Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem DAGENDA REPORT DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: Receive and File — Responses to Comments, Final Environmental Assessment: Surfside- Sunset Beach Nourishment Project, Stage 11 SUMMARY OF REOUEST: Receive and File "Responses to Comments, Final Environmental Assessment: Surfside - Sunset Beach Nourishment Project, Stage 11 ", and instruct staff to forward to Environmental Quality Control Board for information. BACKGROUND: On February 12, 2001 the City Council reviewed the "Draft Environmental Assessment" for the subject project and authorized the Mayor to sign a comment letter setting forth concerns of the City. The Corps of Engineers has released the "Final Environmental Assessment: Surfside - Sunset Beach Nourishment Project, Stage I1 ", which includes all comment letters received and responses to those comments. Provided for the information of the City Council we copies of all the comment letters and response received on this environmental document. The complete document is on file at the Department of Development Services. FISCAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File "Responses to Comments, Final Environmental Assessment: Surfside - Sunset Beach Nourishment Project, Stage 11 ", and instruct staff to forward to Environmental Quality Control Board for information. Agenda Item yD C:Wy Dace \SUUSIDEIRmwwa mCo==, Nourishment I I.CCSR.dmcLW\06 -07 -01 Receive and File— Responses to Continents Final Environmental Assessment— Surfside- Sunset Beach Nourishment Project, Stage II City Council Staff Report June 25, 7001 e Whittenberg Director tf Development Servic Manager Appendix C, Comments - "Final Environmental Assessment: Surfside- Sunset Beach Nourishment Project, Stage 1I ", prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dated May 2001 R.,.. to Comments, Nouddun t I I.CCSR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SURFSIDE- SUNSET BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT STAGE 11 Orange County, California PREPARED BY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION LOS ANGELES DISTRICT May 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 191100FICYY i11Si100-10M.] 1.1 Proposed Project ....................................................................... ..............................1 1.2 Environmental Assessment Process .......................................... ..............................5 1.3 Relationship to Environmental Protection Statutes, Plans, and Other 6.0 Requirements............................................................................ ..............................5 2.0 HISTORY AND PURPOSE ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... .............................40 2.1 Description of Project Area .......................... ............................... DISTRIBUTION LIST ....................................................................... .............................41 2.2 Project Background Information ............................................... ..............................7 PREPARERS / REVIEWERS ............................................................. .............................42 3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES APPENDICES 3.1 Project Criteria .......................................................................... .............................10 A. Mailing List 3.2 Measures/ AltemativesConsidered ........................................... .............................10 B. 404(b)(1) Evaluation 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Oceanography and Water Quality ............................................. .............................12 4.2 Marine Resources .................................................................... ............................... 16 4.3 Air Quality ................................................................................ .............................22 4.4 Noise ......................................................................................... .............................24 4.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................... .............................26 4.6 Recreation Uses ........................................................................ .............................27 4.7 Ground Transportation .............................................................. .............................28 4.8 Vessel Transportation and Safety ............................................. .............................29 4.9 Aesthetics .................................................................................. .............................31 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND COMMITMENTS 5.1 Compliance .............................................................................. .............................33 5.2 Commitments ........................................................................... .............................36 5.3 Summary .................................................................................. ....................:........38 6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................... .............................39 7.0 ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... .............................40 8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ....................................................................... .............................41 9.0 PREPARERS / REVIEWERS ............................................................. .............................42 APPENDICES A. Mailing List B. 404(b)(1) Evaluation C. Comments D. Cultural Resources Coordination Correspondence E. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment F. Geotechnical Report LIST OF FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map .............................................................................. ..............................2 2 ProjectMap ................................................................................ ..............................3 3 Contractor's Work and Storage Area ......................................... ..............................4 4 Beach Cross Section ................................................................. .............................13 LIST OF TABLES 1. Summary of Environmental Compliance ................................... ..............................6 2. Summary of Previous Nourishment Activities .......................... ..............................9 3. Water Quality Characteristics for the Project Area ................... .............................14 Appendix C Comments ''!m`s c '�"�C3"- ,x� -wt� s•c2.4"� �"" ��'' v "?"'r�•"�`;`P�,��`'y��.rt�r����u �°K..2s- �ws�.�. February 12,2001 Ms. Ruth Bajza Villalobos Chief, Planning Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: Mr. Larry Smith, CESPL -PD -RN P. b. Box 532711 Los Angeles, CA 90053 -2325 SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENT LETTER RE: "DRAFT EA FOR SURFSIDE- SUNSET BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT - STAGE 11" Dear Ms. Villalobos: The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft Environmental Assessment and has several general comments and observations relative to the document. The City of Seal Beach strongly supports the continued activities of the Army Corps of Engineers relative to beach nourishment activities in the Surfside- Sunset Beach areas of Orange County, and in particular your continued capability to provide the required beach nourishment material to adequately protect on -shore facilities and structures, and to maintain the recreational opportunities afforded by the subject beach areas. The proposed project is seen by our City as a positive action in further protecting valuable coastal resources in the Southern California region. Our City strongly supports the immediate implementation of the proposed project as the only practical and effective solution to the immediate problems existing in the Surfside- Sunset Beach areas. Any delay in implementation may result in significant adverse impacts to on -shore structures and facilities during the upcoming 2002 winter storm season. During this current winter storm season the southerly portions of Surfside and the northerly portions of Sunset Beach experienced wave run -up into the public roadways and lower elevations of existing residential structures. These areas have not historically been impacted by wave run- up events due to the previously existing wide sandy beaches; those wide sandy beach protection zones are no longer wide enough to provide a sufficient safety factor. In addition, the "No Action" alternative is not acceptable. This alternative will consign substantial public and private improvements (property values in Surfside alone are in excess of $77,000,000.00) to almost certain damage during the upcoming winter storm season- C -.Wy DxumenWSURFSEDE\Sudside- Sunset Nourishment I1nA.CC UUmdmc LWn2 -12 -01 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "DmJT Envimn+nentalAssessment for Surfside- Sunset Beach Nourishment —Stage 11 " Febmary 12, 2001 It is requested that the Corps of Engineers consider utilizing inland sand of a larger grain for future projects as a mechanism to hopefully ensure greater stability of a nourishment project over the long -term time period between subsequent nourishment projects. The recent high wave activity in Surfside and Sunset beaches could have been greatly reduced or eliminated if the last nourishment project had less amounts of "fines" in 1 the overall sand content. The uncertainty of future nourishment projects would be somewhat addressed if the Corps were to consider utilizing inland sand sources of larger grain sand as a mechanism to increase the longevity of future beach nourishment projects. The subject document discusses the following areas of concern, and concludes that any significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance: Oceanography and Water Quality ■ Marine Resources Air Quality ■ Noise Cultural Resources ■ Recreation Uses Ground Transportation ■ Vessel Transportation & Safety Aesthetics Based on the review by our staff, we concur with those determinations, based on the implementation of all mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EA. The implementation of Commitment Number 10, requiring "Beach disposal will be limited to a diked single -point disposal site or similar methodology to minimize nearshore turbidity and grunion smothering ", is especially important from both a water quality standpoint and minimizing the impact upon grunion spawning. This methodology was utilized in the Stage 10 nourishment and was extremely effective. This methodology should be a required condition of the contract between the Corps and the successful contractor. The City would also request that monitoring of the impacts of disposal activities onto the beach area be conducted to ensure that populations of impacted sandy beach invertebrates such as beach hoppers, sand crabs, and Pismo Clams is re- established within a 3 reasonable time period of six months to one year. If the impacted sandy beach invertebrates have not re- established naturally within that time period, it is recommended that a species