HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Newport Bay UpdateITEM 15
TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
FROM: Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Newport Bay Update -Dredging, Water Quality, More
RECOMMENDED
ACTIONS:
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY:
(1) Direct City Staff to pursue changes to the proposed General Dredging Permit
for Newport Bay that are appropriate for full use and enjoyment of the
Harbor.
(2) Approve recommended strategy for accomplishing these changes with a
not -to- exceed cap of $8,000 for Coastal Commission advocacy services.
Since the last time that the City Council has been updated on "all things bay' in
June 1999, several things have happened, many of them very positive:
• A critical Upper Newport Bay study is nearing completion;
• Propositions 12 and 13 passed on March 7 - authorizing money for dredging
and water quality programs;
• The City is co- sponsoring a school program on water quality;
• There's a new countywide interest in watershed protection;
• There's a new statewide interest in regulating urban runoff; and
• We are nearing completion on a Harbor Element that may guide the City as
to Harbor use policies.
BACKGROUND: Newport Bay is an invaluable asset to the City, but the asset comes with
significant costs and responsibilities. Newport Beach would not be the world -
class destination area that it is without the environmental resource of the Upper
Bay, the economic resource of the Lower Harbor, and the aesthetic and
recreational value of the shoreline.
In the City's stewardship of the Bay, several issues routinely arise to which the
Council has dedicated both resources and energy. These include:
I -- How do we keep the Bay from filling up with sediment?
Upper Newport Bay. If we never dredge material from the Bay again, the Upper
Bay may fill up with sediment from the Newport Bay Watershed (Irvine, Costa
Mesa, Santa Ana, Lake Forest, Tustin, Orange, and Laguna Woods) in only 10
years. After 50 years, the open water portion of the Bay will only exist south of
the Coast Highway Bridge, with San Diego Creek continuing all the way to the
Castaways.
Newport Beach City Council
Page 2
BACKGROUND: From January 1998 to April 1999, a $9 million dredging project (called the "Unit
(cmit'd) III" dredging project) sponsored and funded by the State of California (the State
owns most of the Upper Bay) removed about 850,000 cubic yards of sediment
from the upper reaches of the Bay near Jamboree Road.
The experts involved in the 1998 -99 Unit III Project agreed that the Bay needed a
far larger and more comprehensive study of its sedimentation. As such, we
asked the US Army Corps of Engineers to "partner' with us in a cost - shared
study (called the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Restoration Feasibility Study) to look
at what it plight take to bring the Bay back to an optimal ecosystem.
The Corps' involvement is beneficial on two fronts - it brings in the civil
engineering expertise of the Corps plus federal dollars. Here's how the Corps
process works:
How the Corps Process Works
STEP I — Problem ID -- Identify a problem — like poor water quality.
STEP 2 — Ask Congress -- Ask your Member of Congress to put language in an authorization bill —
usually the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The language directs the Corps to
complete an initial study (called a Reconnaissance StudA of the problem.
STEP 3 — Recon Phase -- Corps conducts the Recon Study. Study literally determines whether or not
there is a federalkMerestin the problem that's been identified. Federal Government pays
100% of the Recon costs.
STEP 4 — Back to Congress -- If Corps finds a federal interest after conducting the Recon Study, the
Corps will prepare a Project Study Plan ("PSP') for a FeasibiiityStady. All FeasiNlityStudies
are cast- shared with local partners (50 % -50 %). Locals ask their Member of Congress to
include language in another authorization bill for the Feasibility Study.
STEP 5 — Feasibility Phase — If Congress funds the Feasibility Study, the Corps will write cost- sharing
agreements with local partners that obligate the partners to pay half the Study costs. The
Corps will then take 18 months to 2 years to complete the work outlined in the PSP. At this
time, locals ask their Members of Congress to include language in an authorization bill and the
President's Budget for the Alansand5aecifiodHonsAND Project Consbu bnas the feasibility
Study winds down.
STEP 6 — Plans and Specs -- With the Feasibility Study done and language for Plans and Specs in an
authorization bill and the President's Budget, the Corps prepares the Projects' Plans and Specs.
STEP 7 — Project Construction -- With Plans and Specs done and funding in the President's Budget,
the Corps can contract out and complete the Projects identified in the Feasibility Study. Project
costs are split 65 -35% (feds -local partners).
STEP 8 — Corps Departs -- With Projects complete, the Corps cannot be involved in the maintenance or
re- working of the same project.
