HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem OOctober 9, 2000
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members ofthe City Council
Attention: Donald F. McIntyre, Acting City Manager
From: Lee Whitienberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: RESPONSE LETTER RE: "DRAFT EIR/EIS FOR
BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS RESTORATION
PROJECT"
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor to sign
proposed Response letter. Receive and File Staff Report.
DISCUSSION
The City has received a copy of the ,Draft EIRIFJS for the Bolsa 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.
Ovendew of Draft EIRIEIS Proiecr and Alternatives:
The document analyzes the Proposed Project, with 2 sub -alternatives, and 6 project alternative
configurations including:
o Concept Plan with Entre Flood Diversion
o Full Tidal Basin with Ocean Inlet near Rabbit Island
a Full Tidal Basin with Ocean Inlet near Warner Avenue
a Three Jetty Plan
o Irrigation/water Management Plan
o No Project/Action Alternative
AGENDA ITEM O
CW) �EQA�Ia Chive 10 1Re ation DEIRCCa ff Rcpon&do Ww938-00
City Response Letter re: "DraJt FJR/FIS—
Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council StafjReporl
October 9, 2000
Potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified in land use, hydrology/water
quality, air quality, and biological resources.
The Proposed Project/Preferred Alternative is the restoration of 850 acres of the Bolsa 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 designed to implement a comprehensive 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:
o Restoration of full tidal influence to portions of the site through dredging and the creation
of a new ocean inlet accompanied by construction of a highway bridge;
o Creation and enhancement of aquatic habitats and intertidal wetlands;
o Creation of nesting and feeding areas for Threatened and Endangered species;
o Preservation of nontidal wetlands; and
E3 Phased removal of oil extraction facilities from the project area.
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 Bolsa Chica Lowlands in the Bolsa Chica Gap between
Bolsa Chica Mesa on the northwest and Huntington Mesa on the southeast. Huntington Harbour
As northwest of the 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.
Execuritr Summary,
The Executive summary provides a broad overview of the purpose and needs of the project, major
findings and conclusions, areas of controversy, and unresolved issues. The Executive Summary is
provided as Attachment 2 to the Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report (Attachment 2 of
this Staff Report) for the information of the City Council.
Proposed Comment Lerner.
The comment period on the Notice of Preparation will close on October 16, 2000. Due to the location
of the proposed project, and previous actions of the City in commenting on various aspects of projects
impacting Bolsa Chica, the subject documerm does appear to generate some environmental concerns
that require comment by the City. Staff prepared a response letter for the consideration of the EQCB,
provided as Attachment 1. This comment letter reflects review of the subject document by the
Planning Department.
Bolo Chiu Lowlamd Re im DEIR.CC Sue Report 2
City Response Lefler re: "OraftElR/E1S—
Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
The EQCB reviewed the staff -prepared draft response letter on September 27, 2000, and determined
to forward the letter, with revisions, to the City Council for consideration. The revisions of the EQCB
are shown as bold and ira/icized for new tat to be added and as
deleted.
The EQCB also expressed concern regarding setting forth in the letter support for a specific alternative.
The Board was generally of two minds on this issue. First, they did not have enough time to
thoroughly review the entire document to come to a conclusion as to a prefmcd ahemative; and
secondly, that the 2°d Sub-Altemative or Alternative 5 should also be considered as a preferred project
alternative.
Staff continues to recommend the City Council indicate support for the project as proposed, an
alternative, or several alternatives. The City Council should review pages ES -45 through ES -54 of
Attachment 2 of the EQCB Staff Report of September 27, 2000 to obtain a fuller understanding of the
major impacts of the Proposed Project and the various alternatives analyzed in the draft EMIS. In
reviewing the differences between the I° and 2"d sub-altematives, and Alternative 5 the following
differences appear to be most important for consideration by the City Council:
❑ to Sub -Alternative — Restoration of the Future Full Tidal Area Concurrently with
Restoration of the Rest of the Wetlands:
Benefits: Construction of the full tidal area concurrently with the rest of the wetlands
would increase the amount of habitat that would receive full tidal flows by about 252 acres.
The increased full tidal area would increase the biological benefits of the restoration. The
gain would be primarily in intertidal mudflat habitat, which would substantially increase the
value of the Lowlands for shorebirds and wading birds. Corlgrass would probably expand
into this area, providing additional nesting opportunities for the endangered light-footed
clapper rail. The creation of additional nesting sites in the future full tidal basin would
provide additional nesting habitat for western snowy plovers and California least tems. As
many as 5 to 28 more snowy plover nests and 29 to 115 more least tern nests are possible.
Development of the I° Sub-altemative would provide additional aesthetic benefits by
restoring the future full tidal area sooner, rather than later.
❑ Post -Construction Impacts: Impacts to surface and groundwater resources from restoration
of the future full tidal basin concurrently with restoration of the rest of the wetlands would
be the same as the Proposed Project, except that the water -holding capacity of the wetland
system will be proportionately mcreased at the beginning of the project rather than in 20
years. While this increased capacity would reduce the potential for surface flooding earlier
M. Chiu Lowland Resp 9,. DEMCC Staff Repos
City Response Letter re.: "Draft FJR/EIS—
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
in the project lifetime than with the Proposed Project, the potential for "water
recharge and increased groundwater levels would also occur sooner (Class D).
a 2nd Sub -Alternative — Restoration of the Future Ful Tidal Arra Concurrently with
Restoration of the Rest of the Wetlands (Expanded Ful Tidal Basin):
a Benefits- Like the 1' Sub-ahenat-rve, the a Sub -alternative would increase the habitat
value of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands to wetland species. However, the 2nd Sub-altemative
would provide about 72 more acres of intertidal mudflat habitat than the I' Sub-altemative.
Therefore, the 2" Sub-altemative would have substantially greater benefits to fishes,
aquatic invertehrates, shorebirds, and wading birds.
Additional public access opportunities would occur with the 2nd Sub -alternative. An
interpretive trail along the perimeter of the Lowlands would be planned with the 2nd Sub -
alternative that would connect to trails in the proposed Harriett Weider Regional Park, and
,As a potential trail along the back of the wetlands with proposed offsite bicycle trails west
of the Lowlands. These public access opportunities would result in a beneficial (Class TV)
impact that would not occur with the proposed project.
o Post -Construction impacts: The greater volume of water in the full tidal basin with the 2n°
Sub-ahemative may result in groundwater rising more rapidly than with the Proposed
Project or the ]is Sub -alternative (Class 11).
The 2°d Sub-ahemative would result in a greater visual benefit to the bluff areas adjacent to
the future full tidal area, including residences and the proposed Harriett Weider Regional
park, earlier than the proposed project (or other alternatives), which would restore the
finure full tidal area in 15 to 20 years.'
o Alternative S— IrrigationlWater Manseement Plan:
efits: Alternative 5 would enhance the habitat value of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands for
wetlands species over existing conditions, but the benefits would be much less than with
the alternatives that include a tidal inlet. Most of the biological objectives for the
restoration would not be met. Overwintering habitat for migratory birds, shorebirds,
seabirds, and waterfowl would be enhanced slightly because of the limited tidal flows that
would support a slightly more diverse prey base. The habitat value for estuarine fishes
would be minima4 increased. Very hardy species, such as topsmeh and killSsh, currently
lacking from the LoWards, may persist with Alternative 5. Alternative 5 would have no
value to marine fishes such as the California halibut. In fact, fish such as halibut may enter
2 D.n UXFJSfo.BOGaChirn Lowbndx Fenwanon Prgen. MI
Op. Cit, M 545 and S-16.
Bolo CWml IW Reawe4M DE1RCC SuffReMa 4
Ciry Response Letter re.: "Draft EIR/EIS-
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council SmJjReport
October 9, 2000
the wetlands when the gates are opened and then perish when the tidal exchange is
interrupted. Alternative 5 may actually be detrimental to some species of fishes.
Periodic tidal inundation with Ahemative 5 would enhance pidckweed. The net gain in
Beldings savannah sparrow territories with Altemative 5 would be 22 or 23 over existing
conditions, compared to a gain of 255 territories with the Proposed Project. No cordgrass
would grow in the project area with Alternative 5. Therefore, Alternative 5 would not
contribute to the recovery of the light-footed clapper rail, which nests in cordgrass.
The introduction of periodic tidal flows via Huntington Harbour would improve water
quality slightly in the Lowlands and would reduce the fluctuations of water quality
parameters. Water quality in Outer Bolsa Bay would not be improved and there would be
no reduction in the potential for Outer Bolsa Bay to flood PCH during storms.
Oil operations would continue throughout the Lowlands, so new interior trails would not
be feasible. Public access opportunities are a beneficial (Class M impact; however, less
beneficial than with the Proposed Project.
The Lowlands area would remain visually similar to current conditions. While not as great
a visual benefit as compared to other alternatives, a beneficial (Class M visual
improvement would occur with this alternative.
❑ Post -Construction Imnpacts.Because Ahemative 5 would have no tidal inlet, no project -
related changes to coastal processes would occur, and the wetlands would not be at risk
from an offshore oil spill, but could remain exposed to ongoing production in the area until
existing operations are phased out.
Alternative 5 would not affect the coastal woolly -heads population on Rabbit Island. No
upland habitat on Rabbit Island would be lost and the wintering habitat for short -eared
owls and dune habitat for sensitive insect species and the silvery legless lizard would not be
lost. There would be no loss of the Rabbit Island ESHA However, the small portion of
the eucalyptus grove ESHA in the Bolsa pocket might still deteriorate with Alternative 5.
The introduction of even limited tidal flows would probably hasten the demise of these
dying trees.
Maintenance dredging and Phase D construction would not be required; therefore, no au
quality impacts from post -construction operations would occur.
Boas ChinI uid Reamfim DEIR.CC Staff Repos
City Response Letter re: 'Draft FIR/FJS—
Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council StajjReport
October 9, 2000
No French drain would be needed, so permanent electricity for any French drain pumps
would not be required.'
Upon further consideration of the various alternatives, Staff would recommend the City Council
eliminate Ahemative 5, unless the City Council is opposed to the restoration of the Bolsa Chica with a
full tidal We. Alternative 5 eliminates the full tidal inlet, greatly reducing the beneficial impacts of the
tidal influence upon the wetland areas. However, this alternative would eliminate temporary parking
impacts and impacts upon surfing resulting from the proposed tidal inlet.
Sub-ahematives 1 and 2 are more beneficial to the overall goals and objectives of the wetland
restoration program established by the Interagency Steering Committee, than the Proposed Project.
Therefore, Staff would recommend the City Council continue to support a tidal -influenced wetland
restoration plan for the Bolsa Chica, and support Sub -alternative 2, as resulting in the most restoration
of tidally influenced wetlands in the shortest period of time. Proposed language to support this Sub -
alternative has been included in the draft comment letter and in indicated by iLlicized and dortble-
underlined tear.
Comment Period:
The comment petiod,on the Draft EMMIS will conclude on October 16, 2000. Written comments
may be submitted to:
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 - South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
Attention: Dwight E. Sanders
Comments may also be sem to via e-mail to Dwight E. Sanders at sanderd(ailslc.ca.¢ov
Public Availability:
A copy of the Draft EUVEIS is available at the Department of Development Services for review. In
addition a printed copy of the document or a CD version may be requested from:
California State Lands Commission
Attn: Dwight E. Sanders
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South
Sacramento, Ca 95825
TeL - (916) 574-1880
3 Dp. Ca, page 5-25 and 5-26.
Holm Chiu Saw Rmmtim DEHL C Staff Repot
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn:Jack Fancher
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad CA 92008
Tel. - (760) 431-9440
City Response Letter re: 'Draft FIRIEIS-
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Protect"
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
FAX - (916) 574-1885 FAX - (760) 431-9624
Email - sanderd@slc.ca.gov Email-jack_fancher@fivs.gov
The document may also be downloaded at vm w.slc.cagov
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct fiscal impacts to the City of Seal Beach.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor to sign
proposed Response Letter. Receive and File Staff Report.
NOTED AND APPRO
Whittenberg, DirectorDonald F. Mc e
Development Services Departmen Acting City Manager
Attachments: (2)
Attachment 1: Draft Response Letter re: "Draft EIIUEIS for the BoLsa Chica Lowkn*
Remoratitnr Project", as revised by the EQCB on September 27, 2000 and by
Staff on October 2, 2000
Attachment 2: Environmental Quality Control Board Staff Report re: "Draft EIRIFJS For
Bolsa Chica Lowlmtds Restoration Project", dated September 27, 2000, with
all attachments
M. Chl.ra I.dDEIR.CC S�a Repon
CityResponse Letter re: "DrajtElRIM—
Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 1000
ATTAMAENT I
DRAFT RESPONSE LETTER RE: "DRAFT EIRIUS
FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS
RESTORATION PROJECT', AS REVISED BY THE
EQCB ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 AND BY STAFF
ON OCTOBER 2, 2000
Bolo Chiu UwLl Rworvion DEMCC SUBRepm
City Response Letter re: 'Draft E1R/E/S—
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project'
City Council Staff Repori
October 9, 2000
October 9, 2000
California State Lands Commission
Attention: Dwight E. Sanders
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 - South
.Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 TT II��4"
SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL AAUCOMMENTS RE: "DRAFT EIR/EIS
FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOWL4NDS RESTORATION
PROJECT' Fl
Dear Mr. Sanders: DVL•
The City of Sea] Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft EUVEIS and has several
comments relative to the document. Our community has a long record of supporting environmentally
sound restoration of the Bolsa Chica, and is pleased to see a proposal for an extensive restoration of
the Bolsa Chis. On December 20, 1996 our City Manager sent a letter to he State Lands Commission
in support of acquisition of the Bolsa Chica lowlands, indicating the following:
"Seal Beach fully supports the acquisition and restoration of these important wetlands,
and encourages your approval of the appropriate mechanisms to allow those activities
to proceed in an orderly and timely manner. We are particularly pleased that a
coordinated effort between the various resource agencies has taken place, and
continues to proceed, and that a very important step in natural resource protection and
enhancement at the Bolsa Chica can be the outcome of a very long and difficult
process.
These proposed actions strongly support the previous position of the City of Seal
Beach, which was in strong opposition to residential development on the Bolsa Chica
Lowlands. The acquisition ofa minimum of 880 acres at Bolsa Chica Lowlands would
eliminate a potential 900 housing units from being constructed at the Bolsa Chico,
which would result in a beneficial decrease in future vehicular traffic through the City
of Seal Beach from future residents of the Bolsa Chica project, and also significantly
BoW(N.l Iw Rw.fi.DE1R.CCSua R,w 9
City Response Letter re: "DwftElR1F1S-
Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council &affReport
October 9, 2000
reduces the resulting noise and air quality impacts upon our community, and is strongly
supported by the City of Seal Beach.
Our city considers the Bolsa Chica wetlands to be an invaluable, indeed essential,
natural resource in our environment, and we urge the Coastal Commission to strongly
support any acquisition actions of the Bolsa Chive Lowlands, thereby enhancing the
ecological integrity of the wetlands, including the lowland areas."
The subject Draft EBMS is the next step m accomplishing the restoration goals established in the
1996 Inter -Agency "Agreement to Faablish a Projecl jor Wetland Acquisition and Restoration at the
Bolsa Chica Lowlands in Orange County, Caltfo g for the Purpose. Among Others, of
Compensaling for Marine Habimt Losses hxitrred by Port Development Landfills within the harbor
Districts of the Cities gflosAngeles and Long Beach, Califon» d'.
pRA.5
Bole Chive lowland Rmoration DEIR.CC Staffk"n 111
City Response Letter re: "Draft E1RIUS—
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council StafReport
October 9, 2000
could become a nuisance issue, as the dredging related noise may be more noticeable in the
evening hours as traffic -related noise, particularly along Pacific Coast Highway and Warner
Avenue, decreases.
❑ Table ES -3, Significant Impacts and Mitigation Summary, Proposed Project, Pages ES -
41 -44:
❑ Several mitigation measures urticate "An oil spill plan should be developed ..." It is
requested that an oil spilt plan shall be developed.
❑ An air quAtymitigation measure indicates a "construction plan to the City of Huntington
Beach". It is unclear as it why Huntington Beach, and not the County of Orange, is the
agency to deal with this mitigation measure. Please clarify this issue.
❑ 2.1.2, Project History, Page 24, lines 20.33: (�nK A��
This paragraph indicates that an Ecological Risklir�sment and Cleanup Plan will be prepared
by the responsible parties (AERA Energy, Cal Resources LLC, and Hearthside Homes). Will
these documents be subject to public review and comment prior to approval by the appropriate
reviewing and pem»tti ng agencies? Seal Beach has reviewed many such documents related to
site clean-up activities on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and would urge that a public
review and comment process be established and set forth within the mitigation measures of the
subject EMMIS document. An open information process is extremely helpful in fully
informing interested citizens as to the nature and extent of contamination, the results of the risk
assessment analysis, and the proposed remediation activities to be utilized to reduce those
identified risks to acceptable levels.
❑ 2.7.1.5, Environmental Monitoring During Construction, Biological, Page 2-53, lines 52-
56:
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 ensure that nesting activities are not adversely
impacted by construction activities occurring that close to an active nest of a sensitive bird
species. If this is an appropriate distance requirement, an effective biological monitoring
program must be maintained, and if adverse impacts to nesting bird species and noted,
additional mitigation measures should be implemented.
❑ 2.9.2, Anticipated ProiMs, Figure 2-22, Cumulative Projects, Page 2-71:
This Figure incorrealy indicates the Hellman Ranch being located in Los Angeles County, it is
located in Seal Beach, between Seal Beach Boulevard and the City boundary adjacent to Los
Angeles County. Please revise the Figure.
9 QumW laud Rmmatiw DEIRCC Saff Report 12
City Response Letter re: "DrajtElRTJS-
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 1000
Future Seauendal Beach Loss— Mideadon Measures: DRAM
Section 4.2.3, Cumulative Impacts, Page 4-27, of the documlRf reviews the potential for future
sequential beach loss starting immediately at Huntington Cliff and gradually migrating further south. It
is indicated that monitoring, regular beach replenishment using material dredged from the flood shoal,
and emergency beach nourishment would be utilized to reduce cumulative impacts to Insignificant.
It is requested that the responsible parties for these long-term monitoring, regular beach nourishment,
and emergency beach nourishment actions be indicated within the document, along with the funding
sources for these programs. Emergency beach nourishment is a particular issue, as the Surfside/Sunset
Beach area currently experiences the need for beach nourishment on a fairly regular basis. The beach
nourishment at Surfside/Sunset Beach is a responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
County of Orange, and the Surfside community. It has been extremely difficult to ensure adequate and
timely funding of the Surfside(Sunset Beach nourishment projects in the past due to budget
appropriation issues at both the Federal and County level. A long-term, dedicated source of funds for
the monitoring, regular beach replenishment, and emergency beach nourishment aspects of these
mitigation measures needs to be clearly defined and established.
In addition, coordination between regular beach replenishment and emergency beach nourishment
activities at Bolsa Chica and Surfside/Sunset would be extremely beneficial and potentially cost
effective. It is requested that appropriate mitigation measures be included to provide for coordinated
activities when and if appropriate.
General Comments on Draft EIR/ELS:
.Provided below are the sexxnenities City's responses to several issues identified within the "Draft
EIR/EIS":
u 5.3.1.1, Post Construction Impacts, Page ES -11, fines 9-10:
It is indicated that maintenance dredging activities would not cause any significant, adverse
noise impacts if restricted to the hours Of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. Maintenance activities,
including maintenance dredging, should be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Activity after 7:00 p.m. could generate noise impacts to the surrounding residential areas that
Bora caiu Lm Id Rc Mi. DEIR.M SuffRgp I I
City Response Letter re: 'Dray E1R/E1S—
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 2000
0 3.4.2, Bolsa Chica Lowlands and Bolsa Bay— Surface Waters, Page 3-44 to 3-60
This section provides an excellent overview of the water quality issues of the Bolsa Chica.
This information is extremely helpful in understanding the current stress placed upon surface
waters due to the existing conditions of the Bolsa Chica and provides a helpful explanation of
the various water quality standards that are applicable. It would be helpful to indicate in the
various tables within this section by shading of text boxes those locations where a standard is
exceeded. The use of asterisks, although helpful, is not sufficient to allow for a quick view and
understanding of the locations exceeding specific water quality standards. This comment
would also apply to all other tables that present information of a ceedence of identified
standards, whether water, sediment, tissue, or other.
0 4.2.2.1, Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood ontrol Diversion Structure,
Construction Iacts, Page 4-7,line 8: DA R
The referenced sentence does not make sense -It appears the word "not" should be inserted
between "would be". Please review and revise as appropriate.
0 4,3.2.1, Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control Diversion Structure, Post
-Construction Impacts, Groundwater Hydrology, Page 4-30, lines 1' 19:
This section indicates that GeoSyntec Consultants evaluated several a::ematives for controlling
groundwater levels beneath adjacent properties. Although the document is referenced within
Section 10.0, Literature Review, it would be helpful to provide the document as an appendix.
Given the nature and potential impact to adjoining residential areas within Huntington Beach, it
would be appropriate to include the document and allow potentially impacted residents the
opportunity to review the findings and conclusions of GeoSyntec Consultants as part of the
environmental review process.
0 Table 4.5-6, Post -Construction Impacts, Proposed Project and Alternative 6, Page 4-97:
This table is very helpful in summarizing the impacts of the proposed project regarding habitat
modifications and the resultant impacts upon bird species that utilize the Bolsa Chica. It would
be extremely helpful to provide this table in a modified form as pan of the "Executive
Summary". The most helpful presentation would be a comparison of all of the different project
alternatives, probably in a fold -out, 11 "xl T' format.
0 Table 4.5-20, Total Gains by Alternatives over Existing Conditions for Sensitive Species,
Page 4-118:
Bold Crum 1n 1Reaauim DEIRCC SuHR" 13
City Response Letter re: "Draft MR/EIS—
Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council Staff Report
October 9, 1000
This table is very helpful in summarizing the impacts of the proposed project and all alternatives
regarding habitat modifications and the resultant impacts upon bird species that utilize the
Bolsa Chica. It would be extremely helpful to provide s table as part of the "Executive
Summary". AFT°
4.6.2, Cultural Resource Impacts and 11}Mcation Measure, 4.6.2.1, Impacts, Page 4-129,
lines 12-13:
It is indicated that an archaeologist will monitor on a full-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 fitll-tine Native
American monitoring of all 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 compliance.
The Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered and discussed the "Executive
Summary' of the Draft EBtBIS document on September 27, 2000. The EQCB authorized the
Charman to sign this letter indicating its comments regarding the subject document. On October 9,
2000, the City Council considered and discussed the "Executive Summary" of the Draft EMUS and
the recommendation of the EQCB, and authorized the Mayor to sign this letter indicating the official
comments of the City of Seal Beach
Upon the preparation of the Final EMIS for this project, please send two (2) copies to Mr.
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740.
Thank you for your consideration of the continents of the City of Seal Beach. If you have questions
concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Whittenberg at (562) 431-2527, extension
313. He will be most happy to provide any additional information or to provide clarification of the
matters discussed in this comment letter
Sincerely,
Joseph E. Porter ID Patricia E. Campbell
Chairman, Environmental Quality Control Board Mayor
City of Seal Beach City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
Seal Beach City Council
Bolsa chi.L 1" Re i. DEIRCC Stffltq n 14
Chy Response Letter re: "Draft EIR/EIS—
Balsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Council Staff Reporl
October 9, 2000
Seal Beach Planning Commission
Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee
Acting CityManager log",vector of Development Services
Bolsa Chica Lo. Jmd Rmmation DEIR. CC SWTRryon 15
r � y C.
I��; ^
City Response Letter re: "Orajt FJR/FJS—
Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
City Coancil Staff Report
October 9. 1000
ATTACHMENT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD STAFF REPORT RE: "DRAFT EIRIEIS
FOR BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS RESTORATION
PROJECT, DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2000, WITH
ALL ATTACHMENTS
Mm Chical wiand Renovation DEIR.CC SW Rcpon 16
September 27,200D
STAFF REPORT
To: Chairman and Members of the Environmental Quality Control Board
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Subject: RESPONSE LETTER RE: "DRAFT EIR/EIS FOR
BOLSA CI -HCA LOWLANDS RESTORATION
PROJECT"
SnIAIARY OF REQUEST
Instruct Chairman to sign proposed Response Letter, and instruct staff to forward to City Council for
concurrence and signature by Mayor: forward to Planning Commission for information purposes.
Receive and File Staff Report
DISCUSSION
The City has received a copy of the "Draft EIR/EIS for the Bolsa Chico 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.
Overview of Draft EIR/EIS Profen and Alternatives:
The document analyzes the Proposed Project, with 2 sub•altematives, and 6 project alternative
configurations including:
o Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion
o Full Tidal Basin with Ocean Inlet near Rabbit Island
o Full Tidal Basin with Ocean Inlet near Warner Avenue
o Three Jetty Plan
E) IrrigadonfWater Management Plan
o No ProjecUAction Alterative
Potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified in land use, hydrology/water
quality, air quality, and biological resources.
Cwt, Dow .\CEQAIB.1. CNu U -r R>uxu - DFIRYQCB Sun Repo d.\LVA09 21-00
City Response letter re: 'Draft EIRIVS -
Bolso Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
Eavirortmemal Quality Control Board Staff Report
September 27, 2000
The Proposed Project(Preferred Alternative is the restoration of 850 acres of the Bolsa 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 designed to implement a comprehensive 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:
o Restoration of full tidal influence to portions of the site through dredging and the creation
of a new ocean inlet accompanied by construction of a highway bridge;
it Creation and enhancement of aquatic habitats and intertidal wetlands;
o Creation of nesting and feeding areas for Threatened and Endangered species;
o Preservation of nontidal wetlands; and
o Phased removal of oil extraction facilities from the project area.
Project Location:
The Proposed Project is located in an unincorporated area of northwestern Orange County. The
project area consists of 1,247 acres of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands in the Bolsa Chica Gap
between Bolsa Chica Mesa on the northwest and Huntington Mesa on the southeast. Huntington
Harbour is northwest of the 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.
Executive Summary:
The Executive summary provides a broad overview of the purpose and needs of the project, major
findings and conclusions, areas of controversy, and unresolved issues. The Executive Summary is
provided as Attachment 2 for the information of the Board.
Previous Actions of City of Seal Beach:
The comment period on the Notice of Preparation will close on October 16, 2000. Due to the
location of the proposed project, and previous actions of the City in commenting on various aspects
of projects impacting Bolsa Chica, the subject document does appear to generate some
environmental concerns that require comment by the City. Staff has prepared a response letter for
the consideration of the EQCB, provided as Attachment 1. This comment letter reflects review of
the subject document by the Planning Department
Comment Period:
The comment period on the Draft EUMS will conclude on October 16, 2000. Written comments
may be subut ned to:
Bolu Chirz tevlrnd aeon oFD.BacB sort amen 2
Cir, Response Letter re: "Dra,/ EIR/E/S—
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration project"
Environmewal Qaahiy Control Board Stag Report
September 27, 2000
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 - South
Sacramento, CA 95825.8202
Attention: Dwight E. Sanders
Comments may also be sent to via e-mail to Dwight E. Sanders at sanderd@slc.ca.eov
Public Availability:
A copy of the Draft EIRIEIS is available at the Department of Development Services for review. In
addition a printed copy of the document or a CD version may be requested from:
California State Lands Commission
Attn: Dwight E. Sanders
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South
Sacramento, Ca 95825
Tel. - (916) 574-1880
FAX - (916) 574-1885
Email - sanderd@slc.ca.gov
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Atm: Jack Fancher
2730 Luker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tel. - (760) 431-9440
FAX - (760) 431-9624
Email - jack_fancher@fws.gov
The document may also be downloaded at w%,w.slc.ca.gov
Future City Actions:
Staff has prepared a response letter for consideration of the Environmental Quality Control Board,
which includes comments from the Planning Department (Refer to Attachment 1).
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct fiscal impacts to the City of Seal Beach.
RECONBIENTDATION
Instruct Chairman to sign proposed Response Letter, and instruct staff to forward to City Council for
concurrence and signature by Mayon forward to Planning Commission for information purposes.
