HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem SMay 14, 2001
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Attention: John B. Bahorsld, City Manager -
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: Receipt of Response to Comment Letter re: "Draft EIR/EIS
for the Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Instruct Staff to forward to Environmental Quality Control Board for information. Receive and File
Staff Report.
DISCUSSION
On October 9, 2000 the City Council reviewed the "Draft EIRIEIS for the Balsa Chica Lowlands
Restoration Project", prepared for the California State Lands Commission (SLC), the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE) by the Chambers Group, as lead consultant. After reviewing the document and
reviewing the recommendation of the Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council
Staff Report, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign a comment letter regarding the document.
Overview of Draft EIRIEIS Proiect and Alternatives•.
The document analyzed the Proposed Project, with 2 sub - alternatives, and 6 project alternative
configurations including:
• Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion
• Full Tidal Basin with Ocean Her near Rabbit Island
• Full Tidal Basin with Ocean Inlet near Warner Avenue
• Three Jetty Plan
• hTigation/Water Management Plan
❑ No Project/Action Alternative
AGENDA ITEM J
C:Wy nocamem CEQA\Boha CMca 4wiand EIR C=m .CC Staff Re n.doc \LW -26 -01
Receive and File Responses to Comments re. 'Droll ELVEIS-
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council StajfReport
May 14, 2001
The Proposed Project/Preferred Alternative is the restoration of 850 acres of the Bolsa Chica
Lowlands to create wetland habitat areas, including 366.5 acres of full tidal and 200 acres of
muted tidal habitat.
Proiect Location
The Proposed Project is located in an unincorporated area of northwestern Orange County. The
project area consists of 1,247 acres of the Bolas Chica Lowlands in the Bolas Chica Gap between
Bolas Chien Mesa on the northwest and Huntington Mesa on the southeast. Huntington Harbour
is northwest of the site. Pacific Coast Highway, Bolas Cbica State Beach, and the Pacific Ocean
are to the west. North, east, and southeast of the project site are residential areas of the City of
Huntington Beach.
Previous Actions of Citv of Seal Beach
As required by CEQA, "Responses to Comments" have been prepared and the appropriate portions
of this portion of the document are provided for the information of the Committee as Attachment 1.
In addition to the comment letter from the Environmental Quality Control Board and City Council,
the Archaeological Advisory Committee also provided a comment letter on the document Staff
has provided a copy of this letter and the responses as Attachment 2 for the information of the City
Council.
Pub &c Availability:
A copy of the Final EIR/EIS is available at the Department of Development Services for review
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct fiscal impacts to the City of Seal Beach.
RECOMMENDATION
Instruct Staff to forward to Environmental Quality Control Board for information. Receive and File
Staff Report.
t
e Wlilttenbcrg
hector of Development Servi s
aoba Chm. Lowland EIRC..e .CC Wr Re n
NOTED AND
City Manager
Attachments: (3)
Receive and File Responses to Comments re: "Draft EIR/EIS-
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council StafReport
May 14, 2001
Attachment 1: Responses to Comments re: City Council and Environmental Quality
Control Board Letter re: "Draft ELVEIS For Bolsa Chica Lowlands
Restoration Project ", City Council/EQCB Letter dated October 9, 2000
Attachment 2: Responses to Comments re: Archaeological Advisory Committee Letter re:
"Draft EIRIUS for the Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project ",
Archaeological Advisory Committee letter dated October 4, 2000
Attachment 3: "Final EIRIEIS for the Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project ", (Note:
Complete Document not provided due to length, 2,006 pages in three
volumes)
Bolsa Mm Lwlmd Elk Commts.CC Staff Re n
Receive and File Responses to Comments re: "LbajiELMS-
Boise Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council StajJReport
May 14, 2001
ATTACHMENT 1
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RE: CITY
COUNCIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD LETTER RE: "DRAFT EIR/EIS
FOR BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS RESTORATION
PROJECT, CITY COUNCIL/EQCB LETTER
DATED OCTOBER 9, 2000
Wsa CWca Lowland EIRComenn.CC Smfffk on
FINAL EIR/EIS FOR THE BOLSA CHICA
LOWLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT
VOLUME V
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND
COMMENT LETTERS AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Prepared for.
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Prepared by.
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
17671 Cowan Avenue, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92614
(949) 261 -5414
APRIL 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION .......................................... ............................1 -1
1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................. ....:.......................1 -1
1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS .................................................................. ............................1 -1
1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ................................................................ ............................1 -1
SECTION 2.0 - RESPONSES TO TOPICAL ISSUES .......................................................... ................ 2 -1
2.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... ............................2 -1
2.2 TOPICAL RESPONSES ............................................................... ....................................... 2 -1
2.2.1 Topical Response 1: The Ecological Risk Assessment and Oil Field Clean Up ......... 2-1
2.2.2 Topical Response 2: Alternative 5 ................................................ ............................2 -2
2.2.3 Topical Response 3: Potential Exceedance of Bacterial Standards
in the Ocean from Bacteria Generated by Birds and Wildlife in the Wetlands .............2 -3
SECTION 3.0 - COPIES OF AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENTS
SECTION 4.0 - CULVERT STUDY
SECTION 5.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ................ „ ..................................... _ ............ 5 -1
5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ............................... 5-3
5.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... ............................5 -3
5.3 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES .................................. ............................5 -3
5.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ................. ............................S.A
ouizm
RECEIVED ON THE DEIRI EIS .............................................................. ....._................_.....3
-1
3.1
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION ................................................. ............................3
-1
3.2
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES- FEDERAL AGENCIES ........ ............................3
-7
3.3
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES- STATE AGENCIES ........... ............................347
3.4
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES - LOCAL AGENCIES ........ ...............................
3-91
3.5
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES - COMMUNITY GROUPS,
ASSOCIATIONS, PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND LAW OFFICES ...............................
3 -163
3.6
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES - INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING
LETTERS OF SUPPORT ................................................................. ...............................
3 -345
3.7
RESPONSES TO ORAL TESTIMONY FROM AUGUST 31, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING ........................_._.
SECTION 4.0 - CULVERT STUDY
SECTION 5.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ................ „ ..................................... _ ............ 5 -1
5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ............................... 5-3
5.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... ............................5 -3
5.3 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES .................................. ............................5 -3
5.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ................. ............................S.A
ouizm
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paae
2.1 1999 Postings for Beaches Near Tidal Wetlands .................................... ............................2 -4
2 -2 Beach Closures for Beaches not in Harbors and not Near Wetlands ....... ............................2 -5
2 -3 Monthly Bacteria Data for Bolsa Bay and East Garden Grove Wintersburg
Channel Near Boise Bay ............................................ ...............................
f✓f
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION
1.1 PROJECTSUMMARY
The Proposed Project/Preferred Alternative (Project) is the restoration of 850 acres of the Balsa Chica
Lowlands to create wetland and habitat areas, including 366.5 acres of full tidal and 200 acres of muted
tidal habitat. The Project is located in an unincorporated area of northwestern Orange County. The
Project area consists of 1,247 acres of the Boise Chica Lowlands in the Balsa Chica Gap between Bolae
Chica Mesa on the northwest and Huntington Beach Mesa on the southeast. Huntington Harbour is
northwest of the Project site. Pacific Coast Highway, Bolsa Chica State Beach, and the Pacific Ocean
are to the west, north, east, and southeast of the Project site are residential areas of the City of
Huntington Beach.
The Project area includes four parcels: 880 acres of the Boise Chica }.owiands purchased in
February 1997 from the Signal Boise Corporation, acquired through the combined efforts of eight state
and federal agencies, with title to the property held by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC);
the 300 -acre California Department of Fish and Game Ecological Reserve leased from the CSLC; the
42 -acre Fieldstone property (tentative); and a 25-acre formerly owned by the Metropolitan Water
District in the Boise Pocket (title transfer pending).
The Project is designed to implement a comprehensive, diverse wetland habitat plan to benefit
shorebirds, waterfowl, coastal seabirds, marine fishes, and a full spectrum of coastal ecosystem biota.
Major components of the Project are: (1) restoration of full tidal influence to portions of the site through
dredging and creation of a new ocean inlet accompanied by construction of a bridge to allow Highway 1
to cross; (2) creation and enhancement of aquatic habitats and intertidal wetlands; (3) creation of nesting
and feeding areas for Threatened and Endangered species; (4) preservation of nontidal wetlands; and
(5) phased removal of oil extraction facilities from the Project area.
1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
The DEIR/EIS was published on July 28, 2000, and circulated for public review through October 16, 2000.
Documents were made available by mailing of hard copies and/or CD -ROMs to interested parties, having
Documents available for review at eight local libraries, and accessing the CSLC web site. During this
period, a public hearing was held on August 31, 2000, in Huntington Beach at the City Council Chambers.
Comment letters were received from 2 federal agencies, 6 state agencies, 7 local agencies,
18 community groups/associations, corporations and law firms, and from 35 individuals responding via
letters and e-mail, including letters of support for the Project
1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This is Volume V of the FEIR/EIS which contains copies of and the responses to written comment letters
received during the public review period and the public hearing transcript and responses to oral
comments taken during the public hearing. This volume, in combination with the following volumes
constitute the complete FEIR/EIS for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project:
Volume I — FEIR/EIS Main Volume Final Text
Volume 11 — DEIR/EIS Appendices F and G
Volume 111 — DEIR/EIS Engineering Studies
Volume III — DEIR/EIS Engineering Studies Errata: Section 5, 6, and 7
Volume IV — Engineering Studies Technical Appendices
Volume V — Responses to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring Program
Volume VI — FEIR/EIS Appendices
aim R�.c 1 1
awam
The Project was selected on the basis of the data and information in the completed environmental and
engineering analyses and, as such the designation, i.e. numbered rather than lettered, of ahematives is
different in the engineering appendices than the DEIR/EIS. The description of each is identical in both
volumes. The table contains a legend to allow the comparison of each alternative in the DEIR/EIS and in
the engineering appendices.
Designation of Project Alternatives
31@ flapveupfomrp
01/.BV1 1'2
Engineering Appendices
Pro sad Pm ect
Alternative H
I Subattemative
N/A
Subaltemative
Alternative E
Alternative t
Altemative B
Alternative 2
Alternative C
Alternative 3
Alternative D
Alternative 4
Alternative F
Alternative 5
Alternative G
Alternative 6
Alternative A
31@ flapveupfomrp
01/.BV1 1'2
SECTION 20 - RESPONSES TO TOPICAL ISSUES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains responses to a group of major comments repeatedly raised during the public review
period by a majority of commentators. These "Topical Responses' are consolidated here. In Section 3 of
this Response to Comments volume, where appropriate, the reader is referred here to these Topical
Responses.
2.2 TOPICAL RESPONSES
2.2.1 Topical Response 1: The Ecological Risk Assessment and Oil Field Clean U
When the 880 -acre property was acquired by the State in 1997, a voluntary cleanup agreement was
executed with the Responsible Parties (oil companies and the seller). In this agreement, the State
assumed the responsibility to characterize the nature and extent of contamination, identity contaminant
threats to natural resources, determine the appropriate cleanup criteria for the site, and determine areas
to be cleaned up. The Fish and Wildlife Service has the lead role in the Risk Assessment phase which
includes completing biotic, water and sediment sampling and preparing an Ecological Risk Assessment
(ERA). The information in the ERA will, in consideration of the goals and objectives of the Project, be
used to develop contaminant levels (cleanup criteria) that will not result in an exposure risk to wildlife.
The Responsible Parties will then prepare and execute, at their expense, a cleanup plan. Verification
sampling is to be concluded after cleanup to verify that contaminants are removed to their desired levels.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has approval and oversight of the cleanup plan, with funding
support from an EPA grant. EPA is to supplement the ERA with its evaluation of whether risks to human
health warrant additional response actions.
All of the sampling called for in the cleanup agreement and ERA, and some required for nearshore
disposal of sand, was completed by early 2000. (Some of the ERA background sampling results were
included in the DEIR/S beginning on page 3-60). Following the determination of the cleanup criteria by
the eight agency Steering Committee, delineation sampling to define the boundaries of specific
contaminated areas will be completed. The ERA and identification of cleanup criteria are expected to be
completed in early 2001 and will be available for public review. After consultation with the Responsible
Parties, delineation sampling will ensue and be completed in the first half of 2001. Once the cleanup
criteria are agreed upon, and following completion of the delineation sampling, the Responsible Parties
will prepare, obtain approval, and implement the cleanup plan.
Until the cleanup criteria are adopted, spec or quantified cleanup actions cannot be defined. However,
closure of wells and cleanup in the vicinity of welts is not in dispute and well abandonments have been
conducted by the lease holder, AERA Energy, on their own schedule for the last several years pursuant
to their lease agreement with the CSLC. Contaminants warranting cleanup beyond the vicinity of active
and idle wellheads are expected to be the principal focus of the ERA and cleanup plan. Some
generalized cleanup methods can be described: safely sequestered contaminants may be left in place,
stable contaminants may be sequestered in constructed fills within the restoration project (e.g., berms),
contaminated sediments may be hauled to appropriate landfill sites, or 'landfarming' treatment
techniques may be used within the lowland. The volumes of dirt requiring treatment or disposal handling
different from that shown for the restoration project alternatives are unknown at this time. If the deanup
plan proposed by the Responsible Parties entails substantial changes to the Project and its associated
environmental analyses, a supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Statement may be necessary.
All parties have agreed to work cooperatively on voluntary cleanup of the oil field contaminants, although
all agencies have retained their legal authority to pursue legal recourse, if deemed appropriate. Per the
Cleanup Agreement, If unidentified contamination is uncovered, the parties have agreed to work
cooperatively to determine if the particular contaminant is an oil field product, if it must be cleaned up, and
]rm Rppya m can.n.�. 2 -1
Wm01
which entity is the responsible party to clean it up. Binding arbitration is to be employed at some steps, if
necessary. As stated on Page 1 -8, the environmental analysis 'assumes that full phaseout and cleanup
of oil field structures and ac ivities would occur' prior to the start of any restoration activities.
2.2.2 Tooical Resoonse 2: Alternative 5
Several comments were received in favor of Alternative 5 as the project. Some commenters felt that
Atemative 5 was not analyzed fairly and did not represent the best possible non -tidal inlet alternative.
Other comments suggested that Alternative 5 might be an interim measure during restoration at Boise
Chita. The development of Alternative 5, its potential as an interim project and its relationship to Port
mitigation credits are discussed below.
The eight agency Steering Committee considered it important to include and analyze in detail in the
DEIR/EIS, one aftemative that did not include a tidal inlet The development of alternatives is discussed
in Section 2 of the EIR/EIS. Restoration of tidal flow via a connection to Huntington Harbour was
considered carefully. However, because of the potential for a greater tidal prism at Boise Chica to
aggravate the existing scour problem in Huntington Harbour, and the potential liabilities associated with
that result, the restoration of regular tidal flow to Boise Chica via Huntington Harbour was rejected as an
atemative (See Section 2.5.2.). With the rejection of the Huntington Harbour atemative, the only
feasible non -tidal inlet alternative was designed as the IrrigationNValer Management Plan. As originally
conceived, the Imgation/Water Management alternative would improve functional values at Bolsa Chica
by managing water levels in the Bolsa Chico Lowlands. The IrrigationANater Management Alternative
would have pumped water into the lowlands during dry periods and pumped excess water out during wet
years. There would be no natural tidal fluctuation and no saltwater influence. This alternative would have
improved habitat slightly for birds and vegetation, but would have no value for native fishes or estuarine
invertebrates. The Steering Committee recognized that even a small amount of seawater (such as the
seawater that seeps through the leaky tldegates at the Ballona wetlands) can dramatically improve the
habitat values in a saltwater wetlands. Therefore, additional analyses were performed to develop a
non -tidal inlet alternative that would have the highest biological productivity within the constraints of the
Bols r Chica system.
Scour around structures in Huntington Harbour has been linked to tidal currents during spring tide and
stone flows and any increase in the amount of water into the lowlands area via the Huntington Harbour
connection could aggravate this problem and create public liability. For this reason, even an incremental
introduction of seawater to the lowlands during spring Was is not considered feasible. However,
seawater can be introduced to the lowlands via Huntington Harbour during neap fides when there is no
danger of increasing scour in the harbour. Alternative 5 was considered and analyzed to the same level
and equal detail to the other alternatives. Primary biological benefit would be to hardy estuarine fishes
and invertebrates that could survive the two .week residence time of tidal waters in the lowlands.
Alternative 5 also would enhance the pickleweed vegetation in the lowlands and, as a result of the
enhanced picklweed, habitat for Belding's savannah sparrow. Most of the benefits and biological diversity
of the tidal inlet alternatives would not be realized under Alternative 5. The conclusion that Alternative 5
would have many fewer impacts, but also much lower benefits, is supported by the detailed analysis in
the EIR/EIS. Although urbanization and other human changes to the environment preclude restoration of
the vast tidal lagoon and wetlands complex that historically was present at Bolsa Chica, the tidal Inlet
alternatives come much closer than Alternative 5 to restoring the area's historical wetland functions
and values.
To implement all Alternative 5 features as an 'interim' measure might interfere with, or preclude entirely,
subsequent restoration activity which is required to futfill the mitigation credits allowed the Ports. A
different source of funding, currently unknown, would also be required.
2_2
oa,mm,
2.2.3 Topical Response 3: Potential Exceedance of Bacterial Standards in the Ocean from
Bacteria Generated by Birds and Wildlife in the Wetlands
Many commenters expressed a concern that even though the Proposed Project would not route the water
from the EGGW Flood Control Channel through the new full tidal basin, bacteria generated by birds and
other wildlife in the resultant wetlands might cause an exceedance of bacteria standards in the ocean.
Several commenters suggested that the creation of a new tidal inlet at Balsa Chico would result in
extensive beach closures such as those that have occurred in Huntington Beach. The discharge from the
Talbert Marsh was initially suspected as the cause for the Huntington Beach closures.
The results of the Huntington Beach water quality irwestigation became available in November 2000 and
were reviewed by the preparers of this EIR/EIS. The Huntington Beach studies showed that the levels of
bacteria generated within the marsh contributed to the bacteria problem, but were not sufficient, in and of
themselves, to account for the problem itself. Specifically, the studies showed that bacteria generated by
birds in Talbert Marsh could cause bacteria concentrations in the surf line near the marsh to briefly
exceed criteria on outgoing nighttime or early morning tides. The study further concluded that fecal
material deposited by western gulls is a significant source of indicator bacteria in the water flowing out of
the Talbert Marsh and that indicator bacteria growing on vegetation in the marsh and in marsh sediments
may also contribute to the nearshore loading of these microorganisms. The study additionally conducted
that the levels of bacteria recorded along the beach were higher than could possibly have been generated
by Talbert Marsh alone and that there has to be another source. Finally, the Talbert Marsh investigation
included a study using a nearshore transport model showing bacteria transport from Talbert Marsh along
the shore. The modeling indicated that it is physically impossible for the levels of contamination
measured at the beach to be caused by Talbert Marsh and the lower Santa Ana River/Newport Slough
system combined. This result supports the hypothesis that another source must be involved.
These data suggest that bacteria within the wetlands at Talbert Marsh may cause bacteria standards to
be exceeded in the ocean. However, the Talbert Marsh, with its large area of mud flat and small volume
of open water, has a different configuration than many other coastal wetlands and the large full tidal basin
that would be created at Bolsa Chica by the Proposed Project.
In addition, Talbert Marsh supports an unusually high number of western gulls and to a lesser degree,
elegant tems. The peak number of birds counted in Talbert Marsh during the Huntington Beach study
ranged from 200 to 1,000 individuals, i.e. 8 to 40 birds per acre. It is expected that Balsa Chica would not
attract a high density of gulls such as does Talbert Marsh. Specifically, gulls are attracted to garbage and
several garbage sources are found near Talbert Marsh, which is closer to developments than the
Balsa Lowlands. Gulls exploit these sources and then rest on the large amount of intertidal mudflat at
Talbert Marsh.
A year's worth of detailed bird counts was done at Balsa Chica (Guthrie et al. 1993). This study counted
birds at Balsa Chica every two weeks for a year in 1992 and 1993. The density of gulls and tems
counted in this study in Inner and Outer Balsa Bay would be expected to be representative of potential
gull and tern density in the Balsa Chica Lowlands when tidal flow is restored. Except for May, June and
July, 1992, when the total number of gulls and tems in Balsa Bay was as high as 865 because of a large
number of tems nesting on islands in Inner Balsa Bay, the total number of gulls and terns was always
less than 250 and was as low as 10 in August of 1992.
Thus, the highest density of gulls and tems in the 175 acres of tidal wetlands in the Balsa Chica
Ecological Reserve was less than 5 gulls or tems per acre. Western gull numbers in all of Balsa Chica
never exceeded 11. The most abundant gull at Balsa Chica was the smaller California gull. Numbers of
gulls and terns in Bolsa Bay in excess of 100 was always recorded in Inner Balsa Bay and was a result of
nesting terns on the two tem islands. The highest density of gulls and tams in Outer Balsa Bay, where
there are intertidal mudflats where gulls could rest as they do at Talbert Marsh, was 15. The amount of
feces and associated bacteria is directly proportional to the body weight of a bird. Thus, the fact that the
birds that would be expected to occur in highest numbers at Balsa Chico (tems, smaller gulls,
rez a�m.mmcm..... 23
www
ducks, shorebirds) are all smaller than and in less concentrations than the western gulls that occur in
such high numbers at Talbert Marsh indicates that even less of a bacteria problem from wildlife would be
expected at the Proposed Project.