The Corps did find a federal interest in protecting the Bay. Its Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Restoration Feasibility Study will be out for public review in late April
2000 and will, in all likelihood, recommend a dredging project about 3x the size
of the 1998 -99 Unit III project. The effort - which will cost up to $28 million -
must be matched with about $9.8 million in State and local funds.
Update: Thanks in large measure to State Senator Ross Johnson, the local
contribution to this project was placed in Proposition 12 on the March 7, 2000
ballot. Proposition 12 passed and the funding is now available for the dredging
project. A second Corps study - the Newport Bay Watershed Feasibility Study
- will look at ways to keep sediment and other contaminants from entering the
Bay in the first place.
Page 3
BACKGROUND: Lower Newport Bay. A second - but equally important - part of Bay dredging is
(cont'd) the much more frequent yet smaller dredging efforts in the Lower Bay. Many of
the 1,200 harbor permittees who operate residential piers require annual
dredging to ensure that their piers remain accessible. For the past 30 years, the
City has operated under a renewable harbor -wide permit (the General Permit)
that allows anyone with a pier to dredge his or her facility without getting
individual, specific permission from the California Coastal Commission or the
US Army Corps of Engineers.
The City's last 10 -year General Permit expired in December 1999. The City had
filed for a new permit in October 1999, but the Coastal Commission staff did not
set the matter for hearing until March 2000. At the same time, Coastal
Commission staff placed a series of conditions on the permit renewal that the
City believes are onerous. These include:
• Term. The Commission has proposed a 5 -year term, not a 10 -year term.
• Eelgrass. A requirement that no dredging occur within 15' of eelgrass
(zostera marina) and that any dredging be accompanied by an eelgrass
survey.
• Sand Content — Offshore. A requirement that all dredged material for
offshore disposal (in "LA -3") be not more than 80% sand. In contrast, the US
EPA requires that all sea - disposed dredge material be at least 80% sand - if
the content is less than 80% sand, additional content testing is required.
• Sand Content - Onshore. For on -shore disposal, the sand content of the
dredge material cannot differ more than 10% from the sand content of the
beach. This latter requirement effectively prohibits extensive on -shore
disposal since the sand content of the beach is 90 -100% while the sand
content of the dredging spoils ranges from 30 -96 %.
• ED Approval. The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission must
approve each eelgrass survey and sand grain analysis associated with any
dredging.
• Studies. For dredging in four areas (UNB, south side of Lido Isle, south side
of Balboa Island, Linda Isle), any dredging application must be accompanied
by a bio -assay study. The City estimates that such a study will take 6 months
and run up to $75,000.
Update:- Deputy- Fire and Marine Chief Tony Melum attended the March 2000
Coastal Commission meeting and, after testifying that the conditions proposed
for the Permit were too onerous, asked that it be continued to the Commission's
April 2000 meeting in Long Beach to allow the City to better communicate the
problems with the Coastal Commission staff s recommendation to the full
Coastal Commission. Attachment B is a memo from the City Manager to our
legislators asking for their assistance in this matter.
Proposed Strategy: We propose hiring a consultant to assist the City in advocating
our position before the Coastal Commission. Further, we believe there is merit in
showing Coastal Commission staff exactly how dredging operations work in the
Lower Bay. If the Council approves Recommendation #2 of this Agenda Item,
City staff will pursue this effort.
Page 4
BACKGROUND: II -- How do we improve the quality of the Bay's water?
(cont'd) The Bay's water quality is generally very good, except after storm events and
near some of the largest of the 2,200+ storm drains that enter into the Bay.
Further, the major tributaries to the Bay (San Diego Creek, the Santa Ana -Delhi
Channel, and Big Canyon Wash) routinely add contaminants to the Bay in excess
of State health standards.
The media and others placed new attention on water quality in Summer 1999
when the waters off of Huntington State Beach tested above new statewide water
quality testing standards and beach posting and closure protocols (the standards
took effect in late July 1999 [AB 411, Wayne]). This attention was new to
Huntington, but not to Newport Beach. Our Harbor Quality Committee had
been reviewing water quality tests and issues in and around Newport since 1989.
Recognizing the need to better educate people about what they can do at home to
improve water quality in the area's rivers, bays and oceans, the City Council
approved a program directed at the 1,600 or so 5w graders in the Newport -Mesa
Unified School District on March 14, 2000.
Additionally, the City will be "on the cutting edge' of a recently used
enforcement tool within the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). This tool - where
state authorities set limits on the amount of contaminants that can enter a "water
quality limited" watercourse - is called a Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL.
