Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-07; City Council; N/A; Sand Bypassp� h �n FEBRUARY 7, 1984 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Assistant City Manager/Developmental Services SAND BYPASS The project to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled by the Corps of Engineers is, in all of its elements, the same project discussed in the January 13, 1983 report to you from Roy Kackley. That report, which was analyzing the SANDAG Agenda Report No. R-7,concluded that sand being re- distributed from the Oceanside beaches southward would have benefit to the Carlsbad beaches and recommended that Carlsbad concur with the SANDAG resolution approving the project. A copy of that report is attached for your information. This project has been followed up by city staff since 1981 and the various alternatives supported by us in the past have always included the sand bypass system. In conclusion, I would recommend that after council discussion the city adopt a position supporting the con- cept of a sand bypass and put ouselves on record with the Corps of Engineers as encouraging its prompt installation. r/F �a' .O RAB:pab Attachment COUNCIL, 2-7-84 Council reiterated their position of support for the ACTION: a f�' sand bypass and directed that a letter conveying R v that support be sent to the Corps of Engineers40 J r Of �� Cq is q JANUARY 13, 1983 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: City Engineer SANDAG AGENDA REPORT R-7 PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to provide comments on SANDAG's Agenda Report R-7 relating to the experimental sand bypass system program for the City of Oceanside and to offer some general comments on beach erosion based upon a report on the bypass program, information from Scripps institution of Oceanography, and on Dr. Pilkey's book "The Beaches are Moving." BACKGROUND The program for installing, monitoring, and evaluating an experimental sand bypass system at Oceanside beaches was proposed pursuant to House Appropriations Committee report and authorized by Public Law 97-88. Nine systems were developed and evaluated by the Corps of Engineers on the basis of (a) the potential to provide nourishment to Oceanside beaches, (b) the potential to reduce harbor maintenance costs, (c) the impact on the operation of Camp Pendleton, and (d) on public acceptance. The selected system as proposed is a hybrid of several of the alternatives incorporating the favorable features of each into a single system. The proposed system will have these components: a. An entrance channel sand removal system; b. An accretion fillet removal system to transport sand from the north beach to the south beaches, and; c. A pipeline discharge system for distributing sand along Oceanside beach. The system will (a) prevent sortie of the sand in the littoral zone (natural southerly movement of sand) from being moved around the northern breakwater into the harbor entrance and (b) remove sand from the harbor channel and transport it to the Oceanside beach. The cost of the system plus operation over a five -,year experimental period is estimated at $11 477,000 (design and construction $5,097,000; operation and maintenance J3,590,000; and monitoring $2,760,000). Pro- curement and construction (if authorized by Congress and funds appropriated) could be completed by March 1984. SANDAG AGENDA REPORT R-7 January 13, 1983 Page -2- The District Engineer for the Corps of Engineers, in carrying out the will of the Congress as instructed by the Secretary of Army, concludes as follows: a. The experimental system will reduce the amount of maintenance dredging required at Oceanside harbor. b. The system will provide the manner of evaluating the perfor- mance of a jet pump system in maintaining navigation channels. c. The effects of operating such a system on adjacent beaches can be evaluated. d. The economics of the proposed system versus conventional dredging can be compared. e. Local groups have been favorable to the proposed sand bypass system. SANDAG, in response to public notice from the Corps of.Engineers inviting comment, proposes to reaffirm support of the program and agree that such a system when installed would have no significant adverse effect on human environment. DPSrIP;';MN Oceanographers at Scripps Institution indicates that historically the presence of sand on the beaches of southern California is the result of the natural erosion of the sea bluffs and the sediment transport of rivers and streams. The extensive urbanization of the coast line and severe modifcation of the natural sediment (sand) generation sources and distribution due to con- struction of flood control and irrigation structure on inland streams and marine structures to protect harbors along the coast, have reduced the sand supply and prevents replenishment. Climatic conditons have also modified the amount of sand reaching the beaches, less being generated during the dry periods and more during wet cycles. The period of 1945 to 1977 ►vas a dry period and a reduced sand supply was the result. In general, conditions such as are experienced at Carlsbad are the result of inadequate sand supply and not a problem of sand retention. This is true all