Although dose in proximity to Bolsa Chica, Talbert Marsh is not an appropriate comparison to the
Proposed Project due to the variety of physical differences between the wetlands. Talbert Marsh is much
smaller in size than Bolsa Chico, with one -fifth (20 %) of the tidal prism and is, therefore, unable to dilute
contaminants. The dilution that will occur in Boise Chico is many times (approximately 5 times) greater
than that occurring at Talbert Marsh. Potential contamination in tidal flows will be low enough when it
reaches the ocean that beach dosures should not occur.
Also, Talbert Marsh was designed with a proportionally large mudflat area that is exposed at low tide and
inundated at high tide. Only a very small channel area is inundated at low tide. Birds feed, loaf and
excrete on the exposed mudflat at low titles. Excretions are subsequently mobilized and contributed to
the small tidal basin at rising tides and transported throughout the marsh. They are then carried out to
the surfzone during a dropping tide and contributed to the ocean. In comparison, Boise has a relatively
small mudflat area In proportion to the total wetland area. Therefore, less concentrations of excretions
are expected at Bolsa Chica.
There is no evidence that shows that bacteria from birds pose a threat to human health. However,
without focused epidemiological studies, the potential for human health effects cannot be entirely
discounted.
Talbert Marsh receives urban runoff directly from a large urbanized portion of Huntington Beach and
Fountain Valley. Urban runoff contains bacteria that are contributed to pump stations upstream of Talbert
Marsh each day. Bacteria breed in conditions present at pump stations, further increasing bacteria levels
contributed to Talbert Marsh. In contrast, the Proposed Project does not include a connection to the
EGGW flood control channel. Therefore, the contamination that is contributed to Talbert Marsh from
outside of the system will not occur in the Proposed Project-
To determine whether the bacteria problems associated with Talbert Marsh were typical. of coastal
wetlands, 1999 beach posting data were obtained from the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Table 2 -1 shows the number of postings and total number of days posted on beaches near southern
California coastal wetlands. This table does not include postings near Talbert Marsh or other wetlands
where chronic postings related to a number of potential sources occur. Thus, in addition to Talbert
Marsh, Table 2.1 does not include beaches near Tijuana Slough, Malibu Lagoon, and San Juan Creek
where sewage problems account for most of the postings. Table 2 -2 shows by county postings for
beaches not adjacent to wetlands. Beaches in harbors were not included in Table 2 -2.
Table 2 -1
1999 Postings for Beaches Near Tidal Wetlands
Beach
- ;Wetlands '.
Number of
Postings --
NuntlberCf.l
- Days:
Carpintena Cd y Beach
Carpinteria Marsh
4
31
Goleta Beach lGoleta
Slou h
5
39
Pt. Mugu State Beach
Mugu Lagoon
1
2
Carlsbad State Beach
A ua Hediona
0
0
Cardiff State Beach
San Elfo
5
23
Del Mar City Beach
San Dieguito
3
12
San Elfo State Beach
San Elfo
0
0
South Carlsbad State Beach
Bati uitos
1
3
Torre Pines C' Beach
Los Penasquftos
1
2
Avere a
2.22
12.33
31az�mcm.,,.,a 2-4
owwi
Table 2 -2
Beach Closures for Beaches nct In Harbors and not Near Wetlands
County
Beach Number of.
Post s-
No !l "f,
Santa Barbara - -- - _.. —_
Arroyo Burro Beach
9
150
Arroyo Quemada Beach
12
276
ButterB Beach
3
24
Carpinteria State Beach
11
161
East Beach at Mission Creek
a
150
East Beach at Sycamore Creek
4
95
El Ca itan State Beach
2
16
Gaviota State Beach
6
70
Guadalupe Dunes
1
8
Hammonds Beach
7
76
Hoe Ranch Beach
8
142
Jalama Beach
12
215
Leadbetter Beach
5
74
Ocean Beach
7
127
Refu io State Beach
9
147
Rincon Beach
5
103
Sands Beach at Coal Oil Point
1
7
Avenge
6.47
108.3
Ventura
County Line State Beach
1
3
Deer Creek Beach
0
0
Emma Wood State Beach
1
5
Faria County Park
3
15
HobNe Beach
4
72
Hobson County Park
0
0
Hollywood Beach
3
15
be ConchBa Beach
0
0
Mandalay County Park
4
9
Mandos Cove Beach
1
2
Marina Park Beach
2
9
McGrath State Beach
8
34
Mussel Shoals Beach
0
0
Oil Piers Beach
0
0
Ormond Beach
11
58
Oxnard Shores Beach
2
5
Oxnard State Beach
2
6
Peninsula Beach
4
21
Point Mugu State Beach
1
2
Pon Hueneme Beach
0
0
Promenade Park
11
51
Rincon Beach
14
64
San Buenaventura State Beach
Seaside Wldemess Park
8
35
0
0
SBverstrand Beach
2
4
Solimar Beach
2
7
South Jetty Beach
3
12
Staircase State Beach
3
9
3192 RmPommb Wnmmn
auxar 2 -5
' County
.Beach
Number of
Number of
Surfers Knoll Beach
4
20
Sycamore Cove Slate Beach
0
0
Surfers Point "Stables'
9
19
Thomhill Broome State Beach
0
0
vera a
3.21
14.91
Los Angeles
Abalone Cove
0
0
Avalon Beach
1
7
Big Rock Beach
6
26
Broad Beach
1
3
Corral Beach
2
5
Dan Blocker Beach
0
0
Dockweiler Beach
8
26
El Segundo Beach
2
5
Hermosa Beach
0
0
Lati o Shore
3
7
Leo Carillo State Beach
1
3
Long Point
0
0
Malibu Pier
0
0
Malibu Point
0
0
Manhattan Beach
1
2
Mulfiple beaches:
1
5
Nicholas Canyon Beach
0
0
No name beach
1
1
Palos Verdes Beach
1
3
Paradise Cove
1
3
Point Dume County Beach
0
0
Portuguese Bend
1
2
Redondo Beach
5
11
Royal Palms Beach - Whiles Point
0
0
anta Monica Beach 100 Yards of Ashland Ave. S.D.
10
33
S.M. pw south 100 yards
7
22
100 Yards of Montana Ave. S.D.
1
3
100 Yards of Wilshire Bl. S.D.
3
18
100 yards of Pico Bl. S.D.
5
12
To an a Beach
0
0
Torrance Beach
0
0
Venice Beach
4
19
Will Rogers State Beach
11
66
Zuma Beach
2
6
Average
2.29
8.47
Orange
AI'ao Beach/ South Laguna beach
9
45
Bolsa Chica State Beach Park
4
13
Capistrano Bay District
4
25
Capistrano Coun Beach
0
0
Corona Del Mar State Beach
0
0
Crystal Cove Slate Beach Park
0
0
Emerald Bay
0
0
Laguna Beach
20
86
2-6
owami
L County Beach Numberof
Poabrtgs
Lit:le C fora - Cameo Shores 0
I Number of
Lays
0
Monarch Beach
3
13
Newport Beach
0
0
Poche County Beach
5
22
Riveda Beach
0
0
Salt Creek Beach Park
a
23
San Clemente CAY Beach
5
17
San Clemente State Beach
0
0
Seal Beach / Surfside
4
37
Sunset Beach
0
0
Victoria Beach
p
0
very a
3.16
13.74
San Diego
Camp Del Mar UCMC Camp Pendleton
1
6
Children's Pool Beach
0
0
Coronado Munici al beach
0
0
Encinitas City beaches
0
0
Fletcher Cove Beach Parks
0
0
Imperial Beach (city beach
7
36
La Jolla UOmmunny Beach
La Jolla Shores Beach
4
11
8
30
Leucadia State Beach
0
0
Mission Beach Community Beach
M.Milint State Beach
0
0
3
12
North Pacmc Beach
0
0
Ocean Beach Park
14
77
Oceansitle C Beach
7
43
Pacific Beach commun' beach
San Onofre Slate Beach
1
4
0
0
Seascape Beach Park
1
5
Shell Beach
1
3
Silver Strand State Beach
0
0
South Casa Beach
0
0
Sunset Cliffs ark
i
3
Tide Beach Park
0
0
Torre Pines State Beach
3.
23
Tourmaline Surf Park
8
128
is d Sands Beach
7
Wlndansea Beach
1
Wi eout Beach
0
very a
2.48
A
Overall Averse
3.82
Jt @flwpnsse bfamyM
wAau+ 2 -7
These tables show that many beaches had some postings during a year. Santa Barbara County, where
runoff from the many coastal creeks accounts for many beach postings, had the highest average number
of postings and average number of days posted in 1999. A comparison of Table 2 -1 with Table 2 -2
shows that beaches near tidal wetlands did not have chronic problems with beach postings.
The greatest amount of postings near wetlands were on beaches near Carpinteria Marsh and Goleta
Slough in Santa Barbara County. The higher number of postings near these wetlands, compared to
wetlands in the southern counties, is consistent with the overall higher number of postings and greater
number of days posted in Santa Barbara County. The four postings at Carpinteria City Beach adjacent to
Carpinteria Marsh were either associated with rainfall events or attributed to urban runoff. Similarly, the
Goleta Beach postings were either associated with rain or urban runoff.
San Elgo Lagoon in San Diego County is frequently closed to the ocean. When the mouth is closed,
pollutants build up inside the lagoon. Most of the 1999 beach postings at Cardiff State Beach occurred
when the sandbar at the mouth of the lagoon was breached and accumulated pollutants were released to
the ocean. Some beaches adjacent to wetlands, such as Carlsbad State Beach, adjacent to Ague
Hediona had no postings in 1999.
These data show that beaches near tidal wetlands do not have chronic beach postings. Postings on
beaches near tidal wetlands are similar or lower than beaches that are not near tidal wetlands. Overall,
beaches near tidal wetlands had an average of about 2 postings for 12 days in 1999 while beaches not
near wetlands had an average of about 3 postings for 32 days.
Finally, bacteria data within wetlands were examined to determine if bacteria generated by organisms
within the wetlands caused bacterial standards to be exceeded within the wetlands. Table 2 -3 shows
monthly bacteda data collected by the County of Orange Environmental Health Division in Boise Bay and
the EGGW Channel between August 1997 and May 2000. These data show that, except in rain events
when large amounts of pollutants are introduced to Boise Bay from the EGGW Channel, the bacteria
standard for a single sample was exceeded on only one occasion in Inner Boise Bay near the pedestrian
bridge when the fecal coliforn standard was exceeded. In Huntington Harbour at Warner Ave. where
flows from Boise Bay exit the wetlands, there also was only one dry weather exceeciance of bacteria
standards, again for fecal colifoun. Thus, in spite of the large number of birds that use Boise Bay,
bacteria concentrations in the water are usually low. These data suggest that the Talbert Marsh situation
may be unusual and that wetlands would not necessarily be expected to generate high enough levels of
bacteria to result in beach postings. Data on bacteria levels measured by the County of Orange
Environmental Health Division at Northstar Beach at the lower end of Upper Newport Bay were also
examined. Upper Newport Bay receives runoff from storm drains and San Diego Creek and also contains
marinas which may contribute bacteria. However, weekly bacteria measurements between January 1999
and November 2000 indicated only one dry weather exceedance of single sample bacteria standards at
Northstar Beach. Large numbers of birds use Upper Newport Bay. Again the data suggest that
exceedance of bacteria standards in tidal wetlands is not typical.
In summary, existing information does not support a conclusion that the Proposed Project will cause or
significantly contribute to high bacteria counts that necessitate additional beach closures.
2 -3
oamwoi
61ata of California • The Raaourua AOenry _._ _ _ Gray Davis, Governor
DEPARTMENT GP PARKS AND RECREATION • P.G. Baa 942D6. Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Raaty Anlae, Dbecror
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1405 1
Sacramento, California 95814 S-1
October 13, 2000
California State Lands Commission
Attention: Dwight E. Sanders
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South
Sacramento, California 95825
Re: Balsa Chica Lowland Restoration Draft EIR/EIS
State Clearinghouse # 2000071068
Dear Mr. Sanders
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR/EIS for the Balsa
Chica Lowlands Restoration Project. The California Department of Parks and
Recreation is a member of the Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project and
actively participates in the management of twelve significant wetlands in this region.
The Department's mission guides us to preserve the state's extraordinary biological
diversity and create opportunities for high quality outdoor reaeation. We appreciate the
efforts of the Balsa Chica Steering Committee to provide for the restoration of the Balsa
Chica Lowlands and we are committed to work closely with the Steering Committee to
help accomplish this goal.
The California Department of Parks and Recreation is charged as a trustee
agency to participate in the environmental review process as outlined in the California
Environmental Quality AcL Our comments on the proposed project and aftematives for
the restoration of the Balsa Chica Lowlands are based on our legal mandate to protect
the natural and recreational resources found within the parkland and beaches of the
State Park system. It is my goal to ensure the visitors to Balsa Chica State Beach
continue to enjoy the waters of the Pacific Ocean without threats to their health or
limitations to their recreational opportunities.
Balsa Chica State Beach has been a part of the California State Park System
nearly 40 years. This public beach includes seven miles of continuous sandy shoreline
along the waters of the Pacific Ocean. Located within a one -hour drive of over 20
million citizens of California, these beaches provide over 2 million visitors annually the
opportunity surf, swim, wade and fish. These activities and others are dependent upon
the quality of water found offshore.
3 -49
oumgi
r_ i
Dwight Sanders Draft EIR/EIS Balsa Chica Wetlands Restoration
October 13, 2000
Page 2
Balsa Chica State Beach is one of the most heavily used units of the State Park
System. Department visitation projections indicated the potential for a thirty percent
increase in use at Balsa Chica State Beach due to the implementation of the
Department's Fee Reduction program on January 1, 2001. My staff has already
documented increased use of Balsa Chica State Beach due to visitors seeking refuge
from the contaminated waters off of Huntington State Beach. To help meet this
increase in demand, the Department has implemented a renovation program which will
provide improved facilities throughout the park
The scope of Balsa Chios Lowland Restoration is unprecedented and will have
long -tern impacts to the visitors of Balsa Chip -State Beach, We believe the preferred
proposal and alternatives which include a tidal inlet through Balsa Chip State Beach
does not meet the identified objective of the Steering Committee to protect the interests
of contiguous property owners. Project impacts to water quality, public health, coastal
erosion and recreational opportunities at Balsa Chip State Beach with proposed
mitigation measures do not protect the interests of the Cal'domia Department of Parks
and Recreation. We believe the following comments will assist you in designing a
restoration program which helps meet this stated objective.
Poor water quality off the beaches of Orange County is a public health issue
receiving the focused attention of coastal resource managers, elected officials, non-
profit organization and many other stakeholders. The public has suffered hundreds of
days of beach postings and closures due to water quality standards exceeding levels
set by AB 411. Unprecedented coalitions and partnerships have been formed to study
and address the poor water quality found offshore the beaches of California. Several
miles downcoast of the Balsa Chip State Beach at Huntington State Beach, the
California Department of Parks and Recreation, City of Huntington Beach, County of
Orange, Orange County Sanitation District, University of California at Irvine and other -
expert consultants have undertaken and participated in scientific analyses of ocean
water pollution issues as they relate to the Talbert wetlands, Santa Ana River and other
conduits of pollution in the area. As study results have been reviewed and pollution
diversion programs have been implemented, poor water quality still impacts Huntington
State Beach.
Additional studies of these problems are currently receiving final review and are likely to
be available to the public in November, 2000. We believe this new information should
be considered by the Bolsa Chip Steering Committee and the restoration alternatives
should be reevaluated based on these findings prior to certification of the Balsa Chip
Lowlands Restoration EIRIEIS. Many similarities exist between the interface with the
ocean/upland areas found at Huntington State Beach and restoration alternatives
identified in the Draft EIR/EIS. We believe these studies may provide
siex ARm.amrb,.�,..n 3 -50
Dwight Sanders — Draft EIR/EIS Balsa Chico Wetlands Restoration
October 13, 2000
Page 3
information regarding.bacteria sources and transport from the Talbert Welland to
offshore areas and therefore provide the Steering Committee with relevant information
which should be analyzed in the EIR/EIS.
Bacteria
The preferred alternative appears to have eliminated all sources of urban runoff from
entering the Balsa Chica Lowlands. Those sources include the Wintersburg channel,
Springdale pump station and the Seapoint culvert While these known sources of
bacteria will not reach Balsa Chip State Beach via the proposed tidal inlet, the
EIR/EIS Identifies the potential for bacteria created within the wetlands system from
wildlife excrement and other natural processes exiting the tidal inlet. We believe the
Steering Committee should consider these potential sources of bacteria and their
potential impacts to the waters off of Balsa Chip State Beach prior to certification of the
EIR/EIS.
The EIRIEIS does not provide information relating to the number of days and the
amount or shoreline impacted by increased bacteria levels under the alternatives
considered by the Steering Committee. This information is necessary for our
Department to fully understand the impacts to recreation, loss revenues and changes to
the public's use of Balsa Chip State Beach.
The Balsa Chip EIR/EIS predicts bacteria levels at Balsa Chica State Beach
may exceed standards established in AB 411 during high and/or low flows in several of
the alternatives. These predicted events impact public health and recreational
opportunities at Balsa Chita State Beach and should be either avoided or fully
mitigated. Alternative 5-appears to be the only restoration alternative identified in the
EIR/EIS which will not increase bacteria levels at Balsa Chita State Beach.
N
Years of oil extraction and production within the Balsa Chita Lowland areas has
polluted these areas with a wide range of contaminants. An Ecological Risk
Assessment (ERA) and Cleanup Plan for these areas has yet to be completed to _
identify the full extent of contamination, contamination transport and the public health
impacts associated with these contaminants. We believe the ERA and Cleanup Plan
should be completed prior to certification of the Draft EIR/EIS since identification of
concentration levels and locations of these contaminants is a key component to the
proposed wetland restoration. The ability to successfully remove and/or isolate the IM
contaminants within the Balsa Chica Lowlands, as proposed, will directly influence such
issues as wetland design, public health, water quality, wetland dredging activities and
coastal erosion mitigation as well as the restored wetland health.
Dwight Sanders— Draft EIR/EIS Boise Chita Wetlands Restoration
October 13, 2000
Page 4
Decreasing beach width due to coastal erosion is a serious problem at Solsa
Chica State Beach. Historically, the construction of the Anaheim Bay jetties and other
coastal and upland projects has removed or trapped sand within the Huntington Beach
Littoral Cell causing narrowing of the beach width in many locations at Boise Chica
State Beach. The Huntington Cliffs area is one area where sand loss is causing the
beach to narrow threatening existing recreational opportunities, visitor serving facilities
and Pacific Coast Highway.
A tidal inlet at Bolsa Chita State Beach will accelerate coastal erosion at the
Huntington Cliffs, if not fully mitigated. The Draft EIR/EIS identifies a Beach
Maintenance Program as a mitigation measure to offset impacts due to sand loss due to
the proposed construction of a tidal inlet. This mitigation measure would include the
dredging of sand which would become trapped within the tidal inlet and thus preventing
its movement to other areas of Bolsa Chica State Beach including the Huntington Cliffs.
The Draft EIR/EIS proposes to dredge the tidal inlet periodically (every two year) and
place the trapped sand onto the beach to replenish those areas which would normally
receive these sediments.
Many variables and assumptions are considered in the Draft EIR/EIS when
determining the amount of sand which would be trapped in the tidal inlet These
variables and assumptions, if correct, are also relied upon to determine the amount of
dredging which would be required to maintain the beach width within the littoral cell.
We believe the Beach Maintenance Program should include flexible provisions including
the identification of beach retreat to ensure the protection of these beach areas from
sand erosionAoss if the Draft EIR/EIS calculation's are incorecL Will public funds be
required to offset identified Beach Maintenance Program funding should an increase
amount of dredging be required? Will funding be available to mitigate the additional
impacts to recreation due to this need for increased dredging activities?
The EIR/EIS proposes to use a significant portion of Bolas Chica State Beach for
construction staging activities. In order to avoid or minimize the impacts to the public's
{n use of Bolsa Chica State Beach, we believe this activity is more appropriate on the
inland side of Pacific Coast Highway where current land use(oil production) is more
conducive to this activity.
Recreation
Quality coastal recreational opportunities are found the entire length of Bolsa
Chica State Beach. Surfing, swimming, wading, camping, picnicking and fishing are just
a few of the activities which provide the public an opportunity to escape the rigors of
31Q � min 3 -52
Dwight Sanders — Draft EIR/EIS Balsa Chip Wetlands Restoration
October 13, 2000
Page 5
urban life. As populations levels increase and the pap of our lifestyles quicken, these
recreational opportunities became more important to the citizens of California. Limited
access to the coastline due to private development of other areas increases the
demand and importance of public beaches. The construction of a tidal inlet at Balsa
Chica State Beach and the take of more than five acres of public land for the restoration
of the Balsa Chip Welland will significantly impact the public ability to use and enjoy
this area.
