2 Findings of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As outlined in the DEIR and FEIR, the City hereby finds that the proposed Project would not result in
significant or unavoidable impacts.
2.3 Findings on Cumulative Impacts
2.3.1 No or Less -than -Significant Impacts
As detailed in the DEIR, the following resource areas were determined to have findings of no or less -
than -significant cumulative impacts:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Energy
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
Findings of Fact 20 May 2021
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Finding: For the above resource areas, the proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future related projects, does not have the potential to result in significant
cumulative impacts when its independent impacts and the impacts of related projects combine to
create impacts greater than those of the proposed Project alone.
2.3.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As outlined in the DEIR and FEIR, the City hereby finds that in conjunction with other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future related projects, the proposed Project does not have the potential
to result in significant cumulative impacts when its independent impacts and the impacts of related
projects combine to create impacts greater than those of the proposed Project alone.
2.4 Findings on the Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Chapter 6 of the DEIR discusses the environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed Project. A
description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the proposed
Project, and the City's findings are listed in this section.
CEQA's requirements for an EIR to evaluate alternatives specifically requires that an EIR present a
range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project, or to the location of a project, that could
feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any
significant effects of a project. Therefore, alternative generally have fewer environmental impacts
than the proposed Project by design. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, an
EIR must also include an analysis of a No Project Alternative. Through the alternatives process, three
Project alternatives plus the No Project Alternative were carried forward for impact analysis in the DEIR.
In making findings on alternatives to the proposed Project, the City certifies that it has independently
reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the DEIR, including the
information provided in the comments on the DEIR and the responses included in the FEIR. The City
further finds that the FEIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project and would substantially lessen one or
more of the significant impacts of the proposed Project, and adequately evaluates the comparative
merits of each alternative.
Findings of Fact 21 May 2021
2.4.1.1 Alternative 1: No Project
The No Project Alternative analyzes what would be expected to occur if the proposed Project were
not approved. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative
shall:
...discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is
published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the
environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably
expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,
based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and
community services.
The No Project Alternative analyzes what would be expected to occur if the proposed Project were
not approved. Under the No Project Alternative, dredging of unsuitable material within the Federal
Channels or City -managed locations outside of the Federal Channels would not occur, and the CAD
facility would not be constructed. As such, chemically impacted materials would remain in place in an
unconfined manner. Navigation would continue to be impaired, and the Lower Harbor would
continue to experience reduced tidal flushing due the shallower water depths. Not constructing the
CAD facility would mean that beach nourishment would not occur, and as a result, coastal erosion
could be exacerbated. By not removing these sediments and instead allowing them to remain within
the Federal Channels and other areas of Lower Newport Bay where they could be resuspended by
vessel activities, the No Project Alternative does not minimize potential risks to the aquatic biota or
people that recreate within the Lower Harbor.. Chemicals in the environment are typically only able to
cause impacts when they are mobilized within the water column through resuspension or when they
diffuse into the water from the upper layers of the sediment. The proposed Project would seek to
relocate the impacted sediments into a deep hole (CAD facility), which would eliminate those
potential risks for future exposures. One of the added benefits of constructing the CAD facility for
material disposal is that the underlying sediments in the target location for the CAD facility contain
clean, high-quality, beach sand, which can be used to nourish the adjacent ocean shoreline. This
benefit would be eliminated under the No Project Alternative
2.4.1.2 Alternative 2: No CAD Construction
Alternative 2 includes dredging of unsuitable material, but no CAD construction. Under the No CAD
Construction Alternative, any dredged sediment deemed unsuitable for open ocean disposal would
be dewatered and trucked to a permitted upland landfill facility. Because the CAD facility would not
be constructed, clean material suitable for beach nourishment generated from constructing the CAD
facility would not be transported and disposed at an approved open ocean disposal site or along the
nearshore ocean beaches. The City would allow maintenance dredging in sections of the Lower
Harbor outside the Federal Channels to re-establish safe navigation under this alternative.