reintroduction program be conducted by the Corps. Section 3.2, MEASURES /ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED indicates that "Structural (Modification) Alternatives" (e.g., construction of an attached breakwater, construction of a headland parallel to shore, and modification of seaward side slope new Anaheim Bay East Jetty) may be acceptable and are being further developed and evaluated under a separate environmental document. The City would request the opportunity to be involved in early consultation regarding the consideration of the above discussed structural modification alternatives and the areas of environmental concern to be evaluated in subsequent environmental review documents. The City Council considered and discussed the Draft EA document and an accompanying Staff report on February 12, 2001. The City Council authorized the Mayor to S.dud� -s".t ry "ua,haem uan.CC � City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: "Draft Environmemal Assessment far SudWde- Sunset Beach Nourishmem -Stage 11 " February 12, 2001 sign this letter indicating the official comments of the City of Seal Beach regarding "Draft Environmental Assessment for Surfside- Sunset Beach Nourishment Project - Stage 11 ". Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (310) 431 -2527, extension 313 or e- mail address Whittenberg@ci.seal-beach.ca.us, if you have any questions regarding this matter. In addition, please provide three (3) copies of the FONSI to Mr. Whittenberg for distribution to the appropriate Commissions and the City Council when it is available. Sincerely, Patricia E. Campbell Mayor, City of Seal Beach Distribution: Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Director of Development Services Sud i&S..s. N..n h.m I IEA.CC Ue �ryT OF7 United States Department of the Interior -FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 04. 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 In Reply Refer To: FWS -OR- 1397.1 FEB 1.5 2004 Colonel John P. Carroll District Engineer, Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 911 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017 Attn: Larry Smith, Environmental Resources Branch Re: Draft Environmental Assessment for the Surfside- Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 11, Orange County, California (FP /COE -036 Dear Colonel Carroll: Thank you for the opportunity to review the referenced document dated January 2001 transmitted by your letter dated January 31, 2001, and received by us on February 2, 2001. We have reviewed the referenced document and offer the following comments. The purpose of the project is beach nourishment. The proposed project includes dredging approximately 1.75 million cubic yards (mcy) of sand from an offshore borrow site with a cutterhead suction dredge and placing the sand on the beach via floating pipeline. The proposed project area is approximately 4,500 feet in length and between 350 and 900 feet in width. The contractor will be required to place sand behind a dike having a single -point discharge to minimize nearshore turbidity from the runoff water. The construction is expected to start in May /June 2001 and last for approximately 120 days based on 24 -hour operation. Four sensitive species occur in the project area. They include the federally endangered brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis and California least tern, Sterna antillamm browni; the federally threatened western snowy plover, Charadrius alexandrines nivosus; and the State species of special concern grunion, Leuresthes tenuis. The project is proposed during the breeding season of the California least tern and western snowy plover and the spawning season of the grunion. The brown pelican and California least tern are sight feeders that feed on schooling fish. Therefore, turbidity could impair their ability to forage near the dredge and the beach disposal area. The disposal of sand on the beach could impair foraging by westem snowy plover that feed along the rack line at the high water line and the spawning of grunion. The brown pelican is a year -round resident. It breeds on several of the Channel Islands from January to June while the highest density along the mainland shore occurs between July and November. Because the dredging plant will be located well offshore, there would be no impacts to night roosting brown pelicans along the Anaheim Bay East Jetty. There will be limited JolmP. Carroll (FWS OR- 1397,L) turbidity resulting from the dredging operations due to the type of dredging plant. The turbidity is increased above ambient only within 200 to 500 feet of the dredging plant due to the relatively heavy sand material being dredged. Therefore, we do not anticipate impacts to the brown pelican. The California least tern is a migratory bird arriving in the project area around March/April to breed and are present until September. Dedicated breeding colonies are located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River in Huntington Beach, Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The California least tem forages nearshore for small schooling fish up to approximately two mules from their breeding colony. As sight feeders, they require relatively clear water in order to see their prey. The construction of the proposed project will not affect any of the breeding colonies. Increased turbidity surrounding the dredging plant will extend approximately 200 to 500 feet from the dredge due to the type of dredging plant. Due to the relatively heavy sand material being dredged, it will settle out fairly rapidly. The proposed borrow area is located approximately 5,000 feet offshore