HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 - Harbor Area Management Plan - Final Adoption - Handout:Imoil
GUM! L'M
April 2010
FINAL
area
ment PI;
04
7S
Prepared by:
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Everest International Consultants, Inc.
Coastal Resources Management, Inc.
NewFields LLC
Tom Johnson, Ph.D.
Prepared for:
Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
829 Harbor Island Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Fill
�a
i
���E!
N���� /%j
111111111111111111
��
������
`''��
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
�,�
�����r /r•`�;
IIII I�
Vision
"The management and preservation of Newport Bay in a sustainable manner by balancing the community,
economical and environmental beneficial uses of this keystone estuary ecosystem and community asset"
Harbor Area Management Plan Worlcgroup
Mission
"To protect and improve the resources of Newport Harbor, Upper Newport Bay, and the ocean beaches to ensure their proper use and
enjoyment by all things that derive life, recreation, or commerce from our City's most important asset"
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Elements
The Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP) uses an integrated approach. Integrating these HAMP elements results in multiple benefits. These
colored symbols appear throughout the document and indicate a link to another element. These symbols are hyper linked in the PDF document to the
beginning of the corresponding element's section.
■ Dredging Requirements and ■ Harbor Channel
Contaminated Sediment Management and Pierhead Lines
■ Eelgrass Capacity and
Management Tools
■ Beach Replenishment Strategy
■ Water Quality
Document Structure
■ Hydrodynamic and Water Quality
Numerical Modeling Requirements
■ Regional General Permit
■ Sea Level Rise and Flood Control
Management
■ Upper Bay Sediment Control
■ Upper Bay Restoration and
Management
This document includes first an Executive Summary -style presentation of the HAMP. This beginning summary document provides an
overview of the Plan's objectives, the elements listed above, challenges, element goals, suggested steps forward, and the level of
benefits achieved. This summary document is then followed by more detailed reports on each element, provided in the appendices.
Contents
Purpose of the HAM o 1
HAM Integrates} Approach 0 3
Introduction 4
Objectives and Goals to Achieve a Sustainable Newport Bay 6
Recommended Goals 7
Dredging Requirements and Contaminates} Sediment Management o16
Dredging Requirement Study 16
Overview of Dredging Requirements 17
Options for Management of Sediment 19
Potential Steps Forward 23
Eelgrass Capacity and Management Tools o 25
Introduction 25
Current Challenges to Establish Sustainable Eelgrass Populations in Newport Harbor 28
Developing an Eelgrass Management Plan 29
Potential Steps Forward 31
Beach Replenishment Strategy ,> 32
Introduction 32
Development of a Beach Replenishment Program 33
Potential Steps Forward 36
Water Quality,, 37
Introduction 37
Overview of Water Quality Issues 38
Key Questions and Coordination with Current Programs 40
Harbor Area Water Quality BMP Identification and Prioritization 41
Linkages to Other Programs 42
Potential Steps Forward 43
Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines o 45
Channel and Pierhead Lines Study 45
Specific Conflicts 46
Harbor Lines: Rules and Regulations46
Potential Steps Forward 48
Introduction 49
Numerical Model Evaluation 49
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements o 49
Overview of Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements 50
Suggested Model 51
Model Data Requirements 51
Potential Steps Forward 52
Regional General Permit o 53
Introduction 53 Improvement of the RGP Process 54
Contaminated Sediment 54
A Path Forward 55
Potential Steps Forward 55
Sea Level Rise and Flood Control Management o 56
Introduction 56
Overview of Flooding Issues 57
Linkages to Other Programs 60
Potential Steps Forward 61
Upper Bay Sediment Control 0 62
Introduction 62
Key Elements of the Sediment Control Plan 63
Overview of Upper Bay Sediment Management Issues 65
Coordination with Current Programs 67
Potential Steps Forward 68
Upper Newport Bay Restoration and Management o 69
Introduction 69
Overview of Upper Bay Restoration Issues 71
Coordination with Current Programs 72
Potential Steps Forward 74
Harbor Area Management Tools o 75
Map of Integrated Projects 90
Implementation Strategy Schedule and Cost Estimates 90
Integrated Project Scoring 91
Integrated Project Scoring Table 91
Implementation Strategy Schedule and Cost Estimates 91
Integrated Project Scoring Table: Project Assessment and Integrated Benefit 92
Funding o 94
Introduction 94
Local Funding Strategy 95
State Funding Strategy 96
Federal Funding Strategy 97
Funding to Further the HAMP Program 97
Appendices
A: Dredging Requirements and Contaminated Sediment Management
B: Eelgrass Capacity and Management
C: Beach Replenishment Strategy
D: Water Quality
E: Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines
F: Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirement
G: Regional General Permit
H: Sea Level Rise and Flood Control Management
Pu rpose of the HAM P
The purpose of this Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP) is to develop a resource
management tool for the City of Newport Beach (City) to move forward with key
sediment management, water quality, restoration, and public use projects critical in
meeting the following overall goals:
• Maintain the beneficial uses of the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and economic
value of the Bay;
• Provide a practical framework to meet regulatory requirements in the current and
anticipated municipal discharge permits, sediment management permits, total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and other regulatory programs for Newport Bay;
and,
• Support a sustainable estuary ecosystem able to be integrated with upstream
sustainable watersheds and adjacent coastal area systems.
Purpose of the HAMP
The benefit of this plan is the integration of
these various projects where previous plans
have focused only on a single or a smaller
set of projects. This plan presents the link-
ages of these projects and highlights the
inter- connection of the City's efforts. This
plan also provides the City an assessment
of these multiple projects using equally -
weighted end goals of benefits. Previous
plans have targeted only certain benefits,
and therefore have not considered these
projects in a more holistic manner.
This plan is not a recipe for project imple-
mentation, rather a framework that the City
can use as a guide to planning and develop-
ing more project specific plans. Without the
demonstration of the integration of the vari-
ous projects provided in the HAMP, the full
benefits and cost - effective solutions can not
be fully realized. This plan also provides a
prioritization tool for the City in consider-
ing how best to use available resources. By
comparing projects to an equally weighted
set of benefits, project can be better priori-
tized based on cost and final benefits real-
ized.
This plan also provides the City with a
management framework to provide as the
basis for future state and federal grant ap-
plications to augment City resources for
the implementation of projects in the Bay.
State grant programs require jurisdictions
to have a planning document in place and
approved by management that supports the
proposed projects for which grant funds are
being requested.
HAM P I nteg rated Approach
Integrating Element
Introduction
Newport Bay is a vital asset to the City of
Newport Beach (City) that includes some
of the state's largest marinas, vibrant beach
communities, and a keystone estuary eco-
system linking a diverse watershed with
critical coastal habitat. Recognizing that the
Lower Newport Bay serves a variety of im-
portant uses and users, including recreation,
navigation, wildlife, and business and that
multiple stakeholders have an interest in the
management of this resource, the City has
undertaken this effort to develop a Harbor
Area Management Plan (HAMP) to integrate
and balance everyone's efforts and goals.
The 13.2 square mile Newport Bay Water-
shed drains into the Santa Ana Delhi Chan-
nel and San Diego Creek that discharges into
Upper Newport Bay. Upper Newport Bay is
characterized by mudflat, salt marsh, fresh-
water marsh, riparian, and upland habitats
that are protected within the 752 -acre Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and the
140 -acre County of Orange Regional Park.
The Lower Newport Bay is characterized by
diverse beach communities and world class
marinas. Both the Upper and Lower Bays
are linked as an integrated estuary ecosys-
tem that begins with the mixing of fresh and
salt water in the mud flats and tidal marshes
of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Re-
serve, continues into the eelgrass beds of the
Lower Newport Bay, and finally reaches the
coastal marine intertidal and subtidal habi-
tats of the Newport Coast. Adjacent to the
Bay entrance are the Newport and Irvine Ar-
eas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).
These coastal areas have been designated
for their importance to the California coastal
habitat. These natural resources attract visi-
tors from around the world and provide rec-
reational opportunities to Newport residenc-
es. The Newport Bay is vital to the economic
health and growth of the region through its
renowned residential, recreational, and com-
mercial opportunities. The economical suc-
cess of the region depends on the sustainable
management of the Newport Bay.
One of the most critical outcomes of the
HAMP will allow the City to move forward
with key sediment management, water
quality, restoration, and public use projects.
The HAMP focuses primarily on the Lower
Newport Bay. Restoration activities in the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve are
under a separate initiative that includes the
planning, design, and implementation of
restoration projects in cooperation with the
California Department of Fish and Game
which is responsible for the management of
the 752 -acre reserve. Linkages to the restora-
tion projects underway and proposed in the
Upper Newport Bay will be discussed.
As a Resource Management Tool, this plan
provides integrated solutions that result in
cost savings and positive return on invest-
ment paid to the triple bottom line of eco-
nomic, community, and environmental
benefits. The suggested actions in this plan
provide the steps forward to meet the chal-
lenges in a cost - effective manner through
the integration of projects. For example,
unit costs for management of dredged mate-
rial from the Harbor's channels can be sig-
nificantly reduced through integration with
beneficial uses for bulk head upgrades to
address flooding, beach replenishment, and
eelgrass management. This plan is based on
the understanding that the "no action alter-
native" would lead to inaccessible channels,
loss of property values, and regulatory ac-
tion. Management measures are needed to
maintain the vitality of the Harbor's assets
that balance the beneficial uses cost- effec-
tively.
The foundation for the Harbor Area Man-
agement Plan is the Harbor and Bay Ele-
ment of the City's General Plan. The man-
agement measures that are developed and
presented in this plan are evaluated using
the beneficial uses developed in the Harbor
and Bay Element. The goals of the Harbor
and Bay Element therefore are consistent
with those of the HAMP. This overall vision
of the HAMP also mirrors the mission state-
ment for the Harbor Commission:
"To protect and improve the resources of
Newport Harbor, Upper Newport Bay, and
the ocean beaches to ensure their proper
use and enjoyment by all things that derive
life, recreation, or commerce from our
City's most important asset"
The HAMP is therefore built on the foun-
dation of the Harbor and Bay Element and
provides the framework to build an inte-
grated and sustainable program that most
cost - effectively addresses the beneficial
uses. It is the integration of the measures
that this HAMP provides in order to best
meet the long -term goals and vision. The
integration of elements that include dredg-
ing of the channels, eelgrass management,
and water quality has not been fully inte-
grated in previous documents. This plan
therefore provides this needed function to
best achieve the beneficial use goals in a
cost - effective manner.
The Harbor Commission has been the guid-
ing light to moving this process forward
from the foundation of the Harbor and Bay
Element to the development of the RAMP.
The Harbor Commission was instrumen-
tal in obtaining the grant funding from the
state for the completion of the HAMP.
The HAMP provides management and
planning tools for the "water side" of Lower
Newport Bay. The Local Coastal Program
(LCP) provides the management plan for
the "land side "of the Harbor Area. The LCP
consists of the Coastal Land Use Plan ap-
proved by the California Coastal Commis-
sion and adopted by the City in 2005. There
have been subsequent amendments to this
plan to make it consistent with the General
Plan approved by the voters in 2006. The
land use plan indicates the kind, location,
and intensity of land uses; the applicable
resource protection and development poli-
cies; and where necessary, a listing of imple-
menting actions. The implementation plan
consists of the zoning ordinances, zoning
district maps, and other legal instruments
necessary to implement the land use plan.
Objectives and Goals to Achieve a Sustainable Newport Bay
The sustainability of the social, economic, and environmental values of this treasured
estuary ecosystem and its beach communities depends on successfully managing the
Newport Bay to achieve the following broad objectives:
• Protect the recreational values (social)
Recognize the economic value of the Harbor and its channels to the local
community (economic)
Assure a sustainable estuary system linked to watershed and coastal habitats
(environmental)
These broad objectives are more clearly defined and measured through a more specific
's as follows:
Objectives
Protect the recreational values
(social)
Community/PublicAccess
Recreational Opportunities
Recognize the economic value of the Harbor
Channel Maintenance
and its channels to the local community
Flood Control
(economic)
Berthing Management
Water Quality
Assure a sustainable estuary system linked to
Marine Resource Protection (ASBS)
watershed and coastal habitats
(environmental)
Habitat Protection/Improvement
Sustainabilit
I- �- -J.. -. ; --
The following guiding principles have been identified as programs and activities that
are being developed and coordinated:
• Maintain the beneficial uses of the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and economic value of
the Bay,
• Achieve regulatory requirements within a practical framework that meet the specified
target in the current and anticipated municipal permits, sediment management permits,
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and other regulatory programs for Newport Bay,
• Work toward a sustainable estuary ecosystem integrated with sustainable watershed and
coastal area systems.
Recommended Goals
The suggested priority projects and activities developed and presented for each Harbor
challenge are integrated into the HAMP Management Tools section and assessed using a
set of more specific beneficial use goals, consistent with the broad objectives defined earlier.
These criteria include each of the beneficial uses defined in the Harbor and Bay Element
and additional elements to achieve the long -term sustainability of the Bay. The table on the
following page presents the goals used for the evaluation of the recommendations. Further
description of the goals is also provided with the origin of the criteria. Several criteria
have been added to achieve a more holistic and integrated approach with other regional
plans, including the Central Orange County Integrated Regional and Coastal Watershed
Management Plan, the Newport Coast Watershed Management Plan, and the Upper Newport
Bay Restoration Plan. Several of these criteria also apply to state grant program as listed in
the table. This evaluation provides an additional tool to demonstrate the importance of an
integrated approach to achieve the overall goals.
The priority projects and activities for each HAMP challenge/ element are evaluated using a
scale of 1 to 5. A score of 1 indicates that the activities proposed for that element are the most
effective at meeting the listed beneficial use goal and a score of 5 indicates those activities are
the least effective at meeting the listed beneficial use goal. Scores 1 though 5 are indicated
using the symbols in the legend below. On page 92, all of the scores for each element are aver-
aged together to show that when integrated, these combined RAMP element activities result in
a beneficial outcome. Therefore, although one element may have little or no benefit in a single
criteria, when integrated and implemented as an overall program, the combined outcome
achieves the stated goals.
0 0 0 (:� 4
1 2 4
I.+t A.,,+ ;--
Beneficial Use Criteria Table
Beneficial Use
Descriptions
Origins
Goals
Water Quality
Create and maintain a sustainable
• Harbor & Bay Element Goals 8 & 10
watershed through protection, pres-
• Proposition 50
ervation, and improvement of water
-Proposition 84
quality.
Marine Resource
Protect, preserve, and enhance marine
*Harbor & Bay Element Goals 7, 8, & 10
Protection (ASBS)
resources, including marine plants,
• Proposition 50
invertebrates, fishes, seabirds, marine
.Ocean Plan
mammals, and their habitats.
Habitat
Protect, preserve, and restore sustain-
• Harbor & Bay Element Goals 7 & 10
Protection/
able upland, wetland, and marine habi-
-Proposition 50
Improvement
tats, focused on Upper Newport Bay.
Community/
Maintain and improve public access
• Harbor & Bay Element Goals 5 & 6
Public Access
to the shoreline, beach, coastal parks,
• Proposition 50
trails, and bays through waterfront and
infrastructure improvement projects.
Water
Reduce non - stormwater runoff and
-Harbor and Bay Element 8
Conservation/
conserve water through education and
.Proposition 84
Urban Runoff
the implementation of a watershed -
Management
based runoff reduction program to in-
crease groundwater recharge and limit
pollution to the Bay and its waters.
Channel
Enhance and maintain deep -water
• Harbor & Bay Element Goals 13
Maintenance
channels through dredging and sedi-
ment management to ensure and im-
prove navigation.
Flood Control
Reduce the potential for catastrophic
-Proposition 50
floods through identification of at -risk
• Proposition 84
areas, maintenance of flood control
facilities, and design of flood control
projects.
Berthing
Ensure a variety of vessel berthing and
• Harbor & Bay Element Goal 5
Management
storage opportunities at marinas, moor-
ings, anchorages, and piers.
Recreational
Preserve and enhance water - dependent
-Harbor & Bay Element 1, 2, & 4
Opportunities
and water - related recreational activi-
-Proposition 50
ties.
Sustainability
Integrate and maintain the balance of
-Harbor and Bay Element
beneficial uses in the Bay by consider-
ing economic, recreational, and com-
mercialinterests.
The development of this management tool for the Lower Newport Bay requires
coordination between multiple programs and requires addressing multiple
challenges to achieving the overall goals. These programs and challenges that have
been identified through the regulatory agencies, stakeholder groups and the City
include:
Executive Summary: Page 16
Detailed Report: Appendix A
❑��,- ,.,,�„ �r,a cam,..,,,
Dredging Requirements and Contaminated
Sediment
In recent years, sedimentation in Lower Newport Bay
has resulted in the narrowing and shoaling of the fed-
eral channels and adjacent non - federal channels that
act as the main conduits to marina and harbor traffic.
Although sediment catch basins constructed in Up-
per Newport Bay were somewhat effective in helping
to reduce sedimentation, the Lower Bay has remained
subject to heavy amounts of silt and sedimentation
via tidal activity and storm events. By dredging the
Lower Bay, the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and City of Newport Beach (City) hope to re-
establish adequate water depths along the federal chan-
nels and to improve navigation for the high volume of
sea -going vessels entering and leaving Newport Bay.
The dredging of contaminated sediments may have a
long -term positive effect on the environment due to the
ongoing source of contaminants released to the envi-
ronment if left in place. However, the handling and
management of these sediments reduces the options
for beneficial uses and placement of dredged material.
Based on the June 2008 bathymetry survey conducted
by the USACE, approximately 1 million cubic meters
(1.3 million cubic yards) of sediment has accumulated
above the authorized Operations and Maintenance
depths within actively maintained Federal areas of re-
sponsibility (USACE). Based on the results of recent
chemical and biological testing data of the accumulated
sediments, conservative projections indicate approxi-
mately 60 percent of these sediment are suitable for
ocean disposal (exact number to be determined dur-
ing the dredging process), with the balance not likely
Executive Summary: Page 25
Detailed Report: Appendix B
to pass suitability for this management option. These
remaining sediments will instead require some form of
treatment or alterative disposal. Assuming sedimentation
rates stay the same or diminish, an additional 650,000 cy
will need to be dredged over the next 30 years to maintain
harbor depths.
Eelgrass Capacity and Management
While eelgrass serves an important ecological resource
within Lower Newport Harbor, it often conflicts with
other beneficial harbor uses, particularly those related to
guest and residential boating and navigation. Dredging
and maintenance of navigational channels; construction
and maintenance of bulkheads, piers, and docks; and
nourishment of beaches directly impacts eelgrass through
burial or removal of vegetation and a loss of eelgrass func-
tion as a wildlife habitat. The eelgrass is a protected habi-
tat that needs to be balanced with other beneficial uses
and economic value of recreational and personal use of the
Harbor. The City has an adopted Coastal Commission -ap-
proved Land Use Plan (LUP) that acknowledges the need
for a balance between harbor maintenance and recreation-
al activities and preservation of this important habitat. To
mitigate the potential impacts to eelgrass of dredging and
development, the LUP requires avoidance where possible
and restoration where avoidance is not practical. The
challenge is therefore to develop an Eelgrass Management
Plan that balances existing harbor uses with maintaining a
high value and sustainable eelgrass habitat.
Beach Replenishment Strategy
There are over 30 beaches located in Lower Newport
Bay. The beach uses and needs vary. Several issues have
prevented efficient management of beach replenishment
projects. No formal system is in place to manage and
prioritize beach replenishment projects and the beneficial
Executive Summary: Page 32
Detailed Report: Appendix C
Executive Summary: Page 37
Detailed Report: Appendix D
❑ 4 c,,..,,,
uses of dredged material that can be used for these proj-
ects. Components of the Regional General Permit (RGP)
restrict the placement of dredged material on beaches
if eelgrass beds are within 15 feet. Under the RGP, only
small volumes ( <1000cy) of dredged material from the
Lower Bay can be beneficially used to nourish compatible
beaches. A more comprehensive management and prior-
ity system is needed to address these challenges.
Water Quality Best Management Practices
Key water quality challenges include understanding
the extent and sources of water quality impacts to the
Lower Newport Bay, and the development of a strategy
to cost - effectively implement best management practices
(BMPs) to meet the anticipated requirements of TMDLs.
The TMDLs under implementation for the Lower New-
port Bay include nutrients, pathogens, and sediment.
TMDLs in the technical phase include organochlorine
compounds and metals for the Rhine Channel. The water
quality issues in the Lower Newport Bay are linked to
the Upper Bay and watershed as they contribute to the
constituent loading to the Lower Bay. This is highlighted
by the dual listing of the San Diego Creek watershed and
the Newport Bay on most of the TDMLs. Located just
outside the Harbor are two areas designated by the state
as ASBS that are subject to special protections under the
California Ocean Plan (COP). Preliminary constituent
transport modeling indicates a likely connection between
the Bay and the ASBS. The strategy for BMP implemen-
tation therefore needs to integrate with watershed, Upper
Newport Bay, and coastal plans and projects; and allow
for effectiveness assessment of the program.
Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines
After construction of the portion of Newport Bay below
Pacific Coast Highway (Lower Bay), the federal gov-
ernment, through the USACE, established harbor lines
(project lines, pierhead lines, and bulkhead lines). These
lines define the federal navigation channel dredging
limits, and the limits on how far piers, wharfs, bulkheads,
Executive Summary: Page 45
Detailed Report: Appendix E
Executive Summary: Page 49
Detailed Report: Appendix F
12
and other solid fills can extend into Lower Bay waters.
These lines are important for maintaining safe naviga-
tion conditions throughout the Lower Bay. The harbor
lines have not been systematically adjusted since their
original development in 1936 even though the Lower
Bay has been altered extensively since this time, and
there have been changes in uses as well. As part of the
HAMP, this section identifies and addresses issues
related to the harbor lines throughout the Lower Bay
and provides recommendations to update these lines
which will impact dredging needs, eelgrass man-
agement, and areas defined under the RGP. Specific
changes have been suggested, and methods for imple-
menting those changes have been provided.
Hydrodynamic Model
Numerical models are widely used as a management
decision - making tool in addressing sediment and
water quality problems, including several numerical
modeling efforts specifically for Newport Bay. Nu-
merical models are used to simulate hydrodynamic
conditions (e.g., flows, water surface elevations, and
velocities) and water quality transport (e.g., sediment
or salinity) within a river, estuary, or Bay. Changes to
hydrodynamic and water quality conditions are used
to evaluate alternatives or management decisions,
such as dredging strategies or storm drain diversions
to improve water quality. Numerical models are also
used to understand the physical environment of the
Bay and to aid in decision making to address water
quality issues. Development of a hydrodynamic and
water quality numerical model for Newport Bay can
be used to evaluate many of the proposed strategies
and BMPs developed for the RAMP. Accurate models
are needed to assess future dredging and beach re-
plenishment needs, effectiveness of water quality, and
sediment control BMPs.
Purpose and Scope
Executive Summary: Page 53
Detailed Report: Appendix G
Executive Summary: Page 56
Detailed Report: Appendix H
❑ 4 c,,..,,,
Regional General Permits
In Lower Newport Bay, in -water maintenance activi-
ties are carried out under a variety of federal, state,
and regional permits, the principal one being the
federal Regional General Permit 54 (RGP 54), issued
by USACE and managed by the City of Newport
Beach Harbor Resources Division. The RGP, which
is valid for a term of five years, governs maintenance
dredging and disposal of sediments and the repair
and replacement of docks, piers, and seawalls. The
current RGP contains a number of special conditions.
Several issues have hampered the efficient adminis-
tration of the RGP and resulted in significant delays
and additional costs for necessary harbor mainte-
nance. These include the long and costly permit
renewal process, sampling plan approval, restricted
range of activities covered by the permit, no consis-
tent disposal options for impacted sediment, and
Special Conditions that prevent many minor mainte-
nance dredging operations within 15 feet of eelgrass
beds.
Sea Level Change and Potential Shoreline
Flooding
Historical measurements indicate a steady increase
in global sea levels. Continued sea level rise will
increase the risk of nearshore flooding during storm
surges that correspond to high tide events. The
potential for flooding in the Lower Harbor has not
been evaluated with regard to this documented rise
in sea levels. Flood modeling is needed to evalu-
ate this potential and to develop recommendations
regarding the modification of existing bulkheads and
other flood control structures and municipal infra-
structure.
Executive Summary: Page 62
Executive Summary: Page 69
14
Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan
The Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control includes
the management of sediment loading occurring
from the watershed. Current restoration and dredg-
ing activities in the Upper Newport Bay include the
establishment of sediment control basins to control
sedimentation to the Bay. Further sediment trans-
port modeling is needed to assess the efficiency of
these basins and the effects of the current dredging
regime. Long -term management of sedimenta-
tion patterns and sediment types will also need to
be coordinated with TMDLs and other regulatory
drivers. Dredge material management in the Lower
Bay is dependent on aggressively addressing fine -
grained sediments transported from San Diego
Creek through the Upper Bay.
Upper Bay Restoration Management Plan
The Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve is the framework for the imple-
mentation and management of the restoration ac-
tivities and long -term sustainability of this Critical
Coastal Area. The Ecological Reserve is managed
by the California Department of Fish and Game.
Due to funding constraints, this Management Plan
is currently in a preliminary phase. However, the
City and County are aggressively moving forward
with several restoration projects. The challenges for
the Upper Bay Restoration include securing fund-
ing for the restoration projects and the development
of the Management Plan and coordination of the
dredging activities with the restoration projects and
water quality projects.
Purpose and Scope
The intent of the development of the HAMP
is to guide the City and the Harbor stake-
holders in the implementation of activities
that balance the beneficial uses with the long-
term sustainability of the Bay. The New-
port Bay stakeholders include the Newport
Harbor Commission; Community Support
Groups; Newport Beach Chamber of Com-
merce; Orange County Coastkeeper; County
of Orange Watershed and Coastal Resources
Division; Regional Water Quality Control
Board; other environmental conservation
groups, non - governmental organization,
industry professionals and private citizens
that live, work and recreate in and around
the Bay.
Integral in the development of this plan is
the input provided by the stakeholders. The
development approach to the HAMP in-
cludes feedback from the Harbor stakehold-
ers as well as coordination with regional and
coastal watershed plans, TMDL programs,
and channel maintenance programs. Stake-
holder input was provided at several phases
of the plan development. These phases in-
cluded the preliminary draft, draft, and final
plan development. The content and format
of the documents at each of these phases has
been planned to allow for incorporation of
stakeholder feedback.
The HAMP is composed of two sets of doc-
uments consisting of the main report and
supporting appendices. The main report in-
cludes the Technical Report Summaries and
HAMP Management Tools. The Technical
Summaries are developed from the Tech-
nical Reports that are presented in the ap-
pendices. This plan incorporates comments
from the stakeholder groups from previous
drafts.
D....... �., ,.. 4 C,...,.,
The HAMP integrates the potential steps
forward presented in the individual Tech-
nical Summaries into an overall strategy
with possible project prioritization, poten-
tial funding sources and linkages to other
projects. This overall strategy is presented
following the Technical Summaries, and
consists of a set of HAMP Management
Tools. These tools include an implementa-
tion schedule that provides the suggested
priorities, linkages, estimated costs, and po-
tential funding sources for activities in the
Lower Newport Bay to achieve the overall
program goals. The suggested priority proj-
ects and activities are assessed using a set
of evaluation criteria based on the goals of
the program. These criteria include each
of the beneficial uses defined in the Harbor
and Bay Element and additional elements to
achieve the long -term sustainability of the
Bay. This evaluation provides an additional
tool to demonstrate the importance of an
integrated approach to achieve the overall
goals. These criteria are further defined in
the following subsection.
The development of this HAMP is funded
by a State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) Grant to the City of Newport
Beach. The City and community of New-
port Beach appreciates this support from the
state for the preparation of this plan toward
the goal of a sustainable Newport Bay that
is integrated into a sustainable watershed
and coastal area. It should be noted that the
contents of this document do not necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the SWRCB,
nor does mention of trade names or com-
mercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
Enhancement
Co nrnunity/
Public
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
Flood
Control
C
Berthing
•
Management
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
•
Dredging Requirements &
Contaminated Sediment Management
Dredging Requirement
Study
Problem Statement. In recent
years, sedimentation in Lower
Newport Bay has resulted in the
narrowing and shoaling of the
federal channels and adjacent
non - federal channels that act as
the main passageway for marina
and Harbor traffic. Therefore,
there is a need for a plan to main-
tain the channels and berthing ar-
eas necessary for safe navigation
of the Lower Newport Bay in an
economically and environmen-
tally sound manner. Sediment catch basins constructed in Upper Newport Bay
were somewhat effective in helping to reduce sedimentation ■ ; however, the
Lower Bay has remained subject to heavy amounts of silt and sedimentation
via tidal activity and storm events. The United States Army Corps of Engineers
( USACE) and City of Newport Beach (City) plan to re- establish sufficient water
depths along the federal channels and to improve navigation safety for the large
quantity of sea -going vessels entering and leaving Newport Bay. Since 1929,
there has been a long history of dredging within Newport Bay. This has served
a dual purpose by addressing critical dredging needs such as improving naviga-
tion safety for sea -going vessels, and also by considering beneficial use alterna-
tives.
Benefits of Dredging. By dredging the Lower Bay,
USACE and the City of Newport Beach (City) hope to
re- establish adequate water depths along the federal
channels and to improve navigation safety for the high
volume of sea -going vessels entering and leaving New-
port Bay. The dredging of contaminated sediments may
have a long -term positive effect on the environment due
to the removal of contaminants that could potentially
become exposed to marine life if left in place.
Dredging Requirements & Contaminated Sediment Management
Overview of Dredging Requirements
Current Dredging Needs:
Based on the June 2008 bathymetry survey conducted by the USACE, approximately
1 million cubic meters (1.3 million cubic yards) of sediment has accumulated above the
authorized Operations and Maintenance (O &M) depths within actively maintained
Federal areas of responsibility (USACE). Based on the results of recent chemical and biologi-
cal testing data of the accumulated sediments, conservative projections indicate approximately
60 percent of these sediment are suitable for ocean disposal exact number to be determined
during the dredging approval process), with the balance not likely to pass suitability for this
management option. These remaining sediments will instead require some form of treatment
or alternative disposal. These totals are summarized below:
summary of pera on an aintenance Dredge Volumes by US CE C'anne Reac
Federal
Channel Segment
Estimated O &M Volume (Cubic
Meters)
Entrance Channel
40,580
Corona Del Mar Bend
2,150
Balboa Beach
79,370
Harbor Island Reach
74,570
Lido Island Reach
157,500
Turning Basin
63,740
West Lido Area A
51,710
West Lido Area B
38,020
Newport Channel
187,050
Yacht Anchorage
359,220
Bay Island Anchorage
14,690
Upper Channel
37,050
North Anchorage Area
5,720
South Anchorage Area
9,800
Balboa Island Channel
40,520
1 -Lower Newport Bay CAD Site Feasibility Study, Anchor QEA,L.P., 2009
In addition to the contaminated material from the federal O &M channel, there are several
other areas of contaminated sediment in the Lower Newport Bay that also require some form
of management. Not all of these areas are the responsibility of the City.
Dredging Requirements & Contaminated Sediment Management
Non - Operations and Maintenance Sources of Contaminated Sediments
from Lower New ort Ba z
Estimated
Volume of
Source
Contami-
nated Sedi-
Responsibility
ment (cubic
meters)
Rhine Channel
100,584
City and Various Shoreline Tenants
Private/ Commercial Facilities
10,000+
Various
1 -Lower Newport Bay CAD Site Feasibility Study, Anchor QEA,L.P., 2009
Future Dredging Needs:
Based on models developed by USACE
in the late 1990s and historic deposi-
tional records, approximately 1 to 1.5
million cubic yards of sediment will be
transported through, with a significant
volume settling in the Lower Newport
Bay in a 15 -year cycle. However, these
models do not account for hydrologi-
cal changes that will be implemented
with the most recent designs for the
Upper Newport Bay Restoration Proj-
ect. In addition, these models do not assess the impact of current dredging operations in Upper
Newport Bay, which remove only the coarse grain size fraction. This model does not account
for volumes by grain size fractions; therefore, sedimentation patterns cannot be predicted and
are confounded by the current dredging operations in Upper Newport Bay. A model that incor-
porates grain size fraction information is needed. Additional data would need to be established
to determine sedimentation rates and future dredging needs.
The City has a Regional General Permit (RGP) 0, which is a 5 year renewable permit that al-
lows property owners to apply to the City for permission to dredge within their dock area. This
permit allows for up to 20,000 cubic yards of sediment to be dredged each year. In the past 30
years, about 357,000 cubic yards of sediment was dredged under the RGP. About 170,000 cubic
yards was disposed of at LA -3, and about 187,000 cubic yards was used for beach replenish-
ment.
Dredging Requirements Fr Contaminated Sediment Management
Mi.]
Based on recent bathymetry, the removal
of approximately 1.3 million cubic yards (1
million cubic meters) is required to increase
Harbor depths to design depths. Based on
historic dredging efforts over the last 30
years, approximately 360,000 cubic yards
were dredged under the RGP and 289,000
cubic yards were dredged by the USACE in
the federal channels. Assuming sedimenta-
tion rates stay the same or diminish, addi-
tional dredging is needed over the next 30
years to maintain Harbor depths.
Options for Management of
Sediment
Ocean Disposal
Suitability of dredged material for ocean dis-
posal is based on MPRSA Tier III analysis as
described in the Ocean Testing Manual. Tier
III analysis includes sediment chemistry,
solid phase toxicity tests, suspended partic-
ulate phase toxicity tests, and bioaccumula-
tion tests. Dredged material from Newport
Bay for ocean disposal will be placed in the
USEPA designated LA -2 or LA -3 disposal
sites. LA -2 is located within Los Angeles
County, approximately six nautical miles
from the entrance of Los Angeles Harbor.
LA -3 is located within Orange County, ap-
proximately 4.5 nautical miles from the en-
trance of Newport Harbor.
Sustainable Sediment Management
Alternatives
Dredging requires processing and handling
of sediments, which are typically removed
from a system and placed in nearshore
ocean disposal sites or in confined disposal
facilities (CDF). Often this is done without
considering alternative beneficial uses of
the sediment. For some dredging projects,
disposal issues can be problematic result-
ing in postponements or even cancellation
of dredging at harbors. However, sediments
which do not exceed predetermined crite-
ria may be a viable source for beneficial use
projects where some type of soil or fill is
needed.
Beneficial use includes a wide variety of op-
tions that utilize dredged material for a pro-
ductive purpose. Beneficial uses of dredged
material may make traditional placement
of dredged material unnecessary or at least
reduce the level of disposal. The broad cat-
egories of beneficial uses, based on the func-
tional use of the dredged material or site, de-
fined by the USACE (1987) are as follows:
• Beach nourishment- the strategic place-
ment of large quantities of beach quality
sand on an existing beach to provide a source
of nourishment for littoral movement or res-
toration of a recreational beach ■
• Shoreline stabilization- the use of mate-
rial to create berms or embankments at an
orientation to the shoreline that will either
modify the local wave climate in order to
improve shoreline stability, or alter the wave
direction to modify the rate or direction of
local sediment transport
• Landfill cover for solid waste manage-
ment- the use of material at landfills as daily
or final cover, and as capping material for
abandoned contaminated industrial sites
known as " brownfields '
*Material transfer - the use of dewatered
dredged material as construction fill for
roads, construction projects dikes, levees
Dredging Requirements & Contaminated Sediment Management
Management of Materials Not Suitable
for Ocean Disposal
The long history of commercial and recre-
ational boating uses, as well as the urban-
ization of the watershed, has contributed to
sediment toxicity and chemical contamina-
tion of Newport Bay. Contaminant chemi-
cals and metals have accumulated within
the Bay's sediments, reaching levels that ex-
ceed sediment quality standards in specific
portions of the Bay, such as the Rhine Chan-
nel. As a consequence, sediment manage-
ment and treatment strategies are necessary
to control and remediate sediment contami-
nation in order to comply with state regula-
tions and enhance the environmental condi-
tions within the Bay. In doing so, sediment
management has the potential to contribute
to the goals set forth in the Newport Beach
Harbor and Bay Element.
Options for contaminated sediment manage-
ment in Southern California are documented
in the Los Angles Contaminated Sediment
Task Force (CFTS) Long -Term Management
Strategy (LTMS), and the Los Angeles Re-
gional Dredged Material Management Plan
(DMMP). These documents were used as the
basis to develop potential management op-
tions for evaluation relative to Lower New-
port Bay sediments. The options being con-
sidered by the City include:
• Future Port Fill in the Ports of Los Angeles
or Long Beach
-On-site (On- shore) Treatment Facility
-Upland Disposal to a Landfill
-Long Beach Confined Aquatic Disposal
(CAD) site
posal (CAD) site
In order to address an ongoing goal of the
Council, the Newport Beach Harbor Com-
mission and the community, the City is
working with USACE to take the necessary
steps in planning for a Lower Bay dredging
project. Before materials may be dredged,
there needs to be disposal solutions for con-
taminated sediments. The City is currently
studying these options and evaluating the
most cost effective alternative.
Benefits of Managing Contaminated Sedi-
ment: Effective management of contami-
nated sediments within the Bay will have
several environmental, social, and economic
impacts. Upper Newport Bay is a State Eco-
logical Reserve 0 and one of the last large
undeveloped wetlands in southern Califor-
nia. It is a home to a variety of threatened
species. Removal and treatment of contami-
nated sediments can enhance the floral and
faunal communities of the Bay, benefiting
not only those organisms that inhabit the
sediments, but also fish and invertebrates
that feed on the benthic infauna. Lower New-
port Bay is a major recreational destination
for tourists and locals. Reducing sediment
contamination will improve water quality,
which has the potential to increase the level
of recreational uses within the Bay, such as
swimming, fishing, and sailing.
Potential management alternatives for con-
taminated sediment include:
• shoreline stabilization (fill behind bulk-
heads)
• landfill cover for solid waste management,
and
-Newport Harbor Confined Aquatic Dis-
A Dredging Requirements Fr Contaminated Sediment Management
Confined Disposal
Facility (CDF)
Upland Walkway
Disposal Site
Fill for New
Boardwalk
(Material
Transfer)
Old Bulk _ In situ Capping
Head —
Confined Aquatic /
DisposalSite
Potential Management Options for Sediment
• material transfer (all discussed above)
as well as:
•Monitored Natural Recovery- the use of
naturally occurring processes to contain,
destroy, or reduce the bioavailability or tox-
icity of contaminants in sediment. It is nec-
essary that contaminants are at relatively
low concentrations throughout the area and
the area does not require dredging to meet
the City's needs. Given specific site charac-
teristics, this remediation option is most ap-
propriate if the expected risk of exposure to
humans and aquatic organisms is relatively
low and when the site is a sensitive habi-
tat that may be permanently damaged by
dredging or capping, such as eelgrass habi-
tat.
• In situ Capping- the covering or capping
the contaminated sediment in place with a
clean material. In situ capping may be more
appropriate than dredging/ excavation when
there is risk of contaminant exposure during
removal activities, or residual contamination
at a site.
• Confined disposal facility (CDF)- an engi-
neered structure bound by confinement dikes
for containment of dredged material. CDFs
serve as a dewatering facility and can be used
as a processing, rehandling and /or treatment
area for beneficial use of dredged material.
Dredged material may be placed temporarily
or permanently in the CDF.
• Confined aquatic disposal (CAD)- a process
where dredged material is disposed at the bot-
tom of a body of water, usually within a natural
or constructed depression (i.e. created specifi-
cally for the disposal) or a relic borrow -pit cre-
ated during previous construction activities. A
CAD facility is under evaluation for the Lower
Newport Bay. This option may also include
the use of the CAD facility in Long Beach.
Dredging Requirements & Contaminated Sediment Management
• On -site Treatment- Certain treatment
technologies may be applied to the dredged
material to reduce contaminant exposures
to acceptable levels. Treatments involve re-
ducing, separating, immobilizing and /or
detoxifying contaminants, and could be ap-
plicable either as stand alone units or com-
bined as part of a treatment train.
• Upland Landfill Disposal - Contaminated
sediments are dewatered then transported
22
to a permitted landfill for disposal. This
requires an area for temporary storage and
dewatering of the dredge material prior to
transport off -site.
• FiIl Material for Future Port Expansion -
Expansions are planned for the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach. If dredging of the
Lower Bay could be timed with these expan-
sions, this options provides a very cost effec-
tive alternative since dredged materials can
Aquatic Mercury Cycle
Deposition Q Q Deposition
I I
Volatilization Volatilization
and Deposition and Deposition
Hg(II) Deposition Ped "` "on Hg(0) oe"'etnY /at_on CH3 Hg Deposition
and Runoff and Runoff
L—D Hg(II) Outflow CH, Hg <—J
t�
outflow o Methylation outflow o
°o Biomagnification °°
---------------------------------------------------------
Sedimentation Diffusion/ Sedimentation
Sediment
°o Resuspension r1 v
A 1 °
Dredging Requirements Fr Contaminated Sediment Management
be loaded on to barges and transported to
the Ports. The challenge for this option is
the coordination of schedules between the
projects.
An evaluation of the alternatives favoring
the use of a CAD site in Lower Newport
Bay is presented in the Lower Newport Bay
CAD Site Feasibility Study, Anchor QEA,
L.P., April 2009.
Contaminants of Concern within
Sediment
Agricultural activities, commercial and rec-
reational boating uses, and urbanization of
the watershed, has resulted in widespread
contamination in Upper and Lower New-
port Bay sediments. The primary contami-
nants of concern include DDTs, mercury,
copper, and pyrethroids.
DDTs
Widespread DDT contamination in the Bay
is the result of historical agricultural activi-
ties in the watershed. Organochlorine pes-
ticides, such as DDT, were widely used as
pesticides from the mid -1940s to the 1970s.