Newport Bay will have four TMDLs by early 2002. Here's more on TMDLs:
Daily Loads
US EPA interpreted Section 303(d) of the CWA to create the "Total Maximum Daily
Load" or "TMDL" program. A TMDL is a written, quantitative assessment of water
quality problems and contributing pollutants. Under §303(d), Regional Water Quality
Boards must:
(1) Identify and list waterbodies ( "water quality limited ") where State water quality
standards are not being met following the application of technology -based point
source pollution controls; and
(2) Establish TMDLs for each impairment of these waters.
The goal of a TMDL is the attainment of water quality standards. A TMDL:
• Specifies the amount a pollutant needs to be reduced to meet water quality standards,
• Allocates pollutant load reductions among pollutant sources in a watershed, and
• Is the basis for taking actions needed to restore a waterbody by identifying point
source and non -point source controls.
US EPA must review and approve State TMDLs. If US EPA deems a state's actions
insufficient, US EPA will prepare the TMDLs. There are 100s of impaired water bodies in
California listed as potential sites for TMDLs, including at least 18 in Orange County.
Update: The City Manager has initially budgeted $72,000 in FY 2000 -01 for
administering programs relating to the three TMDLs that are in place today
(sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform). A State - funded DNA Study of Bay
Page 5
BACKGROUND: Contaminants will assist the City in meeting a portion of the requirements of the
(cont'd) Fecal Conform TMDL as well. More information about TMDLs appears in
Attachment A.
III -- How do we maximize the Bay's recreational,
educational, and environmental value?
Newport Bay is unique in its resource value - the endangered species that reside
in the Ecological Reserve and the humans that enjoy its trails, bikeways, and
open water all rely upon its upkeep for their survival and enjoyment. It's
important to ask ourselves if we are maximizing the Bay's value to all those who
depend upon it:
• Is it the best teaching tool (to teach habitat protection and water quality
improvement) that it can be?
• Are all of the players (City, County, State) efficient and effective in their
management of the Bay and its resources?
• Is the Bay adequately used and recognized as a regional resource?
Update: Two solutions to these questions may be in place soon - the Upper
Newport Bay Interpretive Center (off of Irvine and University avenues) and a
proposed Marine Science Education Center on Shellmaker Island may help
inform the public about the Bays resource value. Please see Attachment A for
more information.
IV - How do we balance the Bay's competing uses?
The Harbor Committee - an ad hoc subcommittee of the Harbor Quality Citizens
Advisory Committee - has met since October 1998 to develop a Harbor Element
to the City's General Plan. The Harbor Element, if adopted, would guide the
Planning Commission and the City Council in planning for and balancing the
various on -water and water- adjacent uses in the Bay.
Update: At a future Council meeting, the Harbor Committee will present its
plan for the Harbor Element.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Graphic of Bay Projects
Attachment B - City Manager's Memo to Legislators re: General Permit
0
LL
aF
wN
<
I y
v E
W t
Uy
c
o w
u'c
� m
as
wy
W C �
N C c
() W O
@ O
IN Q
v oU
N o c II
D c `v
= N G
•
V
M
c
J
a"m
s o w
T.X V
=� m N E I
o y t
mZ
y jU k
voo wZ
I C N C
" d N
�3=
W
C y
3 n
O
n
U
0
C
c
C2
N t
a
@ „O
O �
U
c —
@
C �
E
c c
d m ^ U
yUm m�Z
Dj =uU
r II ry k ^
3 ti � ti o
aUZm�
rn E `v
dm ¢ Gp I
E �^�
@ N �
n`o l
o c m
a >U rn a
a °
MO a o
m
m �
o E
rn'x c
m@ a+
� E c
I � @
o
p a x
F a
®�m
O
w
m� U o o ry LL
N >
>
m a m LL LL � n
c o
mm1O v'�Gm" o
N
C N
O
QV 0 m °Uq d
J n
3mv�EO
m@ m m H n
c
U d
Noi Jam
N rn>
Q d C_ m
C o mE
J IO
W Ca d
®E'nE
EM
m @ ye a
6 0, m c
�n Emc m v
zm OB=E
@ cam`y
m0E a@iZ c_E
i;; 0 L m m `
d N = a CL
o
@a wed
nL d @ II
O -a O U
¢m cpbo
Y uN a U
�D cud
w uc m v ¢
�v.w
a c'�Nv
O J C %
W c O` m m
nd>¢
Z 0,o
N dT..J
O 0 @
a Nlo
c `o c v v
mm K O ] �U
t Oa acv
nE N E`c
O a L d o n
OR 0.,
c N Q w w_
@ old c2 1
O
i`.0 Ola Q4t
W- o °N m
C N 2 c a
'J rnE E o
V
d y U 0
na oa L
z ° - u a
(7 oad
m @ 0 c
xmao
m"n �>
O o Z 0
mo.U-
c
m
°@Eot
2�
Q
d nvo 0 0 CL
08
z
LL O N Cl
in E uhn h
_ N a s II c
.� o0
N
W
J° Wltw o
z 2
dZc o
2
04 aiau, u,a'0
0 E
z16 o'-u
o U Z 0
U
mot :ovjOU
N p�O `k d `� m
o E u�u
�
w
xom -��g E'0
xTUwu
a.
