Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
C-2483(E) - Unit II Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control & Restoration Project, Joint Powers Agreement, Restore Wetland Habitat
ijf7,.- I V;A i t i Screencheck Submitted: Draft EIR Circulated: Final EIR Certified: November 26, 1985 December 23. 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Project (E /SMP) State Clearinghouse #85091819 Lead Agency: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ATTN: Ms. Patricia L. Temple Environmental Coordinator Planning Department (714) 644-3225 Prepared By: CULBERTSON, ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 26141 Marguerite Parkway, Suite C Mission Viejo, California 92692 ATTN: Andriette Adams Kevin Culbertson (714) 643 -1622 TABLE OF CONTENTS a I Page 1 -1 1 -1 I -3 1 -3 III -1 111 -4 III -15 111 -16 IV -1 IV -8 IV -10 IV -20 IV -32 IV -36 IV -42 IV -44 I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Introduction B. Organization of this EIR C. Profile of Consultation and Input D. Executive Summary II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ' III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Introduction B. Description of the Proposed Project C. Impacts Found not to be Significant D. Matrix of Permit Approvals IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' A. Biological Resources B. Water Quality C. Noise D. Air Quality E. Surrounding Land Use F. Relevant Planning G. Aesthetics H. Harbor Circulation V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES VI. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS VII. LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT VIII. INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS IX. INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES X. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED XI. BIBLIOGRAPHY XII. APPENIDX a I Page 1 -1 1 -1 I -3 1 -3 III -1 111 -4 III -15 111 -16 IV -1 IV -8 IV -10 IV -20 IV -32 IV -36 IV -42 IV -44 r I it it i r r r r Ir LIST OF EXHIBITS Page 1. Regional Location I11-2 2. Vicinity III -3 3. Approach A - Upper Bay III -7 4. Approach A - Harbor III -8 5. Approach B - Upper Bay III -11 6. Approach B - Harbor III -12 7. Unit lI Resources IV -3 8. Tidal Zones IV -4 9. Noise Monitoring Locations IV -13 10. Hydraulic Dredge L50 Noise Contours IV -16 11. Clamshell Dredge L50 Noise Contours IV -17 12A. Relative Odor Impact with Hydraulic Dredge Option IV -28 (Typical Meteorological Conditions) 12B. Relative Odor Impact with Hydraulic Dredge Option IV -29 (Worst Case Meteorological Conditions) 13A. Relative Odor Impact with Clamshell Dredge Option IV -30 (Typical Meteorological Conditions) I3B. Relative Odor Impact with Clamshell Dredge Option IV -31 (Worst Case Meteorological Conditions) 14. Surrounding Land Use IV -33 15. Tug and Scow Perspective IV -43 LIST OF TABLES Page I. Upper Newport Bay Unit II Funding III -5 2. Orange County Noise Ordinance Standards IV -10 3. Noise Levels for Hydraulic Dredge IV -11 4. Noise Levels in Nearby Residential Areas (dBA) IV -14 5. L50 Noise Levels for Dredge Operations IV -15 6. Air Quality Levels Measured at the Costa Mesa IV -21 Ambient Air Monitoring Station 7. Daily Emissions for Unit 11 Operations IV -22 8. Total Emissions for Unit II Operations IV -23 9. Comparison of Emissions with Regional Emissions IV -23 I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I I I I I I I I I I i 1 1 I I [1 I i I 11 A. INTRODUCTION This environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared for the City of Newport Beach to evaluate the environmental consequences resulting from the implementation of the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Project (E /SMP). This public works project is the final step in the Bay in a series of actions undertaken by state and local agencies to protect and restore Upper Newport Bay. Under management of the Department of Fish and Game, with the City of Newport Beach administering the engineering and construction projects, the Bay restoration and protection has been implemented through a cooperative agreement among the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, the California Department of Fish 1 and Game, and The Irvine Company. This final component of the restorative work in the Bay is described in detail in the Project Description section of this EIR. ' This EIR is an informational document designed to inform decision makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of this project and the possible ways those effects might be minimized or eliminated through mitigation measures or alternatives. It is intended that this EIR be considered in the decision - making process, along with other information presented on this project, such as the engineering reports and public proceedings on the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15200, this EIR is intended to serve the following purposes of review: a. sharing expertise, b. disclosing agency analyses, C. checking for accuracy, d. detecting omissions, e. discovering public concerns, and f. soliciting counter proposals. The City of Newport Beach has endeavored to identify and discuss every significant impact, mitigation measure, and project alternative using its best efforts to forecast, while also incorporating all requests by the public and responsible agencies for ' consideration of specific measures and /or alternatives. An infinite array of alternate construction measures, with minor variations from those presented herein, may be developed with the material contained in this EIR. These, too, will be considered in the public hearing process. It is believed that this EIR provides sufficient information for the public and decision makers to construct alternatives which were not brought to the attention of the City of Newport Beach during the consultation process. B. ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIR A rich historical background accompanies any evaluation of the Upper Newport Bay. A complete discussion of all the actions taken with reference to the Bay would be prohibitively lengthy. The Background and History section, therefore, summarizes the key activities that have been implemented or approved fo- ay enhancement and protection, and refers the reader to several technical and non - technical sources for further information. The section entitled Profile of Consultation and Input discloses the efforts of the City to obtain public input prior to the issuance of the Draft EIR, and to incorporate the concerns raised into the analytical discussions therein. I -1 I The consultation conducted also revealed the regulatory constraints, particularly those of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which narrow the range of alternatives which are considered feasible. The Project Description section describes the proposed actions in detail. While the basic excavation locus is ascertained, the precise manner of excavation has not been finally decided. There are two principal alternative means for disposing of the dredge spoil. To fully disclose the environmental impacts of the disposal operation, this EIR will treat these two disposal alternatives equally throughout the EIR. This approach provides a more comprehensive treatment than inclusion of an array in the Alternatives section, as the discussion of alternatives is subject to fewer detail requirements than that of the proposed project. More remote, less feasible possibilities for disposal are addressed in the Alternatives section. The Appendix contains two important features for the understanding of this EIR. It contains a discussion of EIR Structure and Analysis which will acquaint the reader with the legal requirements and approach for this EIR. Secondly, it contains a Glossary of terms used in this EIR and its studies. Every effort has been made in this EIR to devise and cause implementation of mitigation measures and policies which ensure that certain minimum standards of environmental integrity are met. In reality, the project itself can be viewed as a mitigation measure, an action taken to enhance the environment. While mitigation can certainly be devised to minimize the impacts of undertaking the project, the fact remains that the project itself is the environmentally superior alternative to allowing the Bay to become further degraded by sediment. As such, the reader should be aware that the array and variety of project alternatives are necessarily limited to the questions of whether to undertake the project at all and whether to alter the way in which the project is to be undertaken. It should further be noted that development projects in the watershed, which may contribue to sedimentation, have relied on the implementation of the restoration and protection programs in the Bay, of which the proposed project is a part, as a mitigation measure to their own impacts. Viewed in this context, the project is part of a continuing regional program for improvement and protection of the Bay. Federal Involvement The entire E /SMP is to be undertaken with state and local funds under state and local authority. Particular limited aspects of the project require federal agency permits, such as a Section 404 from the Army Corps of Engineers for projects undertaken in a navigable waterway. All agencies -- federal, state and local - -have been contacted during the EIR preparation, and their input has been incorporated. While the E /SMP does not constitute a "major federal action" within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, Section 102(c), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), every effort has been made to prepare this EIR in such a manner as it may be automatically utilized as an Environmental Assessment for those federal agencies issuing permits. I I -2 I I a I State Involvement The California Coastal Commission has discretionary authority over projects located in the coastal zone. Approval of a permit will be necessary from the Coastal Commission to undertake the project. Further, permission must be secured from the State Lands Commission (the owner of the UNBER) and the State Department of Fish and Game (the manager of the UNBER). C. PROFII.E OF CONSULTATION AND INPUT The City of Newport Beach held a Scoping Meeting on September 17, 1985 to receive public input for the preparation of the EIR. Input received has been incorporated into appropriate discussions in this EIR. The City also distributed 34 Notices of Preparation and 123 Non - Statutory Advisements. All comments received have been incorporated into this EIR. D. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this executive summary is to acquaint the reader, in abbreviated form, with the impacts, mitigation approaches, and alternatives to the project as proposed. Since this is a summary, the reader must look to the body of the EIR for detailed discussion of issues and impacts. This summary is divided into three sections: 1. An identification of each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect. 2. Areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by responsible agencies and the public. 3. Issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. Only those issues which are environmental in character are addressed herein, even though there are collateral planning issues. Some issues, such as the choice of excavation methods, are not fully within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach and will be influenced by decisions of other agencies. 1-3 I H m i L M v � v Y a Y CL v u u m to N o V O O v d b0 to a C C O C T N v •'^ c a1 •« 00 6V1 i+ v •O v 'v L L Y L T Eroro v L w v0. 3 OY « a;Yro c o010 v on � >c 3 E v y v„ v ro n a v p 0 ro Q y L -0 U ro 1w-r Y Fd Z ' m ¢ O ro y a) W co 0 -o ,L H C O y v v 11 Y >, L U O t E U O ro> U w y., c y ,:^ y to y '0 O y V [ M O V E 0 " .O 7 •= C. > N b U r a ro w +'r- e b c a v C ro r O y ro w L .0 N Y V¢ y ti CY ro a acd =ac« ��'3 o�'D • CC: 'o m $E«TE` m` o o Y L Y E 0.- Y v ..� •- c r . ro •- ro Y « u $ c c� � v v o c; v a+ v"" m ro'� v °0U w4) •+� ro bc O ro O p ro W u Y E. O C. +. O° n• >. O u °1. L N p U Z v ro 0 ¢. ro v m Y ro t° t ° b o F aY n Y a 6 o ro ,p N L 'Y f�tl v Y 'O to c- :) c c L iJ O YO c •_ •« N E O c CIO ro M v y N y y N N ro �yai°•c' v o a i v 2S > ro ro° tL9 «.T.b > ra b y �, E y w c L C N o.� ro Y•E v H T c �m wr. •�, 7 L U> c '> N M �' c.0 o . 'd ° 4 ro > w > ro° Ca Y u 3 3 w A v �•�t .a � v" G E T 0 O T° 6'O-' c > w 9 Gw V7 L -� > CO - � Fes« I H v u Q V ro d v v ° d NI 0 Z I 11 L • d > � O v > v v E v y d ro m ro u i m ro ro c v 5 o v i o% ro D mo E m c 0 N E N o 0 a) w i Cp .ro i u ro ..N_ V N '.. L A d O° �' ` A L L 'E u E _ N y� ro ° L �ro E 0Aary .0uo 33E'E oa `vE o ca, �c > o EEo r . 3 N u° v 3 W.0 r �c ° =7 v u vv 3 a cao�.N� ro O C1 C a O =m.N N 3 H C v 4) a ro y LbmE°'E°caro C1 7 ra °L°v Ea�� CJ a^ C ,� uc�c n.i v c ooy o ��•o.Y v Y c «°. c 0 �� v ° o E c o c L om �. 0 ar a E o 3'� v v E c m °Q� >«"3�ro �� a m o.0 Q >> n +�L°o °gc.A� «uy; ;;vg� ° •OO > u °xc�v a o vca—°c Nnu o0 5ro. an •C E H y o w y W° •r N (i G d° ♦+ H i y EO C r a0 c v x E Y E o O O ^' 0 a C > rop 0 Q u V Io N N A ¢ooa3o Uo «v WA�v m o m Q Z 2 i ro m , ie u A n v 0.0 L o L v m 0 3 0.0 v o $mom y" 0) r «A ro > m o > 3 ` c > cu L N 4 t N c t 3 N Cl V N N N «� ro '•: o c mL :• � L . n°°. C c.,C0 co M o ro o;° ou L O.c to O.y ro v cL _,a O L N CJ V L CJ b0 C L F w V m F w C.� F w 11 r E T E 2 D E n D,a D 0 ; < w aSa <v Sad :; �3v.o n 0� w n c °w o 0 o =w N 0 ° o`0a �n En 0 CD Tna :E �• 0 N N pDv n n N , O w a ao a oa a n M n D n n n ^• a o c T S N CT n rD fD .� n M o w X o n ° a (D N o cu o n (D a 0 T E TO.o So Dc "rDOaa°C. E CD o-a o - °c ,»aaDn °a� n N ° n ° S oo Oao�>c N . o° cmc°x M n (D o 0) o (D (D (Da1 oq a- oo :X o EM.o Na 30'<Wr nn vw n 0•w °-a °a w CL CL <•w , C CD c n' w rn a ° ^` a a- o H (7'< a o c c ay o o nay o0 0 �003macaoo �3 a- CL a o n n" 3TcoM m c o i rD a Q O 0o N- nan0rol< - M op C a 3 0 (D w`M a ° x '" D EN a o3 > 3 n w ac a 3 n n c) -0 oo � c � N w =o w o H w D v oo on ID� �� o' Fro w o H CT a- '< n a 7 x 0 0 0 .. :3 N 3 n n n 10 n ° �. 0ne?a m n as 003 tea^ 0 m o 00 n 0 n o ro Q •+ LA cn 0 a s -1 p a a 0 n n 3 "3 o n D ha N v a a N o 'n' N N po 3 w w D D any D D v � £ o 3 w °a c ° n .v .' a c n n < n pp W D- :r n n D D 1oc N non a Znw cn to a -i c a 3 a 3 n mac3 rD n ou, o; v D D o a� v a (b ° ° n o S S W D D EA a o 3 3 3 ao3 n n .v a a ago N N pp W D D •o n v w <� 0 0 non Znw s s D D w c w 2 0 c 000 u L O t t ¢ N C c O h C N O u L v N U ro � 0 A O o >rY ° roE'u^E ad) y a =Iuo y c o 0 3 ¢ y o t W V bA ro N •�,� 3v o Yb =^ ro c =nc. A 3-c Em.o u �vL ro 2 in. —nro V) Wuu u O Y c '0 ¢ ' a t C o ° c u -a L ° :3 0o 3 E E m c v u u u a to O •Eou O a O L V A L m �c �oO. L v� oo a yc •� u ro v_ ro «ro ooeco b cvroF -- v IV E E c 3 u v . ae.oro E h Nov; > E'er Oro. vo 0. > ¢ < ° u u D c , o V, ° Y a a Y � M L ro rd ¢ < ro 0 ` to - N N � e o u ro ro uoc u u 0 u ro E E ¢ Z . h N i < < ro u u u 7 > U L ` U � U O O ro L a L °a > C Lu c ¢ ¢ ro � to o � N ro N ro 'r u u ZIE W�° V) C_ y < < ro o b v O ; u Y O ro A ° Y c L L L ° o < ¢ b N N L Y C d d E� E E ro 3 F vi N vI u o c < < v u > °? u ro u b Z aEx onEx a IM n man `° OE n < .. '^ a a as Q (D `DnwVOC c �^�a ;o X 0 m y D �o �onw vim ma y o 3 m •0 c Tm m �•o a� w a == C. n oMµD�� 0oc,00ov °w n ommCD ^n °a�a� Hm!;mrZoon� rb oc� °� ;rr <' �v� m gym, 0tom •< +mca + m3E >>d cmm E < ° °c ^ m a '0 ° . M < Qm a` M m m yc ^ o Z n (n p 0 w w o 3 m m ° w 0 0 o n D D 0 0 0 0 0 ° a n a n c n D D N 7' M (D Z (A a w LA r00OHSx0 n 3 .w m 3 W 00�.3 m 'm a3 0 fu 0 j0_°.w 3 n- . <v c rrDD o. + a w a y m w S -•N m m° m a a< a y o o m 3 n w m w 7 n D ,c m m a `< o a » w o a o 3 (D ro v a w w 0 0 n D y •0 •0 v v 0 0 0 0 w a n n D D z ° ° a D o a .. m - o � ^ Era m �, C N Y N Y O O N O b ro E ro E u -C N C N C 0 u L ro Y ro Y (d 0 c b c ro E E u E u m L L o =I u W u z v v O OOY 0 DOY ro N L Y Y L OD Y Y psi u a o ¢ > w v v > w v v Z d v v u u v co Y o � 0 L U v L u ro vvoo oa. Y d EEa� o ro v Y .L a ¢ L ro 0 °E O z t V u V 0 0 0 0 L a L a a a u N ro N ro ro a NI v v E Z h H Z w V O > 0 Y a w ¢ N •C C Y N u a- Y L v C ro E 0 0 4) - u .0 v> ro c v Y a N v L ai a m Y >` OO OO Y ro c Y 0 n> ¢ �L E °'toc v v 3 N: m (a N (a c� ro Y> v v E v L w E n.a� L o 0 v ro E E O u v 3 nro n Za'a��°C II II II II II I1 f 1 2. Areas of Controversy Areas of potential controversy include: 1. Temporary disruption of wildlife during the excavation and disposal operation. 2. Temporary conflict between harbor traffic and disposal scows. 3. Temporary visual impacts of slow- moving disposal scows transitting Newport Harbor. 4. Temporary visual impacts from the scow marshalling area. 5. Temporary noise from machinery. 3. Issues To Be Resolved The issues to be resolved primarily involve a choice on the part of the City as to particular methods or combination of methods of excavation that will be allowed for the Unit 11 project, as the decision to undertake an excavation and restoration of Upper Newport Bay was made in 1983. The choice will involve a balancing of factors concerning the environment, land use impacts, citizen concerns, and cost, as well as the regulatory and budgetary constraints imposed on the project by other entities. 1 -8 11 EL BACKGROUND AND HISTORY J BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is a 752 -acre state reserve owned and managed by the California Department of Fish and Game. This combination of lands and tidal marshes is a part of the system of ecological reserves in California. The Department of Fish and Game has a program of rehabilitating portions of the reserve to increase a diversity of habitat that will benefit marine aquatic organisms and other wildlife that are dependent upon tidal marshlands for their continued existence. Also included are provisions for construction of public use facilities that will be used for aesthetic, educational and scientific purposes. Upper Newport Bay has had a history of changing complexions and conditions. Formed by an ancestor to the Santa Ana River during the early Pleistocene period, the Bay began to take on a estuarine condition approximately 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Marshes and sand bars began to form, fed by alluvium contributed by the Santa Ana River and erosion from surrounding bluffs. The Santa Ana River historically flowed into Newport Bay, fed by a number of tributaries, among them San Diego Creek. The Santa Ana River, however, changed course several times, sometimes flowing to Alamitos Bay, sometimes to Newport Bay. By 1770, the river had cut a new channel between Newport and Huntington Beach mesas, approximately along its current alignment, returning to Alamitos Bay during large floods. The river never returned to the Newport Bay. Between 1825 and 1828, generally, a sandspit formed down the coast from the Santa Ana River mouth, turning flows southeast, through what became the Lower Bay and what is now Newport Harbor. In 1933 the uppermost portion of the Upper Newport Bay was transformed into a saltworks, which was destroyed in 1969 by winter storms. In 1975, the State of California acquired the Upper Newport Bay and created the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (UNBER). The Department of Fish and Game administers the operations in the reserve, which is owned by the State Lands Commission. Sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay is a result of several factors. The combination of the course change in the Santa Ana River and the creation of the sandspit has had a dramatic effect on the Bay's ability to "wash out" sediment. In recent years, the amount of sediment deposited in the Bay from the San Diego Creek watershed has increased greatly, largely due to improved channels which transport the sediment load into the Bay instead of depositing it in ponded areas that existed prior to channel improvements. The future of the Bay would be highly uncertain if left unattended. This would, of course, occur over a much longer period of time than under current conditions. The rapidity, however, of the Bay sedimentation infill will ensure its transition to another non -salt water marsh form in the near future unless action is taken to control the influx of sediment. The 208 plan was designed to study the effects of sedimentation in the Upper Newport Bay and to arrive at a series of solutions for controlling and excavating the sediment. The first step in this program was the Early Action Plan which resulted in the establishment of an approximate 50 -acre basin in the Upper Newport Bay (the old saltworks area) to capture sediment in addition to upstream channel facilities. This basin has been highly effective in capturing sediment. This basin has been further enlarged by a series of successive excavation projects, which includes the Unit I project, and now facilitates tidal action to the uppermost part of the Bay. The Unit 11 1 II -1 1 project, the project considered in this EIR, will be the last major excavation project in the Upper Newport Bay (other than for maintenance purposes) and will attempt to restore greater tidal action and remove sediment from a portion of the Bay just below the salt dike. Although the implementation of the E /SI;IP will generate certain environmental impacts in and of itself, these impacts should be temporary in nature and are unavoidable in light of the need to restore the Upper Newport Bay and further protect its future. 11 -2 M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. INTRODUCTION Large amounts of sediment have deposited in Upper Newport Bay in recent years adversely affecting the Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve. It is considered .I urgent that effective actions be taken to reduce the inflow of sediment to the Bay so that the ecological reserve may realize its objectives of long term habitat and wildlife protection. To provide a basis for effective actions toward reducing the inflow of sediment into the Bay, the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine entered into a cooperative agreement with the Southern California Association of Governments to study this problem and 1 determine solutions. The study, identified as "The Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Control Plan," was completed in 1983. The recommended plan consists of land management practices to reduce sediment at its sources and structural measures to localize sediment depositions and facilitate its management. One of the seven elements of the plan is to construct basins within the Upper Bay. The project covered by this EIR is for the construction of one of these basins, and is known as Unit II. ' Project Location The proposed project is located in that portion of the Upper Newport Bay below the existing salt works dike in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The Newport Bay is located on the Central Orange County coast, roughly 40 miles ' southeast of Los Angeles and 70 miles northwest of San Diego (Exhibits 1 and 2). F I L� I I I Ill -1 Los Angeles County PACIFIC OCEAN I N NOT TO SCALE Orann I Bernardino County It Riverside County San Diego County CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Culbertson. Adams REGIONAL LOCATION & Associates PlanmN Cmwltanls r EXHIBIT 1 F£ 1t 't s p X - •{ Z e � .. p ... 7%1y A. Y4. W G1 �:x u`' CD CD 0 au o p, • Ate.# CD y'.. i A 3 's �..� qty M'p• ;, `� ,p a '"" a `. ? p • ' a! w m not 11 r, �� spit'. .✓/y l � � �rf .- "�',"', 5 Y 4 Ahab 1`ii It Ar Y t •p�, i i Il` x' • r' x+Wr "�;1Y -Tf{, y: •. > �`' ^ �� � 1 r. 'SAMl2�i V Coast. .. N�9�7 w A �. f � w 'tl� l � ^ � - ��,. "f 1 - S '+' a Y'4f • i of t£' � '( •. �a d °"� m,aF q } s � - / F :1„a. 7 HA 17x1 Y 5 t I S ;44 a 1• I N.�I The completion of the program will result in the benefits listed below. Because this program is to be undertaken to enhance and protect the environment of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, these benefits are also considered the objectives of the proposed project. 1. Increase the tidal prism by approximately 236 acre feet. 2. Improve tidal flushing and circulation. 3. B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Excavation Activities laden flood flows below the elevation of the marsh plain. The implementation of the Unit 11 project consists of the excavation and ocean disposal of 526,500 to 1,153,400 cubic yards of sediment. The excavation will accomplish the following: Encourage tidal scour and wind -wave action to maintain lower intertidal 1. A basin immediately below the old saltworks dike with a maximum bottom elevation of -14NISL (Exhibit 3). 2. Side channels located as shown on Exhibit 3. Expand subtidal habitat by approximately 40 acres. 3. An Exhibit 3. 6. access channel as shown on The actual amount of sediment removed will vary depending on the method of construction and the funding available. Also, the implementation of the access channel is dependent on the method of construction selected. rProject Facilitate maintenance dredging by providing equipment access. Objectives The completion of the program will result in the benefits listed below. Because this program is to be undertaken to enhance and protect the environment of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, these benefits are also considered the objectives of the proposed project. 1. Increase the tidal prism by approximately 236 acre feet. I 1 III -4 2. Improve tidal flushing and circulation. 3. Help to stabilize the salt marshes by facilitating the passage of sediment- laden flood flows below the elevation of the marsh plain. ' 4. Encourage tidal scour and wind -wave action to maintain lower intertidal elevations above the Narrows. 5. Expand subtidal habitat by approximately 40 acres. 6. Localize sediment deposition within the Upper Bay to facilitate removal. 7. Facilitate maintenance dredging by providing equipment access. 8. Protect Newport Harbor from sedimentation by arresting and localizing sediment infill in the Upper Newport Bay. 9. Improve water quality in Newport Harbor by introducing greater tidal flushing in the Upper ;Newport Bay. I 1 III -4 Funding Funding of the proposed project is shown in Table I. The primary source of funding is the State of California Department of Fish and Game supplemented by local additions from participants. The list of the participants and their respective contributions are ' shown below. Table 1 Upper Newport Bay Unit II Funding % Contribution Amount ,Entity State Department of Fish and Game 75.00% $2,775,000 The Irvine Company 17.58% 650,460 City of Newport Beach 3.51% 129,870 , Orange County Harbors, Beaches 3.36% 124,320 and Parks District City of Irvine 0.32% 11,840 , County of Orange 0.23% 8,510 Total 100.00% $3,700,000 Additional funding of $1,000,000 from the state and $330,000 from local entities has been requested. These funds may be available after July 1, 1986 and would permit the maximum excavation of 1,153,400 cubic yards. Excavation and Disposal Methods Overview Analysis of excavation and disposal alternatives was conducted by M.H. Cheney, Consulting Civil Engineer, under the direction of the City of Newport Beach. His report, entitled Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program - Unit II: A Report on the Methods, Costs and Feasibility of Implementing Unit II Work, was published in August 1985 and is included in its entirety in Appendix A. The report studies four , alternatives for sediment removal and disposal and measures their relative stability. The Project Description addresses the two most feasible alternatives identified in that report; the Alternatives section of this EIR specifically evaluates the remaining two approaches. Access to the excavation site is limited to floating equipment; it is impractical to consider de- watering the spoil for dry excavation methods utilizing truck transport. This constraint requires that the excavation be accomplished by dredging. Two methods of dredging are available: hydraulic cutterhead suction or clamshell. The first method employs water as a vehicle to carry the dredged material and results in a , slurried mixture, while the second simply employs a clamshell bucket operated by a crane on a deck barge to pick up material. Removal of the dredged material from the dredging site is by bottom dump scows for both the hydraulic dredge and the clamshell dredge. A third method of removal employs the hydraulic cutterhead suction dredge with a pipeline and booster pumps to transport the dredge material offshore. Two III -5 i I 1 I III -6 sizes of dump scows have been assumed and are specified in the following alternatives: (1) 1000 cy, 35 ft. x 150 ft., and (2) 3000 cy, 45 ft. x 260 ft. The availability and suitability of a disposal site for the dredged material defines the practicability of a given dredging alternative. Therefore, three basic methods are reviewed in this Project Description. It has been assumed that the equipment will work 24 -hour days, 6 days per week. This assumption results in the most efficient and lowest unit cost operation. Since the equipment employed in each alternative must stay on the jobsite (the cost of mobilization for moving in and out is quite high), and the cost per day is relatively constant, the unit price for production is almost directly proportional to the amount of ' productive time allowed each day. Operations of the type described below, especially of this magnitude, typically operate on a 24- hours - per -day, 6- days - per -week basis. Any restriction in these operations may result in increased costs, a longer duration of excavation, or both. i Approach A - Clamshell Dredge With Scows ' This approach would utilize a clamshell dredge situated on a deck barge and equipped with a 5 cubic yard bucket. The 1,100 cubic yard scows would travel directly to the site of the excavation through a deepened and widened marine channel. 'then the clamshell loads the scows with sediment, the material is saturated, but not slurried (mixed with a great amount of water). As a result, the scows transport nearly 100% solids. The filled scow will be taken down below the Coast Highway bridge to a scow marshalling area and exchanged for an empty scow which will be taken back to the dredge area. The filled scow left at the marshalling area will be picked up by an ocean -going tug with a guide boat for transport to disposal site LA -3 (3 miles offshore). Loading scows at the excavation site involves certain characteristics not required by other approaches and alternatives. First, a channel 100 feet wide and excavated to a depth of -14 feet MSL must be constructed to permit passage of the scows and tugboats. This channel work represents a widening of the current channel and will benefit the Bay by increasing tidal exchange. Additionally, a 24" water line crossing just upstream of the Coast Highway bridge at -7 feet MSL will need to be relocated. ' Since this cost has already been included in an unrelated city budget, there will be no cost impact on this approach. Further, this line was ruptured in October, 1985 in connection with the Dunes dredging project. The amount of excavation necessary to deepen and widen the channel is 225,000 cubic yards. The increased excavation necessary at the worksite to allow the scows direct access is 401,900 cubic yards. Together with the objective of 526,000 cubic yards of in -Bay removal, the total excavation for this approach would be 1,153,400 cubic yards. This approach requires a marshalling barge (dimensions 400' x 309 secured by spuds, either off Lido Island or off Harbor Island to permit safe scow exchanges (a filled outgoing scow for an empty incoming scow). This barge will not contain machinery, but will be a source of activity in the harbor. I III -6 A. " A' all . I T Is. jp 41 vil K� j 1N 17 f- fffl, 49.* .04, "41L 4W.) Ao. Equipment: - One clamshell dredge on deck barge with moving equipment (anchors /winches); 5 cy bucket. - Marshalling composite barge (400' x 30' below bridge secured by spuds). - Three 1100 cy bottom dump scows One small tugboat (40 ft. long by 18 ft. wide; 1000 h.p. engine) - One large tugboat (70 ft. long by 25 ft. wide; 3000 h.p. engine) - Two guide boats (to handle scow bows). Operation- - Mobilization - Move all equipment to jobsite; assemble crane and move onto deck barge; assemble marshalling barge and secure; relocate waterline upstream of bridge; de- mobilize and clean up. - Commence dredging near bridge as required to achieve 14 -foot access channel; work towards main dredging area. - Assume dredge production rate = 210 cy /hr; filling 1000 cy scow = 4 hr., 45 min. - Tug /scow cycle from marshalling area to disposal site and return same as Approach B = 4 hr. 15 min. in addition to 4 hr. 45 min. loading time. - Tug /scow cycle from dredge to marshalling area 2 hr. 35 min. @ 3.0 kts. plus 4 hr. 45 min. loading time (also allows flexibility to work tidal fluctuations in case scow draft is deeper than access channel depth at extreme low tide). Costs Mobilization $ 75,000 Dredging - dredge @ $7,140 /day for 229 days 1,635,100 - Three 1000 cy scows @ $660 /day for 229 days 453,400 - One ocean tugboat @ $5,940 /day for 229 days 1,360,300 - One small tugboat @ $3,100 /day ' for 229 days 709,000 - One guideboat @ $1,620 /day 371,000 Subtotal $4,603,800 + 10% contingency 460,200 Total $5,064,000 Unit Cost @ 526,500 cy $9.62/cy Unit Cost @ 1,153,400 cy $4.39/cy III -9 disposal ' Since the excavation takes place over a period of time, the effect of any alternative will depend on the intensity of excavation. All of the impacts of each of the above referenced disposal alternatives are considered in this EIR in their respective sections. Any alternative for offshore disposal, whether by pipeline or barge, requires careful consideration of marine biological impacts. The reader should refer to the Biological Resources section of this EIR to determine the actual effect. Further, the reader may refer to the EPA environmental documentation for this , project on file at the offices of EPA in San Francisco which authorized the certified disposal site L.A. #3. Approach B - Hydraulic Dredge With Scow Disposal This alternative envisions pumping hydraulically dredged material through a pipeline to ' a bottom dump scow waiting beyond the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge at a scow marshalling area. This area would be located southeast of Lido Island. When filled with dredged slurry, the scow would be towed out to the authorized offshore aquatic , disposal site known as LA -3 (3 miles offshore). Since the dredged material is mixed with water for hydraulic transport through the pipeline, only about 14% of the slurry is actual dredged solids; the remainder is transport water. This 1446 results in only about 420 cy of solids being loaded into a 3000 cy barge for the trip to the disposal site. It will require 1,254 scow trips to the disposal site, about 7 times as many trips as would be needed if the scows were filled entirely with solids. It will require 4 scows working with 3 tugboats to keep up with the hydraulic dredge's production rate requiring a scow ' trip through the harbor about every 2 hours. Total project time for this alternative based on a 24- hour - per -day, 6- days - per -week basis would be about 16 weeks assuming 526,500 cubic yards of removal. ' The 3,000 cubic yard scows are 45 feet wide and 260 feet long. The use of smaller scows is considered infeasible because of the very low volume of dredged solids which ' would be contained in the slurried mixture per scow load (only 154 cubic yards). This low transport volume would greatly increase the number of scow trips through the harbor, as well as the duration of the operation. ' This operation would also require installation of a large marshalling composite barge, which would be necessary to support the hydraulic pipeline equipment and provide a ' secure docking /loading location for the scows. This approach is graphically depicted in Exhibits 5 and 6. Construction Characteristics Equipment: - One 16" hydraulic dredge ' - 16,000 -ft, 16" pipeline (to below bridge) - Marshalling composite barge (400'00' below Lido Island or Harbor Island secured by spuds) - Four 3000 cy bottom dump scows - One guide boat (to handle scow bows) - Three ocean tugs (to transport scows to disposal site and back to marshalling area) ' III -10 r • l„ ,rw 41 1 ✓� r- 1 41�•' � Ste' Al A"f It I Al 4 Al .•1' A , v1 '1i. b44rfnr .. %. • rr - � ftt _3 1 •�•r � .�• r '.� a j: .r} i� •.iR,f. PPP �„ r yi. •liij ! �r r IF, AS 11L r�wtY���,,L ►�w , .i.�� � � of r r .; ` ?.+•�I. . = � r t+rif ^�1�.�lrTilaJ�.• 11.4 ^ij!f J _'�. `� � • l It `ryyy l ,f ' •L / � 1 . ♦'�I� y' � i < 'rte is 'S.'��t1'. •:: K:. !'\ .. >✓ � ° y °' "Z,, y�t4J,�1F+e„ �' '1•� � e1�i"Rj 1� FA "( fUdm-- ♦ 'ter j- � � + � R of . � I Operation: - Mobilization - Move all equipment to jobsite; partially disassemble and reassemble dredge to move under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge; assemble pipeline; assemble and position marshalling barge and pipeline terminus "Y" valve setup; de- mobilize and clean up. - Assume dredge production rate 263 cy /hr; 14% in -situ solids by volumes = 420 cy /3000 cy scow = 1 hr 40 min scow loading time. - Assume "Y" valve at marshalling barge to minimize dredge production interruption for switching from a full scow to an empty scow; assume 10 min. for switch; therefore, net filling time /3000 cy scow (420 cy payload) 1 hr. 50 min. = 230 cy /hr. net production. - Round trip tow time to dump site: . i III -13 it LJ o Through harbor @ 2.5 kts: 60 min. o Open water to dump @ 6.0 kts: 45 min. o Dump: 15 min. o Open water to harbor @ 6.0 kts: 45 min. o Through harbor @ 2.5 kts: 60 min. o Unhitch /make -up new scow: 30 min. Total time 4 hr. 15 min. ' - Since scow loading time = 1 hr. 40 min., the operation needs 3 tugs and scows in cycle, all moving, to keep up with scow loading rate, plus one additional scow at marshalling barge being loaded. Costs Mobilization $ 150,000 Dredging ' - dredge 526,500 cy @ $2.40 /cy 1,263,600 - four 3000 cy scows @ $1,270 /day for 95 working days 482,600 - three tugboats @ $5,940 /day for 95 working days 116929900 - one guideboat @ $1,620 /day for 95 working days 153,900 Subtotal 10% $3,743,000 374,000 + contingency Total $4,117,000 Unit cost @ 526,500 cy $7.82/cy ' Unit cost @ 1,153,400 cy $7.64/cy i III -13 it LJ Approach C - Temporary Pipeline in Combination with Scow Disposal ' An alternative approach would involve the construction of a temporary pipeline from the excavation site to a point offshore where a marshalling barge would be positioned. The marshalling barge would be secured by a mooring bouy on a swivel at approximately 10 fathoms, which would provide a platform for the pipeline output. ' Scows would "tie up" to the barge and be loaded with a slurried mixture from the pipeline. Scows would then travel to LA -3 to dump the mixture, returning for additional loads. Because the scows would be out of the harbor, they could travel at higher speeds than within the harbor (i.e., six knots). The positioning of the marshalling barge would require an Aids to Navigation permit from the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as the permits from the Army Corps of Engineers. , Although no specific storage area has been designated for the scows when not operating, it would be most likely that they would be secured inside the harbor and taken out when in use. ' The approximate cost for this alternative is shown below: Equipment: ' - One 16" hydraulic dredge - Two in line booster pumps ' - Approximately 23,400 feet of 16" line - One anchor bouy with swivel in 10 fathoms off peninsula - One tug boat - Two 3,000 -cubic -yard scows ' Operation: - Mobilization - Move all equipment to jobsite; partially disassemble and reassemble dredge to move under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge; assemble and position marshalling barge and pipeline terminus "Y" valve setup; de- mob and clean up. , - Assume dredge production rate 187 cy /hr; 14% in -situ solids by volume = 420 cy /3000 cy scow. - Full cycle of 2 hours 15 minutes (load, proceed to LA -3, return) 11I -14 ' Costs: Mobilization $ 360,000 ' Sleeve through Peninsula 46,700 Dredge 526,500 cy @ $4.40 /cy for dredge and boosters 2,316,600 .1 tug boat for 117 days @ $5,940 /day 694,980 Two 3,000 -cy scows for 117 days @ $1,270 /day 297,180 Subtotal $3,715,460 10% contingency 371,546 5% contingency 185,773 Total $4,272,779 Unit cost @ 526,500 cy without 5% $7.76/cy Unit cost @ 526,500 cy with 5% $8.12 /cy ' Unit cost @ 1,153,400 without 5% $7.31 /cy Unit cost @ 1,153,400 with 5% $7.64/cy *The additional 5% contingency merits consideration here, as all barge loading will occur offshore and will be affected by inclement weather. The maneuvers of greatest difficulty in inclement weather will be securing the scows to the marshalling barge and disengaging the tug for reattachment to ' an outgoing scow. Essentially, the scows can travel from inside the harbor to LA -3 under more intense conditions than they can be docked and loaded offshore. The 5% contingency is included in an effort to identify the percentage of days the scows cannot operate because of inclement weather. ' C. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The following impacts were found insigificant, either because their involvement is not present in this character of project or because the mitigation measures identified herein reduce these impacts to an insignificant level: 1. Permanent disruption of wildlife and habitat. ' 2. Disruption of endangered species. 3. Degradation of harbor water quality. 4. Degradation to air quality. 5. Long -term increases in noise levels. ' 6. Long -term impacts to surrounding land uses. ' 7. Impacts to applicable regional, state and local plans. III -15 D. MATRIX OF PERMIT APPROVALS The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies or, as in the case of City of Newport Beach, agencies of primary jurisdiction: Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit (possibly Section 10 and 303 permits) Section 103 Permit U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners Changes to Anchorage Regulations California Coastal Commission Type I Permit Environmental Protection Agency Clearance to use L.A. 3 Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES Permit State Lands Commission Clearance to Operate on State Lands III -16 IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Existing Conditions Upper Newport Bay encompasses approximately 1,300 acres. The upper portion of the bay (752 acres) is an ecological reserve, administered by the California Department of Fish and Game. That portion of the bay within the reserve has been called "the most outstanding example of relatively natural estuary in Southern California; in fact, it is one of the few remaining examples of this type of Habitat" (Frey et al. 1970). The primary work site will encompass an area of approximately 40 acres. The current elevation of the area averages approximately 0.5 MSL. The primary work site is a large mudflat (at 90 acres) bisected by a shallow channel and fringed by salt marsh. Due to heavy siltation, the elevation of much of the mudflat is at a point at which salt marsh vegetation can become established. It is expected that without dredging, much ' of the proposed area will eventually be converted from mudflat to salt marsh. Historically the area in which the primary work site is located was open water ' (subtidal) and mudflat. As with other portions of the bay, sediment deposition has resulted in the loss of subtidal habitat and the conversion of mudflat to salt marsh. The Management Plan for Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (DFG 1985) identifies the intent of the Unit II project: to restore subtidal habitat lost to past sediment deposition; preserve and stabilize mudflat habitat; and provide for localized deposition of sediment to facilitate future maintenance dredging. The project will create approximately 40 acres of subtidal habitat. It is expected that the total area affected by the dredging will be much greater as the side slopes recline to their natural angle of repose. This will result in a general lowering of the mudflats surrounding the dredge site. The site was visited eight times during August and September of 1985 to assess the flora and fauna of the area. In addition, extensive information is available in the ' literature and from DFG on the biologic resources of the ecological reserve. The ongoing management of the UNBER has also ensured direct observation of the effects of the Unit I project, which removed nearly as much sediment as the proposal. The manner in which the Unit I sediment was removed was equal to or greater than the ' impacts expected from the current proposal, in that trucks were circulated in the Bay itself to transport the sediment to disposal sites. ' Vegetation The project area is characterized by subtidal channels, tidal mudflats and salt marsh ' (Exhibit 7). The lower mudflats and channels lack vascular plants. The mudflats are areas of saturated sedimentary soils alternatively exposed and submerged by shallow water as a result of tidal action. In excess of 200 acres of mudflat occupy the lower ' inter -tidal zone ( -4.5 - 0.0 MSL). Exhibit 8 graphically depicts the tidal zones and indicates plant species indigenous to those zones. The subtidal channels are areas of permanent water below -4.5 MSL. These areas are characterized by large matts of green algae during the spring through early fall. Eelgrass beds once existed in the channels in the lower reaches of the project area. Eelgrass has not been present since ' IV -1 I the late 1960's. Sediment deposition and increased turbidity were probably responsible for its disappearance. ' Salt marsh is found fringing the upper portions of the project area and on the islands in the lower reach (Exhibit 7). Low and mid -marsh plants dominate the project area. ' The low marsh is characterized by cordgrass, Sap rtina foliosa. Cordgrass and pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) patches and sprouts are found on the higher mudflats which they are colonizing. The mid -marsh is characterized by pickleweeds, saltwort, and jaumea. Limited amounts of high marsh are found in the project area. It is characterized by pickleweed, limonium, frankenia, and monanthichloe and the state and federally listed endangered plant, salt marsh birds -beak (Cordylanthus maritimus maritimus). ' The salt marsh of the project area provides habitat for the state and federally listed endangered light- footed clapper rail and the state listed endangered, Belding's savannah sparrow, and is therefore of critical importance in the Bay. ' A complete plant list is available in the Upper Newport Bay Management Plan (DFG 1985). Benthic Organisms The benthic community of Upper Newport Bay has been examined by Seapy (1981) and ' Marine Biological Consultants (1980). Both studies examined the benthos of the project area. The results of both investigations show that the density, species richness ' and species diversity of benthic organisms decreased from the lower end of the bay to the upper end. Seasonal patterns of reduced densities, species richness and diversity associated with winter rainfall and reduced salinities were also observed. These reductions are followed by a rapid recovery during the spring and summer. Both studies indicate that the benthic community recovers quickly even following major disruption. It is anticipated that the Unit 11 project will have a minimal long- ' term effect upon the benthic community. Project disruption will affect only a limited area of the bay and portion of the benthic community. Unaffected portions of the benthos will provide large reproductive potential which should allow for rapid recolonization of the dredged areas. ' Fish ' Recent fish surveys of Upper Newport Bay, including the project area, conducted by the Department of Fish and Game (Wilcox and Sunada unpublished data), and past studies (Horn and Allen 1981, MBC 1980) provide in -depth information on the fisheries ' of the bay. The Upper Bay provides foraging, spawning and nursery habitat for 72 species of fish (DFG 1985). Marine species dominate the system. The Bay's fish population is numerically dominated by low trophic -level species which t use it at various stages of their life cycle (Horn and Allen 1981). While dominated by low trophic -level species, the Bay serves as a spawning and nursery ground for other coastal species. IV -2 ' 1 i OQ LU m 0 a. 3: LU Z LL 0 C/) LLJ D 0 Cl) LU cc 0 F- z D th E LU Z 0 _j > LL x co LU LU m 0 a. 3: LU Z LL 0 C/) LLJ D 0 Cl) LU cc 0 F- z D th E or cc ¢ z w w ¢ I— w w o ¢ w i o o � 00 I- c0 to It Cl) N r N (h r O I I I : I � . w O I : eJ I ? m I ca ca :cc4) co co++ : C c L m w C : I O = U CO O Y (1 O m ¢ I � m ,I CO I I r N (h r O I I I : )1:2— w O : I'— J LL D 2 /Q m O a. W Z LL O } U a) co L U �= Z m O x N w J Q D H H 14 H r Q A V � Q N V d¢ F 7 U '� The fish community is composed of seasonally varying groups of species. Eight groups of resident and periodic species that variously utilize the three main habitats (channels, inshore and pannes) of the bay have been identified. Habitats and assemblages affected by the project are channels and inshore ( mudflat). The channels are used by halibut, turbot, basses, yellowfin croaker, adults of larger species and by schooling species. Mudflats are used by mullet, gobies, topsmelt, anchovy and staghorn sculpin. Sediment deposition since 1969 has significantly reduced subtidal habitat in the Upper `• Bay. It is anticipated that the project will create 40 acres of subtidal habitat, an increase of 50 percent. The increased habitat should enhance the fishery of the bay, ' especially for higher trophic -level species. Wildlife Upper Newport Bay supports a wide variety of wildlife. The most prominent and important group is the birds - -201 species have been recorded in or adjacent to the bay, including 99 species of water - associated birds. Four endangered species of birds are found in the project area; light- footed clapper rail, Belding's savannah sparrow, California least tern and California brown pelican. The largest group of birds using the project area is migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. Use fluctuates seasonally with greatest numbers being found during the fall and winter. Recent censuses of the reserve have recorded shorebird and waterfowl use ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 between late July and April (Wilcox, unpub. data). Use is concentrated on the mudflats and channels. The m udflats of the bay provide foraging habitat for shorebirds and dabbling ducks. Characteristic species are western sandpipers, dowitchers, willets, godwits, avocets, black - bellied plovers, green - winged teal, wigeon, and shovelers. The limited amount of deep -water habitat provides foraging and loafing habitat for smaller numbers of diving birds. Common species are greater scaup, bufflehead, grebes, scoters, cormorants, terns and brown pelicans. The wetlands of the Upper Bay support only limited breeding activity by birds. The light- footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow are the most common breeding birds in the salt marsh. Other wetland nesting birds are the least tern, avocet, killdeer, and black- necked stilt which use salt flats or high marsh habitats. Upper Newport Bay supports large populations of both the light- footed clapper rail and the Belding's savannah sparrow. A 1985 survey of the clapper rail population recorded 89 pairs down from 112 pairs in 1984 (R. Zembel, pers. comm). In 1977 Massey estimated the population of Belding's savannah sparrows at 83 pairs. While rails and savannah sparrows inhabit the project area, they and their habitat will not be directly affected by the project. The Bay is also used by the California least tern and California brown pelican. In recent years least terns have used the bay primarily for foraging. Unsuccessful nesting attempts were made in the saltworks area upstream from the project area in 1983 and 1984. As part of the Unit I project, two least tern nesting islands are being 1 IV -5 constructed to encourage future nesting activity. Limited numbers (5 to 10) of brown pelicans use the Upper Bay for foraging late summer through winter. Use of Upper Newport Bay by mammals, amphibians and reptiles is limited to primarily non -tidal areas outside the project area. The Upper Newport Bay Manage- ment Plan (DFG 1985) lists 12 species of reptiles and 7 species of amphibians from in and around the ecological reserve. The bay supports 17 species of mammals (Thompson 1980). ;Mammals are active primarily in the high marsh and surrounding uplands. The most abundant species are small rodents. IMPACTS ! The proposed project will result in the conversion of approximately 40 acres of high mudflat to low mudflat and subtidal habitat. The existing channel from the project site will be deepened as necessary to a maximum depth of -14.0 MSL. The main wildlife component affected by the project will be shorebirds which forage in the ' project area. Approximately 35 acres of high mudflat habitat will be lost. No endangered species will be significantly impacted by the project, because the operation is not in an area used by such species for nesting or significant foraging. Further, enhancement of the area of the Upper Bay by the Unit I project will provide alternate habitat area not heretofore enjoyed in the Bay. No salt marsh habitat will be lost as a result of the project. , Dredging operations may release small amounts of heavy metals and pesticides into the water. Though short -term effects are expected to be minimal, long -term organismic concentration of these substances would be expected throughout the food chain (Dixon 1981). It is not known whether or not these concentrations would reach detrimental levels. A bioaccumulation study conducted on the material to be dredged , for ocean disposal caused no significant mortality in exposed organisms (MBC, 1985). A copy of this study is included in the Technical Appendix. Dredging activity and noise could cause temporary "wildlife harassment ". Longer term , affects could be expected if dredging were to occur during the breeding season and nesting and breeding behavior of wildlife were interrupted. Since nesting sites within the marsh are located well away from the dredging site, it is not anticipated that any significant disruption will occur. Dredging activities may have a temporary negative effect on water quality by ' increasing turbidity within the Bay. This effect quickly dissipates with tidal flushing and as material settles. Beneficial impacts expected to result from the project are: ' - The project will help to maintain remaining mudflat habitat in the project area by limiting future sediment deposition and lowering existing elevations. This will provide a long -term benefit by maintaining habitat which is being converted to salt marsh through succession. IV -6 I I ` IV -7 J - The project will expand subtidal habitat within the Upper Bay, benefitting the fishery and diving birds. - The project will provide for the localized deposition of sediment, limiting the impact of future deposition on existing wetland habitat within the Bay. - The project will increase the tidal prism and improve tidal flushing and circulation. Increased tidal exchange associated with the project should ' enhance water quality within the Bay. Harassment of wildlife and shorebirds by maintenance dredging noise and activity would not produce long -term effects. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. dredged Efforts will be made to ensure that the side slopes of the area are as flat as possible to maximize the amount of lower inter -tidal habitat (mudflat) 1 available for foraging shorebirds. 2. Work will be planned as much as possible to affect mudflat areas which would be converted to salt marsh through succession !above 0.5 MSO. 3. Nesting activity of endangered species in the vicinity of the project area will be monitored by the Department of Fish and Game. Monitoring will take place between April 15 and July 31 in areas affected by dredging activities. If the Department determines that nesting activities are being disrupted by dredging activities, the Department shall notify the City of Newport Beach, which may restrict operations to avoid interference with nesting activities. 4. Maintenance of upstream sediment control facilities will be emphasized to reduce the frequency of in -bay maintenance for an overall reduction in wildlife harassment. 5. Dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. 1 6. Dredged spoils shall not be used to fill riparian areas, marshes or natural canyons. 7. The combined long -term "wetlands habitat value" of the lands involved (including projects and mitigation lands) must not be less after project completion than the combined "wetlands habitat value" that exists under pre - project conditions. 8. Upon completion of detailed engineering drawings for the project, the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted for additional mitigation measures as necessary. I ` IV -7 J B. WATER QUALITY Existing Conditions Water quality in the Upper Newport Bay has been studied specifically by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, which issued a report in June of 1980 entitled, "Water Quality in the Newport Bay and Its Watershed." This document comprehensively addresses the magnitude and effects of organic and inorganic components of surface water in the Newport Bay and its watershed. The report condensed voluminous data records from various sources and posed several recommendations for changes in monitoring programs, as well as special studies to determine solutions to the key chemical water quality problems identified. These problems principally arose in the Newport Harbor area of the Upper Newport Bay. This report is herein incorporated by reference and is periodically supplemented by additional data which monitors Bay water quality. More recently, the Region, has comple entitled Newport Ba extensive monitorin by reference and is Beach. Regional Water Quality Control Board, (RWQCB) �d a study of water quality in the Newport Bay. : Water Oualitv Issues and Recommendations (1985), i g and analysis of water samples. This report is in available for public review at the offices of the Santa Ana This report, s a result of rated herein of Newport The study evaluates water contamination in three categories: siltation, bacterial contamination, and toxic substance contamination. Siltation effects are adequately described in the prior 208 Plans, and need not be repeated here. Bacterial evaluation focuses basically on the types of waste from stormflows and the types of waste from human fecal discharges. The RWQCB has preliminarily associated the types of harmful bacterial results in the Bay and harbor with discharges from vessels, rather than organic material from the Bay. Further, vessel discharge is related to water- borne health risks, the regulatory focus of water standards. From the RWQCB report, it does not appear that excavation /disturbance of Upper Bay materials will contribute harmful bacterial pollutants to the harbor itself. The Bay and harbor are subject to a variety of synthetic organic substances (pesticides, herbicides, etc.) and trace metals from upstream contributions of both a current and historic nature. Elevated levels of toxic substances, such as DDT and PCB compounds, may indicate their extreme persistence in the environment. Certain of the areas tested (i.e., Rhine channel) may yield high results in metals and other pollutants due to limited flushing, a problem now evident in the Upper Bay. The principal toxic component in the Bay is the ubiquitous DDT. Recent testing has elevated the RWQCB awareness of this compound, and further studies are under way to determine solutions. Nonetheless, data collected from the monitoring programs does not reveal significant impacts to regulated (i.e., water- contact) activities in the Bay or harbor. Therefore, the disturbance and export of sediment from the proposed project is not expected to generate significant impacts to water quality. Impacts The excavation of the Upper Newport Bay basin will involve increases in the turbidity levels in the water surrounding the basin. Turbidity refers to water which contains IV -8 I suspended solids or is muddy or cloudy. The turbidity in water in the Upper Newport Bay will be caused by the excavation and dredging of the Bay basin. Past experience has shown that this turbidity decreases rapidly as excavation ceases. Therefore, the turbidity in the Upper Newport Bay is considered to be a temporary and insignificant impact to water quality. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has generated standards related to turbidity in water, including the amount of suspended solids and dissolved oxygen. The Regional Board's conditions will be observed during the construction of this project. Chemical water quality impacts from equipment operating in the Upper Bay are considered highly limited in that only inadvertent pollutants will be discharged as machinery operates in the Bay. This effect is considered insignificant, as it will not exceed or even approach the type of chemical components that are discharged into the - Bay from upstream operations of agriculture, wastewater treatment or runoff from streets and highways. The RWQCB and OCEMA will continue to monitor water quality at their various sampling stations in the Bay and harbor. If elevated levels of pollutants are detected, the RWQCB reserves the power to curtail activities which may be affected by such elevated pollutant levels. As with all pipelines, there is a remote possibility that the pipeline could rupture and the slurried mixture would escape into the harbor or, if the rupture occurred offshore, into ocean waters. The in- harbor risk is considered the same as for Approach B (a pipeline loading a slurry mixture to barges). In the event of such a rupture, the equipment is shut down until the rupture is repaired. Since turbidity has dissipated rapidly in experience in the Upper Bay, this possibility is not considered a significant effect. Mitigation Measures The project itself is a significant mitigation measure to a regional problem of sedimentation in the Upper Newport Bay, as well as the restoration of the Upper Bay to pre -1969 condition. ' The following mitigation measures are hereby incorporated into the project: 9. All conditions imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game will be incorporated into the project. 10. The RWQCB and OCEMA monitoring program results will be observed by the City during the excavation program. Appropriate steps will be taken if elevated levels of target pollutants are detected. 11. Project operations will require that the scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. IV -9 1 11 11 IC. NOISE ' Existing Conditions Maximum Allowable Duration of Exceedance The noise environment in the vicinity of the Upper Newport Bay is determined Daytime Hours (7 a.m. to 10 primarily by traffic on adjacent roadways and by noise generated by aircraft overflights associated with John Wayne Airport. The Noise Assessment for the Upper 30 minutes per hour Newport Bay Sediment Control program (see Technical Appendix) presents background 60 dBA information on community noise and describes the existing noise environment through the results of a noise measurement survey. The impact assessment projects noise 1 levels generated by the proposed dredging operations. Mitigation measures are 70 dBA 75 dBA recommended for minimizing the noise impacts associated with the dredging operations. 7 a.m.) Noise Standards 50 dBA The Orange County Noise Ordinance establishes exterior and interior noise standards. The City of Newport Beach does not have a Noise Ordinance. The Orange County 15 minutes per hour Noise Ordinance (summarized in Table 2) has been used as a model ordinance for many 60 dBA communities in Orange County and elsewhere in the State of California. The ordinance is designed to protect residential areas from non - transportation related I minute per hour noise sources (e.g., not motor vehicles, aircraft or trains). The noise limits differ for 70 dBA daytime and night time periods, the standards being more stringent during the nighttime hours. The noise ordinance limits are in terms of a noise level not to be exceeded for a given duration of the time. For example, during the daytime hours a noise source should not exceed a noise level of 55 dBA for more than 30 minutes in any one hour at a residential property line. For a constant noise source, such as the proposed dredge operations, the most restrictive noise limits would be the 55 dBA limit during daytime hours and 50 dBA limit during the nighttime hours (not to be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour). >� TABLE 2 Orange County Noise Ordinance Standards ' Noise Level Not To Be Exceeded Maximum Allowable Duration of Exceedance Daytime Hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) 55 dBA 30 minutes per hour 60 dBA 15 minutes per hour 65 dBA 5 minutes per hour 70 dBA 75 dBA I minute per hour For any period of time Night time Hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 50 dBA 30 minutes per hour 55 dBA 15 minutes per hour 60 dBA 5 minutes per hour 65 dBA I minute per hour 70 dBA For any period of time 1 IV - 10 11 The Orange County Noise Ordinance is important because it provides noise levels which are deemed to be acceptable in residential areas. By comparing the noise levels generated by the proposed dredging activities to the Noise Ordinance, the acceptability of the noise levels can be determined. It should be noted that since the City of Newport Beach does not have a noise ordinance, there are no legal requirements for the dredging operations to comply with any noise limits. The Orange County Noise Ordinance is used here only as a guideline to evaluate the acceptability of the noise levels generated by the dredging operations. Noise Levels Generated by Dredge Operations Noise measurements were made on an operating hydraulic dredge similar to the type of hydraulic dredge that would be used in Upper Newport Bay. The dredge was the Robert C. Watson and was operating in the vicinity of the Dunes area in Upper Newport Bay. The measurements were made with a Digital Acoustic Model 607P Portable Noise Monitor and calibrated before and after each measurement series. Measurements were made at a total of five locations with respect to the hydraulic dredge. The measurements were conducted over a two -day period. The results are presented in Table 3. The noise levels from the dredge operations were very steady. It should be noted that the bulk of the diesel engine on the dredge was located above decks with the engine compartment doors open. Having the engine compartment doors open represents worst case conditions. TABLE 3 Noise Levels for Hydraulic Dredge Distance from Dredge Noise Level (dBA) 141 67 252 66 280 71 448 69 980 54 Reviewing the data in Table 3 indicates that the noise levels did not drop off at a steady rate for the 252- and 280 -foot data points. This is because there is some directionality to the noise source. When the measurement location was broadside to the dredge, the noise level was louder than when the measurement location was astern of the dredge. At a location broadside to the dredge, a direct line of sight into the open engine compartment is available. IV -11 I I i t The data in Table 3 was used to develop an equation which relates the noise level to the distance from the dredge. The resulting equation is: L = 72 + 20 log OWN where L is the noise level !dBA) experienced at D feet from the dredge. The standard deviation about this curve for the measurement data collected was 2.3 dBA. Therefore, for the noise projections presented later in this report, an additional 3 dBA was added to the above equation to represent worst case conditions. Limited measurements were made on tugs. For an upper limit the same noise relationship as for the dredge was assumed. The tugs will have a similar size diesel engine as the dredge, and when towing a scow will be near full power. Measurements of a tug at idle or with a light load were made in the vicinity of the scow marshalling area. Noise measurements indicate that when the tug is in an idle or light load condition, the noise levels are approximately 10 dBA less than when under full load. Noise measurements were not made for a clamshell dredge due to the lack of an appropriate operating dredge in the region. However, estimates of the noise levels can be made based on the typical engine size. The typical engine size, according to Mr. Cheney (Consulting Civil Engineer for the project), is approximately 1000 horsepower (hp) for a clamshell dredge of the type envisioned for use in Upper Newport Bay. The engine is usually run at a constant rate near cruise power either charging an electrical or hydraulic system from which the crane portion obtains its mechanical power. In comparison, the hydraulic dredge system typically utilizes a 3000 hp diesel engine and is also run at a constant rate near cruise power. Based on the power output of the engines, the clamshell dredge would be expected to be about 5 dBA quieter than the hydraulic dredge. Ambient Noise Levels in Residential Areas Noise measurements were made at six locations in the residential areas surrounding the project site. The locations are shown on Exhibit 9. The measurements were made during both day and evening hours. The most significant noise sources during the measurement periods were automobiles on local roadways and occasional overflights of aircraft departing from John Wayne Airport. The monitoring equipment utilized was a Digital Acoustic Model 607P Portable Noise Monitor. The calibration was checked before and after each measurement period. The noise levels were monitored for 20 minutes at each site and are reported in Table 4. The noise levels are presented in terms of percentile noise levels. For example, the LIO noise level represents the noise level that was exceeded 10% of the time. In the neighborhoods monitored, this level usually was influenced by a jet overflight or a loud truck or auto passing by. The L50 noise level represents the average noise level. Half the time the noise level exceeded this level and half the time the noise level was less than this level. The L90 noise level represents the lowest noise levels experienced during the monitoring period. Distant traffic noise or the wind rustling leaves was usually audible when no other noise sources were present. IV -12 I i TABLE 5 L50 Noise Levels for Dredge Operations L50 Noise Distance from Dredge !Feet) Level (dBA) Hydraulic Clamshell 75 100 56 70 178 100 65 316 178 60 55 562 1000 316 562 50 1778 1000 J The L50 noise contours for the hydraulic dredge operations, when located at the center of the excavation area, are presented in Exhibit 10. Exhibit 11 similarly presents L50 noise contour for the clamshell dredge. The concentric nature of these noise contours are presented in an effort to identify the worst case analysis for the noise assessment, regardless of the topography of the land. For example, the homes located at the top of the cliff in the Eastbluff community retain a straight line of sight to the project operations for dredging at any given point in the excavation area. However, the bluff may alter the contour by impeding the travel of the sounds, and therefore the contour may actually be smaller. (Telecon with Fred Greve, Mestre Greve. Associates, December 12, 1985.) Exhibit 10 indicates that when the hydraulic dredge is in the middle of the excavation area, residential areas will be exposed to L50 noise levels in excess of 50 dBA, but less than 55 dBA. However, as the dredge moves to other locations in the excavation area, residences will be exposed to L50 noise levels in excess of 55 dBA. When the dredge is operating in the excavation area closest to the residential areas (approximately 350 feet away), the noise levels will be approximately 64 dBA. It is clear from the analysis that at almost all locations within the excavation area the noise level will exceed 50 dBA in the nearest residential area without some type of mitigation. This noise level is above ambient noise levels and will definitely be audible. This level is in excess of the nighttime guidelines provided by the Orange County Noise Ordinance. During nighttime operations some complaints from nearby residences would be anticipated, and some sleep disturbance would be experienced by local residents. During the daytime, depending on the location of the hydraulic dredge, the noise levels experienced in the adjacent residential areas will vary from below 55 dBA up to 64 dBA. This level is above ambient daytime noise levels and some complaints may be anticipated. With the hydraulic dredge option, a booster pump may be necessary. This would S be a pump located somewhere between the excavation area and the scow marshalling area that would assist the dredge pump. The booster pump is usually an electric pump. Electric pumps of the size required are considered to be quiet, and no noise impacts are anticipated should the use of a booster pump be required. IV -15 T N It V PA ,ft 2 t 0 g.- of ty lk - s p 11 It. 'VI LO to LO O CD LJ of - s 'VI LO to LO O CD LJ JI ra ti tit Pw 4 4F ilt 4e ;p Al ;rN 3. Rl 14, LO LO 4ft I 1,1 Exhibit 11 indicates that when the clamshell dredge is in the middle of the excavation area, residential areas will be exposed to L50 noise levels less than 50 dBA. However, as the dredge moves to other locations in the excavation area, residences will be exposed to L50 noise levels in excess of 50 dBA. When the clamshell dredge is operating in the excavation area closest to the residential areas (approximately 350 feet away), the noise levels will be approximately 59 dBA. Depending on the location of the clamshall dredge, the noise levels in nearby residential areas may be in excess of the nighttime guidelines provided by the Orange County Noise Ordinance. During nighttime operations, some complaints from nearby residences would be anticipated when the dredge is operating within 1000 feet of residences. During the daytime, depending on the 1 location of the hydraulic dredge, the noise levels experienced in the adjacent residential areas will vary from below 50 dBA up to 59 dBA. This level is above ambient daytime noise levels, and come complaints may be anticipated. Since the clamshall dredge operations are anticipated to be quieter than the hydraulic dredge, fewer noise impacts and complaints would be anticipated with the clamshell dredge option. Tug Boat Operations With the hydraulic dredge operations, approximately 26 tug trips will be made daily through lower Newport Bay. Tug trips during the daytime hours will not generate noise levels in excess of those levels normally experienced during this time period. Approximately 10 of the 26 tug trips will occur during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Noise levels during these tug trips will generate noise levels in excess of 60 dBA in residential areas for brief periods of time. These noise levels may cause a limited amount of sleep disturbance. For the clamshell dredge option, fewer tug trips per day will be required. Approximately 10 trips per day will occur with the clamshell dredge option. Approximately four trips would be made during the nighttime hours. In the lower portion of Newport Bay, the same size tugs would be used as with the hydraulic dredge option, and the same noise levels would be anticipated. With the clamshell option, smaller tugs will pass from the excavation area to the scow marshalling area below the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. Although the tugs traversing the Upper Newport Bay area will be smaller, they will be forced to pass closer to residences, and therefore, noise levels in excess of 60 dBA are anticipated during the tug pass -by. During the nighttime hours, some sleep disturbance may result in the nearest residences to the channel in Upper Newport Bay. In summary, tug boat operations are anticipated to cause some minor noise impacts during the nighttime hours in the form of sleep disturbance in residences closest to the harbor. The clamshell dredge operation would result in fewer nighttime tug trips in and out of the harbor. The potential impact area due to tug trips would be extended into the Upper Newport Bay with the clamshell dredge option. The clamshell dredge option appears to be inherently quieter, but will extend over a longer period of time. Due to the smaller engine size, the clamshell dredge utilized appears to be quieter than a comparable hydraulic dredge. Fewer tug trips per night through the Newport Bay will be required with the clamshell dredge option. However, I IV_ 18 I I i the night tug impact will extend into residential areas adjacent to the channel in the Upper Newport Bay area. If the pipeline /scow aproach were utilized, there would be no noise from the tugs as they would not be in the harbor. I MITIGATION MEASURES 12. At the time of the letting of the construction contract, it shall be demonstrated j that engine noise from excavation equipment shall be mitigated by keeping engine doors closed during equipment operation. For equipment that cannot be enclosed behind doors, lead curtains shall be used to attenuate noise. ' I A I' /1 II IV -19 1 I I The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and jurisdictionally is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. The nearest air monitoring station operated by the SCAQMD is in Costa :-esa approximately three miles northwest of the project site. The data collected at this station is considered to be representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the project area. The project site is in the SCAQMD`s Source Receptor Area 18, for which the designated monitoring station is Costa Mesa. Air quality data for 1979 through 1983 for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 6. (Summary data for 1984 has not yet been released by the SCAQMD? [J I IV -20 I D. AIR QUALITY Existing Conditions The climate around the Upper Newport Bay area, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet' season. Temperatures are normally mild with rare extremes above 100 degrees F or below freezing. Daily and seasonal variations about the annual mean temperature of 62 degrees are small. Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant land /sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime on -shore sea breezes. At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction, traveling towards the sea. Wind direction will be altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the disperson of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as "radiation inversions," are most severe during clear, cold, early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion, dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air Basin and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and jurisdictionally is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. The nearest air monitoring station operated by the SCAQMD is in Costa :-esa approximately three miles northwest of the project site. The data collected at this station is considered to be representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the project area. The project site is in the SCAQMD`s Source Receptor Area 18, for which the designated monitoring station is Costa Mesa. Air quality data for 1979 through 1983 for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 6. (Summary data for 1984 has not yet been released by the SCAQMD? [J I IV -20 I TABLE 6 NO2 .25 Air Quality Levels Measured at the Costa Mesa 0.05 ppm 1979 Ambient Air Monitoring Station for I hr. annual avg. 1980 .31 2 Days State California National .29 Maximum Standard Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Exceeded Ozone 0.1 ppm 0.12 ppm 1979 0.21 26 ug /m3 1.5 ug /m3 1979 1980 0.16 20 avg. grtly avg. 1980 1981 0.20 28 1981 1982 0.18 25 1982 1983 0.25 41 Particulate 100 ug /m3 260 ug /m3 1979 252 26 matter for 24 hr. for 24 hr. 1980 125 6 1981 - - -not monitored-- - 1982 - - -not monitored-- - 1983 - - -not monitored-- - CO 9 ppm 9 ppm 1979 .21 18 for 8 hr. for 8 hr. 1980 17 7 1981 15 5 1982 21 2 1983 I4 1 NO2 .25 ppm 0.05 ppm 1979 .29 4 for I hr. annual avg. 1980 .31 2 1981 .29 2 1982 .23 0 1983 .27 1 Lead 1.5 ug /m3 1.5 ug /m3 1979 1.90 3 30 -day avg. grtly avg. 1980 .82 0 1981 - - -not monitored-- - 1982 - - -not monitored-- - 1983 - - -not monitored Note: Standards for sulfur dioxide and sulfates were not exceeded. The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of the chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in Costa Mesa. All areas of the South Coast Air Basin contribute to the ozone levels experienced at Costa Mesa, with the more significant areas being those IV -21 I i p i directly upwind. The ozone levels at Costa Mesa have not significantly increased or decreased over the last ten years. Particulate concentrations monitored at the Costa Mesa station should be represen- tative of the levels currently experienced at the project site. Particulate matter levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations and motor vehicles. IMPACTS The air quality impacts of the proposed project can be divided into two general categories: air pollutant emissions due to operation of equipment, and odor impacts. Emissions Due to the Operation of Eauioment Estimates of the emissions generated by the proposed project were made. Emissions will be generated by diesel engines on tug boats, guide boats, and the dredging equipment. Two dredging alternatives were considered: a hydraulic dredge alternative and a clamshell dredge alternative. The number and size of boats involved, the type of dredging equipment, the length of operation, and therefore, the projected emissions for the two alternatives differ. Emission factors provided in the "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) were used along with operation details found in the "Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program, Unit II" (M.H. Cheney, Consulting Civil Engineer, August 1985) to project emissions. Emission rates for boat operations are only provided for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons in the EPA document. A spreadsheet identifying the variables and emissions factors used in the calculations is provided in the Appendix. The emission estimates should be considered as very approximate, since the exact size, type and operational characteristics of the equipment to be used are not known at this time. This type of information will not become available until the work has gone out to bid and a contract has been awarded. ' The emissions are presented in two ways. In Table 7 the emissions are presented on a daily basis - -that is, the amount of emissions anticipated to occur in a typical work day. Table 8 presents the total emissions generated during the project. This approach is presented because one alternative, specifically the clamshell dredge alternative, will take a longer period of time to complete. I I I I 11 TABLE 7 Daily Emissions for Unit H Operations (Pounds Per Day) Alternative IV -22 Hydraulic Clamshell Emission Dredge Dredge Carbon monoxide 295.6 238.7 Hydrocarbons 68.1 60.5 Nitrogen Oxides 1536.3 1288.5 IV -22 I V The data in Tables 7 and 8 indicate that the hydraulic dredge option would generate slightly more emissions on a daily basis. Since the duration of the project is much shorter with the hydraulic dredge option, the hydraulic dredge alternate will generate almost half the total emissions of the clamshell option. The total emissions generated by the project are compared to emissions for Orange County in Table 9. The Orange County emissions are for 1987 and are from the 1982 Revision to the Air Quality Management Plan. The increases in all pollutants when compared to Orange County emissions will be extremely small, specifically less than 0.5 %. Since the emissions projected for the project are such a small fraction of regional emissions, there will be no significant regional air quality impacts as a result of the proposed project. TABLE 9 Comparison of Emissions with Regional Emissions CO HC NOx 1987 Orange County Emissions TABLE 8 319.1 171.4 Total Emissions for Unit 11 Operations (Tons) Alternative 295.6 68.1 1536.3 Hydraulic Clamshell 0.02 Emission Dredge Dredge Carbon monoxide 14.2 27.2 238.7 Hydrocarbons 3.3 6.9 0.01 Nitrogen oxides 73.7 146.9 The data in Tables 7 and 8 indicate that the hydraulic dredge option would generate slightly more emissions on a daily basis. Since the duration of the project is much shorter with the hydraulic dredge option, the hydraulic dredge alternate will generate almost half the total emissions of the clamshell option. The total emissions generated by the project are compared to emissions for Orange County in Table 9. The Orange County emissions are for 1987 and are from the 1982 Revision to the Air Quality Management Plan. The increases in all pollutants when compared to Orange County emissions will be extremely small, specifically less than 0.5 %. Since the emissions projected for the project are such a small fraction of regional emissions, there will be no significant regional air quality impacts as a result of the proposed project. TABLE 9 Comparison of Emissions with Regional Emissions IV -23 CO HC NOx 1987 Orange County Emissions 981.3 319.1 171.4 (tons /day) Hydraulic Dredge Option - Emissions (lbs /day) 295.6 68.1 1536.3 - Percent of County emissions 0.02 0.01 0.45 Clamshell Dredge Option - Emissions (lbs /day) 238.7 60.5 1288.5 - Percent of County emissions 0.01 0.01 0.38 IV -23 11 Organic Matter + Oxygen ---- - - - - -- Carbon Dioxide + Water Any sulfur - containing organic compounds will be converted to sulfur dioxide. Similarly, nitrogen- containing compounds will be converted to some form of oxides of nitrogen. Therefore, the majority of by- products of aerobic decomposition, specifically carbon dioxide, water and oxides of nitrogen, are odorless. Sulfur oxides have a slight odor described as "sulfury and pungent." The odor threshold for sulfur dioxide is 0.47 ppm. 2. Odors Generated by Anaerobic Decomposition Anaerobic decomposition occurs any time there is a lack of oxygen. This type of condition can occur, for example, in stagnant bottom waters. The bottom layer of water is not exposed to air and becomes deficient in oxygen. Initially, the organic material in this layer would begin to undergo aerobic decomposition. After a short period of time, the oxygen supply in the lower portions will be depleted and anaerobic decomposition will develop. J IV -24 Odor Generation Potential The proposed project consists of removing sediment and water. This sediment and water may have odors associated with it which would be annoying to nearby residential areas. Odors generated are attributable to the inherent odor of the compounds in the water and to odors generated by the decomposition of the wastes. The decomposition of waste can be either aerobic or anaerobic. Inherent odors are those odors which a material has when new or fresh. Fresh seawater has a distinct odor which is commonly perceived as pleasurable. 1. Odors Generated by Aerobic Decomposition There are two very important cycles in nature involving the decay of organic material. In both cycles, bacteria and other microorganisms digest organic material. As long as organic material is available and the environmental conditions are within acceptable limits, the bacteria continue to digest, grow and multiply. This process is commonly referred to as the decomposition or decay of organic wastes. As this process proceeds, gases (many of which are odorous) are produced. The types of gases produced and the resulting odors differ depending on whether the decomposition is aerobic or anaerobic. While both processes generate some odor, the anaerobic process generates considerably more malodors. The difference between aerobic and anaerobic decomposition is in the microorganisms' use of oxygen. In the aerobic cycle, the microorganisms present use oxygen for the decay of the organic matter. Oxygen is not used for the decay of organic matter in the anaerobic cycle. In the aerobic cycle, organic matter (composed primarily of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) is digested by the microorganism with oxygen, producing carbon dioxide and water. A generalized formula for the aerobic process is: Organic Matter + Oxygen ---- - - - - -- Carbon Dioxide + Water Any sulfur - containing organic compounds will be converted to sulfur dioxide. Similarly, nitrogen- containing compounds will be converted to some form of oxides of nitrogen. Therefore, the majority of by- products of aerobic decomposition, specifically carbon dioxide, water and oxides of nitrogen, are odorless. Sulfur oxides have a slight odor described as "sulfury and pungent." The odor threshold for sulfur dioxide is 0.47 ppm. 2. Odors Generated by Anaerobic Decomposition Anaerobic decomposition occurs any time there is a lack of oxygen. This type of condition can occur, for example, in stagnant bottom waters. The bottom layer of water is not exposed to air and becomes deficient in oxygen. Initially, the organic material in this layer would begin to undergo aerobic decomposition. After a short period of time, the oxygen supply in the lower portions will be depleted and anaerobic decomposition will develop. J IV -24 IV -25 it The anaerobic process converts organic matter to methane and carbon dioxide. The generalized chemical equation is: Organic Matter ---- - - - - -- Methane + Carbon Dioxide Nitrogen contained in the organic waste will be converted to ammonia, which has an odor threshold 46.8 of ppm. Of more concern is the fact that the sulfur contained in the organic waste will be converted to hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide has an odor described as rotton eggs and pungent. Its odor threshold is 0.00047 ppm, which is a very low odor threshold. Comparing this to the odor threshold of sulfur dioxide generated by aerobic decomposition reveals why the anaerobic process generates substantially more odors. The threshold concentration for sulfur dioxide is 1000 times higher than hydrogen sulfide. The odors related to anaerobic decomposi- tion are referred to as septic or putrefactive. Factors Affecting Odor Generation Estuarine waters are almost constantly on the move. The three most important factors operating to produce currents in estuaries are oceanic tides, stream flow, and wind. These factors help in maintaining a high level of dissolved oxygen in the ater and thus preventing anaerobic or stagnant conditions from developing. Oxygen is introduced into the water through the interaction between the wind and surface water. The rising and dropping of the tides results in considerable mud flat areas being exposed to the atmosphere, and then being covered again at high tide. This mechanism also introduces oxygen into the water. Finally, the bottom algae and many micro- organisms convert carbon dioxide to oxygen through the same process as green terrestrial plants. Since bottom algae and these oxygen - producing microorganisms require sunlight for this process, they are limited to shallow waters. In many cases, the typical current pattern is one wherein the lighter, fresh water flows seaward over the upstream movement of denser saline waters (denser by virtue of having a greater concentration of dissolved salts). Under these conditions, a vertical salinity gradient exists, and the estuary is said to show stratification. The gradient acts to isolate the bottom layer, and in deep estuaries the bottom saline layer can become depleted in oxygen and anaerobic conditions develop. This condition does not appear to commonly occur in the Upper Newport Bay area, most likely due to its limited depth. However, some signs of anaerobic processes are evident in some of the muds. A black layer of mud is usually an indication of anaerobic conditions having been present. Layers of this black mud were encountered during Unit I operations, and black mud can be found in other parts of the Bay. However, these layers of black mud may be due to a localized condition rather than being indicative of more widespread anaerobic conditions. In many areas, the black layer appears to be shallow, indicating that the top layer of mud was aerobic while lower layers of mud became depleted of oxygen but had sufficient nutrients, water, etc. to support anaerobic bacteria and microorganisms. History of Odor Complaints Mr. Don Simpson, the Project Coordinator for the Unit I Operation, was contacted to determine if odor complaints had been received during Unit I operations. Mr. Simpson IV -25 it a !_ indicated that no complaints had been received during the Unit I operations in regards to odors. Very faint odors had been detected at times during these operations and were generally described as musty. Strong odors or rotten egg odors characteristic of anaerobic processes were not detected, even though layers of black mud (indicating the presence of anaerobic conditions at some time) had been encountered. Odors are sometimes evident in the Upper Bay area. Generally these odors are considered very faint, not objectionable, and due to natural sources. Strong hydrogen sulfide odors (due to anaerobic processes) are not present. Mr. Mike Cheney, consulting civil engineer on the Unit II project, was contacted to ascertain his experience. His experience has been that objectionable odors had not been a problem on previous projects. Hydraulic dredge operations are currently underway in the Dunes area of Upper Newport Bay. An informal survey of the area was conducted, and no odors were noticeable. The survey was conducted on two separate days. IOdor Dispersion Analysis I IV -26 I The release point of odors, if any, differs for the two dredging options under consideration. For the hydraulic dredge option, the system is closed until it reaches the barges. At this point the bottom water and sediment is piped into an open scow. It is at this point that any odors will be released into the atmosphere. The currently envisioned location of the scow marshalling area for this option is at the east end of Lido Island. Residential areas (i.e., Lido Island) are less than 500 feet to the west of this location. The dominant wind direction in this area is from the southwest, and residences lie less than 600 feet downwind of the marshalling area with a southwest wind. With the clamshell dredge option, the primary point of release of any odors would be at the excavation site. The use of the clamshell dredge would locate the scows at the excavation area. The primary excavation area lies just south of the salt water dike but would extend down to the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. Residences are as close as 100 feet to this excavation path. Typically, the excavation operation is roughly 1000 feet from nearby residential areas. A dispersion analysis was conducted for the proposed project. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the dilution ratio that will occur at various locations downwind. The dispersion analysis compares the odor concentration experienced in the vicinity of the scows with the odor concentration experienced downwind. Therefore, if one can estimate the odor concentration experienced at the scows, this analysis can be used to identify the intensity of the odor in downwind areas. It should be noted that unlike most air contaminants, the emission rate of odors cannot be calculated for most sources. The factors generating the odors are too complex, vary considerably from day to day, and need further research before they can be forecasted with any degree of certainty. However, based on the experience with Unit I, the experience of Mr. Mike Cheney, and review of the biological processes involved, it appears that the odors in the vicinity of the scows will not be noticeable, or as a worst case, may be very faint. I IV -26 I J Exhibits 12 and 13 were developed to display the horizontal dispersion. Exhibit 12 displays the potential odor impact area for the hydraulic dredge option with the scow located at the east end of Lido Island. Exhibit 13 represents the clamshell dredge option with the scow being loaded in the middle of the main excavation area. The exhibits show lines of equal relative concentration. The relative concentrations shown are 0.1, 0.05 and 0.01. If the odor at the scow was "very faint" then all areas within the 0.01 relative concentration line would perceive the odor as somewhere between "very faint" and "not noticeable." The exhibits presented are for a southwesterly wind (a wind from the southwest direction). Other wind directions would simply rotate the isopleth lines around the project site. With the hydraulic dredge option and with a very faint odor at the loading scow, very faint odors would likely be detected under both typical and worst case meteorological conditions. The potential odor impact appears to be less severe with the clamshell dredge option, in large part due to the relative location of residential areas with , respect to the excavation area. If very faint odors were present at the loading scow with the clamshell option, odors may be detected in residential areas under worst case meteorological conditions, but would not be noticeable with typical meteorological conditions. With the typical southwest wind, the nearest downwind residential area to the clamshell excavation area will be over 3000 feet away. Summary of Potential Odor Impact Based on the experience with Unit 1, the experience of Mr. Mike Cheney, and review of the biological processes involved, it appears that the odors in the vicinity of the scows will not be noticeable, or as a worst case, may be very faint. A dispersion analysis indicates that if the odors are very faint at the scow area, they will also be perceived as very faint in nearby residential areas under worst case meteorological conditions. Odors will not usually be noticeable with typical meteorological conditions for the clamshell dredge option. With the hydraulic dredge, if odors are very faint at the loading scow, then odors will likely be perceived in downwind residential areas. However, it is anticipated that the vast majority of the time odors will not be noticeable in adjacent residential with either of the dredging options. The potential area of impact varies with the two dredging options. For the clamshell dredge option, the potential area for odor impact would be the residences surrounding Upper Newport Bay. For the hydraulic dredge option, the scow marshalling area will be off the east end of Lido Island, and the residential areas surrounding this location will be the potential area of impact. If the pipeline /scow approach is used, there will be no potential for odor in the harbor or Bay area. 1. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures are not proposed for the project. Emissions generated by the dredging operations will be very small in comparison to regional emissions, and no degradation to the local air quality is anticipated. The odor analysis indicates that typically no odor is anticipated, and that under worst case conditions a very faint odor may be detected in residential areas. Containment of any odorous gases would be virtually impossible for the clamshell dredge operation, because the receiving scow must remain open to receive the sediment. With the hydraulic dredge operation, the scow could conceivably be covered. However, covering an open scow would incur a substantial cost which does not appear to be warranted at this time. IV -27 •a s1 w' xa w'i 6pr� /ter, if„, -� �..4 :T. .w .l F37`'A" ♦tai Li �sn /�� n ��a °e�f�'i�+t Ty�"k' + �"@. r .a.1` � • t g� °� � YC . ..,tea. �: • ,'t t ,.s ,�,. n *y>a °, ^.w l.«.. y a'w s.'.y,, < 3 d F �'Y ♦" � a �� .J n • J SC "` .. 1 ♦ k r v x a � u e K t y L ya„ d � I ., = +iii. +•+^ . S • { ,s x k rr r. s }rggr .."fG x-A C 1 All Al �e � ]. `.• � v �a Rf � rk' r� IIU 41t IS -To IT, a E. SURROUNDING LAND USE Existing Conditions 1 Over the years the land around Upper Newport Bay has seen an increase in development for commercial and residential use. To some extent, this trend continues today with a majority of this development being low and medium density residential located atop bluffs that border the Bay. With the development of the lower bay, the City of Newport Beach, and the expanding City of Irvine, the Upper Bay is nearly surrounded by urbanization (See Exhibit 14). IEastbluff This area is east of the project site and is characterized by low density residential with intermittent recreation and open space uses. Corona del Mar Junior and Senior High School is approximately one -half mile southeast. The area includes some support commercial uses. "Mouth" of Big Canyon This area is south of Eastbluff and is owned by the City of Newport Beach. Uses are Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Harbor Highlands (Dover Shores) This area is southwest of the project site and is predominantly a low density residential community. Westbay This area is west of the project site and is currently undeveloped. Northbay Mini Park (1.0 acre) is proposed between Irvine Avenue and the base of the west extension of the old salt works dike. The City owns an approximate 6 -acre park site between Irvine Avenue and the base of the west extension of the old Saltworks dike. The area also includes a proposed County regional park on the Orange County Master Plan of Regional Parks. The park would encompass an area along the westerly bluff of the Upper Bay from Bayview Avenue south to Galaxy Drive. Proposals for the park include opportunities for passive park purposes such as picnic tables, view points, bicycle and hiking trails, as well as a Natural History Museum which would most likely be located near the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Univerisity Drive and will overlook much of the upper bay. Negotiations among the City of Newport Beach, the County of Orange and the Irvine Company are currently under way. It is possible that agreement among these parties can be reached within the coming year which could result in the commencement of construction of this park. a IV -32 I • ell + t y s /° _ r t4. q` ; - _, � .�. ,h ` ''•sue ;♦ ♦.L �• jar -., r^ }'.. ° li.' i p'`+n:`+ ' fA -,.__ WANs _` _ nj 111 .. •` (o Py / _.. ? L7 1 W a � / j ' yt;a ♦4Z'tt ii7 ! '.e ,.. �s_ 1 �' s�9 "` ,j WR a Aax ... ��'i, c+i`,,.lw ->• '�(�/>.ta � y ! i _ Z f 'rT" +♦ !'�'` •, It It Tw a' ' •.. ,.., - C b ;,it `• d r Lam_ xt '. �\ 4' Ac.w YEq L.w,g ���� 'sjn #: /. �`� ��. ,4� 1•. i,.. ^5 v 91 v �•� -.._'� �. � V Y ea � � .. "V •`. "� �6 t r:; as .`.w L may. �.1� /r$r awe•"•- ��•y:S♦ /I!LSrQy� � Fkt� } ;` -�` c 4� - 5, i ,,', tE. �� �` "..:p,Y� 'afi�'' `°""R'ul&I.:�s. ` ➢. v � � _ �r'' �;,/±I�y -rt ,. ..^" =y'p', n.F .. � � p,.._ .Q+.I... fo' .M�t.a , t. ClrbAi L do Sle S/1 toP `� a I The following land uses are described and evaluated due to their location in relation to 1� those activities associated with equipment movements and operations along the lower reaches of the Upper Bay and within the lower Bay. 1 Newporter North This site is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road, the John Wayne Tennis Club, Newporter Inn, and Back Bay Drive. Currently vacant, most of this site is proposed to be developed for residential with a small southerly portion for recreational commercial purposes, such as the expansion of the Newporter Inn. Bayview Landing South of the Newporter North site, Bayview Landing is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space for public recreation uses. Facilities include boat storage and launching range with associated support facilities. 1 Newport Dunes a IV -34 South of Bayview Landing, Newport Dunes is designated Recreational and Environmental Open Space. The site includes a County -owned for park marine - oriented uses, open to the public. Those uses include swimming and sunbathing along the waterfront. De Anza Trailer Park Immediately west of Newport Dunes, the De Anza Trailer Park is designated as Multiple- Family Residential. The site includes private recreation facilities and docks for boat owners. Castaways Across the bay from the De Anza Trailer Park, the majority of the 65 -acre site is vacant and designated "Low- Density Residential." Five acres at the corner of Coast Highway and Dover Drive are designated "Recreational and Marine ' Commercial." An existing church is located between Coast Highway and Westcliff Drive, just off of Dover Drive. An existing 24" water line crosses the Bay just upstream from the Coast Highway bridge at an elevation of -7 It MSL in the area. The Lower Bay ' Barges transiting the Lower Bay will pass by the following areas: a IV -34 Linda Isle, Harbor Island, Lido Isle and Bayshores - The island areas are predominantly low- density residential. Bayshores includes a multi - family apartment complex called Anchorage Apartments which is located immediately southwest of the Coast Highway Bridge in addition to single family residential uses. Across the Bay from the Anchorage Apartments is the Reuben E. Lee restaurant. Bay Island, Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula, Corona del Mar - These areas make up a mix of Low - Density, Two - Family, and Multi- Family Residential as well as Retail and Service Commercial, Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, and Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Impacts Residents along the bluffs of the communities of the Upper Bay and of the communities in the Lower Bay will both see and hear the temporary dredging operations in the Bay. The Aesthetics section and the Noise section will specifically address the specific impacts in this area. The scow marshalling area will have the most intense activity close to residences. Residents on the islands and the Peninsula will see and hear the scows and tugs. The pipeline /scow approach would be offshore and therefore would not affect the land uses in the harbor. Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures included for noise are adequate to address the land use impacts of the proposal. IV -35 I IV -36 I F. RELEVANT PLANNING EXISTING CONDITIONS Newport Dunes, and "Multi- Family Residential" across the Bay from Dover Shores. ' General Plan Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan is a long -range guide to the development and use of all lands within the Newport Beach planning area, including both private and public projects. Although streets and highways are technically a use of land, they are not included since the street system is the subject of the Circulation Element. The Land Use Element includes a map entitled "Land Use Plan." The Land Use Element should be regarded as an expression of public policy for land development. As such, it represents the "desirable" pattern for the ultimate, full development of the City of Newport Beach as determined at this point in time. As new information becomes available or circumstances change, the Land Use Element may need to be amended. Thus, the Land Use Element is not a final "picture" of the future City of Newport Beach; it is an expression of what is desired for the future based on today's knowledge and circumstances, and as such, is part of a continuous planning process requiring continuing research, policy review, and revisions of the Land Use Element. Such revisions of the Land Use Element must be made only after thorough study indicates the desirability of a revision.l I IV -36 I The project area is designated "Recreational and Environmental Op-- pace." The surrounding area is predominantly "Low Density Residential" with the exceptions being designations of "Recreational and Marine Commercial" to the east and west of Newport Dunes, and "Multi- Family Residential" across the Bay from Dover Shores. Circulation Element The purpose of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan is for identification and analysis of circulation needs and issues, as well as to establish a statement of goals, objectives and policies based on the circulation needs of the community, including priorities among modes and routes and distinguishing among short, middle and long -term periods of implementation. Included in the Circulation Element is a diagram (Master Plan of Streets and Highways) showing the proposed circulation system. A description of the proposed circulation system, standards and criteria for the location, design, operation and levels of service of circulation facilities and a guide to the implementation of the circulation system are also part of the Circulation Element? The project area is bounded on the east by Backbay Drive, which is a local street except for that portion from the intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and Backbay Drive to Jamboree Road, which is designated as a Secondary Street (four - lane), 1. City of Newport Beach, Land Use Element, page i, October, 1983. 2. City of Newport Beach, Circulation Element, page 1, August, 1978. I IV -36 I undivided) roadway. To the south is Pacific Coast Highway, which is a Major Road (six -lane, divided). To the west is Irvine Avenue, which is a Primary Road (four -lane, divided) and Galaxy Drive, Polaris Drive and Dover Drive, which are Secondary Streets. These roadways have been identified from the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Recreation and Open Space Element The purpose of the Recreation and Open Space Element is to provide long -range planning policies for the preservation, improvement and use of open space, recreational trails and scenic roadways within the City of Newport Beach.3 The project area is designated as "Ecological Reserve." Surrounding the Bay are existing and proposed Miniparks, Neighborhood Parks and Viewparks. Public beach access exists in Dover Shores off Polaris Drive, as well as at Newport Dunes. Surrounding the Bay are scenic drives (Irvine Avenue, Backbay Drive) and a pedestrian trail which traverses the length of the eastern shore of the Bay, as well as portions of the western shore. A secondary bikeway surrounds the entire Bay. Noise Element The Noise Element assesses the City's noise environment and the contributors to that environment. The Element's "Noise Control Program" includes all practicable City actions towards reduction of noise from motor, aircraft, and stationary sources, and mitigation of its adverse effects.4 Public Safety Element The purpose of this Element is to introduce safety considerations in the planning process in order to reduce loss of life, injuries, damage to property, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fire, flood, and dangerous geologic occurrences. It is intended that this Element serve as a review of the natural physical hazards in the Newport Beach planning area, and provide for public safety considerations in the physical development of the City of Newport Beach. It is further intended that this Element satisfy the State requirement that local General Plans contain a "Safety Element," a "Seismic Safety Element" and identify areas subject to flood hazard.5 The project excavation area is not specifically identified on the "Potential Seismic Hazard Areas" map (Figure 1 of the Element). Both of the potential dewatering sites in the Alternatives sections are identified as Category 4 (highest potential hazard 3. City of Newport Beach, Recreation and Open Space Element, page 1, October, 1984. 4. City of Newport Beach, Noise Element, page 2, October, 1974. 5. City of Newport Beach, Public Safety Element, page 1, March, 1975. IV -37 11 I from liquefaction) and Category 2 (moderate to highly expansive soils possible, Figure 3 of the Element) on the "Expansive and Collapsible Soil Hazard Areas" map. Housing Element The Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan examines residential development within the City and sets forth local policies and programs to facilitate the conservation, improvement, and development of housing for all economic segments of the community.6 This Element is not applicable to this project, as no residential uses will result from the project. 