San Diego Creek meanders through histor-
ical agricultural farmland that are impact-
ed with DDT, and its breakdown products
DDE and DDD. The soils are transported to
the Bay by runoff.
Mercury
Possible sources of mercury in the Bay in-
clude historical antifouling boat paints,
historical shipyard activities, the natural lo-
cally occurring geological material known
as cinnabar, and mercury mining in the
watershed. Mercury mining occurred at
Red Hill mine between 1880 and 1939, and
the San Diego Creek may have transported
sediment containing mercury into the Bay.
Natural processes can change the mercury
from one form to another. In specific forms
(methyl mercury), mercury can accumulate
in living organisms and reach high levels
in fish and marine mammals via a process
called biomagnification (i.e. concentrations
increase in the food chain). The figure below
illustrates the complex chemical cycle in
which mercury changes forms in the aquatic
environment.
Copper
Sources of copper include antifouling
paints, hull cleaning, cooling water, NPDES
discharges, industrial processes, stormwa-
ter runoff, mining and point source runoff.
Copper, in a variety of formulated fungi-
cides, herbicides and algaecides, is widely
used in antifouling paints to control the
growth of bacteria and fungus. Copper has
a lithic biogeochemical cycle, therefore, it
has a strong propensity for sediments and
soils.
Pyrethroids
A possible source of pyrethroids is historic
agricultural uses and residential uses. Pyre -
throids are used residentially in insecticides
that previously had organophosphates as
the active ingredients. Pyrethroids, which
consist of 40% of all pesticide products, dis-
play high toxicity to a wide range of aquat-
ic organisms including invertebrates. Many
of these compounds are extremely toxic to
fish. They are usually not sprayed directly
onto water, but they can enter lakes, ponds,
rivers, and streams from rainfall or runoff
from agricultural fields and eventually find
their way to coastal areas.
Dredging Requirements & Contaminated Sediment Management
23
Potential Steps Forward
Related Potential Steps Forward for near- or long -term management of dredging programs and
sediment management programs include:
Phase 1— Near -Term Solution for Management of Dredged Materials and Maintenance
of Navigational Depths
1. Sediment Management Plan - This Plan is currently under development. A Conceptual
Development Plan focusing on the Lower Newport Bay CAD Site was completed in April 2009
(Anchor QEA, L.P.).
a • Management of Materials Meeting Ocean Disposal Suitability Requirements
b. Management of Materials for Beneficial Use
i. Review of alternatives using logistical, technical, and economic feasibility
evaluation criteria.
ii. Geotechnical evaluation for construction or bulkhead restoration suitability.
c. Management of Materials Unsuitable for Either Ocean Disposal or Beneficial Use
i. Identification of sediment rehandling facility.
if. Identification and evaluation of Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) facilities/
alternatives.
2. MPRSA Tier III Evaluation - 6 months
3. Master Dredging Plan and Schedule - 6 months
a • Design and Dredging Requirements
b. Schedule Including Consideration of Environmental Windows
c. Identification and Mitigation of Potential Impacts: Habitat, Water Quality, Harbor
Activities, Navigation and Public Access, Noise, Aesthetics, Air Quality
�. Equipment and BMPs
Phase 2 — Long -Term Solution Management of Dredged Materials and Maintenance of
Navigational Depths
(. Sediment Transport Study - 9 months
a • Data Collection, Analysis and Modeling
b. Forecasted Sediment Budget for Lower Newport Bay and Estimate of Future
Dredging Needs
2. Sustainability Plan for Maintenance of Harbor Channels - 6 months
a. Identification and Discussion of Significant Load Sources (Contaminants and Sedi-
ments)
b. Identification and Discussion of Relevant BMPs for Reduction of Source Loadings
c. Identification and Discussion of Potential Future Development Impacts
d. Long -term Management Plan for Future Dredging Needs
Dredging Requirements Fr Contaminated Sediment Management
Beneficial Vse
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
Marine
Resource
Protection
(ASBS)
Habitat
PYOYCCtlOYfl
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
Flood
Control
Berthing
Management
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
Eelgrass Capacity and
Management Tools
Introduction
The marine resources of New-
port Harbor are diverse and rich,
and are extremely important to
the health and maintenance of
nearshore coastal resources. The
City is committed to achieving
a sustainable Newport Harbor
Area through the protection and
improvement of harbor marine
resources, balanced with the
economic value of recreational
uses of the Harbor.
One of the most important bio-
logical resources within New-
port Harbor is eelgrass (Zostera
marina). Eelgrass meadows
(and sub units called "beds' and
"patches") are important habitat
for invertebrates as a source of
food, substrate for attachment,
and protection for numerous
fish and invertebrate species.
The vegetation provides protec-
Eelgrass Capacity £r Management
tion while it serves as a nursery for
many juvenile fishes, including spe-
cies of commercial and /or sports
fish value (i.e., California halibut and
barred sand bass).
Key Issues: While eelgrass serves an
important ecological resource within
Lower Newport Harbor, it often con-
flicts with other beneficial harbor uses,
particularly those related to tourist
and residential boating and naviga-
tion. Dredging ■ and maintenance
of navigational channels, construc-
tion and maintenance of bulkheads,
piers and docks, and nourishment of
beaches L directly impact eelgrass
through burial or removal of vegeta-
tion, shading impacts, and a loss of
eelgrass function as a wildlife habitat.
Thus, eelgrass is a protected habitat
that must be safeguarded and bal-
anced with other beneficial uses.
• Eelgrass habitat is considered
wetland habitat by State of Califor-
nia and federal wetland definitions
and is protected by a no -net loss
wetlands policy.
• Eelgrass is considered Essential
Fish Habitat under the Magnuson -
Stevens Fishery Management and
Conservation Act
• Eelgrass is protected under NEPA
and CEQA
The City has an adopted, Coastal Commission- approved land use plan (LUP). The LUP ac-
knowledges that the need to maintain and develop coastal- dependent uses may result in im-
pacts to eelgrass. To mitigate the potential impacts to eelgrass of dredging and development,
the LUP requires avoidance where possible and restoration where avoidance is not practical.
Development of an Eelgrass Management Plan for Newport Harbor will protect eelgrass to
ensure a sustainable population while maintaining all of the Harbor's beneficial uses.
Figure 1: Harbor Entrance Channel
Current Eelgrass Distribution
The distribution of eelgrass increased from about 3
acres in 1993 to over 100 acres in 2003 -2004, and then
�. decreased to 70.7 acres in 2006 -2008. Areas of great-
est eelgrass abundance in Newport Bay during 2003-
2004 included the harbor entrance channel (Figure
1), and the shorelines of Corona del Mar (Figure
2), Balboa Island (Figure 3), Harbor Island /Beacon
Bay, Balboa Channel yacht and marina basins, and
the channels that surrounded Linda Isle (Figure 4).
Upper Newport Bay (Figure 5) had a significant ee-
lgrass meadow around the southern one -half of the
DeAnza /Bayside marsh peninsula and nearby the
Castaways site on the west side of the Channel. Re-
cent mapping in 2006 -2007 documented an eelgrass acreage decline of 24 %. Declines occurred
primarily in Upper Bay (Figure 6), in the channels surrounding Linda Isle and Harbor Island,
and along the north shoreline of Balboa Island (Figure 3).
Figure 2: Corona del Mar Reach
ai
Figure 3: Balboa Island
Eelgrass Capacity Er Management
Figure 4: North Harbor, around Linda Isle
Figure 5: Upper Newport Bay
Figure 6: Lido Isle Ranch
Eelgrass Capacity fr Management
7mugh variable on a biannual basis,
ie eelgrass population has increased
i abundance over the last 15 years
kely due to several factors:
Improvement in water clarity;
Highly favorable growing
conditions during low rainfall
years where the concentration of
suspended sediments is
decreased;
Better management of dredge and
fill projects;
* Increased environmental
awareness of the importance of
eelgrass; and
• More systematic, repetitive
methods of mapping eelgrass
vegetation
27
Current Challenges to
Establish Sustainable Eelgrass
Populations in Newport Harbor
The most critical challenges to eelgrass
populations and their establishment are
(1) the presence of availability of suitable
intertidal and subtidal soft - bottom habitat
(2) maintaining adequate water quality ■
and underwater light conditions to pro-
mote eelgrass growth and health and (3)
maintaining a balance between the natural
resources within Newport Harbor with the
uses of Newport Harbor as a viable recre-
ational boat harbor so that the areal cover
and health of eelgrass vegetation continues
to serve an important function as a habitat
for marine life.
v
c
0
N
c
0
3
a
�i
_H
H
h
Q
i
N
W
r\
N
i
d>
W
These challenges are particularly important
because eelgrass mitigation projects can-
not be successful unless specific habitat
requirements are met for the establishment
and growth of eelgrass. Based on water and
habitat quality, ecological zones of eelgrass
population health are apparent. Eelgrass
distribution in Newport Harbor can be di-
vided into three zones: (1) a Stable Eelgrass
Zone (green) that includes areas where tidal
flushing is between approximately 0 and 6
days, (2) a Transitional Zone (yellow) where
eelgrass acreage is susceptible to large -scale
variability and tidal flushing is about 7 to 14
days; and (3) an Unvegetated eelgrass zone
(red) where tidal flushing ranges between
14 days and 30 days and the amount of eel -
grass present is insignificant.
Eelgrass Capacity £r Management
Developing an Eelgrass
Management Plan
Current and future Harbor infrastructural
improvement projects such as maintaining
safe navigable waters; the renovation and
construction of piers, docks, and seawalls;
and replenishing the Harbor's beaches will
affect the distribution and abundance of
eelgrass and will require programs to com-
pensate for eelgrass habitat losses. Thus,
understanding governing regulations, the
constraints for eelgrass success in various
regions of the Bay, and identifying specific
mitigation options for eelgrass losses are
important to consider.
Ensuring a Healthy Population
While eelgrass occurs throughout many
regions of Newport Bay, its structure and
function varies widely from region- to -re-
gion and from year -to -year. Mitigation for
losses of eelgrass habitat must be focused in
areas where suitable habitat requirements
are met for size of the habitat, sediment
types, depth, and light intensity, and where
eelgrass will survive and flourish over the
long term. Based on the historical changes of
eelgrass distribution, on the results of eel-
grass mitigation successes and failures, and
on the limited suitable water and habitat
Best Management Practices for Eelgrass
quality that is needed to support a healthy
eelgrass population, high priority should
be given to maintaining and creating a sus-
tainable eelgrass population in the Stable
Eelgrass Zone (Figure 7).
Implementation of an Eelgrass
Management Plan
The City of Newport Beach would be re-
sponsible for developing, overseeing, and
enforcing compliance with the Eelgrass
Management Plan. The City would be
responsible for eelgrass surveying, imple-
menting programs to establish eelgrass
populations, monitoring the success of the
programs, and conducting periodic, bay -
wide eelgrass surveys. Under such a con-
cept, the City would protect and promote
a shallow water eelgrass population. As
long as the sustainable eelgrass population
remains above a determined quantity then
a certain small amount may be impacted
per year. Should the shallow water eelgrass
population drop below the approved quan-
tity, increased mitigation measures and
decreased allowable annual impacts will be
implemented in a phased manner.
1. Avoid and minimize damage to existing eelgrass bed resources.
2. Educate boat owners and property owners as to the importance of eelgrass within New-
port Harbor so that they take "ownership" in their project and view eelgrass as a positive
outcome of their project.
3. Create and maintain a sustainable eelgrass population in the Stable Eelgrass Zone should
the threshold value of eelgrass populations in Newport Harbor fall below the minimum
amount.
Eelgrass Capacity fr Management
Close coordination will be needed between the City of Newport Beach, the Department of Fish
and Game, and the National Marine Fisheries Service in order to develop special conditions that
will be effective in making the Newport Beach Long -term Eelgrass Management Plan a success,
and at the same time, responsive to agency concerns.
The Eelgrass Management Plan would develop guidance to (1) maintaining a base amount of
eelgrass based upon identified eelgrass threshold capacity measurements and using BMPs to en-
sure this threshold capacity is maintained, (2) implementing programs to maintain and establish
sustainable eelgrass populations in areas affected by disturbances, or into the created habitat
using innovative and cost - efficient methods if necessary to maintain a determined sustainable
eelgrass population, and (3) monitoring the success of the sustainable eelgrass population over
the long term.
Building a Sustainable Eelgrass Population
Establish a sustainable eelgrass population in the Stable Eelgrass Zone. The deeper channel
waters beneath Mooring Area B seaward of the southern perimeter of Balboa Island encompass
a maximum of about 28 acres of bay floor that could potentially be modified to support a sus-
tainable eelgrass population. Selected site (or sites) could be engineered to provide for (1) long-
term stability from the effects of sediment scour and /or sediment deposition, (2) appropriate
depth ranges to support a sustainable eelgrass population, and (3) adequate depths to maintain
safe navigation and boating. The creation of new shallow -water habitat in the Harbor would
also present an opportunity to establish both a confined disposal site to manage contaminated,
dredge sediments from Newport Bay dredging projects as well as maintain a sustainable eel -
grass population.
Additional actions that can be taken to provide a healthy eelgrass populatoor
• Improving water quality by the reduction of nutrients from San Diego Creek.
• Decreasing sediment loading, specifically finer sediments, from San Diego Creek.
• Reducing shade associated with docks and piers to increase light penetration.
Eelgrass Capacity Er Management
30
Potential Steps Forward
1. Identify appropriate needs relative to future watershed and harbor activities to gauge the
extent of required sustainable eelgrass management. Develop an ecosystem approach Eelgrass
Management Plan (EMP) rather than managing eelgrass project on an incremental basis.
2. Meet with stakeholders and identify concerns, constraints, and permitting issues based
on what will be required for future dredging and infrastructure improvements in Newport
Harbor. It will be critical to as milting and t , of the program early on to assess
the ability of the City to implement an Eelgrass Management Plan. Early agency involvement with the Coastal Commis-
sion, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State Lands Commission, State Water Resources Control Board, and resource agencies
(NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG) is critical to ensure that there is sufficient agency understanding and support for such a criti-
cal undertaking.
3. The EMP will promote a system -based approach; the key metric of eelgrass protection is
the maintenance of a sustainable shallow water eelgrass population of at least 20 acres. The focus
of the City's management will be to protect and promote shallow water eelgrass populations and as long as the sustainable
eelgrass population is above 20 acres, no more than 2 acres of eelgrass impacts will be permitted per year conditioned on com-
pliance with best management practices for avoiding eelgrass disturbance where possible. Should the shallow water eelgrass
population fall below 20 acres, increased mitigation measures and decreased allowable annual impact will be implemented in
a phased manner.
+. The City of Newport Beach will assume lead responsibility for the preparation and imple-
mentation of the Eelgrass Management Plan. The City will enforce compliance with the plan, subject to agency
its management role, the City, rather than individual residents, will be responsible for surveying
and data gathering, while relieving individual property owners of a burden they generally lack the expertise to effectively
carry.
5. The City will of Newport Beach will identify primary and alternative locations in the Stable
Eelgrass Zone capable of supporting the maximum amount of sustainable eelgrass required
for future projects should it be necessary to create additional Stable Eelgrass Zone eelgrass
populations. I (grass
Zone that have a potential to be utilized Jor mitigation bauk>ites. conduct side scan sonar nmpping anweys, physical model-
ing, and field studies in potential sustainable eelgrass areas to evaluate erosion, sedimentation, and other process that will be
required to refine site selection.
b. The City will prepare a draft Eelgrass Management Plan (DEMP) and negotiate a Final Sta-
ble Eelgrass Zone Management Plan (FEMP) with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S., Army Corps of Engineers, and the Califor-
nia Coastal Commission. Upon completion of the FEMP, the City shall a =ran+ me a view of the plan for consistency
with provisions of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan and the Regional General Dredging Permit (RGP) �.
%, Once in place, the City will implement and manage the FEMP. Following implementation,
the City will review the success of the EMP at five -year intervals to determine the effectiveness
of the program, identify any required changes to the program, and implement if necessary,
adaptive management to ensure the key program metrics are being met.
8. Establish an Eelgrass Management Plan web site. Lastly, the City should consider establishing a web
site that will track project implementation and achievement of key metrics for public review. This will also assist the City in
providing suggested public educational outreach for the project.
Eelgrass Capacity & Management
Beneficial Vse
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
O
Protection
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
•
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
Flood
Control
C
Berthing
Management
Recreational
Opportuni-
•
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
cl
32
Beach Replenishment Strategy
Introduction
Natural beaches are dynamic
landforms altered by wind and
waves in a continual process of
creation and erosion. River sedi-
ments are the source of 80 to 90%
of beach sand; some beaches are
built to great widths by sediments
washed to the sea by large storm
events and then gradually erode
through wave and other process.
After the construction of the
Lower Bay, beaches are modified
through human processes.
Definition: Beach replenishment
or nourishment refers to the stra-
tegic placement of beach - quality
san d on an existing beach to pro-
vide a source of nourishment for
littoral movement or restoration
of a recreational beach. Gener-
1 "
ally, beach nourishment projects are
carried out along beaches where a
persistent erosional trend exists. To
carry out a beach nourishment project,
sediment with physical characteristics
similar to the native beach material is
mechanically or hydraulically placed.
Beach replenishment has proven to be
cost - effective and environmentally ac-
ceptable method of maintaining the
recreational, aesthetic, and shore pro-
tection aspects of beaches within the
Lower Bay.
Key Issues: There are over 30 beaches
located in Lower Newport Bay. The
beach uses and needs vary. Several
issues have prevented efficient man-
agement of beach replenishment proj-
ects. A formal system is not in place
to manage and prioritize beach re-
plenishment projects. Components of
the RGP ■ restrict the application of
dredged material on beaches.
1. No management system in place to
prioritize selection of beaches for re-
plenishment.
2. No management system is in place
to characterize and prioritize dredged
material 0 for beneficial uses.
3. Eelgrass ■ habitat restrictions: The
proximity of eelgrass beds can limit the
opportunities to replenish the beaches.
Currently, beach replenishment can-
Beach Replenishment Strategy
not be conducted in areas where eelgrass is
found within 15 feet of the replenishment
footprint. If eelgrass is found within 15 to 30
feet of the replenishment footprint, pre -and
post - monitoring surveys are required.
4.Under the RGP, only small volumes
( <1000cy) of dredged material from the
Lower Bay can be beneficially used to nour-
ish compatible beaches.
5.Maintenance of sands on replenished
beaches
Development of a Beach
Replenishment Program
The City will benefit from developing a cen-
tralized management program to be run by
the Harbor Resources division. An Alterna-
tive Matrix has been developed as part of
this program that can be used to develop a
long -term analysis tool as data become avail-
able. This interactive table can be modified
as priorities and opportunities change. The
Alternative Matrix is a tool to qualitatively
rank beaches for their replenishment capac-
ity and need. All beaches are evaluated by
their access and popularity, sand capacity,
constructability, and proximity to eelgrass.
Values for each criteria range from 1 to 3
with 1 being poor performance and 3 being
good performance within that criteria. Also,
the criteria are weighted from 1 to 3 based
on their level of importance, with 3 being
most important. For example, access & pop-
ularity is very important so that criteria re-
ceives 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. The beaches that
would benefit the most from replenishment
have the highest total and the lowest rank.
Based on existing available data, the Alter-
native Matrix shows that Marina Park, Edge -
water/Montero, and China Cove 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., 10th St., and M St. also rank well
for beach replenishment.
5 IWO"-
Amp, Beach at Marina Park
Beach at Edgewater and
Montero Avenues
34
Beach Replenishment Strategy
As material is dredged, grain size compat-
ibility information should be collected to de-
termine the best location for placement op-
tions. Grain size data for the many receiver
beaches is not yet organized in one report.
Many of the beaches have been maintained
by individual homeowners or homeown-
ers associations and sampling data may be
available from those individuals or groups.
While it is beyond the scope of this study,
development of an evolving database of all
Beach Replenishment Strategy
replenishment sources and receiver beaches
would be useful for grain size compatibil-
ity analysis to support the Beach Replen-
ishment Alternative Matrix. General rules
for grain size compatibility are that the re-
plenishment source material must be either
greater than 80% sand or at least 75% sand
and no more than 10% difference in sand
content between the source and receiver
beach.
35
0 Increase volume of material to be beneficially used for beach replenishment in the RGP
M Include beach replenishment projects in the Eelgrass Management Plan
A 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 trans-
port and effects from natural and man- induced changes. Other studies can be conducted in
areas with known sand erosion problems.
Potential Steps Forward:
The following steps are made for improving the effectiveness of the Beach
Replenishment Program:
1) Include the following additional data in the current Alternative Matrix table: a) cost /benefit
analysis; b) source and receiving beach compatibility; and c) quantification of how long beach
sand will stay on each beach. Data needs include: receiver beach grain size data, replenishment
source grain size data, estimates of replenishment capacity at each beach, and public access
status of each beach. Based on the Alternative Matrix, Marina Park, Edgewater /Montero, and
China Cove have a recreational need, can accept significant quantities of sand, are easily con-
structed, and are far enough from eelgrass to be permitted. Pirate's Cove, Lake St., 10th St.,
and M St. also rank well for beach replenishment.