along the coast. Sand in this region moves generally from north to south ending in the La Jolla trench, a deep depression in the sea bed running perpendicular to the beach near La Jolla. The sand supply at any given point along the beach also moves in and out with the seasonal storms. In the winter the storm waves move the sand out to sea forming bars off shore against which waves can break which dissipate their energy before they break on the beach. SANDAL AGENDA REPORT R-7 January 13, 1983 Page -3- In the summer, or weather moderation, wave action moves the sand back onto the beach, thus providing longer slopes on which wave energy is dissipated. These phenomena are beyond the control of man and must be recognized and accepted. Man cannot manufacture sand but can only try to redistribute it by artificial measures. Erosion control of beach areas is of national concern as evidenced by the authorization and funds provided by Congress for various beach erosion projects. The Corps of Engineers (under the direction of the Secretary of Army and controlled by Congress) is the nation's leading expert on beach erosion. The two specialty agencies of the Corps for these matters are the Beach Erosion Board and the Waterways Experiment Station. It should be recognized that the Corps of Engineers is not an autonomous agency with discretionary funds and authority, but an agency of execution carrying out the will of Congress and spending federal tax dollars as authorized. It is not reasonable to ask the federal government or the Corps of Engineers to be responsible for beach restoration at Oceanside. In view of the natural erosion that is constantly occurring, the beach at any point can never be "restored". Technical assistance is always available to local interests and it is poss;ble.to obtain financial support within the exercises of national policy. The project as proposed by the Corps of Engineers, if successful, will have an ancillary benefit in that some of the sand redistributed to Ocean - side's south beach will find izs way to Carlsbad beaches. Even with the groins, as now proposed by local authorities in Oceanside, sand will move littorally from north to south and provide a source of replenishment. Carlsbad's Longard project is designed to trap some of that sand and to build a "perched" beach. CONCLUSION The current proposal of SANDAL to reaffirm support of the sand bypass system and agreement that no adverse environmental impact will occur is supportable. A demand that the federal government accept full responsi- bility for beach restoration is naive and should be modified to a more reasonable demand or statement. RECOMMENDATION The City of Carlsbad should concur with Resolution 83-51 as proposed in Agenda Report No. R-7. (2Af-_____ ROY KACKLEY RL K: mmt C: Assistant City Manager/Developmental Services PUBLIC NOTICE OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA DATE OF NOTICE: 2 `am �r? !r;. COMMENT DEADLINE: FEB 1984 YOUR COMMENTS ARE INVITED ON THIS PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL SAND BYPASS PROJECT INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, has been authorized to proceed with engineering and design of a sand bypass system as an alternative to the periodic maintenance dredging of the approach and entrance channels at Oceanside Harbor, and place the bypass material along the Oceanside beach (see enclosed map). LOCATION: Oceanside Harbor, near the city of Oceanside, San Diego County, California. PROPOSED ACTIVITY: The following installations are proposed: --Ten jet pumps at the South Jetty at a depth of minus 45 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). --Two jet pumps and three fluidizer pipes at a depth of minus 50 feet MLLW at the North Breakwater. --One jet pump at depth of minus 26 feet MLLW at the north fillet area. --A discharge line about 4,200 feet long across the existing harbor buried about 7 feet below the harbor bottom. --A discharge line about 10,800 feet buried from 5 to 10 feet along the Oceanside beach terminating at Wisconsin Avenue. --An electrical booster station adjacent to the existing restroom just downcoast from the South Jetty. The Experimental Sand Bypass System is designed to intercept the littoral material at the harbor entrance and the north fillet area and discharge the material on the downcoa.st beach of Oceanside. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION: The Experimental Sand Bypass System project at Oceanside Harbor, Oceanside, California, is pursuant to House Appropriations Committee Report 97-177 on the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for 1982, Public Law 97-88, which reads as follows: "The Committee has heard testimony that the City of Oceanside has suffered severe economic losses as a result of beach erosion much of which has been attributed to the construction of the jetty on Camp Pendleton during World War II. (The City of Oceanside has documented over $34 million in losses last year.) All of the sand dredged from the common channel to Oceanside Harbor and Del Mar Boat Basin on Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base must be used to nourish Oceanside's badly eroded beaches in accordance with House Document 456, 86th