HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - White Sea Bass HatcheryCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 21
January 24, 2006 .
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office / Harbor Resources Division
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, (949) 644 -3002
dkiffr7a.city, newport- beach.ca.us
Harbor Resources Division (City Manager's Office)
Chris Miller, (949) 644 -3043
cmiller@citv.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: White Sea Bass Hatchery — Issuance of New Permit with
Conditions and Movement of the Facility
ISSUE:
As advised by the Harbor Commission, Harbor Resources cancelled the existing
permit for mooring #A -174. A -174 is occupied by the Balboa Angling Club. The
Club manages the White Sea Bass Hatchery. Subsequently, the Harbor
Commission reviewed a proposed new permit with conditions and has
recommended the Council consider and approve the permit at one of two
locations in the "A" mooring field.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve a proposed new mooring permit (with special conditions) for the
Balboa Angling Club to operate the White Sea Bass Hatchery in Newport
Harbor: and
2. Select from the following two locations for the Hatchery:
• Existing mooring area "A ", row 17 or;
• Relocate to the west end of mooring area "A ", row 30
BACKGROUND:
In 1993, the City Council approved the Department of Fish and Game /Hubbs Sea
World White Sea Bass Hatchery program (Facility) which was to be managed on
a local level by the Balboa Angling Club (BAC), at 200 A Street. Over the years,
the Newport Facility has raised over 30,000 white sea bass fingerlings that have
White Sea Bass Hatchery
January 24, 2006
Page 2
been released in Newport Harbor. The 12 other facilities in Southern California
have released a combined total of one million fingerlings. Success has been
monitored through a program that relies on anglers returning the sea bass heads
so they can be scanned for the metallic chip that was inserted near each
fingerling's cheek. Although a sizable number of heads have been returned, the
BAC admits that several more years of study are necessary before the true
success of the program can be definitively determined.
Council's 1993 approval was treated loosely as a Harbor Permit, though the
conditions that typically apply to a formal permit were not applied to the BAC at
the time. In the months and years that followed, various problems were
brought to our attention from neighboring residents, including 2005's noteworthy
experience with a larger number of California Sea Lions that gathered on or near
the Facility attempting to get to the fingerlings.
On October 10, 2005, after comments and advice from the Harbor Commission,
the Harbor Resources Division cancelled the permit for mooring A -174. We did
so because the hatchery was not operable and seaworthy — nor were necessary
repairs that we believed necessary completed within prescribed time frames.
Our cancellation letter encouraged the BAC to enter into a new agreement that
would provide that necessary repairs were made to keep the Facility operable,
secure and esthetically pleasing today and into the future.
Last Fall, the BAC did secure the Facility and improved its appearance by
installing a new fence, painting the rub rails and performing general
maintenance. On December 7, 2005, the BAC requested to the Harbor
Commission that a new permit with conditions be approved. After careful
review, the Harbor Commission recommended Council approval of the proposed
new mooring permit with conditions (see attached). We believe that the Council
should issue the permit instead of the Commission or staff, given that the Council
approved the previous permit in 1993.
The Commission did not, however, make a specific recommendation on whether
to move the pen's mooring to another location. This decision has been
forwarded to the City Council.
FACILITY LOCATIONS:
Two primary locations should be considered. Harbor Resources and the Harbor
Commission recommend that the Facility either remain at its present location at
mooring field "A ", row 17 or be relocated to mooring field "A ", row 30. Other sites
were also considered throughout the harbor but were deemed unacceptable for
various reasons.
In an effort to receive more input from the harbor community on the two
recommended locations, Harbor Resources sent approximately 400 letters to
White Sea Bass Hatchery
January 24, 2006
Page 3
homeowners and occupants of the bay front homes on the peninsula and on S.
