HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS4 - Appendix CAPPENDIX C
F.R
Beach
Replenishment
strategy
w
HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
IN- HARBOR BEACH REPLENISHMENT
STRATEGY
Technical Report
Prepared For:
Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared By:
Everest International Consultants, Inc.
444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1104
Long Beach, CA 90802
With HAMP Team: Weston Solutions, Inc.
June 2009
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
1.0
W1
3.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................ ...............................
1.1 Background ........................... ...............................
1.2 Purpose .................................. ...............................
1.3 Report Organization .............. ...............................
BEACH REPLENISHMENT NEEDS ............................
2.1 Existing Conditions ............... ...............................
Channel Place Park ............... ...............................
Balboa Coves ........................ ...............................
LakeStreet ............................ ...............................
Newport Island Park ............. ...............................
LidoPark ............................... ...............................
Lido Peninsula/Beach Dr ...... ...............................
MarinaPark ........................... ...............................
15`h Street .............................. ...............................
Via Lido Nord ....................... ...............................
Via Lido Soud ....................... ...............................
10`h Street .............................. ...............................
Crestview and Bayshore ....... ...............................
Bay Island West .................... ...............................
Edgewater/ Montero ............... ...............................
Bay Island East ..................... ...............................
PCHBridge ........................... ...............................
LindaIsle .............................. ...............................
BeaconBay ........................... ...............................
North Bay Front .................... ...............................
South Bay Front .................... ...............................
E. Bay Avenue ...................... ...............................
Promontory Bay .................... ...............................
BaysideCove ........................ ...............................
EastBay Front ....................... ...............................
Harbor Patrol ......................... ...............................
MStreet ................................. ...............................
Carnation Cove ..................... ...............................
ChinaCove ............................ ...............................
Pirate's Cove ......................... ...............................
2.2 Beach Usage .......................... ...............................
2.3 Beach Replenishment and Erosion Rate ..............
R A CH R FPT .FNTRHMFNT CnNRTR A TNTR
.................. ............................... 1
.................. ............................... 1
.................. ............................... 1
......... . ..... . ................. I............... 1
P C
........... 22
........... 22
........... 25
........... 27
........... 28
........... 30
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
4.0 PRIORITIZING BEACH REPLENISHMENT ................................. ............................... 31
4.1 Benefit Cost Ratio Approach ................................................. ............................... 31
4.2 Alternative Matrix .................................................................. ............................... 32
5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... ............................... 35
6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................. ............................... 37
I
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Lower Bay Beaches (Listed West to East) ....................................................... ............................... 5
Table 2. Relevant Regulations Affecting Beach Replenishment Projects ................... ............................... 23
Table 3. Regulatory and Resource Agency Contact Information for Beach Replenishment Projects........ 25
Table 4. Beach Replenishment Alternative Matrix ........................_............................. ............................... 33
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Beaches of West Lower Bay .......................................................................... ...............................
3
Figure 2. Beaches of East Lower Bay ............................................................................. ..............................4
Figure3. Channel Place Park .......................................................................................... ..............................6
Figure4. Balboa Coves ................................................................................................... ..............................7
Figure5. Beach at Lake Street ....................................................................................... ...............................
7
Figure 6. Beach at Newport Island Park ........................................................................ ...............................
8
Figure7. Beach at Lido Park ......................................................................................... ...............................
8
Figure8. Beach at Lido Peninsula ................................................................................. ...............................
9
Figure9. Beach at Marina Park ..................................................................................... ...............................
9
Figure 10. Beach at 15`h Street ..................................................................................... ...............................
10
Figure 11. Beach at Via Lido Nord .............................................................................. ...............................
10
Figure 12. Beach at Via Lido Send .............................................................................. ...............................
I I
Figure13. Beach at le Street ..................................................................................... ...............................
I1
Figure 14. Crestview and Bayshore Beaches ............................................................... ...............................
12
Figure 15. Beach at Bay Island West ........................................................................... ...............................
12
Figure 16. Beach at Edgewater and Montero Avenues ................................................ ...............................
13
Figure 17. Beach at Bay Island East ............................................................................ ...............................
13
Figure 18. Beach at PCH Bridge .................................................................................. ...............................
14
Figure19. Beach at Linda Isle ..................................................................................... ...............................
14
Figure20. Beach at Beacon Bay .................................................................................. ...............................
15
Figure 21. Beach at Ruby Street, North Bay Front, St. Looking West ........................ ...............................
15
Figure 22. Beach at Ruby Street, South Bay Front, Looking East and West ............... ...............................
16
Figure 23. Typical Street End Beach Along E. Bay Avenue ....................................... ...............................
16
Figure 24. Beach at Promontory Bay ........................................................................... ...............................
17
Figure 25. Beach at Bayside Cove ............................................................................... ...............................
17
Figure26. East Bay Front ......................................:..................................................... ...............................
I8
Figure27. Harbor Patrol Beach ................................................................................... ...............................
18
Figure28. Beach at M Street ....................................................................................... ...............................
19
Figure29. Carnation Cove ........................................................................................... ...............................
19
Figure30. China Cove ................................................................................................... .............................20
Figure31. Pirate's Cove ................................................................................................ .............................20
Figure 32. Eelgrass Overlay and Replenishment Footprint on South Bay Front ........... .............................27
Figure 33. Groin Separating Sandy Beach from Boat Slips at Via Lido Nord .............. .............................29
Figure 34. Groin Separating Sandy Beach from Boat Slips on Lido Peninsula ............. .............................29
Figure 35. Priority Beach Replenishment Locations ................................................... ...............................
36
IT
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Realenishment Strateav Technical Resort June 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Beach replenishment or nourishment refers to the strategic placement of beach quality sand on an
existing beach to provide a source of nourishment for littoral movement or restoration of an
eroded beach. Generally, beach nourishment projects are carried out along beaches where a
persistent erosional trend exists. To carry out a beach replenishment, sediment with physical
characteristics similar to the native beach material is mechanically (bucket) or hydraulically
(pipeline) placed. Beach replenishment has proven to be cost effective and environmentally
acceptable method of maintaining the recreational, aesthetic, and shore protection aspects of
beaches within the Lower Bay.
Current beach replenishment related programs that are ongoing within the Lower Bay include:
Balboa Island Beach Sand Study was begun in 2007 to assess sand management and beach
improvement options for Balboa Island. The study is to focus on quantifying existing conditions
of sediment transport and effects from natural and man - induced changes. The majority of the
effort will be in the South Bay Front of Balboa Island.
There are ongoing beach replenishment projects performed by individual homeowners and
homeowners associations throughout the Lower Bay. For example, in 2007, 15 small projects
applied for permits under the Regional General Permit 454 (RGP) held by the City of Newport
Beach Harbor Resources Division (Harbor Resources Division, no date; USACE, no date). In
the past, many of the projects have been maintenance dredging under docks with both ocean and
beach disposal. Recent work has been primarily beach disposal due to a shortage of ocean going
construction equipment.
1.2 Purpose
At present, there is no management system in place to prioritize selection of beaches in Lower
Bay for replenishment or to prioritize the use of dredged material for beneficial reuse. As part of
the Harbor Area Management Plan (RAMP), the purpose of this report is to recommend a
framework towards coordinating the ongoing and future beach replenishment efforts throughout
the Lower Bay.
1.3 Report Organization
This report organizes relevant beach replenishment issue into one document. In the next section,
a list of existing beaches in the Lower Bay and their replenishment needs is provided.
