The City of Newport Beach

The Facts Behind the City’s Dredging Project and In-Harbor Sediment Plan

The California Coastal Commission is preparing to consider permitting plans for an important Newport Harbor dredging project. The City of Newport Beach would like to remind residents about the critical need for this project and clarify key topics, including the rigorous environmental analysis that supports the proposal.


Dredging Newport Harbor is critical to maintain safe navigation and a well-functioning harbor. Over the past several decades, sediment has washed down into Newport Bay and accumulated at the bottom of Newport Harbor, which reduces water depths, impedes navigation and diminishes natural tidal flushing. Periodic dredging of Newport Harbor is essential to maintain safe, navigable waterways for recreational, commercial and public safety vessels; increase necessary ocean water flushing to support good water quality and habit and support the economic vitality of the harbor. In total, the project will dredge and remove about 1.2 million cubic yards of accumulated sediment, therefore returning the waterways to their original depths of -10 to -20 feet. Without dredging, sediment will continue to build up, making navigation more difficult and dangerous and decrease tidal flushing, leading to more stagnant water conditions.


This project will improve the harbor environment. Dredging will improve the harbor aquatic environment by increasing tidal flushing. The harbor’s smaller back channels will especially benefit from increased circulation. The project will also improve water quality. Sediment that contains low levels of pollutants (identified in less than 9% of the dredge material) would be placed underground within the harbor where it would no longer be freely circulating near the harbor floor.


The sediment identified for in-harbor placement is not considered hazardous or toxic under the stringent definitions of the EPA. The sediment has been tested and is not toxic or hazardous as defined by state or federal regulations. These terms have very specific regulatory definitions that do not apply to the material being dredged. Rather, the material is considered “unsuitable” for open ocean disposal at EPA’s dredge material disposal sites offshore. The primary contaminant of concern in the harbor are trace amounts of mercury (found in fluids such as motor fuels) that is contained in the harbor bottom sediments. The generally accepted threshold allowed in Southern California for open ocean disposal is 1.0 parts per million (ppm) of mercury within the sediment. The in-harbor mercury levels to be placed within the CAD range from about 1.5 ppm to 5 ppm. To be clear, this same sediment material is currently allowed to remain on the harbor bottom as-is should the in-harbor disposal project not be constructed.


Testing showed that the unsuitable dredge material was not harmful to aquatic organisms. The assessment of proposed dredge material included biological testing using multiple species of aquatic organisms that were exposed to sediment for several weeks. This was done under strict laboratory testing protocols developed by the EPA and regulatory agencies. No toxicity was observed during testing. All mercury concentrations in tissues were below those that have been shown to cause toxicity to marine organisms. This means that the tested species were healthy and not affected or harmed by weeks of direct contact with the unsuitable material. In addition, all tissue concentrations were below U.S. Food and Drug Administration action levels for mercury in fish and shellfish for human food, indicating this would not pose a human health risk.


The CAD would provide a confined location for harbor bottom sediment that is now exposed to the environment. The sediment unsuitable for open-ocean disposal is currently situated at the bottom of the harbor where it is subject to being continually stirred up through everyday boating activity. The unsuitable sediment will be placed in a large hole, then covered with clean sediment to create a contained system that will prevent this material from being stirred up and resuspended in the water, where it makes contact with boats, swimmers and wildlife.


The dredging plan is subject to rigorous environmental analysis and approval by multiple outside agencies. The city’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which includes a thorough analysis of the proposal, has been available to the public since 2020. Several public hearings were held as the EIR came before the Harbor Commission and City Council for approval in 2021. Throughout the approval process, city staff has met with numerous groups, harbor stakeholders and individual residents to explain the proposal and invite comment. The dredge plan is subject to approval by the EPA, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.


Multiple alternative methods other than in-harbor disposal were considered. As required by the EIR, the city considered many potential alternatives to the recommended proposal. Shipping the material by barge to the ports of Long Beach or Los Angeles was not possible as the ports do not have plans to expand in the foreseeable future. Removing the material by land is impractical, prohibitively expensive and would result in increased environmental impacts. It would require the construction of a shore-side processing area and transporting the material to a landfill by an estimated 8,800 truck trips. This would cause considerable impacts to the environment, roadways and surrounding neighborhoods. The city also considered alternatives suggested by residents, such as placing unsuitable material at the Lower Castaways public park. An independent consultant retained by the city to review this approach found that it could cost as much as $89 million and would impact public access, animal habitats, coastal bluffs, visual quality and public views. Another suggested approach was to treat the material and then dispose of that treated material in the open ocean. Unfortunately, the EPA does not allow any treated material to be placed in the open ocean.