2) Develop Eelgrass Management Plan and determine if these banks can be used for beach
replenishment mitigation. This would significantly reduce restrictions on beach replenishment
placement locations.
3) Modify the RGP 0 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.
4) Expand sand movement studies along Balboa Island to other areas within Lower Newport
Bay to develop a better understanding of sand movement at other beaches in Lower Newport
Bay.
Beach Replenishment Strategy
W
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
0
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
O
Maintenance
Flood
Control
O
Berthing
O
Management
Recreational
Opportuni-
O
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
O
%A1,+, n. I ;.,,
Water Quality
Introduction
The City of Newport Beach (City) is committed to achieving a sustainable
Newport Harbor Area (Harbor Area) through protection and improvement
of water quality. Water quality is a key link in addressing community needs,
regulatory requirements, and the health and diversity of the surrounding
ecosystems to the Harbor Area. The City's strategy toward achieving this
vision begins with an evaluation of the current health and water quality of
the Harbor Area and identifying the sources of impacts to it. Based on this
understanding, strategies will
be developed to protect wa-
ter quality in the Harbor Area
through the implementation
of best management practices
(BMPs) supplemented by co-
ordination with other regional
water quality protection mea-
sures, community outreach,
and education. The end goal
is to create a Strategic BMP Im-
plementation Plan (BMP Plan)
Table 1: Beneficial Uses for Waters in the Newport Harbor Area
to strategically implement water quality
BMPs that is coordinated with Harbor Area
beneficial uses and addresses current and
future pollutants entering and discharging
from the Upper and Lower Newport Bay.
The strategic plan will also coordinate with
the watershed, Upper Newport Bay, and
coastal plans and projects to create a sus-
tainable water quality improvement plan
maintained through iterative effectiveness
assessment of the implanted water quality
protection, preservation, and improvement
measures.
Overview of Water Quality
Issues
The Newport Harbor Area faces signifi-
cant water quality challenges as identified
through regulatory action and a number of
special studies recently undertaken by the
City of Newport Beach and other watershed
stakeholders. The Harbor Area, located in
the Lower Bay, is the nexus between the
highly urbanized upstream watershed, the
ecologically sensitive Upper Newport Bay
and the receiving waters of the Pacific
Ocean. The Harbor Area is also functioning
small boat harbor surrounded by small busi-
nesses, private residences, and municipal fa-
cilities and has over 9,000 boats berthed in
the Lower Bay. The Lower Bay also serves
as a major Southern California recreational
destination, attracting both visitors and lo-
cals to take advantage of a variety of water -
related activities.
The Upper Newport Bay in addition to sup-
porting high value habitat serves a num-
ber of recreational uses that include a small
boat marina for approximately 670 slips and
620 dry storage spaces (data from Newport
Dunes and DeAnza), public boat launch
ramp, and an aquatic recreational facility.
Potential sources of pollutant inputs there-
T
a
a
v
y
O v
a
c
O
c
io
m m
is
Z
E :o
N
!6
C O
O P
N C
L
N x
N J° C
T
d N
A
3
o m°
'@
'g m
m :°.
�i
? v v
2
m a
'c a
=
m
x
3 o
x
N
M D N
C
L
75
O
O
E a
E
F_
m o m
m
O N
O N
Q D
N
N
Q
0
U
w
m
W
N
Bays, Estuaries, and Tidal Prisms
Lower Newport Bay
•
1 •
1 •
•
1 •
•
1 •
•
Upper Newport Bay
•
1 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Channels Discharging to Coastal
or Bay Waters
•
•
•
•
•
Ocean Waters
SWQPA (formerly ASBS)
•
•
•
•
Newport Bay
•
•
•
•
Inland Surface Streams
Buck Gully
•
1 •
1
1 •
1 •
Morning Canyon
•
•
San Diego Creek
Reach 1 - Below Jeffries Road
•
•
•
Table 1: Beneficial Uses for Waters in the Newport Harbor Area
to strategically implement water quality
BMPs that is coordinated with Harbor Area
beneficial uses and addresses current and
future pollutants entering and discharging
from the Upper and Lower Newport Bay.
The strategic plan will also coordinate with
the watershed, Upper Newport Bay, and
coastal plans and projects to create a sus-
tainable water quality improvement plan
maintained through iterative effectiveness
assessment of the implanted water quality
protection, preservation, and improvement
measures.
Overview of Water Quality
Issues
The Newport Harbor Area faces signifi-
cant water quality challenges as identified
through regulatory action and a number of
special studies recently undertaken by the
City of Newport Beach and other watershed
stakeholders. The Harbor Area, located in
the Lower Bay, is the nexus between the
highly urbanized upstream watershed, the
ecologically sensitive Upper Newport Bay
and the receiving waters of the Pacific
Ocean. The Harbor Area is also functioning
small boat harbor surrounded by small busi-
nesses, private residences, and municipal fa-
cilities and has over 9,000 boats berthed in
the Lower Bay. The Lower Bay also serves
as a major Southern California recreational
destination, attracting both visitors and lo-
cals to take advantage of a variety of water -
related activities.
The Upper Newport Bay in addition to sup-
porting high value habitat serves a num-
ber of recreational uses that include a small
boat marina for approximately 670 slips and
620 dry storage spaces (data from Newport
Dunes and DeAnza), public boat launch
ramp, and an aquatic recreational facility.
Potential sources of pollutant inputs there-
fore also exists in the Upper Bay that need
to be addressed as part of a watershed man-
agement program for which this HAMP
provides a key element along with the Cen-
tral Orange County Integrated Regional and
Coastal Watershed Management Plan (San
Diego Creek, Delhi Channel and Coastal
Canyon Creeks Watersheds) and the New-
port Coast Watershed Management Plan
(ASBS).
Key water quality challenges in the Harbor
Area include understanding constituent
loadings from regional upstream sources
in the San Diego Creek Watershed, contri-
butions of constituents from local sources
within the Harbor Area, potential cross -
contamination from sources outside the
Bay, and Bay discharges of degraded water
quality to sensitive marine areas outside the
Harbor. The Water Quality Control Plan for
the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan) lists
Newport Bay as a tributary to the Pacific
Ocean and also serves as the receiving wa-
ters for San Diego Creek. Located just out-
side the Harbor are two areas designated by
the State as Areas of Special Biological Sig-
nificance (ASBS) that are subject to special
protections under the California Ocean Plan
(COP). Table 1 summarizes the Basin Plan
beneficial uses for the waters in and adjacent
to the Harbor Area.
7V
m
Y
C7 L)
L
a)
3
r.
0 T
0- Co
m m
Z
�
a)
a
j
r
0 T
M
Q 3: co
Z
—y
C
c
K s
U
0
FM
d
0
c
Y
d
U
-r-
u
d
TMDLs
Nutrients
•
•
•
Pathogens
•
•
Pesticides
•
•
•
Sedimentation
•
•
303(d) Listings
Chlordane
•
•
Copper
•
•
•
DDT
•
•
Fecal Coliform
•
•
Lead
•
Mercury
•
Metals
•
PCBs
•
•
•
Sediment Toxicity
•
•
•
Selenium
•
Total Coliform
•
Toxaphene
•
Zinc
•
Table 2: Impaired Water Bodies and Pollutants of Concern in the Newport Harbor Area
Based on the Basin Plan beneficial use des-
ignations and the COP, water bodies within
and near the Harbor Area are subject to
regulatory action from the USEPA, the State
Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB)
and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board ( RWQCB). The EPA and the
RWQCB have implemented total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) for various constitu-
ents in San Diego Creek and the Upper and
Lower Newport Bay. Buck Gully Creek,
the Upper and Lower Newport Bay, Rhine
Channel, and San Diego Creek all are listed
as impaired on EPA's 303(d) list (Table 2).
The development of a cost - effective strategy
to implement (BMPs) to meet current and
anticipated TMDLs, other regulatory driv-
ers, and existing City planning documents
and ordinances is a key component in effec-
tively addressing water quality issues in the
Upper and Lower Bay.
Key Questions and Coordination
with Current Programs
Water quality is a key component to bring
together diverse water resource and land use
agencies, environmental groups, and other
stakeholders within the region to develop
management strategies. The objective of the
BMP Plan is to coordinate regional and local
water quality protection and improvement
efforts to meet both Harbor Area beneficial
use criteria and regulatory drivers within
and outside the Lower Bay. Many of the is-
sues in the Harbor Area involve aquatic re-
sources and /or the presence or transport of
pollutants in water; therefore, water quality
protection and improvement is a key aspect
of successful Harbor Area Management. The
water quality BMP implementation strategy
will include ongoing effectiveness assess-
ment to evaluate the performance of water
quality improvement programs in meeting
the water quality goals and integration with
watershed, Newport Bay and coastal plans,
and BMP projects.
Regionally, the Central Orange County In-
tegrated Regional and Coastal Watershed
Management Plan (IRCWM Plan) addresses
overall water resources management needs
for the Newport Bay and Newport Coast
Watersheds (County of Orange, 2007). The
IRCWM Plan has been submitted to the
SWRCB to qualify for state and other grant
funding to support numerous projects to
improve water quality within and adjacent
to the Harbor Area.
The City has been moving toward improv-
ing water quality in the Harbor through its
partnering with other watershed leads on
meeting the requirements of current TMDLs
and requirements under its current NPDES
Storm water Permit. The City has developed
a Master Plan for the communities around
the Harbor to include needed upgrades to
storm drain systems to address flooding and
water quality issues.
Other water quality- related programs un-
der the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB,
County of Orange Watershed & Coastal Re-
sources Division, and local environmental
and restoration groups are currently being
conducted in Newport Bay and the San Di-
ego Creek and Coastal Watersheds. Harbor
Area stakeholder coordination with these
groups is key to the success of water quality
improvement projects in Newport Bay.
Within the Harbor Area, the City and oth-
er stakeholders have already implemented
%AI -a..- l .. -IZ-.
Assess Existing
Water Quality Data
Develop Priority List
of Pollutants of
Concern
Identify Water
Quality Regulatory
Drivers
Identify High Loading
Sources /Land Uses
Develop Phased and Tiered
BMP Strategies to
Address Pollutants /Sources
Prioritize BMPs to Address
High Priority Pollutants and
Provide Further Source ID/
Reduction Opportunities
Identify Priority BMPs in Coordinate BMP
Phased Approach to Meet "with Implementation Efforts
Beneficial Use Goals Regional Stakeholders
Effectiveness Assessment
Monitoring and BMP
Management Feedback
%nl,+, n..,i ;.,,
some programs that align with other
city -wide water quality improvement
goals such as residential and construc-
tion BMPs and numerous clean water
outreach efforts. However, water qual-
ity improvement efforts in the Lower Bay
require special consideration given the
sensitive habitats of the Upper and Low-
er Bay, current and future harbor main-
tenance requirements, and federal, state
and local regulatory actions.
Harbor Area Water Quality
BMP Identification and
Prioritization
The BMP Plan is a strategic plan that
builds on the projects identified in the
IRCWM Plan and other planning docu-
ments. The BMP Plan provides guidance
for water quality BMP efforts within the
Harbor Area for issues specific to harbor
stakeholders. The BMP Plan establishes
an iterative activity prioritization process
and implementation strategy for the iden-
tification of priority pollutants in the Har-
bor Area. The BMP Plan prioritization
strategy is a process to implement BMPs
in a cost - effective manner that considers
current and future water quality issues
so that BMPs are designed to accommo-
date future reduction requirements with-
out expensive retrofits. The strategy also
implements BMPs in a phased approach
in order to both assess the effectiveness
of the projects as they are implemented
and to continually refine the prioritiza-
tion process using all available data. The
BMP Plan provides a road map for wa-
tershed activities within the Harbor Area
that coordinates with the IRCWM and
other watershed protection efforts.
Linkages to Other Programs
The BMP Plan has been developed in this
HAMP to coordinate with existing planning
documents for watershed and coastal areas.
Specifically, the Phase I projects developed
in the BMP Plan are consistent with projects
proposed in the IRCWP for the Newport
Bay Watershed for the Lower Newport Bay.
Several of these projects have been included
in recent grant funding applications under
Proposition 84 and federal grant opportuni-
ties. These Lower Newport Bay projects are
linked to water quality issues in the water-
shed and coastal areas that include the ASBS.
Preliminary pollutant transport modeling
has indicated a likely connection between the
Lower Newport Bay and the ASBS; therefore,
projects that improve the water quality of the
Lower Bay will benefit the coastal habitats.
These projects are further coordinated with
the Phase I projects developed in the New-
port Coast Watershed Management Plan for
the seven coastal watersheds along the New-
port Coast and the Upper Bay Restoration
Planning. For example, the City is planning
to expand the runoff reduction program to
all the watersheds within its jurisdiction in
order to reduce urban flows and associated
pollutant loads into the Upper and Lower
Newport Bay, and to the ASBS. Metals re-
ductions projects in the Coastal Watersheds
will be implemented on schedules similar to
the copper reduction programs in the Lower
Newport Bay.
As presented in the BMP plan, water qual-
ity improvement efforts will also need to co-
ordinate with sediment control and dredge
management projects. Siltation issues in the
watershed and Upper Newport Bay have re-
sulted in the migration of fine sediments and
associated metals and pesticide pollutant
loading to Lower Newport Bay. Siltation can
also impact vital eelgrass beds and impact
the quality of sediments and benthic com-
munities. These issues can only be success-
fully addressed through an integrated pro-
gram that reduces the siltation loading from
the watershed, maintains the inline basins in
the Upper Bay, and removes impacted sedi-
ments from the Lower Bay. Projects planned
and underway in the watershed to reduce
siltation include channel stabilization, agri-
cultural BMPs, construction site BMPs, sedi-
ment monitoring, natural treatment basins
and installation of inline channel basins in
San Diego Creek. The inline basins in the
Upper Newport Bay are undergoing main-
tenance to provide additional sediment re-
moval. As discussed in the Up er Newport
Bay Sediment Control section E , the effec-
tiveness of these basins to remove the fine -
grained materials requires further assess-
ment. The Big Canyon Restoration project
includes water quality ponds for sediment
and other constituent reduction before dis-
charge into the Upper Bay. These projects,
along with the implementation of BMPs dur-
ing dredging activities and bulkhead main-
tenance and upgrades, will reduce the silt-
ation to meet overall TMDL goals.
As outlined in the BMP Plan, a tiered and
phased approach is suggested to meet wa-
ter quality improvement and TMDL goals.
The BMPs proposed in the first phase of
the Lower Newport Bay program focus on
source control and pollution prevention
and runoff reduction while also providing
for the collection of effectiveness assess-
ment data that may also be used to iden-
tify additional water quality improvement
program opportunities. These activities
are consistent with the coastal watershed
strategy.
%A1 -1-- l .. -I:•..
Potential Steps Forward
The purpose of the BMP Plan is to develop a comprehensive Harbor Area activity strategy that
addresses current and anticipated pollutants and associated regulatory drivers, community
needs, and ecosystem health and sustainability. The iterative prioritization and implementa-
tion strategy developed for the Harbor Area provides the framework for stakeholder partici-
pation and coordination in the protection and improvement of water quality in Newport Bay.
Ongoing effectiveness assessment of implemented strategies will assure the coordinated and
efficient use of available resources in achieving a sustainable Harbor Area plan to protect and
improve water quality.
Phase I of the BMP strategic plan involves using the iterative activity prioritization process to
define the following water quality improvement projects.
Pollution PreventioWRunoff Reduction -
Copper Source Identification and Pilot Reduction Program
Controlling potential impacts from copper -based paints requires first further assessment of
the specific activities/ mechanisms in which copper is migrating to the sediments. Collabora-
tion with ongoing studies is a potential step forward to assure the proper reduction BMPs are
implemented. An initial pilot program may include implementation of a copper reduction pro-
gram focused on the use of alternatives to copper -based boat paints and a BMP pilot project for
boat maintenance to address potential cross - contamination impacts to the ASBS from Newport
Harbor. The program will also implement an outreach program to further educate the boating
community regarding the environmental effects of using copper -based antifouling paints.
Pollution PreventioWRunoff Reduction - Water Quality Enforcement Cross Training Program
Municipal inter - departmental coordination program designed to control non -point source
discharges to the Lower Bay. The program will train Harbor Area oversight departments
(Harbor Patrol, Lifeguards, Coast Guard, California Department of Fish and Game) in identify-
ing potential sources of water quality degradation and increase communication to City Code
Enforcement officers to report potential violations.
Green Marine Initiative
The Green Marina hutiative promotes and celebrates voluntary adoption of measures to re-
duce waste and prevent pollution from marinas, boatyards, and recreational boats. Desig-
nated "Green Marinas' are recognized as environmentally responsible businesses. The New-
port Beach Harbor Commission is participating in the Green Marina Initiative program and
is identifying opportunities to implement practices to control pollution associated with vessel
maintenance and repair, petroleum storage and transfer, sewage disposal, hazardous and non-
hazardous waste, storm water runoff, and facilities management.
%Alm +, n..,I ;.,,
Pollution PreventioWRunoff Reduction - Washing Activities
A Water Quality Education Program designed to provide brochures and posters for Harbor
Area boat users informing them of the need to reduce pollutants entering the Bay as a result of
boat and dock washing activities.
Pollution PreventioWRunoff Reduction- Water Quality Education for Short -term Slip Rentals
A municipal inter - departmental coordination program designed to educate harbor users and
visitors on the importance of water quality protection. The program will provide literature
to help short -term slip tenants and mooring renters identify and reduce potential sources of
water quality pollution from their vessels.
Pollution PreventioWRunoff Reduction- Water Quality Inspections as part of Slip
Transferability Permitting
A municipal inter - departmental coordination program designed to educate and enforce water
quality improvement efforts as part of the Slip Transferability Program. The City could imple-
ment an inspection process linked to slip transfers so that harbor users are educated and po-
tentially polluting vessels are identified prior to the slip transfer process.
Pollution PreventioWRunoff Reduction- Municipal Low Impact Development (LID)
Assessments
A pilot assessment program to incorporate additional LID designs into municipal facilities
within the Harbor Area and the Marina Park Conceptual Plan. Currently, the Marina Park
Conceptual Plan indicates a Bio -Swale Filtration Area to be built adjacent to the Community
Center.
%AI -a-- l .. -IZ-.
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
Enhancement
Community/
Public
Access
Water
Conservation
Channel
Maintenance
Flood
Control
O
Berthing
Management
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
Harbor Channel and
Pierhead Lines
0
Channeland
Pierhead Lines
Study
Definition: During and
immediately following
initial construction of - t- k _, •srr: h'
Newport Bay, USACE
established harbor lines - _
(project, pierhead, and
bulkhead lines). These
lines define the feder-
al navigation channel -
dredging limits, limits on how far piers and wharfs can extend into Bay wa-
ters, and the bayward extent of bulkheads and other solid fills into Bay waters.
These lines are important for maintaining safe navigation conditions through-
out Newport Bay.
Key Issues: The design and use of Newport Bay has been altered extensively,
however the harbor lines have not been systematically adjusted since their
original development in 1936.
1. Numerous basins and islands have been constructed since initial
construction.
2. The type, size, and distribution of vessels within Newport Bay have
changed over time to reflect changes in the market and the desires of boat
owners and operators.
3. Changes in policy and regulations at the federal, state, and local levels
have resulted in a different regulatory condition from that considered at the
time the lines were initially established.
Harbor Lines: Rules and
Regulations
Updating harbor lines is a multi-phase pro-
cess beginning with the recommendations
provided in this HAMP. After review and
public input, the Harbor Commission would
make recommendations to the City Council.
City Council could formalize a request to
the federal government to proceed with en-
acting changes to the harbor lines. The Cali-
fornia Coastal Act does not regulate harbor
lines, but it does regulate any construction
taking place in the coastal zone. The harbor
lines can be modified without a California
Coastal Commission permit, but any sub-
sequent construction dependent on those
harbor lines would still be regulated by the
California Coastal Commission. While there
is no explicit requirement, the public should
also be informed and consulted on the har-
bor line changes early in the process.
Specific Conflicts
DEFINITI
harbor line n. 1. the line set
by the federal government,
delineating the area in which
no obstructions to navigation
are allowed. 2. In Newport
Harbor, harbor lines include
the project line, pierhead
line, and bulkhead line.
................................. ...............................
project line n. 1. the
boundary of the federal
project and limit of certain
federal responsibilities.
pierhead line n. 1. a boundary
set by USACE beyond which a
pier may not extend.
................................. ...............................
bulkhead line n. 1. a boundary
set by USACE beyond which
solid fill may not be extended.
-Throughout the Harbor, many beaches extend beyond the bulkhead line. This practice has evolved overtime and
is likely in conflict with a strict interpretation of the bulkhead line definition.
-Promontory Bay and the Grand Canal (Balboa Island) lack bulkhead lines.