Findings of Fact 22 May 2021
2.4.1.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Dredging
Under this scenario, less dredging would occur (likely in Newport Channel), and the CAD facility
would be constructed but with a smaller footprint. Because the CAD facility would be smaller, less
suitable material would be available for beach nourishment. All impacts that would occur as part of
the proposed Project would likely occur under this reduced project scenario, except air and GHG
emissions would likely be less because dredging and construction equipment use would be reduced.
Under this scenario, however, there would be impacts to navigation in the areas where dredging
would not occur.
2.4.1.4 Alternative 4: Upland Trucking of Material
Under this scenario, the same amount of dredging would occur, and the CAD facility would be
constructed but with a smaller footprint. It is assumed that approximately half of the material to be
deposited in the CAD facility would instead be trucked to an upland disposal facility (similar to
Alternative 2). The overall construction schedule would likely increase as the CAD facility would
require a similar construction schedule and equipment list. A new construction element to dewater
and transport a portion of the material by truck would be added. Under this scenario, all impacts that
would occur as part of the proposed Project would likely occur, with several resource areas likely to
have more impacts. Air and GHG emissions would increase because construction equipment uses
and added emissions from truck trips would occur. Air emissions may also be located closer to
sensitive receptors during upland construction elements and truck trips. Increased noise impacts may
occur, and the staging area for dewatering and truck transfer may be located closer to residential
and other sensitive receptors.
2.4.1.5 Alternative 5: Other CAD Facility Locations Within Newport Harbor
Alternative 5 includes an analysis of alternate locations in the Lower Harbor for the potential CAD
facility. The following three alternate potential locations within Lower Newport Bay are being
evaluated: Turning Basin, Newport Channel 1, and adjacent to Main Channel 1. In reviewing the
alternate locations, factors such as availability of existing sediment data, review of historic
bathymetric surveys to understand the rate of sedimentation since the Lower Harbor's initial
construction, and availability of existing geotechnical data were considered. If the alternate location
is within an area where the existing sediment would likely be determined unsuitable, a dual -cell CAD
concept would be required, wherein an initial temporary CAD cell is created to hold the veneer
sediments, and a second CAD cell receives the remainder of the bay sediments. Once the second
CAD facility is constructed, the veneer sediment from the initial CAD facility would then be excavated
and placed in the second CAD cell, requiring double -handling of the material. Alternatively, both the
Findings of Fact 23 May 2021
initial and second CAD facilities could remain intact permanently. Table 1-2 present a comparison of
the proposed alternative sites.
Table 1-2
Comparison of Proposed Alternative Sites
Findings of Fact 24 May 2021
{eeLl
Turning
600 x 600
360,000 • Close proximity to unsuitable
Potential area of unsuitable material:
Basin
! material areas (Main Channel
would likely require disposing of
North 1 and 2, Turning
unsuitable layer first or two CAD
Basin)
sites
• In area of commercial
• Additional chemistry and
properties (less public
geotechnical data would be required
housing in Turning Basin)
in central portion of Turning Basin
• Authorized depths within Turning
Basin deeper than other alternative
sites: placement of material in the
CAD facility would be suspended
longer in the water column,
potentially resulting in greater water
quality impacts
Main
250 x 1,300
325,000 • Outside the main Federal
• Potential area of unsuitable material
Channel
Channels
would likely require disposing of
1
• Close proximity to other
unsuitable layer first or two CAD
unsuitable material areas
sites
(Main Channel North 1 and 2
• Additional chemistry and
and Turning Basin)
geotechnical data would be required
• Slope stability may be required
between the Main Channel (-20 feet
MLLW) and top of CAD (-10 feet
MLLW)
• Narrower channel and adjacent to
residential (Lido Isle) — potential
temporary access restrictions to
residential docks during construction
Newport
590 x 590
348,100 • Close to unsuitable material
• Potential area of unsuitable material:
Channel
in Newport Channel 1
would likely require disposing of
1
• Close proximity to
unsuitable layer first or two CAD
geotechnical sample
sites
• Adjacent to residential (Lido Isle and
peninsula)
• Existing mooring area
• Additional chemistry sampling
required in this location
Findings of Fact 24 May 2021
2.4.2 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 1 provides a summary comparison of the potential environmental impacts after
implementation of mitigation measures resulting from the proposed Project and alternatives relative
to the topics analyzed in the DEIR. Table 2 provides a summary of the ability of the Alternatives to
meet the Project Objectives. As shown, the No Project Alternative results in the least environmental
impacts. However, the No Project Alternative does not meet any project objectives.
