Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Santa Ana River Sand Project UpdateCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Meeting October 12, 2004 Agenda Item No. 17 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager DATE: October 8, 2004 RE: Updated Staff Report — Agenda Item # _ (Lower Santa Ana River) Harbor Resources Manager Tom Rossmiller has provided updated information about the current sand removal proposal for the Santa Ana River. That information is within the attached staff report. Please use this staff report instead of the one provided in your packet on Wednesday. Thank you. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. October 12, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager 949/644 -3002 or dkiff(-)city.newport- beach.ca.us Tom Rossmiller, Manager of Harbor Resources 949/644 -3034 or trossmiller (a) city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Lower Santa Ana River Project ISSUE: Are recent modifications to a proposed sand and sediment removal project for the Lower Santa Ana River consistent with the community's wishes? RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File DISCUSSION: Previous Project Activit On August 24, 2004, Council members and residents heard a detailed presentation (along with many comments from residents and beachgoers) about the US Army Corps of Engineers' project to bring the Lower Santa Ana River flood control area to its design depth. Doing so would bring the sand and sediment removed from the River to the beaches along West Newport as a part of its ongoing sand replenishment project. The staff report and presentation associated with the August 24`h Council item is on the City's website (www.city.newport- beach.ca.us). The Council directed City staff to only issue an Encroachment Permit associated with the Project if it did NOT involve trucking the material along the beach. As a result, the Corps and the contractor have prepared a modified proposal (shown in a diagram attached to this staff report). Lower Santa Ana River Project October 12, 2004 Page 2 Recent Project Activit Briefly, the contractor's most recent proposal suggests: • The contractor will subcontract out the dredging portion of the work to Nehalem River Dredging. The subcontractor proposes to use the Dredge Nehalem which currently does not meet local air quality standards. Dredges that do meet AQMD standards are not currently available for this project. • Subsequent to considerable discussion with AQMD, the contractor determined that it would be timelier and more cost efficient to purchase two new air quality compliant engines for the Dredge Nehalem then to pursue any of several other options considered. The engines have been located and it is estimated that the Dredge Nehalem can be outfitted and transported from Astoria, Oregon to the Santa Ana River in two (2) weeks. • The contractor will apply for air quality permits through the California Air Resources Board rather than the local AQMD to allow for future dredging permits on a statewide basis. • The County of Orange has given the contractor permission to retain the sand berm in the Santa Ana River past October 15, 2004 provided that the contractor lowers a 50 foot wide portion of the berm by three feet. The contractor has complied and is currently screening and stockpiling sand on the dry side of the berm. • The contractor now feels that he has an action plan that he can successfully implement and will submit an encroachment permit application to the Public Works Department by the end of the week. • In about two weeks we can expect to see the Dredge Nehalem placed in the Lower SAR (coastward of Pacific Coast Highway) • Transport of the liquefied sand and sediment along the beach near the shoreline via a buried 12" transport pipe will start within a few days of mobilization. • Deposition of the material in an offshore zone which is directly upcoast of 56th Street and is at roughly -15' MLLW is approved by the Corps of Engineers. • The contractor will request permission to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the encroachment permit application. It is uncertain at this time how much material would be moved offshore, but none would be transported via truck along the beach. The original project envisioned about 400,000 cubic yards of material being moved. City staff (Public Works, Harbor Resources, and the City Manager's Office) generally supports the modified proposal as consistent with Council's previous direction (August 24, 2004). However, we have advised the Corps that: • All disposal should be at -15' MLLW to be consistent with environmental review for the Project; • We will not consent to 24/7 operations unless noise testing during a trial period shows that such operations will not violate community noise standards; Lower Santa Ana River Project October 12, 2004 Page 3 We will keep the community and Council informed about this proposed project as the contractor submits his plans for an encroachment permit. Submitted by: Dave Ki Assistant City Manager Tom Rossmiller Harbor Resources Manager New Fill Area Old Fill Area Dredge Loc,3 Iion- Lower Santa Ana River Project October 12, 2004 Page 4 Lower Santa Ana River Project Draft Schematic of Dredging Proposal (An approximate representation) Agenda Item No. 18 October 12, 2004 Supplemental Report GENERAL COST ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIAL MARINA PARK. PASSIVE PARK ISSUE: Councilman Heffernan asked the City Manager to come up with some general cost estimates for the planning, development, construction and on -going maintenance of a passive park, with some new facilities on the 8 acre parcel known as Marina Park. PARK AMENITIES: In order to do any cost estimating, a defined park project needs to be identified. For the purposes of this estimate, staff made the following assumptions, based on its knowledge of the site: The Park would contain the following amenities: 1. 6,500 sq. ft. community center used by the following users: Girl Scouts, Power Squadron, City Recreational programming, public restrooms 2. Paved boat launch and parking, consisting of two acres Tot lot playground, benches 4. Tennis courts 5. 3 acres of remaining site in grass and landscaping COST ESTIMATES: The following cost estimates were made based on recent bid openings of City projects and staff s best estimates based on material unit charges: PARK ADD FACILITIES DESIGN - TENNIS COURTS (4 new) (refurbished) BOAT LAUNCH (non- motorized) and PARKING LOT (2 acres combined) TOT LOT PLAYGROUND COMMUNITY CENTER (6,500 sq. ft. at $400) PASSIVE PARK (3 acres, turf and sprinkler system) LANDSCAPING /PARK FURNITURE TOTAL — with new tennis courts TOTAL — furbished courts S 500,000 600,000 150,000 500,000 75,000 2,500,000 750,000 600,000 $5,525,000 $5,075,000 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS (above existing maintenance costs): CONTRACT MAINTENANCE FOR TURF (annual) $15,900 WATER 4,500 *DRAINAGE /PUMPING (depending on engineering req.) ? ? ? ?? TOTAL ANNUAL MAINT. $20,400 *(location of turf and /or structures could require on -going dewatering system, consisting of pumps and drainage lines, not estimated) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 17 October 12, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager 949/644 -3002 or dkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Update — Santa Ana River Sand Project ISSUE: What is the latest information regarding the proposed Lower Santa Ana River Sand project? RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. DISCUSSION: As you will recall, on August 24, 2004, Council members and residents heard a detailed presentation (along with many comments from residents and beachgoers) about the US Army Corps of Engineers' project to bring the Lower Santa Ana River flood control area to its design depth. Doing so would bring the sand and sediment removed from the River to the beaches