-Promontory Bay, Balboa Yacht Basin, Linda Isle, from Harbor Patrol through Pirate's Cove, and Balboa Coves
have bulkhead lines crossing existing navigable waters and channels.
•There do not seem to be any locations where existing pierhead lines intrude excessively into the navigable chan-
nels.
•Pierhead lines are noticeably absent from Promontory Bay. Also, pierhead lines for Newport Island exist only
in the Harbor Permit Policy.
-Existing structures extend beyond pierhead lines at numerous locations. This situation has developed over the
decades and is one of the main reasons for performing this study.
-No project line exists around Newport Island, the Rhine Channel, Promontory Bay, or Linda Isle. These areas
are not federal projects, however, and do not require project lines.
.Existing structures extend beyond project lines at numerous locations.
Harbor Channel & Pierhead Lines
46 '
Changing the Lines: Benefits, Constraints, and Solutions
Ln
t-
�
N
CO
• Improving clarity and consis-
tency of the harbor lines;
• Allow pier owners access to
deeper, more navigable waters
that are further offshore; and
'
• Updating the harbor lines allows
the opportunity of bringing nearly
all harbor structures into compli-
ance.
• The change should minimize
of the project line would transfer
pierhead encroachment into navi-
;
maintenance (e.g. dredging) require -
gable waterways.
:
ments from the federal government
• Any change in the harbor lines
to the City and /or County. In ad-
require USACE approval.
dition, the expansion of pierhead
• A navigation study should be
lines would allow increases in dock
performed to verify that chang-
;
lengths which may extend over eel -
N
ing the harbor lines to match
;
grass beds.
tn
existing conditions would not
• Widening of Federal Navigation
C
impact navigation beyond allow-
Channel (reduction in pierhead lines)
4,
able standards. If the impacts are
;
have a potential to reduce eelgrass
�^
beyond allowable standards, the
:
habitat through the expansion of
prealignment
should be modified.
;
navigation channel lines into shallow
U
• Any channelward realignment
;
existing eelgrass habitat
• Realign pierhead lines to bring
• Since no structures should cross
potential structures into compli-
navigation channels, remove bulk -
ance. In other words, move pier-
head and pierhead lines that cross
head lines channelward, connect-
:
navigation channels;
ing existing pierheads;
• To improve consistency through-
0 Where necessary, move the
out the Lower Bay, add bulkhead and
project lines channelward to in-
pierhead lines where they do not cur -
clude the new pierhead lines.
rently exist; and
This is necessary to maintain
;
• Update harbor lines to reflect the
tn
project lines channelward of pier-
Harbor Permit Policy and then stream -
C
head lines;
line the Harbor Permit Policy by re-
0
• To simplify and clarify bulk-
;
moving area specific exceptions.
head lines, move bulkhead lines
C)
landward to the existing bulk-
;
V1
head or property lines;
;
Potential Steps Forward
Based on existing and potential future harbor uses and considering the probable opportunities
and constraints, the following items are suggested:
1. Develop a comprehensive plan for adjusting channel and pierhead lines to meet current and
future harbor beneficial uses, including the following tasks (6 months):
a. Realign pierhead lines to eliminate exceptions. In other words, move pierhead lines to where they make
sense, given the varied bathymetry along the shore;
b. Where necessary, move the project lines channelward to account for the new pierhead lines;
c. Perform a navigation study to confirm appropriateness of proposed new pierhead lines;
d. Move bulkhead lines landward to the existing bulkhead or property lines;
e. Remove bulkhead and pierhead lines that cross navigation channels;
f. Add bulkhead and pierhead lines where they do not currently exist; and
g. Update harbor lines to reflect the Harbor Permit Policy and then streamline the Harbor Permit Policy by
removing area specific exceptions.
Note: These suggestions may have an impact on properties and their values, so any plans that recommend modification to the
lines will require review and approval by the City Council as well as possible approval by the federal government.
2. Coordinate channel and pierhead line adjustment plan with other beneficial use needs such
as eelgrass habitat protection/ restoration 0 .
3. Phase line adjustment implementation to coordinate with other dredge requirements
and potential eelgrass strategies .
fib. Develop enforcement strategies to reduce future violations and minimize encroachment into
navigable waters.
5. Perform similar evaluation for mooring area boundaries.
N Harbor Channel b Pierhead Lines
Beneficial Use
Crit _ .._, --
Water
Quality
Marine
Resource
Protection
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
O
Maintenance
Flood
Control
Berthing
Management
O
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
Hydrodynamic and Water
Quality Numerical
Mocelinq Requirements
Flushing
Time Scale
(in days)
Introduction
Nu-
merical models
are widely used
as a management
decision - making tool in addressing
sediment and water quality prob-
lems, including several numerical
modeling efforts specifically for
Newport Bay. Numerical models
can be used to simulate hydrody-
namic conditions (e.g., flows, water
surface elevations, and velocities)
and water quality transport (e.g.,
sediment or contaminants) to eval-
uate management decisions. In the
past, two- dimensional (2D) models
have been used to assess the effec-
tiveness of sediment traps in Up-
per Newport Bay, to strategize the
implementation of a storm drain
diversion program to improve wa-
ter quality in Newport Bay, as well
as to study the potential transport
of pollutants from Lower Newport
Bay to the ASBS.
Based on past
_2 modeling efforts, it is con-
e eluded that a 3D hydrody-
18
namic and water quality
;o model would be required
e to fully capture the complex
2 flow and transport of the
ic Newport Harbor and Bay.
A calibrated 3D model for
Newport Bay and Harbor is needed
to evaluate many of the proposed
strategies and BMPs developed for
this RAMP.
Numerical Model
Evaluation
anriate numerical
nlorlel for Nemport Rail toaS C77011-
Review existing water quality
reports based on numerical model-
ing of Newport Bay.
® Identify the most compatible and
efficient models that can address
water quality issues and sediment
transport throughout Upper and
Lower Newport Bay.
Provide recommendations for
modeling enhancements of an ex-
isting model or the development of
a new model.
Provide a list of information or
data requirements for the use of a
numerical model for Newport Bay.
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
Overview of Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling
Requirements
The primary purpose of a numerical model for Newport Bay is a management decision -mak-
ing tool to address water quality issues, and in particular, sediment deposition in the Bay.
In determining the most compatible and efficient model for Newport Bay, model selection
criteria were established, then the models were compared. Criteria were based on suitability
of simulating the hydrodynamics and transport characteristics of Newport Bay, as well as the
capability of anticipated applications of the model. Each model was evaluated in terms of the
following aspects:
® Mathematical formulation for an estuarine system
® Numerical methods
Water quality application
Watershed model interface
User - friendliness
* Prior application within Newport Bay and /or at similar locations
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
50
c ,�;
�
;�' s
.�, .� •� �
h
s
for
MODEL
s o
RI
3
EFDC
,I
RMA10 and
RMA11
CH3D and
CE -QUAL-
ICM
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
50
Suggested Model
The simulation of hydrodynamics, water
quality, and sediment transport can be ac-
complished using one or more of the avail-
able models: RMA10 and RMA11, CH3D
and CE- QUAL -ICM, or EFDC. These mod-
els or combination of models were evalu-
ated based on the evaluation criteria listed
above. On the basis of the mathematical
formulation and numerical method, EFDC
and RMA10 /RMA11 appear better suited
to modeling Newport Bay than CH3D.
Although CH3D is capable of simulating
estuarine systems, it is better suited for
channel flows as opposed to intertidal areas
as is the case in Upper Newport Bay. All
three models have similar water quality
application capabilities. In terms of inter-
facing with a watershed model, EFDC and
RMA10 /RMA11 have greater flexibility.
There are no compelling reasons to select
RMA10 /RMA11 over EFDC or vice versa
on the basis of the mathematical formula-
tion, numerical methods, or water quality
applications. However, there are some
other advantages and disadvantages of
each model. RMA10 and RMA11 have the
advantage of being successfully applied
in UNB for hydrodynamics and sediment
transport. However, EFDC is becoming
popular for TMDL applications, particu-
larly in Southern California. RMA10 and
RMA11 have an associated graphical user
interface (GUI) to pre- and post - process
model results, but require purchasing
software, which can limit the use by other
stakeholders. On the other hand, EFDC
does not have an associated GUI, but can
be modified to accommodate other GUI
software. EFDC also has the advantage of
using one model for hydrodynamics and
water quality compared to two separate
models. In addition, EFDC has the ad-
vantage of having the source code avail-
able for the public, making it easier for the
development of the Newport Bay.
Model Data Requirements
Model data requirements include physical
properties, inflows into the Bay, hydro-
dynamic conditions, and water quality
conditions. Physical properties of the
bay include bathymetry, creek and storm
drain locations, and sediment bed proper-
ties. Inflows define the flow and pollutant
loadings from creeks and storm drains
into the Bay. Field data of hydrodynamic
conditions (e.g., water levels and velocity)
and water quality (e.g., salinity, tempera-
ture, or sediment) are required to calibrate
the model. The calibration data should
cover various locations throughout the Bay
and concurrent periods of the time (hy-
drodynamic and water quality data) long
enough to capture seasonal variations as
well as dry and wet weather conditions.
The accuracy of the model will depend pri-
marily on the quantity and quality of data
for inflows, and hydrodynamic and water
quality conditions.
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
51
Potential Steps Forward
1. Develop a calibrated 3D hydrodynamic and water quality model for Newport Bay and Har-
bor using either RMA10 /RMA11 or EFDC. (Development of such a model will take about 12
months and about $250,000.)
2. Implement a field data collection program to collect hydrodynamic and water quality data
for the calibration of the 3D model. The field program will involve the collection of water eleva-
tions, velocity profiles and CTD data at three to four fixed locations throughout Newport Bay
and Harbor for a period of about four months (to cover a range of dry and wet weather condi-
tions), supplemented by a data collection with a boat for one dry and one wet weather events.
These data will be used for the calibration of the hydrodynamic model. For the calibration of the
water quality model, water samples will need to be collected throughout the Bay for one to two
dry and wet weather events. The collected samples will be analyzed for sediment contents and
contaminates of concern. (Takes about 8 to 12 months, about $500,000)
3. Use the developed 3D model for the evaluation and development of the various proposed
strategies and BMPs developed in this HAMP. These may include:
Evaluate the impact of fine sediments from Upper Bay ■ to Lower Bay and ASBS.
Evaluate the effectiveness of any proposed sediment control BMPs in reducing the source of
fine sediments to Lower Bay.
Help to select an optimal location for maintenance of an eelgrass population 0 with the opti-
mum hydrodynamic and water quality conditions.
Help to evaluate the impacts of different proposed strategies for dredging of both clean and
contaminated sediments ■ .
Evaluate the effectiveness of proposed water quality improvement strategies 0
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
52
Beneficial Vse
Criteria /Rati
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
Flood
Control
C
Berthing
Management
•
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
O
Regional
GCneral Permit
Introduction
Definition: In
Lower Newport al
Bay, in -water
maintenance ac-
tivities are carried out under a va-
riety of federal, state, and regional
permits, the principal one being the
federal Regional General Permit 54
(RGP 54), issued by USACE and
managed by the City of Newport
Beach Harbor Resources Division.
The RGP, which is valid for a term
of 5 years, governs maintenance
dredging and disposal of sediments
and the repair and replacement of
docks, piers, and seawalls. The cur-
rent RGP contains a number of spe-
cial conditions that set out the terms
under which in -water maintenance
activities can be performed, in par-
ticular the limits on quantities, per-
mit administration, application and
renewal procedures, eelgrass pro-
tection, structural work, and dredg-
ing and disposal.
Key Issues: Several issues have
hampered the efficient administra-
tion of the RGP and resulted in sig-
nificant delays and additional costs
for necessary harbor maintenance.
1. Unduly long and costly permit
renewal process every 5 years,
including the difficulty reconciling
the various agencies' agendas into
acceptable permit language;
2. The need to revise portions of
the RGP for the next renewal will
make achieving acceptance by all
agencies a challenge;
3. Difficulties and delays in sam-
pling plan approval by all stake-
holders;
4. The restricted range of activities
and areas covered by the permit
(Harbor Resources would like the
permit to include areas with known
contamination);
5. Numerous overly restrictive
Special Conditions that prevent
many minor dredging operations
due to the presence of eelgrass or
make them financially infeasible for
private entities;
6. No consistent disposal opportu-
nities for contaminated sediment,
as previously detailed; and
%. 0 Eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds
constitute sensitive habitat under
several programs. Losses of eel -
grass, therefore, must be avoided
and minimized to the extent prac-
ticable, and unavoidable losses
must be mitigated. The RGP's
special conditions prohibit dredg-
ing or disposal within 15 feet of
established eelgrass plants unless
mitigation can be provided. Given
the widespread coverage of eel -
grass under and adjacent to docks
in Newport Bay, these restrictions
have severely curtailed mainte-
nance in some areas of the Bay.
Improvement of the RGP
Process
The City's strategy for achieving the neces-
sary balance between environmental pro-
tection and beneficial uses includes obtain-
ing regulatory permits that recognize the
particular circumstances of Newport Har-
bor, and administering those permits for
the benefit of both the boating community
and the natural environment. To that end,
the implementation strategy will empha-
size establishing sound relationships with
the regulatory agencies, articulating clear
goals and objectives for future permits, and
developing a sound, cost - effective strategy
for the permit renewal process. Coordina-
tion with other management programs and
with the renewal process for the Coastal De-
velopment Permit (CDP) should minimize
the delays and expense compared to the
previous renewal effort. The goal is to ob-
tain permits that have clear, flexible, effec-
tive conditions that allow the City to protect
its natural resources while safeguarding its
beneficial uses.
Permit Duration
A permit duration of 10 years would facili-
tate permit administration and reduce the
financial and administrative burden on the
City and the regulatory agencies and has
the support of USEPA Region 9 headquar-
ters. Nevertheless, USACE Los Angeles Dis-
trict apparently has no authority to grant a
10 -year permit. Furthermore, the sediment
test results would not be valid for a 10 -year
period, and the City would still have to
go through a 5 -year renewal cycle for the
Coastal Development Permit. Accordingly,
pursuing a 10 -year RGP may be most pro-
ductive at the level of USACE regulatory
headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Streamline Sampling Plan Approval
A template for a Sampling and Analysis plan
that specifically details all possible outcomes
can be created with input from all involved
agencies to ensure acceptance prior to sam-
pling. The Sampling and Analysis Plan may
include recommendations for phased testing
to target specific disposal activities.
Geographical Coverage
It would be possible to extend RGP 54 to the
currently excluded areas if the City could
commit to placing the sediments in a previ-
ously- approved disposal site. As a disposal
site outside the city is financially and logisti-
cally infeasible, identifying and developing
an in -bay confined disposal site for contami-
nated sediments is a suggested course of ac-
tion. The permit would have to incorporate
appropriate restrictions on dredging, dispos-
al, and other in -water work for contaminated
areas. The potential benefits to the City and
to the regulators from extending the permit's
coverage make the effort worthwhile.
Streamlining Special Conditions
There is a need to (1) streamline the special
conditions by simplifying the language and
removing redundancies, (2) develop a sys-
tem for monitoring the dredging and dispos-
al activities N, and (3) develop an Eelgrass
Management Plan 0.
Contaminated Sediment
Handling of Contaminated Sediment
Options: There is a need to include manage-
ment options for contaminated dredge ma-
terials. Currently many of the RGP users do
not have the financial resources to handle
management of contaminated sediments;
Regional General Permits
guidance and options should be included
in the RGP.
Eelgrass Management ■
The RGP could be modified to incorporate a
comprehensive, bay -wide eelgrass manage-
ment program in such a way as to achieve
the twin goals of eelgrass protection and
the facilitation of maintenance dredging
and structural work. The Eelgrass Manage-
ment Plan will describe a strategy for a con-
certed future effort that would incorporate
sediment management while maintaining
an eelgrass population. Close coordination
would be needed with the Department of
Fish and Game and National Marine Fish-
eries Service (NMFS) eelgrass management
programs in order to develop modifications
of the RGP's special conditions that would
be effective and at the same time responsive
to agency imperatives.
Beach Replenishment ■
Currently the RGP allows dredging projects
of less than 1,000 cy to be used for beach re-
plenishment, assuming the material is phys-
ically and chemically suitable. Increasing
the volume of dredged material that can be
beneficially used for beach replenishment
under the RGP may increase opportunities
to use the dredged material.
A Path Forward
The RGP renewal strategy should be based
on an early, comprehensive effort to identify
the key issues with the various stakeholders,
provide necessary information, and conduct
negotiations. The renewal effort needs to be
undertaken with clear objectives in view and
a strong sense of what can be negotiated and
Regional General Permits
what cannot. This effort is best accomplished
by preparation of a written renewal strategy
that will guide the efforts of the City and its
consultants. The strategy will describe how
the various components will fit together and
will provide guidance on negotiation strate-
gies and desired outcomes.
Potential Steps Forward
Specific recommendations for future RGP
renewals and for the administration of the
RGP are put forward in the accompanying
technical report. In general, however, the
following six basic steps are suggested for
the renewal process:
T) Eelgrass management ■
a. Negotiate modified eelgrass conditions to
one of three possible models; and
b. Negotiate the Coastal Development Per-
mit to allow more flexibility with respect to
eelgrass conditions.
2) Negotiate the RGP conditions through
a structured series of meetings with the
stakeholders.
a. Establish agency information needs in or-
der to improve the project approval process
in the permit administration phase;
b. Gain early approval of the Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP), using the SAP for the
current RGP renewal as a template, with
some changes (2 months, $15K);
c. Conduct sediment testing promptly in
order to leave time to resolve anomalous
results; and
d. Increase volume of material to be benefi-
cially used for beach replenishment.
5
Beneficial V5e
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASKS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
cl
Flood
Control
C
Berthing
Management
O
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties ties
Sustainabil-
ity
W
Sea Level Rise and Flooc
Control Management
Introduction
The extreme high tides in Califor-
nia threaten flooding of low -lying
terrain and result from the coin-
cidence of extreme astronomical
tides and storm - induced sea level
changes.
In Newport Harbor, these extreme
conditions have occurred as re-
cently as 1983 and also in 2005, and
resulted in damage to 175 homes
and businesses on Balboa Peninsu-
la. Analysis of recent topographic
survey shows that most shorelines
in Lower Newport Bay fall below
the height of present -day extreme
high tides.
Sea levels have been rising for de-
cades, but higher rates are fore-
casted for the coming century.
This will impact not only mean
sea level (MSL), but high water
levels as well. Data reported for
Los Angeles and La Jolla indicate
faster rise over the past 50 years.
Estimates of future sea level rise at
Newport Harbor fall in the range of
1 -3 ft /100 years range for Newport
Harbor.
There is also evidence that North
Pacific cyclones, which bring storm
weather to Southern California in
Winter, have intensified over the
past 50 years. This has contributed
to higher high tides and is thought
to be a consequence of warmer ocean
water. Future extreme tides consti-
tute the most immediate flooding
threat to low -lying coastal commu-
nities such as the Newport Harbor
area, and are likely to be amplified
by increasing sea levels.
The challenge for the City of New-
port Beach is to assess its flood vul-
nerability using predictive models
and evaluation of existing flood pro-
tection. Based on this vulnerability
assessment management measures
can be developed that are integrated
into the overall HAMP program.
The final report of the assessment
of flood vulnerability of the New-
port Harbor Area caused by pres-
ent and future extreme high tides
and to identify those areas of the
Harbor most vulnerable to flooding
has been completed and is provided
in Appendix H (Flow Simulation,
2008).
Sea Level Rise Er Flood Control Management
Overview of Flooding Issues
Ocean tides are predominantly controlled by
the gravitational attraction of the moon and
sun and therefore can be modeled by a num-
ber of astronomical harmonic constituents
corresponding to different periods. Extreme
high tides occur when these constituents are
aligned (or "in phase') so their effect is cu-
mulative. In California, extreme high tides
occur in Winter and occasionally in Summer,
but never in Fall or Spring (Zetler and Flick
1985, Flick 1986). The height of tides can be
further amplified by storms associated with
low atmospheric pressure, wind, and waves,
as well as inter - annual phenomena such as
El Nino (Flick 1986). The worst -case scenario
for coastal flooding is a Pacific storm that ap-
proaches the California coastline from the
Gulf of Alaska during an El Nino winter,
and arrives coincident with the annual maxi-
mum astronomical high tide. Such a sce-
nario occurred in late January, 1983, causing
widespread damage all along the California
coastline.
Coastal communities are in a position to plan
for extreme tides. Their occurrence is predict-
able based on semi - annual and inter - annual
cycles. In fact, there are only a few multi -
day periods each Winter when extreme tides
threaten the California coast. Only the most
extreme cases are likely to cause flooding in
the near future and the severity of extreme
tides will hinge on atmospheric conditions.