Table 1
Comparison of Potential Impacts from Proposed Project and Alternatives (with Incorporation
of Mitigation)
Notes:
+ : Impacts would increase as compared to proposed Project.
Impacts would be reduced as compared to proposed Project.
LTS: Less -Than -Significant Impact
NI: No Impact
SU: Significant and Unavoidable
Findings of Fact 25 May 2021
2 oil
r
�Y'
Aesthetics
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
Air Quality
LTS
LTS-
SU
LTS-
LTS-
LTS-
Biological Resources
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
Cultural Resources
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
Geology/Soils
LTS
NI-
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI -
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
LTS
LTS
SU,
LTS
SU+
LTS
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
LTS
SU+
SU+
LTS
SU+
SU+
Hydrology/Water Quality
LTS
LTS
SU+
LTS
SU+
LTS
Land Use and Planning
LTS
NI-
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI -
Noise
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
Recreation
LTS
NI-
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI -
Tribal Cultural Resources
LTS
NI-
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI -
Notes:
+ : Impacts would increase as compared to proposed Project.
Impacts would be reduced as compared to proposed Project.
LTS: Less -Than -Significant Impact
NI: No Impact
SU: Significant and Unavoidable
Findings of Fact 25 May 2021
Table 2
Comparison of Ability to Meet Project Objectives
2.5 Conclusion
Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City must balance the benefits of the
proposed Project against unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the
proposed Project. The proposed Project would not result in significant unavoidable impacts to any
resource area. The City further finds that the City has ) adopted all feasible mitigation measures and
approved the project design features included in the FEIR; and ii) rejected alternatives to the
proposed Project, as discussed above.
Findings of Fact 26 May 2021
Alternative
5: Other
Locations
Proposed
k No
2: No CAD
3: Reduced
4. Upland
Within the
Ob'
Project
Project
Construction
Dredging
Trucking
Harbor
Identify a disposal location for
dredged material deemed
unsuitable for open ocean disposal
that meets the following
requirements:
• Contains chemically
impacted sediment safely
Yes
No
No
Yes, but to
Yes
Yes
and permanentlya
lesser
extent than
• Is located within the
southern California area
the
and is available for
Yes
No
No
Proposed
Yes
Yes
disposal
Project
• Accommodates a small
volume of dredged
material from outside the
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Federal Channels
Dispose of unsuitable dredged
sediment in a manner that is safe to
human and ecological health and
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
minimizes secondary environmental
impacts.
Yes, but to
a lesser
Promote beneficial reuse through
extent than
beach nourishment.
Yes
No
No
the
No
Yes
Proposed
Project
Dredge limited areas outside the
Federal Channels.
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
2.5 Conclusion
Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City must balance the benefits of the
proposed Project against unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the
proposed Project. The proposed Project would not result in significant unavoidable impacts to any
resource area. The City further finds that the City has ) adopted all feasible mitigation measures and
approved the project design features included in the FEIR; and ii) rejected alternatives to the
proposed Project, as discussed above.
Findings of Fact 26 May 2021
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven, the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2021-46 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting
of said Council held on the 25th day of May, 2021, and the same was so passed and adopted by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Mayor Brad Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon, Council Member Noah Blom, Council
Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield,
Council Member Will O'Neill
NAYS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 261h day of May, 2021.
r
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
P0_ R�
P