These adverse impacts are undesirable and should be mitigated when
considering which restoration alternative to pursue. Requiring the public to move to
other beach locations will decrease the quality of recreation found.at Balsa Chica State
Beach by forcing beach user to recreate in areas already congested by beach users
who are unable to use Huntington State Beach and other beaches where poor water
quality offshore is found. Furthermore, some beach user may choose not to recreate at
Balsa Chip State Beach due to crowded conditions and decreased water quality from
increases in turbidity and bacteria levels.
The Draft EIR/EIS fails to address the cumulative impacts to coastal recreation in
light of the repot beach postings and closures found at other locations. Prior to
certification EIR/EIS, the Steering Committee should consider the long -term demands
for coastal recreation and how the project impacts combined with poor water quality at
other public beaches will effect the public's ability to recreate in this region.
A tidal inlet at Balsa Chip State Beach will create hazards to those who visit
Balsa Chip State Beach. Tidal flows through the jetty structure will create currents
which will increase the potential for drownings in the area. This potential risk in
drowning cannot be mitigated with warning signs and/or increased lifeguard personnel.
As documented at the Talbert Wetland inlet and elsewhere, the public is attracted to
tidal inlet areas because of a perceived sense of safety do to their proximity to the
shore. Rock jetties are visual obstructions to lifeguards and therefore decrease their
ability to observe those entering the water. Rock jetties will also attract visitors who
desire to climb, fish or seek an observation location. Due the jetties hard, uneven
surfaces, visitors are likely to fall and became injured in these areas.
The construction of a tidal inlet through Balsa Chip State Beach will have
adverse impacts to the maintenance operation at Balsa Chico State Beach. Debris and
trash from the wetland area will flow out the tidal inlet and wash upon the beach. State
Park maintenance personnel will then be required to remove this material to keep the
beach in a safe and sanitary condition. Funding should be identified to help offset these
demands on State Park's public safety and maintenance operations.
a,az A�w�ae c�u 3-53
amsw+
0'
10
Dwight Sanders - Draft EIRMIS Balsa Chica Wetlands Restoration
October 13, 2000
Page 6
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR/EIS for the restoration
of the Balsa Chica Lowlands. Restoration of the Balsa Chita Lowland will benefit the
visitors to Balsa Chios State Beach with the appropriate wetland design and mitigation
measures. We are committed to working with the Balsa Chica Steering Committee to
accomplish the restoration of this important natural resource.
a.ax A-w .c�m.,n 3-54
w®o+
S -1: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, FROM RUSTY AREIAS, DIRECTOR, DATED
10113100
Response to Comment 1: The results of the Talbert Marsh study have been evaluated and are reflected
in the Final EIR/EIS. Please see Topical Response 3 for a discussion of water quality and potential
beach Postings.
Response to Comment 2: Please see Topical Response 3. The Project, by not incorporating known
sources of bacteria and contaminants, i.e., the EGGW Flood Control Channel, avoids the public health
and recreational impacts of concem to the Department.
Response to Comment 3: Please see Topical Response 1.
Response to Comment 4: The document, on pages 4-7 through 4-15, discusses the analyses used to
examine coastal processes now occurring and those anticipated to occur post - construction of the Project
(incorporating engineering designs to minimize such Project - related changes). At lines 35 and 36 on
page 4-15, the document concludes, '...based on the significance criteria defined in Section 4.2.1, the
project- induced impact on beach loss would be insignificant for both Phases I and II (Class III)'
The Project's monitoring and maintenance program, created as a contingency to the scientifically based
analyses, includes monitoring of beach width and stipulates corrective action if necessary. Accelerated
beach erosion from the Project is not expected to be significant but will be fully mitigated through regular
beach renourishment at the narrowed beach as indicated by monitoring activities. The adaptive beach
maintenance program is very flexible, comprehensive and directly addresses and mitigates the suggested
problem of beach narrowing. The program will rely on beach profiling to measure changes (reductions) in
beach width that would trigger the need to dredge. Additional funding will not be needed to implement the
program. Impacts to recreation from maintenance dredging may include minor restrictions to beach use
during placement of sand on the beach. These impacts exist over a very short stretch of the far south
end of the beach and over a very short period of time, and will not exist after maintenance activities are
complete. These impacts are therefore less than significant.
Response to Comment 8: Construction staging is necessary at Boise Chica State Beach for inlet and
jetty construction. Materials and equipment are proposed to be staged at the she to prevent the need for
transport across Pacific Coast Highway and the creation of a potentially unsafe traffic conditions. Similar
construction occurred at Batiquilos Lagoon in Carlsbad at which construction staging at the beach was
necessary. The impacts of staging were short-lived and did not remain after construction. A similar
experience is anticipated at the Project and construction is to occur in the recreation off - season to further
minimize impacts to recreation activities.
Response to Comment 6: The Draft EIR/EIS indicates that the greatest impact of the Proposed Project
to the space available to beach patrons occurs during the construction of the required PCH bridge and
tidal inlet. The analysis, see lines 41 -54 on page 4 -137 and lines 1 -5 on the following page, uses peak
use information and indicates the loss of nearly 2,000 feet of beach and 8 square feet of area (38 square
feet per patron versus 30 square feet) to each beach user during such construction. Following
construction, the inlet would take approximately 400 linear feel of beach out of use. Using the above
analysis, this would result in approximately 36 square feet of beach area for each patron versus
38 square feet under existing peak conditions. To assume that the loss of this amount of personal area
would cause patrons to avoid the beach or go to other area beaches is conjecture.
The recreational and public access features of the Proposed Project will also add to the use and
enjoyment of the area. The symbiotic relationship of the Project and Bolsa Chita State Beach could be
emphasized further by inking, via a pedestrian bridge over PCH for example, the two recreational areas
and result in a greater visitor use and public enjoyment of the area than presently exists. The two uses,
wetland restoration and beach recreation, can be complementary rather than mutually exclusive and
further Project and Park planning efforts should incorporate this principle. The Department's concems
with water quality, both from the instant and cumulative, are addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS
(Section 4.8.3, page 4 -143) and in Topical Response 3.
a,axnan�.mmr�.�.� 3 -55
o1.vam
Response to Comment 7: The DEIR/EIS at lines 17.19 on page 4 -139, concludes, 'By themselves, the
jetties and inlet do not pose a safety hazard. However, persons who stray dose to these areas may
place themselves in situations that may result in injury if they am thrown against the jetties, are washed
off or fall off the jetties, or are swept into the inlet.' These potential impacts are deemed to be Class Il,
see lines 46 and 47 on page 4 -145.
In addition to providing signage, lifeguard stations placed adjacent to the jetties are provided as
mitigation. While these may not decrease the potential risk of an accident completely, they do provide a
level of public protection greater than without such measures. Public awareness/education is still the
greatest means to avoiding accidents. Accidents not only occur due to the public climbing on rock jetties,
but also because the uninformed public may enter existing surf areas during unsafe tidal conditions.
These instances can occur regardless of whetherjetties exist in the immediate area. Exact placement of
the lifeguard stations will be the decision of the Department of Parks and Recreation. Consideration
should be given to placement of a station to either side of the jetties for better observation. Fencing or a
barrier to keep the public from walking out onto the jetties also may be considered.
Because the Proposed Project does not receive flows from the EGGW Channel, it would not be expected
to increase significantly the amount of trash on the beach and therefore not increase the workload of
existing Park maintenance staff. However, if another tidal inlet aflemative such as Alternative 6 were
selected, the County would be expected to implement additional trash reduction measures. In the case of
Alternative 6, flood flows would only be routed through the wetlands and the tidal inlet for 10 year or
greater storms when trash from many sources accumulates on local beaches. In the unlikely event that
such an aflemative is selected by the Steering Committee, the funding needs of the California
Department of Parks and Recreation could be identified and obtained through the State budget process.
3192 R� m ca,.
.1 3-56
OCT -23 -00 HON 1255 PH CA STATE LAITS COI9I -DEPH FAX M0. 9165741885 P,02
!!/.Rpe4VUW. -M 6sCVN[8s�fi6 CY W�UN4 GV.nv
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION -
NRLFMr.M6]eD
vasaamRO�nnaamo
INtMn Y�Ym
October 13, 2000 S-2
Dwight Sanders
Califmpia Sum, Lands Commission
1001gowc Averma
Suite 100 -South
Sacramento, CA 95825
Subject Draft EM/ElSforthe Bolsa Chi=Lowlan&RmlorAion Project.
,WTj��1',F , -
Thn Coastal Corr®issio staff submits the fallowing rnmmcnta an the Draft Favironmmtal
Impact Report/Environmeaml Impact Statement (DEWS; Tidy 2000) for the Saks China
Lowlands Restoration Project (Ormtge County), prepared for the California Stara Lands i
Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. ArmY Corps of Engineers.. Our
abicctivc in reviewing the DETR/S was to ideirofy Coastal Act issues that needed additional
analysis so that when the final project proposal is submitted to the Commission for iaview and
wdoaffi= issudicjantiufomtatiminiberecmdfortbeC ilsmonto.evalmretbe Pmjec(for
codomumce with the Coastal Act Theiefine. this letter does not include a Commission.sraff
position on the proposes pmjct C Concept Plan'without Flood Contmi Diversion Shucnae"
BackMvund. On October 6,1996, the Commission concurred with a federal consistency
dct=miw&n (CD- 115 -96) submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the
`Bolas Chios Lowland Acquisition and Conceptual Wetland Restoration Plan," finding tbat the
Conceptual Plan was consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act That plan called for the
California State Tardi Commission (Stec) to purchase 880 &eras of wetland habitat fm the
USFWS to restore 385 amts to full tidal wetlands and 720 area to managed tidal wetlands, and
for the retention of 275 saes of the lowlands as an active oil production field Acquisition and
wetland aeamration would be funded primarily by a $66.75 million contribution from the Pam of
Los Angeles and Long Beach. On that same date, the Commission also certified port master plan
amendroams BOLA 15 and POLB 8) the provided each port with 227 mitigation credits for
furore landfill construction in tbeirjmisdictions in exchange for their financial contribution to the
Bolsa China acquisition and restoration program. Thu SLC completed the Bol -Chita
acquisition on February 14;1997: 'Later in 1997 the Commission certified port master plan
amesdmeats (POLA 17 and POLB 10) and concurred with a USFWS mgative,detetmimtian
(ND -41 -97) which provided for an additional 40 erns of mitigatian otediu to eachpott after
each coambuted an addinced 36 million to the acquisition and setoradon p11011 The conceptual
. plan cooehmed with by the' fomadiiim included prelim miry ramr. Monobjeetivcsregar.ding
fish and wildlife habitat,.improved tidal cueulauun. public%ccest and rememo% oilfield
ams�a600� cm.�,..a 3-57
OCT -23-00 Hart 1258 PN CA STATE LA01S COM -DEPN FAX NO. 8185741885 P.03
7.1
N
Dwight Senders
Page 2
operations, and long -term maintenance, operation, and monitoring. The plan also included the
coa muction of an ocean inlet a the souther end of the lowlands, and a commitment to examine
flood ennui ahematives at the site, particularly relating to the location and operation of the Eat
Gordan Grovo-Wmtenburg Flood Control Cba=cL
Federal Consistency Review /Coastal Development Permit The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Scvice aclmwledged in CD- 115 -96 thin the conceptual msmrahon plan was the fins step in a
pbaud federal cpnsis¢ncy review pnocas. Upon selection of a final restoration pion by the
Faded -State Balsa Chia Wetlands Steering Commincc, the USFWS would submit to the
Commission a second, more detailed consistency determination for werland restoration and
construction activities at Balsa China The DEMS reiterates then commitment Subsequent m
consonance with CD- 115.96, in meetings between Commission staff and the Steering i
Committee, and at a Commission briefing on Bola Chico in October 1999, the subject of a
cur ialdevalopmanrpenmtforil 'erestoretionplmtwasdwmssed. Whileauhmdtb"aCoastal
development permit by the Stme Ianss r m «..,n far tataration ectivitia (collmtrten[ witFt
The USF WS consistency determination) was not anticipated in CD- 115 -96, the Commission and
is staffbave repotted to the Federal -State Bola Chita Wetlands Sneer us Committee thrt them
may be advantages to proccasing both items, given the fact that the restoration pro= will be
sponsored by both state and federal agencies and will occur on state-owned lands. The Final
H R/S should acknowledge that a coastal development permit may be required for the rerration
work st Balsa Chia. - _
The Commission staff believes that the FELR/S should include additional informati on (as noted
below) on oceanography /coastal processes and water quality issuca. .
Oceanography /Coastal Processes.
- A. Results of modeling changes to the shoreline and coastal Processes. This section of the
DED IS ha taken a very sensble approach m the modeling efforts. 73e applicant s m be
commended for including a sensitivity analysis in the overall examim irm of coastal processes
and for including model calibration from the recent Batiquitos Lagoon project However, throe
will continue to be une mat„ dies in the iapm arm (for example The disagreement on transport
direction al Node IA$ between. the Moffatt - Nichol 1994 study and the results of the Hybrid
Sediment Budge). We recagdzc that it is not be pourable or feasible to eliminate all
uncertainties in the input data and the modeling. However, it is often useful to develop
monitoring programs that can allow the project to adept m real world conditions. The Frnel
EIR/S and the proposed project should include a very strong shoreline monitoring Program with
feedback for dredging and nourishment options. The modeling bas done avay goodjob of
covering The anticipated range of shoreline changes, but the project itself bas to develop
monitoring and response programs that address actual conditions. An eff'emlvc monitoring
program should, a a minimum, look at the shoreline. bath, nemshore and tidal burs
B. Offshore Borrow Sites. Several of the alterative; and Phan B of the proposed project.
anticipate. getting bath quality material fiom some offshore borrow sites The impacts from this
lilt activity should be considered in the Final EM/S. Since then is already use of offshore bmmw
I
ai�az an mc�mms 3 -58
OCT -23 -00 MON 1256 PH CA STATE LANDS COMM -DEPN FAX No. 9166741886 p,04
Dwight Sanders
Page 3
areas for nourishment at SurfsidetSunset, the impacts from the use of offshore borrow areas M
should be considered both for this Project and for the cumulative effects front similar activities l
throughout the region.
C. Nourishment at Stmfside/Snrnec The BoLsa Ctire arcs has been nourished indirectly for
reany years from the Smfade/Sunset Project. The background conditions assiane that this
project will continue. While that is a reasonable condition, as far as we know, them is m
rammitment from the U.S. Army Corps of Engiraers to mrtinue m nourish Surfside /Sunset It
needs m be presented every few yea: firs re..autbotitatiou and m_apprepriatioa
Also there has
been some discossim about developing one or mom Projects; that would inemase
edi t
retention at Surfaide/Suunec Them should be a brief =rsciest oin the Fiml EIR �
/5
of the long-
term viability of any restoration project,and tidal inlet at Balsa Chica if them is no mom indirect
nourishment from the Surfade Stmset area. Such an analysis should not be at the detail as the
analysis ofvariece shereativer, but it should determine whether o,mt any 0, the altemapveszre
dependent upon the continued indirect nomi%ina mt from Surfside/Smtset project and whit would
happen if thii nourishment dcasases or stops.
D. Use of up to 40%15nes for nourishment The pMw malyaes both 30% and 40°/, fines fm
use "Om and beach nouruhmea The Final EIR/S and the proposed project shem}7d also
wnsider sediment allocations if only 20Y. and 10% fines me allowed fm
Coastal Commission staff's not aware of now"bmem pmjecn that have allowed 40% fine to be
used laznmy cases, the fine content has been limited to ckber 10^ /a er at a Iced that would he
witbin l0% of the receiver beach Such Denim would prohibit the use of 40% tines and require
the fine content of the proposed reerisho untm>pgial be reduned to within 10 to 2(r6 merdettrm.
Such Iimin have not, historically,. included the removal of fine material by wave aeries, as
proposed for this project Please provide iU the Reel EIM options for both sediment drspnsn!
and seedshment of the leach, aearshnre, and ebb tidal bar ifthe nnurixhment mamrisl can have
ire mom than 10% sod 20 %firee.
B. Use of (lulvcrn. Please provide in the Final EWS the material that was Used to malyae
the me of oulvcm The jettied inlet will have a pemanem impact re this section of the
shemtirn Commission staff must examine all the background material that was used to reach
the conclusion that culverts wffinot be either feasible or cm.,ffccdya
F. Alternatives to Proposed Ravennent The proposed skematlw would include ncvemtertt
adjacent to thajetties, both up and dowy aanst. It is not dear from the DEIR/S whedrer all sire
alternatives would require mwtmenty orjost the proposed alto ®five. Alta them should he m
analysis in the Final P of tba need for raven ..Is, the need for the extent of protection that is
pmpased, the end effects, and m =arnination of revetment alternatives.
water Quality.
V)
A. Envitomnenn! Rink Assessmrnt (ER.q) and Cl ennuo PUna. Ti-
as FElR/S should 1
additional uSormanon m clanfy w: ht are inwlved in review and over9iP Y
d der ens. The DEIFE/S identifies the ght of the ERA
uP Pl remcdiation objativn bun it is impottam to CO
3-59
OCT -23 -00 MON 1258 PM CA STATE LANDS COMM -DEPM FAX NO. 9165741885 P.05
Dwight Sanders
Page 4
CO clearly identify the agencies with the lad autboriy for these teaks which are crucial to the
success of the restoration project. Specifying the lead agencies will help identify eery poticatW
limitations to their respective mguWo y authority (e.g., the petroleum exclusion under Superfin d
which can affect both EPA and California DTSC). If an MOU desHng withtbe reraediaton
issues exists, that documara or a summary stmemrnt should be included in the FE WS (at section
112, page 2 -41
B. Contr mmeat Mijixad The potential for slow migration of contaminants from my
materials that will remain in the lowlands into restoed tidal areas should be addresses in the
FEWS. As the restored wetlands will be a low - velocity mvironmmt for water flow, seepage
and slow migration may introduce residual contaminants into water bodies This is an issue that
will likely be addressed in the ERA and cleanup plans, particularly if contamitiated materials will
be capped in plain, and some refcrmce to this imue ahould be included in the FEIR/S
C Urban Runoff The F'EUVS should include a discussion of the potential adverse effects of
urban nmoff from surmuoding communities that would discharge into the restored wetlands, and
O potential strategies for avoiding and/or mitigating Thom effete The FEIPJS should iunlude
information, and technical data ifpossible, on pollumnt loads and non -point source nmoff
contnbutoas to the Bolin Chica. Lowlands project she
Other Coastal AR Issues The Commission staffbelieves there is adequate informatim in the
DEM/S m evaluate the proposed project ("Concept Plan without Flood Contain Diversion
Structure) for eonfortnanee with the public access and recreation, environmentally sensitive
habitat, and marine resources and habitat policies of the Coastal Act. The potential adverse
effects on public recreation and lateral back access from the proposed ocean inlet (and the inlet
alternatives), and potential mitigation strategies for unavoidable remeatim and access impacts,
are twv of the mom aignifacam Coastal Act issues that the Commissim will address during its
review of the restoration plan to be submitted alter completion of the CEQA/NE PA process by
the Federal/Srate Bole Chica Welends Steering Committee.
In conclusion, the Commission staff looks forward to working with the California State Lands
Commissim and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as wall as with the other Federal -State
Steering Committee agmcia, in their formulation of a final restoration project and in reviewing
the associated federal consistency determination and/or coastal developmentpetmit far the Bolsa
Chica Lowlands Restoration Project Plesse cornett Larry Simon in the C- mmi',im's Statewide
Plaaninp edcrai Consistency Unit at (415) 904-Mg should you have any questions regarding
this matter.
Sincerely, //'r�nQ—
✓"
Deborah Lee
Deputy Director
Jta3 Resparsea b COmmn6
Qualm 3 -60
COT -2S -00 NON 1257 PH CA STATE LAOS CCNN -DEPN FAX N0, 9165741605 P.06
Dwight Sand=
Pagc 5
u: Taws H=y, CCC-LB
J.kFemha, VSM
3 -61
S -2: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, FROM DEBORAH LEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DATED
10/13100
Response to Comment 1: The comment acknowledges that the submittal of a revised C0.115 -96 by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the process by which the Cal'domia Coastal Commission (CCC) will
consider the proposed restoration of the State owned Bolsa Chica Lowlands. It is the Steering
Committee's intent to adhere to the consistency process outlined in the Draft EIR/EIS and confirmed in
this comment. The Steering Committee retains the ability to reinforce, in conjunction with the CCC, such
process and to date has not elected to pursue other aftematives. The information in the Draft EIR/EIS
reflects the existing situation.
Response to Comment 2: The Project's monitoring and maintenance program created as a contingency
to the scientifically based analyses, includes monitoring of beach width, stipulates corrective action if
necessary and is described in Section 2.8.4 on page 2-69 of the Draft EIR/EIS.
Response to Comment 3: As indicated in Table 4.2 -4, page 4 -14, additional material from offshore
borrow sites would not be necessary in Phase I of the Proposed Project In Phase 11, 10-20 years in the
future, or if the 11 Subaftemative were feasible, approximately 410,400 cy would be required from
offshore. Since the withdrawal of this amount is a one -time occurrence, to prefill the ebb bar, an adverse
cumulative impact on other uses of such offshore borrow sites is not anticipated. - Please also see
page 4-18.