Receive and File Staff Report.
am,. CW. t..v d Re.M.uon DEREQU st.n Repcn
City Response Letter rel 'Draft EIRUS—
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project'
Enviranmeraal Quality Control Board StafRepon
September 27, 2000
e Whinenberg, Director
Development Services Departmebt
Attachments: (2)
Attachment 1: Draft Response Letter re: "Draft EIRIEIS for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands
Restoration Project"
Attachment 2: "Draft EIRIVS For Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project", prepared by
Chambers Group, Inc. for the California State Land Commission, United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
July 2000 (Note: Table of Contents and Executive Summary provided.
Complete Document not provided due to length, 1,567 pages in three
volumes)
B.I. CAI. turlmd Resu"won DEIR F)QCB Sun Repon
City Response letter re: '"Draft EIRTIS -
Bolso Chico lowlands Restoration Project'
Environ neural Quality Control Board Staff Report
September 27, 2000
IVU-14TWO�1�/_4am
DRAFT RESPONSE LETTER RE: "DRAFT EIRIEIS
FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS
RESTORATION PROJECT"
B.i. Coke luv W Renotuion DEM,EQCS SWf RI,n
m
Ciry Response Letter re: "DraJtEIR/E1S-
Balsa Chico lowlands Restoration Project"
Envirouunnenta/ Quality Comrol Board Staff Report
September 27, 2000
October 9, 2000
California State Lands Commission
Attention: Dwight E. Sanders
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 - South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONAIIENTS RE: "DRAFT EIRIEIS
FOR THE BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS RESTORATION
PROJECT'
Dear Mr. sanders: DRAFT
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft EDUEIS and has several
comments relative to the document. Our community has a long record of supporting
environmentally sound restoration of the Bolsa Chica, and is pleased to see a proposal for an
extensive restoration of the Bolsa Chica. On December 20, 1996 our City Manager sent a letter to
he State Lands Commission in support of acquisition of the Bolsa Chica lowlands, indicating the
following:
'Seal Beach fully supports the acquisition and restoration of these important
wetlands, and encourages your approval of the appropriate mechanisms to allow
those activities to proceed in an orderly and timely manner. We are particularly
pleased that a coordinated effort between the various resource agencies has taken
place, and continues to proceed, and that a very important step in natural resource
protection and enhancement at the Bolsa Chica can be the outcome of a very long
and difficult process.
These proposed actions strongly support the previous position of the City of Seal
Beach, which was in strong opposition to residential development on the Bolsa Chica
Lowlands. The acquisition of a minimum of 880 acres at Bolsa Chive Lowlands
would eliminate a potential 900 housing units from being constructed at the Bolsa
B.I. M. L..I.W R.LarW,i DM EQCB Sun Repmt
City Response liner re 'Draft E/RIES -
Bolsa Chico lowlands Restoration Project'
Environmental Quality Cowrot Board Staff Report
Sepiember27. 2000
Chica, which would result in a beneficial decrease in future vehicular traffic through
the City of Seal Beach from future residents of the Bolsa Chica project, and also
significantly reduces the resulting noise and air quality impacts upon our community,
and is strongly supported by the City of Seal Beach.
Our city considers the Bolsa Chica wetlands to be an invaluable, indeed essential,
nanual resource in our environment, and we urge the Coastal Commission to
strongly support any acquisition actions of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands, thereby
enhancing the ecological integrity of the wetlands, including the lowland areas"
The subject Draft EIR/EIS is the next step in accomplishing the restoration goals established in the
1996 Inter -Agency "Agreement to Establish a Project for Wetland Acquisition and Restoration at
the Balsa Chica Lowlands in Orange County, California, for the Purpose, Among Others, of
Compensating for Marine Habitat Losses lncumed by Pori Development Landfills within the harbor
Districts of the Cities of Los Angeles and long Beach, California".
Support for I' Sub-Ahernative: DQ AFT
As described in the Executive Summary, pages ES -I I and ES -12, this a]temative would result in the
future full tidal area restoration at the same time as the rest of the wetlands. This would increase the
area subject to full tidal flows by about 252 acres, which would substantially increase the value of
the Lowlands for shorebirds and wading birds. Additional nesting opportunities for the light-footed
clapper rail, western snowy plover, and the California least tem would be established sooner under
Us sub -alternative.
Given these additional benefits of the 1° Sub-Altemadve, the City of Seal Beach would support this
alternative as the most beneficial project for implementation. Although the EUVEIS does not direct
the approval of a specific project, the document is to be utilized as an information document in
determining the most appropriate project alternative by the appropriate State and Federal agencies.
This sub -alternative should be strongly considered by the appropriate agencies at the time of
consideration of a project approval for the lowland restoration project at Bolsa Chica.
Future Sequential Beach Loss — Mitigation Measures:
Section 4.2.3, Cumulative Impacts, Page 4-27, of the document reviews the potential for future
sequential beach loss starting immediately at Huntington Cliff and gradually migrating further south.
It is indicated that monitoring, regular beach replenishment using material dredged from the flood
shoal, and emergency beach nourishment would be utilized to reduce cumulative impacts to
Insignificant.
Bolsa CN. Lo.h d Jtwm w. DULEOM Sufi Report
City Respoue letter re.: "Draft EIR/EIS—
Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
Enviroruneraal Quality Control Board Staff Report
September 27, 2000
It is requested that the responsible parties for these long-term monitoring, regular beach
nourishment, and emergency beach nourishment actions be indicated within the document, along
with the funding sources for these programs. Emergency beach nourishment is a particular issue, as
the Surfside/Sunset Beach area currently experiences the need for beach nourishment on a fairly
regular basis. The beach nourishment at Surfside/Sunset Beach is a responsibility of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the County of Orange, and the Surfside community. It has been extremely
difficult to ensure adequate and timely funding of the Surfside/Sunset Beach nourishment projects in
the past due to budget appropriation issues at both the Federal and County level. A long-term,
dedicated source of funds for the monitoring, regular beach replenishment, and emergency beach
nourishment aspects of these mitigation measures needs to be clearly defined and established.
In addition, coordination between regular beach replenishment and emergency beach nourishment
activities at Bolsa Chlca and Surfside/Sunset would be extremely beneficial and potentially cost
effective. It is requested that appropriate mitigation measures be included to provide for coordinated
activities when and if appropriate. A
General Comments on Draft EIRMS: DR AF
Provided below are the communities responses to several issues identified within the "Draft
FIR/EIS":
0 5.3.1.1, Post Construction Impacts, Page ES -I1, lines 9-10:
It is indicated that maintenance dredging activities would not cause any significant, adverse
noise impacts if restricted to the hours Of 7:00 am. to 10:00 p.m. Maintenance activities,
including maintenance dredging, should be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Activity after 7:00 p.mcould generate noise impacts to the surrounding residential area that
could become a nuisance issue, as the dredging related noise may be more noticeable in the
evening hours as traffic -related noise, particularly along Pacific Coast Highway and Warner
Avenue, decreases.
o Table ES -3, Significant Impacts and Mitigation Summary, Proposed Project, Pages ES -
41 -04:
o Several mitigation measures indicate "An oil spill plan should be developed ..." It is
requested that an oil spill plan shall be developed.
o An air quality mitigation measure indicates a "construction plan to the City of
Huntington Beach". It is unclear as to why Huntington Beach, and not the County of
Orange, is the agency to deal with this mitigation measure. Please clarify this issue.
0 2.1.2, Project History, Page 2.4, lines 20.33:
6o1u M. r .I..d Renmtlon DEMEQCB Sunaepon
City Response ]ever re: "Draft EIKEIS -
Bolta Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
F,,vironmerual Quality Control Board Staff Report
September 27, 2000
This paragraph indicates that an Ecological Risk Assessment and Cleanup Plan will be
prepared by the responsible parties (AERA Energy, Cal Resources LLC, and Hearthside
Homes). Will these documents be subject to public review and comment prior to approval
by the appropriate reviewing and permitting agencies? Seal Beach has reviewed many such
documents related to site clean-up activities on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and
would urge that a public review and comment process be established and set forth within the
mitigation measures of the subject EIR.US document. An open information process is
extremely helpful in fully informing interested citizens as to the nature and extent of
contamination, the results of the risk assessment analysis, and the proposed remediation
activities to be utilized to reduce those identified risks to acceptable levels.
0 2.7.1.5, Environmental Monitoring During Construction, Biological, Page 2.53, lines 52-
56` DRAFT
It is indicated that a 100 -foot buffer around active nests of sensitive bird species will be
maintained construction activities. This issue should be closely reviewed by the
appropriate Federal and State agencies to ensure that nesting activities are not adversely
impacted by construction activities occurring that close to an active nest of a sensitive
bird species. If this is an appropriate distance requirement, an effective biological
monitoring program must be maintained, and if adverse impacts to nesting bird species
and noted, additional mitigation measures should be implemented.
o 2.9.2, Anticivated Projects, Figure 2-22, Cumulative Projects, Page 2-71:
This Figure incorrectly indicates the Hellman Ranch being located in Los Angeles County, it
is located in Seal Beach, between Seal Beach Boulevard and the City boundary adjacent to
Los Angeles County. Please revise the Figare.
0 3.4.2, Bolsa Chica Lowlands and Bolsa Bay— Surface Waters, Page 334 to 3-60
This section provides an excellent overview of the water quality issues of the Bolsa Chica.
This information is extremely helpful in understanding the current stress placed upon surface
waters due to the existing conditions of the Bolsa Chica and provides a helpful explanation
of the various water quality standards that are applicable. It would be helpful to indicate in
the various tables within this section by shading of text boxes those locations where a
standard is exceeded. The use of asterisks, although helpful, is not sufficient to allow for a
quick view and understanding of the locations exceeding specific water quality standards.
This comment would also apply to all other tables that present information of exceedence of
identified standards, whether water, sediment, tissue, or other.
aolu Chiu to.I.W Re t m. DEIR.EQCB Sun R -PM
City Response Lester re: "Draft EIR/E!S —
Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
Environmental Quality CDNroI Board Staff Repon
September 27, 7000
❑ 4.2.2.1, Proposed Project.- Concept Plan without Flood Control Diversion Structure,
Construction Impacts, Page 4-7,line 8:
The referenced sentence does not make sense. It appears the word "not" should be inserted
between "would be". Please review and revise as appropriate.
❑ 4.3.2.1, Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control Diversion Structure,
Post -Construction Impacts, Groundwater Hydrology, Page 4-30, lines 13-19:
This section indicates that GeoSyntec Consultants evaluated several alternatives for
controlling groundwater levels beneath adjacent properties. Although the document is
referenced within Section 10.0, literature Review, it would be helpful to provide the
document as an appendix. Given the nature and potential impact to adjoining residential
areas within Huntington Beach, it would be appropriate to include the document and allow
potentially impacted residents the opportunity to review the findings and conclusions of
GeoSyntec Consultants as pan of the environmental review process.
❑ Table 4.5-6, Post -Construction Impacts, Proposed Project and Alternative 6, Page 4-97:
This table is very helpful in summarizing the impacts of the proposed project regarding
habitat modifications and the resultant impacts upon bird species that utilize the Bolsa Chica.
It would be extremely helpful to provide this table in a modified form as part of the
"Executive Summary". The most helpful presentation would be a comparison of all of the
different project alternatives, probably in a fold -out, 11"x17" format
o Table 4.5-20, Total Gains by Alternatives over Existing Conditions for Sensitive
Species, Page 4-118: DRAFT
This table is very helpful in summarizing the impacts of the proposed project and all
altematives regarding habitat modifications and the resultant impacts upon bird species that
utilize the Bolsa Chica. It would be extremely helpful to provide this table as pan of the
"Executive Summary".
❑ 4.6.2, Cultural Resource Impacts and Mitigation Measures, 4.6.2.1, Impacts, Page 4-
129, lines 12-13:
It is indicated that an archaeologist will monitor on a full-time basis all construction
activities. The City of Sea] Beach requires a Native American monitor to also monitor earth
disturbing activities, and we would recommend the implementing agencies also require full-
time Native American monitoring of all earth disturbing activities. In addition, a monitoring
B.I. chi. L..I. Renor . DE RY..On Sufi Repo. 10
City Response Letter ret "Draft EIRMS -
Bolsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
Environmental Quality Control Board StafRepon
September 27, 2000
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 compliance.
The Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered and discussed the "Executive
Summary" of the Draft EUVEIS document on September 27, 2000. The EQCB authorized the
Chairman to sign this letter indicating its comments regarding the subject document. On October 9,
2000, the City Council considered and discussed the "Executive Summary" of the Draft EUMS
and the recommendation of the EQCB, and authorized the Mayor to sign this letter indicating the
official comments of the City of Seal Beach
Upon the preparation of the Final EXEIS for this project, please send two (2) copies to Mr.
Lee VI'hinenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach,
90740. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. If you have
questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. whittenberg at (562) 431-
2527, extension 313. He will be most happy to provide any additional information or to provide
clarification of the matters discussed in this comment letter
Sincerely,
Joseph E. Porter ID
Chairman, Environmental Quality Control Board
City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
Seal Beach City Council
Seal Beach Planning Commission
Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee
City Manager
Patricia E Campbell
Mayor
City of Seal Beach
Director of Development Services
M. M. rovluk Reva.. DE R.EQCa S.rr Rpm 11
City Response Letter re: "Draft E/RVS—
Balsa Chico Lowlands Restoration Project"
Environmental Quality Control BoordStajjRepori
September 27, 2000
ATTACHMENT 2
"DRAFT EIRIEIS FOR BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS
RESTORATION PROJECT", PREPARED BY
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. FOR THE CALIFORNIA
STATE LAND COMMISSION, UNITED STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, UNITED STATES
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, JULY 2000
(NOTE: TABLE OF CONTENTS AND EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY PROVIDED. COMPLETE DOCUMENT
NOT PROVIDED DUE TO LENGTH, 1,567 PAGES
IN THREE VOLUMES)
B.I. Chico lowland R"..= DM EQCB Soft ReNo 12
DRAFT EIR/EIS FOR THE BOLSA CHICA
LOWLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT
VOLUMEI
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
(714) 2615414
JULY 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUMEI
rillOe
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........
S.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................... .......__........ ............................................................
ES -1
5.1.1 Interagency Agreement .............................. _.... __...................................................
ES•2
S.1.2 Cleanup Plan ........................ .............. _............... _......................................... .......
ES -2
5.1.3 Goals and Objectives..............................................................................................
ES -2
S.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATUTES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.............ES-4
S.3 MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................
ES.5
S.3.1 Description of ARematives and Summary of Impacts ...............................................
ES -5
5.3.1.1 Proposed Project - Concept Plan wtLhoul Flood Control
DiversionStructure..................................................................................
ES -5
5.3.12 1st Sub•AJtemative - Restoration of the Future Full Tidal
1.5
Area Conwrtently with Restoration of the Real of the Wetlands............
ES -11
5.3.1.3 2nd Sub-Ahemstive - Restoration of the Future Full Tidal
Area Concunenlly with Restoration of the Real of the
Wetlands (Expanded Full Tidal Basin) ...................................................
ES -12
5.3.1.4 Ahemative 1 - Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion .....................
_ ES.14
5.3.1.5 Alternative 2 - Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
NearRabbit Island.................................................................................
ES -16
5.3.1.6 Alternative 3 - Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Warner Avenue.............................................................................
ES40
5.3.1.7 Alternative 4 -Three Jetty Plan..............................................................
ES -24
5.3.1.6 Ahemative 5. lmgatiDntWater Management Plan ..................................
ES -27
S.3.1.9 Alternative 6 -Concept Plan..................................................................
ES -30
S.3.1.10 No Action ARemative.............................................................................
ES -32
8.3.2 Reasons for Selection of the Proposed Project ......................................................
ES -32
S.3.3 Identification of the Environmentally Superior ARemative......................................
ES -34
S.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY............................................................................................
ES -34
S.5 UNRESOLVED ISSUES ...... _........ .................... ........................_.....................................
ES -34
SECTION I.O-INTRODUCTON.....__............_......._............__.........__•__..._._......_
1.1
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1.1
1.2
PURPOSE AND NEED...........................................................................................................1.1
1.3
STUDYAUTHORITY..............................................................................................................1.3
1.4
SCOPING PROCESS, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND ISSUES.............................................1.3
1.5
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES AND PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................................1.5
1.5
EIRJEIS ORGANIZATION .................... .__..............................................................................
1.5
SECTION 2.0 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ........ —._...-2-1
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND..........................................».........................................................2.1
2.1.1 Project Locudion............... ........... _................................... _....................................... 2.1
2.12 Project History ................ ...................................... _.................... .............................. 2-1
2.1.3 Interagency Agreement .......... ... __..... ......... ... _.............. _........................... ............
2.4
2.1.4 Project Objectives ......................... _.............................. _............................................ 2-a
2.1.5 Habitats of Tidal Wetlands .......... __...................... _.................................................... 2-7
srn
mnnm
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pace
2.1.6 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood DiversionStructure ............................2.7
2.1.6.1 1st Sub-Ahemative: Proposed Project with Restoration of the
Future Full Tidal Area Concurrently with Restoration of the
Rest of the Wetlands (Minimal Grading) .............................
2 13
2.1.62 2nd Sub-Aflemative: Proposed Project with Restoration of the
Future Full Tidal Arta Concurrently with Restoratlon of the
Real of the Wetlands (Funded Full Tidal Basin) ...................................•
2-13
2.2 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ..................... _...... ........................................................... 2.16
2.2.1 Preliminary Alternatives ........... ......... _....._........ _ ..................................................2.16
2.17
2.22 Additional Alternatives ................. _...... _.._............. ....._........................................
2.2.3 Alternatives Screening Process..............................................................»................2.18
CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS..................................2.19
2.3 ALTERNATIVES
2.3.1 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion ................................... ........
2-19
2.3.2 Ahemative 2: Full TWaI Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near Rabbit Island................2.22
2.3.3 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near Warner Avenue ...........
2.25
2.3.4 'Alternative 4: Three Jetty Plan.................................................................................2.25
2.3.5 Alternative 5: IrrigationfWater Management Plan.....................................................2.30
2.3.6 Alternative 6: Concept Plan.....................................................................................2.34
2.3.7 No Action Ahemative................................................................................................2-34
2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS..............................................2-34
2.4.1 Full Tidal Basin with Wide Meandering Inlet. ............. ..................................... ..........
2.34
2.4.2 Orange County Coequal Plan...................................................................................2.37
SUBJECTED TO ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE
2.5 ALTERNATIVES
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY PRIOR TO ELIMINATION FROM
FURTHERANALYSIS........................................................................................................
236
2.5.1 Full Tidal Basin with Culverts and No New Inlet ........................................................2.38
2.5.2 Small Area of Full Tidal with Huntington Harbour Connection and
NoTidal Inlet............................................................................................................2.39
2.5.3 Concept Plan with Freshwater Input During Lav Flow Conditions ...................... .
....... 2-40
2.5.3.1 Discharge of Low Flows In the Northwest Comer of the Wetlands
to Create Zones of Freshwater and Brackish Wetlands .................... .........
2-40
2.5.3.2 Discharge of Low Flows Directly Into the Full Tidal Basin ..........................2-42
2.6 PUBLIC ACCESS CONCEPTS.............................................................................................2.42
2.7 CONSTRUCTION METHODS...............................................................................................2-49
2.7.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood DiversionStructure ..........................2.49
2.7.1.1 Mobilization and Demobilization................................................................2.49
2.7.1.2 Staging Areas and Access .........................................................................2.49
2.52
2.7.1.3 Site Preparation and Erosion Control ...................... _....................... ..........
2.7.1.4 Construction Schedule and Phasing .........................................................2.53
2.7.1.5 Environmental Monitoring During Construction .............. __........... .............
2-53
2.7.1.6 Phase 1 Construction (September to March).............................................2.81
2.7.1.7 Phase 2A Construction (March to Septembefj.............................. _...........
2-0i
2.7.1.8 Phase 2B Construction (September to March)...........................................2.63
2.7.1.9 Phase 3 Conshructlon (March to SeptembeO.................................. _.........
2.64
2.7.1.10 Phase 4 Construction (September to March).............................................2-64
2.7.1.11 tat Sub Alternative: Restoration of the Future Full Tidal Area
Concurrently with the Restoration of the Real of the Wellands
(Minimal Gradin).................................................._...........2.64
2.7.1.12 2nd Sub Alternative: Restoration o1 the Future Full Tidal Area
Concurrently with the Restoration of the Rest of the Wetlands
(Expanded Full Tidal Basin) ............ _ ........................................................2-65
nc
mnovo
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pcv
sc H
mnam
2.72
Altemalive 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion...........................................2.65
2.7.3
Ahemative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near Rabbit Island................2.65
2.7.4
Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Intel Near Wenner Avenue ...........
2.66
2.7.5
Alternative 4: Three Jetty Plan.................................................................................2.67
2.7.6
Ahemative 5: IrrigetionNVater Management Pion.....................................................2.67
2.7.7
Ahemative 6: Concept Plan ........... ....... ..................................................................2.67
2.8
MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ................. ....._._.........................................................
2.88
2.8.1
General Monitoring and Maintenance ........................................................................2.68
2.8.2
Biological Monitoring and Maintenance of Habitat Quality.........................................2.68
2.8.3
Groundwater Monitoring............................................................................................2-68
2.8.4
Beach Monitoring and Maintenance Dredging ................... ........................... _...........
2-69
2.9
CUMULATIVE PROJECT SCENARIO..................................................................................2-69
2.9.1
Description of Cumulative Environment ....................................................................2-69
2.9.2
Anticipated PmJerts..................................................................................................2-70
SECTION 3.0 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.----...—.---.-,..--... . ........
3.1
GEOLOGYIEARTH RESOURCES ....................... _.................................................................
1
3.1.1
Topography................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2
Stratigrephy and Soils ............................... .......................................... _......................
3.1
3.1.3
Faulting and Seismicity .............. .................................................................................
3-1
3.1.4
Liquefaction........................................................................................_......._.............3.2
3.1.5
Tsunamis....................................................................................................................3.4
3.1.6
Erosion.......................................................................................................................3.4
3.2
OCEANOGRAPHY/COASTAL PROCESSES.........................................................................3.4
3.2.1
Coastal Geomorphology, .............................................................................................3-4
32.2
Water Levels..............................................................................................................3-6
32.2.1 Astronomical Tides ................ _....................................................................
3.6
3.2.2.2 Stomt Surge................................................................................................3.7
3.2.2.3 ENSO Events..............................................................................................3.7
3.2.2.4 Sea Level Rise............................................................................................3.7
3.2.3
Wave Climatology......................................................................................................3.8
3.2.3.1 Deep Water Wave Characteristics...............................................................
3.9
3.2.32 Nearshore Wave Characteristics...............................................................3.13
3.2.4
Currents ................................................... _............................ _.................................
3.13
3.2.4.1 Regional Currents......................................................................................3.13
3.2.4.2 Alongshore Currents..................................................................................3.18
3.2.4.3 Cross -Shore Currents................................................................................3.18
3.2.5
Coastal Processes....................................................................................................3.18
3.2.6
Baseline Conditions In the Pmject Area....................................................................3.21
3.2.6.1 Beach Width........................................................................_.---................3-21
3.2.6.2 Linoral Transport.......................................................................................3.21
32.6.3 Nearshore Wave Patterns .................................. _.....................................
3.25
3.3
SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY................................................................3-25
3.3.1
Water Balance and Circulation Conditions................................................................3.25
3.3.1.1 Surface Hydrology.....................................................................................3.28
3.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology .......... .._...............................................................3.30
3.3.2
Flood Control............................................................................................................3.37
3.32.1 EGGW/Oceanview Channel System .........................................................3.37
3.322 Other Flood Control Systems....................................................................3.36
3.3.3
Sediment .............................................. ...--- ..-------------------- ____...
__.s.3e
sc H
mnam
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
res
mnam
EUS
WATER AND AQUATIC SEDIMENT QUALITY ..... ... _.........................................................3.38
3.4
1138
3.4.1 Introduction ......................................... __._......... ....................................................
3.4.1.1 Beneficial Uses ---------- ----- ...._.........._.._........._.v............................3.39
3-39
3.4.12 Data Sources .................. _................................ .............._.........................
Sediment Quality Objectives and Criteria ..................
_............. 1139
3.4.1.3 Water and
3.42 Bolsa Chiu Lowlands and Bolsa Bay • Surface Waters ............................................3-4t
3.42.1 Physical Parameters .................... ........... _...............................................
3�5
352
3.422 General Minerals and NutrieMa....__._............._.».................... ...............
354
3.42.3 Coliform BaGefis................ __.................. ......................
........................
3.42.4 Trace Metals...._._..._.._.._..._......_...._............................._............_.....354
3.42.5 Organic Compounds..................................................................................3.57
3450
3.4.3 Bolsa Chios Lowlands and BOW Bay. Sediments ..............................
... .......... ........
"0
3.4.3.1 Trace Metals ..................... _............. ....................... .»..............................
3.4.3.2 Organic Compounds................................................................_.._............3456
3.4.4 Bolsa Chios Lowlands and BOW Bay • Tissue Contaminant
Conoentrations......................................................................•••••••.••..'..••..••......♦...__..3-71
3.4.4.1 Tissue Contaminant Guidance and Criteria................................................3.71
3.4.42 Mussel Watch Tissue Contaminant Concentrations...._.......................
3.72
3.4.4.3 Fish Tissue Contaminant Concentrations..................................................
1177
3.4.4.4 Senthlc Invertebrate Tissue CordaminantConcen ntions ..........................3410
3.4.5 Huntington Harbour...................................................................................................3.67
3.4.6 Coastal Waters Offshore BOW Chlca ................. _............................................
........3.87
3-08
3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................... _................................. ....................................
3.5.1 Aquatic Resources....................................................................................................3-0B
3.68
3.5.1.1 Invertebrates ......................................... I ........................ ._
..... ...................
3.5.12 Fish .................................... _........... .......................... ....._.........................3.94
3-100
3.5.1.3 Marine Mammels............................................... _............................
........
3.100
3.5.1.4 Special Status Species ............... ......... ..............................
........... ........
3.102
3.52 Terrestrial Resources ............................................... _.............. ....................
...........
3.5.2.1 Vegetation...............................................................................................3.102
.52.3
3.5.22 Birds ...................................... ................... ..............................................3.3.126
24
3 Insects........................................................... ......._.................................
1,125
3.5.2.4 Reptiles and Amphibians........_...............................................................3.127
3.5.2.5 Mammals ............................................... _........... .........................
........... 3.128
3.6 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................3.128
3.6.1 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................
3.129
3.6.1.1 Prehistoric and ENnohisloric Background ..... _ .........................................3.129
3.6.1.2 Historic Background................................................................................}130
3.6.1.3 Literature Review .................................. _................................................
3.6.1.4 Regulatory Setting...._................._._............................................._........
3.132
3.6.2 PeleonIOlogical Resources .......... _»................. ...............................
_......... ............ 3.134
3.7 LAND OWNERSHIP/LAND USE ................... .......... ........ _....................................
......... 3-134
3.7.1 Description of Existing Setting ...... .... ..._.... ..... ...........................................
..........11134
3.7.1.1 Project She ................... ._....... ......................... ...................
.................... 5734
3.7.12 Adjacent Land Uses .................... _...........................................................
OvmershiyAgency Responsibility.............................................................3.136
3.134
3.72 Property
3.7.3 Applicable Local and "a Plans. Programs, and Policies ....... ..............................
3.136
3.7.3.1 Orange County ................... _.......... ...........................................
......... .... 11136
3.7.3.2 California Coastal COr1rrl"On...........................................................:....3.136
3.7.3.3 Chy of Huntington Beach.........................................................................
3.7.3.4 California Department of Parks and Recreation .......................................
1114D
res
mnam
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
1
3.8 RECREATION .............................................. ..................................... .................................
sr4u
3.8.1 Existing Coastal Parks and Recreation Facilities .....................................................3.140
3.8.1.1 Bolsa Chiu State Beach ............. .... _.....................................................
3.140
3.8.12 Huntington City and State Beaches...._ ........ ............. _....... .... ................3-141
3.8.1.3 Huntington Harbour ................................... _.......................... _................
3.141
3.8.1.4 Bolsa Chiu State Ecological Reserve .....................................................3141
3.8.1.5 Sunset Aquatic Regional Park.................................................................3143
3.8.2 Major Noncoastal Parks and Recreation Facilities In the Vicinity.............................3143
3.8.2.1 Harriett M. Weider Regional Park ................ ......................_...................3143
3.8.2.2 Huntington Central Park ........ »......... ...... ... ................. .... .....................
3143
3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS .............................. .... ........... _._........... ..........................................
