The Newport Harbor Dredging & CAD Project
MISSTATEMENTS AND FACTS
To Residents, Yachtsmen and Newport Harbor Users:
The City of Newport Beach has been working with the Army Corps of Engineers for several years on a significant dredging project that will bring Newport Harbor to its authorized design depth which will enhance water quality, allow the bay to properly flush thus eliminating the need to dredge again for many years, remove some unsuitable materials that are lying on the floor of the bay today, and provide for the long term navigability of our harbor.
The Newport Beach City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in May 2021 and directed staff to proceed with securing permits for the project. The EIR is posted on the City’s website here.
The Newport Harbor Foundation has learned that there are a few in the community that are spreading spurious misinformation about the project and the Newport Harbor Foundation believes that it is important that presenting those interested in the dredging project be provided with the facts.
Misstatement: You may have heard or seen a flyer claiming that the City of Newport Beach is going to dump contaminated sludge into the bay.
Fact: The City of Newport Beach will NOT be dumping contaminated sludge into the bay. Quite the contrary. The project will actually be removing some unsuitable material in conjunction with the dredging project. This is material that is already lying on the floor of the bay where it gets stirred up by propwash. The dredging project will provide the City with an opportunity to remove this unsuitable material from the bay floor. This material will be placed in a hole, more commonly known as a Confined Aquatic Disposal facility, “CAD”, and securely covered. The unsuitable material contains up to five parts per million of mercury which, according to the EPA is not harmful to humans but is over the limit for offshore disposal. To put this into perspective, imagine a high school gymnasium filled with 999,995 green ping pong balls and 5 red ping pong balls.
Misstatement: Boat anchors will disturb the cap and allow for unsuitable material to come back into the bay.
Fact: The final cap layer will be 3’ thick. The City has performed modeling on anchors within the area, and this modeling has shown that an anchor would not penetrate deep within the cap layer from vessels using/visiting Newport Harbor. As committed in the City’s final site monitoring plan, the City will monitor the surface of the overlying cap layer to ensure it is functioning properly – a common technique.
Misstatement: The engineering firm that designed the CAD is the only firm that can perform the required inspections and, as such, they stand to profit at the City’s expense.
Fact: The City maintains a suite of on-call engineering firms and goes through a qualified bidding process. Any reputable, qualified engineering firm, including the firm retained by those spreading the misinformation, could perform the inspections.
Misstatement: The area of the bay where the CAD is located can never be dredged again.
Fact: The finish elevation of the CAD will be deeper than current conditions and will equal the same depth as the main navigation channel of 20’ (or greater). The City is planning for the future harbor needs. In addition, the dredging will allow the bay to flush much more efficiently thus significantly enhancing the water quality and significantly reducing the need to dredge in the future.
Misstatement: The CAD in Newport Harbor will be the first in a recreational harbor.
Fact: CAD’s are being successfully used in large commercial harbors in California, including Los Angeles, Long Beach and Port Hueneme where naval vessels and large container vessels weighing several hundred thousand tons traverse them on a daily basis without a failure. If CADs can stand up to this type of ship traffic they can stand up to recreational vessel traffic. Nationally, the New Bedford CAD – designed and implemented by EPA – is located within a small recreational harbor adjacent to residents – similar to Newport Harbor.
Misstatement: The pluming caused by digging up the toxic materials and then placing them in the CAD will spread throughout the bay and the fish and wildlife will carry it even further.
Fact: The materials in the harbor are NOT toxic as scientifically defined by the regulatory agencies including the EPA, Water Board, Coastal Commission, Corps of Engineers and others. These unsuitable materials are already in the bay. Incorporating best management practices when dredging and depositing the materials into the CAD will mitigate sediment from landing outside the footprint and will be continuously monitored during construction.
Misstatement: Once the contaminated material goes in the CAD it stays toxic forever but when moved offshore or on land and mitigated the issue is over as it is no longer toxic.
Fact: Whether deposited offshore or deposited on land the material continues to be unsuitable. The EPA will not allow the unsuitable material to be deposited offshore and the cost to remove it from the bay, dry it and transport it to a land based disposal site is prohibitive and not the least environmentally damaging alternative. The choices are to leave the unsuitable material on the floor of the bay where it will get churned up by propwash or remove it from the floor of the bay, seal it in the CAD which is monitored to insure it is safe, and significantly enhance the water quality in Newport Harbor.
Misstatement: The Newport Harbor Yacht Club mooring field will be removed while the CAD is being created.
Fact: The Newport Harbor Yacht Club mooring field will be removed while that particular mooring area will be dredged just as it was in 2012 whether or not the CAD is created. The dredging of this area should only take 1-3 months and the mooring field will be replaced.
Misstatement: The anchorage will be removed and unavailable for use and there will be no place to anchor in Newport Harbor.
Fact: The City of Newport Beach has created an anchorage at the west end of the harbor in the turning basin area which is approximately the same size as the current anchorage.
Fact: If the CAD is not created in conjunction with the dredging project, the unsuitable materials will remain on the floor of the bay most likely forever. The cost to dredge the unsuitable material, dry it, and transport it to a land based disposal site is absolutely cost prohibitive. The CAD is the only safe and economic way to rid the bay of these unsuitable materials.
Based on all of the studies that have been conducted and the Certified Environmental Impact Report, the Newport Harbor Foundation fully supports the dredging project and CAD and asks the bay area residents, yachtsmen and harbor users to advise the City of Newport Beach and the California Coastal Commission of their support.
The Newport Harbor Foundation was created for the purpose of preserving, protecting and enhancing Newport Harbor for the benefit of the City of Newport Beach, the homeowners on or near the bay, the commercial operators in the bay, and the recreational users of the bay. The Foundation’s founders, contributors, and members are made up of individuals and businesses who have a long history of using and enjoying the harbor and a vested interest in its enhancement and preservation for use by current and future generations.
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.”
Paul BlankBy 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.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!