1. Dredging & Other Issues Newport Beach City Council
Lower Newport Bay
Dredging & Other Issues
Newport Beach City Council
Study Session
February 28, 2006

2. What We’ll discuss this evening…
Need for Dredging
Short Historical Perspective of Dredging
Comprehensive Sediment Management Program
Proposed Lower Bay Project with Corps of Engineers
Strategy to get the Project Funded
Development of a Harbor Area Management Plan that includes addressing eelgrass issues
Regional General Permit Renewal
Balboa Island Beach Replenishment

3. Do we really need to dredge the harbor?
This boater is hard aground in a main navigation channel and will tell you the harbor is difficult to safely navigate at low tide.
In fact, an Army Corps survey estimates that over 900,000 cubic yards of sediment has accumulated in the Lower Bay above design depths (not all of the harbor has ever been dredged to the design depths).

4. It all started when…a historical perspective:
In 1919 the City and County developed plans to improve the navigability of the harbor
Build a dam at Bitter Point
Build a new outlet for the Santa Ana River
Dredge the main channel
Extend the entrance jetty

6. A dredging timeline…
Between 1906 and 1920 private developers spent about $470,000 for Lower Bay Dredging.
In 1916 the City of Newport Beach funded $450,000 of Newport Bay improvements including dredging of a City Channel.
In 1919 the $500,000 bond issue and $85,000 received from the sale of dredged sand started a significant dredging project.
Between 1919 and 1930, 1,220,000 cubic yards were dredged from the Lower Bay and the entrance channel and placed on Balboa Peninsula
Between 1933 and 1935, 1,140,000 cubic yards were dredged from the Lower Bay to West Newport
In to 1936 the Harbor Entrance was again dredged and a federal interest was developed for the harbor.
In 1981, 82,000 cubic yards was dredged from the Harbor entrance and placed on the Peninsula

7. A dredging timeline continued…
In 1998, the Corps of Engineers dredged 164,000 cubic yards from the Upper Bay Channel below PCH.

8. A dredging timeline continued…
In 2003, The Army Corps dredged about 42,900 cubic yards from the Entrance Channel, Corona del Mar Bend, East Balboa Island Channel and adjacent to Collins Isle.

9. A dredging timeline continued…
The Regional General Permit allows for dredging up to 20,000 cubic yards of sediment per year between the bulkhead and pierhead lines.
since the annual rate varied between 1,742 cy and 20,000 cy
in the past 30 years about 170,000 cy was dredged and disposed of at LA-3 from this source
approximately another 187,000 cy was dredged and used for in-bay beach replenishment from this source during the past 30 years.

10. Important Historical Items to Note Related to Dredging in Newport Bay
Prior to 1920 the Santa Ana River flowed through Lower Newport Bay on it’s way to the ocean.
The River deposited sand in the Bay which was later dredged to form islands and build the Peninsula and West Newport Beaches.
The other source of sand deposited in the Bay Entrance Channel has been erosion in the up-coast littoral zone, which continues today.
Until 1969 San Diego Creek did not flow directly into the Bay.
San Diego Creek Watershed produces sediment that has a high silt and clay load.
After 1969 the silts and clays (that provide no beneficial reuse) needed to be removed from the Bay and deposited in an ocean disposal site at significant cost.

11. Maintenance of the Lower Bay can only be effective with a comprehensive source control program in the watershed…

12. To update this 10 year old fact sheet :
Add the cities of Lake Forest, Santa Ana and Costa Mesa and IRWD as participants
Add Unit III and In-channel cleanup costs and other TMDL compliance measures and the new expenditure total is close to $145,000,000.
The annuity for Upper Bay Maintenance (Robinson-Skinner fund only has about $3.8M).

13. Where does the dredged sediment go?
If it is greater than 80% sand and meets quality criteria, then it is reused on a local beach.
If it is less than 80% sand and meets quality criteria, then it is disposed at an EPA approved disposal site called LA-3.

14. Where is LA-3 ? Prior to 2006 the interim site was used.
In early 2006, after several years of costly studies, a new site was permanently designated to the southwest of the interim site in the Newport Submarine Canyon.

15. How important is LA-3 to our maintenance program ?
It has been used every year since 1976.
Typically, relatively several small volume disposal years from Lower Bay RGP dredging interspersed with large projects from the Upper Bay basin clean out projects.

16. A New Lower Bay Dredging Project…
After reviewing the Corps’ hydrographic surveys, we developed a priority list of areas to be dredged and depths to be achieved.
The high priority areas are shown in red with a design depth of -15 MLLW in the main channel and -12 MLLW in other areas.

17. Lower Newport Bay Dredging Project
We met with the Army Corps of Engineers District Commander, Colonel Dornstauder, and staff to discuss the strategy to complete the next phase of dredging the Lower Bay.
No federal money is currently available; however, a new amphipod testing protocol approval opens the door to partner with Corps to complete the testing, environmental documentation and project design to enable the project to be ready to take advantage of reprogrammed funds as they become available.
The Colonel and his staff will assist us in implementing the strategy.
Optimistically, we think an FY 07 start is possible.