3144
3.9.1 Identification of Regional Growth............................................................................3144
3.9.2 Executive Orders on Environmental Justice and on Environmental
Heshh and Safety Risks to Children.......................................................................3147
3.92.1 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice In Minority
and Low income Populations..................................................................3.147
3.9.2.2 Executive Order 13045, Environmental Health and Safety
Risks to Children ............ ............ ............ ...._.........................................3148
3.9.2.3 Population Composition...........................................................................3148
3.9.2.4 Components of Growth and Migration Patterns........................................3150
3.10 VISUAL RESOURCES/LIGHT AND GLARE.......................................................................3.151
3.10.1 Visual Characteristics.............................................................................................3151
3.10.1.1 Views of the She from the NOM..............................................................3151
3.10.1.2 Views of the She from the East................................................................3153
3.10.1.3 Views of the Site from the South.............................................................3153
3.10.1.4 Views of the She from the West..............................................................3153
3.11 TRAFFIC......................................................................................................_.....................3153
3.11.1 IS Area ........................................... ............. _............................................ .......
3153
3.112 Existing Circulation System..............................................................»...................3158
3.112.1 Roadways................................................................................................3158
3.11.2.2 Traffic Volumes.......................................................................................3162
3.112.3 Transit .....................................................................................................3168
3.112.4 Nonmotonzed Transportation Features ....................................................3168
3.11.3 Existing Level of Service (LOS) ..... _.......................................................................3171
3.11.3.1 Intersections............................................................................................3171
3.11.3.2 Roadway Segments.................................................................................3172
3.11.3.3 LOS Analysis for Existing Conditions .......................................................3172
3.12 AIR QUALITY........................................... ....... _..................................................................
3172
3.12.1 Existing Environmental Selling..............................................................................3172
3.12.1.1 Regional Setting ........ _.......... ......... ................ .»....................................3.172
3.12.12 Meteorology/Climate...............................................................................3174
3.12.1.3 Regulatory Requirements .................. _....................................................
3.175
3.12.2 Air Pollution Constituents......................................................................................3177
3.12.2.1 Os ............................................ _............. .................................................
3177
3.12.2.2 CO..........................................................................................................3177
3.122.3 Nitrogen Oxides ........................................ ...................... .......................
3179
3.12.2.4 S02 .................... _....................................................... ...... ............. .......
3179
3.12.2.5 Reactive Organic Gases..........................................................................3179
3.122.6 PMui................................ _......................................................................
3179
3.122.7 Local Air Quality ......................................................................................3179
MID v1
Mm
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pftlife
3.13
NOISE
_.... _.......... .................................... .............. .....3.180
4.1.1
3.13.1
.......................................................
Setting .................................. _.......................................................................... .....
3.180
Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives.............................................................4-1
3.13.1.1 Noise Definitions.....................................................................................3.180
4.12.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
3.13.1.2 Noise MeasummeM Sales ..... ...................... _........................................
1181
4.1.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion.............................4-3
3.13.1.3 Regulatory Background ... _......... ....... _........... . ...................................
}181
4.1.2.3 Alternative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near
3.13.2
Existing Noise Environment ......... _.............. ..... ............. .......... ..........................
3183
3.132.1 Field Messuraments..................._......................._................._...............3183
WarnerAvenue...........................................................................................4.3
3.132.2 Traffic Volume Noise Modeling .............. _............. .» ......................... ......31
SS
3.14
HUMAN HEALTH RISKRiAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........... _..... _.......... _ ..........................3188
4.12.6 Alternative 5: Inigation/Water Managemem Plan.......................................43
3.14.1
Historical Usage of Hazardous Materials Onstte........_......................_......_...........3188
4.12.7 Alternative S: Concept Plan ............................................ _.......................... 4-4
3.142
Hazardous Materials Investigations ................ ....... .... __.......... _.......... _...............
3189
Cumulative Impacts ........................................ _.........................................
3.14.3
Remediation of SOIUGroundwstsr Comaminatlon......_................................. ........
3191
................4.4
3.14.4
Potential Human Health Risks ...... ... ..........................._............._..........................3191
3.15
ENERGYAND MINERAL RESOURCES .............. ....... .......... »..... _............................ ........3191
4.2.1
Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................4.4
3.15.1
Oil Production ................................ ......... . .... _...... __.............................. ...............3191
Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ...................................
_.................. 4-5
3.15.2
Fuel Usage ........................... .»........ ... _............................ ........... ......................
3192
3-192
DiversionStructure.....................................................................................4.5
3.15.2.1 Electricity................................................................................................3192
4.2.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion ...........................4.19
3.15.2.2 Natural Gas ....... ...................... ... .......... ................................................
3.15.2.3 Gasoline ........... _........................................4............................................3193
...
3.15.2.4 Diesel Fuel ................... ............. ............... ..........................................3193
3.16
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UrILITIES.................. .............. .... ........................... ................
3193
3.16.1
Water and Wastewater..........................................................................................3193
3.193
3.162
Utilities and Energy Use .................. _.................... 4 ....................................... ........
3.16.3
Solid Waste..........................................................................................................
3.194
3.16.4
Vector Control ....................... _............................. _........................ ..._.................
..3194
SECTION 4.0.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES.. -.--.--4-1
4.1 GEOLOGY/EARTH RESOURCES..........................................................................................4.1
4.1.1
Significance Criteria......................................................................._............................W
4.12
Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives.............................................................4-1
4.12.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
Diversion Structure .....................................................................................4-2
4.1.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion.............................4-3
4.1.2.3 Alternative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near
RabbitIsland...............................................................................................4.3
4.12.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near
WarnerAvenue...........................................................................................4.3
4.1.2.5 Ahemative 4: Three Jetty Plan...................................................................4.3
4.12.6 Alternative 5: Inigation/Water Managemem Plan.......................................43
4.12.7 Alternative S: Concept Plan ............................................ _.......................... 4-4
4.12.8 No Action Allemative...................................................................................4.4
4.1.3
Cumulative Impacts ........................................ _.........................................
................. 4-4
4.1.4
Summary of Impacts for Alternatives ...... ...................................................
................4.4
4.1.5
Miligation Measures....................................................................................................4.4
4.2 OCEANOGRAPHY/COASTAL PROCESSES............................................................
_........... 44
4.2.1
Significance Criteria ....................................................................................................4.4
4.22
Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ...................................
_.................. 4-5
422.1 Proposed Project: Concept Pian without Flood Comroi
DiversionStructure.....................................................................................4.5
4.2.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion ...........................4.19
a n vil
vroom
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
s a VIII
mnnm
EM
42.2.3 Alternative 2: FlII Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near
RabbitIsland.............................................................................................4-21
42.2.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near
WarnerAvenue ....................... _.................................................... _..........
4.23
422.5 Alternative 4: Three Jetty Plan.................................................................4.24
4.22.6 Ahemative 5: IrrigationnNater Management Plan .....................................4.26
422.7 Ahemative S: Concept Plan .................................. _..................................
4.26
4.22.8 No Action Alternative ................. _.... ........... .............................................
4.26
4.2.3
Cumulative Impacts ......................................... ...... .......................................... .......
427
4.2.4
Summary of Impacts for Alternatives .... ........ .......__...._....................... ..........
4.27
42.5
Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................4.28
4.2.5.1 Proposed Project and Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and S ..............................
4.28
4.3 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY................................................................4.28
4.3.1
Signifoance Criteria ..................................................................................................4.28
4.3.2
Impacts o1 the Proposed Project and Alternatives .....................................................4.28
4.32.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
DiversionStructure ...................................................................................4-28
4.3.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion ...........................4.31
4.3.2.3 Alternative 2: full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near
RabbitIsland............................................................................_.__.........4.32
4.3.2.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near
WarnerAvenue.........................................................................................4.32
4.3.2.5 Altemalive 4: Three Jetty Plan .............................................. _.................
4.32
4.32.6 Alternative 5: Inigationi Water Management Plan .....................................4.33
4.3.2.7 Alternative 8: Concept Plan......................................................................4.33
4.3.2.8 Ahemative 7: No Action Alternative..........................................................4-33
4.3.3
Cumulative Impacts..................................................................._.............................4.33
4.3.4
Summary of Impacts for Alternatives ........................................ _..............................
434
4.3.5
Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................434
4.3.5.1 Proposed Project and Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 ...................................434
4.3.5.2 Alternative 5..............................................................................................436
4.4 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................4-36
4.4.1
Significance Criteria..................................................................................................436
4.4.2
Impacts and the Proposed Project and Alternatives ..................................................436
4.4.2.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Diversion
Structure...................................................................................................436
4.4.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion ...........................412
4.42.3 Alternative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near
RabbitIsland.............................................................................................4-45
4.4.2.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near
WamerAvenue ......................................... _..............................................
4-48
4.4.2.5 Alternative 4: Three Jetty Plan.................................................................4.51
4.4.2.6 Alternative 5: Irrigation/Water Management Plan.....................................4.54
4.4.2.7 Alternative S: Concept Plan ... _.................................................................4.54
4.4.2.8 No Action Alternative ........... _....................................................................4.57
4A.3
Cumulative Impacts ............................... _............... .................................................
4.57
4.4.4
Summary of Impacts for Ahematives..._...................................................................4.58
4.4.5
Mitigation Measures .............................. _..................................................................
458
4.4.5.1 Proposed Project, 1st Sub-Ahemative, 2nd Sub-Atlemative,
and Alternatives 1.2.3, 4, and 6...............................................................458
4.4.5.2 Proposed Project and Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 ...................................4.60
s a VIII
mnnm
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
I2M
sc h
mnom
4.4.5.3 Alternative 3..............................................................................................4.61
4.4.5.4 ABematives 1.2, 3, 4, and 6........._...........................................................4-61
4.4.5.5 Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 .......... .... ...........................................................4
-01
4.4.5.6 Cumulative Projects ............ _... _.................................................... ..........4-01
4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES....................................._..........................................................462
4.5.1
Habitat Benefits of Restoration Project...—....—..- ...................................... ............4-02
4.52
Significance Crftsris.............._..»....................._............ ........................... ...............4�8
4.5.3
Aquatic Resources...................................................................................................468
4.5.3.1 Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives......................................466
4.5.3.2 Cumulative Impacts.. ............_.............................._...._.............................480
"I
4.5.3.3 summary of Impacts for ABematives.... ........ .............. ........ ... ........ .........
462
4.5.3.4 Mitigation Measures..._ ...............__ P._....... ............... ..................... ..........
4-02
4.5.4
Vegetation....................................................... ............................... _........................
4.5.4.1 Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives .......... _ ..........................462
4.5.4.2 Cumulative Impacts.. ........................................................._......................4-09
4.5.4.3 Summary of Impacts for ABemaWss .................._.....................................
4.89
4.5.4.4 Mitigation Measures .... .......................................... _.................... ..............
490
91
4.5.5
Birds ....................................................... _........................................... ......... ...... .......
the Proposed Project and Alternatives..............................
4.5.5.1 Impacts o1
717
4.5.5.2 Cumulative Impacts.. ...............................................................................
4-117
4.5.5.3 Summary of Impactsfor Alternatives .......................................................4118
4.5.5.4 Mitigation Measures................................................................................
4.5.6
Insects....................................................................................................................4119
4.5.6.1 Impacts of the Proposed Project and ABematives...................................•4121
4.119
4.5.6.2 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................
4.5.6.3 Summery of Impacts for Alternatives .......................................................4121
4.5.6.4 Mitigation Measures................................................................................4122
4.5.7
Reptiles and Amphibians........................................................................................4122
4122
4.5.7.1 Impacts of the Proposed Project and Aftem'Wes......... ..........................
4.5.72 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................4124
4.5.7.3 Summary of Impacts for Alternatives.......................................................
4.5.7.4 Mitigation Measures................................................................................4125
4124
4.5.8
Mammals................................................................................................................
4125
4.5.8.1 Impacts of the Proposed Project and Aftematives................ _... ...............
4.5.8.2 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................4127
4.5.8.3 Summery of Impacts for Alternatives.............. ............................... ..........
4.5.8.4 Mitigation Measures................................................................................
4127
4.6 CULTURAL
AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES .....................................................•4127
4-127
4.6.1
Significance Criteria................................................................................................4128
4.8.1.1 Effects ............. ............ ............ ...... _... ........................ ................. ...........
4.8.12 Mitigation Measures....................................................................._.........4128
4.62
Cultural Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures...._.......................................4128
4.6.2.1 Impacts ...................................................................................................4128
4.6.2.2 Mitigation Measures................................................................................4129
4.8.3
Paleontological Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................4129
4-129
4.6.3.1 Impacts...................................................................................................
4.6.3.2 Mitigation Measures ....................... _.......................................... _...........
4129
4.6.3.3 No Action AftemaBve...............................................................................4129
4.7 LAND OWNERSHIPMND USE.........................................................................................4130
4.7.1
Significance Criteria .............. ................ .................... ............................................
4130
sc h
mnom
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
nw
Mm
J>ace
4.72
Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ...................................................4.130
4.72.1
Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
Diversion Structure................................................................_...............4.130
4.722 ABemative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion .........................4-132
4.72.3 ABemative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Rabbit Island..................................................................................4.132
4.72.4 ABemallve 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Warner Avenue .............. _...................................... .......................
4132
4.72.5 ABemative 4: Three Jetty Plan...............................................................4133
4.72.6 Alternative 5: InigatioMVater Management Plan...................................4.133
4.7.2.7 Alternative 6: Concept Plan ....... _._............ ........ _................... _.............
4.134
4.72.6 No Action Alternative ..... ..... _..... ._........ _ .............................................4.134
4.7.3
Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................4.134
4.7.4
Summary of Impacts for Aflematives....... ....... ...... ...............................................
4.134
4.7.4.1 Construction Imports .......... __.... ........... ..... __......................................
4.134
4.7.4.2 Post -Construction Impacts ............ ............ _... _... _.__ ............................4.135
4.7.5
Mhigation Measures............................................................ ..._....».........................
4136
4.7.5.1 Proposed Project, ABemstive 1, ABemative 8.........._ ..............................4136
4.7.5.2 Ahematives Z 3. and 4............................................................................4.136
4.7.5.3 Alternative 5 ant No Action Alternative ..._.... .................. _......................
4.137
4.8 RECREATION....................................................................................................................4.137
4.8.1
Significance Criteria................................................................................................4.137
4.82
Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ...................................................4.137
4.8.2.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
Diversion Structure.................................................................................4.137
4.8.2.2 ABemative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion ........ _ ...............4.140
4.8.2.3 ABemative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Rabbit Island ............................................... _.................................
4.140
4.8.2.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Warner Avenue ............................... _............ ....... ........................
4.141
4.6.2.5 Alternative 4: Three Jetty Plan ............................... _..............................
4142
4.6.2.6 ABemative5: InigetioriMaler Management Plan...................................4143
4.8.2.7 ABemative 6: Concept Plan....................................................................4-143
4.8.2.8 No Action ABemative...............................................................................4.143
4.8.3
Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................4.143
4.8.4
Summary of Impacts for Aftemativas......................................................................4144
4.8.4.1 Construction Imparts...............................................................................4144
4.6.42 Post -Construction Impacts ................ ...... _...............................................
4144
4.8.5
Mitigation Measures................................................................................................4145
4.8.5.1 Proposed Project, Alternatives 1 and 6 ............. ................ ......................
4145
4.8.52 ABematives 1, 2.3.4. and 6 ......... _.........................................................4146
4.8.5.3 ABematives 2 and 4 ........................ .......... _............................................
4146
4.8.5.4 ABemative 3....................................»......................................................4146
4.8.5.5 ABemative 5............................................................................................4147
4.0 SOCIOECONOMICS ................. _..................... _................................................................
4147
4.0.1
Significance Criteria ............................................. ... ..... _....................................... 4147
4.02
Impacts of the Proposed Project and ABemativas .................................. _...............
4147
4.02.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without I" Control
DiversionStructure .................................................................................4147
4.022 Alternatives 1.2.3.4, and 8 ....... .............................................. _............4140
nw
Mm
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Elate
arc at
mnovo
4.92.3 Alternative 5: IrdpatloroWater Management Plan...................................4149
4.9.2.4 No Action ABemative...............................................................................4.149
4.9.3
Cumulative Impacts ....................... .».....................................................................
4.149
4.9.4
Summary of impacts fat Alternatives ... .... .»...........................................................4.150
4.9.5
Mitigation Measures ................................... ............................................ _...............
4.150
4.10 VISUAL RESOURCESILIGHT AND GLARE ... ...... ..._.............................................. ..........
W SO
4.10.1
SignlBoance Criteria...............................................................................................4.150
4.10.1.1 Aesthetics ..................................... _........ _...............................................
4.150
4.10.12 Light and Glare ..................................................... _........................ _.......
4-151
4.102
Impacts of the Proposed Project
and Alternatives ..................................................4152
4.102.1 Proposed Project:
Concept Plan without Flood Control
Diversion Structure ........................................................................_.......4.152
4.10.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion .........................4.155
4.102.3 Alternative 2: Full Tidal Basin with • New Ocean Inlet
Near Rabbit Island..................................................................................4156
4.102.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Warner Avenue ..................................................... _.......................
4.157
4.10.2.5 Alternative 4: Three Jetty Plan...............................................................4.158
4.10.2.6 Alternative 5: ImgationfWater Management Plan ...................................4.159
4.10.2.7 ABemative 6: Concept Plan.....................................................................4.160
4.10.2.8 No Action Aftemative................ _.............................................................
4.150
4.10.3
Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................................4160
4.10.4
Summary of Impacts for Alternatives .....................................................................4180
4.10.4.1 Construction Impacts ......................... .... _...............................................
4160
4.10.4.2 Post-Construclion Impacts ..... _....................................»..........................4161
4.10.5
Mitigation Measures...............................................................................................4162
4.10.5.1 Proposed Project ..................................... _...................................... ........
4162
4.10.5.2 Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4. and 6 ... ................................................................4162
4.10.5.3 Alternative 5 .......................... _................ _..............................................
4162
4.11 TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION...................................................................................................4162
4.11.1
Significance Criteria...............................................................................................4162
4.11.1.1 Intersection or Roadway Segment Performance Determination ...............4.162
4.11.12 Significance Criteria Threshold Levels .....................................................4164
4.11.2
Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ..................................................4164
4.112.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
Diversion Structure.................................................................................4164
4.11.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion ............ _...........
4175
4.112.3 Alternative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Rabbit Island..................................................................................4176
4.112.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
NearWarner Avenue..............................................................................4178
4.112.5 Alternative 4: Three Jetty Plan ...................................... _.......................
4178
4.112.6 Aftemative 5: InipatioNWater Management Plan...................................4178
4.112.7 Alternative 6: Concept Plan...........................................................».......4179
4.11.2.8 No Action Alternative ...............................................................................4160
4.11.3
Cumulative Impacts .. ....................... _._..................................................................
4180
4.11.4
Summary of Imparts for Aftematives......................................................................4180
4.11.5
Mitigation Measures ........................... ..... __.._......................................................
4181
4.11.5.1 Proposed Project ................. _..... ......................... ..................................
4181
4.11.52 ABematives 1, 2,3. 4. and 6 ............ .......... _...........................................
4181
arc at
mnovo
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
E e
nc xll
mnaw
4.11.5.3 Alternative 5............................................................................................
4-181
4.11.5.4 No Action Alternative ...............................................................................4-181
4.12 AIR QUALITY....................................... »......... .................... ........ ............................... .....
4182
4.12.1
Significance Criteria................................................................................................4-182
4.12.1.1 Construction Phase -Thresholds of Significance.....................................4.182
4.12.12 Operational Phase -Thresholds of Significance
(Primary Effects) ................................................ _...................................
4.182
4.12.1.3 Operational Phase - Thresholds of Signifcance
(Secondary Effects) ............................ _..................................................
4.183
4.122
Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ...................................................4183
4.12.2.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
Diversion Structure ........... _....................................................................4183
4.12.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion .........................4.190
4.12.2.3 Alternative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Rabbit Island..................................................................................4193
4.12.2.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
NearWarner Avenue ................... _................................... »....................
4.194
4.12.2.5 ARemative 4: Three Jetty Plan...............................................................4.196
4.12.2.8 Ahemative 5: InigationWater Management Plan...................................4198
4.122.7 Alternative 6: Concept Plan ............................... .......................... _.........
4.199
4.12.2.6 No Action Alternative ................. _.......................... ............ _....... ...... ......
4.199
4.12.2.9 AOMP Consistency Analysis....................................................................4.199
4.12.2.10 Federal Conformity......._........................................................................4201
4.12.3
Cumulative Impacts ................................. ............. ..... ...........................................
4201
4.12.4
Summary of Impacts for Alternatives...._................................................................4201
4.12.5
Mitigation Measures .......................... _... _...............................................................
4202
4.12.5.1 Proposed Project .....................................................................................4202
4.12.5.2 Alternatives 1, 2, 3. and 4 .............................. _................................ ........4204
4.12.5.3 Alternative 5 ...................................... ..._....... ............................ ............
4204
4.12.5.4 ARemative 8............................................................................................4204
4.12.5.5 No Action ARemative.................. ........................ _..................................
4205
4.13 NOISE...............................................................................................................................4205
4.13.1
Signifoance Criteria................................................................................................4205
4.13.2
Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ...................................................4206
4.13.2.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
DiversionStructure.................................................................................4206
4.13.2.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion .........................4209
4.132.3 Alternative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
NearRabbit Island..................................................................................4209
4.13.2.4 ARemative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Warner Avenue . ................................ _...........................................
4210
4.13.2.5 ARemative 4: Three Jetty Plan...............................................................4210
4.13.2.6 Alternative 5: InigationWater Management Plan ...................................4210
4.13.2.7 Alternative 6: Concept Plan ...... _............................................................4210
4.13.2.6 No Action Alternative ............... ................... ..... .....................................
4210
4.13.3
Cumulative Impacts ................................... ...... _.._.......... .....................................
4211
4.13.4
Summary of Impacts for Alternatives......_..................................................._.........4211
4.13.5
Mitigation Measures .................................................... .......... _................................
4211
4.13.5.1 Proposed Pmject and All ARematives ......................................................4211
4.14 HUMAN HEALTH RISKIHAZARDOUS MATERIALS..._....................................................4212
nc xll
mnaw
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Tat X111
mnam
Pace
4.15 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES ...................... _....................... .............................
4-212
4.15.1
Slgnlficance Criteria ................................................. ....._............................... .........
4212
4.15.2
Impacts of the Proposed Project and Aftemativas...................................................4-213
4.15.2.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
Diversion Structure.................................................................................4.213
4.152.2 Alternative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion .........................4221
4.152.3 Alternative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Rabbit Island..................................................................................4.221
4.152.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet
Near Warner Avenue _................................................
4.222
............................
4.152.5 Alternative 4: Three Jetty Plan ................................ __..».......................
4223
4.15.2.6 Alternative 5: IngationfWater Management Plan ... _.......... ...................4.224
4.15.2.7 Alternative 6: Concept Plan .................... ..... ............... ...........................
4-225
4.15.2.8 No Action Attemative.......... _.......... _ ......................................................4226
4.15.3
Cumulative Impacts .......... _...................... .............
4226
4.15.4
.................................................
Summary of Impacts for Alternatives ....... .................. ......... ...................... ............
4226
4.15.4.1 Construction Impacts ................. _................ ..........................................
4226
4.15.4.2 Post -Construction Impacts ....... _................ _............_...........................4227
4.15.4.3 Oil Operations ..................... _.................. ................................................
4227
4.15.5
Mitigation Measures ............. _....... __......................................................................
4228
4.16 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ........ _....... ......... _ ...................................................4228
4.16.1
Significance Criteria ................................................................................................4228
4.16.2
Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ...................................................4228
4.162.1 Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control
Diversion Structure ................................... _............................................
4228
4.16.2.2 ANematives 1, 2, 3, and 4........................................................................4231
4.16.2.3 Alternative 5: Irrigation/Water Management Plan .. ................................4231
4.16.2.4 Alternative 6: Concept Plan ................... ............... __.»..........................
4232
4.16.2.5 No Action Alternative .............................. ............ ...... _..........................
4232
4.16.3
Cumulative Impacts ............................................ ....... ......... _................................
4232
4.16.3.1 Utilities....................................................................................................4232
4.16.3.2 Solid Waste ........................... ..._.............................................................
4233
4.16.3.3 Public Services ................... _.......................................................... .........
4233
4.16.3.4 Vector Control............................................................... _........................
4233
4.16.4
Summary of Impacts for Alternatives ............. ........................................... .............
4233
4.16.5
Mitigation Measures ............................................... _...............................................
4233
SECTION 5.0 -
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........ .... ......�_........_.6.1
5.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................5.1
6.2 BENEFITS AND IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES..............5.1
52.1
Proposed Project: Concept Plan without Flood Control Diversion Structure ................5.1
52.1.1 Benefns............................... _......................................................................
5.1
52.12 Impacts.......................................................................................................5.1
5.2.2
Narrative 1: Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion.............................................6.17
52.2.1 Benefits .......................... ........................ _........ _._...................................
6.17
5.2.2.2 Impacts............................................................................................._......5-17
52.2.3 Differences in Significant, Adverse Impacts Between
Alternative 1 and the Proposed Project ...............................................
_.... 5.16
5.2.3
Alternative 2: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near Rabbit island................5.18
52.3.1 Benefits .....................................................................................................5.18
Tat X111
mnam
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cominwd)
EM
52.32 Impacts..................................................................................................... o-10
52.3.3 Differences in Significant, Adverse Impacts Between
Aaemative 2 and the Proposed Project .....................................................5.20
52.4 Alternative 3: Full Tidal Basin with a New Ocean Inlet Near Warner Avenue ....
......,6.20
51.4.1 Benefits.....................................................................................................5.20
52.41 Impacts.....................................................................................................521
52.4.3 Differences In Significant, Adverse Impacts Between
Alternative 3 and the Proposed Projea•••••••••••••••••••••••••• ...........................S-22
5.2.5 Alternative 4: Three Jetty Plan .................................. .....................................
_....... 5.23
51.5.1 Benefits ....... ...... ..... ......... _.»_.......... .... _.............................................
6.23
52.5.2 Impacts
.......................................................................__.........._........_....5.23
52.5.3 Differences In Significant, Adverse Impacts Between
Alternative 4 and the Proposed Project ...................»».............................5.24
52.6 Alternative 5: InigationMater Management Plan.....................................................5.25
52.6.1 Benefits....................................................................................................5.25
5.2.6.2 Impacts.....................................................................................................5.25
52.6.3 Differences in Significant, Adverse Impacts Between
Alternative 5 and the Proposed Project .....................................................5-26
5.2.7 Alternative 6: Concept Plan.....................................................................................5.26
5.2.7.1 Benefits ...................... ................ ............. .........................................
...... 5.26
5.2.7.2 Impacts .....................................................................................................
5.27
5.2.7.3 Differences in Significant, Adverse Impacts Between
Aaemative 6 and the Proposed Project .....................................................5.27
5.2.6 No Action Ahemative................................................................................................5.27
5.3 UNAVOIDABLE, SIGNIFICANT, ADVERSE IMPACTS .........................................................6.28
5.4 REASONS FOR SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT...........................................5.29
5.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ....................
5-32
SECTION 6.0 -SIGNIFICANT, IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES TO THE
ENVIRONMENT FROM PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION..»_.._.... ............ ... ...........