of Bolsa Chica State Beach. No impacts to the California least tern from the dredging operations are perceived. However, without mitigating measures associated with the disposal of sand on the beach, turbidity increases could affect the foraging success of the California least tem. The wave zone along the beach is naturally more turbid than the offshore waters due to constant wave action. To eliminate this impact as much as is feasible, a constructed dike well up on the beach with a single -point discharge into the intertidal zone would produce negligible turbidity. This measure has been successfully employed in the past on this project. Therefore, employment of this 1 mitigating measure would eliminate turbidity impacts to the California least tem. The western snowy plover is a year -round resident in southern California. The project area is not used by the western snowy plover for breeding. Western snowy plover have nested at the mouth of the Santa Ana River in Huntington Beach and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve wetlands. However, western snowy plover do use the project area for overwintering. On January 11, 2001, eight individuals were observed at Sutfside Beach. We do not anticipate any impacts to the western snowy plover from the dredging operations. With the employment of a biological monitor to walls the beach in search of any western snowy plovers before any construction 2 activities occur such as the deployment/movement of pipelines, dike construction, single -point discharge, bulldozing of sand, etc., effects to the western snowy plover would be removed. The grunion occurs in the project area on a seasonal basis to spawn. They generally spawn on the sandy beach between late March and early September. The dredging operations will not affect the grunion. However, undiked disposal of sand on the beach could affect spawning activities and spawning success as grunion and eggs could be crushed by bulldozers and/or deeply buried by sand. By implementing a diked disposal area with a single -point discharge point, the potential impact area would be significantly reduced to an acceptable level. 3 John P. Carrell (FWS -OR- 1397.1) In conclusion, the implementation of the above mitigating measures would eliminate the adverse effects of this beach nourishment project on these sensitive species. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact John Hanlon, Chief, Branch of Federal Projects, at (760) 431 -9440 or john hanlonQfws.Rov. Siiin(c�ereely,,,'/ /�/ Jim A. Bartel �iV Assistant Field Supervisor STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Gov ar DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3337 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE CN 300 � IRVINE, CA 92012;. _ February 26, 2001 FILE: IGR /CEQA SCH# 2001024033 Larry Smith U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 911 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA. 90018 Subject: Surfside - Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 11 Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you, for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for the Surfside - Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 11. The proposed project is to dredge beach - compatible sand from an offshore borrow site for placement on Surfside- Sunset Beach to nourish the beach and act as a feeder for downcoast beaches, The project location is along the northern coastline of Orange County between the Anaheim Bay East Jetty and the Newport Pier. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comment at this time. Please continue to keep us informed of this or any project that has potential to impact the state transportation system. If you have any questions please contact Aileen Kennedy on (949) 724- 2239. S'ncerely, Rob os h, C of Advanced Planning Branch C: Terry Roberts, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQRTS Planning STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Gavemm DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME MARINE REGION } 20 LOWER RAGSDALE DRIVE; SURE 100 - MONTEREY, CA 93940 » '- (931) 64948]0 March 12, 2001 Ms. Ruth Bajza Villalobos Environmental Planning Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District P.O. Box 532711 Los Angeles, California 90053 -2325 Dear Ms. Villalobos The Department of Fish and Game (Department), has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Surfside- Sunset Beach Nourishment Project, Stage 11, Orange County, California, January 2001. The proposed project will dredge approximately 1.75 million cubic yards (racy) of sand from an offshore borrow site (approximately 12,000 feet offshore Bolas Chica State Beach) and place it on the beach immediately down -coast of the Anaheim Bay east Jetty, extending approximately 4,500 feet in length and 60 to 350 feet in width. Construction is expected to commence in May or June 2001, and will last approximately 120 days. It is anticipated that a cutterhead suction dredge will be used on the project, although a hopper dredge could also be employed. The proposed project is part of a continuing effort to increase sand allotments at Surfside - Sunset and Newport beaches. The last beach nourishment activity occurred in 1997 (Stage 10), when 1.6 mcy of sand was dredged from an offshore borrow site and deposited at Surfside Beach. The Department has several concerns regarding the proposed project. Foremost, we are concerned with the proposed project's potential impacts to the California least Lem (Sterna antillarum brown[), a State - and Federal- listed endangered species. Least terms nest from April through August at