If needed, dredging could possibly occur over a footprint that could reach 2.25 million square feet
(51 acres), assuming a conservatively shallow dredge cut 5 feet to result in the largest footprint. Deeper
dredge cuts would result in smaller surface areas of dredging. The location would likely be relatively
close to the Solsa Chica site to minimize costs to transport the material using a dredge, and occur outside
of the depth of closure. For comparison, dredging occurred in 1996 offshore of Surfside Colony/Sunset
Beach for beach replenishment as Stage 10 of the Federal Replenishment Project which occurs
approximately every 5 years. Dredging occurred over an area of 11.75 million square feet (270 acres).
The project was identified as not causing significant environmental effects as described in the EIR/EIS.
Possible dredging for the Bolsa Chica project would result in a relatively small area of disturbance
(19 percent) compared to this nearby project. Cumulative impacts would be incremental and likely not
significant
Response to Comment 4: After the pre -filled ebb bar reaches its equilibrium state, the flood shoal will
be dredged periodically to put the sediment back to the littoral system. Therefore, the Project should not
have a significant effect on beach erosion down coast of the proposed tidal inlet. The San Gabriel River
to Newport Bay erosion control project (Surfside/Sunset) is an authorized project with an indefinite life,
and will remain authorized unless specifically acted upon by congress. However, future beach
nourishment stages will be dependent on funding contained in future federal energy and water
appropriations and from the State of California and local govemments. If the Surfside/Sunset Beach
nourishment program is terminated, sediment deficiency will likely to occur for the entire coastal segment
from Surfside /Sunset to West Newport Beach. The available sediment to be transported downcoast will
be reduced. The regional beach erosion scenario can occur. However, this does not result from the
existence of the tidal inlet since the maintenance dredging puts the trapped sediment within the flood
shoal and inlet entrance back to the system. Therefore, the impacts caused by the proposed tidal inlet
will be insignificant as long as the maintenance dredging program for the flood shoal continues.
Please also see the first paragraph in Response to Letters/Comment 4 of the State Department of Parks
and Recreation. The Pmject's effect on beach erosion, insignificant, would remain the same whether the
referenced beach nourishment decreases or stops.
Response to Comment 5: The U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers (USACE) performed a similar dredging
and nearshore discharge project in 1992 at the Lower Santa Ana River in which 1.5 million cubic yards of
material with relatively high fines content If to 20 %) was placed at depth of 20 feet in Newport Beach.
The Project proposes only use of material with 40% fines for placement in the nearshore zone (near
20 -foot depths) and not on the beach. Analyses were performed assuming use of 20% to 40% fines for
nearshore placement in the preliminary engineering analysis that is referenced in the Draft EIR/EIS. Use
3 -62
oemvi
of only 10% fines would be more appropriate for beach nourishment and the Project proposes use of
material meeting this characteristic for that purpose. The sand will come from excavation of beach sand
from the flood shoal location.
The preliminary engineering analysis concluded that the Project was economically infeasible and created
additional environmental impacts with restriction to 30% fines or less. If tidal inlet construction were
restricted to less than 30% fines, additional impacts and expense would be incurred by excavating and
transporting material from another site. In addition, impacts and expenses would be raised by the need to
truck more material from excavation of the full tidal basin offsite. The lesser impact trade -off is to use a
restriction of 40% fines in the nearshore. As shown in Table 4.2 -3, the majority of the sediment proposed
for construction of the ebb bar would have a composition of less than 30% fines.
Analyses of beach compatibility was performed in cooperation with the USACE staff. Discretion exists on
applying the criteria of matching the fines content on the receiving site to within 10 %. Sampling and
testing of existing nearshore material at the placement location was done in 1996 and the site exhibits
-31% fines. The USACE has indicated, after examining the material and testing results, that use of the
material may be acceptable. The data suggest that material from dredging of the full tidal basin will be
suitable for construction of the ebb bar.. If it were not, material for ebb bar construction would come from
an offshore borrow site. The impacts of obtaining material from an offshore borrow site are addressed in
Section 4 under impacts to the 1v Subaftemative. Because the inlet would trap beach quality sand,
material from the tidal inlet would be appropriate for beach nourishment.
In addition to the material to be discharged being compatible with existing nearshore sediments, the
material will also have a beneficial purpose by nourishing the littoral zone after finer - grained sediments
are winnowed out. Finally, the turbidity and sedimentation impacts to affected resources will be within
acceptable levels and the actions will not cause unmitigable, significant impacts to the environment. With
these considerations, the project proponent has determined that discharging the sediments to the
nearshore is appropriate if necessary.
Response to Comment 6: The analysis of the culvert alternative was based on a 1990 study by Moffatt
& Nichol. The study is included in Section 5 of this volume.
Response to Comment 7: All of the tidal inlet alternatives, except Alternative 3, would include short
revetments adjacent to the tidal inlet. Revetments are proposed as a last line of defense in the event of a
major storm that erodes the entire beach. The revetments are required to reduce the risk of experiencing
extreme shoreline retreat due to severe coastal storms after the inlet is constructed. Because of the large
width of the beach at Warner Avenue, revetments are not proposed for Alternative 3. Revetments are
proposed rather than other structures such as sea walls, because they are a better wave dissipating
device. Structures such as seawalls would be less desirable because they reflect wave energy and
cause erosion at their toe. The proposed revetments would be covered by sand most of the time and
would only be visible If sequential extreme slonns, similar to those well storms that occurred in 1983
El Nino year, severely scourthe beach.
Response to Comment 8: Please see Topical Response 1.
Response to Comment 9: The ERA will insure that contaminants in the lowlands will be cleaned up to a
level that poses no threat to the biological resources of the wetlands. Please also see Topical
Response 1.
Response to Comment 10: As discussed on p.3 -28, the volume of run -off from existing non -point
sources is small even though some of these sources such as the Springdale pump station and the
Seacliff culvert contain relatively high levels of contaminants as shown in Tables 3.4-10 and 3.4 -12 in the
DEIRlEIS. Because of the small volume of existing runoff, the mass emissions of contaminants from
these sources will be low following dilution within the Project. Because of the low residence time and
good circulation throughout the wetlands, impacts of contaminants in non -point source runoff are not
expected to be significant. Of course, the elimination or control of contaminants at the source before they
become part of such runoff would eliminate any potential impacts to the Project.
aim 3-63
amv�
`SiAiE OF CPLIF00.r1IA- BUSINESS- 0laANSP —A=N AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
°ara�cr tz sane aneo
yyY rxmWan o,.A
t.n�,G mGtz -tssS
S -6
FAX & MAIL
October 16, 2000
Dwight Sanders File: IGR/CEOA
Caldomia States Land Commission SC #:77800071068
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South Lag
Sacramento, CA 95825
Subject Balsa Chita Lowlands Restoration Project
Dear Mr. Sanders,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR/EIS for the Balsa
Chica Lowlands Restoration Project dated July 2000. The project proposes to
"restore wetlands and aquatic functions within ft Salsa Chip Wetlands as o0
extractions are phased out and contamination is removed'. The EIR/EIS identifies
several restoration alternatives and provides guidelines for the consortium of state,
federal, and local agencies. The proposed project is located in an unincorporated area
of northwestern Orange County. The project area consists of 1,247 acres of the Balsa
Chita Lowlands in the Boise Gap between Sols t Chita Mesa on the northwest and
Huntington Mesa on the southeast. Huntington Harbor is northwest of the site. Pacific
Coast Highway (from Warner Avenue to Sea Point Street), Balsa Chita State Beach, r
and the Pacific Ocean are to the West North, east, and southeast of the project site
are residential neighborhoods of the City of Huntington Beach.
The proposed pmject /preferred alternative is the restoration of 850 acres of the Balsa
Chico Lowlands to create wetland and habitat areas, including 385.5 acres of full tidal
and 200 acres of muted tidal habitat. The project area is divided into four parcels. 880
acres of the Balsa Chip Lowlands purchased In February 1997 from the Signal Balsa
China Corporation, acquired through the combined efforts of eight state and federal,.„ _
...:> .agencies; with title to tbii Property held by the California .:StateJands:Cammtsst6ft
' (CSLC), the 300 -acre California Department of Fish srW Game Ecoldgtcaf Receive.
leased from the CSLC; the 42 -acre Fieldstone property (purahase.pen.dingll anda25 -,
acre parcel formerly owned_ by the Metropolitan Water District in the;$oisa Pocket(title -
'. transfer pending.
3 -77
aumm
Page 2
Caftan is supportive of the State Land Commission wetland restoration project and will assist
to a reasonable extent to make 8 a successful venture. In addition to the CEQA
Intergovernmental Review (IGR) comments concerning how the restoration project impacts
State Route 1, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), this letter briefly discusses future improvement
Plans for PCH from Warner to Sea Point The primary intent of this letter is to discuss the
Impacts to PCH associated with the design of the Inlet, however, it is Important to also mention
and highlight the existing conditions on PCH from Warner to Sea Point and the future plans
Caltrans has for the improvement of the road bed and right of way along this stretch of ,
highway.
- The comments concerning the inlet are primarily directed to the preferred alternative, but
would also apply to the other inlet locations as well. Specifically, the comments deal with
the location and scope of the design of the bridge and bridge approaches over the Inlet,
the design and construction of the road bed and side slopes, the disposition of the
Right of Way (ROM, the size and footprint of the slde slopes, how the ROW may impact
the area adjacent to the wetlands and recreational areas, which agency will own and be
responsible for maintenance and liability of the side slopes, where and how storm water
runoff will be handled, treated and disposed, and a concern with inundation of Pacific i
Coast Highway (PCH) by storm water and ocean surge at this location, and lastly, visual
Impacts. _
FUTURE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Route improvements are based on long tens planning, usually beginning with the Route
Concept Report (RCR). The RCR is an internal planning document which expresses the
Departinent's judgement on what characteristics the state highway should be in response to
proposed land uses and projected travel demand over a 20 -year period. The RCR contains
the Department's goals for the development of PCH in terms of Level of Service (LOS). Traffic
data for the RCR, dated May 2000, is Base Year 1997, Year 2020 Null and Year 2020
Concept The existing ADT is 35,000 and the 2020 Concept is 47:000, a 34% increase In
traffic. This forecasted increase along with the necessity to keep the road safe and reliable, is
the basis for an improvement project.
With the advent of the wetlands restoration project, State Parks rehabilitation of their beach
facility and Orange County's Storm Channel Improvement Project, all parties need to be aware
that in the foreseeable future, Caltrans anflcipates a major highway improvement project
fronting the wetlands. The existing highway profile floods when tidal surge and reins occur In
the area. This flooding requires Caltrans to temporarily close the highway. The existing
highway surfaces deterioration and Level of Service (LOS) conditions will continue to ,7..
:..:: ..� • ._r _it .,,__ - wS.f ..nH lAe Hin'1,1ua:wr�Yin"a"Tf-w. ..r -
EIWawn Ts esperaatiy 5evefe ax me outer 601sa oay. ,-oov ao m,- luuy =,am y w ,a coo _
highway profile and widen the facility to accommodate the future traffic demands.'.'
a,m Aam.smraa 3.78
ri
Page 3
PROJECT STUDY REPORT jPSR)
Currently. Cahrans is in the initial stage of preparing a Project Study Report (PSR) to study a
design concept and scope for the improvement of PCH, The PSR is the initial document to
carry out long term State highway system planning to identify future highway improvements.
District 12 is proposing an improvement project that would improve PCH drainage and includes
Widening of State Route 1 from 4 toe lanes between Goldenwest Street to Warner Avenue.
The District will be evaluating five different alternatives. This project will examine funding
opportunities from local. State and Federal sources. During the development of the PSR, the
District intends to work closely with all involved agencies and interested parties. This will
reinforce our understanding of the issues within the Bolas Chica project area, as well as -
develop a mutually agreed upon highway Improvement project that meets statutory
requirements and is environmentally sound.
The scope of the PSR will include a number of project alternatives sufficient to determine there
are minimal costs and adverse impacts, and there are maximum public benefits, The five
alternatives to be studied are; Re- alIgnment of the highway;; Raise the highway elevation on fill;
Raise the elevation on piles (via -duct); Raise the elevation on a combination of fill and piles;
and, No project alternative. The Rout Concept Report for system planning proposes that 2020
Concept improvement for PCH be developed to a standard 6 lane major arterial. This is
consistent with the Master plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
Without an exception, each alternative will have a significant impact on the adjacent lands, the
wetlands and State Parks, as well as, commercial and residential development. Therefore, @'s
importarit, at this time to consider the potential for a major road project adjacent to these
properties, and to plan accordingly to assure minimum impacts to the wetlands, the beach and/
operate a safe, reliable highway-
Them!
fore, Caltrans recommends that the EIR/EIS contain a thorough discussion of the
upcoming Caltrans roadway improvement project and fully describe iris alternatives and a0 the
anticipated impacts associated with them. ..
PROJECT IMPACTS TO PCH
Caftrans' role is to make an analysis as to the project . impacts on SR- 1/Pacific Coast
terms Highway (PCH) and to comment in of traffic operations, structures, construction,
hydrology, right of way responsibilifies/cwnership, and ongoing future maintenance.
A review of the EIR/EIS and its supporting documents indicates that this project will
impact Caarans right of way along PCH. Specifically, the inlet and bridge wHt hawthG
-` greatestimpact to PCH.' Caltrais Dstrict 12 status is a responsibfe ab;el%y bn ails _
project and has the following comments: -
f °.
Y .
wiry
npr
379 ..
Page 4
Hydraulics:
• Water Table at sea level, applicant must demonstrate no impact to PCH.
• Levees designed to contain water at maximum height of approximately 6, (FEMA
97, pCH is below 6',applicant is to demonstrate there is no impact to PCH.
• Area 31, discussion of food area per CRY of Huntington Beach. Draft Flood
Management Plan (May 2000), to be included in the ER&EIS.
1. Flooding is an on going problem on PCH as a result of stone runoff, tidal levels
- and drainage patterns on and off the highway. This results in closures to through
traffic. The inlet and bridge construction may have a positive effect on drainage
Ad flooding, however, it is localized to one area. If nothing Is done to remedy the
other areas of ponding, PCH will still be dosed to traffic when flooded. Erosion of
the roadway embankment is a problem at outer Bolsa Say.
2. The implementation of Preferred Altemative improves the hydraulic capacity of
East Garden Grove- Wintersburg (EGGW) Flood Control Channel to contain a
storm of 25 years frequency. What is the effect of a 50 and 100 year event? Also,
in the event of shoal In the inlet could this cause an overflow to PCH?
3. Unless hydraulics within the wetlands is contained and managed. existing and
future Caltrans improvement project along PCH will continue to be subject to
(boding and scour in the right of way line.
4. No additional flow should be discharged from the project 'site and proposed tidal
flow inlet channel onto PCH. -
5. The applicant is required to evaluate the PCH flooding situafion against the rise of
the ground water in the area adjacent to the proposed project
6. Capacities of the inlet channel and proposed bridge for PCH need to be measured
against the anticipated long -term bed aggregation due to the heavy sediment inflow
from the ocean.
N
V
R*
U)
I
7. Alternative 1 is acceptableldes'uable to Caftraiis. Implementation of this alternative I 00
will reduce the flooding of the outer Boise Bay due to the diversion of Fast Garden
Grove- Wintersburg (EGGW) Flood Control channel in to full tidal basin as shown N
figure ES-3, volume 1 of EIR.
_, _ .
:tS: Axording m City of Huntington Beach Drag F(ood ManagerneniPlan (May bWg •�
exhibit 14, flooding area 31 on SR-1 between Wamer Avenue and.Golden West
. Street impacts the State Highway. Due to the ground water table being dose to.
Mean Sea Level most of„the storm drain system will: be urldwyoater. Therefore;.
�ry .rrr;.• the on solution to "flpgd'mg on Pacific Coast hfghWay rs td ralse ttie roadway • -'� ` `
_ profile. (This comment was sent to the City of Hunfington-Beacih in Caltrans letter
dated August 4,2000 regarding the City's flood Management Plan).
3 -80
oaimaa
Page 5
Project Management, Right of Way, Location, and Limits of Agencil"Parties
Rasponslbilities:
Disposition of ROW and agency responsibilities.
ExplaiNdelineate any modifications to the existing ROW. side slopes, revetments,
abutments, access roads, inlet channel, etc.
Which agency takes responsibility of the ROW for both east and west of PCH?
Caltrans will not be responsible for any mitigation and maintenance attributed to
the design and construction of abutments and side slopes or walls created by this
project.
Identify which agency is responsible for mitigation, maintenance, and drainage at
the inlet location?
Ownership of the Ofiflaids pumping area: cleanup1mmediation; responsible patty to
be identified.
• Define Cattrans'role and responsibilities on any future ROW endowments created
by this project.
Issues of concern shall cover design, constuctidn, cost, and maintenance and
shall be agreed upon in Cooperative Agreement s between responsible agencies
C 19. The proposed PCH Bridge must be approved through Caltrans project
rl development process (i.e. PSR, PR, PS &E review and approval prior to Issuance
of an encroachment permit
10. Full execution of Cooperative Agreement is required prior to submittal of Project
Report (PR), and Plans, Specification, and Estimates (PS & E).
11. The project proponents of the Bolsa Chiaa Restoration Project are responsible for
all mitigation as a result of any environmentaUhabitat impacts due to the
c6nstruction of the PCH Bridge as well as any future CT maintenance projects.
N Caltrans' responsibility will be limited to maintaining the structural integrity of the
B(dge when the fee tide is transferred to the State. However, Caltrans will not be
responsible for any environmental mitigation for future maintenance and
construction projects regarding the PCH Bridge.
12.The restoration project must not preclude the opportunity for future widening of
PCH to six lanes The EIR must address Catrans Improvement project This
project proposes to raise rue profile of PCH through the Low Bolsa. China areaand
M _ widening the PCH to Six lanes fioatGdldenwest }o Warner as P?F�b%ii4-
ArteriaI Hlgitw'a (MPAH) and Pd "Roide Concept Report.
zizLFF• ^ {v' i. ...
31R RepoanbCP•nw,4 3-81
WAN
Page 6
Enviranmanbl Punning:
• NPDES Compliance was not discussed in the EIR, need NPDES statement
• Cancans was told in the past that they could not drain in to the wetlands, clarify?
• Can storm runoff from PCH be drained into the inlet?
• "ich party is responsible for mitigating advers e impacts within the future ROW,
inland and seaward of the PCH?
• Discuss cumulative impacts In EIR/EIS.
• Applicant states imported rill will be used, however clean 611 exists on site.
• Testing of 611 is necessary and results must be submitted to District for approval (tilt
must be must be of structural quafdy)
• M0 the berms and levees obscure the_ views of the wetlands from PCH?
13.All agencies and/or companies conducting pmjeGS within Caltrens Right of Way are require
to have the appropriate plant and wildlife surveys completed by a qualified biologist Offiiria
lists and databases should also be consulted for sensitive species such as the Caltfom'
Natural Diversity Database and fists provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
California Department of Fish and Game. Any impacts that affect waterways and drainage
and /or open space during construction, or that occur indirectly as a result of the project must
be coordinated with the appropriate resource agencies.
14. PCH is a designated Scenic Highway, please include a visual analysis of wetlands from the`
road.
15.A Caltrans Biologist should be notified and review any area to be used as a staging
area if the designated area is off of the paved road and within Caltrens right of way.
15.AII agencies and /or companies conducting projects within Calteans Right of Way must condu
a cultural and paleontological assessment that meets Caltrens standards prior to any activity.
If cultural remains are discovered in or adjacerit to Calbans Right of Way during excavation
and/ or construction activities, all earth moving activity within and around the site area muettb
diverted until a qualified Caltrens Archaeologist can assess the find. H human remains are
discovered, State Health and Safety Code Sebtion 7050.5 states that disturbances and
activities shall cease. The County Comer must be notified of the find immediately so that
he/she may ascertain the origin and disposition, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98.
17.A Native American and archaeological -monitor must be present dun ng, all .ground
activities _ -
18,Because the proposed activity falis,wdhm Caltrens Right of Way, an,Encroachmer
Guide
kN
atm R•:••mr. 3-52
NU3mt
rL11
Page 7
and Specifications. All activities within Caltrans Right of Way must fully conform to the Caltrans
Statewide NPOES Permit No. CAS600003 (Order No. 99.06 -DWO).
19.Any runoff draining into Caltrans Right of Way from construction operations or from the
resulting project must fully conform to the current discharge requirements of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board to avoid impacting water quality. Measures must be
Incorporated. to contain all vehicle loads and avoid any tracking of materials, which may fall
or blow onto Caltmae roadways or facilities. '
j
20.Any new access, construction, or alterations made within Caltrans ROW orwhich will affect
N Caltrans ROW requires Caltrans coordination.
21. Caltrans will not be responsible for constructing new drainage that are designed to
N accommodate run -off water originating from the area of inletlbridge structure flowing Into
N the restored Wetlands Project area.
M 122. Catrans will not be responsible for wetland contamination caused by traffic, and traffic '
M associated pollutants (i.e. lead) in the project are
23. What are the limitations to wetland maintenance in those areas adjacentio PCH? What
d. are the requirements for this type of maintenance, what are the associated costs for this
N type of maintenance,.and which agency will be responsible for paying for any maintenance
cost increases.
