Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-09 Minutes�F,W PpRT �� n City of Newport Beach Coastal/Bay Water Quality Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes DATE: 11/12/09 TIME: 3:00 P.M. LOCATION: Fire Conference Room 1. Welcome/Self Introductions Committee Members: Chairwoman/Council Member Nancy Gardner Dennis Baker George Drayton Tom Houston Janet Rappaport Randy Seton Guests: Steve Gruber, Weston Solutions Alan Murphy, JWA, Director David Pohl, Weston Solutions Maria Pope, JWA, Environmental Engineer Mark Sites Jack & Nancy Skinner City or County Staff: Bob Stein, Assistant City Engineer John Kappeler, Code & Water Quality Enforcement Manager Shane Burckle, Water Conservation Coordinator Shannon Levin, Harbor Resources Supervisor Shirley Oborny, Administrative Assistant 2. Approval of Previous Meeting's Minutes The minutes from the August 13 and September 10, 2009, meetings were approved. 3. Old Business (a) Bay and Ocean Bacteriological Test Results Mr. Kappeler reviewed the latest bacti reports. 4. New Business (a) Areas of Biological Significance (ASBS) Program Update Mr. Stein explained that in 2004 the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) sent a letter to the City asking it to cease and desist any pollutant discharges into any ASBS's. We engaged in a program with Weston Solutions to determine whether the City really had a problem. The City requested the SWRCB set reasonable numerical 1 limitations. Mr. Pohl provided a PowerPoint presentation (attached). He reviewed the results from studies done over the last three or four years. He said there are two ASBSs in Newport Beach, the Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge and the Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge. In addition, Heisler Park in Laguna Beach was included in the study. He explained how the ASBS regulations are challenging because there are a lot of different types of usages, habitats and influences on the health of these areas. He discussed the results of the studies of various impacts. He said the good news is the results of the studies shows there wasn't a toxic effect on the species with the ASBS. A discussion ensued about the Rockweed restoration project that was discussed at a previous meeting. In summary, Mr. Pohl said when the data was collected from all the various studies: dry weather, wet weather, toxicity, bioaccumulation, biological surveys, and land use surveys, they were able to look at what the level of impact was into the ASBS. The approach made a significant influence on how the State is looking at ASBSs overall. Under Mr. Stein's leadership they are looking at not just water quality but also the biology. They are looking at not just inputs from the municipal storm sewer but also public access and public use as well. Mr. Pohl said the impact metric summary shows a level of impact range. Public use is the biggest issue and the largest impact associated with the ASBS. Mr. Stein added that initially the State wanted the City to put funds into fixing the problems of contributions from the homes into the beach area. Instead, this analysis shows that the docent program needs to be expanded to keep people off the rocks because the water quality is not really the problem after all. The City is working with Ms. Levin to hopefully expand that program with grant funds. Mr. Gruber talked about the next phase of the ASBS monitoring they did to comply with some regional sampling designed by SWRCB and SCCWRP. He said they looked at Buck Gully and at storm drain #18, which was 500' further south. The goal was to compare the ocean water quality before and after three storm events. In general, the results were that the ASBSs are fairly well -protected. The committee also talked about how the 'natural water quality" standard was in the process of being defined by using various reference points along the coast. Mr. Seton asked if it's a problem that some of the ASBS areas are on the 303(d) list. Mr. Pohl said the lists are different because there are different regulatory pathways. The 303(d) list