HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-32 - Approving the Harbor Commission’s Recommendations and Approving a Pilot Project to Reconfigure Mooring Field “C” in Newport Harbor, to Improve Navigation Safety and to Optimize Space within the Mooring FieldRESOLUTION NO. 2023-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
HARBOR COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND
APPROVING A PILOT PROJECT TO RECONFIGURE
MOORING FIELD "C" IN NEWPORT HARBOR, TO
IMPROVE NAVIGATION SAFETY AND TO OPTIMIZE
SPACE WITHIN THE MOORING FIELD
WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission has evaluated the City of Newport Beach's
public mooring fields and provided a recommendation for new guidelines that better
define rows and fairways to improve navigation, safety, and optimize space within the
mooring fields;
WHEREAS, after holding public hearings and soliciting feedback at stakeholder
meetings with resident associations and the Newport Mooring Association, the Harbor
Commission adopted a number of recommendations at its March 8, 2023, meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission's recommendations further include
proposed amendments to Title 17 (Harbor Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
which are the subject of Ordinance No. , which is being considered concurrently with
this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: Subject to Section 2 below, which limits the actual reconfiguration of
the mooring fields to Mooring Field "C", the City Council does hereby approve the Harbor
Commission's recommendations, as more specifically set forth below:
1. Reconfigure the City's mooring fields from the current formation of single -
rows of varying, unspecified lengths to double rows with established maximum lengths.
The mooring design will be the same as the existing, i.e. two mooring buoys, but with a
spreader line to prevent mooring buoys from drifting into the fairways. Alternatively,
permittees may request to have their mooring equipped with a single mooring buoy and
a sand line to retrieve the opposing anchor line (similar to what is used in Catalina).
2. Mooring permittees ("permittees") shall be assigned to moorings that are
appropriate for their mooring lengths. Mooring lengths shall not exceed the established
maximum lengths of the rows but may be shorter. It may not always be feasible to match
permittees to rows matching their mooring lengths. Where a permittee is assigned to a
Resolution No. 2023-32
Page 2 of 5
row that exceeds their mooring length by 5-feet or more, the permittee shall be subject to
relocation upon the City's approval of a valid mooring extension request by another
permittee. The costs of relocation shall be borne by the permittee requesting the mooring
extension. "Mooring length" means the maximum lineal foot of mooring specified on the
mooring permit and which is the basis for calculating the permit rent.
3. To the extent possible, permittees' moorings assignments will match their
pre -reconfiguration locations within the mooring fields. For example, a permittee who
currently has an end -tie mooring will be assigned to an end -tie mooring if available in the
properly -sized row.
4. The Harbormaster may require any permittee to move off or from their
mooring when deemed necessary to address safety or navigation concerns.
5. For the approximately 10 requests for mooring extensions of up to 5 feet
that the City received prior to November 1, 2022, the City will include the requested length
extensions when making the new mooring assignments to the extent adequate space is
available. Pending the new mooring assignments, the Harbormaster may permit those
permittees to extend their mooring lengths by the requested lengths if the Harbormaster
determines that the requested extensions will not adversely affect navigation, safety or
impede either adjacent fairway.
6. The double -row mooring anchor systems may consist either of one shared
anchor or two separate anchors, to be determined by the City. If a helical type of anchor
is used as the one shared anchor, it will be provided by the City. To the fullest extent
possible, all existing mooring equipment and materials (e.g., anchor weights, chains,
tackle, hardware, buoys, etc.) will be used for the new mooring systems. Any additional
anchor weights, chain, lines, conservation buoys or other hardware as necessary per new
engineered specifications shall be provided at City's expense.
7. Permittees shall maintain, repair, and replace all components of the new
anchor mooring system, e.g., all weighted anchors, chains, shackles, weights, lines and
buoys, with the exception of any helical anchors installed by the City.
8. Permittees who are assigned to rows that exceed their mooring lengths
shall not be subject to increased rent for the additional excess length unless they are
approved for a mooring extension.
9. The reconfiguration of the fields will likely result in space for additional
moorings. Permits for the newly -created moorings shall be issued on a basis to ensure
that members of the public have equal opportunity to obtain a permit, such as through a
lottery, waiting list, or other system to be determined by the Harbormaster. Permits for
Resolution No. 2023-32
Page 3of5
new moorings shall be made available to the public at rent that is at or close to fair market
value and shall be non -transferable.