Constraints on beach replenishment are reviewed and summarized in Section 3. These needs and
constraints feed into the development of the use of a weighted alternative matrix to qualitatively
rank the beaches to determine which beach would benefit most from replenishment. The
alternative matrix and another more quantitative benefit -cost ration analysis for evaluating
priority beaches are presented in Section 4. Lastly, findings and recommendations are provided
in Section 5.
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
2.0 BEACH REPLENISHMENT NEEDS
The first step in determining beach replenishment needs is to define the beaches and identify
their locations. From there, the need for beach replenishment is typically driven by two factors:
how much the beach is used and how much beach area is available. Beach usage is usually
determined with beach attendance counts and depends on factors such as available parking,
amenities, and beach quality. The amount of beach area required at specific beaches is
subjective, with a significant emphasis on how much area existed in the past and what beach
goers are accustomed to.
Beach use data is very limited in the Lower Bay. The only source available was a study based on
local lifeguard estimates. Beach width and changes in beach width can be determined by direct
and indirect measurements from data sources such as:
• Aerial photos;
• Beach profiles or monitoring data;
• Past dredging and replenishment projects (location, quantity, sediment source); and
• Site visits, visual observation, photographs.
For this report, the beach conditions were evaluated based on two days of site visits, aerial
photos, as well as beach profiles dredging records provided to us by the City of Newport Beach
Harbor Resources Division, the City of Newport Beach GIS group, the USACE Los Angeles
District, and the County of Orange Watershed and Coastal Resources Division.
2.1 Existing Conditions
An inventory of beaches in the Lower Bay was developed as a first step in identifying beach
replenishment needs. Figures 1 and 2 show maps of all the beaches within the Lower Bay.
Table 1 lists these beaches from west to east of Lower Bay and the essential information for each
beach including location, public access, boat launch, boat slip, proximity to eelgrass and
potential erosion problem. This is followed by a brief description and photographs of each
beach.
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
L
Y
3
0
.a
3
a
s
u
u
u
L
4.
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
4
L
3
0
W
W
w
0
d
r
u
ea
m
N
L
7
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Table 1. Lower Bay Beaches (Listed West to East)
Number
Beach Name
Location
Public
Access
Boat
slips
Boat
Launch
Erosion
Problem
'Ol -'06
SL
Change
Distance
to
Eelgrass
I
Channel Place Park
Channel Pl. & River
Ave.
yes
yes
No
ND
>30'
2
Balboa Coves
Near PCH
No
Yes
No
ND
>30'
3
Lake St.
38`s St.
Yes
No
No
ND
>30'
4
Newport Island Park
Newport Island
Yes
Yes
No
ND
>30'
5
Lido Park
Via Lido Bridge
Yes
Yes
No
ND
>30'
6
Lido
Peninsula/Beach Dr.
East end of Lido
Peninsula
Yes
Yes
No
ND
>30'
7
Marina Park
Balboa Peninsula
Yes
No
Yes
ND
>30'
8
15"' St.
Balboa Peninsula
Yes
Yes
Yes
ND
>30'
9
Via Lido Nord
Lido Isle
Yes
No
No
ND
>30'
10
Via Lido Send
Lido Isle
No
No
No
ND
>30'
11
10th St
West Bay, Balboa
Peninsula
yes
Yes
No
ND
>30'
12
Crestview
Bayshores
No
Yes
No
ND
>30'
13
Bayshore
Bayshores
No
Yes
No
ND
<15'
14
Bay Island West
Bay Island
No
Yes
No
ND
>30'
15
Edgewater /Montero
Balboa Peninsula
Yes
Yes
No
ND
>30'
16
Bay Island East
Bay Island
No
Yes
No
ND
Varies
17
PCH Bridge
South of PCH Bridge
No
No
No
ND
>30'
18
Linda Isle
Linda Isle
No
Yes
No
ND
>30'
19
Beacon Bay
Huber Island Blvd.
No
No
No
ND
15' -30'
20
North Bay Front
Balboa Island
Yes
Yes
Yes
Anecdotal
ND
Varies
21
South Bay Front
Balboa Island
Yes
Yes
Yes
Anecdotal
ND
Varies
22
E. Bay Ave
NE Side of Balboa
Peninsula A —N St.
Yes
Yes
Yes
ND
Varies
23
Promontory Bay
Bayside Dr.
No
No
No
ND
>30'
24
Bayside Cove
No
No
No
ND
>30'
25
East Bay Front
Balboa Island
Yes
Yes
Yes
ND
Varies
26
Harbor Patrol
Corona del Mar
Yes
No
Yes
ND
<15'
27
M St.
Channel Rd., Balboa
Peninsula
Yes
Yes
No
ND
>30'
28
Carnation Cove
Corona del Mar
No
Yes
No
Anecdotal
+10'
>30'
29
China Cove
Corona del Mar
Yes
No
No
Anecdotal
-20'
>30'
5
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Table 1. Lower Bay Beaches (Listed West to East)
Notes:
Public Access is an indication of the public's ability to get to and use the beaches. If the beach cannot be accessed by the public, then
economic benefits to the public are minimal and the current status of beach width cannot be assessed for this report. Access was
determined during the site visits of the current amity.
Boat Slips column indicates that boat slips are nearby and would be the primary limit on additional sand capacity.
Boat Launch indicates whether a beach allows launching of hand carried water craft (Newport Beach, 2001).
Erosion. Most evidence of shoreline erosion within the Lower Bay is limited to personal accounts and photographs. Nevertheless, this has
been sufficient to initiate beach replenishment projects in the past.
'01-'06 SL Change indicates the amount of shoreline change observed between the 2001 and 2006 aerial photographs provided by Newport
GIS. ND =shoreline change was "not detectable" or less than the detectable limit. Of the beaches reviewed, Carnation Cove stands out as
the only beach with a significant increase in shoreline position. In 2001, there was not beach, and by 2006 there was approximately 10
feet of dry beach.
Distance to Eelgmss The distances were measured from the 2006 aerial photograph provided by the City of Newport Beach GIs department.
<I 5' = there was no possible footprint within the beach that would be greater than l5 feet from eelgrass boundaries. 15' -30' = eelgrass was
found between 15 to 30 feet from any possible replenishment boundary. >30' = there are replenishment boundaries that are farther than 30
feet from eelgrass boundaries. Varies = eelgrass was found from <15' to >30' from possible replenishment boundaries. In many instances
the only location that would be greater than 30' from eelgrass was on the intertidal region of the beach.
All of the beaches within the Lower Bay are described in greater detail below. Ground level
photos, where available, were taken during site visits of October 2 and October 6, 2007. Ground
level photos were only taken at beaches that have public land access.
Channel Place Park
Channel Place Park is a public beach with a playground and other amenities. Additional sand
capacity on the beach is limited by sand retention groins at either end, which function to separate
the sandy beach from nearby boat slips. Currently, the beach could accept on the order of tens of
cubic yards without overflowing beyond the end groins.
Figure 3. Channel Place Park
'01-'06
Distance
Number
Beach Name
Location
Public
Boat
Boat
Erosion
SL
to
Access
slips
Launch
Problem
Change
Eelgrass
30
Pirate's Cove
Corona del Mar
Yes
No
No
ND
>30'
Notes:
Public Access is an indication of the public's ability to get to and use the beaches. If the beach cannot be accessed by the public, then
economic benefits to the public are minimal and the current status of beach width cannot be assessed for this report. Access was
determined during the site visits of the current amity.
Boat Slips column indicates that boat slips are nearby and would be the primary limit on additional sand capacity.