along West Newport as a part of its ongoing sand replenishment project. The staff report and presentation associated with the August 24`h Council item is on the City's website (www. city. newport- beach. ca. us). The Council directed City staff to only issue an Encroachment Permit associated with the Project if it did NOT involve trucking the material along the beach. As a result, the Corps and the contractor have prepared and are studying modified proposals, which include the one shown in a diagram attached to this staff report. Briefly, the preferred modified proposal would • Dredge material via two dredges placed in the Lower SAR (inland and coastward of Pacific Coast Highway) Lower Santa Ana River Project October 12, 2004 Page 2 • Transport the liquefied sand and sediment along the beach near the shoreline via a 12" transport pipe; • Deposit the material in an offshore zone which is directly upcoast of 56`h Street and is at roughly -15' MLLW; and • Seek permission to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is uncertain at this time how much material would be moved offshore, but none would be transported via truck along the beach. The original project envisioned about 400,000 cubic yards of material being moved. City staff (Public Works, Harbor Resources, and the City Manager's Office) generally supports the modified proposal as consistent with Council's previous direction (August 24, 2004). However, we have advised the Corps that: • All disposal should beat -15' MLLW to be consistent with environmental review for the Project; and • We will not consent to 24/7 operations unless noise testing during a trial period shows that such operations will not violate community noise standards. This Agenda Item is informational only - at the time of the Council meeting, we will provide the Council with any additional information we have learned following the writing of this staff report. Lower Santa Ana River Project October 12, 2004 Page 3 fA Ctkq z b :it r t't tt t S N ;0 t A h t � O n A m � �• x SiA t;G4._ t Lower Santa Ana River Project Draft Schematic of Dredging Proposal (an approximate representation) aln f,8t3t`3r srtt 5 r.t rOi:'1 r5 9 9 I, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COUNCIL AGENDA N0. IO -Ij -a4 Agenda Item No. Sl- August24,2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager 949/644 -3002 or dkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Lower Santa Ana River Project ISSUE: How should the City respond to residents' concerns regarding a project of the US Army Corps of Engineers that would move sediment and sand from the Lower Santa Ana River to the beaches off of West Newport? RECOMMENDATION: Select one or more of the following options, or modify any of the following options: 1. Direct the City Manager to investigate contracting with a firm with an expertise in coastal engineering to monitor and review any work done along West Newport's beaches; 2. Authorize the Public Works Director to issue an Encroachment Permit for the Lower SAR Project that: • Requires contractor compliance with existing Environmental Assessments; • Requires contractor communication with City's oversight staff, if hired. 3. Authorize the Mayor to write a letter to the US Army Corps of Engineers and to the Orange County Board of Supervisors stating the City's position that: • Sand replenishment is an important protective measure for West Newport; • The City desires that any replenishment work be done via dredge in the near - shore zone to minimize resident and visitor impacts along the beach; • All beach disposal work done should be in accordance with the Project's Environmental Impact Statement and related Supplemental Environmental Assessments, supporting the limit of not more than 350' of beach width following beach disposal; and • Any shortfall in Project funding should near -shore disposal be viable should be addressed by the Corps or the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). Lower Santa Ana River Project August 24, 2004 Page 2 DISCUSSION: An attached PowerPoint presentation shows the background for these recommendations, which are based in part on public input from a "Construction Awareness Meeting" held in City Council chambers on Wednesday, August 18th. In addition to the PPT, questions came up on August 18th about previous meetings and notices. We have included some information from the Corps in that regard. Committee Action: None Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not require environmental review. Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Submitted by: E Dav Assistant City Manager Attachments: PowerPoint Presentation Draft Letter to US Army Corps of Engineers Meeting information and meeting summary Lower Santa Ana River Project August 24, 2004 Page 3 August 25, 2004 Mr. Kenneth Moms US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District 915 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 980 Los Angeles, CA 90017 RE: Lower SAR Project Dear Mr. Morris: Thank you again for your attendance at the Construction Awareness Meeting held August 18, 2004, and for the Corps' willingness to work with the City and its residents to maximize the benefits of the Lower Santa Ana River (Reach 1) Project following comments at that meeting. To continue that constructive dialogue, then, this letter expresses the City's concern and comments about the Project: 1. We are concerned that the Project has changed somewhat from the Project that was initially proposed and reviewed via the NEPA process. Specifically, we believe that any fill of the groinfields past 350' of beach width may not comply with recent environmental assessment work done that specifically limited groinfield fill to 350' of beach width. 2. We believe that nearshore disposable is the least environmentally - impactful method of disposing of material near the beach. While we recognize that respondents to your bid documents could propose dredging or trucking the material, we urge you and the contractor to consider eliminating or minimizing to the maximum extent practicable the amount of material moved by non - dredging methods. In light of funding constraints, we will be happy to work with you and to advocate before other impacted agencies to explore logistic and funding options other than trucked disposal, including: • Dredging as much material as possible (as noted); • Depositing as much material as possible off the mouth of the SAR or adjacent to the mouth, whereby it could be pushed into the nearshore zone in advance of storm events; • Other methods as your engineers may determine feasible that limit trucking on the beach. In closing, let me assert the City's belief that sand replenishment is a necessary part of I aintaining our beaches and that we welcome so-called "opportunistic" sand whenever it becomes available. But we do hope that the deposit of such sand can be done in a manner that protects the public health, safety, and access of our residents and visitors. Sincerely, TOD W. RIDGEWAY Mayor of Newport Beach cc: Honorable Jim Silva, Vice - Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Members of the Newport Beach City Council SAR Dredging Project A Project of the US Army Corps of Engineers Presentation by the City of Newport Beach August 2004 Lower Santa Ana River About the Project Removal of 400,000 cubic yards of material from the Santa Ana River (from mouth of SAR to about 3.5 miles upstream near Adams) • Plans and Specifications directed that material would be placed: • In the West Newport groinfield, between 32nd and 56th Streets (sandy material). • On least tem Island in Newport Slough (coarser material) • Contract allowed bidders to propose one of two alternative transport methods: • Pumping material into the nearshore zone • Haulingg material (by truck, scraper, dozer, or conveyor) along the beach from SAR to grainfield. • OW Construction was low bidder, chose the beach haul method. • Timeline: • Project started upstream August 4d' and is underway now. • Major sand transport begins September 8. • Project end date set as December 161', 2004. AWhy do the Project? • Flood Control. Excavation to design depth of Lower SAR reach is mandated under Santa Ana River Mainstem Flood Control Project. • Beach Replenishment. Excess sediment /sand placed in the nearshore zone or on the beach helps maintain beach widths in West Newport. 