10. Existing mooring permits shall remain fully transferable until surrendered or
revoked. Updates or changes in the information of permits, such as permittee names,
assigned vessel, maximum mooring lengths, or mooring location, shall not constitute the
issuance of a new permit and thus shall have no effect on transferability.
11. The current process for mooring extensions (increasing mooring lengths)
shall be revised. If a permittee desires a mooring extension that will result in their mooring
length exceeding the established length of their row, the permittee will have to relocate to
an available mooring in an appropriately sized row within the same mooring field (the H
and J Fields shall be considered one field). A mooring is considered available if it is vacant
or occupied by a permittee with a mooring length at least 5-feet shorter than the
established length of the mooring row. The permittee requesting the mooring extension
shall bear the costs of moving their vessel and the displaced vessel. Extension requests
shall require payment of a fee. The Harbormaster may approve extension requests upon
making certain findings.
12. Permittees may not exceed the established lengths of their assigned rows.
No part of a vessel or any attachments thereto may extend into the fairways.
13. Specifications regarding moorings and associated equipment will be
determined and adopted by the Harbor Commission instead of by City Council resolution.
Section 2: The City Council hereby authorizes City staff to undertake a pilot
project to reconfigure Mooring Field "C" ("Pilot Project"). The Pilot Project will provide an
opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of possibly expanding the reconfiguration concepts
to the remaining mooring fields. City staff shall return to the City Council and report on
the Pilot Project so the City Council can decide whether a Harbor wide reconfiguration
should be established.
Section 3: The City Council hereby approves Budget Amendment No.
BA- appropriating $410,000.00 to Account No. 10045451-81108 as follows:
1. $75,000 for consulting services and permitting with the California Coastal
Commission and other regulatory agencies;
2. $275,000 for design, engineering, and construction for the pilot project; and
3. $60,000 for post -pilot consulting services for environmental review and
permitting necessary to expand the reconfiguration recommendations to the City's
remaining mooring fields.
Resolution No. 2023-32
Page 4 of 5
Section 4: The City Council hereby adopts the additional offshore mooring
equipment specifications set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 5: The recitals provided in -this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 7: The City Council determines that the adoption of this resolution is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061
(Common Sense Exemption) and categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15302 under
Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Section 15306 under Class 6 (Information
Collection) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3,
because the Pilot Project will have no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment. Under the common sense exemption, an activity is covered by the common
sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing
a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, Section 15302 exempts projects that
replace or reconstruct existing structures or facilities where the new structure will be
located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same
purpose while Section 15306 exempts research, experimental management and resource
evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an
environmental resource. The Pilot Project would be in the same location and serve the
same purpose as the one being replaced. The Pilot Project is simply a reconfiguration of
Mooring Field C's single -row mooring system with a double -row that would result in a
negligible increase in capacity and employ the same number of buoys as the existing
conditions. The CEQA analysis prepared by Dudek, which is attached hereto as Exhibit
"B," and incorporated herein by reference finds that while the Pilot Project is within an
area where eelgrass is known to be present, it will have no effect on eelgrass habitat.
There are no known exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 that would
invalidate the use of this exemption. The Pilot Project location does not impact an
environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative
impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual
circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not
a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource. Additional
Resolution No. 2023-32
Page 5of5
environmental analysis will be conducted if the City Council authorizes expansion beyond
the Pilot Project.
Section 8: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 23rd day of Mav_ 2023_
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
Attachment(s): Exhibit A — Offshore Mooring Specifications
Exhibit B — CEQA Analysis Prepared by Dudek for C Field Pilot
Project
EXHIBIT A
OFFSHORE MOORING SPECIFICATIONS
Spreader Lines. A spreader line is a line used in a double or two -mooring system and
connects the bow and stern buoys. The line shall be at a minimum, 3/4-inch
polypropylene. The spreader line shall be no longer than the length of the mooring plus
five feet, equipped with 9-inch long two-color buoys affixed in -place to the line and no less
than ten feet apart. The spreader line is intended to be affixed in -place and connecting
the two buoys at all times the mooring is absent of a vessel.