Boat Launch indicates whether a beach allows launching of hand carried water craft (Newport Beach, 2001).
Erosion. Most evidence of shoreline erosion within the Lower Bay is limited to personal accounts and photographs. Nevertheless, this has
been sufficient to initiate beach replenishment projects in the past.
'01-'06 SL Change indicates the amount of shoreline change observed between the 2001 and 2006 aerial photographs provided by Newport
GIS. ND =shoreline change was "not detectable" or less than the detectable limit. Of the beaches reviewed, Carnation Cove stands out as
the only beach with a significant increase in shoreline position. In 2001, there was not beach, and by 2006 there was approximately 10
feet of dry beach.
Distance to Eelgmss The distances were measured from the 2006 aerial photograph provided by the City of Newport Beach GIs department.
<I 5' = there was no possible footprint within the beach that would be greater than l5 feet from eelgrass boundaries. 15' -30' = eelgrass was
found between 15 to 30 feet from any possible replenishment boundary. >30' = there are replenishment boundaries that are farther than 30
feet from eelgrass boundaries. Varies = eelgrass was found from <15' to >30' from possible replenishment boundaries. In many instances
the only location that would be greater than 30' from eelgrass was on the intertidal region of the beach.
All of the beaches within the Lower Bay are described in greater detail below. Ground level
photos, where available, were taken during site visits of October 2 and October 6, 2007. Ground
level photos were only taken at beaches that have public land access.
Channel Place Park
Channel Place Park is a public beach with a playground and other amenities. Additional sand
capacity on the beach is limited by sand retention groins at either end, which function to separate
the sandy beach from nearby boat slips. Currently, the beach could accept on the order of tens of
cubic yards without overflowing beyond the end groins.
Figure 3. Channel Place Park
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Balboa Coves
The four beaches at Balboa Coves are not publicly accessible via land. The beaches were
relatively stable between the 2001 and 2006 as determined from aerial photographs. From the
aerial photographs, it seems that any replenishment would cause a negative impact on the many
boat slips within the coves.
Figure 4. Balboa Coves
Lake Street
The beach at Lake Street and 38`h Street is bound on either end by the 38`h Street Bridge and an
impermeable patio, shown in the photo below. Additional sand capacity is available at this
beach on the order of tens of cubic yards.
Figure 5. Beach at Lake Street
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Newport Island Park
This public park is located on the south shore of Newport Island near the intersection of Marcus
Avenue and 38`" Street. All beaches on Newport Island are excluded from replenishment under
the RGP. Replenishment can be permitted with additional sediment testing and acquisition of an
amendment to the RGP. Due to the nearby boat slips, the beach has a small capacity for
additional sand on the order of tens of cubic yards.
Figure 6. Beach at Newport Island Park
Lido Park
The beach at Lido Park is located on the north -west side of the Via Lido Bridge. It is bounded
by a groin on the west and the bridge to the east. The current beach is at capacity. Any
additional sand would likely slip around the groin into the nearby boat slips.
Figure 7. Beach at Lido Park
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Lido Peninsula /Beach Dr.
This beach is located on the south east tip of the Lido Peninsula. Based on visual inspection, the
sand ranged from very fine at the water line to very coarse at the beach berm. Sand retention
groins are located at both ends of this pocket beach to prohibit sand migration out of the beach
and into the nearby boat slips. The current beach is at capacity.
Figure 8. Beach at Lido Peninsula
Marina Park
The beach at Marina Park is located between 16`h Street and 19`h Street on the north shore of the
Balboa Peninsula. This beach can accommodate a relatively large quantity of replenishment
sand on the order of hundreds of cubic yards.
Figure 9. Beach at Marina Park
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
15th Street
No beach replenishment is permittable within 1,000 feet of the 15th Street public pier under the
RGP. If beach replenishment is desired, additional sediment testing and an amendment to the
RGP would be required. The current beach width appears adequate. Any beach replenishment
would likely impact the 15th St. Pier docks and nearby boat slips.
Figure 10. Beach at 15th Street
Via Lido Nord
The photo below shows the beach at Via Lido Nord at Koron Street. Additional sand capacity on
the beach is limited by sand retention groins, which function to separate the sandy beach from
nearby boat slips. The current distance between the high tide water line and the end of the east
groin is approximately 5 feet. Any additional sand should be placed in the middle of the beach,
far from boat slips at either end.
Figure 11. Beach at Via Lido Nord
10
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Via Lido Soud
Additional sand capacity on the beach at Via Lido Soud is limited by the size and placement of
sand retention structures. The boat launch ramp in the photo below is protected on the edges by
small groins which serve to keep sand from migrating onto the ramp surface. The vertical
distance from the beach surface to the top of the groin is a few inches. Public land access to this
beach is difficult. Visual inspection of the beach sand yielded grain sizes from medium to coarse
sand.
Figure 12. Beach at Via Lido Soud
10th Street
There is a public beach at 10th Street and West Bay Avenue. It is bound on either end by
structures functioning as sand retention groins. The beach is wide, but still has capacity to accept
on the order of tens of cubic yards of additional sand without impacting the nearby boat slips.
Figure 13. Beach at 10th Street
11
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Crestview and Bayshore
Crestview Beach is located at the intersection of Crestview Drive and Bayshore Drive. Bayshore
Beach is located on the south east corner of the Bayshore development. These beaches are
inaccessible to the public by land. They appear stable, near to eelgrass beds, and bound by boat
slips. Any replenishment would have to be small, on the order of tens of cubic yards.
Figure 14. Crestview and Bayshore Beaches
Bay Island West
There is a small beach on the west shore of Bay Island. In 2007, a sand retention wall was
proposed for this beach to hold sand up onto the beach and keep it from migrating into the boat
slips (Rossmiller, 2007). The beach has no public access, is small, and bound by boat slips, so
replenishment capacity is small, on the order of tens of cubic yards.
Figure 15. Beach at Bay Island West
12
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Edgewater /Montero
The beach near the junction of Edgewater Avenue and Montero Avenue is bound on either end
by boat slips and offshore by eelgrass. Nevertheless, there are long stretches between boat slips
(hundreds of feet) and the eelgrass beds are located more than 30 feet from possible
replenishment locations. Therefore, this could receive hundreds of cubic yards of replenishment
sand.
Figure 16. Beach at Edgewater and Montero
Avenues
Bay Island East
The beach on the east side of Bay Island is inaccessible to the public by land. This beach has
boat slips along the majority of its length, with one open area at the north end. The beach is
relatively wide compared to other beaches within the Lower Bay and would likely have a low
attendance due to it being located on a private island. It could accept on the order of tens of
cubic yards without impacting navigation.
Figure 17. Beach at Bay Island East
13
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
PCH Bridge
The beach just south of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge is inaccessible to the public by land.
It is currently fenced off and occupied by numerous sculling boats (not shown).
Figure 18. Beach at PCH Bridge
Linda Isle
This beach is inaccessible to the public by land. From aerial photographs it appears that no
additional sand could be placed without impacting navigation in nearby boat slips.
Figure 19. Beach at Linda Isle
14
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Beacon Bay
This beach is inaccessible to the public by land. This beach could accept hundreds of cubic
yards of sand without negatively impacting navigation or boat slips.
Figure 20. Beach at Beacon Bay
North Bay Front
1,500 cubic yards was replenished on Ruby Beach on the North Bay Front as part of a 2007
dredging effort that removed a total of 7,000 cubic yards from Channel Reef docks. This beach
could receive additional sand at specific locations.