2 ,&Why Pick on West Newport? • Offshore bathymetry and shoreline orientation affect how waves approach the shoreline and cause erosion. • West Newport is one of the few sections of Orange County coastline that has a net annual loss of beach — about 0.5 feet per year. Has beach nourishment happened before? . Yes — in: . 1968 -69 (900,000 cubic yards) . 1973 (358,000 cubic yards) . 1992 (1.3 million cubic yards deposited in nearshore zone by dredge) . 1997 (140,000 cubic yards hauled from beach east of River in West Newport and placed in groin field) 3 Example of Sand Placement it From a Past Project 4JEnvironmental Review In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Ad (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Army Corps of Engineers evaluated overall environmental impacts associated with several phases of work on the Lower Santa Ana River In a 1988 EIS which was also adopted by the County of Orange as an EIR. Supplemental Environmental Assessments (EAs) for this pending phase of the work were prepared in: • March 2001; and • April 2003 SEA directs that beaches should be no more than 350' in width, but contract that was let allows for longer beach widths. 1988 EIR and the Supplemental EAs available at the Corps at 213 -452- 3863 4 Project Constraints • Sand Removal work = 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. • Saturday work only in riverbed and to stockpile. • No Sunday work. • Sand work starts September 8, end date is December 16, 2004. • Public access to all beach areas, but through controlled points. • Temporary construction pathway behind safety fencing from SAR to groinfield. Groinfield Fill Order . If beach -fill is the method used, the contract directs that the WN groinfield be filled in the following order: • 48th to 52nd Street, then • 44th to 48th Street, then • 40th to 44th Street, then • 36th to 40th Street, then • 52nd to 56th Street, then • 32nd to 36th Street. 61 .J&What are the Beachfill Limits and What Areas Could be Impacted by Heavy Equipment? -Heavy equipment in the River dredging is and stockpiling sand -Heavy equipment restoring habitat on Least Tern Island in - Newport Slough - -Heavy equipment transporting sand along th e beachfront from the River to the beachfill area. Beachfill Limits — 32nd St. to 5611 St. AConcerns we've heard MW • The material's mix (sand and sediment) isn't good enough — it will harm water quality and stay present too long. • The material will be darker than existing sand, • SEA's 350' beach width limit versus limits allowed within the let contract. • Beaches are not receding — reports show 4' increase per year, not 05 net loss per year as City says. n. Concerns we've heard • Disposal method bid (trucking) was cheapest method yet it is the most beach - and resident - impacting. • Jetties will be entirely filled, impacting: • Beachgoeraccess; • Public safety if drop -off is too steep; • Marine life in and around jetties; • Surf breaks. • People were not adequately noticed about the Project. Concerns we've heard . Public access will be too limited. • Noise, dust, and pollutants will be more extensive in the area if trucks are used. Staff Recommendations . Look into hiring a consultant to protect City and resident interests as the project moves forward. . Seek assurances /protections within the City's Encroachment Permit process. Staff Recommendations . Direct that the Mayor write a letter to the Corps and to the Board of Supervisors stating the City's belief that: • Sand replenishment is necessary. • Near -shore (Dredge method) disposal is best. • All work must be done in accordance with existing EIS and EAs. • All alternatives to trucked - disposal be examined, including: • Llmiting scope of work to dredge method; • Deposition immediately at SAR Mouth; • Disposal at Huntington State Beach and Newport side of SAR mouth until storm season to allow for nature to take the material offshore. 0 itFor More Information . Ken Morris (US ACE) . 213 - 452 -4006 or Ivnorris @sal.usace.army.mil . Website = www.spl.usace.army.mil . Lance Natsuhara or Doug Murphy (County of Orange) 714- 834 -2651 • Bill Patapoff (City of Newport Beach) 949 -644 -3311 or bpatapoff @city.newport - beach.ca.us • Tom Rossmiller (City of Newport Beach) 949 -644 -3034 or trossmiller @city.newport- beach.ca.us Website = www.city.newport- beach.ca.us 0 1 MAY 30TH, 2002 CONSTRUCTION AWARENESS MEETING FOR LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER SAND REMOVAL RESPONSE SUMMARY TO PUBLIC QUESTIONS 28 AUGUST 2002 NOTE: See items 26 and 27 on page 6 for updates on Salt Marsh investigations and the status of the Lower Santa Ana River Sand Removal Project, which has been postponed. On May 30th, 2002, the Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department (County) hosted a public construction awareness meeting to inform people living close to the Santa Ana River between the ocean and just north of Adams Avenue about proposed sand removal operations in the river and sand deposition on West Newport Beach. Approximately 25 people attended the meeting that took place at the Newport Beach City Hall. Following project information presented by Corps and County representatives, the public was invited to ask questions and comment on what they had heard. This summary includes these public comments and questions and Corps or County responses. 1. We would like contact information for Corps and County representatives. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers— Girish Desai, Project Manager (213) 452 -4005 Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department Ahmad Olomi, Santa Ana River Project Office (714) 834 -2968 2. You said that you are removing material from the river to return the river to it, design invert (depth). What is the design invert and what is the current invert? The design invert is measured from mean sea level (MSL). LOCATION DESIGN INVERT EXISTING ELEVATION At Pacific Ocean -7 ft MSL +4 ft MSL At PCH Bridge -6.2 ft MSL +1 ft MSL Hamilton/Victoria 0 ft MSL +0.5 ft MSL Adams Street +60/1 MSL +6.5 ft MSL MAY 30'", 2002 CONSTRUCTION AWARENESS MEETING, LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER SANO REMOVAL RESPONSE SUMMARY OF 28 AUGUST 2002 3. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) needs to see drawings to show how the contractor will protect OCSD pipes and the plans for access by ) construction vehicles near the plant. The Corps will contact the OCSD to discuss these issues. 4. How is it possible to deposit so much sand in such a short period of time? It took the same amount of time to move much less sand the last time it was removed. The contractor will use 20 to 25 trucks, each of which carries 15 to 20 cubic yards of material. The contractor last time used only 4 or 5 trucks. 5. We would like a map of the area, including names of islands and channels. If possible, you should post it on the Corps' website. Currently (August 2002) the Salt Marsh area is being surveyed. The Corps has not named any channels. The only name associated with any Salt Marsh feature is the Least Tern Island. 