Bay Front, Balboa Island. As of Wednesday, January 18, 2006, the results of the
outreach were as follows:
Hatchery should remain at mooring area "A" row 17 25
Hatchery should relocate to mooring area "A ", row 30 17
Hatchery does not belong Newport Harbor 10
Specific comments are provided in the attachments to this staff report. Although
there are several advantages and disadvantages to either location, some main
points to consider for both locations are: 1) Survivability of the sea bass is high
(proven), 2) Circulation and depth are excellent 3) Facility has been in mooring
field "A" since 1993, 4) Both locations are close to the BAC (Pavilion area)
allowing the Facility to be easily managed.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not require environmental
review.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This agenda item has been noticed according to the Ralph M Brown Act (72
hours in advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the
item).
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Chris Miller
Harbor Resources Supervisor
Da Kiff
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Mooring Permit Special Conditions
Present and Alternate Locations
Additional Public Comments
White Sea Bass Hatchery
January 24, 2006
Page 4
MOORING PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Date: January 24, 2006
To: Balboa Angling Club
Re: Special Conditions of a Mooring Permit to Operate the White Sea Bass
Enhancement Facility in Newport Harbor
I . The Pacific Hatcheries Enhancement Program White Sea Bass Pens (Facility)
shall be firmly anchored to a mooring fore and aft in such a manner to prevent
the barge from swinging, turning or drifting.
2. The weight, ground tackle, and mooring lines shall be sized per the Ordinance
2002 -18 adopted by the Newport Beach City Council.
3. At the expense of the Balboa Angling Club, the weight, ground tackle, and
mooring lines shall be lifted out of the water and inspected every two years by a
licensed marine contractor specializing in mooring maintenance and repaired as
necessary to assure it is in good condition. The contractor shall certify the
results, in writing, to the Harbor Resources Manager.
4. The mooring buoy shall be painted with the appropriate white paint above the
waterline and appropriate antifouling paint below the waterline and the numbers
allocated to the mooring by the Harbor Resources Manager, shall be painted in
black letters at least three inches in height. The letters shall be maintained in a
legible condition at all times.
5. This permit shall be an annual renewable permit that may be cancelled by
Harbor Resources Manager based on a review of the Facility's operation,
maintenance and program effectiveness. Conditions may be subject to change
upon permit annual renewal.
6. The basis for the program effectiveness determination is as follows: if no white
sea bass are raised in the rearing pens during any consecutive six month period,
then the mooring permit may be cancelled prior to the next anniversary of the
permit.
7. The basis for the operation and maintenance determination will be as follows:
(a) the permittee must keep a log of weekly physical inspections of the Facility
to determine if there has been any sea Zion haulouts at the Facility; if haulouts
are noted then the log shall delineate measures taken to stop the haulouts. (b)
the permittee shall also note in the log, the results of a visual physical inspection
of each component of the Facility including but not limited to fencing, gates,
deck and fascia boards, buoys, buoy attachment lines, the raceways, raceway
covers and all equipment and boxes stored or mounted on the deck. (c) Harbor
Resources shall make periodic unannounced inspections to note effectiveness of
the operation and maintenance for the same parameters noted in 7(a) and 7(b)
above.
White Sea Bass Hatchery
January 24, 2006
Page 5
8. If sea lion haulout on the Facility has been noted by Harbor' Resources or the
Sheriffs Harbor Patrol and reported to the permittee, then the permittee shall
have 7 calendar days from the notification to implement a National Marine
Fisheries Service approved deterrent measure or re- secure the Facility to its
original condition. If within 30 calendar days of the notification, an effective
deterrent measure is not installed or the Facility is not re- secured to its original
condition, then the permit shall be cancelled.
9. If, in the opinion of Harbor Resources or the Sheriffs Harbor Patrol, excessive
bird fecal matter is deposited on the Facility, then the permittee shall have 30
calendar days to present a bird deterrent management plan to Harbor Resources.
If the Harbor Resources approved bird deterrent management plan is not
implemented within 90 days of the approval notification, then the mooring
permit shall be cancelled.
10. The previous year's inspection logs and a report on the number of white sea
bass fingerlings raised and released shall be submitted to Harbor Resources for
approval by January 15th of each year. If the weekly inspection logs, the
regular use of the pens in the raising of white sea bass, or general operation of
the facility is deficient, the permit shall be cancelled by the Harbor Resources
Manager.