1 IV -38 `1 Conservation of Natural Resources Element I - This Element lists protection of water and air quality, cultural /scientific resources and energy and mineral resources as goals to be maintained by the City. It is intended to satisfy the state requirements and includes six sections: Bay and Ocean Water Quality, Air Quality, Beach Erosion Control, Mineral Resources, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, and Energy Conservation. The Element details several proposals to implement protective measures on a citywide basis.7 A prime focus of the Element is on the restoration and preservation of the Bay, of which the removing of the heavy silt loads is of major consideration. The Element lists several general governmental actions to be undertaken in order to maintain and improve the quality of the Bay (see page 14 of the Element). iLocal Coastal Program /Land Use Plan This plan constitutes the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program of the City of Newport Beach. The plan has been prepared in accordance with the Coastal Act of 1976 and the City's Issue Identification and Work Program approved by the California Coastal Commission on July 19, 1978. ' The Plan consists of citywide policies and land use designations, detailed area descriptions for key areas of the Coastal Zone, and land use maps for the entire Coastal Zone. In addition, the report contains a brief history of the community, a summary of the coastal policies and descriptive material designed to give the reader a clearer understanding of the community.8 6. City of Newport Beach, Housing Element, page 1, June, 1984. 7. City of Newport Beach, Conservation of Natural Resources Element, page 2, January,1974. S. City of Newport Beach, Local Coastal Program /Land Use Plan, page 1, November, 1980. 1 IV -38 `1 The Plan identifies Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean as integral and vital parts of Newport Beach, with the protection of the water resources within the community as a top priority. Policies contained in the Plan call for the continued protection of these resources and require inter - governmental cooperation to restore and enhance the upper Newport Bay. Page 5 of the Plan identifies policies and analysis for dredging operations. Page 18 includes a discussion on the State Ecological Reserve and the condition of the upper Newport Bay. As with the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, the LCP /LUP designations for the area surrounding the project are "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Low Density Residential /Open Space." Zoning Code The purpose of the Zoning Code of the City of Newport Beach is to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, and to protect the character and social and economic stability of all districts within the City, and to assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas.9 As part of the State Ecological Reserve, the project site is not specifically zoned for a particular use. The Reserve itself is bordered predominately by a mix of various Residential zonings as well as some Planned Community and Unclassified zoning. IMPACTS General Plan Land Use Element As the proposed project is intended to enhance and protect the environment of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, it is an implementation of the Land Use Element. This is to say that the project is part of the "desirable" pattern for the ultimate development of the City. Therefore, no adverse impacts are foreseen to land use. Circulation Project operations will utilize existing roadways with no significant impact foreseen. 9. City of Newport Beach, Zoning Code, page 1, ^larch 1976. IV -39 Recreation and Open Space Element As with the Land Use Element, the proposed project is also an implementation of this Element as a result of the intent to preserve and improve an established Open Space and Ecological Reserve. No adverse impacts are foreseen. Noise Element Noise generated from project activities and from related traffic volumes delivering equipment will not perceptibly increase noise levels on existing streets or excavation areas, as projected volumes are below levels capable of perceptibly increasing noise measurements. The Noise section of this evaluates the noise emanating from equip- ment. Public Safety Element No adverse impacts to public safety and well being are anticipated as a result of the implementation of this project. However, mitigation measures will be provided to ensure the safe use of the Bay to recreational enthusiasts and residents in the presence of workers and equipment during project activities in the Surrounding Land Use section of this EIR. Housing Element The project will not result in residential uses and is therefore this Element is not 1 applicable. Conservation of Natural Resources Element As with the Land Use Element and Recreation and Open Space Element, so too is the project an implementation of this Element. The purpose of the project is to protect ' and restore the Bay, an area identified as a resource to be protected. No inconsistencies with this Element are evident. Local Coastal Program /Land Use Plan The project is just one result of the program identified in the LCP /LUP for solving the problem of sediment loading into the upper Newport Bay and the resultant impacts to the Ecological Reserve. As a result, no adverse impacts are foreseen as a result of the project; however, mitigation measures are included to protect marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Zoning Code The project will not result in any residential, commercial, industrial or other special uses and is therefore not applicable to the Zoning Code. IV -40 I I 1 MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are proposed, as the project is consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program /Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code. 1 IV -41 I I I 11 1' i 1 1 h I I 1 I I G. AESTHETICS EXISTING CONDITIONS The Upper Bay is dominated by typical estuary habitat. Mudflat, marsh and tidal waters encompass the area which is bordered by gentle to steep slopes and cliffs. The area north of the Coast Highway Bridge (Dover Shores, Newport Dunes) has a mix of residential and recreational uses, which can be seen all along the shores of these areas. ' The Newport Harbor is dominated by residential uses, with some commercial uses of a visitor - serving nature (shops and restaurants). Many of the surrounding residents have the Harbor as their primary view. Activities which take place in the Harbor are principally limited to recreational boating, with limited commercial or industrial marine traffic. IIMPACTS Activities from a temporary dredging operation involving the use of tugs and scows ' would be on a relatively long term basis (up to one year in duration). There would be three notable aesthetic impacts from such an operation, as follows: o Dredging equipment at the site of the dredge in the Upper Bay would be visible from many vantage points. Such equipment would involve either a hydraulic dredge with a platform barge or a clamshell dredge on a deck barge. o A temporary marshalling composite barge (400' x 30' secured by spuds) would be placed off the eastern tip of Lido Island or Harbor Island and 1 would be highly visible. o Tugs and scows would travel the length of the harbor from the harbor entrance to the dredge site on a periodic basis (every 2.5 to 4.5 hours). The scows are best characterized as a "tub" for the transport of the material and would be noticeable in terms of their bulk and size (up to 260 feet in length and 25 feet in height, although the scows most likely to be used would be 150 feet in length - see Exhibit 15). An alternative consisting of a pipeline to an offshore marshalling barge (Approach C) would eliminate visual impacts in the habor, but the operation of filling and exchanging the barges would be visible from the Balboa Peninsula looking oceanward. The characterization of viewshed impacts is largely one of personal taste. Many viewers might find the scow operation an interesting example of marine commercial operations, while other viewers might find the scows' presence intrusive. MITIGATION MEASURES Because the visual intrusion of the scows, tugs and marshalling barge are a necessary concomitant of the project itself, there are no mitigation measures available to reduce the identified impacts. Therefore, the impacts herein must be considered unavoidable. Only the "No Project" or "Pipeline" alternatives will eliminate the visual impacts in the harbor. IV -42 I I 1 I1 I I LJ I] I I 1 I I is 0 Y O 0 N N O V T m LL co O co a m m m L Y C Y N m O m d N m IL U Q W m F- 0 Z LL 0 F- U W I- U 'a V / LL W^ 1..1..E O CUB \J C od 0 D F- � � V y Vi g' yQ o U I�. I I 1 m X W i ' H. HARBOR CIRCULATION EXISTING CONDITIONS Newport Harbor has a single entrance at the southeastern extreme of the harbor. The entrance itself is approximately 750 feet wide from jetty to jetty. The 500- foot -wide entrance channel extends north to the Bend channel where it turns west into the 200 - foot -wide Balboa Reach. Near the Balboa Pavilion, this channel makes a slight turn to the northwest and becomes the Harbor Island Reach (200 feet wide). Harbor Island Reach makes a slight westerly turn between Lido Isle and Bay- Shores into the Lido Isle Reach (200 feet wide) which extends to the westerly most extreme of the harbor and ends at the Turning Basin. Anchorage and mooring areas border these channels from the Bend Channel on into the Harbor. The speed limit upon entering the Entrance Channel and throughout the Harbor is 5 knots. I� The upper and lower bay are separated by the Coast Highway Bridge which has a vertical clearance of 20 feet and horizontal clearance of 40 feet at a mean high tide of 4.5 feet. Vessels in the Upper Bay are therefore limited to those which can negotiate the Coast Highway Bridge. Primary areas for recreational docking are at ' the Dover Shores Marina (private) and the Dunes. Circulation throughout the Harbor is dominated by pleasure craft, both power and sail. Some commercial uses are present in the form of fishing and tour boats. A landmark ' use of the Harbor is the Balboa Island Ferry, which operates between Balboa Island and the Balboa Pavilion on the Balboa Peninsula. The ferry operates from 6:30 a.m. until midnight, Sunday through Thursday, and from 6:30 a.m. until 2:00 a.m., Friday through Saturday. During the peak season from June through Labor Day, the ferry operates 24 ' hours per day. Up to three ferries are in service at any given time, with a crossing interval of 3 to 7 minutes, depending on the time of year and time of week. During ' the peak season, a single ferry operates from midnight until 7:00 a.m. IMPACTS Should either of the dredging alternatives which utilize the use of scows and tugs be implemented, some impacts to harbor circulation will take place. The public anchorage area off the eastern tip of the Lido Isle will need to be temporarily abandoned to establish the marshalling composite barge area (400, x 30, secured by spuds). A Notice to Mariners will likely accompany the commencement of operations, as well as a temporary change in the anchorage regulations by the Coast Guard. The 1,100- cubic -yard scows are 150 feet long and 35 feet wide. When accompanied by a small tug (40 feet long and 18 feet wide), the width of this combination would be 53 ' feet, if the tugs are used on the side of the scow. This width would represent approximately 25% of the channel width in the Harbor, which is 200 feet. The larger, 3,000- cubic -yard scows are 260 feet long and 45 feet wide. When accompanied by a large, ocean -going tug (70 feet long and 25 feet wide), the width of this combination would be 70 feet if the tugs are used on the side of the scow. This width would represent approximately 35% of the channel width in the Harbor. Guideboats would most likely not be a factor in the width of the equipment, as they would preceed the tugs and scows in and out of the Harbor. In like manner, it is probable that the tugs would push the scows, rather than side -tie, reducing the total width of a transit by the width of a tug. The scows travel in the center of the channel, and when passing, they ' IV -44 I� could occupy as much as 100 feet of the total channel width. When such passing occurs, the full width of the channel will not be available for boaters. The activity from the transport of the dredged material via scows will have the potential to interrupt various boat racing events, from the Sabot races to the larger boats just outside the Harbor. (See the 1936 AOCYC Master Calendar in the Technical Appendices for racing events.) Even with the scows moving at 2.5 to 3.0 knots down the middle of the channel, it can be expected that both racing and pleasure boats will need to adjust their courses to avoid the slow- moving scows. If a sailboat stalls close to the scows, the scows will need to stop or maneuver to avoid it, unless the boat can resume course. If the boat comes too close to the scow, even at 2.5 knots, it will take 40 feet and 16 seconds for the 1,100- cubic -yard scow to stop and 90 feet and 40 seconds for the 3,000- cubic -yard scow.* If a sailboat were to come dangerously close to the scow and stall, there could be a collision, as the scow would be unable to stop or maneuver to avoid it. Weekend and holiday harbor traffic will likely present logistics problems for the scow and tug operators in that the opportunities for interruption or adjustments in travel will greatly increase. This weekend traffic is augmented periodically by activities which are scheduled (races, both in and out of the harbor). if traffic conditions in the harbor become so crowded that the tug operators do not feel that they can safely maneuver the scows, operations will probably not take place during that time. While this eliminates the impacts to circulation, it greatly increases the cost and duration of the project. A means to help minimize the potential traffic conflicts in the Harbor would be to post a "lookout" on the scow bow with a megaphone and radio to notify boaters and the tug operator of possible hazards. A guideboat could also be utilized to establish a safe distance between it and the scow. This procedure allows a clear stopping distance for the tug operator should a sailboat stall in front of the guideboat, actually a buffer between the scow and other harbor traffic. Consideration for the use of a Composite Tug and Barge Unit might be given to minimize traffic and safety hazards in the harbor. These units are the tug and barge systems which commonly operate on the Mississippi River. The system involves the use of a tug which attaches directly behind a barge; attached in such a manner as to become one "composite" unit. Additionally, the wheelhouse of the tug is elevated above the profile of the barge, enabling the tug operator to see over and beyond the barge he is pushing. The composite configuration is particularly effective in controlling movement of the barges in reverse, but affects the cost of the operation. Races involving children or small sailboats can be required by the Harbormaster to be relocated to less sensitive portions of the Harbor during scow operations (i.e., the Turning Basin or the "Rhine "). Rental boats, which are sometimes piloted by sailors with little experience, should be confined to an area outside of the project operations. • Source: Telecon with Marty Jones, Jones Tug and Barge - 11/21/85. Assumes 1,800 horsepower tug in a pushing configuration. IV -45 I A pipeline /scow approach would avoid scow traffic in the harbor, as the pipeline would convey the spoil material to the offshore barge without the need for scows in the harbor. While storing scows in the harbor is contemplated by this approach, their "one- time" transit in and out during periods of non -use is commensurate with the activity of other large vessels in the harbor. While their temporary storage may not be as attractive as other vessels, there is nothing to indicate infeasibility of their storage. ' MITIGATION MEASURES 13. A "lookout" on the scow bow, or a guideboat, will be utilized which is provided with two -way communication with the tug operators to minimize potential adverse incidents. 14. Contractor shall meet with ferry operators before beginning operations to develop a mutually acceptable communications system. 15. Events involving children or small boats may be required by the Harbor Master to relocate away from dredging operations. 16. Tug operators will be allowed ultimate discretion to cease operations during periods of extreme harbor activity. ' IV -46 Operations of the Balboa Ferry would be impacted at any time a tug and scow transitted their crossing. Delays of up to 3 minutes can be expected 12 times per day (6 scows in and 6 scows out). The current dredging and scow operation in the Dunes operates satisfactorily with the ferry by means of marine radio communication. At any time when the tugs and scows are in operation, significant cooperation and marine courtesy will be required towards the tug and scow operators by all activities in the Harbor. Recent marine use of the Harbor has disclosed a somewhat increased tidal surge in the vicinity of the Coast Highway Bridge. It is believed that this change in conditions is ' the result of a combination of two factors: an above - average tidal fall, and the introduction of tidal flushing to the Upper Bay as a part of the Unit I project. The increases in tidal action from the more active Bay hydraulics are a feature which occurs in many harbors and is not anticipated to be of such a proportion as to provide a hazard or extreme inconvenience to navigation. Prior to heavy siltation in the Bay, ' the tidal surge behaved in much the same manner as predicted herein. Therefore, the increases in tidal surge from the Unit I project in combination with the Unit II project 1 are not anticipated to be significant. A concern was raised by the Coast Guard concerning two recent collisions between the Coast Highway bridge and scows operating in the Dunes project. A review of these incidents reveals that they occurred during the above - average tidal falls described in the foregoing paragraph. The Dunes project also did not include dredging of the marine channel which will greatly enhance safe passage of the barges and attenuate tidal fluctuations. No further collisions have occurred and it is anticipated that scow traffic by this can be conducted safety. proposed project A pipeline /scow approach would avoid scow traffic in the harbor, as the pipeline would convey the spoil material to the offshore barge without the need for scows in the harbor. While storing scows in the harbor is contemplated by this approach, their "one- time" transit in and out during periods of non -use is commensurate with the activity of other large vessels in the harbor. While their temporary storage may not be as attractive as other vessels, there is nothing to indicate infeasibility of their storage. ' MITIGATION MEASURES 13. A "lookout" on the scow bow, or a guideboat, will be utilized which is provided with two -way communication with the tug operators to minimize potential adverse incidents. 14. Contractor shall meet with ferry operators before beginning operations to develop a mutually acceptable communications system. 15. Events involving children or small boats may be required by the Harbor Master to relocate away from dredging operations. 16. Tug operators will be allowed ultimate discretion to cease operations during periods of extreme harbor activity. ' IV -46 17. Consideration for the use of a Composite Tug and Barge Unit should be given. Such a unit would allow for greater control and stability while operating in the , harbor. I I I I I I i L] 1 1 1 I IV -47 , 1 i V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES I I F I I I 1 r L I I PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Presented in this section are three project alternatives. Each of these alternatives is designed to alleviate identified environmental problems, or which were specifically 1 requested for consideration during the EIR. Each of the alternatives has been measured against the project objectives as stated in the project description of this EIR and as required by the CEQA Guidelines. It is the intent of this chapter to describe all reasonable alternatives to the project which could feasibly obtain the project's objectives. This approach is in direct compliance with Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives herein ' also focus on approaches capable of eliminating significant environmental effects or reducing them to a level of significance, even if these alternatives will not obtain the project objectives or are more costly. The alternatives herein appeal to a wide range of mitigation to provide a strong foundation for public discussion. The reason presented for rejection of any alternative represents the position of the City of Newport Beach at the time of project development, or represent the position of various agencies in the historical development of alternatives for Newport Bay. The City of Newport Beach will explain the reasons for its rejection of the alternatives (if such an event occurs) prior to final decision making on the project in order to take advantage of all public comments. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ' The no project alternative would not implement any of the components described in the project description in this EIR. Basically, the only improvements in Upper Newport Bay that would be available for sediment control would be the Unit I project upstream of the proposed excavation area, which is an in -Bay sediment station. No enhancement of the Upper Newport Bay to restore it to its predamaged state would occur. The transition of the Bay, as described in the Biological Resources section, to a different type of ecological system would be maintained and would probably accelerate. Eventually, the original character and biological features of the Bay from an historical standpoint would be lost, and massive efforts to restore it to its original ecological balance would probably be unsuccessful. ' The no project alternative avoids the impact described in this EIR that would result from the excavation and transport of dredge material. It would also avoid the disruption of wildlife and periodic turbidity in the Bay and the Harbor as a result of ' excavation. An additional impact which would be realized over time by not restoring and ' protecting the Bay in this area would be the sediment transport to Newport Harbor. Over time, albeit a considerable amount of time, the upstream facilities would no longer be capable of arresting sufficient sediment. Additionally, the improvements proposed in this EIR, because not installed, would not allow a better tidal exchange so that sediment is relieved expeditiously and flushing continues. This will eventually result in significant deposition in the Harbor as the invert elevation of the Bay and the Harbor seek equilibrium. Sediment deposition in the Harbor will eventually result in the need for dredging, which may disrupt navigation, moorings and marina arrange- ments in the Harbor. V -1 1 The project described in this EIR, as well as its predecessors, provides the state and local agencies with the unique opportunity to restore a major ecological component in , the Orange County area. The Upper Newport Bay has been acknowledged to be of regional significance as a fishery and water fowl area. Its habitat opportunities will be considerably enhanced by the proposed project, and over time it will be considerably reduced by the project's absence. For these reasons, this alternative is being rejected. HYDRAULIC DREDGE WITH NEWPORT CANYON DISPOSAL OFFSHORE The same hydraulic dredging setup described in Approach B would be used to pump ' dredged material through a long, temporary pipeline routed down Upper Newport Bay on the surface, then submerged from near the Dunes to near Newport Yacht Club (to allow for small craft navigation), then up the slope near the public beach above ' Newport Yacht Club and across the peninsula (pipeline buried), then across the ocean beach (buried), and finally out to the head of the Newport Canyon (submerged). Two booster pumps placed in the discharge pipeline would supplement the hydraulic dredge pump to keep material flowing through this long line. Upon completion of the work, the pipeline could be removed except for the section crossing the peninsula which would be more disruptive and expensive to remove than to leave in place where it could be reused in the future. Total project time for this alternative would be about 16 weeks. Construction ' Equipment: - One 16" hydraulic dredge - Two in -line booster pumps - 23,400 -ft., 16" line Operation: Mobilization: Move all equipment to jobsite; partially disassemble and , reassemble dredge to move under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge; assemble pipeline; cut through streets on peninsula and bury sleeve pipeline, patch streets; jack dredge pipeline through sieve; demob and clean up. ' Dredge at rate of 230 cy /hr. into Newport Canyon as disposal site. I I I V -2 I i L! I LJ Costs Mobilization $ 312,000 Sleeve through peninsula 46,700 Dredge 526,500 cy @ $2.40 /cy for dredge + $1.90 /cy for boosters 2,264,000 Subtotal $2,622,700 + 10% contingency Total $2,885,000 Unit cost @ 526,500 cy $5.48/cy Unit cost @ 1,153,400 cy $5.07 /cy CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2) requires the identification of an "environmentally superior" alternative (in addition to the "No Project" alternative if that is deemed environmentally superior). It is difficult to identify with precision an environmentally superior alternative to the three approaches described in the Project Description, and in a larger sense, to the restoration of the Bay itself. Further, extremely detailed studies would be required (bioassays, etc.) to document an environmentally superior alternative with absolute certainty. The discussion provided below for this alternative is presented in the context of these observations. The use of a temporary pipeline reduces the noise level, the disruptive impacts to wildlife and aesthetics caused by barge traffic in the Bay, and would eliminate potential harbor circulation problems also brought about by the barges traveling in the Bay. The impediment to the implementation of this alternative is primarily regulatory. The EPA has the discretionary authority under the Clean Water Act and the Marine Protection of Sanctuaries Act to permit offshore disposal of materials. The Regional ' Water Quality Control Board must also issue a point discharge permit. To authorize the use of Newport Canyon by the pipeline, permits must be issued. The permit process takes approximately three years, and there is no assurance once the process is commenced that the permit will be issued. Since the funding for this project must be committed by June, 1986 or expire, the time required for the federal regulatory process appears to render Newport Canyon disposal infeasible. An alternative of a pipeline with disposal to L.A.3 was also explored with the EPA* so that the permitting process associated with a new offshore disposal site could be avoided. Since L.A.3 is an approved dumping area (and will be used for the scows), it seemed that a pipeline to that area could be considered. EPA has initially determined ' that this alternative would also be subject to significant regulatory constraints, however. Although federal regulations apparently permit scow dumping over L.A.3, a separate set of regulations would prohibit the deposition of the same material in the same location by pipeline. ' * Personal communication, Ms. Patricia Ecklund, Mr. Phil Oshita, EPA x10/29/85) by Ms. Andriette Adams. V -3 11 In spite of the fact that the temporary pipeline recommend it from an environmental viewpoint, the the EPA and federal regulation have caused the City I alternative may have much to ' regulatory constraints imposed by to reject it. HYDRAULIC DREDGE WITH LAND DISPOSAL ' A 13 -acre parcel of land between Jamboree and MacArthur has been identified as available for the processing (not ultimate disposal) of dredged material. A dike 6 feet high including a return water weir would be constructed around the site to contain the dredged material (which comes out of the pipeline in a slurry form) and to aid in processing. Material would be dredged and pipelined to the site via hydraulic pipeline in batches to be processed (dried) for removal to the Coyote Canyon dump, about three ' miles away. After a batch of about 12,000 cubic yards (the maximum amount that can be processed on a 13 -acre site) is pumped onto the site, excess delivery water (clarified to meet water quality standards) would be weired from the site back into San , Diego Creek and the freshly placed dredged material would be allowed to air dry for two weeks. After air drying, the dredged material would be aerated to reduce moisture content by a cat pulling a plow for a day, then allowed to air dry for 3 days, followed by another plowing for 5 consecutive plowing /drying cycles. Finally, the ' processed batch would be loaded and hauled by truck to the Coyote Canyon dump for ultimate disposal. Processing each 12,000 -cubic yard batch would require 41 days; processing the entire 526,500 cubic yards would require 44 batches and take almost 5 , years to complete; the excavation of 1,153,400 cubic yards would require nearly 11 years to complete. A second land disposal site was identified at 22nd and Irvine, but its small size in a ' residential area and the distance and routing to the dump render it far less feasible than the Jamboree site. Therefore, no detailed evaluation of this site was conducted. ' Construction time and costs could be reduced for the land disposal alternative if a larger, nearby land disposal site for permanent or even temporary processing of dredged material could be located; however, at the present time, there appear to be no ' such sites available except those mentioned above. Construction ' Equipment: - One 16" hydraulic dredge r - 8,000 -ft, 16" pipeline - One cat tractor with plow (disposal site) , - One 2.5 -cy front loader (disposal site) - Nine 18 -cy trucks (disposal site to dump) Operation: ' - Mobilization: Move all equipment to jobsite; partially disassemble and reassemble dredge to move under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge; assemble pipeline; demob and clean up. V -4 , I - Construct 6 -foot dike and weir structure to prepare disposal site. Conduct dredging on 12,000 -cy batch basis for 44 batch cycles. Cycle elements: • Dredge 2 days • Settle and air dry 14 days • Plowing /drying 20 days • Truck to dump 5 days Total 41 days Costs Mobilization Prepare disposal site (dike, weir) Process 1 batch (12,000 cy) - Dreged - Dredge standby 39 days @ $1,200 /day - Plowing - 5 days @ $650 /day - Plow standby - 15 days @ $200 /day - Excavate and load trucks - 12,000 cy @ $.55 /cy - Truck to dump - 12,000 cy @ $3.38/cy - Spread, light compaction at dump - 12,000 cy @ $1.10 /cy Total per batch Subtotal for 44 batches Subtotal + 10% contingency Total Unit cost @ 526,500 cy $ 25,200 46,800 3,250 3,000 6,600 40,600 13.200 $138,650 $ 60,000 34,800 5,100,600 $6,195,400 $6,315,000 $12.94/cy The extremely high cost and potential impacts from extended high truck traffic caused rejection of this alternative. Only if no other alternative could be accomplished would this alternative be selected. V -5 VL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts to be " ... two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity. The Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Project is a public works project which takes place in a highly discrete environment - -the Upper Newport Bay. Since the project as proposed will not involve truck hauling of sediment materials, its cumulative impacts, if any, are confined to the reaches of the Upper Newport Bay and to Newport Harbor. The types of cumulative impacts which the E /SMP are limited to conflicts bet oriented events, such as boat races considered in the Harbor Circulation dredging activities that are currentl y Newport Bay (i.e., the Dunes project) are and are anticipated to be completed before may be ween the or other section, under expected from the implementation of scow traveling routes and other water - dredging activities. Boat races are as well as dredging activities. The way or contemplated in the Upper smaller in scope than the proposed project the E /SPM project begins. Sailboat races are a frequent occurrence in Newport Harbor. The slow travel speed (2.5 knots) of the scows, in spite of their size, should leave sufficient maneuverability for sailboats which are racing in the harbor. Nonetheless, conflicts between recreational boating activities and the scow routes are anticipated to occur from time to time because of the sheer size of the scows. These impacts are considered unavoidable. Other planned projects in the area are either of no consequence to the Bay dredging or are on a time schedule that is different from that of the proposed project. In the former case, the construction of the Corona Del Mar Freeway only has impact if the truck disposal alternative is selected, which appears infeasible because of cost. In like manner, a City project to widen and modify Newport Boulevard bridge will not be commenced for two to three years. It is unclear whether this latter project would have any effect on the Bay operation, but in any event its time frame for construction is not concurrent with that of the Bay operation. VI-1 VIL LONGTERM IMPLICATIONS OF' THE PROPOSED PROJECT I 1 1 1 Ll 1 1 I i C 1 1 1 1 1 � '.,.: ,. � '': `. _ _ . c.. _ ...,._•� 'C ^__ •_�_.� mss. �:i�.w •3a:.•u'"�'i.a'rt ,�. . RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY The basin to be excavated in the Upper Bay, once constructed, will combine with its ' surrounding environment through revegetation and sensitive contouring of the basin sides. Periodic disturbances will occur as the basin is excavated for maintenance purposes, approximately every five years. The basin in no way narrows the range of beneficial uses which is available for the Upper Newport Bay. In fact, the creation of a basin in the Upper Bay, combined with the access channel excavation (if such excavation is undertaken), actually enhances and restores the Upper Newport Bay. rIRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 1 The construction of the basin in the Upper Newport Bay represents a commitment to solve the Upper Bay sedimentation problem. Facilities have already been constructed in the channel in San Diego Creek, as well as in the old saltworks portion of the Upper Bay. These public works can be viewed as an irreversible commitment of resources in the Bay to sediment control facilities. Since the excavation and maintenance of the basin in the Upper Bay are generally beneficial to the Bay, the commitment of Bay land area to this use cannot be seen as an irretrievable commitment of resources GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS As the project is a restoration and sediment management project, there is no growth inducement as a result of its implementation. I I I 1 I I VII- I t I I VM. INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS I I I d I I u I 11 I I I I F I INVENTORY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The completion of this project will result in no long -term adverse impacts. Potential adverse impacts as a result of the methods of implementing the project are considered temporary and unavoidable and are as follows: 1. Temporary conflicts of harbor traffic involving dredging equipment and recreational boating activities. 2. Events involving children or small boats may be required to temporarily relocate away from dredging operations. 3. Temporary wildlife harassment due to dredging activity and noise. 4. Temporary increase in water turbidity due to dredging activity. 5. Temporary increase in noise levels for residences adjacent to the excavation site. 6. Temporary visual intrusion from dredging equipment, scows, tug boats and marshalling composite barge. VIII -I L I I 1 A 1 P 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 I I IY -1 I INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Efforts will be made to ensure that the side slopes of the dredged area are as flat as possible to maximize the amount of lower inter -tidal habitat ( mudflat) available for foraging shorebirds. 2. Work will be planned as much as possible to affect mudflat areas which would be converted to salt marsh through succession (above 0.5 MSO. 3. Nesting activity of endangered species in the vicinity of the project area will be monitored by the Department of Fish and Game. Monitoring will take place between April 15 and July 31 in areas affected by dredging activities. If the Department determines that nesting activities are being disrupted by dredging activities, the Department shall notify the City of Newport Beach, which may restrict operations to avoid interference with nesting activities. ' 4. Maintenance of upstream sediment control facilities will be emphasized to reduce the frequency of inbay maintenance for an overall reduction in wildlife harassment. 5. Dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. 6. Dredged spoils shall not be used to fill riparian areas, marshes or natural canyons. 7. The combined long -term "wetlands habitat value" of the lands involved (including projects and mitigation lands) must not be less after project completion than the combined "wetlands habitat value" that exists under pre - project conditions. 8. Upon completion of detailed engineering drawings for the project, the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted for additional mitigation measures as necessary. 9. All conditions imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game will be incorporated into the project. 10. The RWQCB and OCENIA monitoring program results will be observed by the City during the excavation program. Appropriate steps will be taken if elevated levels of target pollutants are detected. 11. Project operations will require that the scow doors !doors used to release dredged material) remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. 12. At the time of the letting of the construction contract, it shall be demonstrated that engine noise from excavation equipment shall be mitigated by keeping engine doors closed during equipment operation. For equipment that cannot be enclosed behind doors, lead curtains shall be used to attenuate noise. 13. A "lookout" on the scow bow, or a guideboat, will be utilized which is provided with two -way communication with the tug operators to minimize potential ' adverse incidents. I IY -1 I 14. Contractor shall meet with ferry operators before beginning operations to develop a mutually acceptable communications system. 15. Events involving children or small boats may be required by the Harbor Master to relocate away from dredging operations. 16. Tug operators will be allowed ultimate discretion to cease operations during periods of extreme harbor activity. 17. Consideration for the use of a Composite Tug and Barge Unit should be given. Such a unit would allow for greater control and stability while operating in the harbor. IX -2 X. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED The following agencies, persons and firms were contacted during the preparation of this FIR. This is a partial list, as the Notice of Preparation distribution and the Scoping Meeting attendees represent a complete consultation list. PUBLIC AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS City of Newport Beach Patricia Temple John Wolter Sandra Genis Craig Bluell Jeff Staneart County of Orange Bonnie Ramsey Fish and Game Carl Wilcox Environmental Protection Agency Patricia Eklund Phil Oshita Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army Cheryl Hill Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Coast Guard Commander J.F. Stumpff FIRMS Preparation of the Draft EIR Culbertson, Adams and Associates Andriette Adams, Project Manager Kevin Culbertson, Associate Planner ' Engineering Ni.H. Cheney, Consulting Civil Engineer X -1 J Special Coordinating Consultant Don Simpson Biology MBC Applied Environmental Sciences Robert R. Ware Mike Mancusco Air Quality and Noise Mestre Greve Associates Vince Mestre Fred Greve X -2 XI. BIBLIOGRAPHY ,. [1 1 _I 1 I I 1 I I I i 1 1 1 i I 1 �1 I t '1 BIBLIOGRAPHY The documents cited below were researched and relied upon during the preparation of the EIR. They have been incorporated into this document by reference consistent with Section 15149 of the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Admin. Code, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.). The documents are available for public review at the offices of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884; (714) 644 -3225. 1. EIR. Newport Bav Watershed - San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water ' 11. City of Newport Beach, Conservation of Natural Resources Element, Newport Beach General Plan; January, 1974. 12. City of Newport Beach, Public Safety Element, Newport Beach General Plan, March, 1975. ' 13. City of Newport Beach, Noise Element, Newport Beach General Plan; October, 1974. XI- t aeaimentation controi Tian, harry action ano interim rian; preparep for Lim ' City of Newport Beach by Culbertson, Adams and Associates, 1981. 2. Addendum to EIR, Early Action and Interim Plan, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan; prepared for the City of Newport Beach by Culbertson, Adams and Associates, October, 1984. 3. EIR, Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve; prepared by the Department of ' Fish and Game, 1978. 4. Water Quality in Newport Bay and its Watershed; O.C.E.M.A., 1980. 5. Newport Bay Watershed, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan; prepared for the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine and the Southern California Association of Governments, by Boyle Engineering ' Corporation, 1983. 6. Initial Study, Upper Newport Bay Restoration Project; prepared for the City of Newport Beach by Culbertson, Adams and Associates, 1984. 7. City of Newport Beach, Land Use Element, Newport Beach General Plan; ' October, 1983. 8. City of Newport Beach, Circulation Element, Newport Beach General Plan; August, 1978. ' 9. City of Newport Beach, Recreation and Open Space Element, Newport Beach General Plan; October, 1984. ' 10. City of Newport Beach, Housing Element, Newport Beach General Plan; June, 1984. ' 11. City of Newport Beach, Conservation of Natural Resources Element, Newport Beach General Plan; January, 1974. 12. City of Newport Beach, Public Safety Element, Newport Beach General Plan, March, 1975. ' 13. City of Newport Beach, Noise Element, Newport Beach General Plan; October, 1974. XI- t 14. City of Newport Beach, Subdivision Code; July, 1982. 15. City of Newport Beach, Zoning Code; April, 1983. 16. Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program, Unit II, A Report on the Methods, Costs and Feasibility of Implementing Unit II Work; prepared for the City of Newport Beach by M.H. Cheney, 1985. 17. Upper Newport Bay Dredge Bioassay; prepared for California Department of Fish and Game and The Irvine Company by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 1985. h41WA X11. APPENDIX GLOSSARY NOTICES OF PREPARATION AND RESPONSES* BIOASSAY REPORT* ENGINEERING REPORT* NOISE AND AIR QUALITY REPORT* 19U AOCYC MASTER CALENDAR* * included in Technical Appendices p .. �v5u_�.T.'Cr =• r.._.....rf.:d: P 11 1 lJ LJ 1 1 1 I 1 I] 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 GLnSSAR V AAAAA Acoustics - (1) The science of sound, including the generation, transmission, and effects of sound waves, both audible and inaudible. (2) The physical qualities of a room or other enclosure (such as size, shape, amount of noised that determine the audibility and perception of speech and music. Acre -Foot - The volume of water that would cover one acre to a depth of one foot. Active Recreation - Leisure time activities, usually of a more formal nature and performed with others, often requiring equipment and taking place at prescribed places, sites, or fields. Aerobic - Living, active or occurring only in the presence of oxygen. Air Basin - One of the 14 self- contained regions, minimally influenced by air quality in contiguous regions. Air Pollution Control District (APCD) - A single- or multi - county agency with legislative authority to adopt and enforce all rules and regulations necessary to control nonvehicular sources of air pollutants in its area. Air Pollutant Emissions - Discharges into the atmosphere, usually specified in terms of weight per unit of time for a given pollutant from a given source. Air Quality Standard - A health -based standard for air pollution established by the Federal Government and the State. Ambient Air Quality - The quality of the air at a particular time and place. Ambient Noise Level - That level of noise that exists at any instant, regardless of source. Anaerobic - Living or active in the absence of free oxygen. Approval - The decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person. The exact date of approval of any project is a matter determined by each public agency according to its rules, regulations, and ordinances. Legislative actions in regard to a project often constitutes approval. Arterial - A major street carrying the traffic of local and collector streets to and from freeways and other major streets, with controlled intersections and generally providing direct access to properties. At -grade - The crossing of two movement channels of transportation at the same elevation or level. I B B B B B ' Barrier - An element which obstructs access. It may serve as a visual and /or functional obstruction. Benthos - Organisms that live on or in the bottom of bodies of water. , Bicycle Trail - A paved pathway designed to be used by bicyclists. Bottleneck - A constriction along a traveled way which limits the amount of traffic which can proceed downstream from its location. rrrrr , CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) - A law passed in 1970 that sets up a ' review process for state and local agencies aimed toward making decisions that are environmentally sound. Any project that may "significantly" affect the environment is subject to the provisions of CEQA and that generally includes ' subdivisions, shopping centers, changes in land use designations, and public works projects. Channel - A water course with a definite bed and banks which confine and conduct the normal continuous or intermittent flow of water. Character - An attribute, quality or property of a place, space, or object. The , distinguishing character of a place, space or object. Class I Bikeway - A completely separated travel way designed for the exclusive use of bicycles. Class 11 Bikeway - A shared travel way with only signing and striping provided. Climatology - The study of long -term, average weather, including winds, temperature, cloud cover, rainfall and humidity. CO - Carbon monoxide. ' Community Association - A homeowners association organized to own, maintain, and operate common facilities and to enhance and protect their common interests. Community Facility - A building or structure owned and operated by a governmental agency to provide a governmental service to the public. ' Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - A scale that accounts for A- weighted acoustic energy received at a point over a 24 -hour period. To reflect the increased annoyance caused by noise events during the evening and night time, ' weighting factors of 5 dBA and 10 dBA are added to the sound levels between 7:00 and 10:00 p.m. and between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., respectively. 2 1 ' Community Parks - Community parks serve more than one village. They vary in size but are generally 20 acres and should meet the need of all age groups by providing a wide variety of land use. Concentration - A measure of the average density of pollutants, usually specified in terms of pollutant mass per unit volume of air (typically in micrograms per cubic meter) or in terms of relative volume of pollutant per unit volume of air ' (typically in parts per million). Concentric - (1) having a common center; (2) having a common axis. Conditional Use - A use permitted in a particular zoning district only upon showing that such use in a specified location will comply with all the conditions and standards for the location or operation of such use as specified in a zoning ordinance. Conservation - The management of natural resources to prevent waste, destruction, or neglect. ' Cultural Facilities - Establishments such as museums, art galleries, botanical, or zoological gardens of an historic, educational, or cultural interest, which are not operated commercially. c.y. - Cubic yard. ' Cycle Length - The time period in seconds required for one complete cycle. ' DDDDD dBA - A quantity in decibels read from a sound level meter that is switched to the weighting network labeled "A." The A- weighting network discriminates against the lower frequencies according to a relationship approximating the sensitivity of the human hearing mechanism. Decibel (abbreviated "dB ") - A unit of noise measurement indicating the loudness of sound. It is based on logarithmic scale, of the magnitude of a particular quantity (such as sound pressure, sound power, intensity) with respect to a standard reference value (0.0002 microbars for sound pressure and 10 -12 watt for sound power). Detector - A device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting ' impulse to the signal controller. Dike - A bank usually of earth constructed to control or confine water. Diversion - The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion. Dredge - A machine for removing earth, usually by buckets on an endless chain or a suction tube. 1 3 1 1 EEEEE ' EIR (Environmental Impact Report) - A detailed analysis required by CEQA of a project that may significantly affect the environment. Emission Inventory - Inventory of types, sources, and amounts of air emissions within a ' geographical region. Enhancement - To make greater (as in value, desirability or attractiveness). ' Erosion - The process by which soil and rock are detached and moved by running water, wind, ice, and gravity. ' Excavation - A cavity formed by cutting, digging or scooping. F F F F F t Fault - A fracture in the earth's crust forming a boundary between rock masses that ' have shifted. Active Fault - A fault that has moved recently and which is likely to move again. ' For planning purposes, "active fault" is usually defined as one that shows movement within the last 11,000 years and can be expected to move within the next 100 years. Potentially Active Fault - (1) A fault that last moved within the Quaternary ' Period before the Holocene Epoch (the last 2,000,000 to 11,000 years); (2) A fault which, because it is judged to be capable of ground rupture or , shaking, poses an unacceptable risk for a proposed structure. Inactive Fault - A fault which shows no evidence of movement in recent geologic time and no potential for movement in the relatively near future. Flood Plain - A lowland or relatively flat area adjoining inland or coastal waters that is subject to a one - percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year 'Le., , 100 -year flood). Forced Flow - Opposite of "free flow." Free Flow - Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely and travel unimpeded by other traffic. Frequency - The frequency of a sound wave, expressed in cycles per second, or hertz, , determined the "pitch" of the sound. High frequencies produce high - pitched sounds, and low frequencies produce low- pitched sounds. GGGGG Geotechnical Evaluation - A professional evaluation using scientific methods and ' engineering principles of geology, geophysics, hydrology, and related sciences. 4 ' I I ' Goal - The ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable. Example: "To enhance the open -space amenities of the community." 1 Ground Failure - Mudslide, landslide, liquefaction, or the seismic compaction of soils. Groundwater - The supply of freshwater under the surface in an aquifer or soil that ' forms the natural reservoir for potable water. H H H H H Habitat - The natural environment of a plant or animal. ' HC - Hydrocarbons. Hertz - Unit of measurement of frequency, numerically equal to cycles per second. Hierarchy - Any system of interrelated persons or things, ranked one above another in descending order of importance or size. 11111 Identity - Unity and persistence of personality; clarity of organization within a broad group of dissimilar objects. Synonymous with comprehensibility. Impact - A word used to express the extent or severity of an environmental problem, ' e.g., the number of persons exposed to a given noise environment. Implementation Measure - An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out a plan policy. ' Initial Study - A preliminary analysis prepared by the lead agency to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration must be ' prepared for a proposed project. Institutional Use - A non- profit or quasi - public use or institution such as a church, library, public or private school, hospital, or municipally owned or operated tbuilding, structure or land used for public purpose. ' L L L L L Land Use - Putting land, water and air space to specific use - a description of how land is occupied or utilized. Landslide - A general term for a falling mass of soil or rocks. Ldn - The day /night average level established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is similar to the CNEL descriptor; however, there is no evening weighting, only a 10 dBA weighting for the nighttime hours. 5 Lead Agency - The public agency under CEQA with primary responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The lead agency prepares the environmental , documents (including the EIR) for the project either directly or through contract. Liquefaction - A process by which water - saturated granular soils transform from a , solid to a liquid state because of a sudden shock or strain. Loudness - The judgement of intensity of a sound by a human being. Loudness depends primarily on the sound pressure of the stimulus. Over much of the loudness , range it takes about a threefold increase in sound pressure (approximately 10 dB) to produce a doubling of loudness. MMMMM , Marsh - A tract of soft, wet land usually characterized by monocotyledons (as grasses ' or cattails). Marshalling Area - Area used to assemble, arrange and dispatch equipment (scows). ' Maximum Credible Earthquake - The most severe earthquake that appears capable of occurring, based on present information, including (a) the seismic history of the area; (b) the length of significant faults within 100 kilometers; (c) the type(s) of faults; and (d) the tectonic or structural history of the region. Meteorology - The study of actual (not average, as in climatology), atmospheric ' motions and phenomena. Minerals - Inorganic substances such as gold, iron, and nickel, and compounds formed from such organic substances as natural gas, petroleum, coal, and peat. , Mitigation Measures - Means by which an adverse impact may be lessened or minimized. ' Mudslide (Mudflow) - A flow of very wet rock and soil. MSL - Mean Sea Level ' NNNNN , Neighborhood - A neighborhood is the smallest settlement unit. In Irvine the term is generally used synonymously with tract increment within villages. ' Neighborhood Park - A neighborhood is intended to serve local residents and should be within walking distance of the household it serves. Public neighborhood parks range in size from 5 to 12 acres and serve a minimum of 2,500 people each. ' Primary uses include passive open space and active play areas for children. Private neighborhood parks are placed in the interior of residential developments or condominium complexes, and exclusively serve association members. They ' are more intensely developed and adult oriented. 6 , 1 I Negative Declaration - A brief report that is part of the CEQA process and that ' formally states a proposed project will have no significant environmental effects. NO - Nitrogen oxides. NOD (Notice of Determination) - A brief notice a public agency files after it approves or decides to carry out a project subject to the requirements of CEQA. ' NOP (Notice of Preparation) - A brief notice a lead agency sends by certified mail to notify responsible agencies that the lead agency plans to prepare an EIR for the project. The notice asks for advice from the responsible agencies on the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in the EIR. Noise - Any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or ' is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. ' 00000 Ox - Oxidant (ozone). Open Space - Any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated, or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment, or for the use and enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighboring ' such open space. Open Space Easements - A legally drafted and recorded agreement between the landowner and the Public Agency or Land Trust. The owner agrees to place certain restrictions over all or portions of his land to retain it in a predominantly natural, scenic, historic, agricultural or other open space condition, and in return the easement holder agrees to regularly inspect the eased area and to enforce the restrictions should violations occur. Ordinance - A municipally adopted law or regulation. P P P P P Paleontological Site - Any area or location containing a trace or impression, or the ' remains of plants or animals from past ages. Park - Any public or private land set aside for aesthetic, educational, recreational or ' cultural use. Pitch - A listener's perception of the frequency of a pure tone; the higher the ' frequency, the higher the pitch. Public Facilities - Institutional response to basic human needs, such as health, education, safety, recreation and inspiration. 7 QQQQQ Quasi -Public - A use owned or operated by a nonprofit, religious or eleemosynary , institution and providing educational, cultural, recreational, religious or similar types of public programs. RRRRR Recreation and Activity Centers - Public, private or quasi - public structured or ' unstructured open space, such as community and regional parks, golf courses, and cemeteries. ' Recreation Facility - A place designed and equipped for the conduct of sports, leisure time activities and other customary and usual recreation activities. Recreational Trails - Public areas that include pedestrian trails, bikeways, equestrian ' trails, boating routes, trails, and areas suitable for use by physically handicapped people, trails and areas for off - highway recreational vehicles, and cross - country skiing trails. , Recycling - "The process of sorting, cleaning, treating, and reconstituting waste or other discarded materials for the purpose of using the altered form" (Government Code Section 68017). ' Regional Air Quality - The ambient air quality in a large area. ' Regional Parks - Regional parks are large open spaces and recreational facilities provided either partially or wholly by the County of Orange. They serve the needs of persons throughout Orange County. Renewable Energy Resources - Energy sources whose natural supplies are not depleted in producing work, including solar energy, wind flow, tidal action and terrestrial heat. ' Renewable Natural Resources - Resources that can be replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices (e.g., forests and plants). ' Responsible Agency - A public agency other than the lead agency which has discretionary power over a project subject to CEQA for which a lead agency has prepared the environmental documents. CEQA defines responsible agency as "all ' public agencies other than the lead agency which have discretionary approval power over the project." Restoration - A bring back to a former position or condition. , Richter Scale - A logarithmic scale ranging from 1 to 10, used to express the magnitude or total energy of an earthquake. In this scale, an increase of I ' represents a 60 -fold increase in energy. ' Surface Rupture - A break in the ground's surface and associated deformation resulting from the movement of a fault. TTTTT Tidal Prism - Area affected by tidal action. ' Tidal Scour - Removing of dirt and debris by tidal waters. E- Trophic - As in trophic level; level of species of life which are primary consumers, or consumers of smaller organisms like plankton. This level of species in turn serves as a food source for "higher" trophic level species. 1 9 SSSSS Salt Marsh - flat land subject to overflow by salt water. Scow - A large, flat - bottomed boat with broad, square ends used chiefly for transporting sand, gravel or refuse. Sediment - The matter that settles to the bottom of a liquid; material deposited by ' water, wind or glaciers. Seiche - An earthquake- induced wave in a lake, reservoir or harbor. ' Signal Cycle - The time period in seconds required for one complete sequence of signal indications. Siltation - To choke, cover or obstruct with silt or mud. Significant Site - A site which, regardless of size, in the opinion of an historian, archaeologist, or paleontologist and the City, could yield new information or important verification of a previous finding, or be of significant scientific, cultural, educational or recreational value, either now or in the future. 502 - Sulfur dioxide. Solid Waste - "All putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semisolid and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semisolid wastes, and other discarded solid and semisolid wastes" (Government ' Code Section 66719). Sphere of Influence - The probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a ' local governmental agency. Subsidence - The gradual, local settling or sinking of the earth's surface with little or no horizontal motion. (Subsidence is usually the result of gas, oil or water extraction, hydrocompaction, or peat oxidation, and not the result of a landslide or slope failure.) ' Surface Rupture - A break in the ground's surface and associated deformation resulting from the movement of a fault. TTTTT Tidal Prism - Area affected by tidal action. ' Tidal Scour - Removing of dirt and debris by tidal waters. E- Trophic - As in trophic level; level of species of life which are primary consumers, or consumers of smaller organisms like plankton. This level of species in turn serves as a food source for "higher" trophic level species. 1 9 TSP - Total suspended particulates. Tsunami - A wave, commonly called a tidal wave, caused by an underwater seismic disturbance, such as sudden faulting, landslide, or volcanic activity. Turbidity - Refers to water which contains suspended solids or is muddy or cloudy. i Ij�fji, 1 Use - Purpose for which land or a building is occupied, arranged, designed, or intended, or for which either land or building is or may be occupied or maintained. VVVVV View - That which is seen; a prospect. Something to be looked at with attention. WWWWW Watershed - The total area above a given point on a watercourse that contributes water to its flow; the entire region drained by a waterway or which drains into a lake or reservoir. Wetlands - Areas that are permanently wet or periodically covered with shallow water, such as saltwater and freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish marshes, swamps, mudflats and fens. Z Z Z Z Z Zone - A specifically delineated area or district in a municipality within which regulations and requirements uniformly govern the use, placement, spacing and size of land and buildings. Zoning - The dividing of a municipality into districts and the establishment of regulations governing the use, placement, spacing and size of land and buildings. 10 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I P IJ II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 Culbertson Adams & 1 Associates \'C�t �- � lam: 4 r� � � : �!t A iF � \� ./�f i / r b t' � ;i��-. L,-. �\ � _ .���' �i 14�w'� ��. 1 \ �. t ': �1�.- �. r -. -� i i + Y t �, r� , f � Y �. �4 1�'i �[� � /iy .) l' ' 1 `L \ ' 1 13 1':�' :': Vii: -'�: •,.��..:.\�,,, . � � , r ." :_� s l�� +� w P , e -✓ �✓. � N I '� t�k a ak t 1 � r i � , � � r I/ .;;F : r �, :�:.. . `� ���. � � ,a _ ., ,„ +ter �Sr..` c -. �* i0 �'" ���. . 1 r I , 1 i Screencheck Submitted: Draft EIR Circulated: Final EIR Certified: November 26, 1985 December 23, 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Project (E /SMP) Technical Appendices State Clearinghouse 985091819 Lead Agency: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 ATTN: Ms. Patricia L. Temple Environmental Coordinator Planning Department (714) 644 -3225 Prepared By: CULBERTSON, ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 26141 Marguerite Parkway, Suite C Mission Viejo, California 92692 ATTN: Andriette Adams Kevin Culbertson (714) 643 -1622 t I i I I TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Notices of Preparation and Responses B. Bioassay Report C. Engineering Report D. Noise Study E. Air Quality Study F. 1986 AOCYC Master Calendar I I 1 I II A. NOTICES OF PREPARATION AND v�_;� i .. -: - #' �- 1 TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Sox 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR AGENCY'S COMMENTS BY October 30, 1985 UH'1L lvt AGENCY: September 16, 1985 DATE RECEIVED BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED BY LEAD AGENCY: I PROJECT TITLE: UpRer N o t Bay Enhancement Sediment Management Program - Unit PROJECT LOCATION: (See attached Project Description) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: - U Z W a (See attached Project Description) 0 a W a CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator (714) 644 -3225 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT: LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional pages as necessary) z w c a m m z 0 a W a CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: UH'1L lvt AGENCY: September 16, 1985 DATE RECEIVED BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED BY LEAD AGENCY: I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR DATE: September 16, 1985 TO: FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY: October 30, 1985 DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: Septeaber 16, 1985 DATE RECEIVED BY INTERESTED PARTY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach DATE RESPONSE RECE BY LEAD AGENCY: PROJECT TITLE: Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Program - Unit I PROJECT LOCATION: (See attached Project Description) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: U Z L^ < (See attached Project Description) ❑ a CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator (714) 644 -3225 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISE OR INTEREST: LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional pages as necessary) r F a a a m E N E- F Z CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: Septeaber 16, 1985 DATE RECEIVED BY INTERESTED PARTY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach DATE RESPONSE RECE BY LEAD AGENCY: Project Location and Description .Upper newport bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Project ' THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROJECT LOCATION ' The proposed project is located in that portion of the Upper Newport Bay below the salt pond dike in the City of Newport Beach (See Exhi- bits 1 and 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed program of the project consists of the excavation and removal of as much as 1,100,000 cubic yards of spoil material from a locus in the Upper Newport Bay. The basic excavation will in- volve the following features: 1. A basin immediately below the old salt works dike with a maximum bottom elevation of -14 feet MSL (Exhibit 3). ' 2. Side channels located as shown on Exhibit 3. 3. An access channel as shown on Exhibit 3. The actual amount of sediemnt removed will vary depending on the method of construction. The construction of the channel is de- pendent on the method of construction. MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Noise Biological Resources Visual Impacts Harbor Circulation 1] I i Los Angeles County PACIFIC OCEAN 1 N NOT TO SCALE cC2% \ 0 \ r- Orange County I San Bernardino County Riverside County San Diego County CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T- Culbertson, Adams. REGIONAL LOCATION & Associates ....�. rnawmre Cms,Wa EXHIBIT 1 - a _;l1 r J • , �,a Cam+ C' 7'/� y o � # ,�"ay. f�+�. t, -. t °'x.�/1 _ � ,kia- per' ' � .�- , ��'{ � i - wl�•f � lb- ♦i; ir+r V '--P r t t a.:� s ^ 4 `a."' �`-. ( , t .r o ,ae. ' 1, a . � .' +.r . � • asr. � , r ( y_ T ID �. �� t1.. ` ♦rlj4' 'P ra ina z^.'S' +.h i � K ,Z` r . _ 4'r.�• +!9 j r•� ♦., ��',�'.�. • ; a �r i t,. i�a � i� ice. P � ��,..., %6 ♦�A' ♦. • t. _ ♦ r E {'f'fWW��•�•XX::...ff.._Y. A, ii 111 tr ♦A h� w r'" � a �+'a �l w � 4 tl -I[ •i i. '� ♦,. 'i'1t_ ?44i� �� S� a �. i��f�t �, 6 r ,a ,r 0. "1 1. •�{ i'. .'Y'1s> I '�,/ W `T`L� .♦ t G, yew } r�r � R♦ ��f. � � r �(� ,y;; Ll '7 94 t ' d Y �� 'R � 5rry ,�,s' ,.tr i!' r t )t1 • ��rt` 7r'+•' �1+i� �T tom. �T f'_ l i ' ). -.�� "++++.h����' �t � r ��"4'� a ty'•ir \ <� rim � y J'j^'c�+.- / � w,r„�. �'� r k�_ ..J� � z`` 1 _ • i �Y 3' : 1; � t p. �y'� 1 a. `"` ' jf 'ia.-]- .. � ..w� , �'c y1 �,a w1-,�ad '.� r �`� S�a r•. .�`Xa- ,�s4'�.i /'t I,.- AURA �Tt P(r l'O a ♦ jut �a .f �S^,�e r.� yam" -x •nt'r s 01?BC io 'r � %4 i t n i' iA fi�J/�. � �i♦, •;� --4 �. r,/ ... r ' �.� 4 " . � . ALIf F r ft � �.�•'�'"��•� , ♦/. _ �'" � a r .per v � P(77-f �r� ai' ..�T ir'vl,• ?��i a� h�r1 4. r 4'• fC�''� ¢ - a'- r ±ct $ �.�,It# ; � e��,y.v j 11'. U �1�',r i�'�u • 8i t.' • � t�" 444�e. /"F. { s � ".T5 3''�� #^ v� �. .J � a y��+ C;+ �g� "l 54,E ! ,a f .�. 1 +91T '.'F r v,. l •F .. s °r i r "t > ✓' t 1w, F t A.. yYfjib �i jr .. �r i 1 ♦ � y a , =' �i�._. w�.__ s.:_ a�ir:::��:._�M'.u.._ "- a..�.__•- _ -. -. .._ _ ._ .._ .t,,.a..,. .r T._ a .c r' b j . -� -( • t�ir"'"1 � l vk Yd�rq` H "`� rn •. EV F r •_ r I L C] 11 I I I NOTICE OF PREPERATION DISTRIBUTION )apartment of Conservation Department of Fish N Game Caltrans )ennis J. O'Bryant Fred A. Worthley, Jr. District 7 ' 1416 Ninth St., Room 1354 Regional Manager Ken Steele - ;acramento, CA 95814 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350 120 S. Spring St. Long Beach, CA 90802 Los Angeles, CA 90005 _alifornia Coastal Comm. Department of Transportation Dept. of Boating and , 3ary Halloway Planning Branch Waterways 631 Howard St., 4th Floor Mary Kelly William H. Ives San Fransico, CA 94105 1120 'N' Street 1629 'S' St. ' Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 State Water Resources Native American Heritage Office of Resources, = ontrol Board Commission Energy, and Permit Assi: , Jean Jurancich Loretta Allen Christine Goggin P.O. Box 100 915 Capital Wall, Room 288 1400 Tenth St. Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 ' Dept. of Parks and Rec. U.S. Army Corps. of Engr. Calif. Regional Water Jffice of Historic Pres. Planning Division Quality Control Board Nicholas del Cioppo Carl F. Enson Gordon Anderson , P.O. Box 2390 P.O. Box 2711 6809 Indiana Ave. Sacramento, CA 95814 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Riverside, CA 92506 Department of Fish 6 Game Calif. Energy Commission Dept. of Parks Robert Tharratt Sheri McFarland and Recreation 1416 Ninth Street 1516 Ninth St., Room 200 James Doyle Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 2390 Sacramento, CA 95811 OCEMN Regulation Div. City of Costa Mesa 12 Civic Center Plaza Irvine Ranch Water Dist.' Doug Clark, Planning D P.O. Box 4048 18802 Bardeen Ave. Planning Department Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048 P.O. Box D -1 P.O. Box 1200 Irvine, CA 92716 -6025 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 County Sanitation Dist. Thomas M. Dawes P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 )range County Enviromental lanagement Agency tobert Rusby 3.0. Box 4048 ;ants Ana, CA 92702 Orange County Flood Control District Mr. Brunner 400 Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92707 State Lands Commission Ted Fukushima 1807 13th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 South Coast Air Quality Management District 9/59 Flair Driv(4 E1 Monte, CA 91731 Harbor Patrol Orange County Sheriffs Department 1901 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dept. of Water Resources Ken Fellows 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento CA 95814 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser. Jack Fancher 24000 Avila Road Laguna .Niguel, CA 92677 SCAG Mark Alpers 600 S. Commenwealth AV Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Commander (dpl) 11th Coast Guard Dist. Union Bank Building 400 Oceangate, Suite 9 Long Beach, CA 90822 FHWA I Ray Okinaga P.O. Box 1915 Sacramento, CA 95809 Air Resources Board , Regional Programs Div. Anne B. Geraghty, Mana , 1102 Q St., P.O. Box 2 sat.A ..-4_ GA 9Th I/ 1 i 1 i I I I 1 Co'znty of cringe E:1+ Attn: Bob Collacott P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048 City of Irvine Attn: Richard Monroe P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 City of Tusin Attn. Bob Ledenbecker 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 The Irvine Co. Attn: Sat Tamacibuchi 550 Newport Ctr. Dr. P.O.Bxl Newport Beach, CA 92658 -0015. i Orange Co. Harbor Dist. j 1901 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce Attn: Marine Dept. County of Orange, EMA Attn: Bill Zaun P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 9.'702 -4046 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 U:S. Dent. of Interior Fish 6 Wildlife Service Ecological Services Div. 24000 Avila Rd. 92677 Laguna Nigel, CA Attn: Jac), Fancher - Regulation Div. 12 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Ocean and Estuaries Sect. 215 Fremont San Francisco, CA 94105 11 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT OF PREPERATION DISTRIBUTION ' 11 [1 L L [1 11 J cort ..__race Ccndo. A,sn c/o Management Services Co. 17601 17th St., Ste. 218 Tustin, CA 92680 North Bluff Bayview Comm Assn John Coombe, President 2900 Quedada Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Park Comm Assn Bob Belknapp, President 2638 Vista Del Oro Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Villa Comm Assn Jim Stevens, President P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Plaza Homeowners Comm Assn c/o Mercury Property Mgt. 4670 Barranca Parkwav Irvine, CA 92714 ::ua :si.ind Ccrnunity Aisn. Phil Wiltse, President 19 Sea Island Drive. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sea Pine Community Assn. c/o Villageway Management, Inc P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Richard Grundy, President Seawind Community Association' Villageway Management P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Tom Walley, President Seawind Newport Comm. Assn.• c/o Villageway Management, Inc. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Gary Mecklenburg, Pres. Seaview Community Association Larry Freedman, President 2019 Yacht Resolute Newport Beach, CA 92660 Shorescliffs Comm. Assn. John Killefer, President 161 Shorecliff Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Promontory Bay Homeowners Assn Spyglass Hill Comm. Assn. Richard Bare, President Robert McClean, President 700 Harbor Island Drive c/o Villageway Management, Inc. Newport Beach, CA 92660 P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Park Lido Association Alice Rail, President 434 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rendezvous Condominium Assn c/o Management Services Co. 1234 Normandy Place Santa Ana, CA 92105 Updated 5/21/85 Spyglass Ridge Comm. Assn. Everett'(Terry) Stahl, Pres. 1618 Reef View Circle Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Versailles - Association c/o Mercury Property Mgt., Inc. 4670 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92714 -Don Fender, President Villa Balboa Comm. assn. c/o Mercury Property Mgt., Inc. 4670 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92714 Bill Lund, President •,L.la Granada Comn. Assn David Rossi, President 835 Amigos Way M4 Newport Beach, CA 92660 West Newport Beach Assn. Sterling Wolfe, Jr., Presid. 6.104 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar Chamber of C Jean Kiger, President P.O. Box 72 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Harbor Area C. of C Rod Rodheim, President 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Coves Community Assoc. Ron Soll, President 420 Balboa Coves Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa Improvement Assoc Charles Bauman, Pres. 2150 Miramar Balboa, CA 92661 Belcourt Park Homeowners Assn Valerie Vanderzilzer,.Pres. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Belcourt Master Assn Laurie Wodiske, Acct. Exec. c/o Merit Property Mgt. 24422 Ave de 1a Carlot, 460 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Balboa Island Business Assoc. Big Canyon Community Assn. Howard Silver, President Bernie Samson, President c/o Balboa Island T -Shirt Co. 3 Inverness Lane 319 Marine Avenue Newport Beach, CA ,92660 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island Improvement Assn. The Bluffs Homeowners Assn. Natalie Fogarty, President Caryle M. Levinson, Pres. 116 Garnet 400 Carlotta Balboa Island, CA 92662 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Peninsula Point Assn. Charles Bauman, President 2150 Miramar Balboa, CA 92661 Bay Island Club, "2nc. Douglas B. Fletcher, Pres. 3416 Via Oporto, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Bayside Cove Community Assn. Jim Caswell, President 1008 Bayside Cove East Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canyon Island Community Assn R. A. McKittrick, Pres. ' 11 Rue Fontaine Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canyon Lakes Community Assn. , Howard Land, President 16 Rue Villars Newport Beach, CA 92660 , Canyon Mesa Community Assn. Betty Robinson, Pres. 5 Rue Montreaux Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canyon Point Community Assn. San Yngve, President 10 Rue Deauville Newport Beach, CA 92660 Broadmoor Hills II Comm.ASSOC. Canyon View Community Assn. Dr. Bruce Walter, President Jack L. Hanson, President 2821 Bluewater #14 Rue Cannes Cornna del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Breakers Drive Assoc., Inc. Bob McAllister, President 3116 Breakers Drive - Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Bayside Village Homeowners assn Cameo Community Association Matt Gemmell, President Maxine Hundley, President 307 Lexington Circle 4645 Gorham Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Bayshores Community Assn. Malcolm Ross, President 2611 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Beacon Bay Community Assn. Tom Hay, President 68 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, .CA 92660 Belcourt Hill Community Assn Wolf Stern, President 49 Southhampton Court Me -amort Beach, CA 92660 Canyon Crest Community Assn - Sheila Walters, Pres. 1 Cherry Hills Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Canvon Crest Estates Homeowners Association Dennis O'Connor 5 Canyon Crest Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Central Newport Beach Community Association Lee Mallory III, President 1916 Court Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cliff Haven Community Assn. Barbara Whitford, President 406 Snug Harbor Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corolido Community Assn. John Sipple, President 490 Morning Canyon Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1 LJ L1 l_1 Corona del Mar Community Ass Richard Nichols, President ' P.O. Box 516 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Highland Property ' Owners Association Mike Miller, President , 468 DeAnza Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Hills Community Assn. Dover Shores Community Assn. , Danny Bibb, President c/o Villageway Mgt., Inc. c/o Villageway Mgmt. P.O. Box 4708 ?.C. Box 4708, Irvine, CA 92706 Irvine, CA 92716 J Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club 1601 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ' voyagers Yacht Club 2616 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Audubon Society Sea and Sage Chapter P.O. Box 1779 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Ron Covington 707 Orchid Corona del Mar, CA 92 Mary Lou Zoglin 10 Surfside Ct. Newport Beach, CA 9266 Jackie Heather 1500 Dorothy Lane Newport Beach, CA 9266 Barbara Cope 16 Ria Loa Ct. Newport Beach, CA 9266 Carlene Morrelli 251 Prospect Newport Beach, CA 9266 Newport Harbor Yacht Club 720 West Bay Avenue Balboa, CA 92660 Shark Island Yacht Club 1099 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 John Miller P.O. Box 1475 i Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lido Island Yacht Club 701 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 South Shore Yacht Club 2527 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 Stcvc Marble League of Woman Voters ' Daily Pilot of Orange Coast P.O. Box 1560 11 Hampshire Ct. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Friends of Irvine Coast Friends of Upper P.O. Box 714 Newport Bay Corona del Mar, CA 92625 P.O. Box 2001 ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tom Thomson Janice Debay P.O. Box 5100 5107 Seashore Dr. Balboa Island, CA 92662 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Eric Elder Bernard Pegg 1107 E. Balboa Blvd. 2633 Bamboo St. Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Elizabeth Shepard Chriss Street 337 Santa Ana Ave. 619 Heliotrope Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Diane Dixon Bobby Lovell ' 2888 Bayshore Dr_, Apt. C 1242 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92661 .___rds :)i a ^ per ]:ewport ----ay Don Strauss P.O. Box 2001 101 Via Venezia Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 SPON ' c/o Jean ;watt 4 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Yacht Club 1301 Bayside Drive ' Corona del Mar 92625 Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club 1601 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ' voyagers Yacht Club 2616 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Audubon Society Sea and Sage Chapter P.O. Box 1779 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Ron Covington 707 Orchid Corona del Mar, CA 92 Mary Lou Zoglin 10 Surfside Ct. Newport Beach, CA 9266 Jackie Heather 1500 Dorothy Lane Newport Beach, CA 9266 Barbara Cope 16 Ria Loa Ct. Newport Beach, CA 9266 Carlene Morrelli 251 Prospect Newport Beach, CA 9266 Newport Harbor Yacht Club 720 West Bay Avenue Balboa, CA 92660 Shark Island Yacht Club 1099 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 John Miller P.O. Box 1475 i Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lido Island Yacht Club 701 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 South Shore Yacht Club 2527 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 ^..rrt -ent Car.•:_.. Assn c/o Villaceway Mgt. Co. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Attn. Dorothy Unligh, Pres. Eastbluff Homeowners Comm. c/o Ms. Carrier Reid Total Property Management 18025 Skypark East, Suite M Irvine, CA 92714 Fashion Island Mgt. Assoc. Barbara Roppolo, General Mgr. 462 Fashion Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 Four Four's Association Ms. Zada Taylor, President 2514 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Island Community Assn. Philip Lyons, President 9 Harbor island Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Ridge Crest Community Association Arlan Flaum, President 2 Lucerne Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Ridge Estates Maintenance Association Ken Agid, President 29 Montpellier Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Ridge Master Assn Jim Butler, President 35 St. Tropez Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Hills Homeowners Assn. c/o Merit Property Management 24422 Ave de la Carlota, 460 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 c/o Susan linley, Acct.Exec. Harbor View Broadmoor Community Association Bill Cunningham, President 1223 Goldenrod Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Harbor View Hills Comm. Assn. Denise Newcomer c/o Villacewav Memt. ?.O. Box 4706, 'wine, CA 92716 iiartor •; ..,..+ Hil:a ccrrr. Assn. c/o Management Services Co. 17601 17th St., Suite. 218 Tustin, CA 92660 c/o Jerry Morrison, Mgmt.Rep. Harbor View Comm. Assn. Phil Glasgow, President 1842 Port Margate Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Knoll Comm. Assn John Fisher, President 2770 Hillview Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Cove Community Assn Thomas Pitcher, Pres. P.O. Box 2490 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine Terrace Community Assn San Van Landingham, Pres. 1501 Santanella Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Island--Lagoon Association John Hartunian 27 Ocean Vista Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jasmine Creek Community Assn Christine McGraw, Gen. Mgr. 110 Jasmine Creek Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Isle Community Assn. c/o Lido Isle Comm. Assn. 701 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lido Marina Village c/o Traweek western Property Management Company,D.MOSher P.O. Box 6348 'Orange, CA 92667 China Cove Conco. Assoc. Steve Arganbright, Pres. 317 Dahlia Place Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Sands Community Assn. Judy White, President 4820 River Avenue Newecrt Beach, CA 92663 L_ ;Wa . Ccr. unity ssr.. George Carver, Pres. 26 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 Little Balboa Isl. Owners As Mr. Fio Rito, President 111 Crystal Balboa Island, CA 92662 Mai Kai Community Assn. c/o Management Services Co 17601 17th St., Ste. 218 Tustin, CA 92600 Mariners Community Assn. Allan Beek, President 1945 Sherington, Apt. G -109 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Center Association Karen Kennedy, Managing Dir. 180 Newport Center Dr. 1130 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Channel Reef Community Assn. President c/o 2525 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Crest Homeowners As President 201 Intrepid Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Heights Comm. Assn Robert Clarke, President P.O. Box 3444 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Hills Community Assr Denise Newcomer, Pres. 1747 Port Manleigh Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport island Inc. Stewart Hayward, President P.O. Box 1162 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Shores Community Ass Gil Lukosky, President 441 Prospect Street Neimcrt Beach, CA 92663 1 1 I 11 [1 I 1 I STAiE OF CXUFORNIA— OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Goren OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 'IAOO TENTH STREET •}T"�7 SACRAMENTO, CA 95SIA ' DATE: September 19, 1985 ' M: Reviewing Agencies RE: City of Newport Beach NOP for ' Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Program Unit II Schn 85091819 ' Attached for your comment is the City of Newport Beach Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Program Unit II. ' Responsible agencies must tran_=it their concerns and cosvrr_nts on the scope ' and content of the FIR, focusing on s_.ecific information related to their Own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of this notice, we encourage co=renting agencies to respond to this notice and express their ' concerns early in the environr.�ntal review process. Please direct your corarents to: Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach 300 Newport Blvd /P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Sincerely, Join S. Ghanian ' Chief Deputy Director Attaclr'ipantz ' cc: Patricia Temple IJ with a copy to the Office of Plani -ng and Research. Please refer to the SCH nLmicer noted above in all correspondence corcernir:g �'nis project. Zf you have any questions abcut the review process, call Glenn Stober at 916/445 -0613. Sincerely, Join S. Ghanian ' Chief Deputy Director Attaclr'ipantz ' cc: Patricia Temple IJ 85092819 c LkparCxnt of Transportation smite contacts Fish and Game - Regional Offices 9 RECEIVEv ,y Don Comstock A. Naylor, Regional whrnger Planniro Department or Transportation- Department of Fish and Game Department O District 1 TO-50-MoR street O 601 Locust S Redding, CA 96001 S E P 2 3 1985 �►' t Mireka, CA 95501 916/225 -2300. CITY OF 707/442 -2313 ` o n NEWPORT .,E..CH, Larry French P. Jensen. Regional Manager CALIF. Department of Transportation Department of Fish and Game District 2 Drive O 1701 Nimbus Read, Suite A Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 ra OIbj'iTivenide Redding, CA 96001 916/355 -0922 916/225 -2308 Brian J. Smith B. Hurter, Regional Manager or Transportation Dlstrlct 3 O Department of Fish and Gare 7329 Silversdo Trail ODepartment 7UT Er t Napa. CA 94558 ' Marysville, CA 95901 707/944 -2011 916/741 -4277 J. N. Ellis G. Kokes, Regional Manager ODistrict Departrnent of Transportation 4 dT.Y.-&—x73lo Department of Fish and Cane 1234 Fast Shaw Avenue Presno, CA 93726 ' San Francisco, CA 94120 209/222 -3761 415/557 -8532 ' Jerry Lauver Fred A. Worthley Jr., Reg. Manager Department of Transportation Department of Fish and Came ODistrict 5 50 Tguera Street 245 'West Broadway Long Beach, CA 90802 ' San Luis W1spo. CA 93401 213/590 -5113 :05/549 -3161 Mort Parller Roll S. Mall Department of Trarspor cacion Marine iesources legion ' ODistrict 6 F7u. 2ox 12616 O 245 'West ?roadway Long 3e=q, CA 90802 Fresno, CA 93778 213/590 -5155 209/488 -3088 'Wayne 2allentlne State Water Resources Ccntr. l Board of Transportation District 7 Joan Jur^..nclen ODepartment 1c0� aprL^3 Street O State 'Water Resou=es Control P.rard ' Loa An3ele- ' CA 90012 Dlvlsion of Clean '.later Gr4.n :a 213/620 -5335 P.O. Box 1C0 Sacramento, CA 95301 'Robert Pote 916/322 -3413 Jeparwnne of Transportation ' O 0l3trlct 3 `d Anton u eat - Sr d Street 0 State 'Water Resources Control Board S,o 3ernaM!ro, CA 92403 Division of +ace.^ 4i 1!.ty 714/383-4150 P.D. Box 100 :OM yak _°ac =xnca, CA 95801 ' :r_part. -,one of '.Yanapora eicn 916/445 -9552 -- O Olstrict 9 0 to :�airf Street 313h5p, CA 94514 0 Jerry Jchru State Water Rescur -es Contmj .Saari Delta Unit 714/873 -2290 P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801 John Gagliaro Cepartment of Trarsportation Al Yang ' Distr.-C. -G State 43tar ?45cuCt3 Ccotroi loam- O ? 55X 4048 C1.•rision of . iater 91yits Stockton, CA 95201 :101 ? Street 209 /948 -7875 Sacrra ento, CA 95814 ' 916 /324 -5715 JSn Lhesnir- O Cepa. =rent of _1- arseert..acicn District 11 Regional 'Water a &l-'z7 Control Board span street t San '217-5, �A 72138 ^eg.'.5n N t! .'•�- <"�'%�' 7.4/237-5755 I I 1 I M I L h II I J I 85091819 C=aBu rn LIST Pt78 SM 1 X - Sent by lead agency X - Sent by Clearinghouse Anne Geraghty 811.E M rphy Air Resources Board Dept. of Housing S Community Dev't. Q1131 S Street 921 - 10th Street, 5th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 0 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/322-6161 916/324 -8657 Barbera Kierbow ODept. of Boating 8 Naterways x 1629 3 Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/323 -9488 Gary L. Holloway California Coastal Commission O631 Poward Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105- 415/543 -8555 `_J N N MI N C Greg Newhouse California Hhergy Commission 1516 4inth street, ft. 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/324 -3222 Earl 'Tucker Caltrana - Division of Aeronautics 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/322 -9966 'tcry Kelly Caltrans - Planning 1120 N Street Sacrammente, CA 95814 916/323 -7222 Dennis 012myant Dept. of Conservation 1416 Ninth street, Room 1326 -2 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/322 -5873 ODiv. of ?roes and Geology ODiv. of 011 and Gas Oland Resources Protect. Unit tarry Krade wept. of Food and Agriculture 1220 11 Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/322 -1992 Dennis Orrick :apt. of.Forestry 1416 ninth Street, ionm 1516 -2 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/322-)128 James Far drove OCeps. of General Services 1125 Tenth street , . mmento, CA 95814 916/324--0209 Kenneth Kizer ::epc. of Stealth O714 ? Street, ?oom 1253 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/445 -1248 !nvirormental Reviewer ONative American Heritage Corm. 915 Capitol Mall, Foam 288 Sacramento, CA 95814 916/322 -7791 Pshs Kreutzberg Office of Historic Preservation P.O. Box 2390 Sacramento, CA 95811 916/445 -8006 James H. Coyle Dept. of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 2390 �( Sacramento, CA 95811 916/324 -6421 ;41ka Burke OPublic Utilities Oomoalssion 350 XCA1113ter Street San Francisco, CA 94102 415 /557 -3398 Kirk Stewart OPubliC Works Board 1025 P Street, 4th Floor Sacr.riento. CA 95814 916/445 -5332 Mel .Schwartz Reclamatlon Board 0 1416 Ninth street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/445 -2458 Robert Satha O S.F. Bay Consermtion S �e ctm v't. C. 30 Van 'mess Avenue, Room 2011 San Francisco, CA 94102 415/557 -36d6 Eric Maner Calif. 'Masse Management 3card O1020 Ninth Street, Room 300 Sacramento, CA ^-5814 916/322 -0464 Ted Fukusr+T. Ostate lands COMM133icn y LSOT - Lith Street /\ Sicra ?nto, CA 95814 916/322-7813 ' Ken Fellows /1 .ROt. or dater FL-sources 1416 ltlnth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916/445 -7416 Reed :'a1de.:.En State Coastal Ccnservancy 13 10 Broadway, Suite 1100 Oakiand, CA 946!2 415/464 -1015 i STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Go em NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 Capitol Mail, Room 288 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 322 -7791 ' September 19, 1985 ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd., P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Y RfCfi -� 2.6 79 Hfh, cin, 8S IRE: Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Program - Unit II ' The Native American Heritage Commission appreciates the opportunity to express its concerns and comments in the environmental review process. ' As you may know, the Commission is mandated to preserve and protect places of special religious or cultural significance to California Indians (Native Americans) pursuant to Section 5097 et seq of the Public Resources Code. The Commission has the further responsibility of assisting Native Americans in cemetery and burial protection pursuant to Section 5097,94 (k) of the Public Resources Code. We request that the County Coronor's office be contacted if human remains of Native American origin are encountered during the project, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Should this occur, the Commission will assist in expediting the preservation and.protection of the remains in a respectful manner. ' We request that you consult with the local Indian community in this project area in order to mitigate potential impacts to burial sites and other cultural resources of value to th.eir.particular tribal customs, I have enclosed an attachment listing those individuals and /or groups which may have concerns regarding the project area. If Ice ly ou/ have any questions please contact me for further assistance. ' Si yours, , . --7 Annette Ospital Special Assistant ' AO:jg tAttachment 1 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS PAGE 1 Name, Address Tribal County Organization Telephone No. Affiliation Affiliation Pay Belardes Juaneno Orange 16760 Paradise Mt. Road Valley Center, CA 92082 (619) 749 -2312 Ms. Beatrice Alva Gabrielino Los Angeles /Orange 122 East Pearl San Gabriel, CA 92776 Mr. Art Morales Gabrielino Orange /Los Angeles 4257 Meadow Street Laverne, CA 91750 (714) 593 -8227 Mr. Fred Morales Gabrielino Orange /Los Angeles j 1 +2 -East Main Street San Gabriel, CA 91776 (818) 285 -4401 Jim Velasques Gabrielino Orange 1226 41est Third St. (Coastal) Santa Ana, CA 92703 (714) 547 -4237 i I i NATIVE AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS PAGE 1 Organization, Address Tribal County Telephone Number Affiliation Capistrano Indian Council Orange P.O. Box 304 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92678 ;714) 493 -1892 Contact: Teeter Marie Romero .luaneno Band of Mission Juaneno Orange Indians '.0. Box 1382 an Juan Capistrano, CA. 92674 .ontect: R11PF. R1`IH R�IER I1�11dT IRITRE RAICH IVATER DISTRICT P.O. Box D- 1.18802 Bardeen Ave. • Irvine, Calif. 92716 -6025 (714) 833 -1223 September 20, 1985 0848M9/85 AD 1.9.3(3)C Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR FOR UPPER NEWPORT BAY ENHANCEMENT /SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — UNIT II Dear Ms. Temple: This letter is in response to the Notice of Preparation regarding removal of spoil material from Upper Newport Bay. The project is outside Irvine Ranch Water District's (IRWD) service area and therefore the District has no specific permit authority or environmental concerns. Thank you for notifying IRWD and providing the opportunity to make comments. Sincerely, IRVI RANCH WATER DISTRICT Ro a d E. J Di ec or n in & Engineering REY /TM:pja E1 6 E >� 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 9'-b58 -8415 TO: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR Irvine Ranch Water Dist. 18802 Bardeen Ave. P -O. Box D -1 Irvine, CA 92716 -6025 FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658 -8915 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR AGENCY'S COMMENTS BY October 30, 1985 DATE MAILED AGENC'_ . September 16, 1985 DATE RECEIVED BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: September 17, 1985 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED BY LEAD AGENCY: , I PROJECT TITLE: Upper Newport Bay Enhancement Sediment Management Pro'ram - Unit PROJECT LOCATION: (See attached Project Description) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: z Z (See attached Project Description) a CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator (714) 644 -3225 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT: None LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional pages as necessary) z m c; a None v c a n rc ACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONNE: F ald E. Young Director of Engineering & Planning (714)833 -1223 DATE MAILED AGENC'_ . September 16, 1985 DATE RECEIVED BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: September 17, 1985 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED BY LEAD AGENCY: , I I I I I I L i 1 I I I 11 6HT'.OF:� .P ��it ift Ui r REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. SOX 0711 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90055.1075 September 26, 1985 City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Gentlemen: RECEIVED `L Planning Depanmen< 1985 a CITY OF p,,F,4'P0RT EEACH CALIF. , Reference is made to your Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Program Project, Unit II, dated September 16, 1985. Corps of Engineers permits are required for (1) structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act, (2) the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and (3) transportation of dredged material for ocean disposal pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Newport Bay is considered both:a navigable water of the United States and a water of the United States and is under Corps jurisdiction. Furthermore, it appears from your Notice of Preparation that your proposed project would involve work (dredging) in a navigable water of the United States and the transportation of dredged material for ocean disposal. Although not stated in your Notice of Preparation, your'proposed work may also involve a discharge of dredged material into a water of the United States. Please contact Cheryl Hill of our Regulatory Branch at (213) 894 -5606 at your earliest convenience to determine what documents and information will be required to apply for the three mentioned Army permits. Sincerely, ae A. Grebins ing Chief, Constr c ion - perations Division STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE MUKMEJIAH, Gorarnor DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS 1629 S STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -7291 (916) 415.6281 Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach, Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Ms. Temple: 5EP271 5 : Vt PL ^, piD��f „n1l 5 c�198r� N ?�i'S F�••J� SCH# 85091819: Upper Newport Bay �r Enhancement /Sediment Management Program The Department of Boating and Waterways is not a regulatory agency and does not issue any permits. However, we do review and may comment upon U.S. Corps of Engineer public notices for proposed projects and environmental documents which are submitted to us by the State Clearinghouse. For review purposes, the Department's interests lie in the following areas: 1. Potential for Navigation Hazards- To what extent might the proposed project affect safe navigation in California's iwaterways? 2. Beach erosion - Will the project affect the stability of ' coastal or bay beaches? Flood control projects, including dams and reservoirs, can have an impact on the transport of sand from rivers to coastal beaches. All coastal projects that intrude into the ocean are analyzed by Department ' coastal engineers. 3. Boating and Boating Facilities- To what extent might the proposed project affect existing or planned small craft harbors or launching facilities? To what extent might recreational boating activities be affected? Il 4. Public Trust- Placement of permanent residences or other facilities that would not be open to the public are analyzed by the Department in regard to public trust. The public trust doctrine holds that public lands and waterways are to be used for public benefit. If you have further questions, please contact Barbara Kierbow at (916) 323 -9488. cc: State Clearinghouse Sincerely, r.i f? • `� i 'lei i cv WILLIAM H. IVERS Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O: BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMENT OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR bepteffcer 1b• 19d3 TO: Shark Island Yacht Club 1099 Ba_yside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 J &t UleA5 'tllce FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS By- October 30, 1985 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Bea 7 � cu�Y•.. r- Sa PROJECT TITLE: Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Program - Unit I PROJECT LOCATION: (See attached Project Description) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: U z a u (See attached Project Description) 0 a CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator (714) 644 -3225 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF EXPERTISEE OR N 7�T: / z c ,} C3c 9 T �j ? /Z�j}i� /ri C�v i =5 T5�} T Xr -' -Z7 /� LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional pages as necessary) !SY f �l3orPC. ...c�.� -2 �-: � /lei .�/ m !/dN% /�.�� � C .(%�ci G 2 -u.1 P�.-t ( d /� / , �'- v�/ fir. �S /.Z' r� f'/?�SF'✓L vC d cclvrtiuous ,f'�2d62r- }....� d7` ,�_��,����,✓.s -.«c. « -�rz� �.� z 5 cc:ls `ovP�2aP�s< Ycv �ocic� CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: DATE RECEIVED BY INTERESTED PARTY: /n /� /��� S` r` ;DnTi�'RE 7 °CEIVED v3Y LAD�aGEN `� ECG-' �1 019g5 DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: September 16 1985 •,• �F';3 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Bea 7 � cu�Y•.. r- Sa L Project Location and Description Upper newport bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Project THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project is located in that portion of the Upper Newport Bay below the salt pond dike in the City of Newport Beach (See Exhi- bits 1 and 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed program of the project consists of the excavation and removal of as much as 1,100,000 cubic yards of spoil material from a locus in the Upper Newport Bay. The basic excavation will in- volve the following features: 1. A basin immediately below the old salt works dike with a , maximum bottom elevation of -14 feet MSL (Exhibit 3). 2. Side channels located as shown on Exhibit 3. 3. An access channel as shown on Exhibit 3. The actual amount of sediemnt removed will vary depending on the , method of construction. The construction of the channel is de- pendent on the method of construction. MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Noise /-'t) 'e'k,64c 1,7 ' Biological Resources Visual Impacts FG,475 77e cNfi�o v� �r�c�s /3 Harbor Circulation G11Z ' 716,19 . association manager, villageway management, Inc., post office box 4708, Irvine, california 92716 (714) 250.1876 I DOVER W SHORES ICOMMUNITY ASSOCIATION s, RECEI'�E v b OCT4 1985 �, September 30, 1985 y,, CRLIP. i City of Newport Beach r' Environmental Coordinator 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ATTN: Ms. Pat Temple RE: Dover Shores Community Association's Response ' Dear Ms. Temple: The following is our scoping response to the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement/ Sediment Management Project. It is generally known that areas of the Dover Shores Community have been more heavily impacted by the sediment flow from the Upper Bay regions of ' the Newport Bay than any other bay community. The sluggish tidal action caused by the settling out of the sediment in the bay area between the Bay Bridge and the lower end of the Ecological Preserve has built up large deposits of silt over at least the last ten years. Marine surveys indicate some 1,500,000 cubic yards have accumulated. These deposits have led to boat dock damage and created navigation problems. When all factors are reviewed and weighed, we recommend Approach R using the clamshell dredge and scows in the Upper Bay for silt removal. This concept will not only permit removal of the silt accumulated in the Upper Bay but will remove additional silt material extending from the Bridge on ' up the Bay for scow and dredge access. This will result in a considerable increase in the sea water flushing action so important to improving the overall condition of the Bay waters. The additional 23% in costs for ' this method over the pipline approach is considered to be highly cost effective when compared to the 119 ° °% increase in silt removal (more than twice as much) that would be achieved by the pipline approach. This plan would have the added advantage of providing a major step towards reducing future maintenance dredging that will be required on a continu- ing basis. As the plan for Unit II, it would be an appropriate fr e- runner to the badly needed dredging proposed under Federal legislation requiring the Corps of Engineers to take over the responsibility of maintaining the navigable condition of the Upper Bay just as they now do in the Lower Bay. - cont'd association manager, villageway management, Inc., post office box 4708, Irvine, california 92716 (714) 250.1876 I -z- I Approach B has our enthusiastic support. We are also concerned not only ' as residents on the Upper Bay, but also as Newport Beach citizens about the quality of Newport Bay waters. We are all well aware of the concerns of many government agencies including Newport Beach and Mayor Phil Maurer about this serious problem. Enclosure A is a letter responding to a request of the California Water , Quality Board providing suggestions to them for inclusion in legislation relative to evaluating and improving the quality of water in several areas including Newport Bay. Enclosure B is a letter commenting on Federal Register definitions and re- , quirements as they relate to pollution of waters by all materials including silt. The summary in this enclosure includes a recommendation for consider- , ation by the City relating to the dredging permit for Phase II. Sincerely, Peter Drummond, President Dover Shores Community Association , PD /sab encl. LJ I ' Dear Ms. Schneider: The residents of the Dover Shores Community Association, who are situated on the west side of the Upper Newport Bay, wish to present the following comments for inclusion in what we understand is an 1 early phase of accumulating ideas about California state legislation on improving the quality of water in various areas including that in Newport Bay. ' We propose that the legislation be directed toward: 1) defining the standards to be used in measuring the quality of water in bays and estuaries of the sea; 2) assigning responsibility for monitoring and ' reporting to the public and to regulatory bodies on the status of the water as determined under those standards, and 3) providing a means of enforcing those standards; 4) ensuring that funds available under ' law for ameliorating the problems are used solely for that purpose. It is proposed that there be three divisions of standards: a) the concentration of bacteria; b) the capacity of the water to maintain ' the marine life proper to the particular area; c) the aesthetics of the water quality as it pertains to human use both recreational and public. ' Under bacteria pollution, the counts of E coli and enterobacter organisms would be monitored with consideration being given to monitoring the concentration of the anaerobic organisms deeper in the water. A search would be made for means of determininq which of the above bacteria are related to human pollution, to animal pollution, to wild life pollution or to run -off from soil. ' Under minimum biological criteria, the water would be required to be capable of maintaining a suitable population of fish to provide for feeding birds which live.by fishing and harmless to those fish, etc., or to persons using them for food. Villageway Management Inc. 1840 East Carnegie ' Santa Ana, California 92705 September 20, 1985 :..>,� Fit ^.t RE Water Quality Control Board State of California s° 0CT: 1985?' 