Exhibit B
DUDEK
621 CHAPALA STREET
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
T 805.963.0651 F 805.963.2074
MEMORANDUM
To:
Jim Campbell, City of Newport Beach
From:
John Davis IV, Dudek
Subject:
City of Newport Bay's Mooring Field Optimization Initiative - C Field Pilot Project
Eelgrass Impact Analysis
Date:
May 4, 2023
cc:
Matt Valerio, Dudek
Laura Masterson, Dudek
Andrea Dransfield, Dudek
Attachment:
Figure 1
This memorandum documents the results of eelgrass surveys and provides an impact analysis and conclusions
regarding potential impacts to eelgrass beds that may result from the implementation of the City of Newport Bay's
"C" Field Pilot Mooring Reconfiguration Project (project), Newport Bay, California. This project proposes to replace
the existing single -row mooring system within the Mooring "C' Field with a double -row mooring system. The purpose
of this project is to evaluate the current mooring fields and provide recommendations for new guidelines. As per
the March 8, 2023 Harbor Commission Staff Report, the objective of this project is threefold: 1) to more clearly
define rows and fairways to improve navigation and safety for all mariners; 2) to optimize the space within the
mooring fields; and 3) to add additional City moorings within the current mooring fields and provide guidance for
mooring size exchange requests (City of Newport Beach 2023).
Proposed Project
The Pilot Project area consists of the C Field, which measures approximately 5.5 acres within the inner harbor. The
Field C Pilot mooring reconfiguration proposes double -row moorings. To allow for testing of the new layout and for
making any necessary adjustments, only one or two rows may be initially reconfigured. The reconfiguration will
include regular inspections from harbor patrol boats as well as interviews with affected permittees and other
stakeholders. The relocation of moorings and permittees for the first one or two rows is estimated to take two
weeks. Completing the reconfiguration for the rest of C Field is estimated to take 30 days.
The new mooring system would be in the same location and serve the same purpose as the one being replaced.
The reconfiguration would result in a negligible increase in capacity of the mooringfield and would employ the same
number of buoys as the original design. The use of a Categorical Exemption is precluded wherethere is a reasonable
possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances (Section
15300.2 (c)). The project is within an area where eelgrass is known to be present. As such, an eelgrass impact
assessment was conducted in 2022 to show that the project would not have a significant effect on eelgrass habitat
(Marine Taxonomic Services Ltd. 2023). Typical moorings cause scarring that destroys eelgrass beds. This pilot
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS
project will use conservation moorings that will keep the chain mostly off of the sea floor, allowing for normal growth
of eelgrass beds. Conservation moorings are equipped with floating, flexible rodes that are designed to minimize or
eliminate drag on the seafloor by floating throughout the tidal cycle. Eelgrass provides important foraging areas and
shelter to young fish and invertebrates, food for migratory waterfowl and sea turtles, and spawning surfaces for
invertebrates and fish (NOAA Fisheries 2014). By protecting eelgrass beds, this project will help restore marine life
in the harbor.
2 Regulations
2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations
2.1.1 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1801-1884) of 1976, as amended in
1996 and reauthorized in 2007 (Magnuson -Stevens Act), is intended to protect fisheries resources and fishing
activities within 200 miles of shore. The amended law, also known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law
104-297), requires all federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce on proposed projects authorized,
funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The main purpose of
the EFH provisions is to avoid loss of fisheries due to disturbance and degradation of habitat. EFH is regulated
under the Magnuson -Stevens Act, protecting waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity (16 USC 1801 et seq.). Substrates that are considered include sediment, hard
bottom, structures underlying waters, and associated biological communities. Congress defined EFH to mean those
waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. In 2002, NMFS
further clarified EFH with the following definitions (50 CFR 600.05-600.930):
"Waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are
used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate.
"Substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological
communities.
■ "Necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species'
contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a
species' full life cycle.
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) are considered high priority areas for conservation, management, or
research because they are rare, sensitive, stressed by development, or important to ecosystem function. The HAPC
designation does not necessarily mean that additional protections or restrictions are required for an area, but the
designation helps to prioritize and focus conservation efforts. EFH guidelines identify HAPCs as types or areas of
habitat that are identified based on one or more of the following considerations:
• The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat
• The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human -induced environmental degradation
• Whether, and to what extent, development activities are or will be stressing the habitat type
• The rarity of the habitat type
DUDEK MAY 202Y2023
3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS
These areas are detailed in EFH sections of FMPs and are summarized within the Regional Council Approaches to
the Identification and Protection of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (NMFS 2001). Current HAPC types are
estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, rocky reefs, and marine protected areas or areas of interest (such as banks,
seamounts, and canyons). No marine protected areas occur in or adjacent to the project site; therefore, they would
not be affected by the proposed project and are not analyzed in this report.