6. I am concerned about flood insurance issues. I assume that my property was removed from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map because of improvements completed on the Santa Ana River that provide 100 - year flood protection. With the river in its current state (before the sand is removed), I am concerned that my property is now at risk to sustain flood damage, and I no longer have insurance. What recourse would we have if we were flooded before the removal work is done? Removal from the FEMA flood map only means you are not required to have flood insurance. Whether you have it or not is now a matter between you and your lender. If you want to purchase flood insurance, you can probably get it for a very low rate, since it is not required by FEMA. It is unlikely that there will be enough rain between now and completion of sand removal to create flooding. Upstream improvements, including construction of Seven Oaks Dam, have also reduced your flood risk. 7. How often is this sand removal scheduled to take place? Approximately every 18 years. Maintenance sand removal is a function of sediment buildup above the design invert and the natural removal of sediment by storm flow events. 2 May 30`x, 2002 CONSTRUCTION AWARENESS MEETING, LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER SANO REMOVAL RESPONSE SUMMARY OF 2$ AUGUST 2002 S. If sand in the channel got this bad in 10 years, it will be impossible in 18 years. The river filled up much faster than is normal because of upstream construction over the last 10 years. In addition, 18 years is only a guideline. If the channel needs clearing before that, we'll do it. 9. Do you have a quality standard for sand deposited on the beach? Yes. We sampled the sand in the channel and found that it is compatible with the current beach sand. 10. Are there mitigation measures included in the current maintenance contract? No, not in the plans and specifications. 11. What agencies other than the Corps are involved in the decision to raise the height of Least Tern Island? The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 12. Raising the height of Least Tern Island by 4 feet will change the whole nature of the landscape. Least Tern Island will be raised approximately 2 to 4 feet at the request of the USFWS to create better habitat conditions for the endangered California least tern. Creation of tern habitat was the original purpose of the island. The increase in suitable material will improve the nature ofthe landscape with respect to its purpose and is not expected to significantly impact the overall function or views of the marsh. 13. Will there be other public meetings during the construction activities? Yes. The City of Newport Beach has requested a meeting with residents before hauling and deposition of sand begins. (See item 27 for a project update) MAY 30', 2002 CONSTRUCTION AWARENESS MEETING, LOWER SANTA ANA RNER SAND REMOVAL RESPONSE SUMMARY OF 28 AUGUST 2002 Most of the people attending the meeting were residents of the Newport Shores area of Newport Beach. They expressed numerous concerns regarding the condition of the canal on which their homes are built. Corps and County representatives at the meeting were unable to address these concerns, since the canal is not part of the current project. However, they stated that they would attempt to answer the questions and comments after consultation with other people at the Corps and County offices. Following are the public comments and questions and Corps and County responses. Those of us who live in Newport Shores are very concerned because the canal running in front of our homes has become sand filled and stagnant. Instead of several feet of free - flowing water, there are now islands of sand. Hundreds of birds land on the sand islands and leave their droppings. This cannot be good for water quality. During heavy rain events the water comes within 4 inches of our houses. The canal invert has come up at least 2 feet in the last 4 years. Clearly none of this is good for our property or quality of life. We believe that much of the material deposited in our canal has come from upstream construction on the Santa Ana River and should thus be removed as part of river maintenance. We have several questions and comments relating to this problem. 14. We recently signed an agreement that allows the Corps access to certain lands in Newport Shores. Our understanding was that the agreement included a commitment by the Corps to dredge our canal. We were assured by Joy Eaton, a Washington, DC, attorney for the Corps, that this would happen. What is the status of that commitment? Please send a copy of any correspondence you have from the Corps on this subject to Girish Desai, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Programs and Project Management Division, P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles, CA 90053 -2325. The Washington, DC, attorney, Joy Ryan, does not recall committing the Corps to dredging the Salt Marsh area 15. Who is responsible for maintaining flow in our canal? Maintenance offlow into the Salt Marsh's channels is the responsibility of the County of Orange, which is responsible for the functionality of the tide gates. The Corps of Engineers is currently responsible for maintaining the ecological integrity of the restored, Corps -owned portion of the Santa Ana River Salt Marsh. However, the maintenance plan has not been finalized, and specific criteria for determining or re- establishing ecological integrity have not been developed. The final plan may or may not include maintenance ofpermanent flow through portions or all of the main "canal " within the restored marsh. 16. Is dredging Newport Shores canal part of the current maintenance project? No. 17. Is dredging Newport Shores canal part of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project? No. S May 30"', 2002 CONSTRUCTION AWARENESS MEETING, LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER SAND REMOVAL RESPONSE SUMMARY OF 28 AUGUST 2002 18. Is it possible to revise the maintenance manual for the Santa Ana River to include periodic dredging in our canal? The Corps is coordinating the maintenance requirements for the Salt Marsh with the appropriate environmental agencies and the County of Orange. Revision of the current maintenance manual for the Santa Ana River will require careful consideration of the requirements for the maintenance ofthe river channel and the requirements for the Salt Marsh channels. The requirements for both would need to coincide in order for a revision in the current river channel maintenance manual to be made. 19. Whom do we need to contact to get the canal dredged? Currently, the Corps of Engineers is responsible for management of the Salt Marsh and its main channels until the operation and maintenance responsibilities are turned over to the USFWS. (See item 26 for an update regarding the Salt Marsh.) 20. How many feet from the gate does the County's responsibility extend? The County is responsible only for the gate. 21. Is there a maintenance manual for the Corps' side of the levee? The maintenance manual for the Salt Marsh is currently being coordinated by the Corps, USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), CDFG, and County of Orange. Maintenance ofthe levee, tide gates, and main river channel are the responsibility of the County. 22. Is it possible that the problem in the canal is caused by gate and /or levee design flaws? Will the Corps look into that? The "problem " is sedimentation, and sedimentation occurs where there is flow of sediment -laden waters. The tide gates are working as they were designed, which is to convey the tide to and from the Salt Marsh. It is the Corps' opinion that the tide gates and levees are functionally sound. 23. You should redesign the gates so that only water can flow into the canal. It is neither realistic nor economically feasible to install and maintain a filter system to remove sediment from the tidal flow. 24. Is the marsh maintenance plan complete? Currently, there is a draft marsh maintenance plan that is being coordinated with USFWS, NMFS, CDFG, and the County of Orange. 