The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutH_5222_SJune 12, 1978 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H-8(a) TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: NEWPORT SHORES CHANNEL DISCUSSION: At the May 22, 1978 meeting of the City Council, the attached letter (see Exhibit "A") from the Newport Shores Community Association was referred to the staff for a report back. Listed below are answers to the questions asked in the letter: 1. Q. Who is responsible for activating the gate that controls the flow into our channel? A. The City of Newport Beach. 2. Q. When is it closed and/or opened? A. The gate is kept in an opened position most of the time. 3. Q. Why is it closed and/or opened? A. It would be closed only if necessary to protect the Newport Shores area from high water in the Santa Ana River and Greenville Banning Channel. 4. Q. Was it used during the recent storms and ensuing runoff? A. It was open during the storms; however, it was closed during the period after the storm when the Santa Ana River flow was contaminated due to the failure of an upstream crossing of an Orange County Sanitation District sewer main. 5. Q. Re. Paragraph 5 of the letter. A. Due to rainfall runoff, excess sediment periodically builds up in the Santa Ana River and Greenville Banning Channel. This summer as part of the Environmental Management Agency's project for interim improvements to the Santa Ana River, the excess sediment will be removed from both the Santa Ana River and the Greenville Banning Channel. It is estimated that 40,000 cubic yards of sedi- ment will be taken from the Greenville Banning Channel. June 12, 1978 Subject: Newport Shores Channel Page 2 The work will also include the removal of excess material around the Newport Shores side of 60" drain opening. The cleaning of the opening should help the circulation in the Newport Shores canal. 6. Q. Re. Paragraph 5 of the letter. BACKGROUND: A. As part of the drainage system in the area, Caltrans maintains a large ditch along the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Shores and Superior Avenue. Like the Santa Ana River and the Greenville Channel, the ditch also fills up with sediment from rainfall runoff. Every few years the State cleans the ditch as part of its routine maintenance to protect Coast Highway from flooding. The enlargement of the ditch referred to in the letter was simply part of the State's highway maintenance program. The Newport Shores Tract was developed in 1961 (see Exhibit "B"). At the time of development, the. drainage canal was dredged by the developer, and beaches were built along a portion of the cana.1 adjoining the tract. The canal and beach improvements were not a condition of development and the work was done by the developer to improve the marketability of the homes. In 1969 the canal was in need of dredging and the City of Newport Beach was requested to do the work. At the time the City refused to partici- pate in the project for the following reasons: 1. In the opinion of the Council there was limited City-wide benefit. 2. It would involve the City in a long-term cost committment. 3. There was a question of canal ownership, and approximately one-half of the area to be dredged was outside the City 1 imi ts. In 1970 the Newport Shores Community Association had the canal dredged at a cost of approximately $25,000 (see Exhibit "C"). The dredging method used by the Newport Shores Community Association was simply to position a drag-line on the northerly bank, scoop up the bottom material and spread it along the bank. The process was simple and relatively inexpensive. Now, because of all the environmental constraints and permit requirements, it is likely that the increase in the cost of doing the work would greatly exceed the inflation rate. June 12, Subject: Page 3 1978 Newport Shores Channel In addition to the increased costs, the time requirement in obtaining all of the necessary permits could easily add a year or two to the project's time schedule. By way of example, the Dover Shores Community Association received approval from the City to dredge the Dover Shores Channels on April 11, 1977. It is now over one year later and the work has not proceeded because of con- ditions imposed by the Coastal Zone Commission. In the past the Newport Shores Community Association has also sought help from the County of Orange in having the canal dredged. A copy of the Association's letter to the Environmental Management Agency and a copy of their reply has been attached to this report (see Exhibits "D" and "E"). JTD:jd Att. evlin ks Director " Honorable City Council: 511 C.::.:-i.a.! Sue.at -Cfubhou~~ ar.d Rc.::re.atfon Area/r"~cilitia~ Ne\.01;,ort Bilach. Orani_;J! Coun'i:'J. C:tli"i'omia 92~SQ April 26, 1978 Regarding the matter of the Greenville Banning Channel, (sometimes known as Oxbon Tidelands) and the letter we previously sent you -in October, and your r_esponse, we are once again requesting your help. There are many large homes situated on tl)is little waterway, and their value and the value of the entire community hinge, at least in part, on the presence and condition of the channel surrounding us. Now, 1·,e realize that we don't own this channel, anymore than the folks on the Grand Canal of Balboa own that, or the· homeowners on Lido or Harbor Isle 01m the harbor, but we do have a vested interest in all of the waten,1ays of our city, and particularly the one we live on: He, as· an Association were not satisfied with the letter we received from the City Attorneys' office, in answer to our plea for help. It is the feeling of this Association that our letter was probably filed in the stack labeled "knotty little probJems to be addressed at a later date, since this is only the. first complaint 11e've re- ceived". He he.Ve some new questions to ask of you: 1. Who is responsible for activating the gate that controls the flow into our channel. ·,, 2. When is it closed and/or opened: 3. ~lily is it closed and/or opened? 4. Was it used during the recent stor;;is and the ensuing runnoff? •. Tons of additional sediment v:ere a1l01-1ed to pass the gate and deposit into our channel during the recent storms, adding tremendously to a problem which ii.__ 1-1Js al;~eaciy approaching a critical stage. To make matters worse, Cal Trans • ' 1,os s0111eho1-1 allowed to enlarge the trench in the area of Superior and Pacific O010.3_-.:J..::..2.[Coast Hwy. Which carry flood waters ~nto our channel, thus dumping ~uch_more COWS "'ti[ TO· s2clHne11t and trash than we can cope with. It appears thai; no one buc this c ,i, • association is concerned with the channels' maintenance, and we are sorely R] Mayor .10 Mon,s•,r prepared to do anything about it. [J fltto:-ri-::y ~ p \"/ c.:.--:-=tor 0 C,.;r;;!)1·1 o;::,;t,"ir [] ()'.her D _f;J' C•.>unc:r.-,,&..::1 EXHIBIT 'A''_ NEWPO::{T SHORES COM~/iUNITY ASSOCIATION, Inc. 511 Canal Str.2et -Club:1cu3·.? .:ir::~ Recrc~tion Arc.::/Facllitias Newport BCJ.ch,. Oranta County. Ca:i;"ornia 920GO z. .. 6<!-2-5374 April 26, 1978 This valuable 1·1etland and habitat is rapidly approaching the stage we <lescribed in our last communication--an ugly, evil smelling mud hole. Some- thin9 must be done for the animals, the fish, our children, and for us .... • and soon, or the problem will escalate from a little job to a large complex project tnat would require tremendous amour.t of funds. The Board of Directors would also like to go on record as endorsing the Marina concept in West Ne11port Beach. • cc: He would sincerely appreciate your assistance. He await your response. i)on Vic Innis OC Board of Supervisors Flood Control US Coast Guard ·, ilept. Fish and Game OC Environmental Management Health Depart111ent OC Sheriff-Coroner Harbor Patrol Coastal Cammi s ion Parks and Rec. Yours truly, Newport Shores Com:mmity Association Board of ilirectors State Senator 36th District, Dennis Carpenter Daily Pilot Signal Lan<l@ark Beeco LT::> City Counci 1 General Crude I ,, :3 OEA .U0c TALBEl?TCHL/tU PAC/FIC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A/EWPO.er SHoees C'4,,,U,4 L. CITY OF • COGTA MESA -- oc£A/J DRAWN #. 8. DATE -41'4 Y /.'376' APPROVED PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR R.E. NO. E-Y/-//8/T ",8" I 225·canal Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 June 1, 1970 This.letter will provide official notice that the New;,ort Shores Community Association is ready to proceed with O;,eracion "Deep Ditch", namely dredging of the Newport Shores canal. A sum.~ary of the project by location is attached; additional per-. tinent documentation requested after the first notice in February _are included. In absence of further questions or discussion with the under- signed before June 15th, the anticipated__J;tart· date, concurrence with the project is concluded. It is anticipated that work will be complete on or about July 25th. The foregoing notice is in consonance with all prior discussions and agreements among the parties concerned. DAB:b:n AttachC1ent Very truly yours, NEWPORT SHORES co,mUNITY ASSOCIATION Don A. Beckley, President EXHIBIT: Location Canal, East End. 61st -62nd Street Clubhouse Canal Street to Highland Hunts & Pembroke Banning to Levee Contracto'.!: Engineer Consultation: BE&"'! Landscaping: Lcmg"th (Ft) 1,800 900 1,400 600 180 Boat R<'ck & Launching Ramp: PROJECT "DEEP DITCH" ( Volue1<e (Y<l3) 1,100 16,700 t 2,500 t Coxco, ·1nc. Drawer C Cor.::mcnt Build up lip; clearr up debris; minor gi-acling to control ovar-flow. Remove sand bars 5/1 slope; restore and contour both banks; depth - 5 feet. Remove sediment 5/i slope; beautify with sand north side; depth -5 feet. Remove sediment 5/1 slope both sides; build BERi.'1 Banning property; depth - 5 feet. Same as Canal, except throat, 3 foot depth. 5/l slope, no flat bottom, depth - 5 feet; Stanton, California 90680 Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates 136 Rochester Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 'ro be let To be let l\:EWPORT SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Inc. April 20,1978 Hr. Max Bridges Snviron.--nontaJ_ 1:0.nacemen"G· !i..gency County of 6rc.nn;c 1:!e e~rc ,_..rrt titi...g ·_ to :-ro:-1. on bch.?.lf c:f the 500 plns :r.~rll.1:Lc::; :rho live in tl1:e ,arec. o"I'. Ecu1::ort Shores in Net-rport Bea.ch. This cormnunity is no.·.'!..r1y s--:.rrou.nd.ed by what rc:mai!ls o:t: tJ1c c:c-:t2,;in0.l Santa Ana River C.har1nel kno1.-m as Oxbo1:: Loop. Until tl.te ~ovcro storms and ensu.lng rt.mo:rf of' tho lRtest rainy se~son, 'f.:°!•!is H:!S a ploasrorl; little chaP.nel u.sed by :,ll the residents and visitorz to the area for s1-:i1;1..mil"-5, boating, etc. The f'J.ow of' tide 1,ater comes through a :3ato in the levee of' the G-reonville-B::,nnins Channel (D03) and the :rlooC. i;..r.-:i-ters :rrom there an.d .fro2n tb.c l,. Santa .Ana :'{i ver have l:J.11 but 6.estroyed what once was a very r,..ieo ,, recreational area and wild li:fe re:fuge. We -=·· a.s u cornnn .. mi ty are 1-.."2lJ.in5 to ·de every-Ch:i_P...g we can to re- turn this are.?.. to its £01:'T!.er beauty 2.l'!d use:r.ulness,. but ·tc:·e need assj_~·.d;ance e..i."1.d the ex,er·i;ise of' you.r Etgency to procecd.e !:Ir~ ~!illard Earsh or you.:r st;af'f has rccentJ.y vis5.ted the area and t-ras. very syr.!pat;hetic and encourag:t:r1z. He took IJhotos ol the f'lood d=age f'or his file, und inili.c~tted th11t we should cor.u.nu.:ni.- cato with you for ao.ditionaJ. hel:;i end guida.11.ce. As previously s·l;atod, ,•:e are more the.n willing to do our ~)a.rt to res-"vore the .ch!:!.P..nel to· ... its :forr.ier state, but we despor.:.:Goly need assistance from the ex-certs. It: s not a big job, rcmov::u. of' an estir.iated nine to ten-thousand cubec :feet o:f silt f'ro:m. about fift;een hundred :feet of channel, but we a.re awa.re th.a!:; work o:r this kind is not the sim.9le procedure it used to be. Wo have done somo prelim-; nary wo:d<:~-.&~tl the c5. t--y s.taf.f ha:; !>ro:i~i:tsed to assist. There also exists, we u..."11.dcrst2nd, the pos- sibiJ.ity o:f the work being covered by the provisions oi' tho li1odertl Disatter rlelie:r Act Adlnini stered by tho Culif.02.,niP. O:ffice of: Bm.erge:>.1.cy Services i'or portions of' tho Go1.~n.ty a:r:::·octcd by storm darnage. !·.'e ask i'or your help in detorminj_n.; ii' such is the caseo 1·lo have alreo.dy begun the ts.sk of ::::ccv.r5-nG t;.hc n.:.:siB- t.'.!nce ~ncl. cooporai.s:l.on o.f all th.ose d:i.rcc';;ly 5.nvoJ.vcd EXHIBIT ,.D., C NEWf'OP.T SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOC!ATIOcJ, Inc. 511 C2~al Street -Ciubhouw end Rccrcztfon Are:-i/Fac!litic:. l\bwpo;-t Beach. Orangi,, County. Ca1ifornia 92660 642-5374 :-.P..d we •P..eeo. to know ·i;he extent of ,the holp your aGency cr.-n pro- vide. We thank you in adva.'1.ce, and await your re:;::ily. Ne-=;-;port Shores. Conrmu.n; ty Association. Board or Directors Don Borthwick Chaimel CoI:"...ili ttee cc: Board of Supervisors· Flood Control District U.S. Coast Guard De~t. Fish a_~d-Go;m.e Hao.1th D0uar·Gr,1ont Or2.nc;o Co-. Grecnbel t Co:nr.tl.s:;ion Or~ngo Co. Shcrif"f'--Coron·er {He.rbor Patrol) .Sto.te Regional 1:r.~_ter Guality Control Board Sa..-i:ta f.na Region ·. Sta'c;e Coas',;°al Zone Conservation Cor:'.'!llissioh State :'arks And :'iecrea•;;ion Dept. -Orn...'lge Coast Area State Senator Do~.nis Carpenter S'~ate Asser.i.bly1,1an 71~·t;h District !tc'!Jert Buo:t?.lll D:;,.ily Pilo·i; u. S .. .li.rniy Cortis o.f Engineers Sir;110.l-Lancl.mar~ Gc!!ore.l Crude Beeco Califo2.,n5~D-l'io.1.,5-nc Parks E!.nd Har::)ors Assri~ Inc. City of: Hc,rport :Seach 'UNTV OF @ ANGE H.G.OSBORNE Dlll'ECTOlt C.R.NELSON ASSIIT~NT OUIECTOIII DEVELOPMENT Mr. Don Borthwick Newport Shores Community 511 Canal Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Borthwick: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 400 CJVI.C: CENTER DRIVE WEST,, -f?";T " SANTA ANA, CA. ~~ \_L: J" I; TELEPHONE: 834-2300 All'EA CODE 714 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. eox 1078 SANTA ANA, CA. 92702 HAY 2 5 1118 ',~ ",v Rll: El H II '{'V ~ PUBLIC WORKS :,.0 '" MAY 3 0 1978 -i:. Association, Inc. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. Receipt of your letter of April 20, 1978 addressed to Mr. Max Bridges of this office regarding the condition of the canal near your community is acknowledged. This is to reiterate previous statements our staff has made regarding your concerns. The gated structure, through which "the flow of tide water" enters the canal, is under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. The city is respon- sible for operation of the gate regulating flow to and from the canal. Questions regarding gate operation should be conveyed to the city's Director of Public Works, Mr. Joseph Devlin. During recent weeks our staff personnel repeatedly recommended that your associa- tion request assistance through the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration office at telephone number 1-800-252-9364. ·However, as of Friday, May 12, 1978 indications were you had apparently elected not to proceed with an application for· assistance. As previously stated, this agency has no jurisdiction in the canal area. fore, we are not able to recommend that the Board of Supervisors provide assistance with your planned dredging of the privately owned waterway. There- financial Enclosed are copies of three previous letters in this.matter dated Februarv 7, 1977, November 14, 1974, and November 7, 1973 which may be informative, along with a copy of the agreement between City and the Orange County Flood District. If you have any further questions, please call me (834-2308) or Max Bridges (634-7016). WMB/CRN:hm ' Attachments: Letters cc: Supervisor Riley j Mr. Joseph Devlin Ve~~ C.R. Nelson, Assistant Director Development EXHIBIT~ - FEB O 7 1977 , 003.00 • Mr. M. R, Wilson ~ 215 Canal Street Newport Beach, C&lifornia 92660 d}Dear Mr, Wilson, - This is in response to your letter regarding the possibilities for securing ocean access to the Newport Shores area in the long term, and in the near torm to secure what you refer to u "a larger floodgate for a better tide , ~ :~~• >=• u=, =~no ,.,,n,1,1,, ot • =j•r =•=•=•••<or =ri•• development along the easterly side of the Santa Ana Iti.ver until and unless . .. the Corps of Engineers-authorized study for the west Newport area is completed, showing justification for federal funding of a harbor entrance on the ma,7nitude r-J shown on the feasibility study plan prepared by Moffat and Nichol, Enginc,ers, --· which was enclosed with your letter. Although the study was authorized, it apparently has not been funded by congress. Further, the recently completed Corps of Engineers study for flood control improvements on tho Santa Ana River would most certainly take precedence over and to some extent conflict with the Moffat and Nichol plan, ', ' \( ,·This is not to say that a marin_ a/harbor plan could not be developed, only to \V indicate that there are some formidable barriers, not the least of which is the probable ne:essity to preserve at least a part of the salt marsh area as a fish and wil,Uife habitat, thus reducing the nWti>u-of slips that l could be const,cted and perhaps affecting the economic feasibility of a major marina. As to the near term prospect for changi.rlg the size of the floodgate, thin is to advise that less than ten years ago the city of Newport Beach and the flood control district completed a cooperative project constructing the existing gate which, to our knowledge, has functioned IOOdorately well for preserving tho quality of the Newport Shores estuary for the sustenance of aquatic life. I . If the Newport Shores Association is serious about further dredging, enl«rge- nent of your estuary area, and increasing the wlume of tidal flow, it vc•uld appear neaea•r to retain an engineer in private practice to develop a I • i ! I • I I ....... Mr. M. R. Wilson llewport Beach, califor1~.!;. Paga 2 11r•U.minary 5,lan anu an eatilllAte of coat for wha.t you propose. Then, if the coat• awear within the capability of tile association to finance, you would need to have an environmental ill\l?act report prepared for processing through the city of llewport Beach, and concurrenUy worlt with the State Department of Fish and Gmne to secure their concurrence in the plan pursuant to the state Fish and Gama Code regarding modifi•catio!l of the bed and banks of the waterway. Finally, after clearing up these considerable details, if your association wbhea to proceed, you would then need to apply for a permit to construct [ a irodified floodgate structure through the levee of the flood control dis- trict' a Greenville-Banning Channel. Application for such a permit may be made through our central permits division by addressing a letter, complete Jwith plans, specifications, and written concurrence of the city of Newport Beach and the State Department of Fish and Game with your application, If all of the foregoing are satisfactory for issuance of a flood control per- mit, a conceptual approval can be given by the county, after which you would need to apply to the Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commission for per- mission to proceed. i It is our understanding that your association has very limited property rights in the estuary, and this should be explored in detail with Mr. Hancock Banning, the a1jacent propertp owner, prior to attenpting to carry the project further. -=1· c. R, Nel.aon, Assistant Director CR!hmb ccs, Supervisor TholllllS Riley, 5th District Mr. Hancock Banning III Beeco, Ltd. P.O.B. 1028 Newport Beach, California 92663 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 400 CIVIC C~NT(=.H (HHVI Wi:ST SANTA AN'A. CALIFORNIA ('I. 1.\ M.\ILIHG AOOAEss: H. G. OSBORNE CHIF:1'" l:N(;INt' r.11 TELEPHONE: 1134-2300 AREA CODE 714 SANTA ANA, CALIFOlil'NIA 9Z70Z Mr. Stephen C. Drummy, President Newport Shores Conununity Association 424 62nd Street Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sir: NOV 141974 '1LC D03.QQ This is in response to your letter about the sand blockage of the ocean mouth of the Greenville-Banning Channel as it affects Newport Shores canal (Seminuk Slough). Water level control ij the Newport Shores Canal is the subject of a written agreement between the City of N wport Beach and Orange County Flood Control District and the oper- a_tion of the gated st ucture providing hydraulic continuity with the Greenville-Banning Channel is basically ·.he city's responsibility. However, the flood control district does -:::::,' assist and monitors ti,e quality of the waters for the purpose of maintaining satisfactory environmental qualityiand a good neighbor policy. • Our regular inspection on October 17, 1974, revealed continuity with the ocean and a ' reasonable level of dissolved oxygen (dissolved oxygen content of approximately two parts per million is~ desired minimum for sustenance of healthy biota). However, on Monday, October 21, 1974 we became aware that littoral drift of beach sand typical of this season had blockJ.d the mouth of the channel. Enclosed is a plot of dissolved oxygen content illustrating ~ur monitoring which suggested a need for ocean continuity to im-i prove water quality. I The mouth of the channel was opened by bulldozer on Octo',er 24 an again on October 29. Following a light rainfall the constituents of storm runoff from ) the urban water shed ~ontributed to a degeneration of water quality which was mitigated on November-1 by reopening the channel to ocean continuity. Subsequently, the enclosed plot indicates satisfactory water qualit?· The general service that the flood control district attempts to provide is that which will economically sustain a healthy marine biota in the channel and prevent serious { offense to the aesthetic senses of adjacent residents. Each day of bulldozer transport i and operations costs approximately $200 and the cumulative annual recent cost experience indicates a cumulative cost of little more than $2,000 annually. Other solutions have 1· been studied and summarized in a November 7, 1974 letter to the City of Newport Beach , (copy enclosed) which concludes that the capital and operational costs for the alternates studied appear unjustified if we are to utilize your flood control tax dollars most eco L omically. The success of our pragmatic approach is illustrated by the enclosed booklet "Marine Animals of the Santa Ana River". We appreciate your advisory and will continue to work closely with your city public works staff in maintaining reasonable levels of flood protection and environmental quality, CRN: er Enclosures cc: Mr. Joseph Devlin, • • 1 Director of Public Works CJ ty of Newporr Bc,ach Very truly yours, H. G. Osborne, Chief Engineer By • _.. ,_J • ORANGE --,OUNTY FLOOD CONTRGL, DISTRICT r'. ft f: "\ NOV 7 1973 No. 003.42" 1 tL ;·,.:1. ,,·r Mr. Josaph Devlin <C IP y Director of Public Works City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1935 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sir: The report of Jfoffatt & Nichol, Engineers, on "Water Quality Control Methods for the Ne"port Shoreo/Greenvillc•Banning Channel" hs.11 been re• ceived and reviewed by the district's atnff. The report describes in oomc detail five altern~tive methods of modifying the tidal entrance oo as to improve circulation, r.iBintain a healthy environr.,entnl qcinlity within the tidal prism, and prevent the various problc,,is that occur when drifting sand blocks the tidal entrance, A number of additional alternatives were con• sidered but rejected without further aoalysia. 'i'he costs for the more promising alternatives are summarized in the following table: Inttial AnnU!ll Hainteoarico Alternate Coot Cost l $6,000,000 Not evaluated 2 $ 104,000 $ 10,000 3 -§ 46,000 $ 6,000 4 .$ 32,000 $ 20,000 s $ 100,000 $ 4,000 Unfortmutely the projections of eucceos of any of the abo'le alternatives are quite speculative. In view of the probability that rr.ajor moJificationa of the tidal entrance will eventually be required under the Corps of Engineers' project for Prado Dam and the lower Santo Ana. River, a significant capital project investment does not seem justified at this time. In addition, we have reviewed the district's costs for opening the tidal entrance by bulldozer on thoae rare occasions it was required duriog fiocal 1972·73. The total cost to the flood control district, including overhead, for the year was $2,221.00. This may have been an unL1sually low•cost year due to the corps of Engineers' beach. replenishment operation in which a one•time major sand haul occurred, ?! ·h; ):•A' ; ",,"I/ l, '! it' • ORANGE ~JUNTY FLO~;D CONTRufulSTRICT llr. .lt,nt-~h rJ~,j i ir, Ctty af ttowpott ncach Pago 2 I.'~ In vie" of the relat1,•o success eY.pcrienccd for the rai:t yc"r "ith : _',' regular monitoring of conditions, we do not propo~e At thl.<1 time to ii:ip la- ment tho, speculative proposals of the cousultantu, but will continue the •. ' t~l more tn0dest operation which has functioned well for the pest year . . }i!) ~ Very truly yours, 0 p CRN:mn. cc: Mr. Jame a 'W. Dunham Moffatt 6 Nichol ' i . H. G. Osborne, Chief Engineer By----,,.-------------c. R, Nelson, Assistant Chief Engineer '. 1 2 0 i) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2°1 I 9-· _;) 26 27 28 29 80 31 11 il '") ,I ~L ... ;_! :1 jl I -:;_,.13 1968, ( Agreement No. C344 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this ____ _ day of BY AND BETWEEN AND ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT,here- inafter referred to as "DISTRICT, 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, hereinafter referr- ed to as "CITY:." R E C I T A L S A. DISTRICT, as a part of its Greenville-Banning Channel improvement, immed- iately north of Pacific Coast Highway, ·constructed a double 30-inch RCP inlet on the east side of the channel to replace a previously existing tidal slough. B. CITY desires that the waterway area of the inlets be increased to pro- vide greater tidal flows to increase water circulation. c. A revised inlet with increased waterway area could also be of greater flood control benefit if such an inlet were provided with a positive closing flood gate, TERMS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits, covenants and con- ditions to be derived by the parties hereto it is agreed as follows: 1. DISTRICT shall prepare plans for the modification of the existing double 30-inch RCP inlet on the Greenville-Banning Channel immediately north of Pacific Coast Highway and submit said plans to CITY for approval. 2. Upon approval of plans by CITI, DISTRICT by contract or by its mainten- ance forces shall promptly proceed with the reconstructiun of the inlet. 3. Upon completion of construction, DISTRICT shall bill CITI for its share of the construction as set out below. 4. CI·TY shall pay to DISTRICT within 30 days after receipt of invoice from DISTRICT 50% of the cost of construction, except that in no·evcnt shall CITY pay more than $5,000. In the event construction is by contract construction, .the total cost of the project shall be the amount paid to the contractor, If construction is accom- plished by DISTRICT'S maintenance forces the total cost of the project shall be the su:~ of DISTRICT'S cost of labor, equipment, and materials necessary for the project C. --1 ,,4_··1 ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 29 I I construction, plus 15% for overhead. In either event, the cost of engineering, test- ing and inspection shall not be considered in determining total cost of the project. 5. Tidal and/or storm water flows into and out of the channel are con- trolled by the gate setting of the structure. CilY shall be responsible for the gate opening, closing, or setting at any intermediate location. This responsibility shall be CITY'S regardless of whether flows are storm water or tidal. 6. DISTRICT shall make provision for CITY'S access to the gate for the purpose of controlling and setting same. 7. CITY shall fully indemnify and hold DISTRICT harmless from any damage or liability occuring by reason of the gate operation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective officers duly authorized, on the date set out opposite the signatures. Date: Date: RECOt!HENDED FOR APPROVAL: / Vi1) , 1 tr.1 t h a~dl:-&--:::::::: H. G. Os~rne, chief Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT By-----~-----------~ ATTEST: w. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By------------------Deputy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mayor 30 11 DATE: . I Clerk 31 32 -2 - NEWPORT SHORES COMMUNlTV ASSOCIATION, Inc .. ' 511 Canal Street -Clubhouso and Recreation Area/Facilities Newport Bea·ch, Orange County, California 92660 ,._-5:9,,Cj-8C:l::l) --·-·····•• . .: ' April 26, 1978 Honorab 1 e City Council : ""='---'-"' ·;7_,,. / ,,_.,.~ Regarding the matter of the Greenvi 11 e Banning Channel, (sometimes known 'ff.,,. ,3 Q as 0xboW Tidelands) and the letter we previously sent you -in October, and your response, we are once again requesting your help. There are many large .homes situated on this little water1vay, and their va 1 ue and the va 1 ue of the entire community hinge, at least in part, on the presence and condition of the channel swrrounding us. Now, we realize that we don't own this channel, anymore than the folks on the Grand Canal of Bal boa mvn that, or the homeowners an Li do or Harbor Isle own the harbor, but we do have a vested interest in all of the waterways of our city, and particularly the one we live on: We, as-an Association were not satisfied with the letter we received from the City Attorneys' offic.e, in answer to our plea for help. It is the feeling of this Association that our letter was probably filed in the stack labeled "knotty little probJems to be addressed at a later date, since this is only the first complaint we've re• ce·i ved". ,~·· We have same new questions to ask of you: 1. Who is responsible for activating the gate that controls the flow into our channel. ' 2. When is it closed and/or opened: 3. Why is it closed and/or opened? 4. Was it used during the recent storms and the ensuing runnoff? Tons of additional sediment were allowed to pass the gate and deposit into our channel during the recent storms, adding tremendously to a problem which 1,1as already approaching a critical stage. To 111c1ke matters worse, Cal Trans _was somehow all owed to enlarge the trench in the area of Superior and Pacific oate_;,-3~2,(Coa~t Hwy. \✓hich carry flood waters !nta our channel, thus dumping much _more CllPIESSENTTO: s2d1m~nt_and_trash tha.n we_can cope with. It ~ppears .that no one but this , fil Mayor ,0 Manager 0 Attorney ~ P \V Dir,tctor O CamD-21/ Diroctor □ o:her D ~ Coun.cilin~:n Gt association 1s concerned with the channels' maintenance, and we are sorely prepared to do anything about it. /2';, ' , d . . . ,";,JI /'·• .. ,.--. ,.., ~,. ....... ,,.,, r~ ,;;,-::,• ··<t .. ~• ... ~~,~~..:.,.;;:.. /fJ:'° l"J\i.:!"i,l'!/IP'IQ!=:.'T 'SMO!R~0 ...ls~.-;;~~:::::.:::. ;:'.::·; . .::;:;,;;:;_, . .;1~:::·~,~-.;;J ,;;;:r.;rr,~r..:;r.::: '":".....,..., NEWPORT SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, inc . 511 Canal Street -Clubhouse and Recreation Area/Facilities Newport Boach, Orange County, California 92G60 April 26, 1978 642-5374 This valuable wetland and habitat is rapidly approaching the stage we Jescribed in our last communication--an ugly, evil smelling mud hole. Some- thing must be done for the animals, the fish, our children, and for us .... and soon, or the problem will escalate from a little job to a large complex projE:ct that would require tremendous amount of funds. The Board of Directors would also like to go on record as endorsing the Marina concept in West Newport Beach. ' cc: ~Je would sincerely appreciate your assistance. We await your response. • Yours truly, \' iJon Mc Innis OC Board of Supervisors Flood Contra. l US Coast Guard Dept. Fish and tame OC Environmental Management Health Department OC Sheriff-Coroner Harbor Patrol Coastal Commision Parks and Rec. Newport Shores Community Association Board of Directors ,. State Senator 36th District, Dennis ,carpenter Daily Pi lot Signal Landmark Bfieco LTD City Council General Crude \ I, April 20,1978 Hr. Max. Bridges NEWPORT SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Inc. 511 Canal Street -Clubhouse and Recreation Area/Facilities Newport Beach, Orange County, California 92$60 Environmental No.nar,e:men·t;• Agency r, '"y· f' "'~~,.,0·0-vounv O OJ. v ...... b Doar .Sir, We aro w1•J'. tir➔<;; to you on beh.s.lf' of tho _500 plus fm:n.iJ.i.o,i ,,ho live in the ,arec. of Newport Shores in Newport Beach. CChis community is net,rJ.;y-S'tt'rounded by what remains of the OJ.':lEino.1 Santa Ana River Channel kn01-m as Oxbow Loop. Until the severe . storms and ensuing runoff of the latest rainy seuson, t':lis was a pleasan·c little char'l.nel used by all the residents and visitors to the area for swir.izninc;, boating, etc. '.!.'he flow of' tide wa·i;er comes through a gate in the levee of the G·reenvlJ.J.e-Ban..nins Che.D+1el (DO)) and the f.lood w:,ters from there and from the San·ba Ana Eliver have s:J.1 but 2(estroyod what once was a. very nico recreational area and wild llfe refuge. We· ';': as o. co111ItrLi.nl ty a.re willing to do. everything we ce.n to re- turn this area to its former beauty and usei'Ulness, b,tt we need assistance and the expertise of -:rour agency to proceed. Hr. Willard Harsh of your staff has recently visited the area and was Vel"Y syr11pathotlc and encourag:i.ng. He took pho'cos of tho f'lood da...11:1age for his file, o.nd lndlcated thnt wo should col.1ll:ltuni- cate wl th you for additional help e.nd guidance. ' As prf'lViously sta.ted, we are more than willing to do our par·!; to resto1•0 the channel to its form.er state, but we desperately need assistance from the ex·oorts. It 1'S not a big job, removal of' an estimated nlne to ten-thousand cub®c f'oet of silt from about fifteen hundred feet of channel, but we are a.Ho.re that worl-c of ·bhis kind is not the simple ·procedure it used to be. We have done some preliminary wo1,lt: o..,~c1 the cl ty s·caf'f ha::; proi0i:tsed to assist. There also exists, we understand, the pos- sibility of tho work being covered by the provisions of' the Federal Disaster :C1elief Act Adm:ln.istered by the Galiforni.o. Office of Emergency Services i'or portions of the Go1_,nty af'f'ected by storm damage. \fa asl-c for your help in determining lf such is the case., We have Ei.l1~eady ·begv.n the task of' securing tho assis- tance and coop0ro.tion of all those directly involved NEWPORT SHORE;S COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Inc. 511 Canal Stroot -Clubhouse and Recreation Area/Facllitie, Newport Beach, Orange County, California 92660 642-5374 1?.nd we -need to know ·!;he extent of ,the help your agency ca.n pro- vide. ·-' We thank you in advance, and await your reply. Newport Shores Co:m:m.u.nity Associe.t:i.on Board of Directors Don Borthw5. ck Channel Cora.1:lli ttee cc: Board of Supervisors Flood Control District U.S. Coast Gv.ar•d ' Dept. Fish and Game Health Do9artra.ent Ore.nge Co. Greenbelt Co:m:r:tlssion Orange Co. Sheriff-Coroner (Harbor Patrol) . State Regional Water cuali ty Control Board Santa Ana Region State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission State Parks And .clecrea·,;ion Dept. -Orange Co a.st; Area State Senator Dennis Carpenter State Asser:1bly1nan 7L~·I;h District Robert BaillLS?J:ll. Daily Pilot u.s. Army Corps of Engineers Sic-,nal-Lancl'llark Genel'al Crude Beeco Cal.j_fornia Ha1')-ine Parks and Har7)ors As.sh., Incl°I' City of Newport Beach NEWPORT SHORE~ COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, lnc.3 • 511 Conol Stroot -Clubhouse and Recreation Area/Facilities Nowport Beach, Ornnga County, California 92660 September 19, 1977 The Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: Newport Shores, being somewhat removed from the city proper, may not have attracted the attention in past year:c; that has been accorded other more prosperous and vocal areas. Now, however, we need help; and we are calling on every political • subdivision and agency that may be involved to· assist us. The Community of Newport Shores is partially surrounded by the Green vi llo-Banning Channel. This channe.l is a focal point of our community (in addition to our club facilities and :the beach):, is the site of many area activities, and has begun to attract a steadily ;i,ncreasing number of visitors. We are certain that you will agree that this relatively uncrowded recreation area will continue to be an attraction and an asset to our beautiful city no matter what the _future holds for it. There are almost 100 homes which abut the water and over 500 families who live in close proximity. An estimated two thousand residents and visitors regularly use this pleasant little water- way for boating, swimming or just relaxing and enjoying the ducks and other .wildlife. About eight years ago the membership of the Newport Shores Community Association paid. the cost of dredging that part of the channel that had silted up over many years. Although the project was extensive (for a purely local effort) and expensive (approximately twenty-four thousand dollars), it was undertaken and paid for by Newport Shores residents. All of the city streets in the area drain into the channel (with accompanying sedi.ment) anq. severe silting is caused by the source--the flood control channel known as D.O. #3 which lies parallel to the Santa Ana River. The gate through which our tide water flows is in the southerly dike approximately one-eighth mile landward from the jetty and next to the bridge; We realize that th~ cost and relative ease with ~hich the job was accomplished eight years ago are not possible now with the new rules and new agencie,s involved. It is not a large under-. taking, but we no longer have the expertise and cannot bear '' THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL September 19, 1977 the financial burden alone. It must be done again and soon. At low tide the depth at the end of Highland Street is minus. In order to proceed, we must have a pledge of cooperation from all agencies involved; and we respectfully request that an answer to our plea be forthcoming as soon as practicable .. We particularly need to know the legal status of the channel (at least that portion which would require dredging). Has this waterway been determined to be tide lands? If so, under whose jurisdiction does it fall? ' It is imperative that we receive answers and commitments as soon as possible. We must begin soon or the City of Newport Beach will have the dubious distinction of having a large number of valuable water-front homes surrounded by a mud hole. Please he.Ip; we don't ask for much! cc: p(j\l\_ fo\ '°~/\,;~ Newport Shores Collllllunity Association Board of Directors Board of Superv1sors Flood Control District U.S. 'Coast Guard Dept. Fish and Game Orange County Environmental Man. Agency Health Department Orange County Greenbelt Commission Orange County Sheriff-Coroner (Harbor Patrol) State Reg:l,onal Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region State Coastal Zone Conservation Colllll!ission State Parks and Recreation Department -Orange State Senator 36th District Dennis Carpenter State Assemblyman 74th District Robert Badham Daily Pilot U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Signal-Landmark General Crude Beeco c:~.~ . C!.,ci {(\/fitµ {lt.b -.} \4©A,tvv.:i • ~Nf ~J~'iJM • -2- Coast Area ,. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY Dennis D. O'Neil, City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Current Status of Oxbow November 4, 1977 In response to the request from the Newport Shores Homeowners Associ.ation I offer the following comments regarding the current status of the Oxbow-Tidelands situation. I will divide the memo into three distinct portions ind.ica.ting the current status of each aspect. Trailer Park.Property -Extreme Sou~hwest End We have reached an agreement in principle with the owners of the property to establish a line approximating the former mean high tide .line of the Santa Ana River adjacent .to their property. The line will reduce by approximately twenty-five percent the total land area owned by the trailer park operators. In return the City will grant a lease back to the trailer park operators for a term of years, yet to be ascertained. A small portion of the area involved goes beyond the "centerline" as. previously decreed in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 22797 in 1927. Thus, certain consents or permissions must be obtained from the owner on the nnorth bank" prior to any final agreement between the City and the trailer park operators. North Bank lve have obtained an agreement in principle from the owner of the north bank property, Beeco, Ltd., to establish a mean high tideline roughly approximating existing high water mark along the north bank of the river from the westerly city limit line to its intersection with Coast Highway near Bitter Point Dam. We contemplate entering into a boundary line agreement within the .. foreseeable future. Current negotiations are at a standstill since work has to be done by the State Lands Commission and the State Division of Oil and Gas regarding communitizing the oil under the Oxbow together with information regarding adequate consideration for pass through rights should oil be lawfully drilled or extracted from the City of Newport Beach. We currently estimate that it will take three months to ascertain the technical data needed prior to finalizing agreements with Beeco, Ltd. • South Bank From the trailer park property along the south bank to the intersection with Coast Highway near Bitter Point Dam considerable work will have to be done prior to any settlement. We are currently working with a title company seeking information as to ownership of property adjacent to the former Santa Ana River. It is contempiated that considerable time will pass prior to having this data.available. We contemplate entering into a boundary line agreement recognizing, in most circumstances, the current high water mark on the south bank. There are, however, so~e encroachments into the water area which will have to be dealt with on an individual case by case basis. It is too early, at this time, to accurately estimate when actual negotiations can commence due to time delays beyond our control caused by title company inaction. - General Conclusions It appears from the historic and engineering work that has been done that the full length of the former Santa Ana River from the westerly city limit line to Bitter Point Dam is in fact tidelands. Further, to a large extent the river in its current configuration (with the exception of fill area in the trailer park location and the dry area near Bitter Point Dam) is substa~tially as it existed in its last natural state. Based on that fact, it appears that the State Lands Commission will support an appropriate boundary line agreement with all adjoining property owners. \'/hen the boundary line agreement is finally executed, the City will become the 'owner of.the river bed and the underlying fee subject to the tidelands trust. Unfortunately, the title information which is essential prior to forming any boundary line agreement is, at best, very slow in forthcoming and, more importantly, may prove to be exc.e dingl exp sive. • ( HRC:yz ( ( \ C .W-\oa April 24, 1978 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. __;:G:....