11. Harbor Resources may determine the most appropriate location in Newport Bay
to moor the Facility and may request the permittee to move the Facility to that
location upon annual permit renewal, at the permittee's expense.
12. The Facility shall post discreet signs on the lower portions of the perimeter
fence that state, "No vessel tie ups, other than service vessels, by order of the
City of Newport Beach."
13. The permittee shall be required to pay the normal and customary annual
mooring permit fee as adopted by the City Counsel in the annual master fee
schedule.
14. The permittee shall maintain a valid Coastal Development Permit from the
California Coastal Commission.
Tom Rossmiller, Harbor Resources Alex Samios, Balboa Angling Club, Board
Balboa Angling Club, President Balboa Angling Club, Secretary
Date Executed
White Sea Bass Hatchery
January 24, 2006
Page 6
Present and Alternate Locations
Other Locations Considered
Mooring Area "C ", West of the Fun Zone
Mooring Area "J ", Near the Lido Peninsula
Newport Blvd. Bridge
Coast Highway Bridge, Near the Nautical Museum
Upper Bay, Fish and Game Dock
Entrance Channel
White Sea Bass Hatchery
January 24, 2006
Page 7
Additional Public Comments
Pros/ Cons: If Facility Remains at Present Location, Mooring Area "A ", Row 17
1. Peninsula residents have grown tired of the view. It is not a
vessel and does not belong in the area.
2. View from Balboa Island is approximately 1,300' and does not
present a view issue.
3. The size and scale of the Facility easily blends with the
surrounding area and vessels.
Pros / Cons: If Facility Relocated to Western End of Mooring Area "A ", Row 30
1. A vessel on an existing mooring will need to be relocated to make
room for the Facility.
2. View from Balboa Island is a short distance (approximately 550').
3. The channel width is smaller. The pens would be more visible to
the peninsula and Balboa Island residents.
4. Other recreational and commercial vessels exist in other mooring
areas. Relocation of the pens may set a precedent for other
vessels to be moved.
5. Area is more inhabited by sea lions therefore the pens would be
more exposed to this "hot zone." It may also attract more birds.
6. The pens may "choke' the area because this is a narrow part of
the channel; i.e. navigation concerns and high accident site.
7. The pens will visually impact the area and decrease property
values. May affect tourism. Conflicts with revitalization effort.
8. The pens will be too close to the fuel dock and fingerlings might
be affected by fuel spills.
9. The pens would be closer to the business district.
Salmon Farm. s
Just as modern dairy, veal, and poultry farms raise animals in crowded confined spaces
that breed disease and create excessive waste, so it is for farmed salmon raised in tightly
packed pens or nets. Other fish that inhabit the same waters are suffering from an
inundation of excessive fecal matter, dead fish, and drugs. (1,2)
"A wide body of literature documents raised levels.of organic matter underneath cage
operations (Beveridge, 1996), which change the chemical and biological structure of the
sediment. Effects reported from salmon- farming include a dead zone under pens in severe
cases, surrounded by a ring of decreased animal diversity. Impacts can extend roughly
500 feet (150 in) from the site (Beveridge, 1996), although 100 feet (30 in) is amore
usual limit (EAO, 1998)."
- -Goldburg, R. et al. (2001). Marine aquaculture in the United States: Environmental,
Impacts and Policy Options. Pew Ocean Commission, p. 13.
Nutrient loading from aquaculture can be significant on a local scale. A salmon farm of
200,000 fish releases an amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal matter roughly '
equivalent to the nutrient waste in the untreated sewage from 20,000, 25,000, and 65,000
people, respectively (Hardy, 2000b)."
Goldburg, R. et al. (2001). Marine aquaculture in the United States: Environmental
Impacts.and Policy Options. Pew Ocean Commission, p. 13.