Figure 21. Beach at Ruby Street, North Bay Front, St. Looking West
15
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
South Bay Front
South Bay Front stretch along the south and west sides of Balboa Island. A 2002 economic
study concluded that if beach widths were doubled to an average of thirty feet, the average
increase in attendance would be between 7% and 9% (King & Symes, 2002). Also, any
significant increase in beach width would cause a negative impact to navigation in the boat slips.
There are however erosion hot spots, such as west of Ruby St. that would benefit from
replenishment.
Looking west
x ,
Figure 22. Beach at Ruby Street, South Bay Front, Looking East and West
E. Bay Avenue
The beaches along E. Bay Avenue consist of
mainly street ends as shown in Figure 23
below and beaches fronting private homes.
The street ends are bound on both sides by
sand retention groins which serve to separate
sand from the nearby boat slips. Most of the
beaches along E. Bay Ave. are at capacity.
Minor replenishment projects of tens of cubic
yards may be acceptable.
16
Figure 23. Typical Street End Beach Along
E. Bay Avenue
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Promontory Bay
The beach at Promontory Bay is just south of Bayside Drive and east of Harbor Island Road.
There is a sign indicating that it is a private beach. This beach is excluded from replenishment
under the RGP. Replenishment can be permitted with additional sediment testing and acquisition
of an amendment to the RGP. The beach currently is at capacity. Sand replenishment beyond a
few cubic yards would likely overspill the sand retention groin shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24. Beach at Promontory Bay
Bayside Cove
The beach at Bayside Cove is inaccessible to the public by land or water. From the aerial
photographs it appears that additional sand could be placed without impacting boat slips.
Figure 25. Beach at Bayside Cove
17
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
East Bay Front
The beach along East Bay Front is variable in width and underlies many boat dock ramps. Any
beach replenishment would have to be of small quantities at specific locations. The proximity of
boat slips would be a limiting factor to replenishment.
Figure 26. East Bay Front
Harbor Patrol
The beach near the Harbor Patrol office in Corona del Mar is sometimes called Interceptor
Beach. This name describes its function, which is to intercept, or trap, migrating sand, keeping it
from penetrating farther into the harbor and boat slips (Brodeur, 2007). By design, this beach
would not be a receiver of replenishment sand, rather a source.
Figure 27. Harbor Patrol Beach
18
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
M Street
A public beach is located at M Street and Channel Road on
the tip of the Balboa Peninsula. This beach has a flat sandy
platform maintained by a concrete, shore parallel retaining
wall. On the bay side of the wall is a low sandy beach
accessed by concrete steps. The bay side beach is
submerged at high tide as shown in the figure below. Some
capacity for additional sand exists, but is limited by the
nearby boat slips and eelgrass.
Carnation Cove
Carnation Cove has an erosive beach (Miller, 2007). The
beach is inaccessible to the public by land. Comparing the
2001 and 2006 aerial photographs showed the beach
increased from no beach in 2001 to a 10 foot wide dry
beach in 2006.
Figure 28. Beach at M Street
Figure 29. Carnation Cove
19
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
China Cove
The beach at China Cove is erosive (Miller, 2007). Between the 2001 and 2006 aerial
photographs, the beach width eroded by approximately 20 feet. Since then, this beach received
about 985 cubic yards of replenishment in the summer of 2007 under the RGP. The purpose of
the replenishment project was to provide additional dry beach for recreation and to help protect
the bulkhead and exposed piles within China Cove. The replenishment source was 500 feet
north of China Cove. The beach has since returned to a narrow, eroded condition as shown in
the photos below.
Figure 30. China Cove
Pirate's Cove
Pirate's cove has a popular beach due to the easy access and plentiful parking. Of all the beaches
in the Lower Bay, this beach is the most exposed to open ocean swell. The beach is consistently
narrow as observed in the 2001 and 2006 photos as well as the recent site visit. It is likely that
any replenishment to this beach would erode quickly, migrating further into the bay.
Figure 31. Pirate's Cove
20
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
2.2 Beach Usage
Little information is available on beach usage. The only beach attendance estimates available
within the Lower Bay were for the south shore of Balboa Island with annual attendance of
between 10,000 and 15,000 people (King & Symes, 2002). The study finds that Balboa Island's
beaches were less crowded in 2002 than in the 1960s and 1970s. The study concluded that if the
beach width along Balboa Island's South Bay Front were doubled to an average of thirty feet,
attendance would increase by 7% to 9 %.
Since there is only one public boat launch ramp at Newport Dunes in Newport Bay, many of the
beaches in the Lower Bay allow hand launching of kayaks and other human powered boats to
relieve the demand. These boat launch areas are in high demand and should be maintained as
sandy beaches.
2.3 Beach Replenishment and Erosion Rate
No quantitative studies of shoreline erosion rates were available within the Lower Bay. There
are however anecdotal observations of significant erosion at China Cove, Carnation Cove, and
Balboa Island. Observations of a replenishment project with subsequent erosion at Balboa Island
are reproduced here:
"In 1970 -1971, 4,210 cubic yards of sand were removed from an area near Promontory Bay and
placed on Balboa Island from the north side of the island starting at Sapphire Street and
extending around the east end of the island to the south side ending at Coral Street. The
southwest side of the island between Emerald Avenue and Turquoise Avenue also received sand.
City employees familiar with this project report that the sand did not remain on the beach very
long. They felt the slope on which sand was placed was too steep. Wave action flattened the
slope and caused sand to fill underneath the boat slips (Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, 1982)."
Aerial photographs taken in 2001 and 2006 were available from the City of Newport Beach.
Shoreline positions were evaluated from these photographs to determine changes in beach width
during this time. In most cases no significant change in beach width was observed. This does
not necessarily mean that beaches in the Lower Bay are stable, only accretion or erosion was too
small to be observed in the photos. This type of analysis is typically useful for large shoreline
changes greater than 50 feet, whereas changes in the Lower Bay are on the order of less than ten
feet. Due to the small changes observed, additional shoreline change analysis is not warranted.
21
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
3.0 BEACH REPLENISHMENT CONSTRAINTS
There are many constraints on how, when, what, and where replenishment is allowed. This
section provides an overview of relevant government regulations and practical implementation of
those regulations on beach replenishment projects for Newport Bay. In addition, others
environmental and practical constraints such as impacts to docks, navigation, and
constructability are also discussed.
3.1 Regulatory Environment
Successful implementation of a beach replenishment project requires knowledge of the
regulatory environment as well as an understanding of the physical, biological, and chemical
characteristics of the receiver and borrow sites. The California Coastal Sediment Management
Workgroup has been working on simplifying and summarizing beach replenishment regulations
over the past few years. They have developed the following key references to assist in
understanding the process:
California Coastal Sediment Master Plan Status Report, California Coastal Sediment
Management Workgroup. 2006.
Sand Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program. (Moffatt & Nichol. 2006).
Prepared for SANDAG and the California Coastal Sediments Management Workgroup.
California Coastal Sediment Master Plan Policies, Procedures, and Regulations Analysis,
Beach Restoration Regulatory Guide, Final. (Everest. 2006). Prepared for California
State Coastal Conservancy and Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup.
The following summary of beach replenishment regulations is paraphrased from Everest (2006).
Depending on the specific nature of the project, implementing a beach replenishment project
requires compliance with various regulations at the federal, state, and local levels of government.
The most relevant federal, state and local regulations are summarized in Table 2, along with
corresponding regulatory requirements and agencies responsible for administering each
regulation.