.....•»•----••6.1
SECTION 7.0 - GROWTHaNDUCING IMPACTS.»».__..»...._.+.»»...._.»......»•...........».. ..7.1
SECTION 8.0 - LIST OF PREPARERS .............. —.«»»--- .....------------- »»»---------------------- . ...... 6.1
SECTION 6.0 -AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED «...».»..««...» ................».....»».---6-1
SECTION 10.0 -LITERATURE CITED.._....._..»..».......—»—..........»..»..._..».10.1
SECTION 11.0 - DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS .....»... ....... ............. ... 11.1
arw )1v
Mm
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX A - INTER -AGENCY AGREEMENT
APPENDIX B -CULTURAL RESOURCES APPENDIX
APPENDIX C - BIRD SPECIES LIST
APPENDIX D - HABITAT EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX E - ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT BOLSA CHICA LOWLANDS
RESTURATION PROJECT
VOLUME II
APPENDIX F -AIR QUALITY
APPENDIX G -TRAFFIC
VOLUME III -ENGINEERING STUDIES
VOLUME N - ENGINEERING STUDIES TECHNICAL APPENDIX
ho jy
on=
LIST OF FIGURES
Elaut PAlLe
ES -1
Proposed Project Concept Plan without Flood Diversion.................................................ESL
ES -2
2nd Sub-Altemative Future Full Tidal Restoration Concurrent with the
Rest of the Lowland (Expanded Full Tidal Basin) ................. ............ ................. .........
ES -13
ES -3
ABemative 1 - Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion ...............................................
ES -16
ES4
Alternative 2 -Tidal inlet Near Rabbit Island.................................................................
ES -17
ESS
Alternative 3- Tidal Inlet Near Warner Avenue.............................................................
ES.21
ESL
Ahemative 4 - Three Jetty Plan ..................... _.._....»...............................................
ES -25
ES -7
Alternative 5 - Irrigation Water Management ............. .............. _...................................
ES -28
ES -8
Alternative 6 -Concept Plan with Peak Flood Diversion .... ..... _..................................... ES -31
1-1
18% USGS Las Bolsas 15 Minute Quadrangle Map..........................................................1.2
1-2
`Waters of the United Slates,' Including Wetlands, at Bolsa Chia, Orange
County, CA, which are Subject to Regulation Utter Section 404 of the
CleanWater Act .......... »............................... _................ _................................................
1L
2-1
Project Vidntfy....................................................................._._.........................................2.2
2-2
Bolsa Chiu Existing Physical Features and Place Names.................................................2.3
2.3
Cross Section through Tidal Wetland Showing Wetland Zonation......................................2-8
2.4A
Proposed Project Concept Plan without Flood Diversion ....... _ ...........................................2.9
2.48
Proposed Project Concept Pian without Flood Diversion ...................... _..........................
2-10
2-6A
2nd Sub-Ahemative Future Full Tidal Restoration Concurrent
with the Rest o1 the Lowland (Expanded Full Tidal Basin)................................................2.14
2-58
2nd Su4ABemalive Cross Sections, Future Full Tidal Restoration
Concurrent with the Rest of the Lowland (Expanded Full Tidal Basin)..............................2.15
2LA
Alternative 1 - Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion ............ _...................................
2.20
2-6B
Alternative 1 - Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion..................................................2.21
2-7A
Alternative 2 -Tidal Inlet Near Rabbit Island....................................................................2.23
2.7B
Alternative 2. Cross Sections, Tidal Inlet Near Rabbit Island ............................. _............
2.24
2-8A
Alternative 3- Tidal Inlet Near Warner Avenue................................................................2.26
2-15B
Alternative 3 - Cross Sections, Tidal Inlet Near Warner ....................................................2.27
2.9A
Ahemative 4 - Three Jetty Plan ................................................... _...................................
2.28
2.98
Alternative 4 - Cross Sections, Three Jetty Plan..............................................................2.29
2.10A
Alternative 5 - Irrigat oftWater Management ....................................................................2.31
2.1 DB
Alternative 5 -Cross Sections,IrrigationyWater Management..........................................2.32
2-11A
Alternative 6 - Concept Plan with Peak Flood Diversion ...................................................2.35
2.11B
Alternative 6 - Cross Sections, Concept Plan with Peak Flood Diversion ............ .............
2.36
2.12
Public Access and Recreation - Proposed Project ............................................................243
2.13
Public Access and Recreation - 2nd Sub-ABemative........................................................2-44
2.14
Public Access and Recreation -ABemative 1 ......... ...................... ..................................
2.45
2.15
Public Access and Recreation - ABemative 2 ....... ............. .............................................
2.46
2.16
Public Access and Recreation - ABemative 3...................................................................2-47
2.17
Public Access and Recreation - Alternative 4...................................................................2.48
2.18
Potential Haul Roads, Construction Access and Staging Areas........................................2.51
2.19A
Construction Phasing Schedule .... _........... _.....................................................................2.54
2.198
Corutruction Phasing Schedule........................................................................................2.55
2.20
Environmental Constraint Schedule .......... ........... ...........................................................2.56
2.21
Construction Manpower .............. _......................... ..........................................................
2.80
2-22
Cumulative Projects ................................................ _.......................................................
2.71
arnam
UST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Ficum
Ellv
3.1.1
Faults in Vicinity of BOW Chia.........................................................................................33
3.2.1
Huntington Beach Littoral Cell............................................................................................35
3.2.2
Wave Windows at Hindast Deep Water Ana ..... ... _ ......................................................312
3.2-3
Nearshore Station ..................... _............... _.... ................... _................ .......................
318
317
3.2.4
Nearshore Station Statibtic$................................................. _................................. .........
3.2.5
Shoreline Changes In Huntington Beach Littoral Cell ......................................................320
3.2.6
Avenge MSL Beads Width .................................... _........................................................
322
3.2.7
Avenge Seasonal Variation of MSL Beach Waith ............................................................323
3.2.8
Estimated Alongshore Sediment Transport .......... ........ ...................................................324
3.2.9
Nearshore Wave Transformation for West Swell..... ........ __ ...................................._......326
32.10
Wave Transformation for South Swell ............ _..... »_ ......................................................327
3.31
Surface Drainage Conditions..........................................................................................329
3.32
October 1999 Groundwater Contour Map.........................................................................332
3.33
October 1999 Groundwater Contour Map.........................................................................334
3.3-4
Groundwater Levels In Relation to Predpr ation, Monitoring Well 110 ................... ..........
335
3.4.1
Water Quality Sampling Stations....................................................................................3-.6
3.42
Location o1 OCEMA Water Quality Stations and State Mussel Watch Stations................349
3.4-3
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Stations...._........................................................3S1
3.4.4
Sediment Sampling Stations............................................................................................3-61
3.4.5
Locations o1 Samples Taken In 1998 and 1999 for Ecological
RiskAssessment (ERA) ................................ _._..............................................................
3.62
3.5.1
Fish and Benthic Sample Locations .......... _...... _.............................................................369
3.5.2
Fish and Invertebrate Sampling Stations..........................................................................393
3.5-3
Distribution of Habitat Types at BOW Chica...................................................................3103
3.54
Snowy Plover Nest Locations.........................................................................................3108
3.8.1
Bolsa Chia State Beach Surfing Use ............................................................................3142
3.0-1
Project Location In RSA 1.38..........................................................................................3145
3.9-2
1990 County and RSA 1.38 Demographic Information ....................................................3152
3.141
Viewpoint Locations .......................................................................................................
3.142
Typical View from Path Near Graham Street (Viewpoint 1) ............................................3154
3143
View from Sespoint Avenue and Garfield Avenue Intersection Viewpoint 2) .................3154
310-4
Typical View from Proposed Harriett Wieder Regional Park (Viewpoint 3) ....................•
3-155
3145
Typical View whhin Bolsa Chi ca Reserve (Viewpoint 4) ..................................................
3155
310.8
Typical View of Proposed Restoration Area Newpoird 5) ..............................................3156
3147
Bolsa Chia State Beach Near EGGW Channel (0ewpoint 6) .......................................3156
3148
Bolsa Chia State Beach South of the Ecological Reserve.............................................3157
311.1
Project Location SoW Chiu Project .............................................................................3159
311.2
Existing Road Segments Bolsa Chiu Project.._............................................................3160
311.3
Existing Lane Geometric$ Bolsa Chia Project ...............................................................3161
3114
Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour Boise Chia Project ....... .................................3163
311.5
Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour Boise Chiu Project .........................................3164
311.6
Existing ADT SoW Chia PMJect..................................................................................3165
311.7
Year 2002 Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour BoW Chiu Project .....................................3166
311.8
Year 2002 Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour Boise Chica Project .....................................3167
311-9
Transit Routes, Bolas Chiu Project ...............................................................................3169
311.10
Nonmotorized Transportation Features, SoW Chiu Project ..........................................3170
3131
Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise Environments ........................3182
3132
Noise Survey Locations .................................. _.............................................................
3184
316.1
MosCuho Control Spraying Patterns ....... __........... _ .......................................................3195
nee Xvll
mnow
UST OF FIGURES (Continued)
PAIL
4.2-1
Typical EBB Bar Formation .............. _................................................................................
4-a
4.2.2
EBB Bar and Combined Effects.......................................................................................4.10
4.2.3
Wave Modification ................................... _......................................................................
4-11
4.2-4
Project Induced Effects....................................................................................................4.13
4.10.1
Representative Appearance of PCH Bridge and Tidal Inlet (Talbert Inlet)......................4.154
4.11.1
Project
Trip Assignment Boise Chiu Project .................................................................4188
4.11.2
Project
Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour Boise Chiu Project ..........................................4-167
4.11.3
Project
Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour Bolsa Chiu Project ..........................................4.168
4.11.4
Year 2002 Plus Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour.................................................4-171
4.11.5
Year 2002 Plus Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ...................................
_.... _..... 4.172
nw xvlll
whom
LIST OF TABLES
Table
P°se-
ES7
List of Federal, State, and Local Project Approvals........................................................
ES -4
ES -2
Project Impact Classifications.......................................................................................
ES -35
ES -3
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Summary, Proposed Project ....................................
ES41
ESIProposed
Project Summary .................... ......................................................................E5-45
ES -5
1st Sub-Ahemative Summary ...... ..... ................................................................... .....ES
-47
ESB2M
Su?Ahemative Summary ................. .......... ..... _......................................... .........
ES-43ES-7
Alternative 1 Summary .............................. .......___._.............. ...................................
ES49
meAlternative
2 Summary ....................................... ......... _............................................
ES-50ES-9
Alternative 3 Summary ............... ........ ...... .................................................................
ES-51ES-10
Alternative 4Summary ................... .....__._._... ............................................ ............
ES -52
ES -53
ES -11
Alternative 5 Summery ............ ......... _.........................................................................
ES-54
ES -12
Alternative 6 Summary ................ »_.... _.......................................................................
1.1
Ust of Federal, State, and Local Project Approvals............................................................1-7
2.1
Construction Volume Budget Estimates...........................................................................2.11
2-2
Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives to Screening Criteria .........................................2.19
2.3
Major Elements of Construction.......................................................................................2.50
2.4
Potential Construction Equipment Usage Analysis...........................................................2.57
3.2-1
Tidal Characteristics at Newport Bay Entrance...................................................................3.7
3.2.2
Deep Water Extratropical Extreme Storm Events............................................................3.10
3.23
Deep Water Tropical Extreme Storm Events...................................................................3.11
3.24
Nearshore Wave Characteristics for Extreme Extratropical Storm Swells ........................3.14
32.5
Nearshore Wave Characteristics for Extreme Tropical Storm Swells ...............................3.15
32.8
Beach Nourishment In Huntington Beach Littoral Cell ......................................................3.19
32.7
Net and Gross Alongshore Sediment Transport Rates at Inlet Locations ..........................3-21
3.3.1
Average Monthly Rainfall in Coastal Orange County ........................................................3.30
3.3-2
Summary of Groundwater Quality Measurements, Bolsa Chios Wetland,
OrangeCounty. California................................................................................................3.36
3.4.1
Beneficial Water Uses Recognized Within the Santa Are River Basin -
BolseChiu Area.............................................................................................................340
3.4-2
Selected Water Quality Objectives from the Santa Are River Basin Plan ........................
3-41
3.4.3
California Ocean Plan Toxic Materials Umltations and Water Contact Standards ............
342
3.44
National Toxics Rule Toxic Materials Concentrations for Saltwater..................................3-43
3.4-5
Sediment Effects Guideline Values..................................................................................345
3.4.8
Range of Water Quality Parameters for Boise Chiu Lowlands and Inner and
OuterBolsa Bay. 1992.1998............................................................................................347
3.4.7
Summary of Water Quality Parameters for Inner Boise Bay and EGGW Flood
ControlChannel, 1991.1997............................................................................................348
3.4-8
Surface Water Quality Parameters forthe Bolsa Chiu Lowlands, Inner Bolsa
Bay, and EGGW Flood Control Channel, 1996................................................................3-50
3.4.9
General Inorganics In Surface Water Samples for the Bolsa Chiu Lowlands,
Inner Boise Bay, and EGGW Flood Control Channel, 1996 ..............................................3.53
3.4.10
Coliform Monitoring Data for Inner and Outer Boise Bay, EGGW Flood
Control Channel, Slater Channel, and Springdale Pump Station,
-.
August 25, 1997 to April 30, 1998....................................................................................3.55
3.4.11
Concentrations of Metals In Surface Water Samples from Inner Boise Bay
and EGGW Flood Control Channel. 1991.1997................................................................3.56
wo adx
onam
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
��
3.4.12
Concentrations of Metals In Surface Water Samples from the Bolsa Chia
Lowlands, Inner Bolsa Bay, and EGGW Flood Control Channel, 1996 .............................3.58
3.4-13
Concentration of Detected Organics In Surface Water Samples from the Bolsa
Chiu Lowlands, Inner Bolsa Bay, and EGGW Flood Control Channel, 1996 ...................3.59
3.4-14
Concentrations of Metals and Organics in Sediments from Bolsa Bay and
Huntington Beach Harbour, 1991.1998............................................................................3.63
3.4.15
Concentrations of Metals In Sediments from the Boise Chiu l.aAsnds, Inner
Bolsa Bay, Outer Bolsa Bay, and EGGW Flood Control Channel,
1991 and 1996.................................................................................................................3.64
3.4.16
Comparison Between Tatra Tech Sampling and ERA Sampling Results
In SedimenVSoil, Bolsa Chiu Lowlands.....................................................................»...387
3.4.17
Concentrations of Detected Organics In Sediments at the Bolsa Chia
Lowlands, Inner Bolsa Bey, and EGGW Flood Control Channel, 1998 ..............».............370
3.4.18
Summary of State Mussel Watch Program Tissue Concentrations of Trace
Elements In California Mussel (Myfflus colihamlanus) Transplanted to
Huntington Harbour, 1987.1995.......................................................................................373
3.4.19
Summary of the State Mussel Watch Program Tissue Concentrations of
Detected Organic Chemicals in California Mussel (MyfHus colitoManus)
Transplanted to Huntington Harbour, 1987-1995 ..............................................................374
3.4-20
Summary of State Mussel Watch Program Tissue Concentrations of Trace
Elements in Freshwater Clam (Corbicu/a Flumina) Transplanted to the EGGW
Flood Control Channel, 1987.1993...................................................................................375
3.4.21
Summary of State Mussel Watch Program Tissue Concentrations of Detected
Organic Chemicals in Freshwater Clam (Ccrbioula flumina) Transplanted to the
EGGW Flood Control Channel, 1987.1993......................................................................376
3.4.22
Summary of Tissue Concentrations of Metals and Organic Chemicals In Fish
Collected from the Bolsa Chiu Lowlands and Inner Boise Bay, 1996 ..............................378
34-23
Summary of Chemicals in the ERA Sampling and Analyses Field Collected
Aquatic Invertebrates In Boise Chia Lowlands................................................................351
3.4-24
Summary of Water Quality Parameters for Huntington Harbour, 1991.1997 ....................383
3.4.25
Total Coliform Monitoring Data from Huntington Harbour and the Surf Zone
Off Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, and Huntington Beach, 1997 and 1998 ...........................385
3.4.26
Concentrations of Metals in Surface Water Samples from Huntington Harbor,
1991.1997........................................................................................................................366
3.51
Wet Weight Biomass of Invertebrate Taxonomic Groups at the Bolsa Chia
Lowlands and State Ecological Reserve, ION.................................................................388
3.5-2
Benthic Invertebrates in the Bolsa Chia Ecological Reserve Associated with
Cord Grass (Spartina foliosa) Marsh, October 1994 .........................................................391
3.53
Benthic Invertebrates in Inner and Outer Bolss Bay Before and After Opening
the Tide Gales, 1970.1980............................................................. _................................
392
3.5.4
Mean Fish Abundance in Inner and Outer Boise Bay, 1985-1989 .....................................395
3.5.5
Fish in Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay Before and After Opening the Tide Gates,
1978.1980........................................................................................................................397
3."
Checklist of Fish Collected from Huntington Harbour and Inner Anaheim Bay
Wetlands, 1969-1995 ......................................... _...... __..................................................
398
3.57
Threatened or Endangered Marine Species ................................. _................ ..............
3101
3.58
Habitat Types and Acreages (includes Ecological Reserve)...........................................3102
3.59
Sensitive Bird Species at Bolsa Chia............................................................................3112
3.510
Summary of Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chiu, 19951998 ........................3115
3.511
Summary of California Least Tem Nesting at Bolsa Chia, 19791998 .............. ............
3116
11,112 apt
Mm
UST OF TABLES (Continued)
are xxl
Thom
Ellisise
Table
3.5.12
Summary of Belding's Savannah Sparrow Breeding Pairs at Boise Chin,
1988 to 1998
3.5.13
..................................................................................................................3.118
Senshive Insect Species Known to Occur at Boise Chiu...............................................3.125
3.5.14
Sensitive Reptile Species Known to Occur at Bolsa Chin .............................................
3.5.15
Sensitive Mammal Species Known to Occur M Bolsa Chico ......... .................................
3.12B
3.6-1
Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Mile of the Project Boundary.......... ........ _.......................
3.133
3.0.1
SCAG Population Projections........................................................................................5144
3.0.2
Population, Housing, and Employment Projections, ION ._......... ............... _.................3.148
3.0.3
1990 Income and Poverty Status for Orange County ...... ........................................
3.149
.......5150
3.9.4
1990 Income and Poverty Status for Huntington Beach ......... _........................ ......
.......
3.11-1
Intersection LOS Definitions ................ .............................................. ....
...... 5171
3.11.2
Roadway Segment LOS Thresholds...._....._..............__..._..............................._........5172
5173
3.11.3
Existing Intersection LOS ................ _..._._...... ......... ... _.............................................
3.11.4
Existing Roadway LOS............................................................................._...................5173
3.12.1
Projected Attainment Dates for Federal and State Alr Quality Standards
3.12-2
forthe SCAB................................................................................__......_......._............5176
California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards....................................... _........... 5178
3.12.3
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary for the Costa Mesa Monitoring
Station (Number of Days Standards were Exceeded and Maximum Levels
Violations)
3.151
DuringSuch ....................................................................._...........................5180
Summary of Existing Vehicle -Generated Noise.................................................»...........5187
3.152
Distances to the 70, 65, and 60 dBA Ldn Noise Levels for Vehicle -Generated
Noise................... _................... _................................................................. __..............
5188
4.2.1
Oceanographical Impact Significance Criteria...................................................................446
4.2.2
Simulated Coastal Processes Effects for the Proposed Project ........... .. ............ _...............
4.8
4.2-3
Volume of Material Available for Different Levels of Fine Material Content ...... _ ..............4.14
4.24
Estimated Range of Over-Filied Ebb Bar Volume for Various ABemstives ....... ...............
4.14
42.5
Maximum Water Particle Velocity at Tidal Inlet for Proposed Project
andAltematives...............................................................................................................4.16
4.2.6
Estimated Equilibrium Flood Shoal and Maintenance Dredging for Proposed
Projectand ABematives...................................................................................................4.17
4.2.7
Simulated Coastal Processes Effects for the 2nd Sub-Alternative....................................419
4.2-8
Simulated Coastal Processes Effects for Ahemative 1 .....................................................4.20
4.2.9
Simulated Coastal Processes Effects for Aftema0ve 2 ...... ................. ............................4-22
4.2.10
Simulated Coastal Processes Effects for ABemative 3 .....................................................4.24
4.2.11
Simulated Coastal Processes Effects for ABemative 4 ............................ _.......................
425
4.51
Summary of Hydrology Impacts.......................................................................................4-35
4.4.1
Approximate Percentage of Materials for Different Grain Size Ranges.............................438
4.42
Percentage of Gage Locations Exceeding Crt eris for National Toxin
Rule (Metals) and A5411 (Coliforms) Under Modeled Worst -Case Conditions
forAhemative 1...............................................................................................................444
4.43
Percentage of Gage Locations Exceeding Criteria for National Toxics
Rule (Metals) and AS411 (Colifomss) Under Modeled Worst -Case Conditions
forAhemative 2................................................................................................_.............4.47
4.4-4
Percentage of Gate Locations Exceeding Criteria for National Toxics
Rule (Metals) and A5411 (Coliforms) Under Modeled Worst -Case Conditions
forAlternative 3..............................................................................................._..............450
4.45
Percentage of Gage Locations Exceeding Criteria for National Toxics
Rule (Metals) and A5411 (Coliforms) Under Modeled Worst -Case Conditions
forAhemative 4 ....................................... _...................................................................... 453
are xxl
Thom
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Lead Agency for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project under the California Environmental
Dually Ad (CEOA) Is the California Slate Lands Commission (CSLC). The Lead Agencies under the
National Environmental Policy Ad (NEPA) are the U.S. Any Corps of Engineers (Corps) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Pursuant to their respective Implementing guidelines and regulations, Nese
agendas have derided to prepare an Environmental Impact Reporl/Environmenlal Impact Statement
(EIR/EIS) for their respective actions in connection with the consideration of the proposed BoW Chica
Lowlands Restoration Project. This document will be used by the Lead Agencies under their respective
authorities as pan of the permit evaluation and dedsion-making processes assoUated with the approval and
implementation of the Proposed Pmjed/Prefened Alternative, hereinafter referred to as Proposed Project-
The
rojectThe Bolsa Chia Project area consists of 1,247 saes of the Bolsa Chiu Lowlands in the Bolsa Gap between
Bolsa Chiu Mese on the northwest and Huntington Mesa on the southeast, In an unincorporeted area of
northwestern Orange County. The she Is bordered by Warner Avenue on the northwest and Pacific Coast
Highway (PCH) on the west.
8.1 PURPOSE AND NEED
Historically, Bolsa Chiu was part of an extensive tidal marsh. Including a mosaic of vegetated salt and
brackish marsh, with assodated tidal embayments, sloughs, and mudflats. In 1899, Bolsa Chica was diked
to prevent tidal exchange in order to manage the resultant ponds as a waterfowl hunting club. Subsequently,
the site was further altered by filling, oil extraction actlAes, flood control facilities, and surface and
subsurface hydrologic modifications. The surrounding area was also developed for a variety or uses,
Including extensive residential and commercial development. Bolsa Chica still contains a significant inaction
of the historical marsh system, but Its wetland and aquatic functions have been degraded from those that
existed historically.
The purpose of the Proposed Project is to restore wetland and aquatic functions at Bolsa Chiu as oil
extraction is phased out and after contamination Is removed. Relevard slate and federal agencies will
assess the extent of contamination. Then, under an agreement with stale and federal agencies, the oil
company wrrently operating at the site will dean up contamination in the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. Because of
permanent losses of adjacent wetlands and aquatic areas, permanent hydrologic modihutloas, and
urbanization surrounding Bolsa Chiba over the last century, complete restoration of wetland and squat
functions to historical levels is probably not possible. Therefore, the proponent agencies will need to assess
the optimal mix of functions that could be restored at Bolsa Cl while assessing the environmental
impacts of the restoration activities.
The proposed wetlands restoration would also offset the loss of habitat from future landfill construclion in the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (the Ports). Restoration work at Bolsa Chica would be accomplished
primarily win funds provided by the Ports. The Ports provided this money in exchange for mM1lgation credits
authorized by an Interagency agreement establishing the Bolsa Chiu Wetlands Restoration Project
(Appendix A). State and federal agencies that are part of the Interagency agreement have developed a
Concept Plan for restoring wetland and aquatic functions at Bolsa Chiu that would, among other things,
offset the anticipated impacts to aquatic habitats from the Ports' projects. Based on the Concept Plan, the
mitigation credits for the Ports were determined. Although the Concept Plan will be assessed In the
environmental review process as one of an appropriate range of restoration ahematives, the agencies have
not yet determined whether this conceptual proposal is the preferred approach for restoring the optimal mu
ofweUand and aquabofundions at Bolsa Chica.
The Pons' mitigation credits are authorized to offset losses of aquatic functions expected from proposed
expansion of the Ports. It the restoration alternative selected for Bolsa Chica does not adequately offset
these losses of function, some or all of the remaining money provided by the level of mitigation credits to the
Ports would need to be expended at other sties. These expenditures would be necessary to offset the
functional losses, to the extent required, to fulfill the provisions of the Interagency agreement
nc ES -1
mnom
1 s.1.1 Interagency Agreement
2
3 In October 1996, eight state and federal agencies Including the CSLC, U.S. Environmental Protection
5 Coastal ency Conxrvancythe al(SCCe of GIthe Natifornia C'�onai Mahartmord e Eutherias t>eMoe (NMFish and Game FS), this CaifomfaN Resoornia urces
7 for wetlands
acquisitioCorps,
and restoration and the eat entered
theoldo an so CMuinteragency
nLowla ds.agreement
roThe nlmenpency Agreto establish a ement
a addresses the acquisition of approximately 650 acres In the Bolsa Chico Lowlands; the restoration of
9 wetlands and habitat areas In the Bolsa Chic& Lowlands Including full tidal and managed tidal habitat;
10 monitoring ao"as to determine the condition of the restored habitats, and the necessary operation,
1/ maintenance, and management of the project features, both before and alter eonsimcb0n; and necessary
12 maintenance/management of the restored wetland. The Bolsa Chloe Interagency Agreement delineates
13 agency roles and responsibill les among the participating agencies. Restoration of the wetlands is directed
14 by an interagency Steering Commfilee.
15
16
17 8.12 Fanuc Plan
to
19 Because of its history as an oil field, the project she contains some areas of contaminated soils. Prior to
20 moloretion activltles, the oil operator will dean up all contamination. An Ecological Risk Assessmem (ERA)
21 and Confirmatory Sampling are being performed to determine levels of contaminants throughout the she, and
22 to determine contaminant concentrations that may have adverse ecological effects. The ERA will define the
23 extern and boundaries of areas that will need to be cleaned up. The ERA, which has not yet been
24 completed. will determine the ardent to which contamination has affected or threatens to affect natural
25 resources at the she, and will Identify the areas where contamination must be remediated to protect natural
26 resources. The ERA will also Identify the types or routes of exposure to the contamination that must be
27 prevented to protect natural resources at the she. Areas that contain sensitive ecosystems that must be
28 protected from disturbance during remediation will also be identified. As much as passible, activities to clean
29 up contamination will be coordinated with the restoration project to minimize disturbance to sensitive
30 biological resources. A Cleanup Plan will be prepared and implemented by the responsible patties (Area
31 Energy, Cal Reserves LLC (Shell), and HeanhsWa Fomes).
32
33
34 8.1.3 Goals and Obiectives
35
36 To fulfill the purpose and need for the project as described In Section S.1, the federal and state Interagency
37 team has defined goals and objectives for the proposed wetlands restoration. The goal of the Boise Chia
36 Lowlands Restoration Project is to retain, and to the extent desirable and feasible, enhance, existing fish and
39 wildlife resources. a Is intended that the restored ecosystem be naturalistic, biologically diverse, productive,
40 and estuarine in nature. The ecosystem shall be predominantly saltwater -Influenced but will also Incorporate
41 biologically beneficial freshwater influence. In addition, the acreage of waters and welfands in the Lowlands
42 shall not be diminished.
43
44 The Steering Committee's specific planning objectives for the Bolsa Chia Lowlands Restoration Project
45 Include:
46
47 > Overwintedng habitat for migratory shorebirds, seabirds, and walerfowl shall be enhanced.