25. During El Nino, Prado Reservoir filled with runoff from the surrounding farms and dairies. Releases caused severe odor problems and affected the fish population. Will the gates on the Newport Shores canal be closed during future releases or when the river is high? The gates are automatic and should close on their own during those conditions. Some of the problem should be corrected by the proposed river clearing. If there continues to be a problem, contact: County of Orange, Operations & Maintenance General Number: (714) 567 -6300. MAY 30' ", 2002 CONSTRUCTION AWARENESS MEETING, LOWER SANTA ANA RIVER SAND REMOVAL RESPONSE SUMMARY OF 28 AUGUST 2002 26. We believe there should be another public meeting solely to address the issues raised here regarding the Newport Shores canal. We will hold another public meeting to address the issues of the Salt Marsh channels after several tasks have been completed and the Corps has a specific proposal to present. A maintenance manual is currently being coordinated among the Corps, appropriate environmental agencies, and the County of Orange. Concurrence among these agencies needs to be reached on the most efficient way to manage the Salt Marsh to provide the most suitable habitat for endangered species and other wildlife. These agencies will also need to decide what type of action is necessary in the immediate future and what type ofmaintenance activities would be required in the long term. • Funding will need to be identified and procured for any maintenance activities to be performed • Compliance with environmental laws and regulations will need to be documented, sediment testing performed, permits obtained, and a disposal site identified. As ofAugust 2002, the Corps is surveying the Salt Marsh area to determine the amount of material that is in the channels. Also, soil sampling will take place in August 2002 to define the character of the shoal material: specifically, if this material would be compatible with placement on the beach or in the nearshore or if the material has to be placed upland. Survey information and soil analysis results should be available in late September 2002. This information will be shared with the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange. The Corps of Engineers point of contact for Salt Marsh issues (exclusive of Real Estate issues) is Lisa Louie of the Los Angeles District Planning Division, (213) 452- 3853. 27. What is the status of the Lower Santa Ana River Sand Removal Project? On August 12, 2002, the Lower Santa Ana River Dredging Project was indefinitely postponed due to redistribution offederal funds. It is anticipated that the earliest the project would commence would be the summer of2003, and there is no guarantee that the project will proceed at that time. 0 C9 Z° 1-- W - m o . Will �000 c = N O FO T {m �_, U m m 0/ 'j .8 N N C m c D m Oa) � > c Q "U H a m cU 7 m m c co t ga) (A dr °C v 142 N Co a o E o D 2 p C c" C U N M :EE U vcy c\l H Q Mva -6 U m o T d m •c Lcoma m � f-LL Nr � H DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 9Z9Z6 V3 'eSOW e;S03 'aAUQ a1ei LL ,Iuegwego 1!wno3 6;!3 eseW e;so3 t Wd OO:L 'EOOZ '0E aago;ap ,6uivaA3 Aups,mgl p LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROGRAMS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION P.O. BOX 532711 LOS ANGELES, CA 90053 -2325 OFFICIAL BUSINESS FIRST CLASS MAIL US POSTAGE PAID LOS ANGELES CA PERMIT # 4474 N ::5 N J_ b a m re N P.&--N w ® o R U U z Y � O 5 Wml�9 F q uy c O b a' s � s• LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROGRAMS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION P.O. BOX 532711 LOS ANGELES, CA 90053 -2325 OFFICIAL BUSINESS FIRST CLASS MAIL US POSTAGE PAID LOS ANGELES CA PERMIT # 4474 1 t • N U N 'E am C m 0 m p OI O 0O0E O C 6 N 3 y] y O y j �~ h 7 L M U U O O mS S N W N = Z C m E m - m U N N U N aco U N m j E N I W C 8 L > In r N w E a am J U m �C 0 Ow m > a2 0 15 O)N O • O W i' m Z Q m OM m a �9 W .0 0— C M =a U 3 0"3 .2 mONN E • a44 V-!! N m E ° o m 0C Nacm m� mam M F O 15 co Q Q 0 E .O m O m C m? OI c '3 c 0 a�i5 Et °c `o E v M rno,`o_ Q. U MUOwZ Ea m e Mn 0� aw c m.. m E u� 3 a> Tm m e ��0EQ 0o m..E mZ m 0_ 0.51v m.. y�vmrno O O r^, O m v >m 0 y J a v 0 i0 a O O U N O m C , N O` m m M � U "vm >N._ a 3.- D v HO m aE._ �a`OKmw N m p O F OO w m C ? z J U 00 m J O 0 m y m O's .L.. .L... N C Q m C! N -S m L U on. m N C =° o° m C ry = C 0 `0 3 C w O o v m m 0p m v L m Cn m 0 m y O N C m O' °mr N C aap :°3 0 X38 z 9 N C N U C N m m M .2 2 T m m m m O y m > m> U'C m a� i m LOL m V am, a C U � C TD C O m p M LLO i V 0 E rn E 2 m o .N o y m v m O F C U h v L. -- OO V a m V F M m O T Ol m~ O a C O m N O S N j O. O U 0 J m 0 CCm� `o `O J C E —c r0o N M y v m m m m m U x y M U Q N m N m¢ M �0. O m 0 $— O N m y O m W- W 9 N L a U y V N m O 0 m N O LL M y wO O OI p, m Q N C W O` m> Q 0 C .m. O O Z m m n • EL m¢Eci :EE 0 E Lim poi umi y_O1 • a C m m MM O O N • N 0 x>m N N N ry O N m m m a m~ O a q N L% m t C N W F c'�m 0 3 F� C N m '%o M �Lm.� �= Rim DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY tpe" uol6upunH 1190AS weW OOOZ 'saogwey3 punoo AI!3 ipeo8 uol6urlunH t Wd OO:L JVOOZ '8Z f4nl '6ususA3 I(epsoupeM t c6 v d ? c J�0 e c')) m m ^tl > N 5 ip aF m= a o � r % = U W I l0 l0 m yOEa rn rr- LbA ° QE) mcc oLz mmmm -i m a 3 m 0 0 U c m y y N m m cc m � c O E w =O C =U o, p m U O> E m O E 2 O a a p y 0 = N m U m _ N V O p U m U N = = > >.o O y' M E�o3 E y c U o c u o. o,c ya z m �� > m > m N O m U m• C• N � 1 L p > > W H N 0OL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY tpe" uol6upunH 1190AS weW OOOZ 'saogwey3 punoo AI!3 ipeo8 uol6urlunH t Wd OO:L JVOOZ '8Z f4nl '6ususA3 I(epsoupeM t LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROGRAMS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION P.O. BOX 532711 LOS ANGELES, CA 90053 -2325 OFFICIAL BUSINESS FIRST CLASS MAIL US POSTAGE PAID LOS ANGELES CA PERMIT # 4474 c6 L U v d J�0 e m ^tl N Q y aF :lW1 �A Y 2 1S U LCe I Z a `� w IS E 8 J y' IS .l B.Y1 U o c ya�Lpny.��:r LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROGRAMS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION P.O. BOX 532711 LOS ANGELES, CA 90053 -2325 OFFICIAL BUSINESS FIRST CLASS MAIL US POSTAGE PAID LOS ANGELES CA PERMIT # 4474 L U)m COL n o Cl) p cmE E- E L o a U 0 cli -C O N O N U) L E 0 C v N O .2 B N c C m a`) m ai E 0 BOO NH m 0) ca m 0) E 0 .c V C N � ) U> ��m a) 'D m 0) cEE ca m a) y Y� ` =3 EmmC c0 c m a) 7 m O '3 O m N ca a) . j a) CL • mc° 0 mm Nr E'er 20 3NU m (n 0 Q 0Qa 'D ca aNi0CLy3 o ca mm� M N C .— N m _ Vo n EU�LV ° mo ;L Eo 0mU) `Em ca n cj >, m D ca c C m y m e Cj y m a) L a1 O L U O ca 0 C 7 • y Q C .� ca m o+ m e 9~ aa)i 2 o a) U a c Y G c o a`) L� 7 m 7 d L L� • ` m V 'O ca OD T L M W' pCp V O N a) N N V Na� C N 7 N a E A C C C C • V C C m U) C ca O 7- O p 0 0 ca V M p COO C D N ca j V c 'E Y Y °) a E O V 0-0 c m ca a) m ca O V a) V L T C> 3U 3 3 � m$y • ��mL • �Y nY >L CF O O p ,d 3 C TU -0 U) W O [l CC c C mm3 �z'n �Oo� `o �Z� ca)_c m ca m m N .0 m L V N m C a) a1 cCp 0 c _� n � a>i E mm q' $.3 a °: a �`c p° m ° V O V 3 7 L 3 > N .2 C C 0> O j J 0 p Y O N w m m CL (a L m m �. �.i — ca (U N V C N U) a) T O r C N l:. L a L L y m ca O p cCa • O 0 2 j 0 p m N M V j O` H H H m %a3i V ` m aU yQ 0 Q a c)E '0 3� o V Y L m q) m ca m O m 7 fq N ` V T ... C E 0 .— .— > m V C ) b N a1 c'7 7 a) �C .� H a0 CO H 'C a O — U— N 7 7 O CL OD nQ v m U a) m0 ' OL L OL ca cV .L.. C C j C .� r Op a) N d N ca C (Cq M 3 C a1 O C C N09U O ) O C 9O'E m a L> ii U 0 0 a1 a C N _ >p aa) N U Q m a) m C� V 0 0 0 �, 0 > CL E c)� j a) ' aNi n a a) o 0 >Nmmc E )b042p a) ° �o `° as m °o oa Z >a) 2Uv m2 o m> ca m c)o E o aa)) am) 0 c° 0) ca 'D.- E ca �o °'O 0E � `m m ° CJ ca o m M b m 0 o .0 m c N� m c o O y m c CL � 3 • � 0 a c c a y Y r N U w t L Q 7 W a) O m O N ca C N V O' V O C O a1 m O C N 7 0 L N m U m D ca N Zoe mCCCO `a L E VaM _ m o a) a o m N ca a N >:a 0> a) Tca E V Y p E a1�O �'O CLQ > U) D! a)� V y >. O m C U N 3 Uo • Ea)EX C ai 0_cL c m0c >` m JCL-. N t m� Q m 0 ca M O O N O_) 0 D • .0 > N N E Q' y C 0 U) ca Y N Z T N O U L m a 0 0 aN) Q E to c`a cui E m aa)) 3 `m c00 E mc0 pm =m om O > m 3a) ca0N30 xc '; c HU — ca 0 0` V> c .O m ca C `O 0 t� N 0 O m ca C v m N a) ca >, d E m r E- ca ca V > N L Y N 0 V m D_ CO __ Cl O a)? lD E ca m° a) J a1 O Cl cA 0` L C j 0 a1 .L-. N 3 c) m O a) M N N a1 C a1 m a m 0 O '' N N EL N a) a)❑ EE .