22
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Table 2. Relevant Regulations Affecting Beach Replenishment Projects
Policy /Regulation
Requirement
Permitting/Approval/
Responsible Agency
Federal
National Environmental Policy Act
Compliance
Lead Federal Agency
Coastal Zone Management Act
Consistency Determination
California Coastal Commission
(CCD)
Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 Permit
US Army Corps of Engineers
Clean Air Act
Title V Operating Permit
California Air Resources Board (see
below under State)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 401 Certification or Waiver
Regional Water Quality Control
(401 Permit)
Boards+
Section 402 National Pollution
Regional Water Quality Control
Clean Water Act
Discharge Elimination System
Boards+
(NPDES) Permit
Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit (404 Permit)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Endangered Species Act*
Section 7 Consultation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Historic Preservation Act*
Section 106 Approval
State Historic Preservation Officer
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act*
Coordination Act Report (CAR)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Magnuson- Stevens Fishery
Assessment of Impacts to Essential Fish
National Marine Fisheries Service
Conservation & Management Act*
Habitat
State
California Environmental Quality Act
Compliance
Lead CEQA Agency
(CEQA)
California Coastal Act
Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
California Coastal Commission
Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control
Compliance
State Water Resources Control Board
Act
Permits under Clean Water Act
Regional Water Quality Control Boards
Sections 401, 402, and 404
California State Lands Public
Lease Agreement for Utilization of
California State Lands Commission
Resources Code
Sovereign Lands
California Public Resources Code
Streambed Alteration Agreement
California Department of Fish and
Section 1600
(SAA)
Game
Section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permit
California Endangered Species Act
(State)
California Department of Fish and
Section 2081.1 Consistency
Game
Determination (State and Federal)
Water Quality Control Plans
Consistency
Regional Water Quality Control
California Ocean Plan
Compliance
Boards+
23
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Table 2. Relevant Regulations Affecting Beach Replenishment Projects
Policy /Regulation
Requirement
Permitting/Approval/
Responsible Agency
Clean Air Act
Title V Operating Permit
Air Pollution Control Districts and Air
Quality Management Districts
Local
City Municipal Code, Title 17
Title 17, 17.55 Dredging Permit
Newport Beach Harbor Resources
Division
Harbor Permit Policy
RGP Permit
Newport Beach Harbor Resources
Division
• Review and compliance is usually triggered through the initial Clean Water Act section 404 permitting process by the USACE.
+ The S WRCB has lead responsibility when a project involves jurisdiction by more than one RWQCB.
In general, the regulatory compliance process consists of three phases: (i) environmental review;
(ii) permitting; and (iii) compliance review. Environmental review is typically done first since
the information contained in the environmental review documentation is used by the regulatory
and resource agencies to process permits and agreements. Once the environmental review
process is complete, or in some cases near completion, then the permitting phase begins.
The environmental review process consists of NEPA and CEQA compliance, including other
environmental laws. To streamline the environmental review process and as encouraged by
CEQA, NEPA and CEQA documents should be prepared concurrently. The major differences
between NEPA and CEQA are summarized in Everest (2006).
Upon completion of the environmental review process, the project applicant will submit the
necessary permit and agreement applications to the appropriate agencies. In order to improve
coordination and consistency in resource protection and management, the federal regulatory
agencies (USACE) and State (California Coastal Commission, or CCC) typically do not approve
their permits until they have seen the final draft responses from the other agencies and worked
out any response differences. USACE and the State Water Resources Control Board recently
issued Regional General Permit Number 67, designed to streamline the beach replenishment
permitting process under the USACE, Los Angeles District (USACE, 2006). This standing
permit expired September 25, 2011. Newport Harbor falls under the jurisdiction of the Los
Angeles District of the USACE.
Most beach replenishment projects involve the placement of material (i.e., fill) in waters of the
U.S; therefore, a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit and RHA Section 10 Permit from
the USACE are usually required. A CWA Section 401 Certification from the appropriate
Regional or State Water Board is needed for the 404 Permit. The CCC (and possibly a Local
Coastal Program) will require either a Coastal Consistency Determination (if it's a federal
project) or a Coastal Development Permit. The CDFG and State Land Commission must also
issue a Streambed Alteration Agreement and Sovereign Lands Utilization Lease, respectively.
Triggers and corresponding processes for each regulation are described in Everest (2006).
24
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Successful processing of all required environmental review documentation and permit
information requires close coordination with representatives from the relevant regulatory and
resource agencies. Contact information (as of December 2006) for federal, state, and local
regulatory and resource agencies is provided in Table 3. Each agency should be contacted early
in the regulatory compliance phase to identify the agency staff member(s) that will be
responsible for the project.
The permitting process can be an expensive and time consuming portion of any replenishment
project. For replenishment projects less than 1000 cubic yards (plus other conditions), the
Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division maintains a Regional General Permit #54 (RGP).
This greatly simplifies the permitting process, condensing the documentation into a four page
Dredging Application (with supporting documents) submitted to the Harbor Resources Division.
General information such as locations, project description, quantities, depths, grain sizes, and
environmental habitat information are required. The RGP is valid for five years, with the current
permit ending on October 4, 2011.
Table 3. Regulatory and Resource Agency Contact Information for Beach Replenishment
Proj ects
Agency
Region/District
Office /Area
Contact
Telephone
E -Mail Address
USCAE
Los Angeles
Orange County
Cori
(213) 452-
Corice.J.Fanar @usace.army.mil
CCA = California Coastal Act of 1976
District
Management Act of 1996
Farrar
3296
= Streambed Alteration Agreement
State Water
(916) 341 -
Resources
California
State
Bill Orme
5464
BOme @waterboards.ca.gov
Control Board
Regional Water
Region 8, Santa
Jun
(951) 782 -
Quality Control
Ana
Martirez
3258
Jmartirez @waterboards.ca.gov
Board
California
South Coast
Counties: Los Angeles
Teresa
(562) 590 -
Coastal
District
and Orange
Henry
5071
thenry @coastal.ca.gov
Commission
California
Santa Barbara,
Department of
South Coast
Ventura, Los Angeles,
SAA
(858) 636 -
Fish and Game
Region
Orange and San Diego
Contact
3160
Counties
County
Orange
Watershed & Coastal
Susan
(714) 834-
Susan.brodeur @rdmd.ocgov.wm
Resources Division
Brodeur
5486
City
Newport Beach
Harbor Resources
Chris
(949) 644 -
cmiller @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Division
Miller
3043
Acronyms:
CWA = Clean Water Act of 1972
RHA
= River and Harbor Act of 1899
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
FWCA
= Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956
CZMA = Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
MSFCMA
= Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and
CCA = California Coastal Act of 1976
Management Act of 1996
CDFG = California Department of Fish and Game
SAA
= Streambed Alteration Agreement
ESA = Endangered Species Act of 1973
Environmental
Simple rules regulating impacts to eelgrass communities within the Lower Bay have been
incorporated into the RGP (Harbor Resources Division). An eelgrass survey of the
replenishment area is required as part of the permitting process. If it is found that eelgrass is
25
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
present within 15 feet of the replenishment footprint, the project will not be permitted. If it is
present within 15 to 30 feet of the replenishment footprint, then pre -and post - monitoring is
required by a certified eelgrass diver. Further than 30 feet requires no additional permitting or
monitoring.
An example application of this eelgrass distance rule is shown in Figure 32. This image shows
the extent of eelgrass beds (marked in green) overlaid on the beach at South Bay Front, Balboa
Island. The eelgrass drawing was provided by the Newport Beach GIS Department. It can be
seen that eelgrass has existed right up to the low tide line at this beach. Nevertheless, sand
replenishment could still take place on the dry beach as long as the footprint is greater than 15
feet away.