the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge ( SBNWR), an important nesting site in Orange County. The SBNWR nesting colony is within 2 miles, a typical foraging range for nesting least terms, of the project site. Least terns are sight feeders; thus we are concerned that the turbidity plumes from dredging operations and, in particular, the runoff from fines and silts during disposal operations may reduce the least tern's ability to successfully capture prey items. The Department does not consider project - induced turbidity impacts to be short-term, as the project is estimated to take 120 days to complete. Least tern behavior was monitored during the 1997 nourishment activity at Surfside, as well as in 1999 and 2000 (non - project years for comparison), and is detailed in "Monitoring of Least Tern Foraging Seal Beach Pier to Sunset Beach Final Monitoring Report February 2, �.. 2000." However, due to the lack of bawline data and differencesAmong prey availability between years, the report could not conclude whether or not least tern foraging behavior was adversely affected in 1997. Additionally, the study did not address the level of success for each foraging dive and the amount of extra time/effort involved to successfully catch prey items. This factor could ultimately affect least tem nesting success. However, we realize it is doubtful that this type of information could be obtained, and, if it was, interpreted with significant meaning. Thus, the Department strongly recommends the project take place outside of the least tern nesting season. if this is not feasible, it is important to utilize all conceivable methods to reduce surface turbidity. According to the DEA, page 20, the borrow site (B) occurs outside of foraging areas utilized by least terns. However, Appendix F, page 16, cites that Borrow area B is less than '/2 mile from Surfside/Sunset beaches. The Department questions whether Appendix F is accurate and, if so, what evidence the Corps is using to conclude that the borrow site is outside of least 3 tem foraging areas for the SBNWS colony. This point is important because if a hopper dredge is utilized it is more likely to produce a turbidity plume extending some distance from the dredge when compared to the cutterhead dredge which generally produces little surface water turbidity. Thus, if a hopper dredge is used, the Department recommends it be equipped with a turbidity reducing device such as a "morning glory spillway." The DEA proposes to minimize turbidity at the disposal site by placing sand in diked sections of the beach. The Department concurs with this methodology, but, m an additional measure, we recommend surface turbidity monitoring take place at the disposal site and that 4 disposal operations cease if surface turbidity levels become significantly greater than ambient conditions. Additionally, the Department suggests the Final EA provide a map illustrating the location of the SBWR least tem colony relative to project activities and describe the distance from the 5 least tern colony in units as opposed to "just inland" as described on page 18. Another concern involves potential impacts to California grunion (Le esthes tenuis), a recreationally and ecologically important nearshore species. Grunion spawn on the beach, from March to August, during the highest tides of the month. Although the proposed project will occur during the grunion spawning season, impacts to grunion will be minimized by limiting beach disposal to a diked, single -point disposal site (as was done for Stage 10 activities). We concur with this methodology and agree that beach replenishment will ultimately benefit grunion by providing suitable spawning habitat. As a general comment, the DEA cites 1996 (see Table 2) as the last year that previous nourishment activities were conducted at Surfside Beach. However, the "Monitoring of Least Tern Foraging Seal Beach Pier to Sunset Beach Final Monitoring Report February 2, 2001," describes those operations as occurring in 1997. The Final EA should clarify this issue. We than you for the opportunity to express our concerns. As always, Department personnel are available to discuss our comments, concerns, and recommendations in greater detail. To strange for a discussion, plgpse contact Ms. Marilyn Fluharty, Environmental Specialist, California Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, telephone (858) 4674231. .Sincerely, • '� Robert N. Tasto, Supervisor Project Review and Water Quality Program Marine Region cc: Ms. Marilyn Fluharty Department of Fish and Game San Diego, California Ms. Judi Tamasi U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California Mr. Robert Hoffman National Marine Fisheries Service Long Beach, California STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Govemcr CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Officer 100 Howe Avenue, . Suite 100 -South (916)57a1800 FAX(916)5741810 Sacramento, CA °95825 -8202 Caliromia Relay Sam" From TD&Phone 1 -600- 735 -2922 �} 1 fmm Voice Phone 1- 600.735 -2929 Contact Phone: (916) 574-1892 Contact FAX., (916) 574-1925 March 14, 2001 Mr. Larry Smith U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 911 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90018 Dear Mr. Smith: File Ref: PRC 4551.9 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for Surfside- Sunset Beach Nourishment Project, Stage 11, Orange County, SCH 2001024003 Staff of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has reviewed the subject document. We apologize for the lateness of our comments and would appreciate their consideration by the Corps. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Corps is the lead agency and the CSLC is a Responsible and /or Trustee Agency for any and all projects that could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public easement in navigable waters. The Draft EA addresses the dredging of approximately 1.75 million cubic yards of sand from an offshore borrow site approximately 5,000 feet offshore of Balsa Chica State Beach for purposes of replenishing Surfside- Sunset Beach. Pursuant to our verbal discussions and the new location map, the Corps has relocated the borrow site considerably west of that depicted on Figure 2 of the Draft EA. As you are aware, ongoing replenishment at Surfside- Sunset Beach is authorized by an existing permit (PRC 4551.9) issued by the CSLC to the Corps. However, as you are also aware, the permit does not authorize ongoing dredging. Therefore, the permit will need to be amended to provide for the Stage 11 dredging, similar to the amendment that was completed for the Stage 10 project. 1 will submit the amendment document to you shortly. Mr. Larry Smith 2 March 14, 2001 If you have any questions please contact me at'(916) 574 -1892. Sincerely, L mith Public Land Management Specialist Southern California Region co: Alan Scott Greg Scott, CSLC /LB Betty Silva 9ATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS 'ANO TRANSPORTATION AGENCY CRAY CAWS, Governor PRIVATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIBTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE. SUTTE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612 -0661 Ms. Ruth Sajza Villalobos March 16, 2001 Chief, Planning Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: Mr. Larry Smith, CESPL -PD -RN P.O. Box 532711 Los Angeles, California 90053.2325 Dear Ms. Villalobos, Thank you for extending your March 2, 2001 comment deadline so that we could review the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Surfside- Sunset Beach project. At this time Environmental Planning has no comments or concerns with the project. Thank you for this opportunity. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Angela Vasconcellos of my staff at (949) 724.2634. Sincerely, /J veen Gupta Environmental Planning, Branch Chief Caitrans District 12 STATE OF IFORNW —THE RESOURCES ACIENCY G -Y..IS Govegnc CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION a FRERONT, SURE2= .. SM FRANCISCO, CA M10SII19 WICE AND TOOIAISI SM52C0 a_FAX(415)91 -. .. c.. . March 28, 2001 Ruth Bajza Villalobos Chief, Planning Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ATTN: Larry Smith P.O. Box 532711 Los Angeles, CA 90053 -2325 Subject: Negative Determination ND- 012 -01 ( Surfside- Sunset Beach Nourishment Project Stage 11, Orange County) Dear Ms. Villalobos The Coastal Commission staff has received and reviewed the above - referenced negative determination for beach replenishment at Surfside - Sunset Beach in Orange County. The Commission has previously authorized the Corps of Engineers to conduct beach replenishment at Surfside - Sunset Beach, most recently in its review of negative determination ND -58 -95 (and subsequent negative determination and consistency determinations for time extensions and project modifications in ND -3 -97, CD- 28 -97, and CD- 67 -97). The current proposal consists of placing 1.75 million cubic yards of clean sand at Surfside- Sunset Beach, between the Anaheim Bay East Jetty and a point approximately 4,500 feet downcoast. Sand will be placed between —13 feet and +13 feet mean lower low water, and the new beach will vary in width between 350 and 900 feet. A ten - foot -deep layer of sand will be dredged from a 270 -acre borrow site one mile offshore of Bolan Chica State Beach in approximately 30 to 45 feet of water. Sand will be transported to shore via a floating, hydraulic pipeline and discharged behind a dike to minimize turbidity in the runoff water. Turbidity will be monitored by the project contractor on a weekly basis and results submitted to the Corps for evaluation within 24 hours. Sand discharge will occur in approximately 330 -foot -long sections of the beach, commencing at the Anaheim Bay East Jetty and moving downcoast, in order to limit the amount of beach closed to the public at any one time. Construction is scheduled to start in May or June 2001 and last approximately 120 days. Disposal and construction activity on the beach will occur Monday through Friday during daylight hours. In previous beach replenishment operations at Surfside- Sunset Beach concurred with by the Commission, the Corps has attempted to complete work outside of the California least tern nesting season and the California grunion spawning season. However, the Commission also concurred with two project time extensions through mild -June (CD- 28 -97) and through July 31 (CD- 67 -97) in order for the Corps to complete project operations that were delayed due to unexpected factors. In both extensions, while the Commission noted the potential adverse effects on public access and recreation and on biological resources, it also acknowledged that ND- 012 -01 (Corps of Engineers) Page 2 " adequate mitigation measures were incorporated into the project to pevent those impacts from' becoming significant, and that those temporary impacts were outweighed by the substantial public benefits arising from beach nourishment. Unlike the aforementioned beach nourishment projects at Surfside/Sunset Beach which were designed to occur during the winter and spring months, the proposed activity would not commence until late May or early June, well into the California least tern nesting and California grunion spawning seasons and at the beginning of the