� o N a) a o a L.-� 0 E U U 0 c L ca , p m CL 0 O m ca U 0) CL H Q c w Page I of 1 "RECEIVED AFTER AGEND PRINTED :" -S _a I 8 a o James Brooks From: James Brooks Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:17 AM To: 'tridg eway@ city. newpo rt-bea ch. ca. us' Subject: Beach Nourishment Power Point Presenation We at Stop Dumping have reviewed a City prepared Power Point presentation that may be given to the City Council (http: //www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /SAR_project/ 04- 08- 10% 20SAR ° /u2OProject_files/frame.htm). We feel that there are several pages wherein erroneous statements are made. Please consider the attached selected pages while this presentation is being made. Thank you. Jim Brooks Stop Dumping Personal Cell Phone: 714 - 313 -3343 http:/ /stood umg0g. blogsooLcom 8/23/2004 'P Q .tC. N M G: ! I :R rn "z 8/23/2004 SAR Dredging Project A Project of the US Army Corps of Engineers Presentation by the City of Newport Beach August 2004 The Stop Dumping effort has reviewed this city prepared Power Point presentation and offers its comments as designated below. Only those Rages commented upon are included. For further commentary, h!M-//stopdumping.bolgspot.com Certain Rages have comments designated by this font type and underlined. 1 Why do it? ■ Flood Control. Excavation will bring the soft channel bottom to its design depth to meet obligations of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Flood Control Project. ■ Beach Nourishment. Excess sediment/sand placed in the groinfield will ensure that the width of the beach remains as constant as possible. We do not obiect to dredging to prevent river flooding. As to beach nourishment, "remains constant" is not an accurate description because the instantaneous addition of about 250ft more width is not "remains constant" Further, the West Newport Beach beaches have grown between 100ft and 300ft over the past 30 years *. According to US Army Corps of Engineers report whether the sediment is dumped off shore will provide the same nourishment effect as on shore *. * See US Army Corps of Enaineers revort entitled "Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study, South. Coast Region, Orange California, August 2002, (specifically Chapter 4). Why Pick on West Newport? • Offshore bathymetry and shoreline orientation affect how waves approach the shoreline and cause erosion. • West Newport is one of the few sections of Orange County coastline that has a net annual loss of beach — about 0.5 feet per year. Offshore bathymetry and shoreline orientation not only causes beach erosion but it also causes beach growth. The US Army Corps of Engineer's report does not cite this figure of 0.5ft loss per year. This figure is erroneously derived from isolated selected information within the US Army Corps of Engineer report. To calculate 0.5ft erosion from the very broad variance of data within that report is not credible. To illustrate, according to US Army Corps of Engineers report, the Santa Ana River discharged 2,900,000 cubic yards of sediment in 1969 and 172,000 cubic yards of sediment in 1995 (both periods of heavy rain inland). The 0.5ft erosion figure is based on an average beach discharge of only 33,000 cubic yards. The average of just 1969 and 1995 alone spread over 35 ,years assuming no other river output is 87,800 cubic yards per year, more than five times enough to cover the 0.5ft calculation. West Newport Beach beaches are not eroding 0.5 feet per year. The actual figure according to the US Army Corps of Engineers is growth between 2ft -4ft per year. G Has this happened before? a Yes — in: 1968 -69 (900,000 cubic yards) ■ 1973 (358,000 cubic yards) • 1992 (1.3 million cubic yards deposited in nearshore zone by dredge) ■ 1997 (140,000 cubic yards hauled from beach east of River in West Newport and placed in groin field) This is not a fair comparison. The 1968 1969, and 1973 sediment/sand placements where completed along with the groin construction to actually replenish pre -groin erosion. At the end of 1973, the beach widths were equal to the beach widths prior to the four or five year erosion that occurred in 1964 -1969 and prior to groin construction. Therefore there was good basis for direct on beach placement. Ever since, the groins have done a great job of building the beach. The 1992 placement was off shore, which the US Army Corps of Engineers indicates nourished the beaches. The 1997 placement was on shore and is one of the major bases for the current beach user obiection —filthy sediment which blows fine dirt into the air landing on homes, cars, streets, and in lungs of breathers. This dust continues until this date. y.: Environmental Review ■ In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental QQuality Act (CEppA) the Army Corps of Engineers evaluated overallenvironmental impacts associated with several phases of work on the Lower Santa Ana River in a 1988 EIS which was also adopted by the County of Orange as an EIR. • Supplemental Environmental Assessments (EAs) for this pending phase of the work were prepared in: • March 2001; and • April 2003 • All environmental documents were distributed for comment and finalized based on comments received. The 1988 EIR/SEIS was flawed in that while considering four alternatives for dumping the sediment, it did not thoroughly consider some major environmental threats to those using or living near the beach disposal areas. For example, the 1988 EIR found that there were no public safety concerns. But there are. A doubling of the beach width will cause shore break which is dangerous to beach play and surfing. In addition, such extension will cause periodic water front drops of as much as five feet that could cause injury while coming near to such drops. For example, two children lost their lives in the past on these same beaches when they attempted to tunnel into the sheer drop embankment formed along the beach. It collapsed and suffocated them. The 1988 EIR did not consider dust pollution that would occur that could threaten health to a long term breather of such dust. The 1988 EIR did not consider recreational impacts such as loss of surfing, jetty fishing, and sea life watching along the rock jetties. The Supplemental Environmental report was shy these same issues but more importantly had a scope for the on shore dumping alternative wherein the width of the beaches would not be increased pass 350ft in total. Most current beaches in this area have a current beach width of 350ft. Thus, when the assessment was done on this scope, many of the issues relative to public safety, recreation impacts, and health issues were less obvious. Finally, the US Army Corps of Engineers contract does not conform to the 1988 EIR/2001 Supplemental Environmental Assessment in that it contracted for widening of beaches -to as much as 575ft. Thus, this contract does not have EIR/SEIS /SEA support. Q &A ■ Wont the material harm water quality? ■ It may do so temporarily. Bacteria in the river bed sediment (generated from bird waste, etc.) can be kicked up into the water column. OC Health Care Agency will test, as will OCSD. ■ Wont the material be darker than the existing beach sand? ■ Some will, some won't. When this has been done in the past, the darker material bleaches out over days, weeks, and months. The only on shore dumping done in the recent pass was in 1997. Although the color may have mixed in, the silt and dirt is still there being raised by casual walking across the beach, equipment moving along the beach, and regular breezes that occur daily. This dust is in our lungs, our homes, and covers our cars. Health problems associated with