1 6809 Indiana, Suite 200 CI; ;CY ),, Riverside, California 92506 _� Pit ^!.' +!ii =J.C4i. Attention: Ms. Joanne Schneider ✓� *' ' Dear Ms. Schneider: The residents of the Dover Shores Community Association, who are situated on the west side of the Upper Newport Bay, wish to present the following comments for inclusion in what we understand is an 1 early phase of accumulating ideas about California state legislation on improving the quality of water in various areas including that in Newport Bay. ' We propose that the legislation be directed toward: 1) defining the standards to be used in measuring the quality of water in bays and estuaries of the sea; 2) assigning responsibility for monitoring and ' reporting to the public and to regulatory bodies on the status of the water as determined under those standards, and 3) providing a means of enforcing those standards; 4) ensuring that funds available under ' law for ameliorating the problems are used solely for that purpose. It is proposed that there be three divisions of standards: a) the concentration of bacteria; b) the capacity of the water to maintain ' the marine life proper to the particular area; c) the aesthetics of the water quality as it pertains to human use both recreational and public. ' Under bacteria pollution, the counts of E coli and enterobacter organisms would be monitored with consideration being given to monitoring the concentration of the anaerobic organisms deeper in the water. A search would be made for means of determininq which of the above bacteria are related to human pollution, to animal pollution, to wild life pollution or to run -off from soil. ' Under minimum biological criteria, the water would be required to be capable of maintaining a suitable population of fish to provide for feeding birds which live.by fishing and harmless to those fish, etc., or to persons using them for food. Page 2 - Water Quality Control Board September 20, 1985 Third, under aesthetic qualities for human use would be: 1) the turbidity of the water; 2) the amount and type of sediment; 3) the , tidal flush measured as a proportion of the expected tidal flush if the body of water were extensive enough in area and depth to maintain the expected volume if it were in its natural state; 4) oxygen - carrying capacity; 5) algae content; 6) color; 7) odor; 8) level of phosphates and other contaminants. In summary, a three tiered approach would be used with the first ' tier, the bacterial count, which if above certain levels would require remedial action. The second tier would be the maintenance of water qualities sufficient to sustain healthy non - contaminated marine life proper to that body of water. Third, the aesthetics necessary to enjoyable human use. Obviously some of the parameters monitored could not be used as standards for legal enforcement. , However, the requirement that they be monitored and measured and that the results be published would be expected to lead to research in the development of means to correct the deficiencies and ultimate legal enforcement. , The final item in the legislation would be the means to ensure that by law (e.g. tidelands funds) monies which are mandated to maintain ' water quality not be diverted to other purposes such as the financing of schools, etc., which activities, though taxpayer supported, were not to be the primary recipient of such funds. Sincerely, ' � 'i W �Amyes, M. ridyent Vice president for Peter Drummond, Pr Dover Shores Community Association 1706 Antigua Way Newport Beach, California 92660 cc: Edward Benson , cc: John Skinner, M.D. cc: Mrs. Jean Watt cc: Ramon Fay, Ph.D. , cc: Gil Ferguson, Assemblyman I ' Peter Drummond, President Dover Shores Community Association ' Dear Pete: Per your request, I have reviewed the report of M. H. Cheney, Consulting Engineer, dated August 1985 entitled Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program, Unit II. In an Appendix to Mr. Cheney's report is an extract from the Federal Register /Vol. 45, No. 249/ Wednesday, December 24, 1980 /Rules and Regu- lations, pages 85336 through 85357. The subject of this extract was guidelines for specification of disposal sites for dredged of fill material. The source was: TfSe Environmental Protection Agency and was to be the statement of a rule. On page 85341 of the Federal Register, the following statement is included: "These Consolidated Permit Regulations ' contained a new definition of fill material which eliminated the primary purpose test and included as fill material all pollutants which have the effect of fill, that is, which replace part of the waters of the United States with dryland or which change the bottom elevation of a water body ' for any purpose. This new definition is similar to the one used before 1977." Below that statement and in the same column, there is the following: "Therefore, to avoid any uncertainty from this situation, EPA wishes to ' make clear its enforcement policy for unpermitted discharges of solid waste. EPA has authority under section 309 of the CWA" (this refers to the Federal Clean Water Act) "to issue administrative orders against violations of section 301." On page 85348, an additional statement is made, "Under these Guidelines, effects contributing to significant degradation considered individually or ' collectively include: ...... (3) significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on aquatic ecco system diversity, productivity, and stability. ' Such effects include, but are not limited to, loss of fish and wild life habitat* or loss of the capacity of a wet laid to assimilate nutrients, purify water or reduce wave energy;" Your attention is directed to page 6 of the information summary for scoping meeting which indicates that the City of Newport Beach will contribute $129,870 to Unit II funding. And there is also reference to the study identi- fied as "THE NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED: SAN DIEGO CREEK COMPREHENSIVE STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN" in 1983. This study identified the amounts and the sources of the discharge into the Upper Newport Bay of pollutants which have the effect ' of fill. The City of Newport Beach therefore has, in the legal sense, been notified that a violation of federal regulations for environmental protection has been occurring since and before 1983. The City of Newport Beach, by appropriating sums, has acknowledged a necessary interest in ameliorating the problem in order to further protect and ensure the future protection of its residents. It necessarily follows that the City of Newport Beach is re- quired to find out whether or not the federal regulations require that the permit process, which gives permission for such amelioration, mandates that that party or those parties which are contributing sediment which has the effect of changing the "bottom elevation" of Newport Bay or causing a "loss * Underlining mine 11 Y' Page 2- , In summary, therefore it is recommended that the City of Newport Beach inform the EPA issuing the dredging permit that such dredging has been made necessary , by a continuing sedimentation process. This continuing sedimentation requires issuance of a permit as part of the permit allowing its partial amelioration. If this is not brought to the attention of the EPA, we believe the City of ' Newport Beach would appear to be a party to a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act. Sincerely, Edwin W. Amyes, M.D. , Vice President Dover Shores Community Association 11 of fish and wild life habitat receive continuing permission to do so or in the course of the permit process are ordered to cease and desist. The permit should therefore, as specified on page 85348, "determine in writing the , potential short term or long term effects of a proposed discharge of dredged or fill materials on the physical, chemical, and biological components of the aquatic environment in the light of sub -parts C -F." Due regard needs to be given to the fact that the regulations do not differentiate between a continuing process of sedimentation and the new discharge of fill. On page 85349, it is indicated that such determination shall include, "poten- tial changes in substrate elevation and bottom contours shall be predicted on the basis of a proposed method, volume, location and rate of discharge as well as on the individual and combined effects of current patterns, water circulation., wind and wave action, and other physical factors that may affect the movement of discharge material." Also, it specifies that "conclarity, , color, odor, taste, dissolve gas levels, temperature, nutrients and eutor- phication plus other appropriate characteristics. Consideration shall also be given to the potential diversion or obstruction of flow, alterations of , bottom contours, or other significant changes in the hydrologic regime. Additional consideration of the possible loss of environmental values (Sub- part H), shall be used in making these determinations. Potential significant effects on the current patterns, water circulation, normal water fluctuation ' and salinity shall be evaluated on the basis of the proposed method, volume, location, and rate of discharge." (Webster defines euthrophic as being "rich in dissolved nutrients but often shallow and with seasonal oxygen deficiency." In summary, therefore it is recommended that the City of Newport Beach inform the EPA issuing the dredging permit that such dredging has been made necessary , by a continuing sedimentation process. This continuing sedimentation requires issuance of a permit as part of the permit allowing its partial amelioration. If this is not brought to the attention of the EPA, we believe the City of ' Newport Beach would appear to be a party to a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act. Sincerely, Edwin W. Amyes, M.D. , Vice President Dover Shores Community Association 11 I / DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELS S GIST RICT. CORPS OF ENGRMLL AS - P.O 801 ]711 f LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA W53 3]]5 October 8, 1985 Rt vl r TO AT IENTION OF 9 RE CEIYED 1` Plannir.5 Office of the Chief. Depanmer Environmental Resources Branch 5 OCT 1 , QCI W 111 P. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, Ms. Patricia Temple ' City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Ms. Temple: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Management Program - Unit II, which was transmitted from your office on September 16, 1985. The ' cited Notice requested information as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR which is germane to our statutory responsibilities. ' Our specific responsibilities include, but are not limited to, investigation, design, operation and maintenance of water resource projects, including preparation of environmental guidelines in the fields of flood control, navigation and shore protection. We are also responsible for administration of laws and regulations for the protection and preservation against pollution of the waters of the United States. We believe that the forthcoming document should address environmental impacts pertinent to those of our responsibilities enumerated above. Impacts to disposal sites ard haul roads should be considered, in addition to impacts to the construction site. A separate letter will be sent from the Corps' Regulatory Branch, describing ' the permit authority of this agency related to your proposed project. Please feel free to contact this office for any data that might assist you in preparation of the projected document. The contact person for this project is Ms. Lois Goodman, telephone (213) 894 -0237. We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed EIR when it is issued. Sincerely, QL,,p Carl F. Enso Chief, Plannng Division ' /OUTHERn CRLIFORnm RIIOCIRTIOn OF GOVERn11TEnTf ' 600 fouth Commonwealth Avenue •fuite 1000 • Loi Angelei • California • 90005 •213/385 -1000 L 1 I_1 `1 L— LI I DATE: October 14, 1985 TO: Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach Planning Department Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 FROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse SUBJECT: UPPER NEWPORT BAY ENHANCEMENT /SEDIMENT 11ANAGEMEN1' PROGRAM -- UNIT II SCAG FILE NUMBER: OR- 33544 -NP Thank you for submitting the Notice to Prepare the environmental document for the referenced project for SCAG review. SCAG staff does not have comments at this time but looks forward to reviewing the environmental document when available. Sincerely, WENDY A.(/MU A y Clearinghouse Official WAM:wp4 ' REC£�Vc " "J�` Fdnniry /� p1! CCT1g 1905 s Nom•CITY,- tACH G1L!F. A \ UNTY OF ' 2 1 s � ARAN G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY iJ PLANNING MURRAYSTORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA. CA 927024048 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA. CA 92702.4048 FILE 9 � RECEIVED October 11, 1985 S ManniFIC Depa't'nent ` }' %1 OCT 211985 ILI le CITY Of Ms. Patricia Tem 1 ' P �% NEJJFURT 6EACH, City of Newport Beach CALIF. Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 ' SUBJECT: NOP - Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Program -Unit II Dear Ms. Temple: The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency has reviewed ' the above referenced Notice of Preparation. The proposed EIR will address the potential environmental impacts associated with the excavation and removal of as much as 1,100,000 ' cubic yards of soil material located in the Upper Newport Bay. The project represents the second phase implementation of the adopted Upper Newport Bay Management Program. ' The Notice of Preparation identifies the major issues which should be addressed by the EIR on the project. ' Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this project. We would appreciate receiving three copies of the Draft EIR when they become available. ' If you have any questions, please contact Sara Anderson, at 834 -5550. ' Very truly yours, V tr D&V 4V Dl, F. W. Olson, Manager ' Environmental 6 Special Projects Division SA(044) TELEPHONE: (714) 834 -4643 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor 'CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION, 6809 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 200 a ' RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506 -M1 PHONE: (714) 684 -9330 October 22, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach #': aJ Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 ' NOP: Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Program Unit II, SCH #85091819 Dear Ms. Temple: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this project and wish to offer the following comment. An NPDES permit for dredging activities must be obtained prior to the beginning of project construction. Any questions pertaining to this permit may be addressed to Mr. Gary Stewart of this office. It should be noted that pro- ' cessing of an NPDES permit may take as long as 120 days. We look forward to review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report when it be- ' comes available. Sincerely, C I s ci- Nancy A. Olson ' Environmental Technician cc: Glenn Stober, Office of Planning and Research ' NAO:kyb [1 H r DATE: TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH z P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658.8915 �iFpP NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR U.S. Dept. of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service Ecological Services Div. 24000 Avila Rd. 92677 Laguna Nigel, CA Attn: Jack Fancher PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR AGENCY'S COMMENTS BY October 30, 1985 DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: September 16, 1985 DATE RECE•I D BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach DATE F� VE BY LEJ4Q�AGENQX.: I > PROJECT TITLE: I p ges��s necessary) 7Cv I� t Upper New-port Bay Enhancement Sediment Management Program - Unit PROJECT LOCATION: (See attached Project Description) s DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: r U CON ACT ERSON: TITLE, PHONE: iy (� - N2 c' z (See attached Project Description) CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator (714) 644 -3225 DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: September 16, 1985 DATE RECE•I D BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach DATE F� VE BY LEJ4Q�AGENQX.: I > DESCRIBIE SPE(S F['c PERMIT] TAUT QRITY O.F+ YOUR G NC/Y' RELA D 0,THIS PROJECT.: F >� cwAL .(cl�. \E �SbfG L v 9R 4,F : O P� JN LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional p ges��s necessary) 7Cv I� t W U 14U t i �tiC 5 c , � r ..ti z I ci \((� 4 /� I'•,,- 71�,��+_ J Fi [CL1�r/1�.� V��Jj i'v1 ). 'j>-� ✓�i:[�Li.:. �i—tr'LS� s ` {y J\ CON ACT ERSON: TITLE, PHONE: iy (� - N2 c' ���< L-F DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: September 16, 1985 DATE RECE•I D BY RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach DATE F� VE BY LEJ4Q�AGENQX.: I > �j STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor STATE LANDS COMMISSION 1807 13TH STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 October 31, 1985 File Ref: SD 85 -09 -25 PRC 5091.9 SCH #85091819 City of Newport Beach ' Planning Department Attention: Patricia Temple P. O. Box 1768 1 [1 I Newport_ Beach, California 92658 -8915 Gentlemen: This is in response to your Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Program - Unit II. The proposed project involves both lands acquired by the California Department of Fish and Game and lands under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission currently being leased to Fish and Game. If the proposed project is compatible with the use of these lands by Fish and Game under the terms of the lease from the State Lands Commission, you will be required to secure a State Lands Commission permit to cover the proposed dredging. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, 7�LO LINDA MARTINEZ Dredging Coordinator (916) 322 -6375 CC.* Fred Worthley, Regional Manager Department of Fish and Game 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, California 90802 25171 Carl Wilcox, Wildlife Manager Department of Fish and Game 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, California 90802 RE EIvr� P1Pmriry -' Nov 1985 ".. C��' OF ;emu I i 1 1 1 i i I L STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Goe , DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION w .. DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 (213) 620 - 5335:" October 30, 1985 Notice of Preparation Upper Newport Bay Enhancement Ms. Pat Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Ms. Temple: We have received the NOP for the above project and have determined that CALTRANS will not be a Responsible Agency for this project. As the project appears to have no affect on state facilities, we have no comment. Thank you for the opportunity to review this NOP. Very truly yours, GuSz- W. B. BALLANTINE, Chief Environmental Planning Branch `CC V �-t OF ' f 1 _ 1 Community Deveioomen! Cepa: iment Cnv of trvme. 172Q0 Jamboree Road. P.O. Box 19575. Irvine. Cafdorma 92713 :7141 6603;'00 November 5, 1985 ' Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach ' P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 -8915 ' Dear Ms. Temple; NOTICE OF PREPARATION; UPPER NEWPORT BAY; ENHANCEMENT /SEDIMENT ' MANAGEMENT PROGRAM -UNIT II Thank you for giving us the oppportunity to review the subject NOP. The City of Irvine has no comment on the project. ' Please continue to keep us informed of projects which could potentially impact the city. cc: John Murphy Richard Monroe Mary Roush File /Environmental- Interagency I 1 1 RE.CEIVEO t G ;V 12 1985 :r Sincerely, ' Ed M re, AICP. Priyr ipal Planner /Environmental Coordinator ' EM:ML cc: John Murphy Richard Monroe Mary Roush File /Environmental- Interagency I 1 1 RE.CEIVEO t G ;V 12 1985 :r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658.8915 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR 111" September 16, 1985 ( TO: Commander ( dpl ) 11th Coast Guard Dist. 'Union Bank Building 400 Oceangate, Suite 908 Long Beach, CA 90822 FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR AGENCY'S COK%1ENTS BY October 30, 1985 y6� 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach PROJECT TITLE: Uvver Newport Bay Enhancement Sediment Management Program - Unit PROJECT LOCATION: (See attached Project Description) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND 'MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: z Z W a (See attached Project Description) 0 a m CONTACT PERSON: TITLE: PHONE: Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator (714) 644 -3225 DESCRIBE. SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT: Rewrite regulations for Anchorage C -1, if necessary LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: (Use additional pages as necessary) z w c: Please see comments in my letter, file number 16452/PF, dated 04 December 1985 54 `m N 2 O a y w e y COL TITLE: PHONE: (213) J. F.y U FF DR, USCG Planning Officer, 11th CG District 0 DATE RECEIVED BY D TE MAIL: BY LEAD 'DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED AGt RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: BY LEAD AGENCY: September 16, 1985 November 21, 1985 y6� 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach I US Deportment Commander Union Bank Bldg. , of Transportation Eleventh Coast Guard District 400 Beachate 80822 United States Staff Symbol: (can) Coast Guard `D (213) 590-2222* ' S fe Ser: can an Sex: 556 -85 4 December 1985 City of Newport Beach Planning Department ATTN: Ms. Patricia Temple N 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -9915 Dear Ms. Temple: ' I have briefly reviewed the environmental Lrrpact Report (EIR) cogcerning the Upper Bay Enhancernent /Sediment Management Project (E /S ^2). The short period for co meet prohibits a cvnprehensive review; hoover, our basic concerns are enumerated below. Preliminary review indicates that some of the alternatives.described in ' Chapter V are environmentally and economically superior to the Approach A and Approach B alternatives described in Chapter III. The alternatives in Chapter , V need further study, and should be discussed in greater detail in the EIR. The Hydraulic Dredge with Offshore Loading and Disposal alternative seems particularly noteworthy. The impacts of t'Ze disposal scow traffic under the Coast Highway Bridge are , inadequately discussed. 'roe bridge has suffered t\,o collisions recently from the use of the same small scow as proposed in Alternative A. ' The long -term impacts of the deepened channels cn existing recreational traffic transiting under the bridge should also be addressed in the EIR. The alternative for the hydraulic dredge with offshore loading and disposal in ' L.A. 3 would require a Private Aid to Navigation Permit for the mooring buoys. The regulations for Anchorage C -1 (33 CFR 110.212), would need to b= rewritten ' for any use of the anchorage other than those presently specified. Composite tug and barge units (as discussed cn page III -10) are not a routine ' application within the maritime community. Additionally, the tugs discussed as being used rn the Mississippi for pushr-1 strings of barges are not normally used for ocean transport, nor are the composite units. The mitigation measures for vessel safety in Newport Harbor do not reflect actual problems encountered in a crowded channel. Specifically, the Bridge to Bridge Radio Telephone Act requires the use of VHF Channel 13 for vessels in sight of one another. Both the ferries and the tug and barge traffic would fall into the category of vessels required to conraly with the Act. Recreational vessels are not routinely subject to this requirement. , I Similarly, the posting of a lookout is a routine measure performed by prudent seamen. A more realistic concern is the nature of the harbor regulations that will need to be enacted to prevent sailing vessels from obstructing the scows, and the enforcement methods that will be employed. Not mentioned in the EIR is the probability that the scows will be towed to and from L.A. 3. This fact means that somewhere in the harbor the scow will need to be put into a configuration for pushing or towing. This site needs to ' be identified. Not mentioned is any limit on the number of scows that can safely be pushed /towed in the harbor. A rough calculation indicates that, irrespective of recreational traffic, a meeting situation will occur between departing "loaded" scows and returning "light" scows once an hour somodhere in the harbor. There is insufficient roan for this passage to routinely occur safely in the harbor. The matrix of permit approvals on page III -14 is incorrect /misleading: 1. The Coast Guard can not authorize the project or the safety precautions. 2. Any change to the existing anchorage regulations (33 CFR 110.212) ' could require a request fran the city for the proposed change. The Coast Guard would initiate the change by pablishing the proposal in the Federal Register. The proposal would then be subject to the full public procedure process before approval. 3. The Coast Guard will require timely notification of all activities that will affect navigation in Newport Harbor. This information will be published in the "Local Notice to Mariners ". 4. This project will also require Section 10 and Section 103 Permits from the Corps of Engineers. 5. There was no mention of any coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the endangered species present at the project site. There is no discussion in the EIR of the full range of impacts that this proposal will have on the residents and mariners in Newport Harbor. Since boat density in the harbor is one of the highest in the nation on "high use" days (frost weekends and all summer), the discussion should include measures to ' mitigate the impacts. Sincerely, % J. Commander, S. Coast Guard Chj4f, Planning Staff direction of the District Commander ' Copy: Andriette Adams I I. I , I i I B. BIOASSAY REPORT i' ■ 1 I , l� MBC UPPER NEWPORT BAY DREDGE BIOASSAY March 1985 Prepared By MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 947 Newhall Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 For California Department of Fish and Game And The Irvine Company July 1985 [J ' CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ................... ............................... LIST OF TABLES ............................................. LIST OF APPENDICES ................ ............................... ii Introduction..................................... 1 Assessment of Impact ............ ............................... 1 Methods and Materials.•.......•... 4 ' facilities.. ..•..•.•••...•....•............ 4 Col lection...................... ............................... 5 Sediments 5 ' Water.. ..................... ............................... 6 Organisms..................... ............................... 6 Preparation of Sediments for Use in Bioassays .................. 7 Suspended Particulate Phase ... ............................... 7 Solid Phase Sediments.. 8 Performance of Bioassays and Bioaccumulation ................... '8 Suspended Particulate Phase Bioassays ........................ 8 SolidPhase ................... ............................... 9 Bioaccumulation Potential ..... ............................... 10 Chemical Analysis ............... ............................... 11 Water Chemistry ............... 11 Sediment Chemistry.. ............................... 12 Tissue Analysis ............... ............................... 12 Sediment Grain Size Analysis .... ............................... 12 Statistical Analyses.. 13 Results ........................... ............................... 16 Chemical Analyses ...•. 16 ' Bioassay Results.. •...•.•• 18 Suspended Particulate Phase.. .......•....••.•..••.••.•...... 18 SolidPhase .................................................. 18 Bioaccumulation Phase ......... ............................... 19 ' Quality Assurance /Quality Control. 19 Scope......................... ............................... 20 Procedures.................... 22 Data Reduction.. ............................... 25 Data Analysis and Report ...... ............................... 25 LITERATURE CITED .................. ............................... 26 I I I I I L� I I LJ I u J I I I I I LIST OF FIGURES Figure1. Location of study area .. ............................... Figure 2. Location of Dredge Sites C and E in Upper Newport Bay.. LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Values for Cochran's test for homogeneity of variances and t- test ............ ............................... Table 2. Summary of mean values for trace metal analysis of bio- accumulation tissues .. ............................... Table 3. Percent survivorship in suspended particulate phase bioassay............. ....... ...... ................. Table 4. Percent survivorship in solid phase bioassay........... LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Sediment grain size analysis. Appendix B. Trace metal analysis of seawater, sediment and tissues. Appendix C. Organic chemical analysis of tissues, sediments and dilution seawater. Appendix D. Total fuel hydrocarbon analysis of seawater, sediment and tissues. Appendix E. Daily water quality parameters for suspended particulate phase bioassays. Appendix F. Daily water quality parameters for solid phase bioassays. Appendix G. Daily water quality parameters for bioaccumulation phase bioassays. Page 3 3 14 17 18 19 ii 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME UPPER NEWPORT BAY DREDGE MATERIAL OCEAN DISPOSAL BIOASSAY INTRODUCTION Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries ' Act of 1972, Public Law 92 -532, specifies that all proposed operations involving the transportation and dumping of dredged material into ocean waters be evaluated to determine potential environmental impact. Environmental evaluations must be in accordance with criteria in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 220 -228. These criteria emphasize evaluative techniques such as bioassays and bioassessments, which provide relatively direct estimations of the potential for ' environmental impact. The criteria do not prohibit environmental change, but rather "unacceptable environmental impact." ' ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT 1 To assess potential environmental impacts of the proposed ' activity, bioassays are conducted using three separate phases of the dredge material: suspended particulate, solid and bioaccumulation. The suspended particulate bioassay aids in evaluating the impact of ' dissolved chemical constituents released into the water column from the sediment during disposal operations. Suspended particulate bioassays also directly evaluate the potential for biological impacts in the water column due to the physical presence of suspended particles and any biologically active contaminants associated with the particulates or the dissolved fraction. Bioassays of the solid phase of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal act as indirect ' indicators of the chemical toxicity of the sediment. They provide exposure conditions approximating those that would be experienced by ' animals living near the boundaries of the disposal site. This bioassay does not duplicate the depth of sediment deposition that may cover 1 animals directly under the disposal vessel, but rather approximates F _I 2 conditions with disposal site boundaries. The bioaccumulation bioassay is intended to assess the potential for long -term accumulation of contaminants from the dredged material to be bioaccumulated in the tissues of marine organisms. Interpretation of this bioaccumulation to animals exposed to the dredged material may be statistically sig- nificant when compared to animals living in material of similar sedimentological character. It is the intent of the law to determine the biological effect of disposal of the dredge material; hence, biological assessment, or bioassay, is the appropriate and most applicable determination. When the biological analyses are complete, the data are statistically analyzed and the Limiting Permissible Con- centration (LPC) determined based upon the "Initial Mixing Model." The present bioassay investigation for the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF &G) represents the bioenvironmentai information necessary for permit application acceptance by the two appropriate jurisdictional agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. . The purpose of the bioassay is to use the guidelines developed in the Implementation Manual (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [EPA /COE) 1977) for Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to assess potential impacts of' the disposal of dredged material derived from dredging of two sites (C and E) in the Upper Newport Bay (Figures 1 and 2). The sampling and laboratory techniques employed in the present bioassay reflect the guidance of the Manual, which provides technical guidelines for the ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of dredged material into ocean waters. The technical information provided in "The Manual" was aimed primarily toward dredge - disposal activities along the eastern and gulf coasts of the United States; therefore, some deviations from the guidelines were necessary to provide rele- vance to the particular dredge and disposal sites. Deviations or �l I 1 I I 01 $� SANTA ANA qs e,a SUNSET n BEACH Id i w d NUNTINGTON BEACH ' it o and $ � o ? S y 3 Sw aip• GM COSTA MESA STUDY AREA NEWPORT O BEACH QO m4Ff Figure I. Location of study area. Figure 2. Location of Dredge Sites C and E in Upper Newport Bay. y� SUBTMLCI wuon.ATC] C _ - Figure 2. Location of Dredge Sites C and E in Upper Newport Bay. 4 1 1 choice among alternative methodologies were made at the request and with the concurrence of the local representatives of the appropriate , federal regulatory agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers. These changes include: , 1) use of Acartia tons, 4ca1?tho1gy5,is sculpts and Citharicli- tos stigrnaeus in the suspended particulate phase; , 2) use of Hacoma nasuta, Acanthomysis sculpts and Neanthes arenaceodentata in the solid phase; ' 3) use of Nacoma nasuta and Neanthes arenaceodentata in the bioaccumulation study; and , 4) performance of bioassays at 15 °C t 1 °C. METHODS AND MATERIALS ' Gar TI TTTPZ MBC is a certified bioassay laboratory (California Department of Health Services). Bioassay facilities are centered around a 650 sq ft environmentally controlled, insulated laboratory. The facility is equipped with a 7,000 gal seawater storage system. These systems are equipped with water quality control subsystems including filtration, , ultraviolet sterilization, thermal regulatory and biological byproduct removal units. The facility includes all necessary equipment to , maintain a variety of macroscopic and microscopic bioassay organisms including numerous small aquaria for developing experimental , treatments. These facilities are supported by the necessary staff and , equipment to collect, identify and maintain experimental fish, invertebrate and algae populations. In addition, the geology and ' analytical chemistry laboratories provide analyses of materials for chemical composition and grain size determinations. ' I L_ 11 V Bioassays were performed in the laboratory utilizing cool -white fluorescent lighting with a 14 -hr light /10 -hr dark cycle. Air temper- ature was maintained at 15 °C ± 1 °C by a commercial 1352 BTU air conditioner. Temperature was recorded continuously with a Rustrak temperature monitoring device. One 7000 gal load of seawater collected from offshore Huntington Beach, California, was transported to the laboratory and stored in several seawater -aged 1400 gal fiberglass storage tanks. Seawater was filtered through 15 >i spun fiber car- tridges and activated carbon cartridges, then stored inside the laboratory at the ambient laboratory temperature until needed. All water quality instrumentation (Corning pH meter, YSI dis- solved oxygen and Horiba U -7) was calibrated daily according to manufacturer's specifications. All glassware, aquaria and associated containers were washed with a detergent solution; rinsed with tap water, soaked in 10% HC1 for 4 hours, then rinsed thoroughly with metal -free water, as per the Manual. COLLECTION Sediments Methods of sample collection reflect guidance of the Manual. Dredge site muds used in the bioaccumulation phase, solid phase bioassay and in preparation of the suspended particulate phase solution were collected by hand -held coring devices which sampled to a depth of approximately 2.5 to 3.0 ft at the two proposed dredge sites C and E in Upper Newport Bay (Figure 2). At least 5 cores were collected along each dredge site to characterize the sediment. The collected sediment was then mixed to form a single sample. Disposal site sediment used in the solid phase bioassay as a disposal site control was collected along the perimeter of the proposed ocean disposal site, LA -3 (33 031'42 "N /.117 054'48 "W), using a benthic dredge 6 , specifically designed for sampling large sediment volumes at depth. Reference sediments used to simulate a pre - disposal situation in the , solid phase bioassay were collected approximately two nautical miles from the center of the disposal site along the same isobath, using the same large- volume benthic dredge. The equivalent of 5 five gallon buckets of mud were collected from each site. All sediment samples ' were transferred to labeled acid- washed polyethylene containers and stored at 2 °C to 4 °C. Subsamples of reference, control and dredge site sediments were removed for chemical and grain size analyses. ' Water ' Seawater used in the bioassays was determined an appropriate substitute for disposal site water based upon chemical characteriza- , tion of the samples as per previous MBC studies of dredge spoils evaluations for the Port of Long Beach International Coal Terminal ' facility and for the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA). Control and disposal site water used in the bioassay experi- ments was collected from offshore Huntington Beach, California. The seawater was filtered to 15 u to remove particulates, passed through , an activated charcoal filter to remove organics, and chilled to 15 °C for immediate use. Organisms The choice of test organisms was based upon a list developed by the EPA Region IX and the COE, Los Angeles Region. These organisms are recognized as being sufficiently sensitive and are known to occur at the Los Angeles area dredge spoil dump site. Suspended particulate phase organisms included the copepod 4cdrtfd tonsa, the mysid .4cantho- , mysis sculpts and the speckled sanddab CitharicA>Ws stigmaeus. Solid phase organisms included the mysid 4Cdnthomys1s sculpts, the poly- , chaete worm Neanthes arenaceodentata and the clam Nacaw nasuta. With the single exception of Neanthes, test organisms were obtained from ' wild populations. ' Suspended Particulate Phase Suspended particulate phase bioassays are used to evaluate the potential for biological impacts due to both the physical presence of ' suspended particles and any biologically active contaminants asso- ciated with the particulates and /or the dissolved fraction. To ' simulate this condition, dredge mud (si�,ad through i mm screen to remove indigenous organisms) and seawater were placed in a container in a 1:4 volumetric ratio. The slurry was aerated and stirred for �J J Acartia tonsa were collected from mid- depths of Lower Newport Bay using a 1 m plankton net with 333 p mesh. Nednthes dreaaceodentdtd were obtained from the laboratory cultures of Dr. Donald Reish (California State University, Long Beach). MBcomd nasata and Cith- drichthys were collected in Tomales Bay, and Acdnthomysis were ' collected by plankton net from kelp beds in Monterey Bay, California, by Brezina and Associates, a commercial biological supply house located in Dillon Beach, California. All test organisms from Brezina ' and Associates were shipped via Greyhound in plastic bags packed In insulated boxes. Organisms were carefully acclimated to laboratory ' seawater of 15 °C and a salinity of 33 0 /oo for several days. Ndcomd and Cithdrichthys stl.5waeus were held in a five foot diameter fiber- ' glass tank which contained about three inches of sieved sand and aerated laboratory seawater. Cithdrichthys stigmdeus were fed brine ' shrimp and TetraminTM until 48 hrs prior to initiation of tests. Mysids were held in a 50 gal aquarium of filtered, aerated seawater and fed brine shrimp nauplii until initiation of the tests. Acartia were ' sorted from other .planktonic organisms immediately upon arrival from the field and bioassays were initiated. Nednthes were transported from ' Long Beach, California, to the laboratory and used the same day in the solid phase and bioaccumulation studies. PREPARATION OF SEDIMENTS FOR USE IN BIOASSAYS ' Suspended Particulate Phase Suspended particulate phase bioassays are used to evaluate the potential for biological impacts due to both the physical presence of ' suspended particles and any biologically active contaminants asso- ciated with the particulates and /or the dissolved fraction. To ' simulate this condition, dredge mud (si�,ad through i mm screen to remove indigenous organisms) and seawater were placed in a container in a 1:4 volumetric ratio. The slurry was aerated and stirred for �J J Acartia spp. Twenty Acartia spp. were exposed to each of three ' 250 mF replicates of 100% suspended particulate. phase of each dredge , site and three replicates of control (laboratory) seawater for 96 hrs. The Acartia were contained in covei_J -100 x 50 mm glass crystallizing dishes and fed the golden -brown algae, Isochrysis. Water quality , parameters including dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, conductivity, nitrite and ammonia were analyzed at 0 hrs before addition of Acartia , and at 96 hrs after the final survivorship count to reduce stress to the organisms. , , 8 30 minutes at VC, then allowed to settle one hour, simulating the effects of initial mixing and dispersion. The supernatant was decanted from the slurry and used as the 100% concentration of the suspended particulate phase. , Solid Phase Sediments , Reference and disposal site muds for the solid phase bioassay were sieved through a 1 mm screen to remove indigenous organisms, ' using the smallest volume of seawater possible. Dredge site mud retained upon preparation and settling of the suspended particulate ' phase served as the solid phase and bioaccumulation mud for the dredge site. , PERFORMANCE OF BIOASSAYS AND BIOACCUMULATION Suspended Particulate Phase Bioassays , Citharichthys stigmaeas. Speckled sanddab (Citharichthys stiy- maeus) were exposed to three replicates of 100% suspended particulate , phase of each dredge site and three replicates of control (laboratory) seawater for 96 hrs. Ten sanddabs were contained in each five gallon Water including dissolved , glass aquarium. quality parameters oxygen, pH, temperature and conductivity were performed twice daily using a Horiba U -7 water analyzer. Nitrite and ammonia concentrations were , determined twice daily using test kits from Aquarium Pharmaceuticals. Acartia spp. Twenty Acartia spp. were exposed to each of three ' 250 mF replicates of 100% suspended particulate. phase of each dredge , site and three replicates of control (laboratory) seawater for 96 hrs. The Acartia were contained in covei_J -100 x 50 mm glass crystallizing dishes and fed the golden -brown algae, Isochrysis. Water quality , parameters including dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, conductivity, nitrite and ammonia were analyzed at 0 hrs before addition of Acartia , and at 96 hrs after the final survivorship count to reduce stress to the organisms. , P Solid Phase Nacana nasata. Clams were exposed to five replicates of four test situations. The first test situation represented a disposal site ' control, where 20 clams in each of 5 replicates were established in a 30 mm deep layer of sieved disposal site sediment in 10 gal aquaria. After 48 hrs, the clams were covered with a 15 mm layer of disposal site sediment. The second test situation represented a pre- disposal reference, where 20 clams in each of 5 replicates were established in ' a 30 mm layer of sieved reference sediment, then 48 hrs later were covered with a 15 mm layer of reference sediment. The third and fourth ' test situations represented a dredge - disposal situation where clams were established in a 30 mm layer of sieved disposal site sediment and ' 48 hrs later were covered with a 15 mm layer of Upper Newport Bay dredge mud from sites C and E. As this was a static system, seawater was changed at 1 hr after initiation of the bioassay and every 48 hrs ' thereafter. The bioassay continued for 10.days. Water quality analyses were performed twice daily using the Horiba U -7, and nitrite and ' ammonia test kits. At the end of 10 days, the sediment was sieved to allow removal and enumeration of the clams. The remaining clams from ' each replicate were placed in the corresponding test condition to add tissue for bioaccumulation chemical analysis. ' Neanthes arenoceodentata. Bioassay of the polychaete worm, Neanthes, was performed in the same 5 gal aquaria at the same time as the Nacoma. Twenty (20) Neanthes were placed in each of five repli- cates in each test situation; at the end of 10 days, the Neanthes ' were enumerated at the same time as the clams. The remaining poly - chaetes from each replicate were placed in the corresponding test ' condition to add tissue for bioaccumulation chemical analysis. Acanthomysis scalota. Twenty (20) mysids were exposed to five replicates of each of four test situations: reference, disposal, Dredge Site C and Dredge Site E. These test situations were performed ' with the same methodology as the Nacoma and Neanthes solid phase. 10 ' Mysids were introduced to the 1 gal glass jars after the water cleared after addition of the 15 mm layer. Mysids were fed laboratory - cultured , Artaxia nauplii. Bioaccumulation Potential ' Macau nasata. Clams were exposed to five replicates of four test , situations. The first test situation represented a disposal site Neanthes, was performed control, where 20+ clams in each of 5 replicates were established in a ' 30 mm deep layer of sieved disposal site sediment in 10 gal aquaria. that sufficient biomass After 48 hrs, the clams were covered with a 15 mm layer of disposal ' site sediment. The second test situation represented a pre - disposal reference, where 20+ clams in each of 5 replicates were established in a 30 mm layer of sieved reference sediment, then 48 hrs later were , covered with a 15 mm layer of reference sediment. The third and fourth test situations represented a dredge - disposal situation where clams ' were established in a 30 mm layer of sieved disposal site sediment and 48 hrs later were covered with a 15 mm layer of Upper Newport Bay t dredge mud from sites C and E. As this was a static system, seawater was changed at 1 hr after initiation of the bioassay and every 48 hrs thereafter. The bioassay continued for 20 days. Water quality analyses , were performed twice daily using the Horiba U -7, and nitrite and ammonia test kits. The solid phase tests were run concurrently ' utlizing the same methodology. After completion of the solid phase test the remaining clams from each replicate were added to the , bioaccumulation test to supplement the tissue for chemical analysis. At the end of 20 days, the sediment was sieved to allow removal of the ' clams. The remaining clams from each replicate were replaced in the original cleaned 10 gal aquaria filled with fresh seawater, and allowed to depurate 48 hrs. Tissue was subsequently removed from the ' shells and frozen until initiation of chemical analyses for b accumu- lation potential. , Neanthes arenoceodeotata. Bioassay of the polychaete worm, , Neanthes, was performed in the same 10 gal aquaria at the same time as the Yacoma. To ensure that sufficient biomass would be available for ' 11 ' chemical analyses (Neanthes = 50 mg), 80+ Neanthes were placed in each of the five replicates in each test situation. The solid phase tests were run concurrently utilizing the same methodology. After completion of the solid phase test the remaining Neanthes from each replicate were added to the bioaccumulation test to supplement the tissue for ' chemical analysis. At the end of 20 days, the Neanthes were enumerated at the same time as the clams, allowed 48 hrs to depurate (0. Reish, ' personal communication) in the 10 gal aquaria of seawater, then frozen until initiation of chemical analyses. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ' Chemical analyses represented three groups: water, sediment, and tissue chemistry. Samples were stored and preserved according to the COE (Plumb 1981). Samples for trace metal element analyses were acidified to pH 1 and stored at 4 °C. Samples used for petroleum hydrocarbon and organohalogen analyses were stored in solvent- washed bottles using caps equipped with foil liners. Tissue samples were frozen until analyzed. ' Water Chemistry Fl L' r L "Background" trace metal levels were determined for cadmium, total chromium, copper and lead by atomic absorption spectroscopy following the acid digestion described in Plumb (1981). Mercury and arsenic samples were subjected to the prescribed digestion (Plumb 1981) and analyzed by atomic absorption utilizing the cold vapor and arsine generation techniques. Petroleum hydrocarbons were determined utilizing EPA 3550 extraction techniques and EPA 8015 analysis with additional methane chloride cleanup and acetonitrile partitioning to Improve the accuracy of analysis. Organohalogens were determined utilizing EPA 8080 methodology by gas chromatographic methods and second column confirmation techniques. 12 Sediment Chemis Sediment chemistry was accomplished in a manner analogous to the procedures described for water chemistry. Trace metal samples were subjected to a nitric acid digestion. Mercury samples were digested with nitric acid /sulfuric acid followed by oxidation with potassium permanganate. Mercury concentrations were determined by the cold vapor technique. Petroleum hydrocarbons were determined as described above for water samples. Organohalogens were determined by gas chromato- graphic methods. Tissue Analysis Tissue samples utilized for trace element analyses were homo- genized and digested with nitric acid. Trace metal samples were analyzed by atomic absorption spectroscopy, while mercury and arsenic samples were subjected to the prescribed protocols and analyzed by the cold vapor technique and arsine generation technique. Tissue samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons according to the EPA methods 8015 and 3550 with extra "clean -up" utilizing acetonitrile partitioning. Samples were homogenized, digested in strong base to saponify biogenic lipid materials, purified, concen- trated, and charged with an internal standard. The samples were then analyzed by gas chromatography using a flame ionization detector (FID). Organohalogens were determined by extraction, purification, and gas chromatographic analysis EPA method 8080 pesticides and PCBs. SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Aliquots of approximately 50 g dry weight sediments were removed from reference, disposal, Dredge Site C and Dredge Site E samples for grain size analysis. Samples were treated with hydrogen peroxide to oxidize organic material, then rinsed several times with deionized water to remove salts and soluble organics. The samples were dried at IL 1 13 80° C, weighed and resuspended in sodium hexametaphosphate, a disper- sant. The silt -clay distribution was determined by hydrometer analysis, a method based on the settling rates of different sized particles and fluid density (American Society of Testing Materials [ASTM], 0422 1963). The sediment was then washed through a 0.0625 mm screen to remove silt and clay, leaving the sand fraction on the screen. The sand fraction of the sample was dried and the grain size distribution determined using a settling tube similar to Gibbs (1974). The device uses a differential transformer to sense the load exerted by sediment as it settles and accumulates in a pan near the base of ' the settling column. The strip chart output from the load sensor was converted to a cumulative frequency plot of the sizes of the particles constituting the samples. Sizes were reported in phi units (phi = ' -log2 diameter in millimeters). The range of phi sizes examined was from approximately -2.25 phi to 16.47 phi. Grain size data were then ' converted to the cumulative frequency of the occurrence of grain size classes. Statistical parameters (mean grain size, sorting, skewness, kurtosis) of each grain size distribution were extracted using moment measures (Krumbein and Pettijohn 1938, Sharp and Fan 1973). Results ' are presented in Appendix A. STATISTICAL ANALYSES Statistical analyses followed guidelines in the Manual. If total ' survival in the test medium was equal to or higher than the controls, visual inspection of the data was deemed adequate and no further sta- tistical analyses were performed. If survival in the controls was higher than that in the 100% test medium or treatment, a t -test was then utilized to statistically examine the difference. As homosce- dasticity is one easily assessed assumption of the t -test, Cochran's test for homogeneity of variances was first performed on the data. ' Homoscedastic data were then evaluated using Student's t -test for independent means. Determinations of LC50 for the suspended particulate phase were greater than 100% of the test media for all test situa- tions. Values for Cochran's test for homogeneity of variances and t -test are presented in Table 1. IL 1 14 Table 1. Values for Cochran's variance and t -test. Suspended Particulate Phase: 100% 100% 100% Replicate Control Dredge C Dredge E Acartia spp.: 1 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 3 19 20 19 Sum 59 60 59 Mean 19.6667 20.0000 19.6667 Variance 0.3333 0.3333 Cochran's t -test Acantham sis scm7pta: 1 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 3 20 20 19 Sum 60 60 59 Mean 20 20 19.6667 Variance 0.0 0.0 0.3333 Cochran's t -test citharichti{ys Stignaeus . 1 9 9 10 2 10 10 10 3 10 9 10 Sum 29 28 30 Mean 9.6667 9.3333 10.0000 Variance 0.3333 0.3333 0.0 Cochran's 0.5 t -test 0.7071 1 1 'i '1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t Table 1 (continued) Solid Phase: Reference/ Disposal/ Replicate Reference Disposal Dredge C/ Disposal Dredge E/ Disposal AcanthagwIs scu7pta: 1 18 20 18 18 2 18 20 20 19 3 19 19 18 19 4 18 19 19 20 5 20 19 18 19 Sum 93 97 93 95 Mean 18.60 19.40 18.60 19.00 Variance 0.80 0.30 0.80 0.50 Cochran's t -test Ilacov.�: 1 19 19 20 20 2 20 20 20 20 3. 20 20 20 20 4 20 20 20 20 5 20 19 20 20 Sum 99 98 100 100 Mean 19.8 19.60 20.0 20.0 Variance 0.20 0.30 0.0 0.0 Cochran's 0.60 t -test 0.6325 Neanthes•. 1 19 20 20 17 2 18 17 19 18 3 19 17 17 20 4 18 18 20 20 5 18 18 20 17 Sum 92 90 96 92 Mean 18.40 18.00 19.20 18.40 Variance 0.30 1.50 1.70 2.30 Cochran's 0.8333 t -test 0.6667 *Total survival in 100% test media equal to or higher than control 15 RESULTS ' CHEMICAL ANALYSES , Chemical analyses of trace metals in sediment samples from the , bioaccumulation study demonstrated slightly lower concentrations for total chromium and copper and slightly higher concentrations of cadmium than historical data had indicated. Levels of mercury, lead , and zinc were greatly elevated from previous 1980 data. A summary of the mean values for trace metals in the bioaccumulation tissues are ' presented in Table 2. Results by replicate are presented in Appen- dix B. Pesticides and PCB levels in the sediment were lower than the ' detection limit. Values are presented,in Appendix C. Total fuel hydrocarbons were less than 5 mg /x at all stations. Values are presented in Appendix D. t Chemical , 16 demonstrated concentrations lower than instrumentation detection RESULTS ' CHEMICAL ANALYSES , Chemical analyses of trace metals in sediment samples from the , bioaccumulation study demonstrated slightly lower concentrations for total chromium and copper and slightly higher concentrations of cadmium than historical data had indicated. Levels of mercury, lead , and zinc were greatly elevated from previous 1980 data. A summary of the mean values for trace metals in the bioaccumulation tissues are ' presented in Table 2. Results by replicate are presented in Appen- dix B. Pesticides and PCB levels in the sediment were lower than the ' detection limit. Values are presented,in Appendix C. Total fuel hydrocarbons were less than 5 mg /x at all stations. Values are presented in Appendix D. t Chemical analyses of organohalogens (pesticides and PCBs) demonstrated concentrations lower than instrumentation detection limits in most cases. However, in Nacoma tissue samples for Dredge Site C and in Neanthes tissue samples for Dredge Site E, p,p' -DDE , concentrations of 0.1 to 0.25 mg /kg were detected. A second column confirmation was incorporated to determine the validity of these , findings. Chemical analysis for total fuel hydrocarbons was less than 250 mg /A for Neanthes tissues and ranged from 38 mg /A. to 590 mg /,t for ' Macom tissues. Values are presented in Appendix D. Instrumentation utilized in the chemical analysis is as follows: a Varian 875 ABQ atomic ::sorption instrument was utilized for trace metal analysis incorporating a cold vapor generator for mercury and , arsenic determinations. Varian 3400 and 3700 gas chromatography with a Hewlett Packard 3390 integrator were utilized to analyze petroleum , hydrocarbons and organohalogens. a 17 Table 2. Mean summary of trace metal analysis of bioaccumulation tissues. Total Sample Type Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Mercury Lead Zinc Neanthes Tissue: Reference /Reference x 51.900 7.572 0.352 49.640 0.0002 80.180 458.40 * S.D. 91.202 1.592 0.765 6.415 0.000 20.219 157.325 Disposal /Disposal x 75.440 70.346 0.01 131.580 0.0002 75.460 430.400 S.D. 57.984 1.754 0.000 190.867 0.000 17.591 79.242 Dredge C /Disposal x 105.201 7.846 12.186 37.020 0.0002 70.140 393.400 ± S.D. 153.748 2.684 26.676 7.499 0.000 49.952 99.756 Dredge E /Disposal x 150.600 7.844 5.368 40.180 0.0002 95.540 570.600 ± S.D. 226.697 2.080 7.527 3.933 0.000 20.969 183.629 Macoma Tissue: Reference /Reference x 15.979 2.534 0.956 21.680 0.879 15.820 302.00 _ S.D. 11.658 0.183 0.242 3.387 0.144 2.071 41.097 Disposal /Disposal x 8.353 2.298 1.012 27.780 0.713 14.740 337.00 _ S.D. 9.724 0.268 0.578 6.659 0.278 1.491 43.663 Dredge C /Disposal x 7.364 1.725 0.686 18.744 0.655 8.700 250.00 _ S.b. 6.987 0.561 0.352 6.214 0.147 3.140 81.249 Dredge E /Disposal x 5.741 1.778 0.800 19.540 0.727 9.380 245.00 ± S.D. 6.412 0.503 0.319 3.319 0.257 2.465 45.798 IU BIOASSAY RESULTS Suspended Particulate Phase Ninety -six hour bioassays performed on Acartia spp., Acanthcn{ysis sculpts and CitharichWs stigmaeus demonstrated high survivorship in 100% of all test media (Table 3). As survivorship of the organisms in the 100% test medium was greater than 50 %, no LPC could be calcula- ted. Daily water quality monitoring of all parameters for the suspended particulate phase are presented in Appendix E. Table 3. Percent survivorship in suspended particulate phase bioassay. Number Live Replicate _ Percent Organism 1/ 2/ 3 x Survivorship Acartia Control 20/20/19 19.7 98 Dredge C 20/20/20 20.0 100 Dredge E 20/20/19 19.7 98 AcanthaMesis Control 20/20/20 20.0 100 Dredge C 20/20/20 20.0 100 Dredge E 20/20/19 19.7 98 Citharichtltys sttyMeus Control 9/10/10 9.7 97 Dredge C 9/10/ 9 9.4 94 Dredge E 10/10/10 10.0 100 Solid Phase Ninety -six hour bioassays performed on Acan ,*tiomysis sculpts, Nacoma nasuta and Neanthes arenaceodentata demonstrated high sur- vivorship in 100% of all test media (Table 4). Daily water quality monitoring of all parameters for the solid phase bioassay are presented in Appendix F. I 19 ' Table 4. Percent survivorship in solid phase bioassay. Number Live Replicate _ Percent Organism 1/ 21 3/ 4/ 5 x Survivorship Acantha�ysis Reference /Reference 18/18/19/18/20 18.6 93 Disposal /Disposal 20/20/19/19/19 19.4 97 Dredge C /Disposal 18/20/18/19/18 18.6 93 Dredge E /Disposal 18/19/19/20/19 19.0 95 Adacaw ' Reference /Reference 19/20/20/20/20 19.8 99 Disposal / Oisposal 19/20/20/20/19 19.6 98 Dredge C /Disposal 20/20/20/20/20 20.0 100 ' Dredge E /Disposal - 20/20/20/20/20 20.0 100 Neanthes Reference /Reference 19/18/19/18/18 18.4 92 Disposal /Disposal 20/17/17/18/18 18.0 90 Dredge C /Disposal 20/19/17/20/20 19.2 96 Dredge E /Disposal 17/18/20/20/17 18.4 92 Bioaccumulation Phase The bioaccumulation phase of the bioassay was conducted for a period of 20 days. At the end of 20 days, the sediment was sieved and ' the test-organisms were carefully removed. The remaining organisms from each replicate were replaced in the original cleaned 10 gal aquaria filled with fresh seawater, and allowed to depurate for 48 hours. Tissues were removed and immediately frozen until initiation ' of chemical analyses. Daily monitoring of all parameters are presented in Appendix G. IQUALITY ASSURANCE /QUALITY CONTROL ' The goals of our QA /QC program include: (1) the establishment of the required precision and accuracy of measurement, (2) the evaluation Land selection of optimum analytical techniques to provide the required 20 1 results with a minimum of interferences and (3) the maintenance of the best possible balance between the quality of the results and the time ' and expense required for the analysis. Scope: ' The EPA guidelines for QA /QC of chemical laboratories which are involved in Priority Pollutant analyses published in the Federal Register Vol 44, No 233, 3 December 1979, are strictly implemented. , These QA /QC procedures are applied to organic and inorganic analyses. I. EPA Methods 624 and 625 are followed to produce: ' 1) Data with a high degree of precision and accuracy. 2) Stringent QA /QC protocols so that a determination of confidence may be placed on the produced data. II. To assure the accuracy and precision of analytical results, the MBC laboratory implements both intra- laboratory and inter- laboratory Quality Control and Quality Assurance programs, including: ' 1) Systematic custodianship of samples processed. Samples are collected in accordance with standard procedures to ' avoid contamination, checked and logged; each step is detailed from the time of collection to the time the samples are processed for analysis (extraction, cleanings, concentration, etc.). Special forms are used for systematic identification. L 5) Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of data collected by a competent staff is normal procedure. ' Appropriate statistical matrices are used if needed to increase the level of confidence. 6) Construct /update and maintain QA /QC charts. i7) Use of analytical balances with capability of reading ±0.0001 gm. 8) Maintain QA /QC records of inter- and intra- laboratory studies in the pursuit of a continuing assessment of accuracy and precision of analyses within a group of ' chosen qualified laboratories. I 21 1 2) A daily check on the reliability of the instruments ' used, their precision and accuracy, and assurance that detection limits are within the acceptable standard deviation (autotune on GC /MS, base noise level of the GC, RRT of standards, and standards within the range of ' the unknowns present for AA). 3) MBC uses the highest purity grades of chemicals and /or ' reagents (gases, standards, organic solvents, super- clean glasswares). ' 4) Blank and standards are analyzed with actual samples under the same conditions, (field blanks, laboratory blanks, internal standards added as spikes in samples ' or external standards used to study the recovery in the process of extraction). 5) Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of data collected by a competent staff is normal procedure. ' Appropriate statistical matrices are used if needed to increase the level of confidence. 6) Construct /update and maintain QA /QC charts. i7) Use of analytical balances with capability of reading ±0.0001 gm. 8) Maintain QA /QC records of inter- and intra- laboratory studies in the pursuit of a continuing assessment of accuracy and precision of analyses within a group of ' chosen qualified laboratories. I 22 Procedures Sample handling procedures are designed to distribute and process ' all types of samples and analyses while maintaining control over location and disposition. Upon receipt, all samples are separated by type and cataloged against enclosed packing lists or expected quan- tities. Containers are inspected for integrity and numbers or labels for clarity, and any deviations noted. Samples are then stored prior to distribution for analysis. When the dissolved concentration is to ' be determined, the sample is filtered through a 0.45 µ membrane filter prior to storage. The filtrate will be analyzed by the appropriate ' specified procedures. Standard preservation practices recommended by U.S. EPA will apply to all samples. , A checkout - from - storage procedure is instituted whether the , samples are to be analyzed in -house or by an outside contractor. ' In- house, analysts will sign for all samples on removal from storage and will note all procedures used for individual samples during that analysis. Samples delivered to outside contractors will be signed for milestone chart is maintained to record progress and disposition of on an individual basis. , Data received from both, in -house and outside analyses are cataloged by the Project Manager for completeness, and any deviations noted and corrected. Existing software has exhibited high reliability over several years of use, and programs contain various edit /check ' routines to pinpoint data entry problems. f 1 ow. I 1 , Data transfer errors from computer printout to final report text are virtually eliminated through automatic transfer from computer to word processing storage for preparation of tables and appendices. Throughout the progress of data from raw sample to final report, a milestone chart is maintained to record progress and disposition of , all samples and data, and checked periodically to assure timely data f 1 ow. I 1 1 proper utilization of chain of custody documents, and assists in the design and utilization of sample log and data retention /management 1 systems. The QA /QC coordinator has prime responsibility'for the document storage facilities, which are maintained in fire- proofed, locked containers. The close proximity of the data and their avail- ability to the laboratory supervisor enables an adequate and timely flow of information during protocol review and implementation. 1 The best assurance of consistently high quality analytical results is to have them performed by qualified chemists in a well - equipped laboratory. The MBC chemistry laboratory specializes in ' performing chemical analyses of environmental samples. Our labora- tories were designed, equipped and staffed to perform these specific types of analyses with the realization that to environmental work, 1 accuracy and precision are paramount. 1 1 23 Effective laboratory quality control and intercalibration when 1 measuring environmental contaminants is essential. Proper QA /QC provides the environmental manager documentation of the validity and scientific relevance of analytical data. The QA /QC activities within analytical laboratories evaluate specific procedures or protocols to ' insure that their accuracy and precision are optimized and that their continued use occurs with no degradation of the accuracy and precision of results. The quality assurance coordinator must be a technically 1 trained professional with a solid foundation in laboratory and physical sciences. In order that a QA coordinator fulfill his role of ' monitoring and recommending corrective measures for analytical procedures, he must be fully aware of all standard and non - routine techniques and instrumentation. Only with this background can he Insure that proper procedures are utilized and that state -of- the -art capabilities are applied to a specific project or task when and if ' necessary. The QA /QC coordinator examines previous results obtained with specific techniques to anticipate potential problems, insures the 1 proper utilization of chain of custody documents, and assists in the design and utilization of sample log and data retention /management 1 systems. The QA /QC coordinator has prime responsibility'for the document storage facilities, which are maintained in fire- proofed, locked containers. The close proximity of the data and their avail- ability to the laboratory supervisor enables an adequate and timely flow of information during protocol review and implementation. 1 The best assurance of consistently high quality analytical results is to have them performed by qualified chemists in a well - equipped laboratory. The MBC chemistry laboratory specializes in ' performing chemical analyses of environmental samples. Our labora- tories were designed, equipped and staffed to perform these specific types of analyses with the realization that to environmental work, 1 accuracy and precision are paramount. 1 1 24 Internal procedures routinely followed to ensure standards of excellence include: 1) Solvents a. Non - spectrograde Burdick and Jackson solvents (suitable for pesticides) are used unless spectrograde analysis quality is shown to be necessary. b. All solvents for each project are from the same lot. C. Blanks of all solvent types from each lot are concen- trated ten and one hundred fold and analyzed by GC using FID and EC detectors. 2) The following glassware cleaning procedures are followed. All glassware is Alkonox washed, distilled water rinsed and: a. Rinsed with methanol and then acetone before storage at 1000 overnight. Glassware is then capped with kiln - fired and solvent- rinsed aluminum foil_ b. Glassware blanks are run for each lot of eight samples. C. Immediately before use, all glassware is rinsed with additional solvent. 3) Standards a. Ail standards are prepared in appropriate solvents (e.g. hexane, isooctane or toluene for organics and in acid, HNO3, distilled H2O for metals). Standards are permanently sealed. 25 b. All standards are refrigerated and protected from UV tlight. C. Stock standards are prepared on a bi- yearly basis and checked against certified vendor standards prior to ' use. Working standards are prepared from stock stan- dards when needed. 1 Data Reduction All laboratory results are recorded on standardized forms containing pertinent information related to station locality, date, ' and time of sampling. The MBC laboratory manager is responsible for accuracy of the transcribed data. Completed data forms are copied and retained in a separate file for reference purposes. Data Analysis and Report All final analyses are performed on data which has progressed ' through the series of checks and safeguards described above. In addi- tion, spot checks of data points in data matrices utilized in the final analyses are made. Principal investigators and authors have the final responsibility of examining their results and interpreting chemical data to provide a high quality report. I 11 26 , 1 LITERATURE CITED American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF). , 1980. 15th Edition. Standard methods for examination of water and waste- water. 1134 pp. American Society of Testing Materials. 1963. Standard methods for grain size analysis of soils. D422- 63:95 -108. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Manual of analytical methods for the analysis of pesticides in humans and environmental samples. EPA- 600/8 -80 -038. Environmental Protection Agency /Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material, "Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into Ocean Waters; Implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92 -532 (Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972)," July , 1977 (Second Printing April 1978), Environmental Effects Labora- tory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Gibbs, R. J. 1974. A settling tube system for sand size analysis. J. Sed. Pet. 44(2)585:588. Krumbein, W. C., and E. C. Pettijohn. 1938. Manual of sedimentary petrography. 0. Appleton- Century, New York. 549 pp. ' Plumb, R. H., Jr. 1981. Procedure for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water samples. Technical report EPA /CE -81 -1 prepared by Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York for the U.S. Environmental Protection , Agency /Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material. Published by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Sharp, W. E., and P -F. Fan. 1973. A sorting index. J. Geol. 71:76 -83. I 1 I 1 1 1 i a 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 i 11 1 APPENDIX A SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Appendix A. Sediment grain size analysis. SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR SAMPLE NPT UPPER -BAY BIOASSAY REFERENCE X GRAVEL - 6.0080 FREUUE;.CY nISTRIBUTIOH PLOT , X SAND - 13.3420 INTERVAL PERCENT (•) X SILT - 65.65a5 1 2 3 4 5 % CLAY . 20.0866 0....5....a....5.... a.... 5.... a.... 5.... a.... 5....0 -9.50 t -9.60 1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLE -8.50 1 8.06 1EAH INTERVAL CUMULATIVE -7.54 INTERVAL VAL PERCENT PERCENT -7.60 1 .......v.................... 1.68 0.1663 0.1603 .6.513 t -6.80 1 2.13 0.1803 0.3606 -0.50 1 _.36 8.1803 0.5409 -5.08 1 2.63 0.1803 0.7212 -4.50 1 2.88 0.3686 I.BBIS -a, G6 3.13 1.9833 3.0651 -3.50 1 3.36 3.7662 6.8513 -3.60 1 ' 3.63 3.9665 16.817a -2.50 1 3.88 2.5242 13.3420 -2.60 1 4.37 16.8270 30.1691 -1.50 ..93 9.1027 39.2718 -i.60 1 3.3. 6.5020 45.7737 -.50 : 5.78 7.1521 52.9259 0.60 1 6.26 5.7217 58.6476 .50 1 6.62 9.1027 67.7503 1.60 1 7.06 6.3719 74.1222 1.50 1♦ 7.53 3.1209 77.2432 2.40 8.02 3.7711 Bl.0143 2.50 : +.. 8.46 1.9506 82.9649 3.80 1 .•. 9.09 2.8609 85.8258 3.50 1 + 9.74 2.9909 86.6167 4.00 1 La.r7 2.9670 91.7837 4.50 1 . 1. 47 2.5105 94.2942 5.60 t L2.47 2.05.1 96.34x3 5.513 ! •• , 13.47' 1.5976 97.9459 6.D0 1 1 ».47 1.1412 99.OS7L 6.50 1 .5.47 0.6647 99.7718 7.00 1 1..47 0.2282 100.0006 7.50 : + . ............................... 6.00 a.5a 1 , SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTAiH PARAMETERS 1 MOMENT 1 9.00 • , MEAN DISPERSION SKEWNESS KURTOSIS 9.513 1 6.4412 2.36a2 0.3785 L.1778 10.00 e.sa SHARP 6 FAN SORT [rNi tiJDE2 IL013 I BASED ON 14 INTERVALS . 15.3785 11.50 BASED ON 25 INTERVALS . 33.0811 12.30 1 12.50 13.00 13.513 1 14.00 , 14.513 I 15.00 1 u....a....a....0.... 0.... 0....0.... 0.... 0. ... 0.. ..a l 2 3 : 5 CUMULATIVE PERCENT 1.1 6 7 B 9 13 I , , SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR SAMPLE NPT UPPER-BAY BIOASSAY REFERENCE ONE PHI INTERVAL PERCENT TOTAL SEDIMENT WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION : ........................................................................................ -10 .i -9 0.0000 -5 .i -4 0.0000 0 •i 1 ............................... 0.4000 5 -i 6 16.6003 10 .i IL 218887 , -9 .i -B 0.0000 -4 .i -3 0.0000 1 2 0.1803 6 •i 7 17.0651 11 .i 12 2.5648 -8 . -7 0.0000 -3 -2 8.0000 2 .i 3 0.9015 7 .i B 8.9274 12 .i 13 119999 -7 -6 0.0000 -2 .0 -1 0.0000 3 •L 4 12.2602 B . 9 5.0958 13 14 1.6277 .............0. 0000......... 1..... 8....B. .......................� 0... 6................ 0..... ..•........................0... ' WARNING . SEDIMENT FOUND OUTSIDE EXPECTED RANGE •• SHARP 6 FAN INDEX MAY BE IN ERROR WARNING . ONLY 88.8167TH PERCENTILE REACHED WITH INPUT DATA •• REMAINDER SPREAD OVER 7 ADDITIONAL INTERVALS WARNING 1 3 GAPS OF it PHI FOUND IN INPUT DATA .• AMBIGUOUS INTERVALS MAY CAUSE ERRONEOUS RESULTS , LI I 'r u L 1 �J 1 C i 1 Appendix A. (continued) SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR SAMPLE NBT UPPER -BAY BIOASSAY DISPOSAL X GRAVEL - 0.0009 X SAND •t]. 13216 X SILT • 56.1999 X CLAY • 17.7421 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLE MEAN PHI INTERVAL CUMULATIVE INTERVAL PERCENT PERCENT 2.13 0.4377 0.4177 2.3a 0.4377 0.67]3 2.63 1.0941 1.9694 Z.aa 4.3703 6.346a 3.13 6.6966 14.4426 5.3a 5. 6a9] 213. 1321 3.63 3.7201 23.6522 3.ae 1.9694 23.13216 ..35 11.8214 37.6430 '..139 10.6342 413.4772 •.30 ].4171 33.6943 3.7. 6.. -'139 613.]1]2 c..l. 5.4171 65.9324 6.59 7.2226 73.1552 7.04 4.0929 77.24al 7.52 3.4910 86,7392 6.61 2.6464 63.3675 a.4. 2.a4e5 83.434a 9.06 3.25.33 66.6843 4.73 2.7667 91.4530 10.46 2.6116 94.0646 11.•. 2.1367 96.2a14 i 2.4. 1.6619 97.Ao33 3.46 1.1 8871 99.0503 . 14.4. 0.7122 99.7626 15... 0.2374 100.0000 .... ............................... SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION PARAMETERS 1 MOMENT 1 MEAN DISPERSION SKEWNESS KURTOSIS 5.5763 2.474a 6.3613 1.09al SHARP 6 FAN SORTING INDEX BASED ON 13 INTERVALS - 14.5540 BASED ON 25 INTERVALS - 32.1524 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION PLOT INTERVAL PERCENT 1.1 1 2 3 4 5 9.... s.... a.... s.... a....s....a....]....a....s....a -9.50 -9.60 -a.30 -6.60 1 -7.50 -7.00 1 -6.50 -6.00 1 -3.30 1 -].b0 -4.50 7 -4.130 -1.313 -3.60 -2.3a -2.60 -1.50 -1.130 -.513 1 0.00 .50 1 l . ae 7 1.50 :. Go 2.30 3.00 1 3.5a ; 4.60 4.3a 5.00 5.30 ; ..ae ; 6.50 7.130 . 7.50 t a.aa 6.5a ; 9. as ; 9.50 a.aa ; 10.50 7 11.00 11.50 I 12.00 12.3a 13.60 ;1.513 14.00 14.5a I 15.60 a....a....a....13.... a.... a.... 0.... a. ... 13....13....13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 a CUMULATIVE PERCENT i.i I SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR SAMPLE NBT UPPER -BAY BIOASSAY DISPOSAL ONE . .................••.......................--..-.... PHI INTERVAL PERCENT TOTAL SEDIMENT WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION ...-.. -la -< -9 0.0008 -5. -0 4 a.aaaa a ..............- -O 1 ...- ....- n.0000 . -..... 5 -O 6 ....... ..... 14.8795 .. la ..... -i 11 2.5097•, -9 -< -a 0.0080 -4 •i -3 0.0000 1 -i _ 0.13000 6 -i 7 13.7464 11 -i 12 2.2016 0. dada -3 - -2 0.0000 2 + 3 6.3466 7 -i 6 7.2071 12 -i 11 1.5971 -7 -. -6 B.000a -2 -1 0.0000 3 •i 4 19.4756 a -i 9 4.7322 13 -i 14 1.2149 ........................................................................................ -5 0.0008 -1 a 0.0000 4 =i 5 20.3649 9 =< la 4.8a12 ..•............................ 14 •i 15 9.6645 WARNING + ONLY 91.433TH PERCENTILE REACHED WITH INPUT DATA .. REMAINDER SPREAD OVER 6 ADDITIONAL INTERVALS WARNING 1 3 GAPS OF it PHI FOUND IN INPUT DATA .. AMBIGLX,US INTERVALS MAY CAUSE ERRONEOUS RESULTS Appendix A. (continued) SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR SoHFLE NPT UPPER -BAY SIC-ASSAY DREDGE C X GRAVEL + 1.0757 % SAND . 74.9996 X SILT + 11.1447 X CLAY + 12.04*3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLE MEAN PHI INTERVAL CUMULATIVE INTERVAL PERCENT PERCENT ................................... -2.25 0.3266 0.3268 -1.75 6.3132 0.64aa .1.25 0.4357 1.a757 -0.75 0.6289 1.7047 ..0.38 3.1447 4.6494 -0.13 2.5158 7.3651 0.13 3.1447 19.5a99 0.36 4.4026 14.9125 0.63 5.a316 19.9440 0.86 5.3466 25.2901 1,13 7.5473 32.8374 i.36 ..6639 34.4413 1.63 5.346a 44.7673 1.86 3.7737 4a.5610 2.13 4.4026 52.9636 2.36 4.7171 57.6207 2.63 5.6605 63.3412 2.66 7.2329 76.5746 3.13 1.5724 72.1464 3.32 1.2579 73.4043 3.63 0.6269 74.a332 4.15 4.4526 78.4830 4.54 1.3617 79.8475 5,03 1.3617 81.2092 5.52 1.3617 82.5708 5.99 1.3617 63.9325 6.46 1.2255 63.1520 6.96 1.3617 26.5196 7.45 0.5447 a7.0643 7.90 0.2723 87.3366 8,43 0.9532 66.22696 9,aa x.9332 89.2429 9.72 1.7702 91.0131 10.46 2.3643 93.3974 It,.* zany 95.4140 12,46 1.03G7 97.0655 13.46 1.2636 96.3493 14.46 8.917a 99.2664 15.46 0.35a2 99.6166 - ..... . 100.0000 ................. ... SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION PARAMETERS ( MOMENT i MEAN DISPERSION SKEWNESS KURTOSIS 3.2242 -,.7954 0.5272 1.6542 -:HARP 6 FAN SORTING INDEX BASED ON 18 INTERVALS + 12.3923 aA6ED ON 25 INTERVALS + 30.3126 FREAUENi:i DISTRIBUTION PLOT INTERVAL PERCENT i.) 1 2 3 4 5 a....i....a....3.... a....3. ... a. ... ].... 6....3....0 -9.36 1 -9.00 1 -8.36 -.0 1 - 7.5a 7 -7.00 1 -6.50 1 -6. 0a -5.54 1 -5.00 1 -4.30 1 -4.00 1 -3.5a 1 -3.00 1. -2.50 I -. -2.0a I.. -1.50 1 -1.00 1 -.Sa 0.00 1 1.00 1.58 1 2.00 1 2.50 3.00 t 3.56 ; ..Oa 1 4.30 3.00 5.58 1 6.68 ; 6.50 7.00 7.30 1 8.Oa a.513 9.00 . 9.50 10.00 . 10.50 11. o0 ; 11.50 1 12.00 1 12. 5e 1 13.00 ; 13.30 14.00 , 14.56 15. 016 a....a....a....a.... 6....6....6....0....6....6....0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 a 9 0 CUMULATIVE PERCENT (.i I I 1 I iI I SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR SAMPLE NPT UPPER -SAY BIOASSAY DREDGE C , ONE PMI INTERVAL PERCENT TOTAL SEDIMENT WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION ...................+................................................+.................... ............................... -10 +< -9 0.0aa0 -5 +< -4 0.0000 a .< 1 17.9249 S +i 6 2.8353 la +i 11 2.2845 -9 +< -B a.0000 -4 •i -3 0.0000 1 .i 2 23.2709 6 +i 7 2.6662 11'.i 12 2.0666 , -6 +< -7 0.0000 -3 +i -2 a.3268 2 +i 3 22.0i3a 7 +i 8 1.2636 12 +i 13 L.52I5 -7 +< -6 0.0000 -2 +i -1 0.7469 3 .i 4 3.5013 a +i 9 1.4821 13 +< 14 113222 -6 +< -5 2.0000 -1 +i 8 6.2894 4 .i 5 4.3594 9 +i la 2.4108 14 +i 15 0.8766 ' ' ' • +•• •+• ... .. ,,ARMING. SEDIMENT FOUND OUTSIDE EXPECTED RANGE .• SHARP 6 FAN INDEX HA'i BE IN ERROR .aARNING 1 ONLY 91.0131TH PERCENTILE REACHED WITH INPUT DATA •. REMAINDER SPREAD OVER 7 ADDITIONAL INTERVALS .ARMING . 3 GAPS OF it PHI FOUND IN INPUT DATA .. AMSIGVOU2 INTERVALS MA'v CAUSE ERRONEOUS RESULTS , u i 1 1 i 1 1 Appendix A. (continued) SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR SAMPLE X GRAVEL 0.0000 X SAND + 59.0937 % SILT + 26.7536 X CLAY . 11.4345 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLE MEAN PHI INTERVAL CUMULATIVE iNTERVAL PERCENT PERCENT .a.d.. .......... 0.3. ; -------- ..3... .0 I.L3 0.3940 0.7679 1.38 a. 7x79 1.5758 ,..3 1. 1al9 2.7577 1.68 2.3637 5.1213 2.13 3.9396 9.0610 t. 38 8.6671 17.7281 2..3 13.]885 31.5166 2.88 9.0610 40.5777 3.13 7.8912 47.6689 3.36 3.1214 5"2.7904 3.e3 3.9396 56.7299 3.66 2.3637 59.0937 4.21 4.7265 63.8202 A.64 9.1363 72.9565 5.09 3.0454 76.0020 :.. 57 3.6545 79.6565 0.02 1.7054 81.3619 6.49 2.9236 84.2856 6.97 1.2182 85.5037 7.47 2.a709 87.5746 7.97 0.4873 sa.0619 a.43 1.4618 99.3237 4.06 8.8527 9x.3764 9.72 0.2527 91.2292 (0.4e 2.3270 93.5561 l L 46 1.969a 95.5251 12. 453 16110 97.1361 13. re 1:25 38 98.3890 14. re 0.8950 99.2840 15.46 0.5370 99.8210 1..46 ..... ............................... 0.1790 100.0006 SEDIMENT 015TRIBUTICIN PARAMETERS I MOMENT i MEAN DISPERSION SKEWNESS KURTOSIS 4.5392 1.0585 0.6306 1.5714 SHARP It FAN SORTING INDEX BASED ON 15 INTERVALS . 25.5776 BASED ON 25 INTERVALS . 37.3882 NOT UPPER -BAY BIOASSAY DREDGE E FRE-iUENCY DISTRIBUTION PLOT INTERVAL PERCENT I.i 1 2 3 4 5 a.... s.... a.... s.... a.:..5....a....s....a....s....a -9. Si! -9.aa -8.50 1 -9.50 -7.50 1 -7.00 -6.50 1 -6.00 1 -5.56 1 -5.ae 1 -4.30 1 -4.00 1 -3.30 1 -3.00 1 -2.31 -2.00 1 -1.50 1 -1.00 -.50 1 1.00 .50 7 1.50 1 1.50 1 •... 2.00 2.50 . 3.00 1 .. 3.50 1 4.85 1 4.50 5.00 1 3.30 1 6.00 6.50 7.08 •♦ 7.50 6.50 6.50 1 9.88 , 9.50 1 10.00 1 10.3a 11.530 1 11.30 12.00 1 12.50 7 13.00 1 13.50 I 14.00 1 14.30 1 15.00 1 a.... a.... a.... e.... a....a....a. ... a .... a....a....a 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 a 9 0 CUMULATIVE PERCENTi.i 1 SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR SAMPLE. NBT UPPER-BAY SIOASSAYY DREDGE E ONE PHI INTERVAL PERCENT TOTAL SEDIMENT WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION .. ........................................................................................ ............................... -10 -9 0.00130 -5 +i -4 0.0000 a .i 1 0.3940 5 .i 6 6.3099 10 .0 II 2.2425 -9 -8 0.0000 -4 .i -3 0.0000 1 .i 2 4.7273 6 +i 7 4.5416 11 •< 12 2.0274 -a + -7 0.0000 -3 +i -2 0.0006 2 +i 3 35.4362 7 .i O 2.8933 L2 +i 13 1.5525 -7 + -6 0.0000 - .( -1 0.0000 3 +i 4 18.5161 a •i 9 2.0424 13 .i 14 1.2B53 0.0000 : ........................................................................................ -1 +C 0 0.0000 4 .i 5 14.8109 9 .i 10 1.4210. ............................... 14 .i 15 0.8623 WARNING S SEDIMENT FOUND OUTSIDE EXPECTED RANGE •• SHARP 6 FAN INDEX MAY BE IN ERROR .ARNING N CWLY 91.2292TH PERCENTILE REACHED WITH INPUT DATA .. REMAINDER SPREAD OVER 7 ADDITIONAL INTERVALS WARNING - 3 GAPS OF it PHI FOUND IN INPUT DATA •. AMBIGUOUS INTERVALS MAY CAUSE ERRONEOUS RESULTS 1 '1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF SEAWATER, SEDIMENT AND TISSUES I Appendix B. Trace metal analysis of seawater, sediment and tissues. Total Sample Type Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Mercury Lead Zinc Seawater (ppm) (0.002 0.094 0.05 0.049 (0.0002 D.278 1.14 Sediment (mg /kg) Reference 0.3894 1.73 29.3 20.0 0.2562 11.6 141 Disposal 0.5905 1.71 28.4 19.2 0.9617 13.8 119 Dredge C 0.5232 2.80 23.6 21.3 1.0583 73.9 302 Dredge E 0.0871 1.15 1D.7 11.3 0.7982 11.8 89.1 Tissue (mg /kg) Neanthes Reference /Reference 1 <0.0002 8.26 1.72 58.3 <0.0002 87.4 717 Reference /Reference 2 (0.0002 5.53 (0.01 42.9 (0.0002 51.5 332 Reference /Reference 3 188 6.61 <0.01 43.7 (0.0002 71.5 347 Reference /Reference 4 19.6 9.72 <0.01 52.3 <0.0002 106 406 Reference /Reference 5 - 7.76 (0.01 51.0 (0.0002 84.5 490 Disposal /Disposal 1 81.9 7.53 (0.01 47.9 <D.0002 79.2 413 Disposal /Disposal 2 162 7.16 (0.01 45.3 <0.0002 70.0 483 Disposal /Disposal 3 60.8 6.13 (0.01 47.7 (0.0002 69.7 390 Disposal /Disposal 4 (0.002 9.54 (0.01 47.3 <0.0002 103 534 Disposal /Disposal 5 72.5 4.81 <0.01 44.0 <0.0002 55.4 332 Dredge C /Disposal 1 1.87 5.99 59.9 41.7 <0.0002 64.4 370 Dredge C /Disposal 2 -(0.002 4.19 <0.01 23.7 (0.0002 48.8 228 Dredge C /Disposal 3 339 9.17 (0.01 39.5 (0.0002 115 453 Dredge C /Disposal 4 (0.002 10.8 <0.01 40.6 (0.0002 128 457 Dredge C /Disposal 5 (0.002 9.08 <0.01 39.6 (0.0002 108 459 Dredge E /Disposal 1 13.0 8.80 <0.01 44.6 (0.0002 116 506 Dredge E /Disposal 2 (0.002 9.68 6.75 38.5 <0.0002 108 788 Dredge E /Disposal 3 520 5.66 17.9 43.5 (0.0002 72.7 742 Dredge E /Disposal 4 220 9.55 2.17 39.4 <0.0002 108 436 Dredge E /Disposal 5 (0.002 5.53 <0.01 34.9 (0.0002 73.0 381 Macon: Reference /Reference 1 2.331 2.62 0.65 18.5 0.7016 14.4 254 Reference /Reference 2 29.242 2.55 0.90 22.9 0.7829 14.5 305 Reference /Reference 3 6.0199 2.78 1.01 19.1 0.8691 18.8 367 Reference /Reference 4 17.354 2.41 0.90 26.9 0.9932 14.2 289 Reference /Reference 5 24.948 2.31 1.32 21.0 1.0488 17.2 295 Disposal /Disposal 1 16.181 2.09 1.52 27.5 0.5201 13.9 320 Disposal /Disposal 2 21.099 2.65 0.32 22.7 0.7248 16.9 362 Disposal /Disposal 3 (0.002 2.04 1.70 38.8 1.0520 12.9 283 Disposal /Disposal 4 4.48 2.20 0.75 22.3 0.3659 15.0 323 Disposal /Disposal 5 (0.002 2.51 0.77 27.6 0.9041 15.0 397 Dredge C /Disposal 1 <0.002 2.10 1.01 25.7 0.5413 10.1 186 Dredge C /Disposal 2 <0.002 1.65 0.16 22.7 0.5563 8.9 349 Dredge C /Disposal 3 9.152 2.23 0.59 19.7 0.90 ? - 11.9 326 Dredge C /Disposal 4 13.679 1.84 0.66 15.9 0.6119 9.1 196 Dredge C /Disposal 5 13.986 0.806 1.01 9.72 0.6655 3.5 185 Dredge E /Disposal 1 2.957 1.17 1.11 16.2 0.5456 6.1 213 Dredge E /Disposal 2 (0.002 2.13 1.06 17.7 1.1706 10.7 232 Dredge E /Disposal 3 . 16.566 1.29 0.76 21.0 0.5836 7.4 201 Dredge E /Disposal 4 5.991 2.20 0.31 24.6 0.7247 11.6 264 Dredge E /Disposal 5 3.191 2.10 0.76 18.2 0.6099 11.1 315 L► ' APPENDIX C ORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF TISSUES, SEDIMENTS ' AND DILUTION SEAWATER �l u Appendix C. Organic chemical analysis of tissues, sediments and dilution seawater (pesticides /PCBs). , r1 L Replicate Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Sample Site: Reference /Reference ' Meanthes Tissue: Aldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 , Chlordane, mg /kg <O.5 <O.5 <O.5 <0.5 <0.5 0ieldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <O.1 Endosulfan I, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan H. mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 , Endosulfan sulfate, mg /kg <0.3 <O.3 <O.3 <0.3 <0.3 Endrin, mg /kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Endrin aldehyde, mg /kg <O.3 <0.3 <0.3 <O.3 <0.3 Heptachlor epoxide, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heptachlor, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ' Aroclor 1016, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1221, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1232, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1242, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 , Aroclor 1248, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1254, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1260, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1262, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Toxaphene, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 , BHC, alpha isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <O.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, beta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0:1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8HC, delta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <O.1 8HC, gamma isomer (Lindane), mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 , p.p' -0DO, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <O.1 <0.1 p,p' -DDE, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p,p' -0DT, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Macoia Tissue: Aldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlordane, mg /kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 , Dieldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan I, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan II, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <O.1 <0.1 Endosulfan sulfate, mg /kg <O.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Endrin, mg /kg <O.2 <O.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 , Endrin aldehyde, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <O.3 <0.3 Heptachlor epoxide, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heptachlor, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aroclor 1016, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ' Aroclor 1221, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1232, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1Z42, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1248, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 ' Aroclor 1254, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1260, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <O.1 <0.1 <3 Aroclor 1262, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <3 Toxaphene, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <3 BHC, alpha isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 , BHC, beta Isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, delta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, gamma Isomer (Lindane), mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.1 p.p'-ODD, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 , p,p' -0DE, mg /kg - - - - <0.1 p.p' -0DT, mg /kg - - - - <0.3 r1 L P 11 I 1 I� 11 11 Appendix C. (continued) Replicate Parameter Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal Manthes Tissue: Aldrin, mg /kg <3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlordane, mg /kg <3 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Dieidrin, mg /kg <3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan 1, mg /kg <3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <D.1 Endosulfan 11, mg /kg <3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan sulfate, mg /kg <3 <0.3 <03 <0.3 <0.3 Endrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Endrin aldehyde, mg /kg <0.1 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Heptachlor epoxide, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 c0.1 <0.1 C0.1 Heptachlor, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aroclor 1016, mg /kg <D.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1221, mg /kg 0.20 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1232, mg /kg <0.3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1242, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1248, mg /kg <0.5 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1254, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1260, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1262, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 Toxaphene, mg /kg <0.3 <3 <3 <3 <3 BHC, alpha isomer, mg /kg <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, beta isomer, mg /kg <0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, delta isomer, mg /kg <011 <0.1 c0.1 <0.1 <0.I BHC, gamma isomer (Lindane), mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 P.1)' -0DD, mg /kg <3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p,p' -0DE, mg /kg <3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 P,P' -0DT, mg /kg <3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Macoma Tissue: Aldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlordane, mg /kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Dieldrin, mg /kg <011 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan I, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan 11, mg /kg <011 <0.1 <0.1 <011 <0.1 Endosulfan sulfate, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Endrin, mg /kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <D.2 <0.2 Endrin aldehyde, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Heptachlor epoxide, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <011 Heptachlor, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <D.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aroclor 1016, mg /kg <3 <3 0 <3 <3 Aroclor 1221, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1232, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1242, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1248, mg /kg <3 Q <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1254, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1260, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1262, mg /kg <011 <0.1 <3 <3 <3 Toxaphene, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 BHC, alpha isomer, mg /kg <0.1 c0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, beta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, delta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, gamin isomer (Lindane), mg /kg <0.1 <0.I <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p,p' -0DD, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -0DE, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -0DT, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Appendix C. (continued) Parameter 1 Replicate 2 3 4 5 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal Neanthes Tissue: Aldrin, mg /kg <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlordane, mg /kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 (0.5 <0.5 Dieldrin, mg /kg c0.1 c0.1 c0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan I, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan II, mg /kg c0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan sulfate, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Endrin, mg /kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Endrin aldehyde, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Heptachlor epoxide, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heptachlor, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aroclor 1016, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1221, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1232, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 0 <3 Aroclor 1242, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1248, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1254, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1260, mg /kg <3 <3, <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1262, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Toxaphene, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 BHC, alpha isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, beta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8HC, delta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, gamin isomer (Lindane), mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -0DD, mg /kg <011 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p,p' -ODE, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 p.p' -0DT, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Macoma Tissue: Aldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlordane, mg /kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Dieldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan I, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan 11. mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan sulfate, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Endrin, mg /kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Endrin aldehyde, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Heptachlor epoxide, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heptachlor, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aroclor 1016, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1221, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1232, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1242, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1248, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1254, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1260, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1262, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Toxaphene, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 BHC, alpha isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, beta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, delta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, gamma isomer (Lindane), mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -0DD, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -0DE.,mg /kg 0.18 0.22 <0.1 <0.1 0.12 p,p'-0DT, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <D.3 Ill L 1 1 17 u 11 I I i 7 I 1 F U �1 E Appendix C. (continued) Parameter 1 2 Replicate 3 4 5 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal Aldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <O.1 <0.1 Neanthes Tissue: Chlordane, mg /kg <0.5 <O.5 <0.5 '<O.5 Aldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlordane, mg /kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Dieldrin, mg /kg <O.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan I, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan 11, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan sulfate, ng /kg <0.3 <O.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Endrin, mg /kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Endrin aldehyde, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <O.3 Heptachlor epoxide, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heptachlor, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aroclor 1016, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1221, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1232, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 <3 (3 Aroclor 1242, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1248, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1254, mg /kg <O.1 <3 <3 - - Aroclor 1260, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 - - Aroclor 1262, mg /kg <0.1 <3 <3 - - Toxaphene, mg /kg (0.1 <3 <3 <3 <3 BHC, alpha isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, beta Isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, delta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, gamma isomer (Lindane), mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -0DD, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -0DE, mg /kg 0.25 0.17 0.12 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -0DT, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <O.3 <O.3 <0.3 Other EPA Method 608 - - - <0.1 <0.1 Pesticides /PCBs Macma Tissue: Aldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <O.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlordane, mg /kg <0.5 <O.5 <0.5 '<O.5 <0.5 Oieldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan 1, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan II, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan sulfate, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Endrin, mg /kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Endrin aldehyde, mg /kg <0.3 <O.3 <O.3 <0.3 <0.3 Heptachlor epoxide, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heptachlor, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aroclor 1016, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1221, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1232, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1242, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1248, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1254, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1260, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1262, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Toxaphene, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 BHC, alpha isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, beta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, delta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <O.1 BHC, gamma isomer (Lindane), mg /kg (0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 (0.1 p.p'-0DO, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p,p' -00E. mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -DDT, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <O.3 <0.3 <0.3 5 Appendix C. (continued) parameter Reference Dredge C Dredge E Sediments Aldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 (0.1 Chlordane, mg /kg <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Dieldrin, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan I, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan II, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Endosulfan sulfate, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Endrin, mg /kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Endrin aldehyde, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Heptachlor epoxide, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heptachlor, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aroclor 1016, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1221, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 Aldclor 1232, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1242, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1248, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1254, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1260, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 Aroclor 1262, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 Toxaphene, mg /kg <3 <3 <3 BHC, alpha isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, beta Isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, delta isomer, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 BHC, gamma isomer (Lindane), mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p,p' -0DD, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 p.p' -DDE, mg /kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 P,P'-OOT, mg /kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Dilution Seawater Aldrin, pg /A (0.5 Chlordane, Pg /A <3 Dieldrin, )L9 1A <0.5 Endosulfan I. pg/A <0.5 Endosulfan II, pg /A <0.5 Endosulfan sulfate, Pg /A <1 Endrin, pg/A <1 Endrin aldehyde, Pg /A <1 Heptachlor epoxide, pg /A <0.5 Heptachlor, pg /A <0.5 Aroclor 1016, Pg /A (10 Aroclor 1221, pg /A <10 Aroclor 1232, p9 /A <10 Aroclor 1242, Pg /A <10 Aroclor 1248, Pg /A <10 Aroclor 1254, Pg /A (10 Aroclor 1260, Pg /A (10 Aroclor 1262, gg /A (10 Toxaphene, Pg /A <10 BHC, alpha isomer, pg /A <0.5 BHC, beta pg /A <0.5 0' BHC, delta isomer, pg /A <0.5 BHC, gamma isomer (Lindane), pB /A <0.5 P'p'-ODD. Pg /A <0.5 p.p' -DDE, pg /,t <0.5 p,p' -ODT, pg /A <1 APPENDIX D TOTAL FUEL HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF SEAWATER, SEDIMENT AND TISSUES Appendix 0. Total fuel hydrocarbon analysis of seawater, sediment and tissues. Total Fuel Total Fuel Sample Hydrocarbon Hydrocarbon Type (mg /1r) (mg /x) Seawater <1 Reference <5 Dredge C <5 Dredge E <5 Tissue: Neanthes Macoma Reference /Reference 1 <250 51 Reference /Reference 2 <250 60 Reference /Reference 3 <250 49 Reference /Reference 4 <250 96 Reference /Reference 5 <250 96 Disposal /Disposal 1 <250 38 Disposal /Disposal 2 <250 180 Disposal /Disposal 3 <250 120 Disposal /Disposal 4 <250 180 Disposal /Disposal 5 <250 170 Dredge C /Disposal 1 <250 140 Dredge C /Disposal 2 <250 45 Dredge C /Disposal 3 <250 210 Dredge C /Disposal 4 <250 590 Dredge C /Disposal 5 <250 490 Dredge E /Disposal 1 <250 350 Dredge E /Disposal 2 <250 370 Dredge E /Disposal 3 <250 230 Dredge E /Disposal 4 <250 390 Dredge E /Disposal 5 <250 320 'i 1 i i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 APPENDIX E DAILY WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR SUSPENDED PARTICULATE PHASE BIOASSAYS Appendix E. Daily water quality parameters for suspended particulate ' phase bioassays. DAILY WATER QUALITY ' Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 1 Date 04/04/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism Acartia tonsa (Copepod) Sample Site: 100% Dredge C I I 15.5 5.7 7.5 34.0 Time 0 hrs 15.5 5.8 7.2 34.0 Time 2 hrs ' II ' 5.8 °C DO ON Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 15.5 5.8 Site: 100% Seawater <0.3 3.0 15.5 5.9 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 ' Sample 100% Dredge E 14.9 6.1 7.2 34.0 • 20 <0.3 4.0 16.4 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 I I 16.8 5.9 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.9 7.0 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 II 1I 16,8 5.8 7.1 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 16.5 5.9 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III III 16.8 5.9 7.0 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 16.5 6.0 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: 100% Dredge C I I 15.5 5.7 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 15.5 5.8 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 ' II 15.5 5.8 7.4 34.0 20 <O.3 3.0 15.5 5.9 7.0 34.0 20 <O.3 3.0 16.4 III 15.5 5.8 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 15.5 5.9 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E 14.9 6.1 7.2 34.0 • 20 <0.3 4.0 16.4 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 I 15.5 5.8 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 15.4 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 15.1 II 15.5 5.8 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 15.5 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 III 15.5 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <O.3 3.0 15.5 5.8 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 Day 1 Date 04/04/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism Acartia tonsa (Copepod) , Time 4 hrs Time 8 hrs °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: 100% Seawater I 16.3 5.2 7.0 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.8 6.8 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.5 5.5 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.7 6.5 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 ' III 16.3 5.3 7.1 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 16.7 6.5 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: 100% Dredge C I 14.9 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 16.4 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 , II 15.0 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 16.4 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 III 15.0 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 16.4 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredge E I 14.9 6.1 7.2 34.0 • 20 <0.3 4.0 16.4 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 II 15.0 6.0 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 16.4 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 , III 15.1 6.1 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 16.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 I Appendix E. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 1 Date 04/04/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism Acanthogysis scalpta (Mysid) ' Day 1 Date 04/04/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 ' Sample Time 0 hrs Organism .4canthomysis scalpta (Mysid) Time 2 hrs Time 4 hrs °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live . NO2 NH3 Sample Site: 100% Seawater 6.5 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 15.5 6.2 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 I 17.1 5.0 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.2 6.9 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 II 17.1 5.2 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.2 7.0 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 17.0 5.2 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.2 7.0 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 ' Day 1 Date 04/04/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredge C Test Organism .4canthomysis scalpta (Mysid) ' Time 4 hrs 14.9 I 14.4 6.5 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 15.5 6.2 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 NO2 II 14.4 6.5 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 15.5 6.2 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 ' III 14.4 6.5 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 15.5 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 Site: Sample Site: 100% Dredge E Sample Site: 100% Seawater I 14.9 6.1 7.2 34.0 I 14.7 6.1 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 15.4 6.0 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 6.8 6.7 7.2 7.2 II 14.6 6.0 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 15.5 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 7.2 III 14.7 6.1 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 15.5 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 1.0 ' Day 1 Date 04/04/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 ' Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism .4canthomysis scalpta (Mysid) ' Time 4 hrs 14.9 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 Time 8 hrs 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C 00 pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 ' III 14.8 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 0.0 16.4 6.0 7.3 1 20 <0.3 4.0 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E Sample Site: 100% Seawater I 14.9 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <3.0 16.4 5.7 7.4 I II 16.5 16.5 5.2 7.0 5.1 7.1 34.0 34.0 20 20 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 16.8 <0.25 16.7 6.8 6.7 7.2 7.2 34.0 34.0 20 20 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 7.4 III 16.6 5.1 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.7 6.8 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredge C I 14.9 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <3.0 16.4 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 II 14.8 6.0 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <3.0 16.4 6.0 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 ' III 14.8 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 0.0 16.4 6.0 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E I 14.9 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <3.0 16.4 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 II 14.9 6.1 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 0.0 16.3 5.9 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 III 14.8 6.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <3.0 16.4 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 4.0 1 Appendix E. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 2 Date 04/05/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism 4csnthwnysis sculpts (Mysid) 2 ' Day 3 Date 04/06/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism Acsnthomysis sculpts (M,ysid) °C Time 1000 DO pH Sal Live Time 1130 NH3 °C DO Time pH Time 1630 Live 1630 M NH3 Sample Site: °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO PH Sal Live NO2 NH3 5.6 7.4 35.0 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 20 <0.3 <0.3 0.25 0.25 16.5 16.5 5.7 5.7 7.4 7.4 35.0 35.0 20 20 <0.3 <0.3 0.25 , 0.25 III 16.5 5.7 7.4 35.0 Sample Site: 100% Seawater 16.5 5.7 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 0.25 Sample Site: I 16.0 5.4 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.7 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.9 5.4 7.1 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 15.5 5.6 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.0 5.4 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.6 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: 100% Dredge C 16.4 5.9 7.7 35.0 20 0.3 2.5 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredge E I 16.2 5.3 7.4 34.0 20 0.3 3.0 15.5 6.1 7.4' 34.0 20 0.3 3.0 II 16.1 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 0.3 3.0 15.5 6.0 7.3 34.0 20 0.3 3.0 III 16.1 5.6 7.5 34.0 20 0.3 3.0 15.5 6.1 7.4 34.0 20 0.3 3.0 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E 5.8 7.8 35.0 20 0.3 3.0 I 16.1 5.7 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 15.6 5.4 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 2.5 II 16.1 5.6 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 15.6 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 2.5 III 16.1 5.9 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 3.0 15.6 5.6 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 2.5 Day 3 Date 04/06/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism Acsnthomysis sculpts (M,ysid) I °C Time 1000 DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO Time pH Sal 1630 Live NO2 M NH3 Sample Site: 100% Seawater ' I II 16.6 16.5 5.6 7.4 35.0 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 20 <0.3 <0.3 0.25 0.25 16.5 16.5 5.7 5.7 7.4 7.4 35.0 35.0 20 20 <0.3 <0.3 0.25 , 0.25 III 16.5 5.7 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 0.25 16.5 5.7 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 0.25 Sample Site: 100% Dredge C , I 16.4 6.0 7.6 35.0 20 0.3 2.5 16.4 5.9 7.6 35.0 20 0.3 3.0 II 16.4 5.9 7.7 35.0 20 0.3 2.5 16.3 5.9 7.6 35.0 20 0.3 2.5 III 16.4 5.8 7.8 35.0 20 0.3 2.5 16.4 5.9 7.7 35.0 20 0.3 2.5 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredge E I 16.3 5.7 7.8 34.0 20 0.3 3.0 16.3 5.8 7.8 35.0 20 0.3 3.0 II 16.3 5.7 7.8 35.0 20 0.3 3.0 16.3 5.7 7.8 35.0 20 0.3 3.0 III 16.4 5.8 7.8 35.0 20 0.3 3.0 16.3 5.8 7.8 35.0 20 0.3 3.0 1 I 1 1 3 Appendix E. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredqe Bioassay Day 4 Date 04/07/85, Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Orqanism Acanthavlysfs sculpts (Mysid) ' Day 5 Date 04/08/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Orqanism Acanthomysis sculota (M,ysid) ' Time 1000 Time 1600 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: 100% Seawater 1 I 16.7 5.2 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 16.7 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 II 16.5 5.4 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 16.7 6.0 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 III 16.3 6.0 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 16.4 6.0 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredqe C I 16.2 5.8 7.5 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.3 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 II 16.2 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 ' III 16.2 6.0 7.5 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E ' I 16.2 5.9 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 .4.5 16.3 6.4 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 II 16.2 6.0 7.6 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 III 16.2 6.0 7.5 35.0 19 <0.3 4.5 16.3 6.4 7.5 35.0 19 <0.3 4.5 1 i Sample S Site: 1 Time 0930 Time 1630 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 4.0 II 1 16.3 5 5.4 7.7 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 1 16.3 6 6.3 7 7.6 3 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 Sample Site: 100% Seawater 16.2 5 5.8 7.8 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 1 16.3 6 6.5 7 7.7 3 35.0 2 I 16.4 5.0 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 6.3 7.5 35,0 20 <0.3 0.25 II 16.4 5.0 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 6.5 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 0.25 III 16.3 5.3 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 6.3 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 ' Day 5 Date 04/08/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Orqanism Acanthomysis sculota (M,ysid) ' Time 1000 Time 1600 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: 100% Seawater 1 I 16.7 5.2 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 16.7 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 II 16.5 5.4 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 16.7 6.0 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 III 16.3 6.0 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 16.4 6.0 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredqe C I 16.2 5.8 7.5 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.3 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 II 16.2 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 ' III 16.2 6.0 7.5 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E ' I 16.2 5.9 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 .4.5 16.3 6.4 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 II 16.2 6.0 7.6 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 III 16.2 6.0 7.5 35.0 19 <0.3 4.5 16.3 6.4 7.5 35.0 19 <0.3 4.5 1 i Sample S Site: 1 100% Dredge C I 1 16.2 5 5.4 7.7 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 1 16.3 6 6.3 7 7.6 3 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 II 1 16.3 5 5.4 7.7 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 1 16.3 6 6.3 7 7.6 3 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 ' I III 1 16.2 5 5.8 7.8 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 1 16.3 6 6.5 7 7.7 3 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 Sample S Site: 1 100% Dredqe E . I I 1 16.2 5 5.8 7.8 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 1 16.3 6 6.1 7 7.7 3 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 II 1 16.3 5 5.5 7.8 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.0 1 16.3 6 6.3 7 7.7 3 35.0 2 20 < <0.3 4 4.5 III 1 16.3 5 5.3 7.8 35.0 1 19 < <0.3 4 4.0 1 16.3 6 6.3 7 7.7 3 35.0 1 19 < <0.3 4 4.0 Day 5 Date 04/08/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Orqanism Acanthomysis sculota (M,ysid) ' Time 1000 Time 1600 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: 100% Seawater 1 I 16.7 5.2 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 16.7 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 II 16.5 5.4 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 16.7 6.0 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 III 16.3 6.0 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 16.4 6.0 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 2.0 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredqe C I 16.2 5.8 7.5 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.3 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 II 16.2 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 ' III 16.2 6.0 7.5 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E ' I 16.2 5.9 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 .4.5 16.3 6.4 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 II 16.2 6.0 7.6 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 III 16.2 6.0 7.5 35.0 19 <0.3 4.5 16.3 6.4 7.5 35.0 19 <0.3 4.5 1 i ' Sample Site: 100% Dredqe C I 16.2 5.8 7.5 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.3 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 II 16.2 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 ' III 16.2 6.0 7.5 35.0 20 0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E ' I 16.2 5.9 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 .4.5 16.3 6.4 7.5 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 II 16.2 6.0 7.6 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 16.3 6.1 7.4 35.0 20 <0.3 4.5 III 16.2 6.0 7.5 35.0 19 <0.3 4.5 16.3 6.4 7.5 35.0 19 <0.3 4.5 1 i 1 i Appendix E. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 1 Date 03/19/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/19/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism C1t1?arf0i0ys stigwems (Flatfish) Sample °C DO Time pH 0 Sal hrs Live NO2 NH3 °C DO Time pH Sal 2 hrs Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: 8.2 33.0 100% Disposal <0.6 1.0 15.1 5.5 7.9 34.0 10 <0.6 1.5 II I 15.0 4.9 7.7 34.0 10 <0.6 <1.0 15.1 5.1 7.7 34.0 10 <0.6 <1.0 II 15.2 4.8 7.9 34.0 10 <0.6 <1.0 15.3 5.0 7.8 34.0 10 <0.6 <1.0 III 15.3 5.5 7.9 34.0 10 <0.6 <1.0 15.3 5.7 7:9 34.0 10 <0.6 <1.0 Sample Site: Date Suspended 100% Dredge C Test Bioassay Start Date 03/19/85 Organism Citharichthys sti,gmaeus (Flatfish) ' 6.9 7.8 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.1 7.6 7.6 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 Time 4 hrs 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.0 7.7 7.8 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 I 14.9 5.2 8.2 33.0 10 <0.6 1.0 15.1 5.5 7.9 34.0 10 <0.6 1.5 II 14.9 4.5 8.1 33.0 10 <0.6 1.0 15.0 5.1 7.9 34.0 10 <0.6 1.5 III 14.8 4.4 8.2 33.0 10 <0.6 1.0 14.9 5.1 8.0 34.0 10 <0.6 1.5 Sample Site: 34.0 100% Dredge E <0.6 1.0 15.1 7.5 7.5 34.0 10 <0.6 1.0 1 I 14.8 5.5 7.8 33.0 10 <0.6 1.0 14.9 5.7 7.8 34.0 10 <0.6 1.5 II 14.5 5.0 7.9 33.0 10 <0.6 1.0 14.7 5.3 7.8 34.0 10 <0.6 1.5 111 14.5 5.0 7.9 33.0 10 <0.6 1.0 14.7 5.2 7.8 34.0 10 <0.6 1.5 Day Sample 1 Phase Date Suspended 03/19/85 Particulate Test Bioassay Start Date 03/19/85 Organism Citharichthys sti,gmaeus (Flatfish) ' 6.9 7.8 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.1 7.6 7.6 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 Time 4 hrs 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.0 7.7 7.8 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 III 14.8 Time 8 hrs °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: 100% Disposal I 15.2 6.9 7.5 34.0 10 <0.6 1.0 15.1 7.5 7.5 34.0 10 <0.6 1.0 1 II 15.4 6.4 7.5 34.0 10 <0.6 1.0 15.1 7.3 7.5 34.0 10 <0.6 1.0 III 15.5 7.0 7.7 34.0 10 <0.6 1.0 15.1 7.5 7.6 34.0 10 <0.6 1.0 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredge C I 15.3 6.9 7.9 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.2 7.7 7.7 33.0 '10 <0.6 2.5 II 15.4 6.9 7.9 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.3 7.8 7.8 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 ' III 15.1 6.4 7.9 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.2 7.7 7.8 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E I 15.1 6.9 7.8 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.1 7.6 7.6 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 II 14.9 6.7 7.7 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.0 7.7 7.8 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 III 14.8 6.8 7.7 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 15.0 7.7 7.7 33.0 10 <0.6 2.5 ' I I F Appendix E. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 2 Date 03/20/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/19/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism Citharichblys sr�gmaeus (flatfish) K I1 16.6 6.8 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 17.7 6.5 7.6 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 III 16.4 7.4 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 17.1 7.3 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 Sample °C DO Time pH 0930 Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO Time pH Sal 1600 Live NO2 NH3 I Sample Site: Control 10 <1.0 2.5 16.2 7.3 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 ' I 15.8 7.1 7.7 34.0 10 <1.0 1.0 16.1 7.1 7.6 34.0 10 <1.0 1.0 15.5 II 15.7 7.2 7.6 34.0 10 <1.0 1.0 16.3 7.1 7.5 34.0 10 <1.0 1.0 III 15.8 7.2 7.8 34.0 10 <1.0 1.0 16.4 7.2 7.8 34.0 10 <1.0 1.0 03/21/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/19/85 ' Sample Phase Suspended Sample Site: 100% Dredge C Citharichthys stipmaeus (Flatfish) Time I 16.0 7.3 7.8 32.0 9 <1.0 2.5 16.9 7.2 7.7 33.0 9 <1.0 3.0 NO2 II 16.0 7.0 8.1 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 16.9 7.0 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 3.0 III 15.8 7.2 8.0 33.0 10 <1.0 3.0 16.5 7.1 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 3.0 I1 16.6 6.8 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 17.7 6.5 7.6 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 III 16.4 7.4 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 17.1 7.3 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 Sample Site: 100% Dredge E I 16.1 7.4 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 16.7 7.0 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 II 15.9 6.6 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 16.6 6.8 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 III ' I 15.6 7.6 7.9 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 16.2 7.3 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 II 15.5 7.4 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 15.9 7.3 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 III 15.5 7.3 8.0 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 15.7 7.2 7.9 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 Day 3 Date 03/21/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/19/85 ' Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism Citharichthys stipmaeus (Flatfish) Time 0845 Time 1640 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Control I 16.0 7.1 7.6 34.0 10 <1.0 1.5 17.0 7.0 7.5 34.0 10 <1.0 2.0 II 16.0 6.4 7.5 34.0 10 <1.0 1.5 17.1 7.0 7.5 34.0 10 <1.0 2.0 III 16.2 7.3 7.7 34.0 10 <1.0 1.5 17.4 7.2 7.6 34.0 10 <1.0 2.0 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredge C I 16.4 7.6 7.6 33.0 9 <1.0 2.5 17.5 7.4 7.7 33.0 . 9 <1.0 2.5 I1 16.6 6.8 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 17.7 6.5 7.6 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 III 16.4 7.4 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 17.1 7.3 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 I Sample Site: 100% Dredge E I 16.1 7.4 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 16.7 7.0 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 II 15.9 6.6 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 16.6 6.8 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 III 15.8 7.7 7.9 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 16.4 7.3 7.8 33.0 10 <1.0 2.5 ' I 3 , Appendix E. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 4 Date 03/22/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/19/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism Cithdrichthys stigndeus (Flatfish) Sample I °C Time DO pH 1030 Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C 00 Time pH 1500 Sal Live NO2 NH3 03/19/85 Sample Site: Control Date 03/23/85 I 16.7 6.5 7.1 35.0 10 <1.0 2.0 17.0 6.7 7.2 35.0 10 <1.0 2.0 ' II 16.7 6.6 7.5 35.0 10 <1.0 2.0 17.0 6.9 7.4 35.0 10 <1.0 2.0 III 16.9 6.8 7.7 35.0 10 <1.0 2.0 17.4 7.2 7.5 35.0 10 <1.0 2.0 °C Sample Site: 100% Dredge C Live NO2 NH3 I 17.1 6.8 7.7 33.0 9 <1.0 3.0 17.4 7.3 7.7 33.0 9 <1.0 3.0 II 17.1 6.4 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 3.0 17.6 6.5 7.6 33.0 10 <1.0 3.0 2.0 III 16.8 6.7 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 3.0 17.1 7.1 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 3.0 <1.0 Sample I Site: 16.6 100% Dredge E 6.8 7.8 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 16.7 7.2 7.8 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 ' II 16.4 6.9 7.8 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 16.6 7.3 7.8 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 Bioassay III 16.4 6.9 7.9 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 16.5 7.3 7.9 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 Day 5 Bioassay Start Date 03/19/85 Date 03/23/85 Sample Phase Suspended Particulate Test Organism Cithdrichthys sti,gmdeus (Flatfish) Time 0925 Time 1500 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Control I 16.7 6.5 7.5 35.0 9 <1.0 2.0 16.7 6.6 7.5 35.0 9 <1.0 2.0 II 16.7 6.3 7.5 35.0 10 <1.0 2.0 16.7 6.4 7.5 35.0 10 <1.0 2.0 III 16.9 6.8 7.7 35.0 10 <1.0 2.0 16.8 6.7 7.6 35.0 10 <I.0 2.0 Sample Site: 100% Dredge C , I 17.1 7.0 7.7 34.0 9 <1.0 3.0 17.0 7.0 7.7 34.0 9 <1.0 3.0 II 17.2 7.0 7.7 33.0 10 <1.0 3.0 17.0 7.0 7.8 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 III 16.8 7.0 7.8 33.0 9 <1.0 3.0 16.9 7.0 7.7 34.0 9 <1.0 3.0 ' Sample Site: 100% Dredge E I 16.7 6.9 7.9 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 16.9 7.0 7.8 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 II 16.5 7.2 7.8 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 16.9 7.1 7.5 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 III 16.3 7.1 7.9 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 16.4 7.1 7.4 34.0 10 <1.0 3.0 ' I Appendix E. (continued) Bioassay Fish Length /Weight Measurements Job # 85014 Client CDF &G Date of Test 03/19/85 MBC Sample # - Client Sample # or Description Control I -III j Species CItharichthys stigWOUS iStandard Average length (mm) 37.3 Length Weight Standard Length 46.0 Minimum (mm) (9) 31.0 (mm) Average Control 1: 0.67 Control III: (g) 1. 40 0.61 21, 32 2. 39 0.70 22. 35 3. 37 0.56 23. 33 ' 4. 37 0.60 24. 34 5. 44 1.01 25. 35 6. 43 1.02 26. 32 7. 45 1.11 27. 35 ' 8. 40 0.88 28. 29. 32 36 9. 32 0.39 30. 39 Control II: ' 10. 46 1.11 11. 43 1.03 12. 37 0.65 13. 32 0.41 14. 43 0.80 15. 35 0.59 16. 44 0.99 17. 32 0.43 18. 39 0.70 19. 31 0.39 20. - - Wei (g 0.48 0.58 0.48 0.53 0.60 0.34 0.58 0.43 0.62 0.70 Technician Date Average length (mm) 37.3 Maximum length (mm) 46.0 Minimum length (mm) 31.0 Average weight (g) 0.67 Maximum weight (g) 1.11 Minimum weight (g) 0.34 Technician Date Appendix E. (continued) Bioassay Fish Length /Weight Measurements Job # 85014 Client CDF &G Date of Test 03/19/85 MBC Sample # - Client Sample # or Description Dredge Site C Species Citharichthys stloweas Standard Length Weight Standard Length Weight (M) (g) (M) (g) Dredge Site C -I: 1.55 Dredge Site C -III: 0.43 1. 43 0.94 21. 51 1.49 2. 41 0.88 22. 51 1.57 3. 40 0.85 23. 39 0.72 4. 39 0.50 24. 49 1.45 5. 38 0.46 25. 51 1.53 6. 36 0.38 26. 36 0.65 7. 35 0.60 27. 39 0.66 8. 40 0.70 28. 42 0.90 9. 50 1.48 29. 41 0.91 Dredge Site C -II: 10. 51 1.55 11. 35 0.43 12. 51 1.53 13. 38 0.74 14. 47 1.34 15. 33 0.43 16. 40 0.74 17. 50 1.47 18. 47 1.23 19. 38 0.59 20. - - Average length (mm) 42.5 Maximum length (mm) 35.0 Minimum length (mm) 51.0 Average weight (g) 0.95 Maximum weight (g) 0.38 Minimum weight (g) 1.57 Technician Date LAppendix 10. 51 1.55 11. 35 0.43 E. (continued) 12. 51 1.53 13. Bioassay Fish Length /Weight Measurements ' 47 1.34 15. 33 0.43 Job # 85014 Client CDF &G Date of Test 03/19/85 MBC Sample # - Client Sample # or Description Dredge Site C 47 Species Citharichthys stifflWeus 38 0.59 20. - - ' Average length 1 42.5 Maximum length (mm) 35.0 Minimum length (mm) 51.0 Average weight (g) 0.95 Maximum weight (g) 0.38 Minimum weight (g) 1.57 Standard Length Weight Standard Length Weight (M) (g) (mm) (g) ' Dredge Site C Dredge Site C -III: -I: 1. 43 0.94 21. 51 1.49 2. 41 0.88 22. 51 1.57 3. 40 0.85 23. 39 0.72 4. 39 0.50 24. 49 1.45 5. 38 0.46 25. 51 1.53 6. 36 0.38 26. 36 0.65 7. 35 0.60 27. 39 0.66 8. 40 0.70 28. 42 0.90 9. 50 1.48 29. 41 0.91 Dredge Site C -II: J I Technician Date 10. 51 1.55 11. 35 0.43 12. 51 1.53 13. 38 0.74 14. 47 1.34 15. 33 0.43 16. 40 0.74 17. 50 1.47 18. 47 1.23 19. 38 0.59 20. - - ' Average length (mm) 42.5 Maximum length (mm) 35.0 Minimum length (mm) 51.0 Average weight (g) 0.95 Maximum weight (g) 0.38 Minimum weight (g) 1.57 J I Technician Date Appendix E. (continued) Bioassay Fish Length /Weight Measurements Job # 85014 Client CDF &G Date of Test 03/19/85 MBC Sample p Client Sample N or Description Dredge Site E Species Citharichthys styoweus Standard Length Weight Standard Length Weight (mm) (9) (mm) (9) Dredqe Site E -I: Dredge Site E -III: 1. 51 1.87 21. 37 0.62 2. 38 0.56 22. 40 0.80 3. 38 0.62 23. 37 0.63 4. 36 0.56 24. 46 0.95 5. 50 1.38 25. 38 0.67 6. 43 1.04 26. 36 0.59 7. 42 0.93 27. 38 0.63 S. 51 1.87 28. 45 1.16 9. 48 1.63 29. 51 1.55 10. 44 1.10 30. 36 0.55 Dredqe Site E -II: 11. 40 0.87 12. 51 1.71 13. 42 1.03 14. 42 1.00 15. 43 1.08 16. 44 1.14 17. 35 0.56 18. 52 1.59 19. 38 0.71 20. 37 0.70 Average length (mm) 42.3 Maximum length (mm) 52.0 Minimum length (mm) 35.0 ' Average weight (g) 1.00 Maximum weight (g) 0.55 Minimum weight (9) 1.87 Technician Date I u I A I I IAPPENDIX F DAILY WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR SOLID PHASE BIOASSAYS I I {J [J I rJ I F I I I Appendix F. Daily water quality parameters for solid phase bioassays. DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 1 Date 04/04/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism Acantha7Zysis scalpta (Mysid) Time 0 hrs Time 2 hrs °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.7 6.5 7.0 34.0 20 II 16.7 6.5 7.3 34.0 20 III 16.5 6.5 7.2 34.0 20 IV 16.3 6.3 7.2 34.0 20 V 16.1 6.4 7.3 34.0 20 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.1 6.4 7.1 34.0 20 II 16.0 6.4 7.3 34.0 20 III 16.1 6.2 7.3 34.0 20 IV 16.1 6.3 7.3 34.0 20 V 16.1 6.4 7.3 34.0 20 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 16.2 6.3 7.2 34.0 20 II 15.9 6.3 7.3 34.0 20 III 15.9 6.3 7.3 34.0 20 IV 15.9 6.3 7.3 34.0 20 V 16.0 6.3 7.3 34.0 20 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.1 6.0 7.3 34.0 20 I1 16.0 6.2 7.3 34.0 20 III 16.0 6.2 7.4 34.0 20 IV 16.1 6.2 7.4 34.0 20 V 16.1 6.2 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.4 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <O.3 <0.25 16.2 5.3 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.0 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <O.3 <0.25 16.1 5.1 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.3 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <O.3 <0.25 16.1 5.0 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.2 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.2 7.4 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.1 7.3 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.3 7.4 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <O.3 <0.25 15.9 5.3 7.1 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 5.3 7.3 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 5.5 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 5.3 7.4 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 5.1 7.3 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.1 7.3 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.4 7.5 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.4 7.4 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.6 7.5 34.0 20 <O.3 <0.25 I O I I I D I LJ I I 1) I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 1 Date 04/04/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism AcantlyMysis scnlpta (Mysid) Sample °C 00 Time pH 4 Sal hrs Live NO2 NH3 °C DO Time pH 8 Sal hrs Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference 7.4 34.0 20 IV 16.2 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 I 16.1 5.6 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.4 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <O.25 II 16.1 5.5 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.3 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.2 5.5 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.4 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.2 5.5 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.3 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.2 5.6 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.4 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <O.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.1 5.4 7.2 34.0 20 II 16.1 5.5 7.2 34.0 20 III 16.1 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 IV 16.2 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 V 16.2 5.4 7.4 34.0 20 f1 I I I <0.3 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal 34.0 I 15.9 5.5 7.1 34.0 20 5.3 II 15.9 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.25 III 15.8 5.6 7.4 34.0 20 <0.25 IV 15.9 5.6 7.5 34.0 20 20 V 15.9 5.6 7.4 34.0 20 f1 I I I <0.3 Sample I Site: 15.9 Dredge 5.4 7.3 E /Disposal 34.0 20 34.0 II 16.0 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 5.3 III IV 16.0 16.0 5.4 5.4 7.5 7.5 34.0 34.0 20 20 <0.25 V 16.1 5.5 7.5 34.0 20 f1 I I I <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.3 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.3 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.2 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.3 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.2 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.2 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.8 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.8 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.8 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.6 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.2 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.1 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.1 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.2 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.2 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 I I I 3 Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 2 Date 04/05/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Test Sample Phase Solid Organism Acanthagysls sculpta (Mysid) Time 0900 Time 1530 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference 1 16.1 5.6 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.1 4.8 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 I1 16.2 5.4 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.9 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.2 5.0 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.9 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.3 5.5 7.6 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.7 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.2 5.2 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.9 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.3 5.6 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.2 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.4 5.3 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.4 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.0 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.4 5.0 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 4.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.4 5.3 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 4.9 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 16.1 5.4 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 5.3 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 1I 16.1 5.7 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.4 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.1 5.7 7.5 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.2 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.1 5.6 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.3 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.1 5.4 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.0 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.2 4.8 7.1 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.0 5.1 7.2 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.3 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.7 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.3 5.4 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 4.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.4 4.9 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 4.7 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.4 5.0 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 4.8 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 *3/4 water change I I I I r 4 Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 3 Date 04/06/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism Acanthoqjys1s sculpta (Mysid) Sample °C DO Time pH 0930 Sal Live2 NO 3 NH °C DO Time pH 1500 Sal Live2 NO 3 NH Sample Site: Reference /Reference 16.5 5.6 7.6 34.0 20 IV 16.6 5.4 7.6 I 16.4 5.5 7.5 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.4 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.4 5.5 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.4 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.4 5.4 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.7 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.4 5.6 7.6 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.7 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.4 5.5 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.6 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.5 5.9 7.6 34.0 20 II 16.5 5.5 7.6 34.0 20 III 16.5 5.6 7.6 34.0 20 IV 16.6 5.4 7.6 34.0 19 V 16.6 5.4 7.6 34.0 20 Sample Sample Site: Dredge I C /Disposal 5.8 I 16.3 5.9 7.5 34.0 20 7.6 II 16.2 5.8 7.6 34.0 20 34.0 III 16.3 5.5 7.6 34.0 19 20 IV 16.3 5.5 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 V 16.3 5.4 7.6 34.0 19 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.4 5.8 7.6 34.0 19 1I 16.4 5.7 7.6 34.0 20 III 16.5 5.3 7.5 34.0 20 IV 16.5 4.8 7.5 34.0 20 V 16.5 4.9 7.5 34.0 20 [I J J 1 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.4 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.8 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.8 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.8 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 6.3 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.0 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.9 7.5 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.9 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.9 7.5 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.2 7.5 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <O.25 16.2 5.9 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <O.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.7 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.9 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.9 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 5 1 Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 4 Date 04/07/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism .4canthwjysfs sculpts (Mysid) Time 0930 Time 1530 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.3 5.2 7.5 35.0 19 II 16.3 5.7 7.5 35.0 20 III 16.3 5.4 7.5 35.0 20 IV 16.3 5.8 7.6 35.0 19 V 16.4 5.4 7.6 35.0 20 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.4 5.6 7.6 35.0 20 II 16.4 5.6 7.6 35.0 20 III 16.5 5.9 7.6 35.0 20 IV 16.5 5.4 7.6 35.0 19 V 16.5 5.6 7.7 35.0 20 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 16.3 5.9 7.6 35.0 20 II 16.3 5.8 7.6 35.0 20 III 16.3 5.4 7.6 35.0 19 IV 16.3 5.9 7.6 35.0 20 V 16.4 5.5 7.6 35.0 19 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal 7.5 I 16.4 6.0 7.9 35.0 19 II 16.4 5.7 7.9 35.0 20 III 16.5 5.9 7.9 35.0 20 IV 16.5 4.9 7.7 35.0 20 V 16.4 5.5 7.7 35.0 20 *water change <0.3 <0.25 * 16.2 5.5 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.7 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.6 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.8 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.6 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.5 5.9 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.9 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.8 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.8 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.4 5.9 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.6 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.4 6.1 7.8 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.9 7.8 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.9 7.8 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.7 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.7 35.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 19 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 19 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 19 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 19 <0.3 <0.25 19 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 20 <0.3 <0.25 I I I J IL I I I I I I 0 IAppendix F. (continued) I ' Day 5 j I DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Date 04/08/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism .4cantha fs scu/pta (Mysid) Time 0845 Time 1500 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.3 5.5 7.3 35.0 19 II 16.3 5.4 7.3 35.0 20 III 16.3 5.6 7.3 35.0 20 IV 16.3 5.5 7.4 35.0 19 V 16.3 5.5 7.4 35.0 20 Sample Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal 16.3 I 16.4 6.0 7.4 35.0 20 ' II 16.4 5.9 7.4 35.0 20 7.6 II1 16.5 5.5 7.4 35.0 20 35.0 IV 16.5 5.5 7.4 35.0 19 20 V 16.5 5.6 7.4 35.0 20 7.3 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal <0.3 I 16.2 6.3 7.3 35.0 20 <0.3 II 16.2 5.5 7.3 35.0 20 34.0 III 16.3 5.9 7.4 35.0 19 5.5 IV 16.3 5.7 7.4 35.0 20 <0.25 V 16.3 5.9 7.4 35.0 19 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.3 6.1 7.6 35.0 19 II 16.4 6.0 7.6 35.0 20 III 16.4 6.0 7.6 35.0 20 IV 16.4 5.7 7.4 35.0 20 V 16.4 5.5 7.5 35.0 20 I*water change <0.3 <0.25 * 16.4 5.8 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.7 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.3 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.5 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.1 6.1 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.7 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.6 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.7 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.8 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.1 5.9 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.7 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.3 5.9 7.7 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.8 7.7 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 7 16.3 Appendix F. (continued) 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.8 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.3 5.7 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.7 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.3 5.6 7.6 34.0 20 DAILY WATER QUALITY 16.4 5.7 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.4 5.6 7.6 Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay <0.25 16.4 5.6 7.6 34.0 , Day 6 Date 04/09/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism Acanthagysis scalota (Mysid) Time 0930 Time 1530 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.5 5.4 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.5 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 I1 16.4 5.4 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.5 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.4 6.0 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.3 6.0 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.9 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.4 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.8 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 , Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.3 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 11 16.4 5.6 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.4 5.8 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.6 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.5 5.6 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.5 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.5 5.4 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal 1 16.4 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.3 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.3 5.2 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.4 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 IV V 16.3 16.3 5.5 5.4 7.4 7.5 34.0 34.0 20 19 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 16.3 16.3 5.4 5.4 7.4 7.4 34.0 34.0 20 19 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.3 5.9 7.7 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.8 7.7 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 I1 16.3 5.7 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.8 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.3 5.7 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.7 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.3 5.6 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.7 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.4 5.6 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.6 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 I I I f] 1 I lJ u 1 I Appendix F. (continued) Day 7 DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Date 04/10/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism 4ca17th6Mysis sculpts (Mysid) F, Time 0830 Time 1500 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.4 5.3 7.2 34.0 19 II 16.4 5.4 7.2 34.0 20 III 16.4 5.4 7.2 34.0 20 IV 16.4 5.9 7.2 34.0 19 V 16.4 5.6 7.2 34.0 20 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.4 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 II 16.4 5.7 7.3 34.0 20 III 16.5 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 IV 16.5 5.5 7.2 34.0 19 V 16.5 5.4 7.3 34.0 20 *water change I <0.3 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal ' I 16.3 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 19 II 16.3 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 20 III 16.3 5.7 7.4 34.0 19 20 20 IV 16.3 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 20 V 16.3 5.7 7.4 34.0 19 *water change I <0.3 Sample Site: Dredge 7.3 E /Disposal 19 I 16.4 5.6 7.7 34.0 19 7.3 II 16.4 5.7 7.7 34.0 20 16.5 III IV 16.4 16.4 5.7 5.8 7.7 7.6 34.0 34.0 20 20 <0.3 V 16.4 5.6 7.6 34.0 20 *water change I <0.3 <0.25 * 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.8 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.4 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.6 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.6 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 91 Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 8 Date 04/11/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism .4cantAMysis scalpta (Mysid) Sample °C 00 Time pH 0930 Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C 00 Time pH 1500 Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference 16.5 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 IV 16.5 5.5 7.4 I 16.4 5.5 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.2 5.4 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.7 7.2 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.2 5.6 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.3 5.5 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.7 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.3 5.5 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 6.0 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.4 6.0 7.4 34.0 20 II 16.4 5.9 7.4 34.0 20 III 16.5 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 IV 16.5 5.5 7.4 34.0 19 V 16.5 5.6 7.4 34.0 20 Sample Site: Dredge 5.7 C /Disposal I 16.4 6.1 7.3 34.0 20 II 16.3 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 III 16.3 5.9 7.4 34.0 19 IV 16.3 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 V 16.3 5.9 7.5 34.0 19 Sample Site: Dredge 5.7 E /Disposal I 16.4 6.0 7.7 34.0 19 II 16.3 6.0 7.7 34.0 20 1I1 16.4 5.8 7.7 34.0 20 IV 16.4 5.9 7.6 34.0 20 V 16.4 5.7 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.8 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.8 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.2 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.5 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.6 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.5 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.3 7.7 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.7 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <O.3 <0.25 16.6 5.6 7.6 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 I j I I I 1 I I I I {1 I� J L ILI P j I I C 1 I I Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 9 Date 04/12/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism Acanthogysfs sculpta (Mysid) Time 0930 °C DO pH Sal Live Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.5 5.8 7.3 34.0 19 II 16.3 5.8 7.3 34.0 19 III 16.2 5.9 7.3 34.0 19 IV 16.3 5.6 7.4 34.0 19 V 16.3 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.3 6.1 7.5 34.0 20 II 16.3 5.8 7.6 34.0 20 II1 16.4 5.8 7.6 34.0 20 IV 16.4 5.7 7.6 34.0 19 V 16.4 5.5 7.6 34.0 19 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 16.3 6.1 7.5 34.0 20 II 16.1 5.8 7.6 34.0 20 III 16.1 5.5 7.6 34.0 19 IV 16.1 5.4 7.6 34.0 20 V 16.1 5.6 7.7 34.0 19 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal 7.6 I 16.3 5.6 7.7 34.0 19 II 16.2 5.7 7.7 34.0 20 III 16.3 5.9 7.7 34.0 20 IV 16.3 5.6 7.7 34.0 20 V 16.3 5.6 7.7 34.0 19 *water change Time 1500 °C DO pH Sal Live <0.3 <0.25 * 16.4 5.7 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.7 7.6 34.0 <O.3 <0.25 16.3 5.8 7.7 34.0 <O.3 <0.25 16.3 5.6 7.7 34.0 <O.3 <0.25 16.3 5.8 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.3 6.0 7.8 34.0 <O.3 <0.25 16.4 5.9 7.8 34.0 <O.3 <0.25 16.4 5.6 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.7 34.0 <O.3 <0.25 * 16.3 6.0 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.7 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.5 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.3 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.6 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.3 5.6 8.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.6 8.0 34.0 <O.3 <0.25 16.3 5.8 8.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.5 8.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.6 8.0 34.0 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 19 19 20 20 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 19 IV <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <O.25 <O.3 <O.25 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <O.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 Q.25 <O.3 <0.25 i Appendix F. (continued) 11 , DO Time pH f DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 10 Date 04/13/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Sample Phase Solid Test Organism 4c&7Ma7jysfs scvlota (Mysid) Sample °C DO Time pH 0900 Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO Time pH 1530 Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference 16.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 20 IV 16.5 5.8 7.4 I 16.5 5.4 7.2 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.5 7.3 34.0 18 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.4 5.7 7.2 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.3 34.0 18 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.4 5.8 7.2 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.7 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.3 6.0 7.3 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.4 34.0 18 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.4 5.9 7.3 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.4 5.9 7.4 34.0 20 II 16.4 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 III 16.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 20 IV 16.5 5.8 7.4 34.0 19 V 16.5 5.6 7.3 34.0 19 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 16.2 5.6 7.4 34.0 19 II 16.3 5.8 7.4 34.0 20 III 16.2 5.8 7.4 34.0 19 IV 16.2 5.8 7.4 34.0 19 V 16.3 5.9 7.5 34.0 19 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.3 5.6 7.8 34.0 19 II 16.4 5.8 7.8 34.0 19 III 16.4 5.9 7.8 34.0 20 IV 16.4 5.9 7.7 34.0 20 V 16.4 5.6 7.8 34.0 19 (0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.6 5.9 7.4 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.5 7.5 34.0 18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.7 7.4 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.4 34.0 18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.5 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.8 7.5 34.0 18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 5.6 7.7 34.0 18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.7 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.8 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.7 34.0 20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 5.7 7.8 34.0 19 <0.3 <0.25 I i� I !_ J I I I I LJ Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day Onel Date 03/21/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Macam (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) , Time 0 hrs Time 4 hrs • Sample Site: °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 7.5 35.0 20/20 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 M/N 7.5 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 II 15.0 6.4 7.6 Sample Site: Reference /Reference <0.25 15.1 6.3 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 III I 15.0 6.3 7.5 35.0 20/20 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.5 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 IV II 15.0 6.4. 7.5 35.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.4 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 V III 15.0 6.4 7.5 35.0 20/20 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.5 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.3 <O.25 Sample IV 15.1 6.5 7.5 35.0 20/20 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.5 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 6.5 V 15.1 6.5 7.5 35.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.4 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 , • Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.0 6.5 7.5 35.0 20/20 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 5.9 7.5 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 II 15.0 6.4 7.6 35.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.3 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.0 6.4 7.6 35.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.5 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 6.4 7.5 35.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.5 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 15.0 6.4 7.6 35.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.1 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.1 6.5 7.6 35.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.6 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.0 6.6 7.5 35.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.9 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 15.0 6.4 7.7 35.0 20/20 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.6 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 IV V 15.0 15.1 6.5 6.5 7.7 7.7 35.0 35.0 20120 20120 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 15.1 15.1 6.6 6.6 7.6 7.6 34.0 34.0 * <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.0 6.3 7.7 34.0 20/20 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.1 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 11 14.9 6.3 7.6 34.0 20/20 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 14.9 6.4 7.7 34.0 20/20 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.0 6.5 7.7 34.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 6.5 7.7 34.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.4 7.7 34.0 * c0.3 <0.25 l Day 1 * with test organisms live Unable to count organisms without re- screening substrate 11 11 2 Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day One Date 03/21/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Nwam (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) i [_1 I i I Time 8 hrs °c DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 , Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.0 6.4 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 I II 15.0 6.5 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 15.1 6.4 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 6.4 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 6.5 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 14.9 6.5 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.9 6.7 7.5 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 14.9 6.9 7.5 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.9 6.4 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 6.5 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 14.8 6.6 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.8 6.5 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 14.8 6.5 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.9 6.6 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 14.9 6.5 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal , 14.5 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.5 6.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.5 6.5 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 14.5 6.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.6 * 6.5 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. I i I Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 2 Date 03/22/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Nacama (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) 3 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I °C DO Time pH 0930 NO2 NH3 °C 00 Time pH 1500 NO2 NH3 Sal Live Sal Live II 14.9 5.5 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.1 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' III 15.0 5.4 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.1 7.8 35.0 Sample Site: Reference /Reference IV 15.0 5.4 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.2 I 15.0 5.7 7.5 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.3 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.1 II 15.0 5.6 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.3 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 15.0 5.7 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.2 7.5 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.1 5.7 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.5 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 V 15.1 5.6 7.4 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.5 7.5 35.0 5.5 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal LJ H * Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. Note: There was a change of water between the 0930 hrs test and the 1500 hrs test. I 15.0 5.5 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.0 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 II 14.9 5.5 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.1 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' III 15.0 5.4 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.1 7.8 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.0 5.4 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.2 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 5.3 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.1 7.8 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 14.9 5.5 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.1 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.0 5.5 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.1 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 ' III 15.0 5.5 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 7.3 7.8 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.0 5.3 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.3 7.8 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 V 14.9 5.0 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.1 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal ' I II 15.0 15.0 5.3 5.3 7.5 7.5 35.0 35.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 14.9 14.9 7.1 7.0 7.8 7.9 35.0 35.0 * * <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 III 15.1 5.4 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 14.7 7.0 7.9 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 5.3 7.5 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 14.8 7.1 7.8 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 V 15.1 4.9 7.5 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 14.8 7.1 7.8 35.0 * <0.3 <0.25 LJ H * Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. Note: There was a change of water between the 0930 hrs test and the 1500 hrs test. 4 1 Appendix F. (continued) , Upper DAILY Newport WATER Dredge QUALITY Bioassay , Day 3 Date 03/23/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 , Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Naccwd (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) , Time 0830 Time 1530 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.0 7.1 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.6 6.5 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 ' II 14.9 7.1 7.7 35.0 <0.3 0.25 15.5 6.7 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 I11 15.0 7.0 7.6 35.0 <0.3 0.25 15.5 6.6 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.0 7.1 7.7 35.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.4 7.1 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , V 15.1 7.1 7.6 35.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.1 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal 1 15.0 7.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' I1 15.0 7.0 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.3 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 15.1 7.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 7.1 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.0 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , V 15.1 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal 1 15.0 7.1 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II III 15.0 14.9 7.1 7.2 7.7 7.7 34.0 34.0 * <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 15.3 15.4 7.2 7.3 7.6 7.6 34.0 34.0 * * <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 , IV 15.0 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 7.1 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.9 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal 1 15.0 7.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.3 6.9 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 II 14.9 7.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.2 6.7 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 111 14.9 7.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.3 6.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 , IV 15.0 7.3 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.3 6.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 14.9 6.9 7.7 34.0 * 40.3 0.25 15.3 6.3 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 * Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. Note: There was a change of water between the 0830 hrs test and the 1530 hrs test. u LJ Appendix F. (continued) ' DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 4 Date 03/24/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Nacama (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) 3 * Unabla to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. °C DO Time pH 1100 Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO Time pH 1500 Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.5 6.6 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.6 6.6 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 II 15.5 6.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.6 6.5 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 III 15.4 6.7 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.6 6.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 0.25 ' IV 15.4 6.6 7.5 34.0 * t0.3 0.25 15.7 6.6 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 V 15.4 6.6 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.7 6.5 7.4 34.0 <0.3 0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.4 6.7 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.4 6.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 0.25 II 15.4 6.7 7.6 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.4 6.6 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 III 15.5 6.7 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 6.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 0.25 IV 15.5 6.5 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 6.5 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 V 15.5 6.7 7.6 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.5 6.5 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.5 6.4 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.4 6.3 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 II 15.5 6.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.3 6.2 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 ' III 15.3 6.4 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.4 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 0.25 IV 15.4 6.7 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 6.3 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 V 15.4 6.4 7.5 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.5 6.4 7.6 34.0 <0.3 0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I II 15.5 15.5 6.7 6.6 7.5 7.6 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 0.25 0.25 15.5 15.5 6.9 7.1 7.5 7.5 34.0 34.0 * * <0.3 <0.3 0.25 0.25 III 15.4 6.7 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 0.25 IV 15.5 6.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.6 7.0 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 ' V 15.5 6.8 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.6 7.0 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 * Unabla to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. Appendix F. (continued) 6 , Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal DAILY WATER QUALITY , 15.6 5.8 7.7 34.0 Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II Day 5 7.7 Date 03/25/85 Bioassay Start 6.9 Date 34.0 03/21/85 <0.3 , III 15.5 Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase 15.4 7.1 7.7 Solid * <0.3 <0.25 Test Organisms IV Macmw (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.3 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 °C DO Time pH 1000 NO2 NH3 °C 00 Time pH 7.7 1530 NO2 NH3 , Sal Live Sal Live , Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I II Sample Site: Reference /Reference 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 0.25 0.25 15.2 15.3 7.2 7.0 7.7 7.7 34.0 34.0 * <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 , I 15.9 6.4 7.7 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.6 7.7 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 II 15.7 7.0 7.8 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.7 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III IV 15.8 15.8 5.3 5.5 7.7 7.7 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 0.25 0.25 15.5 15.5 7.6 7.3 7.6 7.5 34.0 34.0 * <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 , V 15.8 5.4 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.6 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.8 6.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.4 7.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.8 5.7 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.4 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.9 6.0 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.4 7.0 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.8 6.3 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 , V 15.9 6.3 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.5 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.6 5.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.3 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 5.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.4 6.9 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 6.6 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.4 7.1 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , IV 15.6 6.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.3 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.6 6.6 7.7 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.4 7.0 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I II 15.5 15.4 4.8 5.4 7.6 7.6 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 0.25 0.25 15.2 15.3 7.2 7.0 7.7 7.7 34.0 34.0 * <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 , III 15.4 4.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 0.25 15.3 7.2 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.5 4.8 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.4 6.9 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 V 15.6 5.2 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 0.25 15.4 7.0 7.8 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , * Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. Note: There was a change of water between the 1000 hra test and the 1530 hrs test. j LEI ' Appendix F. (continued) 7 ' DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 6 Date 03/26/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Nacama (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 1000 °C DO pH Sal Live I Sample Site: Reference /Reference * I 15.6 7.2 7.8 34.0 II 15.5 7.9 7.7 34.0 III 15.6 7.6 7.7 34.0 ' IV 15.6 7.5 7.7 34.0 V 15.7 5.4 7.6 34.0 Time 1500 °C DO pH Sal Live <0.3 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal 7.6 I 15.6 7.5 7.7 34.0 ' II III 15.6 15.7 7.3 7.4 7.7 7.6 34.0 34.0 <0.3 IV 15.7 7.0 7.6 34.0 7.7 V 15.8 7.1 7.7 34.0 <0.25 15.6 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.25 <0.3 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal 4.8 I 15.5 6.6 7.7 34.0 ' II 15.5 7.1 7.7 34.0 * III 15.5 7.7 7.8 34.0 7.0 IV 15.6 6.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 V 15.6 7.5 7.7 34.0 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal 15.8 I 15.4 6.9 7.6 34.0 ' II 15.4 7.0 7.6 34.0 34.0 III 15.5 7.5 7.7 34.0 15.4 IV V 15.5 15.6 7.1 7.0 7.6 7.6 34.0 34.0 Time 1500 °C DO pH Sal Live <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.2 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.0 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 4.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.1 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.0 7.8 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.1 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.1 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.1 7.8 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.3 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.8 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.4 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.7 7.8 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.2 7.8 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.5 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.5 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 7.2 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.9 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.8 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. Appendix F. (continued) I I DAILY WATER QUALITY , Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 7 Date 03/27/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 , Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Naccvna (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 0930 Time 1600 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C 00 pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.8 7.0 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 8.1 7.1 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 II 15.8 6.8 7.1 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.7 8.1 7.2 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 15.7 6.2 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.9 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.7 7.0 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.6 8.1 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 V 15.7 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 8.0 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal , I 15.9 6.5 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.7 8.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.7 6.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.8 6.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 8.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 , IV 15.9 6.0 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.8 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 V 15.9 6.7 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 8.0 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal e I 15.6 5.9 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.7 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 II 15.6 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.7 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 15.6 7.1 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.5 8.0 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.8 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.8 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.9 6.6 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.7 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 II 15.6 6.4 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.7 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , II1 15.6 6.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.6 6.6 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.6 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.8 6.5 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.8 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , * Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. Note: There was a change of water between the 0930 hrs test and the 1600 hrs test. , I I Appendix F. (continued) ' DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 8 Date 03/28/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Afacaea (Clam); Neenthes (Polychaete worm) E ' °C 00 Time pH 0900 Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO Time pH Sal 1530 Live NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: Reference /Reference <0.25 <0.3 IV 15.9 7.3 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 I 15.8 7.6 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.7 7.1 34.0 -1M <0.3 <0.25 II 15.8 7.3 7.2 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.4 7.2 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 15.7 7.4 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.3 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.7 6.1 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.7 5.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.7 6.8 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.7 6.8 7.3 34.0 II <0.3 <0.25 ' Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal 7.3 I 15.8 7.2 7.3 34.0 <0.25 ' II III 15.7 15.8 6.4 7.1 7.3 7.3 34.0 34.0 <0.25 <0.3 IV 15.9 7.3 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 V 15.9 7.5 7.5 34.0 7.4 ' <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 7.4 Sample Site: Dredge <0.3 C /Disposal <0.3 I 15.6 6.4 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 II 15.6 7.2 7.5 34.0 7.5 ' III 15.6 7.1 7.5 34.0 15.5 7.1 IV 15.7 6.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 ' V 15.8 6.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal 7.3 I 15.6 6.5 7.3 34.0 II 15.6 6.9 7.5 34.0 III 15.6 7.4 7.5 34.0 IV 15.7 6.6 7.5 34.0 ' V 15.8 6.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 6.8 7.3 34.0 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.1 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 7.4 7.4 34.0 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 7.4 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.4 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.1 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.9 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 6.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.9 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.5 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 9 Date 03/29/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Macaw (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) 10 , LJ I Sample °C DO Time pH 0900 Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C 00 Time pH Sal 1400 Live NO2 NH3 , Sample I Site: 16.4 Reference /Reference 7.5 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.2 7.6 6.9 34.0 II <0.3 <0.25 , II 16.5 7.6 7.7 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.2 7.6 6.9 34.0 7.2 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 III IV 16.5 16.5 7.6 6.2 7.7 7.6 34.0 * 34.0 * <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 16.1 16.1 7.6 7.2 7.1 7.0 34.0 34.0 * <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 , V 16.5 7.1 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.2 7.2 7.1 34.0 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 7.2 Sample Site: Oisposai /Disposal C /Disposal ' I 16.6 7.2 7.5 34.0 -1M <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.5 7.1 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 II 16.6 7.1 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.5 7.2 34,0 * <0.3 <0.25 III 16.6 7.2 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.5 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.6 7.6 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.6 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 , V 16.6 7.5 7.4 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.2 7.6 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal ' I 16.5 6.5 7.2 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.3 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.5 7.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.5 7.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.5 7.2 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.6 6.9 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.4 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.7 7.0 7.3 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.2 7.3 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 , Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.4 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.1 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.4 6.8 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.4 7.2 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , III 16.4 7.4 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 15.9 7.5 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.4 7.0 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.5 1.2 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 V 16.5 7.0 7.6 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.5 7.5 34.0 * <0.3 <0.25 , * Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. Note: There was a change of water between the 0900 hrs test and the 1400 hrs test. 11 Appendix F. (continued) DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 10 Date 03/30/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/21/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Sample Phase Solid Test Organisms Macaw (Clam); Neanthes (Polychaete worm) ' Time 0930 Time 1500 °C DO pH Sal Live NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal Live ' Sample Site: Reference /Reference 16.3 I 16.5 7.3 7.2 34.0 5.5 II 16.3 7.1 7.3 34.0 ' III 16.3 6.4 7.2 34.0 34.0 IV 16.3 6.8 7.3 34.0 34.0 V 16.3 6.0 7.2 34.0 LJ LJ L1 LJ I Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.3 6.2 7.3 34.0 II 16.3 5.5 7.2 34.0 III 16.3 6.2 7.3 34.0 IV 16.4 5.8 7.2 34.0 V 16.4 6.5 7.4 34.0 Sample Site: I 16.3 II 16.3 III 16.2 IV 16.3 V 16.4 Or, 6.1 6.3 5.8 6.6 5.6 >dge i 7.1 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.1 /Disposal 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.2 6.1 7.2 34.0 II 16.2 5.7 7.2 34.0 III 16.1 6.3 7.5 34.0 IV 16.3 5.6 7.1 34.0 V 16.3 6.4 7.3 34.0 11 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 7.6 7.3 34.0 19/19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 7.5 7.4 34.0 20/18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 7.5 7.4 34.0 20/19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 6.8 7.2 34.0 20/18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 6.9 7.4 34.0 20/18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 6.4 7.2 34.0 19/20 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 6.3 7.2 34.0 20/17 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 6.8 7.3 34.0 20/17 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 7.2 7.3 34.0 20/18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 7.1 7.2 34.0 19/18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 6.4 7.0 34.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 7.0 7.2 34.0 20/19 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.7 7.2 34.0 20/17 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 6.7 7.2 34.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.5 6.6 7.1 34.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 6.1 7.0 34.0 20117 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 6.5 7.1 34.0 20/18 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 6.9 7.0 34.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 6.7 7.0 34.0 20120 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 6.7 7.0 34.0 20117 <0.3 <0.25 * Unable to count live organisms without re- screening substrate. 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX G DAILY WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR 1 BIOACCUMULATION PHASE BIOASSAYS 1 17 1 F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix G. Daily water quality parameters for bioaccumulation phase bioassays. TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 1 Date 03/24/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/24/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Macana (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 0 hrs Time 2 hrs °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.7 6.5 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.7 6.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.5 6.5 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.3 6.3 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.1 6.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.1 6.4 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.0 6.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.1 6.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.1 6.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.1 6.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 16.2 6.3 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.9 6.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.9 6.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.9 6.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.0 6.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.1 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.0 6.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.0 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.1 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.1 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.4 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.3 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.0 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.1 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.3 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.0 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 5.3 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 5.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 5.6 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 5.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 5.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 5.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.4 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 5.6 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 I ' Appendix G. (continued) 3 ' TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay ' Day 2 Date 03/25/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/24/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game lbema (Clam) Sample Phase Sioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 1000 Time 1630 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.1 5.6 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.1 4.8 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 11 16.2 5.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 1 III 16.2 5.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.3 5.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 16.2 5.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.3 5.6 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.2 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' 11 16.4 5.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 5.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 I11 16.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 5.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.4 5.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 4.8 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.4 5.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.4 4.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal 1 16.1 5.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.9 5.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 11 16.1 5.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 111 16.1 5.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.1 5.6 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.1 5.4 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 5.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' Sample 1 Site: 16.2 Dredge 4.8 7.1 E /Disposal 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.0 5.1 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.3 5.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 4.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 111 IV 16.3 16.4 5.4 4.9 7.4 7.5 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 16.3 16.3 4.8 4.7 7.3 7.5 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 V 16.4 5.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.3 4.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' * 3/4 water change F 11 Il Appendix G. (continued) TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 3 Date 03/26/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/24/85 Client California Department of fish and Game 4 , Naccma (Clam) , Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 0830 Time 1530 ' °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C 00 pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 14.9 6.9 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.7 6.6 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.0 6.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.0 6.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 6.7 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 14.9 7.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.8 7.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 14.9 7.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.9 7.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 7.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 14.5 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.5 6.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 14.5 6.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.7 6.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 14.7 6.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 14.5 6.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.5 6.6 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 14.5 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.6 7.6 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 14.6 7.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 3/4 water change * 15.3 7.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 8.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 8.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 8.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.1 8.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.8 8.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.8 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.1 8.1 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.8 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.5 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.6 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.6 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.1 7.6 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 7.3 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.3 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 I C L _J 11 [1 rl u' I L ' Appendix G. (continued) II _J 1 I I TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 4 Date 03/27/85 Bioassay Start Date 03/24/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Nacow (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 1130 Time 1431 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.0 7.2 7.4 34.0 <O.3 <0.25 II 15.1 7.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.1 7.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 7.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.1 7.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.0 7,1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.0 7.4 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.0 7.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 7.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.1 7.4 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.1 6.7 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.1 6.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.1 6.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.1 7.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.2 7.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge 34.0 E /Disposal <0.25 ' I 15.1 7.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.1 6.8 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.2 6.8 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.2 6.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.2 6.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 J [� I 1I 15.3 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.5 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.5 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.8 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.4 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.3 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.4 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 5 Appendix G. (continued) TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 5 Date 03/28/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Nacaw (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time °C DO 0900 pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference Time °C DO 1530 pH Sal NO2 NH3 6 1 I 15.1 7.4 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.2 6.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.2 7.5 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.1 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.1 7.4 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.1 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 7.4 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.0 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 7.3 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.1 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 14.9 7.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.0 7.1 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.0 7.2 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.2 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.0 6.8 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.2 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.8 6.8 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.1 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 14.9 7.2 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.0 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.3 5.6 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.1 6.4 7.7 II 15.0 6.4 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.8 7.8 III 15.2 6.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.6 7.8 IV 15.0 6.9 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.9 7.8 V 15.0 6.9 8.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.9 7.8 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.0 6.2 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.2 6.8 7.7 II 14.8 6.4 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.4 7.7 III 14.8 6.4 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 6.5 7.8 IV 14.8 6.5 7.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 6.8 7.8 V 14.8 6.8 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 6.7 7.8 * 3/4 water change 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 1 1 I I, I I 1 I 1 I Appendix G. (continued) 7 ' ' ' Day Client Sample TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay 6 Date 03/29/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 California Department of Fish and Game Macaw (Clam) Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) ' Time 0930 Time 1530 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C 00 pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.2 6.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.2 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' II 15.2 7.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.4 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.2 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.7 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.2 7.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.0 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 15.2 7.9 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.8 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site; Disposal /Disposal I 15.1 8.4 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 8.0 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.1 8.3 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.9 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.1 6.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.0 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.9 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 7.6 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 14.8 8.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.7 7.8 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal ' I 15.0 7.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.7 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.9 6.8 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 14.9 7.4 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.9 7.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.7 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 14.9 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.3 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal ' I 15.1 7.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.9 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 7.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.1 7.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.7 6.5 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.0 7.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.7 7.6 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.1 7.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 7.5 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 I 8 1 Appendix G. (continued) TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 7 Date 03/30/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Nacama (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 1000 5.4 7.3 Time 1630 <0.25 II °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.4 5.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.4 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.3 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.3 7.7 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.3 7.7 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.2 8.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.2 8.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.1 8.1 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.2 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.4 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.2 7.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.3 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.3 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.3 6.7 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.2 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.1 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.1 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 3/4 water change " 15.4 8.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 8.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 8.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 8.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 8.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.3 8.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 8.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 8.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 8.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 8.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.3 7.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.7 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.2 7.7 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.6 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 8.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 1 1 1 1 i 1 [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ' Appendix G. (continued) ' TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 8 Date 03/31/85 Bioassay Start Date 04 /04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game ' Mecaw (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) ' Time 0930 Time 1500 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.4 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.6 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.4 7.4 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' III 15.4 7.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 7.7 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.4 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 8.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' II 15.3 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.2 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.2 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 15.3 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 8.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.4 6.6 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.7 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.2 7.7 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 7.7 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.3 7.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.3 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 5.8 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 15.4 7.3 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.5 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 t Sample I Site: 15.4 Dredge 7.1 E /Disposal 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.3 7.8 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.9 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III IV 15.2 15.2 7.4 7.7 7.6 7.7 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 14.9 14.9 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.7 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 V 15.2 7.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 I 0 Appendix G. (continued) 10 1 TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 9 Date 04/01/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Nacame (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 0800 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.2 7.5 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.2 7.9 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.2 8.1 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.2 8.1 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.2 8.2 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.2 8.1 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.2 8.2 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.9 8.2 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.9 7.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.0 7.9 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 16.2 6.9 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.9 7.8 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.0 7.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.0 6.5 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.1 7.0 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.2 7.5 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.1 7.7 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.9 7.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.0 7.8 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.9 7.1 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 3/4 water change Time 1400 °C DO pH Sal * 15.9 8.0 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 7.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 7.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 8.0 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 8.0 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.0 8.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 8.0 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 8.1 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 8.0 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 8.0 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.8 7.6 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.9 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.8 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.1 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.7 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.8 7.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.8 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.7 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 8.0 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.8 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 r 1 I I H I I I 1 I I Appendix G. (continued) ' ' ' Day Client Sample TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay 10 Date 04/02/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 California Department of fish and Game Nacane (Clam) Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) ' Time 0915 Time 1630 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 ' Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.2 5.6 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.7 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.0 5.6 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 6.0 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' III 15.9 6.6 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 6.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.9 5.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 16.0 6.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.9 7.1 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 6.8 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' II 15.9 7.1 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 6.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.8 6.2 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.7 7.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.9 6.4 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.2 6.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 16.0 6.6 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 6.5 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.8 7.2 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.0 6.6 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.9 6.2 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.5 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 16.0 5.9 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.5 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample I Site: 15.9 Dredge 7.3 7.3 E /Disposal 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 6.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.0 5.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 6.3 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 1I1 15.7 6.8 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 6.7 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.9 6.3 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.8 6.6 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 6.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 1 I 11 Appendix G. (continued) TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 11 Date 04/03/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of fish and Game Macana (Clam) Sample Phase Sioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time °C DO 0600 pH Sal Sample Site: Reference /Reference Time 1200 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH I 16.1 7.2 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.1 7.6 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.1 7.6 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.1 7.7 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.1 7.7 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 16.7 7.8 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 11 16.0 8.0 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.0 8.0 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV I5.8 7.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.0 7.8 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 16.2 7.1 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.0 7.6 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.1 7.5 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.1 5.8 6.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.1 7.4 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 16.2 7.7 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 16.1 7.6 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 16.0 7.7 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 16.1 7.9 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 16.0 7.2 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 3/4 water change 12 ' * 16.1 7.6 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.5 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.4 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.6 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.5 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.1 7.6 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.7 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 7.5 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.7 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.3 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.2 7.7 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.9 7.5 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.5 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.1 7.3 6.9 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.6 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 16.0 7.7 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.2 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.6 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.8 7.5 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16.0 7.7 7.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 1 I LJ I 1 L IAppendix G. (continued) I I CI I I� 1 I TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 12 Date 04/04/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of fish and Game Macama (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 1000 Time 1530 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C 00 pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 16.2 8.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.9 8.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.9 8.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.9 8.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.8 8.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.7 8.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.7 8.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 111 15.6 8.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.6 8.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.5 8.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal ' I 15.9 6.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.6 7.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.7 7.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.7 5.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.8 7.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge 34.0 E /Disposal <0.25 ' I 15.6 7.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.6 7.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.6 7.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.6 7.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.6 7.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 I I 15.7 7.3 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 7.2 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.3 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 7.6 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 7.7 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.7 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.5 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 7.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.1 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.2 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 7.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 13 Appendix G. (continued) TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 13 Date 04/05/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Ndeama (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 1000 Time 1400 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.5 7.5 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 7.6 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 7.6 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.5 7.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.5 7.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.4 7.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.4 7.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.3 7.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.2 7.6 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.3 7.8 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.4 6.1 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.2 7.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 7.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.3 6.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 7.4 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.3 7.3 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.2 7.6 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.2 7.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.2 7.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.3 7.1 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 3/4 water change * 15.4 8.1 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 8.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 8.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 8.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 8.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.5 8.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 8.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 8.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 '8.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.6 8.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.0 7.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 8.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 7.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 7.6 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 7.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.0 7.7 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.7 8.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 7.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 8.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.8 7.6 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14 I IAppendix G. (continued) ' TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 14 Date 04/06/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Macaw (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) ' Time 1000 Time 1330 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference 1 15.4 7.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.5 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.4 7.8 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.6 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.3 7.8 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 6.7 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 7.5 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 6.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.3 7.6 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I II 15.2 15.2 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 34,0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 15.2 15.2 6.6 6.6 7.2 7.2 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 III 15.1 6.9 7.4 34,0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.9 7.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 7.4 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.3 5.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 5.5 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.1 7.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.5 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 1II 15.2 6.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 5.8 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.2 6.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 5.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.2 6.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.2 6.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.6 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.0 7.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 5.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.0 6.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.0 7.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 5.5 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.0 6.6 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.4 7.5 34,0 <0.3 <0.25 I I 15 Appendix G. (continued) TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 15 Date 04107185 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Ndcava (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neantbes (Polychaete worm) Time 1030 Time 1630 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.2 5.8 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.3 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.2 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.2 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.2 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.2 6.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.1 6.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.0 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.9 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 14.8 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.1 4.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.9 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.2 5.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 5.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.1 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.0 5.4 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 14.9 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 14.9 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 14.9 6.4 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 14.9 5.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 314 water change * 15.5 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 5.6 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.5 5.6 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.8 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 5.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.4 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 5.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.6 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.6 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.3 5.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 5.8 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 5.6 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 16 1 I 11 I IJ I I i 11 I I I I I I 11 I h Appendix G. (continued) TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 16 Date 04/08/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Nacwne (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 1000 Time 1530 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.5 5.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 6.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.5 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.5 5.7 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.4 6.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.3 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.3 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.1 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 c0.25 V 15.2 6.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal ' I 15.5 5.3 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.3 6.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 6.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.4 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 LI IF 15.3 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal <0.25 15.4 I 15.3 5.1 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 7.3 II 15.3 6.0 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' III IV 15.2 15.2 6.4 6.1 7.4 7.3 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 V 15.2 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 LI IF 15.3 5.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 6.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <O.25 14.9 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 5.6 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.0 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.2 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 5.6 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 6.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 14.9 5.6 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 17 Appendix G. (continued) TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 17 Date 04/09/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game 18 I 1 7 L _, 1 Hacana (Clam) ' Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Nedlwvs (Polychaete worm) Time 1030 Time 1630 1 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.7 5.4 7.5 34.0 0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 5.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 5.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.5 6.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.5 5.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.5 6.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 6.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 6.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.3 6.2 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 6.0 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.6 5.8 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 1I 15.4 6.1 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 6.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.5 6.0 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.5 6.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.5 5.6 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.4 5.9 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 5.9 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 6.3 7.8 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 5.4 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 3/4 water changc. * 15.7 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.5 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.6 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.5 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 6.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.5 6.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <O.Z5 15.5 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.7 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 I' LJ i 11 F u 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 I 1 Appendix G. (continued) Day 18 TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Date 04/10/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game ' Nacaw (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism NeanMes (Polychaete worm) I I I I Time 0900 Time 1600 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C 00 pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.7 5.2 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.6 5.9 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.6 5.5 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.6 5.3 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.6 5.6 7.5 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.5 6.1 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 5.9 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 6.1 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 5.8 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 6.1 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.6 6.0 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 6.0 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.6 5.4 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.5 5.9 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 Y 15.6 5.7 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 5 15.7 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal <0.25 ' I 15.5 6.3 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 7.3 II 15.5 5.7 7.7 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 <0.3 III IV 15.4 15.5 5.7 5.6 7.7 7.7 35.0 35.