Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout43 - NB-2 - Additional Documents - 9/15/2015ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS NEW BUSINESS ITEM #2 MEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Fairview park Attachments: 0493 -6 -Trail Real ignment_091415.pdf From: MUNOZ, ERNESTO Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:21 PM To: KATRINA FOLEY<foley4costamesa@gmail.com> Cc: HATCH, THOMAS <THOMAS.HATCH @costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENSINGER@costamesaca.gov>; MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHAN@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; RODELIUS, SHARON <SHARON.RODELI US@costamesaca.gov>; Gary Monahan <garymonahan@att.net>; LETOURNEAU, TAMARA <TAMARA.LETOU RN EAU @costamesaca.gov> Subject: RE: Fairview park Council Member Foley, We have reviewed the comments made in the Facebook post and we are providing the following responses (in red). Also, subsequent to concerns raised regarding the designation of the path for the proposed realigned trail as "riverine wetlands", and to provide accurate information to the Council, a field investigation was conducted by the firm of Glenn Lukos Associates. Their memorandum, outlining their findings which support the responses to the comments made on the Facebook site is included herein for your information. Mr. Tony Bomkamp with Glenn Lukos Associates will be available at tonight's meeting to answer any questions you may have regarding his findings. Mr. Bomkamp is a Field Botanist, Wetlands Biologist, and Senior Specialist at Glenn Lukos Associates with extensive experience in wetlands delineation through Southern California. Please note that if the City moves forward with the trail realignment alternative, it would be required to prepare all the environmental studies and reports so they may be reviewed by all the applicable regulatory agencies. No work on the trail would begin until the City has cleared all the environmental requirements as per CEQA and NEPA and approval is obtained by the granting agencies. Facebook comments and responses (in red): Important City Council Meeting on Tuesday September 15th! New business item 2 on the agenda is regarding a proposed 8 foot wide concrete multi-purpose trail / road (plus 4 feet of shoulder) to be bulldozed through Fairview Park's only naturally formed canyon and historic watershed. Luckily we have one more chance to say no to the realignment. Make sure to show up at the meeting or send an email to the Costa Mesa city council and let them know the Fairview Park north bluff trail realignment is NOT consistent with the Fairview Park Master Plan. Here are just a few reasons why it is not consistent with the master plan: 1. The Master Plan clearly states that the canyon the proposed realignment goes through is to be restored with coastal bluff scrub plant community with no mention of a concrete trail or road. The switchback trail an the Fairview Park Master Plan was amended as a minor amendment to the Fairview Park Master Plan at the May 24, 2006 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting as a realigned 4 ft. wide ADA trail. Staff captured a $200,000 grant from the State Parks and Recreation Habitat Conservation Fund in November 2013 to restore 2 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub, which includes the canyon, and to build the 4 ft. DG trail through the canyon. This project has not been started and the funding is still available. If the existing trail is realigned, staff would work with the granting agencies to revise the scope of work for this grant. 2. The Master Plan is clear about protecting the park's biological resources including gnat catcher habitat and other endangered or threatened habitat which the canyon does have. Not only is there riparian habitat but rare trap door spider habitat that the FPMP specifically mentions as being in the canyon. A biological survey was conducted by the City's consultant, LSA Associates Inc. in 2005 and 2006 (included in the Fairview Park Master Plan) which did not detect any California Trapdoor Spiders. The coastal sage scrub that is located immediately east of the proposed north -south segment of the proposed realigned trail exhibits some potential for supporting the coastal California gnatcatcher; however, the project would not result in the loss of coastal sage scrub and as such there would be no potential for direct impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher. In order to ensure that there would be no indirect impacts during construction, the work would either 1) be performed outside the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season (February 15 to July 31) or that pre -construction surveys by a qualified biologist be conducted to ensure that there are no coastal California gnatcatchers using the area. If coastal California gnatcatcher is detected, then work would be delayed until nesting is completed. Should coastal California gnatcatchers be detected, the City will notify U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that potential impacts are fully avoided. 