To date, there is no mitigation flexibility in these rules. There has been discussion of developing
eelgrass management plan to offset dredging and beach replenishment losses to eelgrass habitats.
The eelgrass management plan is currently in the conceptual stage, but would likely ease
placement restrictions for beach replenishment if adopted.
A survey for caulerpa taxifolia must be performed covering an area within 30 feet of the
replenishment site by a certified caulerpa diver (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2004).
Results must be reported to the Harbor Resources Division. While the eelgrass and caulerpa
rules have been developed over time for the RGP, it is likely that they would also apply for
replenishment projects within the Lower Bay that are not covered under the RGP.
Beach replenishment should not be placed during least tern and snowy plover foraging and
nesting seasons, grunion runs, and high beach usage times, which can all differ according to site.
Replenishment rates are restricted to control turbidity levels. Restrictions are also placed on the
number of trips per day allowed for transporting source sediment to minimize air quality, noise,
public safety, and traffic impacts.
26
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
II
Allowable Replenishment
Footprint
Figure 32. Eelgrass Overlay and Replenishment Footprint on South Bay Front
Sediment Compatibility
In addition to the environmental interpretations of the regulations, rules pertaining to the
compatibility of replenishment sources and receiver beaches have been developed specifically
for Newport Bay. These rules cover issues associated with grain size compatibility, color, shape,
debris, and in place hardness.
The general rule for beach replenishment is that sources must have grain sizes compatible with
the receiving beaches. Since beaches in the Lower Bay have sand sized grains a simple rule was
developed for use under the RGP. It states that the replenishment source material must be either
greater than 80% sand or at least 75% sand and no more than 10% difference in sand content
between source and receiver beach. In addition, one soil sample must be collected at each
disposal site and at least one sample per quarter acre must be collected.
The 80% rule may also be applicable for larger projects not covered under the RGP. For projects
not covered under the RGP and having replenishment sources with 80% sand or less, the source
may still be beach suitable if it falls within the grain size envelope of the receiver beach (Moffatt
& Nichol, 2006).
27
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
It is necessary to know grain sizes of the replenishment sources and receiver beaches for
determining grain size compatibility. In support of the most recent (2005) RGP application, 33
sediment samples were collected at potential replenishment sources within Newport Bay
(Weston Solutions, Inc., 2005). These locations included both subtidal and intertidal sites near
Lido Peninsula, Lido Isle, Bayshore, Linda Isle, Harbor Isle, Balboa Island, Bay Island, and the
Balboa Peninsula. It was found that subtidal samples (further from shore) had high percentages
of silt and clay and intertidal samples (close to shore) had much higher percentages of ranging
from 90.4 to 98.3 %. The sediment sample data can be useful for a preliminary analysis if the
grain size envelope approach is required.
Grain size data for the many receiver beaches is not yet organized under one report. Many of the
beaches have been maintained by individual homeowners or homeowners associations and
sampling data may be available from those individuals or groups. While it is beyond the scope
of this study, an evolving database of all replenishment sources and receiver beaches would be
useful for grain size compatibility analysis within the RAMP.
Similar sediment color is required for aesthetic reasons. Most dredged material is typically
suitable for beach replenishment. The darker color of dredged material normally begins to
resemble the beach material after exposure to the sun.
Source sediment should have sub - rounded particles, rather than angular or sharp particles. Most
dredged material meets this requirement since it is common for naturally transported fluvial
material to have rounded particles.
Source sediment should be free of trash and debris. Debris should not pose health or safety
hazards, bad odor, or poor visual aspects.
Source sediment should not harden when compacted during beach placement or when exposed to
wetting and drying conditions. If this is of concern, then the source material should be placed in
the surf zone (Moffatt & Nichol, 2006)
3.2 Impact on Boat Slips
One of the key findings of a 1982 study of beach replenishment on Balboa Island was that
locally dredged material when placed on the Balboa Island beaches would quickly result in
sedimentation of the nearby boat slips (Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, 1982). This would result in
a hazard to navigation and impact the utility of the slips. Succinctly stated, "A wide beach and
boat slips are incompatible uses" (Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, 1982).
The combined desire for relatively wide beaches and functional boat slips has resulted in the
need for near constant beach maintenance. In many cases the maintenance is essentially pushing
sand from below the boat slips, uphill to the beach and repeating on a regular basis. In addition,
sand retaining groins are prevalent throughout the Lower Bay. Two examples are shown in
Figures 33 and 34 below. The groins function to separate the sandy beach from boat slips,
reducing the maintenance frequency.
28
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Figure 33. Groin Separating Sandy Beach from Boat Slips at Via Lido Nord
Figure 34. Groin Separating Sandy Beach from Boat Slips on Lido Peninsula
29
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
3.3 Construction
Beach replenishment construction within the Lower Bay has been limited to two companies
within the past few years. Shellmaker Inc. has been capable of dredging in and around docks as
needed with both ocean and beach disposal. Recently, their ocean scow has become disabled so
little to no ocean disposal is taking place from the Lower Bay. The second company,
Intracoastal Dredging has a small, 6 inch hydraulic dredge operating on a floating platform. The
majority of their dewatering and beach shaping has been performed with bobcats and front end
loaders. This allows for easy maneuvering between the many docks and structures within the
Lower Bay. For the majority of projects within the Lower Bay, construction is limited to these
two companies and their equipment. They have an economic advantage over other companies
since their mobilization and demobilization costs will be minimal.
There is larger dredging equipment currently operating in the Upper Bay. When that project
finishes in 2008, it will likely move out of Newport Bay to other large -scale projects. Re-
mobilizing back to Newport Bay would likely be cost prohibitive for future use.
30
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
4.0 PRIORITIZING BEACH REPLENISHMENT
The numerous factors both for and against replenishment at the many possible beaches within the
Lower Bay make choosing which beach receives sand replenishment difficult. To date, no
systematic decision making method is available. To assist in this, two possible decision making
tools are presented: 1) a benefit to cost (B /C) ratio analysis which provides one relatively
objective dollar value to each possible scenario; and 2) the use of an Alternative Matrix to
provide more subjective qualitative rating between different alternatives.
4.1 Benefit Cost Ratio Approach
To help with large scale sand replenishment project decision making, economists and policy -
makers typically perform a B/C analysis. This approach has been pursued by the US Army
Corps of Engineers with their automated GIS based regional sediment management computer
programs for the Ventura and San Diego regions (Everest, 2006 and 2008). Also, the California
Department of Boating and Waterways used this approach on a state wide level (King and
Douglas, 2003) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) used B/C analysis
for the San Diego region (SANDAG, 2007).
A B/C analysis examines the ratio of benefits to costs. For example if a replenishment project
yields an increase in total economic benefit of $800,000 and costs $200,000, then the B/C ratio is
4 ($800,000/$200,000). If the B/C ratio is greater than one, then the project makes sense in
terms of California State policy. As a practical matter, many agencies require a somewhat higher
ratio, for example, a B/C ratio greater than two is sometimes required to ensure that the project
makes sense given the uncertainties involved. When resources are limited, it is useful to choose
projects with the highest B/C ratio.
The approach normally taken to perform a B/C analysis involves 1) development of alternatives,
2) estimates of construction and lifetime costs, 3) estimates of the potential benefits, and 4)
review of the B/C ratios for each alternative.