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 V 15.5 6.0 7.6 35.0 <0.3 <0.25 5 15.7 5.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.2 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 5.7 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.1 6.1 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.4 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.3 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.2 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.1 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.4 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.1 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 19 Appendix G. (continued) 20 1 TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 19 Date 04/11/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Afacam (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Meanthes (Polychaete worm) Time °C DO 1015 PH Sal NO2 NH Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.7 5.6 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.7 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.6 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.6 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.6 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.6 6.3 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.6 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 I1 15.5 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.5 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.5 5.8 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.4 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 3/4 water change Time 1600 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH * 15.6 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.7 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.6 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.2 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.5 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.5 34,0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.5 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 I i I i [1 II' I Appendix G. (continued) TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 20 Date 04/12/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 Client California Department of Fish and Game Macaw (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 1000 Time 1630 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C 00 pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference I 15.6 5.6 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 11 15.6 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.5 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.6 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.6 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.4 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 5.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 5.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 FI, u J 15.6 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal <0.25 ' I 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 7.4 II 15.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' III IV 15.4 15.4 5.7 6.0 7.5 7.6 34.0 34.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.25 <0.25 V 15.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 FI, u J 15.6 5.6 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15,5 5.8 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 21 , Appendix G. (continued) zz TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY , Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay Day 21 Date 04 /13/85 Bioassay Start Date 04/04/85 ' Client California Department of Fish and Game Macaw (Clam) Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) Time 1030 Time 1630 , °C 00 pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 Sample Site: Reference /Reference ' I 15.6 5.8 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.5 5.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.6 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 , IV 15.5 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 6.0 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 5.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal , I 15.6 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.3 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 6.1 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.3 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 , Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal I 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.4 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.5 5.6 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.5 5.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 , II 15.5 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 5.7 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 5.9 7.5 34.0 <O.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 5.9 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.6 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 , * 3/4 water change Deprivation Period IAppendix G. (continued) 23 Sample Site: Dredge TWICE DAILY WATER QUALITY ' Upper Newport Dredge Bioassay 15.5 5.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 Day 22 Date 04/14/85 Bioassay Start Date <0.25 04/04/85 II 15.5 Client California Department of Fish and Game 15.4 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 5.8 7.5 34.0 Macaws (Clam) <0.25 15.5 Sample Phase Bioaccumulation Test Organism Neanthes (Polychaete worm) <0.25 IV 15.5 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.1 7.5 ' <0.3 <0.25 ' V 15.5 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.6 34.0 Time 1000 Sample Time Dredge 1600 E /Disposal °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 °C DO pH Sal NO2 NH3 <0.3 Sample Site: Reference 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 /Reference 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III I 15.7 5.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.7 6.0 7.4 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' II 15.7 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 34.0 III 15.6 5.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 6.2 IV 15.6 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.6 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Disposal /Disposal I 15.5 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.4 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.4 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.4 6.3 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.3 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.3 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 23 I 'mil Sample Site: Dredge C /Disposal ' I 15.5 5.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 5.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 IV 15.5 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.1 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' V 15.5 6.0 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 Sample Site: Dredge E /Disposal I 15.5 5.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 15.6 5.9 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 II 15.5 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.5 6.0 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 III 15.5 5.8 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 5.9 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 ' IV 15.5 6.2 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 V 15.4 6.1 7.6 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 15.4 6.2 7.5 34.0 <0.3 <0.25 * 3/4 water change ' Deprivation Period I 'mil i i �1 1 1� C. ENGINEERING REPORT .� .« .�:� ���, . _.ao-. � a .�P:tz�...��i.:�.,zcz«:..:s^v.. „�.__.iw. � - � - —''�_ ..,..� +.. _:.r= � Z :._ ° '�: .�.�.�+3 1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II ,1 '1 1 1 1 A REPORT ON THE METHODS, COSTS AND FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING UNIT II WORK 1 prepared for The City of Newport Beach 1 i I i 1 1 �i by prepared ' M. H. Cheney, Consulting Civil Engineer August, 1985 CALIMUNIA Ni%%vi,oR,r BAY EXCAVATION SITE ---------- LAND DISPOSAL SITE.- .r Ji I N\SCOW MARSHALLING AREA. 7777777777= tM POSSIBLE NEWPORT CANYON DISPOSAL SITE 1" e 1, 11-0 c it V—V 6 -L TO DISPOSAL SITE LA3 PLATE I SOUNDINGS IN FEET UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ACCOMPLISHING UNIT II WORK 2.1 General 1 2.2 Alternative I: Hydraulic dredge with land disposal 2 2.3 Alternative II: Hydraulic dredge with scow disposal 3 2.4 Alternative III: Hydraulic dredge with Newport Canyon disposal offshore 4' 2.5 Alternative IV: Clamshell dredge with scow 5 3.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 6 4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 General 7 4.2 Alternative I 8 4.3 Alternative II 9 4.4 Alternative III 10 4.5 Alternative IV 10 i UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II CONTENTS 5.0 ALTERNATIVE COSTS 5.1 General 11 5.2 Alternative I 12 5.3 Alternative II 13 5.4 Alternative III 13 5.5 Alternative IV 14 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Conclusions 14 6.2 Recommendations 15 APPENDIX I: EPA regulations for establishing new dredged material disposal sites (in this case, for using the off- shore Newport Canyon for a disposal site for Alternative III) APPENDIX II: Corps of Engineers permit for dredging The Dunes (method used is similar to Alternative II) ii ' UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' Elements of the adopted Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan provide for installation of in -Bay basins to localize ' deposition of fine sediments and to facilitate the management of such deposition. In 1982, as part of the rEarly Action Plan ", a 50 acre basin was excavated in the ' Bay below Jamboree Road. At the present time a project known as "Unit I" is underway which will enlarge and deepen the basin excavated under the "Early Action Plan" and which will result in an excavated channel downstream to the Old Salt Works dike. $3.7 million in State and local funds are now available to construct "Unit II ", which will include excavation of a basin below the Old ' Salt Works dike and channel excavation as required for construction access. ' The subject of this report is the definition and evaluation of alternative methods by which Unit II construction work may be implemented. Unit II construction work will include excavating approximately ' one -half million cubic yards (cy) of material below the old salt dike to form a sediment reservoir for future siltation and to improve hydraulic flushing action in ' Upper Newport Bay. The findings of this report will be used to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Unit II work, for budgeting purposes and in the development of plans and specifications for Unit II construction contracts. ' 2.0 ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ACCOMPLISHING UNIT II WORK 2.1 General i [1 1 Unit II work includes removing approximately 526,500 cy from the area shown on plate 1 as well necessary channel excavation to provide access for construction equipment. The area averages approximately -0.5 ft (MSL datum) at present and would be eycavated down to -8.0 ft (MSL). The configuration of the area to be excavated as well the excavated depth were determined from hydraulic studies conducted as other work elements of the overall program effort. The materials to be page 1 as as UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II I excavated, based on soils investigations also , conducted as other work elements of the overall the site for dry excavation methods. program, appear to be predominantly fine - grained with be accomplished by some sands with an estimated in -situ density of , 65 pounds /cubic foot (pcf). first method employs water as Access to the excavation site is limited to floating equipment; it is impractical to consider de- watering , the site for dry excavation methods. This constraint requires that the excavation be accomplished by dredging. Two methods of dredging are available: hydraulic cutterhead suction and clamshell. The first method employs water as a vehicle to carry the dredged material and results in a slurried mixture while the second simply employs a clamshell bucket ' operated by a crane on a deck barge to pick up material. Removal of dredged material from the dredging site is by hydraulic pipeline from a ' hydraulic dredge or by bottom dump scows from a clamshell dredge. Two sizes of dump scows have been assumed and are specified in the following ' alternatives: (1) 1000 cy, 35 ft x 150 ft, and (2) 3000 cy, 45 ft x 260 ft. The availability and suitability of a disposal site for the dredged material defines the practicability of a given , dredging alternative. It has been assumed that the equipment will work a ' 24 hour day 6 days per week. This assumption results in the most efficient and lowest unit cost operation. Since the equipment employed in each alternative must ' stay on the jobsite (the cost of mobilization for moving in and out is quite high), and the cost per day is relatively constant, the unit price for ' production is almost directly proportional to the amount of productive time allowed each day. Operations of the type described below, especially of this magnitude, typically operate on a 24 hr /day 6 day /week basis. 2.2 Alternative I: Hydraulic dredge with land disposal ' A 13 acre parcel of land between Jamboree and MacArthur has been identified as available for the ' page 2 , I IUPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II ' processing (not ultimate disposal) of dredged material. A dike 6 ft high including a return water weir would be constructed around the site to contain the dredged material (which comes out of the pipeline ' in a slurry form) and to aid in processing. Material would be dredged and pipelined to the site via hydraulic pipeline in batches to be processed (dried) ' for removal to the Coyote Canyon dump, about 3 miles away. After a batch of about 12,000 cy (the maximum amount that can be processed on a 13 acre site) is pumped onto the site, excess delivery water (clarified to meet water quality standards) would be weired from the site back into San Diego Creek and the freshly placed dredged material would be allowed ' to air dry for two weeks. After air drying, the dredged material would be aerated to reduce moisture ' content by a cat pulling a plow for a day, then allowed to air dry for 3 days, followed by another plowing for 5 consecutive plowing /drying cycles. Finally, the processed batch would be loaded and hauled by truck to the Coyote Canyon dump for ' ultimate disposal. Processing each 12,000 cy batch would require 41 days; processing the entire 526,500 cy would require 44 batches and take almost 5 ' years to complete. A second land disposal site was identified, at 22nd ' and Irvine, but its small size in a residential area and the distance and routing to the dump render it far less feasible than the Jamboree site. Therefore, 1 no detailed evaluation of this site was conducted. Construction time and costs could be reduced for the ' land disposal alternative if a larger, nearby land disposal site for permanent or even temporary processing of dredged material could be located; however, at the present time, there appear to be no ' such sites available except those mentioned above. ' 2.3 Alternate II: Hydraulic dredge with scow disposal This alternative envisions pumping hydraulically dredged material through a pipeline to a bottom dump page 3 IL UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II I scow waiting below the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. , When filled with dredged slurry, the scow would be towed out to the authorized aquatic disposal site known as LA -3. Since the dredged material is mixed , with water for hydraulic transport through the ' pipeline, only about 14% of the slurry is actual dredged solids; the remainder is transport water. This 14% results in only about 420 cy of solids being ' loaded into a 3000 cy barge for the trip to the disposal site. Put another way, it will require 1254 scow trips to the disposal site, about 7 times as many trips as would be needed if the dredged material ' were placed directly into the scows. It will require 4 scows working with 3 tugboats to keep up with the ' hydraulic dredge's production rate requiring a scow ' trip through the harbor about every 2 hours. Total project time for this alternative based on a 24 hr/day, 6 day/wk basis would be about 16 weeks. ' 2.4 Alternative III: Hydraulic dredge with Newport , Canyon disposal offshore The same hydraulic dredging setup described in the , provious 2 alternatives would be used to pump dredged material through a long pipeline routed down Upper Newport Bay on the surface, then submerged from near the Dunes to near Newport Yacht Club (to allow for ' small craft navigation), then up the slope near the public beach above Newport Yacht Club and across the peninsula (pipeline buried), then across the ocean ' beach (buried), and finally out to the head of the Newport Canyon (submerged). Two booster pumps placed in the discharge pipeline would supplement the hydraulic dredge pump to keep material flowing ' through this long line. Upon completion of the work, the pipeline would be removed except for the section crossing the peninsula which would be more disruptive ' and expensive to remove than to leave in place where it cou7 be re —used in the future. Total project time for this alternative would be about 16 weeks. 1 page 4 , I ' page 5 I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II ' 2.5 Alternative IV: Clamshell dredge with scows The use of a clamshell dredge instead of a hydraulic dredge presents both advantages and disadvantages relative to any of the above alternatives. The main advantage is that exactly what is dredged is placed into the scows for direct transport; there is no ' water that has to be handled or processed as with hydraulic pipelines. The main disadvantage is that ' the scows used require a working depth of at least -14 ft (MSL). This requirement means a channel 100 ft wide and 14 feet deep will have to be dredged to get the scows to the worksite, requiring dredging an additional 225,000 cy. The depth of dredging at the worksite will have to be increased to -14 ft from the currently planned -8 ft and itself will require dredging an additional 401,400 cy. Thus, the total amount of dredging for this alternative would be 1,153,400 cy. Also, an existing 24" water line crossing just upstream of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge at elevation -7 ft would have to be relocated; this cost has been included in an already appropriated budget, so it will not impact on the cost of this alternative. Even though this ' alternative requires a substantial increase in the amount of dredging to achieve the program's basic intent, the increase in project depth and the addition of an access channel provide significant flushing, sediment storage and recreational access benefits. Operationally, the clamshell dredge will place dredged material directly into a 1000 cy scow positioned alongside. A small tugboat and guide boat ' will hold an empty scow nearby to replace the filled scow with an empty to minimize interruption of dredging production. The filled scow will be taken ' down below the bridge to a scow marshalling area and exchanged for an empty scow which will be taken back to the dredge. The filled scow left at the marshalling area will be picked up by an ocean -going tug with a guide boat for transport to disposal site LA -3 offshore. Total project time for this 1 alternative would be about 38 weeks. ' page 5 I 3.0 UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II I I REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS The proposed dredging activity (regardless of disposal site location) will require permits from the Coastal Commission and the Corps of Engineers. Agencies that may have concerns and influence the permit process that , typically comment to these two permitting agencies include State Lands, State Fish & Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The concerns of these agencies regarding each alternative should be drawn out and addressed prior to filing permit applications. In ' the case of using a land disposal site (Alternative I), only a Coastal Commission permit is required for disposal on the land site (both Coastal Commission and Corps permits are still required for the dredging operation, however) and none of the commenting agencies is expected to have concerns. However, since return water effluent from the land disposal site will be discharged to the San ' Diego Creek, an Order for Waste Discharge Requirements will have to be secured from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which should not be a problem. Disposal of dredged material at the authorized offshore disposal site ' LA -3 requires both Coastal Commission and Corps permits. Since this site has been established by the EPA, only a bioassay test is required; provided the bioassay test doesn't indicate unacceptable results, permits are usually routinely issued for disposal of dredged material at this site. The Corps recently issued a permit for disposal of ' dredged material from the Dunes dredging project for LA -3 with dredging and disposal to be conducted similarly to Alternative II (hydraulic dredge with scows); a copy of this permit is included in the Appendices for reference. ' Disposal of dredged material into a new offshore site (one ' not previously established by the EPA) such as is proposed in Alternative III, where dredged material would be pumped into the Newport Canyon, would re�..ire not only Coastal Commission and Corps permits, but establishment of the ' site as a disposal site by the EPA. Although permitting of such disposal is done through the Corps permit process, actual designation of the site is done by the EPA through page 6 ' I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II I the Corps permit process; i.e. the Corps is prevented from issuing the permit unless EPA concurs in the designation. The EPA requires a substantial amount of information to ' decide on site designation as called for in it's Section 404(b)l guidelines pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Section 103 guidelines pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Act. The EPA requires that all the information developed pursuant to these guidelines be-put in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and processed under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines as ' part of the Corps permit process (a portion of the 404(b)l guideline information requirements is included in the Appendices as an indication of the types of information ' and hence the degree of effort required). It is estimated that the processing time to reach a decision (to issue a permit or not) for establishing the Newport Canyon as a ' disposal site could be 3 to 4 years and cost several hundred thousand dollars in research and processing (paperwork and public hearings) effort. For these reasons, it appears that Alternative III cannot be ' considered a short term option or even a long term option, even though it offers certain advantages, unless there is a commitment made to pursue the site designation and ' permit process. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ' 4.1 General This section contains detailed descriptions and assumptions made regarding the operational characteristics of each alternative. It should be borne in mind that each contractor has different equipment and different overhead and union contracts, so none may actually employ the operations indicated; however, all of the equipment assumed is available on the west coast and represents a reasonable and practical basis for operational assumptions. These assumptions and descriptions formed the bases for preparing the cost estimates in the next section of this report and provide additional insight into how each alternative might be performed. page 7 I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II , 4.2 Alternative I: Hydraulic dredging with land disposal , 4.2.1 Equipment: 2 days , - one 16" hydraulic dredge days - 8,000 ft 16"-pipeline days ' - one cat tractor with plow (disposal site) ' - dne 2.5 cy front loader (disposal site) days ' - nine 18 cy trucks (disposal site to dump) 4.2.2 Operation: ' - mobilization: partially move all equipment to disassemble and reassemble jobsite; dredge , to move under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge; assemble pipeline; de -mob & clean up - construct 6 ft dike and weir structure to prepare disposal site - conduct dredging on 12,000 cy batch basis for , 44 batch cycles - cycle elements: , • dredge: 2 days • settle and air dry: 14 days • plowing /drying: 20 days ' • truck to dump: 5 days total 41 days ' 1 page 8 ' I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1_l C UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II 4.3 Alternative II: Hydraulic dredging with scow disposal 4.3.1 Equipment - one 16" hydraulic dredge - 16,000 ft 16" pipeline (to below bridge) - marshalling composite barge (400' x 30' below bridge secured by spuds) - four 3000 cy bottom dump scows - one guide boat (to handle scow bows) - three ocean tugs (transport scows to disposal site and back to marshalling area) 4.3.2 Operation - mobilization: move all equipment to jobsite; partially disassemble and reassemble dredge to move under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge; assemble pipeline; assemble and position marshalling barge and pipeline terminus "Y" valve setup; de -mob and clean up - assume dredge production rate 263 cy /hr; 148 in -situ solids by volume = 420 cy /3000 cy scow = 1 hr 40 min scow loading time - assume "Y" valve at marshalling barge to minimize dredge production interruption for switching from a full scow to an empty; assume 10 min for switch; therefore net filling time /3000 cy scow (420 cy payload) = 1 hr 50 min = 230 cy /hr net production - round trip tow time to dump site: . through harbor @ 2.5 kts: 60 min 1 . open water to dump @ 6.0 kts: 45 min . dump: 15 min . open water to harbor @ 6.0 kts: 45 min 1 . through harbor @ 2.5 kts: 60 min . unhitch /make -up new scow: 30 min i 1 1 page 9 total time 4 hr 15 min i UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II ' - since scow loading time = 1 hr 40 min, need 3 tugs and scows in cycle, all moving, to keep up with scow loading rate plus one additional ' scow at marshalling barge being loaded 4.4 Alternative III: Hydraulic dredge with Newport i Canyon disposal offshore 4.4.1 Equipment ' - one 16" hydraulic dredge - two in -line booster pumps ' - 23,400 ft 16" line 4.4.2 Operation ' - mobilization: move all equipment to jobsite; partially disassemble and reassemble dredge to move under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge; assemble pipeline; cut through streets on peninsula and bury sleeve pipeline, patch streets; jack dredge pipeline through sleeve; ' de -mob and clean up - dredge at rate of 230 cy /hr into Newport Canyon ' as disposal site 4.5 Alternative IV: Clamshell dredge with scows i 4.5.1 Equipment - one clamshell dredge on deck barge with moving equipment (anchors /winches); 5 cy bucket - marshalling composite barge (400' x 30' below bridge secured by spuds) - three 1000 cy bottom dump scows ' - one small tugboat i page 10 i i I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II I I- one large tugboat 1 5.0 ALTERNATIVE COSTS - two guide boats (to handle scow bows) 4.5.2 Operation I - mobilization: move all equipment to jobsite; assemble crane and move onto deck barge; assemble marshalling barge'and secure; re- locate waterline upstream of bridge; de -mob and clean up - commence dredging near bridge as required to achieve 14 ft access channel; work towards main dredging area ' - assume dredge production rate = 210 cy /hr; filling 1000 cy scow = 4 hr 45 min - tug /scow cycle from marshalling area to disposal site and return same as Alternate II = 4 hr 15 min < 4 hr 45 min loading time, OK ' - tug /scow cycle from dredge to marshalling area 2 hr 35 min @ 3.0 kts < 4 hr 45 min loading time, OK (also allows flexibility to work tidal fluctuations in case scow draft is deeper than access channel depth at extreme low tide) 1 5.0 ALTERNATIVE COSTS Ipage 11 I 5.1 General The following cost estimates are based on August 1985 unit prices and reflect current contractor costs including approximately 15% overhead and 15% profit. Actual bid prices may vary from these estimates depending on union relationships, equipment availability, fuel prices and constraints which may be imposed on the work which have not been considered at this time (e.g. less than 24 hr /day, 6 day /week work schedule, excessive noise or air quality requirements ' or restricted movement in the harbor). No provision Ipage 11 I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II has been made in these estimates for contract administration, engineering, permitting, testing, surveying or monitoring; the costs indicated reflect what can be expected as hard construction bid prices only. 5.2 Alternative I: Hydraulic dredging with land disposal 5.2.1 Mobilization 5.2.2 Prepare disposal site (dike, weir) 5.2.3 Process 1 batch (12,000 cy) - dredge 12,000 cy @ $2.10 $ 25,200 - dredge standby 39 days @ $1200 /day 46,800 - plowing 5 days @ $650 /day 3,250 - plow standby 15 days @ $200 /day 3,000 - excavate & load trucks 12,000 cy @ $0.55 /cy. 0,600 - truck to dump 12,000 cy @ $3.38/cy 40,600 - spread, light compaction at dump 12,000 cy @ $1.10 /cy 13,200 total per batch $138,650 subtotal for 44 batches I r I I S 60,000 34,800 r 6,100,600 subtotal $6,195,400 + 10 % contingency TOTAL $6,815,000 unit cost @ 526,500 cy = 12.94/cy page 12 Il I I I r 1 r UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II 5.3 Alternative II: Hydraulic dredging with scow disposal 5.3.1 Mobilization $ 150,000 5.3.2 Dredging - dredge 526,500 cy @ $2.40 /cy 1,263,600 - 4 3000 cy scows @ $1270 /day for 95 working days 482,600 - 3 tugboats @ $5940 /day for 95 working days 1,692,900 - 1 guideboat @ $1620 /day for 95 working days 153,900 subtotal $3,743,000 + 10 8 contingency TOTAL $4,117,000 unit cost @ 526,500 cy = $7.82/cy 5.4 Alternative III: Canvon disposal 9raulic dredge with Newport shore 5.4.1 Mobilization $ 312,000 5.4.2 Sleeve through peninsula 46,700 5.4.3 Dredge 526,500 cy @ $2.40 /cy for dredge + $1.90 /cy for boosters 2,264,000 subtotal $2,622,700 + 10% contingency TOTAL $2,885,000 unit cost @ 526,500 cy = $ 5.4E /cy page 13 I I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II r 5.5 Alternative IV: Clamshell dredge with scows 5.5.1 Mobilization $ 75,000 5.5.2 Dredging — dredge @ $7140 /day for 229 days 1,635,100 — 3 1000 cy scows @ $660 /day for 229 days 453,400 — 1 ocean tugboat @ $5940 /day for 229 days 1,360,300 — 1 small tugboat @ $3100 /day for 229 days 709,000 — 1 guideboat @ $1620 /day 371,000 $4,603,800 subtotal + 108 contingency $5,064,000 , TOTAL unit cost @ 526,500 cy = $9.62 cy = $4.39/cy unit cost @ 1,153,400 cy 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Conclusions Alternative I, land disposal, presents both the highest unit cost and the highest total cost; it would require an inordinate amount of time to' complete the work because of the small size of the land disposal site and rehandling requirements (the processed dredged material would have to by trucked_. to the dump for ultimate disposal). Also, it is ' questionable whether the local streets could safely and reliably support the 29,250 truckloads required for final transport of the dredged material to the dump. This alternate is clearly much less desireable page 14 1 1 Ipage 15 I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II than any of the other alternates; however, if for some reason disposal at aquatic site LA -3 is not allowed, this would be the only feasible alternative. Alternative II, hydraulic dredging with scow disposal at disposal site LA -3, presents the lowest total cost for a method that is presently feasible; the unit cost is the second highest, however. The main drawbacks to this alternate are that large scows (3000 cy or bigger) will have to be used in tight quarters, and a large number of scow trips, mainly hauling water, will have to be made (1254 scow trips for the 526,500 cy). Alternative III, hydraulic dredging with disposal in the offshore Newport Canyon, presents the lowest total price, but is infeasible in the short term (and possibly in the long term, if the Canyon is not approved) due to expensive and time consuming regulatory requirements. Alternative IV, clamshell dredging with scow disposal to disposal site LA -3, presents the lowest unit price considering the great amount of material dredged, but the total price is somewhat higher than Alternative III, the only other feasible alternative. There are significant advantages to conducting the additional dredging required with this alternative, however, and considering these advantages, it would appear that this alternative is the most cost effective of all the alternatives. It will require 1153 scow trips in 1000 cy scows for this alternative to dredge 1,153,400 cy compared to 1254 trips in 3000 cy scows to dredge 526,500 cy for Alternative II. 6.2 Recommendations It is recommended that implementation of Unit II work be done by open bidding that will allow either Alternate II or Alternate IV methods to be employed. This could be accomplished by specifying alternate areas and depths to be dredged that would envelope a Ipage 15 I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM: UNIT II range from the 526,500 cy of Alternate II to the 1,153,400 cy of Alternate IV. Disposal site LA -3 must be specified in any case. Permits should be obtained that allow either method and the maximum amount of work. [A I 11 I I I I I page 16 a I I 71 I 1 I I APPENDIX I L lJ I H I I I I L 11 I L That this permit may not be transferred to • third party wfWeua Prfor wrens. eeuu m awe the transferees written agreement to comply with all arms and conditions of this permit or by the transferree eubscrmine ao this permit in the space provided below and thereby agreeing to comply with all corms and conditions of this permit. In addi- tion. if the parmittee transfers the interests authorized herein by conveyance of realty, the deed shall reference this permit and the terms and conditions specified herein and this permit shall be recorded along with the deed with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official. u. That if the permittee during prosecution of the work authorized herein, encounters a previously unidentified ax, cheological or other cultural resource within the use subject to Department of the Army jurisdiction that might be eligible for Hating in the National Register of Historic Places, he shall immediately notify the district engineer. If. Special Conditions: tHare list conditions relating specifically to the Proposed structure or work authorized by this permitl: 1 a. That the permittee shall strictly adhere to the plans and specifications, particularly on the west boundary where the mudflats have been identified. b. That the permittee shall send a drawing of the completed project to the D.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Survey, Marine Chart Division, ATTN: N /CG222, 6001 Executive Blvd, Rockville, Maryland 20852, to revise affected nautical charts. c. That the permittee shall control floating debris, from construction activities, so that none enters the navigable portions of the harbor. d. That the permittee shall submit, at the completion of ocean disposal, the enclosed disposal report to the Regulatory Branch, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers. e. That the applicant will submit results of sand grain compatibility studies to the Corps of Engineers. A determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) will be made prior to depositing sands on to the beach /swimming area. f. That the permittee shall notify the Commander (oan) 11th Coast Guard District, Union Bank Building, 400 Oceangate, Long Beach, CA 90822, (213) 590 -2222 at least 2 weeks prior to start of the activity and 30 days if buoys are to be placed. g. That the permittee shall submit plans for the placement of the sludge material pipeline to the Regulatory Branch, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers for approval prior to placement of the structure. Guidelines established by the ' city, county and local boating interests shall be considered when planning the pipeline location. h. That the permittee shall notify the U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, (Los Angeles/Long Beach) 24 hours prior to dumping of dredged material at the disposal site, at (213)590 -2340. (Note: All ocean dumping permits will be sent to the Captain of the Port). /// LI a 3 J The following Spacial Conditions will be applicable when appropriate STRUCTURES IN OR AFFECTING NAVIOARLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATM a. That this permit don not authorize the interference with any existing or proposed Federal project and that the permittee W" not be entitled to compensation for damage or injury to the structures or work authorized herein which may be caused by or result from existing or future operations undertaken by the United States in the public interest. Is. That no attempt shall be made by the permittea to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable with" at or adjacent to the activity authorized by this permit. c. That if the display of lights and signals on may structure or work authorized herein is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be prescribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained by sad at the "pen" of the permittn. d. That the permittn, upon receipt of a notice of "vocation of this permit or upon its expiration before completion of the authorized structure or work, sh&M without expense to the United States and in such time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore the waterway to its former conditions. If the permidee fails to com• ply with the direction of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized "presentative, the Secretary or his designee may restore the wetseway to itsiormar condidou, by contract or otherwise, and mover the cost thereof from the permitter. s. Structures for Small Baste That permittse hereby recognize* the possibility that the structure permitted herein may be subject to damage by wave wash from passing vessels. The issuance of this permit don not relieve the permittse from taking all proper steps to insure the integrity of the structure permitted herein and the safety of bate moored tha "to from damage by wave wash and the permittes shall not hold the United States liable for any such damns MAINTENANCE DREDOINOt , e, That when the work authorized herein includes periodic maintanencs dredging, it may be performed under this permit for Henn years from the date of issuance of this permit (ten years artless othemiss indicated): b. That the permittes will advise the District Engineer in writing at least two weeks before he intends to undertake any . meinthnmace dredging. . DISCHARGES OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: a. That the diachmrge will be carried out in conformity with the goals and objectives of the EPA Guidelines established pur- suant ta Section 404(6) of the Clean Water Act and published in 40 CFA 230: Is. That the discharge will consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. c. That the fill crested by the discharge will be properly maintained to prevent erosion and other non-point sources of pollu• tioiL .. ...: .. .. .c 1 - I .... , .. .. .. - .. : :r7 7 DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATERS: a. That the disposal will be carried out in conformity with the goals, objectives, and requirements of the EPA criteria established pureuaut to Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, published in 40 CFR 224 228. b. That the permittm shall place a copy of this permit is a conspicuous place in the vessel W be used for the transportation "odor disposal of the dredged material as authorised herein. This permit shall become effective on the data of the District Engineer's signature. Permitts ha "by ac 'cpea�and regress to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. , PERMITTEE DATE C. R. Nelson, Director of Public Works, EKA BY AUTHORITY OF ThUrtCRETARY OF THE ARMY: ' W"'-v'l July 3, 1985 Robert L. Wagner, L• eutenant Colonel DATE 0157RICT ENGINEER, U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ' Transfers hereby agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit _ TRANSFEREE DATE 4 � JNTY of 2 I—IRAY S OIRECTO C. R. NE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC I Report of Ocean Dumping Permits — CY 1. Issuing Authority: Division District 2. Permit start date /expire date: Permittee: IDate issued: Permit No. Start Date: Expiry Date: 3. Country of origin of wastes and port of loading: a. United States of America b. 4. Specification of dredged material and process from 'which derived: a. Description: ._b. Bode of dredging: c. Node of transportation: 5. Form in which dredged material is presented for disposal: b. Total quantity (cubic meters): T. Expected frequency of dumping (for reporting period): a. b. Actual start: c. Actual completion: 8. .Qhm1083 s compoaliion: 9. Properties of dredged material: Solubility (1 a. water) b. Density (gm/cc) '. c. pH d. 1 sand 1 silt i clay 10` Method of packaging: 11. Hethol of release: 12.' Procedure and site for tank washing: 13.. Approved dumping site: a. Geographical (latitide longitude): position and , b. nth of water (meters): c. Distance from nearest coast (kilometers): 1+1. Additional information: I u I I I I I �J A I I N \ '1 / '0 1 al jr// e� 'a 1 3: � a 1, 8 I K y l J G= cza LZ� s• t .4 5E� SMSST fiZ Got S�GT�oNy CL' r 'trr- r IN UPPEM KART DAY IWOWCP G xwrf OF Cam, STA-M CP G!NLW- XrrL &Tla4 w COLUTY CF CZA"G�. � T (o.oc. P%-m: $/4bi/64 �S �3. i -S 0 -5 ZpMt' -� –ay -10 -- s 5cr , 0— . -5 �� as Av 't 'gr v.►a,as, -970 -7 ��� r ■L. �I.S ,Ojtt7r7 SecT O - ,fry., a.s •s _ 7 - {s 0 -5 p sscr —> s reL. -7 t 5� T. HJ UPP= fly= 0.►Y N CAW CP MEW P ;¢ I MACH C Xwff OP cu &, STa-M Cr- CA4.1a /.t'/LY K*4 w caAm CF CL� �T -+. Aw.-+ v .-M-. a/si lAe, �rl Li I - : I I I I I L I i : A I ILI I ILI I I li 5 E- CT I Ot��L C I . 75CTIO1.1 n 7 BL. --7 �7 SECTION (7:\ \Z/ W F"T FWPOSW MaDalw. — 1w Upplam mempmr "Y 64 C411 OP MWWPmr eaAC14 eouwy cw 02 -moot STATe M CALUM. 4Mr.&TK*j of couwry OF CV.UJza P%TNL'. 01,011434 I My TC 61 L�hJE - SEW '&WT. 'S o )� -� N o 2tt�� _3 1 \ WA i ST. 1 LA600�i ' f o _s / A / o -4 � ( soo O aco 1 awT / APPWA- 140,000 cu.YC. OP SILT. GV►Y 410"0 TO PSG pup DIS"" kT O6f&0,4 VUN G 9rf " W¢PaG: WAfY.►L RIfG1L2�T�or.s rwpoeeD MIRDGIN* pATOM: MRAW L MM LOW WATwf1 IN UPPMM NEWFOroLT DA.Y - AD.>pC64.7i LGSS�S 1Q wr*wFmT mmius 11--4, N Cal OR NtMIPO¢T C6ACH © JAAR(►!A DUWBS K4CUT AWCWOaAGS G wry OF 0 """$ STA611! CF CAI-MC. © DE A+JiA FW0510a VILLA" q/'PL"T1004 Wf Wuwry of CffAi Gr &4WT3.gw } w.Ta: a /ei /&4 F I I I i I l i 0 6`{14T. AC t�6 GNSr.t�.1l L. r� 1 � 3 t 7a.Xt5T. K.¢1Na � r $MONO :W4T, p�ULKMW.17 t`HST. f3c�T 4uvS O G 2 _ M,d¢Iti.IA PLLa1J J ��5 y tw�.rcu vue �� eea 4NT. 2 P MAN 4 INt7lor-A vQ qrL s 01tn4ACISO w"s (4MMOVaSD W140a& I4ff4L"YSA MY) PaOJBCT 4ITB -- NWY. NO. i u LOCAL VIGILIITY MAP I._ 7 FCOPCOMD GREGGIt.•X N UFPM¢ %VNFOIZT CAY IW 01W OF NIWwaT CFI [OUWrf OR OQariA, STA-M Cr- CALIF i rr1Ar TK*j W oxww OF cz"jGa a1lWTy.s + AATi: 61,54A4 r. That if the recording of this permit is possible under applicable Stateor local lstr, the permittee shall :site auto action as , may be necessary to record this permit with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the respooai[dity fort jei-uining records of title to and interests in real property. •t J UPPER NEWPORT BAY r— r 1 oast "Olt I rl.uar _BOAT DOCK POL �—i ' �►�� \ °,w AREA @OLD" IMO\ Q UMO• Ist. � N )�1 1 C It NEWPORT DUNES a e LAGOON O 9 I J /(I •lk U M E V a' I 0 If _a ° ffU' •tar wfar pw► pslra 4a ~ J f P i � s.rsloE �/ 2 � �^• asps •sa ��bbrr \� _ e f% AR Q° , wD ^ PQOP05ED OREDGIPi� -, `\ IW UPPER 11 ewpotLT ewr \ ` 4— S IW CTTY CF IJEWPMT MACH , AM 4 en GOW+KOF OWAIw"j STATE Lr- CAL w. 4MCATIOW W C L*JTf OF 0¢ .+.Iss , 6�1!•8T(.a.� PA.TSt SAWMd II 1 1 f 1 i. t �w tlSFb'' L 6tT'!! 60� WN/ 7117 �� -3 VICINITY MAP •... • ye w o"6.s s N ►ssr FriOm' N.O.S. C.A^aT IS 144 ON 34ir P¢DPOSP� CQ� Or l ill M UPPCR Kev4FVW 9k4Y MJ GITf op WEWPG¢T COACH CDL*Jrf ow OSAM:s, OT&M OF CAL +s /Arm.rA,rK*J w gzuwTY of CZAR -1 in Upper Newport Bay, Pacific Ocean/ // I at Newport Beach, Orange County, California /// ' in accordance with the plane and drawings attached hereto which are incorporated in and made a pen of this permit (on draw - Nameol Applicant rnuntY Qf Orange, F M A~__— .___ —_ Effective Dole July 3, 1985 Expiration Date(ffapp4cablc) July 3, 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DATED: AUGUST 31, 1984 PERMIT , Referring to written request dated Sa;ltamhve♦ " 1994 forapermitto: IX I Perform wort[ in or affecting nayigable waters of the United States. upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, pursuant to Section 30 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March2, 1999133 U.S. C. 4(13): IX) Discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States upon the issuance of a permit from the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 133 U.S. C. 13441; (X) Transport dredged materiel for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters upon the issuance of a permit from the , Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972186 Star. 2052; P.L. 92532); County of Orange, E.M.A. ATTN: C.R. Nelson ment may consider appropriate, whether or not this permit has been previously modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in Director of Public Works Post Office Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92722 -4048 , is hereby authorized by the Secretary of the Army: 1 to (a) dredge and remove 3 -5 ft. (120,000 - 150,000 cu. yds.) of silt from lagoon and marina, (b) dispose of dredged materials at EPA interim dumpsite LA -3, and (c) deposit 18,000 cu. yds. of clean sand onto beach slopes /// in Upper Newport Bay, Pacific Ocean/ // I at Newport Beach, Orange County, California /// ' in accordance with the plane and drawings attached hereto which are incorporated in and made a pen of this permit (on draw - insa, site fW number or other definite identification starts.) "PROPOSED DREDGING' SH MS: i THROUGH 7 DATED: AUGUST 31, 1984 , subject to the following conditions: 1. General Conditions: a. That all activities identified and authorized herein shall be conaistant with the karma and conditions of this permit: and that any activities not specifically identified and authorized herein ohs)) constitute a violation of the bane and conditions of this permit which may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this permit, in whole or in part, as met larch more specifically in General Conditions j or k hemp, and in the institution of such legal proceedings as the United States Govern- ment may consider appropriate, whether or not this permit has been previously modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in PAM EN G FORM 1721, Sep 82 EDITON OF t JUL 77 IS OBSOLETE IM IIl4 }.!W/ 1 , IJ f. That the permittee agrees that he will prosecute the construction or work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any degradation of water quality. g. That the permittea shall allow the District Eaginser or his authorized repressotativehs) or designeefa) to make periodic in. spections at any time deemed necessary in order to assure that the activity being performed under authority of this permit is in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed herein. k. That the permittee shall maintain the structure or work authorized herein in good condition and in reasonable sc- eordsnu wick the plum and drawings attached hereW. L That this permit dose not convey say property rights, either in teal setate or material, or any exclusive privileges: and that it does not authorize any injury to property or invasion of right& or any infringement of Federal. State, or local laws or regulations. 1 j. That this permit does not obviate the requirement to obtain state or local assent required by law for the activity authoriz- ed herein. k. That this permit may be either modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part pursuant to the policies and pro - ceduras of 33 CFR 325.1. I. That in issuing this permit, the Government has relied on the information and data which the permittee has provided in connection with his permit applicatiam It, subsequent to the issuance of this permit, such information sad date prove to be materially false, materially incomplete or inaccurate, this permit may he modified, suspended or revoked, in whole or in pan. and/or the Government may, in addition. institute appropriate legal proceedings. m. That any modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit shall not be the basis for any claim for damages against the United States. n. That the perntittas shall notify the District Engineer at what time the activity authorized herein will be commenced, as far in advance of the time of commencement as the District Engineer may specify, and of any suspension of work, if for a period of more than one week, resumption of work and its completion. o. That if the activity authorized herein in not completed on or before t day of f ,19� f� f.� .1 rAne yra" from at date of issuance of Oda permtt unless other ise specified) this permit, if not previously revoked or specifically extended, shall automatically expire. p. That this permit dove not authorise or approve the construction of particular structures. the authorization or approval of which may require authorisation by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal Government. q. That if and when the permittaa desires to abandon the activity authorized herein, unless such abandonment is part of a transfer procedure by which the permittee is transferring his intarests herein to a third party pursuant to General Condition t hereof, he must restore the use to a condition satisfactory to the District Engineer. • r. That if the recording of this permit is possible under applicable State or local law, the permittes shall take such action as may be necessary to record this permit with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsiF ility for maintaining records of title to and intereeta io real pro ny. b. That all activities authorized herein shall, if they involve, during their construction or operation, any discharge of Pollutants into waters of the United States or ocean wagers, be at all times consistent with applicable water quality standards, effluent limitations and standards of performance. prohibitions, pretreatment standards and management practices establish• ad pursuant to the Clean Water Act 489 U.S.C. 19441, the Marine Protection. Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1912(P.L. 92.592, 88 Stag. 1062). or pursuant to applicable State and local law. c. That when the activity authorized herein involves a discharge during its construction or operation, or say pollutant (iarludtae dmaled or All material). into waters of the United Staten, the authorized activity shall, if applicable water quality elan. duds us revised or modified during the term of this permit, be modified. if necessary, to conform with such revised or modified water quality standards within 6 months of the effective date of any revision or modification of water quality standards, or ea directed by an implementation plan contained in inch revised or modified standards, or within such longer period of time ea the District Engineer, in consultation with the Regional Administrator of the Environmental protection Agency, may determine to be reasonable under the circumstances. d. That the discharge will not destroy a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, u endanger the critical habitat of such species. e. That the permittee agrees to make every reasonable effort to prosecute the construction or operation of the work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact on fish, wildlife, and natural environmental values. f. That the permittee agrees that he will prosecute the construction or work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any degradation of water quality. g. That the permittea shall allow the District Eaginser or his authorized repressotativehs) or designeefa) to make periodic in. spections at any time deemed necessary in order to assure that the activity being performed under authority of this permit is in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed herein. k. That the permittee shall maintain the structure or work authorized herein in good condition and in reasonable sc- eordsnu wick the plum and drawings attached hereW. L That this permit dose not convey say property rights, either in teal setate or material, or any exclusive privileges: and that it does not authorize any injury to property or invasion of right& or any infringement of Federal. State, or local laws or regulations. 1 j. That this permit does not obviate the requirement to obtain state or local assent required by law for the activity authoriz- ed herein. k. That this permit may be either modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part pursuant to the policies and pro - ceduras of 33 CFR 325.1. I. That in issuing this permit, the Government has relied on the information and data which the permittee has provided in connection with his permit applicatiam It, subsequent to the issuance of this permit, such information sad date prove to be materially false, materially incomplete or inaccurate, this permit may he modified, suspended or revoked, in whole or in pan. and/or the Government may, in addition. institute appropriate legal proceedings. m. That any modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit shall not be the basis for any claim for damages against the United States. n. That the perntittas shall notify the District Engineer at what time the activity authorized herein will be commenced, as far in advance of the time of commencement as the District Engineer may specify, and of any suspension of work, if for a period of more than one week, resumption of work and its completion. o. That if the activity authorized herein in not completed on or before t day of f ,19� f� f.� .1 rAne yra" from at date of issuance of Oda permtt unless other ise specified) this permit, if not previously revoked or specifically extended, shall automatically expire. p. That this permit dove not authorise or approve the construction of particular structures. the authorization or approval of which may require authorisation by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal Government. q. That if and when the permittaa desires to abandon the activity authorized herein, unless such abandonment is part of a transfer procedure by which the permittee is transferring his intarests herein to a third party pursuant to General Condition t hereof, he must restore the use to a condition satisfactory to the District Engineer. • r. That if the recording of this permit is possible under applicable State or local law, the permittes shall take such action as may be necessary to record this permit with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsiF ility for maintaining records of title to and intereeta io real pro ny. I I Li lJ 1_! APPENDIX II I 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 1 I I 'J I I L I I 1 I 5 -85338 Federal Register C Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 230 (WH -FRL 2647 -71 Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Rule. SUMMARY: The 4W(b)(1) Guidelines are the substantive criteria used in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These Guidelines revise and clarify the September 5, 1975 Interim final Guidelines regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States in order to: (1) Reflect the 1977 Amendments of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA): (2) Correct inadequacies in the interim final Guidelines by filling gaps in explanations of unacceptable adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems and by requiring documentation of compliance with the Guidelines; and (3) Produce a final rulemaking document. EFFECTIVE DATE: These Guidelines will apply to all 404 permit decisions made after March 23, 1981. In the case of civil works projects of the United States Army Corps of Engineers involving the discharge of dredged or fill material for which there is no permit application or permit as such, these Guidelines will apply to all projects on which construction or dredging contracts are issued. or on which dredging is initiated for Corps operations not performed under contract, after October 1. 1981. In the case of Federal construction projects meeting the criteria in section 404(r), these Guidelines will apply to all projects for which a final environmental Impact statement Is filed with EPA after April 1. 1981. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.' Joseph Krivak. Director, Criteria and Standards Division (WH -585), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (20Z) 755-0100. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The section 404 program for the evaluation of permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material was originally enacted as part of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972. The section authorized the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers to issue permits specifying disposal sites in accordance with the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Section 404(b)(2) allowed the Secretary to issue permits otherwise prohibited by the Guidelines, based on consideration of the economics of anchorage and navigation. Section 404(c) authorized the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to prohibit or withdraw the specification of a site, upon a determination that use of the site would have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies. . shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. Under section 404(b)(1), the Guidelines are to be based on criteria comparable to those in section 403(c) of the Act, for the territorial seas, contiguous zone, and oceans. Unlike 403(c), 404 applies to all waters of the United States. Characteristics of waters of the United States vary greatly, both from region to region and within a region. There is a wide range of size, flow, substrate, water quality, and use. In addition, the materials to be discharged, the methods of discharge, and the activities associated with the discharge also vary widely. These and other variations make it unrealistic at this time to arrive at numerical criteria or standards for toxic or hazardous substances to be applied on a nationwide basis. The susceptibility of the aquatic ecosystem to degradation by purely physical placement of dredged or fill material further complicates the problem of arriving at nationwide standards. As a result, the Guidelines concentrate on specifying the tools to be used in evaluating and testing the impact of dredged or fill material discharges on waters of the United States rather than on simply listing numerical pass -fail points. The first section 404(6)(1) Guidelines were promulgated by the Administrator in Interim final form on September S, 1975, after consultation with the Corps of Engineers. Since promulgation of the interim final Guidelines, the Act has been substantially amended. The Clean Water Act of 1977 established a procedure for transferring certain permitting authorities to the states, exempted certain discharges from any section 404 permit requirements, and gave the Corps enforcement authority. These amendements also increased the importance of the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, since some of the exemptions are based on alternative ways of applying the Guidelines. These changes, plus the experience of EPA and the Corps in working with the interim final Guidelines, have prompted a revision of the Guidelines. The proposed revision attempted to reorganize the Guidelines, to make it clearer what had to be considered in evaluating a discharge and what weight should be given to such considerations. The proposed revision also tightened up the requirements for the permitting authority's documentation of the application of the Guidelines. After extensive consultation with the Corps, the proposed revisions were put out for public comment (44 FR 54222. September 18, 1979). EPA has reviewed, and, after additional consultation with the Corps, revised the proposal in light of these comments. This preamble addresses the significant comments received, explains the changes made in the regulation, and attempts to clear up some misunderstandings which were revealed by the comments. Response to Significant Comments Regulation Versus Guideline A number of commenters objected to the proposed Guidelines on the grounds that they were too "regulatory." These commenters argued that the term "guidelines" which appears in section 404(b)(1) requires a document with less binding effect than a regulation. EPA disagrees. The Clean Water Act does not use the word "guideline" to distinguish advisory information from regulatory requirements. Section 404(6)(2) clearly demonstrates that Congress contemplated that discharges could be "prohibited" by the Guidelines. Section 403 (which is a model for the 404 (b)(1) Guidelines) also provides fur "guidelines" which are clearly regulatory in nature. Consequently, we have not changed the regulation to make it simply advisory. Of course, as the regulation itself makes clear, a certain amount of flexibility is still intended. For example, while the ultimate conditions of compliance are "regulatory ", the Guidelines allow some room for judgment in determining what must be done to arrive at a conclusion that those conditions have or have not been met. See, for example, § 230.8 and § 230.60, and introductory sentence in 11230.10. Statutory Scheme and How the Guidelines Fit Into It A number of commenters with objections appeared confused about EPA's role in the section 404 program. Some wondered why EPA was issuing Guidelines since EPA could stop an unacceptable discharge under section 404(c). Others were uncertain how the I Federal Register / Vol. 45..No. 749 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 /" Rules and Regulations 85337 . I Guidelines related to other serlion 404 regulations. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material except in compliance with section 404. Section 404 sets up a procedure for issuing permits specifying discharge sites. Certain discharges (e.g. emergency repairs, certain farm and forest roads, and other discharges identified in sections 404(f) and (r)) are exempted from the permit requirements. The permitting authority (either the Corps of Engineers or an approved State program) approves discharges at particular sites through application of the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which are the substantive criteria for dredged and fill material discharges tinder the Clean Water Act. The Corps also conducts a Public Interest Review, which ensures that the discharge will comply with the applicable requirements of other statutes and be in the public interest. The Corps or the State, as the case may be, must provide an opportunity for a public hearing before making its decision whether to approve or deny. If the Corps concludes that the discharge does not comply with the Guidelines, it may still issue the permit under 404(b)(2) if it concludes that the economics of navigation and anchorage warrant. Section 404(6)(2) gives the Secretary a limited authority to issue permits pprohibited by the Guidelines; it 3oes not. as some cumaienters suggested, require the Guidelines to consider the economics of navigation and anchorage. Conversely, because of 404(b)(Z), the fact that a discharge of dredged material does not comply with the Guidelines does not mean that it can never be permitted. The Act recognizes the concerns of ports in section 404(b)(2), not 404(b)(1). Many readers apparently misunderstood this point. EPA's role under section 404 is several -fold. First. EPA has the responsibility for developing the 404(b)(1) Guidelines in conjunction with the Corps. Second. EPA reviews permit applications and gives its comments (if any) to the permitting authority. The Cony may issue a permit even if EPA co.. i.,ents adversely, after consultation takes place. In the case of state programs, the State director may not issue a permit over EPA's unresolved objection. Third. EPA has the responsibility for approving and overseeing State 404 programs. In addition. EPA has enforcement responsibilities under section 309. Finally, under either the Federal or State program, the Administrator may also prohibit the specification of a discharge site. or restrict its use, by following the procedures set out in section 404(c), if he determines that discharge would have an unacceptable adverse effect on fish and shellfish areas (including spawning and breeding areas), municipal water supplies, wildlife or recreation areas. He may do so in advance of a planned discharge or while a permit application is being evaluated or even, in unusual circumstances, after issuance of a permit. (See preamble to 40 CFR Part 231, 44 FR 5807% October 9.1979.) if the Administrator uses 404(c), he may block the issuance of a permit by the Carps or a State 404 program. Where the Administrator has exercised his section 404(c) authority to prohibit, withhold. or restrict the specification of a site for disposal, his action may not be overridden under section 404(6)(2). The fact that EPA has 404(c) authority does not lessen EPA's responsibility for developing the 404(6)(1) Guidelines for use by the permitting authority. Indeed, if the Guidelines are properly applied. EPA will rarely have to use its 404(c) veto. The Clean Water Act provides for several uses of the Guidelines in addition to the individual permit application review process described above. For example, the Corps or an . approved state may issue General permits for a category of similar activities where it determines, on the basis of the 404(6)(1) Guidelines, that the activities will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects both individually and cumulatively (Section 404(e) and (g)(1)). In addition, some of the exemptions from the permit requirements involve application of the Guidelines. Section 404(r) exempts discharges associated with Federal construction projects where, among other things, there is an Environmental Impact Statement which considers the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Section 404(f)(1)(F) exempts discharges covered by best management practices (BMP's) approved under section 208(b)(4)(B) and (c). the approval of which is based In part on consistency with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Several commenters asked for a statement on the applicability of the Guidelines to enforcement procedures. Under Sections 309. 404(h)(1)(G), and 404(a). EPA, approved States, and the Corps all play a role in enforcing the section 404 permit requirements. Enforcement actions are appropriate when someone is discharging dredged or fill material without a required permit, or violates the terms and conditions of a permit. The Guidelines as such are generally irrelevant to a detemtimation of either kind of violation, although they may represent the basis for particular permit conditions which are violated. Under the Corps' procedural regulations. the Corps may accept an application for an after -the -fact permit, in lieu of immediately commencing an enforcement action. Such after -the -Fact permits may be issued only if they comply with the 404(b)(I) Guidelines as well as other requirements set out in the Corps' regulations. Criteria and procedures for exercising the various enforcement options are outside the scope of the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Some commenters suggested that we either include specific permit processing procedures or that we cross- reference regulations containing them. Such procedures are described in 33 CFR Part 320.327 (Corps' procedures) and in 40 CFR Part 122 -124 (minimum State procedures). When specific State 404 programs are approved, their regulations should also be cgnsulted. How Future Changes in the Testing Provision Relate to Promulgation of This Final Rule The September 18, 1979, proposal contained testing provisions which were essentially the same as those in the Interim Final regulations. The Preamble to that proposal explained that it was our intention to propose changes in the testing provisions, but that a proposal was not yet ready. Consequently. while we have been revising the rust of the Guidelines, we have also been working on a proposal for reorganizing and updating the testing provisions. Now that we have finalized the rest of the Guidelines, two options are available to us. First, we could delay issuing any final revisions to our 1979 proposal until we could propose a revised testing package, consider comments on it, and finalize the testing provisions. We could then put together the Guidelines and the revised testing section in one final regulation. The 1975 interim final Guidelines would apply in their entirety until then. Second. we could publish the final Guidelines (with the 1975 testing provisions) and simultaneously propose changes to the testing provision. It is our present belief that proposed changes to the testing provision would not affect the rest of the Guidelines. but the public would be allowed to comment on any inconsistencies it saw between the rest of the Guidelines and the testing proposal. Then, when the comments to the testing proposal had been considered, we would issue a new final regulation incorporating both the previously promulgated final Guidelines and the final revised testing provision. u P I I I I LI I Ll �I LJ I I I 'J F I [j LJ I G I I I I I 85338 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / We have selected the second option because this approach ensures that needed improvements toathe Guidelines are made effective at the earliest possible date, it gives the public ample opportunity to comment on the revised testing section, and it maintains the 1975 testing requirements in effect during the interim which would be the case in any event. Guideline Organization Many readers objected to the length and complexity of the Guidelines. We have substantially reorganized the regulation to eliminate duplicative material and to provide a more logical sequence. These changes should make it easier for applicants to understand the criteria and for State and Corps permit evaluators and the Administrator to apply the criteria. Throughout the document, we have also made numerous minor language changes to improve the clarity of the regulations, often at the suggestion of commenters. Following general introductory . material and the actual compliance requirements, the regulations are now organized to more closely follow the steps the permitting authority will take in arriving at his ultimate decision on compliance with the Guidelines. By reorganizing the Guidelines in this fashion, we were also able to identify and eliminate duplicative material. For example, the proposed Guidelines listed ways to minimize impacts in many separate sections. Since there was substantial overlap in the specific methods suggested in those sections, we consolidated them into new Subpart H. Other individual sections have been made more concise. In addition, we have decreased the number of comments, moving them to the Preamble or making them part of the Regulation, as appropriate. December 24, 1980 / Rules and permits where envirdntnental concerns make it appropriate. For example, cumulative impacts may turn out to be more serious than predicted. This regulation is not intended.to establish the procedures for issuance of General permits. That is the responsibility of the permitting authority in accordance with the requirements of section 404. General Permits When issued after proper consideration of the Guidelines. General permits are a useful tool in protecting the environment with a minimum of red tape and delay. We expect that their use will expand in the future. Some commenters were confused about how General permits work. A General permit will be issued only after the permitting authority has applied the Guidelines to the class of discharges to be covered by the permit. Therefore, there is no need to repeat the process at the time a particular discharge covered by the permit takes place. Of course, under both the Corps' regulations and EPA's regulations for State programs, the permitting authority may suspend General permits or require individual Burden of Proof A number of commenters objected to the presumption in the regulations in general, and in proposed 1230.1(c) in particular. that dredged or fill material should not be discharged unless it is demonstrated that the planned discharge meets the Guidelines. These commenters thought that it was unfair and inconsistent with section 404(c) of the Act We disagree with these objections, and have retained the presumption against discharge and the existing burden of proof. However, the section has been rewritten for clarity. The Clean Water Act itself declares a national goal to be the elimination of the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters (section 101(a)(1)). This goal is implemented by section 301. which states that such discharges are unlawful except in compliance with, inter elia, section 404. Section 404 in turn authorizes the permitting authority to allow discharges of dredged or fill material if they comply with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The statutory scheme makes it clear that discharges shall not take place until they have been found acceptable. Of course, this finding may be made through the General permit process and the statutory exemptions as well as through individual permits. The commenters who argued that section 404(c) shifts the usual burden to the EPA Administrator misunderstood the relationship between section 404(c) and the permitting process. The Administrator's authority to prohibit or restrict a site under section 404(c) operates independently of t5e Secretary of the Army's permitting authority in 404(x). The Administrator may use 404(c) whether or not a permit application is pending. Conversely, the Secretary may deny a permit on the basis of the Guidelines, whether or not EPA initiates a 404(c) proceeding. If the Administrator uses his 404(c) "veto:' then he does have the burden to justify his action, but that burden does not come into play until he begins a 404(c) proceeding (See 40 CFR Part 231). Toxic Pollutants Many commenters objected strenuously to the presumptions in the Guidelines that toxic pollutants on the section 307(a)(1) list are present in the aquatic environment unless . demonstrated not to be, and that such pollutants are biologically available unless demonstrated otherwise. These commenters argued that rebutting these presumptions could involve individual testing for dozens of substances every time a discharge is proposed, imposing an onerous task The proposed regulation attempted to avoid unnecessary testing by providing that when the 1230.22(b) "reason to believe" process indicated that toxics were not present in the discharge material, no testing was required. On the other hand, contaminants other than toxics required testing if that same "reason to believe" process indicated they might be present in the discharge material. This is in fact a distinction without a difference. In practical application, toxic and nqn -toxic contaminants are treated the same; if either may be there, tests are performed to get the information for the determinations; if it is believed they are not present, no testing is done. Because the additional presumption for toxics did not actually serve a purpose, and because it was a possible source of confusion, we have eliminated it, and now treat "toxics" and other contaminants alike, under the "reason to believe test" 0 230.60). We have provided in 1230.3 a definition of "contaminants" which encompasses the 307(a)(1) toxics. Water Dependency One of the provisions in the proposed Guidelines which received the most objections was the so- called "water dependency test" in the proposed 3 230.10(e). This provision imposed an additional requirement on fills in wetlands associated with non -water dependent activities, namely a showing that the activity was "necessary." Many environmentalists objected to what they saw as a substantial weakening of the 1975 version of the water dependency test. Industry and development- oriented groups, on the other hand, objected to the "necessary" requirement because it was too subjective, and to the provision as a whole to the extent that it seemed designed to block discharges in wetlands automatically. We have reviewed the water dependency lest, its original purpose, and its relationship to the rest of the Guidelines in light of these comments. The original purpose, which many commenters commended, was to recognize the special values of wetlands and to avoid their unnecessary destruction, particularly when Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, iM J Rules and Regulations $5339 practicable alternatives were available in non - aquatic areas to achieve the basic purposes of the proposal. We still support this goal. but we have changed the water - dependency test to better achieve it. First. we agree with the comments from both sides that the "necessary" test imposed by the 1979 proposal is not likely to be workable in practice, and may spawn more disputes than it settles. However, if the "necessary" test is simply deleted. section 230.10(e) does not provide any special recognition of or protection for wetlands, and thus defeats its purpose. Furthermore, even if the "necessary" test were retained. the provision applies only to discharges of fill material, not discharges of dredged . material, a distinction which lessens the effectiveness of the provision. Thus, we have decided, in accordance with the comments, that the proposal is unsatisfactory. We have therefore decided to focus on, round out, and strengthen the approach of the so- called "water dependency" provision of the 1975 regulation. We have rejected the suggestion that we simply go back to the 1975 language. in part because it would not mesh easily with the revised general provisions of the Guidelines. instead our revised "water dependency" Provision creates a presumption that there are practicable alternatives to "non -water dependent" discharges proposed for special aquatic sites. "Non - water dependent' discharges are those associated with activities which do not require access or proximity to or siting within the special aquatic site to fu1B11 their basic purpose. An example is a fill to create a restaurant site. since restaurants do not need to be in wetlands to fulfill their basic purpose of feeding people. In the case of such activities, it is reasonable to assume .there will generally be a practicable site available upland or in a less vulnerable part of the aquatic ecosystem. The mere fact that an alternative may cost somewhat more does not necessarily mean it is not practicable (see § 230.10(a)(2) and discussion below). Because the applicant may rebut the presumption through a clear showing in a given case, no unreasonable hardship should be workid. At the some time, this presumption should have the effect of forcing a hard look at the feasibility of using environmentally preferable sites. This presumption responds to the overwhelming number of commenters who urged us to retain a water dependency test to discourage avoidable discharges in wetlands. In addition. the 1975 provision effectively created a apeciaL irrebuttable presumption that alternatives to wetlands were always less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem. Because our experience and the comments indicate that this is not always the rase, and because there could be substantial impacts on other elements of the environment and only minor impacts on wetlands, we have chosen instead to impose an explicit, but rebuttable, presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic sites are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem and are environmentally preferable. Of course, the general requirement that Impacts on the aquatic ecosystem not be unacceptable also applies. The legislative history of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990, and a large body of scientific information support this presumption. Apart from the fact that it may be rebutted. this second presumption reincorporates the key elements of the 1975 provision. Moreover, it strengthens it because the recognition of the special environmental role of wetlands now applies to all discharges in special aquatic sites. whether of dredged or fill material, and whether or not water dependent. At the same time, this presumption, like the first one described above, retains sufficient flexibility to reflect the circumstances of unusual cases. Consistent with the general'burdeo of proof under these Guidelines. where an applicant proposes to discharge in a special aquatic site it is his responsibility to persuade the perun tting authority that both of these presumptions have clearly been rebutted in order to pass the alternatives portion of these Guidelines. Therefore, we believe that the new § 230.10(a)(3), which replaces proposed 230,10(e), will give special protection to wetlands and other special aquatic sites regardless of material discharged allay industry's concerns about the "necessary" test recognize the possibility of impacts on air and upland systems, and acknowledge the variability among aquatic sites and discharge activities. Alternatives Some commenters objected at length to the scope of alternatives which the Guidelines require to be considered, and to the requirement that a permit be denied unless the least harmful such alternative were selected Others wrote to urge us to retain these requirements. In our judgment a number of the objections were based on a misunderstanding of what the proposed alternatives analysis required. Therefore. we have decided to clarify the regulation, but have not changed its basic thrust. Section 403(c) clearly requires that alternatives be considered, and provides the basic legal basis for our requirement. While the statutory provision leaves the Agency some discretion to decide holy alternatives are to be considered, we believe that the policies and goals of the Act as well as the other authorities cited in the Preamble to the proposed Guidelines, would be best served by the approach we have taken. First we emphasize that the only alternatives which must be considered are practicable alternatives. Wbat is practicable depends on cost, technical. and logistic factors. We have changed the word "economic" to "cost ". Our intent is to consider those alternatives which are reasonable in terms of the overall scopelcost of the proposed project. The term economic might be construed to include consideration of the applicant's financial standing, or investment, ormarkei share, a cumbersome inquiry which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines. We consider it implicit that to be practicable. an alternative must be capable of achieving the basic purpose of the proposed activity. Nonetheless, we have made this explicit to allay widespread concern. Both "internal" and "external" alternatives. as described in the September 18. 19'9 Preamble, must satisfy the practicable test. In order for an "external" alternative to be practicable, it must be reasonably available or obtainable. However, the mere fact of ownership or lack thereof, does not necessarily determine reasonable availability. Some readers were apparently confused by the Preamble to the Proposed Regulation, which referred to the fact the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) may require consideration of courses of action beyond the authority of the agency involved. We did not mean to suggest that the Guidelines were necessarily imposing such a requirement on private individuals but rather, to suggest that what we were requiring was well within the alternatives analyses required by NEPA. Second, once these practicable alternatives have been identified in this fashion, the permitting authority should consider whether any of them, including land disposal options, are less environmentally harmful than the proposed discharge project. Of course. where there is no significant or easily identifiable difference in impact, the I I I I I 1] I I 11 `J 1 I I I -J 1J 1J I I 85340 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations alternative need not be considered to have "less adverse" impact. Several commenters questioned the legal basis for requiring the permitting authority to select the least damaging alternative. (The use of the term "select" may have been misleading. Strictly speaking, the permitting authority does not select anything;.he denies the permit if the guidelines requirements have not been complied with.) As mentioned above: the statute leaves to EPA's discretion the exact implementation of the alternative requirement in section 403 of the Act. In large part, the approach taken by these regulations is very similar to that taken by the recent section 403(c) regulations (45 FR 65942, October 3, 198(t). There is one difference; the Guidelines always prohibit discharges where there is a practicable, less damaging alternative, while the section 403(c) regulations only apply this prohibition in some cases. This difference reflects the wide range of water systems subject to 404 and the extreme sensitivity of many of them to physical destruction. These waters form a priceless mosaic. Thus, if destruction of an area of waters of the United States may reasonably be avoided, it should be avoided. Of course, where a category of 404 discharges is so minimal in its effects that it has been placed under a general permit, there is no need to perform a case -by -case alternatives analysis. This feature corresponds, in a sense, to the category of discharges under section 403 for which no alternatives analysis is required. Third. some commenters were concerned that the alternative consideration was unduly focused on water quality, and that a better alternative from a water quality standpoint might be less desirable from, say, an air quality point of view. This concern overlooks the explicit provision that the existence of an alternative which is less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem does not disqualify a discharge if that alternative has other significant adverse environmental consequences. This last provision gives the permitting authority an opportunity to take into account evidence of damage to other ecosystems in deciding whether there is a "better" alternative. Fourth, a number of commenters were concerned that the Guidelines ensure coordination with planning processes under the Coastal Zone Management Act. § 208 of the CWA, and other programs. We agree that where an adequate alternatives analysis has already been developed, it would be wasteful not to incorporate it into the 404 process. New-§ 230.10(a)(5) makes it clear that where alternatives have been reviewed under another process, the permitting authority shall consider such analysis. However, if the prior analysis is not as complete as the alternatives analysis required under the Guidelines, he must supplement it as needed to determine whether the proposed discharge complies with the Guidelines. Section 230.10(a)(4) recognizes that the range of alternatives considered in NEPA documents will be sufficient for section 404 purposes, where the Corps is the permitting authority. (However, a greater level of detail may be needed in particular cases to be adequate for the 404(b)(1 } Guidelines analysis.) This distinction between the Corps and State permitting authorities is based on the fact that it is the Corps' policy, in carrying out its own NEPA responsibilities, to supplement ( or require a supplement to) a lead agency's environmental assessment or impact statement where such document does not contain sufficient information. State permitting agencies, on the other hand, are not subject to NEPA in this manner. We have moved proposed § 230.10(a)(1) (iii), concerning "other particular volumes and concentrations of pollutants at other specific rates ", from the list of alternatives in 1230.10 to Subpart H. Minimizing Adverse Effects, because it more properly belongs there. Definitions (§ 230.3) A number of the terms defined in § 230.3 are also defined in the Corps' regulations at 33 CFR 323.2, applicable to the Corps' regulatory program. The Corps has recently proposed some revisions to those regulations and expects to receive comments on the definitions. To ensure coordination of these two sets of regulations, we have decided to reserve the definitions of "discharge of dredged material," "discharge of fill material." "dredged material." and "fill material," which otherwise would have appeared at § 230.3 (f), (g), (j), and (1). Although the tern "waters of the United States" also appears in the Corps' regulations, we have retained a definition here, in view of the importance of this key jurisdictional term and the numerous comments received. The definition and the comments are explained below. Until new definitions are published, directly or by reference to the Corps' revised regulations, users of these Guidelines should refer to the definitions in 33 CFR 323.2 (except in the case of state 404 programs, to which the definitions in 40 CFR § I22.3 apply.) Waters of the United States: A number of commenters objected to the definition of "waters of the United States" because it was allegedly outside the scope of the Clean Water Act or of the Constitution or because it was not identical to the Corps' definition. We have retained the proposed definition with a few minor changes for clarity for several reasons. First, a number of courts have held that this basic definition of waters of the United States reasonably implements section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act, and that it is constitutional (e.g., United Stotes v. Byrd, 6'09F.Zd 1204, 71h Cir. 1979: Leslie Salt Company v. FroehlAe, 578 F.2d 742, 9th Cit. 1978). Second, we agree that it is preferable to have a uniform definition for waters of the United States, and for all regulations and programs under the CWA. We have decided to use the wording in the recent Consolidated Permit Regulations. 45 Fed. Reg. 33290, May 19, 1980, as the standard.' Some commenters suggested that the reference in the definition to waters from which fish are taken to be sold in interstate commerce be expanded to include areas where such fish spawn. While we have not made this change because we wish to maintain consistency with the wording of the Consolidated Permit regulations, we do not intend to suggest that a spawning area may not have significance for commerce. The portion of the definition at issue lists major examples, not all the ways which commerce may be involved. Some reviewers questioned the statement in proposed § 230.72(c) (now § 230.11(h)) that activities on fast land created by a discharge of dredged or fill material are considered to be in waters of the United States for purposes of these Guidelines. The proposed language was misleading and we have changed it to more accurately reflect our intent. When a portion of the Waters of the United States has been legally converted to fast land by a discharge of dredged or fill material, it does not remain waters of the United States subject to section 301(a). The discharge may be legal because it was authorized by a permit or because it was made before there was a permit requirement. In the case of an illegal discharge, the fast land may remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Act until the government determines not to seek restoration. However, in authorizing a The Consolidated permit Regulations exclude certain waste treatment systems from waters of the United Slates. The exact terms of this exclusion are undergoing technical revisions and are expected to change shortly. For this reason, these Guidelines as published do not contain the exclusion as originally worded in the Consolidated permit Regulations. When published. the corrected exclusion will apply to the Guidelines as well as the Consolidated Permit Regulations. Federal Register / Vol. 4s, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85341 discharge which will create fast lands, the permitting authority should consider, in addition to the direct effects of the fill inself. the effects on the aquatic environment of any reasonably foreseeable activities to be conducted . on that fast land. Section 230.54 (proposed 230.41).. deals with impacts on parks, national and historical monuments, national sea shores, wilderness areas, research'sites. and similar preserves. Some readers were concerned that we intended the Guidelines to apply to activities in such preserves whether or not the activities took place in waters of the United States. We intended, and we think the context makes it clear, that the Guidelines apply only to the specification of discharge sites in the waters of the United Slates, as defined in § 230.3. We have included this section because the fact that a water of the United States may be located in one of these preserves is significant in evaluating the impacts of a discharge into that water. Wetlands: Many wetlands are waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are also the subject of Federal Executive Order No. 11990, and various Federal and State laws and regulations. A number of these other programs and laws have developed slightly different wetlands definitions, in part to accommodate or emphasize specialized needs. Some of these definitions include, not only wetlands as these Guidelines define them, but also mud flats and vegetated and unvegetated shallows. Under the Guidelines some of these other areas are grouped with wetlands as "Special Aquatic Sites" (Subpart E) and as such their values are given special recognition. (See discussion of Water Dependency above.) We agree with the comment that the National Inventory of Wetlands prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, while not necessarily exactly coinciding with the scope of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act or wetlands tinder these regulations, may help avoid construction In wetlands, and be a useful long -term planning tool. Various commenters objected to the definition of wetlands in the Guidelines as too broad or too vague. This proposed definition has been upheld by the courts as reasonable and consistent with the Clean Water Act, and is being• retained in the final regulation. However, we do agree that vegetative guides and other background material may be helpful in applying the definition in the field. EPA and the Corps are pledged to work on joint research to aid in jurisdictional determinations. As we develop such materials, we will make them available to the public Other commenters suggested that we expand the list of examples in the second sentence of the wetland definition. While their suggested additions could legally be added. we have not done so. The list is one of examples only, and does not serve as a limitation on the basic definition. We are reluctant to start expanding the list. since there are many kinds of wetlands which could be included. and the list could become very unwieldy. In addition. we wish to avoid the confusion which could result from listing as examples, not only areas which generally fit the wetland definitions, but also areas which may or not meet the definition depending on the particular circumstances of a given site. In sum. if an area meets the defutition, it is a wetland for purposes of the Clean Water Act, whether or not it falls into one of the listed examples. Of course, more often than not, it will be one of the listed examples. A few commenters cited alleged Inconsistencies between the definition of wetlands in 1230.3 and § 230.42. While we see no inconsistency, we have shortened the latter section as part of our effort to eliminate unnecessary comments. Unvegetated Shallows: One of the special aquatic areas listed in the proposal was " unvegetated shallows" (§ 230.44). Since special aquatic areas are subject to the presumptions in § 230.10(a)(3), it is important that they be clearly defined so that the permitting authority may readily know when to apply the presumptions. We were unable to develop, at this time, a definition for unvegetated shallows which was both easy to apply and not too inclusive or exclusive. Therefore, we have decided the wiser course is to delete unvegetated shallows from the special aquatic area classification. Of course, as waters of the United States, they are still subject to the rest of the Guidelines. "Fill Material We are temporarily reserving § 230.3(1). Both the proposed Guidelines and the proposed Consolidated Permit Regulations defined fill material as material discharged for the primary purpose of replacing an aquatic area with dryland or of changing the bottom elevation of a water body, reserving to the NPDES program discharges with the same effect which are primarily for the purpose of disposing of waste. Both proposals solicited comments an this distinction, referred to as the primary purpose test. On May 19, 1980, acting under a court. imposed deadline. EPA Issued final Consolidated Permit Regulations while the 404(b)(1) Guidelines rulemaking was still pending. These Consolidated Permit Regulations contained a new definition of fill material which eliminated the primary purpose test and included as fill material all pollutants which have the effect of fill. that is, which replace part of the waters of the United States with dryland or which change the bottom elevation of a water body for any purpose. This new definition is similar to the one used before 1977. During the section 404(b)(1) rulemaking, the Corps has raised certain questions about the implementation of such a definition. Because of the importance of making the Final Guidelines available without further delay, and because of our desire to cooperate with the Corps in resolving their concerns about fill material, we have decided to temporarily reserve § 230.3(1) pending further discussion. This action does not affect the effectiveness of the Consolidated Permit Regulations. Consequently, there is a discrepency between those regulations and the Corps' regulations, which still contain the old definition. Therefore, to avoid any uncertainty from this situation. EPA wishes to make clear its enforcement policy for unpertitted discharges of solid waste. EPA has authority under section 309 of the CWA to issue administrative orders against violations of section 301. Unpermitted discharges of solid waste into waters of the United States violate section 301. Under the - present circumstances. EPA plans to issue solid waste administrative orders with two basic elements. First, the orders will require the violator to apply to the Corps of Engineers for a section 404 permit within a specified period of time. (The Corps has agreed to accept these applications and to hold them until it resolves its position on the definition of fill material.) Second, the order will constrain further discharges by the violator. In extreme cases, an order may require that discharges cease immediately. However, because we recognize that there will be a lapse of time before ': •isions are made on this kind of permit application, these orders may expressly allow unpermitted discharges to continue subject to specific conditions set forth by EPA in the order. These conditions will be designed to avoid further environmental damage. Of course, these orders will not influence the ultimate issuance or non - issuance of a permit or determine the conditions that may be specified in such a permit. Nor will such orders limit the Cl I 11 CI I 1 I Pi i L_ I I 1 7 [ l LJ I I LJ 11 l_ J 85342 Federal Registir / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations Administrator's authority under section 309(b) or the right of a citizen to bring suit against a violator under section 505 of the CWA. Permitting Authority: We have used the new term "permitting authority,' instead of "District Engineer," throughout these regulations, in recognition of the fact that under the 1977 amendments approved States may also issue permits. Coastal Zone Management Plans including the Coastal Zone Management Act. However, since some planning processes do not deal with specific projects, their consideration of alternatives may not be sufficient for the Guidelines. Where another alternative analysis is less complete than that contemplated under section 404, it may not be used to weaken the requirements of the Guidelines. Advanced Identification of Dredged or Fill Material Disposal Sites Several commenters were concerned about the relationship between section 404 and approved Coastal Zone Management (CZM) plans. Some expressed concern that the Guidelines might authorize a discharge prohibited by a CZM plan; others objected to the fact that the Guidelines might prohibit a discharge which was consistent with a CZM plan. Under section 307(b) of the CZNI Act, no Federal permits may be issued until the applicant furnishes a certification that the discharge is consistent with an approved CZlsi plan, if there is one, and the State concurs in the certification or waives review. Section 325.2(b)(2) of the Corps' regulation, which applies to all Federal 404 permits, implements this requirement for section 404. Because the Corps' regulations adequately address the CZM consistency requirement, we _have not duplicated § 325.2(b)(2) in the Guidelines. Where a State issues State 404 permits, it may of course require consistency with its CZM plan under State law. The second concern, that the 404 Guidelines might be stricter than a CZM plan, points out a possible problem with CZM plans, not with the Guidelines. Under 307(1) of CZMA, all CZM plans must provide for compliance with applicable requirements of the Clean Water Act. The Guidelines are one such requirement. Of course, to the extent that a CZM plan is general and area - wide, it may be impossible to include in its development the same project- specific consideration of impacts and alternatives required under the Guidelines. Nonetheless, it cannot authorize or mandate a discharge of dredged or fill material which fails to comply with the requirements of these Guidelines. Often CZM plans contain a requirement that all activities conducted under it meet the permit requirements of the Clean Water Act. In such a case, there could of course be no conflict between the CZM plan and the requirements of the Guidelines. We agree with commenters who urge that delay and duplication of effort be avoided by consolidating alternatives studies required under different statutes, A large number of commenters objected to the way proposed § 230.70, new Subpart I, had been changed from the 1975 regulations. A few objected to the section itself. Most of the comments also revealed a misunderstanding about the significance of identifying an area. First. the fact that an area has been identified as unsuitable for a potential discharge site does not mean that someone cannot apply for and obtain a permit to discharge there as long as the Guidelines and other applicable requirements are satisified.' Conversely, the fact that an area has been identified as a potential site does not mean that a permit is unnecessary or that one will automatically be forthcoming. The intent of this section was to aid applicants by giving advance notice that they would have a relatively easy or difficult time qualifying for a permit to use particular areas. Such advance notice should facilitate applicant planning and shorten permit processing time. Most of the objectors focused on EPA's "abandonment" of its "authority" to identify sites. While that "authority" is perhaps less "authoritative" than the commenters suggested (see above), we agree that there is no reason to decrease EPA's role in the process. Therefore, we have changed new § 230.80(a) to read: "Consistent with these Guidelines, EPA and the permitting authority on their own inivalive or at the request of any other party and after consultation with any affected Slat that is not the permitting authority, may identify sites which will be considered as:" We have also deleted proposed I 230.70(a)(3), because it did not seem t accomplish much. Consideration of the point at which cumulative and secondary impacts becope unacceptable and warrant emergency action will generally be more appropriate in a permit -by- permit context. Once that paint has been so determined. of course, the area can be identified as "unsuitable" under the ne § 230.80(a)(2). Executive Order 12044 A number of commenters took the position that Executive Order 12044 requires EPA to prepare a "regulatory analysis" in connection with these regulations. EPA disagrees. These ' regulations are not, strictly speaking. new regulations. They do not impose new standards or requirements, but rather substantially clarify and reorganize the existing interim final regulations Under EPA's criteria implementing Executive Order 12044, EPA will prepa a Regulatory Analysis for any regulatic which imposes additional annual costs totalling $100 million or which will rest in a total additional cost of production of any major product or service which exceeds 5% of its selling price. While many commenters, particularly members of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). requested regulatory analysis and claimed that if regulations were too burdensome, non of them explained how that burden wa an additional one attributable to this revision. A close comparison of the ne regulation and the explicit and implicit requirements in the interim final Guidelines reveals that there has been very little real change in the criteria It% which discharges are to be judged or is the tests that must be conducted; therefore, we stand by our original determination that a regulatory analys is not required. Perhaps the most significant area in which the regulations are more explici and arguably siricter is in the consideration of alternatives. Howeve even the 1975 regulations required the permitting authority to consider "the availability of alternate sites and methods of disposal that are less damaging to the environment," and to avoid activities which would have significant adverse effects. We do not think that the revised Guidelines' mor e .explicit direction to avoid adverse effects that could be prevented throug selection of a clearly less damaging si or method is a change imposing a o substantial new burden on the regulat public. Because the revised regulations are more explicit than the interim final regulations in some respects. it is possible that permit reviewers will do more thorough job evaluating propose discharges. This may result in somew- more carefully drawn permit conditic. w However, even if, for purposes of argument, the possible cost of comply with these conditions is considered at . EPA may foreclose the use of a site by additional cost, there is no reason to exercising its authority under section 404(c). The believe that it alone will be anywhere advance identification referred to in this section is near $100 million annually. not a section 404(c) prohibition. i Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85343 We also believe that it is appropriate to recognize the regulatory benefits from these more carefully drafted final regulations. Because they are much clearer about what should be considered and documented; we expect there will be fewer delays in reviewing permits, and that initial decisions to issue permits are less likely to be appealed to higher authority. These benefits are expected to offset any potential cost increase. Some commenters suggested that documentation requirements would generate an additional cost of operations. The Corps' procedural regulations at 33 CM 325.E and 325.11 already require extensive documentation for individual permits being denied or being referred to higher authority for resolution of a conflict between agencies. Economic Factors A number of commenters asked EPA to include consideration of economic factors in the Guidelines. We believe that the regulation already recognizes economic factors to the extent contemplated by the statute. F'us4 the Guidelines explicitly include the concept of "practicability" in connection with both alternatives and steps to minimize impacts. If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant. the alternative is not "practicable." In addition, the Guidelines a£so consider economics _ indirectly in that they are structured to avoid the expense of unnecessary testing through the "reason-to-befieve - test." Second, the statute expressly provides that the economics of anchorage and navigation may be considered. but only after application of the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. (See section 404(b)(2).) Borrow Sites A number of highway departments objected because they felt the Guidelines would require them to ' identify specific borrow sites at the time of application. which would disrupt their normal contracting process and increase cost. These objections were based on a misunderstanding of the Guideline's requirements. Under those Guidelines, the actual borrow sites need not be identified. if the application and the permit specify that the discharge material must come from clean upland sites which are removed from sources of contamination and otherwise satisfy the reason -to- believe test. A condition that the material come from such a site would enable the permitting authority to make his determinations and find compliance with the conditions of 9 230.10, without requiring highway departments to specify in advance the specific borrow sites to be used. Consultation With Fish and Wildlife Agencies One commenter wanted us to put in a statement that the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with fish and wildlife agencies. We have not added new language because (1) the Fish and Wildlife Act only applies to Federal permitting agencies and not to State permitting agencies, and (2) the Corps regulations already provide for such consultation by the only Federal 404 permitting agency. However, we agree with the commenter that Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies may often provide valuable assistance in evaluating the impacts of discharges of dredged or fill material. The Importance of Appropriate Documentation Specific documentation is important to ensure an understanding of the basis for each decision to allow, condition, or prohibit a discharge through application of the Guidelines. Documentation of information is required for. (1) facts and data gathered in the evaluation and testing of the extraction site, the material to be discharged, and the disposal site: (2) factual determinations regarding changes that can be expected at the disposal site if the discharge is made as proposed. and (3) findings regarding compliance with 1230.10 conditions. This documentation provides a record of actions taken that can be evaluated for adequacy and accuracy and ensures consideration of all important impacts in the evaluation of a proposed discharge of dredged or fill material. The specific information documented under (1) and (2) above in any given case depends on the level of investigation necessary to provide for a reasonable understanding of the impact on the aquatic ecosystems. We anticipate that a number of individual and most General permit applications will be for routine, minor activities with little potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. In such cases, the permitting authority will not have to require extensive testing or analysis to make his findings of compliance. The level of documentation should reflect the significance and complexity of the proposed discharge activity. .. Factual Determinations Proposed section 230.20, "Factual Determinations" (now 1 230.11) has been significantly reorganized in response to comments. First, we have changed (e) to reflect our elimination of the artificial distinction between the section 307ja)(1) toxics and other contaminants. Second. we have eliminated proposed (t) (Biological Availability), since the necessary information will be provided by (d) and new (e). Proposed (f) was intended to reflect the presumption that toxics were present and biologically available. We have modified proposed (g), now (0, to focus on the size of the disposal site and the size and shape of the mixing zone. The specific requirement to document the site has been deleted; where such information is relevant, it will automatically be considered in making the other determinations. We have also deleted proposed (h) (Special Determinations) since it did not provide any useful information which would not already be considered in making the other factual determinations. Finally, in response to many comments, we have moved the provisions on cumulative and secondary impact to the Factual Determination section to give them further emphasis. We agree that such impacts are an important consideration in evaluating the acceptability of a discharge site. Water Quality Standards One commenter was concerned that the reference 3 230.10(b) to water quality standards and criteria "approved or promulgated under section 303" might encourage permit authorities to ignore other water quality requirements. Under section 303. all State water quality standards are to be submitted to EPA for approval. If the submitted standards are incomplete or insufficiently stringent, EPA may promulgate standards to replace or supplant the State standards. Disapproved standards remain in"effect until replaced. Therefore, to refer to "EPA approved or promulgated standards" is to ignore those State standards which have been neither approved nor replaced. We have therefore changed the wording of this requirement as follows: ` • • any applicable State water quality standard." We have also dropped the reference to "criteria ", to be consistent with the Agency's general position that water quality criteria are not regulatory. Other Requirements for Discharge Section 230.10(c) provides that discharges are not permitted if they will have "significantly" adverse effects on various aquatic resources. In this context significant" and "significantly" mean more than "trivial', that is. significant in a conceptual rather than a statistical sense. Not all effects which 1 I I `J n 1 i I r 7. i I C I u I 85344 Federal Register / Vol. 4S, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations are statistically significant in the laboratory are significantly adverse in the field. Section 320.10(d) uses the tern "minimize" to indicate that all reasonable reduction in impacts be obtained. As indicated by the "appropriate and practicable" provision, steps which would be unreasonably costly or would be infeasible or which would accomplish only inconsequential reductions in impact need not be taken. Habitat Development and Restoration of Water Bodies Habitat development and restoration involve changes in open water and wetlands that minimize adverse effects of proposed changes or that neutralize or reverse the effects of past changes on the ecosystem. Development may produce a new or modified ecological state by displacement of some or all of the existing environmental characteristics. Restoration has the potential to return degraded environments to their former ecological state. Habitat development and restoration can contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of a viable aquatic ecosystem at the discharge site. From an environmental point of view, a project involving the discharge of dredged and fill material should be designed and managed to emulate a natural ecosystem. Research. demonstration projects, and full scale Implementation have been done in many categories of development and restoration. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has programs to develop and restore habitat. The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station has published guidelines for using dredged material to develop wetland habitat, for establishing marsh vegetation, and for building islands that attract colonies of nesting birds. The - EPA has a Clean Lakes program which supplies funds to States and localities to enhance or restore degraded lakes. This may Involve dredging nutrient -laden sediments from a lake and ensuring that nutrient inflows to the lake are controlled. Restoration and habitat development techniques can be used to minimize adverse impacts and compensate for destroyed habitat. Restoration and habitat development may also provide secondary benefits such as improved opportunities for outdoor recreation and positive use for dredged materials. The development and restoration of viable habitats in water bodies requires planning and construction practices that integrate the new or improved habitat Into the existing environment. Planning requires a model or standard, the achievement of which is attempted by manipulating design and implementation of the activity. This model or standard should be based on characteristics of a natural ecosystem in the vicinity of a proposed activity. Such use of a natural ecosystem ensures that the developed or restored area, once established, will be nourished and maintained physically, chemically and biologically by natural processes. Some examples of natural ecosystems include, but are not limited to, the following: salt marsh, cattail marsh, turtle grass bed. small island. eta Habitat development and restoration, by definition. should have environmental enhancement and maintenance as their initial purpose. Human uses may benefit but they are not the primary purpose. Where such projects are not founded on the objectives of maintaining ecosystem function and integrity, some values may be favored at the expense of others. The ecosystem affected must be considered in order to achieve the desired result of development and restoration. In the final analysis, selection of the ecosystem to be emulated is of critical importance and a loss of value can occur if the wrong model or an incomplete model is selected. Of equal Importance is the planning and management of habitat development and restoration on a case -by -case basis. Specific measures to minimize impacts on the aquatic ecosystem by enhancement and restoration projects include but are not limited to: (1) Selecting the nearest similar natural ecosystem as the model in the implementation of the activity. Obviously degraded or significantly less productive habitats may be considered prime candidates for habitat restoration. One viable habitat, however, should not be sacrificed in an attempt to create another, i.e., a productive vegetated shallow water area should not be destroyed in an attempt to create a wetland in its place. (2) Using development and restoration techniques that havebeen demonstrated to be effective in circumstances similar to those under consideration wherever possible. (3) Where development and restoration techniques proposed for use have not yet advanced to the pilot demonstration or implementation stage, initiate their use on a small scale to allow corrective action if unanticipated adverse impacts occur. (4) Where Federal funds are spent to clean up waters of the U.S. through dredging, scientifically defensible levels of pollutant concentration in the return discharge should be agreed upon with the funding authority in addition to any applicable water quality standards in order to maintain the desired improved water quality. (5) When a significant ecological change in the aquatic environment is proposed by the discharge of dredged or fill material, the permitting authority should consider the ecosystem that will be lost as well as the environmental benefits of the new system. Dated December 12. 1980. Douglas M. Castle_ Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Part 230 is revised to read as follows: PART 230 — SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES FOR SPECIFICATION OR DISPOSAL SITES FOR DREDGED OF FILL MATERIAL Subpart A— General See 230.1 Purpose and policy. 230.2 Applicability. 230.3 Definitions. 230.4 Organization. 230.5 General procedures to be followed. 230.0 Adaptability. 230.7 General permits. Subpart B— Compilance With the Guidelines 230.10 Restrictions on discharge. 230.11 Factual determinations. 23012 Findings of compliance or non. compliance with the restrictions on discharge. Subpart C— Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Agwtic Ecosystem 230.20 Substrate. 230.21 Suspended pardcula tea/ turbid! ly. 230.21. Water. 23013 Current patterns and water circulation. 230.24 Normal water fluctuations. 230.25 Salinity gradients. Subpart D— Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem 230.30 Threatened and endangered species. 220.31 Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic organisms in the food web. 230.32 Other wildlife. Subpart E— Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites 430.40 Sanctuaries and refuges. 230.41 Wetlands. 230.42 Mud flats. 230.43 Vegetated shallows. 230.44 Coral reefs. 230.45 Riffle and pool complexes Subpart F— Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics 230.50 Municipal and private water supplies. 230.51 Recreational and commercial fisheries. 230.52 Water - related recreation. 230.53 Aesthetics. Federal Register/ VOL 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85345 Sec 230.54 Parks, national and historic monuments. national seashores. wilderness areas, research sites and similar preserves. Subpart G— Evaluation and Testing 230.60 General evaluation of dredged or fill material. 730.01 Chemical. biological, and physical evaluation and testing. Subpart t4— Actions to Minimize Adverse EHaets 230.70 Actions concerning the location of the discharge. 230.71 Actions concerning the material to be discharged. 230.72 Actions controlling.the material after discharge. 230.73 Actions affecting the method of dispersian. 230.74 Actions related to technology. 230.75 Actions affecting plant and animal populations. 230.76 Actions affecting human use. 230.77 Other actions. Subpart 1— Planning To Shorten Permit Processing Time 230.80 Advanced identification of disposal areas. Authority-. This regulation is issued under authority of Sections 404(b) and 501(a) of the Clean Water Act of 1977.33 USG § 1344(b) and § 1361(a). Subpart A— General § 23.1 Purpose and policy. (a) The purpose of these Guidelines is to restore and maintain the chemical . physical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States through the control of discharges of dredged or fill material. (b) Congress has expressed a number of policies in the Clean Water Act. These Guidelines are intended to be consistent with and to implement those policies. (c) Fundamental to these Guidelines is the precept that dredged or fill material should not be discharged into the aquatic ecosystem unless it can be demonstrated that such a discharge will not have an unacceptable adverse impact either individually or in combination with known and /or probable impacts of other activities affecting the ecosystems of concern. (d) From a national perspective. the degradation or destruction of special aquatic sites, such as filling operations in wetlands, is considered to be among the most severe environmental impacts covered by these Guidelines. The guiding principle should be that degradation or destruction of special sites may represent an irreversible loss of valuable aquatic resources. 1230.2 Applicability. (a) These Guidelines have been developed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to conjunction with the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers under section 461(6)(1) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The Guidelines are applicable to the specification of disposal sites for discharges of dredged or rill material Into waters of the United States. Sites may be speed through: (1) The regulatory program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under sections 404(a) and (e) of the Act (see 33 CFR 320. 323 and 325); (2) The civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see 33 CFR 209.145 and section 150 of Pub. L 94487, Water Resources Development Act of 1976); (3) Permit programs of States approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with sections 404(8) and (h) of the Act (see 40 CFR 122. 123 and 124): (4) Statewide dredged or fill material regulatory programs with best management practices approved under section 208(b)(4)(13) and (C) of the Act (see 40 CFR 35.1560); (5) Federal construction projects which meet criteria specified in section 404(r) of the Act ' (b) These Guidelines will be applied in the review of proposed discharges of dredged or fill material into navigable waters which lie inside the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, and the discharge of fill material into the territorial sea. pursuant to the procedures referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) above. The discharge of dredged material into the territorial sea is governed by the Marine Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Pub. L 92 -532, and regulations and criteria issued pursuant thereto (40 CFR Part 220 -2?8). [c) Guidance on interpreting and implementing these Guidelines may be prepared jointly by EPA and the Carps at the national or regional level from time to time. No modifications to the basic application. meaning, or intent of these Guidelines will be made without rulemaking by the Administrator under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). § 230.3 Definitions. For purposes of this Part, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: (a) The term "Act" means the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or FWPCA) Pub. L 92-SM. as amended by Pub. L 95417, 33 U.S.C. 1251. Of seq. (b) The term "adjacent "means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man -made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like are "adjacent wetlands." (c) The terms "aquatic environment" and "aquatic ecosystem" mean waters of the United States, including wetlands . that serve as habitat for interrelated and interacting communities and populations of plants and animals. (d) The term "carrier of contaminant" means dredged or fill material that contains contaminants. (e) The term "contaminant" means a chemical or biological substance in a form that can be incorporated into, onto or be ingested by and that harms aquatic organisms, consumers of aquatic organisms. or users of the aquatic environment, and includes but is not limited to the substances on the 307(a)(1) list of toxic pollutants promulgated on January 31, 1978 (43 FR 4109). (i) [Reserved) (g) [Reserved] (h) The term "discharge point" means the point within the disposal site at which the dredged or fill material is released. (i) The term "disposal site" means that portion of the "waters of the United States" where specific disposal activities are permitted and consist of a bottom surface area and any overlying volume of water. In the case of wetlands on which surface water is not present. the disposal site consists of the wetland surface area. (j) [Reserved] (k) The term "extraction site" means the place from which the dredged or fill material proposed for discharge is to be removed. (1) (Reserved) (m) The term "mixing zone" means a limited volume of water serving as a zone of initial dilution in the immediate vicinity of a discharge paint where receiving water quality may not meet quality standards or other requirements otherwise applicable to the receiving water. The mixing zone should be considered as a place where wastes and water mix and not as a place where effluents are treated. (n) The term "permitting authority" means the District Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or such other individual as may be designated by the Secretary of the Army to issue or deny permits . under section 404 of the Act: or the State Director of a permit program I L u LJ I I 85346 Federal Register / Vot. 45, No. 249 � approved by EPA under §(h) or his dale aced re(g) and lea) The term •pollutant" m ans tativ residue spoil' solid waste, incinerator stud a sewage, garbage, sewage biolo I munitions, chemical wastes, 1 gical mater aIs. radioactive materials not covered by the Atomic Energy Act heat wrecked or discarded aq Us 'at, rock sand, cellar dirt and ind to al, lot at, and agri cultural waste discharged into water. The 'eSisla cti history of the Act reflects that radioactive materials' 1 wet , the definition of Pollut uded section S02 of the Act PoAutenf" in radioactive m t 'Weans only Decei mb� err4, 2980 e' (3) All other waters such 113 stre lakes, intermittent tre amj (including . sandflats. wetlands, sloughs Prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, die use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or fore' any such waters: coerce including Interstate or are or could be used by recreational o o ign travelers for (ii) From which Comm fishpor�shelltish are or could be taken and sold to shellfish tat foreign com Rides and values due to fill material discharges of dredged or number of Subpart G prescribes a biological evaluations and ical, and testing Procedures to be used in reaching the required factual determinations. Subpart H details the means to prevent or mimi concerns advanced effects. Subpart f disposal nted identification of pose! areas. roll W�0.enKa1 Procedures to be a erials which (iii) which erce; or a or In evaluat. w encompassed in the definition of source, are used or enco byproduct for industrial could be used dischar hetherr a pa discharge site may rd, ,her ' 9 defined b r special nuclear materials interstate co mercer Purposes 6Y industries in Permitting authors i ba specified, the 7954 Y the Atomic Energy {4) All tmpo�ert;e; Guidelines ' Y should use these as amended, and re Act r dments in the following sequence: the Atomic Ener regulated under °therw'as defined as waters efts of the (a1 [n order to obtain an overview of radioactive matenalsct Examples of United States the Principal not covered b (5) Tributaries der this definition. Guidelines regulatory provisions Atomic Energy Act and therefore, Y the of ware review the restrictions o f the included within Paragraphs [z)_ 4 of rs identified in discharge in § 23010 a - radian' and acne a eterm (6) The territorial alms section: measures to (1 (d). the Pollutant ", are (7) Wetlands ad' subpart entinimize adverse im isotopes. See T Produced P H. and there Pact of lrterest rain v, Colorodo Public (other than waters that are to We tars themselves d (Ie minations of quired factual (3976). Research CroOP. fns, 426 Wetlands) identified in mine if a 230.71. (P) The term '. U.S. 1 (1) -(6) of this sectio Paragraphs (s) (§ 230.7) is a General Permit man-mad e Pollution" means the systems, section; n' waste treatment applicant pPlicable; if so, the 1. man- induced alteration oP lagoons deal g if ponds its terms, needs merely to comply Ile chemical, geed to or and no further action yy with radiolo i physical, biological or requirements of CWA sat the permittin eeosystem. integrity of an aquatic cooling ponds as (other than Special co authority is necessary Y the § 423.77 m defined in 40 CFR Pro nditions for evaluation of (ql The term "practicable" ( ) which also posed General available and ca means of this der, - . n meet the criteria in § 230.7. Jf permits are contained after taking Pable of be- United States. )are sot waters of the by a Generapermit. e discharge g into consideration costa (t) The term " is nut covered of ova all chnolo d logistics!" light that are inunda d or those !c) Examine BY, an areas mine Practicable project Purposes. ght surface or saturated to the prep °sad dsc alierna"% -a those sites d is aquatic its Subs and durst: sot d water at a ire b discha Bing into thew that is o s means quenc Y dischar in stars of the U.S. or that under normaloi�,sGn°sfuPPort, and site with g mt0 an alternative are geographic areas, large ores all, Potentially aquatic possessing hey support a prevalence of ve antes do consequences Y less damaging characteristics of special ecological typically ads (§ 230.10 a of producti vit , soil conditions. adapted (d) Delineate the (I) wildlife protection, Y habitat saturated site consistent with candidate disposal and easil or other important Include swamps, marshes generally evaluations of the criteria and These Y disrupted ecological values similar areas g and § 230.1]t1, areas are generally rec (e) Ev 1 significantly influencin ognized�as § 230.s contributing to the gOrPositively a9anizaij °n. environmental heal The The Guidelines are divided into et entire ecosystem th or vitality of the subparts. Subpart A 230.1o(a)(3) j m of a region. (See Provisions of Presents those (r) The to as Purpose and neral applicability, su the belt of the tarnsoriat sea" establishes the , rations, Sub baseline as deters at fro meye "lust be satisfied ur conditions part B mined in accordance findin m order to make wide the Convent 8 that a proposed discharge Sea and the Condon oil die Territorial dredged or fill material co of ' extendin Suous Zone and the Guidelines. inPliea with miles 8 seaward a distance of three B, sets forth fat ualtIon 230.11 of Subpar (s) The tarts •• Which are to be consideredtu tions States" Waters of the united deterna , (1) All wa tars w discharge whether or rge satisfies the Subt a proposed used, or were used in t are currently conditions of tom Pert B be susceptible t m the Past, or may describes the pliance. Subpart C Which stammer eu including all we ter guidance ass to h ssteaand Provide,, the tide; subject to the ebb and lowof of dredged ow Proposed 8 or fill material ma discharges (2) All interstate w these components, Sub y affect interstate wetlands; stars including Ne special chaiacte - Parts D -F detail aquatic ecosystems in to of particular values, and harems in tern's of their the possible loss of these a uate the various physicsl and chemical components which characterize the nonliving environment of the candidate site, the substrate and Sht .the water including its dynamic characteristics (Subpart C) cfi (1) Identify and evaluate any special or critical characteristics of the are candidate disposal site, and surrounding such slit filch might be affected by use of communiu'eSlaled to their living Subpart E. and F), r human uses (Subparts D, § 230.111 to de eactual Determinations in information • rniine whether the sufficient in the project file is required by § 230.x7 the documentation Pre - testing evalu or to perform the § 230.60, or other infor described in necessary, (h) Evaluate the material to be discharged to determine the possibility in chemical contamination or physical incomP ility, of the material to b (§23060) e discharged Federal Register/ Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85347 (i) If there is a reasonable probability of chemical contamination, conduct the appropriate tests according to the ' section on Evaluation and Testing (1230.61). (j) Identify appropriate and practicable changes to the project plan to minimize the environmental impact o thellischarge, based upon the specialized methods of minimization of impacts in Subpart K , (k) Make and document Factual Determinations in § 230.11. (1) Make and document Findings of (§ Compliance 230,12) by comparing Factual Determinations with the requirements for discharge of § 230.lo. This outline of the steps to follow in using the Guidelines is simplified for purposes of illustration. The actual process followed may be iterative, with the results of one step leading to a reexamination of previous steps. The permitting authority must address all of the relevant provisions of the Guidelines in reaching a Finding of Compliance in an individual case. § 230.6 Adaptability, (a) The manner in which these Guidelines are used depends on the physical, biological, and chemical nature of the proposed extraction site, the material to be discharged, and the candidate disposal site, including any other important components of the ecosystem being evaluated. Documentation to demonstrate knowledge about the extraction site, materials to be extracted. and the candidate disposal site is an essential component of guideline application. These Guidelines allow evaluation and documentation for a variety of activities, ranging from those with large, complex impacts on the aquatic environment to those far which the impact is likely to be innocuous. It is unlikely that the Guidelines will apply in their entirety to any one activity, no matter how complex. It is anticipated that substantial numbers of permit applications will be for minor, routine activities that have little, if any, potential for significant degradation of the aquatic environment. It generally is not intended or expected that extensive testing, evaluation or analysis will be needed to make findings of com ,.;: ince in such routine cases. Where the conditions for General permits are met, and where numerous applications fpr similar activities are likely, the use of ` General permits will eliminate repetitive evaluation and documentation for individual discharges. (b) The Guidelines user, including the agency or agencies responsible for implementing the Guidelines, must recognize the different levels of effort that should be associated with varying degrees of impact and require or prepare commensurate documentation. The level of documentation should reflect the significance and complexity of the I . discharge activity. ' (c) An essential part of the evaluation Process involves making determinations as to the relevance of any portion(s) of the Guidelines and conducting farther evaluation only as needed. However, ' where portions of the Guidelines review procedure are "short form" evaluations, there still must be sufficient information (including conejderation of both individual and cumulative impacts) to support the decision of whether to specify the site for disposal of dredged or fill material and to support the decision to curtail or abbreviate the evaluation process. The presumption against the discharge in 1230,1 applies to this decision- making. (d) In the case of activities covered by General permits or 208(b)(4)(B) and (C) Best Management Practices, the analysis and documentation required by the Guidelines will be performed at the time of General permit issuance or 208(b)(4)(B) and (C) Best Management Practices promulgation and will not be repeated when activities are conducted under a General permit or 208(b)(4)(B) and (C) Best Management Practices control. These Guidelines do not require reporting or formal written communication at the time individual activities are initiated under a Ceneral permit or 208(b)(4)(B) and (C) Best Management Practices. However, a particular Ceneral permit may require appropriate reporting. 11230.7 General permits (a) Conditions for the issuance of General permits. A General permit for a category of activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material complies with the Guidelines if it meets the applicable restrictions on the . discharge in § 230.10 and if the permitting authority determines that: (1) The activities in such category are similar in nature and similar in their impact upon water.quality and the aquatic environment: (2) The activities in such category will have only minimal adverse effects when performed separately; and (3) The activities in such category will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on water quality and the aquatic environment. (b) Evaluation process. To reach the determinations required in paragraph (a) Of this section, the permitting authority shall set forth in writing an evaluation of the potential individual and cumulative impacts of the category of activities to be regulated under the General permit. While some of the information necessary for this evaluation can be obtained from potential permittees and Others through the proposal of General permits for public review, the evaluation must be completed before any General permit is issued, and the results must be published with the final permit. (1) This evaluation shall be based upon consideration of the prohibitions listed in g 230.10(b) and the factors listed in § 230.10(c), and shall include documented information supporting each.factual determination in § 230.11 of the Guidelines (consideration of alternatives in § 230.10(a) are not directly applicable to General permits): (2) The evaluation shall include a precise description of the activities to be permitted under the General permit. explaining why they are sufficiently • similar in nature and in environmental impact to warrant regulation under a single General permit based on Subparts C -F of the Guidelines. Allowable differences between activities which will be regulated under the same General permit shall be specified. Activities otherwise similar in nature may differ in environmental impact due to their location in or near ecoloyicaily sensitive areas, areas with unique chemical or physical characteristics. areas containing concentrations of toxic substances, or areas regulated for specific human uses or by specific land or water management plans (e.g., areas regulated under an approved Coastal Zone Management Plan). If there are specific geographic areas within the purview of a proposed General permit (called a draft General permit under a State 404 program), which are more appropriately regulated by individual Permit due to the considerations cited to this paragraph, they shall be clearly delineated in the evaluation and excluded from the permit. In addition. the permitting authority may require an individual permit for any proposed activity under a General permit where the nature or location of the activity makes an individual permit more appropriate. (3) To predict cumulative effects, the evaluation shall include the number of individual discharge activities likely to be regulated under a General permit until its expiration, including repetitions of individual discharge activities at a single location. C n 1 LIB J LJ 1 I F �I I J 85348 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 /. Rules and Regulations Subpart B-- Compliance With the Guidelines §230.10 Restrictions on discharge. Note. — Because other laws may apply to particular discharges and because the Corps of Engineers or State 404 agency may have additional procedural and substantive requirements. a discharge complying with the requirement of these Guidelines will not automatically receive a permit. Although all requirements in 1230.10 must be met the compliance evaluation procedures will vary to reflect the seriousness of the potential for adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystems posed by specific dredged or fill material discharge activities. (a) Except as provided under 1 404(b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. (1) For the purpose of this requirement, practicable alternatives include, but are not limited to: (i) Activities which do not involve a discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States or ocean waters: (ii) Discharges of dredged or fill material at other locations in waters of the United Stales or ocean waters: (2) An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. if it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant which could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered. (3) Where the activity associated with a discharge which is proposed for a special aquatic site (as defined in Subpart E) does not require access or proximity to or siting within the special aquatic site in question to fulfill its basic purpose (i.e., is not "water dependent "), practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. In addition, where a discharge is proposed for a special aquatic site, all practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge which do not involve a discharge into a special aquatic site are presumed to have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly demostrated otherwise. (4) For actions subject to NEPA, where the Corps of Engineers is the permitting agency, the analysis of alternatives required for NEPA environmental documents, including supplemental Corps NEPA documents, will in most cases provide the information for the evaluation of alternatives under these Guidelines. On occasion, these NEPA documents may address a broader range of alternatives than required to be considered under this paragraph or may not have considered the alternatives in sufficient detail to respond to the requirements of these Guidelines. In the letter case, it may be necessary to supplement these NEPA documents with this additional information. (5) To the extent that practicable alternatives have been identified and evaluated under a Coastal Zone Management program, a 1208 program, or other planning process, such evaluation shall be considered by the permitting authority as part of the consideration of alternatives under the Guidelines. Where such evaluation is less complete than that contemplated under this subsection, it must be supplemented accordingly. (b) No discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if it: (1) Causes or contributes, after consideration of disposal site dilution and dispersion, to violations of any applicable State water quality standard: (2) Violates any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition under section 307 of the Act; (3) Jeopardizes the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. or results in likelihood of the destruction or adverse modification of a habitat which is determined by the Secretary of Interior or Commerce, as appropriate, to be a critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If an exemption has been granted by the Endangered Species Committee, the terms of such exemption shall apply in lieu of this subparagraph: (4) Violates any requirement imposed by the Secretary of Commerce to protect any marine sanctuary designated under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. (c) Except as provided under 1 404(b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted which will cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United Slates. Findings of significant degradation related to the proposed discharge shall be based upon appropriate factual determinations, evaluations, and tests required by Subparts B and G, after consideration of Subparts C –F, with special emphasis on the persistence and permanence of the effects outlined in those subparts. Under these Guidelines, effects contributing to significant degradation considered individually or collectively, include: (1) Significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on human health or welfare, including but not limited to effects on municipal water supplies. plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites. (2) Significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer, concentration, and spread of pollutants or their byproducts outside of the disposal site through biological, physical, and chemical processes; (3) Significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability. Such effects may include, but are not limited to, loss of fish and wildlife habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify water, or reduce wave energy: or (4) Significantly adverse effects of discharge of pollutants on recreational. aesthetic, and economic values. (d) Except as provided under § 404(b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. Subpart H identifies such possible steps. 1 230.11 Factual determinations. The permitting' authority shall determine in writing the potential short - term or long -term effects of a proposed discharge of dredged or fill material on the physical, chemical, and biological components of the aquatic environment in light of Subparts C –F. Such factual determinations shall be used in 1230.12 in making findings of compliance or non- compliance with the restrictions on discharge in § Z30.10. The evaluation and testing procedures described in 1230.60 and 1 230.81 of Subpart C shall be used as necessary to make, and shall be described in, such determination. The determinations of effects of each proposed discharge shall include the following: (a) Physical substrate deterr:inations. Determine the nature and degree of effecrthat the proposed discharge will have, individually and cumulatively, on the characteristics of the substrate at the proposed disposal site. Consideration shall be given to the similarity in particle size. shape. and degree of compaction of the material 7 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85349 ' proposed for discharge and the material constituting the substrate at the disposal site, and any potential changes in substrate elevation and bottom contours, including changes outside of the disposal site which may occur as a result of erosion, slumpage, or other movement of the discharged material. , The duration and physical extent of substrate changes shall also be considered. The possible loss of environmental values (1230.20) and actions to minimize impact (Subpart M shall also be considered In making these determinations. Potential changes in substrate elevation and bottom contours shall be predicted on the basis of the proposed method, volume, location, and rate of discharge, as well as on the individual and combined effects of current patterns, water circulation, wind and wave action, and other physical factors that may affect the movement of the discharged material, (b) Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity determinations. Determine the nature and degree of effect that the proposed discharge will have individually and cumulatively on water, current patterns• circulation including downstream flows, and normal water fluctuation. Consideration shall be given to water chemistry• salinity, clarity, color• odor, taste, dissolved gas levels. temperature, nutrients, and eutrophication plus other appropriate characteristics. Consideration she also be given to the potential diversion or obstruction of flow, alterations of bottom contours, or other significant changes in the hydrologic regime. Additional consideration of the possible loss of environmental values (1230.23- 251 and actions to minimize impacts (Subpart H), shall be used in making these determinations. Potential significant effects on the current patterns, water circulation. normal water fluctuation and salinity shall be evaluated on the basis of the proposed method. volume• location. and rate of discharge. (c) Suspended particulate /turbidity determinations. Determine the nature and degree of effect that the proposed - discharge will have, individually and cumulatively in terms of potential changes in the kinds and concentrations of suspended particulate /turbidity in the vicinity of the disposal site. Consideration shall be given to the grain size of the material proposed for discharge, the shape and size of the plume of suspended particulates. the duration of the discharge and resulting plume and whether or not the potential changes will cause violations of applicable water quality standards. Consideration should also be given to the possible loss of environmental values (I 230.21) and to actions for minimizing impacts (Subpart H). Consideration shall include the proposed method. volume, location, and rate of discharge, as well as the Individual and combined effects of current patterns, water circulation and fluctuations, wind and wave action. and other physical factors on the movement of suspended particulates. (d) Contaminant determinations. Determine the degree to which the material proposed for discharge will Introduce, relocate, or increase contaminants. This determination shall consider the material to be discharged. the aquatic environment at the proposed disposal site, and the availability of contaminants. (e) Aquatic ecosystem and organism determinations. Determine the nature and degree of effect that the proposed discharge will have, both individually and cumulatively, on the structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem and organisms. Consideration shall be given to the effect at the proposed disposal site of potential changes in substrate characteristics and elevation, water or substrate chemistry, nutrients, currents, circulation, fluctuation• and salinity, on the recolonization and existence of indigenous aquatic organisms or communities. Possible loss of environmental values (1230.31). and actions to minimize impacts (Subpart H) shall be examined. Tests as described in 1 230.01 (Evaluation and Testing), may be required to provide information on the effect of the discharge material on communities or populations of organisms expected to be exposed to it. (f) Proposed disposal site determinations. (1) Each disposal site shall be specified through the application of these Guidelines. The mixing zone shall be confined to the smallest practicable zone within each specified disposal site that is consistent with the type of dispersion determined to be appropriate by the application of these Guidelines. In a few special cases under unique environmental conditions, where there is adequate justification to show that widespread dls,,: rsion by natural means will result in no significantly adverse environmental effects. the discharged material may be intended to be spread naturally in a very thin layer over a large area of the' substrate rather than be contained within the disposal site. (2) The permitting authority and the Regional Administrator shall consider the following factors in determining the acceptability of a proposed mixing zone: (f) Depth of water at the disposal site; (ff) Current velocity, direction, and variability at the disposal site; (III) Degree of turbulence; (iv) Stratification attributable to causes such as obstructions, salinity or density profiles at the disposal site; (v) Discharge vessel speed and direction, If appropriate; (vi) Rate of discharge; (vii) Ambient concentration of constituents of interest; (viii) Dredged material characteristics, particularly concentrations of constituents, amount of material type of material (sand, silt. clay, etc.) and settling velocities; (Ix) Number of discharge actions per unit of time; (xJ Other factors of the disposal site that affect the rates and patterns of mixing. (g) Determination of cumulative effects an the aquatic ecosystem. (1) Cumulative impacts are the changes in an aquatic ecosystem that are attributable to the collective effect of a number of individual discharges of dredged or fill material. Although the impact of a particular discharge may constitute a minor change in itself, the cumulative effect of numerous such piecemeal changes can result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the productivity and water quality of existing aquatic ecosystems. (2) Cumulative effects attributable to the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States should be predicted to the extent reasonable and practical. The permitting authority shall collect information and solicit information from other sources about the cumulative impacts on the'aquatic ecosystem. This information shall be documented and considered during the decision - making process concerning the evaluation of individual permit applications, the issuance of a General permit, and monitoring and enforcement of existing permits. (h) Determination of secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem. (1) Secondary effects are effects on an aquatic ecosystem that are associated with a discharge of dredged or fill materials, but do not result from the actual placement of the dredged or fill material. Information about secondary effects on aquatic ecosystems shall be considered prior to the time final section 404 action is taken by permitting authorities. (2) Some examples of secondary effects on an aquatic ecosystem are fluctuating water levels in an impoundment and downstream associated with the operation of a dam, septic tank leaching and surface runoff I LEI 1 11 85350 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations from residential or commercial developments on fill, and leachate and runoff from a sanitary landfill located in waters of the U.S. Activities to be conducted on fast land created by the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States may have secondary impacts within those waters which should be considered in evaluating the impact of creating those fast lands. 1230.12 Findings of compliance or non- compliance with the restrictions on discharga. (a) On the basis of these Guidelines (Subparts C through G) the proposed disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill material must be: (1) Specified as complying with the requirements of these Guidelines; or (2) Specified as complying with the requirements of these Guidelines with the inclusion of appropriate and practicable discharge conditions (see Subpart H) to minimize pollution or adverse effects to the affected aquatic ecosystems; or (3) Specified as failing to comply with the requirements of these Guidelines where: (i) There is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as such alternative does -not have other significant adverse environmental consequences; or (ii) The proposed discharge will result in significant degradation of the aquatic ecosystem under § 230,10(b) or (c); or (iii) The proposed discharge does not include all appropriate and practicable measures to minimize potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem; or (iv) There does not exist sufficient information.to make a reasonable judgment as to whether the proposed discharge will comply with these Guidelines. (b) Findings under this section shall be set forth in writing by the permitting authority for each proposed discharge and made available to the permit applicant. These findings shall include the factual determinations required by § 230.11, and a brief explanation of arty adaptation of these Guidelines to the activity under consideration. In the case of a General permit. such findings shall be prepared at the time of issuance of that permit rather than for each subsequent discharge under the authority of that permit. Subpart C— Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem Note. —The effects described in this suboart should be considered in making the factual determinations and the findings of winpliance or non - compliance in Subpart B § 23020 Substrate. (a) The substrate of the aquatic ecosystem underlies open waters of the United Slates and constitutes the surface of wetlands. It consists of organic and inorganic solid materials and includes water and other liquids or gases that 611 the spaces. between solid particles. (b) Possible loss of environmental characteristics and values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can result in varying degrees of change in the complex physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the substrate. Discharges which alter substrate elevation or contours can result in changes in water circulation. depth, current pattern, water fluctuation and water temperature. Discharges may adversely affect bottom - dwelling organisms at the site by smothering immobile forms or forcing mobile forms to migrate. Benthic forms present prior to a discharge are unlikely to recolonize on the discharged material if it is very dissimilar from that of the discharge site. Erosion, slumping, or lateral displacement of surrounding bottom of such deposits can adversely affect areas of the substrate outside the perimeters of the disposal site by changing or destroying habitat. The bulk and composition of the discharged material and the location, method, and timing of discharges may all influence the degree of impact on the substrate. § 230.21 Suspended particulates/turtildity. (a) Suspended particulates in the aquatic ecosystem consist of fine - grained mineral particles, usually smaller than silt, and organic particles. Suspended particulates may enter water bodies as a result of land runoff, flooding, vegetative and planktonic breakdown, resuspension of bottom sediments, and man's activities including dredging and filling. t Particulates may remain suspended in the water column for variable periods of time as a result of such factors as agitation of the water mass, particulate specific gravity, particle shape, and physical and chemical properties of particle surfaces. (b) Possible loss of environmental characteristics and values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can result in greatly elevated levels of suspended particulates in the water column for varying lengths of time. These new levels may reduce light penetration and lower the rate of photosynthesis and the primary productivity of an aquatic area if they last long enough. Sight- dependent species may suffer reduced feeding ability leading to limited growth and lowered resistance to disease if high levels of suspended particulates persist. The biological and the chemical' content of the suspended material may react with the dissolved oxygen in the water. which can result in oxygen depletion. Toxic metals and organics, pathogens, and viruses absorbed or adsorbed to fine- grained particulates in the material may become biologically available to organisms either in the water column or on the substrate. Significant increases in suspended particulate levels create turbid plumes which are highly visible and aesthetically displeasing. The extent and persistence of Giese adverse impacts caused by discharges dupend upon the relative increase in suspended particulates above the amount occurring naturally, the duration of the higher levels, the current patterns. water level, and fluctuations presunt when such discharges occur, the volume. rate, and duration of the discharge, particulate deposition, and the seasonal timing of the discharge. § 23022 Water. (a) Water is the part of the aquatic ecosystem in which organic and inorganic constituents are dissolved and suspended. It constitutes part of the liquid phase and is contained by the substrate. Water forms part of a dynamic aquatic life- supporting system. Water clarity, nutrients and chemical content, physical and biological content, dissolved gas levels, pH, and temperature contribute to its life - sustaining capabilities. (b) Possible loss of environmental characteristics and values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can change the chemistry and the physical characteristics of the receiving water at a disposal site through the introduction of chemical constituents in suspended or dissolved form. Changes in the clarity, color, odor, and taste of water and the addition of contaminants can reduce or eliminate the suitability of water bodies for populations of aquatic organisms, and for human consumption. recreation, and aesthetics. The introduction of nutrients or organic material to the water column as a result of the discharge can lead to a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which in turn can lead to reduced dissolved oxygen. thereby potentially affecting the survival of many aquatic organisms. Increases in nutrients can favor one group of organisms such as algae to the detriment of other more desirable types such as submerged aquatic vegetation, potentially causing adverse health Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85351 effects. objectionable tastes and odors, and other problems. § 230.23 Current patterns and water circulation. (a) Current patterns and water circulation are the physical movements of water in the aquatic ecosystem. Curfents and circulation respond to natural forces as modified by basin shape and cover. physical and chemical characteristics of water strata and masses, and energy dissipating factors: (b) Possible loss of environmental characteristics and values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can modify current patterns and water circulation by obstructing flow, changing the direction or velocity of water flow, changing the direction or velocity of water flow and circulation, or otherwise changing the dimensions of a water body. As a result, adverse changes can occur in: location, structure, and dynamics of aquatic communities; shoreline and substrate erosion and depositon rates; the deposition of suspended particulates; the rate and extent of mixing of dissolved and suspended components of the water body; and water stratification. § 230.24 Normal water fluctuations. (a) Normal water fluctuations in a natural aquatic system consist of daily, seasonal,-and annual tidal and flood fluctuations in water level. Biological and physical components of such a system are either attuned to or characterized by these periodic water fluctuations. (b) Possible loss of environmental characteristics and values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can alter the normal water -level fluctuation pattern of an area, resulting in prolonged periods of inundation, exaggerated extremes of high and low water, or a static, nanfluctuating water level. Such water level modifications may change salinity patterns, alter erosion or sedimentation rates, aggravate water temperature extremes, and upset the nutrient and dissolved oxygen balance of the aquatic ecosystem. In addition, these modifcutions can alter or destroy communities and populations of aquatic animals and vegetation, induce populations of nuisance organisms. modify habitat, reduce food supplies, restrict movement of aquatic fauna, destroy spawning areas, and change adjacent. upstream, and downstream areas. 173015 Salinity gradients. (a) Salinity gradients form where salt water from the ocean meets and mixes with fresh water from land. (b) Possible loss of environmental characteristics and values: Obstructions which divert or restrict flow of either fresh or salt water may change existing salinity gradients. For example, partial blocking of the entrance to an estuary or river mouth that significantly restricts the movement of the salt water Into and out of that area can effectively lower the volume of salt water available for mixing within that estuary. The downstream migration of the salinity gradient can occur, displacing the maximum sedimentation zone and requiring salinity- dependent aquatic blots. to adjust to the new conditions. move to new locations if possiale, or perish. In the freshwater zone, discharge operations in the upstream regions can have equally adverse impacts. A significant reduction in the volume of fresh water moving into an estuary below that which is considered normal can affect the location and type of mixing thereby changing the characteristic salinity patterns. The resulting changed circulation pattern can cause the upstream migration of the salinity gradient displacing the maxi mim sedimentation zone. This migration may affect those organisms that are adapted to freshwater environments. It may also affect municipal water supplies. Note. — Possible actions to minimize adverse impacts regarding site characteristics can be found in Subpart K Subpart D— Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics ofthe Aquatic Ecosystem Note The impacts described in this subpart should be coatidered in making the factual determinations and the fmdfngs of compliance or non - compliance in Subpart B 1230.30 Threatened and endangered specter (a) An endangered species is a plant or animal in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one in danger of becoming an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Listings of threatened and endangered species as well as critical habitats are maintained by some individual States and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior (codified annually at 50 CFR § 17.11). The Department of Commerce has authority over some threatened and endangered marine mammals, fish and reptiles. (b) Possible loss of values: The major potential Impacts on threatened or endangered species from the discharge of dredged or fill material include: (1) Covering or otherwise directly killing species: (2) The impairment or destruction of habitat to which these species are limited. Elements of the aquatic habitat which are particularly crucial to the continued survival of some threatened or endangered species include adequate good quality water, spawning and maturation areas, nesting areas, protective cover, adequate and reliable food supply, and resting areas for migratory species. Each of these elements can be adversely affected by changes in either the normal waler conditions for clarity, chemical content, nutrient balance, dissolved oxygen. pH, temperature, salinity. current patterns. circulation and fluctuation. or the physical removal of habitat: and (3) Facilitating incompatible activities. (cl Where consultation with the Secretary of the Interior occurs under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the conclusions of the Secretary concerning the impacts) of the discharge on threatened and endangered species and their habitat shall be considered final. § 230.31 Fish, crustaceans, mollusks and other aquaUC organisms in the food web. (a) Aquatic organisms in the food web include, but are not limited to, fttfish. crustaceans, mollusks. insects, annelids, planktonic organisms, and the plants and animals on which they feed and depend upon for their neids. All forms and life stages of an organism, throughout its geographic range. are included in this category. (b) Possible loss of values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can variously affect populations of fish, crustaceans, mollusks and other food web organisms through the release of contaminants which adversely affect adults, juveniles, larvae, or eggs. or result in the establishment or proliferation of an undesirable competitive species of plant or animal at the expense of the desired resident species. Suspended particulates settling on attached or buried eggs can smother the eggs by limiting or sealing off their exposure to oxygenated water. Discharge of dredged and fill material may result in the debilitation or death of sedentary organisms by smothering, exposure to chemical contaminants in dissolved or suspended form, exposure to high levels of suspended particulates, reduction in food supply, or alteration of the substrate upon which they are dependent. Mollusks are particularly I i J 11 7 J L 1 .1 I F I F i I 85352 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations sensitive to the discharge of material during periods of reproduction and growth and development due primarily to their limited mobility. They can be rendered unfit for human consumption by tainting, by production and accumulation of toxins, or by ingestion and retention of pathogenic organisms, viruses, heavy metals or persistent synthetic organic chemicals. The discharge of dredged or fill material can redirect, delay, or stop the reproductive and feeding movements of some species of fish and crustacea, thus preventing their aggregation in accustomed places such as spawning or nursery grounds and potentially leading to reduced populations. Reduction of detrital feeding species or other.representatives of lower trophic levels can impair the flow of energy from primary consumers to higher trophic levels. The reduction or potential elimination of food chain organism populations decreases the overall productivity and nutrient export capability of the ecosystem. § 230.32 Other wildlife. (a) Wildlife associated with aquatic ecosystems are resident and transient mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. (b) Possible loss of values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can result in the loss or change of breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred food sources for resident and transient wildlife species associated with the aquatic ecosystem. These adverse impacts upon wildlife habitat may result from changes in water, levels, water flow and circulation, salinity, chemical content, and substrate characteristics and elevation. Increased water turbidity can adversely affect wildlife species which rely upon sight to feed, and disrupt the respiration and feeding of certain aquatic wildlife and food chain organisms. The availability of contaminants from the discharge of dredged or fill material may lead to the bioaccumulation of such contaminants in wildlife. Changes in such physical and chemical factors of the environment may favor the introduction of undesirable plant and animal species at the expense of resident species and communities. in some aquatic environments.lowering plant and animal species diversity may disrupt the normal functions of the ecosystem and lead to reductions in overall biological productivity. Nate. -- Possible actions to minimize adverse impacts regarding characteristics of biological components of the aquatic ecosystem can be found in Subpart IL Subpart E— Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites Note. —The impacts described in this subpart should be considered in making the factual determinations and the findings of compliance or non - compliance in Subpart B The definition of special aquatic Sites is found in § 230.3(q -1). 1230.40 Sanctuaries and refuges. (a) Sanctuaries and refuges consist of areas designated under State and Federal laws or local ordinances to be managed principally for the preservation and use of fish and wildlife resources. (b) Possible loss of values: Sanctuaries and refuges may be affected by discharges of dredged or fill material which will: (1) Disrupt the breeding, spawning, migratory movements or other critical life requirements of resident or transient fish and wildlife resources; (2) Create unplanned, easy and incompatible human access to remote aquatic areas; (3) Create the need for frequent maintenance activity; (4) Result in the establishment of undesirable competitive species of plants and animals; (5) Change the balance of water and land areas needed to provide cover, food, and other fish and wildlife habitat requirements in a way that modifies sanctuary or refuge management practices: (6) Result in any of the other adverse impacts discussed in Subparts C and D as they relate to a particular sanctuary or refuge. § 230.41 Wetlands. (a)(1) Wetlands consist of areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. ' (2) Where wetlands are adjacent to open water, they generally constitute the transition to upland. The margin between wetland and open water can best be established by specialists familiar with the local environment, particularly where emergent vegetation merges with submerged vegetation over a broad area in such places as the lateral margins of open water, headwaters, rainwater catch basins, and groundwater seeps. The landward margin of wetlands also can best be identified by specialists familiar with the local environment when vegetation from the two regions merges over a broad area.' (3) Wetland vegetation consists of plants that require saturated soils to survive (obligate wetland plants) as well as plants, including certain trees, that gain a competitive advantage over others because they can tolerate prolonged wet soil conditions and their competitors cannot. In addition to plant populations and communities, wetlands are delimited by hydrological and physical characteristics of the environment. These characteristics should be considered when information about them is needed to supplement information available about vegetation, or where wetland vegetation has been removed or is dormant. (b) Possible loss of values: The discharge of dredged-or fill material in wetlands is likely to damage or destroy habitat and adversely affect the biological productivity of wetlands ecosystems by smothering, by dewatering, by permanently flooding, or by altering substrate elevation or periodicity of water movement. The addition of dredged or fill material may destroy wetland vegetation or result in advancement of succession to dry land species. It may reduce or eliminate nutrient exchange by a reduction of the system's productivity, or by altering current patterns and velocities. Disruption or elimination of the wetland system can degrade water quality by obstructing circulation patterns that flush large expanses of wetland systems, by interfering with the filtration function of wetlands, or by changing the aquifer recharge capability of a wetland. Discharges can also change the wetland habitat value for fish and wildlife as discussed in Subpart D. When disruptions in flow and circulation patterns occur, apparently minor loss of wetland acreage may result in major losses through secondary impacts. Discharging fill material in wetlands as part of municipal, industrial or recreational development may modify the capacity of wetlands to retain and store floodwaters and to serve as a buffer zone shielding upland areas from wave actions, storm damage and erosion. § 230.41 Mud flats (a) Mud flats are broad flat areas along the sea coast and in coastal rivers to the head of tidal influence and in inland lakes, ponds, and riverine systems. When mud flats are inundated, wind and wave action may resuspend bottom sediments. Coastal mud flats are exposed at extremely low tides and inundated at high tides with the water table at or near the surface of the substrate. The substrate of mud flats contains organic material and particles ,J Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December'24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85353 ' smaller in size than sand, They are either unvegetated or vegetated only by algal mats. (b) Possible loss of values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can cause changes in water circulation patterns which may permanently flood or dewater the mud flat or disrupt periodic inundatiod. resulting in an increase in the rate of erosion or accretion. Such changes can deplete or eliminate mud flat biota, foraging areas, and nursery areas. Changes in inundation patterns can affect the chemical and biological exchange and decomposition process occurring on the mud flat and change the deposition of suspended material affecting the productivity of the area. Changes may reduce the mud flat's capacity to dissipate storm surge runoff. § 230.43 Vegetated shallows. (a) Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that under normal circumstances support communities of rooted aquatic vegetation, such as turtle grass and eelgrass in estuarine or marine systems as well as a number of freshwater species in rivers and takes. (b) Possible loss of values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can smother vegetation and benthic organisms. It may also create unsuitable conditions for their continued vigor by: (t) changing water circulation patterns; (2) releasing rmtrients that increase undesirable algal populations: (3) releasing chemicals that adversely affect plants and animals; (4) increasing turbidity levels, thereby reducing light penetration and hence photosynthesis: and (5) changing the capacity of a vegetated shallow to stabilize bottom materials and decrease channel shoaling. The discharge of dredged or rill material may reduce the value of vegetated shallows as nesting, spawning, nursery, cover, and forage areas, as well as their value in protecting shorelines from erosion and wave actions. It may also encourage the growth of nuisance vegetation. 1230.44 Coral reefs. (a) Coral reefs consist of the skeletal deposit, usually of calcareous or silicaceous materials, produced by the vital activities of anthozoan polyps or other invertebrate organisms present in growing portions of the reef. (b) Possible loss of values: The discharge of dredged or fill material can adversely affect colonies of reef building organisms by burying them, by releasing contaminants such as hydrocarbons into the water column. by reducing light penetration through the water, and by increasing the level of suspended particulates. Coral organisms are extremely sensitive to even slight reductions in light penetration or increases in suspended particulates. These adverse effects will cause a loss . of productive colonies which in turn provide habitat for many species of highly specialized aquatic organisms. § 230.45 RIMS and pool complexes (a) Steep gradient sections of streams are sometimes characterized by riffle and pool complexes. Such stream sections are recognizable by their hydraulic characteristics. The rapid movement of water over a coarse substrate in riffles results in a rough flow, a turbulent surface, and high dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Pools are deeper areas associated with riffles. Pools are characterized by a slower stream velocity, a steaming flow, a smooth surface, and a finer substrate. Riffle and pool complexes are particularly valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. (b) Possible loss of values: Discharge of dredged or fill material can eliminate riffle and pool areas by displacement hydrologic modification, or sedimentation. Activities which affect riffle and pool areas and especially riffle /pool ratios, may reduce the aeration and filtration capabilities at the discharge site and downstream, may reduce stream habitat diversity, and may retard repopulation of the disposal site and downstream waters through sedimentation and the creation of unsuitable habitat The discharge of dredged or fill material which alters stream hydrology may cause scouring or sedimentation of riffles and pools. Sedimentation induced through hydrological modification or as a direct result of the deposition of unconsolidated dredged or fill material may clog riffle and pool areas, destroy habitats, and create anaerobic conditions. Eliminating pools and meanders by the discharge of dredged or fill material can reduce water holding capacity of streams and cause rapid runoff from a watershed. Rapid runoff can deliver large quantities of flood water in a short time to downstream areas resulting to the destruction of natural habitat, high property loss, and the need for further hydraulic modification. Note.— Possible actions to minimize adverse impacts an site at material characteristics can be found in Subpart K Subpart F— Potential Effects on Human Use Characterilil Note.—The effects described in this subpart should be considered in making the factual determinations and the findings of compliance or non - compliance in Subpart B. § 230.S0 Municipal and private water supplies. (a) Municipal and private water supplies consist of surface water or ground water which is directed to the intake of a municipal or private water supply system. (b) Possible loss of values: Discharges can affect the quality of water supplies with respect to color, taste, odor, chemical content and suspended particulate concentration. in such a way as to reduce the fitness of the water for consumption. Water can be randered unpalatable or unhealthy by the addition of suspended particulates. viruses and pathogaaic organisms, and dissolved materials. The expense of removing such substances before the water is delivered for consumption can be high. Discharges may also affect the quantity of water available for municipal and private water supplies. In addition. certain commonly used water treatment chemicals have the potential for combining with some suspended or dissolved substances from dredged or fill material to form other products that can have a toxic effect on consumers. § 230.51 Recreational and commercial fisheries (a) Recreational and commercial fisheries consist of harvestable fish. crustaceans, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms used by man. (b) Possible loss of values: The discharge of dredged or fill materials can affect the suitability of recreational and commercial fishing grounds as habitat for populations of consumable aquatic organisms. Discharges can result in the chemical contamination of recreational or commercial fisheries. They may also interfere with the reproductive success of recreational and commercially important aquatic species through disruption of migration and spawning areas. The introduction of pollutants at critical times in their life cycle may directly reduce populations of commercially important aquatic organisms or indirectly reduce them by reducing organisms upon which they depend for food. Any of these impacts can be of short duration or prolonged. depending upon the physical and chemical impacts of the discharge and the biological availability of contaminants to aquatic organisms. LJ LJ LJ I 85354 Fedeta VOL. 249 . 140. educational, cat, recreation y f ent..rc qualities and/ or el"tminating rise uses for § 230.52 Wa1er- rotated rKalionn• reducing a set aside and (a) water- related recreation which such sites ar encompasses activities undertaken es d relaxation Activities me as an Possible aeUOna to Ito amuse broad cete80 as °f use: Note _ regarding site or mat encompass two harvesting resource adverse impacts rag Subpart H. five, e.g.• characteristics can be found in by hunting, and fishing: and and sight - tive. e.g• canoeing Subpart r_'Fvaluatlon and Testing comsumP of dredged °f seeing- b) ossible loss of values: One of the 'front direct impacts of more ed 'sat is to impair or dredged or fill l areas which support destroy the resources disposal of recreation acnvities.The dredged or rill material may adversely modify or destroy worst use for recreation by changing turbtdera suspended Particul , solved m ter£ais, dissolved oxygen, c organisms• toxic me of habitat. and the aesthetic quality t, taste, odor• and color' qualities of sigh Wednesday Rules and RaButac, .._ from lest% ent results fr materisl at I I •i L it I 4 2300 General evaluatt°n (Z) Peril ed out an the previously cam, lied the extracttetfaltfor other Pe d t on similar ma the vicinity. Materials shall projects in be coast dated simtlorifsnurces o cantaminatio °' the physical ate[ials the configuration o oa Lion of the m e sediment arable. co in light of water circulation and stratification• sediment are comp accumulation and general seothat sites characteristics. Tests aly if n changes ria ntaterlat maybe relied an 0rdy have occurred at the extraction sites to The purpose of these Significant Lei Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85355 reduce contamination to acceptable levels within the disposal site and to prevent contaminants from being transported beyond the boundaries of the disposal site, if such constraints are acceptable to the permitting authority and the Regional Administrator, and if the potential discharger is willing and able to implement such constraints. However, even if tests are not performed the permitting authority must still determine the probable impact of the operation on the receiving aquatic ecosystem. Any decision not to test must be explained in the determinations made under § 230.11. 1230.61 Chemical, biological, and physical evaluation and testing. Nota. —The Agency is today proposing revised testing guidelines. The evaluation and testing procedures in this section are based on the 1975 § 404(6)(1) interim final Guidelines and shag remain in effect until the revised testing guidelines are published as final regulations. (a) No single test or approach can be applied in all cases to evaluate the effects of proposed discharges of dredged or fill materials. This section provides some guidance in determining which test and /or evaluation procedures are appropriate in a given case. Interim guidance to applicants concerning the applicability of specific approaches or procedures will be furnished by the permitting authority. (b) Chemical - biological interactive' effects. The principal concerns of discharge of dredged or fill material that contain contaminants are the potential effects on the water column and on communities of aquatic organisms. (1) Evaluation of chemical-biological interactive effects. Dredged or fill material may be excluded from the evaluation procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section if it is determined, on the basis of the evaluation in 1230.% that the likelihood of contamination by contaminants is acceptably low, unless the permitting authority, after evaluating and considering any comments received from the Regional Administrator, determines that these procedures are necessary. The Rz: ;zonal Administrator may require, on a case -by -case basis. testing approaches and procedures by staling what additional information is needed through further analyses and how the results of the analyses will be of value in evaluating potential environmental effects. if the General Evaluation indicates the presence of a sufficiently large number of chemicals to render impractical the identification of all contaminants by chemical testing, information may be obtained from bioassays in lieu of chemical tests. (2) Water column effects. (f) Sediments normally contain constituents that exist in various chemical forms and in various concentrations in several locations within the sediment. An elutriate test may be used to predict the effect on water quality due to release of contaminants from the sediment to the water-column. However, in the case of fill material originating on land which may be a carrier of contaminants, a water leachate test is appropriate. (11) Major constituents to be analyzed in the elutriate are those deemed critical by the permitting authority, after evaluating and considering any comments received from the Regional Administrator, and considering results of the evaluation in § 230,00. Elutriate concentrations should be compared to concentrations of the same constituents in water from the disposal site. Results should be evaluated in light of the volume and rate of the intended discharge, the type of discharge, the hydrodynamic regime at the disposal site, and other information relevant to the impact on water quality. The permitting authority should consider the mixing zone in evaluating water column effects. The permitting authority may specify bioassays when such procedures will be of value. (3) Effects on benthos. The permitting authority may use an appropriate benthic bioassay (including bioaccumulation tests) when such procedures will be of value in assessing ecological effects and in establishing discharge conditions. (c) Procedure for comparison of sites. (1) When an inventory of the total concentration of contaminants would be of value in comparing sediment at the dredging site with sediment at the disposal site, the permitting authority may require a sediment chemical analysis. Markedly different concentrations of contaminants between the excavation and disposal sites may aid in making an environmental assessment of the proposed disposal operation. Such differences should be interpreted in terms of the potential for harm as supported by any pertinent scientific literature. (2) When an analysis of biological community structure will be of value to assess the potential for adverse environmental impact at the proposed disposal site, a comparison of the biological characteristics between the excavation and disposal sites may be required by the permitting authority. Biological indicator species may be useful in evaluating the existing degree of stress at both sites. Sensitive species representing community components colonizing various substrate types within the sites should be identified as possible bioassay organisms if tests for toxicity are required. Community structure studies should be performed only when they will be of value in determining discharge conditions. This Is particularly applicable to large quantities of dredged material known to contain adverse quantities of toxic materials.. Community studies should include benthic organisms such as microbiota and harvestable shellfish and finffsh. Abundance. diversity, and distribution should be documented and correlated with substrate type and other appropriate physical and chemical environmental characteristics. (d) Physical tests and evaluation. The effect of a discharge of dredged or fill material on physical substrate characteristics at the disposal site, as well as on the water circulation, fluctuation, salinity, and suspended particulates content there, is important in making factual determinations in § 230.11. Where information on such effects is not otherwise available to make these factual determinations, the permitting authority shall require appropriate physical tests and evaluations as are justified and deemed necessary. Such tests may include sieve tests, seuleabiliiy tests, compaction tests, mixing zone and suspended particulate plume determinations, and site assessments of water flow, circulation, and salinity characteristics. Subpart H— Actions To Minimize Adverse Effects Note. —There are many actions which can be undertaken in response to 3 zo3.iotd) to minimize the adverse effects of discharges of dredged or fill material, Some of these. grouped by type of activity, are listed in this subpart. 1230.70 Actions coneemlng the location of the discharge. - The effects of the discharge can be minimized by the choice of the disposal site. Some of the ways to accomplish this are by: (a) Locating and confining the discharge to minimize smothering of organisms; (b) Designing the discharge to avoid a disruption of periodic water inundation patterns: (c) Selecting a disposal site that has been used previously for dredged material discharge: [d) Selecting a disposal site at which the substrate is composed of material similar to that being discharged. such as discharging sand on sand or mud on mud; it I I I IJ LI i Keg°' >7u1es and maphiner. 1 19$� hate ateri = x4. th ednesdaY pacernbe (el 5" 4ppds at transport of e m A9 i w table, and fie a ant and a5. 110, 7. mepwlY del widely Sot discharge. aNectin9 P{ islet ( Eol What¢ env'atad8ad 0 al site tO nd 230.75 a�tta ono' rge ¢EE¢cts �aR !fatal Pte$ (aributin8 tl'aat the disPle contoars a antmat P° zadon of aavand animals 3585 site, of nsa tb`nla atural subatra inim bplants went dlsP °aa1 maintains Eillmateri ulalohs i pate�culd the meth r oP d Y'' es n wo (¢15¢1ectin$ the eXtent °F anY ¢levat' °n: dt Aged able tie achieve n8 Chan$ a which irnpls: e Point• anti Q; euiin8 a usaesu tot a Avoid atteM nt at an discbaL$ ¢ tp mine Oi dtea8ed (b) mtniviikepalet cutr¢R natural (a citculauonh¢ mpvem eoa8in$ tin$ diac'01, ti a dischargos v— revent t mound toon t° the and atilizi size of anterSere with strati or m avptd C2eaent of plum pesi8ntn$ minimize a ea °W Nl e obsiraaion Pattern nunimtza to (bl gelaCti4 Qravent be aavplo4mph ch ( {ll Mater al to stall i Lao oaten$ ctr COnlpurs to of pteatipn onnallY 4 tu¢',a t the bottom ound; apt¢eLts Or tie hlabita�rAnd °Ledatprs °g ecoloB1cal1Y the as dot iz ,b x such �h (c} Using silta�oda to n°tti ditY oval naa undesit little tits or an, okcia'e t are rnifi tt0 levels. OS areas a tsrui a TO eta articulated Or Lam - have inat8enpus Sites haven iaain$l'a S. drainage ns• one eoRCa M9 a ma suspended P Juless ttlin$ °vaa Avoidin Or value. inarea 19 tgan (yu°tuatt0 m aU are sand d ( or oth Sall$ uc be 5 tope atacn 9°° a aischar$e 0a acc. king n4 tom disPeTS eR p bhgeateng planning a itat stt roau(,e The i edyy t ea< gtetMalitselt. s °Ch a u1a`aenalschaLB titer, columnstugbamtA iart ces ten` end r enviro mental state m. O's on real dilute imi%in$wedd�tius¢r Y¢dby develoP'a too 0.1 iueby n lisp m va the eIN to {tsuo osa ai hysioeh d the bYeu0% elect c be d suhar$ea at the at h Sher ¢erit °p( saome rchaLa teriUOp . lord (al p'ndnnerthaintalsed ants tar P1a nm test pUur s9 bm¢r$'n$ P,F ipatana n des Cemnv 6 ennt a t m`n miye s oe itionanaaveilability oS P isa te\ea ins , H �,na dev Gdt4bs use toompensatehat pptencY it uid. and Oth¢rw I . imIT., the ues a d to � 'e s are Leduc a soVid, )A terial lobe bottom, sites ur d min t° 8've tecb°i4 acts n e techs 4 ective ants of m Se1¢Cting tifne arid ttr s elates averse imp itat, Us to be eS ,der Limiting gab�ous ea a� a parua t Supte. Caa a ge a` to endadeV rt andai g; a edR ab ,rated lble ° co tc t COMP le gran to discha r soap , eta aoisM destroy demons tar to tb `Nh¢re dtschar ueatm ia, n to to ease4 Lath' en tratron F toe an, ountt l a Ge been a „Ver P a re tprai10 to (Cl A dta $e mChe ical o 9aapen e Asti C�et[in$ do ht sea pat p is npdetatae develop qt Yet da. % a e' e:l' maintain td h (al Uhli2indep°s�ion osal areas. W to be .'ac eiv,a8 water- P an °e the dikea dis9 the metertat' of mace .0 ume °t rec to tennpto9Y• pechi ae rolls to CASs t all erserlmC acts P° ticula1es in t11ns time °t rotated be Pilo a smalls tired ad Acttona eOntto n n n P or E {A u °n ul n ace g3o.7z s 9230.74 Ace C ds 0 each site e usetion it uoan r e to dvold na are stta s eEEe is °ties h ge maY be Dischdr$ the tie ds o ¢ disChar$ dveise Occur, ng disc ha, on Seasons All 1 aster d adapted h° g Nether tO tmtzes d , ¢1 ni c mi8ra al time P m¢tho a1 qoc aetarmi n t iciendY mmh° aPPticyn s4awn $1R$1Cally cd�gttuction at as °contr °- liedbY' discbaL$¢ ( gstegnea ¢c¢ 1e;pOlenoF uati eRVrahoL' sidetmPaGis. 6QmP ¢tit p'ces, of ((� AVOid�n$ A'giteae v¢1pPn'ent, ke al ph hill$ C ronm m er0$ ° 15 mt0 the atedu ed 0 4irnitea sb a hMe� OF a Gil QQ"'prodted dp the tame aY aSSAo s a e��ersa ttect5e ed miller will be bpta[e gcosYthpdstn °iude•mentteve¢suSeaim¢nt anach lnety'RatadBad °tFlamatettaY, q2 liver, ppe, taamaybeaCdn6 or e t i 'tn8a°cove crops to red eas t0 dis EmeptoYi era oils auomclu in$ kin$ bums 5¢ ectin$ a'�Se p °Cedptenito Us c d by'- to ' bcospnan linedWtikAlli h of a maletme tcaa`a staS ti$.and,poru (even odM.0.1 isaati Plyal$agins eq P nin8 ni4 es Foteo l he the gitp ( Cct to ij {eau ateaCh'slikil ty FrOtaetted to be adeced i es, and tech sauce P amag¢ tO the a4 °alit rt H,itb res4 Chertltcal Con Maier is a pr°Ced0 ilns me. tin a sl$n¢d to r�Cl °de a¢an red °eel• Pari,�a�a Y wh ” red ace d;s m lava Iona o� a l i Ste espec lianas Th'saev ces that vjeW scaualiks, plot sites whareds: chat$¢d Vol ptObMGaPPin$'l an materia�o0at capped taama8nes quipped moo a aXeilallY a w (bl Selable as tip °Chu Se t,MQLD d the lvoin the lybe�tavely 4ldCmateAo (halo be mil cahet tlshn'8� mot ekspa k to reduce nOkc1Ti5 o PeY ° ;;", ua e wtth W ih the en' tt 8 and iv t° pr, \luiarc, dell d nder beaomPac °&S andutUn$• xegre tic Site is tend sChar4a e dilute (c1 Ne ea materia\ proper utnes °E minimtz¢ of nd sumac access toe using °a pllowin$ inimize atic alats 'sc d�ad m8 r¢ discharge toeriods of watdl nesivin8'g structur nd 4i.j t let aq(dl. at o at an aqu lmPaCt''toL'h Water flows w`nd, wave, chlnne�s open yoaon a °detn$wa et at et g%em °tsatur¢s usual ht$ t {0ns. method at dial ,JJ P asmm,date G�ulati °n and ecosY andud'I s UOnaatiecnn9tna aobe ltows- a�o emert 9?S tston' .. ,.r a discha?a n Which it's Ea tsal Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85357 (e) Selecting sites that will not be detrimental or increase incompatible human activity, or require the need for frequent dredge or fill maintenance activity in remote fish and wildlife areas: (f) Locating the disposal site outside of the vicinity of a public water supply intake. f 230.77 Other actions. (a) In the case of fills, controlling runoff and other discharges from activities to be conducted on the fill: (b) In the case of dams, designing water releases to accommodate the needs of fish and wildlife. (c) In dredging projects funded-by Federal agencies other than the Corps of Engineers, maintain desired water quality of the return discharge through agreement with the Federal funding authority on scientifically defensible pollutant concentration levels in addition to any applicable water quality standards. (d) When a significant ecological change in the aquatic environment is proposed by the discharge of dredged or fill material, the permitting authority should consider the ecosystem that will be lust as well as the environmental benefits of the new system. Subpart I— Planning To Shorten Permit Processing Time $ 230.80 Advanced identification of disposal area& (a) Consistent with these Guidelines, EPA and the permitting authority, on their own initiative or at the request of any other party and after consultation with any affected State that is not the permitting authority, may identify sites which will be considered as: (1) Possible future disposal sites, including existing disposal sites and non - sensitive areas: or (2) Areas generally unsuitable for disposal site specification: (b) The identification of any area as a possible future disposal site should not be deemed to constitute a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material within such area or a specification of a disposal site. The identification of areas that generally will not be available for disposal site specification should not be deemed as prohibiting applications for permits to discharge dredged or fill material in such areas. Either type of identification constitutes information to facilitate individual or General permit application and processing. (c) An appropriate public notice of the proposed identification of such areas shall be issued: (d) To provide the basis for advanced identification of disposal areas, and areas unsuitable for disposal, EPA and the permitting authority shall consider the likelihood that use of the area in question for dredged or fill material disposal will comply with these Guidelines. To facilitate this analysis, EPA and the permitting authority should review available water resources management data Including data available from the public, other Federal and State agencies, and information from approved Coastal Zone Management programs and River Basin Plans. (e) The permitting authority should maintain a public record of the identified areas and a written statement of the basis for identification. In o... eo-mmr mw rsz+ae w .1 awry CCae esse 10 L 1 L I I I I L 1 1 I D. NME ASSESSMENT I I I I I n I I z: a .I. i IF I 11 I I L 1 I 1 I I I D Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program, Unit R I. NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY ' SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM, UNIT H I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LI I I Prepared By Fred Greve, P.E. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' (714) 760 -0891 I I IOctober 11, 1985 I 11 I I I I NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM, UNIT H 1.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT The noise environment in the vicinity of the Upper Newport Bay is determined primarily by traffic on adjacent roadways, and by noise generated aircraft overflights associated with John Wayne Airport. This report presents background information on community noise and describes the existing noise environment through the results of a noise measurement survey. The impact assessment projects noise levels generated by the proposed dredging operations. Mitigation measures are recommended for minimizing the noise impacts associated with the dredging operations. 1.1 Community Noise Scales Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A- weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. A- weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Exhibit 1 provides examples of various noises and their typical A- weighted noise level. The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore, a sound measured for one hour may be expressed as a one hour Leq of 57 dBA. Another method to characterize noise is the Percent Noise levels (L %). The Percent Noise Level is th noise level exceeded X% of the time during a given period L90 is the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time, L50 is the level exceeded 50 percent, and LIO is the level exceeded 10 percent of the time. Percentile noise levels are commonly used in noise ordinances. For example, the noise from a factory may be required not to exceed a noise level of more than 50 dBA. Examples of outdoor noise levels in terms of percent noise levels are shown in Exhibit 2. 1.2 Effects of Noise on People Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effects on people. From these known effects of noise, criteria have been established to help protect the public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. This criteria is based on such known impacts of noise nu. people as hearing loss, speech interference, sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on people are briefly discussed in the following narratives. I I 2 E c ou ■ a 0 2 k �C � :v \u �2 � § ■ � 1 � !. § . § .■ ■ � ■ a � us / q n � > $ � $ @ .� Z � 0 . � � � � 2 ; . ■ § I 7 � � 40 � 'A ) - e ■ k 9 a Kt -$ - -} -- -= - -- —«' -� ( $ B $ 7 k v V ■ ■2 k ` 9.1 tee ! | ��! $ / ul 0 ` _ ©■ arte, ! W dz . �s -a q,q k ! §. Q■ / ■ �.7� :,. %a EE- . ■U �!7,s 2| / B- �§ � |�ll� |�� ! ! •. /� ji| l�u-� ' ! | ¢§ d k § k I 2 § � !. § . § .■ ■ � ■ a � us / q n � > $ � $ @ .� Z � 0 . � � � � 2 ; . ■ § I 3: 77 ]: it I, I I ii is a�y Z. m V O W LL 0 S z 0 6 0 6 :o -4e _y N O J O O O Z CD C U i W O^ CL W E co x W I N .Q x W s � cs 0 h N N i R W W I i W WQ i0 W � R N •=i� W i � u I A I II �I • I I I III . I 3 I I ii is a�y Z. m V O W LL 0 S z 0 6 0 6 :o -4e _y N O J O O O Z CD C U i W O^ CL W E co x W I N .Q x W s � cs 0 h N N i R W W I i W WQ i0 W � R N •=i� W i � u Hearing Loss I Hearing loss generally is not a concern in community noise. The potential for noise induced ' hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational noise exposures in heavy industry or very noisy work environments. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies a noise exposure limit of 90 dBA for 8 hours per day to protect from hearing loss. , Communication Interference Communication interference includes speech interference and activities such as watching television. Communication interference is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise problems. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dBA and any noise in this range or louder may interfere with speech. Noise levels less than 60 dBA result in 98 percent speech intelligibility, which is considered to be very acceptable. Sleep Interference Sleep disturbance is one of the major causes of annoyance due to community noise. Noise, i of course, can make it difficult to fall asleep. Noise levels can create momentary disturbances of natural sleep patterns by causing shifts from deep to lighter stages. Noise may even cause , awakening which a person may or may not be able to recall. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1974) conducted an extensive literature search of the various recommendations to prevent sleep disturbance. The recommendations for bedroom noise levels are summarized in Table 1. The researchers recommended noise levels in the range of 25 to 45 dBA, with 35 to 40 dBA being the norm. The heating and air conditioning industry reports that nighttime bedroom sound levels of 33 dBA to 38 dBA produce occasional complaints, while levels above 48 dBA result in numerous complaints. From this data it appears that a noise level of 35 dBA would be a reasonable design goal to prevent significant sleep disturbance. Fa I F F I I I I I I LJ I P a TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BEDROOM NOISE LEVELS FROM THE EPA LEVELS DOCUMENT (EPA, 1974) Researcher Knudsen - Harris, 1950 Beranek, 1953 Beranek, 1957 Lawrence, 1962 Kosten Van Osten, 1962 ASHRAE, 1967 Kryter,1970 USSR, 1971 Beranek, 1971 Doelle, 1972 Wood, 1972 Rettinger,1973 Sweden Switzerland, 1970 Czechoslovakia, 1967 Recommended Now Level (dBA) 35-45 35 35 -45 25 30 25-35 40 35 34-47 35-45 35 34-42 25 35-45 40 Even with windows open a building provides some outdoor to indoor noise reduction. For buildings in a warm climate the typical outdoor to indoor noise reduction for a residence is 12 dBA with windows open, and 24 dBA with windows closed (EPA, 1974). If an indoor noise level of 35 dBA was desired to prevent sleep disturbance and windows were assumed to be open, then the desired outdoor noise level would be 47 dBA. Phv;ioloLpical Responses Physiological responses are those measurable effects of noise on people which are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. While such effects can be induced and observed, ' the extent is not known to which of these physiological responses cause harm or are a sign of harm. Generally, physiological responses are a reaction to a loud short term noise such as a rifle shot or jet overflight. Physiological responses would not be anticipated as a response to ' dredge operation noise. Annoyance Annoyance is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is a very individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. What one person considers tolerable can be quite unbearable to another. The level of annoyance, of course, depends on the characteristics of the noise (i.e.; loudness, frequency spectra, time, and 3 �I I Ell 1 I I , duration), and how much activity interference (e.g.; speech interference and sleep interference) results from the noise. However, the level of annoyance is also a function of the attitude of the receiver. Personal sensitivity to noise varies widely. It has been estimated that 2 to 10 percent , of the population is highly susceptible to noise not of their own making, while approximately 20 percent are unaffected by noise. Attitudes are effected by the relationship between the person and the noise source. (Is it our dog barking or the neighbor's dog ?) Whether we believe that someone is trying to abate the noise, and if the noise source is permanent or temporary will ' also effect our level of annoyance. 1.3 Noise Standards , The Orange County Noise Ordinance establishes exterior and interior noise standards. The City of Newport Beach does not have a Noise Ordinance. The Orange County Noise Ordinance (summarized in Table 2) has been used as a model ordinance for many communities in Orange , County and elsewhere in the State of California. The ordinance is designed to protect residential areas from non - transportation related noise sources (e.g.; motor vehicles, aircraft, and trains). The noise limits differ for day and night time periods, the standards being more stringent during the nighttime hours. The noise ordinance limits are in terms of a noise level not to be exceeded for a given duration of the time. For example, during the daytime hour; a noise source should not exceed a noise level of 55 dBA for more than 30 minutes in any one hour at a residential property line. For a constant noise source, such as the proposed dredge operations, the most restrictive noise limits would be the 55 dBA limit during daytime hours and 50 dBA limit during the nighttime hours (not to be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour). , TABLE 2 ORANGE COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS Noise Level Not Maximum Allowable To Be Exceeded Duration of Exceedance , Daytime Hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) 55 dBA 30 minutes/hour 60 dBA 15 minutes/hour 65 dBA 5 minutes/hour 70 dBA 1 minute/hour 75 dBA For any period of time Nighttime Hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 50 dBA 30 minutes/hour 55 dBA 15 minutes/hour 60 dBA 5 minutes/hour 65 dBA 1 minute/hour 70 dBA For any period of time , Ell 1 I I I I The Orange County Noise Ordinance is important because it provides noise levels which ' are deemed to be acceptable in residential areas. By comparing the noise levels generated by the proposed dredging activities to the Noise Ordinance, the acceptability of the noise levels can be determined. It should be noted that since the City of Newport Beach does not have a noise ordinance there are no legal requirements for the dredging operations to comply with any noise limits. The Orange County Noise Ordinance is used here only as a guideline to evaluate the acceptability of the noise levels generated by the dredging operations. 1.4 Noise Levels Generated by Dredge Operations Noise measurements were made on an operating hydraulic dredge similar to the type of hydraulic dredge that would be used in Upper Newport Bay. The dredge was the Robert C. Watson and was operating the vicinity of the Dunes area in Upper Newport Bay. The measurements were made with a Digital Acoustic Model 607P Portable Noise Monitor, and calibrated before and after each measurement series. Measurements were made at at a total of five locations with respect to the hydraulic dredge. The measurements were conducted over a two day period The results are presented in Table 3. The noise levels from ' the dredge operations were very steady. It should also be noted that the bulk of the diesel engine on the dredge was located above decks with the engine compartment doors open. Having the engine compartment doors open represents worst case conditions. 1 TABLE 3 1 NOISE LEVELS FOR HYDRAULIC DREDGE Distance from Dredge Noise Level (dBA) Reviewing the data in Table 3 indicates that the noise levels did not drop off at a steady rate for the 252 and 280 foot data points. This is because there is some directionality to the noise source. When the measurement location was broadside to the dredge the noise level was louder than when the measurement location was astern of the dredge. At a location broadside to the dredge a direct line of sight into the open engine compartment is available. The data in Table 3 was used to develop an equation which relates the noise level to the distance from the dredge. The resulting equation is; L = 72 + 20 log (100/1)) 5 I 141 67 252 66 280 71 448 69 980 54 Reviewing the data in Table 3 indicates that the noise levels did not drop off at a steady rate for the 252 and 280 foot data points. This is because there is some directionality to the noise source. When the measurement location was broadside to the dredge the noise level was louder than when the measurement location was astern of the dredge. At a location broadside to the dredge a direct line of sight into the open engine compartment is available. The data in Table 3 was used to develop an equation which relates the noise level to the distance from the dredge. The resulting equation is; L = 72 + 20 log (100/1)) 5 I where L is the noise level WBA) experienced at D feet from the dredge. The standard deviation about this curve for the measurement data collected was 2.3 dBA. Therefore, for the noise , projections presented later in this report an additional 3 dBA was added to the above equation to represent worst case conditions. Limited measurements were made on tugs. For an upper limit the same noise relationship , as for the dredge was assumed. The tugs will have a similar size diesel engine as the dredge, and when towing a scow will be near full power. Measurements of a tug at idle or with a light load were made in the vicinity of the scow marshalling area. Noise measurements indicate that when the tug is in an idle or light load condition the noise levels are approximately 10 dBA less than when under full load Noise measurements were not made for a clamshell dredge due the lack of an appropriate operating dredge in the region. However, estimates of the noise levels can be made based on the typical engine size. The typical engine size, according to Mr. Cheney (Consulting Civil Engineer for the project), is approximately 1000 horsepower (hp) for a clamshell dredge of the type envisioned for use in Upper Newport Bay. The engine is usually run at a constant rate near cruise power either charging an electrical or hydraulic system from which the crane portion obtains its mechanical power. In comparison, the hydraulic dredge system typically utilizes a 3000 hp diesel engine and is also run at a constant rate near cruise power. Based on the power output of the engines the clamshell dredge would be expected to be about 5 dBA quieter than the hydraulic dredge. 1.5 Ambient Noise Levels in Residential Areas Noise measurements were made at six locations in the residential areas surrounding the project site. The locations are shown on Exhibit 3. The measurements were made during both day and evening hours. The most significant noise sources during the measurement periods were automobiles on local roadways and occasional overflights of aircraft departing from John Wayne Airport. The monitoring equipment utilized was a Digital Acoustic Model 607P Portable Noise Monitor. The calibration was checked before and after each measurement period The noise levels were monitored for 20 minutes at each site and are reported in Table 4. The noise levels are presented in terms of percentile noise levels. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level than was exceeded 10 percent of the time. In the neighborhoods monitored this level usually was influenced by a jet overflight, or a loud truck or auto pass -by. The L50 noise level represent the average noise level. Half of the time the noise level exceeded this level and half the time the noise level was less than this level. The L90 noise level represents the lowest noise levels experienced during the monitoring period Distant traffic noise or the wind rustling leaves was usually audible when no other noise sources were present. 6 I I t I 11 I I 91 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES awaurnc+o�a Exhibit 3 - Monitoring Locations TABLE 4 NOISE LEVELS IN NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AREAS (DBA) ' Da3dime Hour; Evenine Hours Residential Site L10 ISO L90 L10 L50 L90 1 64 61 55 62 57 53 , 2 60 43 40 52 45 42 3 54 41 38 60 47 42 4 59 51 45 50 44 42 , 5 49 45 41 50 47 46 6 54 47 45 51 46 44 The noise levels in Table 4 indicate that except for Site 1, all locations are considered to be quiet suburban residential areas. Site 1 was located along Irvine Avenue and the noise levels are heavily influenced by traffic on that street. The Orange County Noise Ordinance requires that noise sources limit their noise to 55 dBA during daytime hours and 50 dBA during nighttime hours (for less than 30 minutes in any one hour). Since the time limit of 30 minutes in any one hour represents the L50 noise level, comparisons between the noise ordinance limits and the residential noise measurements can be made. All sites, except Site 1, experience noise levels less than the guidelines identified by the noise ordinance. L I I j I 7 , I IJ 2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS ' Potential noise impacts may arise from noise generated from dredging operations, and tag/scow hauling. Each of these activities are addressed below. 2.1 Dredging Operations Since the dredge noise will be at a relatively constant level (both for the hydraulic dredge ' and clamshell dredge options) the most critical parameter in complying with the ordinance will be the ISO percentile level. (The level of noise exceeded 50% of the time.) Therefore, this parameter was used to assess the impact of the proposed dredge operations. The Orange County Noise Ordinance standard for the ISO level is 55 dBA during the daytime and 50 dBA during the nighttime. The City of Newport does not have a noise ordinance, however, the Orange County requirements will be used as a guideline in assessing noise impacts. ' The distance from the dredge operation for various L50 levels was determined, and is presented in Table 5. The analysis assumes that there is no intervening topography that would act as a noise barrier and reduce noise levels. ITABLE5 ' L50 NOISE LEVELS FOR DREDGE OPERATIONS _Distance from DredEe (Feet) L50 Noise Level (dBA) Hydraulic Clamshell The L50 noise contours for the hydraulic dredge operations when located at the center of the excavation area is presented in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 5, similarly, presents L50 noise contour ' for the clamshell dredge. Exhibit 4 indicates that when the hydraulic dredge is in the middle of the excavation area residential areas will be exposed to L50 noise levels in excess of 50 dBA, but less than 55 dBA. However, as the dredge moves to other locations in the excavation area, residences will be exposed to L50 noise levels in excess of 55 dBA. When the dredge is operating in the excavation area closest to the residential areas (approximately': 50 feet away) the noise levels will be approximately 64 dBA. It is clear from the analysis that at almost all locations within the excavation area the noise level will exceed 50 dBA in the nearest residential area without some type of mitigation. This noise level is above ambient noise levels and will definitely be audible. This level is in excess of the nighttime guidelines provided by the Orange County Noise 8 75 100 56 70 178 100 65 316 178 60 562 316 55 1000 562 50 1778 1000 The L50 noise contours for the hydraulic dredge operations when located at the center of the excavation area is presented in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 5, similarly, presents L50 noise contour ' for the clamshell dredge. Exhibit 4 indicates that when the hydraulic dredge is in the middle of the excavation area residential areas will be exposed to L50 noise levels in excess of 50 dBA, but less than 55 dBA. However, as the dredge moves to other locations in the excavation area, residences will be exposed to L50 noise levels in excess of 55 dBA. When the dredge is operating in the excavation area closest to the residential areas (approximately': 50 feet away) the noise levels will be approximately 64 dBA. It is clear from the analysis that at almost all locations within the excavation area the noise level will exceed 50 dBA in the nearest residential area without some type of mitigation. This noise level is above ambient noise levels and will definitely be audible. This level is in excess of the nighttime guidelines provided by the Orange County Noise 8 0 0 0 c 0 U W .r 0 z 0 a A U CS L r .r rZi L'J W H Q u O N Q w W Z � u W Z � W U u Z W N W Z � O �' W b ... s. 0 c 0 U ... 0 z 0 a �, A r �..