3. The Master Plan clearly states the canyon is part of the historic watershed of the park. The intent of the master plan was to protect the watershed in the most natural way possible. The proposed trail does not change existing drainage patterns in the park. The work covered by the Habitat Conservation Fund grant includes removing all non-native plants and replanting the canyon with appropriate California native plant species. Furthermore, the canyon Mayor Mensinger (and potentially his 3 member council majority) might bulldoze is listed in the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory. Neither the city of Costa Mesa nor the CDFW has any record of any permits the city would have needed to obtain before part of the canyon was damaged in 2009. That particular damage included environmentally sensitive areas. No where in the Master Plan does it condone illegally destroying habitat. If anything the city needs to restore the canyon and return it to how it was before 2009 let alone build a trail / road through there. Building the mayor's road through the park will no doubt cost the city even more money in legal fees and lost credibility. The grant awarded by the California Department of Parks and Recreation will restore the Coastal Sage Scrub in the canyon and connect it to the recently restored "Vandersloot Garden"/Eagle Scout Project. The USFWS Wetland Inventory shows the north -south canyon segment as containing "Riverine Wetlands". The area was carefully evaluated by a biologist for wetland conditions including signs of wetland hydrology, vegetation, and hydric soils. Given all of these considerations, it is clear that the subject canyon has been inaccurately mapped as a "Riverine Wetland". It is also noteworthy to point out that the figure provided by USFWS includes the following disclaimer. "This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or correctness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site" It is important to also note that USFWS has no regulatory authority over "wetlands" per se; rather, impacts to wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. As already noted, the area fails to meet the Corps' wetland definition which requires that wetland hydrology, hydric soils and wetland vegetation ALL be present at the same location for an area to be considered wetland under Section 404. Given that all three criteria are absent, the area is not a wetland under Section 404. The area also fails to meet the new definition of Waters of the U.S as set forth in the new regulation issued jointly by the Corps and EPA on June 29, 2015. The plans and specifications for the construction of the Wetlands project included the use of the soil generated from the construction of the ponds at two possible degraded locations within the park; The canyon in question, and the location over ORA -58 to use the soil as a cap for the archeologically sensitive site. The Canyon area was selected over ORA -58 because it was denuded of vegetation and it was badly eroded and degraded by the constant use of BMX bike enthusiasts. No habitat was destroyed with this work. Please let me know if we can answer any additional questions on this item. Ernesto Munoz, P.E. Public Services Director City of Costa Mesa 714-754-5343 ernesto.munoz@costamesaca.gov From: Katrina Foley -Costa Mesa City Councilmember[mailto:foley4costamesa @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 6:19 AM To: MUNOZ, ERNESTO <ERNESTO.MUNOZ costamesaca. ov>; HATCH, THOMAS <THOMAS.HATCH @costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fairview park I'd like to get some information that helps me understand this project better. What is the response to some of these concerns? https://www. fac,ebook.com/FairviewNaturePark/posts/959235517468367.0 Katrina Foley Costa Mesa City Council www.costamesaca.gov www.katrinafole. @katrinafoley Sent from my Whone MEMORANDUM GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Regulatory Services PROJECT NUMBER: 04930006MANA TO: Bart Mejia FROM: Tony Bomkamp DATE: September 14, 2015 SUBJECT: Results of Review of Biological Resources Associated with the Fairview Park North Bluff Trail Alternative Alignment On September 4, 2015, I conducted a site visit to review the biological resources associated with the Fairview Park North Bluff Trail Alternative Alignment [Attachment 1 from City's Staff Report dated August 27, 2015 included as Exhibit 11. Site Description The North Bluff Trail Alternative Alignment includes a north -south segment and an east -west segment. The north -south segment follows an existing trail and much of this segment is contained in a gentle canyon that extends from portions of the Fairview Park mesa, dropping in elevation as the trail extends to the north wbere it makes a sweeping westerly turn to where it connects with another existing trail. The north -south trail segment consists of a heavily used trail that is highly compacted and supports minimal vegetation [Exhibit 2, Photograph 1]. Vegetation within this segment is generally restricted to the unused outer portions of the trail and includes a few native goldenbush shrubs (Isocoma menziesii) and a number of weeding species including summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), tumble weed (Amaranthus