Seagrass
Seagrasses are one of the only flowering plants, or angiosperms, that can grow in a marine environment. These
plants support a diversity of life and can form extensive beds in shallow, protected, estuarine, or other nearshore
environments. Two common seagrasses that occur in the west coast region are eelgrass (genus Zostera) and
surfgrass (genus Phyllospadix), with eelgrass being the most prevalent in California. Eelgrass (Zostera marina and
Z. pacifica) beds are located in soft, sandy, sheltered seafloor environments, typically in shallow bays and estuaries.
Eelgrass beds function as nursery grounds and provide habitat for juvenile fish, snails, sea stars, anemones, crabs,
and clams, and further serve as potential foraging habitat for sea turtles. Surfgrass beds are located in the rocky
intertidal and subtidal zones with turbulent surf. Surfgrass beds are habitat for several species of invertebrates,
juvenile fish, and epiphytic algae. Eelgrass beds are recognized by federal and state statutes as highly valuable and
sensitive habitats. Eelgrass has been designated as EFH for various fish species managed under the Magnuson -
Stevens Act, and has been listed as a HAPC, identifying it as rare, especially vulnerable to human impacts,
particularly important ecologically, and/or located in environmentally stressed areas.
2.1.2 California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines
As described in the CEMP (NOAA Fisheries 2014), when impacts to eelgrass would occur, an Eelgrass and Marine
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Mitigation Plan) to achieve no net loss in eelgrass function should be
developed. The CEMP provides options for mitigation, including (1) comprehensive management plans (CMPs), (2)
in -kind mitigation, (3) mitigation banks and in -lieu -fee programs, and (4) out -of -kind mitigation. CMPs protect
eelgrass resources within the context of broader ecosystem needs and management objectives (NOAA Fisheries
2014). CMPs may be employed when a project will result in incremental but recurrent impacts to a small portion of
local eelgrass populations through time (e.g., lagoon mouth maintenance dredging, maintenance dredging of
channels and slips within established marinas, etc.). Existing CMPs are considered to provide adequate population -
level and local resource distribution protections to eelgrass, such as the City of Newport Beach Eelgrass Protection
Mitigation Plan for Shallow Water in Lower Newport Bay: An Ecosystem Based Management Plan.
2.2 State Laws and Regulations
2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires identification of a project's potentially significant impacts
on biological resources and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid or reduce significant
impacts. The CEQA Guidelines define endangered animals or plants as species or subspecies whose "survival and
reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in
habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors" (14 CCR 15380[b][1)]). A rare animal
or plant is defined in the CEQA Guidelines as a species that, although not presently threatened with extinction,
exists "in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if
....... ._.. .... _
D U D E K M1AYY 2023
023
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS
its environment worsens; or ... [t]he species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered `threatened' as that term is used in the federal
Endangered Species Act" (14 CCR 15380[b][2]). Additionally, an animal or plant may be presumed to be
endangered, rare, or threatened if it meets the criteria for listing, as defined further in CEQA Guideline 15380(c).
CEQA also requires identification of a project's potentially significant impacts on riparian habitats (such as wetlands,
bays, estuaries, and marshes) and othersensitive natural communities, including habitats occupied by endangered,
rare, and threatened species.
2.2.1 California Coastal Act
In 1972, voters concerned about coastal development, including impacts to public access and coastal resources,
passed the California Coastal Zone Conservation Initiative (Proposition 20), in turn creating CCC. This initiative
declared the California Coastal Zone (Coastal Zone) as a distinct and valuable natural resource belonging to all
people and existing as a delicately balanced ecosystem, requiring conservation and protection of remaining natural
and scenic resources forthe Coastal Zone. As a result, it was determined that, to promote public safety, health, and
welfare and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, other ocean resources, and the natural
environment, it was necessary to preserve the ecological balance of the Coastal Zone and prevent its further
deterioration and destruction. The initiative also determined that it is the policy of the state to preserve, protect,
and where possible restore the resources of the Coastal Zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding
generations. In 1976, the California State Legislature enacted the California Coastal Act, which is the primary law
governing the decisions of CCC. The California Coastal Act guides new development in an effort to improve public
access to coastal areas. The Coastal Zone encompasses 1.5 million acres of land, stretching from 3 miles at sea
to an inland boundary that varies from several blocks in urban areas to as many as 5 miles in less developed areas.