-2==---~ TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: SANTA ANA RIVER RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project to be administered by the Environmental Management Agency for interim improvements to the Santa Ana River from Adams Avenue to the Pacific Ocean. DISCUSSION: Attached is a letter dated April 3, 1978 requesting the City Council to approve a project to be admini.stered by the Environmental Management Agency and funded by the Orange County Flood Control District for interim improvements to the Santa Ana River from Adams Avenue to the Pacific Ocean. See attached sketch. The project consists of reconstructing and widening levees on 1.25 miles of Santa Ana River between Hamilton Avenue and 500 feet north of Pacific co·ast Highway. Levees and river bottom will be widened 70 feet from 160 feet to 230 feet. Existing rip-rap will be removed and levees lined with reinforced concrete. Project will upgrade flood control capacity from 35-to 70-year flood capacity consistent with upstream system. The contract agreement provides for a bonus/penalty of $2000. per calendar day with the penalty applying each. day after November 15, 1978 that the job is not complete. The bonus shall apply to each day prior to and including November 15, 1978 that the contract is complete. At the time the banks are excavated the City hopes to have approximately 10,000 cubic yards of beach quality sand transported to the beach area west of the Newport Ocean Pier. Also as part of this project 40,000 cubic yards of excess material will be removed from the Greenville Banning Channel (003). The removal of this material should improve the circulation. in the channel behind Newport Shores. \ ili-·~ /') 'C.,.: ' \.-~ (J seph . evl in , P~blic Wm: s Director '1J{ D: do Att. ( ANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, H. G. OSBORNE DUtECTOR C.R. HELSON • AUllT,'NT D1"£CYO!t DEVll!LOPMENT Mr. Joseph T. Devlin Public Works Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard 400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST SANTA _ANA, CA, April 3, 1978 Newport Beach, California 92660 • Dear Sir: • TELCPHOH!:834-2300 AREA COO£ 714 MA.ILING ADOl'U:S3° P,o, eox 101e S-~NTA. AHA, CA.-0-2702. l"ILE EOl.20 The Board of Supervisors on March 28, 1978 approved and adopted the plans and special provisions for the Santa Ana River Channel interim improvements from downstream of Adams Avenue to the ocean, and set May 1, 1978 as the date for the open-lng and considering of bids.. (· Under the Orange County Flood Control Act, City Council approval is required before the construction contract may legally be awarded. Enclosed are two sets of contract documents. Please submit the project. to your City Council and have the clerk provide two certified copies of the council's action to this office pri.or to the bid ope.ning date if possible. Your cooperation and that of your staff in the project's prompt review is greatly appreciated. DEU:bjm Enclosures Very truly yours, ~WJ,,1C&__ Williams, Manager D sign Division ( ( ( ' " C.ll . .l It.I.I NJ fN.l! :t:O An9I~ varlr1....._ (,both sid•s) l ( oo, STA, I!' ·96: ENO ONSTRUCTIO'Fr " ·= "-" JJ ... :1 WIL§OII -"P) _-_-·, • __ j' " V•!jTOltlA ~ , ~ a . "--,i-- S.TA. 2\J+-00 M !'$A uu Q..! JLJLlS_jj mg Jilli .. LOCATION MAf sc.,u:,,• .. 2000' £01 D03 Voriqs Vori,J \.\~!.l"~-..,.,-,o• fa ZOo • Cone. /In~ chonn~I ( TYPICAL S[CTION ?~ ,?5 to -'0"00 No seq/,- £'r~lf'SS' Se-dim4'nl January 10, 1986 OXBOW LOOP DREDGING I. Excavate to (-)5 MLLW, 50 ft. wide A. Easterly portion /{) 5. 4 S. I. x 50 S. F. + 27 =t C. Y. /Ft. 10 C.Y./Ft. x 2,200 Ft. = 22,000 C.Y. B. Westerly portion ' 8.1 S.I. x 50 S.F. + 27 = 15 C.Y./Ft. 15 C.Y./Ft. x 2,800 Ft. = 42,000 C.Y. C. Cost 22,000 + 42,000 = 64,000 C. Y. C, Y. (J,:J;J Assume price range of $3 to $10 per -G+t-y for local djsposal and off-site disposal, respectively. 64,000 X $3 = $192,000 64,000 X $10 = $640,QQQ II. Excavate to (-)3 MLLW, 30 ft. wide A. Easterly portion Nominal quantity 10,000 C.Y. B. Westerly portion 4 S.I. x 50 S.F. + 27 = 7.5 C.Y./Ft 7.5 C.Y./Ft. x 2,800 Ft. = 21,000 C.Y. C. Cost 10,000 + 21,000 = 31,000 C.Y. 31,000 X $3 = $93,000 31,000 X $10 = $310,000 (Note: At meeting of January 9, 1986, the Council Tidelands Affairs Committee voted to recommend a $10,000 appropriation for maintenance dredging in the area Immediately easterly of the Greenville-Banning Channel.) ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT H. G. OSBORNE CHIEF ENGINEER Mr. Joseph Devlin Director of Public Works City of Newport Beach P. O. Box 1935 400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST SANTA ANA, CALIF"ORNIA TELEPHONE: 834-2300 AREA CODE 714 NOV 7 1973 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sir: MAILING ADDRESS: P, 0, BOX 1070 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 The report of Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, on ''Water Quality Control Methods for the Newport Shores/Greenville-Banning Channel" has been re- ceived and reviewed by the district's staff. The report describes in some detail five alternative methods of modifying the tidal entrance so as to improve circulation, maintain a healthy environmental quality within the tidal prism, and prevent the various problems that occur when drifting sand blocks the tidal entrance. A number of additional alternatives were con- sidered but rejected without further analysis. The costs for the more promising alternatives are summarized in the following table: Initial Annual Maintenance Alternate Cost Cost l $6,000,000 Not evaluated 2 $ 104,000 $ 10,000 3 $ 46,000 $ 6,000 4 $ 32,000 $ 20,000 5 $ 100,000 $ 4,000 Unfortunately the projections of success of any of the above alternatives are quite speculative. In view of the probability that major modifications of the tidal entrance will eventually be required under the Corps of Engineers' project for Prado Dam and the lower Santa Ana River, a significant capital project investment does not seem justified at this time. In addition, we have reviewed the district's costs for opening the tidal entrarn;,e by bulldozer on those rare occasions it was required during fiscal 1972-73. The total cost to the flood control district, including overhead, for the year was $2,221.00. This may have been an unusually low-cost year due to the Corps of Engineers' beach replenishment operation in which a one-time major sand haul occurred, Mr. Joseph Devlin City of Newport Beach Page 2 In view of the relative success experienced for the past year with regular monitoring of conditions, we do not propose at this time to imple- ment the speculative proposals of the consultants, but will continue the more modest operation which has functioned well for the past year. CRN:mn cc: Mr. James W. Dunham Moffatt & Nichol Very truly yours, H. G. Osborne, Chief Engineer 7 2/·-\ / By -(_ .I X'da» C. R. Nelson, Assistant Chief Engineer October 29, 1973 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO . G-1 ------- TO: CITY COUNCIL APP [l {' '.f r-o r' / r.' "T' f f"\ ........ 1 1 !'\ I f"'\ I L r\v :/1_-,,. 1-..' i L; 1 i l;'...;Uhui FROM: Public Works Department DATE OCT 2 9 1973 SUBJECT: ENGINEERING STUDY OF THE GREENVILLE-BANNING CHANNEL BEACH OUTLET RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: l . That the report prepared by Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers be received and filed. 2. That the staff be directed to contact the Orange County Flood Control District for the purpose of investigating the feasibility of Plan No. 3 described on Page 2 of the report. For a number of years there has been a problem of sand blockage at the beach outlet of the Greenville-Banning Flood Control Channel located along the easterly side of the Santa Ana River. This sand blockage restricts the tidal exchange of water in the channel and results in objectionable water quality problems in the Newport Shores area. Mechanical means of removing the sand tried by both the City and the Flood Control District have proven to be impractical. On December 27, 1971 the City authorized an expenditure not to exceed $5,000 for the City's share of a joint engineering study with the Orange County Flood Control District of the Greenville-Banning Channel beach outlet. Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, Long Beach, California were retained by the Flood Control District to perform the study. Because of (1) the unusual geometry of the tidal basin, (2) the difficulty of evaulating the many parameters involved, and (3) the present state-of-the-art of tidal entrance analysis, it is not possible to arrive at a well defined scientific answer to the problem. It does appear, however , that it may be possible to divert the Greenville-Banning Channel (DO-3 Channel) into the Talbert Channel (00-2 Channel) just downstream of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge. Of all the alternatives discussed, this appears to be the one that holds the most promise . Because of the limited number of copies of the report available, copies have been included only for the following: Councilmen, City Manager, City Clerk and Community Development Department. Council members who have no further need for the report are requested to return their copies to the Public Works Department. \-~ lin Di rector :hh Copies of Report to: Councilmen Ci ty Man ager City Clerk Community Development DeoartmP.nt Ar Q.e7 C'-0''\2.-'\) (il::'(L, (:it .. , l) PACl!=IC J~:;s-,~ -1-f,:,t/y: 197/ 19"?" r (.,..., DAY JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAi\J I _FEB MAR APR 1"AY i Jlll:~j 10 -·t i : , L l--'1==-1:e:-----i---+---+----+----1--.-~--+---+--.;J--·'--+-;{c..._~-+---+-c_'.t' ··.-+---~-( 1--'l;c2=.. ___ -1----+----1---1----i-;;J-._-i----1---·~;f:c, __ '--.,-·•-+--,+'--+-----+--""-·+-·~-',_ 1-~1?,-~;'-.. ---+---+----l---l---1-~'::,_+----1--li;J,,·_ +--'--, :, __ -1-,,i,.,'._•+---.--'-+-•o,--+-+"+- 1-~1""5"'-----i---+---+----+----l---l-+----l----{}r _ _-1_i_,4 __ ',,.c~,-:c .. ··--1- 0 l··_~_-.:.,::::1 ·_\•"':-~-::::~~+----··f--- 16 ,, , t ';,,,, [' · ll'P'A.l-"'" •,ifl~,1$ l;. CONT!Al//try WITH OC&'A/1I • INVN1>1i7El) DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 G-l?EE/./Vlt.l.E 8AltJN//./(; CH. {003) Ar PACIFIC COAST HWY. JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR I APR /// /// 1/// /// // t" ,:1 [r,. !•i~ kl !\1 ('c •• "' ' J:.~ ·,e., ~{''• ~ / / / / V // / / / / ~' _; ' f.J: -~\'{ --1 Jr ·':r' / / / / / / _, ' / / / ,, Y-, ,.c.:: / :\ ~ ,·"•. ! ' / / V / / / / / , / / ,:Ji,• ·,, ·-i: '. ,_ i -, f / ' !.' / / V / I/ / / / / / H -,, \',, -- / / // I/ / / / / V '; .,, i .,, '-, ,-.·\'. . ;:;,, V / / / / / / / / / ·,·::· -?, >:,_i -;, _, :Ci / / / V / / / / '· "' --. , '";' :,.·,.,: >· // / / / / / / / / t g ' ;; i / / • ,.,- V / / / / / / / / ,:: ,· "f /: C):' ,--,-•: / / ;'_ ' V / I/ / I/ / V / V / _.· 1' ,J' ' .,.+' ,, '• ;!·" / / /N1 / / / / / / <J ~! " :.+ ,, ,, / RFrt Qn / , / ,, ''-' ;)- / / / / / " / / / / -. -: .. ) fj ., ,:·,,:i / / / / / / / '.'.:, ''j tl .-. ~1· '}}, •. ; --•C ' / / / / / / , k,, ' !511 ;,. ! ";' '.-.,, :;-'" / / / / / / , / 'i 'f ·:; ,_.{ ; i/f _:('i l-:· '~ _/ , / / / / / / •· i -•,; \1 'fi ;'-~ rt , V / V ,• / / / / / -.-~ • ' -;d ,,. ' _: ;-, / / / / / , / / ; ·-·1 :., ' "i'•-A· l, '""-V / / / ,/ / i,L : '; ;-::;, i :.t, / / / / ,/· / / / / , . ii :~ ;~-Let' 9;, / / / / , , / / H r \ {' ' , -l• \·! V / / / " ; / / f J: -F>; L<i ..,,_ / ;. "-'I;! -.,_ ,,,1 i / / / / / / I/ / , ;.-· ! --·~} "~: / / , / / // -~l ' ! 1· ,-'c: / ' " / / / , / / / / ,, _, ' '· ' I,-; r,: / / ' ",1 t / / '_-/ I/ /, / ~,-' ;; ' ' ·f ,,/-\ '"' / / ' ,, , / / / / / / ,'-i,' :.-: u ,f \ . ,j _,.,/ ' / / / / / :~:.:.r ~?:~ ,, <t / -'.}._! / / / / / // L -1,1 t?t~ );j -- MAY JUN <;,J ;:,i _,_ f:~ (,: 1·· ~~&L.. 'iS 1 '-c f:-;1 1 (4 (:~ ,,,, ,•'J •icj f, -, >"(' f':~ ,1 '{': ,, j( j .i:; ·--· -l! ;, I h Ar PACIFIC COAST HWY. 1973 . DAY JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN ', ·I ,:-·;d '_. ,;I "·! I -; ! /.'' .·, i 5 ,· ' icl . 6 1'! 7 .. / i ; ' ''i ,,,, ., •.· :: ~-:-; i 10 <! 11 ,j;j ·::_·:: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [,; :i-+---+--1----+---+---+---+----i C ! INVOICE MOFFATT t INjlCHOL. ~NGINEERS LONG BEACH PORTLAND REPLY TO: P. 0, BOX 7707 250 W. WARDLOW ROAD LONG BEACH, CALIF, 90807 426-9551 • 774-5650 Ooun tr of O:t-mr• P.o. 1'ox J64 24 8&p'/t$l!lb>Cill:' 197.3 tuvoie.e Dio. JSl OU:r/' Jeib le. l,•1442 TO $ant111. Alt;ft1 Ca ,2102 OitY' of 'ffl'l\lWJ;)OX't ~a.ah $200 ~ttW}'.)f;)l'\ !lvd.. N•wpevt l'hlfill\lh, Ca 92660 County ct O:r&nge Fi.wehase Ol"d&ll' No• » 5141:$.7 Gi ty ef M•w-po,:,t Blilaeh l"'\tt'Cbll'.$1\l 01."dlll' !10 • 1'10$ ll:ngin&!lll"~J atti1dies tor. methods to i~l'ove wat•:r q.itality ~ ro:rt1mu1 f!>f the G:1/'elltnville Sannin,t 0~1ru11l and adjacent Sl¢1up IU'illlllll ♦ 9lt,siiif~\?,III ti (:'l,!l l".:in:i ject Ma:ruii~u• Coastal Engineer 1111\lnior l>ra.tt•~ Junior Draftsman 'l'ypii.t llt\tlil )0.00 21.00 17.,!>0 12.00 :u:i.,o l:lo11nt.7 of O:vange .• l/2 City o'E New;po~t aea!.lh 1/2 A~Mt $ 900.00 38:;4.0!il :;,o.oo 4.)8.oo ll8J!,.l lli6:IO!~ VENDOR PURCHASE ORDER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH , CALIFORNIA 92660 PHONE: (714) 673-2110 SHIP TO (SAME UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) [!: Moffatt and Nichol , Engineers 250 West Wardlow Road Long Beach, Calif. 