Costs that are typically considered include: studies, engineering, environmental review,
permitting, construction, mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. The evaluation of economic
benefits will typically consider the following factors: weather (sunny or cloudy); water quality
(recreation experience); beach width and quality (existing beach widths, future widths,
sustainability, sand quality), overcrowding (attendance, carrying capacity), beach facilities and
services, availability of substitutes and parking (accessibility); storm protection (some agencies
do not include this); and environmental benefit (in most cases replenishment is a detriment).
If the B/C approach were pursued for sand replenishment in the Lower Bay, significant gaps in
available data would need to be filled such as: receiver beach grain sizes, replenishment source
grain sizes, existing beach widths, erosion rates, attendance /popularity, public access status, and
amenities of each beach.
The B/C analysis, while providing objective information, is also very data intensive and likely
over burdensome for small scale sand replenishment projects such as proposed for the Lower
Bay. A more effort- appropriate approach is the less data intensive, more qualitative "Alternative
Matrix ".
31
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
4.2 Alternative Matrix
An Alternative Matrix was developed for this report (Table 4) to qualitatively rank beaches for
their replenishment capacity and need. To do this, the beach names were listed on the left
column with each beach having qualitative values for various criteria. The criteria include:
access & popularity, sand capacity, constructability, and eelgrass. Values for each criteria range
from 1 to 3 with 1 being poor performance and 3 being good performance within that criteria.
Also, each criteria are weighted from 1 to 3 based on their level of importance, with 3 being most
important. For example, access & popularity is very important so that criteria receives a weight
of 3, while constructability is least important receiving a weight of 1. Each beach and criteria
combination has a subtotal calculated as the criteria value times the importance weighting. On
the right hand side of the table the sub - totals are added together and ranked. The beaches that
would benefit the most from replenishment have the highest total and the best rank (1 being
best).
The best ranking beaches in the Alternative Matrix are (from west to east): Marina Park,
Edgewater /Montero, and China Cove, all having an equal rank of 1. The next best ranked
beaches are Pirate's Cove (ranked 2), Lake St, 10`h St, and M St. (ranked 3).
The Alternative Matrix could be improved by refinement and /or addition of the following data:
estimates of replenishment capacity at each beach (f 100°/x), public access status of each beach,
a database of grain sizes and their compatibility to potential sediment sources.
32
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Table 4. Beach Replenishment Alternative Matrix
Number
Beach Name
Access & Importance
Popularity x 3
Sand
Capacity Importance
8' x3
Erosion
Constructabiltt y Importance
x 1
Importance
Eelgrass
x2
Total
Rank
value
subtotal
value
subtotal
value
subtotal
value
subtotal
1
Channel Place Park
3
9
1
3
2
2
3
6
20
6
2
Balboa Coves
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
6
13
12
3
Lake St.
9
2
6
2
2
3
6
23
3
4
Newport Island Park
3
9
1
3
2
2
3
6
20
6
5
Lido Park
2
6
1
3
1
1
3
6
16
9
6
Lido Peninsula
2::
6
1
3
2.
2
3
6
17
8
7
Marina Park
3
9
3
9
2
2
3
6
26
1
8
15th St
3
9
1
3
2
2
3
6
20
6
9
Via Lido Nord
2
6
3
9
1
1
3
6
22
4
10
Via Lido Soud
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
6
13
12
11
10th St
3
9
2
6
2
2
3
6
23
3
12
Crestview
1
3
1
3
2
2
3
6
14
11
13
Bayshore
1
3
1
3
2
2
1
2
10
13
14
Bay Island West
1
3
1
3
1
l
3
6
13
12
15
Edgewater/Montero
3
9
3
9
2
2
3
6
26
1
16
Bay Island East
1
3
2
6
1
1
2
4
14
11
17
PCH Bridge
1
3
2
6
2
2
3
6
17
8
18
Linda Isle
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
6
13
12
19
Beacon Bay
1
3
2
6
2.
2
2
4
15
10
20
North Bay Front
3.
9
2
6
2
2
2
4
21
5
21
South Bay Front
3
9
2
6
2
2
2
4
21
5
22
E Bay Ave
3
9
1
3
2
2
2
4
18
7
23
Promontory Bay
1
3
1
3
2
2
3
6
14
11
24
Bayside Cove
1
3
2
6
1
1
3
6
16
9
25
East Bay Front
3
9
2
6
2
2
2
4
21
5
26
Harbor Patrol
3
9
1
3
2
2
1
2
16
9
33
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Table 4. Beach Replenishment Alternative Matrix
Notes on the Alternative Matrix:
Access & puritan indicate the recreational need of each beach. This includes public access by land to the beach, recreation on the dry beach (such as lounging and exercise), in the water (such as
swimming), and boat launching of hand carried craft Beaches that are not accessible by the public would receive a criteria value of 1. Beaches that are popular and easy to access would receive a
value of 3.
Sand Capacity & Erosion indicate the need of each beach for additional sand. Many beaches are already at capacity, not requiring additional sand. These would receive a criteria value of 1. Others are
highly erosive and require significant replenishment. Beaches that require the most replenishment would receive a criteria value of 3.
Constmctabilitv This category describes how difficult it would be to construct beach replenishment. The criteria values range from 1 to 3, with 3 being the easiest, and 1 being most difficult. Easy
constructability would be a beach easily accessed by land and water. Difficult constmctability would be a beach with narrow streets and blocked beach access making land transport of sand difficult
to impossible. All but one of the beaches are accessible by water.
Eelerass This criteria generally reflects the ease of permitting. Of the permitting issues, eelgrass proximity is the most constraining. Beaches are rated with a scale from Ito 3 with 3 being easy and 1
being difficult permitting. An easy permitting means that eelgrass is greater than 30 fret away and the replenishment could be applied for under the RGP. Difficult permitting means celgrass is within
15 feet and the replenishment could not use the RGP. Other regulatory and environmental considerations include temporary impact to water quality and grain size compatibility requirements. These
other considerations, however, are approximately equal for all beaches being considered and are not reflected in the 1 to 3 scale.
Total Beaches with the highest total we most promising for replenishment.
Rank Beaches are ranked from 1 to 13 with l being the most promising and 13 being the least favorable beach for replenishment. Some beaches are tied for rank.
34
Sand
Access & Importance
Capacity Importance
Importance
Importance
Number
Beach Name
Popularity x 3
8' x3
Constructabiltty
x 1
Eelgrass
x2
Total
Rank
Erosion
value
subtotal
value
subtotal
value
subtotal
value
subtotal
27
M St
3
9
2
6
2
2
3
6
23
3
28
Carnation Cove
1
3
3
9
2
2
3
6
20
6
29
China Cove
9
3
9
2
2
3
6
26
1
30
Pirate's Cove
3
9
3
9
1
1
3
6
1 25
2
Notes on the Alternative Matrix:
Access & puritan indicate the recreational need of each beach. This includes public access by land to the beach, recreation on the dry beach (such as lounging and exercise), in the water (such as
swimming), and boat launching of hand carried craft Beaches that are not accessible by the public would receive a criteria value of 1. Beaches that are popular and easy to access would receive a
value of 3.
Sand Capacity & Erosion indicate the need of each beach for additional sand. Many beaches are already at capacity, not requiring additional sand. These would receive a criteria value of 1. Others are
highly erosive and require significant replenishment. Beaches that require the most replenishment would receive a criteria value of 3.
Constmctabilitv This category describes how difficult it would be to construct beach replenishment. The criteria values range from 1 to 3, with 3 being the easiest, and 1 being most difficult. Easy
constructability would be a beach easily accessed by land and water. Difficult constmctability would be a beach with narrow streets and blocked beach access making land transport of sand difficult
to impossible. All but one of the beaches are accessible by water.