Without the CAD, Newport Beach could not dredge main channels in the harbor. If the unsuitable material is left in place and not dredged, high spots in the main channels would continue to build up over time. Navigation will continue to be affected along the entirety of W. Coast Highway as well as the Peninsula Channel from 12th Street to 19th Street. Larger vessels and vessels with deep keels would be restricted to favorable high tides and would continue to stir up unsuitable sediment, creating plumes in the harbor. These navigation concerns would affect all vessels, including visiting vessels and those requiring shipyard maintenance that must pass through these channels.

IMPORTANT NOTICE

The California Coastal Commission is meeting on the final approval of this project October 14, 2022.

Email correspondence will be distributed to the Commission before the hearing on this item if it is received by 5 pm on Friday, October 7, 2022 before the hearing. If it is received after that time, then it will not be distributed to the Commission.

Please send your support in email to:

So********@co*****.gov

Subject Line: I support the CAD & Dredging Project in Newport Beach
Application No. 5-21-0640

The Coastal Commission website is www.coastal.ca.gov.
Application No. 5-21-0640.

Thank you for your support!

This piece was provided by the City of Newport Beach.

Download or Print the PDF

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Newport Harbor Fiscal Area
Newport Harbor Dredging Project

By Laylan Connelly – Orange County Register

Officials have secured $8.3 million to dredge Newport Harbor in the $14 billion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but sand replenishment projects for two stretches of Orange County coastline were not included.

U.S. Rep. Michelle Steel said dredging of Newport Beach’s harbor is long overdue in her announcement Wednesday, Jan. 19, about the federal funding, but also stressed the need for added sand along the coastline. Funding for the Surfside-Sunset Replenishment Project, which would seed beaches through Huntington Beach south to Newport Beach will have to hope for final approval from another Congressional appropriations bill, the timeline of which has been unclear.

So is the San Clemente Shoreline Project, which would replenish beaches in the southern city, including improving the buffer of shoreline along a key coastal rail line.

Both projects have been stalled for years, awaiting funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do the replenishments that help create a beach buffer that would protect roads, homes and infrastructure from ocean flooding, as well as keep beaches – one of the region’s major tourism draws – from disappearing.

In 1962, Congress passed the Rivers and Harbors Act, which required the Army Corps of Engineers to address the impacts of the constructed flood control structures on the sand deposits that should be happening naturally along shorelines.

The $23 million Surfside-Sunset project – $15.5 million in federal money and $7.63 from local agencies – would add 1.75 million cubic yards of sand to Surfside, which would then be pushed down the coast by ocean currents and waves, spreading it 12 miles south to Newport Beach.

The last time sand was added was 2010 – previously the replenishment happened every five to seven years.

“There is more work to do, and I will continue to demand action from the administration and the Army Corps to fully fund the Surfside-Sunset Replenishment Project because we are one natural disaster away from devastation,” Steel said in a statement.

San Clemente has been waiting about two decades for its big replenishment project. The city two years ago received a boost in the amount of $500,000 in federal funding for the design phase.

With no beach left, a wave crashes against the rocks and stairs just below the railroad tracks at North Beach in San Clemente on Wednesday, October 20, 2021.(Photo by Mark Rightmire, Orange County Register/SCNG)

The project would add 251,000 cubic yards of sand from Linda Lane beach to T-Street beach south of the pier. The sand has shrunk so much there in recent years, city leaders have discussed the possibly of moving San Clemente’s Marine Safety Headquarters off the beach. When big surf hits, the surf laps onto the railroad tracks.

About $9.3 million was requested in the bipartisan infrastructure bill by U.S. Rep. Mike Levin for the San Clemente Shoreline Project.

Levin helped secure $30.5 million in federal funding for the Encinitas-Solana Beach Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project and $1.8 million for the Oceanside Special Shoreline Study, his office announced Wednesday.

