HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-08; Beach Preservation Committee; MinutesMinutes of: Beach Erosion Committee
Date of Meeting: May 8, 1995
Time of Meeting: 9:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER;
Chair Hall called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL;
Present: Members Hall, Copley, Jackson, Meyers and Howes
Absent: Members Reasons and Williams
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
By proper motion, the minutes of the meeting held on April 18, 1995 were approved.
1. OPPORTUNISTIC SAND RFP; Chris Webb of Moffatt & Nichols Engineers briefed the
Committee on the meetings held with the regulatory agencies on February 7, 1995
regarding the City's Opportunistic Sand Program. In addition to the briefing, Mr. Webb
distributed copies of meeting minutes and a matrix of previously approved conditions on
recent beach nourishment projects in southern California.
Mr. Webb explained that the basic requirement from all the agencies is to ensure a
minimal impact to the surrounding habitat and environment. Deposition times may be
limited as a result of such factors as grunion spawning, least tern nesting, public activity
and turbidity from active storm surges. The agencies could allow beach nourishment
activities if the result does not adversely change existing conditions. Therefore, the
ecosystem in the near shore zone would continue to exist.
Mr. Webb will complete the permit applications and make appropriate changes to the
supporting documents. Special attention is needed in the Bio report since this is the
most important document for the City's General Permit. Staff will provide technical
comments from staff and the Committee to Mr. Webb.
In order to meet a specific requirement of the agencies, a grain size analysis of the
existing sand content in the beach profile is necessary. Staff member Jantz will process
an amendment to the existing contract with Moffatt & Nichol for this effort.
2. OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS;
OLD BUSINESS:
• Request for Coastal Conservancy funding for public parking access at Ponto
Beach. Staff member Jantz is waiting for application package.
NEW BUSINESS:
• Nominations were made for the appointment of new Chair and Vice Chair.
• The Committee approved a motion by a 5-0 to have staff member Jantz draft a
scope of work for the continuation of beach monitoring services.
• Staff member Jantz will contact Dr. Sonu regarding availability of previous beach
monitoring information on computer disk.
Minutes of: Beach Erosion Committee
Page 2
3. COMMITTEE REPORTS;
• Member Copley has scheduled a meeting with Dana Whrtson of the City of
Oceanside on Friday, May 12, 1995 to discuss joint participation in deposition of
sand on Oceanside's beaches as a result of the Navy's Homeporting project.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT; None
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:33 a.m. The next meeting of the Beach
Erosion Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, June 13,1995 at the Housing and Redevelopment
office.
Respectfully submitted,
/•
Belinda Guzman
Administrative Secretary
IU.*)
3CT<Uo:
QOC
CO
QCLLI
I
O5
ui .^U) fj
a
ou
UJa.
o
ffl
•a
ig
T3 CO
^ ir ra ra-2 S . g -
1in
I
o 3 -« Sg) O
O CO. « ^•D T3
Si> 3tf) O"
§ K
o w
w
Ia:
a>
fi
c UJ
8^
O)1Q
cre
0)co
« fc °5 >•§311
O .E «
<us>0.
cIB
?U
i
BOARDE REGIONAL WAO
H
Q
OO
111
0.
IO
55CO
f
II
w JJ cT3 T3 <O
S * I0.-0 D<u -i Si
f
0)1
Ip
flfi
3CT0)DC
ajflg I*.
g E g g -a'-g -s te 1 >, ^ >, {5 -5
<u <u S Q.155 o S§-2'n^-£Ora£,f -
"5 o> ??S? 8
- clm - Q.
.
3CT<Uo:theredged and the maximumvisible turbidity at theailyial dtheof maextenof theBoard.end3e_ ra
II
§58'fe
e
= ° « &| S-s
o)a>a)c.cujnjnjij_^7r
- - "
•g'i S TO§li§
^flfl gfl) to "O •*•I <" £ S
T3
23CT£
&COQ.
Qa:
ota
OLUJ
g
_i<
OoUJn:ui
£
u.O
CO
g
5
oo
t
Of
UJ
Q.
_J
iZI
O
200 aneous%y
.*>§i Dischargerements42 '3H »•9 as a
S
1
^i
1.8
0
ac
Q.
<BCO1ffli
I
^.8
E
5
.5
w
So
1
e
Q
CO
1
OQ
"5,0
V
I
^
+4
!