was; however, considered in the studies. (b) Sea Lions in Newport Harbor Ms. Levin gave a PowerPoint presentation (attached). She talked about Harbor Resources' efforts to keep the sea lions out of the harbor which includes educating vessel owners on techniques to keep sea lions off their boats and reminding commercial 2 businesses to let their renters know they are not allowed to feed sea lions. Mr. Houston said he doesn't like the idea that the boat owner has the responsibility of trying to prevent this kind of abuse to his or her vessel. The snow fencing is an eyesore. Mr. Baker said he's seen some vessel owners place resin chairs on their boats, which is a simple and economical way to deter the sea lions. He also suggested raising the mooring charges to hire more staff to usher them out. Mr. Sites said Tony Mellum, former Harbor Resources Manager, had the same problem several years ago and when the Harbor Patrol became involved, the sea lions disappeared. Ms. Levin said she will find out whether cattle prods are an acceptable method of deterrence of the sea lions. (c) John Wayne Airport (JWA) Water Quality Report Mr. Murphy said they were invited to this meeting to talk about how the airport handles its water runoff. He said the water is discharged through the Delhi Channel and the airport is regulated by the Orange County's MS4 Permit as well as a general industrial permit. The general industrial permit covers the area where aircraft operate. He provided a PowerPoint presentation (attached). In response to Mr. Houston, Mr. Murphy said the high point of the airport is in the middle of the airport. Mr. Murphy explained that under the general industrial permit, which is regulated by the SWRCB, the airport is not allowed to discharge any water from the airport unless it's storm water. He talked extensively about the two 25,000-gallon and two 50,000-gallon oil water separator tanks. They're in place in case of an emergency spill. He talked about the monitoring requirements, inspections, training of personnel, procedures for spills, ramp and runway cleaning, street sweeping, etc. The committee praised the airport for its efforts. 5. Public Comments on Non -Agenda Items Mr. Skinner said Mr. Kappeler would be doing another gutter test to determine for how long a street sweeping reduces the bacterial levels. 6. Topics for Future Agendas (a) Update on Integrated Watershed Planning Efforts (b) NPDES Annual Water Quality Report (c) Boats US — Not all Boat Suds are Created Equal (d) Bacteriological Dry — Weather Runoff Gutter Study (Phase III) 7. Set Next Meeting Date The next meeting was set for December 10, 2009. S. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 3 i Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) Protection and Restoration Program New-p a ssessm P A B.,�� ,IIJ D avid ASBS O"verview ' designated as • recognizes because of their i ,ommunities, ,Icial that consists of protection pre of natural water conditio-� I'e quality S R edweoes Na❑enal Paik Areas of Special Biological Significance 8 Region 1 S. Kelp Be da at Jrinldad Heat and 6 7.Kings Range NatlonalConservatlenAma State Water Resources Control Board Regions 1,P m ForestEcelo kcal Staircase 22 5.. i%, Beds Saunders Reef 2. Del Mar Landing and Eccloglcal Reserve = Monitoring Site 3. Gerstie Cove 7 4, Rnd ego Marine Life R eftp 14. Bild Rock 12. Pclnl Rey es Headland Reserve and Extensions 1 3. Dcuble Point ReglOn55 7.DuxburyRe,IReae1Vean1EA... ien rJ210, Farallon Islands 3 a. James U. FRz erald Marine Reserve 1 Z13 5 Alto Nuevo P—tand ]stand 18. P—ifia Grave Gardens Fish Refuge and Hopkins Marine Life Refuge 10• 11 34 C. el Ray 18_ Point Lobos Ecnlo ginal Reserve 9 18. JUIIa PfeiMet Burns B nderwater Park Region 2 1.� 20. 