46
49 > Nesting habhat for migratory shorebirds and seabirds shall not be diminished and shall be expanded,
5D where feasible.
51
52 > Habitat for estuohne/marfne fishes shall be expanded and species diversity shall be Increased.
53
54 > Nesting and foraging conditions for state and federal endangered species shall not be adversely
55 affected. In addition, implementation of the plan shall contribute to the recovery of the fight -footed
56 clapper nil, Celitomia leas, tem, western snowy plover, and Belding's savannah sparrow.
nc ES -2
coram
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
is
17
is
19
20
> The ma of habitat types shall include perennial brackish ponds, seasonal ponds/sand flats, pickJaweed
flats, cordgvss InteNdal zone, unvegetaled Interll0al mudflal, and marine subtidal soft bottom.
> Modifications to the hydraulic regime, necessary to achieve the above objectives, shall Include a full tidal
range (i.e., +7.5 to .1.5 a dmme tides) and a low residence time, shall emphasize minimized
requirements for manipulation and maintenance, and shall not degrade existing flood protection levels.
> Interests of contiguous property owners shall be protected.
> Once completed, maintenance and management of the area shall maxtmlze native estuarinelmadne fish
and wildlife habitat value of the Bolsa Chica Lovdands In perpetuity, Including active removal and
exclusion of detrimental, non-native Nota.
> Allowable public uses shall Include passive and nonintnuNe novation adivitas focused on peripheral
areas, Interpretive foot, and trails.
> Total removal of oil erdvdion activities and their past effects shall be conducted In a phased,
cost-effedrve, and environmentally sensitive manner.
> Monitoring and evaluation of the success of Nological objectives shall be conducted.
nc
mnnm
ES -3
6.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATUTES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Table ES -1 Provides a list of federal, state, and IoW approvals required for the Project.
Table ES -1
List of Federal, State, and Local Project APProvata
Agency
ferntIVApproval
Federal
a
Permit under Secbon 404 of Ta Clean Water Act 33
Corps
U.6.C. Swoon 1344
a
Section to of the River and Harbors Act of 1699, 33
U.S.0 Section 403
USFWS
Endmga*ad Spaciea Act, to U.S.C. SK50M 1531-
1544 Section 7 DonsuKation
USFWSFish
•
antl IAdlda Cocrdinebon Ack 16 U.6.C.
DOI
Sectioneal-WIS
NMFS
CDFG
Patron for Jetty Concbucion under the Ships A0.
USOC
33 U.S.C. Section 491
Stan
•
Luse to USFWS for temporary access requited by
CSLC
Wnstruobon of the restoration project
•
Lon ;arm mane ement lease to CDFG or USFWS
CDFG
•
StreamDed Alteration Agreement 6ectipn 1601-
t6D3 of the Caldomia Fish and Game Code
CRWQCB
Section 401 Water Quality Cerohoabon
StomnMer Permft for Sntlgs Construction
Dewatering Permit for BridgelJedy Construction
SHPO
Compiience and Coordination w h SHPO under
NHPA 1066, Section 106 (u dal in 36 CFR 60
end 36 CFR 800
CCC
•
Federal Consistent Determination
Celdomis Department of Parks and Recreation
EIR/EIS wow of Oriel inlet through State Beach
Use Parmh(s) for construction activibes
Approval of mlti ation?or take of beach
Canters
Encroachment permit for access to PCH
•
roval of PCN im vamenls
m
LocaLR Tonal
Lounty Flood Control Diatdct
•
'
Flood control channel encroachment p ertnK
Orange
Gradin e"K
Sownty of Oran a
South OoeS1 Air Ouel Management D,smct (SCAOMD)
Construction+elated air e"Its
SCACMD/EPA
a
Federal Air Conformity Datennlnadon
Cray of Huntington Beach
•
Encroachment parmlt for PCH datoudng w n cry
&nib
MID ES4
amain
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
}1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
5.3 MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.3.1 Description of Alternatives and Summary of Impacts
'A number of alternatives for the Proposed Project were Identified early In the study process, and a screening
evaluation was competed both through environmental analyses and through the public workshop process.
Seven allematwes, Including a No Action AlIemetive, and two Sub-altemathies were selected for detailed
analysis in the EIR/EIS. Table ES -2 (found at the end of this section) provides a summary of the Impact
categories of all alle mats. All project impacts are Identified as belonging to one of the following categories:
> class I:
Significant, adverse impact that cannot be mitigated to Inslgnlficerd;
> Class II:
Significant, adverse Impact that can be mitigated to insignificant;
> Class III:
Adverse but Insignificant impact; or
> Class IV:
Beneficial Impart.
Table ES -3 (found M the end of this section) provides a summary of Impacts and mitipstion measures for the
Proposed Project. Because of the complexity of this EIRIE15, the summary table concentrates on significant
project impacts and the associated mitigation measures. A description and namil discussion of the
Impacts for each atlemafive is provided in the following sections. The rami diswssion concentrates on
the differences between the alternatives and the Proposed Project. Tables ESQ through ES -12 summarize
the Proposed Project and ahematives.
5.1.1.1 Proposed Project - Concept Plan without Flood Control Diversion structure
The Proposed Project (Figure ES -1) Is the creation of approximately 366.5 acres of habitat that would
mceive a full tidal range through an ocean inlet near Huntington Mesa. The Proposed Project would not
change the existing full tidal pan of the Ecological Reserve (Outer Bolsa Bay) or the muted tidal portion of
the Ecological Reserve (Inner Bolsa Bay). The edges of Rebbil Island would be tidal. The full tidal area
would be created by:
1. buying oul and abandoning the oil welts located on a portion of the acquired property and on the
adjacent State Ecological Reserve,
2. dredging approximately 2.7 million cubic yards (q) of material to create a basin,
3. constructing a berm around the basin,
4. constructing an ocean inlet into the basin, and
5. constructing a bridge for PCH over the Inlet channel.
Approximately 200 acres of the project area would be muted tidal. Muted tidal flow means that the area
would experience regular tidal ebb and Cow, but would not be exposed to the full range of the tides. The
muted tidal area would be connected to the full tidal basin by culverts through the levee.
The new Oman inlet would be approximately 360 feet wide between the crest of the jetties, at +13 feet mean
sea level (MSL), and would have short jetties extending approximately to the mean low title line. The jetties
would prevent the entrance channel from migrating. A new bridge would be constructed for PCH to cross the
entrance channel.
The ocean Inlet would be large enough to pass tidal flows sufficient to permit the future restoration of an
additional 252 acres to tidal influence. This area is Warned to as the future full tidal area. This area would
not be restored until oil and gas field operations cease upon depletion of the oil field within 15 to 20 years.
Upon depletion of the oil field and removal of the wells and any contamination, It may be feasible to simply
breach the dike and allow a large portion of the area to become slough, tidal flats, and sahmarsh without
extensive earthwork
no ES -5
mnam
ES -6
Dredge material would be Incorporated into levee antl road elevation, used to construct nesting Wands, or
placed on or near the south end of Bolsa Chiu State Beach for nearshore disposal or beach renourishmerd.
Oil wells, water Injection wells, well pads, and access roads would all be removed from within the tidal area.
To protect homes inland of the Lowlands from any groundwater Impacts resulting from the introduction of
'tidal Bows to the Lowlands, a French drain would be constructed between the wetlands and the housing
development.
An area of approximately 120 moms in the southeastern comer of the Bolsa Chiu Lowlands would be left
unchanged as seasons[ ponds. Enhancement of suitable nesting areas for Belding's savannah sparrow
would be achieved in the muted tidal areas, while other valuable areas would be retained Intact In the
seasonal pond area and in Inner Bolsa Bay. Enhancement of suitable nesting habitat for the light-footed
dapper nil would be achieved In the cordgrass expansion of the full tidal area. Nesting area for the
California least tem and western snowy plover would be achieved through the creation and retention of
sparsely vegetated sandflat and salt0al areas protected from disturbance or water Inundation.
Benefits
The Proposed Project would restore full tidal wetlands function to 388.5 soca of the Bolsa Chin Lowlands
and muted tidal Bow to approximately 200 &cams. The Increased quantity and quality of open water and
Intertidal mudflat habitats at Bolsa Chin would provide overwintering habitat for migratory shorebirds,
seabirds, and waterfowl. A healthy and diverse aquatic community of marine and estuarine Invertebrates
and fishes would become established In the full and muled tidal basins. The full tidal basin would provide
nursery habitat for the California halibut. Nesting habitat for the stale and federal endangered California
least tem and the federal threatened western snowy plover would increase. The new nesting sites created
for these species are predicted to support about 220 California least isms and provide nesting habitat for
approximately 88 more nesting pairs of snowy plovers than Bolas Chiu currently supports. In addition to
supporting these endangered spedes, the nesting areas would provide nesting habitat for a variety of other
water -associated birds, Including elegant terns, Caspian terns, end Forstefs toms. Cordgrass, a low
saltmarsh plant that generally requires a full tidal range to flourish, would expand at Bolsa Chiu. The
expanded corograss habitat Is expected to support nesting by the state and federal endangered light-footed
dapper rail. With the Proposed Project, as many as 15 pairs may nest In the Bolsa Chiu Lowlands.
Pickleweed saltmarsh habitat would be enhanced by the introduction of tidal Influence. Because the size of
a Belding's savannah sparrow nesting territory is smaller in muted tidal and full tidal systems, the Proposed
Project would support more pairs of Belding's savannah sparrows (a state endangered species) than existing
conditions. About 255 more pairs of Belding savannah sparrows may nest in the project area B the Proposed
Project is Implemented. The Increased quality of saltmarsh vegetation might Improve habitat value for the
salt marsh shrew.
In addition to providing tidal Influence to much of the Lowlands, the Proposed Project would preserve several
valuable nontidal habitats, including seasonal pondsrsand flats and perennial bracidsh ponds. The result
would be a diverse wetlands ecosystem. In summary, the Proposed Project would result In a substantial net
gain in habitat value compared to existing conditions.
The Proposed Project would indirectly benefit surrounding land uses by providing an Improved public passive
use and visual enhancement more consistent with the nearby residential, parr beach, and commercial areas
than the existing degraded oll development. New and enhanced public access opportunities would result In
a beneficial Impact to recreation in the project area. The project also may benefit the local economy by
providing construction jobs for the local labor force, and increasing visitors to the area, which would benefit
local businesses.
Impact summery
Table ES -3 fists significant Impacts and proposed mitigation for the Proposed Project. This section
discusses the potentially significant impacts that would occur during project construction and then the long-
term Impacts of the Proposed Project.
nc ES -7
MM
1 Construction Impacts
2
3 Gradin0 of the NII tidal basin and construction of Derma and the tidal Inlet would result In considerable
4 " disturbance at the she. She preparation and erosion control methods would be employed during construction
5 (described In Section 2.7.1.3) and would reduce the impacts of this disturbance to an Insignificant level.
e
7 To counteract the predicted loss of sand to the ebb bar that would form when the tidal Inlet is opened, sandy
8 material dredged from the NII tidal basin would be pumped into the nearshore Zone to prefin the ebb bar.
g Because some of this material may contain as much as 40 percent fine sediment, at times significant
10 turbidity plumes extending as much as several thousand feet downwnerd may occur (Gass I Impact).
11 Temporary degradation of water quality may occur from other construction activities, such as excavation of
12 the tidal Inlet, but these impacts would be localized to within a few hundred feet of the Immadiate
13 construction area and would be adverse but insignificant (Class IID.
14
15 Construction of the tidal Inlet and prefill of the ebb bar would disturb marine organisms in the vicinity of Nese
16 activities. Recovery of marine ocmmunities would occur rapidly after the end of construction, and Impacts
17 would be Insignificant (Class III). Prefdling the ebb bar outside the endangered least tem breading season
16 and peak recreational beach use period would avoid potentially significant adverse Impacts to least tams and
tg beach use.
20
21 The removal of nontidal pickleweed to construct the NII tidal basin could result in the temporary loss of
22 between 118 and 138 Belding's savannah sparrow territories. This loss represents approximately 60 percent
23 of 213 total territories in the Bolsa Chia Lowlands (Class I Impact). Dudng construction, nonticial pickleweed
24 outside the full tidal basin would be irrigated ff ft is* dry year or pumped of excess water If it is a wet year to
25 5 Improve the habitat for Belding's savannah sparrow. This water management during construction would
26 partially offset the territories lost due to grading in the full tidal basin. However, the loss of breading habitat
27 would remain significant during and immediately after construction. Over the long term, this Impact would be
28 mitigated due to the enhanced pickleweed habitat In the muted and full tidal areas. The long-term affect of
29 the project would be beneficial to this species (Class IVj.
30
31 Construction during the breeding season could potentially disturb or damage nests of the federally
32 threatened western snowy plover, Nest locations would be flagged or fenced. No construction would occur
33 within 100 feet of a nest. Biological monitors would be onsite during the breeding season and all
34 ' construction personnel would attend an educational program on threatened and endangered species. These
35 measures would ensure that construction Impacts to the western snowy plover would be insignificant
36 . (Class IID.
37
38 Although no eligible cultural resources have been found within the project area, there Is a slight chance a
39 previously unknown cultural resources could be discovered during construction (Class III). Archaeological
40 monitors would be present during construction and If cultural resources were uncovered proper procedures
41 would be followed to reduce Impacts to insignificant (Class IID.
42
43 All beach areas appmximalely 800 feet north and south of the proposed tidal Inlet would be dosed to public
44 access during construction o1 the PCH bridge and tidal Inlet. This closure could result In long-term,
45 temporary, significant. adverse (Class II) land use and (Class D recreation impacts affecting use of the beach
48 during summer holidays and weekends. Other adjacent land uses would not be significantly affected by
47 project construction activities (Class tit). During all phases of construction, public safety would be Protsclsd
48 by use of barriers, signs, flagmen, and fences where applicable; therefore, no significant, adverse (Class III)
49 Impacts would coeur.
60
51 Inlet construction would result In a temporary loss of surfing use N Lots 14 and 15, and would constrain the
52 already heavily used Lots 23 and 24, resulting In a temporary, significant, adverse (Class 1) impact during all
53 four seasons.
64
55 Heavy equipment working in the Lowlands would be vislble to those with views of the area. Most of the
56 construction activity would occur to the viewer as on element In the middiegmund to background of the
nn E"
memo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
10
1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
viewshed and would not be a prominent visual feature, nor substantially change the Overall character of the
Lowlands. This is considered an adverse but insignihcam (Class III) Impact for the duration of construction.
The most prominent visual activity would be the work at Staging Area to for wnstmclion of the PCH bridge
and tidal Inlet The construction effort would temporarily degrade the character of the she, resulting In a
temporary, significant, adverse (Class 1) Impact. Night lighting for project construction would not result in
significant, adverse (Gass III) impacts.
Tragic Issues from project construction Involve potentially significant impacts (Gass Ip from Possible conflicts
and safety concems between construction traffic and local traffic using Sespoint Avenue, and conflicting
turning movements at the PCH staging area. An access plan and traffic control plan should be Implemented
to reduce potential conflicts to Insignificant. The Proposed Project would not have a significant, adverse
anpact (Class III) on madway segments during construction, arta no significant adverse impacts (Class III) to
traffic flow are expected during PCH bridge construction. Project traffic is considered to be an adverse but
Insignificant (Gass III) impact at area intersections.
Constructior-relsted exhaust, dust, and asphalt emissions are anticipated from the Proposed Project.
Exhaust emissions would be produced by heavy equipment, truck haul trips, and worker commutes.
Nitrogen oxide (NOx) from exhaust emissions is expected to exceed both the daily and quarterly criteria
during construction, resulting in a significant, adverse impact (Class q. Demolition of existing structures and
soil disturbance would mate dust emissions. Dust emissions from the Proposed Project are considered a
significant adverse (Class 11) impact. The application of asphalt during construction could release reactive
organic gas (ROG) emissions. ROG emissions would not exceed impact thresholds and impacts would be
Insignificant (Class III).
The transport of workers, construction equipment, and materials to the she would Incrementally Increase
noise levels on access roads surrounding the site. An adverse but insignificant (Gass III) impact would
occur on major routes, while a significenl, adverse Impact (Class 11) would occur on focal access meds
immediately adjacent to the site.
Noise would be generated onshe during site preparation, grading, and construction. Compliance with County
of Orange noise standards and the City of Huntington Beach Noise Control Ordinance would ensure that
any onsite construction noise impacts would remain Insignificant (Class 111). Project construction is
specifically scheduled around the breeding and nesting seasons of sensitive animal species to avoid any
significant noise impacts (Class ill). Phase 11 constnlction would also resuh in insignificant (Class III)
noise Impacts.
The project would not result in significant adverse Impacts (Class III) to energy consumption. Fossil fuel use
associated whh construction of the project would result in consumption of less than one-half of 1 percent of
the total regional fuel demand, and consumption of electricity would not exceed available resources.
Temporary water and electric utility services would be required at one or more of the construction staging
areas. trinities are wmenlly available onsite and the use of those uliites would be an Insignificant (Class 111)
Impact. The project would have insignificant impacts (Class 111) on other public services, such as solid waste
disposal, fire protection, police protection, and vector control.
Post -Construction Impacts
Preflll of the ebb bar with material dredged from the NII tidal basin, combined with a beach monitoring and
maintenance program, would prevent significant beach erosion during Phase I (Class III). However, when
the future full tidal basin is opened during Phase ll, the increased tidal prism would cause more sand to be
lost to the ebb bar. To prevent the loss of beach sand, about 410,400 cy of material would be dredged from
an offshore borrow she and discharged at the ebb bar. Discharge of sediment at the ebb bar could have a
temporary significant adverse impact on water quality (Class D.
Introduction of tidal flows to the Lowlands could cause groundwater levels In the residential area adjacent to
the Lowlands to rise and the groundwater to become more saline (Class II). The proposed dewatering
a+e ESB
mnom
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4D
41
42
43
41
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
5
trench (French drain) would be Installed to reduce impacts to groundwater to Insignificant.
However, additional analysis is needed to determine the exact design needed to effedNely manage
groundwater levels.
' The construction of a tidal inlet would make the Solsa Chica wetlands vulnerable lneble to an offshore dl spill
(Class I).
Tidal inundation around the edges of Rabbit Island could result In a loss of coastal woolly -heads. Although
this plant is not on federal or state lists of proleded spades, the Rabbit Island population of coastal woolly -
heads Is sensitive because h is 1 of only 10 populations known to occur In the mainland United States
(Class Ip. Several sensitive Insect species and the silvery legless lizard would also be affected by loss of
pan of Rabbit Island. Because the insects and lizard are most closely associated with the dune habitat In the
center of Rabbit Island, which would be least affected by tidal flows, and because all of these sensitive
species are present In dunes along Bolsa Bay, these impacts would be adverse but Insignificant (Class 110.
Except for possible Impacts to the coas.al woolly -head, loss of pan of the Rabbit ISland'S environmentally
sensitive habitat area (ESRN to tidal wetlands, a more valuable habitat, is considered insignificant
(Class 111).
The pan of the eucalyptus grove ESHA within the Bolsa Pocket could be damaged by the Introduction of
muted tida! fiows. The eucalyptus trees provide valuable habftat for a variety of mplors. The loss of a small
portion of the eucalyptus grove is considered an adverse but Inslgnifcant Impact because eucalyptus bees
on Bdsa Mesa would be preserved (Class III). Very few living trees are found in the Pocket but sahier
groundwater could potentially harm the handful of trees growing on the edge of adjacent higher ground.
The Proposed Project would Include regular beach nourishment at approximately 2 -year Intervals.
Placement of sand in the surf zone during maintenance dredging may interfere with the spawning of
California grunion (Class II). Spavming occurs during nighttime high tides between March and August.
Construction of the proposed tidal Inlet would result In the permanent loss of beach as a result of land to
water conversion. This impact would be adverse but Insignificant (Class III). The continuity of the beach
would be broken and would affect beach users traversing the length of the beach. Access across the Inlet
would be provided on the PCH bridge via a pedestrian access crossing, reducing the Impact of breaking
beach continuity to adverse but insignificant (Class III). The surfing experience would change as a result of
construction of the tidal Inlet. This difference would be perceived In different ways and would result In
adverse but Insignificant (Class 111) impacts because some surfers would view the change as beneficial and
some would not.
The project Is compatible, from a land use perspective, with adjacent existing and future planned uses.
No significant, adverse (Class III) policy impacts would occur. A potentially significant (Class II) safety issue
may result If persons slimy too dose to the jetties. Situations that may result In Injury include persons being
washed off of or falling from the jetties, or getting swept into the inlet. Waming signs and lifeguard stations
would be provided near the tidal inlet to reduce Impacts to Insignificant
The new PCH bridge over the tidal inlet would change the character of the beach area when it is converted
to this new use. Visually, there should not be a negative Impression. Therefore, the new bridge would cause
no significant, adverse visual impacts (Class III).
Post -construction trefic activity would be similar to that of year 2002 traffic without cumulative traffic or
project traffic added. Operations would include Infrequent maintenance, antl traffic impacts would be
adverse but insignificant (Class III), in the year 2002 cumulative project scenario, four intersections would
operate at level of service (LOS) E. This cumulative condition would result in a significant, adverse (Class 11)
impact. The project contributes incrementally, but insignificantly, to the cumulative impact
Following construdion, minor air emissions may result from French drain operations and maintenance
5 dredging. Operation of the Friona drain would consume electricity and would contribute a small amount of
mar ES -10
'More
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
42
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
emissions associated with the production of electricity. Emissions assocated with the generation of
electricity are Considered insignificant (Class III). Maintenance dredging may be required to keep the tidal
Inlet dear and would result in significant, adverse impacts to air quality (Class II).
Post -construction monitoring and maintenance would not result In a significant number of additional vehicle
trips to the she and would not change vehide-generated noise levels In the project area, an insignificant
(Class III) impact. Operation of the French drain may require the use of pumps; however, the pumps would
not be audible at any offsite locations. Therefore, insignificant, adverse (Class 111) noise Impacts would
result. Maintenance dredging would not cause any significant, adverse noise impacts (Class III) if restricted
to the hours of 7;DD a.m. to 1 D:DD p.m.
5.1.1.2 1st Sub-Altemative - Restoration of the Future Full Tidal Area Concurrently with Restoration
of the Rest of the Wetlands
This su"ItemalNe is Identical to the Proposed Action, umpl that the future fun tidal area would be restored
at the same time as the rest of the wetlands. Oil operations would be bought out, and wasting wells and oil -
related contaminants removed. An approximately 275 -foot -wide trapezoidal channel would be constructed
between the full tidal basin and the future full tidal basin. Construction of the channel and removal of oil
mods would be the only construction within the future full tidal area. If the 1st Su?ahemative were
implemented, sufficient material would not De available from dredging the full tidal basin to prefill the ebb bar.
AddAional material for the ebb bar would be excavated from the wasting borrow areas offshore and loped to
the ebb bar.
Benefits
Construction of the future full tidal area concurrently with the rest of the wetlands would Increase the amount
of habitat that would receive full tidal flows by about 252 acres. The Increased full tidal area would increase
the biological benefits of the restoration. The gain would be primarily in Intertidal tri habitat, which
would substantially increase the value of the Lowlands for shorebirds and wading bibs. it is atso predicted
that cordgmss would expand Into this area, providing additional nesting opportunities for the endangered
light-footed dapper fail. The creation of additional nesting sties in the future full tidal basin would provide
additional nesting habitat for western snowy plovers and California least tems. As many as 5 to 28 more
snowy plover nests and 29 to 115 more least tem nests are possible. Development of the 1st Sub-
ahemaUve would provide additional aesthetic benefits by restoring the fulum full tidal area sooner, rather
than later.
Construction Impacts
Construction in the future full tidal basin forthe let Sub-altemative would be limited to clearing and grubbing,
constructing a channel between the two full titlal basins, antl constructing an additional nesting she.
In addition, because the greater full tidal area of this sub-shemative would result In more sand being lost to
the ebb bar, additional material would need to be placed on the ebb bar to counteract the anticipated beach
erosion. Sufficient material to prefill the ebb bar would not be available from dredging of the full tidal basin.
Therefore, approamately 410,400 cy of sand would be excavated by dredge from the borrow pits regularly
used to supply sand to Surfside and Sunset Beaches. Dredging at the borrow she would result in short-term
Impacts to marine organisms antl water quality in the immediate vicinity of the borrow pit. Impacts would be
adverse but insignificant (Class 111).
With the 1st Sub-ahemarrve, onsite oil operations would case before dl reserves were depleted.
The termination of oil operations would be an Insignificant Impact (Class III) because the on could be
recovered from Ostia drilling.
ria: ES -11P.
1 eoslLonstnmtion Impacts
2
3 Impacts to surface and groundwater resources from mstoretion of the future full tidal basin concis ently with
4 restoration of the rest of the wetlands would be the same as the Proposed Project, except Nat the
5 water -holding capacity of the wetland system would be proportionately Increased at the Depinninp of the
6 project rather than In 20 years. While this increased oapaclty would reduce the potential for surface flooding
7 earlier in the project lifetime than with the Proposed Project, the potential for groundwater recharge and
8 Increased groundwater levels would also occur sooner (Class 10.
g
10
11 8.3.1.3 2nd Sub-AHemative -Restoration of the Future Full Tidal Arita Concurrently with Restoration
12 of the Rest of the Wetlands (Expanded Full Tidal Basin)
13
14 With this su"NematNe, the future full tidal basin in the northeast comer of Ne Lowlands would !x restored
15 concurrently with the rest of the wetlands (Figure ES -2). Oil operations would be bought out, and existing
16 wells and oii-related contaminants removed. This s8emative is similar to the tsi Su"llemative, except that
17 grading would occur to Increase Intertidal and subtidal habitat. A 275.foot-wide trapezoidal channel would be
18 constructed to connect the expanded future full tidal basin with the full tidal basin In the central Lowlands.
tg This attemative could be Implemented with any of the aftematives that Include a tidal inlet (Alternatives 1, 2,
20 3.4. and 6).
21
22 Benefits
23
24 Uke the 1st Sub-ahemative, the 2nd Subaffemative would increase the habitat value of the Bolsa Chica
25 Lowlands to wetlands spaces. However, the grid SuDahemative would provide about 72 more acres of
26 Intertidal mudf,at habitat than the tat Subahemetve. Therefore, the 2nd Subatlemative would have
27 substantially greater benefits to fishes, aquatic Invertebrates, shorebirds, and wading birds.
28
29 Additional public access opportunities would occur with the grid Subaftemstive. An Interpretive tail along
30 the perimeter of the Lowlands could be planned with the grid Sub-shemative that would conned to trails in
31 the proposed Hamett Weider Regional Pane, and, via a potential trail along the batik of the wetiands, with
32 proposed offsite bicycle trails west of the Lowlands. These public access opportunities would result in a
33 benefit al (Class IV) impact which would not occur with the Proposed Project.
34
35 Construction Impacts
36
37 Unlike the tat Su"Kemative that would Involve minimal grading, the 2nd Su"Kemalive would grade the
38 future full tidal basin to create additional Intertidal habftaL This additional grading would increase the
39 construction disturbance in this area. The only potentially significant Impacts to biological resources from this
40 excavation would be temporary impacts to Belding's savannah sparrow (Class p.
41
42 As was true of the list Sub-attemative, if the 2nd Sub-attemative were implemented, additional sandy
43 material to prefill the ebb bar would be obtained from an offshore borrow site. The Impacts of dredging at the
44 borrow site woultl be short term and localized (Cuss III).
45
46 For nearby residenbal properties, the work in the future full tidal area with the 2nd Subaltemative would be
47 more visible than work in the rest of the Lowlands. Visual impacts from COWNction would remain
48 Insignificant (Gess III).
49
50 Traffic Impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project and would remain as presented for the Proposed
51 Project
52
53 The 2nd Sub-attemative Is similar to the 1st Subafremative, except that the level of error to restore Ne
54 future tidal basin would Increase. This attemative would result In the full restoration of the 252 -sore future full
55 tidal area, with far more excavation. This would be accomplished using additional heavy equipment during
56 construction Phases 1 and 2. Therefore, air emissions would be greater wtth the 2nd Subaftemative during
a v ES -12
arnnm
i
ES13
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
e
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
63
54
55
Phases 1 and 2 compared to the list Sub-ahemative. As with the 1st Sub-allemalNe, emissions from the
2nd Subaltemative would remain insignificant (Class III) for asphalt emissions; significant, adverse (Class II)
for dust emissions; and significant, adverse (Class 1) for exhaust emissions.