Congress and House Document 76, 89th Congress. Dredging cost have continued to increase dramatically. Last year, $1.6 million in Federal funds were expended to dredge the channel. Funds have been appropriated for dredging the channel approximately every other year since 1962. $5.3 million in dredging funds have been appropriated to the Corps in the last ten years, in addition to matching funds provided by the Navy. The Committee understands that the Corps of Engineers has been considering a sand bypass alternative to the dredging with a view toward reducing channel maintenance costs over the long .term. The Corps is directed to proceed with engineering and design of a sand bypass system in consultation with representatives of the local and State governments and report to the Committee no later than March 31, 1982, on a program for installing, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of a sand bypass system as a means of maintenance of the harbor channel. Accordingly, the Committee has appropriated $700,000 for the detailed design, and to undertake procurement and installation of a sand bypass system at Oceanside Harbor, California." STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1344) applies to the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. OTHER REQUIRED AUTHORIZATIONS: A Federal agency is not ordinarily required to obtain authorization from a state or local entity. Section 404(t) of the CWA however, allows any state to regulate the discbarge of dredged material into navigable waters within its jurisdiction, including any such activity by a Federal agency. I will, therefore, comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the State of California (California State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards) for this discharge. COASTAL PROGRAM CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: In accordance with Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended (16 USC 1456(c)), I hereby find that the discharges described in this public notice will be undertaken in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the State of California Coastal Management Program. The effects of the discharges on the coastal zone are included in the Revised Draft Environmental Assessment. By copy of this public notice, I am notifying the California 2 Coastal Commission and the Regional Commissions of my determination. If I receive an objection which states that these discharges are not consistent with state programs, I shall not proceed until we. have had an opportunity to resolve the matter utilizing the procedures provided by the CZMA. A Revised Draft Determination of Consistency with the California Coastal Act has been prepared and submitted to the California Coastal Commission. EQUIPMENT AND/OR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES TO BE USED: The following equipment, the type of which depends on the contractor and the contract terms and specifications, that would be used are as follows: --A crane operating from a barge to install the jet pumps to the designed depth at the South Jetty and the North Breakwater. --A crane or a boom constructed on top of the existing Borth Breakwater to install the jet pump to the designed depth at the north fillet area. --A dragline to excavate a trench at the North Breakwater to install the three fluidizer pipes. --A dragline to excavate a trench across the existing harbor for placement of the subsea discharge line. --Backhoes, bulldozers, and a front-end'loader to excavate a trench for the discharge line along the beach. The trench would then be backfilled and compacted by bulldozers or front-end loaders. The contractor may install temporary fencing or barriers to confine the construction area along the beach in order to allow safe year-round recreational usage of the remaining existing beach. ALTERNATIVE TO TH2 PROPOSED ACTION: An alternative to the experimental sand bypass system would be the present method of periodically dredging the approach and entrance channels of the existing harbor. The maintenance of the approach and the entrance channels of Oceanside harbor was authorized by Public Law 89-298, 89th Congress, 1st Session, approved October 27, 1965. The material dredged from the harbor has been placed on the beach at Oceanside (south of the harbor) as a by-product of the maintenance dredging operations. From 1965 to 1981, an estimated 5 million cubic yards of material have been dredged from the existing harbor. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: About 54 acres within Oceanside Harbor, the north fillet, and downcoast Oceanside beaches will be disturbed by construction and/or operation of the proposed sand bypass system. Potential adverse impacts of the proposed system on the ecology of Oceanside include: Lons of significant number of small aquatic organisms into clearwater intakes; avoidance of project areas by fish populations; adverse effects on benthic invertebrates at discharge points and downcoast; and, disruption of grunion. Diesel -powered engines used for the system may contribute to air pollution problems during periods of general reduced air quality. With appropriate mitigation and monitoring of environmental effects 3 during operation, however, the sand bypass system should reduce adverse environmental impacts below those caused by existing maintenance dredging. APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES: This proposed project will be reviewed under the following Federal legislation. a. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended (42 USC 4321 et seg.). Environmental information on the project area has been compiled and a revised draft environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with NEPA (PL 91-190) and US Army Corps of Engineers Policy and Procedures for Implementing NEPA, ER 200-2-2, Section 6(d). Some components of the previosuly selected Experimental Sand Bypass System for which a draft environmental assessment was prepared and circulated for public review in December 1982 have been modified. Since then, the design of the Experimental Sand Bypass System has been revised to exclude the pump house and rehandling basin at the South Jetty and include a booster station on the beach. In addition, implementation of project features will be in stages. Due to the exclusion of the rehandling area at the south jetty, the overall environmental impacts for the revised plan are anticipated to be less damaging. A biological monitoring program will assess the system's actual effects on the marine environment during operation and provide both qualitative and quantitative information. This information will be used to adjust the operation of the system to minimize environmental impacts while still achieving the system's engineering objectives. Some aew environmental concerns of the experimental sand bypass system are discussed below: (1) The engines that will be used for the sand bypass system on the mobile trailer unit will be diesel -powered, instead of electrically -powered. Best available technology will be used since No (oxides of oxygen) emissions will exceed 100 lb/day. An air quality analysis and analysis of hydrocarbons will be made because No emissions also exceed 250 lb/day. (2) The diesel engines on the mubile trailer unit will generate noise approximately 100 decibels (dBA) at a distance of 1 meter. Noise will be attenuated by existing sound barriers (e.g. the breakwaters) and/or absorption structures. Ambient noise levels near the South Jetty are currently about 55-70 dBA. (Source: Noise measurements taken at Oceanside Harbor -South Jetty, June 16, 1983, city of Oceanside.) A new element of the sand bypass system is the installation of an electrically -powered booster station on the beach adjacent to the existing substation. The booster station will consist of an electric motor enclosed in a masonry house and will be designed to minimize noise levels until they are similar to background noise levels. Coordination of public planning and public briefings includes: Three meetings (November 5, 1981, December 8, 1981, and January 13, 1982) held between representatives of the Corps of Engineers, the city of Oceanside, a coastal engineering working group and others; a public briefing (February 17, 1982); and, a meeting between representatives of Federal and State agencies (March 26, 1982). All these meetings were based on the previously selected sand bypass system. Comments from these meetings were incorporated into plan design. b. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et sec.). No known cultural or archeological resources will be affected by the proposed action. c. Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et se ). The Corps of Engineers will coordinate the air quality aspects of the project with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the San Diego Regional Air Pollution Control District. Comments and recommendations from these agencies and others received during the public ,,;:rice period of the revised draft environmental assessment will be carefully reviewed and incorporated into final design plans for this project where applicable and practical. All stationary and mobile sources of emissions required by the project will co:iply with State and Federal emission control standards. Special permits, if required for the diesel -powered engines, will be obtained from the San Diego Regional Air Pollution Control District. d. Clean Water Act (PL 92-500 as amended). No toxic materials are known to occur in the sediment in the dredge area. Sediments in the project area are substantially the same as those on the receiving beach. No toxic substances which will adversely affect human health and welfare, or the biological resources of the area, such as a Befouling agent for pipelines which carry clear feedwater, will be introduced into the sand bypass system. A revised draft 404 (b)(1) water quality evaluation has been submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. e. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 USC 1531 et seg.). Two endangered species, the California least tern (Sterna antillarum (=albifrons) browni), and the California brown pelican (Pelicanus occidentalis californicus) are known to occur in the project area. Neither species will be adversely affected by the proposed action. f. ,Kish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.). An accelerated project schedule has prevented full compliance with the responding requirements of the Act; however, substantive compliance has occurred. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has reviewed the November 1982 Draft Environmental Assessment and has determined that no significant fish and wildlife issues have been overlooked, The FWS considers the biological monitoring program to be an essentirl and potentially significant component of the overall sand bypass system, and recommends close evaluation of the chronic degradation of the benthic community within the fluidizer bed and at the dredge intake points (source: Letter of Comments, FWS, 1983). The monitoring of the system's effects upon the benthic community at the dredge, as well as at the three beach disposal sites, is an integral part of the biological monitoring program. Funding will be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review and comment on the biological monitoring program. DESCRIPTION OF DREDGE AND FILL MATERIALS: Material which will be removed by dredging consists primarily of fine sand with about 5% medium sand and 10% silts. Materials sampled within the harbor in 1980 and 1982 contained a larger fraction of fines than material in the harbor entrance channel and the north fillet area. A compatibility analysis conducted in September 1980 by the Corps of Engineers determined that the dredged material and the receiving beach were compatible at that time. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES CONSULTED DURING DESIGN STAGE: The. following agencies were contacted during project design: Environmental Protection Agency; California Coastal Commission; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Marine Fisheries Service; California Department of Fish and Game; San Diego Regional Air Pollution Control District; San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton; U.S. Coast Guard; City of Oceanside; and City of Carlsbad. A revised draft environmental assessment has been prepared and is available for review at the Los Angeles District, US Army Corps of Engineers (Environmental Planning Section, Room 6640, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California). The revised draft environmental assessment has been distributed to Federal, State, and other concerned agencies, groups, and individuals. Comments received.during the public review process will be addressed in the final environmental assessment. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Should significant additional information be developed concerning the proposed activity or the affected environment, or should the project be significantly modified, the effects of the activity will be reevaluated and a supplemental assessment will be prepared. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The environmental assessment concludes that no major impacts upon known significant resources are anticipated. The biological monitoring program is designed to (1) measure the effects of the sand bypass system and (2) make operational recommendations, if needed and as feasible, to lessen or avoid adverse effects should any unanticipated, significant impacts occur. PUBLIC HEARING: Any person who has an interest which may be affected by the construction of the Experimental Sand Bypass System may request a public hearing. The request including the Public Notice must be submitted in writing to me on or before the Comment Deadline, and must clearly set forth the interest and the manner in which it may be affected by this activity. COMMENTS: Your written comments or objections (including this Public Notice) must reach this office on or before the Comment Deadline. 6 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Donald G. Spencer (213) 688-5407 or Mr. Claude Wong, (213) 688-65AO Coastal Resources Branch. Paul W. Taylor Colonel, Carps of Engineers District Engineer. a w I � w z z J w Q: W UJ pet. w 0 Lt: W -� n li 0 C) J L-1 Q �o II nl con w Nys i' o a. N w o cr w = o -J w z w tal 0 t ,a i F CC /w z tV/' cr /• J � w <C [] O m w ao F- a co �z — 0- F-- 0 Z, J g x w 10101,9 en 0 z X w WI 69 W Q Z vw cn n. o a. W x BUJ Z 0 U W �, — 6xx9 co Lo W Q � W a m m cn cc o ui z ® _J <i _J ^� U) z C.� J < W C!. W co z 0 l LLJ g a C cc W �z w 2 X = 0 w J w z e W d Q„ z E- 0 W CJ C1s La � c C.a raw' 0' 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 032008 Office of the Mayor February 8, 1984 Department of the Army Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers P.O.. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90053 Attention: Paul W. Taylor, Colonel C.E. District Engineer OCEANSIDE EXPERIMENTAL SAND BYPASS PROJECT The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, at its February 7, 1984 meeting, unanimously supported the proposed sand bypass project. Carlsbad has watched the evolution of this project for a number of years and is pleased that progress is being made. Carlsbad, like our neighbor, Oceanside, has suffered significant loss of beach due to the disruption of the natural southerly sand migration. The proposed project appears to be a significant step in reestablishing the natural sand flow. We urge prompt installation. Very.truly yours, MARY CASs R Mayor MC:pab TELEPHONE: (714) 438.5561