The Coastal Zone extends into federal waters under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, covering
approximately 1,100 miles of California coastline from Oregon to Mexico, including 287 miles of shoreline
surrounding nine offshore islands.
2.3 Regional and Local Plans
2.3.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan
The City of Newport Beach General Plan is intended to provide protection and preservation for existing
neighborhoods. The subjects of the Conservation and Open Space Element have been merged into the Natural
Resources Element Chapter 10. The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide direction
regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies Newport Beach's natural
resources and policies for their preservation, development, and wise use. This element addresses: water supply (as
a resource) and water quality (includes bay and ocean quality, and potable drinking water), air quality, terrestrial
and marine biological resources, open space, archaeological and paleontological resources, mineral resources,
visual resources, and energy (City of Newport Beach 2006).
Goal NR 11: Protection of environmental resources in Newport Harbor while preserving and enhancing public
recreational boating activities.
Policies:
._.... ...... ............. ...
.
DUDEK MAY 02AY2023 4
3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS
NR 11.1 Harbor Area Management Plan. Develop a Harbor Area Management Plan that will provide a
comprehensive approach to the management of the resources of Newport Bay, such as protection of
eelgrass and other natural resources, dredging for navigation, and continued use of private piers.
NR 11.2 Joint City/County Study. Prepare and fund a joint City/County study that would (a) identify the
respective services provided by the City and County in Newport Harbor, (b) determine the cost of these
services, (c) identify opportunities if any, for the City and County to realign resources to provide services at
reduced costs, (d) identify the sources of revenue available to defray the cost of those services, and (e)
identify potential feasible methods of providing those services other tan with public agency personnel such
as volunteers.
NR 11.3 Eelgrass Protection. Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the extent feasible. Mitigate
losses of eelgrass in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the
restoration of eelgrass in Newport Harbor at appropriate sites, where feasible.
NR 11.4 Interagency Coordination on Establishing Eelgrass Restoration Sites. Cooperate with the County
of Orange, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource agencies to establish eelgrass restoration sites.
NR 11.5 Eelgrass Mitigation. Allow successful eelgrass restoration sites to serve as mitigation sites for City
projects and as a mitigation bank from which eelgrass mitigation credits will be issued to private property
owners for eelgrass removal resulting from dock and channel dredging projects.
2.3.2 City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program
This document establishes the Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program of the City of Newport Beach,
prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (City of Newport 2018). The Coastal Land Use Plan
sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of
Newport Beach and its sphere of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch.
Policies:
Biological Resources
4.1.4-1. Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important ecological function as a nursery and
foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem.
4.1.4-2. Implement eelgrass restoration and enhancement programs in Newport Harbor.
4.1.4-3. Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other structures that extend over the water to avoid
impacts to eelgrass meadows. Encourage the use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and the
growth of eelgrass.
4.1.4-4. Provide for the protection of eelgrass meadows and mitigation of impacts to eelgrass meadows in
a comprehensive harbor area management plan for Newport Bay.
D U D E K MAY
3
202
MAY 023
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS
4.1.4-5. Where applicable require eelgrass and Caulerpa taxifolia surveys to be conducted as a condition
of City approval for projects in Newport Bay in accordance with operative protocols of the Southern
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa taxifolia Survey protocols.
Eelgrass Protection and Restoration
4.2.5-1. Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses of
eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation
Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible.
4.2.5-2. Continue to cooperate with the County of Orange, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource
agencies to establish eelgrass restoration sites.
4.2.5-3. Conduct studies to establish an eelgrass acreage baseline for Newport Harbor based on the
distribution, density, and productivity, necessary for eelgrass meadows to fulfill their ecological function.
4.2.5-4. Cooperate with the National Marine Fisheries Service to incorporate a provision into the Southern
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy that would allow exemptions to mitigation requirements for harbor
maintenance projects for provided the eelgrass acreage baseline is maintained.
4.2.5-5. Cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coastal Commission, and the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board to incorporate the eelgrass acreage baseline exemption provision into
the City's Regional General Permit and into any individual property owner's dredging or dock construction
permit that qualifies under future applications.