8 | - 8> .2 0 >III!51;?- 3-o ° g o
£t|£ro 'x E TO
3 0 = 3
O ° Z O
Z
1
1
'o
•2
S(0$
^1S
j2
c
£3cr
"oi_Q)
1
8ra
Q_
Kin
"o
£
Zra<um
8o
8"<N
•s i
CO *-(U
m"6
§ 1
0
'5cr£
o
•p
s
1§
£
11O)
j2
c
2
£
'oi_Q)>
1
1
1ScD
CO
oCOCO T-ra1!
oZ
•o
£
CT£
0Z
•5
o
(0
5
^"S
tlra
£c
1£'3
"o
S3
1
,_
ra
fe|
£ v>
C 'jjr
ca raF
ooo
10
*"
f- O5
11
"Sff , x: ° c--o-Si•g^ .2 ^^c^.g-^^S^S
Pllilli^i^tfl
S ra'lwl)"?^.!^^^'^ <"-3
lll^lil 1 IlllllI
1
1
1cr
a>
z
E
"g 2
C c
i s
§ I
^.
ro ^^m o
o "
cu ?5
i? E
to ^
II
1S
1•o0)D)
1
o"oCO
illra *- Q.
ill
led
Z
1
1
<uco
1cr
a>g
|uj
~v °.£ ^
1 J3J1) JQ
Q a.
coz
^m
Q
CO
|
O)
Q
|
,-T
r- *-*
CQ °> £^_ ~ a.
Q. S 0E g. 0
CT
<DS1
CL
i
« 8 .E °~- Si § £ ? °
3* l«2fills3 £ § o o£ <u « O EifSss^
llilo'l Ii
'IS> «81$
ill JSiiilinnWOO. 3_'O •&_
s s
• !*ffill slii9 le *
O A v
'^ N ^ UJg « » OI HI,
all §.:
«?-D
I •- § 11"2 < » 3 >
I ill
Hi
it
iS E 'ui Si8l
oo
Io
UJ
1
OU
luiID-
<ICQ
ft
§6
If
I 3"8.^.
II
•g E
ill
H K a
£ C O) O)•g O <M <M« c ii ti
SIS.S o ? *-Z a S
I 5 = g
"5 a) ti >»l|l|
S O oror u. PL J3
•5•&i
•* S1
j!K i!I
8
io
UJ
p
i
o
2 »
i
1
.8w
1-c
gO
iI
-«=• .S iJ
111
III""ills
i ^?* TJ1 3 *i * S"
I
:< s'a
! Si 5m S °
s 5
5? |£
ill!
sg
3-8
S "S
Hill
!il§
E § § i; .
15 I s S
= Q. $ ~U " B
03 'o (Q 15 is '5
c — w
ll?§.»«3* "c ^
It;
8 « 3 'S 'S Qi=! l<ii*!
ItflJliHi
:f! PHP.iiltSiiiil
I e ^gs«°^2>s°15
Mi^ in C
s £
It UI ='o go S
' 5 O S
O 5 'S o
I .ill |S § .£ = S.
" c 7 -te w £ ~B £ | •§ c
E S c frS f S cs-i s s.
OT » I =
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
CARLSBAD OPPORTUNISTIC BEACHFILL PROGRAM
SECTION 404 PERMIT
Meeting held at the City of Carlsbad
1:30 AM on February 7, 1995
Attendees:
Steve Jantz, City of Carlsbad
Mike Grim, City of Carlsbad
David Zoutendyke, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Robert Hoffman, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Steve Sachs, SANDAG
Craig Everts, Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers (M&N)
Chris Webb, Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers (M&N)
Luanne Hall, Beach Erosion Committee (BEC)
Dave Copley, Beach Erosion Committee (BEC)
A meeting agenda is attached.
1. The meeting started at 1:30 PM with an introduction of everyone in the room. M&N briefly
outlined the project and the COE indicated general familiarity with it from a previous
meeting. The objective of the meeting was to determine what the City has to do to get
permits for the beachfill program. The program include beach placement or nearshore
disposal of sand. The City wants to know the requirements/conditions of agencies for a
long-term permit. M&N introduced a matrix of Section 404 permit conditions for beachfill
projects in southern California. The biological resources agencies were present to provide
feedback on biological constraints.