=n 24. Caltrans will not be responsible for future ROW mitigation that is above and beyond the
N area presently owned by Caltrans.
N- 25. The Wetlands Project must accommodate for future PCH widening projects.
N-26. Caltrans will not be responsible for any increased costs associated with the maintenance of
I theproposed Inlet- channef Bridge associated with this design.
27. Caltrans wilt not be responsible for increased costs associated with the maintenance of
biological impacts associated with the proposed inlet- channel Bridge.
N I28. Caftans will not be responsible for post project alterations, design, and construction of '
ra drainage systems that may be required to accommodate increases In flooding caused by
changes in the wetland area
0 29.The Wetlands Pro)ect.w01 increase the volume o[water wiNun �tlie Wetlands yrokgt area:' �'
M Cattrans wN rat 6e responsible forstruu'httal weaknesses-fo PCff whtcji are atlnbutedm
the WetlanEs Pmdect arhd R$ increase In wedand vrater rtoYmne : •r ,Y
nt 7equired`to'pans f @r�tlhe..Cgmutatl a Impacl9 oflhe proposed protect. .
M
�.'° � "r' a tic-: �_, . � •: -. ..
- '�"^_� -- .r _..:T. .ti ... �"� ��c�c'' - 9•H211'kD- 4r41�LC:9i'nx4? -� -inn
3-83
o+acur
Page 8
3vu,turss1 Design
Describe future structural dredging
due to possible damage ass result of scour effect
inspections
ri
31.AII roadway and bicycle facilities must confamn to standards in accordance to
Highway Design Manual or must have an approved fad sheet The PCH
M
CaHrens
Bridge is proposed to be constructed within Caltrans right of way, all construction
I
easement rights of entry, or fee takes will be acquired as necessary. The bridge
to accommodate a standard 6 lane Arterial Highway with bicycle
shall be designed
lanes.
32.AI1 construction shall be executed in conformance to conditions set forth in the
M
Encroachment Permit Manual. Cooperative Agreements for design, construction,
- and maintenance are required.
'
3-3-At the bridge inlet, as an alternative, we suggest that the, applicant study /consider
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSE) as opposed to retaining walls or slopes.
M
In addition, please consider reducing the size, width, and depth of the inlet. Further,
please compare the three bridge alternatives of bridge on rill, bridge on pile, and
bridge on retaining wall.
f)
34.The applicant is required to submitiest results on Structural bacfdll to assure that
Caltrans specification requirements are satisfied.
35.Approval and acceptance of the final structure types are pending a bridge type
t -
selection meeting performed by the Caltrans Headquarters Engineering Service
I
Center (ESC). Additional comments will be provided during Caltrans Project
development process (i.e. PSR, PR, PS&E phases).
Traffic:
Traffic Management Plan.
Detour Plan
Canstrucb'on storage and Staging areas.
36.Traffic Impact analysis for the state route including all intersections is to be
conducted in conformance to Highway Capacity Manual methodology and
submitted to Caltrans for review and comments.
37. Would the proposed project generate any vehicular and pedestrian, trarfic7 Please CO
address the impacts. Please submit mitigation measures neededto minimize ,
those Impacts. Further, identify the responsible parties forthe mitigation-
7
a+az a�m.mmc.,mw 3 -84
uma+
Page 9
m I 38.Submit a Traffic Management Plan to address the impacts on PCH during
construction. Cahrans approval of this plan is required prior to the construction of
the project
39. Construction staging must be planned for and implemented in order to minimize the
d, construction impact to PCH. Caftrans approval of this plan is required prior to the
issuance of encroachment permit
40. We recommend coordination with Carifomia Department of Parks and Recreation
�( (DPR) in their efforts to redevelop the Bolas Chica State Beach. Once again, the
State Parks project shall not preclude Catoans from future restoration or widening
of PCH.
41.Alf activities in Caltrans right of way will require an encroachment permit.
Applicants need to plan far sufficient permit processing time, which may include
engineering and environmental studies and documentation.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which
could potentially impact our Transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to
contact us please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267.
Sincerely,
6099e"
/ —
Robert F. Joseph, Chief
Advanced Planning Branch
cc Terry Roberts, OPR
Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning
Praveen Gupta, Environmental Planning
Roger Kao, Hydraulic
Nooshin Yoosefi, Project Managemnet
Gary Slater, Project Study Report
Jon Yamaguchi, HDQRTRS ESC-Structures
Andrew Oshirin, Design
Saieed Hashemi, Traffic Operations
Jon Rohrer, Construction
.Y,P azsbs 4'k211 :w L—' �G:9t ouw -R-Ur
swami 3 -88
S-6: STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FROM ROBERT F. JOSEPH, Rr
CHIEF ADVANCED PLANNING BRANCH, DATED 10116/00 Ri
Response to Comment 1: Members of the Boise Chica Steering Subcommittee met with Cahrans ex
District 12 staff several times during the Project planning process which began with the purchase of the re
property in 1997. Meetings were conducted to coordinate the Project with existing Cahrans plans and flc
programs. P1
The planned widening of PCH to six lanes in 2010 was identified in Section 3.1.3.3 of the DEIR/EIS per at
the city of Huntington Beach Circulation Element. The Project's design of the bridge and its approaches R
to take PCH over the tidal inlet was mandated to accommodate the proposed six -lane configuration of al
Cakrans' existing plan for PCH even though the ultimate widening of PCH is uncertain.
The Proposed Project and the alternatives for Bolsa Chica do not involve construction or wetland R
modifications near or affecting PCH (see Figure 2-4A through 2 -11B in the FEIR/EIS) except for the PCH R
Bridge to accommodate the new inlet. Since the Bolsa Chica Project will not encroach upon these other e
portions of PCH, 0 is Cakrans that should be aware of the potential impacts of its plans on existing b
wetlands. a
Response to Comment 2: This comment is the first indication of a 'Project Study Report' (PSR) to F
study a design concept and scope for the improvement of PCH. Cahrans is the proponent of the F
proposed improvements to PCH. As such, it will be the lead agency for a separate environmental
document. This EIR/EIS addresses the impacts of the actions associated with wetlands restoration. With l
the exception of bridge construction over the tidal inlet, improvements to PCH are not part of this Project.
Similarly, existing flooding on PCH is a problem not related to the Project
Response to Comment 3: The Proposed Project does not include modifications to or improvement of
the EGGW Channel. However, for Project alternatives with flood control benefits, minor improvements to
channel flood capacity might be realized for the 50- and 100 -year floods as well as the 25 -year event.
A shoal formed in the Proposed Project will simply impound seawater to a greater extent than an
unshoaled condition, but drainage of the wetland will still occur. Also, wetland tides are to be contained
by a levee reaching +9.5 feet above mean sea level so overtopping of the levee and flooding of PCH will
not occur. Anticipated maintenance dredging of the inlet will remove any shoaling.
Response to Comment 4: The Project's berms have been designed to contain all flows within the
wetlands. See last part of Response to Comment 3 of Letter S-6.
Response to Comment 5: As indicated in Response to Comment 2 of Letter S6, the existing flooding
on PCH is a problem not related to the Project The proposed tidal inlet will be the sole source of
seawater into and from the Project and the bridge for PCH over the inlet is designed to Caltrans
standards, i.e., with adequate clearance above the inlet.
Response to Comment 6: PCH within the Project area lies between elevation 6.5 to 9.5 feet MSL
Hydrologic studies indicate that groundwater beneath the wetland area flows inland to the northeast.
Groundwater levels near the coast and PCH are at MSL The Proposed Project will not cause
groundwater levels to rise under PCH because ground water flows are in the opposite direction, i.e.,
landward, not seaward.
Response to Comment 7: The engineering studies used to design the proposed inlet considered such
vanables. The tidal inlet has been designed so that flow velocities will be high enough to flush sand
from it. Sand that may accumulate inside the inlet as a flood shoal will be dredged as needed and used
to augment surrounding beach areas.
a, e2 n I -1, .w n.
w.mm 3-66
Response to Comment 8: Comment acknowledged
Response to Comment 9: Caltrans position to the city of Huntington Beach is acknowledged. The
existing drainage problem along PCH will not be affected by the Project. The water table at PCH will
remain near mean sea level because the site is along a narrow barrier beach between two large water
bodies, the ocean and a wetland. Cahrans will indeed have to raise the highway to address existing
Flooding. The Project has, for the inlet, designed bridge approaches and the bridge along a portion of
PCH that will solve this problem along a 2,000- foot -long, or 0.4 -mile stretch of the road phe length of the
approaches plus the bridge).
Response to Comment 10: Moffatt & Nichol's design of the proposed bridge has been coordinated with
appropriate District 12 engineering staff to facilitate and campy with such requirements.
Response to Comment 11: See Response to Comment 10, above.
Response to Comment 12: The agencies within the Steering Committee would work with Caltrans to
ensure that future maintenance activities result in minimal impacts. However, should any modifications
be proposed by Caltrans subsequent to its acceptance of the bridge, Caltrans would be responsible for
any required environmental analysis and mitigation.
Response to Comment 13: The Project would not preclude Caltrans from widening PCH to six lanes.
As stated in Response to Comment 1, the bridge has been designed to accommodate six lanes. Again,
as project sponsor for the PSR, Cahrans is responsible for any future environmental requirements related
to its improvements of PCH.
Response to Comment 14: Numerous biological surveys have been done in the Balsa Chica area. The
California Natural Diversity Database was also consulted as part of the preparation of this EIR/EIS. In
addition, the resource agencies responsible for these matters, i.e., the State Department of Fish and
Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, are members of the
Steering Committee responsible for the implementation of the Project.
Response to Comment 15: Due to the relatively flat topography of the Project area, a travelers' focus is
on what is immediately dominant in the viewshed. As stated in Section 3.10.1.4 of the DEIR/EIS, the
dominant features for drivers on PCH are those in the foreground, including the Balsa Chica Ecological
Reserve and Inner and Outer Boise Bays on the inland side of PCH and the State Beach and ocean to
the outside of PCH. PCH within the Project area lies between elevation 6.5 to 9.5 feet MSL which is
slightly higher than the wetlands and beach areas, but not high enough to see beyond the Reserve and
the Bays although the oil operations equipment and degraded areas are visible, but are more typically
within the viewer's background vista Qines 31 -32, page 3 -153). Because PCH is higher than the State
Beach and ocean, expansive views of these features are dominant.
Views of the completed wetlands for the PCH traveler will remain similar to that at present, absent the oil
equipment, where there will be no modifications to PCH. Where any middleground views are seen
beyond the Reserve and Inner and Outer Boise Bays, there may be a combination of some berms visible
along with the restored areas. The Reserve and Bays remain as the dominant features. Since the
approaches to the bridge and the bridge over the tidal inlet will be higher than +9.5 feet above mean sea
level, a good portion of the restored wetlands will be visible for that stretch of roadway.
The Cahrans Project to widen the roadway may provide other opportunities for increasing views of the
wetlands but may affect its designation as a Scenic Highway as any improvement to speed in the area
will afford less opportunity to view the restoration area and its wildlife. However, that roadway project is
not part of this wetlands restoration.
Response to Comment 16: Caltrans will be notified of all activities within its right -of -way
3_87
w,mQi
Response to Comment 17: As stated on page 4 -129 of the EIR/EIS, lines 12 -13, a qualified
archaeologist will monitor all construction activities.
Response to Comment 18: See above Response to Comment 17. All Project construction will be
monitored by a qualified archaeologist with expertise in Native American cultural resources.
Response to Comment 19: Thank you for the information. The Project will comply with all such
requirements.
Response to Comment 20: Comment acknowledged.
Response to Comment 21: Comment acknowledged.
Response to Comment 22: Supporting infrastructure for drainage will be designed as part of the bridge
structure.
Response to Comment 23: Comment acknowledged. Implementation of the Project does not, however,
affect the responsibilities of Cahrans regarding existing environmental regulations.
Response to Comment 24: Most features that will be incorporated into the Project, e.g.. Inner Boise
Bay and the Boise Chico Ecological Reserve, already exist adjacent to PCH. The only part of the Project
affecting PCH is the tidal inlet. As such, existing activities related to existing features will continue.
Please see Response to Comments 7 and 12 regarding the proposed inlet
Response to Comment 25: It is not anticipated that implementation of the Project would affect Cahrans'
existing ROW. All existing environmental regulations would apply to any future development proposed by
Cahrans within its ROW.
Response to Comment 26: Please see Responses to Comments 11 and 13 herein.
Response to Comment 27: Please see Comment 11 which states, in part, 'Cahrans responsibility will
be limited to maintaining the structural integrity of the Bridge when the fee title is transferred to the Stale.'
Response to Comment 28: The intent of this comment is unclear. All Project- related biological impacts
have been identified and mitigated in the EIR/EIS and all existing environmental regulations would apply
to Cahrans' future maintenance activities.
Response to Comment 29: Comment noted. As previously stated, the Proposed Project will not cause
increased flooding to PCH and should actually reduce flooding along the segment, i.e., the bridge,
proposed for the tidal inlet.
Response to Comment 30: Comment noted. Please refer also to Responses to Comments 5, 6, 7, and
24 herein.
Response to Comment 31: Please see Section 2.9, Cumulative Project Scenario, on page 2-69 through
2 -76. Cumulative Project impacts are discussed within each impact area in Section 4 of the EIR/EIS.
The work proposed by Cahrans on the PSR for PCH will be added to Section 2.9.
Response to Comment 32: Please refer to Responses to Comments 10 and 11 and further note that an
exception to advisory design standards has been submitted to Cahrans requesting a narrower median
than the standard. Cahrans has not yet rendered a decision on this request.
Response to Comment 33: Comment acknowledged.
tin R�bCOmxns 'M8
UI�V I
Response to Comment 34: It is not clear whether the comment refers to the slopes within the inlet
channel or along the bridge approaches. Slopes within the inlet channel will be stabilized with sheetpile
walls under the bridge to prevent erosion. No other alternatives are appropriate for this application.
Along the approaches, aftemative wall/slope designs can be addressed as part of final design for
construction. The EIR/EIS analyzed the reasonable worst case of sloping into adjacent areas, i.e., the
state beach or existing wetlands. Any impacts of the alternative slope design would be less than the
worst use analysis within the EIR/E1S.
At lines 54 -55 on page 2 -12, 'The ocean inlet would be large enough to pass tidal flows sufficient to
permit the future restoration of another 252 acres of the property to tidal influence' The cross•section
was designed to convey the maximum anticipated flow, while not causing excessive flow velocities to
erode the inlet bed at bridge piles. Narrowing the inlet or reducing its depth may result in undesirable
excess bed scouring as well as preclude the planned restoration of the Project area designated -future
full tidal.'
Please see Responses to Comments 10 and 11 regarding the bridge alternatives speed in the
comment.
Response to Comment 35: Comment acknowledged. Please also refer to Responses to Comments 10
and 11 herein.
Response to Comment 36: See above response.
Response to Comment 37: A traffic analysis spec to the PCH Bridge design has been conducted
and is included in Moffatt & Nichol documentation. This is a study conducted separate from that for the
DORIES for the entire Project. The PCH Bridge Traffic Analysis will be submitted to Caltrans with the
PSR.
Response to Comment 38: Traffic is addressed in Section 4.11 of the DEIR/EIS which presents the
impacts and mitigation measures for the Pmjecl. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for this Project is
contained in Volume VI.
Response to Comment 39: A Traffic Management Plan will be prepared as part of final design of the
PCH bridge.
Response to Comment 40: The DEIR/EIS discusses Construction Methods in Section 2.7. Caltrans will
be given the additional opportunity, to review speck plans for staging of construction for the bridge and
tidal inlet.
Response to Comment 41: The Project has been coordinated and discussed with the California
Department of Parks and Recreation. We recommend that Caltrans do likewise regarding its proposed
modifications to PCH.
Response to Comment 42: Please refer to Response to Comment 33. In addition, the need for an
encroachment permit from Caltrans is acknowledged in Table 1 -1 on page 1 -7 of the EIR/EIS.
aiezn «w.emc�e 3 -89
acmo.
Sent by:
POSD /EW&PNn1ECi PLN'D 716 90x9102{ 10119100 I!5WMp)Itfu__
9729 {Page 2
THOMAS 9. MATM S
County
of Orange
0@01'1�-
,-„ ao.
Planning &
Development Services Department
sA„ e U CA18OR'e"
.. A .3:
a sox acts
saarA ANA u oaoa ,
L -3
NCL 00-80
October 16, 2000
Dwight B. Senders, Chief
Division ofFnviromnenal Planning and Management
California Sate Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100Sauth
surtmento, CA 95825 -8202
SUBJECT: DEIRMIS - Proposed Botts Chi" Lowlands Restoration. Project
Dear Mr. Souders
The above refereaca item is a Draft Eavirormenal Impact Repmt/Envimmneoal impact
Statement (DEIR/EIS) for the California State Linde Commis sion (CSLCYUoited SWea Fish
W Wildlife Service (USFWS)Nnio d Sates Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The purpose
of the proposed project is to resmre wetland and aquatic flacdons at Bolan CM" as oB
extraction is phased out and contamination is removed
The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR/ EIS and offers the following comments. Our
comment letter is divided into two sections. The fast section identifies significant County policy
issues raised by the proposed pmjecL The cummeaa in the accord section of this letter focus
pnmarsly on technical issues related to the project ud are grouped by subject area.
POLICY ISSUES
1. THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FAILS TO CONSIDER FLOOD CONTROL
PROBLEMS
• The Proposed Alternative is the only alternative discussed in the DEIRIEM that fails to allow
the opportunity for solving East Garden Grave -Wim msburg Channel's flood Control _.
problems. All altemadves except the proposed project include necessary flood cowl
imptovemenv within the project boundaries to convey a 100 -yter design discharge. The
preferred project must be modified to include ultimate flood control impmvemems within the
project a . The project will dictate fume flood control improvemam through the
restoration area tither by including provisions for flood protection or by removing Options
slax 3 -103
awaol
Sent, by: posOlEW&PSn1ECT PLN'a 714 0348132; 10/19/00 2:oOPU;),fu_,(xa;rs9a U11
that might have been available without the project. Inadequate consideration of dose flood
control improvements will obstruct the completion of upstream channel segmena and
removal of hundreds of properties from the EGGWC floodplaim The proposed projta also
=ols in 100 percent of storm flows going through Huntington Harbor, fortho, degtadbag
water quality in the harbor.
2. MISLEADING AND ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS REGARDING OCFCD
COMMITMENTS
On Pages 3-39 and 4 -29, the EIR/E1S awes a ronewsly that -I'he EGOW Channel is
currently being improved by the County of Orange upstream of the project area to contain the
100 -year smtm. The County of Orange has made a commitmrnt m improve the levees of the
channel within the Lowlands to eliminate flood events greater than 25 -year storms soiling
iota the poject sees'% The DEIR should be connected to once that the two projects Planned by
OCFCD in FY 2000 -2001 upstream of the proposed Lowlands Pmjeet will root serve the
Lowlands Project In fort, the proposed Bola Chics restoration project most etsura that the
=[oration area is protected from flood "=is that exceed the opacity of the existing
deficient channel spilling into the projlet 8112, Ile limits of the two planned EGGW
C),aron., projects are as follows:
W
1. 349 meteor upstream ofGoldenwest m 130 meters upstream of the railroad bridge
(including coniluence with Ocemview Channel) and;
2. Northerly boundary of the Lowlands Project (Station 50+W) to downstream of
Goldmwest.
Currently, there are no Fast Cruder Grave- Wi,tembutz Charnel flood control projects or
expenditmet planned in OCFCD's Seven -Year Capital Impeovement Plan through the
Lowlands Pmject. OCFCD or County has not committed m improve the ICY.ca to 25 -year or
100.yese flood protection levels to serve the Lowlands Project Ton developer cf land; in
this rase the Smte hods Commission, must incorporate the necessary flood control facilities
to protect the adjacent project and maintain compatibility with the regional flood mnrol
system. All alternatives except the proposed project accomplish this.
Should the project proponents decide to select the Proposed Ahemative that following should
be noted:
1. The OCFCD currently has partial fee interest and a flood control easement in the area of I
the restoration project for a width varying between 266 feet (near the tide gains) and 196
fact fudha upstream.- An additional 24 feet minimum will treed in be reserved for flood
control uses where the right-cf -way is currently limited to 196 feet to enable future flood
control improvements to be w eamplished
Appropriate mitigation consumer (such at secondary dikes along both sides of OCFCIy3
facilities) will be required to avoid the proposed restoration pmj= from damaging or
adversely impacting OCFCD': facilities. Forthenmme, thou diYrs should be located mch
dot future Eon Garden Grwe Wmtersburg Coarmal improvemtut i aro capable of bcirg
aoccmplished without the need for OCFCD or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to mitigam
for loss of raw1Y created wetlands or deep wemr habitat
CaWaY9wr>r•a6a Co.w
t� arwsasrad.x ch� L
..aw,e, aaww;aa
stn a�wnm c.,..... 3 -104
roamer+
N
M
Sant. by: POSn /EW&PRWECT PLN'a ]ha 8346132; 10110100 2: 0OPNp]a Ea,_N729 {Page alle
0
2. All existing amealties of the OCFCD, such as levees, clumncL etc. should =be subject
to any damage resulting &am the Lowland Project. Furthermore, future channel
widening construction or maintenance operations should be capable of being
accomplished without conflict; with the renomtl® wmlL
3. All work conducted within OCFCD's right of way area will require Public Property
Encroachment Permits from the PFRD/Real Property Division.