Eelerass This criteria generally reflects the ease of permitting. Of the permitting issues, eelgrass proximity is the most constraining. Beaches are rated with a scale from Ito 3 with 3 being easy and 1
being difficult permitting. An easy permitting means that eelgrass is greater than 30 fret away and the replenishment could be applied for under the RGP. Difficult permitting means celgrass is within
15 feet and the replenishment could not use the RGP. Other regulatory and environmental considerations include temporary impact to water quality and grain size compatibility requirements. These
other considerations, however, are approximately equal for all beaches being considered and are not reflected in the 1 to 3 scale.
Total Beaches with the highest total we most promising for replenishment.
Rank Beaches are ranked from 1 to 13 with l being the most promising and 13 being the least favorable beach for replenishment. Some beaches are tied for rank.
34
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are over 30 beaches within Lower Newport Bay with varying uses and needs. Several
issues have prevented efficient management of beach replenishment projects.
• There is no management system in place to characterize and prioritize dredged material
for beneficial uses such as beach replenishment.
There is no management system is in place to prioritize selection of beaches for
replenishment.
• Eelgrass habitat restrictions: The proximity of eelgrass beds can limit the opportunities to
replenish the beaches. Currently, beach replenishment cannot be conducted in areas
where celgrass is found within 15 feet of the replenishment footprint. If celgrass is found
within 15 to 30 feet of the replenishment footprint, then pre -and post- monitoring surveys
are required.
Components of the RGP restrict the application of dredged material on beaches. Under
the RGP, only small volumes ( <1000cy) of dredged material from the Lower Bay can be
beneficially used to nourish compatible beaches. Larger replenishments require a
separate and costly permit.
The City will benefit from developing a centralized management program to manage future
dredging and beach replenishment projects. An Alternative Matrix has been developed that the
City can use in the future to rank the varying uses, needs, and constraints of the beaches to
decide on which beach would most benefit from replenishment. It is recommended that the City
to fill the data gaps listed earlier to improve the Alternative Matrix which can easily be modified
as more information becomes available or when priorities and opportunities change.
Based on existing available data, the Alternative Matrix shows that Marina Park,
Edgewater/Montero, and China Cove (Figure 35) all rank very high for beach replenishment
since these beaches all have a recreational need, can accept significant quantities of sand, are
easily constructed, and are far enough from eelgrass to be permitted. Pirate's Cove, Lake St, 10`h
St., and M St. also rank well for beach replenishment.
35
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
DISTPNCE IN FEET
10 0 10 0 2000
1,
i
.
Wk 14 +
Figure 35. Priority Beach Replenishment Locations
In addition to continue to improve the Alternative Matrix, the following recommendations are
made for improving the effectiveness of future beach replenishment program:
• Develop eelgrass management plan and determine if these banks can be used for beach
replenishment. This would significantly reduce restrictions on beach replenishment
placement locations.
• Modify the RGP to simplify and streamline the special conditions and increase the 1,000
cubic yard quantity limit. This would allow the resumption of maintenance dredging and
beach replenishment by individual homeowners and homeowners associations.
36
X
�A
V
�iI
w r1Lt;
.
Wk 14 +
Figure 35. Priority Beach Replenishment Locations
In addition to continue to improve the Alternative Matrix, the following recommendations are
made for improving the effectiveness of future beach replenishment program:
• Develop eelgrass management plan and determine if these banks can be used for beach
replenishment. This would significantly reduce restrictions on beach replenishment
placement locations.
• Modify the RGP to simplify and streamline the special conditions and increase the 1,000
cubic yard quantity limit. This would allow the resumption of maintenance dredging and
beach replenishment by individual homeowners and homeowners associations.
36
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
6.0 REFERENCES
Brodeur, Susan. 2007. Senior Coastal Engineer, Watershed and Coastal Resources Division,
County of Orange, personal communication, October 2, 2007.
California Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup. 2006. California Coastal Sediment
Master Plan Status Report, September 2006. htW://www.dbw.ca.gov/cs
Everest (Everest International Consultants, Inc.). 2006. California Coastal Sediment Master Plan
Policies, Procedures, and Regulations Analysis, Beach Restoration Regulatory Guide,
Final. Prepared for California State Coastal Conservancy Coastal Sediment Management
Workgroup. December 2006.
Everest. 2006. The ArcGIS Coastal Sediment Analyst (CSA) A Prototype Decision Support
Tool for Regional Sediment Management (RSM) Program Whitepaper. Prepared by
Everest International Consultants, Inc. Prepared for USAGE, Los Angeles District. April
2006.
Everest. 2008. Coastal Sediment Benefit Analysis Tool (CSBAT -San Diego) Sediment
Management Decision Support Tool for San Diego County Technical Report - Draft.
Prepared by Everest International Consultants, Inc. Prepared for USACE, Los Angeles
District. March 2008.
Harbor Resources Division. Regional General Permit 54, Summary of Combined Agency Permit
Requirements. City of Newport Beach. No date. htt2: / /www.city.newl2ort- beach.ca.us/
HBR/ SummaryofCombinedAgencyPermitRequirements .pdf
King, Philip G. and Douglas Symes. 2002. Economic Analysis of the Recreational Benefits of a
Nourishment Project on Balboa Island, Newport Beach. Submitted to the City of
Newport Beach. November 18, 2002.
King, Philip and Douglas Symes. 2003. The Potential Loss in Gross National Product and Gross
State Product from a Failure to Maintain California's Beaches: A Report prepared for
the California Department of Boating and Waterways,
http:// userwww .sfsu.cdu /— pgking/pubpol.htm and the Southern California Beach Project
Report on Expenditures,
httl2: / /marineeconomics.noaa. gov /SCBeach /laobeach l .html #reports
Miller, Chris. 2007. Supervisor, Harbor Resources Division, City of Newport Beach, personal
communication, October 2, 2007.
Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers. 1982. Balboa Island Shoreline Beach Replenishment
Reconnoissance Study. For City of Newport Beach. December 15, 1982.
Moffatt & Nichol. 2006. Sand Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program. Prepared for
SANDAG and the California Coastal Sediments Management Workgroup. March 2006.
37
Harbor Area Management Plan
In- Harbor Beach Replenishment Strategy Technical Report June 2009
Newport Beach. 2001. `Boat (Hand - carried) Launch Sites" map by Newport Information
Systems. March 15, 2001.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Caulerpa Survey Reporting Form (version 1.2
10/31/04). Contact Robert Hoffman.
Rossmiller, Tom, 2007. "Bay Island Seawall and Bridge Project." Letter and project description
from Harbor Resources Division, City of Newport Beach. July 23, 2007.
SANDAG and Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers. 2007. San Diego Regional Sand Replenishment
Project — Feasibility Study. Prepared for the Department of Boating and Waterways.
August 2007.
USAGE. Regional General Permit Number 54, Department of the Army Regional General
Permit Number 54. Los Angeles District. Permittee: City of Newport Beach, Division
of Harbor Resources. No date.
USAGE. 2006. Regional General Permit Number 67, Discharges of Dredged or Upland Derived
Fill Materials for Beach Nourishment. Los Angeles District. September 25, 2006
Weston Solutions, Inc., 2005. Dredged Material Evaluation for the Renewal of Regional
General Permit -54, Newport Beach, California, Final Draft. Prepared for the City of
Newport Beach Division of Harbor Resources. November 2005.
38