0nean Area Buno undin the Maulh of Balm an Cre al: 17 San Mi uel, Santa Rosa, and 6a nta Cruz Islands 19 34 24 Mu a La — m Lati o Paint 16 22. Santa Barbara Island. Santa Barbara County and Anacapa Island 8 32. New Drt Beach Marine Life Reiu e 20 33. livine Coast Marine Lite Refuge Region6 3C. Hels le r P ark E c e legica l R .so rve Region 3 25. Santa Catalina Iz: Subarea 1, Isthmus Cevetc Catalina Head 2B. SantaCatalina ha. Subarea2, N orth End of Little Harbor to Ben W eat_Poi't 21. San Nioolas Island a,d Bego Rock 17 27. Santa Catalina Is: Su 6a rea 3, Farnsworth Bank ♦,��� 24 Region 7 28. Santa Catalina k: Suba rea 4, Blnna c6e RoeN to Jewfish Pi 23. Sort C le—te Island Region 2 28. San Diego -La Je lla Ecological Reserve 21 26� 28 31. $an D ieya Marine Life Refuge Region 8 23 u 1 Region 9 ASBS Habitats Kings Range ASBS.#7. Mixed sand and rocky coast Irvine Coast ASBS #33 mmmm� -S�t-,. JJ- W-EFF Santa Cruz Islan(L-A$BS #17 Photos: www.swrcb.ca.gov WFST ASBS Regulatory Overview Both anthropogenic discharges and outlets (natural gullies, perennial and ephemeral streams) discharge to ASBS NPDES permits set numerical limits for effluent discharging from MS4 system to non-ASBS coastal areas ❖ California Ocean Plan (COP) prohibits waste discharge into ASBS to ensure maintenance of "natural water quality conditions" ❖ 1,172 discharges that empty directly into the 14 southern California ASBS have been identified'; 70% of which were anthropogenic discharges 1 Southern California Coastal Research Project (SCCWRP) 2003 T�1 "�7so,os Anthropogenic Discharge Types High Threat •Municipal storm water •Transportation •Construction and industrial storm water Medium Threat • Small storm drains •Nonpoint sources from individual properties Low Threat *Sea wall weep holes •Drainage from individual homes or neighborhoods •Access stairways from individual homes WFST�1 • r�5 Cross contamination Other Sources of Impacts to ASBS Habitats and Marine Life Natural disturbance Photo: Indiana Geological Survey MS=Tn! City of Newport Beach ASBS Protection and Restoration Program Assessment of Water Quality and Pollutant Loading of Coastal Canyons to ASBS —Dry and Wet Weather — Phase I Development of Water Quality Model to assess Cross Contamination Impact Public Impact Study —Year long assessment Biological Studies — Bioaccumulation, Toxicity and Community Surveys Restoration Pilot Projects Development of Impact Metric using results of studies MST�1 The Newport Coast... A case study of ASBS impact sources f Cross contamination Upper Newport Bay CCA CCA #69 4 � Newport Beach 13 Marine Life Refuge ''� ASBS #32 Public Use- 1- 4 BHeisler Park Ecological Reserve e Coast ASBS 43D ...ae Life Refuge A--- ,, � Physical forces WFST�1 Impact Metric: Evaluating Impacts to ASBS Identify Potential Impact Choose Impact Indicators) Calculate Ecological Relevance Measure Impact Effects of Impact WFST�1 w h eat e �/ :.. tA: 100 3 80 ww— S a 8 3 60 j J Water Quality Objective Dissolved Cadmium ` I M I L I J\ M C �y p p � v) ci 40 (CTR CCC) = 6.22 ugIL r J 20 Ab ova' O.bje'cJr_jk/e tm' 1 0 BGO 8G1 MCD MCU PPi PPM LTU MCC I EMO EMD EMU Buck Gully Morning Canyon Los Trsncos El Mono Creek Pelican Polnt Watersheds Muddy Creek 0 let Dry (9.27.05) 1112nd Dry (2.13.06) Mussel Bioaccumulation Study Study to identify bloaccumulation of contaminants of concern in mussel tissue F Mussels transplanted into 4 locations Exposed for 3 and 6 months Bioaccumulation Results • PAHs, 4'4-DDE, metals detected • No detectable PCBs, pyrethroids, mercury, or OP pesticides • No evident patterns related to time or distance relative to Buck Gully or Newport Harbor • Mussel development toxicity tests indicate similar sensitivity to copper exposure in lab experiments WFST�1 Newport Coast Measuring ASBS impacts 1W1- T 9 Toxicity studies LCOE W e e�a w r D'Irvine Coast 010 Marine Life Refuge ASBS #33 Image 0 2005 01glIalGlobe BHeisler Park Ecological Reserve ASBS #30 WFST�1 ASBS Toxicity Testing Phase I Results • No Toxicity for Mysid Shrimp and Sea Urchin •Kelp Germination Reduction Phase II Results No Effect on Kell Germination Modified Tests WFST�1 ti k . M'" I - .k - Tj LI Normal Growth of Kelp During Storm Event • Ke V1V31 was not o . impacted by effluent - W goo -- 75 • Growth was laml e g' y ° t� � 50 . w w r�Al impacted by ,7i: ` _ C 25 lot sediments W= 3 0 0 J • Protocol does nor facilitate detection'...:� of chemical effects Legend 6u 1Oui I PMb Ed1� ir�L Storm runoff Mixing