Page 1 of 1
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA ........ _
Malkemus, Cathy '06 JAN
From: Kiff, Dave ✓
Sent: Monday, January 23, 20065:22 PM OFF—" ,[ C'' +F }. CITY Ct,r( ?,
CITY GF . t'r uR ?' C
To: City Clerk's Office ENC)i
Subject: FW: Please change the staff recommendation to deny the permit to the polluting barge
For Item #21
From: Tom A [ mailto:osogrande66 @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:14 PM
To: Kiff, Dave
Cc: Bludau, Homer; Miller, Chris; Rossmiller, Tom; Ridgeway, Tod; Rosansky, Steven;
don2webb @earthlink.net; Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Nichols, Dick
Subject: Please change the staff recommendation to deny the permit to the polluting barge
I urge you to change the staff recommendation on the Pacific Fisheries Enhar
When in operation, the barge is a huge polluter. Its annual fish productior
The Balboa Angling Club would be the permit holder. In testimony before the
The barge is also the magnet for sea lions, which made their beachhead on tt
We hope you will heed the pleas of the citizens of Newport Beach, who want t
Thomas S. Ahern
1310 East Balboa Boulevard
Newport Beach
01/23/2006
Malkemus, Cathy
From: Kiff, Dave
Page 1 of 2
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:22 PM C:r F j F f?" '' I C! T Y C;.r'?
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Special Permit for Pacific Fisheries Enhancement "barge"
For Item #21
From: Brian @ Ouzounian Constructors, Inc. [ mailto:brian.oci @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:19 PM
To: Daigle, Leslie; John Heffernan; Kiff, Dave; Nichols, Dick; Ridgeway, Tod; Rosansky, Steven;
Selich, Edward; Don Webb, Mayor
Cc: Miller, Chris; Rossmiller, Tom
Subject: Special Permit for Pacific Fisheries Enhancement "barge"
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
This is to address the item on the agenda for the upcoming study session and council meeting
this Tuesday, January 24, 2006. It is to request DENIAL of the Special Permit for Pacific
Fisheries.
Our family lives at 1222 East Balboa Blvd at E Street. The residence is the closest to the
barge at issue, approximately 30 yards from it. I have been in numerous discussions with the
Harbor Patrol, Harbor Resources, Harbor Commission, and neighbors since May, 2006,
regarding its disrepair and its attraction to the sea lion problem. The follow! ing are my
comments and questions requested for your consideration as I may not be afforded time to
cover all in the sessions on Tuesday:
1. The disrepair and poor response to our /the City's request for proper repair caused the sea
lion problem to get out of hand. Such performance is cause enough for denial of the permit.
2. Due to the above, certain property damage and loss was incurred by boat owners adjacent
to the barge.
3. Due to the move -in event of the sea lions, a territory was established by the sea lions,
claiming this area of the Harbor as "their domain" and causing a boater, in a kayak, to be
overturned. Are you aware that during the tenant's rounds of attempted repairs in June, the sea
lions were observed crashing upwardly through the plywood barriers screwed down over the
barge ports to gain control of the barge?
4. Dock jumping continued after repair of the barge, as did boat jumping, causing property
damage. The public is put in danger as these creatures become more territorial, evidenced by
the kayak incident last labor day.
5. Due to the disrepair and sea lion problem, the barge has become a spectacle to party boats,
concession boats, transient boats and sight seeing vessels large and small. Every boat in
the harbor seems to come see the sea lions, bowing up to the barge, with onlookers throwing
cans, bottles, food, etc. to get the attention of the creatures for either amusement or a picture.
Floodlights are shined at night alarming them and lighting up our house like a movie set, all
01/23/2006
Page 2 of 2
of which send the sea lions into a barking rant for some time. The barking of the sea lions has
become intolerable.
6. The migration of the sea lions is habitual and they will return in numbers, remembering
their domain so, please do not say that they are gone. Consider what happens at Pier 39 in San
Francisco as 900 sea lion ha! ve taken over and 100 stick around in winter, only to be joined
by the others again in the spring. Ours will be back, claiming their territory on our boats and
docks. It appears that the release of the sea bass occurrs in the harbor at the barge; if so, it
only becomes a feed source for the sea lions.