4.2.5-6. Perform periodic surveys of the distribution of eelgrass in Newport Bay in cooperation with the
National Marine Fisheries Services to ensure that the eelgrass baseline is maintained.
4.2.5-7. Cooperate with resource agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of biological,
recreational, commercial and aquatic resources of Newport Harbor and to develop a Harbor Area
Management Plan (HAMP) that will maintain all of the intended beneficial uses of the harbor.
2.3.3 Newport Bay Eelgrass Mitigation Plan
The City adopted a Bay -specific eelgrass mitigation plan in 2015. The plan was entitled "Eelgrass Protection and
Mitigation Plan for Shallow Waters in Lower Newport Bay: An Ecosystem Based Management Program" (Plan) (City
of Newport Beach 2015). The Plan is an outcome of the City of Newport Beach HAMP, as issued in April 2010 and
approved by City Council in November 2010 (City of Newport Beach 2010). The HAMP was established to set goals
and best management practices (BMPs) in order to ensure a healthy eelgrass population within Lower Newport Bay.
The Plan seeks to protect and promote a long-term sustainable eelgrass population while serving Lower Newport
Bay's navigational and recreational beneficial uses. The goal of the Plan is an ecosystem -based approach that
works by protecting a sustainable eelgrass population in the Lower Newport Bay and enforcing BMPs that will
promote eelgrass growth. Particular attention is placed on maintenance dredging activity associated with minor
maintenance dredging under and adjacent to private, public, and commercial docks, floats, and piers currently
authorized under the City's RGP 54 from USACE, RWQCB, and CCC. The Plan is an integral component of the
authorized RGP 54. Exceptions include demolition, repair, and in -kind replacement of docks (including piers,
gangways, floats, and piles), bulkheads, and piles with similar structures that are excluded from the current
approved RGP 54 program. Eelgrass impacts as a result of beach replenishment or disposal of dredged material in
D V D E K MAY 02AY 3
2023
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS
front of an existing bulkhead are not covered. The California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy governs all other activities
that affect eelgrass.
3 Impact Analysis
The proposed "pilot" project reconfigures 55 moorings in Mooring Field C in the southwest portion of lower Newport
Bay. Eelgrass (Zostera marina and Z. pacific) is not currently present in Mooring Field C and this pilot project is not
expected to directly or indirectly impact eelgrass based on 2022 eelgrass surveys and implementation of
recommended measures (See Table 1 and Section 4.1 below). Eelgrass distribution has increased considerably in
Newport Bay since the 2009-2010 survey, and it continued to expand throughout Newport Bay between 2020 and
2022 and in "regions" adjacent to Mooring Field C (MTS and CRM 2023). Specifically, there are three eelgrass
"regions" adjacent to Mooring Field C: Region 3 (East Balboa Peninsula), 6 (Bay Island), and Region 23 (Deep Water
Eelgrass Habitat). Region 3 is to the south/southwest of Mooring Field C and increased by 2.52 acres between
2020 and 2022. Region 6 is to the north/northeast of Mooring Field C and increased by 0.28 acre between 2020
and 2022; and Region 23 is to the southwest of Mooring Field C and did not increase in acreage but is a
considerable eelgrass bed (62.20 acres) (MTS and CRM 2023). Additionally, Dudek used NOAA Fisheries' (2014)
eelgrass habitat definition and included a 5-meter buffer around the mooring locations in the impact analysis to
account for the potential expansion of eelgrass from these regions towards Mooring Field C. Currently, Mooring
Field C avoids eelgrass beds by 5-meters or more.
Figure 1. Impacts to Eelgrass from the Mooring Fields Optimization Initiative
Note: 1 Moorings currently exist within the mooring field.
2 2022 Eelgrass Survey (MTS and CRM 2023)
4 Conclusion
Direct and indirect impacts are unlikely to occur from implementation of the proposed "pilot" mooring project in
Mooring Field C. The distance of the eelgrass beds from Mooring Field C, while in close proximity, have able distance
to avoid direct impacts even if the eelgrass beds expand in 2023. However, while it is unlikely that the eelgrass
beds of the adjacent regions will expand within the 2023 growing season into Mooring Field C, pre -construction
surveys are recommended per NOAA Fisheries guideline on potential project impacts to eelgrass or
"implementation guidelines for California" (2014). Additionally, Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act permitting under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer for in water projects within the bay typically require a pre -
construction survey for eelgrass. Turbidity poses the primarily indirect impact to neighboring eelgrass beds. The
techniques employed for removal of the existing moorings and installation of the new moorings will determine the
level of protection between the moorings and eelgrass beds or regions. Please refer to Section 4.1 for
recommended measures to avoid potential impacts to eelgrass within Newport Bay.