Zone Edge of Mixing Zone ■ Standard Methods ® Removal of sands ` IRV. ' w - � Newport Coast Measuring ASBS impacts Current dynw;V A �ss_�_� &I , - v Cross contamination Upper ewport Bay CCA CCA #69 4 Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge ASBS #32 WFST�1 Development of Water Quality Model to assess Cross Contamination Impact 0 Current Dynamics offshore of Newport Beach ■ Harbor plumes extend throughout ASB S Verification of modeling assumptions for Newport Harbor discharges currently being evaluated MST�1 Intertidal Surveys yam-' � 4 � � �'e� �►' �e'i: "•�-'�-r►.. - �' _ ?! - a f ' ,f s utertidal surveys •� wr 11 �� BHeisler Park Ecological Reserve ravine Coas ASBS #30 Marine Life *ASBS #33 Physical forces Image 0 20a5 C�igil:_-: - WFST�1 r Heisler Park site in Laguna Beach 4, Corona Del Mar site in Newport Beach Intertidal Surveys WFST�1 0 Restoration Pilot Projects Current trend for ASBS: Large to mid -sized, fleshy algae are decreasing while smaller turf -forming macrophytes are increasing Pilot Restoration: Silvetia compressa Two restoration techniques attempted: Seeding Juvenile transplantation ■ Treatments: Herbivore exclusion Simulated canopies ■ Large storms in 2007 wiped out restoration experiments Restoration Site MST�1 inn 12 'e ' 80 60 D CORONA DEL MAR MORNING CANYON SITES ❑ SAi ❑ SN ❑ Lfii ❑ LN j Newport Coast Measurin ASBS impacts 7 a - 7N, Public UseE� Ad Upper Newport Bay CCA Irwi\nja CCA #G9 BMarin ASKS # Newport Beach - - - ■ ■ Marine Life Refuge Image 0 2005 ■ ASBS #32 WFST�1 Weekday and Weekend Public Use in the Tidepools, January 2007-January 2008 Mean and 96% Confidence Intervals. N=50 surveys, 10 replicates per survey per site. 25.0 20 0 1 -4 `o r 0 m 15.0 2 ❑ Little Corona E ■ Morning Canyon C ❑ Crystal Cove IL 11.0 ❑ Heisler Park a) 0 10.0 a 83 C `m E 54 z 5.0 36 14 0.4 0.0 -------� Weekdays Weekends Tidepool Walking/Trampling and SittinglStanding Behaviors January 2007-January 2008 mparison of Yeariy Mean Values and 95 % Confidence Intervals Morning Canyon Purpose of an Impact Metric Develop measures to assess the magnitude of effect for all types of impacts to ASBS Use indicator species to detect effects of different impact types Utilize species -specific metrics to assess the biological effect of impact types Develop a prioritized list of impacts that affect organisms or habitats in ASBS Construct a scale to measure effects of management actions on impacts to ASBS MST�1 Potential Impacts Public Use Watershed/ Dry -Weather Flow L Cross - Contamination Environmental/ Physical ig Impact Metric ImpactType Prioritized Actions to Address High Level Impacts Protect and Restore ` ASBS Water Quality Cross Seasonal/ Indicator •Environmental Effects Mussel Mytilus kzaI131:3" spp. Macrocystis °'� 1 _ i' Rockweed Silvetia spp. K7r Sea stars Asteroidea • Lottia spp. `� 0 Green algae Ulva 113 spp. _ Brown algae Endocladia x`'`� ` � K:3 Species ' ', ', • • abundance Species diversity , • • • Tpt transferer ® , • potential Temperature ® • Beach wrack • , Overall Grade WFST�1 Impact Impact Indicator Current Cateaory Tvae I Effect I Grade Recommendation I Improvement I Grade I Estimated Effect Improvement Cost Reduced Employ Tier I and Tier II Increase key Wet Weather Flow Elevated sediment loads recruitment of key algae species and • pollution prevention species O $200k originating from Buck Gully reduction in habitat measures to reduce abundance and quality sediment loads habitat complexity Dry Weather Flow Chronic dry weather Increased abundance of Employ Tier I runoff reduction programs to Increased local intertidal species $900k freshwater flows green algae reduce flow diversity species Increased Dry Weather Flow Chronic dry weather background Employ Tier II detention Reduction in ® $300k freshwater flows bacterial basin bacterial loading concentrations Public Use M Trampling Mechanical damage to Reduction in percent cover 4 Increase tidepool Increased cover of Silvetia ® $100k Silvetia compressa (compared to enforcement program reference site) compressa Cross Contamination M Employ Tier I, 11, 111 Reduced metal Tidal