While construction for the 2nd Subaltemabve would result In higher volumes of both trucks and workers, the
Increase in noise would not exceed 1 decibels on the A�weighted scale (dBA) Community Noise Exposure
Level (CNEL) along major site access roads. NI Impacts would be as presented for the Proposed Project
(Class II).
Construction -related fossil fuel consumption with the 2nd Subahematkve would be greater than the
Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, fuel consumption with the 2nd Subahemative would
represent less than ono-hait of 1 percent of regional fuel demand and would be considered insignificant
(Class III).
Post-Constmcir on impacts
The greater volume of water in the future full tidal basin with the 2nd Subahematfve might result in
groundwater rising more rapidly than with Proposed Project or the tat Subahemative (Class 10.
The 2nd Subahemative would result in a greater visual benefit to the duff areas adjacent to the future full
tidal area, including residences and the proposed Harriett Weider Regional Park, earlier than the Proposed
Project (or other ahematives), which would restore the future full tidal area in 15 to 20 years.
5.3.1.4 Alternative 1 - Concept Plan with Entire Flood Diversion
Alternative 1 is similar to the Proposed Project, but all flows from the East Garden Grove -W rrarsburg
(EGGM Flood Control Channel would be routed Into the full tidal basin (Figure ES -3). Wth Ahemative 1,
there would be no changes to Inner Bolsa Bay, but the EGGW Flood Control Channel would no longer
discharge into Outer Bolsa Bay. Ahemative 1 would have a larger full tidal basin than the Proposed Project
because the Pocket at the foot of Bolsa Mesa, as well as the area currently occupied by the EGGW Flood
Control Channel, would be included. The total area exposed fo full tidal range with Atlemstrve 1 would be
416.3 acres.
Benefits
The benefits of Ahemative 1 would generally be similar to those of the Proposed Project. The habitat value
of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands would be greatly Improved for wetlands species. Because Ahemative 1
Includes the Boise Pocket, the full tidal basin would be about 50 acres larger than with the Proposed Project
The larger full tidal basin would provide increased habitat for marine and estuarine fishes and invertebrates
and for the birds that feed on them, including pelicans, tems, waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds.
However, Alternative 1 would have less picideweed and is predicted to support about 40 fewer pair of
Belding's savannah sparrows than the Proposed Project.
Wrth Ahemative 1, all of the flows from the EGGW Channel would be directed into the full tidal basin. During
storms, these flows would reduce salinity in the basin. Fresh water would have adverse effects on most
marine and some estuarine species. As a result, the aquatic community in the full tidal basin would be less
diverse with Ahemative 1 than with the Proposed Project. Alternatively, the diversion of flows from the
EGGW Channel to Outer Boise Bay would improve water quality and the diversity of aquatic organisms In
Outer Bolsa Bay. In addition, the potential flooding of PCH from Bolsa Bay would be reduced.
Construction Impacts
Construction Impacts with Alternative 1 would generally be similar to the Proposed Project, although the area
of disturbance would be somewhat greater because of the larger full tidal basin.
m am ES -14
ES -15
1 Altemative 1 would Involve construction techniques similar to those for the Proposed Project, the difference
2 being that the restoration area would increase by about 14 percent, resulting In an increase In construction
3 operations by a similar percentage. The Increase in construction activXies would msult In Increased air
4 emissions over those estimated for the Proposed Project. Therefore, air emissions would be greater wtm
5 Attemative 1 compared to the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, emissions from Ahemallve 1
a would be Insignificant (Class III) for asphalt emissions, significant, adverse (Class II) for dust emissions; and
7 significant, adverse, unmitigable (Class 1) for exhaust emissions.
a
9 While this aftemative would Involve a slightly greater construction area, equipment noise would be equivalent
10 to that prodicled for the Proposed Project. Furthermore, although conrirudion-genemtetl truck and worker
11 traffic volumes would be slightly augmented, the increase in noise along local routes would still be lass that
12 1 dBA CNEL and would insignificantly Increase noise along these mulesimpacts would remain as
13 presented for the Proposed Project.
14
15 Construction related fossil fuel consumption with Alternative 1 would be slightly greater compared to the
16 17 than Proposed
ne-hatt Project.
ft percent of reegional fuel demosed and a d would consumption cconsidered Insignificant would
lass 110. less
1a
19 post -Construction Impacts
20
21 Because ail of the flood flows from the EGGW Flood Control Channel would be diverted to the full tidal basin
22 with Ahemative 1, degradation of water quality during storms would be worse with Alternative 1 than the
23 Proposed Project. Using the highest concentrations recorded for metals in the flood control channel, metals
24 In the full tidal basin and nearshore coastal waters would exceed criteria during 10., 25, and 1D06year
25 storms. Total coliforms are expected to exceed criteria In coastal waters during 100-ye8r storms. impacts 10
26 water quality during storms would be significant (Class I). Elevated bacteria levels during Sion flows could
27 result in closure of nearshore ocean waters to bathers and surfers. Beach dosures from elevated bacteria
28 levels would be a significant, adverse impact to recreation (Class p. h is possible that levels of Erferococcus
29 bacteria from nonstorm-reloled urban runoff into the wetlands could sometimes cause bacterial standards to
30 be violated in ocean waters, with subsequent restrictions on surfing and swimming (Class Ip.
31
32 Because the Bolsa Pocket would receive full tidal flows with Alternative 1 compared to muted tidal flows with
33 the Proposed Project, the few eucalyptus trees In the Pocket may disappear mom rapidly. Loss of a few
34 eucalyptus trees Is considered an adverse but insignificant impact (Class 111).
35
36 phferences In Significant Adverse Impacts Between ARemative 1 and the Proposed Project
37
38 Alternative 1 would have an additional Class I Impact to water quality and recreation that would not occur
39 with the Proposed Project . With Altemative 1, during storm flows, metals and bacteria would exceed water
4D quality crtteria (Class 1). Exceedance of bacteria thresholds could result in a significant Impact to recreation
41 by restrictions on swimming and surfng (Class I). During dry weather, a significant (Class II) Impact to water
42 quality and recreation could occur If thresholds for Erferococcus bacteria were exceeded.
43
44
45 5.3.1.6 Alternative 2 • Full Tidal Basin with a Now Ocaan Inlet Near Rabbit Island
46
47 Altemam 2 would create 411.9 acres of full tidal basin In the central Lowlands (Figure ES -4). This full tidal
48 basin would receive Noel flows from a new ocean inlet near Rabbit Island where the EGGW Flood Control
49 Channel currently discharges Into Outer Bolsa Bay. All flows from the flood control channel would discharge
50 Into the full tidal basin. The edges of Rabbit Island would be tidal. The connection between Outer BDlsa Bay
51 and Inner Bolsa Bay would be blocked. Inner Bolsa Bay would receive muted tidal flows similar to its
52 existing tidal range through culverts that would conned it with the new full tidal basin.
53
54 The PCH bridge across the inlet would be similar to that of the Proposed Project, but the Stale Park access
55 bridge would be a separate structure. Permanent alterations to Bolsa Chica Slate Beach facilities from
nc ES -18
Mm
ES17
I construction of a tidal Inlet near Rabbit Island would include loss of approximately 85,000 square feet of
2 parking area and 1 restroom building. Because restmoms aro located within a few hundred feet north and
3 south of the tidal inlet, the lost restroom building would not be replaced.
4
5 With Allemative 2, sufficient material suitable for discharge In the nearshom zone would not be available to
6 prefill the ebb bar. Appro)dmately 220,500 cy of additional sandy material would need to be excavated from
7 an offshore borrow she and placed at the location of the ebb bar. This metals[ would be excavated with a
8 dredge from borrow pits and barged to the ebb bar location.
9
10 Benefits
11
12 The benefits of Alfemailve 2 would be similar to those of the Proposed Project and Alternative 1. The habitat
13 value of the Boise Chia Lowlands would be greatly Improved for wetlands species. The size of the full tidal
14 basin would be larger with Alternative 2 compared to the Proposed Project bemuse the BOW Pocket would
15 be induced In the basin. Ahemative 2 would have more full tidal subtidal habitat than the Proposed Project,
10 resulting in greater benefits for aquatic species and for seabirds and waterfowl. However, Alternative 2
17 would have fewer acres of Intertidal mudnat, resulting in less benefit to shorebirds and wading birds.
18 Alternative 2 would have more acres of widgress and full tidal pickiewsad than the Proposed Project and,
19 therefore, potentially would support more light-footed dapper mils (about 10 more breeding pairs) and more
20 Belding's savannah sparrows (up to 339 additional pairs).
21
22 Because all of the Bows of the EGGW Flood Control Channel would be routed Into the full tidal basin,
23 freshwater Input during storms might reduce the diversity of marine fishes and invenebrales In the full tidal
24 system. However, bemuse the full tidal basin would be connected to Inner Bolsa Bay, estuarine
25 Invertebrates could recolonize the basin rapidly alter storms. The diversity of the aquatic community in the
26 full tidal basin with AhemsUve 2 is predicted to be greater than Ahemative 1, but lower then the Proposed
27 Project. Bemuse Ahemative 1 would canned Inner Boise Bay to the full tidal basin rather than Outer Boise
28 Bay, water quality In Inner Bolsa Bay would be better with Alternative 1 than the Proposed Project. Water
29 quality In Outer Bol" Bay is also predicted to be better than the Proposed Project bemuse no flows from the
30 EGGW Channel would enter Outer Bol" Bay. The potential for flooding of PCH would be reduced.
31
32 Construction Impacts
33
34 Construction Impacts from Ahemative 2 would generally be similar to the Proposed Project, although the
35 area of disturbance would be somewhat greater because of the larger full tidal basin. For AhernsWe 2.
36 220,500 cy of additional material would be dredged from an offshore borrow, site bemuse not enough sandy
37 material would be available from dredging the full tidal basin to prefill the ebb bar. Dredging at an offshore
38 borrow she would have short-term, localized impacts to the marine environment at the she (Class III).
39
40 With Ahemative 2, the Boise Pocket would be graded during construction. Therefore, the small potion of the
41 eucalyptus grove ESHA In the Pocket would be lost at the time of construction. Because eucalyptus trees on
42 Boise Me" would be preserved, loss of a few trees in the Pocket would be an adverse but Insipnthcant
43 impact (Class [II).
44
45 During construction, an area of Bolsa Chiu State Beach would be used for staging and would be removed
46 from public use. Bemuse of the location of the tidal inlet with Alternative 2, approximately 163 parking
47 spares and 1 restroom building would be lost during construction. The loss of parking for the 3 years of
48 construction Is a potentially significant, adverse (Class [I) Impact during summer holiday and weekend peak -
49 use periods. The loss of the restroom facility is considered an adverse but insignificant (Gass III) Impact
50 because other restroom facilities are located nearby.
51
52 The construction staging area for the tidal Inlet with Ahemative 2 would be located near Rabbit Island and
53 would affect use of Lots 20 and 21. Surfing use Is very light in the aro& of the proposed inlet for fall, winter,
64 and spring, and light to medium during summer. With this area closed for construction, surfers could move
Vic ES18
mnaeo
I to other portions of the State Beach. Because of such light use by surfers In this area, closure of the
2 proposed inlet area for construction would not constrain other areas of the beach and no significant, adverse
3 (Class III) impacts would result.
4 '
5 Alternative 2 would have a greater volume of construction-related traffic trips as compared to the Proposed
6 Project, but would not exceed threshold entena. Traffic impacts would remain as discussed for the Proposed
7 Project
a
9 AhemaOve 2 would InvDtve construction techniques similar to those for the Proposed Project, the difference
10 being that the restoration area would increase by about 12 percent, resulting In an increase In Construction
11 operations by a similar percentage. The increase in Construction activities would resuh In Increased air
12 emissions over those estimated for the Proposed Project. Therefore, air emissions would be greater with
13 Memative 2 compared to the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, emissions from Memative 2
14 would remain Insignificant (Class III) for asphalt emissions; significant, adverse (Class Ip for dust emissions;
15 and significant, adverse (Class I) for exhaust emissions.
16
17 This alternative would Involve a slightly greater area of construction; however, equipment noise would be
18 equivalent to that predicted for the Proposed Project. As Compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2
19 would move the tidal Inlet and bridge closer to the residents west of the project area. Pile driving activities,
20 when restricted to the standard construction hours Included In the County of Orange noise standards and the
21 City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, would not cause signfcant, adverse (Class III) noise Impacts.
22 Memative 2 would generate slightly more construct'on-related truck and worker traffic volumes than the
23 Proposed Project. Any potential Increase along local routes would be less than 1 d5A CNEL and is not
24 considered a significant (Class III) Impact.
25
26 Construction-related fossil fuel consumption with Alternative 2 would DO slightly greater Compared to the
27 Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, fuel Consumption for Memative 2 would represent less
28 than one-halt of 1 percent of regional fuel demand and would be considered Insignificant (Class III).
29
10 Post-Construction Impacts
31
32 Because all of the flood flows from the EGGW Flood Control Channel would be diverted to the full tidal basin
33 with Alternative 2, water quality would be worse for Alternative 2 than the Proposed Project. Using the
34 highest Concentrations recorded for metals in the flood control channel, metals In the full tidal basin and
35 nearshore coastal waters would exceed criteria during 1-, 25-, and 100-year storms. Total wlhomus are
36 expected to exceed criteria in coastal waters during 25- and 1DO-year slorns. Impacts to water quality from
37 storm flows would be significant for AOemative 2. In addition, it is possible that levels o1 Enterococcus
38 bacteria from nonstomt-related urban runoff into the wetlands could sometimes cause bacterial standards to
39 be violated in ocean waters with subsequent restrictions on surfing and swimming (Class II).
40
41 Bemuse of the location of the tidal inlet with Alternative 2, approximately 163 parking spaces and 1 restroom
42 building would be affected by the permanent alterations to Boise Chica State Beach. The permanent loss of
43 parking would be a significant, adverse (Class ll) impact during summer holiday and weekend peak-use
44 periods.
45
46 Differences in Significant, Adverse Impacts Between Attemative 2 and the Proposed Protect
47
46 Alternative 2 would have an additional Class II impact 10 lard use that would not occur with the Proposed
49 Project. With the Proposed Project, a small amount of parking for Bolsa Chica State Beach would be
50 affected lemporerily during construction, a Class III impact. No permanent lossof parking would oowr with
51 the Proposed Project, With Alternative 2, approximately 163 parking spaces would be permanently lost. The
52 permanent loss of parking is a significant, adverse (Class ll) Impact during summer holiday and weekend
53 peak-use periods.
54
55 In contrast to the Proposed Project that would receive no flows from the EGGW Flood Control Channel,
56 Altemafive 2 would have water quality violations both In the wetlands and waste[ waters during storms.
rc ES -19
mnam
Impacts to water quality during storms would be significant (Class I). Elevated bacteria levels during storm
flows could result In closure of nearshore ocean waters to bathers and surfers. Beach closures due to
elevated bacteria would be a significant. adverse Impact to recreation (Class p. lt is possible for
Altemative 2 that levels of Enfem crus bacteria from nonstorm-releled urban runoff Imo the wetlands could
sometimes muse bacterial standards to be violated In ocean waters, with subsequent restrictions on surfing
and swimming (Class Ip. Elevated bacteria levels In coastal waters during either dry or wet weather are not
expected with the Proposed Project.
Aitemstive 2 would have a Class 111 Impact on surfing during construction, which Is a lesser impact than the
Proposed Project. With the Proposed Project, construction would affect temporarily an ares heavily used for
surfing, resulting In a significant, adverse (Class 1) Impact. With Alternative 2, surfing use IS considered light
In the area of the proposed inlet; therefore, closure of the proposed Inlet area for construction would not
constrain other areas of the beach and no significant, adverse (Class III) impacts to surfing use would result.
8.3.1.6 Alternative 3 -Full Tidal Basin with a Now Oscan Inlet Naar Warner Avenue
Ahem" 3 would create a 449.2 -acre full tidal basin which would include the central Lowlands, Outer Bolas
Bay, and the Boise Pocket (Figure ES -5). The existing connection between Huntington Harbour and Outer
Bolsa Bay would be blocked and a new tidal inlet would be constructed at the northern potion of Bolsa Chico
State Beach, near the Intersection of Warner Avenue and PCH. All flows from the EGGW Flood Control
Channel would discharge Into the new full tidal basin, and a new channel would be dredged through Outer
Bolsa Bay to convey the tidal flows. The edges of Rabbit Island would be tidal. and Inner Bolsa Bay would
receive muted tidal flows through a culvert that would connect It with the new full tidal basin. Muted tidal
habitat consisting primarily of pickleweed saltmarsh and mudflats would be created northeast of the new tidal
basin and connected to the full tidal basin by culverts. A French drain would be Installed between the
wetlands and the homes to protect the homes from potential effects of rising groundwater.
The new tidal inlet would be similar to that of the Proposed Project with a width of 360 feet. The PCH bridge
and State Park access bridge would be separate structures. Pennanen( alterations to Boise Chum State
Beach facilities would Include loss of approximately 45,000 square feet of Asphalt parking area and
two restroom buildings. The restroom buildings would be relocated following construction.
Material excavated to create the tidal inlet and full tidal basin would be used to construct levees and nesting
Wands or to pmflll the ebb bar and advance fill the beach. Sufficient material suitable for discharge In the
nearshore zone would not be available to prefill the ebb bar with Altemative 3; therefore, additional material
would be excavated from an offshore borrow site.
Benefits
The benefits of Aflemative 3 would be similar to those of the Proposed Project and Altematfves 1 and 2. The
habitat value of the Boise Chico Lowlands would be greatly Improved for wetlands speues. Ahemstive 3
Induces Outer Bolsa Bay as well as the Bolsa Pocket. The net gain In full tidal open water and Intertidal
habitat would be somewhat less for Alternative 3 compared to the Proposed Project, bemuse these helmets
In Outer Bolsa Bay would be replaced by the new full tidal basin. However, substantially more acres of
saltmarsh (both cordgrass and full tidal pickleweed) are expected for Alternative 3 compared to the Proposed
Project Therefore, Aflemalive 3 would have less benefit to fishes, aquatic imenebrates, seabirds,
shorebirds, and waterfowl, but more value to dapper rails and Belding's savannah sparrows. Aiternswe 3
would support about 12 more pairs of dapper mils than the Proposed Project, and about 353 more pairs of
Belding's savannah sparrows. As was true o1 Alternative 3, the Impact of fresh water from the EGGW Flood
Control Channel might reduce the diversity of marine and estuarine invertebrates, although the connection
between the full tidal basin and Inner Bolsa Bay would provide a way for estuarine Invertebrates to
mcolonlze the full tidal basin after storms. The diversity of the aquatic community would probably be similar
to that of Alternative 2. The connection between Inner Bolsa Bay and the new full tidal basin would Increase
water quality In Inner Bolsa Bay. Bemuse a new Dern would be constructed around Outer Bolsa Bay, the
potential for flooding of PCN would be reduced.
ES -20
Z)ch
zIL
c
w 'rn
�LL
3
ES21
I Construction impacts
2
3 Construction Impacts of Alternative 3 are generally similarto the Proposed Project, except that a greater total
4 v area (449.2 acres for Altemative 3 compared to 366.5 acres for the Proposed Project), Including Outer Bolsa
5 = Bay, would be disturbed during construction of the full tidal basin. Water quality In Outer Bolsa Bay would be
6 degraded by resuspenslon of sediments during dredging of the full tidal basin (Class 11). This Impact could
7_• be reduced to Insignificant through use of a sill curtain to contain turbidity during dredging. Organisms In
6 Outer Boise Bay would be disturbed by dredging. Because the community that would Inhabit the new full
9 tidal basin would be more diverse than that currently In Outer Som Bay, the short-term construction
10 disturbance would be Insignificant (Class III).
11
12 For Alternative 3, additional material to prefil the ebb bar would need to be dredged from an offshore borrow
13 she. Dredging at the borrow she would result In short-term, localized Impacts to the marine environment In
14 ' the vidnhy of the she (Class III). This impact would not odour until Phase It with the Proposed Project,
15 because with the Proposed Project, all the material for the ebb bar would be obtained from dredging of the
16 full tidal basin.
17
18 Staging Area 1c neat Warner Avenue and PCH would be used for construction of the tidal Inlet and PCH
19 bridge. During Phase 1, the entrance to Boise Chiu Slate Beach at Warner Avenue would be dosed for
20 PCH bridge construction. A temporary exit for State Beach parking would be located approximately 600 feet
21 southeast of the inlet location, and is considered an adverse but Insignificant (Class III) Impact. The entire
22 parking lot west of the Inlet and 2,000 feet of beach would be dosed during the 3 -year construction period for
23 construction staging use. This is considered a temporary (Class 0, significant, adverse Impact to
24 recreational beach use tlunng the summer peak season, weekends, and holidays, and a Class II And use
25 impact. Construction would also remove two restroom buildings. The loss of the restroom foofflues is
26 considered on adverse but Insignificant (Class III) Impact because other restroom focilhes are located
27 nearby.
26
29 Alternative 3 would result in the loss of Lots 24 and 25 for wrong use. This area is considered to be the
30 second best surfing area at the State Beach. Surfers would have to move to Lots 14 antl 15 during
31 construction, resulting in overcrowding at that location. This is considered a significant, adverse Impact
32 (Class 0.
33
34 Alternative 3 would have a greater volume of construclion•related traffic trips compared to the Proposed
35 Project, but would not exceed threshold criteria. Traffic Impacts would remain as discussed for the Proposed
36 Project.
37
38 Alternative 3 would Involve construction techniques similar to those for the Proposed Project, the difference
39 being that the restoration area would increase by about 12 percent, resulting In an Increase In construction
40 operations by a similar percentage. The increase In construction activilies would result in Increased air
41 emissions over those estimated for the Proposed Project. Therefore, air emissions would be greater with
42 Alternative 3 compared to the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, emissions from Alternative 3
43 would remain insignificant (Class III) for asphalt emissions; significant, adverse (Class 11) for dust emissions;
44 and significant, adverse (Class 1) for exhaust emissions.
45
46 This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, except it would move the proposed tidal Inlet even closer to those
47 residents to the west, and would involve construction both along the highway and Outer Bolsa Bay. Any pile
48 driving would be of a minimum of 1,0D0 feet from local residents, and when these activities are conducted
49 within the noted time restrictions, would not be a significant (Class III) impact.
50
51 Construction -related fossil fuel consumption with Nlemative 3 would be slightly greater compared to the
52 Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, fuel consumption with Altemative 3 would represent Ass
53 than one•heh of t percent o1 regional fuel demand and would be considered insignificant (Class 111).
nn ES -22
nnam
1
2
1
4
5
B
7
e
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
15
17
15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
32
33
34
35
36
37
35
39
40
41
42
43
M
45
46
47
48
49
s0
51
52
53
54
Post -Construction Imoects
Because all of the flood flows from the EGGW Flood Control Channel would be diverted to the full tidal basin
Win Ahemative 3, degradation of water quality dunnp storms would be worse with Alternative 3 than with the
Proposed Project. Using the highest concentrations recorded for metals In the flood control channel, metals
in the full tidal basin and nearshore coastal waters would exceed criteria during 10-, 25, and 100 -year
storms. Total coliforms are expected to exceed criteria In Coastal waters during 100 -year storms. Impacts to
water quality during storms would be significant (Class q. Elevated bacteria levels during storm flows Could
result In closure of nearshore ocean waters to bathers and surfers. Beach closures due to elevated bacteria
would be a significant adverse impact to recreation (Class 1). For Ahemative 3, Ike Alternatives 1 and 2, it is
possible that levels of Enterococcus bacteria from nonstorm,related urban runoff into the wetlands Could
sometimes muse bacterial standards to be violated in Oman waters, with subsequent restrictions on surfing
and swimming (Class ll). Elevated bacteria levels In Coastal waters during either dry or wet weather are not
expected with the Proposed Project.
Bemuse the Boise Pocket would receive full tidal flows with Alternative 3 compared to muled tidal flows with
the Proposed Project, the few eucalyptus trees there may disappear more rapidly. Loss of a few eucalyptus
trees is Considered an adverse but insignificant impact (Class 111).
Following Construction, the two displaced restroom buildings would be relocated, which would in tum
displace approximately 15 parking spaces at the new location. A permanent loss of 128 parking spaces
would occur with Alternative 3, resulting In a significant, adverse (Class II) Impact during peak season
holidays and weekends.
Differences in SlO iicant Ad erre Impacts Between Alternative 3 and the Proposed Project
In Contrast fo the Proposed Project that would receive no flows from the EGGW Flood Control Channel,
Alternative 3, like Alternatives 1 and 2, would have significant water quality impacts both in the wetlands and
Coastal waters during storms. Impacts to water quality during storms would be significant (Class 1). Elevated
bacteria levels during stomt flows Could result In Closure of nearshore Oman waters to bathers and surfers.
Beach closures due to elevated bacteria would be a significant, adverse Impact to recreation (Class 1).
In addition, Alternative 3 may resuh in elevated levels of Enterococcous bacteria during dry weather, a
significant impact to water quality and recreation (Gass 11). Elevated bacteria levels in Coastal waters during
either dry or wet weather are not expected with the Proposed Project
Alternative 3 would have an additional Class II impact to water quality that would not occur with the Proposed
Project or any of the other alternatives. Resuspension of sediments during excavation of the full tidal basin
would degrade water quality in Outer Bolsa Bay (Class 11). This impact Could be reduced to insignificant by
using a silt wrtain to Contain turbidly during dredging.
Alternative 3 would have an additional consiuctionurelated Gass 1 Impact to land use that would not occur
with the Proposed Project. With the Proposed Project, a small amount of parking for Bolsa Chiu State
Beach would be affected during Construction, a Class III Impact. No permanent loss of parking would occur
with the Proposed Project. With Alternative 3, the entire parking lot west of the inlet and 2,D00 feet of beach
would be closed during the 3 -year construction period for staging use. This is Considered a temporary
(Class 1), significant, adverse impact that could affect recreational beach use during the summer peak
season, weekends, and holidays.
Altemative 3 would have an additional bng4ern Class I impact to land use that would not Occur with the
Proposed Project. With the Proposed Project, a small amount of parking for Bolsa Chiu State Beach would
be affected during construction, a Gass III Impact. No permanent loss of parking would occur with the
Proposed Project. With Alternative 3, approximately 128 parking spews would be permanently lost. The
permanent loss of parking would be a significant, adverse (Gass Ip impact during summer holiday and
weekend peak use periods.
> ES -23
ornam
Alternative 3 would have similar significant, adverse (Class p Impacts to suAng use during construction
compared to the Proposed Project. Alternative 3 would result in the loss of Lots 24 and 25 for surfing use.
Surfers would have to move to Lots 14 and 15 during construction, resulting in overcrowding at that location.
8.3.1.7 Ahemative 4-Thme Jetty Plan
Ahemative 4 B similar to Alternative 2 and includes a fun tidal basin with a new ocean inlet near Rabbit
island (Figure ES -6). With AltemaWe 4, the EGGW Flood Control Channel would discharge directly to the
octan through an outlet channel that would be separate from the tidal Inlet Alternative 4 Includes a
395.9 -acre full tidal basin in the central Lowlands. Inner Boise Bay would receive muted tidal flows similar to
Its existing tidal range through a wlven that would conned it with the new full tidal basin. Muted tidal habitat
consisting primarily of pickleweed sahmarsh and mudflats would be created northeast of Ne new tidal basin
and would be connected to the full tidal basin by culvert.