F Ma @
u
Y m— m U m
I c c
11
J u
N3O m F ° °u U
T N ;� m a V II
Wm�ou
°
o= 3 d
v
=mO II O0
o
U) U a N IL j
d'
Q
W O c
Qnom�
v o
cLL
j
3'3Ea
m
Z
_ u
a
Q
m5oc
¢
N a @
Q aE
C
>�
w o
Z p N
cn
J J
� E cF-
vm
E�
F
�o
o � h � o
Q
7 g vmiU n
T Z
,
Z W
6 w
-W 'Z
o m f o
N n N y O
m
a3dw��.Q
I m� "ae
rd's e a
8
NU4a¢
za
N O W U c
IL
o
N 0 uMi
opo po y
DOOV
asQ] w
m =� 11 m
I"'N"% O
(x° (y y U
y R
a a� c »ol
oil
O S C OI
m c
Q
? O O ° h ¢I
J N ° ryN
W N 0 0 G
Z T m LL
N m V C¢
N 6.�
z, o fNc c ¢y�o
U € mon
W 8c 1
da m•
° nm �R`od
m@
m
In ^v�
®°
0
LL
aF
wN
<
I y
v E
W t
Uy
c
o w
u'c
� m
as
wy
W C �
N C c
() W O
@ O
IN Q
v oU
N o c II
D c `v
= N G
•
V
M
c
J
a"m
s o w
T.X V
=� m N E I
o y t
mZ
y jU k
voo wZ
I C N C
" d N
�3=
W
C y
3 n
O
n
U
0
C
c
C2
N t
a
@ „O
O �
U
c —
@
C �
E
c c
d m ^ U
yUm m�Z
Dj =uU
r II ry k ^
3 ti � ti o
aUZm�
rn E `v
dm ¢ Gp I
E �^�
@ N �
n`o l
o c m
a >U rn a
a °
MO a o
m
m �
o E
rn'x c
m@ a+
� E c
I � @
o
p a x
F a
®�m
O
w
m� U o o ry LL
N >
>
m a m LL LL � n
c o
mm1O v'�Gm" o
N
C N
O
QV 0 m °Uq d
J n
3mv�EO
m@ m m H n
c
U d
Noi Jam
N rn>
Q d C_ m
C o mE
J IO
W Ca d
®E'nE
EM
m @ ye a
6 0, m c
�n Emc m v
zm OB=E
@ cam`y
m0E a@iZ c_E
i;; 0 L m m `
d N = a CL
o
@a wed
nL d @ II
O -a O U
¢m cpbo
Y uN a U
�D cud
w uc m v ¢
�v.w
a c'�Nv
O J C %
W c O` m m
nd>¢
Z 0,o
N dT..J
O 0 @
a Nlo
c `o c v v
mm K O ] �U
t Oa acv
nE N E`c
O a L d o n
OR 0.,
c N Q w w_
@ old c2 1
O
i`.0 Ola Q4t
W- o °N m
C N 2 c a
'J rnE E o
V
d y U 0
na oa L
z ° - u a
(7 oad
m @ 0 c
xmao
m"n �>
O o Z 0
-°¢
m
°@Eot
2�
m C .m.
2 E Q 0
h
C T n v
U
N
O IO .ry�Z
G
®
U a t
m o U
p a c m II
Z
a.