90807 QUANTITY DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES· OR SERVICES REQUIRED Study of tidal;portions of the Greenville Banning Channel a.d adjacent slough areas. Study to include recommendations on measures to improve water quality sufficient to eliminate nuisance and maintain beneficial uses of the waters. The Orange County Fliod Control district will furnish sur- veys and topographic maps required and will make available a 11 its records, maps, and p 1 ans and the services of Jim Roberts, Water Quality Specialist. Cost to the City NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.00. The Engineer shall furnf sh 25 copies of the report to the City. FOR CITY USE ONLY CODE AMOUNT No. 7105 INVOICE IN DUPLICATE THIS OROER NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL INVOICES, SHIP· PING NOTICES, BILLS OF LAD· ING, EXPRESS RECEIPTS AND PACKAGES. DELIVERY TICKETS SHALL IN· CLUDE UNIT PRICE, DATEJan. 7, 1972 DEPT Public Works Engineering UNIT PRICE TOTAL 5,000.00 IMPORTANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 02-3487-276 5,000.0) The Articles covered by this Purchase Order or Contract must con- form with the Safety Orders of the Stale of California, Division of Industrial Safety. Show as a separate item any retail sales lax, use lax or Federal lax applicable to this purchase. This order subject to California sales lax. A 11 allowable transportation charges must be prepaid and shown as a separate item on the invoice. Do not include Federal transporta- tion lax. DEPARTMENT COPY O.W. MEANS PURCHASING AGENT I MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA • PORTLAND, OREGON September 21, 1973 Orange County Flood Control District 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92700 Attention: Mr. George Osborne City of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Joe Devlin Gentlemen: JOHN G. MOFFATT F•ANK C. NICHOL 1'0D,l97l G. GORDON MURRAY Roam, M. BONNCV JOHN T, GUWRI< aoaeaT O NjCHOC JOHN M, NICHOL Transmitted herewith is our final report on water-quality-control methods for the Newport Shores/Greenville-Banning Channel. In accordance with our agreement, 24 additional copies are being transmitted under separate cover to each addressee. We regret the long delay in completing this work and hope it has not inconvenienced you. Most of this delay resulted from our attempts to adequately define the closure vs stability limits for the drainage outlets under study, as described in the appendix. Unfortunately, the state-of-the-art of tidal-entrance analysis has not yet progressed to the point where the limiting parameters can be evaluated at reasonable cost, and the search for scientific answers to the problem finally had to be abandoned. Nevertheless, it was an interesting study, and we hope the report will serve your purposes. JD-me Encl,5. Very truly yours, MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS ~-t~ p_ o. BOX 7707 • 250 WEST WARDLOW ROAD • LONG BEACH • CALIFORNIA • 90807 • (213) 426-9551, 774-5650 MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA• PORTLAND, OREGON September 21, 1973 Orange County Flood Control District 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92700 Attention: Mr. George Osborne City of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Joe Devlin Gentlemen: JOHN a, Mo,,ar, fSONK E. NICHOL 1000·1•71 0, ~ORDON MURRAY ROBERT M, MNN,V JOHN T-GUrHai, ROBERT □, NICHOL JOHN M-NIC~OL Transmitted herewith is our final report on water-quality-control methods for the Newport Shores/Greenville-Banning Channel. In accordance with our agreement, 24 additional ..,,~-copies are being transmitted under separate cover to each addressee. We regret the long delay irt completing this work and hope it has not inconvenienced you. Most of this delay resulted from our attempts to adequately define the closure vs stability limits for the drainage outlets under study, as described in the appendix. Unfortunately, the state-of-the-art of tidal-entrance analysis has not yet progressed to the point where the limiting parameters can be evaluated at reasonable cost, and the search for scientific answers to the problem finally had to be abandoned. Nevertheless, it was an interesting study, and we hope the report will serve your purposes. JD-me Encls. ---·---~ .,,-,,-' ·, ' I I ,,__ / • ''</ • R[Cth ril '<'o I .. / P_UBLIC WORKS·-:~-.) \ 2-:! SEP 2 6 1973 ► :.,9 .. _\, CITY OF / \ ,, \ NEWPORT BEACM, ,,; I ,,,/ CALIF. 1/ \, ( / >-...._ ,-. ·-/ • ______ ........, I j' ·1· _.!..,_ \ \ \ ··.,,,-;,./ '--.........___ N ---_,..,,,. Very truly yours, MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS James W. Dunham p_ o. BOX 7707 • 250 WEST WARDLOW ROAD • LONG BEACH •-CALIFORNIA • 90807 ° (213) 426-9551, 774-5650 Jl)ne 5, 1973 110: FROM: SUBJECT: Bob: • MARHJE SAFETY DEPARTMENT 70 Newport Pier CITY MA.NAGER Marine Safety Director SANTA ANA RIVER AREA; BORRO\v SITE REALIGNMENT AND CLEARING OF GREENVILLE BANNING CHANNEL MOUTH As a product of numerous meetings, I have negotiated the filling in of a significant pond of water immediately eastward of the eastern-most Santa Ana River. These meetings have included the Orange County Health Department, the Flood Control District, the Army, the Newport Shores Association, and Silberberger Engineers. Work should begin within a week, since the contract will be negotiated and not put out for bid. 'I'he Army still has the funds left over from Stages 4B and 5, and would have been required to return them if not used before the end of tlris fiscal period. This small project should clean up the loose ends, at least temp-orarily. However, I imagine that the Greenville Banning Channel will not remain open for very long, in view of the upcoming South swell season. But for the moment, the Newport Shores people will be placated with a better exchange of water into their canal. 'l'he Army (Joe Bittner) was reluctant to simply push the sand, sea-ward of the pond, toward the property lines to accomplish the pond's filling. This is because he feels that another berm sill will develop which conceivably could create an additional pond. Also, because of the need for opening the Greenville Banning Channel, we decided to move the material from there into the pond. Admittedly, this will leave the beach somewhat wide which is not desirable to all local oceanfront property owners, CITY MANAGER Page Two We will be announcing work schedules when we receive them from Silber- berger, which should be forthcoming within a few days. They will want some site security for pedestrian safety. MARINE SAFETY DEPARTMENT R. E. Reed, Director RER: l f cc: Mayor Chief of Police Public Works Director General Services Director James Ballinger, Orange County Barbor District ~~· •••• .-----·--· --~v··~~~x~:-ir i --• 1 L~J l_~_J -~ _. . f: PAC IJIC CO A ST ,r-+ 5j 11 + ~ ~t~ ~: 74/. r---1,589.70' -t Jo -/ 5 (0 .le,.~ • ~I 127° 2 [Z ,_: 127° 21' 23" >-' ' ,-: ,_,, ,~~~ . V? • : V, V? fl Ii .---0 I <II ;;I I ~I I ~I = ~if !i a: ~~I I ill ~11~ ~I I ~I I ~I \JJ > 0:: 1"',l 4 \\~•:: 4. ~-· ~ "" --'.....____ . ,J(:__ ~, ......____ z ~,.:::: ,,, ---. -.....__, ...... ..'-.... <:::~~-"'.'.:. . . -1~·(::::: ·--"'~-.... ~-<E?'~?.::::::~ in 17,,1.-a/ .. l ~ :::::':*.~:::::::~ ,, ,,.. --;?~' ~-----.. _ ~-.. i· <--....... ~ .... y lq;_:\ 'l :::::::i~~:::::::::~ -_: _ 11u.w-. ~ :;.,--~ -~ --........y -~ ••• ·-·-.·.·-'1':.·-.·.•-·.· •. • • -·•. •.. ·•. ,,.• . . c-.-. " ••• ...... ' ., ....... ·.·-·•.•, . . ..• "· "-.. ·. . . '",, . ',/"'. • • \J: • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • • ......... -,- ~J~i ::: :-• 1,1 ~.;.:z::::::::::::::-:::~,~::::-::::::::::. ~~~---.~ --~l-~ •. ,...;.-~" .s;{;'qwC?,.,;;J ecl-:,,(1! '.,b • • • '\ ><\~. '•. • •.•. • 4 • • •. • • •••• ;:~,<'~ •••• • • •• • '•, . ~ . f' ); V ~· ,it::::::'\~ : -(-::::::-::::\n ::::::::::::: •:::::: ~;:-::::::::-:::. ---.. • ··-. C} r oer,w J,"J\{:'::::~• •• \,}:"::·:::::::: .. :-:•::.:-:,:::::;:::: .//::::::::;:::. . -. . iii'.-.·.·.·.:•.•,r,.·. 'p-,;,.;zci11 J ..• ·.:•.·.· ·-.·.·•:•.·.····.·.·· 1 •· :· ___.,. .J-r,;·.:-:•:".".,>\):.·•:•. -. :..i_':-..... • ~ ~ ••• •••• "°'. ·::·.·•:•:•:·.·.:•.· ~-----··--- - o</'••·•.• .. ,,s.· •• • •••••••• ,AREA ,"'>,. ••••••••••• ----~-.... $;'_':::·•:•-:·::::)},l":f'.;'.:·•::::'.:'.:;::::: •. •. •.:,.•'.:;-:\~;;;_;::::.:;;.;::.. .. --. \ .' . . ..... ~${~\\~:~~~--:~•,-:''/ __ . / . . ~A . . J .. L I ·-~~· .-· .-----·· ____ •• ---PL A· N SYMBO!.. DLSC!lJPT;OHS__ _ _____ __l_~_T_~_.!:!:'.'~i?''"' • • f=CC'L.. __________ ----' •• -· , ~ R(VJSlOl(S i O • • 200 400 U.S./.~'/,~ ENGl"[[R OISlRt(:f I ~0 ==•m , U'~~S ("" [~~:N[LRS Fc{':1-200 3 +----·tcc-cc,,c~ .. ---l~ . SCALE ,;a;;;,--. ,"Fl~-E---., _>\,-,. -·---. ,-·~.• .. .:,.,:---···. S.lop/ fo.d , , ··. .......____ ~ .. '..,·~C>li), E --'":i FE ET 1.'ESIG/itDBY, SHOR( FGcncr;c .. , ... ~~CV[U[•!T ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORN1A JH8 \ ;/~F,;; .• , •• , STAGES 48 ANO 5 6-EACH STA81l/ZATfON St\NTA ANA RIVER TO ~.:~V/Pl'Jlff PIER ~ORROW SI1l1E HF:\ TTG;::--nswP :'·'. '_ l. '~'/ /-----·-'1:,·~-c-:-··/·': ;;:i,.;{J l lON .~~A :::: '°j~~::·'···~,'.~;~-~~;;;:~~:.~:;"" ':'"':,. ; ><'U I ·1 .,t • Cf'"-"""'"'""' ··---·----,----- • MEMvRANDUM To _ _,F-"--1.._· J......,_e ______ Joa No. a NAMEL-J 4Ll2 Newport Shores DATE 5/2/72 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA FROM J. W. Dunham RE Conference No. 2 _____ ____;:___ ------------------------ A meeting was held at the Orange County Flood Control Dist . Office, Santa Ana, on May 2, 1972 to discuss our preliminary report on ''Investigation of Water Quality-Control Methods, Newport Shores-D03 Channelu. Present : OCFCD-George Osborne, Di rector (part of time) Carl Nelson, Asst. n Bob Cowan, Chief of Surveys City of Newport Beach-Joe Devlin, Pub. Works Direct. M&N Eng . Jim Dunham J.ack Nichol • 2-1.0 Information Items 2-1 .l OCFCD is preparing a report on flows in the Newland- Tal bert Channels (D01,D02). Initial indications are that this channel system maintains an opening thru the beach primarily with tide-water exchange. Peak flows run as high as 200 cfs, whereas tributary contributions, mainly from extraction well s , are around 10 cfs. 2~1.2 The primary purpose of the Newport Shores tide gate it to exclude flood~waters in the Greenville - Banning Channel from the low area in Newport Shores . It should remain open except during floods or when floods threaten . The two 30n pipes were probably closed purposely for thi s reason. 2-1.3 During floods , all three channels have about the samE surface elevation near the ocean, but the Santa Ana River (EOl) has a much higher velocity. There appear to be some transmission of water between EOl and D03 especially near the ocean, with considerable leakage thru the stone j etties in the outlet . 2-1.4 When the DOl outlet closes occasionally it often h appens in late winter or spring . This would be the result of downcoast l ittoral drift coupled with highE waves at times when stream-flow is minimal . 2-1 .5 Nelson fears that suggested operation of tide gate (Plan 10) will merely result in water backing up in D03 and not flushing out the outlet . ROUTE TO INITIAL! I JGM FE N z. GGM RON ~ JM N ~ ~~ JT G .i> PE ALL I 2 3. 4 ~ 6 7 8 ACCT CONTRACT FILE JOB FILE s r I' ii, "' er <t :,; w er MEMvRANDUM c., · f~, ./11• Pt!,1/,·l'J ; To _ ____.F'-i ..... J""'e'-'-------JOB No. a NAME ___ L_-_1_4_4 __ 2 -_N_e_w~p_o_r_t __ DATE_5~/~2~/~7~2~_ Shores JW Du nham LONG BEACH, CALIF"OllNIA Conference #2 FROM _________ RE _______________________ _ Page 2 . 2-1.6 Devlin feel s t hat Plan 2 has merit , especiall y if D03 flows are div erted to D01 just below PCH bridge thru low-level temporary channel . 2-1 .7 Cowan feels that an eddy-current action triggered by the l onger north jetty may help keep the D0l outlet open. 2-1 .8 Jetty extension by means of low or adjust able groi ns considered a.good possibility to hel p the situation. 2-2 .0 Action Items 2-2 .1 OCFCD to complete study of flows in D01-D02 channel s and furnish M&N a copy soon . 2-2.2 M&N to determine tidal area and prism in D01-D02 system and compare with D03-Newport Shores . 2-2.3 M&N to study outlet area further in connection with above findi ngs to determine whether adjustable groins widening of Newport Shores Channel to obtain more t idal prism, or a combination of both might work . 2-2-4 . M&N to work u~ cost estimate for an import well near upper end of Newport Shores channel. 2-2 .5 M&N to include in final report a bri ef discussion of possibility of conne cting Newport Shores Channel with west Newport Bay Channels and any other less- likel y projects that might help if they could b e programmed. 2-2~6. M&N to address itself to question as to why D01 channel remains open while D03 channe l c l oses rapidly after b e ing opened . D-e ROUTE , (/) "' Cl'. <! :; w Cl'. TO INITIAL~ JGM FEN GGM RON I JMN i JT G ' P E ALL I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ACCT CONTRACT FILE JOB FILE MOFFATT&, NICHOL, ENGINEERS LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA • PORTLAND, OREGON March 31, 1972 TOl Orange County Flood Control District 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California Attention: Mr. George Osbor•ne City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California Attention: Mr. Joe Devlin Gentlemen: / Enclosed is a rough draft of a portion of our forthcoming report on water-quality contro1·methods for the Newport Shores-Greenville-Banning Channel. We suggest that after you have reviewed this draft, a joint meeting of City and County technical JOHN Cl, MOPFATT FRANK f NIOHOl G'. GORDON MURRAY ROBeRT M. BONNEY /OHN T, OUTHR" ROOERT D. NICHOL JOHN M NICHOL personnel be scheduled at your convenience to discuss with us the ideas presented therein and to furnish direction.toward the completion of our study. Please note that the cost estimates are all very rough and should be used for eompar·ison pur- poses only at this time. For plans that show some promise of implementation, the cost estimate will be refined in the_ final report. Very truly yours, ~OFFAIT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS .:?/c~ ~ Dunham - Enclos. 250 WEST .WARDLOW ROAD• LONG BEACH• CALIFORNIA• 90807 • (213) 426-955 774-5650 Molllng Acldr.,., P, O. 11"'1! .W~.l !