2. The COE indicated that a permit for more than 5 years would not be possible because it is
too tough to keep track of expirations with longer terms. The general permit for opening
lagoon mouths is for a 5-year term. NMFS indicated that unforeseen problems and changing
conditions also make it more practical to keep terms to 5 years maximum. COE said that
renewal can be easy, but public notice is required. Apply prior to expiration of the permit,
with updated environmental information required.
3. M&N asked if the City's concept was acceptable. The COE said yes if resources are not
impacted. NMFS reminded the group of the public perception problems which were
generated at Batiquitos regarding turbidity and possible reef impacts. M&N asked how the
City could get permits. COE said to identify locations of beachfill, determine whether the
material will be free of contamination, and do any bio-testing of material if required. Make
certain the material meets requirements of the Inland Testing Manual. It will be tougher to
satisfy requirements of the COE and EPA with a general permit because the City would need
some confirmation process that the material is OK. The tiered testing procedure consists of:
1) utilizing existing information to characterize material; 2) perform grain size testing, and
3) perform chemical testing and possible bio-testing. While grain size testing costs about
$50 per sample, chemical testing can cost $1,000 per sample and bioassays can cost $10,000
per sample. The applicant can do the testing. Applicants usually propose sampling and
testing schemes and get approval from the COE and EPA.
4. M&N indicated that it is the City's objective to get quick approval, and that nothing harmful
be placed on the beach. How long would it take to get approval? The COE could not
answer, and they would not be bound to a particular timeline. COE stated that some agreed-
upon guidelines would help expedite the process. M&N said that the City would like an
explicit checklist to use as a guideline.
5. COE said that the biggest problem regarding grain size acceptability has to with the
percentage of fines in the material. The acceptable percentage of fines has never been
specified because it can vary depending on the conditions present at the site. In general, the
material used cannot be substantially different from what's on the beach initially. M&N said
that Buena Vista lagoon discharges fines during high flows. The COE said that during those
episodes, it would be OK to dump fines into the out flow. The City would have to test the
offshore area to make sure fines were present though. Samples will have to be provided
from wherever the City wants to place sand. NMFS indicated that at the Santa Clara River
fines are dumped during high flows. The acceptability of fill grain size depends on the
disposal situation and location. SANDAG said that to be effective, the permit application
has to be detailed. Some sand sources may be acceptable, while other sources may not be
feasible to use. M&N said that the goal should be to get as much sand on the beach as
possible. NMFS said that if it will be 100% sand, there will be no problem. But is there
is a significant portion of fines, then it may be more difficult. Winter months could be a
good time to place sand with a high percentage of fines, while summer would be the best
time to place sand.
6. M&N stated that the City would be trying to replicate natural processes, and fine material
is delivered to the coast from streams during winter storms. The COE said that the
regulations are flexible to allow it. COE objectives are the maintenance of human health and
the environment. NMFS said that receiving beach characterization and sand disposal is a
way to be flexible.
7. M&N asked what are the boundaries between "clean" sand, and sand with too many fines,
and what is the framework for determining the need for chemical and biological testing?
Developers would not want to do these tests because they cost money. COE responded ty
referring to the tiered testing approach. He said that the project will the draw comments
from both proponents and opponents. All bases have to be covered for the COE to permit
the project. The BEC asked about the scenario of a small quantity of sand with no
contaminants, and SANDAG added that the City could submit a letter specifying the
material's integrity. The COE said that the information would reiterated that factors for
testing are outlined in the Inland Testing Manual. M&N added that the City could research
historical uses of the source location when the project was proposed. The COE confirmed
that at a minimum, they need background information of the source location, and a grain size
analysis with emphasis on the proportions of fines and sand.
8. M&N asked what criteria would apply to cobbles, and the COE said it would be OK to use
them as beachfill if they were already on the beach. M&N summarized their study in
Encinitas showing that cobbles can be good shore protection in some instances. NMFS and
COE said that a cobble beachfill project could be considered a shoreline protection project
instead of a beach replenishment project if the protection rationale was proposed. The
permit process is different between shore protection projects and beachfill projects. They
continued by saying that cobbles are often perceived as negative, and are not typical beach
replenishment materials. M&N then asked what the upper limit of grain size is for beachfill
and the COE said that it depends on what exists on the beach initially. The EEC mentioned
that bluff materials which erode and reach the beach consist of fines, sand and cobbles.