F Ma @
u
Z € a@ m
v
aomVa
in
Of o t
W _U m J
O @ U
m
G
U C
Z m J a
CL
o
a O� O
Q
Oaa
Z
_rn
C '�
OO N @ O
0
LL
aF
wN
<
I y
v E
W t
Uy
c
o w
u'c
� m
as
wy
W C �
N C c
() W O
@ O
IN Q
v oU
N o c II
D c `v
= N G
•
V
M
c
J
a"m
s o w
T.X V
=� m N E I
o y t
mZ
y jU k
voo wZ
I C N C
" d N
�3=
W
C y
3 n
O
n
U
0
C
c
C2
N t
a
@ „O
O �
U
c —
@
C �
E
c c
d m ^ U
yUm m�Z
Dj =uU
r II ry k ^
3 ti � ti o
aUZm�
rn E `v
dm ¢ Gp I
E �^�
@ N �
n`o l
o c m
a >U rn a
a °
MO a o
m
m �
o E
rn'x c
m@ a+
� E c
I � @
o
p a x
F a
®�m
O
w
m� U o o ry LL
N >
>
m a m LL LL � n
c o
mm1O v'�Gm" o
N
C N
O
QV 0 m °Uq d
J n
3mv�EO
m@ m m H n
c
U d
Noi Jam
N rn>
Q d C_ m
C o mE
J IO
W Ca d
®E'nE
EM
m @ ye a
6 0, m c
�n Emc m v
zm OB=E
@ cam`y
m0E a@iZ c_E
i;; 0 L m m `
d N = a CL
o
@a wed
nL d @ II
O -a O U
¢m cpbo
Y uN a U
�D cud
w uc m v ¢
�v.w
a c'�Nv
O J C %
W c O` m m
nd>¢
Z 0,o
N dT..J
O 0 @
a Nlo
c `o c v v
mm K O ] �U
t Oa acv
nE N E`c
O a L d o n
OR 0.,
c N Q w w_
@ old c2 1
O
i`.0 Ola Q4t
W- o °N m
C N 2 c a
'J rnE E o
V
d y U 0
na oa L
z ° - u a
(7 oad
m @ 0 c
xmao
m"n �>
O o Z 0
ATTACHMENT B
� c�EW �R>
°:' ?' ,l� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CqC /FORN�P
TO: Honorable Ross Johnson, Senate Minority Leader
Honorable Marilyn Brewer, Assembly Member, 70th District
FR: Homer L. Bludau, City Manager
DATE: March 8, 2000
RE: Important Coastal Commission Issue Affecting Newport Beach
Senator Johnson and Assembly Member Brewer -
At the Coastal Commission's upcoming meeting on March 14, 2000, the Commission will hear
two agenda items (Agenda Items #CC -78 -99 and #5 -99 -282) relating to the City of Newport
Beach's request for a 10 -year "General Permit" that allows residents with piers and moorings to
dredge the areas around their facilities (just getting on the March agenda was a feat in itself -- Al
Tello of Senator Johnson's district office helped us there). As you are aware, the ability to dredge
individual piers is critical to local use and enjoyment of the Bay. A mudlocked boat and pier is
useless, of course.
In short, the General Permit - renewed once every ten years - eliminates the need for each of
Newport Beach's 1200 harbor permittees to get separate, individual permits from the
Commission to complete work around each pier. Complying with the terms of the individual
permits can run from $1,000 to $10,000 depending upon the permits' terms and conditions.
Prior to 2000, the Commission has routinely approved this General Permit without adding
onerous conditions. This year, however, the Commission staff will recommend that the General
Permit should:
(a) Be limited to five years, not ten;
(b) Prohibit dredging spoils disposal within 50' of any eelgrass bed. This standard would
apply even though the City and the US Army Corps of Engineers have prepared a
detailed Eelgrass Restoration Project that would establish eelgrass mitigation beds in 8
locations in Newport Bay. This condition is more restrictive than the Southern California
Eelgrass Mitigation Policy adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Fish and Game; and
(c) Require the City to retest dredge and disposal areas for physical and chemical
characteristics. These tests are proposed even though the dredge areas covered by the
General Permit have already been approved relative to this same testing by the US EPA
and the US Army Corps of Engineers. This raises the permit costs from $1000 to $15,000
for a $1,400 dredging job. Further, it could delay the issuing of the permit 90 to 180 days.
This renders the concept of a General Permit itself totally useless.
This is a significant problem for your constituents in Newport. The approval of the General
Permit under these conditions - or the potential denial of the Permit -- means that many people
will be unable to enjoy the full use of their property. As such, I respectfully request your
assistance in contacting the Coastal Commission to encourage them to approve a 10 -year Permit
with reasonable, workable conditions. The conditions of the most recent 10 -year permit
(approved in 1989 and expired on December 31,1999) were perfectly acceptable.
Senator Johnson and Aminbly Mouber Brewer
March 8, 2000
Page 2
Any inquiry you can make with Commission staff or Commission members in this regard will be
greatly appreciated by all in Newport Beach. We would not ask you for this assistance if we
didn't believe that we have sound arguments on our behalf.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or concerns about this request (949/644 - 3000).
We stand ready to help you help us.
cc: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Ken Emanuels, Legislative Advocate
Tony Melum, Deputy Fire and Marine Chief