The new tidal inlet would be similar to that of the Proposed Project with a width of 360 feet. The outlet for the
EGGW Flood Control Channel would be 200 feet wide and would be adjacent to the tidal inlet on the upcoast
side. The PCH bridge struclure would be similar to that in Alternative 2, but would include a separate bridge
over the food control channel outlet A separate State Park access bridges would also be constructed
across both the tidal inlet and the flood control channel palet. Permanent alterations 10 Bolsa Chiu State
Beach facilities would include loss of approximately 105,000 square feet of parking area and one restroom
building. With Alternative 4, the restroom building would not be replaced.
Benefits
The benefits of Ahemative 4 would be similar to the Proposed Project and the other tidal inlet alternatives.
The habitat value of the Bolsa Chia Lowlands would be greatly improved for wetlands species.
Alternative 4 would be similar to Ahemative 2, but the EGGW Flood Control Channel would be redirected to
run along the edge of Boise Mesa and would discharge directly to the ocean. Ahemative 4 would have
slightly more full tidal subtidal habitat than the Proposed Pmject (19.4 acres), but almost 61 acres less
of mudflat. Alternative 4 would 8150 have more full tidal and muted tidal picldeweed. Therefore, Alternative 4
would have less benefit than the Proposed Project to shorebirds and wading birds, but the additional tidal
pickleweed could result in as many as 304 additional Belding's savannah sparrow terrhodes. Because no
flows from the EGGW Flood Control Channel would discharge Into the full tidal basin with Alternative 4,
estuarine fish and Invertebrate diversity would be similar to the Proposed Pmject. Furthermore, the
connection between the Ahemative 4 full tidal basin and Inner Bolsa Say would provide a ready source of
estuarine species for the new full tidal basin.
Bemuse Ahemative 4 would connect Inner Bolsa Bay to the fun tidal basin rather than Outer Boise Bay,
water quality in Inner Bolsa Bay would be better with Alternative 4 than the Proposed Project. Water quality
in Outer Bolsa Bay is also predicted to be better than the Proposed Project because no flows from the
EGGW Channel would enter the Outer Boise Bay. The potential for flooding of PCH would be
greatly reduced.
construction Impacts
Construction Impacts with Ahemative 4 would generally be similar to the Proposed Pmject, ahhough the
area of disturbance would be somewhat greater bemuse of the larger full tidal basin. For Alternative 4,
162,900 cy of additional material would be dredged from an offshore borrow, she because not enough sandy
material would be available from dredging the full tidal basin to prefill the ebb bar. Dredging at an offshore
borrow she would have shormarm, localized impacts to the marine environment at the she (Class III).
With Ahemative 4, the Bolsa Pocket would be graded during construction. Therefore, the few eucalyptus
trees in the Pocket would be lost at the time of construction. Bemuse sucatyptus trees on Boal Masa
a v ES -24
m�am
1 would be preserved, loss of trees in the Pocket would be an adverse but insignificant impact (Class 111). Very
2 : few living trees are found in the Pocket but saltier groundwater could potentially harm the handful of trees
3 a growing on the edge of adjacent higher ground.
4
57
6 u During construction, an area of Bolsa Chita Slate Beach would be used for staging and would W removed
7 . from public use. Approximately 263 parking spaces and 1 restroom building would be lost during
6 construction. The ions of parking for the almost 3 -year construction period would be a significant, adverse
9 (Class 11) impact during summer holiday and weekend peak -use periods. The loss of the restroom facility is
10 considered an adverse but Insignificant (Class 111) impact because other restroom facilities are located
11 nearby.
12
13 As discussed for Ahemative $ surfing use is considered fight In the proposed inlet area; therefore,
14 construction would not constrain other use areas and no significant, adverse (Class It[) impacts would result.
15
16 Alternative 4 would have a greater volume of constructiorfrelaled traffic trips as compared to the Proposed
17 Project, but would not exceed threshold omens. Traffic impacts would remain as discussed for the
16 Proposed Project.
19
20 Alternative 4 would involve construction techniques similar to those for the Proposed Project, the difference
21 being that the restoration area would increase by about 3 percent, resulting in an Increase In construction
22 operations by a similar percentage. The Increase in construction activities would result in increased air
23 emissions over those estimated for the Proposed Project. Therefore, air emissions would be greater with
24 Alterative 4 compared to the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, emissions from Alternative 4
25 - would remain insignificant (Class III) for asphalt emissions; significant, adverse (Class 11) for dust emissions;
26 and significant, adverse (Class 1) for exhaust emissions.
27
26 The level of effort to construct the two bridges and restore the wetlands would result in additional equipment
29 and haul trips compared to the Proposed PmjecL However, noise levels would not measurably increase
30 above those predicted for the Proposed Project.
31
32 Construction -related fossll fuel consumption with Alternative 4 would be slightly greater compared to the
33 Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, fuel consumption with Alternative 4 would moment lass
34 than one -hall of 1 percent of regional fuel demand and would be considered insignificant (Class III).
35
36 Post -Construction Impacts
37
36 Although the EGGW Flood Control Channel would not discharge directly into the full tidal basin, metals
39 would exceed criteria in the full tidal basin during 10-, 25, and 100 -year slorrtus, because the flood waters
40 discharged to the ocean would enter the wetlands during rising titles. Metals also would exceed criteria in
41 coastal waters during these stoma. Coliform levels in coastal waters would exceed cmena during 25• and
42 100 -year storms. Impacts to water quatity during storms would be significant (Class I). Elevated bacteria
43 levels during store flows could result in closure of nearshore ocean waters to bathers and surfers. Beach
44 closures due to elevated baderia would be a significant, adverse Impact to recreation (Class q. For
45 Alternative 4, like Altematives 1, 2, and 3, it is possible that levels of Enterococcus bacteria from nonstorrn-
46 related urban runoff into the wetlands could sometimes muse bacterial standards to be violated in ocean
47 waters, with subsequent restrictions on surfing and swimming (Class 11). Elevated bacteria levels in coastal
46 - waters during either dry or wet weather are not expected with the Proposed Project.
49 •
50 With Alterative 4, approximately 263 parking spaces and 1 restroom building would be affected by
51 permanent aiterations to Bolsa Chica Stale Beach. The permanent loss of parking would be a sgnifunl,
52 adverse (Class 11) impact during summer holiday and weekend peak -use periods. The restroom Wilding
53 would be relocated following construction.
m pito ES -26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
4S
46
47
45
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Differences In Significant Adverse Imoacts Between Attematrve 4 and the Proposed Protect
Like Ahematives 1, 2, and 3, Ahemative 4 would have a significant, adverse Impact to water quality that
would not occur with the Proposed Project. Discharge of flood flows from the EGGW Channel into the full
tidal basin would resuit In elevated levels of metals and bacteria In wetland and waste[ waters (Class 1).
Beach closures clue to elevated bacteria levels would be a signi ipnt, adverse Impact to recreation (Class q.
Furthermore, criteria for Enterococcus bacteria might be exceeded at times during dry weather conditions,
leading to restrictions on swimming and surfing (Class II). Elevated bacteria levels are not expected with the
Proposed Project.
Alternative 4 would have on additional Class I Impact fo land use that would not occur with the Proposed
Project. No permanent loss of parking would occur with the Proposed Project, a Class III Impact. With
Ahemative 4, approximately 263 parking spaces would be lost during construction and would not be
replaced. The permanent loss of parking would be a significant. adverse (Class II) impact during summer
holiday and weekend peak -use periods.
Alternative 4 also has a Class III Impact to surfing. which R a lesser Impact than with the Proposed Project.
With the Proposed Project, wnstruction would affect an area heavily used for surfing, resulting In a
significant, adverse (Class 1) Impact With Alternative 4, umng use Is considered light In the area of the
proposed inlet, therefore, closure of the proposed Inlet area for construction would not constrain other areas
of the beach and no significant, adverse (Class III) impacts to surfing use would mutt.
5.3.1.5 Alternative 5-IrrigationAYater Managament Plan
Altemative 5 was developed as an altemative for wetlands restoration that would not involve construction of
a new tidal inlet (Figure ES -7). Ahemative 5 would improve habitat in the Bolsa Lowlands by managing
seawater and freshwater inputs. With this alternative, no new tidal inlet would be created, no changes would
be made to Inner Bolsa Bay, and stormwater would continue to be routed through Outer Bolsa Bay. With this
ahemative, oil wells would be removed as oil reserves were depleted.
Ahemative 5 would Improve habitat quality in the SGIea Lowlands primarily through the Introduction of
seawater from Huntington Harbour via Outer Bolsa Bay during neap tides. This alternative would be
a managed tidal system with seawater flows controlled by water management structures. Water
management structures would be opened to allow seawater to flow in approximately every 2 weeks during
neap tides. During that time, seawater would flow in and out of the Bolsa Lowlands through existing sloughs
and channels. When the neap tide period ended, the water management structures would be closed until
the next neap tide series.
With Aremative 5, the gates of the EGGW Flood Control Channel would be moved about 1,6DD feet
upstream. The porion of the channel between Outer Bolsa Bay and the relocated tide gates would then be
tidal. A series of culverts with water management structures would be installed along the lower portions of
the channel.
Seasonal freshwater pond habitat would be maintained in the southeast comer and the northeast comer of
the project site, and a portion of the Fieldstone Property in the northwest comer would be diked and
managed as seasonal ponds. The culverts between Inner Bolsa Bay and the CDFG Cell would be closed
and the CEFG cell would become a seasonal pond area. Rabbit Island would remain upland, but with the
introduction of seawater around it, would become more of a true Island. Nesting islands would be coated for
western snowy plovers and California least tems. One neef would be In the northwestern porion of the
Lowlands, and one would be in the southeastem portion.
Benefits
Ahemative 5 would enhance the habitat value of the Bolas Chip Lowlands for wetlands species over
existing conditions, but the benefits would be much less than With the ahematives that include a tidal inlet.
rn� ES -27
ES -28
i
u
i
Most of the biological objectives for the restoration would not be met. Overwintering habitat for migratory
birds, shorebirds, seabirds, and waterfowl would be enhanced slightly because the limned tidal flows would
support a slightly more diverse prey base. The habitat value for estuarine fishes would be minimally
increased. Very hardy species, such as topsmell and killifish, currently lacking from the Lowlands, may
persist with Alternative 5. Alternative 5 would have no value to marine fishes such as the Califomm halibut.
t In fad, they may enter the wetlands when the gates are opened and then perish when the tidal exchange is
Interrupted. Aaemative 5 may actually be detrimental to some species of fah.
Periodic tidal inundation with Alternative 5 would enhance pidtlaweed. The net gain In Belding's savannah
sparrow territories with Alternative 5 would be 22 or 23 over existing conditions, compared to a gain of
255 territories with the Proposed Project. No coregrass would grow In the project area with Ahemative 5,
Therefore, Alternative 5 would not contribute to the recovery of the light-footed dapper fall, which nests in
cordgrass.
The introduction of periodic tidal flows via Huminglon Harbour would improve weer quality slightly In the
Lowlands and would reduce the fluctuations of water quality parameters. Water quality in Outer Boise Bay
would not be improved and there would be no reduction In the potential for Outer Bolsa Bay to flood PCH
during storms.
Oil operations would continue throughout the Lowlands, so new Interior trails would not be feasible. Public
access opportunities are a beneficial (Class IV) impact; however, opportunities with this altemalive would be
less beneficial than with the Proposed PmjecL
The Lowlands area would remain visually similarto current conditions. While not as great a visual benefit as
compared to other alternatives, a beneficial (Class IVj visual improvement would occur with this allemative.
Socioeconomic benefits from construction employment realized with the Proposed Project would be less with
Alternative 5 because of the shortened construction period and need forfewer construction workers.
Construction Impacts
The impacts of construction from Ahemative 5 would be considerably less than from the Proposed Project.
Construction would only last about t year compared to almost 3 years with the Proposed Project. Very little
excavation would occur with Aflemative 5. The only major grading would be of the Fieldstone property in the
northwest comer of the Lowlands. No impacts would occur to the beach or nearshom ocean waters because
no ocean inlet would be constructed. The temporary loss of Belding's savannah sparrow breeding habitat
during construction would be insignificant (Class III).
This alternative does not Involve construction or a tidal inlet; therefore, the PCH bridge would not be
constructed and no beach area would be affected. No impacts to land use or recreation from the use of
Bolsa Chita State Beach or Slate Beach parking areas for construction staging would occur. No potential
safety hazards from the jetties would occur. No visual impacts related to the construction of the tidal inlet
and PCH bndge would occur. No maintenance dredging would be necessary, and therefore, there would be
no associated air quality and noise concems.
Peak construction traffic would be far less than with the Proposed Project. Alternative 5 traffic would result in
an adverse but insignificant (Class 111) impact. Altemil 5 would result In the fewest construction emissions
of any alternative. Additionally, this alternative would involve the shortest construction schedule, and from a
construction aspect, would have the lowest emissions. The construction effort for Alternative 5 would be
reduced to about one-third of that required for the other alternatives, reducing the noise disturbance on the
neighboring land uses.
Energy consumption for Allemative 5 would be far less than with the Proposed Project, due to the lessened
construction effort. Fossil fuel consumption for Alternative 5 would be approximately one-third that of the
Proposed Project.
nu ES-29
Minx,
Port -Construction Impacts
Bemuse Alternative 5 would have no tidal Inlet, no project -related changes to coastal processes would
occur. Bemuse there would be no tidal Inlet, the wetlands would not be at risk from an offshore oil spill.
Alternative 5 would not affect the coastal woolly -heads population on Rabbit Island. No upland habitat on
Rabbit Island would be lost and the loss of wintering habitat for shon-eared OWLS and dune habitat for
sensitive insect species and the silvery legless lizard would nor occur. There would be no loss of the Rabbit
Island ESHA. However, the few trees of the eumlyptus grove ESHA In the Bolsa Pocket might still
deteriorate with Alternative S. The Introduction of even limned tidal flows might hasten the demise of the few
live trees in or adjacent to the Pocket.
Maintenance dredging and Phase II construction would not be required; therefore, no air quality impacts from
post -construction operations would occur.
No French drain would be needed, to permanent electricity for the French drain pumps would not be
required.
Differences in SiunlfcantAdverse Impacts Between Alternative 5 and the PIDDOSed Prosect
The following sign10mnl, adverse impacts that would occur with the Proposed Project would not occur or
would not be significant with Ahemative 5:
D Impacts to the residential community from changes in groundwater (Class II);
D Turbidity in the nearshore zone during prefill of the ebb bar (Class 1);
D Damage to the wetlands from an offshore oll spill (Class q;
D Possible loss of pan of the coastal woolly -head population on Rabbit island (Class 11);
D Interference with grunion spawning by maintenance dredging and beach nourishment activities (Class II);
D Significant loss of Belding's savannah sparow oreeding territories during construction (Gass I);
D Temporary closure of the bead) area for construction staging (Class p;
D Temporary closure of State Beach restroom facilities and provision of temporary restrooms (Class 11);
D Air quality impacts from maintenance dredging (Class II); and
D Safety issues for beach goers from a tidal inlet (Class II).
5.3.1.9 Ahemative 6 • Concept Plan
Alternative 6 would be IdenUml to the Proposed Project, except that a side weir would be installed into the
levee of the EGGW Flood Control Channel to allow spillover of a portion of the IOD -year peak flood
discharge into the full tidal basin (Figure ES -6). During peak flows, storm flows would be conveyed to Outer
Bolsa Bay and the wetlands via the EGGW Channel. Flows from the EGGW Channel would begin to spill
into the full tidal basin during a 10 -year stone.
Benefits
Alternative 6 B identical to the Proposed Project, except that peak flows from the EGGW Flood Control
Channel would enter the wetlands. The habitat benefits of Alternative 6 would be lass than the Proposed
Project bemuse water quality would be degraded by greater than 10 -year stone flows from the flood control
channel. Therefore, the diversity of fishes and Invertebrates would be lower. However, bemuse
Alternative 6 would lake some o1 the peak storm flows from the EGGW Channel, the water quality In Outer
Bolsa Bay would be improved with this Alternative. Also, Ahemative 6 would reduce the potential for water
from Outer Bolsa Bay to flood PCN during large storms.
Construction Impacts
All air emissions would be greater for Alternative 6 compared to the Proposed Project. Phase 3 requires a
greater construction effort with Ahemative 6 bemuse them are modifications to the EGGW Flood Control
nc ES -30
mnom
ES -31
1
2
3c
4;
5(
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2D
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Channel. Even with these differences, impacts would remain as discussed for the Proposed Project ROG
emissions represent a Class III frnpact, PMro emissions represent a Class II impart, and NOx emissions
represent a Class I impact.
Constmction-relsted fossil fuel consumption win Attemative 6 would be greater than the Proposed Project.
As with the Proposed Project, fuel consumption with Alternative 6 would represent less than cna-half of
1 percent o1 regional fuel demand and would be considered insignificant (Class III).
post -Construction impacts
Because peak Bows from the EGGW Flood Control Channel would enter the full tidal basin doling greater
than 10 -year stones, violations of water quality standards for metals in the lull tidal basin and in coastal
waters would occur during peak stoma (Class I). The potential for £nter000ccus to exceed criteria in coastal
waters following storms would occur with Attemative 6 during to -year or greater stoma and would result in a
significant, adverse (Class p Impact to recreation.
Attemative 6 diners from Anematives 1, 2, 3, and 4, because water quality violations would occur only during
ID -year or greater stores. With Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, water quality violations could occur more
frequently. In particular, thresholds for Enterococcus bacteria could be exceeded during small stoma or
even dry weather conditions, with the potential for frequent restrictions on swimming and surfing
Differences in Slonifcent, Adverse Impacts Between Alternative 6 and the Proposed Protect
The only di eronce in significant Impacts between Alternative 6 and the Proposed Project is that
Attemative 6 may have violations of water quality criteria in the full tidal basin and coastal waters during
10 -year or greater storms (Class 1). During 10 -year or greater storms, the levels of Enterococcus bacteria in
ocean waters may exceed thresholds and lead to restrictions on swimming and suKng. Lou of swimming
and surfing use because of elevated bacteria would be a significant, adverse impact to recreation (Clan p.
5.3.1.10 No Action Aitemalive
With the No Action Alternative, no alterations to the existing water influences in the Bolsa Chita Lowlands
would occur. The areas beyond the existing Ecological Reserve dikes would remain without tidal influence
and would be subject to stornflows, dry weather runoff, and seasonal precipitation. No dredging would be
done to change contours within the wetlands. The EGGW Flood Control Channel would continue to
discharge into Outer Bolsa Bay. Increases in storm0ows reaching the Boise Lowlands bemuse of planned
upstream improvements of the channel would result in larger discharges to Outer Bolsa Bay. Oil eodreetion
would be gradually phased out and oil facilities removed by the operator,
Wnh the No Action Alternative, no enhancement of the biological value of the Bolsa Chim Lowlands would
occur. The project area would continue to have most of the same biological values it currently has, although
over time gradual degradation would occur. Small isolated populations of sensitive species, such as the
coastal woolly -head and the silvery legless lizard, might be extirpated from the site. The eucalyptus grove
ESRA on Bolsa Mesa and the few trees in the Bolsa Pocket, might eventually die and their value to raptors
would be lost. Urban influences would probably increase with increased development surrounding the
Lowlands. WM the No Action Alternative, none of the adverse effects Identified for the restoration
alternatives would occur.
5.3.2eaeasons for Selection of the Proposed Prolect
The selection of the Proposed Project was based on two considerations. The first consideration was the
lesser extent of significant, adverse Impacts that would result from project implementation. The second
consideration was the extent to which wetland function and values within the SDlsa Lowlands would be
improved, i.e., the ability of the selected alternative to meet the project purpose and need.
TW
arm
ES -32
1
2
3
4
5
B
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
ID
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
64
Of the project aitematives analyzed in detail, Aftemative 5 had the fewest adverse impacts because it would
Involve minimal construction. Also, because no tidal inlet would be constructed for Ahemafive 5, It would
avoid the significant, adverse impacts to water quality, recreation, and land use from construction of the tidal
Inlet and prefill of the ebb bar at Bolsa Chip State Beach. However, Ahemative 5 provided by far the lowest
habitat benefits of the restoration ahematives. Ahemative 5 would provide no benefit to marine fishes such
as California halibut and may even be detrimental to marine fishes that would enter the Lowlands during the
fimited periods of tidal action. Alternative 5 would enhance the pickleweed vegetation In the Lowlands by
providing periodic tidal Bow but probably would not increase the diversify of wetlands vegetation.
Specifically, no cordgrass would become eslabtished in the Lowlands B Ahemative 5 were selected.
Because no cordgram would become established in the Lowlands with Aftemative 5, no habitat would be
provided for the endangered light-footed clapper rail. Altemative 5 would provide only a slight enhancement
of overwintering habitat for migratory shorebirds, seabirds, and waterfowl. Foraging opportunities for the
endangered Califomia bast tem and other tem and gull species would be only marginally increased.
All of the tidal Inlet alternatives would provide similar habitat benefits Including:
D increased quality and quantity of open water and intertidal mudflat habitats for migratory shorebirds,
seabirds, and waterfowl;
D a healthy and diverse aquatic community of marine and estuarine Invertebrates and fishes Including
nursery habitat for the California halibut;
D Increased nesting habitat and foraging opportunities for the state- and federal -fisted endangered
California least tem and the federal -listed threatened western snowy plover, as well as a variety of other
water -associated birds;
D expansion of cordgrass habitat to support nesting by the state and federal -listed endangered light-footed
capper rail; and
➢ enhancement of pic*Jeweed sahmarsh habitat that would expand nesting territories of the state4isted
endangered Belding's savannah sparrow.
Of all the restoration alternatives. the Proposed Project would provide the highest quality environment for
aquatic fish and invertebrates because the EGGW FIOW Control Channel would not discharge into the fun
tidal basin. Therefore, the disturbance to the aquatic community from the freshwater Influx and pollutants
during storm flows would not occur.
Bemuse the Proposed Project would have no discharges from the EGGW Flood Control Channel, metals
and bacteria would not be carried into the wetlands and the ocean. All of the other tidal inlet alternatives
would have a significant, unmrligaNe, adverse impact to water quality In the wetlands and coastal waters
from pollutants in storm flows (Class 1). Bacteria In ocean waters would exceed thresholds and swimming
and surfing would be restricted. Loss of swimming and surfing use of ocean waters during periods when
bacteria exceeded threshold levels would be an unmitigable, significant, adverse impact to recreation
(Class I).
The Proposed Project also would not result in the permanent loss of beach parking spaces that would o=r
with Altematives 2, 3, end 4. The loss of parking spaces is a signKmnt but mNgable impact (Gass to. The
Proposed Project would have a significant, unmiligable impact to surfing during project construction (Class 1)
that would not ocwr for Ahematives 2 and 4. However, construction Impacts to surfing would be temporary.
The Proposed Project was selected as preferred bemuse it would provide much greater habitat benefits than
Ahemative 5, and would avoid the unmitigable, signRcant, adverse Impacts to water quality and recreation
that would occur with the other tidal inlet alternatives. The greatest habitat benefit would occur if the
Proposed Project were combined with the 2nd Sub-altemative. Habitat benefits woultl also be Increased,
but to a somewhat lesser extent, d the Proposed Project were combined with the 131 Sub-ahemathee. No
additional signRcant, adverse impacts would occur with either of these sub-altematives, although the
potentially significant (Clem II) impacts of excavation of an offshore borrow ph would occur at the same time
as the Phase I construction impacts rather than 15 or 20 years In the future.
mn�m ES -33
I The Proposed Project is also the Steering Committee's NEPA preferred ahemative and the Feasibility Plan
2 called for in paragraph Sal of the Interagency Agreement.
3
4n
5 3.3.3 Identification of the Environmentally Superior Ahemative
6�
7 The Environmentally Superior Alternative Is the ahemalNe to the Proposed Protea that 4 environmentally
S preferred.
9
10 Bemuse the project Is an environmental restoration project, "Section of the Environmentally Superior
11 Alternative must consider both the nature and extent of environmental benefits of each ahemative and the
12 adverse environmental Impacts. Alternative 5 would have the fewest significant adverse environmental
13 ' Impacts of all the restoration alternatives bull also would provide much lower quality habitat benefits.
14 Bemuse h would provide substantially lower and less diverse environmental benefits than the restoration
15 ahematives with a tidal inlet, Ahemative 5 was rejected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
16
17 AN of the tidal inlet ahematives would provide similar habitat benefits. Ahemative 6 I expected to support a
18 more diverse aquatic community than Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 bemuse disturbance by storm flows from
19 the EGGW Flood Control Channel only would occur for 106year or greater storms. Bemuse storm flows
20 would only spill Into the full tidal basin during 10•year or greater storms, significant impacts (Class 0 to
21 water quality and recreation with Ahemative 6 would only occur during 10•year or greater storms. For
22 Ahematives 1, 2, 3, and 4, exceadanm of water quality criteria and beach closures might occur, even during
23 relatively small store events. Elevation of Enterococcus bacteria above threshold levels might even mu" in
24 s beach closures during dry weather conditions (Class Ip.
25
26 Alternative 6 was selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would result in similar
27 habitat benefits and would have significant, adverse Impacts (Class 1) to water quality and recreation only
28 during 10 -year or greater storms.
29
30
31 8.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
32
33 Areas of concern include:
34
35 1. Loss of Bolsa Chim State Beach facilities from construction o1 the ocean inlet and possible Impacts to
35 recreational uses.
37 '2. Disposition of discharge from the EGGW Flood Control Channel.
38
39
40 5.6 UNRESOLVED ISSUES
41
42 The primary unresolved issues associated with this project are related to the EGGW Flood Control Channel.
43 The main issue is disposition of discharge from the channel. Additional issues include Impacts to the State
44 Park and physical division of beach.
Met ES -34
MM
Table ES -2
Project Impact Classifications
-
proposed
1$t bub- gnd Bub-
7
project
Arternabve Allernrtive
GEOLOGY/EARTH RESOURCES
Erosion of blurts or
III
III
III
III
III
111
10
0
III
wetland areas
OCEANOGRAPHY/COASTAL PROCESSES
- -
Temporaryimpacsto
III
III
III
III
111
111
111
0
111
coaial processes
during ronstmcbon
Temporary sand loss
111
NA
NA
III
III
III
111
0
III
from ebb bar before
opening of inlet
Beach erosion during
III
If
111
III
111
111
111
0
111
Phase
Beach erosion during
III
NA
NA
III
111
It
111
0
III
Phase II
Welland shooting and
III
111
III
III
III
III
III
0
Ill
scouring
More oblique waves at
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
IV
the ebb bar
SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER
HYDROLOGY - -
Erasion during
III
111
III
III
III
III
111
111
III
construction
Impacts to residential
II
11
II
II
It
II
II
0
II
area from rising
1
oundwrter
WATER QUALITY
Turbidity in the
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
0
I
Mershore zone during
refill of the ebb bar
Turbidity, from bdal inlet
III
NA
NA
III
III
III
111
0
III
construction
Turbidity from opening of
111
0
0
III
III
111
111
0
Ib
the too] inlet
Turbidity in Outer Bolsa
0
0
0
0
0
It
0
0
0
Bay dunno constmction
Reduction In dissolved
111
III
III
III
III
111
111
0
III
oxygen from dredging
and disposal
Improved water quality
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
in the "hands
increased risk of
I
NA
NA
I
I
I
1
0
I
exposure of wetlands to
an rea oils ill
Fwffoflsho
El.v.a DGena levels
111
NA
NA
II
II
II
II
0
It
in the ocean tlunng dry
weather
Reduction inwe0ands
III
NA
NA
1
I
I
I
III
1
water quality from storm
flows
oao ES -35
iter ES -36
foram
proposed
let but-
2nd Bub
1
3
3
A
S
0
pro ecf
AMemative
Athw u tive
Improvement in voter
0
NA
NA
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
0
gualrly, in Boise Be
Radu000n In ocean
III
NA
NA
1
I
1
I
0
1
V ill quality, from storm
dlsahar es
111
III
111
III
0
III
Bedimeniation of
0
N4
NA
wetlands from alotm
dischar es
III
111
0
III
iar,
Resuspern of
111
NA
NA
III
III
sediments during
maintenance dri in
Water quality in CDFG
IV
NA
NA
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
cell
Cumula0ve impact to
111
NA
NA
111
III
111
III
111
III
wetlands water quality
from wr off from homes
on Mesa
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Gain in habitat Value of
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Bolsa Lovdantls
Destruction of aquatic
III
III
III
III
111
III
III
0
III
organisms in Lowlantls
dunno construction
Disturbance to
111
111
III
III
III
III
111
0
III
nearshore mwnne
organisms during prefll
ofthe ebb bar
Loss of sandy beach
111
NA
NA
III
111
111
III
0
III
organisms from
constructor, of tidal inlet
Creation of hard
IV
NA
NA
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
IV
substrate for rocky
trite al organisms on
ettes
Creation of naw habitat
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
IV
for marine and estuanne
or misma
Decrease in tliversity, of
0
NA
NA
III
III
III
D
111
111
equal spaces in
Lowlands from atom)
flows
Impacts to aquatic
0
NA
NA
III
III
III
0
0
III
species in LovAands
from sedimentabon
dunno Mom }lows
Impacts of maintenance
Ili
NA
NA
111
III
111
111
0
III
dredging to nearshora
or enisms
Impacts to California
II
NA
NA
11
11
11
II
0
11
grunion from beach
nourishment
Impacts to menne
111
III
III
111
111
111
III
0
111
species from ng
material for ebb bar at
tire
offshore ekehore Dort
iter ES -36
foram
w oac ES 37
proposed
fat Sub-.