~ INVESTIGATION OF WATER QUALITY-CONTROL MSTHODS NEWPORT SHORES DO 3 CH,,NNEL INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE In a prior study by the Orange County Flood Control District*, 1, deterioration of water quality in. the Newport Shores Marina and lower reaches of the Greenville-Banning Channel (D03) was documented and several possible causes of this condition were suggested .. Eight specific recommendations were made, some with a view to reducing.the amount of pollutants being introduced into these bodies of water and others with a view to monitoring ongoing processes and determining the effectiveness of corrective .measures.. One recommendation, however, was for :furthe~ study of the eng:l,neering :feasibility o:f maintaining continuity with • the ocean to permit t.idal exchanges to D03. It was noted that beach sand _choli{king the D03 outlet prevented such exchange most o:f the time. and ·that the cost of keeping the outlet open with mechanical equipment. ~uld be prohibitive. The purpose of this study wa? to ex'.plore the feasibility not only increasing tide .,~ ~:ld-..Jcci;yAo:f developing a less costly method of maintaining/\water exchanges in D03 and Newport Shores Marina, ·but also of achieving • adequate water-:quality ,control by other means. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS *Evaluation of-Water Quality Conditions Found in Orange County Flood Control District's Greenville-Banning Channel(D03) and Newport Shores Marina• Prepared by J.C. Roberts, Water Pollution Engineering Specialist. Orange County Water Pollution Control Department, H. G. Osborne, Water Pollution Control Engineer, Santa Ana, California October 1971. ANALYSIS OF THE PROBtI -The sand blockage at the mouth of D03 is due to an insufficient tidal cEJxchange and stream flow during dry weather to maintain an opening against the beach-building capacity of the ocean waves. Exchanges between D03 and the Newport Shores Marina are further restricted by a 5-foot diameter gated culvert pipe with its invert set a -2.9 MSL datum at the marina inlet. The original intent of this constriction was to hold the water level in the marina aboue mean sea level to obviate the need for deep channels to accommodate small-boat navigation. It was. planned to open th(;! gate occasionally for tidal flushing, assuming normal.tidal action in D03 with an unblocked outlet. This occasional· tidal exchange thru the pipe was expect.ed to maintain water quality in the marina channels. When the D03 outlet remained closed during the summer months, this plan was thwarted. The Talbert Channel (D02) and its tributary, the Huntington Beach Channel. (DOl), discharge into the ocean on·the west side of the Santa River Channel (EOl); The Orange County Water District has sunk six extraction wells in the .drainage area of .these two channels south. of .the County's water inJection barrier against salt-water intrusion, and it discharges the.ir combined 5200 gpm output thru the channels to the ocean. As a result, the runoff of D02 is perenniel and its outiet remains·open during the dry season.· A single extraction well of 500 gpm capacity (P-10) discharges directly into EOl, and as a,·result, a small .• outlet at the mouth of that river al.so remains open throughout the year .. Several factors have led to the deterioration of water quality in the Newport Shores marina and D03 as pointed out in the Flood Control District's report. The summer sand blockage at the mouth of D03 results in a very minimal tidal exchange with the ocean during the hottest time of the year when it is most needed. Sea water oft_eI1 _ent_fri, the D03 channel only thru interstices in the stone jetty separof;ing the channel from a 1. '' I, ' I I . I . ' ' I : small tidal area at the mouth of EOl downstream from the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. This curtailment of tidal action in D03 in turn has reduced summer tidal exchange thru the culvert into the Newport Shores Marina to almost negligible proportions. New Housing and commercial development in the 8,500 acre D03 drainage area has measurably increased the inflow of surface-drainage pollutants in recent years. These pollutants are not being flushed directly out to the ocean but remain for some time·in the lower reaches of the channel because of the sand blockage. The exclusion of sea water in any large quantity from the tidal areas of the D03 channel and continued inflow of surface· drainage lowers the salinity of the water, tending to accelerate certain undesirable processes, .in the micro-biology of certain virtually stagnant reaches. Surface drainage from the Newport Shores development into the marina and the husbandry of domestic ducks in the area·tend to hasten the deterioration of water quality in the marina. Several alternative plans for abatement of this pollution are suggested, each with a different price tag and _usually with prospects • for success that are .about proportional to the cost. All are additional to the District's planned efforts to reduce the amount of pollution entering D03, and the marina. In order of lessening likelihood for success and with the understanding that some may be used in combination with others, these alternatives are: 1. Increase the tidal prism of the D03-Newport Shores Marina complex sufficiently to assure a self-maintaing tidal inlet thru the D03 jettied outlet. Cost range: $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. 2. Modify the outlet structures to improve the self-maintaining characteristics of the tidal channel, and increase the tidal prism progressively until a self-maintaining inlet is established. Cost range: $1100,000 to $700,000. 2. 3, Maintain a tidal inlet thru the beach blockage with mechanical equipment and adjustable groins, replace the pipe culvert into the marina with a larger-capacity structure, .and deepen the marina channel to accommodate boating at low tide stages. Cost range: $100,000 to $300,000 plus $10,000 to $20,000 annual maintenance. 4, Provide a temporary common outlet for D02,. EOl and D03 and install a new tide gate in D02 near the coast highway for periodic flushing with the perenniel runoff that occurs in the D02 channel. Cost range: $200,000 to $300,0QO. 5. Install a new tide gate in D02 near the coast highway arid extend a.pipe bypass from its backwater area under EOl and D03 and thence overland to the headwaters of the small tributary to the main marina channel. Use part. of the perenniel flow in D02 for diversion thru the marina as needed to keep the outlet open and maintain water quality control. Cost range: $130,000 to $200,000. 6. Install a.tube well to a reasonably high-yield aquifer some- where near .the tributary channel to the marina and pump water (probably brackish) thru an aeration spray into the channel .. Cost range $50,000 to $100,000 plus $2000 to $4000 annual pumping costs. 7. Supplement the marina outlet tide gate with a larger-capacity structure, deepen the shallow reach of the marina, remove the D03 ., blockage sand, and experiment ;,ith adjustable groins· in an effort to keep the entrance at least partially open for tidal exchange. Cost range: $40,000 to $80,000. 8. Install some type of water circulation and aeration system· in the marina, preferably interconnected with D03, to improve water quality without increasing tidal exchange or using non-tidal make-up water. Cost range: $20,000 to $30,000 plus $1000 to $2000 annual operating costs. 9, Extend the discharge line from OCWD Extraction Well P-10 across the EOl and D03 channels to empty into a ditch leading to the Newport Shores Marina tributary. Cost range: $30,000 to $70,000,plus extra-head Annual pumping costs of $500 to $2,000. 10. Operate the existing tide gate for optimum effectiveness. Channel excavation $2000 plus $1000 annual operating costs. Analysis of Suggested Remedial Measures Plan 1. • (.B l1 ·o 001 ,Job ~ Jf 'L,Oof,00&) Tidal Prism-Increase. Experience with. natural tidal inlets along the southern California Coast indicates that some 200 acres of water area at least 3 feet deep (below MSL) are required to_keep an inlet open without mechanical assistance. Any lagoon this large or larger will maintain a channel thru the beach berm whose cross-sectional area below MSL in square feet is roughly equal to the tidal prism in acre feet. Tidal prism is defined as the volume of the lagoon between the planes of mean higher high and mean lower low water. The minimum limit. for non-closure varies from point to point along the coast, and from time to time. thr.oughout the year depending largely upon the local rate of litt_oral drift and the wave climate. Only experience ( or experimentation) will give a valid answer for a given location. The proposal:. to create. sufficient tidal prism to maintain the inlet without assistance therefore requires the conversion of almost the entire Bee co oil field into a lagoon and the excavation an_d disposal of, about 2,000 ,ooo cubic yards of material .. Such a lagoon could be constructed as 'l.n ecological preserve with a few tidal.flats at·a c9stof about $2,000,000 plus land acquisition, or it could be developed into a marina. See Plate 1. Even if a la.rge marina-type development could be justified at this location at_ the present time, it would require a navigable entrance whose protective jetties and bridge modifications would cost in the neighborhood of $5,000,000. The jetties in turn would interfere with littoral drift and entail high annual sand bypassing costs. In view of its high cost and apparent lack of any prospect at the present time for achieving the required tidal prism either as an ecological preserve or thru a marina-construction program funded by others, this proposal was not explored further, but a very rough breakdown of the cost estimate is given in Table 1. O'lfila;OtlO • f,700100{)) . Plan 2. Outlet Mbdificition. The jettied outlets of the three contiguous water courses . south of the highway are designed primarily for the safe·:, passage of major flood discharges into the ocean. The design flood discharges are 2355 cfs. for D02, 34,200 cfs for EOl, and 3070 cfs for D03. While floods in excess of about 1500 cfs may occur e.very 5 to 10 years in the two side channels, the probability of a major flood in EOl is ·much more remote because of the retarding capacity of Prado Reservoir. This proposal for increasing tidal exchange relies on the probabL\.ity that major floods will be a rare occurrence in EOl and calls for temporary outlet modifications that can withstand floods up.to about 3000 cfs in any of the three channels with little damage. A phased plan for increasing tidal exchange would be implemented, as shown in Plate 2. The perenniel flow of D02 would be utilized in Step 1 to assist in maintaining a single tidal inlet common to both D02 and D03 as well as to the small tide pool of EOl '-by means of a • temporary timber training wall. An opening thru the jetty separating D03 from EOl would be required, and a training wall would shunt D03 low-level flows diagonally across the broad EOl outlet·to a point near the end of the jetty between EOl and D02. D03 tidal flows would then combine with D02 tidal and perenniel flows to assist in keeping the common inlet open thru the beach. The training wall in the D03 channel 5. would nave the added advantage of excluding the _g;as- emitting area from tl. tidal flows. This training wall would have a relatively low height, say about +2 MSL. It would be built so that it could be overtopped by high tides and flood flows in the channels without being damaged. A major flood in EOl would probably wash out at least that portion of the wall between its outlet jetties, and necessitate its replacement after the flood, but the permanent jetties would not be damaged. A ' . . . large offshore delta deposite(J. opposite the jetties during such a flood thereafter would probably .render this system unwork0ble for a year or two/\ until littoral currents redistributed the delta sands to the adjacent beaches_ • and returned the shore line to its ·usual•'. location. Special corrective measures would be required to maintain the tidal inlet during this· interim period. It is doubtful that this single training wall alone would be suffici.erit to prevent a summer blockage. If it failed, t.he second step would be to construct another training wall at the outlet of DO2 to concentrate the DO2. flows near the end of the jetty separating DO2 from EOl. A third_step • might be to construct a low timber sill, say to about-1 MSL, between· the ends of the two training walls skewed to the contours of the beach so as to induce a local scouring effect with an upcoast littoral current at low tide stages. Hopefully, this sill would tend to discourage the beach-building efforts of the southerly swelt during summer months and bypass littoral drift upcoast past the tidal inlet., Reversal of littoral drift direction in winter would not be measurably affected, as the. higher waves of that season break farther.•seaward,and long-shore currents tend to stay farther offshore. 