Flow from Metals accumulation sig. higher at offshore site when Reduction in fitness (evaluated against ® upstream pollution bioaccumulation and increased OLower $600k+ Newport Bay prevention/treatment compared to Buck Gulley ERED database) fitness of indicator programs species Reduced metal Dry Weather Flow Metals accumulation sig. higher at Buck Gulley when Reduction in fitness (evaluated against • Treatment BMP to reduce copper loads by bioaccumulation and increased $500K compared to offshore site ERED database) 50% fitness of indicator species Impact Metric Summary ❖ Metric incorporates various types of impacts and assigns indicator(s) to assess each impact ❖ Indicator performance studied using ecologically relevant and sound scientific data collection methods ❖ `Grades' based on experimental controls and/or established scientific literature ❖ Priority recommendations based on weight -of - evidence for all indicators MST�1 Impact Metric INDICATORS Water Quality Cross Contamination Public Use Environmental/P hysical Wet Dry Water Chemistry X X X Bioaccumulation X X X Toxicity X Ulva (green alga) X Open Substrate X X X X Surf Grass X X X X Fleshy Algae X X Sea Stars X X Mussel Beds X X Limpets X X Species Diversity X X X X X WFST�1 No Observed Impact OR < 1 O Positive Effect >1<2 O Impact Present but Extent > 1 < 2 O Unclear > 3 < 4 O Suspected Negative Impact > 4 O I Water Quality- Bioaccumulation Toxicity Water Quality Bioaccumulation Toxicity Harbor Cross Contamination Shoreline Fishing/Consumption Treadling Capture/Handling Habitat Restoration • ASBS Regional Program Preliminary Results — SCCWRP • 33 Samples Collected at ASBS throughout CA Samples Collected Pre -Storm and Post Storm (24 hrs) Approximately half of the ASBS Shoreline Represented ■ 7 Samples in SoCal Samples Collected Near and Outside (500m) Outfalls MST�1 ASBS Regional Program Preliminary Results — SCCWRP 50% of Shoreline Exceeded Ocean Plan Objective for Chromium 61 % of samples near discharge exceeded 35% non -discharge exceeded 87% of Shoreline Exceeded for PAHs 85% near discharge exceeded 89% non -discharge exceeded 24% of Shoreline near Discharge — Nickel WFST�1 ASBS Regional Program Preliminary Results — SCCWRP ■ Toxicity Testing for Sea Urchin Conducted at Sampling Point >5% Indicated Toxicity Next Phase is Defining "Natural Water Quality" MST�1 Newport Coast ASBS Regional Monitoring Objective: Compare concentrations of constituents in ocean receiving water to "natural water quality" Two Discharges to Little Corona Del Mar Tide Pools: 1. Buck Gully and 2. Storm Drain NEW018 •Compare ocean water quality before and after three storm events ,,Compare toxicity after three storm events WFST�1 OMI 4w 16 ;s..�41� 4 f ,Irk Results "Natural Water Quality" not yet defined by SWRCB, California Ocean Plan (COP) standards were used for comparison 1. Analyzed for sediments (TSS and turbidity), nutrients, metals, pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, and Toxicity 2. Concentrations in Pre -storm and Post -storm samples fro both sites were below COP standards (except for chromium at NEW018 during one storm). 3. No toxicity found in any sample WFST�1 PLAN HIGHLIGHTS '•t City of Newport Beach MO NewportBlvd Newport Beach. CA92663 QC obtr2007 WW(M Implem en ta tion of the IC WMP Prioritized to Address Impacts What are we doing right now? ■ Erosion Controls and Habitat Enhancement in Buck Gully Runoff Reduction Program Public Outreach — Expanded Docent Program ■ Pilot Rocky Inter -tidal Restoration Project — Cal State Fullerton WFST�1 Incentive Program for Smart Irrigation System, and Drought 7o1eront Londuopinp Sioengineered Removal of Invasive, - Stabilized Bonk of Fire Protection with Native Approaches and Vegetation Native Vegetation �dI fvapolrvnspiration j W community Pitoi Sediment ! Removal e n so�dl ne D Yf Otnreach Kiosk Device/fIMP Dry Weather/ , Law flow Lined Trvil Edueofion/ No -Smoking 11 Biorefenfion /irev - l - - , Stabilized v)Ph Nature Trail N - ■ a ■ tsw t•ip hatlevmenl _ 1 ., rre I Riparian Carrrdor Habitof R-torolion/ Enhancement !lT TT-7 0 P-VT1114LT0'