2nd Sub-
1
_.3
3
-:4 -.
-6
6
Project
Aftwnstive.
Ahwiledve
Impacts to organisms
0
NA
NA
0
0
111
0
0
0
from dredging in Outer
Bolsa Ba
Enhancement of
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
wetlands vegetation
Destruction of
III
III
111
111
III
III
III
III
III
vegetation during project
construction
Imp&= to spiny rush
III
NA
NA
III
III
III
111
0
111
from tidal influence
Loss of coastal woolly-
11
NA
NA
11
11
II
II
0
11
"ads on Rabbit Island
Loss of pan of Rabbit
III
NA
NA
III
111
111
111
0
111
Island ESKA
Loss of some eucalyptus
111
NA
NA
111
III
111
111
III
III
trees
Loss of comgness in
0
NA
NA
0
0111
0
0
0
Outer Bolsa Ba
Temporary lou of
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
III
I
geldings savannah
spanow breeding
territories during
construction
Impacts to snowy plover
III
111
III
111
111
III
111
III
Ill
nests during
commuction
Gain in subboal habitat
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
IV
forwaterbirds
Gain in mudflat for
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
IV
shorebirds
Gain in comgrass for
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
IV
,prat -footed dapper nils
Gain in Belding'a
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
aawnnsh sparrow
territories
Gain in nesting habitat
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
for western snowy plover
and California least tem
Loss of wrMering habitat
III
NA
NA
111
III
III
111
0
III
for short -eared owls on
Rabbit Island
Loss of raptor perches
III
NA
NA
111
111
111
111
111
111
on eucalyptus trees
Loss o/bw-quality
III
III
111
III
III
III
111
III
III
upland habitat for
terrestrialspecies
Disturbance to terrestrial
111
III
III
111
III
III
III
111
III
insects and wildlife
during construction
Reduction in dune
111
NA
NA
111
III
111
III
0
Ill
habcat for sensitive
insect sped" on Rabbit
Island
w oac ES 37
Mr. ES -36
propoeW
1st6ub-
and SVb-
7
.J2
3
A
6
6
Project
Atternalive
Alternative
Improvement in water
0
NA
NA
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
0
ual in Boise Be
1
I
0
I
Reduction in ocean
111
NA
NA
I
I
welt, gwldy from storm
lisahar es
111
III
0
III
Setlimentebon of
0
NA
NA
III
111
wetlands from storm
discher es
111
111
0
111
Reauspension of
111
NA
NA
III
III
sediments during
maintenance dretl in
Water quality in CDFG
IV
NA
NA
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
tell
Cumulative unpla to
111
N4
NA
III
111
ill
III
111
III
wetlands water quality
from nmoff from homes
on Mess
BIOLOGICALRESOURCES
Germ rebut vatue of
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Bolsa Lowtanes
III
111
III
III
0
III
Destruction of aquatic
III
III
111
organisms In Lowlands
dunno construction
Disturbance to
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
0
It
nearshore mann
organisms during prefll
ofthe ebb bar
Loss of sandy beach
III
NA
NA
III
III
III
III
0
111
organisms from
consb action of tical inlet
Creation of hard
IV
NA
NA
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
IV
substrate for rocky
intertidal organisms on
etbes
Creation of naw habitat
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
0
IV
for manna and estuarine
or anisms
NA
III
III
111
0
III
III
Decrease in cranny of
0
NA
aquatic species in
Lowands from storm
flow,
Impacts to aquatic
0
NA
NA
III
III
III
0
0
III
species in Lowlands
from sedimentation
dlinno Mono flows
impacts of maintenance
III
NA
NA
III
III
III
III
0
III
dredging to nearshors
oroanisms
Impacts to Caltlomia
11
NA
NA
II
It
II
II
0
11
gnmion from beach
nourishment
Impacts to marine
III
111
III
III
III
III
III
0
III
species from dredging
material for ebb bar at
offshore borrow she
Mr. ES -36
Prci Ystbud '2Sub
ntl : 7 . 3 -3 ,b b
Pro act Akvn stive Alternative
a e
Constructior II hOn III III III til III III 111 III III
Lowlands Nesshed IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV
Vivwo oountlies IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV
PCH bridge and cost 111 NA NA 111 111 III 111 0 III
inlet
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
Roadwy segments III
I III
111
III
III
111
III
III
III
PCH choice devour 111
NA
NA
111
III
III
III
0
III
Peak construction traffic III
distribution at
Intersections
III
111
III
III
111
111
III
III
CumulaWe projects 11
traffic at intersections
II
II
II
11
11
11
11
II
Future full bdal area III
construction
NA
NA
III
111
ill
111
NA
111
Access 11
II
11
11
II
II
11
II
II
Pcstaonstructi on traffic III
111
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
AIR QUALITY _
Constructiowelated I I I I
exhaust amteslons
I I 1 I I
Ccnstructiorwrelated II II 11 II
dust emissions
II 11 II 11 II
As hen emissions III III III III
III III 111 0 Ill
Odors III III III III
Ill III III Ill III
Post<onstrucvon III III III III
vehicle emissions
III III III 111 lit
French drain operations III III III III
III III III III III
sAeintenence d1e,19,19 II 11 11 If
It 11 II 0 It
Phase II construction I NA NA I
I I 1 0 1
NOISE -
Tsanspcn of workers
and construction
equipment on major
routes
111
III
III
III
111
III
111
111
III
Transport of workers
and constructen
equipment on local
streets
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
Sri* prep., grading, and
construction
111
Ill
III
III
III
III
111
III
III
Noise impacts to
sensitive animalspecies
111
III
111
III
Ill
111
III
III
lit
Monnonny
maintenance
III
III
III
III
111
111
111
III
111
Frencn oral, operation
111
III
111
111
III
III
III
III
III
Maintenance oleo in
III
NA
NA
ill
III
III
III
0
III
Phase II conctructon
III
NA
NA
III
III
III
III
NA
III
ENERGYAND MINERAL
RESOURCES
-
Fossilfuelconsum tion
111
III III
In
III
III III lit
III
Oil operations
III
111 III
III
III
III III III
111
Consumpbon of
electriti
III
III 111 III
III
III III 0
111
ES -39
arnom
"a ES -40
mm
ProposaE
9st sus
Zap sue
7 -¢
3-- ; 5
E
ProM
Altern+tive
AllernrtivE
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
III III III III 111 III
Uliluies III III III
Solid waste disposal III III III 1 III III III III 111 III
Publm sernces III 111 III III III III III III III
VeR control III 111 111 111 111 III III III III
An proles Onisa+ n 10entltiad as mlonpirq w on+ of N+ IobMnp ul+porla+:
01st F, 5ipn'.Fc W,+tivrse imp+a Mr csnmt O1 nitipNsd to inpp NfcaN
0.11E 6�pnJiuN,+dver.'vnpsa tON can mlupluG b M+IpNOnnL
Cl.alp: AEvr. Wn Mrpnlllwol knpaa.
CLs1V: Benetkial Yrpad
o: Mo prP.a
ria: NN A lica0t
"a ES -40
mm
|
!
�
ES4,
�
! ! :q
!E
Ef
}k
`k|
_.
R-�
:})
3•`
..
9!l,Rl
g
Jr
- R
E.
Q|
,
#_-.,%�`!k
.-;:.
01
# v
i!!�S
2�l,
«
-
9z
/i
\
E
}02�9
0.9{}�kk
}kk{
�$s
'
|_§
._
!�
«sr
r
h |k�
\}�|-�
@!k!!!!!||
/
�}
!!!
P:
ES4,
�
ES42
roE
BEp
s
z
¢.c�u
am£
�:
f.w°u
¢PS
_
a
�
p
9tsa
AO
•„ps
•
e
•�
PS1
5
mS
ms
s
p[�
mS9
u C
YY9
-
ppp yyw
�
$A
�csEm
gcw�....�
•�
N=
LYL
F 3
e i: 'C• 'JC
a L B i:
i�
i t
a:
i t a
z°
1E
i
€
C'c
V5.2
L$
$i
QF of
aU
gcz
A
�
7
U
gyp¢¢
�Eb"i
GEi`-•_OI
�
O\
i•
W
�
U� L
U
p p Yx$
Em
Z Zp j
:5
CEF�
-Ell
Uo�W
WLm
s�•
f
4�
w€
C
Ci €$
= p
z
�
L•
O
c o
E
L ��
Cg
S
a_:
¢
iv
E ZL'B
5Ly=
acURSE
SE
U2Saoa
ES42
1
�
em
z
'.tm'
¢Z
Fwr
3o4
U9p0
E rn" S T a
Fi J, I g�'6E
ip r
$N_
mm.��nu° m"�_ 85t �° waeeE9aLtaiz Eee
.0
= o
€En
cF68 P44 £oocoL
"m
3
_T$o
ofE'8Os €E OB�Eoi
w'S3
comet
€sgn o'=icB
�'3 oE�
I..�
�ctL
AUmSyO�3 °T�$ �£��u� i vrio
EoE{Goe�b'cm'd
ciE2?g^mIE?��oE$2gaSEi �+3 �r Sc$E
8
a«
`
cros'ee
4 s
x
E
Se gg$
ee$"a_
$5 � o
n"
mp
cm
m
02o$=ems`°c mm °°nS poi S'EL SQi.mcmrL
;E IByt'-^ap o�Eobu'1.ttj�1j, o:�Ec>E�^CE `CCSL�ie
bb
09=C£'[u
my0?L�1?mb ML S��uML mpp ym V,'L60040�9�
VS
��P4
CELm� ��VQpGCSCOSOq�4QLmO �QQ�FNO�Ep'p �G�9Lry
y'm
e'»yiamva£5
�i4 o�L�Pr g�-eG1 S:t�F:E�:3aE
4�
A
A A A A A
.o
m�
bg1p
E
a.F
s_r
w �
u
pE
C�
eo^e
c
5
pm
c
$U'v
m
V?S
2
e�
m b
m
Ell
_OUncUPm
m
g?
j
u'c
Y
z
.T'E
mr. 3?mE�
o•P�
`w�gac
LLga
u
ro=
Ai
E"g€
L moa
.r11
E lr
or
w
a_i_
ES -43
|
"
� ! 9
■
.\;�.9�
!
|)q
§ Eƒ
Eo
�tl
b
;
q!G|
S,
w! a!s!
!! p
2 &
!
a•
R�
t
}
§\|
|
ES-"
![
Table ES -4
Proposed Project Summary
Project
Description
> Would create approximately 366.5 apes of habaat receiving a full tidal range
through an ocean Inlet near Huntington Mesa.
> Would buyout and abandon oil wells located on a portion of the acquired property
and on the adjacent State Ecological Reserve.
> Would dredge approximately 2.7 million cyto eraate a basin.
> Would construct a berm around the basin.
> Would construct a new ocean Inlet that would be approximately 360 feet wide
between the vest of the jetties.
> Would construct a bridge for PCH overthe Inlet channel.
> Would include 200 epee of muted tidal.
> Would include a 252 -acre future full tidal area.
> Would construct a French drain between the wetlands and housing development.
> 120 acres In southeastern comer of the Lowlands would be left uncharged u
sessonalponds.
> ConatruCliDn would take approximately 3 years.
> Increased quality and quantity of open water and intertidal mudflat habitats would
Predicted
Benefits
provide overwintering habitat for migratory shorebirds, seabirds, and waterfowl.
> A healthy and diverse aquatic community of marine and estuarine Invertebrates and
fishes would become established in the full and muted tidal basins.
> The full tidal basin would provide nursery habitat forthe California halibut.
> Nesting habitat for the stale- and federal -listed endangered California least lam and
the federal -listed threatened "stem snowy plover would be Increased.
Additionally, these areas would provide nesting habitat for a variety of otherwater-
associated birds.
> Cordgrass habitat would expand and Is expected to support nesting by the state -
and federal -listed endangered light-footed clapper rail.
> Pickleweed saltmarsh habitat would be enhanced.
> Nesting territory for the stale -listed endangered Belding's savannah sparrow would
expand.
> Increased quality of saitmarsh vegetation may Improve habitat value forthe salt
marsh shrew.
> A diverse wetlands ecosystem would result from the preservation of nontidal
habitats including seasonal ponds/sand flats and perennial brackish ponds.
> Upgrades to the Lowlands would indirectly benefit surrounding land uses by
providing improved public passive use and visual enhancement.
> New and enhanced public access opportunities would result.
> Addition of construction jobs and increases in visitors to the area could benefit the
local economy.
Potentially
D Potentially significant (Class l) impact to water quality from discharge of sediments
Significant
In the nearshore zone to prefill the ebb barto equilibrium.
Construction
> Potentially significant (Class 1) impacts to stale endangered Belding's savannah
Impacts
sparrow from temporary loss of breeding territories during construction.
> Potentially significant (Class 11) impact from loss of a the Bolsa
portion of China
Stale Beach parking area and beach area used during construction for staging and
ocean inlet construction.
D Potentially significant (Class 11) impact from temporary loss of restroom facilities
near staginglinlet construction area.
> Potentially significant, adverse (Class p Impact from loss of beach
use at the
location of the PCN bridge and ocean inlet during holidays and weekends.
D Inlet construction would result in loss of surfing use at Lots 1e and 15 and could
further constrain heavily used surfing area at Lots 23 and 24, a significant. adverse
Class I int aa.
anam ES45
the character of the see, atter the existing viewshed, and change viewers
expectation of the beach, a Clem I significant, adverse impact.
D Conflicts between construction traffic and local resident traffic on Sespolnt Avenue
would result In a potentially significant (Class 11) traffic Impact.
D Conflicting construction vehicle turning movements at the PCH staging area would
result In a potentially significant (Class Ip traffic impact.
D Construction may result in the exceedances of daily and quarterly NOx limitations,
producing a potentially signlflrant (Class I) Iopact
D Construction may result in exmedances of daily and quarterly PMro limitations,
resulting in a significant (Class II) Impact.
D Traffic noise from haul trucks may muse significant. adverse (Class 11) impacts to
Potentially ) Potentially signifunt impact (Class 1) because construction or an Oman inlet mum
Significant expose the wetlands to oil In the event of an offshore oil Will.
Post- D Potentially signifcant (Class 11) Impacts to residences from changes in groundwater
Construction flow.
Impacts D Potentially significant (Class Ip impacts to grunion from placing sand on the beach
during maintenance dredging of the tidal inlet.
D Potentially significant Impacts (Class 11) to coastal woollyheads from introducing
tidal flow to the edges of Rabbit Island.
D Jetties In the surf Zone near the ocean inlet could result In a potentially significant
(Class 11) safety impact to surfers and swimmers.
D if maintenanu dredging were performed 24 hours per day, Class It noise Impacts to
max E6�B
einem
Table ES -5
let Sub-Attemative Summary
Project
> Future full tidal area would be restored at the same time as the rest of the wetlands.
Desoription
> Oil operations would be bought out, wasting wells and olkmlated contaminants
would be removed.
> A 276 -foot -wide trapezoidal channel would be constructed between the full tidal
basin and the future full tidal basin.
Predicted
Similar to the Proposed Project wdh the following differences:
Benefits
> Additional hath benefits ham the increased amount of full Intal mudllat and
cordgress.
> Addhional aesthetic banef0. o the Proposed Project would result from restoration
of the future full tidal area sooner rather than later.
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project.
Significant
Construction
Impacts
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
Significant
> Excavation of an offshore borrow pit to provide additional material to prefll the ebb
Post-
bar would occur during Phase I restoration rather than In 15 to 20 years.
Construction
> Phase II construction would not be required; therefore, no air quality impacts would
Impacts
be related to such operations.
mnam ES47
Table ESi
2nd Sub -A temstiw Summary
Project
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
basin in the northeast comer of the Lowlands would be restored
Description
D The future full bdal
concurrently with the rest of the wetlands.
D Oil operations would be bought out, e"ing wells and oil -related eomaMnams
would be removed.
D Grading woultl occur to increase Intertidal hebhat.
D A 275 -foot -wide trapezoidal channel would be constructed between the full tidal
basin and the future full tidal basin in the central Lowlands.
Pretlictetl
Similarto the Propose0 Project with the following differences:
Benefits
ditional he at bene s from Increased ltidal muctflat il own
Additional public access opportunities result from ability tnd
y> ca to offalte
trans.
D Additional aesthetic benefit over the Proposed Project resulting from restoration of
the future full tidal area sooner rather then later.
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project -
Significant
Construction
Impacts
Potentially
Similar to the Proposetl Project with the following differences:
Significant
D Excavation of an offshore borrow pct to provide additional material to prefill the ebb
Post-
bar would occur during Phase I restoration ralherthan in 15 to 20 years.
Construction
D Phase 11 construction would not be required, therefore, no air quality impacts would
Impacts
be related to such o eretione.
am ESAIS
Mr.
Table ES -7
Aftemative t Summary
Project
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences.
Description
> All flows from EGGW Flood Control Channel would be routed 10 the full tidal basin.
> EGGW Flood Control Channel would no longer discharge into Outer Bolsa Bay.
> 416.3 acre full tidal basin.
Predicted
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
Benefits
> Removal of flows from EGGW Flood Control Channel to Outer Bolo Bay would
improve water quality and diversity of aquatic organisms in Outer Bolsa Bay.
> Potenhal floodinn of PCH from Bolsa Bay would be reduced.
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project.
Significant
Construction
Int acts
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
Significant
> Potential for elevated bacteria levels during storm flows which may muse temporary
Post-
closure of nearshore zone water, resulting in a significant, adverse (Class 1) impact.
Construction
> Potentially significant water quality impact (Class 1) from exmedanm of water
Impacts
quality standards in the wetlands and coastal waters during storm flows.
> Potentially significant water quality and recreation Impacts (Class Ip by immedance
Of standards for Enterococcus bacteria during tl weather.
a nram ES -40
Table E94
Alternative 2 summary
Project
Similar to the Proposed Pmjeci with the following differences:
Description
> 111.9 acre full tidal basin.
> New ocean inlet near Rabbit Island.
> All fiows from EGGW Flood Control Channel would discharge Into the hp tidal
basin.
> Connection between Outer Bolsa Bay and Inner Bold Bay would be blocked.
> Inner Bolsa Bay would receive muted tidal flows from culverts connecting it with full
tidal basin.
> PCH bridge would be similar to the Proposed PmjecL but State Park 100ess bridge
would be a separate structure.
> Permanent atten0ons to Bolsa Chia Slate Beach facilities of the ocean Inlet would
include the loss of approximately 65,000 square feet of parking area and 1 restroom
building.
> Approximately 220,5D0 cy of additional sandy material would need to be "cal
from an offshore borrow site to prefill of the ebb bar.
Predicted
Similar to the Proposed Project with line following differences:
Benefits
> Connection between Inner SDIU Bay and the new full tidal basin would Improve
water quality in Inner Bolsa Bay.
> Water quality In Outer Bolsa Bay would be better than with the Proposed Project
because no flows from EGGW Flood Control Channel would enter.
> Potential for floodin I of PCH would be reduced.
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following difference:
Significant
D The proposed Intel is located in an area considered very tight for surfing use;
Construction
therefore no significant, adverse (Class IID impacts to surfing use would mutt.
impacts
Potentially
Similar to the Proposetl Project with the following differences:
Significant
> A permanent loss of beach parking would resull, a significant. adverse (Class II)
Post.
Construction
impact.
> Potential for elevated bacteria levels during alorm flows may cause temporary
Impacts
closure of nearshore zone water, resulting in a significant, adverse (Class 1) impact.
> Potentially significant water quality impact (Class 1) from exceedance of water
quality standards In the wetlands and coastal waters during slomt flows.
> Potentially significant water quality and recreation impacts (Class II) by "Wedanee
of standards for Enterococcus bacteria during dry weather.
a a ES -50
renew
Table ES -9
Alternative J Summary
Project
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
Description
> 449.2 acre full tidal basin which would Include the central Lowlands, Outer Bolsa
Bay, and the Boise pocket.
> New ocean inlet at the northern potion of Bolsa Chin State Beach, nearthe
Intersection of Warner Avenue and PCH.
> All flows from EGGW Flood Control Channel would discharge into the full tidal
basin.
> PCH bridge and State Park accent bridge would be separate structures.
> Permanent alterations to Boise Chica State Beach facilities would include the loss of
approximately 45,OD0 square feel of asphah parking area and 2 restroom buildings.
> About 267,600 cy of material would need to be exuvated from an offshore borrow
site to prefill of the ebb bar.
> A channel would need to be dredged through Outer Bolsa Bay to accommodate the
Increased tidal flows.
Predicted
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
Benefits
> Connection between Inner Bolsa Bay and the new full tidal basin would Increase
water quality in Inner Boise Bay.
> A new bean around Outer Bolsa Say would reduce potential for flooding of PCH.
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
Signiflum
> Inlet construction would result In loss of surfing use at Lots 24 and 25, and would
Construction
further constrain already heavily used Lots 14 and 15, resulting in a significant.
Impacts
adverse (Clan 1) Impact.
> Potentially significant impacts to water quality (Clan Ip from resuspension of
sediments during dred2ing in Outer Bolsa Say.
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
Significant
> A permanent loss of beach parking would result from this Alternative, a significant
Post-
adverse (Clan II) impact.
Construction
> Potential for elevated bacteria levels during stone flows may cause temporary
Impacts
closure of nearshure zone water, resulting in a significant, adverse (Clan 1) impact.
> Potentially significant water quality impact (Class I) from exceedance of water
quality slandards In the wetlands and coastal waters during storm flows.
> Potentially signiunt water quality and recreation impacts (Class II) by exceedance
of standards for Enterocowus bacteria during dry weather.
meow ES 51
Table ES -10
Attsmati" s Summary
Project
Similar iD the Proposed Project with the following differences:
> Approximately 182,900 cy of additional material would be obtained from an offshore
Description
borrow she to prefill the ebb bar.
D 995.9 acre full tidal basin.
> New ocean Inlet near Rabbi Island.
D EGGW Flood Control Channel would discharge directly to the ocean through an
Outlet channel adjacent to the tidal inlet.
D Inner Bolsa Bay would receive muted tidal flows from culverts connecting a with full
tidal basin.
D PCM bridge would be similar to other attematives but an additional bridge would
cross the Good control channel outlet.
D The Stale Park access bridges would be separate structures.
D Permanent alterations to Bolsa Chia Stale Beach facilities would include loss of
■ roximatel 105,000 uarefeet of Arkin area and 1 restroom buildi
Predicted
Similar to the Propose tl Project with the following differences:
Benefits
D Connection between Inner Bolsa Bay and the new full tidal Dalin would improve
water quality in Inner Bolsa Bay.
D Water quality in Oiler Bolsa Bay would be better than with the Proposed Project
because no flows from EGGW Flood Control Channel would enter.
D Potential for floodin of PCN would be reduced.
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following Orfference:
Significant
> The proposed inlet is located In an area considered very light for surfing use;
Construction
therefore no signifcam, adverse (Class III) impacts to surfing use would result.
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
D A permanent loss of beach parking would result from this Alternative, a significant,
adverse (Class II) impact.
D Potential for elevated Enterococcus levels during admit flows may "use temporary
E
closure of nearshore zone water, resulting in a significant, adverse (Class 1) impact.
D Potentially significant water quality impact (Class p from exceadance of water
quality standards in the wetlands and coastal waters during storm flows.
> Potentially significant water quality and recreation impacts (Class 11) from
exceedance of standards for Enterococcus bacteria during dry weather.
nn ES -52
arnam
Table ES -11
Ahemative 5 Summary
Project
Description
Similarto the Proposed Project with the following differences:
> Wetlands restoration with no new ocean Inlet
> Managed tidal system with seawater flows from Huntington Harbour controlled by
water management structures.
> Seawater flows from Huntington Harbour to the Lowlands only during neap tides.
> Managed sea water- and freshwater Input.
> No changes to Inner Boise Bay.
> Off wells would be removed as on reserves are depleted.
> Gates of the EGGW Flood Control Channel would be moved approximately 1,600
fed upstream.
> Seasonal freshwater pond habitat would be created on a portion of the Fieldstone
property in the northwest comer of the site. CDFG cell would become a seasonal
pond area.
> Construction would take 16 months.
> Rabbit Island would remain u land.
Predicted
Much fess than the Proposed Project with the following spec differences:
Benefits
> Increases to wetlands function and values would occur but would be much lass than
the Proposed Project.
> Water quality In the Lowlands would be slightly hnproved.
> No benefits would occur for marine fish such as California halibut.
> No cordgress habitat would be created.
> No benefits would occur for the endangered light-footed clapper hall.
> Increase in quantity and quality of habitat for wintering shorebirds and waterfowl
would be slight.
Potentially
Similar to me Proposed Project whh the following differences:
Significant
> No potentially significant (Class I) impacts to water quality would occur from turbidity
Construction
created in ocean waters during prefill of the ebb bar.
Impacts
> Temporary loss of breeding lemtories for state endangered Belding's savannah
sparrow would be insignificant (Class Ilp.
> No sign cent (Class I or II) land ownershipland use, recreation, orvisual
resources4ight and glare impacts have been identified.
> Because there would be no PCH bridge or ocean inlet, no access Issues would
occur and there would be no lem ora loss of recreational use.
Potentially
51milarto the Proposed Project with the following differences:
Significant
> Maintenance dredging and Phase 11 construction would not be required; therefore,
Post-
Construction
no air quality impacts would be related to such operations.
> Because mere would be no ocean inlet, there would not be a potentially significant
Impacts
(Class 1) impact from exposure of the wetlands to oil from an offshore split.
> There would not be a potentially significant impact (Class II) impact to residences
from changes In groundwater bow.
> There would not be a potentially significant impact (Class Ip to grunion from
placement of sand on the beach during maintenance dredging.
> There would not be a potentially significant (Class II) Impact to coastal woolly -heads
from introducing tidal flow to the edge$ of Rabbit Island.
> There would not be a potentially significant (Class 11) hazard to swimmers from
construction of a tidal inlet and associated Jellies.
mnom ES -53
Table ES -13
ARamativa s Summary
Project
Descnption
Similar to the Propose tl Projectwith the following difference:
D Aside weir would be Installed Into the levee of the EGGW Flood Control Channel to
allowspillover of a p2rUon of the peak flood d,schar2es into the full tidal basin.
Predicted
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following cmvrvnce:
> Spilloverof flthe full basin during major storms would reduce
Benefits
Into
pe 1 se BOY
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project.
Significant
Construction
Im acts
Potentially
Similar to the Proposed Project with the following differences:
Enferococous levels during t0 -year or greater storms which
Significant
D Potential for elevated
may cause temporary closure of nearshore zone water, resulting In a significant,
Post-
Construction
adverse (Class 1) Impact.
D Potentially significant water quality Impact (Class 0 from exceedonce of water
Impacts
quality standards In the wetlands and coastal waters during 10 year or greater storm
flows.
VIP ES -54
MM