Surface flooding is most likely to occur in low
lying areas around the Harbor, and analysis
of topographic data allows these areas to be
identified. Parts of the Harbor such as Balboa
Island are encircled by elevated bulk heads,
Sea Level Rise & Flood Control Management
or sea walls, that are designed to obstruct
flooding by ocean water during episodes of
high sea levels. Hence, land may not nec-
essarily flood simply because of its eleva-
tion. Rather, it is necessary to consider the
combined effects of sea levels, sea defenses,
terrain heights, and flood control infrastruc-
ture, as well as hydraulic principles to iden-
tify those areas vulnerable to flooding.
Analysis of a 2006 Light Detection and Rang-
ing (LiDAR) topographic survey shows that
Balboa Island, Little Balboa Island, Newport
Island, and nearly the full length of Balboa
Peninsula along its bay -ward side fall be-
low the height of present -day extreme high
tides. A review of site conditions shows
that flood control systems are in place to
guard these areas against flooding. This in-
cludes a combination of public and private
infrastructure (e.g. bulks heads and valves
or plugs at storm drain outlets) and opera-
tional practices (e.g. City staff monitoring of
tides, closure of storm drain outlets, sand
berms, and cooperation with occupants to
implement flood control measures).
A review of historical data shows that in
January 1983 and January 2005 a tide height
of nearly 8 ft. above Mean Lower Low Wa-
ter (MLLW) was attained. Flooding was
observed in the Harbor area in both cases
(Figures 1 and 2). Several lines of evidence
suggest that the onset of flooding on Bal-
boa Peninsula and Balboa Island, when all
tide gates are closed, occurs at a tide height
above 7.0 ft. above MLLW.
Figure 1:
Photographs of
the January 10,
2005 high tide that
reached the 7.8 ft
(MLLW) level.
Figure 2:
Photographs of
the January 10,
2005 high tide that
reached the 7.8 ft
(MLLW) level.
The height of the bulk heads around Balboa and Little Balboa Islands were estimated to be be-
tween 7.9 to 9.2 ft (MLLW) and 8.7 to 9.8 It (MLLW), respectively, based on LiDAR data and
field measurements. Seepage cracks in these bulkheads have been observed and could cause
flooding at lower tide heights.
As stated above, there are predictable and unpredictable aspects to the height attained by ex-
treme high tides that need to be considered for short and long -term planning. The effect of
astronomical factors (position of the moon and earth) is predictable. The effects of inter- annual
phenomena such as El Nino /La Nina, weather conditions, and global warming on tide heights
are more difficult to predict.
Sea Level Rise Fr Flood Control Management
Figure 3:
Model simulations of the 8 ft tide show localized flooding along Balboa Peninsula and widespread
flooding across the western half of Balboa Island
To identify and map the vulnerability of
the Newport Harbor area to future flood-
ing by extreme high tides, a flood inunda-
tion model was developed and applied. A
total of nine model simulations were com-
pleted corresponding to three tide scenarios
(tide heights of 8, 9, and 10 ft), two infra-
structure scenarios (an "as is" scenario and
an "improved" scenario corresponding to
bulk head improvements presently planned
or in progress), and two stream flow sce-
narios. These scenarios represent a range of
tide heights that could occur through 2100
from the combined influence of astronomi-
cal tides, sea level rise, and environmental
conditions such as storms.
Sea Level Rise & Flood Control Management
Model simulations of the 8 ft tide show lo-
calized flooding along Balboa Peninsula and
widespread flooding across the western half
of Balboa Island as shown on Figure 3. This
is largely consistent with historical observa-
tions. As shown on Figure 4, model simula-
tions of the 9ft tide show widespread flood-
ing along the bay side of Balboa Peninsula
and near complete flooding of Balboa Island,
Little Balboa Island and Newport Island.
Model simulations of the 10 ft tide show near
complete flooding of the developed areas of
the Lower Harbor.
0.0.01
0 01 - 0.
D1 -0.5
D.5 -1
1 -2
2 -5
5 -10
1
s �E
Figure 4:
Model simulations of the 9ft tide show widespread flooding along the bay side of Balboa Penin-
sula and near complete flooding of Balboa Island, Little Balboa Island and Newport Island.
Linkages to Other Programs
The results of the flood vulnerability assess-
ment will be the basis for the development
of management measures to reduce the po-
tential for future impact to property from the
coincidence of extreme astronomical tides
and storm - induced sea level changes that
are predicted to increase in the future. Link-
ages to other programs include the dredg-
ing of the channels ■ and use of dredged
material for backfill behind sea walls and
bulkheads that may require raising to meet
new elevation requirements. The beneficial
use of the dredged material will lower both
the unit cost for the channel dredging and
management, and the cost of the bulkhead
upgrades. Integration of these programs can
therefore result in cost savings. In addition,
the beach replenishment management pro-
gram l is linked to the flooding potential
as beach sand provides a buffer from storm
surges.
Sea Level Rise Fr Flood Control Management
Potential Steps Forward
The purpose of the assessment is to address the City's challenge of flood vulnerability using
predictive models and evaluation of existing flood protection. Based on this vulnerability as-
sessment, management potential measures can be implemented to better prepare for future
extreme high tides that are integrated into the overall HAMP program. The potential steps
forward include:
Coastal Flooding Condition Monitoring Program Implementation
A potential step forward is creating a monitoring system for environmental conditions that
effect coastal flooding. This system could improve the City's emergency response to flooding
and help staff to prioritize and guide infrastructure improvement efforts (e.g. sand replenish-
ment).
Database of Pnblic and Private Flood Controls
The City should consider creating and maintaining a database, which is integrated into the
City GIS, of public and private flood control infrastructure, and implementing a monitoring
system to track key factors that bear on flood control. This data can then be used to update
the flood models to be used to evaluate the benefit of the proposed flood control measures.
The City should also consider obtaining through a registered surveyor the precise elevations
of the bulkheads.
Legal and Policy Framework for Bulkhead Improvements
An additional potential step forward is exploring the legal and policy framework that would
allow for more systematic improvement of the condition and continuity of the bulkheads
(both public and private) in the future.
Flood Risk Management Plan
The City should consider developing and adopting a flood risk management plan for the Har-
bor before moving forward with any major efforts to improve flood control infrastructure (e.g.
raise bulk heads). This plan would consider the economic, environmental and social conse-
quences of flooding to identify the most optimal structural and non - structural measures for
implementation.
Impact of Waves on Flooding
A final potential step forward is the examination of the impact of waves on flooding. Based
on preliminary assessment data, it is not clear that there is adequate protection against the
combined effects of an extreme high tide and ocean waves typical of storm conditions. Such a
study could be used to guide future sand replenishment efforts.
Sea Level Rise & Flood Control Management
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rati nq
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
O
Flood
Control
Berthing
Management
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties ties
Sustainabil-
ity
O
Upper Bay
Sediment Control
Introduction
The Upper Newport Bay contains
the 752 acre Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve and the 140
acre County of Orange Region-
al Park. Within the Reserve are
two in -bay sedimentation ba-
sins that have been constructed
with the goal of capturing sedi-
ment loads from the San Diego
Creek watershed, and reducing
the siltation of the Upper and
Lower Newport Bays. In 1999, a
TMDL for sediment was imple-
mented for the San Diego Creek
watershed and Newport Bay.
Continued sediment loading to
the Bay has resulted in increased
sediment accumulation and the
need for maintenance dredging
in the Upper and Lower New-
port Bays. Maintenance of the
Lower Bay channels will require
more frequent dredging without
the implementation of an effec-
tive comprehensive sediment source
control and prevention program in
the watershed. A comprehensive
sediment control program to meet
the goals of the TMDL is being imple-
mented in the watershed of which the
two in -bay basins are key elements.
The elements of this program also in-
clude in- channel basins along San Di-
ego Creek, channel stabilization proj-
ects, agricultural BMPs, construction
site monitoring and BMPs, and foot-
hill retarding basins (see Figure 1 on
following page).
Dredging of the Upper Newport Bay
is underway to remove accumulated
sediments and provide adequate ca-
pacity for the in -bay basins. The cur-
rent dredging activities in the Upper
Newport Bay are enhancing habitats
through improved circulation and
creation of islands that protect nest-
ing areas from predators.
Upper Bay Sediment Control
62
Key Elements of the Sediment
Control Plan
Agricultural BMPs
Land use in the San Diego Creek Water-
shed has significantly changed over the last
30 years, from primarily agricultural use to
greater urbanization. Despite these changes,
agricultural land has the potential to be a
major contributor of sedimentation. An ad-
vanced BMP program has been implement-
ed in the San Diego Creek Watershed.
Figure 1
Construction BMPs
Local governments are currently enforcing
grading and erosion control at construction
sites, especially during the winter when
heavy rains have the potential to transport
large amounts of sediment. The Orange
County National Pollution Discharge Elimi-
nation System ( NPDES) and Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP) require con-
struction BMPs. The RWQCB enforces the
State General Construction NPDES which
requires construction sites develop a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP;
Tettemer 1993).
Channel Stabilization
Erosion from channels within the watershed
is a source of sediment in Upper Newport
Bay. Lining the channel with non- erodible
material and controlling the flow of water
can help stabilize the channel and reduce ero-
sion. Several channel stabilization projects
have been conducted in the San Diego Creek
Watershed including sections of San Diego
Creek, Peters Canyon Channel, Marshburn
Channel, Trabuco Channel, Borrego Chan-
nel, and Bee Canyon Channel (Tettemer
1993). Channel stabilization is also part of
the BMP program for agricultural land. A
priority project proposed for the IRCWM
Plan is the Serrano Creak Bank Stabilization
and Sediment/ Pollution Reduction Project
(County of Orange RDMD Watershed and
Coastal Resources 2007). This project in-
volves stabilizing 1.2 miles of Serrano Creek
to reduce erosion. Stream erosion in Serrano
Creek threatens homes, has damaged the
Los Alisos Water District sewer line, and cut
channel banks in the storm season (ACOE
1998).
Foothill Retention Basins
To reduce sediment load to Upper Newport
Bay from the Lomas de Santiago foothills,
several retarding basins were constructed.
Retention In- channel Basins
In- channel basins are used to catch sedi-
ment in the San Diego Creek before they
reach Upper Newport Bay. They are effec-
tive at catching coarser sediment particles,
however they are less effective at removing
fines (Sediment Control Plan 1982). Regular
maintenance is necessary to ensure efficien-
cy. Currently, there are 3 in- channel basins
in the San Diego Creek. The design capac-
ity of Basin 1, 2, and 3 is 210,000 cy, 73,000
cy, and 78,000 cy (Tettemer 1993). Removal
of sediment from in- channel basins is more
economical and has a smaller impact on the
environment than dredging the in -bay ba-
sins. It is suggested that in- channel basins
be maintained at 75% design capacity (Tette-
mer 1994).
In -bay Basins
There are two in -bay basins in Upper New-
port Bay (Unit I /III and Unit II). The in -bay
basins are effective at catching finer sedi-
ment that is not caught by the in- channel
basins, however regular clean outs are nec-
essary to ensure efficiency. Fine- grained
suspended particles are difficult to remove
through these techniques. These particles
consist of clay and organic matter that attract
and transport pollutants to the Bay. Pollut-
ant loading to the Bay needs to be addressed
through upstream measures and further
transport modeling to improve removal ef-
fectiveness.
Upper Bay Sediment Control
Overview of Upper Bay
Sediment Management Issues
Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control in-
cludes the management of sediment load-
ing occurring from the San Diego Creek
watershed that migrates through the Up-
per Bay to the Lower Bay. Current resto-
ration and dredging activities in Upper
Newport Bay include the establishment of
in -bay sediment basins to control sedimen-
tation of the Lower Bay. The effectiveness
of these basins to reduce sediment loads,
particularly fine grained sediment needs
further evaluation. These basins are only ef-
fective with regular clean outs. They have
been designed to reduce sediment loading;
however, the greatest reduction may be for
coarse- grained sediments. Most sedimen-
i i,.- -, nom., c-.4;—.-+ r—f—i
tation into Newport Bay is associated with
major rainfall runoff when large amounts of
fine - grained sediment enter Upper Newport
Bay. The key issue with the efficacy of these
basins is the reduction in fine- grained sedi-
ment loading that has resulted in reduction
of channel depth and migration of impacted
sediments to the Lower Newport Bay. Fine -
grained sediments remain in suspension
longer and require greater retention times.
Fine - grained sediment also contained a
greater fraction of organic and charge par-
ticles (clay) that attract and adsorb contami-
nants. These contaminants include metals,
pesticides and nutrients. Loading of fine -
grained particles to the Lower Bay at cur-
rent rates will continue to negatively impact
sediment quality and channel maintenance.
Another issue that needs to be assessed is
the potential contribution to fine- grained
sediment loading to the Lower Bay from the
ongoing dredging in the Upper Bay. This is
a temporary issue, but understanding this
component will allow for better assessment
of the basin effectiveness.
Defining the effectiveness of the in -bay ba-
sins and watershed sediment control proj-
ects is vital to the long -term management of
the Lower Bay. Data gaps exist to conduct
this assessment. In addition sediment trans-
port modeling is required as part of this pro-
cess. In the 1990's, the USACE developed
the RMA2 finite element hydrodynamic and
RMA11 sediment transport model. In Phase
II of development the models were reconfig-
ured and calibrated to observed deposition-
al patterns in Upper Newport Bay from 1985
to 1997 ( USACE 1998). The model predicted
sediment deposition in Upper Newport Bay
within 2 percent, however the model was
not calibrated for Lower Newport Bay. Ac-
cording to these models, over the next 50
years approximately 3.75 million cy of sedi-
ment will be deposited in Lower Newport
Bay and approximately 3 million cy of sedi-
ment will be deposited in Upper Newport
Bay. However, these models have several
shortcomings. Sediment density values used
in models are only estimates, the accuracy
of the data are difficult to determine. In ad-
dition, the models do not include the effects
of marsh plants in calculating sedimenta-
tion. An increase in marsh plant cover will
increase sediment deposition. To more ac-
curately simulate sediment deposition rates
and patterns, the inclusion of marsh plants
needs to be reflected in the model. Further-
more, to adequately manage sediments, sed-
iment modeling needs to include informa-
tion on grain size fractions in order to predict
t®
sedimentation patterns and future dredging
needs. Finally, these models do not allow for
an evaluation of the efficiency of the current
sediment basins in the Upper Bay.
Long term management of sedimentation
patterns and sediment types will also need
to be coordinated with TMDLs and other
regulatory drivers. Dredge material man-
agement in the Lower Bay is dependent on
aggressively addressing fine- grained sedi-
ments transported from San Diego Creek
through the Upper Bay.
Coordination with Current
Programs
The sediment control efforts in the Upper
Newport Bay need to be coordinated with
sediment control projects in the watershed
to address the TMDL, and with the dredging
requirements and contaminated sediment
management ■ in the Lower Newport Bay.
In addition to the sediment source control
projects presented above, a series of approx-
imately 30 natural treatment systems are
planned throughout the watershed. These
natural treatment systems will be managed
by Irvine Ranch Water District. The City has
participated and supported these projects
through the Proposition 50 grant application
under the Integrated Regional Watershed
Management Plan. The City has supported
these projects due to the importance of sedi-
ment control in the long -term maintenance
of the Lower Bay and impact to sediments.
Contaminants transported by sediment to
the Lower Bay may impact the benthic com-
munities and limit the options for reuse of
dredged material removed from navigable
channels. The TMDL for sediments includes
both the San Diego Creek watershed and the
Upper Bay Sediment Control
Newport Bay. The linkage of the watershed
to the Bay is defined by the TMDL. In order
to meet the goals of the TMDL the City is con-
ducting dredging of the in -bay basins in the
Upper Newport Bay. The efficacy of these
basins and the source control efforts in the
watershed needs to be more fully assessed
to determine what additional measures are
needed. This effectiveness assessment will
require additional modeling efforts using a
3D hydrodynamic and water quality model.
The selection and recommendation on the
development of the 3D model are discussed
in detail in the Hydrodynamic and Water
Quality Modeling section .
Sediment migration to the Lower Bay from
sources in watershed may also result in im-
pacts to the coastal ecosystems that include
the ASBS. Preliminary contaminant trans-
port modeling has indicated a potential
connection between the Lower Bay and the
ASBS depending on wet weather condition
and tidal regimes. Studies in the ASBS have
indicated that sediment from Lower Bay
may be impacting the ASBS. The City has
included in the Proposition 50 grant appli-
cation erosion control projects in the coastal
canyons to reduce the sediment loading to
the ASBS. These measures need to be coor-
dinated with sediment control measures for
the Bay and watershed to achieve the over-
all goal of reducing impacts to the ASBS.
Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem
Restoration Project
The Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Resto-
ration 0 is a $38 million multiyear project
which includes restoring the capacity of the
in -bay sediment storage basins, restoration
of channels, restoration of wetlands, and
creation / improvement of Least Tern Island.
Approximately 70,000 cy of clean material
dredged from Upper Bay will be placed
nearshore to serve as nourishment for the
beach. Dredging of the sediment storage
basins in Upper Bay (Basins I /III and Ba-
sin II) is a major component of this project
which coincides with the sediment control
plan. Maintenance of these basins is criti-
cal to ensure they are effective at capturing
sediment. When dredging is completed, ap-
proximately 950,000 cy will be dredged from
Unit I /III Basin, and approximately 866,000
cy will be dredged from Unit II Basin. Open
water area will be increased to about 19
acres at both locations. The access channel
to Unit II Basin was dredged in April 2006.
Dredging of Unit II Basin was finalized in
December 2007. A portion of Unit I /III Ba-
sin was dredged in March 2007. Dredging
of Unit I /III Basin was finalized in March
2008. The sediment basins were dredged to
approximately -17 ft mean lower low water
(MLLW). The access channels were dredged
to approximately -11 ft MLLW and 100 ft
wide. This project is a significant part of the
restoration and management plan for Upper
Newport Bay. It will also have a major affect
on reducing frequency of dredging in Lower
Newport Bay by increasing the effectiveness
of the in -bay sediment catch basins.
Potential Steps Forward
The overall goals of the Sediment Control Management program should include:
• Reduce the sediment load to the Upper and Lower Bay through effective sediment control
measures in the watershed
• Effectively manage the inline sediment basins in the Upper Bay and assess their effective-
ness in reducing the load of sediment, particularly fine - grained sediments that can transport
contaminant to the Lower Bay
• Address the data gaps and conduct sediment transport modeling to assess the effectiveness
of the inline basins
• Coordinate sediment removal in the basins with restoration/ beach replenishment/ sustain-
able sediment management
In order to achieve these goals, the suggested priority activities should include:
• Coordinate ongoing dredging in the Upper Newport Bay to increase the capacity of the in-
line basins (ongoing - through 2010)
• Continue to support the Integrated Regional Watershed Management framework and pro-
cess through coordinated grant applications for projects that reduce sediment loading from the
watershed to the Bay and ASBS
• Address data gaps in current sediment loading and sedimentation rate patterns (start Nov.
2008 -Dec 2009)
• Conduct sediment modeling using current restoration design options (start June 2009 -Dec
2009)
Upper Bay Sediment Control
68
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
hater
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
Flood
Control
Berthing
Management
O
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Sustainabil-
ihj
Upper Newport Bay
Restoration and Management
Introduction
The Upper Newport Bay is charac-
terized by functioning and intact
mudflat, salt marsh, freshwater
marsh, riparian and upland habi-
tats that are protected within the
752 -acre Upper Newport Bay Eco-
logical Reserve and the 140 -acre
Orange County Regional Park. The
area has been designated a Criti-
cal Coastal Area (CCA) under the
CCA Program, a part of the State's
Non -Point Source Plan (NPS Plan).
The NPS Plan is a non - regulatory
planning tool to coordinate the
efforts of multiple agencies and
stakeholders, and direct resources
to CCAs. The programs goal is to
ensure that effective NPS manage-
ment measures are implemented
to protect or restore coastal water
quality in CCAs.
Upper Newport Bay Restoration & Management
The California Department of Fish
and Game (DFG) is tasked with
managing the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve (Reserve) and
has developed a Preliminary Man-
agement Plan (Management Plan)
for the Reserve. The Management
Plan document is of primary im-
portance in guiding the DFG, the
City, and other stakeholders in the
long -term management of one of
the most important ecological hab-
itats in southern California. The
Management Plan for the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
will be the framework for the im-
plementation and management of
the restoration activities and long-
term sustainability of this CCA.
Upper Newport Bay in Newport Beach is
an estuary - a place where fresh and salt
water meet and mix. It is one of only a few
remaining estuaries in southern California
and is the home of nearly 200 species of
birds, including several endangered spe-
cies, as well as numerous species of mam-
mals, fish, other critters and native plants.
The Upper Bay is an important stopover
for migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway
and up to 30,000 birds can be seen here
on any day during the winter months. Its
proximity to urban Orange and Los Ange-
les counties makes the Upper Bay easily accessible to both local and regional visitors.
Every year, thousands of people come here to hike, cycle, canoe, kayak, fish or simply
enjoy nature.
The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve was created in 1975 as result of the pur-
chase of 527 acres of land in and around the Bay from the Irvine Company and the
transfer of 214 acres of tidal wetlands from Orange County to the State of California.