6. depress,, A smallAweir opening in the Step 3 sill would be left to permit the low-tide perenniel flow in D02 to scour a channel thru shorewar.d by waves prior deposits of beach sand carried/lover the siJ.1/\duringJ\high -tide stages. This opening would have a cross section about equal in square feet below sill level to the tidal prism in acre feet of the tributary channels. The "crest" of this weir would be depressed to about a foot below the general sand level of the beach at the sill location. The relative effectivene'ss of such a training wall and sill· scheme cannot be predetermined becuase,no prototype works of. this nature have been attempted along the California coast. Hydraulic model studies would not give the answer because of scale-model vs prototype dissimilarity with regard to sediment movement. The system would have to be. built and a calculated risk taken that it might not work as well as expected. Modifications would probably be necessary as work progressed. It might be found that only a pilot channel along the training wall site would be required out to the shoreward side of the beach blockage, and from that point seaward the training wall crest elevation might have to follow the sand surface elevation thru the beach berm. If this entrance-modification proposal were implemented and it still failed to produce the desired results at step 3, the next series of steps would be to increase the tidal prism of D03 progressively until it did. Step 4 might be the excavation of the bed of D03 to -3 MSL for several thousand feet upstream from the coast highway bridge, with disposal of the excavated material on or adjacent to the east levee. If this still failed, step 5 would have to be the replace- ment of the tide gate and culvert between D03 and the Newport Shores 7. Marina with a bridge or large-capacity un-gated culvert. This alone might add sufficient prism to produce the desired results, but if not, step 6 would be the widening and deepening of the marina channel. Step 7 could be the addition of a sizeable small-boat basin to the marina channel system and/or the creation of an ecological preserve hydraulically connect_ed to the marina system. If step 7 became necessary, considerable additional expenditures would be involved, both in land acquisition and excavation and disposal of material. A I rough estimate of the step by step costs of this program is given in Table 2. Plan 3. (i! f•'t""' • tl]o~1ooo + ~.,i, 151 ro1 ~Q• -· )'ft ?.t>,•••) Groins plus Mechanical Inlet Maintenance. This proposal would r·e1y primarily on mechanical equipment to keep the D03 channel unblocked, . but two additional steps would be taken to utilize the forces of Nature in reducing the workload of such equipment. The first step· would be to replace the tide gate into the Newport Shores Marina with an open structure to take full advantage-of the presently available t.idal prism of that body of water. This would also require some deepening of the marina channel to accommodate small boat navigation at extreme low tide stages. The second step would be to experiment with an adjustable groin extending about 400 feet seaward from the end of the D-3 ';last jetty. See Plate 3. The base of the groin could be a creosoted timber sheet pile diaphragm with a broad cap just above the sand line. To the top of· _this permanent base would be attached a sectionalized collapsible frame which could raise the crest of the groin by about 4 feet when needed. It would probably be left in its raised position throughout the summer and early fall to prevent southerly swell from drifting sand into or past the D03 outlet. In winter when the northern 8. hemisphere storm waves cause a preponderance of downcoast drift, it would be collapsed and perhaps removed for safe storage. Even though the outlet sanded over occasionally in winter, the water quality in D03 and the marina should remain fairly good because of lower tempera- tures and the occasional flushing action of rains during that season. It is noted that .this outlet often remains open in winter even under present. condi.tions. The mechanical equipment would probably be a small dragline or backhoe which would work along the high ground between the jetties guarding the D03.outlet. It would remove sand from the tidal-channel as necessary to keep .it open throughout the summer season, Excess sand would be cast over the ea.st jetty and if desired, bulldozed out to sea at the end of the season so that it would drift down coast with the winter waves. This mechanical effort would probably be limited to about 4 months of the. year, and even then might be conducted much of the time on a stand-by basis. Although the effectiveness of this procedure can not be .accurately predicted, it i& a more positive method than the Outlet Modification plan. Mechanical equipment ha1:1 been used at other tidal inlets on occasion with varying degrees of success. The amount of effort that mu1:1t be expended varies with the amount of tidal prism available, the severity of the wave action, the relative coarseness of the sand, and the skewness of wave approach. Although the tidal. ,prism would be only a fraction of that required for unaided inlet maintenance, this particular area has many low-swell days in summer when the inlet might remain open without mechanical aid. When in raised position., the groin would not only prevent upcoast drift during southerly swells but would tend to cause scour of the beach on its 9 . northwest flank. This in turn would facilitate maintenance of the inlet, as less sand would be available to clog it. The cost estimate for this program is given in Table 3, (Jr 20~16,,~ ~· tl;,00,000) ::.P.:::lc::a:.:.:n:....__:4...:._..::D:...:0:.:2:......:T::..:i:.:d:cce=-G:.:a:cct=-e=-=-P::::l::::u-=-s-=O..::u..::t..::l..::e..::t-=-M:.:o:..:d::::i::::f:..:i:.:c:.::a:.:t:.::i:...:o=n. This plan would utilize the perenniel outflow of D02 to intermittently flush out a common tidal inlet to the three adjacent channels by controlled releases from a tide gate. The D03 outlet channel would be shunted to the.D02 outlet at the shoreline with a temporary training wall as in the Outlet Modification plan. The D02 channel would be provided with a low dam and tide gate near the coast highway. The crest and downstream face of the dam would be an overflow spillway capable of accommodating the D02 design flood without overtopping the upstream levees. The culvert thru the dam would be about 5 feet square with its invert ·at the inveI't level of the concrete channel bottom. The gate would be operated with'~n electric motor for quick-opening purposes. It would remain open at all times except when flushing was required. At that time the gate would be closed until sufficient head was developed for adequate flushing action. The release would be timed to coincide with the beginning of a low tide stage in the ocean. Any plan that includes a dam in D02 for either outlet flushing· or diversion purposes must take. into account two factors that may tend to discourage such action. In the first place, this channel and its tributary D01 are tidal for. some distance upstream f'rom the. ocean outlet and contain considerable marine life. The ecological effects of such a dam would have to be investigated and permission for its construction obtained from the cognizant water-quality control and environmental guardian agencies. Also, the OCWD plans to divert the 10. output of all extraction wells presently discharging into these two channels (about 5200 gpm) into the Fountain Valley desalting plant in the near future. The effect of such diversions could be a premature ending of the dam's usefulness for the intended purpose. Although this plan would provide a positive means of scouring out-the outlet thru the beach, there is some question as to its effective- ness in keeping the D03 channel open also. Unless some provision were made.to achieve a concurrent (even though less vigorous) flushing of that channel, wave action in and near the confluence of the common outlet might carry sand up the D03 channel above the confluence creating a . blockage that the D02 flushing action could not reach. One possible solution to this problem would be to close the Newport Shores tide gate on a high tide just before the flushing cycle began and then open it fully when the D02 tide gate is opened, Whether or not this proved ·.necessary,· this proposal would require continuou.s monitoring of the outlet and entail a certain amount of operational expense. The cost estimate for this program is given in Table 4. {tJ/3•?,ooo-.11·2._oo,ou) :::.P.::::l::::a:.:n:.-.,5::.;•:._...:D=:...::.0:::;;2..,....::T-=i:..:d:..:e::__G::.:a::.t.:..e.;:......-"'P-=l:..:u:..:s;......c:D:...:i=-v'-e:..:r=-sc..=:i-=o.:.::n--=-t.c:o--=-N:...:e:...:w:..epc..o:..:r=-t-'--=S.:.::h:..::o-=r..ce:.:::.s. This plan would require a D02 dam & tide gate similar to that of the preceeding plan except that it could be manually operated. A.relatively small inverted siphon (about 2 feet in diameter) would be constructed to divert part·of the D02 flow under EOl and D03 just upstream from the concrete wall· sections by the cut-and-cover process. The discharge from this siphon would be carried by pipe or 013en ditch to the nearest point in the small channel that extends generally westward from the north bend in the Newport Shores Marina. The D02 tide gate would then be adjusted to divert part of the perenniel flow of that channel into the Newport 11. Shores Marina while the marina outlet gate remained closed. A period of several days might be required to fill the marina to its extreme-high-- water capacity. Then the marina outlet gate would be opened fully on a low tide to flush out stagnating waters and to scour out the D03 ocean outlet. As in Plan 4, the factorsmi.tigating against construction of a dam on D02 would have to be taken into account. See Plate 5. This procedure would provide a positive method of exchanging the water in the marina and keeping the D03 ocean outlet open for tidal exchange. The quality of the D02 exchange water thus introduced into the mar.ina would be questionable, however, as it would contain large quantities of surface runoff, which is often a source of pollution. Being less brackish, it would dilute the salinity of the sea water and make the marina generally untenable for some species of estuarine ·life. It is possible that by judicious manipulation of the tide gates the exchange from D02.to the marina could be kept sufficiently saline to avoid serious ecological imbalances, but only experimentation would give the correct answer. The frequency of flushing would be determined by both water-quality and outlet-blockage considerations. If this plan is adopted it might be advisable first to compartmentize a segment of the small channel off the Newport Shores Marina and progressively reduce its salinity with imports by tank truck from some fresh-water or mildly'brackish reach of D02. Observations of biological and chemical changes in this segment by water-quality personnel could then be made to determine whether any harmful effects would result from a full-scale dilution project, If none were·noted:, the D02 dam might be designed as a segmented temporary timber structure which could be removed during the winter months if so desired. In lieu of the tide gate, an adjustable weir could be incorporated in the dam structure which 12 .. would.be adjusted to hold the water level in D02 just high enough to transfer the optimum cnntinuous flow into the marina channel for watizr- ·quality control and periodic outlet-flushing purposes. The cost estimate for this plan is given in Table 5. . Of57J1bo~ -fl/Do1Mo-,.. /l./\1,P-2110~.Jl<,,1 00~) Plan 6. Local Well-_W_a_t_e_r ___ f_oc..r_,_N_e_w~p_o_r_t_S_h_o_r_e_s. This plan relies only on the import of water from tube wells to maintain water-quality control in the Newport Shores Marina. It is predicated on the possibility of finding one or more aquifers at a reasonable depth for pumping that can yield a sustained flow of about 1400 gpm. • required. This would provide about a ten Probably two wells da'ily • percent; exchange of would be water in the marina without tidal assistance and thus permit a certain amount of tide-gate restriction to hold the water level at the desired elevation for navigation and odor abatement purposes. As in the plan for water import from the D02 channel, a salinity- dilution problem could result unless the well water proved to be highly saline. Prior to implementation of this plan, some type of experimentation with salinity changes in the marina waters should be undertaken. On the other hand, the well water should be free from biological contamination, and in that respect of better quality than water imported from D02. Plate 6 indicates a tube well near the upper end of the.small channel that is tributary to the marina, with an aeration-spray outlet for entraining oxygen in the well-water releases. A second well would be added if necessary. Hopefully, this would not only maintain water clarity in the marina but would also increase the oxygen content of the. water so as to sustain fish life in greater abundance. Occasional full- open tide gate releases on extreme low tides might be effective in keeping the outlet open in summer. This in turn would allow adequate tidal exchange in D03 to maintain the quality of the water in the tidal 13. reachis of that channel also. The cost estimate for this plan is given Plan 7. Stop-log Culvert plus Groins. This plan is predicated on the premise that the existing 5-foot-diameter culvert and tide gate have insufficient capacity to provide adequate water exchange for both marina water-quality control and ocean-outlet maintenance. A supplemental box . culvert about 8 feet wide, with an invert grade of -3 MSL, and with stop- log slots would be provided to permit greater water exchange at high tide. levels. The stop logs would 'be adjusted to give the proper weir crest elevation to hold the water level in the marina above some minimum eleva- tion during low tides most of the time. Occasionally, it might be found desirable to remove the wier completely for increased tidal exchange or to flush out accumulations of sand in the no3· ocean ou_tlet. The outlet blockage problem would be attacked by installing an adjustable groin off the end of the east jetty and raising it to design heigh·t at the end of each spring to prevent the drift of sand back into the D03 outlet during the summer. A fairly wide outlet channel ·would be ·excavated each spring so that less sand would be available to I the waves for forcing an outlet closure. Hopefully, the tidal exchanges thru this outlet plus the shielding effect of the groin would keep it open all summer. If needed, a second adjustable gain would be provided opposite the west jetty of the D02 outlet. This groin would be raised near the end of each winter while the drift was still downcoast in order to create a temporary erosion pocket in the outlet area. Both groins could be kept in raised position all summer to maintain a sand-deficient littoral compartment at the entrance if this proved to be effective, or the west groin could be lowered if a strong upcoast drift were noted. 