HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Dredging Update - Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project, Lower Harbor Navigational Channels, Private DocksITEM SS3
TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
FROM: Tony Melum, Division of Harbor Resources
SUBJECT: Update on Dredging: Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project,
Lower Harbor Navigational Channels, and Private Docks
RECOMMENDED Receive and File
ACTION:
BACKGROUND: Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project
Upper Newport Bay receives stormwater and urban runoff from a 154 square
mile watershed. Thousands of cubic yards of sediment enter the Upper Bay each
year, with large storm events capable of depositing hundreds of thousands of
cubic yards of silt and clay. Without routine dredging, Upper Bay would "silt
up" to a marshland, with little or no open water between Jamboree and Newport
Dunes. For this and other reasons, the Upper Bay is listed under the Federal
Clean Water Act as an "impaired" water body and a "total maximum daily load"
has been developed to reduce sediment and preserve this important habitat.
The last major dredging activity in Upper Bay occurred in 1998 -99. This $7
million project cleared about 900,000 cubic yards of sediment from the Upper
Bay. As the 1998 -99 project was completed, the City, the County of Orange, our
watershed partners (the cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Tustin, Lake Forest, Laguna
Woods, the Irvine Ranch Water District, the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Santa Ana Region, the Irvine Company, and the California
Department of Fish and Game) began planning a larger, more significant project
with the US Army Corps of Engineers to complete.
This $33 million project, known as the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem
Restoration Project, would dredge more than 2.7 million cubic yards from the
Upper Bay, restore deteriorated habitat, increase blue -water views, move the
Least Tern islands, and open up several island channels in mid -Upper Bay. In
short, the Project attempts to restore the Bay to its optimal ecosystem.
A Corps project typically goes through several phases before completion:
• Reconnaisance (determining if there is a Federal "interest' in a project)
• Feasibility (describing the extent of the work to be done and completing
environmental review)
• Plans and Specifications (providing diagrams & engineering reports for
contractors to bid upon)
• Call for Bids & Award of Contract
• Construction
Page 2
Prior to the Award of Contract step, a project must be "authorized" within a
Congressional authorization bill. Corps - watchers call authorization for a new
project a new "start" Funding - or appropriation - follows authorization.
Without specific authorization, a project remains on the shelf.
Corps projects are typically cost - shared, meaning that state and local entities
must offer a "match" to federal dollars. When California's voters passed
Proposition 12 in March 2000, they set aside up to $13 million for the watershed
partners' match for this Project. Since that time, however, the federal share of
funding has not materialized.
The Bush Administration, upon taking office in January 2001, directed Congress
not to approve any new starts until the Corps can complete what the
Administration perceives is a significant Corps project backlog. Some say that
the Administration also looks unfavorably on the Corps' role in "ecosystem
restoration" projects, because these projects take the Corps out of its more
traditional role of building dams, canals, docks, harbors, and other structures.
As such, the UNB Ecosystem Restoration Project has entered the Plans and Specs
Phase without any promise of federal funding. Too much further delay may
cause the State /Local $13 million set -aside to be withdrawn, since bond revenues
generally cannot sit and gather interest (sometimes referred to as arbitrage).
WHERE DO WE STAND? As recently as two weeks ago, we urged
Congressman Cox to aggressively help us get the UNB Project "started" via
Congressional authorization.
Dredging in Navigational Channels
Newport Bay is combination of two bodies of water, Lower Newport Bay and
Upper Newport Bay. Lower Newport Bay was a coastal lagoon. It is four miles
long and is oriented parallel to the coastline. This lagoon was formed between
1824 and 1862 as a result of sand disposition from the Santa Ana River. Upper
Newport Bay is geologically much older than the Lower Bay and is essentially a
submerged river valley formed by a precursor of the Santa Ana River.
Natural and accelerated erosion within the watershed associated with grading,
agriculture and increased runoff generation has resulted in substantial siltation
in the Upper Bay, which has subsequently been carried down to the Lower Bay
by runoff and tidal action. This influx of siltation has reduced the depth in some
of the navigational channels in the Lower Bay.
Navigational channels were constructed within Lower Newport Bay between
1934 and 1936 as a federal (US Army Corps of Engineers) construction project.
This dredging included the removal of 8.5 million tons of sand and 550,000 tons
of rock. An additional 210,000 tons of rock was used to extend Newport
Harbor's West Jetty to 2,830 feet and the East Jetty to 1,673 feet. A total of 6.3
million cubic yards of sediment were dredged to deepen the entrance channel to
minus 25 feet and to deepen the main channel to a minus 20 feet, and to form the
turning basin and small channels adjacent to the main channel. This initial
dredging of the bay included a pipeline discharge of the dredge material directly
onto the beaches of the Balboa Peninsula.
2
Page 3
Since that time, the Corps has dredged the Lower Bay on only three occasions. In
1941 they deepened the turning basin at the west end of the Harbor (Lido Village
area). In 1981, 85,000 cubic yards of sand were dredged from the harbor entrance
adjacent to Big Corona. In 1998, 204,000 cubic meters of sediment was removed
from just below the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge at the junction of the Main and
Upper Bay Channels in the area of Harbor and Linda Islands. Except for these
three projects, maintenance dredging by the Corps to maintain the federally
authorized harbor channels has not been necessary.