� N �..n h U �n ., W W a V O � z w W Z u w z � w V u Z W J f-. � N '^ W '� Ordinance. During nighttime operations some complaints from nearby residences would be anticipated, and some sleep disturbance would be experienced by local residents. During the , daytime, depending on the location of the hydraulic dredge, the noise levels experienced in the adjacent residential areas will vary from below 55 dBA up to 64 dBA. This level is above ambient daytime noise levels and some complaints may be anticipated With the hydraulic dredge option a booster pump may or may not be necessary. This ' would be a pump located somewhere between the excavation area and the scow marshalling area that would assist the dredge primp. According to Mr. Cheney, the booster pump is usually , an electric primp. Electric primps of the size required are considered to be quiet, and no noise impacts are anticipated should the use of a booster pump be requited. Exhibit 5 indicates that when the clamshell dredge is in the middle of the excavation area residential areas will be exposed to I50 noise levels less than 50 dBA. However, as the dredge moves to other locations in the excavation area, residences will be exposed to ISO noise levels in excess of 50 dBA. When the clamshell dredge is operating in the excavation area closest to the residential areas (approximately 350 feet away) the noise levels will be approximately 59 dBA. Depending on the location of the clamshell dredge the noise levels in nearby residential areas may or may not be in excess of the nighttime guidelines provided by the Orange County , Noise Ordinance. During nighttime operations some complaints from nearby residences would be anticipated when the dredge is operating within 1000 feet of residences. During the daytime, depending on the location of the hydraulic dredge, the noise levels experienced in the adjacent residential areas will vary from below 50 dBA up to 59 dBA. This level is above ambient ' daytime noise levels and some complaints may be anticipated. Since the clamshell dredge operations are anticipated to be quieter than the hydraulic dredge, fewer noise impacts and complaints would be anticipated with the clamshell dredge option. ' 2.2 Tug Boat Operations With the hydraulic dredge operations approximately 26 tug trips will be made through ' lower Newport Bay. Tug trips during the daytime hours will not generate noise levels in excess of those levels normally experienced during this time period. Approximately 10 of the 26 tug trips will occur during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 am.). Noise levels during these tug , trips will generate noise levels in excess of 60 dBA in residential areas for brief periods of time. These noise levels may cause a limited amount of sleep disturbance. For the clamshell dredge option, fewer tug trips per day will be required. Approximately 10 trips per day will occur with the clamshell dredge option. Approximately 4 trips would be made during the nighttime hours. In the lower portion of Newport Bay the same size of tugs would be used as with the hydraulic dredge option, and the same noise levels would be ' anticipated. With the clamshell option smaller tugs will pass from the excavation area to the scow marshalling area below the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. Although the tugs traversing the Upper Newport Bay area will be smaller, they will be forced to pass closer to residents, , and therefore, noise levels in excess of 60 dBA are anticipated during a tug pass -by. During the nighttime hours some sleep disturbance may result in the nearest residences to the channel in Upper Newport Bay. In summary, tug boat operations are anticipated to cause some minor noise impacts during , the nighttime hours in the form of sleep disturbance in residences closest to the harbor. The clamshell dredge operation would result in a fewer number of nighttime tug trips in and out of , the harbor. The potential impact area due to tug trips would be extended into the Upper 9 Newport Bay area with the clamshell dredge option. 2.3 Summary The clamshell dredge option appear to be inherently quieter, but will extend over a longer period of time. The clamshell dredge utilized appears to be quieter, due to the smaller engine size, than a comparable hydraulic dredge. Fewer tug trips per night through Newport Bay will be required with the clamshell dredge option. However, the night tug impact will extend into residential areas adjacent to the channel in the Upper Newport Bay area. 10 L A performance condition may be imposed on the dredging operations. A performance ' condition would allow dredging operations to proceed as long as specified noise levels are not exceeded The noise limits contained in the Orange County Noise Ordinance could be used as the criteria levels. This would allow dredging operations to proceed as long as equipment could be modified or operated in such a way that would result acceptable noise levels in the adjacent residential area. Il 1 1 1 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Intrusive noise levels will be generated by dredging operations when located close to ' adjacent residential areas. Additional mitigation measures to be considered include; measures to quiet to the dredging equipment, limiting time of operation, and performance conditions. Noise generated by dredging equipment comes from a variety of sources including exhaust noise and mechanical or engine noise. The most significant of these sources is usually the engine noise. The engine noise can be quieted in several ways. The most obvious first step in quieting the engine noise is to close the engine compartment The noise projections made were based on field measurements of a dredge in operation with its engine compartment open. The engine enclosures vary from boat to boat, but a minimum of a 5 dBA noise reduction could be achieved by closing the engine compartment An additional 5 to 10 dBA could be attained by the use of lead curtains. Lead curtains are pieces of canvas cloth with lead sheets sown into the material. The lead curtains are usually hung around a piece of equipment to act as a temporary noise barrier. For the dredge operations the lead curtains could simply be draped over the engine compartment to provide additional soundproof material. This approach should be ' equally successful on either the hydraulic or clamshell dredges. Additional noise reductions would probably have to be attained by addressing the muffler system. Additional muffler: or a higher grade muffler could be used to lower the exhaust noise. , Time constraints are often imposed upon construction projects as a noise mitigation measure. The typical constraint would be to limit construction activities to daytime hours and to weekdays only. This type of constraint would have severe cost implications (discussed in the ' feasibility report by Mr. Cheney) and are not considered feasible for this project A performance condition may be imposed on the dredging operations. A performance ' condition would allow dredging operations to proceed as long as specified noise levels are not exceeded The noise limits contained in the Orange County Noise Ordinance could be used as the criteria levels. This would allow dredging operations to proceed as long as equipment could be modified or operated in such a way that would result acceptable noise levels in the adjacent residential area. Il 1 1 11 1, f. I E. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT I 11 I r [1 Mestre Greve Associates Air Quality Assessment Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program, Unit II AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM, UNIT H CITY. OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared By Fred Greve, P.E. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 760 -0891 October 11, 1985 �J AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM, UNIT II CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY ' 1.1 Climate The climate around the Upper Newport Bay area, as with all of Southern California, is ' controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet' season. Temperatures are normally mild ' with rare extremes above 100 degrees F or below freezing. Daily and seasonal variations about the annual mean temperature of 62 degrees F are small. Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime on -shore sea breezes. At night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind direction will be altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. Wind data is regularly collected at John Wayne Airport. A wind rose for John Wayne . Airport is presented in Exhibit 1. A wind rose presents the direction and percent of time that the wind blows from that direction. For example, the John Wayne Airport data indicates that the wind blows from the south 2.3 % of the time with a wind speed between 15 and 24 miles per ' hour. The winds are calm (less than 3 miles per hour) 14.1 percent of the time. The winds have a strong tendency to blow from the southwest. Adding the percentages in all of the south to west sectors indicates that the wind blows from the general direction of southwest over 63 ' percent of the time. Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated Ground based inversions, ' sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear cold early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occur,, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. ' Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South C ist Air ' Basin and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. ' 1.2 Air Quality Management The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and, jurisdictionally, is the 1 1 11 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 7 .4v Exhibit 1- Wind Rose responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for ' stationary sources in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a non-attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, total suspended particulate matter, and lead The AQMP has the goal of ' achieving healthful levels of air quality by 1987, and is mandated by State and Federal laws. Included in the plan are new stationary and mobile source controls; carpooling, vanpooling, and otherride - sharing programs; and energy conservation measures. The AQMP is designed to accoaunodate a moderate amount of new development and growth throughout the basin. The ' AQMP projections and mitigations are based on the SCAG-82A Growth Forecasts. 1.3 Monitored Air Quality Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates for the South Coast Air Basin have been made for existing emissions C'Final Air ' Quality Management Plan, 1982 Revision;' October 1982). The data indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional emissions. Motor vehicles (i.e., on -road mobile sources) account for 40 percent of reactive hydrocarbon emissions, 51 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, and 82 percent of carbon monoxide emissions. The nearest air monitoring station operated by the SCAQMD is in Costa Mesa, approximately 3 miles northwest of the project site. The data collected at this station is considered to be representative of the air quality experienced in the vicinity of the project area. The project site is in the SCAQMD's Source Receptor Area 18, for which the designated monitoring station is Costa Mesa. Air quality data for 1979 through 1983 for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 1. (Summary data for 1984 has not yet been released by the SCAQMD.) L ' 2 TABLE 1 AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE COSTA MESA AMBIENT AIR MONITORING STATION California National Maximum Days State Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded Ozone 0.1 ppm 0.12 ppm 1979 0.21 26 for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 1980 0.16 20 1981 0.20 28 1982 0.18 25 1983 0.25 41 Particulate matter 100 ug/m3 260 ug/m3 1979 252 26 for 24 hr. for 24 hr. 1980 125 6 1981 Not Monitored 1982 Not Monitored 1983 Not Monitored CO 9 ppm 9 ppm 1979 21 18 for 8 hour for 8 hour 1980 17 7 1981 15 5 1982 21 2 1983 14 1 NO2 .25 ppm 0.05 ppm 1979 .29 4 for 1 hour annual average 1980 .31 2 1981 .29 2 1982 .23 0 1983 .27 1 Lead 1.5 ug /m3 1.5 ug /m3 1979 1.90 3 30 day average quarterly avg. 1980 .82 0 1981 Not Monitored 1982 Not Monitored 1983 Not Monitored NOTES: 1. Standards for sulfur dioxide and sulfates were not exceeded- The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of the chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in Costa Mesa. All areas of the 3 South Coast Air Basin contribute to the ozone levels experienced at Costa Mesa, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. The ozone levels at Costa Mesa have not significantly increased or decreased over the last 10 years. ' Particulate concentrations monitored at the Costa Mesa station should be representative of the levels currently experienced at the project site. Particulate matter levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles. r-, �I C 1 LI I �u 1 I ' 4 I 2.0 POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The air quality impacts of the proposed project can be divided into two general categories; ' air pollutant emissions due to the operation of equipment, and odor impacts. 2.1 Emissions Due to the Operation of Equipment ' Estimates of the emissions generated by the proposed project were made. Emissions will be generated by diesel engines on tug boats, guide boats, and the dredging equipment. Two dredging alternatives were considered; a hydraulic dredge alternative and a clamshell dredge , alterative. The number and size of boats involved, the type of dredging equipment, the length of operation, and therefore, the projected emissions for the two alternatives differ. Emission "Compilation factor; provided in the of Air Pollutant Emission Factors;' (U.S. Environmental ' Protection Agency) were used along with operation details found in the "Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Program, Unit II," (MJL Cheney, Consulting Civil Engineer, August 1985) to project emissions. Emission rates for boat operations are only provided for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons in the EPA document. A spreadsheet identifying ' the variables and emissions factors used in the calculations is provided in the Appendix. The emission estimates should be considered as very approximate, since the exact size, type, and operational characteristics of the equipment to be used is not known at this time. This type of , information will not become available until the work has gone out to bid and a contract awarded. The emissions are presented in two ways. In Table 2 the emissions are presented on a daily i basis. That is the amount of emissions anticipated to occur in a typical work day. Table 3 presents the total emissions generated during the project. This approach is presented because one alternative, specifically the clamshell dredge alternative, will take a longer period of time to complete. TABLE 2 ' DAILY EMISSIONS FOR UNIT II OPERATIONS (Pounds Per Day) ' Alternative ' Emission Hydraulic Dredge Clamshell Dredge Carbon Monoxide 295.6 238.7 ' Hydrocarbons 68.1 60.5 Nitrogen Oxides 1536.3 1288.5 ' 5 ' 1 TABLE 3 TOTAL EMISSIONS FOR UNIT Il OPERATIONS (Tons) Alternative Emission Hydraulic Dredge Clamshell Dredge Carbon Monoxide ' Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Oxides I I I 1 14.2 27.2 3.3 6.9 73.7 146.9 The data in Tables 2 and 3 indicate that the hydraulic dredge option would generate slightly more emissions on a daily basis. Since the duration of the project is much shorter with the hydraulic dredge option, the hydraulic dredge alternate will generate almost half the total emissions that the clamshell option. The total emissions generated by the project are compared to emissions for Orange County in Table 4. The Orange County emissions are for 1987 and are from the 1982 Revision to the Air Quality Management Plan. The increases in all pollutants when compared to Orange County emissions will be extremely small, specifically less than 0.5 percent. Since the emissions projected for the project are such a small fraction of regional emissions, there will be no significant regional air quality impacts as a result of the proposed project. TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS WITH REGIONAL EMISSIONS 1987 Orange County Emissions (Tons /Day) Hydraulic Dredge Option Emissions (Lbs./Day) Percent of County Emissions Clamsbell Dredge Option Emissions (Lbs./Day) Percent of County Emissions CO HC NOx 981.3 319.1 171.4 295.6 68.1 1536.3 0.02 0.01 0.45 238.7 60.5 1288.5 0.01 0.01 0.38 0 2.2 Odor Generation Potential The proposed project consists of removing sediment and water. This sediment and water may have odors associated with it which would be annoying to nearby residential areas. The following section addresses the odor generation and impact potential on the surrounding area with emphasis on residential development Malodors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a hazard to health. Most complaints regarding tnvironatental odors fall neatly into this category, which has been defined as an effect which may not be demonstrably pathogenic but which involves a negative factor for an individual's comfort and well - being;' (Reference 7). Not all odors should be considered as simply an annoyance. The reaction to foul odors can range from unease, discomfort, irritation, and anger to violent physiologic manifestations, including circulatory and respiratory effects; nausea, vomiting, and headache. Psychophysical and other studies are needed to make it possible to predict, before a potential odortmission source is constructed, the degree of odor control that will be needed at the source to avoid community displeasure (Reference 7). Odor assessment is a very complex problem for several reasons. First, the ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population. Some individuals have the ability to smell very minute quantities of substances. Unfortunately, the human nose is the only good odor sensing device known, and it is notoriously undependable. Moreover, different people may have different reactions to the same odor. What is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another. Not only is there marked disagreement as to the offensiveness of selected odors, but also two other problems hinder attempts at odor control. First, unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. Second, because of a phenomenon known as odor fatigue, given sufficient time a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and be conscious of it only when a change in intensity occurs. Quality and intensity are two properties of any odor. The quality of an odor refers to the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if we describe an odor as flowery or sweet we are describing the quality of the odor. The intensity of the odor refers to the strength of that odor. For instance, when an odor is described as strong, we are describing the intensity of the odor. Numerous efforts have been made to classify odors and to relate the chemical composition and molecular structure of the odorous substances to their odors. To date, no completely satisfactory relationship has been established For example, Henning (Reference 8) suggested that the odor quality should be classified according to the following system: 1. Spicy (e.g., cloves) 2. Flowery (e.g., geranium) 3. Fruity (e.g., oil of orange) 4. Resinous (e.g., turpentine or eucalyptus oil) 5. Burnt (e.g., tar) 6. Foul (e.g., sulfurated hydrogen) Odor intensity is the strength of the perceived odor sensation and depends in a complex way on the odorant concentration, with which it should not be confused When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the concentration of odorants decreases, and the odor intensity 7 ' weakens, but not in direct proportion to the extent of the dilution. With further dilution, the intensity eventually becomes so low that detection or recognition of the odor is very difficult. At some point of dilution the "detection threshold" is reached. Somewhat less dilution (i.e., somewhat higher odorant concentration) is needed to recognize the odor, this dilution is termed the "recognition threshold" The most common devices for ranking the perceived intensity of odors are category scales. A category scale consists of a series of numbers with a definition of their meaning. One of the most widely used is that developed by Katz and Talbert (described in Reference 1). The odor intensity scale developed is as follows: 0 - No odor 1- Very faint odor 2 - Faint odor 3 - Easily noticeable odor 4 - Strong odor ' 5 - Very strong odor ' The generally accepted relationship between odor intensity and odorous contaminant concentration is given by the Weber- Fechner equation: (Odor intensity) = D + K log(Concentration) In this equation, the constant D is determined from experiment and depends upon the units in which the odorant concentration is expressed Values of K have been found to vary from 0.3 to 1.0. This equation is important since one can establish the relationship between diluting the odor containing gas and the resultant decrease in odor intensity. The equation indicates that large changes in the concentration of the odorous gas must occur before the perceived intensity of the odor changes. The logarithmic dependence shows that it is necessary for the ambient concentration to increase by almost a factor of 10 to 2000 depending on the value of K to increase the odor intensity by one intensity level. A value for K of 0.5 is very typical. For a K value of 0.5 a hundredfold reduction in emissions would be required to improve an odor from t "easily noticeable' to "faint," and another hundredfold to make it "very faint." Reduction of odorous emissions by a factor of 2 or 3 would hardly be appreciated It has been found that the concentration of a typical odorant would have to be changed by more than 50 percent before an observer could distinguish any difference in intensity. Thus the Weber- Fechner law gives us a measure of the size of the problem. When odors are of concern, major efforts are required for improvements (Reference 1). tOdor Generation Odors generated are attributable to the inherent odor of the compounds in the water and to ' odors generated by the decomposition of the wastes. The decomposition of waste can be either aerobic or anaerobic. Odors generated by each of three mechanisms will be discussed in detail. Inherent Odors Inherent odors are those odors which a material has when new or fresh. For example an apple when fresh has an inherent odor familiar to everyone. If the apple is allowed is to sit and ' rot new odors become evident due to the decomposition process. Fresh seawater has a distinct odor which is commonly perceived as pleasurable. 1 8 I Odors Generated by Aerobic Decomposition There are two very important cycles in nature involving the decay of organic material. In both cycles bacteria and other microorganisms digest organic material. As long as organic material is available and the environmental conditions are within acceptable limits the bacteria continue to digest, grow, and multiply. This processes is commonly referred to as the decomposition or decay of organic wastes. As this process proceeds gases, many of which are odorous are produced. The type of gases produced and the resulting odor differ depending on whether the decomposition is aerobic or anaerobic. While both processes generate some odor, ' the anaerobic process generates considerably more malodors. The difference between aerobic and anaerobic decomposition is in the microorganisms use of oxygen. In the aerobic cycle the microorganisms present use oxygen for the decay of the organic matter. Oxygen is not used for the decay of organic matter in the anaerobic cycle. In the aerobic cycle organic matter (composed of primarily of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen) is digested by the microorganism with oxygen, producing carbon dioxide and water. A generalized formula for the aerobic process is: Organic Matter + Oxygen —> Carbon Dioxide + Water Any sulfur containing organic compounds will be converted to sulfur dioxide. Similarly, nitrogen containing compounds will be converted to some form of oxides of nitrogen. Therefore, the majority of by- products of aerobic decomposition, specifically, carbon dioxide, water, and oxides of nitrogen are odorless. Sulfur oxides have a slight odor described as "sulfury and pungent." The odor threshold for sulfur dioxide is 0.47 ppm (Reference 8). Odors Generated by Anaerobic Decomposition , Anaerobic decomposition occurs anytime that there is a lack of oxygen. This type of condition can occur, for example, in stagnant bottom waters. The bottom layer of water is not exposed to air, and becomes deficient in oxygen. Initially, the organic material in this layer would begin to undergo aerobic decomposition. After a short period of time the oxygen supply in the lower portions will be depleted, and anaerobic decomposition will develop. ' The anaerobic process converts organic matter to methane and carbon dioxide. The generalized chemical equation is: Organic Matter ---- -> Methane + Carbon Dioxide Nitrogen contained in the organic waste will be converted to ammonia which has an odor ' threshold of 46.8 ppm. Of more concern is the fact that the sulfur contained in the organic waste will be converted to hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide has an odor described as rotten eggs and pungent. Its odor threshold is 0.00047 ppm, which is a very low odor threshold. Comparing this to the odor threshold of sulfur dioxide generated by aerobic decomposition , reveals why the anaerobic process generates substantially more odors. The threshold concentration for sulfur dioxide is 'OM times higher than hydrogen sulfide. The odors related to anaerobic decomposition are retcrred to as septic or putrefactive. ' 9 1 I I ITMXM7TFTM, 1 Estuarine waters are almost constantly on the move. The three most important factors operating to produce currents in estuaries are oceanic tides, stream flow, and wind. These factors help in maintaining a high level of dissolved oxygen in the water and thus preventing anaerobic or stagnant conditions from developing. Oxygen is introduced into the water through I the interaction between the wind and surface water. The rising and dropping of the tides results in considerable mud flat areas being exposed to the atmosphere, and then being covered again at high tide. This mechanism also introduces oxygen into the water. Finally, the bottom algae and many microorganisms convert carbon dioxide to oxygen through the same process as green terrestrial plants. Since bottom algae and these oxygen producing microorganisms require sunlight for this process they are limited to shallow waters. 10 I In many estuaries the typical current pattern is one wherein the lighter, fresh water flows seaward over the upstream movement of denser saline waters (denser by virtue of having a greater concentration of dissolved salts). Under these conditions, a vertical salinity gradient exists, and the estuary is said to show stratification. The gradient acts to isolate the bottom layer, and in deep estuaries the bottom saline layer can become depleted in oxygen and anaerobic conditions develop. This condition does not appear to commonly occur in the Upper Newport Bay area, most likely due to its limited depth. However, some signs of anaerobic processes are evident in some of the muds. A black layer of mud is usually an indication of anaerobic conditions having been present. Layers of this black mud were encountered during Unit I operations, and black mud can be found in other parts of the Bay. However these layers of black mud may be due to a localized condition rather than being indicative of more widespread anaerobic conditions. In many areas the black layer appears to be shallow, indicating that the top layer of mud was aerobic while lower layers of mud became depleted of oxygen but had sufficient nutrients, water, etc. to support anaerobic bacteria and microorganisms. ` Odor Regulations In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was directed to study "the effects on public health and welfare of odors or odorous emissions, the sources of such emissions, and the costs of such technology or measures, and the costs and benefits of alternative measures or strategies abate such emissions." However, due to the complexity of the problem, and an unclear link with public health, the federal government has not adopted any standards with regards to odors. The need for some type of regulation is evident It is estimated that 50 percent or more of the complaints about air pollution deal with exposure to odors. In 1969, estimates of the total number of people affected by odor; in the United States were made. Some of the conclusions were 1 (Reference 4); * About 1.5 million residents would voluntarily state that odors are a disadvantage to living in their areas of their tides. ' * More than 53 million residents would state that odors are a continuously serious problem. ' * About 3 million residents would state that odor pollution has reduced the value of their home property. 10 I I Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor the California Air Resources Board ' have established ambient air quality criteria for odors. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has adopted a nuisance ordinance which provides some protection to the public from malodors. The SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance, reads as follows: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or ' annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business ' or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. This rule, according to officials at the SCAQMD, can be difficult to enforce, if challenged by the operator. The case must be tried in criminal court, requiring a substantial amount of time for prosecution and fees for lawyers. The Wiling is often subject to the court's interpretation of nuisance and annoyance. However, the rule has been applied successfully to projects ' generating odor; in the past. History of Odor Complaints ' Mr. Don Simpson, the Project Coordinator for the Unit I Operation, was contacted to determine if odor complaints had been received during Unit I operations. Mr. Simpson indicated that no complaints had been received during the Unit I operations in regards to odors. Very faint odors had been detected at times during these operations, and were generally described as musty. Strong odors or rotten egg odors characteristic of anaerobic processes were not detected even though layers of black mud (indicating the presence of anaerobic conditions at some time) had been encountered Odors are sometime evident in the Upper Bay area. Generally these odors are considered very faint, not objectionable, and due to natural sources. Strong hydrogen sulfide odors (due to anaerobic processes) are not present. Mr. Mike Cheney, consulting Civil Engineer on the Unit II project, was contacted to ascertain his experience. His experience has been that objectionable odors had not been a problem on previous projects. Hydraulic dredge operations are currently underway in the Dunes area of Upper Newport Bay. An informal survey of the area was conducted and no odors were noticeable. The survey was conducted on two separate days. Odor Disnersion Analysis ' The release point of odors, if any, differ for the two dredging oI' .ins under consideration. For the hydraulic dredge option the system is closed until it reaches the barges. At this point the , bottom water and sediment is piped into an open scow. It is at this point any odors will be released into the atmosphere. The currently envisioned location of the scow marshalling area for this option is at the east end of Lido Island Residential areas (i.e., Lido Island) are less ' 11 ' I I than 500 feet to the west of this location. The dominant wind direction in this area is from the southwest, and residences lie less than 600 feet downwind of the marshalling area with a southwest wind. LWith the clamshell dredge option, the primary point of release of any odors would be at the excavation site. The use of the clamshell dredge would locate the scows at the excavation area. The primary excavation area lies just south of the salt water dike, but would extend down to the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. Residences are as close as 100 feet to this excavation path. Typically, the excavation operation is roughly 1000 feet from nearby residential areas. A dispersion analysis was conducted for the proposed project The purpose of the analysis was to determine the dilution ratio that will occur at various locations downwind. The dispersion analysis compares the odor concentration experienced in the vicinity of the scows with the odor concentration experienced downwind. Therefore, if one can estimate the odor concentration experienced at the scows, this analysis can be used to identify the intensity of the odor in downwind areas. It should be noted that unlike most air contaminants the emission rate ' of odors can not be calculated for most sources. The factors generating the odors are too complex, vary considerably from day to day, and need further research before they can be forecasted with any degree of certainty. However. based on the experience with Unit I. the me oaors in me vrcmrry or me scows wui nor oe nonceao�e. or as a worsr case may ce very fSlat. L The "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Publication No. AP -26, 1973) was used for the dispersion analysis. The methodology utilized is approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Two meteorological conditions were modeled, a worst case and typical situation. For the worst case, a slow wind speed of 2 miles per hour, and a Stability Class D were utilized A Stability Class D was utilized, since it is the most stable atmosphere that would be expected in a developed area such as the one being modeled For the typical meteorological case a Stability Class C, and a wind speed of 6 miles per hour were utilized. An initial vertical and horizontal dispersion for the site must be assumed. These quantities represent the mixing cell over the project site. The odorous pollutants are released into the air environment, and undergo an initial mechanical mixing at the site due to the various activities and structures on site. That is, wind turbulence 1 around structures provide an initial mixing and dilution effect before the odorous gases leave the site. The dimensions of this initial mixing cell were estimated to be 20 feet high and 200 feet wide in a direction perpendicular to the wind A short averaging time of 3 minutes was used for the projections. A short averaging time was used because people notice and react to odors quickly. For reference purposes an odor concentration of 1 was assumed at the property line under worst case meteorological conditions. This level is simply a reference level, it does not have any measurement units, and does not imply a relationship to any odor threshold 1 concentration. Exhibits 2 and 3 were developed to display the horizontal dispersion. Exhibit 2 displays the potential odor impact area for the hydraulic dredge option with the scow located at the east end of Lido Island Exhibit 3 represents the clamshell dredge option with the scow being loaded in the middle of the main excavation area. The exhibits show lines of equal relative concentration. The-relative concentrations shown are 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01. If the odor at the ' scow was "very faint" then all areas within the 0.01 relative concentration line would perceive the odor as somewhere between "very faint" and "not noticeable." The exhibits presented are for a southwesterly wind (a wind from the southwest direction). Other wind directions would ' simply rotate the isopleth lines around the project site. 12 I U x v O 'C! O O C N � �+ y W H Q U N w Q w W Z u W Z � w V u z w J �^ z � o 1 1� 1 U .r Cl L "C x U C� L' HI i. O "Cf �f r U G3 C) � O N U � 3 W a u O VI N Vf OC W W Z � u w z y. w u u W Z OC H � N W G � u m y i a{ ► A03 5 i irr _t � t ati ` ad '�7' I �`� FAll dr?�C�� }j1 F`k`at..a4�{2's�t Ott t. .�'fayl`gj.re+}`mm 6'k°�hCrof'Yfi'�t"? "J narf -'jy♦ tyd�TjY+�'.- ('� }",+��f,C4j�� C1� /+� . �k � `tiitinTi'i rn�� CtiT Y i+iC�. ?� iy�s t y� L} ♦ A k� tf S✓ tvly F+"i7'S( 'v �r� �y{ y ► +Yl d.1 ?t'T+c+�f i ♦�•rn(`1� � tr �{ ♦t... ia!! �F • a Y.e k L,p`.syd�� i�r �� ♦.+t tvf,�pRA V� jilt' "G�`�FY Api� v� , •�(i'Sr�J�ACWFr ` C� �-A�X 'Y.. i:t i ,h ♦. �5,,.��.��4 � ♦ 1, iR��s`y t�,,��!! � �� - t' +�";"����*.++�r'� d / - - yr., V++ l�K'+' . k`�.p�1�'�?�J`'�r� (� �t � i '� r !v i � �� � i}'?. �`� ,ysr axr, ty a M•^. t+Tti�`'l FY X,rJ.5 t�i`•�x ti.- •�t'd� \V `y k /='=u ^ [��WrY��(`}ay -♦�'" "� , � k vt F'L�",?,� tNt i Sl t'c"`�a �.,\k' +irk•.,�'li; j t t'v t_. � `" ya ",tl�k".i t+�':... �j)�r�..' v 5 v Y 4a r �. 4;J2xli� t� ...p�r t iA ♦y;. abti,,..7.r6N''y i c" e1� ii tiryT+4�r2•�_ y M� ' 1 �jk ♦..C•` d �W -0et � . -i�+t+ 01F r�t ..:�;'+tr♦ce..a �'`!L.!..!o�.+_. -i?, . -. �j ..:._� ^ii :. .'r J' �". �'. h: �^-: w�i'{' i2htS�13.'kk.?�dStk.' ^l`el'a.. -+ y d O � W V d � W � W OW6. vt ~6 I vi t 1 1 1 y 0 0 b cs r • w I .o L WA W 6 v Q W J W w V � z W uj Z 2; 5 D With the hydraulic dredge option and with a very faint odor at the loading scow, very faint odors would likely be detected under both typical and worst case meteorological conditions. The potential odor impact appears to be less severe with the clamshell dredge option, in large part due to the relative location of residential areas with respect to the excavation area. If very faint odor; were present at the loading scow with the clamshell option odors may be detected in residential areas under worst case meteorological conditions, but would not be noticeable with typical meteorological conditions. With the typical southwest wind, the nearest downwind residential area to the clamshell excavation area will be over 3000 feet away. Summary of Potential Odor Impact Based on the experience with Unit I, the experience of Mr. Mike Cheney, and review of the biological processes involved it appears that the odors in the vicinity of the scows will not be noticeable, or as a worst case may be very faint. A dispersion analysis indicates that if the odors are very faint at the scow area they will also be perceived as very faint in nearby residential areas under worst case meteorological conditions. Odors will not usually be noticeable with typical meteorological conditions for the clamshell dredge option. With the hydraulic dredge, if odors are very faint at the loading scow then odors will likely be perceived in downwind residential areas. However, it is anticipated that the vast majority of the time odors will not be noticeable in adjacent residential with either of the dredging options. The potential area of impact varies with the two dredging options. For the clamshell dredge option the potential area for odor impact would be the residences surrounding Upper Newport Bay. For the hydraulic dredge option the scow marshalling area will be off the east end of Lido Island, and the residential areas surrounding this location will be the potential area of impact. I I I 13 ' 1 r3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures are not proposed for the project. Emissions generated by the dredging operations will be very small in comparison to regional emissions and no degradation to the local air quality is anticipated. The odor analysis indicates that typically no odor is anticipated, ' and that under worst case conditions a very faint odor may be detected in residential areas. Containment of any odorous gases would be virtually impossible for the clamshell dredge operation because the receiving scow must remain open to receive the sediment. With the hydraulic dredge operation, the scow could conceivably be covered. However, covering an open scow would incur a substantial cost which does not appear to be warranted at this time. I I A r r I I I I I I I 14 REFERENCES 1. Williamson, S.J., Fundamentals of Air Pollution, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1973. 2. Turner, D.B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, Environmental Protection Agency, AP -26, 1970. 3. Cheremisinoff, P.N. and R.A. Young, Industrial Odor Technology Assessment, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1977. 4. Summer, W., Odor Pollution of Air. Causes and Control, CRC Press, 1971. 5. Pavoni, J.L., Handbook of Solid Waste Disposal, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1975. 6. Turk, A., Human Responses to Environmental Odors, Academic Press, 1974. 7. Odors from Stationary and Mobile Sources, National Research Council, Committee on Odors from Stationary and Mobile Sources, National Academy of Sciences, 1979. 8. Faith, W.L., Air Pollution, Wiley Interscience, 1972. I P I I I I 11 I 15 1 1 1 APPENDIX AIR EMISSION CALCULATIONS 16 i 1 '1 1 i �1 i i �1 1 '1 1 F. 1986 AOCYC MASTER CALENDAR 0 4 I ' FEBRUARY, 1986 1 -2 BYC .......... 1986 AOCYC MASTER CALENDAR ' 1 SSYC ..........Winter Hibachi Series #2 (PHRF) JANUARY, 1986 Tune Up (PHRF) ' 4 -5 BYC ..........Sunkist Series #3 (4 Inside, 5 Outside) 11 SSYC .........Winter Hibachi Series #1 (PHRF) 11 -12 NHYC .........Winter Series #3 (11 Inside, 12 Outside) 11 -12 CPBYC ........San Juan Series (PHRF, MORC) 12 DPYC .........Regatta Regatta ' 25 SSYC .........SCYA Seminar, Racing Rules ' 26 VYC ..........Jack Starkey Memorial (Soling_) 22 SSYC ..........Winter Hibachi Series #2 (PHRF) ' FEBRUARY, 1986 1 -2 BYC .......... Sunkist Series #4 (1 Inside, 2 Outside) ' 1 SSYC ..........Winter Hibachi Series #2 (PHRF) 1 DPYC ..........Midwinter Tune Up (PHRF) ' 2 CPBYC .........One Design (Juniors) 8 NHYC /BYC ......Ahmanson /Dickson #1 and 66 Series #1 (OR, PHRF) 9 LIYC ..........Valentine Regatta and Midwinter Tune Up (Inside) 15 SCYA Regatta -16 ..........Midwinter (All Classes) ' 17 SCYA ..........Midwinter Regatta (IOR only) 22 SSYC ..........Winter Hibachi Series #2 (PHRF) u I I MARCH, 1986 1 -2 BYC ..........One Design (Inside and Outside) 2 DPYC .........Dana Point Series #1 (PHRF) 8 BCYC .........Angelman Series #1 (PHRF) 9 LIYC .........Regatta 9 CPBYC ........One Design (Juniors) • 14 -16 NHYC .........Corkett Trophy (MORC) 15 -16 BCYC .........St. Patrick's Day Regatta (Inside North Sabot Series #1 16 CPBYC ........St. Patrick's Day Regatta (PHRF) 22 DPYC .........Henry Harding Regatta (PHRF) 22 -23 VYC /SSYC ...... Bogart Series #1, #2, High Point Series #1, #2 (PHRF) 22 -23 BYC ..........Harry Wood Regatta (Lido 14) 29 NHYC /BYC .....Ahmanson /Dickson #2 and 66 Series #2 (OR, PHRF) APRIL, 1986 2 -6 NHYC .........USYC Challenge (Invitational) 5 LIYC .........Senior Sabot Regatta 5 DPYC .........Dana Point Series #2 5 CPBYC ........OR Series #1 (PHRF) 6 DPYC ........Spring Tune Up (One Design) 12 BYC ..........Men's Sabot Regatta 12 BCYC .........Angelman Series #2 12 -13 NHYC .........Spring Gold Cup 19 BCYC .........Marina del Rey - Newport (with PMYC, CYC) (OR, PHRF) 19 NHYC .........Ahmanson /Dickson #3 (OR, PHRF) 20 NHYC /BYC .....Ahmanson /Dickson #4 and 66 Series #3 (OR, PHRF) 26 -28 NOSA ENSENADA RACE 26 -27 NHYC .........One Design (Outside) MAY, 1986 3 NHYC ..........Opening Day Race 4 NHYC ..........Opening Day 10 BCYC, BYC, LIYC. SSYC, VYC, SIYC .....Opening Day 17 BYC .........Herb Tobin Kids Regatta (L. A. Youth Group) 17 DPYC ........May Flower Regatta (One Design ) 17 BCYC ......:.Lido 14 Open Invitational 17 CPBYC .......OR Series #2 17 NHYC ........Ahmanson /Dickson #5 (OR, PHRF) 18 CPBYC, DPYC, DWYC .....Opening Day 23 -25 BYC ..........Swan Regatta 24 -25 CPBYC, DPYC ..Catalina Island Race 31 BCYC, SSYC, VYC .....Angelman #3, High Point #3, Bogart #3 (PHRF) 31 -1 BYC ..........Lido 14 Fleet Championship 31 -1 BYC ..........One Design Regatta (Inside, Outside) i 1 I f �I i JUNE, 1986 4 BCYC .........Fanny - Wet Ladies Sabot Regatta 7 -8 BCYC, C BYC ..Reverse Argosy (PHRF) 7 LIYC .........Lido Raft Up 8 CPBYC ........Single /Double Handed ,egatta 14 -15 DPYC .........Dana Belles Series f1, 2, 3, 4 14 BCYC .........Duel -in- the -Sun (Challenge Match) 14 -15 NHYC, BYC ....Ahmanson /Dickson #6, 7 and 66 Series #4, 5 (OR, PHRF) 21 -22 LIYC .........Junior Regatta 21 -22 CPBYC, DPYC ..One Design (Juniors) 28 VYC ..........Bogart Series #4 (PHRF) 28 CPBYC, DPYC ..OR Series #3, 4 and Dana Point Series #3, 4 28 -29 BCYC .........Stars and Stripes Regatta (Inside) 28 -29 NHYC .........One Design (Outside) I JULY, 1986 ' 9 -13 BYC .........Governor'sCup (Invitational) , 12 -13 SSYC ........Hi Point Series #4, 5 (PHRF) 12 -13 SSYC ........Southshore Offshore Series #l, 2 (PHRF) , 12 -13 NHYC ........One Design /Baxter Bowl (Inside and Outside) , 17 LIYC ........All Girl Regatta 19 BCYC ........Angelman Series #4 (PHRF) , 19 BYC .........Ullman "B" Regatta (Lido 14) 19 VYC .........Bogart Series #5 (PHRF) 19 CPBYC .......OR Series #5 (PHRF) , 19 -20 LIYC ........Midsummer Regatta (One Design) 19 -20 DPYC ........One Design Regatta , 20 BYC .........66 Series #6 (OR, PHRF) 22 -24 HHYC ........Sabot II Northern Championship , 26 -27 DPYC ........Seal Beach - Dana Point Race (with SBYC) ' 26 -27 SSMC ........Crew of 2 Round Catalina (PHRF, MORC, ORCA) 26 -27 BYC, BCYC, NHYC .....Mid Summer Regatta ((nside, Outside, One Design) 30 -31 NHYC ........Balboa Bay Fleet Sabot Eliminations r� u . i ' I i 1 i 1 AUGUST, 1986 2 DPYC ..........Dana Point Series #5 (PHRF) 2 NHYC ..........One Design (Inside, Outside) 2 -3 BCYC ..........Newport to Coronado (with CORYC) BCYC ..........Dinghy Derby 9 VYC ...........Bogart Series #6 (PHRF) 16 SSYC ..........South Shore Offshore Challenge #3 (PHRF) 16 CPBYC .........One Design (Juniors) 16 BYC ...........00WORS Series #1 16 -17 NHYC ..........Laser Jr. Western Regional Championships 17 CPBYC .........Anniversay Race (PHRF) 17 VYC ...........00WORS Series #2 23 -24 BCYC ..........Angelman Series #5, 6 23 -24 BYC ...........One Design (Inside, Outside) 24 DPYC ..........One Design Regatta 30 -31 DPYC ..........San Clemente Island Race (OR, PHRF) (With SGYC) 30 -31 CPBYC /SHORELINE YC .....Long Beach -Dana Point (SCORA, PHRF) SEPTEMBER, 1986 F-1 0 6 VYC Series #7 ' 27 ..........Bogart Carpenter Boy /Girl Team Regatta (Inside) , 6 -7 LIYC .........Wm. Morris Team Race ' 6 -7 DPYC .........Juniors One Design, Endless Summer 13 DPYC .........Dana Point Series #6 , 13 -14 NOSA .........Argosy 13 -14 SSYC .........South Shore Off Shore Series #4, 5 , 17 BYC ..........Little Old Ladies Regatta (Sabot) , 20 -21 BCYC .........Angelman Series #7, 8 (PHRF) 20 -21 NHYC .........Fall Gold Cup (Inside, Outside) , 20 -21 CPBYC ........OR Series #6, 7 (PHRF) 21 BCYC .........Newport - Long Beach and Return , 27 DPYC .........00WORS Series #3 27 LIYC .........Over 30 Regatta (Sabot, Laser) , 27 BCYC /SCYYA ...Stewart Carpenter Boy /Girl Team Regatta (Inside) , 27 -28 DPYC .........Dana Point - Oceanside Argosy (PHRF) 28 CPBYC ........00WORS Series #4 L] II 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 :1 '1 i .1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 OCTOBER, 1986 4 VYC ..........Robert M. Crosby Invitational 4 -5 BYC /NHYC .....One Design Regatta (Inside, Outside) 5 CPBYC ........Fall Regatta (PHRF) 11 NHYC .........00WORS Series #5 12 BCYC .........Octoberfest (Inside, Outside) 12 BCYC ..........00WQRS Series #6 12 DPYC .........Dana Point Series #7 18 NOSA .........14 Mile Bank Rance 18 -19 NHYC .........McCulloch Series (Junior Sabots, 14 -16 years) 19 NOSA .........Commodores Appreciation Race (At BYC) 19 CPBYC ........One Design - Juniors 19 DPYC .........Dana Point Series #7 25 -26 CPBYC ........Dana Point Harbor Championship, Howard Trueba Memorial (PHRF) 26 LIYC ......... Fall Regatta NOVEMB 1 -2 I 8 -9 8 -9 15 15 -16 16 ER, 7985 BYC ..........Sunkist Series NHYC .........Winter Regatta CPBYC ........Mission Series BYC ..........Braile Regatta CPBYC .........Mission Series DPYC ..........Juniors One De Dottie Johnson DECEMBER, 1986 N1 (1 Inside, 2 Outside) ill (8 Inside, 9 Outside) (PHRF MORC) (Lido 14) (PHRF, MORC) >ign, Memorial Regatta 6 LIYC ..........Change -of -Watch Dinghy Race 6 -7 BYC ...........Sunkist Series (6 Inside, 7 Outside) 7 CPBYC .........Christmas Regatta (PHRF) 13 CPBYC /DPYC ....Juniors One Design 13 -1,+ NHYC ..........Winter Regatta (13 Inside, 14 Outside) 14 DPYC ..........Holiday Regatta (PHRF) 1986 SUMMER SERIES TUESDAY EVENING LIYC Twilights ...... ...........................June 3 - August 19 WEDNESDAY EVENING SSYC Hibachi Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .May 14 - August 27 BYC Twilights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .June 4 - August 27 THURSDAY EVENING BYC Beer Can Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 5 - August 28 NHYC Twilights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 5 - August 28 DPYC Thirsty Thursday Series . . . . . . . . . . . June 12 - September 4 FRIDAY EVENING CPBYC T.G.I.F. Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 6 - August 29 BCYC Summer Fun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 13 - August 8 LIYC Adult Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 27 - August 15 MAJOR SERIES BY CLUB BYC - 66 SERIES IOR /PHRF #1 Modified Gold Cup . . . . . . . . . . . February 8 #2 Huntington Tidelands . . . . . . . . March 29 #3 20 Fathom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 20 #4, #5 Long Point and Return . . . . . . . June 14, 15 #6 Buoy Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 20 NHYC - AHMANSON /DICKSON SERIES IOR /PHRF #1 Modified Gold Cup . . . . . . . . . . . February 8 #2 Huntington Tidelands . . . . . . . . . .March 29 #3 Buoy Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 19 #4 20 Fathom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 20 #5 Buoy Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 17 #6, #7 Long Point and Return . . . . . . . June 14, 15 BCYC - HUGH ANGELMAN SERIES - PHRF #1 Emmy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .March 8 #2 Ensenada Tune Up . . . . . . . . . . . .April 12 #3 Modified Gold Cup . . . . . . . . . . .May 31 #4 20 Fathom Buoy . . . . . . . . . . . . .July 19 #5, #6 Long Point and Return . . . . . . . August 23, 24 #7, #8 Long Beach Bash . . . . . . . . . . September 20, 21 1 VYC - BOGART SERIES -PHRF #1, #2 Casino Point and Return . . . . . . . . . . . March 22, 23 #3 Buoy Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 31 #4 Oil Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 28 #5 Pt. Fermin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 19 #6 Coastal Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 9 #7 Buoy Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 6 SSYC - HIGH POINT SERIES - PHRF #1 Casino Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 22 #2 Avalon - Newport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 23 #3 Modified Gold Cup (with BCYC) . . . . . . . . . . May 31 #4 Triangle Long Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 12 #5 Triangle Newport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 13 CPBYC - OCEAN RACING SERIES - PHRF #1 San Onofre and Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 5 #2 Newport and Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 17 #3, #4 Olympic and Gold Cup Courses . . . . . . . . . June 28 #5 14 Mile Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 19 #6, #7 Newport ( #6) Return ( #7) . . . . . . . . . . . September 20, 21 DPYC - DANA POINT SERIES - PHRF #1 #2 #3, #4 #6 #7 . . . . . . . . . . . March 2 . . . . . . . . . . . April 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . June 28 . . . . . . . . . . . August 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . September 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . October 12 SSYC - SOUTH SHORE OFF SHORE SERIES - PHRF #1 Triangle Long Point Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 12 #2 Triangle Newport Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 13 #3 Off Shore Challenge Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 16 #4 Argosy Cabrillo Beach Race (NOSA) . . . . . . . . . . September 13 #5 Argosy Newport Race (NOSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 14 ORANGE COUNTY WOMEN'S OCEAN RACING SERIES #1 BYC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 16 #2 VYC Jane Schock Perpetual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 17 #3 DPYC Barbara McCarthy Appreciation . . . . . . . . . September 27 #4 CPBYC Las Golandrinas Regatta . . . . . . . . . . . . September 28 #5 NHYC Bettina Bents Memorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 11 #6 BCYC Peggy Gregory Appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . October 12 1 ' 5/3, 4 SDYC Yachting Cup 6/19 20 LBYC Race Week 6/21 22 MBYC Sabot Senior Nationals ' 7/4 WYC /SWYC Marina del Rey -San Diego 7/25 -27 CYC Lipton Cup 7/23 -27 YRU Cruise to Catalina 8118 -23 MBYC Sabot Jr. Nationals 9/27 YRU Stewart Carpenter Jr. Regatta (at BCYC) 10/4, 5 LBYC PHRF Championship 10/18 19, 25 26 LAYC Harbor Series 11/8, 9 LBYC SCORA Championship I. OTHER IMPORTANT SO. CAL 1986 RACES DATE S SPONSOR RACE ' 2 2/8 S SDYC San Diego - Manzanillo 2/22, 2 23 3/1, 2 2, 8, 2 22, 23 LAYC Whitney Series 4/12, 1 13 5/3, 4 SDYC Yachting Cup 6/19 20 LBYC Race Week 6/21 22 MBYC Sabot Senior Nationals ' 7/4 WYC /SWYC Marina del Rey -San Diego 7/25 -27 CYC Lipton Cup 7/23 -27 YRU Cruise to Catalina 8118 -23 MBYC Sabot Jr. Nationals 9/27 YRU Stewart Carpenter Jr. Regatta (at BCYC) 10/4, 5 LBYC PHRF Championship 10/18 19, 25 26 LAYC Harbor Series 11/8, 9 LBYC SCORA Championship I. 9/27 YRU Stewart Carpenter Jr. Regatta (at BCYC) 10/4, 5 LBYC PHRF Championship 10/18 19, 25 26 LAYC Harbor Series 11/8, 9 LBYC SCORA Championship I. I. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (714) 644 -3005 :ter_ TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR U( Public Works Department FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: October 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Contract No. C- 2483(E) Description of Contract Joint Power Agreement to Restore Wetland Habitat and Control Sediment Deposition in Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Unit II Effective date of Contract March 19, 1986 Authorized by Minute Action, approved on March 10, 1986 Contract with California Department of Fish and Game Address 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 K Amount of Contract (See Agreement) "W,526t' 6e x�7e Wanda E. Raggio City Clerk WER:pm Attachment 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach . i 85/86 1581 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO RESTORE WETLAND HABITAT AND CONTROL SEDIMENT DEPOSITION IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE UNIT II THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO THIS 1 �t�c day of '»C L- 1986, between the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (hereinafter referred to as "DFG ") and the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "CITY "), W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, DFG is the owner of a large part of Upper Newport Bay, administering it as Upper Newport Bay ecological Reserve, and plans to excavate portions of Upper Newport Bay to increase the wetland resource values of the Reserve and reverse damage caused by past sediment deposition; and WHEREAS, CITY is a local government jurisdiction, concerned about sediment depo- sition in Newport Bay, and instrumental in funding the construction of facili- ties to prevent sediment transport into the Bay; and WHEREAS, CITY and DFG have entered into an agreement (hereinafter referred to as "IN -BAY AGREEMENT "), with The Irvine Company, County of Orange, the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, and the City of Irvine (hereinafter referred to as the "PARTIES ") to finance the construction and maintenance of wetTand restoration /sediment control facilities in Upper Newport Bay; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the IN -BAY AGREEMENT to accomplish excavation for wetland restoration and sediment control; and • • WHEREAS, it is the intent of the IN -BAY AGREEMENT to accomplish planned excava- tion in two (2) units to be funded separately; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the construction of Unit II of the planned excavation, (hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT "); and WHEREAS, under the IN -BAY AGREEMENT, DFG is responsible for funding a major por- tion of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, under the IN -BAY AGREEMENT, DFG, CITY, and the PARTIES have determined that it will be to their mutual benefit and savings for CITY to accomplish the PROJECT under CITY contract; and WHEREAS, DFG and CITY are authorized to enter into Joint Powers Agreement pur- suant to Government Code Section 6500 et seq.; and WHEREAS, DFG and CITY desire to set forth their respective rights and obliga- tions concerning DFG contribution of funds to and participation in PROJECT: NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The scope of the PROJECT includes the following: a. Excavation of an approximate 24 -acre basin below the old salt works dike. b. Excavation of two side channels connecting to the basin. c. Excavation of a 100- foot -wide subtidal access channel from below the Pacific Coast Highway bridge to the southerly end of the basin. The total excavation for the PROJECT is estimated to be 1,100,000 cubic yards, and the total cost including design engineering, construction engi- f. Authorized representative to provide CITY written approval to award contract within ten days of PROJECT bid opening. g. Review and, if found acceptable, approve the PROJECT final report. 3. CITY SHALL: a. In addition to the aforementioned DFG deposits, collect deposits from the other PARTIES in accordance with the IN -BAY AGREEMENT. b. Assemble bidding documents in such a manner as to permit accounting for funds expended on PROJECT. c. Limit the scope of the PROJECT in the plans, specifications, and bidding documents to an excavation quantity of approximately 800,000 cubic yards. d. Reserve in the bidding documents the option to increase the excavation quantity of the basin described in the scope of the PROJECT by an amount not to exceed 300,000 cubic yards and at the same unit price bid for excavation of the basin. This option is not to be exercised until after July 1, 1986 and unless approved by DFG. e. Advertise for bids. f. Provide contract administration, design engineering, and construction engineering for the PROJECT. g. Furnish DFG final cost estimate for PROJECT based on actual bid results. h. Furnish DFG reproducible "As Constructed-' plans of the PROJECT; and file a Notice of Completion for the PROJECT after final acceptance of the work. i. Prepare final report for the PROJECT. j. Be responsible for all costs of design engineering, construction engi- 0 0 neering, construction, and administration not included in the PROJECT portion of the bidding documents or identified herein as the respon- sibility of DFG. 4. IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT: a. If bid prices exceed available funds for the PROJECT, the quantity of material to be excavated shall be reduced so that the amount of the awarded contract plus allowances for design engineering, construction engineering, administration, and contingencies does not exceed the available funds. b. CITY shall make monthly progress payments to contractor for PROJECT construction items completed. CITY will hold all deposits collected hereunder in a separate account to which shall be credited all interest earned. CITY will maintain a complete and accurate record of all expen- ditures made from said account, including identification of the reci- pients and the purposes therefor. A detailed accounting will be included in the PROJECT final report from CITY to DFG. Upon completion of the PROJECT and payment of all PROJECT costs, CITY shall promptly return to all PARTIES their proportionate share of any funds remaining in the account. c. CITY shall retain the records described in 4b above during the term of this Agreement and for the three -year period immediately thereafter unless earlier informed in writing by DFG that the records may be disposed of; and during such period shall make the records available to DFG for review during normal business hours upon reasonable notice that DFG desires such a review. d. DFG and CITY will complete the environmental assessments as required by the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. e. During construction CITY shall assign a qualified inspector who shall be charged with overall contract administration and who shall assure that construction is accomplished in accordance with the plans and specifica- tions. The work, however, shall be subject at all times to inspection by authorized representatives of both parties. f. Change orders will require written approval from DFG. In case of urgency, however, verbal approval by the authorized representative of DFG, noted in paragraph le above, shall be provided with written appro- val to follow. g. CITY shall file a Notice of Completion for PROJECT after final accep- tance of the work. h. DFG shall, insofar as it may legally do so, indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers and employees, from any damage or liability arising from an errors, omissions, or negligence in DFG's performance of this Agreement. i. CITY shall, insofar as it may legally do so, indemnify and hold harmless DFG and its officers and employees, from any damage or liability arising from any errors, omissions or negligence in CITY's performance of this Agreement. j. Any equipment purchased by CITY with funds provided by DFG under this Agreement shall be promptly reported to DFG and shall be the property of DFG during the customary depreciable life thereof. Should this Agreement be terminated for any reason, or upon its expiration, all such equipment shall be promptly returned to DFG. For the purposes of this Agreement, equipment shall be defined as all moveable pendable property which has: (1) a normal useful life, including extended life due two years or more; (2) an identity which does not cha it is not consumed by use or converted by fabrication form of property; and (3) an approximate unit cost of Dollars ($150.00) or more. articles of nonex- to repairs, of ige with use, i.e., into some other One Hundred Fifty k. This Agreement may be amended by mutual written consent of the parties hereto. 1. Unless extended by written amendment, the term of this Agreement shall commence April 1, 1986 and continue through December 31, 1987. m. The attached Nondiscrimination Clause (OCP -1) pertains to this Agreement and is hereby made a part hereof, with all references to "contractor" understood to mean CITY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have entered into this Joint Powers Agreement on the day and year first above written. APPRAVES AS TO FOR (� ttorney of i y of Newport Beach ATTEST: CE City Clerk CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME /7 „ By: JUN 0198. 0 C-1581 LD UNENCUM6ERED BALANCE (QP➢ONo: Ul'2) $ 11 85/86 ADJ. INCREASING ENCUMBRANCE ji !.._n I., ;t--2.U-U yzy-u� L ADJ. DECREASING ENCUMMANCE OL:.-, CI 1- S - NA lig,� C)f ACCOUNIING Cwl'C hcnb 40 86/87 1,000,000 6 0 March 17, 1986 TO: CITY ATTORNEY FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO RESTORE WETLAND HABITAT AND CONTROL SEDIMENT DEPOSITION IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE UNIT II LI' _ zef<f, 3 f - Attached are the original and two copies of the subject agreement for execution. This agreement was approved at the City Council meeting of March 10, 1986. Please return them to this office after execution. n Wolter Project Engineer JW:jw Att. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a cooperative agreement with the Department of Fish and Game to provide their por- tion of the cost of the Unit II Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Project. DISCUSSION: An April 9, 1984, the City Council authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the implementation agreement for the "in -bay" facilities. Since that time the City, acting as lead agency, has completed construction of • the Unit I project and has pursued preparation of the plans and specifications, permits and funding for the Unit II in -bay project. For a more detailed discussion of the Unit II project, see Council memo for the Upper Newport Bay Unit II EIR. This agreement provides for the Department of Fish and Game's por- tion of the cost for the Unit II Upper Newport Sediment Control and Restoration Project. Principal terms of this agreement are as follows: 1. Description of Unit II project: a. Excavate basin below salt works dike. b. Excavate side channels adjacent to basin. c. Excavate 100 -foot -wide access channel from Pacific Coast Highway Bridge to basin below salt works dike. 2. Department of Fish and Game shall: a. Obtain permits for project. b. Deposit State's portion of project cost. • (1) $2,706,000 currently budgeted. (2) $1,000,000 proposed in Governor's 1986/87 budget available in July 1986 if approved by Legislature. c. Review and approve plans. d. Name authorized representative to approve award of contract. J e. Review and approve project final report. (3,) March 10, 1986 BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM N0. F -3(0- MAR 14 1986 • T0: CITY COUNCIL APPROVE& FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: UNIT II UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AND RESTORATION PROJECT, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (CoF483)- RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a cooperative agreement with the Department of Fish and Game to provide their por- tion of the cost of the Unit II Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Project. DISCUSSION: An April 9, 1984, the City Council authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the implementation agreement for the "in -bay" facilities. Since that time the City, acting as lead agency, has completed construction of • the Unit I project and has pursued preparation of the plans and specifications, permits and funding for the Unit II in -bay project. For a more detailed discussion of the Unit II project, see Council memo for the Upper Newport Bay Unit II EIR. This agreement provides for the Department of Fish and Game's por- tion of the cost for the Unit II Upper Newport Sediment Control and Restoration Project. Principal terms of this agreement are as follows: 1. Description of Unit II project: a. Excavate basin below salt works dike. b. Excavate side channels adjacent to basin. c. Excavate 100 -foot -wide access channel from Pacific Coast Highway Bridge to basin below salt works dike. 2. Department of Fish and Game shall: a. Obtain permits for project. b. Deposit State's portion of project cost. • (1) $2,706,000 currently budgeted. (2) $1,000,000 proposed in Governor's 1986/87 budget available in July 1986 if approved by Legislature. c. Review and approve plans. d. Name authorized representative to approve award of contract. J e. Review and approve project final report. (3,) .._, • • March 10, 1986 Subject: Unit II Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Project Cooperative Agreement with Department of Fish and Game Page 2 • 3. City shall: a. Collect deposits from the parties to the in -bay agreement. b. Assemble bid documents to permit accounting for funds expended and project. c. Advertise for bids. d. Provide contract administration, design engineering and construction engineering for project. e. Furnish Department of Fish and Game final cost estimate for project. f. Furnish Department of Fish and Game reproducible "as construc- ted" plans. g. Prepare final project report. 4. It is mutually understood that: a. Department of Fish and Game Shall: (1) Deposit $2,706,000 with City within 30 days' written request. • (2) Deposit $1,000,000 with City within 30 days of State budget approval by the Legislation. b. If bid price exceeds funds available for project, the quantity of material to be excavated will be reduced c. Contract is structured to award a contract for currently available funds ($3,778,000), with provisions for a change order ($1,333,000) if additional State funds become available in the 1986/87 State budget. d. At completion of project, City will return any unused funds to the parties to the in -bay agreement. e. Change orders will require written approval from Department of Fish and Game except in an emergency, in which case verbal approval from an authorized Department of Fish and Game repre- sentative, followed by written approval, will be provided. f. Equipment purchased by City with State funds will become prop- erty of the Department of Fish and Game. g. This agreement may be amended by mutual written consent of both parties. After execution by the City, the agreement will be transmitted to the Department of Fish and Game for approval. Funding for the City's portion of the • Unit II project ($138,575) has been provided in the 1985/86 Capital Projects budget. If the State's additional $1,000,000 is approved in 1986/87 budget, the City's portion of the additional funding ($46,700) has been requested in the 1986/87 Capital Projects budget. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director JW:jd is 0s) March 10, 1986 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. D -3 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: UNIT II UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AND RESTORATION PROJECT- - HEARING ON ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hold hearing, close hearing; 2. Accept, approve and certify the Final EIR as indicated in Attachment A; 3. Make the findings contained in the Statement of Facts (Attachment A, Exhibit 1) with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR; 4. Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A, Exhibit 2) are true and are sup- ported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR; 5. With respect to the project, find that although the Final EIR identified certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, those mitigation measures identified in the Certified Final EIR shall be incor- porated into the proposed project, and all significant environmen- tal effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A, Exhibit 2), giving greater weight to the unavoid- able environmental effects, are acceptable; 6. Direct staff to complete the final plans and specifications for the project. 7. Direct staff to continue to pursue all necessary permits for the project. • BACKGROUND: Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Section 208) the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine received a grant to conduct a study to define a comprehensive, effective and practical system of sediment control for the San Diego Creek drainage system. The Upper Newport Bay, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sediment Control Plan (PLAN) has been completed and was accepted by the State of California Water Resources Control Board in September 1983. C • • March 10, 1986 Subject: Unit II Upper Newport (C -2483) Page 2 Say Sediment Control and Restoration Project In September 1983, the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Agreement was executed by the State Department of Fish and Game, the County of Orange, the City of Irvine, the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Co. to join together in an effort to implement the PLAN; which recommended the following elements to control sediment: A. Improve agricultural land management practices. B. Improve construction land management practices. C. Install and maintain in- channel basins. D. Install and maintain in -bay basins. E. Stabilize channels within developing areas and dedicated rights of way. F. Install and maintain foothill basins. G. Monitor sediment delivery to Newport Bay and transport through the bay. In April 1984, the City Council authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Implementation Agreement for the in -bay facilities of the PLAN. That agreement provided for each party's portion of the cost to implement the in -bay facilities and split the work into phases consisting of a Unit I pro- ject for work above the main dike, a Unit II project for dredging downstream of the dike, and continued maintenance once both projects were complete. The Unit I project was completed in November 1985. The proposed project (Unit II) will complete the basin construction anticipated in Element D. of the PLAN. In addition to implemented. Two basins Action Plan) as provided construction this summer cannot be constructed un zation below them. the work in the bay, Elements A, B, E and G have been have been constructed (the Upper Newport Bay Early in Element C, and a third basin is scheduled for (1986). The foothill basins called for in Element F 01 downstream development provides for channel stabili- The comprehensive PLAN estimates that with the present elements in place, the average annual sediment delivered to Newport Bay will be 52,700 cubic yards. With all elements of the PLAN in place, and the watershed fully deve- loped, it is estimated that the average annual sediment delivered to Newport Bay will be approximately 22,000 cubic yards. In order to reduce adverse impacts on the Ecological Reserve, capaci- ties have been provided in the in -bay basins so that maintenance cleanout will not be required more frequently than every five years. As the watershed is fully developed, the frequency of maintenance can be extended and ultimately may not be required more frequently than every ten years or more. March 10, 1986 Subject: Unit II Upper Newport (c -2483) Page 3 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Project The environmental document being presented to the Council for accep- tance and approval at this time is for the in -Bay Unit II project. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) owns and manages the Upper Bay Ecological Reserve. The City of Newport Beach is acting to administer engineering and construction of the Unit II project for the DFG. The scope of work has been defined by the DFG in order to provide both restoration and sediment control in conformance with their Upper Bay Management Plan. The project involves dredging to excavate a basin (approximately 17 acres, -14 MSL depth) below the old salt works dike; side channels adjacent to the basin (approximately 6 acres, -9 MSL depth) and an access channel (100 feet wide, -14 MSL depth) from below the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge to the basin. The actual quantity of sediment to be excavated will vary depending on the unit cost bid for the project and the available funds. (See attached sketch for location of the project.) The environmental document has reviewed several alternative methods of construction and a range of excavation from 526,500 cubic yards to 1,153,400 cubic yards in order to evaluate potential impacts. It is intended to excavate as much material as possible with the available funds in order to provide increased tidal prism and storage capacity for sediment control. The alter- native methods of construction forwarded in the EIR are: Alternate A - Clam shell dredge and barge with ocean disposal at approved EPA Disposal Site L.A. 3. Alternate B - Hydraulic dredge and barge with ocean disposal at approved EPA Disposal Site L.A. 3. Alternate C - Hydraulic dredge and temporary pipeline across peninsula to ocean moored barges with ocean disposal at EPA approved Disposal Site L.A. 3. Two other alternate methods of construction were reviewed in the environmental document: 1. Dredging with land disposal -- Review of this alternative indicated that there is not adequate area adjacent to the bay to temporarily or permanently stockpile the amount of sediment to be disposed of. 2. Hydraulic dredging with temporary pipeline across peninsula to ocean disposal in Newport Canyon -- Review of this alternative revealed that EPA and Water Quality Control Board permits would be required for a point source ocean outfall discharge. This permit process requires additional environmental work, ocean current stu- dies, and a bio -assay estimated to take two to three years and cost $200,000. Because of the uncertainty of obtaining the per- mits and the fact that other alternatives prove more economical at the upper range of quantities to be excavated, this alternative is impractical at this time. March 10, 1986 • Subject: Unit II Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Project Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: • In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Policy K -3, a draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the draft EIR has been circulated to the State Clearinghouse, State and Local Agencies, State and Federal Responsible Agencies, the Quality of Life Advisory Committee and interested members of the public. The 45 -day review period concluded February 7, 1986, and a number of written comments have been received. Copies of the comments and the City's responses are included in Attachment One to the draft EIR. The Environmental Impact Report indicates that completion of the pro- posed project will not result in any long -term adverse impacts. Potential ad- verse impacts resulting from the methods of implementing the project are tem- porary and unavoidable and are as follows: 1. Temporary conflicts of harbor traffic involving dredging equipment and recreational boating activities. 2. Events involving children or small boats may be required to tem- porarily relocate away from dredging operations. 3. Temporary wildlife harassment due to dredging activity and noise. 4. Temporary increase in water turbidity due to dredging activity. 5. Temporary increase in noise levels for residences adjacent to the excavation site. 6. Temporary visual intrusion from dredging equipment, scows, tug boars and marshalling work area. One area of particular concern has been the temporary conflicts of harbor traffic with scows and tugs traveling through the lower bay en route to the approved ocean disposal site. City staff has worked closely with the County Harbor Department and the U. S. Coast Guard to develop specifications and requirements which will minimize traffic conflicts. Although the scow and tug traffic will remain an inconvenience for the duration of the project, these requirements will provide for safe use of the bay. (See attached letter to the U. S. Coast Guard dated February 20, 1986.) If the project is acceptable to the Council, it is recommended that • the Council direct the staff to complete the final plans and specifications, and c ntinue to pursue obtaining all necessary permits for the project. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director JW:jd Att. ATTACHMENTS 0 . (1) Attachment "A ": Actions and Findings (2) Attachment "A ", Exhibit 1: Statement of Facts (3) Attachment "A ", Exhibit 2: Statement of Overriding Considerations (4) February 20, 1986 Letter to U. S. Coast Guard (5) Sketch of Project Location ATTACHMENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL ONLY (6) Draft Environmental Impact Report (7) Technical Appendices (8) Attachment 1 to the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses. 0 • S • • • 6 ATTACHMENT "A" ACTIONS AND FINDINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 1. Accept, approve and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report with the following findings: a. The City of Newport Beach has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report consisting of those items indicated below: (1) Draft EIR and Technical Appendices. (Z) Attachment No. i to the Draft EIR containing comments and responses. (3) City Council staff report of March 10, 1986. (4) City Council minutes of March 10, 1986. (5) All correspondence and information received prior to the cer- tification of this EIR and not included in 1 through 4 above. b. The City Council of Newport Beach accepts and approves the Final EIR and certifies that the Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State EIR Guidelines and fully complies with, and satisfies, all of the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines. c. The City Council of Newport Beach certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR in con- junction with the decision and approval associated with this project. d. In order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific econo- mic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other poten- tial mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. e. The mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed pro- ject are contained in the Final EIR. B. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Make the findings, contained in the Statement of Facts (Exhibit 1), with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR. ATTACHMENT "A" (cont'd) C. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS • 1. Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Consideration (Exhibit 2) are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. • C D. PROJECT FINDING 1. With respect to the project, find that although the Final EIR iden- tifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, those mitigation measures iden- tified in the EIR shall be incorporated into the proposed project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 2), giving greater weight to the una- voidable environmental effects, are acceptable. E. PROJECT ACTIONS 1. Direct staff to complete preparation of the plans and specifications for the project. 2. Direct staff to obtain all necessary permits for the project. EXHIBIT I is CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED APPROVAL OF THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY ENHANCEMENT /SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT LOCATED IN THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." The City of Newport Beach is considering approval of an enhancement and sediment management project. Because the proposed action constitutes a project under the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR has identified certain significant effects which may occur as a • result of the project, or on a cumulative basis in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Further, the City desires to approve this project and, after determining that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the findings set forth are herein made: F9 FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT • Effects Determined to be Insignificant Several potential environmental effects were determined to be insignificant impacts. These include permanent disruptions to wildlife and associated habitat areas, circula- tion and traffic, air quality, local and regional plans, noise, and surrounding land use. Effects Determined to be Mitigatable to a Level of Insignificance Significant Effect The project will involve a major sediment removal and restoration project which will temporarily disrupt the wildlife use of the Bay while dredging and transport occurs. This will be a 24 -acre loss of salt marsh area, and a localized loss of approximately 22.5 acres of mudflat area. However, the overall mudflat acreage in the Bay will be increased because of the cumulative effect of earlier restoration projects in the UNBER. Findin is 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the following mitigation measures: 1. Efforts will be made to ensure that the side slopes of the dredged area are as flat as possible to maximize the amount of lower inter -tidal habitat (mudflat) available for foraging shorebirds. 2. Work will be planned as much as possible to affect mudflat areas which would be converted to salt marsh through succession (above 0.7 MSL). 3. Nesting activity of endangered species in the vicinity of the project area will be monitored by the Department of Fish and Game. Monitoring will take place between April 15 and July 31 in areas affected by dredging activities. If the Department determines that nesting activities are being • disrupted by dredging activities, the Department shall notify the City of Newport Beach, which may restrict operations to avoid interference with nesting activities. 4. Continued maintenance of upstream sediment control facilities will be stressed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to reduce the frequency of in -Bay maintenance for an overall reduction in wildlife 2 9 • i harassment. A third sediment basin will be constructed in San Diego Creek during 1986. is 5. Dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils shall be disposed of only at LA3 or at an approved upland disposal site. 6. Dredged spoils shall not be used to fill riparian areas, marshes or natural canyons, but shall be disposed of only at LA3 or an approved upland disposal site. 7. The combined long -term "wetlands habitat value" of the lands involved (including projects and mitigation lands) must not be less after project completion than the combined "wetlands habitat value" that exists under pre - project conditions. 8. Upon completion of detailed engineering drawings for the project, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, will be consulted for additional mitigation measures as necessary. • WATER QUALITY Significant Effect The project will necessitate localized increases in turbidity, with attendant temporary increases in pollutant contributions as bottom sediments are excavated. Accidental discharge by the scows during transit (risk of upset), while considered remote, could temporarily increase pollutants in Newport Harbor. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the following mitigation measures: • 9. All conditions imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game will be incorporated into the project. 10. The RWQCB and the OCEMA monitoring program results will be observed by the City during the excavation program. Appropriate steps will be taken if elevated levels of target pollutants are detected. 3 162 • • i 0 11. Project operations will require that the scow doors (doors used to release dredged material) remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. NOISE Significant Effect The project has the potential to temporarily increase noise levels through the operation of machinery. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in SUDDOCt of Findin The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the following mitigation measure: 12. At the time of the letting of the construction contract, it shall be demonstrated that engine noise from excavation equipment shall be mitigated by keeping engine doors closed during equipment operation. For equipment that cannot be enclosed behind doors, lead curtains shall be used to attenuate noise. 4 F SIGNIFICANT Significant Effect 0 The project will necessitate the location of equipment and the transit of scows within view of residences and businesses in the City. Finding 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect of the project in this area comes from the natural and necessary concomitants of an operation of this type: dredges and scows. • HARBOR CIRCULATION Significant Effect The project will require the transport of scows and tugs through Newport Harbor, increasing the potential for recreational boating conflicts. By increasing the tidal prism in Upper Newport Bay, there will be increases in tidal current at the Coast Highway bridge. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. • Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following mitigation measures: 13. A "lookout" on the scow bow, or a guideboat, will be utilized which is provided with two -way communication with the tug operation to minimize potential adverse incidents. 5 /1Z 14. Contractor shall meet with ferry operators before beginning operations to develop a mutually acceptable communications system. • 15. Events involving children or small boats may be required by the Harbor Master to relocate away from dredging operations. 16. Tug operators will be allowed ultimate discretion to cease operations during periods of extreme harbor activity. 17. Consideration for the use of a Composite Tug and Barge Unit should be given. Such a unit would allow for greater control and stability while operating in the harbor. 18. A traffic management plan incorporating the above considerations, as well as other appropriate measures, has been incorporated into the Final EIR and shall be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, prior to the commencement of operations. ALTERNATIVES Only the "No Project" and "Pipeline" alternatives can avoid the impacts stated above, • since the aspects of the project creating those impacts is a necessary part of the dredging and transport operation. The "No Project" alternative has been rejected because major restoration of the Bay is desirable from an environmental standpoint, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The "Pipeline" alternative must be rejected because permits from outside agencies cannot be granted within a reasonable period of time. Additionally, there is no guarantee that such permits would ever be granted, even if the City wished to pursue them. Alternatives to the configuration of the in -Bay basin were considered in the responses to comments presented in the Final EIR. These included: expanding the Unit I basin, a long channel, deleting side channels, and shallow dredging over a large area. As explained in the Final EIR, these alternatives are either not as effective in protecting the Bay from sediment deposition or are highly disruptive (either on an initial or periodic basis) to the resources in the Bay. For these reasons, these alternatives have been rejected. No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified. *x* *ter * ■+r The remaining unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against • facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. In accordance with state law, greater weight has been given to the remaining unavoidable significant effects than to the overriding considerations. N /3 i • .y 0 EXHIBIT 2 0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the unavoidable risks of this project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of this project, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental risks. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered or decisions made: 1. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and overall objectives of Section 208 planning. 2. The project is consistent with the objectives of the State Department of Fish and Game, and participating local agencies and private landowners, to protect and restore the Upper Newport Bay as a significant environmental resource. 3. This project will provide for the enhancement of salt marsh and mudflat habitat to better serve wildlife in the area. 4. This project will enhance the long -term public benefit which will result from preservation and restoration of a highly significant resource. S. The sediment removal and management approach, combined with other components of the Comprehensive Plan, will deter sedimentation of Newport Harbor and associated marina facilities. 6. The project has the potential to improve water quality above Coast Highway bridge by its increase of the tidal prism and attendant flushing. 7 • C • /S I,- r , . F'UV February 20, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 Public Works Department (714) 644 -3311 J. F. Stumpff Commander, U. S. Coast Guard 400 Oceangate Long Beach, California 90822 Dear Commander Stumpff: This letter is in response to your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated December 23, 1985, concerning the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement /Sediment Management Project. You wrote comment letters on this proj- ect dated December 4, 1985 and January 28, 1986, and we met with you and your staff on January 17, 1986 and February 18, 1986 to discuss the comments in your letters and other concerns you had regarding the proposed project. At the meeting of February 18, you summarized your concerns as follows: 1. Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. a. Protection of bridge structure. b. Conflicts with recreational boating in vicinity of bridge. 2. Interference with existing anchorages. 3. Scow and tug passing in 200 -foot channel. 4. Change -over location from push or side - attached configuration to towing. 5. Stopping of Contractor's work. 6. Recreation boating impacts. 7. Project effects on tidal currents under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. B. Maintenance dredging requirements. Our responses to these concerns are as follows: 1. The project plans will provide for dredging two 100- foot -wide channels under the bridge. One channel will be through the designated bridge span which is lighted and has the vertical clearance marker. The other channel wall be through the adjacent span to the west which has a mini- mum vertical clearance of approximately 17 feet. The Specifications will require the incoming scows and tugs to use the designated channel, and the outgoing scows and tugs to use the westerly channel. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newpurt Beach 0 0 February 20, 1986 Commander J. F. Stumpff Page 2 • The Specifications will require the Contractor to design and construct fenders prior to start of construction to protect the upstream and downstream faces of the three piers adjaacent to the two channels. Plans for the protection are to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and shall be submitted to the City for approval. If the planned protection has any attachment to the piers or is located where there may be any effect on the bridge piers, then the Contractor will be required to obtain a permit from Caltrans prior to constructing the protection. The Contractor will be required to place and to maintain adequate reflecting devices on the pier protection which can be seen by approaching vessels. In our meeting of February 18 we indicated that the Contractor would be required to light the new channel, but we now feel this might create a liability problem since the new channel has less vertical clearance (17 feet) than indicated on the published charts (20 feet). 2. Interference with existing anchorages. . Exhibit 4 in the DEIR shows the proposed scow marshalling area off of the easterly end of Lido Isle and the discussion on page III -6 of the DEIR mentions locations off Lido Isle and Harbor Island. The Exhibit location is in conflict with existing anchorages. The Plans and Specifications will indicate an allowable marshalling area in the open water northerly of the Harbor Island reach of the main channel. The Specifications will require the contractor to submit a precise plan with dimensions and locations.that minimizes the impact on anchorages and boating traffic to the Engineer for approval. Prior to approving the location and layout, the Engineer will submit the proposed plan to the Harbor Master for review and comment. Prior to constructing the marshalling area, the Contractor will be required to request that a local notice to mariners be issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. The marshalling area shall be marked in accordance with the U.S. Coast Guard's Office of Aids to Navigation. 3. Scow and tug passing in main 200- foot -wide channel. The Specifications will prohibit passing of incoming and outgoing scows and tugs in the 200 - foot -wide channel unless the tugs and scows are arranged in a pushing configuration. 4. Change -over location from pushing or side - attached configuration to towing. The Specifications will require that, all change -overs occur beyond the bell buoy outside the Harbor entrance. /6 February 20, 1986 Commander J. F. Stumpff Page 3 • 5. Stopping of Contractor's work. The Specifications will provide that the Engineer may order the contractor to cease operations when, in his opinion, adverse weather or unusual boating activities create a potentially dangerous condition. The Engineer will Solicft recommendations from the harbor Master regarding conditions warranting the stopping of work. The Specifications will further provide that during work stoppages the contractor will have tug operators and other personnel available on call to respond to any emergency, such as a breakaway scow. 6. Recreation boating impacts. In order to minimize potential conflicts with other boating activities within the harbor, the Specifications will require the following: a. Lookouts on all scows. b. Name and radio communication frequencv to be painted in a prominent location on all scows, tugs and guide boats. • c. All tugs, scows and guide boat operators to be equipped with two- way VHF marine radio communication. d. Guide boats for all scows to be provided within the harbor from the Harbor entrance to the southerly boundary of the State Preserve from Memorial Day through Admission Day, and for other periods of time when requested by the Harbor Master. e. No scows will be permitted to operate within the harbor on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays between Memorial Day and Admission Day. In addition, the City will prepare a notice that can be posted in the yacht clubs and other appropriate locations, and can be attached to the "Notice to Mariners ". The notice will include: a. Name of project. b. Contractor's name, Superintendent's name and phone number. • c. Radio frequency for communications. d. Description and dimensions of scows. e. Scheduled working days and times. f. Nighttime appearance of scows. /7 g. Length of Construction Contract. J • • • 0 February 20, 1986 Commander J. F. Stumpff Page 4 h. Estimated date for start of construction. i. Frequency of scow trips. j. Name and phone number of City representative. k. Stopping distances of scows. 1. Any other information suggested by the Harbor Master. Prior to start of construction, the City will schedule a meeting with the Association of Orange Coast Yacht Clubs and other interested par- ties to discuss concerns and to answer questions relating to the proj- ect and the contractor's proposed traffic management plan. The Project Engineer and a representative of the contractor will attend the meeting. The Harbor Master and a representative of the Coast Guard will be invited to attend. 7. Tidal effects on currents under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. Page IV -46 of the DEIR briefly discusses effects of tidal currents in the vicinity of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge, but does not provide estimates of specific changes. The Orange County EMA periodically measures the tidal prism above the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. The last measurements for which data is available were made in December, 1983. The tidal range was +7.15 to a -1.00. The tidal prism was calculated to be 3,751 acre -feet. The maximum measured velocity under the bridge was 1.89 nauts (3.2 feet /second). These measurements were made prior to the completion of the Unit I project. The Unit I project increased the tidal prism by 400 acre -feet, and the proposed project will increase the tidal prism by 156 acre -feet. These two projects will therefore increase the total tidal prism by 552 acre -feet or 15 %. If it is assumed that the change in current velocity is proportional to the change in tidal prism, then the proposed project will increase the maximum velocity under the Coast Highway Bridge to 2.17 nauts (3.68 feet /second). 8. Maintenance dredging requirements. The 208 Sedimentation Control Plan entitled, "Newport Bay Watershed, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan ", • and referenced in the DEIR, was completed in 1983. The Plan has been adopted by the local agencies and recommends the following elements to control sediment: /6 a. Improve agricultural land management practices. b. Improve construction land management practices. c. Install and maintain in- channel basins. V February 20, 1986 Conmander J. F. Stumpff Page 5 • d. Install and maintain in -Bay basins. e. Stabilize channels within developing areas and dedicated rights of way. f. Install and maintain foothill basins. g. Monitor sediment delivery to Newport Bay and transport through the Bay. Elements A, B, E, and G have been implemented. Two basins have been installed as provided in Element C, and a third basin is scheduled for construction this summer. The proposed project will complete Element D. The foothill basins called for in Element F cannot be constructed until completion of the channel stabilization below them. /1% It is expected that the Unit I basin will fill first and if capacity is maintained, the Unit iI basin will require less frequent maintenance. Sediment from the Unit I basin may be disposed of on land, depending on the availability of sites at the time maintenance is required. I have also enclosed a summary tabulation which shows a comparison of the three alternate approaches discussed in the DEIR. Please let me know if we have adequately addressed your concerns, or if you have any suggestions for additional mitigation measures. Very truly yours, hn Molter Project Manager lk': id Enc. cc: Fat Temple, City of Newport Beach; A. Adams, Culbertson, Adams & Assoc,; H. Gage, Orange County Harbor Master The Comprehensive Plan estimates that with present Elements in place, the average annual sediment delivered to Newport Bav will be 52,700 cubic _yards. With all Elements of the Plan in place, and the watershed fully developed, it is estimated that the average annual sediment deli- vered to Newport Bay will be approximately 22,000 cubic yards. is In order to reduce adverse impacts on the State Preserve, capacities have been provided in the in -Bay basins so that maintenance cleanout will not be required more frequently than every five years. At present rates of sediment inflow, approximately 260,000 cubic yards would need to be removed. As the watershed is fully developed, the frequency of maintenance can be extended and ultimately may not be required more frequently than every ten years or more. /1% It is expected that the Unit I basin will fill first and if capacity is maintained, the Unit iI basin will require less frequent maintenance. Sediment from the Unit I basin may be disposed of on land, depending on the availability of sites at the time maintenance is required. I have also enclosed a summary tabulation which shows a comparison of the three alternate approaches discussed in the DEIR. Please let me know if we have adequately addressed your concerns, or if you have any suggestions for additional mitigation measures. Very truly yours, hn Molter Project Manager lk': id Enc. cc: Fat Temple, City of Newport Beach; A. Adams, Culbertson, Adams & Assoc,; H. Gage, Orange County Harbor Master o Je R %Rev 0.0" 0 I 10 ov C•WM room 21, pp bS 0 D I O's F� --C IF P POSEP p KOW ROUTE a. Or AL SITE L A4 63 N . LATITU 6 W LONG11 FA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UNIT 11 LMR NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN COUNTY OF ORANGE —.sTATE OF CALIFORNIA RE -4113 V RF Or AL SITE L A4 63 N . LATITU 6 W LONG11 FA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UNIT 11 LMR NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN COUNTY OF ORANGE —.sTATE OF CALIFORNIA 0 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214, dated 29 September, 1961. and A- 24831, dated 11 June. 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange PUWK Nonce ♦d~1=nQ cdw.d W i .."a., . W ,n ) pdnl +1M 10 pt. <gvmn M0f11 I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS - PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that a. Notice of PUBLIC uEAAING of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for 1 tlma consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of February 28 t98 6 198_ 198_ 198— , 198` I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March a , 198 6 at %aMesa, California. hd Signature � • '�4 . S SA6 1 I 1 -3 woe LETTERS OF COMMENT AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT UPPER NEWPORT BAY ENHANCEMENT /SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT i LETTERS OF COMMENT AND RESPONSES Date Comments Page 1/14/86 City of Newport Beach, Quality of Life 1 Advisory Committee 1/14/86 State Department of Parks and Recreation 3 1/16/86 Dover Shores Community Association 4 1/21/86 South Shore Yacht Club 5 1/28/86 U.S. Coast Guard (Eleventh District) 7 215186 Department of the Army, Regulatory Branch 14 2/5/86 The Irvine Company 48 2/6/86 U.S. Department of the Interior, 52 Fish and Wildlife Service 2/7/86 City of Irvine 57 2/10/86 Sea and Sage Audubon 58 2/11/86 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 62 2/11/86 Department of the Army, Planning Division 63 2/14/86 Regional Water Quality Control Board 64 Letter from Quality of Life Advisory Committee (City of Newport Beach) Dated January 14, 1986 Comment #1 How is the problem of agricultural runoff being addressed by the proposed project to reduce the sediment loads being delivered to the bay? The 208 planning effort resulted in a Comprehensive Stormwater Manage- ment Plan (1983) for the watershed. This plan includes specific "Best Management Practices (BMP)" for agricultural operations to reduce sediment contribution to the Bay. The Early Action Plan improvements currently in operation arrested a substantial portion of the sediment contribution to the Bay. The proposed project would capture those sediments which tend to stay suspended for longer periods of time, thereby reducing sediment contribution to the Bay. Specific measures are being implemented under supervision of the County of Orange, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Soil Conservation Service. Comment #2 An explanation of the meaning of the following statement is requested: " ... development projects in the watershed, which may contribute to sediment, have relied on the implementation of the restoration and protection programs in the bay, of which the proposed project is a part, as a mitigation measure to their own impacts." All that is meant by this statement is that projects in the City of Irvine, City of Newport Beach, and County of Orange have relied on the in -Bay basins being constructed since they are one of the seven elements in the adopted watershed plan. The Unit I project is an effective basin for sediment capture; the Unit II basin will capture sediment as a companion function to enhancement of the Bay. Comment #3 The committee believes that the issues raised by the U.S. Coast Guard have not been adequately addressed nor adequate mitigation measures proposed. It is assumed that the issues referred to are those raised in the U.S. Coast Guard letter of December 4, 1985 responding to the City's Notice of Preparation. The City included a discussion of all of the Coast Guard concerns in the EIR. As a result of further Coast Guard review and 1 continuing consultation, the City has agreed to place requirements in the construction specifications that will mitigate the Coast Guard concerns regarding boating and navigation safety. Comment #4 The committee believes the mitigation measures proposed for Approaches A and B are not adequate, in that significant impact will remain. Would this make the use of Approach C (pipeline approach) more desirable as an environmentally superior alternative, even though it may prove to be more expensive? Response The mitigation measures proposed for Approaches A and B are the maximum feasible without adopting another approach which totally eliminated certain impact - producing components. Approach C is not being rejected because of its cost, but rather because it does not appear that federal permits can be obtained in a timely fashion. In fact, permits from EPA may not even be granted for Approach C. With this uncertainty, and considering the significant benefits in protecting the Bay as much as possible, Approaches A and B were accompanied by as much mitigation as could be imposed without changing them completely. Cost is also a consideration, since Approach C (at 1,153,400 cubic yards of excavation) will cost approximately $3 million more than Approach A, and there are a limited amount of funds available. Approach A requires the excavation of 1,153,400 cubic yards because of the dredging of the marine channel, a feature which will improve tidal exchange to the Bay. If this channel is not excavated, Approach C is $789,000 less than Approach A. Approach C improvements in the latter case would be limited to the basin and side channel improvements. Comment #5 The potential effects on boating safety have not been adequately mitigated. The level of significant effect which remains again leads the committee to recommend serious consideration of Approach C. Response Please see response above regarding U.S. Coast Guard concerns (Comment #3). Memorandum from State Department of Parks and Recreation dated January 14, 1986 Comment Sand of quality suitable to replenish local beaches may underlie the clays and muds in the area to be dredged. We encourage the City of Newport Beach to evaluate the quality of the dredged material for this purpose, and if the material is deemed suitable, to consider disposal on—or just off -shore of —local beaches. The material dredged from the Bay will be disposed of at L.A. 3, a disposal site located approximately three miles offshore of Newport Harbor entrance and Corona del Mar State Beach. The material is not deemed suitable for direct deposition onto the beach because of its high organic content even at deeper strata. The material is also predominantly silt and clay, which is unsuitable for beach replenishment. Letter from the Dover Shores Community Association Received January 21, 1986 from W.H.P. Drummond Comment The major improvement in the conditions of the entire Newport Bay that will result from this project well justifies the cost and temporary disruption occasioned by the dredging operation. The comment does not raise specific environmental concerns, but rather comments on the project itself. Such comment is duly noted and hereby included in the record. M Letter from the South Shore Yacht Club Received January 21, 1986 from Peter J. Wetzel, Commodore Comment #1 Although we are unable to find in the report a time estimate for Approach A using clamshell dredging, we assume from the discussion that this approach would require much longer than the other approaches. The Environmental Impact Report identifies the length of time for Approach A as 229 days (page III -6,9). This compares to 95 days for Approach B (Hydraulic Dredge with Scow Disposal; page III- 10,13), and 117 days for Approach C (Temporary Pipeline and Scow Disposal; page III - 14,15). Approach A is 134 days or 2.4 times longer than Approach B, and 112 days or 2.0 times longer than Approach C. However, Approach A assumes removal of 1,153,400 cubic yards of material, while Approaches B and C assume removal of 526,500 cubic yards. Should Approaches B and C be expanded to 1,153,400 cubic yards, they would require 208 and 256 days, respectively, for removal of the material. For a more detailed breakdown of the disposal methods, see the response to the Coast Guard, Comment X14, on page 12. Comment #2 We view the loss of anchorage space as an additional negative impact during the life of the project. At the least, we recommend temporary establishment of an alternate anchorage area. Since the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the potential for the relocation of the scow marshalling area has been identified. This would in turn eliminate the need to abandon the federal anchorage, thus ensuring its availability throughout the project. This will be taken into consideration in the decision - making process. Comment #3 We also are concerned for the effect of increased turbidity on boat engine cooling systems. We do not have specific knowledge of the amount of turbidity required to induce wear on cooling water pumps and sedimentation in engine cooling channels. However, having operated a recreational boat in St. Louis, we recall this concern on the Missouri River. We suggest this be addressed as a possible negative impact. Turbidity associated with dredging and transport is not anticipated as a source of potential significant impact for several reasons. First, as noted on page IV -8,9 of the Draft EIR, turbidity is quite limited in duration of suspension and in dispersion. Sediment suspended in salt water also tends to settle more quickly (note: Missouri River is a freshwater body). Further, the primary area of turbidity is in the Upper Bay itself where boating is restricted. Finally, the current operation of dredging and transport at the Dunes has not resulted in any observable turbidity concerns. For the foregoing reasons, as well as the facts stated in the EIR, the City does not expect impacts to engine cooling systems such as those suggested. Comment #4 Overall, we are disappointed, as you must be, that the most cost effective and lowest impact route of direct pipeline into the Newport Canyon is blocked by the EPA process. Such a pipeline is not necessarily blocked by the EPA process itself, but rather the time to conform with the requirements of the process. Such a pipeline would require an extensive review by the EPA, as well as application for related permits. The process is lengthy (2 to 3 years) and does not guarantee approval of the establishment of such a pipeline. (See page V -3 of the Environmental Impact Report.) 