An additional 11 acres of land in Big Canyon was added to the area in 1982 increas-
ing the total acreage of the Reserve to 752 acres. In 1990 Orange County acquired 140
acres of bluffs on the north and north -west sides of the Bay and created a Regional
Park. The Regional Park was rededicated as the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve
in 2000.
Source:
Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends Web Site
www.newportbay.org
Overview of Upper Bay Restoration Issues
The Reserve was first purchased by the state in 1975 and is currently managed by the DFG.
Due to State funding constraints, however, little preservation work has been completed to
date, including completion of the Upper Bay Management Plan. Despite the absence of a
comprehensive restoration and management plan for the area, the City of Newport Beach and
County of Orange are currently moving forward with several restoration projects in the Upper
Bay. These projects include a salt marsh demonstration project at Shellmaker Island for the
Back Bay Science Center, the Upper Newport Bay Restoration Dredging Project, and the ongo-
ing design and permitting phase of the Big Canyon Restoration Project (See Figures 1 and 2).
Upper Newport Bay Restoration Fr Management
say s,a -
o -
- �b
— s„ae.r I r.°w nwrrr
FIGUtE 22-2
Utilitim Man
e r
rm.aG —NO
J
"� � • yr
WNC• � a
Qs,te.eac
OGue 4edD �s�
0 �
Qie.smr.�
- Rve Ma
. Yd,
•tea �'_ e � •
fwd
Figures 1 and 2: Conceptual plans for Phase II of the Big Canyon Creek Restoration Plan
The Upper Bay is also widely enjoyed by
members of the general public. Several
non -profit organizations provide valuable
stakeholder input towards management ef-
forts in the Upper Bay. The lack of a consis-
tently funded governmental agency tasked
with leading comprehensive and integrated
management efforts may lead to a disjoint-
ed implementation of independently well -
intended restoration efforts, and that way,
ultimately fail to produce a healthy, fully-
functioning estuary habitat.
Current dredging activities in the Upper
Newport Bay are also enhancing habitats
through improved circulation and creation
of islands that protect nesting areas from
predators. Challenges central to the inte-
gration of current and future Upper Bay
restoration activities into an overall Harbor
Area strategic plan include securing fund-
ing and development of a comprehensive
Management Plan for ongoing and planned
restoration projects, coordinating dredging
and other Lower Bay maintenance activi-
ties ■ with the restoration projects, and
integrating local and re ional water quality
improvement projects 1i to meet current
and anticipated regulatory drivers in the
San Diego Creek and adjacent watersheds.
Goals:
The goals of the Upper Newport Bay stake-
holders are to:
• Identify opportunities and implement
priority restoration projects for the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and
• Complete an integrated and comprehen-
sive Upper Bay Management Plan
Coordination with Current
Programs
DFG is the lead agency tasked with provid-
ing a comprehensive Upper Bay Restora-
tion Management Plan. Due to funding
constraints, however, the Management Plan
is still in a preliminary format. A regional
Integrated Coastal Watershed Management
Plan ( ICWMP) was submitted by the Coun-
ty of Orange in January 2008. The ICWMP
proposes to implement an integrated suite
of projects through a regional planning
effort that has been prioritized to address
watershed management challenges within
highly urbanized Central Orange County.
The IRCWM Plan notes that, "The CCAs
and ASBS may be directly impacted by
urban activities within the planning area,
including fresh water drainage carrying
pollutants of concern from the upper water-
shed and coastal canyons, creek bed erosion
due to the increase of impervious surfaces,
legacy pesticides from former agricultural
operations, contaminants from boat mainte-
nance in Newport Harbor, and high levels
of naturally occurring selenium and nitro-
gen in the groundwater that may rise to the
surface and move downstream. These frag-
ile coastal ecosystems are further impacted
by heavy recreational use within the coastal
zone."
Upper Newport Bay Restoration £7 Management
17rized in the following table.
Receiving Waters of Upper Newport Bay CCA 69)
Serrano
Constructing erosion control and bank stabilization measures in Serrano
Creek Bank
Creek Reach 2 will reduce sediment transport and related contaminant
Stabilization,
loads (including sediments from the Santiago Fire burn area in the creek's
Sediment/
headwaters) to Upper Newport Bay. This supports the Upper Newport
Pollution
Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project (A10) by reducing a primary sediment
Reduction
source that has reduced in -bay sediment storage basins, impacted habitat,
(Project A 02)
and reduced water quality.
Newport Bay
Constructing two additional NTS sites within the planned regional system
Watershed
will improve water quality within Upper Newport Bay, the receiving wa-
Natural
ter for nearly all of the drainage from the Newport Bay Watershed. This
Treatment
supports the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project (A10) by
System - 2 sites
reducing contaminant loads in the freshwater that is needed to maintain
(Project A 07)
the estuarine habitat for threatened and endangered species.
Upper Newport
By restoring the capacity of in -bay sediment storage basins, improving
Bay Ecosystem
estuarine habitat for threatened and endangered species as well as other
Restoration
marine species, and improving tidal flows, this project will maintain the
(Project A10)
quality ecosystem needed to provide critical habitat along the Pacific Fly-
way and for other aquatic species. This project complements other water
quality and habitat projects locally and statewide.
In addition, the Big Canyon Creek Res-
toration Project is a program designed to
restore the 55 -acre Big Canyon Nature Park
between Jamboree Road and Upper New-
port Bay. The Big Canyon project exem-
plifies an integrated approach to habitat
restoration designed to provide multiple
benefits across beneficial use goals. The
project will increase valuable salt marsh
habitat by re- routing the existing Back Bay
Drive and increasing the area subject to Bay
tidal flow. Design elements of the Restora-
tion Plan will also improve water quality
in Big Canyon Creek by reducing flows to
allow for sediment and other potential pol-
lutant removal. Additional habitat benefits
will include removal of non - native vegeta-
tion and planting of native plants through-
out the Nature Park area. Recreational use
opportunities of the Nature Park area will
Upper Newport Bay Restoration & Management
also be enhanced through creation of ad-
ditional trails and public access points into
the Nature Park and posting of interpretive
signage to assist the public in understanding
the importance of the restored native habitat.
The Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project
will provide a valuable connection between
urban development, restored coastal sage
scrub, riparian, Upper Bay saltwater marsh
habitat and the Lower Bay. The project will
also provide a linkage to overall water qual-
ity improvement goals for the Upper and
Lower Newport Bays ■ .
The Big Canyon Creek Restoration Project is
in the final engineering and design phase. A
Phase II Feasibility Study was completed in
June 2007 and has undergone several stake-
holder review sessions. Final project plans
are in the approval stages.
Potential Steps Forward
As stated above, DFG is in the preliminary stages of preparing the Upper Newport Bay Man-
agement Plan, but to date has been hindered by a lack of funds in fully completing this task. It
is suggested that, barring a comprehensive Upper Bay Management Plan, proposed restoration
projects be designed to be inline with anticipated mandates within the Management Plan. This
can be accomplished by developing an integrated project development approach that includes
the following attributes:
• Solicit and incorporate Upper Bay stakeholder input in the early stages of project develop-
ment.
• Assemble multi - disciplinary project teams to identify restoration project opportunities and
constraints.
• Adopt and commit to provide commonly accepted regional and State project planning, per-
mitting and performance criteria throughout project development.
• Develop potential funding opportunities early in project lifecycle.
• Identify opportunities to relate proposed restoration project objectives to other local, region-
al, state and federal restoration and habitat improvement efforts.
A secondary recommendation for the Upper Bay Restoration portion of the Harbor Area Man-
agement Plan is to lobby state legislators to provide more comprehensive funding to the DFG
or provide alternate funding sources for the completion of the final Management Plan. When
funding is secured to accomplish this task, it is suggested DFG finalize the Management Plan
in the following steps:
• Complete field studies and synthesize existing data identified by the DFG to allow the
completion of the Management Plan.
• Prepare Upper Newport Bay Management Plan.
• Solicit review and comments from stakeholders.
• Integrate Management Plan and Long -term Restoration of Upper Bay into the Newport Har-
bor Area Management Plan.
Upper Newport Bay Restoration £7 Management
74
Harbor Area Management Tools
The purpose of this HAMP is to develop a resource management tool for the
City to move forward with key sediment management, water quality, restora-
tion and public use projects critical in meeting the following overall goals:
Maintain the beneficial uses of the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and
economic value of the Bay.
Provide a practical framework to meet regulatory requirements in the cur
rent and anticipated municipal discharge permits, sediment management
permits, TMDLs, and other regulatory programs for Newport Bay.
Support a sustainable estuary ecosystem able to be integrated with up
stream sustainable watersheds and adjacent coastal area systems.
The aim of the development of the HAMP is to guide the City and the Harbor
stakeholders in the prioritization and implementation of activities that bal-
ance beneficial uses with the long -term sustainability of Newport Bay.
The resource management tools presented in this section assist in balancing
the economic, social, and environmental issues in the Lower Newport Bay
(Newport Harbor). This includes balancing the environmental needs of the
Bay with the day -to -day operation, maintenance and recreational activities.
Throughout the development of this Plan we have recognized that the Bay
is not only one of the most significant economic assets of our community, it
is also a unique and vitally important ecosystem which includes the Harbor,
Lower Bay, Upper Bay and upstream watershed.
Purpose of Harbor Area Management Plan:
To provide the City with a Resource Management Tool to assist in balancing environmental
issues with the day -to -day operation, long -term maintenance and recreational use activities
in Newport Bay.
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
75
The development of this management tool for the Lower Bay requires addressing multiple
challenges across often dissimilar or even contrasting beneficial use interests to achieve the
overall goals. These challenges, identified through regulatory agencies, stakeholder groups and
the City include.
Dredging Requirements & Contaminated
Sediment Management
Eelgrass Capacity Management & Tools
Beach Replenishment Strategy
Water Quality
Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines
Each of these different challenges has been
evaluated and potential steps forward
have been presented in Technical Report
Summaries in previous sections. The
Summaries have been developed from the
Technical Reports that are presented in the
Appendices.
This Harbor Area Resource Management
Tool section presents the potential steps
forward given in the individual Technical
Summaries and integrated into an overall
strategy with preliminary project priori -
tizations, potential funding sources and
linkages to other projects. For each of the
program elements above, this section first
presents a summary of the issues /chal-
lenges and the overall goals. Based on the
assessment of these challenges and the
steps forward presented in the Technical
Summaries, an implementation schedule is
presented. This implementation strategy
provides the suggested priorities, linkages
to other program challenges, and estimated
costs to achieve the overall program goals.
Hydrodynamic & Water Quality
Numerical Modeling Requirements
Regional General Permit
Sea Level Rise & Flood Control Management
Upper Bay Sediment Control
Upper Bay Restoration & Management
The suggested priority projects and activi-
ties are then assessed using evaluation crite-
ria that are based on the goals of the overall
integrated program. These criteria include
each of the beneficial uses defined in the
Harbor and Bay Element and additional
elements designed to support long -term
sustainability of the Bay. This evaluation
provides an additional tool to demonstrate
the importance of an integrated approach
to achieve the overall program goals. The
scoring for these criteria uses a five -point
scale with a full red circle representing the
least effective in meeting the criteria and a
full green circle representing the most effec-
tive in meeting the criteria. A full descrip-
tion of the criteria is presented on page 7.
Although one element may have little or no
benefit in a single criteria, when integrated
and implemented as an overall program,
the combined outcome achieves the stated
goals.
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Following the presentation of each of the
suggested priority projects and activities for
each challenge, an integrated implementa-
tion schedule is presented for the entire
Harbor Area Management program. The
linkages of each priority project and activity
to other elements are identified as dashed
lines connecting the activities in the sched-
ule. This overall implementation strategy
provides the City with a management tool
to identify the timeline for implement-
ing the activities, the critical path linkages
and the estimated costs. Potential funding
Harbor Area Management Tools:
sources are also identified in this strategic
implementation tool. Following the imple-
mentation schedule is the overall assess-
ment of the priority activities with regard
to an integrated score for the program cri-
teria. The results of this evaluation demon-
strate the need for the integrated program
set forth by the HAMP in order to effec-
tively address the overall goal of balancing
environmental issues with the day -to -day
operation, long -term maintenance and rec-
reational use activities in Newport Bay.
Technical Summaries - Presents the challenges and goals for each element based on the
Technical Report Summaries presented in the previous sections and the full Technical
Reports in the Appendices.
Implementation Strategy Schedule - Provide an integration of the suggested priority
activities/ elements for each of the HAMP challenges, the estimate timelines and the critical
path linkages with other activities.
Cost Estimates - The Implementation Schedule also presents estimated costs and potential
funding for planning purposes.
Integrated Project Scoring - Program elements are scored using the beneficial use
criteria and the scores combined demonstrating the need for an integrated Harbor Area
Management program.
Funding - The final discussion under these management tools covers potential funding
strategies and options of the suggested projects.
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
The HAMP is built on the foundation of the
Harbor and Bay Element and provides the
framework to build an integrated and sus-
tainable program that most cost - effectively
addresses the beneficial uses. The following
management tools present the integration of
the suggested projects to best meet the long-
term goals and vision. The integration of
elements that include dredging of the chan-
nels, eelgrass management, and water qual-
ity has not been fully integrated in previous
documents. This plan therefore provides
this needed function to best achieve the ben-
eficial use goals in a cost - effective manner.
$100
W
As shown in the graphic on the follow-
ing page, the integrated approach of the
HAMP results in benefits to the individual
projects. For example, the integration of
the dredging of the harbor with eelgrass
management, beach replenishment and
flood vulnerability provides for potential
beneficial use opportunities that will lower
the unit cost of dredged material manage-
ment. This is illustrated in the bar graph of
the unit costs for dredged material handling
and placement. There is also a benefit to the
other projects in the lower cost of materials
for use in restoration projects by increasing
the elevation of existing deeper areas, in
replacing sandy material on Harbor beaches
and backfilling behind modified sea walls
to address future flooding.
$40- 601c.yd.
Dredged Mate- Restoration
rial Projects
Beneficial Uses
$30- 351c.yd.
$10- 121c.yd.
Backfill for Bulk- Beach Replenish -
heads ment
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
$75
v
E
+�
�
a
$50
a v
01
u Z
:o v
$25
v
� i
u �
a
a
v$20
v
$15
a
$10
� o a
$0
W
As shown in the graphic on the follow-
ing page, the integrated approach of the
HAMP results in benefits to the individual
projects. For example, the integration of
the dredging of the harbor with eelgrass
management, beach replenishment and
flood vulnerability provides for potential
beneficial use opportunities that will lower
the unit cost of dredged material manage-
ment. This is illustrated in the bar graph of
the unit costs for dredged material handling
and placement. There is also a benefit to the
other projects in the lower cost of materials
for use in restoration projects by increasing
the elevation of existing deeper areas, in
replacing sandy material on Harbor beaches
and backfilling behind modified sea walls
to address future flooding.
$40- 601c.yd.
Dredged Mate- Restoration
rial Projects
Beneficial Uses
$30- 351c.yd.
$10- 121c.yd.
Backfill for Bulk- Beach Replenish -
heads ment
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
HAM Integrated Approach
Integrating Element
Programs /Projects
Results in
Multiple
Benefits �/ L
16 mnel Frrrr,.ri
1'rnnils rliG14
• $Ircn,nllnn Barn165rn1c
DnAging.vlMn
GlRna Mvv.ger Plvn
f I
la 4pq.nr
Al AR rgn rlrn.ulc
Mnfenvl /r ffuffl l
FrlruulR Add BrrlALcn,l.
m AAArc.,
IIwAu,,
This graphic
demonstrates the
integration of the
HAMP elements and
the benefits that can be
achieved through this
integration.
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
,,,,n
.n trl ,
Pmm•" ihlvwyrrlr Plan
e•u BM I
lnrur
vnA F Iurt
DrrAying
P.vrrArc Cvnl,nurd�
Beul A..cr.
Ldnn IVetrnFvA
sar„ra L «J
J
l ... Mnll
/lul.ir
\CrF rt011 l ;i
Cd
C
troll
79
Dredging kcquirements &
Contaminated scc iment Management
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Ooll
Beneficial
Use
Challenges: In recent years, sedimentation in Lower Newport Bay has resulted in
Criteria /Rating
the narrowing and shoaling of the federal channels and adjacent non-
federal channels that act as the main conduits to marina and harbor
Water
traffic. The Lower Bay has remained subject to heavy amounts of silt
Quality
O
and sedimentation via tidal activity and storm events.
Marine
Goals: Obtain dedicated federal funding and support for current phase of
Resource
O
dredging of federal navigable channels to ensure safe and navi-
P rotection
(ASBS)
gable waterways.
Habitat
n _ _- --- - - - - -- - ;..
1_roteetion
Enhancement
a-
^
Community/
i
��� i� • � . __ "! � �
Public
O
Access
. .fill x
Water
� z
Conservation
O
ZF45.
Legend _ — P� i
Moonn95nes +mw1�i�.. ?>
Channel
O
Federal NaWgason Channel ..
\�
Maintenance
Harbor GM1annel8 Pierhead Unes
Oretlge Requirements `
Dredge Depth tn)
Flood
Control
Moe -1
=11-15
M 16.2
Berthing
=21 -25
Management
O
®36 a _
- ]1-]6
® ]5 -4
Recreational
opportuni-
O
Short -Term Mid -Term Long -Tenn Est. Cost
ties
Dredge Material Mg[. Plm1 e Channel Remediation Ongoing
Ocean Disposal Evaluation Variable at this time
Ongoing
Sustainabil-
Sediments tainabiE Plan Ongoing
O
Dredging of federal channels Variable at this time
Dredging o non - federal channels
it
Variable at this time
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Ooll
Eelgrass Capacity &
Management
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
f %P
Beneficial Use
Challenges: While eelgrass serves as an important ecological resource within
Criteria /Rating
Lower Newport Harbor, it often conflicts with other beneficial harbor
uses, particularly those related to guest and residential boating and
Water
navigation.
Quality
O
God k: Provide information to aid the City in developing and implementing
Marine
an Eelgrass Management Plan for Newport Harbor. The plan will
Resource
ensure eelgrass is being sustained while the City maintains all the
Protection
O
beneficial uses of Newport Harbor.
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
0
x
Enhancement
Cornrnunityl
Public
O
N \
Access
c
Water
O
Conservation
f A
Channel
Maintenance
Flood
Control
Legend
Mooring Sites
Federal Navigation Channel
Berthing
Management
Harbor Channel & Pierhead Lines
Stable Eelgrass Zone
Recreational
Opportuni-
Short
-Term
Mid -Term Long -Term
Est. Cost
ties
Habitat Value Assessment
$60K
Eelgrass Capacity Assessment
Funded
Sustainabil-
Eelgrms Management
Plm Development
Management Plan- Agency Review and App oval
$150K
$50K
ManaeementPlanImplemenallon
$3 -5M
rty
Assessment
$75K
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
f %P
MWA40 Beach Replenishment
Strategy
Challenges: A formal system is not in place to manage and prioritize beach
replenishment projects. Components of the RGP restrict the ap-
plication of dredged material on beaches.
Goals: Develop a centralized system for efficiently tracking and utilizing
compatible dredge material for beach replenishment. Increase vol-
ume of materials for beach replenishment under the RGP process.
f :Jq
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
O
Protection
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
O
Flood
Control
O
Berthing
Management
Recreational
Opportuni-
O
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
O
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
�" Water
Challenges: Understanding the extent and source(s) of water quality
impacts to the Lower Newport Bay, and the development of a
strategy to cost - effectively implement BMPs to meet the antici-
pated requirements ofTMDLs.
Goals: To develop an implementation strategy for water quality BMPs
that is coordinated with regional and local water quality protec-
tion and improvement efforts to meet both regulatory drivers and
Harbor Area beneficial uses.
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
O
Maintenance
Flood
Control
O
Berthing
Management
O
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Sustainabil- O
ity
(1) Prop 50 IRWM Funding (Variable sources but requires partial City match)
(2) Potential State and Federal Grant Rending (Variable sources but requires partial City umtch)
Harbor Channel &
Pierheac Lines
Cha I lenges: The design and use of Newport Gay has been altered extensively,
however, the Harbor lines have not been systematically adjusted
since their original development in 1936.
Goals: Update harbor lines to reflect current uses.
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
Enhancement
Community/
Public
Access
Water
Conservation
Channel
Maintenance
O
Flood
Control
O
Berthing
Management
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Hyc ro�ynamic Moc cls
Challenges: Based on past modeling efforts, it is concluded that a 3D hydro-
dynamic and water quality model would be required to fully cap-
ture the complex flow and transport of the Newport Harbor and
Bay. A calibrated 3D model for Newport Bay and Harbor can
be used to evaluate many of the proposed strategies and BMPs
developed for this HAMP.
Goals: To develop, calibrate, and use a 3D model for the evaluation and
development of the various proposed strategies and BMPs developed
in this HAMP.