Federal authority directs the Corps' Chief of Engineers to maintain the
navigational channels at Newport Bay Harbor when determined advisable in the
interest in providing navigation and safety. As part of their maintenance
responsibility, the Corps does annual Newport Bay condition surveys (called the
official project survey) using electronic equipment in the navigational channels
(see Map #1, Attachment A) to ascertain whether the channels are at or near their
design depth and whether additional dredging is necessary.
The survey done in December of 1999 indicated that there was shoaling in the
Lower Newport Bay in approximately five areas (see Map #2, Attachment B).
The areas with shoaling are the main channel adjacent to Via Lido Nord, the
turning basin adjacent to the east end of Lido Island, the channel southeast of
Bay Island adjacent to the Peninsula, the channel adjacent to Harbor Island and
Collins Island, and the lower bay channel between the main channel and South
Bay front on Balboa Island.
That survey indicated the need to remove approximately 408,912 cubic meters of
sediment to return those channels to their original design depth. The estimated
cost of this project would be $4,000,000. The Corps added $4,000,000 for the
Lower Newport Bay Dredging Project to the Corps' Operations and Maintenance
budget submittal in 2000.
Funds to begin the LNB Project were included in the President's Budget for the
Corps in 2001 (for $36,000) and in 2002 (for $40,000). Most recently, Congress
approved $120,000 for the official project survey, which precedes plans,
specification, and contract documents. Local Corps representatives have been
quick to state, however, that although these steps have been taken, doing so does
not guarantee the dredging itself will ever be funded. In fact, we have been told
that "recreational harbors" like Newport Harbor are at the bottom of the funding
priority list for the current Administration.
WHERE DO WE STAND? In recent weeks we have again communicated with
Congressman Cox to get this project funded as an alternative to the adopted
Corps budget via the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that
address Corps projects. The letter that Mayor Ridgeway has sent to
Congressman Cox is attached as Attachment C.
Dredging Under Private Docks
City Council Policy H -1 states that the responsibility for dredging around and
under private docks rests with the private property owner /harbor permittee.
We have approximately 1,200 harbor permits for both residential and
commercial docks within Newport Harbor. Dredging around these structures
3
Page 4
may need to be done as often as once a year or, in some locations, once every
several years.
Permits for dredging around docks typically required the approval of the City,
the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission. In the
late 70s, it was taking up to two years to process a dredging permit. As a result,
the City became involved in the process and secured a maintenance dredging
permit (called the "Regional General Permit") for residents, cutting the time for
permit issuance to about three weeks.
The City received the first Regional General Permit in 1979 and renewed it in
1989 for a 10 -year period. The current permit, issued by the Coastal Commission
for a 5 -year term in 2000, covered two -thirds of the bay`(see Map #3 [Legend
"CDP- 599282 "], Attachment D). But the Coastal Commission excluded the
balance of the Harbor (the areas identified on Map #3 - "Legend Amendment")
due to what Commission staff believed to be unacceptable levels of metals
contaminates based on Environmental Projection Agency (EPA) guidelines. To
bring those areas back into the permit, the City was required to do additional
testing and provide those results to the EPA.
That $100,000+ testing was complete and approved by EPA in July of 2001. In
August 2001, the City submitted its application to the California Coastal
Commission for an amendment to the Regional General Permit to allow the
excluded areas to be brought into the Permit for the remainder of its 3 -year term.
And Then There's Eel grass. Eelgrass (zostera manna), is an important underwater
plant that is indicative of and supports a healthy and diverse marine
environment. When eelgrass is present beneath a dock, property owners must
mitigate its loss by an expensive and time- consuming mitigation procedure that
requires the eelgrass to be replanted, monitored, and maintained. The City has
attempted to work with federal Resources Agencies (primarily US Fish and
Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service) to develop a plan whereby the
City would establish, monitor, and maintain eelgrass beds. By doing so, the City
hopes to allow private property owners and marina operators to "bank" eelgrass
in the City's beds and then remove eelgrass from underneath docks.
Thus far, NMFS has been supportive of the City's attempts to plant and maintain
protected eelgrass sites, but they want to see if the mitigation sites we have
identified prove viable before committing to allow these sites to be used as
mitigation banks.
WHERE DO WE STAND? The hearing on the City's application to amend the
2000 RGP was scheduled for the Commissions March 5-8 Meeting in Monterey,
California. Based on discussions with Coastal Commission Staff, we do not
expect any opposition to the amendment, and dredging could begin in the
excluded areas as soon as late March. We expect to begin the 2000 Permit's
renewal process in late 2003.