7. The Special Permit Conditions proposed are not warranted to an owner who in the past has
demonstrated not to be a good steward of the Harbor and its resources. In fact they are written
directly in response to the owner's performance shortcomings. This writer contends that the
City will not be able to manage the Special Conditions, regardless of how stringent they are
written.
8. Why have the owners been given such grace time since May while the residents and
visitors contend with the huge disturbance of peace and pollution exposure?
9. Has the owner paid the past mooring fees or were they paid by another source / foundation
or were they exempt from those fees?
10. Has the owner paid the mooring maintenance or were they paid by another
source /foundation or were they exempt from those fees?
11. How will the City handle personal injuries to swimmers and boaters, and property
damage from the sea lions due to the presence of the barge? Will the owners indemnify the
City and losses? Is the City prepared to defend property loss and public personal injury claims
due to the cause of the barge mismanagement in the future?
12. Is the City aware that under Section 30231 of the Coastal Act "the maintenance of the
bottom of the raceway is to be vacuumed daily to remove uneaten feed and feces ...... Midi
proper hazardous waste disposal. Pollution hazards are prevalent due to overfeed materials,
feces, antibiotics, etc. introduced in the bay. The residential neighbors have yet to see
any such main! tenance performed and it certainly has not happened on a daily basis, as is the
requirement. So has our bay been constantly polluted already over the past years? Certainly
we see the fishing boats pulling fish out of the bay and we assume they eat them!
Has the City observed any operation of compliance? If not, PERMIT DENIED.
13. What oversight has the City undertaken in past years to assure that this maintenance has
.been done?
14. Has the City maintained any records of this oversight? Can the public get a copy?
15. Has the City kept records of base line water quality and periodic /current quality records?
16. Has the tenant kept records and provided them to the City? Can the public have a copy?
17. We are not fooled to think that one or two work days by the barge owners to repair the
barge will be an ongoing exercise. The residents have absolutely no assurance nor confidence
that the ba! rge operations are compatible in a residential community nor are we assured that
pollution of the bay has not occurred nor will be mitigated.
18. IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF THE BARGE FROM THE HARBOR IS REQUESTED.
PERMIT DENIED, PLEASE.
Brian H. Ouzounian
01/23/2006
Brown, Leilani
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:22 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Special Permit for Pacific Fisheries Enhancement "barge"
For Item #21
From: Brian @ Ouzounian Constructors, Inc. [mailto:brian.oci @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:19 PM
To: Daigle, Leslie; John Heffernan; Kiff, Dave; Nichols, Dick; Ridgeway, Tod; Rosansky, Steven; Selich,
Edward; Don Webb, Mayor
Cc: Miller, Chris; Rossmiller, Tom
Subject: Special Permit for Pacific Fisheries Enhancement "barge"
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
This is to address the item on the agenda for the upcoming study session and council meeting
this Tuesday, January 24, 2006. It is to request DENIAL of the Special Permit for Pacific
Fisheries.
Our family lives at 1222 East Balboa Blvd at E Street. The residence is the closest to the barge at
issue, approximately 30 yards from it. I have been in numerous discussions with the Harbor
Patrol, Harbor Resources, Harbor Commission, and neighbors since May, 2006, regarding its
disrepair and its attraction to the sea lion problem. The follow! ing are my comments and
questions requested for your consideration as I may not be afforded time to cover all in the
sessions on Tuesday:
1. The disrepair and poor response to our /the City's request for proper repair caused the sea lion
problem to get out of hand. Such performance is cause enough for denial of the permit.
2. Due to the above, certain property damage and loss was incurred by boat owners adjacent to
the barge.
3. Due to the move - in.event of the sea lions, a territory was established by the sea lions, claiming
this area of the Harbor as "their domain" and causing a boater, in a kayak, to be overturned. Are
you aware that during the tenant's rounds of attempted repairs in June, the sea lions were
observed crashing upwardly through the plywood barriers screwed down over the barge ports to
gain control of the barge?
4. Dock jumping continued after repair of the barge, as did boat jumping, causing property
damage. The public is put in danger as these creatures become more territorial, evidenced by
the kayak incident last labor day.