such regular, unnatural dust particulates in the air has not been assessed. Q &A • Why can't the contractor be forced to use dredgers instead of trucks and scrapers? ■ The US ACE contract allows for either. Cost will sometimes drive the decision to use on -beach or near - shore disposal — so will logistics. • Should the City have been more assertive in attempting to get the Corps to only use dredgers? • Maybe. But the contract has been awarded. And there are still examples where beach transport is better (where dredgers can't manuever into the area nor get enough sand in suspension to make it work). In 1992,1,200,000 cubic yards of SAR sediment were placed off shore by hydraulic dredge. It is technically possible. That a contract is already let is no basis for not correcting a wrong_ .,�L Q &A ■ Why does the City appear to be supporting this project? We are supportive of it. With additional development inland limiting sediment transport to the ocean, the beaches in West Newport need replenishment on a periodic basis – or they would recede to dangerous widths. We don't know today if the Federal government or the Corps of Engineers will ever do another project like this – Congress has threatened to make all sand replenishment projects a local responsibility. The City has no budget for this scale of a replenishment project The project has happened before with little if any long -term impact beyond a healthy, wide beach. The City's support of this dumping on shore seems wrong_ • The project does not have complete EIR/SEIS /SEA supporting the project as contracted —public safety, loss of recreation, and health issues are significant and remain unaddressed; • The current contract is not in compliance with the EIR/SEIS /SEA wherein the scope was stated that no beach width would increase pass 350 ft in total width wherein the specifications call for some widths as much as 575ft; • Formal notice of those impacted by the dumping on Newport Beach beaches did not occur or was inadequate as demonstrated by the over 100 newly informed beach users attendance at the first information meeting to be held in Newport Beach, a year after the contract was let; • There are significant financial impacts to landlords of rental properties, merchants, food services, and other beach- related businesses that will directly impact the financial health of these groups and Newport Beach's tax revenues; The significant impact of all of the above could damage Newport Beach's image of a safe family and surfing beach, co- existing, that is a model and draw for all others to see; Tourism will be damaged as well. August 23, 2004 RECEIVED RE: Beach dumping TO: City Council Members & Mr. Ridgeway '04 . AtiG 23 P12 :40 We live at 4404 Seashore and are very upset that we weren't noti&OICE OF THE CITY CIERtt of the contract that was awarded to dredge 400,000 yards ofmat&fk OF NEWPORT BEACH from the Santa Ana River and dump it on our beautiful beach I don't care what they said at the meeting on the 19`h, every person with children knows the Health Department suggests that you not let anyone swim in the water at the end of the river since it carrys,., contaminates from all over Orange County which settle in the sand and wash into the ocean. Also, my grandchildren like to body surf and the waves infront of our house are perfect. Please don't destroy are beach Amend the contract to dump the river bottom sediment out in the ocean. Sincerely, Barbara porter William Porter James Brooks From: James Brooks Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:17 AM To: 'thdgeway@city.newport-beach.ca.us' Subject: Beach Nourishment Power Point Presenation We at Stop Dumping have reviewed a City prepared Power Point presentation that may be given to the City Council (httpi/hvww.city.newpc)rt-beach.ca.us/SAR_project/04-08-10%20SAR%2OProjer-t files/frame.htm). We feel that there are several pages wherein erroneous statements are made. Please consider the attached selected pages while this presentation is being made. Thank you. Jim Brooks Stop Dumping Personal Cell Phone: 714-313-3343 htto:IistoDdumc)inQ.bloQsoot.com 8/23/2004 rn i-: I M 8/23/2004 SAR Dredging Project A Project of the US Army Corps of EEn ineers Presentation by the City of Newport Beach August 2004 The Stop Dumping effort has reviewed this cityprepared Power Point presentation and offers its comments as designated below. Onlv those http: / /stopdumpinL.bol2spot.com Certain pages have comments designated by this font type and underlined. Why do its * Flood Control. Excavation will bring the soft channel bottom to its design depth to meet obligations of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Flood Control Project. Beach Nourishment. Excess sediment /sand placed in the groinfield will ensure that the width of the beach remains as constant as possible. We do not object to dredging to prevent river flooding. As to beach nourishment, "remains constant" is not an accurate description because the instantaneous addition of about 250ft more width is not "remains constant." Further, the West Newport Beach beaches have grown between 100ft and 300ft over the past 30 years *. According to US Army Corps of Engineers report whether the sediment is dumped off shore will provide the same nourishment effect as on shore *. * See US Army Corps of Engineers report entitled "Coast of California, Storm and Tidal Waves Study South Coast Region Orange California, August 2002 (specifically Chapter 4). Why Pick on lest Newport? • Offshore bathymetry and shoreline orientation affect how waves approach the shoreline and cause erosion. • West Newport is one of the few sections of Orange County coastline that has a net annual loss of beach — about 0.5 feet per year. Offshore bathymetry and shoreline orientation not only causes beach erosion but it also causes beach growth. The US Army Corps of Engineer's report does not cite this figure of 0.5ft loss per This figure is erroneously derived from isolated selected information within the US Army Corps of Engineer report. To calculate 0.5ft erosion from the very broad variance of data within that report is not credible. To illustrate, according to US Army Corps of Engineers report, the Santa Ana River discharged 2,900,000 cubic ,yards of sediment in 1969 and 172,000 cubic yards of sediment in 1995-(both periods of heavy rain inland). The 0.5ft erosion figure is based on an average beach discharge of only 33,000 cubic yards. The average of just 1969 and 1995 alone spread over 35 years assuming no other river output is 87,800 cubic yards per year, more than five times enough to cover the 0.5ft calculation. West Newport Beach beaches are not eroding 0.5 feet per year. The actual filrnre accordin•; to the US Army Corps of Engineers is grovith between 2ft -4ft per year. Has this happened before? Yes — in: 1968 -69 (900,000 cubic yards) * 1973 (358,000 cubic yards) 1992 (1.3 million cubic yards deposited in nearshore zone by dredge) * 1997 (140,000 cubic yards hauled from beach east of River in West Newport and placed in groin field) This is not a fair comparison. The 1968, 1969, and 1973 sediment/sand placements where completed along with the groin construction to actuaDy rolenish pre -groin erosion. At the end of 1973, the beach widths were equal to the beach widths prior to the four or five year erosion that occurred in 1964 -1969 and Rrior to groin construction. Therefore, there was good basis for direct on beach placement. Ever since, the groins have done a great job of building the beach. The 1992 placement was off shore, which the US Army Corps of Engineers indicates nourished the beaches. The 1997 placement was on shore and is one of the major bases for the current beach user objection — filthy sediment which blows fine dirt into the air landing on homes cars streets and in lungs of breathers. This dust continues until this date. Environmental Review In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Army