18. What is the Strategy to get a Lower Bay Dredging Project Funded?
Federal Channel was partially dredged in 03. The project was discontinued because of sediment contamination issues.
Residual Federal Funding for this Operation and Maintenance Project was reprogrammed to other Corps projects.
Subsequently, the City of Newport Beach successfully completed the work to eliminate the sediment issue, which now allows the remaining dredged material sediment to be disposed of in the offshore (LA-3) disposal site.
The Upper Newport Bay dredging project is scheduled to begin in early 06.
A dredging contractor is on site for the project and will remain on site for approximately 2 yrs.

19. The Lower Bay is in need of additional dredging to complete the Federal dredging responsibilities and eliminate the existing shoaling that is a hazard to navigation.
It is estimated that the final phase of the project would cost approximately $4 million including a separate mobilization component.
The Upper Bay Dredging contractor is mobilized and could perform this work presenting a cost savings for mobilization estimated at approximately $1 million.
The City of Newport could be in a position to contribute $1 million.
With the above, the Federal costs would be reduced to $2 million.
The Lower Newport bay is a component of the larger comprehensive watershed approach currently underway.
With the completion of Lower Bay Dredging Project it is estimated that the next need for federal channel maintenance dredging is approximately 20 years in the future.

20. Regional General Permit Renewal
A Regional General Permit is a programmatic permit whereby local property owners apply to the City for permission to dredge within their dock area and accomplish certain qualifying dock repair and replacement projects.
The City, in-turn, is issued a letter of permission after review by the regulatory agencies. This process saves the property owners time, money, and frustration.

21. Regional General Permit Renewal
Dredging projects under the expired RGP were required to be completed by January 24, We have been working on the permit renewal for about two years, and have recently overcome all of the major obstacles.
The agencies approved the results of our physical, chemical, bioassay and bioaccumulation studies for all areas tested. EPA has sent an to the Resources Agencies formally accepting the results.
Our new method of dealing with the amphipod survival issue was widely accepted and EPA was very helpful in insuring that the other agencies approved of the recently developed protocol.
The eelgrass monitoring changes were approved in principle. NOAA/Fisheries agreed to write a detailed procedure to make sure that the eelgrass divers and dredgers understand the process
No change in current monitoring protocol with disposal at sea projects.
Additional monitoring for projects involving beach disposal when eelgrass is present in the buffer area between the 15 ft and 30 ft from project activity.

22. Regional General Permit Renewal (continued)
Regional permitting of dock projects that comply with our new dock standards will be written into the permit for the Corps and the Coastal Commission.
Historically, the applicant was required to acquire individual permits from the agencies - a long process will be significantly shortened.
It will be almost like having a mini-LCP that will allow us to issue dock permits after acquiring letters of permission (usually an message) from CCC and Corps.
Regional Board staff will write a programmatic 401 certification for this type of dock construction.
Beneficial reuse of sandy material in the harbor, will be increased from 500 cy to 1000 cy.
We can now formally submit the permit applications and I feel confident that there will be no resulting red flags in the approval process.
We now expect the various Boards and Commissions to approve our permits by the end of April.

23. The potential for damage to the eelgrass habitat during a dredging operation was an important issue in the negotiation of the Regional General Permit.
It is a continuing important issue in the maintenance of the harbor.
We have applied for and received a grant to develop a Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP) to ensure that all beneficial uses of the Lower Bay are maintained so that one use is not lost at the expense of another.
The Resources Agencies have bought into the general concept of developing a plan to mange the resources and beneficial uses of the Bay using this methodology.

24. The Extent of Eelgrass Beds and Patches in Newport Bay in 2004
Eelgrass surveys are an important part of the HAMP development so that we can establish a baseline for the aerial extent of eelgrass in the harbor.
Once a baseline is established to delineate the essential fish habitat, then the HAMP will be able to define when mitigation is required and what is a true de minimus loss.

25. Another Form of Dredging – Pushing sand from the low tide line up to create a larger dry beach
Wind and wave erosion and people traffic cause beaches to slough off into the bay
Working with Councilman Selich and BIIA members, shown are seven areas where sand will be moved this spring

26. Opportunistic Sources of Sand
Some locations like the entrance channel have excess good quality sand; while other locations such as Balboa Island and Corona del Mar Beach are in need of sand.
We have been attempting to put projects together that take advantage of the need to provide safe navigation and the need to build beaches.

27. We Need Your Help…
The Upper Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project is an important part of the comprehensive sediment management program and is only partially funded.
Further funding of the Upper Bay Project is not in the President’s budget.
The project has started with an award of a $16 million first phase and the Corps has requested an additional $18M for FY 07.
Senator Feinstein has been requested to help with a Congressional addition to the Federal budget.
Please provide her and members of the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee with letters indicating your support for continued funding of the Upper Bay Project and reprogrammed funding of a maintenance project in the Federal areas of responsibility in the Lower Bay.