albus), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandii lora), and ragweed (Ambrosia aconthicarpus). The slope to the east supports coastal sage scrub and the slope to the west support a predominance of non-native grasses and forbs. The proposed east -west segment leaves the canyon and associated trail and cuts across the toe of a gentle slope as it extends to the west. The slope is dominated by non-native forbs including summer mustard, Russian thistle, horehound, doveweed (Croton setigerus), stinking gourd (Curcrbita foetidissima), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) [Exhibit 2, Photograph 21. The area which the proposed realigned trail traverses supports small patches of southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) that have been introduced as a habitat restoration project, which is supported by irrigation. 29 Orchard Lake Forest California 92630-8300 Telephone; (949) 837-0404 Facsimile; (949) 837-5834 MEMORANDUM September 14, 2015 Page 2 Impact Analysis With the exception of the southern tarplant, which occurs along the northerly edge of the east - west segment of the area proposed for the trail realignment, there are no special -status resources that would be impacted by the proposed alternative alignment. The coastal sage scrub that occurs immediately east of the north -south segment exhibits some potential for supporting the coastal California gnatcatcher; however, the project would not result in the loss of coastal sage scrub and as such there would be no potential for direct impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher; however, in order to ensure that there would be no indirect impacts during construction, it is recommended that the work either 1) be performed outside the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season (February 15 to July 31) or 2) pre -construction surveys by a qualified biologist be conducted to ensure that there are no coastal California gnatcatchers using the area. If coastal California gnatcatcher is detected, then work would be delayed until nesting is completed and the fledglings are no longer dependent on the nest. Should coastal California gnatcatchers be detected, it is recommended that the City notify U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that potential impacts are fully avoided. Impacts to the southern tarplant would be considered adverse; however, any potential impacts can be easily mitigated through seed collection and distribution consistent with the existing restoration program. As such, any potential impacts to the southern tarplant can be reduced to levels well below significant. Jurisdictional Streambeds The USFWS Wetland Inventory shows the north -south canyon segment as containing "Riverine Wetlands". During the site review, the area was carefully evaluated for wetland conditions including signs of wetland hydrology, vegetation, and hydric soils. For the reasons set forth below, we have determined that the "Riverine Wetland" designation was an error and no wetland habitat is present in this portion of Fairview Park. The USFWS wetland definition is found in. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States' WETLANDS are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric Cowardin, Louis M., Virginia Carter, Francis Golet, and Edward LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological services program; PWS/OBS-79/31 . MEMORANDUM September 14, 2015 Page 3 soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. The canyon does not contain hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soils, but it does contain soil, so it does not exhibit any of the three potential attributes of a "wetland" pursuant to the USFWS definition. Also, the absence of wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils, as set forth in the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region Version 2.02, means that there are no wetlands as defined by the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as discussed in more detail below. "Riverine Wetlands" are defined in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats. as follows: Definition: The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) habitats with water containing ocean derived salts in excess of 0.5 ppt. A channel is "an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water" (Langbein and Iseri 1960:5). Limits: The Riverine System is bounded on the landward side by upland, by the channel bank (including natural and man-made levees), or by wetland dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens. In braided streams, the system is bounded by the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. The Riverine System terminates at the downstream end where the concentration of ocean -derived salts in the water exceeds 0.5 ppt during the period of annual average low flow, or where the channel enters a lake. It terminates at the upstream end where tributary streams originate, or where the channel leaves a lake. Springs discharging into a channel are considered part of the Riverine System. "Riverine Wetlands" are separated into four subsystems: "Tidal' "Upper Perennial', "Lower Perennial' and "Intermittent." Each