4. Since the project is located within a FEMA 100 -year floodplaim, the project proponents
should be required in obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA for all
work performed whbin the Fast Garden Grove- Wmtersbmg floodplain prim to any
grading within the floodphun. A Letter of Map Revision will be requited upon
completion of construction.
ALTERNATIVE f, THE COUNTY'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, AND
ALTERNATIVE6
Alternative 1 is the County's preferred alternative. It previously received. the Orange Comfy
Board of Supervisors approval because of its wmprehasiversen in resolving iaeue s eitinl
to tls County. We believe this alternative has the potential fm being modified to meet the
stated project objectives fm Lowland ratomdon ands deep wares habitat Alternative I
provides significant flood wrmol benefits and has the potential for being modified m redirect
ran -storm waen through the Lowlands Project tidal roe us eahsuce water quality before its
release into the ocean without damage to public and private properties. Huntington Harbor,
Pacific Crust Highway and the Stare's Ourer Hoke would receive irhaesved flood protection
with this alterative,
While Alterative 1 is the County'a preferred alternative, Alternative 6 (me side weir
alterative) may offer benefits which could be acceptable to the County depending on design
parameters. With certain modifications, the quality of low flaw suably and flood protection
levels for the downstream almaas of Fast Garden Grove- Wintanhurg Chamnel could be
improved. Low -flows could be divetssd into a newly established wetland within the tested
tidal area prior W relcssing to the ocean or Huntington Harbor. Aside from the salinity
impacts on the deep water marine habitat, am report's impact analysis concludes that this
alternative coved be implemented with insecticidal reataration project. Consequently, we
believe this modification should be further m aluased along with Altmann; I and 6.
a By selecting either Alterative I or 6, we believe a project tbat an satisfy the project
proponents' goals while also helping solve same of the other critical human health and asfety
problems such es flood wntrol and wastes quality could be achieved
Opportunities that are available m divert low flows bass carefully selected portion of the
project sib should be considered Marked improvements in the water quality of dry weather
low flows m be aWeved by allowing flows b be diverted into the project a atvia a arnall
pump ataion and a low flow diversion structure within the upstream channel segments. The
low flown could flow through a riparian and aquatic habitat along the northerly boundary of
the project areato enhance water quality. .
C.y -fO—V Caa.man
D'O FJF/6ssB cu. Le*m Auaaarlwp
3103 Rcpp¢ea p, Cmmme
;rent
3-105
Sant by: P0.S0 /EIW8PNn1ECT PLN'n ]td B2d B132p
101,6100 2:,PU;hLEae S729i Peg- 5112
TECHTfICAL ISSUES
HABITAT
I, page ES -1, line 4 — It is misleading to refer to d,is pmjeef v a raat6ratiea pmjectwben the
Primary purpose of the project Is to =sate a deep water habitat This u not what existed an N
the site at my time since mm began no make aherations m what was tbem naturally. This
new deepwamr habitat is proposed as mitigation for a devslopai pmi in the Potls of Los
Angeles and Long Beach. Inherent in the creation of this habitat is the dispbuunni of some
existing wetland habitat of a diffaenttype (not deep water). The lass a conversion of any
existing wetland into this am ecoaysesm and conservation of my related levees, roads, tails,
or nesting islands must be sdtigat ed by the usual ratio of wetland replacement of comparable
habitat.
2. Page FS-2, line 40 — The proposed predominance of sehwatm influence "y
a reducdort of the
salUfresh water balance that now exists. This will result in a different ewsstrm sad changas
to the distribution of sane of the current habitat species. For ea k%f plan does an
Provide a clew W horstion of the future of Signal Lake and Freeman Cmek. Will thane
features to "art? How will the impact on the wetland species that "copy these
ecosystems be miti gated? Will there be a suitable path of floc to avoid flooding continue
eurant mixing, and protect existing brackish water wetland eommuniti=7
4. Section 2.4.3, Volume III - We believe Altemadves IR 6 can succeed if a storm event with a
mots realistic probability of occ+mence is used to decrunine reasonable salinity and water
quality impacts.
The proposed project, by setting its "Allowable Salinity Dilution Criteria" (Section 2-4.3,
Vol. no with sun ".— chjectise of Providing an aquatic hairiest that will support a diverse
ass,rnblage that will include Isar b scrisiltive marine spades;' is foreclosing options that
otherwise would he" been available to meet the reasormble project objeettvrn and eobsnca
critically needed flood control and water quality.
By selecting the highest recorded rather than the typical cm,,,ma bona of bacteria and toelals
measured within Fast Garden Gmvo- Winesburg Channel to study the impacts. the n
DEUVEls uses unrealistic criteria to skew the results against resolution Of other critical
Issues such u flood control. Something less than the highest recorded concentrations of
mnstimmta should have been used fm studying the impacts.
Only the peak of very large storms would spill over the side weir into the restoretim errs in _
Ahamatiw 6. Exmrinmion of the impacts of small= (e.g., 5 year m 10 -year) asaons should
be included in the EIR/ELS to gain appreciation of what would happen ts all but the arrest of
Santa events.
-
pv// EIR/E/S�9alra chat, L- .Im,dr Wa,onan -n
s, az a.�w� m cam•.- 3 -106
0amsm,
n
$eat by: P0601SW&P9nIECT Pta'0 Ito atmelan; lollaluu x:v`x;jxrM erav;rege arse
N
Overly conservative and unrealistic assumptions used in the DEIRIDEIS tend to overstate the
estimations of adverse impacts to the deep water habitat from flows from East Garden Gmve-
Wintersbmg rhamtd. The assumption that storm ➢owa from the channel are spilling into the
'Lowlands Project in a neap tide, while at the same time using nYtame high tide conditions in
Huntington Harbor to compute flows spilling into the lowlands is act appropriate. The
selection of contemporaneous occurrence of an extremely rare, high tide in Huntington
Harbor with an extreme low tide in the Lowlands dramauw the4mpaca to the lowlands by
maximising spill volume and spill flaw raw while mid �g the volume of nwiving
waters to show higher than normal cmhemtntiws in the tidal base. This and other
assumptions should be changed to reflect only those conditions that ace possible in nature.
Additionally, we believe, refined computations during the final design phase, with more
acanare mathematical and physical modeling of the side weir, will &bow further reductions
of the adverse impacts reported to the deep water tidal basin.
5. Page ES -2, line 41- It is claimed that the acreage of wince and wetlands in the Lowlands
will not be dimmiis hd. No tabulations arc provided to support this claim. Table M -g gives
co existing acreage for habitat type. Where is the data to substantiate that ma of hhme wetland
habitats will be diminished? It appears likely that the creation of the deep water habitat will
result in an increase of submerged wetlands (open water) and a reduction in wetlands above
the rune of tidal fluctuation where most vegetation is located.
6. Page ES-9, line 21 -The removal of the piekleweed m construct the full tidal basin results is
a loss to this wetland coosysr® and replacement with amther wedand ecosystem that is to
be constructed at mitigation for development within the Parts ofLo+Angeles, and Lang
Beach. The full tidal basin cannot be considered as mitigation for the lase of the pickleweW
because 1) It Is already counted as mitigation for another site and 2) it's a different
mm,yeem. The proposal be "partially offset^ the loss of picklewed by irrigating some of the
remaining p'lddeaeed is of questionable parity. How does this accommodate species when,
territorial area is more important tan density of pickleweed7
7. Page ES-14, Gnat 37 -The improvement to babiat value by implementation of Aho mte 1 is
0 acknowledged in this paragraph. Many species benefit Only non is identified a incurring
km benefit than with the Proposed PmjccL Why should the benefit to numerous, species be
outweighed by the detriment to the can?
g. Page ES -33, line 29- This paragraph addresses only quality. What about ghantty7 Several
laq of the other alternatives create more habitat than the Proposed Alternative. Doesn't this
1-1 added quantity more than compensate for the marginal mkcdon m quality?
9. Page 4.29, line 1 g - Thu is also a mamh m claim that the Pmpwed Project Want ads
N eaviro®ealal impact on [he existing habitat that will be replaced with diffee rt organisms.
This impact should be mitigated
FLOOD CONTROL
ifs 1. Sedon 4235, Page 4 -10 of Volume III - The report indicama dot "the 1, 10 and 25 years
event bydmw&Pb was generatd by &eating down the 100 -yea event hydmxmph in
proportion to rainfall intensities." It appears that the 50 -year event hydrugmph was also
Cacao'af as Coe,aoss
Dr,ye VWEL%Jd Ch.Lo.laed Rnearmion
3182 a.,ovi. c—ve 3 -107
OL 1
Sent. by: Pn9a 1EWVR0lECr FLN-3 eta 934913Y taltelma x.atra;3lusier.. irege iu.,
estimated in this same fashion. It is not clear whet rainfall intensity was usod for the oae-
yew event as the Orange County Hydrology Manual does act Camara an intcveiTy for such an
event
Sine the relationship between peak discharge and rainfall intensity is not entirely linear and
since the volume ofrunoff associated with ditferem frequency arm evens plays a large role
in detenrohadion of the impacts of each alternative, the rough procedure used to develop
=off hydrographs does not appear to be appropriate. Detailed hydrologic analyses based on
the Orange County Hydrology Manual and Addendum I to the manual should be used to
develop the runoff hydrognphs for various frequency smm events.
We believe that the scaled estimate of the peak discluaM for the 10, 25, and 50 -yea events
might be high, and therefore result in geater impacts. Based on this assertion. it is our belief
that Alternative 6 may be more feasible thin determined by the draft EM/EM.
3. Page ES -3, line 8 — The statement that, "interests of contiguous property -cotters shall be
protected" may net be accurate, The proposed excavation for the fall tidal burn abuts a
part= of the existing East Garden Grove.Wintersburg Channel levee. The integrity of this
embankment may be compromised by excavating to a depth several fact low= than the
bottom of the channel m create the basin. Also, the fact that the protective berm "and the
perimeter of the full tidal basin does net encompass tied portion next m the East (ieedrn
Gm Wintersbmg Chanel is aproblem. This will allow high tides to pond and saturate the
levee slope creating a potential for slope failme. 71aere will also be minor wind wave aeti=
on the levee slope face. It was not designed to withstand tbase influences.
4. Page ES-4, Table ES-1 —This table indicates that an mmoxinnent pemdt will be required
from the OCFCD. This will be needed for the grading that eaeroarhes onto OCFCD tight of
way and for the discharge from the French dmia The grading will only be permitted if it
includes the enmatruction of a berm sufficient to address the wacems mentioned in No. 3
above and of adequate height to withstand the I00 -yr. discharge delivered by the East Garden
Gray Wimersbtng Channel when all upstream impmemcm, ate completed in accordance
with Final EIR 560 for the Fast Garden Orovo-Wurtarsbmg/Ocaanviaw Chartan d+ EIR 560
was completed In February 1998. The discharge from the French drain will require farther
"tudiom The water must tercet the discharge standards for dewatering waste estahliilrd by
the Santa Asa Regional Water Quality Control Baud. The volume must be sufficiently Smell
to avoid Ion of required flood neutral capacity end any adverse affect an the salinity balance
of water in this reach of the c ,el..
5. Page FSS, line 27 — The claim tom the Proposed Project will not cheap Inner and Outer
Bolm Bay is only accurate if the= is an improvemem made m the Fast Gard® Grove -
Wmtmsbtug Channel. Elsewhere, in the FIRMS, it is stared then "Orange Comfy has made e
wmmiment to improve the levers of am channel within the lowlands to elimvate flood
evema greater than 25 -yeu star e s spilling into the project am" (see Page 3 -38 end Page 4
29). This is not true. Orange County has net made a commitment to construct =y
improvements within the balsa China Wetlands. Based on this and the comment provided in
No. 2 above. it world appear that some grading for flood protection may Oemm and it may
charge &portion of Inner and Out= Bolas Bay.
E; ufpv Ceeww
'no ElA/EEMlsa Chle+ LO'- , Acuen ben
star Pao -...-m c�.�a 3 -108
aamoi
M
>y
Seat. by: P0.4r /EN URWECT PLN'0 714 a349132; 10/19/00 2:02PM;JJVf ftYa;rage a1la
rs 6. Page ES -5, line 35 - Tnis 31atea that a bens is u, be constructed amend the basim The berm
J a depicted on Figure H 5om Volume IV don not fully encompass the beau It is
discontinuous where the basin abuts the East Carder, Orove- Wimemburg Channel. See the
mmmeot made in No. 3 above. - -
0 I 7. Page ES -7, line 41 -'[Lis summary statement needs supporting quantitative data or should be
mmoved. See Habitat Comment Nos. 3 and 5 about.
la
S. Page ES -10, line 1 -It is unclear how a French drain would accomplish the objective. If it is
intended to milect all saline water entering the wench from the southwest, it is unlikely that a
small pump and a French drain mould handle this Task because there will be a mntinsal
supply of flow from the wetlands. Eve, if a large pump were Installed the cost of continual
operation may cot be realistic. What is.the potential for the watland vegetation to be
impacted by the alteration of the groundwater surface extending out from the French drain?
what will prevent non -saline water from being drawn Imo the French drain from the
northeast wall of the mer,eh7 Whet Is the potential for settlement in the adjacent residential
development a the groundwater level is lowered and compresslbto material that underlies the
site (peat) dries and shrinks? What is the impact of the pimped discharge on the Eat Gorden
GMv Wintrmburg Channel (am Comment No. 4)? The text on Page 4-30, line 40 confirms
that there aro still a lot of unanswered questions on this topic. Thu impact needs mme,
investigation before any conclusions can be drawn as to the sigrtiHcmu or Wigoificaace of
the anvmommanmt impact
N I 9. Page ES -10, line 25 -Who will be responsible for the beach murisl mat every two years?
How much material will be required? Where will it be obtained?
10. Page ES -10, line 29 - How can the loge ofbeech by conversion of lend to water be
T� considered imignlflcaet? Beach arcs is out of Orange County's greatest resources. any loo
N of this area, particularly in a location with public access and weadve recreation true, is a
very significant impact
N I 11. Page ES-11, Gm 2- Who will be responsible for the mahr terunce dredging? Where will
N dredge spoils be pla ed?
11 Page ES -14, line 45 - The dilution of the salinity is minimal most of the year. It is Only
sigrdfirard when there is a major storm. On page S&18, line 24 and ES-20. line 50, it is
N acknowledged that organisms recover quickly from such abort teem impacts.
13. Page ES -16, Has 26- Elevated bacteria levels duimg amrm flows are also a likelihood with
the Proposed Project due to the high wnmntm in, of fecal waste that the bird population will
generate in the wetlands. This may actually be a larger contributing source bem, of leas
N dilution without the storm flow. It u air te
mworthy that the bacteria carried in the storm
flow of the East Garden Grave- Wintetsburg Gamma will not be a new problem. This -.
discharge already gem m the ocean through an outlet further up the mat
• 14. Page 2 -34, line 16 -Thu paragraph addressee the sideweir concept that will result in spillage
of some of the storm discharge in the East Garden Croy Winmmburg Chanel into the fail
N I tidal basin It appears that the analysis is based on the seasonal high tide a a water surface
Cou^sY Ara_ g Cwaaam
0,,IE EmMbua Chico Lme/edr Fc/wmien
aavvmt
Sent, by: PUS0 16W/0a 20T PLMO 714 8348134; 10/18100 2:04Pa(fatfaa_iT29 ;Ye9e bn%
control for the channel (Su Appendix B. P. B -13). This yields data tlm u bm" only for
storm events that ate concuncm with this peat in the tidal cycle. The tidal stage has a very
significant impact on the function of a sideweit becamse the device is located within the tidal
prism. Even though the EiR/EIS states dot Bow will begin to discharge over the "a a
about the 10 -year storm interval, this is only true fm the CO°e 0 mentioned asovs. In
the tide will not be a the seasonal high and spillage will sot occur until n
Ln
most situations,
much larger storm event- For the Senate reason, the claimed split of flow during the 100 -year
N
event (4,650 cfs m Outer Balsa Bay and 6,640 cfl u the wetlands) is a very improbable
event Much less How will enter the wetlands ceder more probable tidal conditions during a
100 -yea event Consequently, the data presented on water quality for Alternate 6 elsewhere
in the EIR/EIS is very misleading. There also appears to be an impossible assumption
baludod in the were quality anaysa for this dtemab, This is the occurrence oflow tide in
the tidal basin when the peak spillage occuts over the sidcwcir during a high tide. The tidal
flumuation in the channel and the basin will always be an the samo cycle although than may
be a more muted cycle in the channel.
15. Page 2 -34, line 20 — It is stated that the weir will be built only if the Orange County Flood I
N
Control District foods the COMWICUOM, Tbis comrades is not Seeasooable limitation 10
impose on Allenative 6. It appears to be a %collateral choice made by the project proponents
to reduce the likelihood that this alternative wig be =Is=&
16. Page 3 -28, lire 3 —This statement is incorrect The vast majority of the freshwater surface
I
N
input into the Balsa Cldes lowlands coma from fast Garden Cnove- Wimeaburg Channel,
the Boise Chien Mesa and the Huntington Mom. Another source is the Springdale Pump
net
Station which drains lowlands tracts north of the station.
17. Page 3 -37, line 26 — This statement is incorrect, The flow in the Fast Garden Grove-
I
N
Wivtersburg Channel is a sigui5cam yea -round aaaC<of fresh surfers wrier "a the
wetlands
18. Page 3 -37, lice 30 — This statement is misleading, The Pmiect Report for the East Garden
I
Cmove- Wintersbmg and Crestview Chmncls (1994) indicate an estimated total coat of $133
N
mi13Wo end estimated annual fu�mg of $2 -5 million The chu bal is being upgraded as
stated, however, the task is a very extended project It is likely to take mom than 30 ycem n
complete all of the required impmvemrere
I
M
19. Page 3 -38, line 10— As stated in Comment No. 6 above, this is art correct.
20. Page 4-29, line 26— This steremeat is not aecuram as already acted by above. A complete
lees enclosure including the boundary adjaem w the East Garden Geove- Wmtessburg M
Channel Is nccc&wY.
21. Page 4-29, line 32 — This Statement is act carmen. Them has beem Do eomTnitmem n�prove
the levees of the channel within the Lowlands m my enhaneod Protection
approved EIR 560 (Page 2 -8) states that there will be new tide gates constructed N
approximately 3, 400 feet upstream of the existing tide gates and the existing gets will be M
plugged. The chmnsl in between the two locations will an longer be mainumed for man
water conveysace as the entire diseMrge of the East Garden Cm Winteabag Channel is
t
Coano eral- re Coa,a,ems
Drad VNEZBelse Chsca Lowtwdr pssavarmn
n. e 3 -110
wmam+
Sant, by: PnSDIEW&PP61EGT PLN'n 714 !319132; 10,11IW e:v wilanraa_at a:r.ye ia,�a
N io be directed through the Bolas Chico Wetlands to a new mean outlet. The Proposed Project
M in this Draft EM/EIS is not compatible with this previously approved flood protection
'concept. Altemative 1 more fully addresses this existing constraint.
M 122. Page 4-30, line 40 -San Comment Nan 3.
M
I
M
23. Page 4-37, line 14 -This placement of fill on existing wetlands creams a need formitigation
(see Habitat Comment Nos. 3, 5 and 5; also Flood Control Comment No. 20). The
possibility that excess material will be -trucked offsite- raises many questions about what
could be a significant environmental impact. flow much material is likely to be uucked7
Where will it be taken? What rouse will be used? What constraints will be applied to
miuimin traffic safety impacts? Is this coo much material m place in a landfill eliminating
valuable space for placement of refuse? Appendix 0 addresses several traffic considerations
but doesn't provide answers to these questions. It also arms that the trucking avrciated with
the disposal of marnrW is likely to last[ 70 (week?) days extending over a period of 5 months.
The proposed 42 dump truck trips per hour ova thin period of lime is a significant impact It
is unclear how there numbers were derived because the report gives no indication ofhow
much of dw 1.9 million cubic yards of dredged material will need to be mucked ofTaite.
24. Pagc 440, line 42 - The issue of beach connndnation resulting from bird few is not
. adequately addressed. Current investigation in the Talbert Ranh strongly suggam that ibis Is
In a significant sourca of coliform bacteria in coast-al waters adjacent to the ocean inlet created
for that ecological reserve. The Bola, Chin Wetlands is a much larger meat and will have a
M much grata bud population. The conclusion that "regular tidal flushing" will keep the
colifonm levels below threshold criteria appears premature.
M
LY,
COASTAL RESOURCES
I, The grain sin of the material m be dredged and placed on the ebb but and the beech has
highly variable grain sin and the winnowing procea desmbed is .•came; however,
Resource Agencies, in issuing permits, have required on mom projects than the fill material be
900 /s sand. They have recently allowed as low as W/* sand or a compatibility analysis
showing the fill material m be within 10% of the composition of the receiver beech. Projects
with a smaller fraction of sand ere not Rely m be looked upon favorably by the Resotnea
Agencies The Canty has been Vying m ehaage the regulatory perception dare m the
dwindling amounts of comae - grained scdirnent available as borrow material in the local
coastal cox, but have sot been sunwstul to doe. Another source of fell material and
disposal of existing material should be discussed am option.