COE said that speeding up the natural system of bluff erosion is not the natural process and
may consequently affect the biological system differently.
9. SANDAG said that the City is proposing a mechanism to address the issues, or an advanced
permitting agreement based on a list of concerns. The COE suggested that the City provide
information about the chemistry and grain size of the material, and list time constraints for
biology, recreation, and other considerations. The COE would evaluate the applications on
a case by case basis. SANDAG said that the City needs a timeframe for approval.
10. The City wants to define criteria regarding what is acceptable, questionable, and not
acceptable. They are also trying to loosen certain cut and fill requirements on developers
to make the beachfill option more attractive. SANDAG indicated that the City should
propose a draft general permit with conditions, and information about the disposal site
and the borrow material. The COE confirmed that this would help them make a
decision, and the information should pertain to the disposal site only, not adjacent beach
areas. An inventory of biological resources would be most useful. In-water disposal
would not be appropriate during the bird nesting season due to turbidity. The proposal
should be consistent with other agency requirements too. Not as many environmental
restrictions exist in the fall and winter.
11. The City asked if there was a cut-off for quantities. The COE said no, that it was more
important to specify avoidance of sensitive resources such as least tern nesting sites
during summer for onshore disposal and whether the sand source is a river bed, land, or
offshore. M&N summarized the factors to be considered so far to be: 1) categories of
material (clean, not so clean, and bad); 2) time of year (winter or summer), and 3)
disposal location (beach or offshore). A matrix can be prepared showing the acceptable
criteria for each factor and combination of factors. The COE said it could be similar to
what was done for the general permit for opening lagoon mouths. They cautioned that
the Water Board and Coastal Commission also have to agree, and that they required
individual permits rather than a general permit for the lagoon openings. M&N requested
a copy of the general permit for lagoon openings to serve as a model. The City indicated
that the team was meeting with the Coastal Commission on February 14th to discuss the
project. M&N also noted that the City should obtain the specific permit conditions for
lagoon mouth openings.
12. The COE suggested that the City concentrate on the most likely borrow sites to be used
and simply the permit application accordingly. The more refined the source, the easier
the decision. The City said that larger projects require a year or so lead time for City
approval, so there will be time to get COE approval for beachfill. They also said that
maybe sand can be stored while the COE considers the application. NMFS suggested
to limit the material to sand so there is not such a need to protract the permit
consideration period. M&N asked what is the proportion of fines in good sand. The
COE responded by saying it depends on where the City will place it. SANDAG said that
the process can be arranged to start consideration of the percent fines that are acceptable.
SANDAG also suggested to offer the COE the information the City has and the requested
turnaround tune. The City said that they could propose a percentage of fines to sand
based on what is on the beach now. NMFS said again to characterize the disposal site
during winter to set the criteria for winter disposal. M&N emphasized the City's
objectives are for a short turnaround time and minimum costs. The COE suggested to
compile existing data, and identify potential borrow and disposal sites. The beach south
of Agua Hedionda Lagoon has been studied by SDG&E and there is probably available
data. NMFS said to extend the characterization to the offshore zone.
13. The City said they would start off with an application for the material easiest to permit
for beachfill in setting the criteria. M&N said that the long 1 to 1/2 year lead time for
City approvals of projects should allow tune for the COE to respond. The COE said
sand from the source location should be classified based upon site conditions. M&N said
that the City can specify conditions at the placement site now, but the difficulty is in
adequately defining the borrow site.
14. M&N then asked what monitoring was required. The NMFS said that if the material is
mostly sand, none would be required. It depends on the characteristics of the site and
material. There may be a program required for sensitive resources. Small beachfill
quantities like those being envisioned by the City for individual projects might not be a
problem anyway. The COE suggested to try to estimate the quantity of sand available
for the beach to identify the appropriate quantity for the permit. NMFS said that the
SDG&E site is not a problem and they dispose of 100,000 cubic yards per year.
15. M&N asked where to go now with the agencies. NMFS and COE said to compile
information and apply. NMFS said characterizing existing beaches is a problem because
they are sometimes cobble, sand or a mix of the two. The appropriate percent of fines
depends on the existing beach condition and sensitive resources. SANDAG said that it
should be viewed hi the context of the big picture. The group will meet with all agencies
and put together draft criteria and applications, and submit them to check that the City
is on the right track. The COE suggested to identify specific sources (rivers,
construction sites, etc. which meet the specified criteria) for a public notice.