Short -Term Mid -Term Long -Term Est. Cost
Develop 3D Hydrodynamic Model $250K
Calibrate Hydrodynamic Model $500K
Implement lydrodymanic Model Covered Under
Related Project
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
O
Maintenance
Flood
Control
0
Berthing
Management
O
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties ties
Sustainabil-
ity
m
0 1 Regional General Permit
Challenges: The permit renewal process is long and costly, and the permit needs
revisions. Approval of the plan by all stakeholders is difficult to at-
tain. The permit restricts the range of activities and does not allow
for consistent disposal opportunities. The result is a loss of eelgrass.
Goals: Streamline the RGP process. Include Eelgrass Management Plan op-
portunities under the RGP.
ILI
w C
M
Legend
Mooring Sites
Federal Navigation Channel
Harbor Channel & Pierhead Lines
Streamline Regional General Permits
f -ri
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
unity/
Public
Public
P
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
O
Flood
Control
O
Berthing
Management
O
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Sustainabil-
ity
O
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Sea Level Rise and Flooc
Control Management
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Beneficial Use
Challenges: The extreme high tides in California threaten flooding of low -lying
Water
terrain and result from the coincidence of extreme astronomical tides
Qualihy
and storm- induced sea level changes. Estimates of future sea level
Marine
rise at Newport Harbor fall in the range of 1 -3 ft/100 years range.
Resource
Goals: Assess long -term flood vulnerability to the Harbor Area using predic-
Protection
tive models and evaluation of existing flood protection. Based on this
(ASBS)
vulnerability assessment, develop management measures that are inte-
Habitat
grated into the overall HAMP program. 77tese measures may include
Protection/
revisions to the required elevation of new bulkheads.
Enhancement
6050000
6052500 6055000 6057500 60600W 6052500
9
n
n
N
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
O
Flood
Control
O
Berthing
Management
Q
Recreational
.ate Fest (NAND 88(
C�
N
-0 -1
Sustainabil-
ity
_1 -2
�2-3
3-4
Od -5
m
05 -6
06.7
�7-8
LA 8 -9
g
-11 -12
2,500 1,250 0 2 500 Feet
Short -Term
Mid -Tenn
Long -Term
Est. Cost
Flood Vulnerability Assessment
Not Awssed
Develop Flood Manag
ment Measures
Im lement Revised B
Ikhead Elev. Code
Implement Flood Protection Measures
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Qualihy
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
O
Flood
Control
O
Berthing
Management
O
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties ties
Sustainabil-
ity
O
Upper Bay
Sediment Control
Challenges: Current restoration and dredging activities include the establish-
ment of sediment control basins to control sedimentation of the
Lower Bay. The effectiveness of these basins to reduce sediment
loads of fine grained sediments needs further evaluation. Data gaps
exist to conduct this assessment.
Goads: • Long -term goal is to reduce the sediment load to the
Upper and Lower Bay.
• Effectively manage sediment basins.
• Coordinate sediment removal with restoration /
beach replenishment / sustainable sediment management.
1:1:3
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
O
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
Channel
Maintenance
O
Flood
Control
U
Berthing
Management
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties ties
Sustainabil-
ity
(3) Local share
(4) Federal Funds
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Upper Newport Bay Restoration &
Management
Challenges: The challenges for the Upper Bay Restoration includes securing
funding for the restoration projects and the development of the
Management Plan and coordination of the dredging activities with
the restoration projects and water quality and Lower Bay dredging
projects.
Goals: Implement the restoration projects for the Ecological Reserve and com-
plete the Upper Bay Management Plan.
S
.t
Legend
(1) Prop 50IRWM Fmed ..g (Variable sources but require partial City matdr)
(8) Potential State and Federal Grant Funding (Variable sources but requires partial G7y, match)
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
Short -Tenn
Mid -Terre
Long -Terre
Est. Cost
IRWMP Application submitted
O
Access
Water
IRWMP P
IRWMP Funaiagg
estoration Projects
O
Channel
$45M(1)
Final Upper Bay
Flood
Appxova] Draft Upper Bay
Control
Management Plan
Management Plan
Management
$150K
Big Canyon Design
&Implement Big Canyou
Restoration Project - Implementation
Opportuni-
ties
Snstainabil-
ity
O
$5M(2)
(1) Prop 50IRWM Fmed ..g (Variable sources but require partial City matdr)
(8) Potential State and Federal Grant Funding (Variable sources but requires partial G7y, match)
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Beneficial Use
Criteria /Rating
Water
Quality
O
Marine
Resource
Protection
(ASBS)
Habitat
Protection/
O
Enhancement
Community/
Public
O
Access
Water
Conservation
O
Channel
Maintenance
Flood
Control
O
Berthing
Management
O
Recreational
Opportuni-
ties
Snstainabil-
ity
O
:•
Map of Integrated Projects
achieve the greatest balance of beneficial uses.
Implementation Strategy Schedule and Cost Estimates
The following Implementation Strategy Schedule presents the integration of the suggested proj-
ects /management measures that address the goals of each of the HAMP challenges. This tool
provides a prioritization of the projects based on the timeline presented and the integration of
the projects represented by the dash -line linkages. These linkages represent a critical path to
complete the integrated projects cost - effectively and achieve the greatest balance of beneficial
uses. Prioritization of projects is therefore based on required starting dates to fully implement
the project and the linkages to the other integrated projects. For example, dredging of the non-
federal channels in the Lower Bay needs to be coordinated with the completion of the Eelgrass
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
Management Plan, the streamlined RGP pro-
cess, and the harbor and pier line activities to
successfully meet the goals of each challenge
cost - effectively with the greatest balance of
beneficial uses. Prioritization of the proj-
ects will also depend on the availability of
resources to complete the projects. Funding
strategies and options are discussed in the fi-
nal section and are listed as footnotes on the
Implementation Schedule.
The Implementation Strategy Schedule and
Cost Estimates represent the overall frame-
work of the RAMP. As a Resource Manage-
ment Tool, this Implementation Schedule
provides integrated solutions that result in
cost savings and positive return on invest-
ment paid to the triple bottom line of eco-
nomic, community, and environmental
benefits. The suggested actions in this plan
provide the potential steps forward to meet
the challenges in a cost - effective manner
through the integration of projects. This
plan is based on the understanding that the
"no action alternative" would lead to inac-
cessible channels, loss of property values,
and regulatory action. Management mea-
sures are needed to maintain the vitality of
the Harbor's assets that balance the benefi-
cial uses cost - effectively.
Integrated Project Scoring
The assessment of the suggested projects is
presented in the table that lists the HAMP
elements and the evaluation criteria. The
HAMP elements listed represent the sug-
gested projects presented in the summaries
and listed in the Implementation Schedule.
This table therefore represents the assess-
ment of the suggested priority projects us-
ing the evaluation criteria that are based on
the goals of the overall integrated program.
Harbor Area Resource Management Tools
These criteria include each of the beneficial
uses defined in the Harbor and Bay Element
and additional criteria to support the long-
term sustainability of the Harbor.
This evaluation provides an additional
tool that demonstrates the combined ben-
efits achieved through the integration of the
projects. As shown on the table, there are
a number of negative scores for the projects
under the single HAMP elements represent-
ed by red half circles. However, when the
suggested projects are integrated, the over-
all scores result in a positive score for each
of the beneficial use criteria.
Integration of the HAMP element projects re-
sults in a combined score that is positive to all
the criteria based on beneficial uses. The inte-
grated RAMP strategy therefore results in an
overall balance of beneficial uses in accordance
with the mission statement.
The overall outcome of the HAMP is illustrated by
the figures on the following page.
These figures provide the framework for current
and future planning to meet beneficial use goals.
p.92 Integrated Project Scoring Table
p-93 Implementation Strategy Schedule
and Cost Estimates
The HAMP provides a framezuork for the devel-
opment and integration of specific project plans
and designs that address the challenges out-
lined and linked in this document. The HAMP
will therefore be updated through these project
plans that will include more recent data, polices
and regulatory requirements. It was the Har-
bor Commission's intent to use the HAMP as a
launching pad for the specific projects that ad-
dress the outlined challenges, and to use avail-
able resources on the implementation of these
projects rather than focusing on continual up-
dates to specific issues in this document.
Integrated Project Scoring Table: Project Assessment and Integrated Benefit
1 = Activities proposed 5 = Activities proposed
�� for the element are the for the element are the
effective at meeting LEAST effective at ineeting
the beneficial usegoal 1 2 3 4 5 the beneficial use goaI
Beneficial Use Criteria
cd
=
r
tz
4'
•}. v
C j
O p
C
U
p L
p
3U
'�
C
u
i.
a
cn W
3G
Gc
xc a
vP- ¢
L)
u
On
�
Z
C
'
Dredging
Require-
ments/
O
O
4
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
USediment
Eelgrass
0
0
0
0
0®
®®
0
0
0.
d
yReplenish-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0®
0
0
O
4.
ment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C1
izi
�
_
Channel/
Picrad
Hc,hea
O
O
®
0
®
0
O
O
O
O
Lines
Hydro-
dynamic
dynamic
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C1
Models
U
Regional
General
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Permit
Sea Level
Rise
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Control
tv
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Control
Upper
WP °rt
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
0
Bay
Comibned
i
Bene t o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Approach
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
1 = Activities proposed 5 = Activities proposed
�� for the element are the for the element are the
effective at meeting LEAST effective at ineeting
the beneficial usegoal 1 2 3 4 5 the beneficial use goaI
Implementation Schedule
Dredging
Require -
tom— i menu,/
Sediment
�lr Eelgrass
I� Beach
Replenish-
ment
P f]
Short -Term Mid -Term
Dredge Material Mgt. Plan Rho,CharreclRemediation
• •Crean Disposal Evaluation
SedimentS stainabili Plan :
4 ................• ••.•, 1 .........
• Dredging of federa± channels
D,
.4.. .r........ .
Habitat Value Assessment
Eelgrass Capacitv Assessment : •
Beach
BMP Strategic Plan Phase I BW Imp:
Implementation with IRCWMP Pori
TMDL lml
6LmeAciusianemPlan
Lure Ados4nent-
1� Hydro-
dynamic
Models
\� APS
Flood
Sea Level
Rise and
Flood
Control
Revie4✓
ea4 Erosion Control
it6n. `se
.... .... ......
Review
Develop 31)
Calibrate Hl
Revise RGP
• •.. • • •. Sampling Plan Templa e
Measures
nt- IgNplement3l
ric Model
Mn,14
• • . imnlum,
i
Long -Term
al
on
mplementation:
;o Creek Water4
Estimated Cost
Ongoing
Variable at this time
Ongoing
Ongoing
Variable at this time
Variable at this time
$60K
Funded
$150K
$50K
$3 -5M
$75K
Covered un er
existing bu get
$150K
$500K -$4M
$80K
Variable (1)(2)
$26M (1)(2)
Variable (1)(2)
$60K
$50K
$50K
$250K
$500K
Covered Under
Related Projects
$150K
$15K
Not Assessed
L pper Bay Dredging of lohne Basins & C orals
$13M(3), $25M(4)
Upper Bay Sedimentation Data Ga a $60K
_ Sedim :.....sedimentT ===g $60K
Conte :.....irzewMr I atershed Sediment Control Projects Variable (1)
TMDL trip rinentation & Monitoring - tipper Bay /San Di ego Creek Vgatershed Variable (1)
IRCWMP Appliaahon5ubmitted
F. IRCWMP estoration Projects
Upper IRCWMP Funding $45M(1)
Newport Approval : Draft Upper Bap Firs] Upper Bay
Bat • • • • • • •
Management Plan ..... Management Plan $150K
J Big Canyon Design
&Implement Big Canyon estorationProject - Implementation : $5M(2)
(1) Prop SO IRWU Fmdwg (Variable sources but requires partial City match) (3) Lor11 9rme
Beneficial Use Criteria (2)Pol,uhalShu,,rdFM ... I Grmet Rmdiog(Variable sources but requires partial Cihy uratdr) (4)Fedeot Flmds
93
Introduction
An important part of any management plan
is the issue of funding. Many projects and
programs have been identified in this plan
and are at various stages of implementation.
This section is intended to begin the pro-
cess of describing existing funding sources
to implement these activities, to point out
the potential cost savings of implementing
integrated projects and activities rather than
single - purpose projects, and to identify next
steps and a strategy for creating and attract-
ing additional funding needed to complete
these tasks.
Significant financial resources will be needed
to implement the HAMP, and there are cur-
rently limited fund sources for this purpose.
As discussed in this section, conceptual cost
estimates have been developed for the pri-
ority elements/ projects which suggest over
$100 million would be required to complete
these projects. Additionally, there are cur-
rently no estimates for additional projects
that will need to be implemented to fully
achieve the objectives and goals identified in
the HAMP. A future task will be to identify
measurable metrics that define success for
each of these goals, and then a set of projects
that will achieve these metrics, and cost esti-
mates for these projects.
It is clear that existing local revenue sources
will not be sufficient to fund either the pri-
ority projects or the expected future projects
Funding
ICI
that need to be achieved. The local stake-
holders have acknowledged that additional
funding sources are needed, and these will
likely be a combination of local, state, and
federal sources. Following is a table summa-
rizing the existing funding sources expected
for the priority projects as well as discus-
sion of the major activities needed to assure
a comprehensive funding plan is developed
and implemented in support of future fund-
ing.
Local Funding Strategy
The Harbor Commission has indicated that
local funding measures (e.g. harbor use fee
and local sales tax) should be considered as
a part of their overall strategy to develop the
appropriate revenue to implement prior-
ity elements and projects identified in this
plan. This potential funding source may be
used toward non - federally funded dredging
costs.
Possible next steps in developing the local
funding plan may include:
• Evaluate current federal, state and local
sources of funding for Channel Mainte-
nance, Flood Control, Berthing Manage-
ment, Water Quality, Marine Resource
Protection (ASBS), and Habitat Protection/
Improvement, and determine funding gaps.
G._J:_.-
Potential Funding Sources
• Evaluate feasibility of implementing a
local funding measure.
• Evaluate potential for state and federal
partners and grant funding opportunities
so that an estimate of the required local
share of funding can be developed.
• Identify and rank potential local funding
alternatives.
• Prepare draft local funding plan.
• Identify key local stakeholders.
• Meet with stakeholders to promote fund-
ing plan and partnerships.
E,, -,a; --
• Compile feedback from stakeholders and
revise funding plan based on stakeholders'
input.
• Develop education and outreach cam-
paign to educate the public on the HAMP
targets, the need for infrastructure to
achieve the targets, the need for additional
local revenue, etc.
• Implement Local Funding Plan.
• Refine Local Funding Plan as needed.
Sources
Expected
Targeted Beneficiaries
Contribution
Local
• Harbor usefee
Region's residents, environ-
• Local sales tax
ment, and economy.
• Utility fee or benefit assessment based on use of the
property
• Utility fee or benefit assessment based on total area
High
and impervious area
(50% -100 %)
• Gasolinefee
• Water sales
• Parcel fee
• General Obligation Bond
State
• Competitive grants
Statewide environment and
• Appropriations
Moderate
economy.
(10 -50 %)
• State -wide assessments
Federal
• Appropriations
Navigable waterway under
• Competitive grants
federal jurisdiction -
• Stimulus Block or Resource Grants
Moderate-
ranks high in priority for
High
federalfemding.
(10 -80 + 010)
Areas of national environ-
mental or economic signifi-
cance.
g
• Individual and corporate donors
Low - Moderate
Particular communities
• ConservancyToundations and other non - profit orga-
n
(10%)
or targeted interests in the
nizations
region.
• Evaluate feasibility of implementing a
local funding measure.
• Evaluate potential for state and federal
partners and grant funding opportunities
so that an estimate of the required local
share of funding can be developed.
• Identify and rank potential local funding
alternatives.
• Prepare draft local funding plan.
• Identify key local stakeholders.
• Meet with stakeholders to promote fund-
ing plan and partnerships.
E,, -,a; --
• Compile feedback from stakeholders and
revise funding plan based on stakeholders'
input.
• Develop education and outreach cam-
paign to educate the public on the HAMP
targets, the need for infrastructure to
achieve the targets, the need for additional
local revenue, etc.
• Implement Local Funding Plan.
• Refine Local Funding Plan as needed.
State Funding Strategy
Voters of the State of California have passed
a number of statewide water and watershed
funding measures in the past several years,
including propositions 12, 13, 40, and 50.
Proposition 84 was approved in November
2006 and also provides opportunities to fund
specific HAMP projects. Approximately
$114 million is dedicated to the Santa Ana
Funding Area, which includes Newport Bay.
The HAMP is an integral component of the
Central Orange County Integrated Regional
and Coastal Watershed Management Plan
( IRCWMP), and projects within the HAMP
are therefore consistent with that plan and
eligible for Proposition 84 funds. The local
stakeholders have acknowledged that fu-
ture statewide funding may play a signifi-
cant role in implementing priority projects
identified in this HAMP.
The followingactions have been implemented
within a state funding strategy:
• The Round 2 Proposition 50 application
was submitted in December 2007 for the Or-
ange County Central Watershed Manage-
ment Area (which includes Newport Bay
and the City of Newport). Unfortunately the
application was scored just below the appli-
cations that were requested to submit Round
2 applications. The next steps should include
meeting with the state selection board and
obtaining feedback on the application.
• An application under Proposition 84 grant
funding specific to ASBS was submitted in
August 2008. The application was ranked
number 3 and is positioned to receive grant
funding pending available state resources.
The projects included in this application in-
clude water quality projects in the Harbor.
Possible next steps in developing the state
finding plan may include:
• Evaluate and apply for existing state fund-
ing opportunities under Proposition 84.
• Follow up on existing grant application sub-
mitted for Proposition 50, and find out what
is needed to obtain a higher score to compete
with available funds.
• Consider other chapters of Proposition 50
and their applicability to RAMP implementa-
tion.
• Evaluate other statewide funding oppor-
tunities, including Bay -Delta watershed pro-
gram grants.
• Coordinate with other regional stakehold-
ers who are implementing the IRCWMP and
an integrated strategy for implementing Prop-
osition 84 funds within the Orange County
Central Watershed Management Area.
• Participate in crafting and /or providing
leadership of future statewide funding mea-
sures.
• Participate in statewide discussions re-
garding the scope and projects to be funded
in Proposition 84, as well as the appropriate
distribution of funds statewide.
• Identify appropriate representatives to par-
ticipate in discussions within the IRCWMP
on development and interpretation of the lan-
guage in any draft or final funding measures.
• Identify key statewide stakeholders.
• Meet with stakeholders to promote state
funding plan and partnerships.
• Compile feedback from stakeholders and
revise funding plan based on stakeholders'
input.
G._J:
• Implement Funding Plan.
• Refine Funding Plan as needed.
Federal Funding Strategy
The ability of USACE to dredge the federal
channels has been limited by federal fund-
ing. Currently, efforts are underway to seek
funding to bring all federal channels to de-
sign depths. To incentivise USACE, the City
has taken an active role in pursuing federal
appropriations.
Possible next steps in developing the federal
funding plan may include:
• Develop a list of opportunities to leverage
local funding for the design and construc-
tion of HAMP projects through partnerships
with federal agencies.
• Identify specific existing federal programs
with the ability to share funding for the de-
sign and /or construction of single /multi-
purpose facilities to achieve progress with
HAMP objectives and IRCWMP objectives.
• Identify ongoing joint local and federal
investigations that could accelerate the fu-
ture commitment of federal funds.
• Redefine existing federal investigations
that would provide federal funding for con-
tinuing stages of watershed planning in 2009
and beyond.
• Summarize the various federal oppor-
tunities enumerating their pros and cons
and recommending those best suited to the
HAMP objectives.
• Describe the actions/ timelines under ex-
isting programs to initiate new local part-
nerships to secure federal contributions for
the design and /or construction of new fa-
cilities.
E,, -,a; --
• Determine appropriate agencies that
could act as the local cost - sharing sponsor
for new federal studies/ projects.
Current Funding Activities
• An application under a NOAA
Restoration grant program was submitted
in April 2009. These are monies provided
under the federal stimulus package. The
projects under this application include
restoration projects in the upper and lower
Harbor and along the coast, as shown in
Figure 1.
Funding to Further the HAMP
Program
In addition to the funding of capital proj-
ects and improvements described above, it
is clear that additional planning is needed
to refine projects that have been identified
in the HAMP. Additional planning is also
needed to develop fully integrated sets of
projects and a comprehensive vision for the
Harbor and the watershed over the next 20
years which will ultimately achieve (yet to
be defined) measurable watershed planning
targets.
To fund additional detailed RAMP proj-
ects, several funding options may be pos-
sible:
• Contribution from local sources (e.g.,
local stakeholders with a vested interest in
the HAMP objectives).
• Grant from state funds (e.g., planning
funding from Proposition 50 and/or Propo-
sition 84, or future water quality funding
measures).
• Legislative appropriation.
• Federal funds (e.g., via USACE participa-
tion or through stimulus monies).
a
0
v
t
o,
c
0
a
c
a
0
a
a
2
3 �
o
� a
a o_
y
v a
a =
a
v �
t
... a
c o
a
v o
0
Q C
G Q
O Q
aZ
o v
�s
0 v 3
a�
a v
va
rn�
� a