D U D E K 1 Y 2023
MAY 2023
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS
4.1 Recommended Measures
Eelgrass Survey. A pre -construction survey of Mooring Field C including a buffer to account for indirect impacts (i.e.,
action area) and an appropriate reference site(s) should be completed within 60 days before start of construction.
Copies of all surveys should be provided to the lead federal agency, NOAA Fisheries, USACE, and other interested
regulatory and/or resource agencies within 30 days of completing the survey. The recommended timing of surveys
is intended to minimize changes in eelgrass habitat distribution and abundance during the period between survey
completion and construction initiation and completion. This survey must include both aerial and density
characterization of the beds. If eelgrass is found during the pre -construction survey, a post -construction survey
must be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days following project completion to quantify any unanticipated
losses to eelgrass habitat. Impacts must then be determined from a comparison of pre- and post- construction
survey results. Impacts to eelgrass, if any, must be mitigated through conformance with the Eelgrass Protection and
Mitigation Plan (City of Newport Beach 2015), which defines the mitigation ratio and other requirements to achieve
mitigation for significant eelgrass impacts.
Turbidity. Where proposed turbidity generating activities must occur in proximity to eelgrass and increased turbidity
will occur at a magnitude and duration that may affect eelgrass habitat, measures to control turbidity levels should
be employed when practical considering physical and biological constraints and impacts. Measures may include
the use of turbidity curtains where appropriate and feasible, and the use of low impact equipment and methods.
Turbidity curtains must be kept a minimum of 30 feet away from eelgrass beds in order to prevent damage to
eelgrass beds from curtain drag or movement.
4 References
City of Newport Beach. 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan. Accessed April 2023.
https://www.newi)orLbeachca.gov/PLN/General Plan/COMPLETE FEB 2019/General Plan 2006 Com
plete.odf
City of Newport Beach. 2010. Harbor Area Management Plan. Prepared for: Harbor Resources Division, City of
Newport Beach. p. 99.
City of Newport Beach. 2015. Eelgrass Protection and Mitigation Plan for Shallow Waters in Lower Newport Bay. An
Ecosystem Based Management Program. Accessed April 2023.
https.//newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocu ment?id=21830#::text=The%20pu rpose°/`20of%2Oth is%
20docu ment%2Ois%20to%20descri be,d redgi ng%20activities%20typica I ly%20u nderta ken%20by%20 i nd iv
id ual%20property%20owners.
City of Newport Beach. 2018. Local Coastal Program. Coastal Land Use Plan. Accessed April 2023.
htti)s://www newportbeachca gov/government/departments/communitv-develol)ment/l)ianning
d ivision/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/local-coastal-progra m
City of Newport Beach. 2023. Recommendations Resulting from Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation
Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Withing the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests. City of
Newport Beach Harbor Commission Staff Report. March 8, 2023.
Marine Taxonomic Services Ltd. (MTS) and Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM). 2023. 2022 Eelgrass
Monitoring in Newport Bay, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for The City of Newport Beach. February
24, 2023. Revised April 7, 2023. Accessed April 2023.
_._._...........
D U D E K MAY 202AY 3
2023
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS
https•//www newr)ortbeachea gov/home/showpublisheddocument/73188/638167971564230000
NOAA Fisheries. 2014. National Marine Fisheries Service's California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing
Guidelines. NMFS, West Coast Region. October 2014. Accessed April 2023.
https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/cemp oct 2014 final.pdf
D U D E K MAY 02AY 3
2023
M
LL
Qz
el
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2023-32 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting
of said Council held on the 231d day of May, 2023; and the same was so passed and adopted by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Mayor Noah Blom, Mayor Pro Tern Will O'Neill, Council Member Brad Avery, Council
Member Robyn Grant, Council Member Lauren Kleiman, Council Member Joe Stapleton,
Council Member Erik Weigand
NAYS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 24th day of May, 2023.
It ME 1go ZIMNJJW��
Leilani I. Brown '
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California