Corps of Engineers evaluated overal environments impacts associated with several phases of work on the Lower Santa Ana River in a 1988 EIS which was also adopted by the County of Orange as an EIR. • Supplemental Environmental Assessments (EAs) for this pending phase of the work were prepared in: March 2001; and April 2003 • All environmental documents were distributed for comment and finalized based on comments received. The 1988 EIWSEIS was flawed in that while considering four alternatives for dumping the sediment, it did not thoroughly consider some major environmental threats to those using or living near the beach disposal areas. For example, the 1988 EIR found that there were no public safety concerns. But there are. A doubling of the beach width will cause shore break which is dangerous to beach play and surfing. In addition, such extension will cause periodic water front drops of as much as five feet that could cause injury while coming near to such drops. For example, two children lost their lives in the past on these same beaches when they attempted to tunnel into the sheer drop embankment formed along the beach. It collapsed and suffocated them. The 1988 EIR did not consider dust pollution that would occur that could threaten health to a long term breather of such dust. The 1988 EIR did not consider recreational impacts such as loss of surfing, jetty fishing, and sea life watching along the rock jetties. The Supplemental Environmental report was shy these same issues but more importantly had a scope for the on shore dumping alternative wherein the width of the beaches would not be increased pass 350ft in total. Most current beaches in this area have a current beach width of 350ft. Thus, when the assessment was done on this scope, many of the issues relative to public safety, recreation impacts, and health issues were less obvious. Finally, the US Army Corps of Engineers contract does not conform to the 1988 EIW2001 Supplemental Environmental Assessment in that it contracted for widening of beaches to as much as 575ft. Thus, this contract does not have EIR/SEIS /SEA support. WM cc Won't the material harm water quality? tc It may do so temporarily. Bacteria in the river bed sediment (generated from bird waste, etc.) can be kicked up into the water column. OC Health Care Agency will test, as will OCSD. ® Won't the material be darker than the existing beach sand? Some will, some won't. When this has been done in the past, the darker material bleaches out over days, weeks, and months. The only on shore dumping done in the recent pass was in 1997. Although the color may have mixed in, the silt and dirt is still there being raised by casual walking across the beach, equipment moving along the beach, and regular breezes that occur daily. This dust is in our lungs, our homes, and covers our cars. Health problems associated with such regular, unnatural dust particulates in the air has not been assessed. Why can't the contractor be forced to use dredgers instead of trucks and scrapers? The US ACE contract allows for either. Cost will sometimes drive the decision to use on -beach or near - shore disposal — so will logistics. ■ Should the City have been more assertive in attempting to get the Corps to only use dredgers? Maybe. But the contract has been awarded. And there are still examples where beach transport is better (where dredgers can't manuever into the area nor get enough sand in suspension to make it work). In 1992, 1,200,000 cubic yards of SAR sediment were placed off shore by hydraulic dredge. It is technically possible. That a contract is already let is no basis for not correcting a wrong. Q& • Why does the City appear to be supporting this project? We are supportive of it. With additional development inland limiting sediment transport to the ocean, the beaches in West Newport need replenishment on a periodic basis – or they would recede to dangerous widths. . We don't know today if the Federal government or the Corps of Engineers will ever do another project like this – Congress has threatened to make all sand replenishment projects a local responsibility. The City has no budget for this scale of a replenishment project. The project has happened before with little if any long -term impact beyond a healthy, wide beach. The City's support of this dumping on shore seems wrong: • The proiect does not have complete EIR/SEIS /SEA supporting the project as contracted —public safety, loss of recreation, and health issues are significant and remain unaddressed; • The current contract is not in compliance with the EIR/SEIS /SEA wherein the scope was stated that no beach width would increase pass 350 ft in total width wherein the specifications call for some widths as much as 575ft; • Formal notice of those impacted by the dumping on New ort Beach beaches did not occur or was inadequate as demonstrated by the over 100 newly informed beach users attendance at the first information meeting to be held in Newport Beach, ayear after the contract was let; • There are significant financial impacts to landlords of rental properties, merchants, food services, and other beach - related businesses that will directly impact the financial health of these groups and Newport Beach's tax revenues; • The significant impact of all of the above could damage Newport Beach's image of a safe family and surfing beach co- existing that is a model and draw for all others to see; • Tourism will be damaged as well. August 23, 2004 RE: Beach dumping TO: City Council Members & Mr. Ridgeway '04 AUG 23 P12 :40 We live at 4404 Seashore and are very upset that we weren't notif§pd;CE ,, c THE C;l Y CLERI( of the contract that was awarded to dredge 400,000 yards of matdiiiri = WP 0;T BEAN from the Santa Ana River and dump it on our beautiful beach. I don't care what they said at the meeting on the 19`", every person with children knows the Health Department suggests that you not let anyone swim in the water at the end of the river since it carrys, contaminates from all over Orange County which settle in the sand and wash into the ocean. Also, my grandchildren like to body surf and the waves infront of our house are perfect. Please don't destroy are beach. Amend the contract to dump the river bottom sediment out in the ocean. Sincerely, A4e�,,t � Barbara Porter William Porter jr (D o00 as � � U7 c� 0 co U Q rno-0 co ck 0 J P, j.i 'S pig.,- :•` � -. .- - �_ ... n. v P.� 11. pig.,- :•` � -. .- - �_ ... �rt, '.�,•L� = of `'• • �•— -�i� '• a ~ `~�• '?.'� : �� •. r Vii' ° . i _ v� �. .� ,;j� K'":'< i'rv.' � •/ rte. �:•!' 16.y�.:� �i�'' "1- �� ��.... '�i"'� _ �. %. a i . _'� .� - ..'i: f .: �'�• }ri a� `•'(�1��s+�i��.'���. i'�.��J.`�{�M. �.�t.,, l"� : � y.4'J• 1 -�'`� - ��i,. -f.: _.: •la. _. �_ i." rj.` �i� _1,'���,7r�"�crv�e�+i�Y`r•.4ti: �^.?�_.; 1: :`''. \�«.����: '`"", J' ~�n :.�. -.. - _ .aa. � .,.. -.^?.1 .%' ��"- s5.:':'C'!`��.y f..`'�"�y ��y'i:'.. ''l � � Win"' - _ '.'^' ' •.y, . ^�.' _ .�ti . �:_ �•+�:`.'J'-:��:,�L�1'''lyG.�i�: i�_.•�: :.lti �':ia�i..'',' }�`� _.."ri"ti_. .. ^.. t'.t... ...-. 'Yr:' 'k' • i `Y.. a'. !': • i _. r_i•y�j'�?(: <.111I✓ '- ;'��1•l. ��i''! �'•. � ;.tom �.. .. �- .. . b-:� .•�. ' -i ._.: •. -.a ] '6:xi a' i 11y; ��- •••yr.: ^' �i:q_�to - l � ''�. •. , . e. s'�1f..+� , r l ...'. ice,. j!.. .i - r�•i.�`S`s� `: rZ r co = cn 0 rZ •t. .'C �rt, '.�,•L� = of `'• • �•— -�i� '• a ~ `~�• '?.'� : �� •. r Vii' ° . i _ v� �. .� ,;j� K'":'< i'rv.' � •/ rte. �:•!' 16.y�.:� �i�'' "1- �� ��.... '�i"'� _ �. %. a i . _'� .� - ..'i: f .: �'�• }ri a� `•'(�1��s+�i��.'���. i'�.��J.`�{�M. �.�t.,, l"� : � y.4'J• 1 -�'`� - ��i,. -f.: _.: •la. _. �_ i." rj.` �i� _1,'���,7r�"�crv�e�+i�Y`r•.4ti: �^.?�_.; 1: :`''. \�«.����: '`"", J' ~�n :.�. -.. - _ .aa. � .,.. -.^?.1 .%' ��"- s5.:':'C'!`��.y f..`'�"�y ��y'i:'.. ''l � � Win"' - _ '.'^' ' •.y, . ^�.' _ .�ti . �:_ �•+�:`.'J'-:��:,�L�1'''lyG.�i�: i�_.•�: :.lti �':ia�i..'',' }�`� _.."ri"ti_. .. ^.. t'.t... ...-. 'Yr:' 'k'