The Encinitas-Solana Beach project involves placing 700,000 cubic yards of sand along 7,200 feet of beach in Solana Beach and 340,000 cubic yards of sand along 7,800 feet of beach in Encinitas.

The Oceanside shoreline study will create a plan to mitigate erosion and other effects from the construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor and will restore beach conditions along the affected shores to the conditions that existed before its development.

Levin’s office said he is also “continuing to fight to finalize federal funding for the San Clemente Shoreline Project.”

Read more at the Orange County Register…

By Amy Senk

Corona del Mar resident Paul Blank was named Newport Beach Harbormaster last spring, a grand achievement to cap off an on-the-water lifestyle that began at age 10 with a two-week sailing class offered through the city’s recreation department. The harbormaster’s job is typically described as being a lead ambassador for Newport Harbor, one of the largest recreational harbors in the country, and includes overseeing a dozen or so employees and an annual budget of $1 million-plus. But like most things in the past year or so, the first several months have been filled with surprises. I caught up with him to learn more.

Q: What role did you play as harbormaster in the days after the oil spill, and what stands out in your mind now as the most notable thing that happened?

A: The response to the Amplify Energy Oil spill in early October was swift and multifaceted. My specific roles included surveying the harbor beaches for oil contamination, monitoring the harbor entrance for potential intrusion or contamination and participation in the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Center, which integrated with the Unified Command Response managed by the U.S. Coast Guard. A huge amount of my time was spent communicating my findings to others in the EOC and the UCR as well as with Harbor constituents and my patrol team in the Harbor Department. When the decision was made to close the harbor entrance, I was there to witness it and then established a patrol presence to advise mariners in a firm but friendly way of the closure and alternatives while they were unable to get in or out of the harbor. As the situation evolved, my role shifted into advising mariners, local businesses and residents where they could go for support or to file claims for loss or damage sustained as a result of the spill. I also spent considerable time and effort supporting the vessel decontamination site that was established at Marina Park. I am thankful that through the duration of the crisis, we were not forced to close or curtail activities on the harbor. Sailing classes, races, rowing, paddle boarding and casual harbor cruising all continued even though the entrance was closed. While not everyone could engage in all the activities they may have wished to while the entrance was closed, the harbor remained clean, safe and well enjoyed.

Q: We keep seeing mega yachts off the coast of Newport Beach. Have they caused any problems?

A: Newport Harbor has become a more popular port of call for mega yachts this year. Some vessels choose to enjoy anchorage off Big Corona Beach for their visits. Others have stopped there while waiting for a favorable tide to enter and transit the harbor. I am pleased to have made the process of reserving and making use of the Large Vessel Anchorage easier for the yacht managers. I am also pleased with the tenor and tone of the dialogue that continues with nearby residents and businesses. Concerns remain about traffic and congestion in that part of the harbor, but no negative impacts have been observed or reported to me. Newport Harbor is a “no-discharge harbor,” meaning no waste or refuse may go overboard. All vessels mooring or anchoring in Newport Harbor, including these mega yachts with dozens of paid, professional crews, are subject to dye-tab testing of their marine sanitation systems. This is the method we use to test the integrity of the vessel’s plumbing and waste holding tank. One vessel was tested upon arrival recently and didn’t pass. We allowed the crew an opportunity to check the settings on all their pumps and valves. A little less than an hour later we returned to re-test and the vessel passed. No pollution or waste was discharged into the bay in that first test, so no citation was issued, and the vessel was welcome to stay in the harbor. If any vessel is subsequently witnessed discharging into the bay, citations are written which come with a financial penalty and the vessel may be asked to leave the harbor. Thankfully it doesn’t happen very often.

Q: What is the Take Back Our Harbor movement, and what are your thoughts about it?

A: Take Back Our Harbor is the tagline for the newly formed Newport Harbor Foundation. The Foundation is a nonprofit group with a mission similar to the Newport Bay Conservancy. While the Newport Bay Conservancy is focused exclusively on improving Upper Newport Bay –essentially everything north of the PCH Bridge – the Newport Harbor Foundation is focused on preserving and improving the lower Newport Harbor. While I am not directly involved with the group, I am supportive of their mission. The group’s efforts align nicely with the Harbor Department’s goal of keeping the harbor clean, safe and well enjoyed.

Continue reading at Stu News Newport…