2. The DEIMS discusses m ongoing monitoring and maimearmoe program, but does not
discuss hose it will be funded Beach replenishment projects ate costly and difficult to _.
implemom on a Hourly basis. The establisbenem of an runuity fund and development of a
"bigger me pant^^" to start withdrawing from the ftmd for remcuning permit acquisition,
M design and implementation's necessary to meet the mitigating elements of this project
CowryofOnageCam-
(MfrVNELYeebaG/aLc.fmdrRe br e
3 -111
sea,. or: ruuwcmarnwem rte u ns e.»m tunerw ..v •; ASUa -e�• *; ^ate +
EWIRONMENTAL HEALTH
1. Typical dry weather bacteriological levels of arm water, at Balsa Chia State Beach
(Orange County Sanitation District sample location, 33N and 39M indicate general overall
compliance with the California State Depumrnt of Health Sasvica Oran WaterLosttaG
Sports Standards (AB 411). 0. eight separate occasions since implementation of the AR411
mplatiwu in July of 1999, elevated levels of indicator bacteria have resulted in the violation
of ware, quality smndards and subsequent posting of warning signs for sectlons of Botsa
Chia State Beech oaaa waters. Ave of the eight standards violations were for emawoeeue M to
bacteria alone, two were for both feat aliform and e,twocoo ur, and one was for all three
indicators. The duration of the vaster quality violadan postings was genesallY In, than two -
days on each occasion. No sewage spill related ocean water ctosmea have ==ad during
this period Their water quality results are consistent with other coemal water areas of
orange County that w out typically impacted by urban atmoff during dry weather periods.
During wet weather pesiods, the Cosmty lasses an Ocean and Bay Water Advisory during or
after all significant rainfall events. The advisory natifia all recreational water user, to avoid
body contact with ocean warm adjacent to discharging flood control channels, meln and
rivers, fon atlesse three days due m the bigh levels of iadiMs bbdetia.
2. Water quality monitoring of the Ferri Garden Grove Wmtersburg flood Cotmol Caenael I
(EGGWC) ard several tributaries conducted over the last lg mombs revealed Intermittently ON
elevated levels of indleatar bacteria in the mall chann.l and consistently Olmsted results at M
the Slater Channel and Springdale Pump Station wet well. This is consistent with urban
nmoff microbial water quality elsewhere in the County.
Project impact Summery
3. Proposed Praject - The aosnuction of a tidal Wet, u detailed in the DEMOS Proposed
Prodwi-Concept Plan, withmn a Flood Control Diversion Sbnclme would establish a full
tidal wetlands in Balsa Chia without sigrM an, orban runoff flowing into the wetlands and
subxq=dy out to the oeenn. The proposed project DEMOS don not snticiPate elevated
bacteria levels in coastal warm during either dry a, wet weather periods as a resell of
construction of the tidal idetloutlat
However, based on recent studio conducted in the Talbert Marsh as pert of the investigation
one the sours tracking and identification of the elevated levels of indicator bacteria in ocean
water along Huntington State and City Beaches, the County still believes the porentlal for
elevated indicator, bacteria levels to ocean is oceun water, along Bolss Chica State Bach
carmen be ruled out.
4. Proposed Project 1' Sub - Alterative - Sense comments ns Proposed ProjecL
5. Proposed Prject 2'e SLLb-Alteenative - Same wmments u Ptoposcd Pmje L
'®
6. Alon, eve 1- The diversion of the EGG WC jam the full tidal basin would result in the
discharge of dry and wet weather urban nonoff uAc the full tidal basin and eubacgtxntly out
through the tidal ides/ outlet. During storm e,cds this would bave the effect of creating an
to
CF— OJ@saca Caauaum ..
fxaR va�PlS2alwcl�aa 1a,.wae. rmiwm;�,
3 -112
awarot ......
bent. by: PD D1EWVROJECT PIMA eta eaama¢; la /Me. nn..... .u.,
urban runoff di Olurge point a Bola Chia Stale Bach where ane does not nnrmtly exist.
During and for Several days after storm ,scan, a significant increase in indictor bacteria
levels along Balm Chia SUM Beach Is expected. During dry weather Bows, orb= rumoff
from the EGG WC may increase indicator bacteria levels along smacim of Bola Chia State
beach resulting in a viabliaa of standards.
V-1 In the event of en una tharized discharge of sewage into the EGG WC watershed during a
le stony event. she County would issue a formal dosme of impacted ocean receiving waters a
Bola Chica State Beach. Sewage spills that a= during dry weather periods may taint in
a closure of affected ocean waters at Bolo Chico State Beach.
7. Alternative 2 - Same comments as Altemzdve I.
& Alternative 3 - Same mmanenn as Ahmmtive 1.
9. Alternative 4 - This alterative would potentially have the most significant impact an mmu,
bacteriological weer quality along Bole t3ia State Bca JL Storm flaw, and dry weather
when runoff will flow directly into ocean receiving waters resulting in potentially significant
water quality impacts ofoceen water, along Bola Chia State Beach Sewage spills that
N oeaaa during dry weather periods would also result in a closure of impacted Scam wafer, a
Bola Chica State Bear3. -
In the event of an reauthorized discharge of sewage into the EGGWC watershed during a
storm event, BCA/Envimnmental Health would imme a formal closure of impacted aeeao
receiving waters a Bola Chica Slate Beach. Sewage spills that oeu¢ dual. dry weather
Periods would also result in a Boman of impacted ocean wetera a Baia Chico State Beach
a
10. Alternative 5 - Bacteriological ocean water quality along Bola Chia State Beach is
expected to remain the same.
11. Alteraative 6 - Same eat Proposed Project with the following dif cumces;
During and for aeveral days after a I0 -year ar greater storm event, a significant Increase in
indicator bacteria levels along Bola Chia State Beach is expected Aa invm- in AB 411
wailer quality standards violations may accw and would result in the posting of warning signs
a affected aresa.
In the evens of an uawthorized discharge of sewage into the EGGWC watershed during a I o-
your or grester,Item event, the County would isaoe a formal closure of impacted ocean
receiving waters at Bola Chia State Beach. -
In conclusion, the County of Orange will continue to mitipac the potential public health risks
associated with urban runoff and unwthorized diechmg" of waste that would impact meemh
receiving waters mid for body contact recreation by implementing postings, closeness and -.
advisories in accordance with mmhdawd requirameon.
Cows afD1anae Ca—u,
Draft 1'JN/6LVBdaa Ceram 1nHa,� Rmtn-aibn
Suez Pesryr¢es w c.,.,a,u 3 -113
owao,
OPEN SPACE/RECREATION
Blkc,ways
I . the Commuter Bllxways SfrWegk Plan, the regional bikeways Plan for Orange Coast.
identifies a regional bikeway doom the East Ouden Grove Wintersburg Cbenmel ([ha is a
conceptual aligmnwrs. The bikeway need not be along the channel, as long as there is a
simile, parallel alignment that would take the Class I bikeway &am Slate Avenue W Pacific
Coast highway). For convenience, this off -road bikeway will hereafter be refeaed to as the
Wintersburg Bikeway.
2. Figures 2.12 through 2.17:
We concur with the mu c alternatives shown for the Winlersburg BikewaY, and appreciate
that the bikeway would connect W puking. We also request that the bikeway continuo to the
intersection of Warne Avenue and PCH. This would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to
continue traveling of- mad from the Winersburg Bikeway W the Coastal Bikeway (the Bolen
Chia Stara Beach bikmvay).
A Class I bikeway should also be shown connecting the existing Class I bikeway in
Hundogrua Central Park W Wieder Regional Perk. The bikeway should continua through the
regional peak W connection with the Coastal Bikeway.
Trails
3. The Masher Plan of Regiamf Riding andHikfng Trails identifies a regional riding and hiking
trail through Meda, Regional Park that connects W We riding and hiking trail along Ellis
Avenue. This nail should be depicted on Figure; 2 -12 through 2 -17. (Ono copiea of Woe
figure arc not clear.)
4. It should be noted In the figtues and text that regional riding and hBcing trails am could -use:
they are intended for bikers, equestrians, and mountain bicyclists. CTha tecma "celuestdan
trail" or "equestrian and hiking" trail are incorrect. The correct term is "riding and hiking
trail ". W incorporate all three uses.)
Thank you for the opportunity to respond W the DEUUEIS. if you have any questions, please
contact are or feel free W call Charlotte Hanyroan directly. Chazatta may be reached at
(714) 834-2522.
Very truly yours.
Thomas S. hfathe
Planning & Development Services Department
Cwrvy al0.m�aeC Cx
D,aa fJryELS'9dm hka Laxland. Rexwaion
s, sz a —� .cam .
.M1 3 -114
w,
UF
6U
R
LJ: COUNTY OF ORANGE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, FROM THOMAS B. MATHEWS,
DIRECTOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, DATED 10116/00
Response to Comment 1: The source and disposition of the funds, the bases for project configuration,
and the obligations of the parties of the Steering Committee am described in the 'Interagency Agreement -
contained in Appendix A of the DEIR/EIS. The Purpose and Need of the Project is described in
Section 1.2 on page 1 -1 and the Project Objectives are listed in Section 2.1.4 on page 2-6 of the
DEIR/EIS. Other functions, such as flood control, may be wnsidered to the extent that their inclusion will
not violate the provisions of the Interagency Agreement or jeopardize the Project, either fiscally or
environmentally. Half of the Alternatives analyzed in the DEIR/EIS incorporate, wholly or partially, flood
waters from the EGGW Channel so as not to foreclose the integration of wetland restorationt food control
in the project area. Pending resolution of the unmitigated water quality impacts (projected beach
closures) due to the composition of flood waters and a source of funding separate from that of the Project,
these alternatives appear Infeasible and biologically detrimental to the Project Purpose and Need and
Objectives. The Project neither affects the County's responsibility and plans to provide flood control to
the region nor the status quo as to the capacity, discharge point and operational impacts, including those
to Huntington Harbour, of the wMant EGGW Channel. However, the Steering Committee will continue to
work with the County to address the region's flood control issues.
Response to Comment 2: The cited statement appears valid based on the examples provided in this
comment. We are also aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch has advised the
County that future 404 permits to upgrade the EGGW Channel will require an analysis of cumulative
impacts of such flood control improvements on the Boise Chica Lowlands and specify measures to
mitigate such impacts. The FEIR/EIS includes this information.
Response to Comment 3: The information provided by the County is noted. These matters are more
appropriately considered and/or verified during the preparation of the Project's construction plans.
However, the Project would not appear, based on published design and capacity improvements to the
EGGW Channel, to affect the County's plans for the resulting facility. The Project does not have the
potential to impact OCFD facilities. The consequences of floodwaters that can not be contained by the
present EGGW Channel could adversely affect the Project, particularly if additional enlargement of
upstream capacity occurs. Please we Response to Comment 2.
Response to Comment 4: The County's positions regarding Alternatives 1 and 6 are acknowledged.
Please refer to Response to Comment 1 above.
Response to Comment 5: Please refer initially to Section 2.1.6 on page 2 -7, Figure 2 -3 on page 2 -8,
and Figure 2-4A on page 2 -9 of the DEIRIEIS for an understanding of the diversity of Project water
depths and resulting habitat The Lowlands are currently 'severely degraded' wetlands and although the
area can not be restored to its historic configuration, the Project will restore wetlands functions and values
historically present at Boise Chica.
Response to Comment 6: We are unaware of any 'sa0/rresh water balance' existing within area
proposed for restoration by the Project. The existing system changes from fresh to excessively haline
depending on the amount of rainfall at any given time, because there is no surface tidal connection. The
Project's imparts (and mitigation therefor) an existing and benefits to biological resources are discussed
in Section 4.5, pages 4-62 through 4-127, of the DEIR/EIS. Lake Signal is within the designated Future
Full Tidal Area and will remain as is until tidal flow is restored to that area. Al that time, Lake Signal will
become tidal habitat. Lake Signal presently supports no native fishes and only opportunistic aquatic
insects. When tidal flow is restored, it will support estuarine fishes and invertebrates and will provide an
improved food base for birds. Most of Freeman Creek will become part of the new full tidal basin with an
improvement in biological resources similar to that described for Lake Signal. The upstream part of
Freeman Creek will remain within the designated Future Full Tidal Area and will remain as is until tidal
flow is restored to that area and lt becomes tidal habitat.
3162 oi °4A1bCOnn0i4 3 -115
Response to Comment 7: See again Response to Comment 1 above. The 'worst case' water quality -
analysis for Alternative 6 did not reveal an adverse effect of the constituents of the flood waters on the
biological resources of the full tidal area. The concern raised by the analysis of Alternative 6 was that
bacteria levels may be exceeded resulting in a public health problem on the area's beaches. Impacts to
water quality were determined as stated in the EIR/EIS to identify the worst reasonable case.
Response to Comment 8: Table 4.5-3 shows the acres of habitat that would be present under each
aflemative. All alternatives increase the acres of water and wetlands habitats compared to the existing
condition. Wetlands habitats that suffer a net loss compared to existing conditions are seasonal ponds
and pickleweed. Although there will be a loss in net acres of pickeweed, a net gain in functional value is
expected because tidal pickleweed is more robust and supports a higher density of breeding Belding's
savannah sparrow than non -tidal pickleweed. Within the tidal basin, part of the non -tidal pickleweed
wetland area will be replaced with a tidal cordgrass wetland area. This project feature will provide high
value breeding habitat for the very endangered light- footed dapper rail. Seasonal ponds will he replaced
by tidal subddal and intertidal habitat which has a higher functional value than seasonal ponds.
Response to Comment 9: As discussed above, although creation of the full tidal basin will result in a
loss of pickleweed, restoration of tidal flow to much of the remaining pickleweed will result in a net gain in
functional value of the pickleweed habitat. For Belding's savannah sparrow, the species most dependent
on pickleweed, the size of territories is smaller in tidal pickleweed compared to non-tidal pickleweed.
Therefore, many more breeding territories of this sensitive species can be supported in tidal pickleweed
compared to non -tidal pickleweed. As discussed in Section 4.5.5, a sizable gain in the Belding's
savannah sparrow population is expected for the Proposed Project. The ability to establish cordgrass in
the full tidal basin will provide habitat for the endangered light - fooed dapper rail.
Response to Comment 10: As explained briefly in Section 4.5.1 and in more detaii in Appendix D. the
routing of all EGGW Channel flows into the full tidal basin is expect to reduce fish and aquatic
invertebrate diversity. A lower fish and invertebrate diversity would also reduce the food base somewhat
for some bird species. Therefore. Alternative 1 and other alternatives that receive all of the flood flows
would have lower benefits for marine fishes, marine invertebrates and some bird species compared to the
Proposed Project.
Response to Comment 11: Quantity as well as quality was considered in the habitat evaluation
presented in Section 4.5.1 and Appendix D. The greater quantity of habitat does not compensate for the
reduced value of the habitat to fishes and aquatic invertebrates caused by storm flows.
Response to Comment 12: As stated in line 21 on p 4-29 of the DEIR/EIS, the shift in water balance
referred to in line 18 is considered environmentally beneficial and is one of the main objectives of the
Proposed Project.
Response to Comment 13: Rainfall intensity was not used for calculation of the 1 -year stone
hydrogmph. Rather, the County Flood Control Division provided M &NE with the 100 -year hydrograph
(24 hour runoff hydrograph) and hydrograph scaling factors for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50 -year floods.
The 1 -year flood hydrograph was created by extrapolating the hydrograph scaling factor from the
2 -year flood.
Hydrographs were generated using hydrograph scaling factors provided by Orange County Flood Control
staff. The calculations were provided for review by the County during the study and no comments
indicating inappropriate methods following that review. County Flood Control staff at the outset of the
study recommended the methodology used.
Response to Comment 14: The possibility of slumping of the flood channel levee induced by excavation
of the full tidal water area is considered to be remote, but the issue would be more fully explored during
Project final design. Existing facts do not support the premise that soil saturation on the exterior levee
due to ponded tidal water might lead to levee failure. The Project does not include significant dredging
along the southerly exterior of the flood channel and elevations are such that tidal waters would reach the
owavi
levee toe and lower slope, just as it does on the inside. Under the existing conditions, water does pond
along the levee toe, and in wet years can remain for lengthy periods. The closest point of
excavation /dredging to the EGGW Flood Control Channel levee is 200 feet from the levee for
Alternative 6. Undermining of the levee should not occur and the work will occur outside of the OCFCO
easement.
Also, tides will reach near the levee toe but will be free to drain to the ocean so an extended ponding
condition will not occur and the existing OCFCD levee will not become saturated and fail under Project
condtons. High tides occur only for a few hours so soil saturation will not be significant. Wind waves
could be generated along the levee only at high fides (over a short time of a few hours) so their
development will be significantly hindered and they will be small. The fetch is to the southeast, but the
prevailing wind is from the west so an insufficient fetch will exist to generate wind waves. Wind waves
should therefore not be a problem for the levee
The need for additional bank protection on the outside of the flood channel levee will be fully explored
during Project final design.
Response to Comment 15: Please refer to Response to Comment 3 herein. The suggested berm
appears to be suggested to protect the Project from the potential overflow of the EGGW Channel under
full build out rather than vice versa. The County's encroachment requirements are acknowledged.
Response to Comment 16: Please refer to Response to Comment 2 herein.
Response to Comment 17: The comment is cored There is no need for a new berm at that location.
The top elevation of the levee needed to contain tidal waters within the basin is +9.5 feet mean sea level.
Most of the flood channel top elevation of the flood channel is 2 feet higher than that. See also Response
to Comment 14 of Letter 1-3 herein.
Response To Comment 18: Please refer to Responses to Comments 3 and 5 herein.
Response to Comment 19: There are a number of questions still to be resolved with respect to the
proposed French drain; as such, groundwater impacts were determined to be a significant impact
(Class II). Groundwater studies performed for this project indicate that a French drain is an appropriate
methodology to prevent the identified groundwater impacts. The additional studies proposed as
mifigation for groundwater impacts are necessary to make sure that the design of the French drain
resolves all of the issues. The proposed groundwater monitoring program (see fines 40-52 on page 4-30
of the DEIR/EIS), with corrective action if necessary, would further ensure that potentially significant
groundwater impacts would be mitigated to insignificant.
Response to Comment 20: The Proposed Project would be responsible, if necessary, for beach
nourishment to restore sand removed from the system as a result of the tidal inlet The material would be
obtained from dredging of the flood shoal inland of the PCH Bridge. Approximately 150,000 cubic yards
of material would be dredged over a two year period. See also Response to Comment 2 of Letter S-2.
Response to Comment 21: Please see Section 4.8 of the DEIRIEIS and Response to Comment 6 in
Letter S-1 (California Department of Parks and Recreation).
Response to Comment 22: See Response to Comment 20 above.
Response to Comment 23: The reduction in aquatic species diversity expected for Alternative 1 is
discussed on pages 4-73 and 4 -74.
Response to Comment 24: Please refer to Section 2.2.3 herein, Topical Response 3.
a,n amw.wmra�..m 3 -117
w.mn+
Response to Comment 25: Impacts to hydraulics and water quality were analyzed to identify the worst
reasonable case. Any lesser storm flow volume would not predict the reasonable worst case and the
document would not meet CEOA requirements. Also, any scenario resulting in a lesser impact to water
quality would not predict the reasonable worst case and human health. See also Response to Comment i
of Letter L -3 herein.
Response to Comment 26: Please refer to Response to Comment 1 herein.
Response to Comment 27: The statement will be clarified. The flood channel discharges into Outer
Boise Bay, which itself is under tidal influence of seawater coming and going all the way from Anaheim
Bay, but geographically lt is part of the 'lowland.' None of the flood channel water currently enters that
portion of the lowland that is the focus the proposed restoration. The context of the surface hydrology
section is the portion of the 'lowland' that is not under tidal influence. Input from the Springdale pump
station is discussed in lines 32 to 35 on page 3-28 of the DEIR/EIS.
Response to Comment 28: The DEIRlEIS relies on previous environmental analyses of the County of
Orange. Little evidence (indicators) exists of significant freshwater flows during the dry season, such as
freshwater vegetation. The flapgates are known to be 'leaky* and the channel between the flapgates and
Graham Street is considered to be brackish or saline most of the time. However, the fish community near
Graham is typically composed of nonnative freshwater or brackish tolerant, introduced species such as
Thapia and carp, while downstream native estuarine species seem to prevail.
Response to Comment 29: The text of the EIR/EIS has been revised to indicate that improvements to
the EGGW Channel will be done over an extended period of time.
Response to Comment 30: Please referto Response to Comment 2 herein.
Response to Comment 31: Please refer to the Response to Comment 17 herein.
Response to Comment 32: Comment acknowledged. Please also refer to Response to Comment 2
herein.
Response to Comment 33: The reference to a previous comment appears to be Comment 19 rather
than Comment 8. Accordingly, please see Response to Comment 19.