16. SANDAG said that the Navy is doing work and considering Carlsbad as a diposal site.
The cost to the City would be $1 per cubic yard. The Navy is also talking to the COE
about the project, and the City is talking to the governor about funds because it could
affect Lego-land. The Navy has indicated that they can barge the material to La Jolla
at their cost, and the remainding cost to the City is for fuel. The COE said that 300,000
cubic yards is presently is a stockpile at Camp Pendleton. The City is aware of it but
Oceanside was probably going to get it.
17. NMFS said that even if the material is not placed within COE jurisdiction, other agencies
(Coastal Commission) can condition it. They will encourage the agencies to look at the
beneficial use of beachfill.
18. M&N summarized by saying that the COE will be provided with information about the
source and disposal sites, and the amount to go on the beach. The COE will provide a
copy of the general permit for opening lagoon mouths, and a permit form. The City was
to give M&N a copy of the Inland Testing Manual. It was confirmed that if the City
meets requirements of the COE manual, then they meet the NMFS requirements as well.
M&N asked if the COE checks projects for violations, and they said yes, but they mainly
rely on self-monitoring and reporting. M&N asked that the COE please call if they think
of any more guidance they can provide which could be helpful. The NMFS stated the
bottom line as being that if the project will not cause an adverse impact, it will probably
be approved. M&N suggested that the City give the COE and NMFS a tour of probable
source sites, because they will see that it will not be an old oil field or dump site. The
COE and NMFS indicated an interest in the tour.
ACTION ITEMS
1. David Zoutendyke of the COE will provide the City with copies of the General Permit for
Opening Lagoon Mouths.
2. The City will submit a draft application with information about potential source sites and the
disposal sites.
3. Steve Jantz of the City will provide a copy of the Inland Testing Manual to M&N.
AGENDA
CITY OF CARLSBAD
OPPORTUNISTIC SAND PROGRAM
7 February 1995
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CA FISH & GAME
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES
1. Objectives of meeting
2. Opportunistic sand program
3. Agency permitting requirements
4. Agency guidence-next step
1995 CSBPfl Board of Directors
PRESIDENT
Reinhard E. Flick
VICE PRESIDENT
Craig Everts
TREASURER
Craig B.Uidersdorf
SECRETARY
Chris Webb
BOARD
Douglas E. Chitwood
Walter F. Crampton
George Domurat
Lesley Ewing
Peter E-Gadd
Cretchen Honan
Tom Kendall
Jim McGrath
Steve Sachs
Kim Sterrett
David Schug
DIRECTORS EMERITUS
George Armstrong
Warren C. Thompson
1995 CSBPfl Editorial Board
EDITOR IN CHIEF
' Reinhard E. Flick
EDITOR
Kim Sterrett
GRAPHIC DESIGN
Laura Kulsik
Is Mohair More Important Than Beaches?
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association held its annual national confer-
ence in Virginia Beach, Virginia on October 5-7,1994. The theme of the three day
conference was beaches, tourism and jobs, with the primary focus including beach
restoration and coastal tourism economics. Presenters ranged from local city council
members to nationally renowned experts in coastal science, engineering and econom-
ics. Dr William Stronge, Professor of Economics at the Florida Atlantic University
described how to look at a beach as an economic asset Citing Florida experience, Dr
Stronge presented compelling arguments that funding beach nourishment is in the
public interest, with the primary benefit being that of improved tourism.
Dr. James Houston, Director of the Coastal Engineering Research Center, presented an
excellent and informative discussion of the value of beaches to the United States. The
premise was that beaches are very important to the United States economy, yet very
little is spent to maintain this resource. Some of Dr. Houston's statistics included (1)
travel and tourism is the largest U.S. industry; (2) coastal states receive 85 percent of all
U.S. tourist related revenue; and (3) the U.S. spends only $15 million per year on beach
nourishment, compared to $90 million by Germany, $250 million by Spain and $400
million by Japan. Dr. Houston added that the U.S. spends more on subsidizing the
mohair industry than on beach nourishment
In total there were over 40 presentations and discussions on beach issues. £
Please addressnews items, euents. or your comments on THE HEUlSBREBKEti to:
Kim Sterrett, Department of Boating and Waterways.
1629 S St.. Sacramento. [895814