5. Due to the disrepair and sea lion problem, the barge has become a spectacle to party boats,
concession boats, transient boats and sight seeing vessels large and small. Every boat in
the harbor seems to come see the sea lions, bowing up to the barge, with onlookers throwing
cans, bottles, food, etc. to get the attention of the creatures for either amusement or a picture.
Floodlights are shined at night alarming them and lighting up our house like a movie set, all of
02/08/2006
which send the sea lions into a barking rant for some time. The barking of the sea lions has
become intolerable.
6. The migration of the sea lions is habitual and they will return in numbers, remembering their
domain so, please do not say that they are gone. Consider what happens at Pier 39 in San
Francisco as 900 sea lion ha! ve taken over and 100 stick around in winter, only to be joined by
the others again in the spring. Ours will be back, claiming their territory on our boats and docks.
It appears that the release of the sea bass occurrs in the harbor at the barge; if so, it only becomes
a feed source for the sea lions.
7. The Special Permit Conditions proposed are not warranted to an owner who in the past has
demonstrated not to be a good steward of the Harbor and its resources. In fact they are written
directly in response to the owner's performance shortcomings. This writer contends that the City
will not be able to manage the Special Conditions, regardless of how stringent they are written.
8. Why have the owners been given such grace time since May while the residents and visitors
contend with the huge disturbance of peace and pollution exposure?
9. Has the owner paid the past mooring fees or were they paid by another source / foundation or
were they exempt from those fees?
10. Has the owner paid the mooring maintenance or were they paid by another
source /foundation or were they exempt from those fees?
11. How will the City handle personal injuries to swimmers and boaters, and property
damage from the sea lions due to the presence of the barge? Will the owners indemnify the City
and losses? Is the City prepared to defend property loss and public personal injury claims due to
the cause of the barge mismanagement in the future?
12. Is the City aware that under Section 30231 of the Coastal Act "the maintenance of the bottom
of the raceway is to be vacuumed daily to remove uneaten feed and feces ...... with proper
hazardous waste disposal. Pollution hazards are prevalent due to overfeed materials, feces,
antibiotics, etc. introduced in the bay. The residential neighbors have yet to see any such main!
tenance performed and it certainly has not happened on a daily basis, as is the requirement. So
has our bay been constantly polluted already over the past years? Certainly we see the fishing
boats pulling fish out of the bay and we assume they eat them!
Has the City observed any operation of compliance? If not, PERMIT DENIED.
13. What oversight has the City undertaken in past years to assure that this maintenance has been
done?
14. Has the City maintained any records of this oversight? Can the public get a copy?
15. Has the City kept records of base line water quality and periodic /current quality records?
16. Has the tenant kept records and provided them to the City? Can the public have a copy?
17. We are not fooled to think that one or two work days by the barge owners to repair the barge
will be an ongoing exercise. The residents have absolutely no assurance nor confidence that the
ba! rge operations are compatible in a residential community nor are we assured that pollution of
the bay has not occurred nor will be mitigated.
18. IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF THE BARGE FROM THE HARBOR IS REQUESTED.
PERMIT DENIED, PLEASE.
Brian H. Ouzounian
02/08/2006
Brown, Leilani
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:22 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Please change the staff recommendation to deny the permit to the polluting barge
For Item #21
From: Tom A [mailto:osogrande66 @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:14 PM
To: Kiff, Dave
Cc: Bludau, Homer; Miller, Chris; Rossmiller, Tom; Ridgeway, Tod; Rosansky, Steven;
don2webb @earthlink.net; Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Nichols, Dick
Subject: Please change the staff recommendation to deny the permit to the polluting barge
I urge you to change the staff recommendation on the Pacific Fisheries Enhance
When in operation, the barge is a huge polluter. Its annual fish production i
The Balboa Angling Club would be the permit holder. In testimony before the N
The barge is also the magnet for sea lions, which made their beachhead on the
We hope you will heed the pleas of the citizens of Newport Beach, who want thi
Thomas S. Ahern
1310 East Balboa Boulevard
Newport Beach
02/08/2006