Response to Comment 34: Table 2 -1 in the DEIR/EIS presents the construction volumes including the
amount for each alternative to be hauled offske. The descriptions for the Proposed Project and
alternatives further discuss these volumes and the anticipated truck trips. See DEIR/EIS Section 2.1.6
_ (Proposed Project), Section 2.3 (Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis), and Section 2.7
(Construction Methods).
Response to Comment 35: Please referto Section 2.2.3, Topical Response 3.
Response to Comment 36: Please see Response to Comment 5 of Letter S-2.
Response to Comment 37: A Maintenance Account is established and funded per the provisions of the
Interagency Agreement, a copy of which is contained in Appendix A of the DEIRlEIS.
Response to Comment 38: Thank you for the information.
Response to Comment 39: Thank you for the information.
Response to Comment 40: Please refer to Section 2.2.3, Topical Response 3.
Response to Comment 41: These comments are consistent with the analysis in the EIRJEIS.
»m R, 3-118
owsw
Response to Comment 42: These comments are consistent with the analysis in the EIR/EIS
Response to Comment 47: These comments are consistent with the analysis in the EIR/EIS
Response to Comment 44: These comments are consistent with the analysis in the EIR/EIS
Response to Comment 45: The conceptual Wintersburg Bikeway would connect to the parking lot on
Warner Avenue. From there it is a short distance across PCH to the Coastal Bikeway. However, the
California Coastal Commission, at its meeting of November 16, 2000, denied certification of the County of
Orange's Bolsa Chica Land Use Amendment 1 -95 for the Boise Chica (Mesa) and approved certification
of the County's Implementation Program for Boise Chica, as modified in the staff report, i.e., partial
development of the Mesa for residential development. The California Department of Fish and Game will
not permit a bicycle trail within the Ecological Reserve. The Class I Bikeway between Huntington Central
Park and Wieder Regional Park is shown. The trail user would cross the street to the Coastal Bikeway at
the signalized intersection shown on the figures.
Response to Comment 46: Figures 2 -12 through 2 -17 do show the riding and hiking trail through
Weeder Regional Park. Figures 2 -12 through 2 -17 have been revised to replace the term Equestrian and
Hiking Trail with Riding and Hiking Trail.
mez aaw� m cenm.�a 3 -119
wmav,
California State Lands Commission
Attention Dwight E Sander -
100 Howe Avmuc, Spite 100 - South
Sacramento, CA 95825 -8202 _
CITY OF SEAL REACH COMMENTS
EnMS FOR THE BOLSA CHICA
RESTORATION PROIECP'
The 6ty of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft EII IM and has
several camnema relative m the , t,,.,,m -xx• Ouacommunity has a long nxmd of supporting
envirn tmentally sound tesu ation of the Balsa Cbica, and is pleased to see a proposal for an
extensive reiteration of the Balsa atica On December 20, 1996 our City Manager . amt a
letter in he State Lands Commission in support of acquisition of the Bolsa Cfuca lowlands,
indicating the following.
"Seal Beach fully supports the acquisition and restoration of dteae Important
wetlands, and eocomages your approval of the app Wid— m -h-i— m
allow those activities to proceed is an ocdedy and timely manner. We tan
ley pleaged that a coonliinated etfott betweco the vadws resumer
agenda has ta1¢n plarx, and matinrC9 to proceed, and that a very hnportant
M in oatutal tesoome protection and enhancement at the Balsa Chita Can
be the ourcome.of a very long and difficult pans.
These proposed actions strongly supped the previous posincri of the City of
Seal Beach, which was in s000g opposition m reswential development on
the Hoke Cbica Lawlmds The acquisition of a iomi>nne of 880 awns at
BoL% mica Lowlands would elimtaam a potential 900 housing units from
being commucted ai the Balsa Chita, which would result in a beneficial
decmase in fauac vehicular traffic thnnigh the City of Seal Beach from
{true residents of the Bolos mica project, and also significantly reduces the
is ilting mdse and air quality impacts upon our community, and is su®gly
mpported by the Ciry of Seal Beach.
Chy of Seal Beach Conm,or Lauer 2
•Draft avErs. Haim ClJea ladmid Resmrmlon Pmjea"
October 9, 3000
Our city comsides the Balm Chive wetlands an be an invaluable, lucked
essential, natural resource in ore eov¢ ands, and we urge the Coastal
C=,,d,, an to senmgly supporr any acgmerim -,nuns of the Balsa Chim
Lowlands, thereby erlhaocmg the ecological integrity of the wetlands,
including the lowland areas"
The sabjed➢rdt EIBIELS is the next step in accomplishing the restoration goals established
in the 1996 Imes- Agency "Agreement m Eszabflrh a Project for Wetland Acgrarftim acid
ResrorWim a the Bois- Chita Lowlands N Orange Co ury, Cah§bmiq for the Propose,
Among Orhen, of Campenraang for Marine Bab" Losses Lido rd by Part Developmoc
Lon4ilts waWn the harbor Duman of the %plea of Los Angeles mid Lang Beach
Califomid'.
Fsane Seoucn9d Beach Loss— Wfdim6on Measnves:
sechrn 423. Cmatdative Tmpac% Page 4-77, of the docmnmt reviews due PDasaU for
future sequential beach loss starting ummedisudy at Humington Cliff and &IdIedY
migrating further south It is indicated that monitoring, regular beach teP1^":`i'^""'r using
material dredged fr= the flood shoal, and emergency beach nourishment would be tm7iacd
to reduce ctrmnlative imPac[s to InsigniScanL
h is requested that the responsible parties for these long-term monitoring. regular beech
imanshroemar. and emergency beach mmmahmept actions be indicated within the doannevL
along with the fimmng sources fm These programs Emergmq beach mounshmmc is a
particular issut in due Surfside/S rnet Beach area eumendY crperienas the weed for beach
nourishment m a bdAy regular basis The beach mDwrishmeae ar Surfside/Sumset Beach is a
recponvbdity of the U.S. Army Corps of Evginecas, the C unty of Orange, and the Sud'side
comaraimitY. It has beea extiemely difficult to ensure adequate and timely funding of the
Sur6ide7S rsct Beach Toodshmeot projects ire the Past due in budget approlriatihm issues in
both The Federal and County level. A hag -term, dedicated soma of Rinds fa the
momtoring, regular lrach replemsbmenr, and emergency hesch nounshmant aspects of
these nutigadm measures heeds to be clearly defined and established
In addition, cnordinatim between regular beach replenishment and emageriq beach
mo „ishrynr actYici[a a Balsa Chita and Surfside/Smret would be eznemely beneficial
and potentially coat effective It is mpcstcd that appmpnnte mdrganm reassures be
included to provide for comdinxred activities when and if appmpriair.
fenemi Camnents on Draft I:zmrsS
.Provided below am the aty's respoaus to several issues idendfed within the "Iran
BQiIEIS":
0 53.1.1, Post Cansn-rCiau impsGS Page FS31, linen 9-10:
aeb fyp[Wlvd 8emearn DF2ILCL Lmr
3 -156
pYp]N1
Nov -01-00 WED 12:54 rn CB 3fh1E LPM l,L'n0 -fern FAX N0, Ulbb14166b g p4
N
M
0
.w,.< aC,.nen.
Cn afsml n -,h caamhon I— n:
-D, Jt ELI= -Bolin Chia L.I..d "--. PM -
tkmlvr9, 3000
It is indicated that m=;nenn, n. dredging activities would not cause sty sigui5cant,
adverse -Oise impacts if restricted to the horns Of 7:90 am. to 1P.00 pm
Maintenance activities, including maint.na cn aging, should he 'ta4icocd to
berg— 700 a and 7:00 pm Activity after 7:00 pm. could generate anise
impacu to the marinading residential arras that could become a romance issue, as
the dredging tahted mire may be mare -Odecable in the evening hours as traffic-
related noise, pmicilady along Pacific Coast Ifighway and Warner Aveme,
❑ Table M-3. Significant Impacts avd Mitigation Summary, Proposed Project,
Pages ES -4134:
• Several mitigation measures indicate "An ml spill plan should be developed ..."
It is aqueaed than an ml spill plan sjtajj be deve loped,
• An air quality mitigation tn== indicates a "cousnuctipt plan to the City of
Huntington Beach ", h is met= as in why Huntingmt Beach, and not uhe
County of Ormge, is the agency an deal with this mitigation measure Please
clarify this issue.
o 2.12, Project Mstory, Page 24, lines 20.33:
This paragraph indicates that an Pr000gical Risk Ate-«, ' and rlm-,p Plan will
be prepared by the responsible parties (AMA Energy, Cal Resomees I.LC, and
Tf=baid" Homes). Will drew documents be subject to public review and cn®ent
prior an approval by the appropriate reviewing and permuting agencesI Seal Beads
has reviewed many such documents related to um clean -up activities an the Seal
Beach Naval Weapons Station, and would urge that a public review, and comment
Focese be established and set forth within the midgarion measures of the sdject
BIPM document An open i mr process is atramely helpful in fully
info®ing interested cilium, as in the tatme and event of c -,nination4 the msu is
of the risk a<o-<n...nr analysis, and the proposed xemediation activities to be umLzed
to reduce these W,ti ied risks to atteptahle levels.
it 2.7.1-5, Eaviro ®mtal Monitoring Daring Construction, Biala ' Page 2,53,
lines 52.5&-
It is indicated that a 100 -foot buffer around active nests of sensitive bird species
will be maintained during construction activities. This issue should be closely
reviewed by the appropriate Federal and State agencies to eamae that nesting
activides are not adversely impacted by construction activities occurring that
close to no active nest of a sensitive bird species. If this is an appropriate distance
requirmffin4 an effective biological m amuntag program = be mainumed, and
if adverse impacts to testing bird species and noted, additional toidgatime
measures should be imptemented.
❑ 292, Anticipated ProierSS. Figure 2-22, dramiladve Pmjecd, Page 2 -71:
�d a..a.m< oex¢ r—
3 -157
nUV-Ut-UO aeU rE04 rn bM alel0 LNWa �U ZrVarn Im IW. alarMoon r,w
CUy ofS dBeady Cuwwwa femr rs:
'Drr�i t7B/EfS -Hots. Chita L..L dRea»wiwr Pmje '
i Orraber%2000
This Figure incorrectly irdi®t the Hellman Retch being located in Lot Angeles
Cmny, it is located in Seal Beach, between Scal Beach Boulevard and the CLry
boundary adjacent to Loa Angeles County. Please revise dIC Figure.
❑ 3.42, Bolxa Chita Lowlands and Bolm Ban -Surf= Waters, Page 3-44 to 3-M
This section laavidm m ex .n.,,t ov=view of the water quality issues of the Bona
rbia This information is emrancly helpful in understanding the comet sues
placed upon sndace woes due to the existing �'Gtiwt of the Bole Chien and
provides a helpful explanation of the vatious water quality standards that are
appGolila It would bebelpfol to ind ,, in the variom tables within this -wino by
shading of text boxes those k stinns where a standard is weeded The use of Is
astvisks, although helpful, is not mfS cat to allow for a quick view and
understanding of the locations a seceding specific water quality standards. This
comment would also apply to all other tables thin presets information of ex- ed...,..
of identified standards, whether water, fedimem. ussuq or other.
0 42.21, proposed ptojerC Concept Plan without Flood Control Diversion
Shvctum Constniction Imoects . Page 4 -7,line & CO
The referenced sent= does not make sease.. h appc= the word "not" should be
inserted between 'would be^. plea. =view and revise in sppmpdatc.
o 4321, Proposed Projew Concept plan without Mood Control Diversion
Strvcmre, Port - Construction Imoetts. Groundwater Hydrology, Page 4-30, Buts
13-19:
This section indicates fl= Ce Syntec Consdtanti evaluated wvml altis+^^vv^ for
coauollmg groundwater levels beneath adjaccart pmPertim Although the document
is refcenced within Section 10.0. literature Review, it would be helpful to provide
the dornmem as an appen bL Givm the nan= and potential impact to adjoining
residential areas within HaoringWn Beach, it would be appropsiom W include the
d t and allow potentially impacted ne ideoss the opporumity m review the
findings and conclusions of GwSynmc Consults as part of the mvinmmentad
review proeess-
❑ Table 45-6, post- Cons"etihn fmpatds, Proposed Project and Alternative 6, .
Page 4-97:
This table is very helpful in summs>mng the impacts of the Proposed Projat
regadiag habitat IDndifled6oat and the resuhmt impaar upon bird spetiea that /
utilize the Bolo Chita B would be courcmely helpful in provide this table in s
modified form as part of the - accudw Summary-. The most helpful presentation v
would be a tamp— of all of the diffamt project alternativm probably in a fold -
not, 11'x17- fa®at
era,. � ra•nma nm,.ea nFm.cc t�
a,aza.mc�e� 3 -158
oamem,
. Gry efs.d a.ae& Caamea L. rc
. 'OmJt ELMS -Bob= Cm. fa.Z.%d Raaaradm Pmi=-
Onaaer 9, ]000
❑ Table 45 -20, Total Gains by Alternatives over Etisting Conditions for Sensitive
Species, rage 4-11x:
*,.1 I This table is very helpful in sm"nmarizing the impaca of the proposed pmjmt and all
rq alMmaava regarding
species that utilize the BBolas Chict. It would be eutumely helpful W provide this
.table as pan of the "Executive Stt�my"
❑ 4.62, Ctitbmnl R urce Impacts and Nlifization Measures 4.62.1, Impact,
Page 4-129, lines 12 -13:
It is !hAc,md that an archaeologist will muriton M a full-time basis all =tmcdon
activities. The Cary of Sal Beach rrqu ms a Native Amcncm mommr m also
fV monitor earth distmbing activities, and we would =cmm=d the implementing
agencies also require full -time Native American, momwring of all earth disturbing
acambes In addition, a mhmtonng report should be pregmed and submitted to the
lead 'Prey from both the archaeologist and the Native A,nerma„ monitor m a
mndi6on of mimpaon— mooring compliar—
The Environmental Quality Control Bond (EQCB) considered and discussed the
'Executive Summary" of the Draft EWM document on Sepremba 27, 2000. The EQCB
authorized the Qtauman to sign this lets indicating its mmmams regarding the subject
dm®ent On October 9, MW, the Cry Comca Minx and discussed the "Executive
Summary' of the Draft EMIEIS and the recommendation of the EQCB, and audlcrisd the
Mayor m sign this peter indicating the official mmmmt of the Qty of seat Bach
llpm the preparauon of the Final EE2/EIS for this project, please send two (2)
topics m Mr- I= Whitteoberg, Director of Development Services, Qty Hall, 211 Eighth
Strew Sat Buds, 90740. TLmk you for you crosidemtion of the cummenB of the Qty of
Seal Beach If you have questions concerning this matte, please do not hesitate to contact
Mr. Whinenberg at (562) 431 -=, cdensicu 311 He will be most happy to provide arty
additiomal information or to provide clarification of the matters d ==red in this mmmm[
lento
9alymin rwim!a®aueeOm cc,—
a'�A�aw�...m cm.aaaa 3 -159
wean,
.. City ofSeatR act Coavaatt l+terrt:
"Do P1R/ .Hasa Otulowlmd ?.%P�Pm1OV'
ppoher9,2000
Sal Bach City Cwtm7 .
Seal Bach Blaomng Commission
Seal Barb Bnvimnmmret Quality Control Board
Sal Bath Archaeological Adviso[y Cmf
Acting City Manager ➢tetras ofDevdapm= Smvica
adn CNU Iw W d P.matlm D.tt t
aim 0.opoi¢ea m cm....�a j -� 60
owam
6
L -7: CITY OF SEAL BEACH, FROM PATRICIA CAMBELL AND MAYOR JOSEPH PORTER,
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, DATED 10/9100
Response to Comment 1: Please see Response to Comment 4 in Letter S-1 (California Department of
parks and Recreation), Response to Comments 2, 3, and 4 in Letter S-2 (California Coastal Commission)
and Response to Comments 20 and 37 in Letter L -3 (County of Orange). The City's suggestion of
coordination between the Project and the regional beach replenishment efforts is acknowledged. The
involvement and role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in each effort should ensure the suggested
coordination whenever feasible.
Response to Comment 2: The DEIR/EIS at lines 1 -7 on page 4 -209, analyzes the noise impact of
maintenance dredging within the content of the General Plan of the city of Huntington Beach. it
concludes, 'Eased on a 15 -hour schedule, i.e., 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., the 60 dBA CNEL distances would be
reduced to approximately 300 and 210 feet respectively. No residential structures are located within this
distance for dredging activities and if dredging were restricted to these hours, no significant impacts
would result (Class III impact.)'
Response to Comment 3: The EIR/EIS has been revised to reflect these comments.
Response to Comment 4: The Ecological Risk Assessment will be available for public review upon its
finalization.
Response to Comment 5: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued appropriate endangered
Species Act documentation that addresses potential impacts to Federal listed species. The California
Department of Fish and Game is reviewing the EIR/EIS to determine impacts to state- listed sensitive
species. Each of these agencies is represented on the Steering Committee. The biological monitor
would also have the authority to require an adjustment of construction activities if adverse impacts to
nesting sensitive species from construction were noted.
Response to Comment 6: Thank you. The figure Is revised in the FEIR/EIS.
Response to Comment 7: The requested shading has been added to the figures in Section 3.4.
Response to Comment 8: The conclusion reflected in the cited sentence is correct.
Response to Comment 9: The GeoSyntec groundwater report has been included in Appendix VI to the
FEIR/EIS.
Response to Comment 10: The Executive Summary was designed to be included in the DEIR/EIS.
Should it be developed as a stand -alone document, the suggested table could be considered.
Response to Comment 11: Please see the above response.
Response to Comment 12: Please refer to Responses to Comments 17 and 18 of Letter S-6 (Caltrens).
asmn,
Receive and File Responses to Comments m. 'Dmft EIRMS-
Balsa Chica Lowlands Restoration ProjwtIP
Ciry Council Staff Report
May 14, 700!
ATTACBMENT 2
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RE:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LETTER RE: "DRAFT EIRIUS FOR THE BOLSA
CHICA LOWLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT',
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LETTER DATED OCTOBER 4, 2000
Bolm Chita lowland EIR C mmk.CC SUff Report
M
October 4, 2000 - L —S
California State lands Commission
Attention: Dwight E. Sanders
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 - South
Sacramento, CA 95825 -8202
SUWEC'r: CTTY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT
EIRIELS FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS
RESTORATION PROJECT"
Dear Mr. Sanders:
The Archaeological Advisory Committee of the City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above
referenced Daft Ell= and has comments relative m the cultural rescurces portions of the
document. Our community bas a long record of supporting envirmnmentslly sand
resmation of the Bolsa Chica, and is pleased to see a proposal for an extensive restoration
of the Bolas Chica By separate lever the City Council and Environmental Quality Control
Board will be commenting on other environmental aspects of this project. Tie
Archaeological Advisory Committee win be commenting on the cultural resource portions
of the Draft EBUEIS.
General Comments on Draft EIR/EIS:
Provided below is the Committee comment to the " Cultual Resources" portion of the
"Draft EIR/173':
4.62, Cultural Resource Impacts and Mideatlon Measures. 4.6.2.1, Impacts,
Page 4-129, loses 12 -13: _.
It is indicated that an archaeologist will monitor on a fun -time basis all construction
activities. The City of Seal Beach requires a Native American monitor to also
monitor earth disturbing activities, and we would recommend the implementing
agencies also require fun -time Native American monitoring of an earth disturbing
activities. In addition, a monitoring report should be prepared and submitted to the
lead agency from both the archaeologist and the Native American monitor as a
condition of mitigation monitoring compliamce.
C:var �mnunmu. act. ta., a a-wo° Mco�rcmumcu,wtaowo
3 -147
City of Std Reoch Arrhaeobeical Advimry Comminee Cmemrne later rs:
-Droft FIRWSfor the linlm Ch1m lowb+d +Ren &Wb Proj 000
pcto6er4, 2000 -
The kr aeological Advisory Committee considered and discussed the "Culnual Resource"
portions of the Draft EEUM document on Ocmber 4, 2000. The Committee authorized the
Chah'nan to sign this letter indicating its comments regarding the subject document. Thank
you for your consideration of the cornmrnrs of the City of Seal Beech If you have
questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Whiuenberg at (562)
431 -2527, extension 313. He will be most happy to provide any additional mfortnanon or to
provide clarification of the matters discussed in this comment letter
Sincerely
i
Oenc Vesely
Acting Amhteeologjcal Advisory Cornmbttee
City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Planning Comrrusaun
Seal Beach Enviroumental Quality Control Board
Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee
Gty Manager Direcmr of Dcvelopment Services
a,a.a�a ie.ww aamuon tm u� t�
3 -148
oaimot
LS: CITY OF SEAL BEACH, GENE VESELY, ACTING CHAIRMAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, DATED 1014/00
Response to Comment 1: Please refer to Response to Letter S-6 Comments 17 and 18.
3 -149
o+meu
Receive and Fite Responses to Comments m: 'Draft ELMS —
Balsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council StaffRepon
May 14,1001
ATTACHMENT 3
"FINAL EIRIEIS FOR THE BOLSA CHICA
LOWLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, (NOTE:
COMPLETE DOCUMENT NOT PROVIDED DUE
TO LENGTH, 2,006 PAGES IN THREE VOLUMES)
Bolsa Chica Lowland EIR Com ®tv.CC Staff Report