summer recreation season. However, the beach at present is extremely narrow, scoured, and cobbly in places, and provides little available area for public recreation, minimal habitat for marine or avian wildlife, and little in the way of storm protection for existing residential development located between the shoreline and Pacific Coast Highway. As a result, and notwithstanding the less - than-ideal timing of the Corps project, the need for beach nourishment at this time is critical and well -documented in the Corps of Engineers' Draft Environmental Assessment and by the Commission's South Coast District staff. The Corps has incorporated mitigation measures into the proposed project in order to minimize potentially adverse environmental impacts on California least tem and Western snowy plover foraging, California grunion spawning, and recreational use of Surfside/Sunset Beach. Hydraulic discharge of dredged sand will be limited to a diked, single -point disposal site above mean higher high water, which will typically occupy approximately 330 feet of linear beach for a one to two week period. This will restrict the area of temporary turbidity and construction impacts while incrementally re- building the wide sandy beach. As in previous Corps disposal projects at this beach, return water from the diked disposal area will be monitored on a weekly basis by the project contractor. If the Corps determines, based on its evaluation of the monitoring data, that additional water quality mitigation measures are deemed necessary (e.g., the use of filter fabrics in the diked disposal areas), disposal operations will cease until those measures are in place. Recreational use will only be prohibited within that increment of beach being actively nourished; the balance of Surfside /Sunset Beach will be available for public use. Under the federal consistency regulations, a negative determination can be submitted for an activity "which is the same as or similar to activities for which consistency determinations have been prepared in the past." This project is similar to previous consistency and negative determinations with which the Commission concurred. We therefore concur with,your negative determination made pursuant to Section 15 CFR 930.35(d) of the NOAA implementing regulations. Please contact Larry Simon of the Commission staff at (415) 9045288 should you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, rr PETER M. DOUGLA Executive Director cc: South Coast District Office California Department of Water Resources Governor's Washington, D.C., Office Reponses to Comments City of Seal Beach letter dated February 12, 2001 1. This is not feasible for three reasons. First, sources of suitable sand are very limited in the region. Second, the Corps is required to meet grain size compatibility requirements matching the existing beach sand and the proposed beach nourishment sand. Shifting to a larger grain size could lead to rejection of sand as not being compatible. Third, utilizing an inland source of sand is prohibitively expensive. 2. The recommended methodology will be a requirement for the construction contract. 3. The requested monitoring is not considered necessary. Past beach nourishment projects, both at this beach and at others in the Los Angeles District demonstrated rapid and complete reestablishment of the populations of sandy beach invertebrates. Please note that Pismo clams do not occur on the beaches proposed for nourishment in this project. 4. We will ensure that the City of Seal Beach is involved in any discussion of structural alternatives. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter dated February 15, 2001 1 & 3. The recommended methodology will be a requirement for the construction contract. 2. We have added an environmental commitment into the Final EA requiring a biological monitor as requested. That commitment will be a requirement for the construction contract. State of California Department of Transportation letter dated February 26, 2001 Comment noted. California Department of Fish and Game letter dated March 12, 2001 1 & 3. The dredge site is located offshore in deeper water that is normally not considered to be California least tern foraging habitat. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred, that dredging activities at the borrow site will not adversely impact the California least tem. Turbidity impacts from beach disposal operations will be reduced to an insignificant level by inclusion of mitigation measures discussed in the Draft EA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this conclusion and even went a step farther stating that: "employment of this mitigation measure would eliminate turbidity impacts to the California least tern." 2. It is not feasible to construct the project outside the California least tern nesting season. As a result of construction during the California least tern nesting season mitigation measures will be utilized that have proven effective in past beach nourishment projects to reduce surface turbidity impacts adjacent to the beach disposal site. 4. Surface turbidity monitoring will take place at the dredge and disposal sites. 5. The map in the Final EA has been revised to show the location of the SBWR California least tern nesting site. 6. The last nourishment activity started in 1996 and was completed in 1997. Table 2 has been revised. California State Lands Commission letter dated March 14, 2001 Comments noted. The required amendment has been obtained. State of California Department of Transportation letter dated March 16, 2001 Comment noted. California Coastal Commission letter dated March 28, 2001 Comments noted.