is defined in terms of water permanence, gradient, water velocity, substrate, and the extent of floodplain development as described below. Tidal. - The gradient is low and water velocity fluctuates under tidal influence. The streambed is mainly mud with occasional patches of sand. Oxygen deficits 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Coitus of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichevar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center and Engineering Laboratory. MEMORANDUM September 14, 2015 Page 4 may sometimes occur and the fauna is similar to that in the Lower Perennial Subsystem . The floodplain is typically well developed . Lower Perennial. -The gradient is low and water velocity is slow. There is no tidal influence, and some water flows throughout the year. The substrate consists mainly of sand and mud. Oxygen deficits may sometimes occur, the fauna is composed mostly of species that reach their maximum abundance in still water, and true planktonic organisms are common. The gradient is lower than that of the Upper Perennial Subsystem and the floodplain is well developed. Upper Perennial. -The gradient is high and velocity of the water fast. There is no tidal influence and some water flows throughout the year. The substrate consists of rock, cobbles, or gravel with occasional patches of sand. The natural dissolved oxygen concentration is normally near saturation. The fauna is characteristic of running water, and there are few or no planktonic forms. The gradient is high compared with that of the Lower Perennial Subsystem, and there is very little floodplain development. Intermittent. -In this Subsystem, the channel contains flowing water for only part of the year. When the water is not flowing, it may remain in isolated pools or surface water may be absent. The Corps defines intermittent stream as follows: Intermittent Stream: An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow.3 The subject area in Fairview Park clearly does not fit into "Tidal" "Upper Perennial', or "Lower Perennial' subclasses, leaving only the "Intermittent' subclass as potentially applicable. However, the Intermittent subclass requires flows for some period of the year and such streams are fed at times by high groundwater, neither of which occurs at Fairview Park Given all of these considerations, it is clear that the subject canyon has been inaccurately mapped as a "Riverine Wetland". It is also noteworthy that the map provided by USFWS includes the following disclaimer: This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. s Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers: Reissuance of Nationwide Permits, Final Rule. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Notices .+ MEMORANDUM September 14, 2015 Page 5 All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. While the subject area appears to have been incorrectly designated on a USFWS map, the USFWS has no regulatory authority over "wetlands" per se; rather, impacts to wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. As already noted, the subject area fails to meet the Corps' wetland definition which requires that wetland hydrology, hydric soils and wetland vegetation ALL be present at the same location for an area to be considered wetland under Section 404. Given that all three criteria are absent, the area is not a "wetland" under Section 404. The new definition of Waters of the U.S., as set forth in the regulation issued jointly by the Corps and EPA on June 29, 2015, specifically excludes the rills and erosional features found at Fairview Park:4 (b) The following are not "waters of the United States" even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(4) through (8) of this section ... (vi) Erosional features, including gullies, rills, and other ephemeral features that do not meet the definition of tributary, non -wetland swales, and lawfully constructed grassed waterways; In the preamble to the new rule the Corps and EPA clarify their intent regarding the regulation of rills and erosional features: Further, the rule explicitly excludes from the definition of "waters of the United States" erosional features, including gullies, rills, and ephemeral features such as ephemeral streams that do not have a bed and banks and ordinary high water mark. [p. 37058] Finally, the Fairview Park canyon does not meet CDFW's definition of a "Stream" pursuant to Section1602. The Fish and Game Code defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." The erosional features at Fairview Park do not support surface or subsurface flow capable of supporting any aquatic plants or animals. Thus, the subject area within Fairview Park would not be subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. 4 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency: Clean Water Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States". Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 2015 / Rules. MEMORANDUM September 14, 2015 Page 6 Attachment 1 Photograph 1: View of proposed route for realigned trail looking south up "canyon". Photograph 2: View of proposed route for trail realignment looking west. U) W Q U O Q O Y D J Z z W rJn V N L x W