1I
Page 5
Regarding eelgrass, we have federal funding for a pilot program to plant eelgrass
in 14 sites throughout the Upper Bay and would like Council approval to
proceed with the understanding that we be able to:
(a) Remove any eelgrass that encroaches beyond the test site; and
(b) Use these sites for mitigation in the future if they prove to be viable eelgrass
habitat.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Map of Federal Navigational Channels
Attachment B - Map of Areas Exceeding Design Depth
Attachment C - Letter to Congressman Cox
Attachment D - Map #3 (Regional General Permit)
W
r7,
12
ef
pw
I I .. -{ix I ..
n
Ln
it
Xi MA
re,
.4
Attachment B -- Map of Shoaling Areas
Lj
Is
I '.
r
�\r
0411L�1, I
1 vl
Z
Page i
11
Mayor
Tod W. Ridgeway
Mayor Pro Tem
Steven Bromberg
Council Members
Garold B. Adams
Norma J. Glover
John Heffernan
Dennis D. O'Neil
Gary L. Proctor
Attachment C
Page 5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
(949)644 -3004
February 12, 2002
Honorable Christopher Cox
Member of the US House of Representatives
Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2042
S Capitol Street and Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Cox:
Fully recognizing the challenge that Congress faces with the FY 2003 Budget, we respectfully
request your office's assistance in securing the following four federal issues of importance to
our city and our residents:
• Lower Bay Maintenance Dredging (US Army Corps of Engineers). We strongly believe
that the Corps needs to continue to fulfill its duties (at a cost of about $4 million) to keep
the Federal Navigational Channel in Lower Newport Bay open and accessible to the
various types of vessels that use the Lower Bay. As you are probably aware, ships like
the US Navy's Zephyr and tall ships like the Hawaiian Chieftan and the Lady Washington
could only approach and dock at the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum at high tide this
past summer;
• Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project (US Army Corps of Engineers). As
you know, the State /Local match for this critical once -in -20 -years restoration project is
secured. But we await federal authorization (and funding) to start the construction
phase of this $33 million project. It's so rare that the State is able to secure (and keep
secured) $13.5 million -- we'd hate to lose these funds waiting for federal authorization
and funding;
• Protective Cover/Mixing/Disinfection System for the Big Canyon Reservoir. The Big
Canyon Reservoir in Corona Del Mar provides drinking water storage for 69,000
residents. It is important that we secure funding for a protective cover (including a
mixing and•disinfection system) for this facility, both to maintain drinking water
standards and as a part of the City's efforts to secure our water facilities against bio-
terrorism. The City will attempt to put forth a match -- possibly up to half the $5million
cost of the improvements — to get this important job done;
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) -- Maintain FY 02's Funding. While
we recognize that some may see Newport Beach as home only to high- income residents,
that's not so. CDBG allocations are already based on a formula that considers income
and other need factors — and we clearly qualify. A 50% cut, as proposed by the
Administration, would directly impact Newport Beach's contribution to Orange
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884
www.city.newport- beach.ca.us
Letter to Congressman Cox
February 12, 2002 Page 9
Page 2
County's "continuum of care" program, which is very important to HUD. Today, $31,700
of our CDBG social service money goes to programs for the homeless, $36,000 goes to
programs for seniors, and $10,000 goes to substance abuse rehabilitation.
As always, we appreciate your service to the City of Newport Beach and look forward to
working with you to secure these important goals. Thank you for your help in these important
matters.
Sincerely,
TOD W. RIDGEWA
Mayor of Newport Beach
cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
Homer Bludau, City Manager
t2
IL
f I
A�A
L Al
♦
L Al
�1
cu
bA
bA
it
Q
>.,
C�
CV)
O
•*y
CIO�,VQw
Z
O
c�
O
�
z
0
a
ti
.v N
� O
so
O �y
V N
U
v �
tj
t
N
a
O
M� O
N
�I
� O
■
N
� N �
O
� O �
P, a�
M O
M O 7
V
161
gam
O
CIO
3
a�
z
Q)
O
�O
O
O
N
■
M
O
Cd
c U
� w
O
0 ,O
N
O
cd
cd
,� bA
a' O
u
■
U
U
�O
Cd
O
N M
O O
cd
O O
N �
� w
O
� U
O
O
GQ �'
U
tlo
cd
N
z
■
O
z
it
4J
rA
�I
rLi
U
0
Q
P�
z
0
Fj
U)
2i
14• 1 ',►,�. " � by „ �i
,•`x,% � ,, 4" a,;, �,d �t��q '4�t 'Rfi`f� (� 3� ��zfi�t'!.
*r, r
,. GIs, ""` • . + : r r 4�' '
..w•... -Sty' tt� ^�.� 1 �I Y� I
'e
oe
1
�FjY.f yy a.. fi '.M x. f•. i .
14PL °. • Yc Fg� �
. H-la
� F
O
COO
u
P--4
Cd
� o
O �
■
N �
o 0
o
•o O o
�
Go!�-g
O
O
03
4—a
,�
• �--�
c
o
03
cd
(A
I
A
W
iii
.
O
b �
� � U
� � O
� N �
Cd
CC3
to cd
-t� o Cd Cd
o
cd
� Q �
rd �
a�
■
b
U
N
C�j
bp
bb
N
cd
,b
Cd
cn
N
x
o
a�
o Cd
cd in
■ ■