3 Letter from the United States Coast Guard, Eleventh District, Dated January 28, 1986 COMMENT #1 The DEIR still ignores the impacts of the project on boating and safe navigation. There is no discussion of harbor regulations needed to prevent recreational vessels from obstructing the scows, or the methods that will be employed to enforce those regulations. As explained in the meeting of 17 January, the resources for emergency response in Newport Harbor are limited, and inadequate in the event of a major disaster in the harbor. RESPONSE The Draft EIR contains a chapter on Harbor Circulation, beginning at page IV -44. This section specifically states the marine conflicts which could occur during scow traffic maneuvers. This information was developed in association with the Coast Guard, particularly in response to their letter of 12/4/86 detailing their concerns. A traffic management scheme has been developed and will be incorporated as a mitigation measure to this project. The approach is specifically detailed in response to the next comment. COMMENT #2 In the opinion of the Coast Guard, the final environmental impact report should contain a workable traffic management scheme for any project alternative that will involve barges working in Newport Harbor. This scheme could include such measures as the establishment of traffic lanes, operating restrictions on barges, private vessels or both, hiring additional law enforcement personnel, limiting transit times and/or an educational effort for the boating public. RESPONSE (This comment has been amplified verbally by the Coast Guard in meetings with City and project staff occurring on January 17 and February 18, 1986. The response herein addresses all such concerns, whether detailed in writing or verbally.) The following program responds separately to each type of concern raised by the Coast Guard in reference to the project. Concern regarding scow traffic under Coast Highway Bridge. The project plans will provide for dredging two 100 - foot -wide channels under the bridge. One channel will be through the designated bridge span which is lighted and has the vertical clearance marker. The other channel will be through the adjacent span to the west which has a minimum vertical clearance of approximately 17 feet. The Specifications will require the incoming scows and tugs to use the designated channel, and the outgoing scows and tugs to use the westerly channel. The Specifications will require the Contractor to design and construct fenders prior to start of construction to protect the upstream and downstream faces of the three piers adjacent to the two channels. Plans for the protection are to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and shall be submitted to the City for approval. If the planned protection has any attachment to the piers or is located where there may be any effect on the bridge piers, the Contractor will be required to obtain a permit from Caltrans prior to constructing the protection. The Contractor will be required to place and maintain adequate reflecting devices on the pier protection which can be seen by approaching vessels. 2. Interference with existing anchorages Exhibit 4 in the DEIR shows the proposed scow marshalling area off the easterly end of Lido Isle, and the discussion on page III -6 of the DEIR mentions locations off Lido Isle and Harbor Island. The Exhibit 4 location is in conflict with existing anchorages. The Plans and Specifications will indicate an allowable marshalling area in the open water northerly of the Harbor Island reach of the main channel. The Specifications will require the contractor to submit a precise plan with dimensions and locations that minimizes the impact on anchorages and boating traffic to the Engineer for approval. Prior to approving the location and layout, the Engineer will submit the proposed plan to the Harbor Master for review and comment. Prior to constructing the marshalling area, the Contractor will be required to request that a local notice to mariners be issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. The marshalling area shall be marked in accordance with the U.S. Coast Guard's Office of Aids to Navigation. 3. Scow and tug passing in main 200 - foot -wide channel 4. The Specifications will prohibit passing of incoming and outgoing scows and tugs in the 200 - foot -wide channel unless the tugs and scows are arranged in a pushing configuration. The Specifications will require that all change -overs occur beyond the bell bouy outside the Harbor entrance. L4 0 5. Stopping of Contractor's work The Specifications will provide that the Engineer may order the contractor to cease operations when, in his opinion, adverse weather or unusual boating activities create a potentially dangerous condition. The Engineer will solicit recommendations from the Harbor Master regarding conditions warranting the stopping of work. The Specifications will further provide that, during work stoppages, the contractor will have tug operators and other personnel available on call to respond to any emergency, such as a breakaway scow. 6. Recreation boating impacts To minimize potential conflicts with other boating activities within the Harbor, the Specifications will require the following: a. Lookouts on all scows. b. Name and radio communication frequency to be painted in a prominent location on all scows, tugs and guide boats. C. All tugs, scows and guide boat operators to be equipped with two -way VHF marine radio communication. d. Guide boats for all scows to be provided within the Harbor from the Harbor entrance to the southerly boundary of the State Preserve from Memorial Day through Admission Day, and for other periods of time when requested by the Harbor Master. e. No scows will be permitted to operate within the Harbor on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays between Memorial Day and Admission Day. In addition, the City will prepare a notice that can be posted in the yacht clubs and other appropriate locations, and can be attached to the "Notice to Mariners." The notice will include: a. Name of project. b. Contractor's name, Superintendent's name and phone number. C. Radio frequency for communications. d. Description and dimensions of scows. e. Scheduled working days and times. f. Night time appearance of scows. g. Length of Construction Contract. E 7. 8. h. Estimated date for start of construction. i. Frequency of scow trips. j. Name and phone number of City representative. k. Stopping distances of scows. Any other information suggested by the Harbor Master. Prior to start of construction, the City will schedule a meeting with the Association of Orange Coast Yacht Clubs and other interested parties to discuss concerns and to answer questions relating to the project and the contractor's proposed traffic management plan. The Project Engineer and a representative of the contractor will attend the meeting. The Harbor Master and a representative of the Coast Guard will be invited to attend. Tidal effects on currents under Pacific Coast Highway Bridge Page IV -46 of the DEIR briefly discusses effects of tidal currents in the vicinity of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. A new study by the County of Orange was used to further expand the data below. The Orange County EMA periodically measures the tidal prism above the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. The last measurements for which data is available were made in December, 1983. The tidal range was +7.15 to -1.00. The tidal prism was calculated to be 3,751 acre feet. The maximum measured velocity under the bridge was 1.89 knots (3.2 feet /second). These measurements were made prior to the completion of the Unit I project. The Unit I project increased the tidal prism by 400 acre feet, and the proposed project will increase the tidal prism by 156 acre feet. These two projects will therefore increase the total tidal prism by 552 acre feet or 15 %. If it is assumed that the change in current velocity is proportional to the change in tidal prism, then the proposed project will increase the maximum velocity under the Coast Highway Bridge to 2.17 knots (3.68 feet /second). Maintenance dredging requirements The 208 Sedimentation Control Plan entitled, "Newport Bay Watershed, San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimenta- tion Control Plan," and referenced in the DEIR, was completed in 1983. The Plan has been adopted by the local agencies and recommends the following elements to control sediment: a. Improve agricultural land management practices. b. Improve construction land management practices. C. Install and maintain in- channel basins. 10 d. Install and maintain in -Bay basins. e. Stabilize channels within developing areas and dedicated rights of way. f. Install and maintain foothill basins. g. Monitor sediment delivery to Newport Bay and transport through the Bay. Elements A, B, E and G have been implemented. Two basins have been installed as provided in Element C, and a third basin is scheduled for construction this summer. The proposed project will complete Element D. The foothill basins called for in Element F cannot be constructed until completion of the channel stabilization below them. The Comprehensive Plan estimates that with present Elements in place, the average annual sediment delivered to Newport Bay will be 52,700 cubic yards. With all Elements of the Plan in place, and the watershed fully developed, it is estimated that the average annual sediment delivered to Newport Bay will be approximately 22,000 cubic yards. To reduce adverse impacts on the State Preserve, capacities have been provided in the in -Bay basins so that maintenance cleanout will not be required more frequently than every five years. At present rates of sediment inflow, approximately 260,000 cubic yards would need to be removed. As the watershed is fully developed, the frequency of maintenance can be extended and ultimately may not be required more frequently than every ten years or more. It is expected that the Unit I basin will fill first and if capacity is maintained, the Unit II basin will require less frequent maintenance. Sediment from the Unit I basin may be disposed of on land, depending on the availability of sites at the time maintenance is required. COMMENT #3 It was mentioned in the meeting that the scow marshalling area has been relocated. The final document should include a discussion of the effects of the relocated scow marshalling area on traffic circulation within the Harbor. RESPONSE Please see response to Comment #2 above. It should be further noted that odor dispersion is not expected to produce significant impacts, even with the movement of the anchorage area. Even at its strongest concentration (0.05) in the worst case meteorological conditions, the odor will be very faint (Draft FIR, Page IV -27, Exhibit 12A). 11 COMMENT !4 The final EIR should contain a detailed breakdown of costs (using full expected removal) of pipeline/ barge, and barge only alternatives. This breakdown should be in a format that can be readily used as a basis for comparing the costs of the alternatives under consideration. UCfn^KtC= The detailed breakdown of costs follows each Approach in the Project Description, as well as the Alterntives (where appropriate). The following table summarizes the Approaches: SUMMARY OF EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL METHODS *Approach A requires access channel and additional basin depth, so total excavation is 1,153,400 cubic yards. **Includes additional 5% contingency for inclement weather. 12 APPROACH A* B C Excavation Quantity: 526,500 cubic yards Total Cost $5,064,000 $4,117,230 $4,275,180 Cost Per Cubic Yard $9.62 $7.82 $8.12** Scow Round Trips Per Day in Harbor 5 13 0 Construction Time - Working Days 229 95 117 Excavation Quantity: 1,153,400 cubic yards Total Cost $5,064,000 $8,811,976 $8,811,976 Cost Per Cubic Yard $4.39 $7.64 $7.64** Scow Round Trips Per Day in Harbor 5 13 0 Construction Time - Working Days 229 208 256 *Approach A requires access channel and additional basin depth, so total excavation is 1,153,400 cubic yards. **Includes additional 5% contingency for inclement weather. 12 COMMENT #5 Paragraph 2 on page IV -44 gives the horizontal clearance of the Coast Guard Highway Bridge as 40 feet. The correct horizontal clearance is 100 feet from face of pier to face of pier. RESPONSE So noted. 13 Letter from Department of the Army, Regulatory Division, Dated 215/86 COMMENT #1 There appears not to have been any coordination with the California State Historic Preservation Officer. Such coordination is necessary for review of cultural and historic sites. RESPONSE A copy of the Notice of Preparation and the Draft EIR were submitted to the State Clearinghouse. Copies were then sent to the Department of Parks and Recreation, the division which includes the California State Historic Preservation Officer. Attached is a letter from Archaeological Resources Management, Inc. stating that no impacts are predicted in the Bay to cultural resources. The SHPO made no comment on the Notice of Preparation. COMMENT #2 Page 1 -2, Federal Involvement. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is required to submit a Department of Army Permit application for work in navigable waters of the United States pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for ocean disposal pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. The DFG is not doing work which would necessitate a Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permit. Also, the federal permitting action does constitute a major federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act. RESPONSE So noted. COMMENT #3 The section on Biological Resources needs to be expanded. The section on Vegetation (page IV -1) has a reference to " -0.0 MSL." Delete the " - - ". The sections on benthic organisms and fishes is sadly lacking in detail and informa- tion. No management decisions could possibly be made with this level of information. If a biological assessment was done, include it as a technical reference, and expand the relevant sections in the main body of the EIR. Include species lists, tables, etc. RESPONSE The ecosystem of the Upper Newport Bay is a highly complex and sensitive one, whose analysis is based on sophisticated technical studies. Consistent with Section 15140 of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as the spirit of CEQA, 14 the key objective of the Biological Resources section of this FIR was to inform the public and decision makers in plain, understandable terms. The Technical Appendix to the FIR contains a detailed assessment, supported by many technical studies, which formed the foundation for the conclusions presented in the EIR. The Biological Resources section itself is based not only on earlier studies of the Bay cited in the Bibliography section, but also on the Upper Bay Management Plan of the Department of Fish and Game. To respond specifically to this (and following) comment, the following information is summarized from data used to develop the FIR. BENTHOS The benthic community of Upper Newport Bay is composed primarily of marine elements with a small number of estuarine endemics and freshwater species in the upper reaches. Since the mid- 1930's, seven studies have been made of the infauna of Newport Bay (MacGinitie 1939; Barnard and Reish 1959; Dawson 1962; Hardy 1970; Daugherty 1978; MBC 1980; and Seapy 1981). The two early investigations provided information on the composition of the benthic community, and MacGinitie (1939) also documents the effects of freshwater input. Hardy (1979) lists species collected during a 1968 survey of the Upper Bay's marine environment and indicates their relative abundance. The three recent studies have examined the structure, distribution and seasonal dynamics of the Bay's benthic community. A list of 216 invertebrate taxa was compiled by Frey, et al. (1970) for the Upper Bay. Of these, 155 were not restricted to hard substrates. Polychaetes were represented by 53 taxa, followed by bivalves (26 taxa) and gastropods (23 taxa). Recent investigations (Seapy 1981; MBC 1980, 1981; Daugherty 1978 and Hardy 1970) have recorded a combined total of 274 benthic taxa representing 13 phyla. Polychaetes are numerically the most important group, followed by oligochaetes, crustaceans and gastropods. This sequence is typical of protected southern California embayments (Daugherty 1978). In comparing January 1954 subtidal collections of polychaete worms made by Barnard and Reish (1959) with recent subtidal samples (January 1978 and 1979), Seapy (1981) notes an appreciable decline in the number of species from 43 to 12 (in 1978) and 16 (in 1979). Of the 43 species recorded by Barnard and Reish, only 8 were represented in Seapy's samples, while 14 additional species were determined in 1978 and 1979. Seapy suggests that this decline could be the result, at least in part, of increased agricultural, industrial and urban runoff, and that such inputs could reasonably be expected to contribute to the decline in water quality and to the observed reduction in species richness. Continual disturbance from accelerated sedimentation could also be a contributing factor. The infauna characteristically has been dominated by species which are either introduced and /or exhibit opportunistic life histories (MBC 1980). These include Streblospio benedicti, Polydora Ii ni, Grandidierella 'o onica, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, Capitella capitata, Corophium acherusicum, C. insidiosum and Theora lubrica. Marine Biological 15 Consultants (1980) indicates that the long presence of introduced species in the Bay and continued introductions (e.g., that of Theora lubrica, Seapy 1974), cause the benthic community to be unstable and subject to continual disturbance. The presence of opportunistic species such as Capitella ca itata in the Bay does not indicate that it is polluted, but only that it is stressed by some factor or factors (MBC 1980). Opportunistic species, through their adaptation to rapidly exploit resources, are well suited to estuarine habitats, such as Upper Newport Bay, which are subject to periodic disturbance due to flooding and sediment deposition. Comparison of the recent studies of Daugherty (1978), MBC (1980) and Seapy (1981) shows similar trends in seasonal population dynamics. Densities and numbers of species per station are highest in late summer and fall and lowest during the winter. The winter low is followed by heavy recruitment during the spring and summer. Total density, species richness, and species diversity were lowest at the uppermost station (project area) and highest at the lowermost station (Shellmaker Island). The community structure of the Upper Bay fluctuates vertically and horizontally with the season (Seapy 1981). During periods of high runoff, the benthic infaunal community of the project area was shown by Seapy (using cluster analysis) to be isolated from other sites in terms of species composition and abundance. Cluster linkages, however, were found between sites off Big Canyon and Shellmaker Island at subtidal depths as well as between intertidal sites at these locations, which suggests vertical separations resulting from the impact of freshwater runoff into the Upper Bay. \Marine species which make up a large portion of the shallow water community are evidently subject, therefore, to declines where affected by freshwater and decreased salinities. Freshwater storm flows have long been recognized (MacGinitie 1939) as causing high mortality among benthic organisms in Newport Bay. Subsequent investigations by Daugherty (1978), Marine Biological Consultants (1980) and Seapy (1981) have demonstrated a close relationship between seasonal runoff and declines in the benthic community. MBC (1980) indicates that while the marine component declines, freshwater species and estuarine endemics are able to expand their distribution and densities. The benthic infauna of the Upper Bay is subjected to constant variations in its physical environment. The density of individual species populations fluctuates markedly between seasons and years. While salinity is certainly an important controlling factor, sediment deposition could also strongly influence benthic community structure. The redistribution of sediments within the Bay is a constant process. Both Seapy (1981) and MBC (1980) recorded shifts in substrate composition at various points within the Bay 16 and concurrent changes in the benthic infauna. The deposition of large amounts of sediment associated with high freshwater runoff seems to have a significant effect on benthic organisms. Following the influx of heavy amounts of sediment during the winter of 1977/78, the benthic community still had not recovered in terms of species richness eight months later (Seapy 1981). Marine Biological Consultants (1980) observed a similar pattern following the heavy rains of 1979/80. It appears that while high winter runoff and associated sediment deposition may decimate the benthic community, recovery is rapid. The species composition and relative species abundance of the re- established community may, however, be very different from that which existed previously (Seapy 1981). In comparing the data of Daugherty (1978), Seapy (1981) and Marine Biological Consultants (1980), it appears that high freshwater runoff significantly reduces species richness during the winter and succeeding recovery. Marine Biological Consultants (1981) also showed that following the heavy runoff of the 1979/80 season, the similarity of species between locations was greater the next fall. During years of normal runoff, the infauna is not as severely affected. Following normal years, the infauna is characterized by a higher number of taxa in lower densities (Seapy 1981). Hardy (1979), Daugherty (1978), MBC (1980) and Seapy (1981) have all included the bivalves, gastropods and crustaceans in their studies of the Upper Bay. These surveys show a wide variation in the species collected during any one survey. This variation could be due to differences in sampling and /or environmental disturbance resulting from high freshwater runoff and sediment deposition. Hardy's listings of crustaceans may include some non - benthic forms which could account for the disparity between his listings and those of subsequent investigators. Comparison of the above - mentioned studies indicates an appreciable decline between 1968 and 1975 -1980 only in the number of gastropod species found in Upper Newport Bay. Of the 27 taxa identified by Hardy (1970), only 7 have been recorded in subsequent surveys. Seven additional taxa have been identified by Daugherty (1978), MBC (1980) and Seapy (1981). Two of these, Trionia imitator and Alderia modesta, are brackish - water snails found only in areas of freshwater influence (MBC 1980). The most commonly observed gastropod in Upper Newport Bay is the California horn snail, Certhidea californica. A total of 35 species of bivalves have been reported from Upper Newport Bay. Although the species richness has been stable, the species collected during different investigations varies. This is probably due to differences in sampling techniques and the irregular distribution of bivalves within the Upper Bay. Daugherty (1978) indicates that mollusks were found in abundance at only a few sites and were generally associated with shell debris rather than sand or mud bottoms. The present status of bivalve populations within the Upper Bay is difficult to ascertain. While habitat has probably been lost due to sediment deposition, stable populations may survive in less affected areas. 17 Common bivalves found in the reserve include the banded chione ( Chione californiensis), smooth chione ( Chione fluctifrag_a), common littleneck Protothaca staminea), rosy razor clam (Solen rosaceus), jacknife clams T, Relus californianus and T. subteres) and the ribbed horse mussel (Gukensia demissa . Eighty -five crustacean taxa, 47 of which were identified to species, have been reported from the Upper Bay by Hardy (1970), Daugherty (1978), MBC (1980) and Seapy (1981). Between 1977 and 1979, the abundance of crustaceans showed strong seasonal fluctuations ( Seapy 1981) being abundant in the summer and fall and sparse in the winter and spring. Species richness and densities were extremely low at the end of the rainy season but recovered strongly by late summer. This recovery included large numbers of the amphipods Mayerella acanthopoda and Oxyurostylis acp ifica collected at Big Canyon and Shellmaker Island. Common crustaceans reported in the Upper Newport Bay are: ghost shrimp (Callinassa californiensis), skeleton shrimp (Caprella equilibra), cumacean shrimp Oxyurostylis pacific a), and various amphipods (Corophium, Mayerella, Monoculodes and Ampithoe). Calianssa, a bait species, is frequently collected by fishermen at North Star Beach (Wilcox personal observation). FISHERIES Upper Newport Bay provides foraging, spawning and nursery habitat to 72 species of fish (Technical Appendix B and Technical Appendix to Final EIR, Early Action Plan (1981). This list was compiled from previous investiga- tions and ongoing sampling (Bane 1968; Posejpal 1969; Horn & Allen 1981; Sumada be Wilcox, DFG, unpub. data). Marine species dominate the system. The ichthyofauna of Newport Bay is generally similar to other bays and estuaries of southern California (Horn and Allen 1981). The most thorough examination of the fisheries resources of the Upper Bay was conducted by Horn and Allen (1981). They characterized the Bay's fish population as numerically dominated by low trophic -level species which use it at various stages of their life cycles. Similar findings were presented by MBC (1980). While dominated by the low trophic -level species, the Bay serves as a spawning and nursery ground for other coastal species. The nursery function involves a greater number of species and can be considered more important than the spawning function. White (1977) collected eggs of 10 species and larvae of 37 species in Newport Bay as a whole, while Horn and Allen (1981) recorded the eggs of 7 species and the larvae of 20 species in the Upper Bay. The larvae of low trophic -level species (gobies, topsmelt, anchovies, croaker) dominated both studies, but the larvae of higher trophic -level species (spotted turbot, diamond turbot, California halibut, barred and spotted sand bass) also were present. The Bay's fish community is composed of seasonally varying groups of species. Horn and Allen (1981) identified eight species groups of resident and periodic species that variously utilize the three main habitats 18 (channels, inshore and pannes) of the Bay. Species richness, total numbers, and biomass fluctuate seasonally with lows occurring in winter and highs in summer. These fluctuations have been attributed to variations in salinity, temperature and productivity. Spring and summer increases in the ichthyofauna of the Upper Bay are attributed to: 1) the movement of adult fishes into the Bay to spawn; 2) recruitment of juveniles; and 3) migration of larger fish to exploit the high productivity of the Bay (White 1977). Delayed spawning and reduced species diversity and density have been attributed to the effects of heavy storm runoff (Posejpal 1969; Horn and Allen 1981). Three general fish habitats are found in the Upper Bay: channels, inshore (mudflats), and marshes (pannes). Each has a characteristic seasonal fish assemblage. Channels are used by flatfishes, basses, adults of larger species and schooling species on a seasonal basis. Inshore waters are frequented by mullet (Mu alit cephalus), gobies, topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), deepbody anchovy (Anchoa compress a), and staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus). The marshes and pannes are populated by mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), killfish (Fundulus parvipinnis), arrow goby (Clevelandia ios ,and lonjjaw mudsucker Gillichthys mirabilis). These assemblages are not fixed but indicate the general pattern in which fishes are seasonally distributed within the Reserve. The Department of Fish and Game has conducted quarterly fish surveys during the last two years (February, 1984 to November, 1985). Sampling was accomplished using a large beach seine and gill nets. The project area data is based upon two seine stations and one gill net station. The Shellmaker Island station represents one seine and one gill net station. Results were similar to those observed in past investigations. Species richness, number of individuals and biomass are lowest in winter and highest in summer and early fall. Species richness is lowest in the upper reaches of the Bay and increases downbay. This is attributed to reduced salinity, reduced tidal prism and high freshwater input resulting from sediment deposition. The Bay continues to be dominated by lower trophic -level species. It appears that the abundance of deep water species such as surfperches and sand basses has declined. This may be attributable in part to differences in the sampling regime, in that the current surveys did not incorporate an otter trawl. In both previous studies, these species, along with halibut and turbot, were most heavily collected in otter trawls. Comparison of fish survey data for the primary dredging site with that of the downbay station of Shellmaker Island is shown in Table 1. The two areas differ significantly in habitat composition. The project site is primarily low intertidal mudflat bisected by a shallow channel. The Shellmaker Island station is characterized by a deep subtidal channel bordered by lower intertidal mudflats. 19 TABLE 1 RESULTS OF FISH SURVEYS CONDUCTED IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY (February 1984 - November 1985) Species F.O. A. B. Shellmaker Island Station Topsmelt 100% 3,003 8,160 California corbina 25% 400 2,987 Yellowfin croaker 87% 230 53,498 Anchovy sp. 87% 147 262 California killfish 62% 128 423 Striped mullet 75% 64 74,866 Yellowfin goby 62% 37 171 Staghorn sculpin 62% 32 231 Spotfin croaker 50% 27 9,132 Gray smoothound 50% 16 7,266 California halibut 62% 11 735 Diamond turbot 37% 9 34 Queenfish 37% 8 936 Spotted sand bass 25% 5 224 Arrow goby 25% 4 4 Lepoard shark 12% 3 2,682 Jacksmelt 25% 3 712 Pipefish sp. 25% 3 14 Tilapia 25% 2 120 Round stringray 12% 1 500 Shiner surfperch 12% 1 45 Needlefish 12% 1 11 California barracuda 12% 1 10 TOTAL 4,136 162,923 Project Site Topsmelt 75% 11062 3,558 Anchovy sp. 100% 633 1,802 Tilapia 37% 297 24,011 Striped mullet 87% 202 157,962 Yellowfin croaker 50% 151 33,517 Yellowfin goby 50% 97 143 California killfish 50% 55 126 Striped bass 50% 26 14,873 Jacksmelt 12% 5 1,261 Staghorn sculpin 25% 4 3 California halibut 37% 3 883 Threadfin shad 25% 3 117 Diamond turbot 12% 1 48 TOTAL 2,539 238,304 F.O. = Frequency of occurrence A = Abundance (number of individuals) B = Biomass (grams) 3l] The project site exhibits lower species richness (13 species) than the Shellmaker Island site (23 species). Of the 23 species collected at the downbay station, 11 were recorded in the project area. Two species (striped bass and threadfin shad) were not collected at the Shellmaker Island station. Both stations are dominated by lower trophic level species in terms of abundance and biomass. The downbay station exhibits a greater number of mid- and higher trophic level species. This finding is similar to that observed by Horn and Allen (1981) and MBC (1980). Due to the sampling methods employed, it is felt that these species were probably under - sampled at the downbay site. It is not felt that this was the case at the project site, where true subtidal habitat is lacking. At both sites, striped mullet accounted for a significant portion of the biomass - -65% in the project area and 46% at the Shellmaker Island station. The abundance of mullet encountered in the project area accounted for the total biomass of that area being greater than the downbay station (238,304 grams vs. 162,923 grams). If mullet is discounted from both stations, the total biomass of the Shellmaker Island station is slightly higher than that of the project site. In addition, 10% of the project site biomass is made up by Tilapia mosambica, an introduced exotic. It should be noted that the gill net collection site used for the project site is located upstream of the work area in a deeper channel. Similar habitat is limited within the primary dredging area. This station accounted for 94% of the total biomass recorded for the project area; 98% of the striped mullet and 100% yellowfin croaker. Sediment deposition since 1969 has significantly reduced (24 acres) subtidal habitat in Upper Newport Bay. It is anticipated that the project will restore 22.5 acres of subtidal habitat, an increase of approximately 27 %. The increased habitat should enhance the fishery of the Bay, especially for higher trophic -level species. COMMENT #4 Page IV -6, Impacts. Paragraph 3 should read "No existing salt marsh habitat would be lost as a result of the project." Paragraph 7 an beneficial impacts is less than convincing. Why would preventing mud -flats from successional conversion to salt marsh be beneficial? There is a very high value placed on salt marsh habitat in Southern California. Also, the conversion of highly productive intertidal mud -flats to subtidal habitat is stated as a benefit without any convincing arguments, let alone any facts. The project will help to maintain remaining mudflat habitat within the Upper Bay by limiting future sediment deposition on existing mudflats and lowering existing high mudflat areas. This will provide 21 a long term benefit to shorebirds which rely on these areas as foraging sites during the migratory season (late July to early May). Currently there are 278 acres of intertidal habitat (Table 2) below 2.0 MSL in UNBER between the salt works dike and the southern boundary of the reserve. The proposed project will result in an 8% (22.5 acres) reduction in this elevation range. Twelve acres will come from the 2.0 -1.0 range. According to Zedler (1982), salt marsh vegetation can be expected to develop at or above 0.7 MSL. In examining the topographic maps prepared for the project, it is apparent that salt marsh is expanding rapidly into areas above 1.0 MSL. Continued salt marsh expansion in the project area would result in a conversion of up to 48 acres of mudflat habitat. TABLE 2 UNBER MUDFLAT ACREAGE *includes water surface, tide elevation of topography map (CNB) Ld -2.5 MSL (0.0 MLLW) * *between narrows and main dike Basin Area Total 20.17 + side slopes 3.96 Existing Subtital -3.89 16.28 Channels 6.20 + side slopes 7.46 Total Mudflat Loss 22.48 ac. A dilemma arises in the management of the reserve in that salt marsh contributes significantly to the productivity of the Bay and provides habitat for 50% to 60% of the state's population of the endangered lightfooted clapper rail. At the same time, a conversion of mudflat to salt marsh will result in a reduction of shorebird use. Meyer (1983) explains that losses in available foraging habitat result in direct losses in shorebirds, since existing habitat is exploited to capacity. Given these considerations and the fact that salt marsh habitat has increased by 132 acres through the conversion 22 Primary Project Area *} MSL Below Dike Above Mid-Is below -2.0 75* 24 24* 14 below -1.0 99 ac 38 ac below 0.0 135 36 ac 57 19 ac below +1.0 219 84 ac 120 63 ac below +2.0 278 59 ac 168 48 ac *includes water surface, tide elevation of topography map (CNB) Ld -2.5 MSL (0.0 MLLW) * *between narrows and main dike Basin Area Total 20.17 + side slopes 3.96 Existing Subtital -3.89 16.28 Channels 6.20 + side slopes 7.46 Total Mudflat Loss 22.48 ac. A dilemma arises in the management of the reserve in that salt marsh contributes significantly to the productivity of the Bay and provides habitat for 50% to 60% of the state's population of the endangered lightfooted clapper rail. At the same time, a conversion of mudflat to salt marsh will result in a reduction of shorebird use. Meyer (1983) explains that losses in available foraging habitat result in direct losses in shorebirds, since existing habitat is exploited to capacity. Given these considerations and the fact that salt marsh habitat has increased by 132 acres through the conversion 22 of mudflat at Upper Newport Bay over the last ten years (Zembel dt Massey 1980), the Department has chosen to remove high mudflat areas (above 1.0 MSL) as part of its Unit II project, feeling that this will result in the least long -term impact to shorebirds. It is also the Department's objective to emphasize creation of mudflat habitat in its restoration of historic fill areas (15 acres) within the bay (Shellmaker Island, mouth of Big Canyon, 23rd Street spoil area). In addition, management efforts at other nearby wetland areas operated by the Department will result in the creation of additional mudflat habitat. Since shorebirds utilize foraging resources in a regional context, losses at one location can be offset by creation of new habitat at other nearby locations. 2. The project will restore 22.5 acres of subtidal habitat lost since 1977 as a result of sediment deposition, benefitting the fishery and diving birds. Prior to 1978, 26 acres of subtidal habitat existed in the area of the narrows (DWR 1977). Sediment deposition between 1978 and the present converted the majority (22 acres) of this area to intertidal mudflat (Newport Beach 1985). Restoration of subtidal habitat should benefit the fisheries of the Bay by expanding deep water habitat for halibut, turbot, surfperch, and sand bass. Additionally, the increased tidal prism will reduce the effect of freshwater flows from San Diego Creek which depress salinities affecting marine fishes and invertebrates. 3. The basin created by the project in conjunction with the basin constructed by the Unit I project will provide for the localized deposition of sediment entering the Bay. The comprehensive plan (Boyle Engineering 1983) described the pattern of sediment deposition within the Bay. Data indicated that the area between the dike and the narrows was an area of heavy fine sediment deposition. Based upon this analysis, two basins within the Bay were recommended to capture sediment reaching the Bay. The first basin (salt works) would capture fine sands, some silts and clays. The performance of the Early Action Plan basin constructed in 1982 confirmed this assumption. The second basin (Unit II) would capture the majority of silts and clays. The basins combined would capture 80% to 90% of the sediment entering the Bay. Further review of the Comprehensive Plan in Bay basins by Krone, Williams and Vanoni (personal comm. 1983) revealed that the basins would aid in maintaining existing mudflats by localizing deposition. The basins would also provide a site for the deposition of fine sediments resuspended by tidal action and wind wave action. This would minimize the gradual increases in elevation of the mudflats above the narrows observed over the past 15 years. Comparison of 1977 and current topographic maps shows a general increase of 0.5 feet over the majority of the area between the main dike and narrows. This increase reflects only a change in intertidal areas and not the subtidal area filled since 1977. The current average elevation of the project area to be dredged is 0.8 MSL. 23 4. Water quality in Newport Bay is a major concern (SARWQCB 1985). The Bay is subject to elevated levels of coliform bacteria and nutrients associated with freshwater runoff. An expanded tidal prism should improve conditions through dilution and improved flushing. COMMENT #5 Page IV -7, Mitigation Measures. No. 2: should be modified to reflect any changes made subsequent to resolving issues mentioned above. No. 4: what is being done on upstream sediment control? This has not been brought up or discussed anywhere else in the EIR. Nos. 5 and 6: state rather that dredged spoil materials shall be disposed of only at EPA interim dumpsite LA 3, or at an approved upland disposal site. No. 7: develop and discuss monitoring plan. No. & should include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch. Mitigation to offset the loss of existing intertidal mud flats should be discussed. RESPONSE 2. The phrase "above 0.5 MSL" should be changed to "0.7 MSL." 4. Continued application of upstream erosion and sediment control measures recommended in the Comprehensive Plan will be stressed. Maintenance of the San Diego Creek sediment basins will be emphasized to maximize their trap efficiency reducing the frequency of in -Bay maintenance. A third sediment basin will be constructed in San Diego Creek during 1986. 5 &6. So noted. 8. So noted. The Department of Fish and Game is creating 23 acres of lower intertidal habitat at Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. This will provide foraging habitat for shorebirds. Monitoring programs are currently under way or will be implemented to monitor the effects of the project. These include: Benthic - The Department of Fish and Game is contracting with Dr. Donald J. Reich of CSU, Long Beach to monitor benthic organisms within the Bay. This study will last three years, continuing through 1988. Fishery - The Department surveyed the Bay quarterly from 1981 t ri ougE 1985. This program has been replaced by a more intensive study by Dr. Larry Allen, CSU, Northridge, funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The study began in January and is funded for a minimum of two years. Avian - The Department of Fish and Game conducts monthly low tide bird counts to monitor water associate bird use at Upper Newport 24 Bay. This program will be continued during and after the project for a minimum of two years. Sediment Monitoring - As part of the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, a sediment monitoring program is in place to measure sediment transport and deposition through Newport Bay and its watershed. Orange County is the lead agency in implementing the program. The project should result in minimal increases in turbidity. Monitoring of turbidity during the project is required in the state water quality permit issued by the Santa Ana River Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on observations of dredging currently under way at Newport Dunes, the project should not affect water clarity and the suitability of the Bay as a foraging site for terns. The Department of Fish and Game will monitor recreational boat use of the reserve following completion of the project. If this use is determined to be having a negative effect on wildlife, use will be restricted. COMMENT #6 Page V -1, Project Alternatives. This section should also assess alternatives such as location of the basin, configuration of the basin and its side channels, and depth of the basin. Are there other alternatives to the desilting problem than a basin? RESPONSE Determination of basin configuration is based upon both habitat manage- ment goals and sediment retention criteria. Design of the basin has been constrained by several concerns: equipment capabilities, habitat constraints, and the intent to efficiently localize the deposition of sediment. In funding acquisition of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, the legislatively stated purpose was the preservation of a "salt water marsh ecosystem." Specific objectives of the reserve include: 1. Improvement of fishery resources by increasing nursery, foraging and spawning grounds. 2. Protection and enhancement of wetland habitat for a variety of water associated wildlife. Between the late 1960's and 1982, the Upper Bay was subjected to uncontrolled sediment deposition. Based upon estimates of sediment delivery (Boyle 1983) to the Bay of 85,000 cubic yards per year, it is estimated that a minimum of 1.2 million cubic yards of sediment have been 25 delivered to the Bay during the period. This is probably a conservative estimate. It is known that major storm events can deliver well in excess of the annual average. Two major storms in January and March 1983 deposited approximately 310,000 cubic yards in the Early Action basin within the Bay and two sediment basins in San Diego Creek upstream from the Bay. This figure represents only material trapped in sediment basins. Field observations (Wilcox, personal observation) indicate that additional material was deposited over the remainder of the reserve on mudflats and in salt marsh. The Comprehensive Plan (Boyle 1983) recommended that two sediment basins be constructed within the Upper Bay to control sediment deposition. During the period 1968 to 1982, the Upper Bay served as an efficient natural sediment trap, trapping 80% to 90% of the material entering the Bay. Deposition had filled much of the Bay's capacity. Subtidal areas including a 26 -acre basin at the narrows which had been dredged (250,000 cubic yards) in 1970 following the 1969 storms had filled. A significant conversion of subtidal habitat (30 %) to mudflat had occurred, while substantial mudflat (132 acres) had been converted to salt marsh (Zembel, Massey 1980). The purpose of the two basins is to localize deposition in deep basins minimizing sediment deposition in salt marsh and mudflat areas. The plan estimated that the two in -Bay basins in conjunction with sediment basins in San Diego Creek would trap 90% of the material reaching them. The San Diego Creek basins capture mostly sand. The first in -Bay basin trapped sand, silts and some clays, while the second in-Bay basin would trap silts and clays. The Boyle report (1983) indicated that the first in -Bay basin and two San Diego Creek basins would trap approxi- mately 33,000 cubic yards of the 85,000 cubic yards of material entering the Bay on an average annual basis. This would leave an additional 52,000 cubic yards of uncontrolled sediment deposition. The Unit I and Unit IT basins are intended to deal with this material, since only a small fraction of the sediment entering the Bay is believed to be carried to the ocean (Krone 1982). The intent of the Unit II basin is to restore lost subtidal habitat and provide for controlled sediment deposition to minimize deposition on existing mudflat and salt marsh. While some mudflat will be lost, the proposed dredging has been designed to minimize that loss while maximizing trap efficiency. As much dredging as possible has been located in existing channels. Mudflat which will be lost is predominantly above 1.0 MSL and is expected to be converted to salt marsh through natural succession. The main constraint on conducting habitat manipulation within the Bay is equipment. Minimal widths and water depths are required for access and operation of equipment. Available equipment is limited in how a project can be conducted. Only two methods are available to conduct the proposed work: clamshell dredge and hydraulic suction dredge. The preferred equipment type is the clamshell system which can be used to manipulate intertidal areas by shaping channel side slopes. To meet desired sediment trapping capabilities, basin design must include adequate width, depth and length. These three characteristics interrelate 26 to maximize trap efficiency. Adequate width and length are required to slow the velocity of incoming flows and provide adequate time for sediment particles to settle out. Depth is required to provide adequate storage capacity and allow intrusion of salt water during high flows which enhances the deposition of fine particles. A discussion of alternatives follows to show why other ways of approaching the desilting problem are infeasible or not as efficient as those presented in the EIR. Expand Unit I Basin The Unit I basin could be expanded in area and depth. This would expand its trap efficiency for fine sediments and expand its storage capacity. This proposal has several drawbacks which are considered unacceptable: 1. The facility can only be expanded downbay. Completion of the Unit I project used up all of the non -marsh area available in the upper reaches of the Bay. This would result in the loss of salt marsh and fresh /brackish marsh. The loss of these areas would negatively impact the lightfooted clapper rail and the Beldings savannah sparrow. 2. Deepening the basin alone would not increase trap efficiency significantly, resulting in continued sediment deposition in downbay habitat areas. 3. Long -term loss of mudflat and subtidal habitat in the project area and downbay would continue, resulting in reduced shorebird use and fishery value. Long Narrow Basin of Great Depth This alternative was evaluated in an attempt to minimize encroachment on to mudflats. Based upon input from the Sediment Advisory Committee (unpub. 1983), width is an important factor in allowing for the deposition of fine sediments. By constricting the channel width, flow rates remain high and sediment is not trapped efficiently. Increases in length and depth would not offset a reduction in width. While the width of the basin would be narrowed, it would have to be lengthened to maintain trap efficiency. Greater depth alone provides increased storage capacity but does little to increase trap efficiency (Krone, pers. comm.). A basin 300 feet wide, 3,000 feet long and 20 feet deep would provide surface area (20 acres) and storage capacity similar to the proposed project. It does not appear that this basin would be as efficient a silt trap as the proposed basin (Krone, pers. comm). Material would continue to be deposited on desirable habitats. This basin would result in the loss of 13 acres of mudflat, 3.3 acres less than the proposed basin. The remaining seven acres is existing open water. 27 Most of the mudflat lost would be below 0.0 MSL. This would result in a direct short term loss of high value shorebird habitat. An additional long- term loss of 10 acres of shorebird habitat would occur as high mudflats which would be unaffected by this alternative are converted to salt marsh through succession. Creation of a deep basin in excess of downbay channel depths 14.0 MSL would create an area of dead water. This area would be subject to thermal stratification and limited tidal flushing. This would contribute little to fishery resources or water quality. Basin Without Side Channels Deletion of the side channels would reduce mudflat losses by 6.2 acres. Mudflat loss from construction of the basin would be 16.3 acres. The channels have been included in the project primarily as a means of expanding habitat manipulation to maintain mudflat. Channel depths have been held to the minimum required for equipment access. Without the channels, mudflat loss to salt marsh encroachment would exceed that lost to dredging in the long term. Primary Purpose of Side Channels A and B Channel A - Total area affected 11.12 acres; channel 4.58 acres, intertidal side slopes 6.54 acres. This channel serves as a manipulation of existing habitat to: maintain mudflat habitat; expand subtidal component; and provide isolation for the developing salt marsh island in the eastern portion of the project area which will remain following completion of the project. Channel B - Total area 3.62 acres; channel 1.49 acres; intertidal side slope 2.13 acres. 1. Provide outfall for delhi drain, limit sediment deposition in existing mouth and on marsh. This measure recommended by Sediment Advisory Committee (unpub. 1983). 2. Provide general lowering of existing mudflats in area to maintain them. 3. Create more elevational diversity in the mudflats of area, allowing for increased time of use during tidal cycle. Shallow Dredging Over a Large Area Ideal enhancement of the project area would lower existing mudflat 1 to 3 feet to maintain lower intertidal habitat value. This type of modification is infeasible without dewatering the area or damming it to flood the area so constant water elevations can be maintained. This alternative would be difficult, very expensive and involve unacceptable impacts to salt marsh, 28 endangered species, and fish and wildlife. The resulting area would provide exceptional sediment trapping capability but would provide limited storage capacity, requiring frequent maintenance and disturbance of resource values. COMMENT V Page VI -1, Cumulative Impacts. This section should also include other projects by the DFG, and any others, that may affect the Upper Newport Bay ecosystem. RESPONSE The Unit 11 project would be the last major project within Upper Newport Bay, other than periodic maintenance (every 5 to 9 years) of the Unit I and Unit II subtidal areas. The Department of Fish and Game has a small scale wetland restoration program which is directed at restoring historic fill sites within the reserve to tidal influence. This program will be continued as funding becomes available. COMMENT #8 Page VII-1, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. The last line should read " ... cannot be seen as an adverse irretrievable commitment of resources." So noted. COMMENT O Page Xf -1, Bibli aphy The bibliography should also include all references cited in the of the document. RESPONSE The following references are hereby added to the EIR: Barnard, J.L. and D.J. Reish. 1959. Ecology of Amphipoda and Polycheata of Newport Bay, California. Allan Hancock Foun. Pub. Occ. Pap 21:1 -106. Boyle Engineering Corp. 1983. Newport Bay Watershed San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan. Prepared for the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and the Southern California Association of Governments, August, 1983. 29 Daugherty, S.J. 1978. Benthic ecology. Pages 129 -192 in Environmental Studies in Upper Newport Bay. Orange County Human Services Agency Report. Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Upper Newport Bay Management Plan. In press. Frey, H.W., R.F. Hein, and J.L. Spruill. 1970. Report on the natural resources of Upper Newport Bay and recommendations concerning the Bay's development. California Department of Fish and Game. Hardy, R.A. 1970. The marine environment in Upper Newport and Sunset Bays, Orange County, California. California Department of Fish and Game Report. Reference No. 70- 10:1 -84. Horn, M.H. and L.G. Allen. 1981. Ecology of fishes in Upper Newport Bay, California: seasonal dynamics and community structure. California Department of Fish and Game, Mr. Res. Tech. Rept. No. 45. Krone, R.B. 1982. Part II - Task II -E Technical Memorandum: Sediment transport, and scour in Upper Newport Bay. Prepared for the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine and the Southern California Association of Governments. Boyle Engineering Corp., San Diego. MacDonald, K.C. 1977. Coastal salt marsh. Pages 263 -294 in M.G. Barbour and J. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, New York. MacGinities, G.E. 1939. Some effects of fresh water on the fauna of a marine harbor. Amer. Midl. Nat. 21:681 -686. MBC (Marine Biological Consultants). 1980. Final Report: Irvine Ranch Water District Upper Newport Bay and stream augmentation program. Prepared for the Irvine Ranch Water District. Moore and Taber. 1968. Geologic and subsurface exploration: Upper Newport Bay. Report to The Irvine Company and Orange County Harbor District. Orange County Environmental Management Agency. 1980. Water quality in Newport Bay and its watershed. Water Resources Section, Eng. Services division. Posejpal, M.A. 1969. The population ecology of the benthic icthyofauna of Upper Newport Bay. M.S. Thesis. University of California, Irvine. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1985. Report to the California Legislature, Newport Bay: Water Quality Issues and Recommendations. November, 1985. Seapy, R.R. 1981. Structure, distribution, and seasonal dynamics of the benthic community in Upper Newport Bay, California. California 31] Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Marine Resources Tech. Rep. No. 46. Stevenson, R.E. and K.O. Emery. 1958. Marshlands at Newport Bay. Allen Hancock Foundation Publications. Occasional Paper No. 20. University of Southern California Press, Los Angeles, California. Thompson, S.D. 1977. A survey of the terrestrial vertebrates of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, Orange County, California. Report to the Deaprtment of Fish and Game. Zedler, J.B. 1982. The ecology of southern California coastal salt marshes; a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Biological Services Program, F WS /OBS- 81/54. Zembel, R.L. and B.W. Massey. 1981. Continuation study of the light - footed clapper rail, Rallus longirostris levipes, 1981. Final Report. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 31 Archaeological Resource Management Corporation February 18, 1986 Culbertson, Adams, 26141 Marguerite Suite C Mission Viejo, CA Attn: Donna Baker Dear Donna: and Associates 92692 Regarding the Upper Newport Bay Dredging Project, no adverse impacts are predicted for cultural resources. No cultural resources are identified as present within the bay. A number of archaeological sites are located on the terraces surrounding the Upper Bay, but no impacts are predicted for them either as no earthmoving or other disturbance is expected in their vicinity as a result of the dredging operations. Since no adverse impacts are predicted for the project, we have no recommendations for mitigation. Should cultural resources be encountered, however, during the course of the dredging project, a qualified archaeologist should be called in to evaluate the significance of the resources and to arrange for their disposal. Sincerely, Carol R. Demcak Executive Vice - President 812 Wert Amerige Avenue, Fullerton, California 92632 (714) 447 -8760 Additional species list is as follows: INVERTEBRATES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY Survey in which collected Occurrence H - Hardy (1970) VC - very common D - Daugherty (1978) C - common M - Marine Biological Consultants (1980) U - uncommon S - Seapy (198 1) R - rare Porfiera (Sponges) Geodiidae unid. D, M H Halichondria ap nicea P. sp. C H Hymeniacidon sinapiuro M H Leucandra heathi P. sp. F H, M Leucetta losangelensis M H Leuconia barbata 33 H Cnidaria (jellyfish, anemonies and hydras) Actiniaria sp A anemone S, H A. sp B anemone S Aglaophenia diegensis hydroid H Anthozoa unid. M, D Anthosoa sp F M Anthopleura elegantissima aggregate anemone H A. xanthogrammica solitary anemone H Aurellia sp. moon jelly fish H Corymorpha palma hydroid H, M, S Corynactis sp. anemone H Diadumene franciscana anemone H D. sp anemone H, M. Edwardsiidae unid. anemone D, M Gymnoblastea unid. hydroid M Halcampa crypta S H. decemtent - aculata S H. sp M Mesacmaea sp. M Metridium exilis M Tubularia croce colonial hydroid H Zaolutus actius M Platyhelminthes (flat worms) Platyhelminthes sp A D, M P. sp. B M P. sp. C M P. sp. D M P. sp. E M P. sp. F M P. sp. H M Polycladidae unid. S 33 Nemertea (Ribbon worms) Nemertea sp H, D, M Carinoma californiensis M Micrura alaskensis M Paranemertes unid M unid. sp. A, B, E, F S Nemetoda (Round worms) Nemetoda unid. H, D, M Sipundulida unid. M, S Golfingia misakiana M Echiuroidea (Innkeeper worms) M Listriolobus ep lodes M Urechis caupo H Phoronida (Phonorid worms) H Phoronida unid. M Phoronis pallida S P. sp S, M (Moss animals) oversbankia rg acilis D, M >,ula neritina H acifica H typ osula palasiana M iperoecia floridina H icrisia gentculata H loprella brunnea H •upocellaria betholetti tenuriostris H ::alifornica H diaensis H Branchi000da Glottidia albida M Echinodermata (Starfish and sea urchins) Amphipholis pugetana H, S A. squamata H Leptosynapta albicans S L. sp D, M Lytechinus ip ctus H Ophiactus simplex H O hiuroidea unid H atiria miniata H Strongylocentrotusfranciscanus H UnidspA&B S Unid Apoda sp 5 34 Annelids (segmented worms) Polychaeta (sandworms, tubeworms) Ampharetidae unid H, D Anaitides williamsi H A. sp H Arctonoe vittata H Armandia bioculata H, D, S Axiothella rubrocincta H Brania sp D, S Boccardia hamata D, M B. sp D B. proboscidea S B.uncata S Capitellidae unid H, D, M Capitella capitata H, D, M, S Chaetopterus variopedatus H Chone sp D Cirratulidae unid H Cirriformia luxuriosa H ossE ura can 7l a H, D, M, S Diopatra ornata D,S D. splendidissima D Dorvillea articulate H D. atlantica S Eteone alba D Eteone dilatae H Euchone limnicola H, D, M, S Eudistylia polymorpha H Eulalia bilineata D Eumidia bifoliata S Eumidia longicornuta D E.sanguinea M E. sp D Eunicidae unid. H, D Eusylis sp H Exogone gemmifera S E. lourei D, M, S E. uniformis S E. sp D, S Exogonella sp S Fabricia limnicola H, D, M, S Flabelligeridae unid H, D Glycera americana S G. oxycephala D Gyptis brevipalpa D Halosynda 1 nsoni H Haloscoloplos elongatus H, D, M, S Harmottloe lunulata S Hesionidae unid. D Lumbrineris erecta H L. minima H, S 35 L. sp Maldanidae unid. Marphysa sanguinea M. stylobranchiata M. sp. Mediomastus ambiseta M. acutus M. calif orniensis Megalomma pigmentum Naineris dendritica N. sp Neanthes arenaceodentata N. caudata N. tenuis Nerinides maculata Nereis acuta N. dendritica N. eakini N. rp ocera N. sp. Nephtys caecoides N. calif orniensis N. cornuta franciscana N. sp Pisa alata P. sp Platynereis bicanaliculata Polychaeta unid. Polydora ig ard. P.Lgfn P. limincola P. nuchalis P. socialis P. websteri P. sp. Polyxioidea unid. Polyophthalmus ip ctus Prionospio cirrifera P. heterobranchia Pseudomalococerus sp. A P. sp B Psuedopolydora kempi P. paucibranchiata Phynchospio arenincola Sabellidae unid. Saccorirrus papillocercus Scoloplos acmeceps S. acuta 36 H, D H, H H, H, 5 M, H, H H D, H 5 D D D H M H D S D, D H D S H H, H, H, H D D, D M, D, D, H, H D, D, M D, S D, M, S S S 5 M,S M 5 D S M, 5 5 M, S M, D, M, S H, D, M, S M, S 5 D, M D, M D, M, 5 H, S H D, S 5 Serpulidae unid. Sphaerosyllis calif orniensus S. hystrix S. pirifera S. sp. Spio filicornis Spiochaetopterus costarum Spionidae unid. Spiophanes bombyx S. missionensis Sthenelanella uniformis Streblospio bendicti Syllidae unid. S ly lides japonica Syllis gracilis Terebellidae unid. Tharyx monilaris T. ap rvus T. sp. Typosyllis aciculata Oligochaeta Oligocheata C Oligocheata D Oligocheata E Oligocheata A Oligocheata B Oligocheata unid Tubificoides apectinatus Tubificoides gabriellae Tubificoides pseudogaster Monopylephorus sp Marionina sjaelandica Limnodrilus hoffineisteri Peloscolex sp A P.spB P.spC P.spD P. sp E Gastropods Acteocina inculta Alderia modesta Anisodoris nobilis Assiminea calif ornica Barleeia subtenuis Bulla gouldiana Caecum californicum Caecum crebricinctum H D D H D S M D D H, S H, D D H H, S S D, S M, S D, M, S D, 5 M, S D D D D D D, M M M M M M M 5 bubble snail H, D, M, 5 VC snail M U nudibranch H U D, S C rissoid snail H, S U California bubble H, D U snail California caecum H, D U many -named caecum H R* 37 Ceratostoma nuttalli hornmouth snail H R* Cerithidea calif ornica California hornsnail H, D, M, S VC Cerithiopsis carpenteri hornsnail H U Crepidula onyx onyx slipper shell D, S R Crepidula lingulata snail H R Crucibulum spinosum limpet H, D C Cyanoplax hartuegi chiton H R Dendrodoris albopunctata nudibranch H R Dendrodoris fulva nudibranch H R Diaulula sandigensis nudibranch H R Diodora as era limpet H U Haminoea vesicula tectibranch H, D, S U Lucapinella callomarginata limpet H R Maxwellia gemm a snail H R Mitrella carinata snail H R Nudibranchia sp nudibranch D R Notoacmen fenestrata limpet H R Ocenebra oulsoni snail H R Olivella bactica snail D, S U Pteropurpura festiva snail H U Rissoina sp. snail H R Serpulorbis squamigerous snail H R Tegula eiseni snail H U Teinostoma supravallatum snail S U Tyronia imitator snail M C Bivalves Adula diegensis clam S R Aequipecten aequisulcatus specked scallop H R Chama pellucid a agate chama H U Chione californiensis California chione H, D, S C Chione fluctifarga smooth chione H, S C Chione undatella wavy chione H, D U Cooperella subdiaphna cooperella clam S U Cryptomya californica clam S U Diplodonta orbellus Pacific orb S U diplodon clam Gukensia demissa ribbed horse mussel S VC Hiatella arctica rough nestling clam H U irus lemellifer clam D R Laevicardium substriatum egg cockle H, M, S C Lepropectin latiauratus kelp -weed scallop H R Leporimetis obesa clam M R Macoma carolottensis bentnose clam M R Tacoma identata bentnose clam D U Macoma inquinata bentnose clam D U Macoma nasuta bentnose clam D, M, S C Mactra calif ornica mactra clam H U Modiolus capax fat horse mussel H U Mytilus edulis bay mussel H, S U Ostrea lurida native oyster H U 38 Petricola californiensis nestling clam D R Petricola tellimyalis nestling clam D R Protothaca laciniata rough -sided littleneck H R Protothaca staminea common littleneck H, D, M, S C Protothaca tenerrima thinshelled littleneck H, D U Saxidomis nuttalli Washington clam D U Semele sp. semele clam D R Solen rosaceus rosy razor clam H, S C Solen sicarius sickle razor clam M U Tagelus californianus California jacknife clam H, D, M, S VC Tagelus subteres jacknife clam D, M, S C Tellina modesta clam D R Theora lubrica clam M, S C Crustacens Acuminodeutopus heteruropus D, S Ampelisca cristata M Ampelisca sp D Ampithoe pollex sand flea H Ampithoe sp sand flea D, S Amphideutopus oculataus D, M Anoplodactylus erectus sea spider H, D, M, S Aoridae sp sea spider D Blanus aquila barnacles H B. cancavus pacificus barnacles H B. glandula barnacles H B. tintinabulum barnacles H Calanoida unid. M, S Callinassia calif ornica ghost shrimp H, S Caprella calif ornica skeleton shrimp H C. equilibra skeleton shrimp H, D, S C. ilidigita skeleton shrimp C. sp. skeleton shrimp D Chelifera sp cheliferan H Cilicaea caudata H C. sculpta H Copepod naphlii copepod H Copepod Unid. copepod H Corophium sp. skeleton shrimp H, D, M, S C. baconi skeleton shrimp D, S C. acherusicum skeleton shrimp D, M, S C. insidiosum skeleton shrimp D, M C. uenoi skeleton shrimp M Cumacea unid. cumacean H, M Cumella sp D, S Cyclopoida M, S Cyprideis miguelensis M C. stewarti M C. sp M Dynamenella sheareri S Dynamenella sp S 39 Elasmopus sp Eusiridae unid. Gammaridae unid. Grandidierella japoinica Harpticoida unid Hemigrapsus nudus H. oregonensis Idothea resecata [niro sis tridens Jassa falcata Mayerella acanthopoda Mayerella sp Megalops unid Microdeutopus schmitti Monoculodes sp Munna sp Mysidacca unid at P. sc P. sp cordata by i unid SP. a opata is unid stenopropodus e unid Tritella sp. Uca crenulata Upogebia eurettensis Vargula americana Callinectes arcuatus *J. Sunada and C. Wilcox (1983) gamnarid shorecrab shorecrab pill bug pill bug crab crab crab crab larvae shrimp pill bug shorecrab hermit crab hermit crab pill bug pill bug pill bug pill bug pill bug crab amphipod sea spider spider crab pill bug pill bug fiddler crab mud shrimp swimming crab 40 D D H, D M H,M,S H, M M, S H D M D M, S D, M H H H H H S D H D, S D, S D H,D,S H D, M, S H H H H, D H H D H H D M 5 M H, M H D, M, S D, S H D S 5 H H M S&W* C FISHES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY A - Abundant C - Common R - Rare Sharks and Rays Gray Smoothhound Mustelus californicus Brown Smoothhound Mustaleus henlei Leonard Shark Triakis semifasciata Thornback Urolophus halleri Shovelnose Guitarfish Dasyatis dipteupa Round stingray Gymnura marmorata Diamond stingray Myliobatus califoramc Butterfly stingray Platyrhnoidis triseriat Bat ray Rhinoloatos productus Bony Fishes 1 Bonefish Dorosoma petenensis 2 Threadfish shad Dorosoma petenensis 3 Pacific sardine Sardinops caerulea 4 Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax 5 Deepbod anchovy Anchoa compressa 6 Slough anchovy Anchoa delicatissima 7 Specklefin midshipman o- richthys myriaster 8 California clingfish Gobiesox rhessodon 9 California killfish Fundulus parvipinis 10 California grunion Leuresthes tennis 11 Topsmelt Attlerinops affinis 12 Kelp pipefish Syngnathus californiensis 13 Bay pipefish Syngnathusleptorhynchus 14 Barred pipefish Syngnathus auliscus 15 Rockfish sp Sebastodes sp. 16 Staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus 17 Striped bass Roccus saxatalis 18 Kelp bass Paralabrax clattratus 19 Spotted sand bass Paralabrax maculatofasci 20 Barred sand bass Paralabrax nebulifer 21 Pacific Butterfish Peprilus simillimus 22 Salema Xenistius californiensus 23 Sargo Anisotremus davidsoni 24 Queenfish Seriphus olp itus 25 White seabass Cynoscion nobilis 26 Yellowfin croaker Umbrina roncador 27 California corbina Menticirrhus undulatus 28 White croaker Cenyonemus lineatus 29 Spotfin croaker Roncador stearnsi 41 A R R A R R C R C R C R R A C C R A R A R C C R A C R C U R R C C C A C C C 30 Black croaker Cheilotrema saturnum 31 Opaleye Girella nigricans 32 Zebraperch Hermosilia azurea 33 Barred surf perch Amphistichus argentus 34 Walleye surf perch Hyperprosopon argenteum 35 Shiner surf perch Cymatogaster aggregate 36 Pile surf perch Rhacohilus vacca 37 White surf perch Heterostichus rostratus 46 Longjaw mudsucker Gillichthys mirabilis 47 Yellowfin goby Acanthogoloius flavimanus 48 Checkspot goby llypnus ilg berti 49 Arrow goby Clevelandia ios 50 Shadow goby Quietula y cauda 51 Pacific mackerel Scomberjaponicus 52 California tonguefish Symphurus atricauda 53 California halibut Paralichthys calif ornicus 54 Hornyhead turbot Pleuronichthys verticalis 55 C -O turbot Pleuronichthys coenosus 56 Diamond turbot Hypsopsetta guttulata 57 Spotted turbot Pleuronichthys ritteri 58 Speckled turbot Pleuronichthys ritteri 59 Mosquitofish Gabusia affinis 60 Tilapia sp* Tila is mossambica 61 Black bullhead Ictalurus melas 62 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 63 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus *First record for UNBER August 1982 42 R R R R R C C A R C C R R C R R C R R C C R R R BIRDS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY These species are known to occur in or adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. A - Abundant V - Vagrant TF - Tideflats C - Common Br - Breeding Ms - Salt Marsh U - Uncommon M - Migrant Mf - Freshwater Marsh R - Rare OW - Open water Up - Upland Common loon Artic loon Red - throated loon Red - necked grebe Horned grebe Eared grebe Western Grebe Pied - billed grebe American White pelican Brown pelican Double- crested cormorant Brandt's cormorant Great blue heron Green - backed heron Great egret Snowy egret Redish egret Tricolored heron Little blue heron Black- crowned night heron American bittern White -faced ibis American flamingo Tundra swan Canada Goose Brandt Greater White- fronted Goose Snow goose Mallard Gadwall Northern Pintail Eurasian wigeon American wigeon Green - winged teal Northern Shoveler Wood duck Mandarin duck Redhead Ring- necked duck Canvasback Greater scaup Lesser scaup Gavia iminer Gavia arctica Gavia stellata Podiceps grisegena Podiceps auritus Podiceps nigricolli� Pelicanus eryt[ Pelicanua occii Phalacrocorax Phalacrocorax Ardea herodius tus Egretta rufescens Egretta tricolor Egretta caerulea Nycticorax nycticorax Botaurus lentiginosus Plegadis chihi Phoenicopterus ruber t5ranta bernicla Anser albifrons Chen caerulescens Anas platyrhynchus Anas strepera Anas acuta Anas penelope Anas americana Anas crecca Anas clypeata Aix s onsa Aix galericulata Aythya americana Aythya collaris Aythya valiseneria Aythya marila Aythya affinis 43 R, OW R, OW R, OW V, OW U, OW C, OW C, OW C, OW R, OW C, OW C, OW U, OW C, Ms, Tf U, Mf C, Tf, Ms C, Tf, Ms R, Ms R, Ms V U, Ms, Mf U, Mf, Ms R, Mf R, Escaped exotic R, M U, M, Tf R, M R, M R, M C, M, Tf, Ms U, M, Tf, Ms A, M, Tf, Ms R, M, OW A, M, Tf, Ms C, Br, Mf, Tf, Ms A, M, Tf, OW U, M, Mf Escaped exotic R, M, OW U, M, OW U, M, OW V, M, OW U, M, OW Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula R, M, OW Bufflehead Bucephala albiola U, M, OW White- winged scoter Melanitta fusca R, M, OW Black scoter Mellanitta nigra R, M, OW Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata C, M, OW Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis C, Br, OW, Mf Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus R, M, OW Common Merganser Mergus Merganser R, M, OW Red - breasted merganser Mergus serrator U, M, OW Turkey vulture Cathartes aura C, Up Black- shouldered kite Elanus caeruleus U, Br, Up, Mf Sharp - skinned hawk Accipter striatus R, M, Up Cooper's hawk Accipter cooperii R, M, Up Red- tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis C, Up, Ms, Mf Red - shouldered hawk Buteo iineatus R, M, Up Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni R, M Rough - legged hawk Buteo lagopus R, M Golden eagle Aguila chrysaetos R, M Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus R, M Northern harrier Circus cyaneus C, M, Ms, Mf Osprey Pandion haliaetus U, M, OW Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus R, M, Up Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus U, M, Ms, Tf American kestral Falco sparvierius C, Br, Up California quail Callipepla calif ornica U, Br, Up Ring- necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus U, Br, Up Light - footed clapper rail Rallus longirostrus live es C, Br, Ms, Mf Virginia Rail Rallus limicola C, M, Mf Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis R, M, Mf Dora rail Porzana carolina C, Br, Mf, Ms Black rail Laterallus jamacicensis R, M, Mf Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus R, Mf American coot Fulica americana A, M, Tf, Ms, Mf Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus C, M, Tf Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus U, Br, Tf Killdeer Charadrius vociferus C, Br, Tf Mountain plover Eupoda montanus R, M Lesser golden plover Pluvialis dominica R, M, Tf Black - bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola C, M, Tf Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres U, M, Tf Black turnstone Areanaria melanocephala R, M, Tf Common snipe gallinago U, M, Tf Long - billed curlew Numenius americanus C, M, Tf Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus U, M, Tf Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia C, M, Tf Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria R, M, Tf Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleucus U, M, Tf, Ms Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes U, M, Tf, Mf Red knot Calidris canutus U, M, Tf Pectoral sandpiper aCI1i3ris mera —no tos R, M, Tf Baird's sandpiper Calidris bairdi R, M, Tf Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla C, M, Tf 44 Dunlin Western sandpiper Sanderling Short - billed dowitcher Long - billed dowitcher Marbled godwit American avocet Black- necked stilt Red phalarope Wilson's phalarope Red - necked phalarope Glaucous- winged gull Western gull Herring gull California gull Ring - billed gull Mew gull Bonaparte's gull Heermann's gull Forster's tern Common tern Arctic tern Least tern Royal tern Elegant tern Caspain tern Black tern Mourning dove Spotted dove Roadrunner Common Barn owl Burrowing owl Short -eared owl White- throated swift Black- chinned hummingbird Anna's hummingbird Belted kingfisher Northern flicker Nuttall's woodpecker Western kingbird Black phoebe Say's phoebe Western flycatcher Ash - throated flycatcher kingfisher Red - shafted flicker Western kingfisher Black phoebe Say's phoebe Western fly catcher Ash - throated flycatcher Horn lark Calidris alpina Calidris mauri Calidris alba Limnodronmus geissu s Limnodromus rissus Limosa fedoa Recurvirostra americana Himantopus mexicanus Phalaropus fulicarius Phalaropus tricolor Phalaropus lobatus Larus glaucescens Larus occidentalis Larus argentatus Larus calif ornicus Larus delawarensis Larus canus Larus Philadelphia Larus heermanni Sterna forsteri Sterna hirundo Sterna paradisaea Antillrum browni Sterna maxima Sterna elegans Sterna cas is Chilidonias miger Zenaidura macroura Streptopelia chinensis Geococfx calif ornianus Tyto alba Athene cunicularia Asio flammeus Aeronautes saxatilis Archilochus alexandri Calype anna Ceryle alcyon Cooaptes cafer Picoides nuttallii Tyrannus verticalis Sayronis flammeus Sayornis saya Empidonax difficilis Myiarchus cinerascens Megaceryle alcyon Colaptes cafer Tyrannus verticalis Sa ronis nigricans Sa ornis saya Empidonax difficilis Myiarchus cinerascens Fremophila alpestris 45 C, M, Tf A, M, Tf U, M, Tf A, M, Tf, Ms A, M, Tf, Ms C, M, Tf, Ms A, Br, Tf, Mf C, Br, Tf, Mf R, M R, M U, M U C U C A R U U C U R U, Br R R C R C, Br, Up U, Br, Up U, Br, Up U, Br, Up U, Br, Up R, M, Ms, Mf U, Br, Up U, Up C, Br, Up U, Br, Up U, Br, Up U, Up U, Br, Up R, M, Ms, U, M, Up U, Br, Up U, Up U, Br, Up U, Br, Up U, Br, Up C, Br, Up, U, M, Up R, M, Up U, M, Up R, Up Mf Ms, Mf Violet -green swallow Tree swallow Bank swallow Northern rough- winged swallow Barn swallow Cliff swallow Purple martin Scrub jay Common Raven American Crow Bushtit House wren Bewick's wren Cactus wren Marsh wren Northern Mockingbird California thrasher Hermit thrush Swansons thrush Blue -gray gnatchatcher Black- tailed gnatcatcher Ruby- crowned kinglet Water pipit Cedar waxwing Loggerhead shrike European Starling Warbling verio Orange- crowned warbler Nashville warbler Yellow - warbler Yellow - rumped warbler Townsend's warbler Common yellowthroat Wilson's warbler American redstart House sparrow Western meadowlark* Red - winged blackbird Brewer's blackbird Northern oriole Brown - headed cowbird Western Tanager Summer tanager Black- headed grossbeack Blue grossbeack Purple finch House finch American goldfinch Lesser goldfinch Rufous -sided towhee Tachycinata thalassina lridoprocne bicolor Riparia riparia Stelgidopterx serripennis Hirundo rustica Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Pro ne subis Aphelocoma coerulescens Corvus corax Corvus brachyrhynchos Psaltriparus minumus Troglodytes aedon Thrvomanes bewickii Toxostoma redivium Catharus utg tatus Catharus ustulatus Polioptila caerulea Polioptila melanura Regulus calendula Anthus spinoletta Bombycilla cedrorum Lanius ludovicianus Sturnus vulgaris Vireo ig lvus Vermivora celata Vermivora ruficapilla Dendrocia petechia Dendrocia coronata Dendrocia townsendi Geothlypis trichas Wilsonia up silla Setophaga ruticilla English sparrow Passer domesticus Sturnella neglecta A elaius phoeniceus Euphapus cynocephalus Icterus ag lbula rubra :us melanocephalus caerulea cus purpurens Pi ilo ery 46 R, M R, M R, M C, Br, Up U, Br, Up U, Br, Up R, M U, Br, Up R C, Br, Up C, Br, Up U, Br, Up U, Br, Up U, Br, Up C, Br, Ms, C, Br, Up R, Br, Up U, Up U, Up U, M, Up U, Up C, M, Up U, M, Ms U C, Br, Up C, Br, Up R U, M R, M U, M C, M R, M C, Br, Mf, U, M R, M Mf Im C, Br, Up C, Br, Up, Ms U, Mf C, Up U, Br, Up C, Br, Up U, Br, Up R, M U, Br, Up R R C, Br, Up U, Br, Up C, Br, Up R, Br, Up Brown towhee Savannah sparrow White- crowned sparrow Golden - crowned sparrow Lincoln's sparrow Song sparrow Lasuli Bunting amoena 47 C, Br, Up C, Br, Ms C, M, up U, M, Up U, Up C, Br, Mf, Up R, Br Letter from The Irvine Company dated February 5, 1986 Comment #1 On a more general level, we believe it would be helpful to the reader to present a larger discussion of the 208 plan and its components to provide a clearer context for the review of this project as an element of that plan. An expanded discussion of the operation and maintenance program proposed following construction of the basin would also be helpful. The overall discussion of the 208 plan and its components was presented in the EIR for the San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (Boyle Engineering, 1983), which is incorporated by reference into this EIR. The major objectives of the plan, as well as a summary of its history, are briefly described for context purposes at pages II -1 and III -1 of the EIR. The operation and maintenance program is specifically described in the response to the letter from the U.S. Coast Guard dated 1/28/86, Comment #2. Comment #2 Page I -1 - Introduction The last sentence of the first paragraph would be more correct, we believe, if it were revised to read: 'The final component of the restorative work within the reserve area in the Bay... There is additional work which is anticipated to be authorized for the Corps of Engineers relative to Newport Bay from Pack Coast Highway to the border of the ecological reserve area. This comment is duly noted. Comment #3 Page I -2 - Paragraph 4 We would suggest the next- to-last sentence in this paragraph be revised to read: "It should further be noted that development projects in the watershed, which may temporarily contribute to sedimentation, have relied on the implementation of the restoration and protection programs in the Bay, of 48 which the proposed project is a part, as one of a number of mitigation measures to their own impacts." This comment is duly noted. Comment #4 We suggest the first sentence be revised to read: "The entire E /SMP is to be undertaken with state, local and private funds under state and local authority." This comment is duly noted. Comment #5 Page 1 -4 - Biological Resources, Mitigation Measures Under the first mitigation measure, we would suggest the measure be reworded here and in later references to read: "Maintenance and enhancement facilities .. This comment is duly noted. Comment #6 - First partial paragraph of upstream sediment control The first partial sentence would be more correct, we believe, if it read: " .. will be the last major excavation project in the preserve area of the Upper Newport Bay.. Again, perhaps an additional sentence could reference the fact that it is anticipated that congress will be authorizing the Corps of Engineers to provide the final phase of work in the area outside the reserve. This comment is duly noted. U Comment 17 - Paragraph 4 The third sentence of this paragraph discusses certain areas, citing the Rhine channel as an example, relative to flushing. We do not understand what the Rhine channel has to do with the flushing in Newport Bay. The intent of this statement is to show the variety of sources of pollutants to the harbor. Comment /8 - No Project Alternative In the first paragraph, we would suggest that the language be revised to read: "Basically, the only improvements in Upper Newport Bay that would be available for sediment control would be the Unit I project upstream of the proposed excavation area, which is an in-Bay sediment station but which, Newport Bay. No enhancement of the Upper Newport Bay to restore it to its predamaged state would occur other than that accomplished by Unit I. The transition of the Bay, as described in the Biological Resources section, to a different type of ecological system would continue to be maintained. Eventually, the original character and biological features of the Bay from an historical standpoint would be lost, and massive efforts to restore it to its original ecological balance would probably be impractical In the last paragraph on this page, we suggest changing the term "upstream facilities" in the second sentence to "Bay;" deleting the third sentence entirety; and revising the fourth sentence to read: "This will eventually result in significant deposition in the Harbor as the sediment is transported downstream into the harbor." This comment is duly noted and generally accepted with the following reservation. The additional wording " . . . but which, by itself, cannot provide benefits or the desired enhancements of Upper Newport Bay . . ." does not appear to acknowledge that maintenance of the Unit I project only will result in benefits to the Bay, as documented in the 1981 Early Action Plan Final EIR (CAA, 1981). There will not be the increased scope of benfits which could be realized under the proposed program; however, the fact that this increase will not be available does not render the Unit I project non - beneficial. Comment #9 - Page VII-1 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources We would suggest rewording the last sentence in this paragraph to read: 50 "The excavation and maintenance of the basin in the Upper Bay is generally beneficial to the Bay. The commitment of the Bay land area to this use is not an irretrievable commitment of resources. Even though the Unit II project will provide many benefits to the Bay, it will also serve as a long -term sediment capture facility. This public facility will be subject to periodic dredging throughout its life. While dredging would be necessary in any event to restore the Bay (whatever the future use of the excavated area), commitment of this portion of the Reserve to the basin irretrievably commits that area to the modified form, with attendant losses in current and transitional vegetative associations. However, the comment is acknowledged as noting that the commitment of the Bay in this modified form is not an irretrievable commitment of the resources of the Bay in an environmental sense. 51 Letter from U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Dated 2/6/86 COMMENT ! 1 The alternatives presented in the document consider various techniques for accomplishing essentially the same configuration of basin. The document does explain the sediment management purposes of the project described, but produces no comparison of different means or configurations for accomplishing them. it is suggested that the discussion of alternatives include an analysis of various shapes and depths of the basin, to include explanations of feasibility and the degree that such variation satisfies or fails to satisfy the project objectives. Also, the enhancement part of the project title is not well explained or justified in the document. RESPONSE The response to the Department of Army, Regulatory Branch identifies several alternative configurations for the basins, together with reasons for their rejection. In addition, the response to the DOA letter identifies the beneficial results of the project, which contribute to the use of the term "enhancement." Sedimentation is the main management problem affecting the tidal wetlands of Upper Newport Bay. The siltation problem in Upper Newport Bay became a major concern following the flood of 1969. Prior to this time, sediment deposition had been limited due to lack of stream channelization in the lower reaches of San Diego Creek. The flooding of January and February, 1969 precipitated the next major change in habitat composition. Destruction of the saltworks and subsequent sedimentation have caused major shifts in the amount and types of habitats within the Reserve. Salt marsh vegetation has doubled in acreage, marine habitat has declined substantially, and mudflat habitat has been reduced. Uncontrolled deposition threatens to significantly reduce the Bay's value to migratory shorebirds, waterfowl and marine fishes. Even with effective watershed management and upstream controls, sediment will reach the Bay. For this reason, sediment deposition within the Bay must be managed to protect existing resource values and allow for maintenance, restoration and enhancement. San Diego Creek is responsible for 94% of the sediment delivered to the Bay (EMA 1980). Most deposition occurs during major storm events. From 1973 to 1977 seven storms accounted for 72% of the deposition for the period. Low -level transport occurs during low flow periods and is expected to increase as flows increase (EMA 1980). Recent analysis indicates that the total average annual sediment delivery to the Bay is 85,000 cubic yards (Boyle 1983). The source of this sediment is erosion from open space in the foothills, agricultural land, urban development and construction sites. The two major contributors are open 52 space and agriculture. The contribution of construction sites to sedimenta- tion of the Bay is limited only by the small amount of land involved. Under existing conditions, approximately 82% of the sediment delivered to the Bay is silt or clay (Boyle 1983). Under ultimate conditions, the concentration of coarse and fine particles will be about equal. The particle size composition of sediment delivered to the Bay is extremely important in determining what measures are most effective in reducing sediment deposition. Coarse particles can be trapped relatively easily once they enter the transport system. Fine particles on the other hand cannot be effectively trapped before they reach the Bay. The most effective way to prevent these particles from entering the Bay is to control them at their source. The depositional pattern of sediment entering the Upper Bay is controlled by freshwater inflow, tidal level, particle size, salinity and wave action (Krone 1982). As particles enter the Bay, they are sorted by size as velocities drop. Fine sands and silts drop out in the northern end of the Bay as storm flows spread and slow. The majority of fine particles are deposited between the "main dike" and the "narrows" where velocities are reduced and flocculation occurs. During moderate to large storms, a portion of the fines are carried through the Bay to the ocean by surface fresh water. Krone (1982) indicates that 81% to 92% of the fines entering the Bay are deposited. Based upon Moore and Tabers (1968) findings, Boyle (1981) indicates that smaller storms only bring fines into the Bay, while larger storms carry coarser materials. Most deposition occurs below 4.0 feet MLLW (1.5 MSL). New deposits are often reworked by waves. As the tide recedes, fine sediments are often resuspended and deposited in back channels and along sheltered shores. Control of the sediment problem affecting Upper Newport Bay requires both watershed management to limit sediment delivery and in -Bay manage- ment to minimize the effect of sediment upon the Bay. The Comprehensive Stormwater Sediment Control Plan (Boyle 1983) for the Newport Bay Watershed recommended the following actions to control sediment deposition within the Bay: 1. Improve agricultural land management practices. Agricultural lands produce 42% of the sediment delivered to the Bay. Application of sound land management practices can decrease sediment production. This program is being implemented under the supervision of Orange County and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2. Improve construction land management practices. Construction sites account for approximately 15% of the sediment reaching the Bay. Implementation of effective erosion control measures will reduce sediment delivery. The jurisdictions which regulate grading activity (Orange County, Newport Beach and Irvine) have incorporated the recommendations of the plan into their grading ordinances. 3. Install additional in- channel basins. Two basins were constructed as part of the Early .Action Plan. The Plan recommends construction of 53 additional basins. These basins would reduce the amount of sediment delivered to the Bay on an average annual basis to 53,000 cubic yards. Construction of a third basin will begin in July, 1986. 4. Install in -Bay basins. An additional basin(s) of 54 surface acres is recommended to localize sediment deposition within the Reserve. This can be accomplished by expanding the existing saltworks pond or excavating a new basin between the main dike and the narrows. 5. Stabilization of drainage and flood control channels. Recent information (Hoag 1983) indicates that stabilization of channel banks could reduce the delivery of fine materials to the Bay by 28% (14,700 cubic yards), significantly more than indicated by the Boyle study (1983). Channel stabilization is occurring as flood control measures are constructed as part of development in the watershed. 6. Install and maintain foothill basins. These basins would serve primarily as flood control facilities. They would provide sediment control benefits by trapping 17,700 cubic yards of fine particles and reducing peak flows. These will be constructed as the watershed develops. 7. Monitor sediment delivery to Newport Bay and transport through the Bay. This is necessary to assess the assumptions of the Boyle study and the effectiveness of control measures. Monitoring will also determine the sediment delivery rate and the impact of changes in land use. A monitoring program has been instituted by Orange County in cooperation with the other parties. Critical upstream elements of the comprehensive plan are effective implementation of land management practices, construction of additional in- channel basins and the stabilization of flood and drainage channels. Still, 50,000 cubic yards of sediment will continue to be delivered to the Bay on an average annual basis in the near future. Implementation of these recommendations, coupled with complete development of the watershed, could reduce sediment delivery to 24,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis by 2020 (Boyle 1983). To ensure that the recommendations of the Plan are carried out, the Department, the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, and The Irvine Company, the principal landowner in the watershed, have entered into a cooperative agreement to oversee its implementation. This agreement established a committee made up of policy makers from each agency to monitor and direct implementation of the Plan. The two major project components of the Plan are expansion and maintenance of the San Diego Creek sediment basins and dredging and maintenance of Upper Newport Bay. Under the provisions of the cooperative agreement, separate agreements have been entered into to construct these projects. The Department is the lead agency for the Upper Newport Bay dredging program. 54 The agreement to expand and maintain the San Diego Creek sediment basins has been signed. Orange County is the lead agency in this agreement, which also includes the cities and The Irvine Company. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Early Action Project facilities, constructed in 1982, for storm flows during January and March, 1983 indicates that they functioned as expected. The two upstream basins trapped 130,000 cubic yards of sand and silt (C.E. McConaughty, pers. comm.). Trap efficiency though was reduced during the storms, allowing significant amounts of sand to enter the Bay (C. Wilcox unpub. data). This illustrates the need for additional upstream basin capacity to be constructed during 1986. It is estimated that the in -Bay basin captured 170,000 cubic yards of sediment (30% sand, 40% silt, 30% clay). The presence of the Early Action facilities reduced the impact of this major storm event and minimized downstream sediment deposition over much of the Reserve. Smaller storms during 1969, 1978 and 1980 resulted in much more sediment deposition and damage. COMMENT #2 Once an array of alternative projects has been presented, criteria used in evaluating the significance of impacts and selecting the preferred project should be explained. For example, additional explanation should be provided in support of the conclusion that the 35 -acre loss of intertidal mudflat of high habitat value to migratory shorebirds should be considered insignificant even when weighed against sediment maintenance benefits. Using the existing document, the reader could reasonably conclude that the State Ecological Reserve would become a sediment management facility to protect the channels and dock areas of Newport Harbor, at the expense of some wildlife resources for which the reserve was established. RESPONSE The Department of Fish and Game has embarked on offsite mitigation in Bolsa Chica to restore intertidal mudflat in the amount reduced by this project (see response to DOA letter herein). COMMENT #3 The DEIR further offers an implicit contention that appears to be disputable. It is that replacement of high value shorebird habitat (intertidal mudflat) with a high value fish habitat (subtidal open water areas) should be considered acceptable, in order to maximize sediment trapping within the ecological reserve. In accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, the mitigation goal for a high value, relatively scarce habitat should be no "net loss of in -kind habitat value " We suggest that the subject document provide additional information, particularly regarding the biological enhancement objectives, to allow a more thorough consideration of this issue. 55 RESPONSE The biological benefits of this project are amplified in the response to the 2/5/86 letter from the Department of the .Army, Regulatory Branch. With the mitigation in Bolsa Chica, there will be negligible reductions in in -kind habitat. COMMENT !4 It is also suggested that a figure be included which depicts areas occupied or used by state and federal endangered species, in support of the conclusion that no significant impacts to them would occur. It is worth noting, as well, that while the California least tern has yet to establish a consistent breeding presence at Upper Newport Bay, efforts have been made to provide a suitable location for successful least tern nesting there. Should those efforts be rewarded by significant least tern nesting at the upper bay, least terns adults would be expected to rely heavily upon prey fish captured in nearby channels and open water areas. A plume of turbid water generated by a dredge operation has the potential to significantly degrade the least tern's foraging area. RESPONSE Maps of the location of endangered species were not included in the EIR document in order to preserve the confidentiality of nesting and habitat areas. A copy of this map is on file at the City of Newport Beach and at the offices of the Manager, Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Habitat of the light- footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow correspond generally to the salt marsh areas depicted on Exhibit 7 of the DEIR. Habitat of the clapper rail is spread throughout the marsh areas of the Bay. Major concentration areas are on the three islands and above the main dike. The Belding's savannah sparrow is concentrated primarily above the main dike; smaller numbers are found in high marsh areas on the three islands in the lower reaches of the reserve. The California least term has historically nested in the Unit 11 area. The species forages in channels and open water areas throughout Newport Bay. The comment raises a concern regarding a "plume of turbid water" from dredging activities reducing least tern foraging area. As noted in the EIR, turbidity is a phenomenon of dredging which remains limited to the immediate area of work and dissipates quickly. No adverse effects to fish are anticipated as a result of this limited, short -term event. The response to the Department of Army, Regulatory Branch identifies several alternative configurations for the basins, together with reasons for their rejection. In addition, the response to the DOA letter identifies the beneficial results of the project, which contribute to the use of the term "enhancement" 56 Letter from City of Irvine, Community Development Department Dated 2/7/86 COMMENT The Background and History sections should include mention of the present dredging operation conducted by private owners adjacent to the upper bay (Dunes). RESPONSE The dredging project referenced is acknowledged in the EIR at pages IV -46 and VI -1. 57 Letter from Sea and Sage Audubon Dated 2/10/86 COMMENT 81 Of immediate concern is the proposed destruction of 35 to 40 acres of intertidal mudflat pursuant to the construction of a desiltation basin. RESPONSE Preliminary engineering plans prepared subsequent to preparation of the DEIR show that the project would result in the loss of 22.5 acres of functional mudflat habitat. This would account for an 8% reduction in mudflat habitat in the area bounded by the main dike and the southern boundary of the reserve. COMMENT 12 Intertidal mudflats are some of the most ecologically productive habitats on earth and are important feeding areas for a vast array of individuals and species of vertebrate and invertebrate Taxa. Specifically, a large number of shorebird species and individuals utilize the mudflats at Upper Newport Bay. The habitat within the project area is heavily utilized year round at the appropriate stages of the tidal cycle. The net result of eliminating intertidal mudflat has been studied by a number of shorebird biologists. According to a recognized world expert, Dr. J.P. Myers, "Removing pieces of prime intertidal acreage means fewer shorebirds" (Jan -Feb American Birds, 1983). Because as much as 90% of the coastal wetlands in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and 70% of the wetlands statewide have been destroyed within the last 100 years (J. Speth, CDFG), the proposed destruction of 35 to 40 acres of intertidal mudflats is regionally important. We argue that such a large scale conversion is ill advised. (It is worth noting that this acreage is more than the total of all intertidal mudflat subjected to a full range of tidal flow at the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve.) RESPONSE As pointed out in the Audubon letter (2/10/86), mudflat habitat is critical to migratory shorebirds. As a result of uncontrolled sedimentation in excess of 140 acres of mudflat in Upper Newport Bay has been converted to salt marsh since 1970 (C. Wilcox, pers. comm.). Sediment deposition between 1968 (Orange County /Irvine Company, topographic survey) and 1985 (CNB, topography survey) has resulted in a raising of mudflat elevations within the primary project area (between the "Narrows" and the "Main Dike ") by an average of 1.5 feet from an average elevation of -0.3 MSL to +1.2 MSL. The increase in elevation has created 59 acres of mudflat between 1.0 and 2.0 MSL within the project area. From Zedler (1982) and Zembel and Massey (1980) it is apparent that these areas will be converted to salt marsh in time. Since 1980 approximately 11.3 acres of salt marsh has developed within this 59 -acre area (C. Wilcox, pers. observation). This is a continuation of salt marsh expansion associated 58 with sediment deposition, which has resulted in the loss of 132 acres of mudflat above the main dike (Zembel and ,Massey, 1980). It is the intent of the project to provide for the long -term maintenance of mudflat within the project area. The project, while removing 22.5 acres of mudflat, has been sited to maximize the removal of areas above 1.0 MSL (12 acres) which will ultimately be converted to salt marsh. As discussed in the DEIR, the basin and side channels will provide for localized sediment deposition, and side slope shaping will lower 10.5 acres of mudflat above +1.0 to elevations between 0.5 and -3.0 MSL. Wind wave and tidal action within the project area will be enhanced allowing for natural flushing of sediments from mudflats. COMMENT #3 We would like to see offers to mitigate the loss of intertidal mudflat habitat. We would also like to see a comparison of the present and projected inventories of various habitat types within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. We fear that a significant loss of resources will occur with no guarantee or mention of potentially offsetting increases in other resources. It does appear that many coastal wetlands in California have been managed recently to increase the amount of open water at the expense of those species living in, or dependent on, high intertidal mudflat habitats. Mitigations are discussed in DEIR at page IV -7. An additional mitigation measure proposed is as follows: The Department of Fish and Game is restoring 23 acres of intertidal habitat at Bolsa Chica. This will offset project related losses on a regional basis. Tidal Wetland Habitat UNBER Total Tidal Wetland 686.5 acres Other* 65.8 acres Total 752.2 acres Tidal Habitat Existing Post Project Subtidal (below -5.0 :MSL) 83.0 105.5 Mudflat 0.0 to +1.0) 228.23 229.23 Salt Marsh ( +1.0 to +5.0) 375.01 351.52 *Riparian 8 ac.; freshwater marsh 20.5 ac.; upland 37.3 ac. 1. Includes 48 acres in the project area between 1.0 and 2.0 MSL; 36.7 acres of functional mudflat and 11.3 acres of salt marsh. 2. Includes 37 acres in the project area between 1.0 and 2.0 MSL, 25.7 acres of functional mudflat and 11.3 acres of salt marsh. 59 3. Includes approximately 30 acres of potential mudflat (above -3.0 ?hSL) in the Unit I area. This area is submerged due to high channel elevations downstream which prevent full exposure during suitable low tides. The Unit II project is expected to remove this restriction allowing exposure on suitable low tides. COMMENT E4 Another aspect of the management plan that we feel is inadequate is the delineation of the potential impacts on many of the endangered species that reside in the Reserve. We ask that the proposed plan carefully scrutinize its potential to jeopardize these species. Insufficient time has elapsed to determine the potential impacts of earlier sediment management plans. One particularly vulnerable species is the light - footed clapper rail. According to recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data, over 60% of the remaining U.S. population of light - footed clapper rails (87 out of 142 territorial males) reside at Upper Newport Bay. How will this project affect the tidal prism and subsequent maintenance of habitat for this species? Did the last siltation project affect the tidal prism and /or destroy breeding habitat of this species? How will the proposed changes affect other endangered plant and animal species within the Reserve? We believe these questions have not been fully addressed, and ask that further studies be undertaken to determine the risks that all species have faced, are facing, and will face if yet another desiltation basin is deemed to be necessary at some future time. RESPONSE As discussed in the DEIR, no direct negative impacts are expected to the five species occurring in the Bay: light- footed clapper rail, Belding's savannah sparrow, California least tern, California brown pelican and salt marsh birds beak. The project as stated in the DEIR will not result in the loss of habitat used by the light- footed clapper rail, Belding's savannah sparrow or the salt marsh birds beak. The project should improve habitat for the California least tern and California brown pelican since more open water foraging habitat will be created. Earlier sediment management projects have had no observable direct negative impact on endangered species within the reserve (C. Wilcox, pens. comm.). Construction of the Early Action basin in 1982 was followed by an increase in the light- footed clapper rail population in succeeding years (R. Zembel, unpub. data). The increase is not directly attributable to the project. It is anticipated that natural revegetation of the Unit I project area will result in increased habitat for both the light- footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow. The Unit I project did not destroy breeding habitat for the light- footed clapper rail. M COMMENT O Sea and Sage Audubon believes destruction of 35 to 40 acres of intertidal mudflat habitat is ill- advised. We believe the potential impacts of this desiltation project have not been adequately addressed. We recommend further studies to determine the potential impact that such a project may have on many sensitive, declining and endangered species. We believe such data are not yet presently available or, at least, have not been incorporated into the DEIR. We insist that an ecological reserve is not the place to jeopardize declining species and habitats. Deslation or sediment trapping project, if absolutely necessary, might be best accomplished in areas outside of the Reserve that contain no diminishing habitats or declining, or sensitive, or officially recognized endangered species. RESPONSE The major effect of previous in -Bay and upstream sediment control work on endangered species has been trapping sediment before it inundates valuable habitats. Desiltation is required to maintain existing values within Upper Newport Bay. As discussed in the response to Corps comments, as much sediment as can be trapped is being dealt with through: erosion control measures on agricultural land and construction sites and upstream sediment trapping. Even with watershed management, sediment reaches the Bay. From sediment analysis (Boyle 1983) 80% to 90% of the sediment reaching the Bay deposits in the area above the "Narrows." As deposition continues in the area, elevations increase resulting in changes in habitat, particularly conversion of subtidal and mudflat to salt marsh. This is an ongoing process and will continue unless measures are taken, until marsh resources of the Upper Bay are lost. (Please see response to Letter fro Department of the Army dated 2/5/86.) In excess of 300,000 cubic yards of sediment were delivered to Upper Newport Bay during heavy storms in January and March, 1983 (DFG unpub. data, USGS unpub. data). Without sediment control facilities constructed in San Diego Creek and the Upper Bay in 1982, this material would have been deposited on downbay mudflats and marsh. Amplified discussion of the tidal prism appears at the response to the U.S. Coast Guard herein. 61 Letter from the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency Dated 2/11/86 COMMENT /1 It appears there will be no significant impact to the adjacent County flood control channels, San Diego Creek and Santa Ana -Delhi Channel. However, consideration should be given to the scouring potential of the channel inlets into the bay. Specifically, assurance that the project will not increase scour of the District Flood Control Channels should be mentioned within the report. RESPONSE The proposed project will not increase the scour of OCFCD channels, as it is located well below the final outlet to the Bay. COMMENT #2 The EIR adequately identifies the regional park. However, further discussion of the Project's relationship to the regional park is necessary. Implementation of Upper Newport Bay Rgional Park as defined on the attached exhibit could greatly benefit the enhancement plan effort. Since additional urban develop- ment in the West Bay area could incrementally increase sedimentation and other adverse effects to Upper Newport Bay, acquisition of the regional park area would serve to eliminate potential future impacts upon the enhancement effort. Therefore, it is requested that the Final EIR include the following additional mitigation measure: o To the extent feasible, the City of Newport Beach shall provide for the implementation of Upper Newport Bay Regional park through landowner dedications and related cooperative City /County planning efforts. It should be noted that the County of Orange's EIR No. 508 contains a similar commitment by the County. RESPONSE In confirmation discussions with the County, it was determined that the acknowledgement of this park by the County appears in the Existin Conditions section of EIR No. 508 at Section 4.13.1.5 (page 4.13- . The City does not have an opportunity in connection with the in -Bay project to exact a developer dedication for the park, as there is no common ownership between the project site and the bluff. The City is pursuing, however, the consideration of such dedications in situations where the ownership of the park and the project site are concurrent. f Letter from the Deaprtment of the Army, Planning Division Dated 2/11/86 COMMENT 11 Our Regulatory Branch is currently processing your application for a Corps permit under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972- if you have any questions regarding the status of your permit application, we suggest that you contact Ms. Cheryl Hill, Regulatory Branch, at (213) 894 -2151. RESPONSE So noted. COMMENT #2 The draft EIR does not include a discussion of the existing water quality at the disposal site. In addition, the potential impacts of ocean disposal on the water quality at this site are not addressed. We suggest that this information be included in the final EIR. The draft EIR does not indicate that a bioassay has been conducted for the proposed ocean disposal. We are aware that this requirement has been completed; therefore, we suggest that the final EIR document compliance with the bioassay requirement. RESPONSE The EIR contains Chapter IV.B, which is completely devoted to water quality, both in the Bay and in the Harbor. A complete bioassay was conducted, and its results summarized in a March, 1985 report. This report was included in its entirety in Appendix B of the EIR. 63 i w Letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region Dated 2/14/86 COMMENT Tentative waste discharge requirements for the dredging operations have been forwarded to the Department of Fish and Game for their review. Adoption of these requirements will be considered by the Regional Board at their regularly scheduled meeting of March 14, 1986, provided that a Final EIR is certified by that date. If disposal of dredged materials to Newport Canyon is proposed, an NPDES permit would be required. The DEIR correctly recognizes (page V -3) that issuance of a permit for such a discharge would likely be a lengthy process, ill - suited to the time constraints identified for funding the project. So noted. 64