14. Considerable experimentation both with the groins and with tidal control at the marina entrance would probably be necessary to obtain the best effects. This plan is depicted graphically in Plate 7 and its cost estimate is given in Table 7. (#·201Ji> -# :l<',~DI> f· ll.M. Jr ~OP•· 1J 2.,o&t>) Plan 8. Aeration and circulation without Importation. This plan would =-===---~-.:..:.:...:c...::'-'--'----'"-=-------'---------'------ rely only on the fqrced movement of water within the marin<;t and aeration to maintain its quality. Its effectiveness would depend primarily on the size and efficiency of the mechanical equipment used and the success of efforts made.to exclude sources of pollution from the.marina waters. ·A 1000 gpm+ sump pump. would pump water from the small_ tributary of the marina thru an open ditch or flume into the D03 channel. It would be actuated by a water:-level switch which would shut the pump off when the. water in the marina fell below about mean sea level. The existing tide gate would be left open for maximum tidal exchange. If the D03 outlet sanded shut, an attempt would be made to flush it open by closing the outlet on an extreme high tide and then opening it fully on the succeeding low tide. Water circulation would be supplemented by an aeration spray pump which would be moved from place to place in the marina as dissolved oxygen levels dictated. Floating aeration pumps are manufactured for this particular purpose, with submersible cables leading to shore for power supply. The aerator should be located off the usual navigation paths and anchored so that it could drift too close to shore. This . plan is depicted in Plate 8 and its cost estimate is given in Table 8. C /1"f,o1oeo -tn,(ooi, .,. ll,f<I. ti Sl>• -f; l,Do,) Plan 9; Extraction Well Diversion. This plan is a modification of Plan 6 for well-water exchange, except that the water would come from an existing OCWD extraction well (P-10) which now discharges into the EOl channel near Hamilton Ave. Inasmuch as this water must be pumped for 15. reasons other than quality improvement at Newport Shores, the cost of installation and operation of the well would not have to be borne by_ the water-quality project. The water that is now being extracted to Lower the water tab.le rie_ar the well site would merely be diverted for this seonndary beneficial use. See Plate 9, The water would cross the EOl and D03 channels via pipe line suspended under the Hamilton Ave. Bridge, and thence by ditch to the headwaters of the small tributary to the marina, An aeration spray would be installed where the pipe discharges into the ditch for oxygen entrainment. In all other respects, the operation would resemble that of plan 6. Unfortunately, the P-10 well is currently yielding only about 300 gpm, but ths"!·Water District plans to drill a new well nearby in an attempt to recover the 500 gpm output of the original well .. Even this discharge may be inadequate for water-quality control in the marina. If the PlO output·proved inadequate for exchange-water purposes, two options are available for improving the system. The first would be to . close the tide gate occasionally, let the marina water surface arise . to maximum allowable level, and then. open it wide on a low tide to flush out the ocean outlet and thus effect an increase in the tidewater exchange in both D03 and the marina. The second option would be to divert other water-extraction-well discharges into the ditch until the requirements of the project were met. Well No. P-7 has a capacity of 700 gpm but is a mile and a half from the head of the proposed ditch, and the coit of piping it that distance could be excessive. Moreover, this alternative would only be effective until the Fountain Valley desalting plant went into operation. The estimated cost of this plan is given in Table 9. 16. {Jr 2./>&0 -r A, h, It J 1 9o, Plan 10. Tide Gate Operation Only. This plan would rely solely on the operation of the existing tide gate to maintain water quality and to remove blockages from the D03 outlet. However, to obtain the full effectiveness of the gate, about a 10-foot width of the shallow reach of the channel extending some 2000 feet eastward from the gate should be deepened about two feet, This would permit the maximum tidal exchange possibie with the limitation imposed by the 5-foot diameter of • the culvert. However, if a free flow of sea water thru the D03 outlet •is maintained, this limited exchange may be sufficient to maintain adeq,uate water quality in the marina. As in the case of other plans that do not provide make-up·water, the effectiveness of this plan would also be strongly contingent upon the successful exclusion of the various external sources of pollution from the marina waters. See Plate 1.0. Under this plan, maintenance of the D03 outlet thru the beach zone· would be mandatory. It is believed that this could be accomplished by perodically closing the gate on an extreme high tide and then opening it on the following low tide. At all other times the gate should remain fully open to assure as complete tidal exchanges as possible. This wo.uld • mean a somewhat greater fluctuation of the marina water level with the tides than occurs at the present time. Although these fluctuations might meet with some objections from Newport Shores residents because of possible strong odors at low tide and certain navigation or boat- doclting problems, this would be by far the least costly of all the methods suggested. The estimated cost is $2,000 for channel excavation plus about $1000 extra work annually for monitoring the marina waters and D03 outlet, operating the tide gate, and perhaps the occasional use of mechanical equipment to cut a pilot channel thru an outlet blockage. 17. COMPARISON OF PLANS A review of the ten plans suggested for improvement of water quality in D03 and the Newport Shores Marina reveals a basic defect in Plans 2, 4 and 5. Each of these plans places considerable reliance on continuation of the perenniel flow in the D01 and D02 channels. The planned diversion of extraction-well discharges to the Fount.ain Valley· Desalting Plant in the near future could result in runoff characteristic~ in the two channels similar to those of D03 under curpent conditions. This would not only defeat the intended purpose of each of these plans, but could also cause deterioration in the quality of water in the tidal reaches of D01 and D02 during the summer months. Consideration of that possibility and corrective actions that might be taken theref'or • are not within the scope of this study. However, it. should be noted that the proposed damming of D02 near the Coast Highway under plans 4 and 5 could seriously impair the quality of the impounded water once perenniel flow ceased. For these l;'easons Plans 2, 4 and 5 are not• recommended unless the p1erenniel flow in D01 and D02 ca11 be guaranteed to continue .. • Cost alone will rule out further consideration of Plan l which would be the most positive means of solving the problem. Plan 3. as outlined in the preceeding text is also too costly, mainly because of high operational costs. Plan 9 should not be considered further until the success of the OCWD's plans to recover the full capacity of extraction well P-10 is assured. This leaves Pl~ and ii __ ~~~"-:) within reasonable cost brackets. Of these, only Plan 7 attempts to • solve the problem without incurring operational .costs. However, the chances for success in keeping the D03 outlet unblocked during the summer without increasing the tidal prism of the marina or importing water are not too good, even when groins are used. Also, the relatively 18 large exp en di tures re '_ired for the culvert and • j.j us table groin may not,be commensurate with the results ultimately achieved. Plan 6, although relatively high in cost, would give the best chances for success, provided a high-yield aquifer could be found at the first site indicated on Plate 6. Further investigations should be made of this possibility if some means can be found to finance a project of this magnitude. If one well alone proved sufficient, the cost differential between Plans 6 and 8 would not be great enough to warrant selection of ~he latter with its less positive approach. In other words, water importation of some type is far preferable to circulation of the existing water in the marina. Note that both plans achieve the same degree of aeration . . Whatever plan is selected, it should probably start with Plan 10. Apparently no attempt has yet been made to use the tide gate for flushing out the sand blockage at the mouth of D03 as proposed. This plan would involve the least cost and is almost sure to achieve partial • success, Depending on the results, the next step would be to proceed with either Plan 6 or Plan 8, again depending on the success of the search for ground water. Regardless of the corrective action taken, occasional blockage of the D03 outlet may occur during certain combinations of tide and wave action. When this happens, some effort should be made to keep the outlet open with mechanical equipment. This may not prove as costly as has been anticipated if coupled with the judi~ious use of the tide gate for flushing. 19 COST ESTIMATES TABLE 1 Tidal Prism. Increase -(Very Rough) Dredging 970,000 Cu. yds@ $1.00 1,940,000 Cu. yds@ $1.00 Min. Project Max: Project $ 970,000 Culvert LumpSum 30,000 II II $ 1,000,000 Costs to be Borne by Others Land Acquisition 100 acres @ $20,000 $ 2,000,000 200 acres @ $20,000 Bridge Construction (for marina only) Utility Relocations ( It II II ) Jetty Construction ( II II II ) Beach Land .( II II II ) $ 2,000,000 TABLE 2 Outlet Modifications Cost Step 1 -Timber Training Wall Gap in Jetty 900 I .·@,$20.00 Step $ ·18,000 Pilot Chan, Excav. Step 2 -Timber Training Wall Step 3 -Sill with Weir 3,ooq T. 4,000 c.y. 150' 100 1 Step 4 -Excavate D03 to -'3MSL to @ @ @ @ $ 5.00 15,000 $ .so 2lOOO $ 35,000 '. • $20.00 $ 3,000 $20.00 $ 2,000 Sta 60 50,000 c.y. @ $ .60 $ 30,000 Step 5 -Culvert LumpSurn $ 30,000 Step. 6 -Widen Marina Channel 200,000 c.y. @ $ 1.00 $ 200,000 Step 7 -Create 10 acre Marina or Lagoon Land Acquisition 10 AC· @ Dredging & Disposal.130,000+c.y. @ 20. $20~000$ 200,000 $ 1.50 $ 200,000 $400,000 $ $ 60 000 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 200,000 2,000,000 300,000 8,500,000 Total Projec $ 35,000 -, $ 38,000 $ .40, 000 70,000 $ 100,000 $ 300,000 700,000 TABLE 3 Groins Plus Mechanical Inlet Maintenance Initial Construction: Culvert Dredging & Disposal Anno.al Maintenance .. (S) t.. Adjustable Groin ·Lump Sum ,50,000 c.y. 1-50,000±_c .y. @ $1 ;;qo @ $1.50 Min.Project Max.Project $ 20,000 t 40,000 $ 20,000 30,000 6.0,b00 $ 100,000 230,000 $ 300,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 TABLE 4 D02 Tide Gate Plus Outlet Modification . Timber Training Walls 14Q0' @ Gap in Jetty 3000T @ Pilot Chan Excav. 4000c.y.@ Tide Gate in Earthfill Dam . Tide Gate in Concrete Dam TABLE 5 $20.00 $ 5.00 $ . 50 D02 Tide Gate Plus Diversion Tide Gate in Earthfill Dam Sectional Timber Dam with Adjust. Weir Intake Structure Eipe Conduit, 2' diam--60d@ $25 Inverted Siphon 400' @ $75 Lined Ditch 700' @ $7±_ TABLE 6 Local Well water for Newport Shores Install 700 gpm well with aeration head Install 2nd 700 gpm well plus 600' pipe Annual Pumping Costs Annual Maint. & Tide Gate Operation 21. Min.Project $ 28,000. 15,000 2,000 155,000 Max.Project $ 28,000 $ 15,000 $ 2,000_ $ $ 200,000 . $ 255,000 300,000 Min.Project Max.Project· $ $ 75,000 5,000 15,000 30,000 5,000 130,000 $ 145,000 $ 5,000 15,000 30,000 5,000 200,000 Min.Project $ 50,000 Max.Project $ 50,000 50,000 $ $ 50,000 $ 100,000 1,500 $ 500 2,000 $ 3,200 800 4,000 TABLE 7 Stop-Log Culvert & Adjustable Box Culvert. with Stop Logs (Timber) Box Culvert with Stop Logs (Concrete) Adjustable Groin (s) Groins TABLE 8 Circulation & Aeration Only Install LOOO gpm sump pump Install 2000 gpm sump pump Lined ditch 800' long Aeration pump & spray Annual Pumping Costs Annual Maint. & Tide Gate Operations TABLE 9 Extraction Well Diversion Min.Project $ 20,000 $ 20,000 40,000 Min.Project $ 10,000 $ 5,000 5,000 500 500 Max.Project $ 40,000 40,000 80,000 Max.Project 15,000 7,000 8,000 30,000 1,000 1,000 $ 1,000 $ .2,000 ·Min.Project • Max.Project Pipe P-10 to Hamilton Ave. 1300' Pipe P-7 t.6 Hamilton Ave. 7000' Pipe Crossing Hamilton Ave. Bridge 600' Ditch to Tributary 6000 1 Extra-head Ann. pumping costs TABLE 10 Tide Gate Operation Only Excavation 2000' pilot channel 10' wide Annual operation & Maintenance· 22. $ 10,000 6 ~ boo • • 14,000 $ 10,000 34,000 6;000 20,000 30,000 $ 70,000 2,000 500 2,000 _l,000 I - l-- ~I tf) lONG 8£.lCM, CALl1'01tNt• ( CITY COSTA. WATER QUALITY -CONTROL METHODS N~WPORT SHORES -DO~ C HANNEL T IDAL PR IS M INCRE ASE OF S~ALE I ;.j ooo CATE ~~ J.H.C-J.H. CHEGl<ED BY J .W . D. I _I ... 11_' I i I I i ) I I / I I , , /; 1/ z -· .,,,.. ww ... W I\TE-R QUAi..l T'( -CONT Rl')L 1/,ETHOD~ SCA'.i: 1"~~01 joATE 8-28·72 ~I" AT r_.~ NEWP'JR T 5 HOR.E5-DO 3 C..H AN N E L DRAWN BY J H (., I{N)1rno1.. l!:NGINf:IUU OUTLE T tdOD I FI CAT 101'-!S C~;fOB--;Jl'.? • T LONG 8(ACH, OL1F0RN14 Joa Ne l·1+4-2 s HEET 2 or-1 o I )· I I J I f11 .I • I ' ·/ /~ .. : / ; r /. • I ( t I j t i ! ! , i I I ! J INSTA.LL ADJU STA.BL E. SRO!N 1 RA-_I ~E EA.CH 5PR I NG, Al-JD LOW ER EACH F~LL. ' ' '. \ ,/ ' C,1:)c,,-; "~ , , Jt I/N100D • /I ~ oo,, ooo ..--------------·--, •--t AJ't'). )( /0 OO•-9 lP IOD ~-~ Hr>t. 11'11'.;l~f.!!l'O'i ~ lOWG 8lA.C~, CAL.lfvRNtA. V\/ATr;;Q.. Q.UA.LI TY-C ONT ~C)L ME.THOD'5 NEWPO RT ::SHO RES -DO~ C HANNEL 6RO I N5 t ME :MA N I CAL INLET MJ:\llJTE NANC E- .,. '-. '· --' ' ' ~~- ,, ·,. ~ I I f ! I , /_ I ( ! • -----, I / I ! I I I I IN5TAL.L DAM ANd P0.WER-O PERATEO ',._. T J DE 6 AT E----.. ! •• ·, • \ I ! ' . . I I I I I I i 1~lv1BlzR TRAIN I Net . WALL C.,.cJ ";,' '. ,,:--,... (✓.->,, ... . /'·,. ·. I-· f If z_oo oeo-JI 300 ooo I I W 4-TE.R. QUA.LlTY -C O"-lTROL ME:THO OS NEWPO RT .:S HO R.ES -D 0 3 C HANtsJEL.. : •. ).oN~-llEA.,.Cti,:~At.l_FOR)4]~'•. ; . .. . ~ ~ L f?O.Z TIDE .G ATE A~C> 01)TL ET .. M.ODI Fl C.A T IONS .. .: .. SCAl.E I''= ?00' DATE :3 -ZB -12 DRAWN BY .,.l . H. C . IN CHARGE J. w. D . ! N~TA.LL 1411 l ONDUlT / l J ~-:__::::.:::: ~ -L ,, N~TAL L LINED D'ITC.f-1 -· ~\--..-~--' : \. '· ' I ' I --• :,_ ' , ' "-INSTALL INVERTED ;·. S IP HON UNDER , Cl 5CHARGE- INTAKE -~~-~, AT + 7 {±) l?OTH C-HANN~El-S 1 . ' AT + 4.! ' ' , ' . JM)_6FFATT 6 I I . • J :::IfN)_tCHOlo,.-ENGINEE"S •''T •:;;. LONG'BEACH, •CALIFORNIA ':1.1 i \ \ \ \ • _:-CONSTRUCT RETENTION DAM TO PE.RM IT DIVERS1ON OF •'-"-< • D01 WATER TO MARINA. ~, .' OPERATE ACS DE:C.RIBE,O i N TEXT. ( I --....... ---'· .' ' . -, ;., __ / , ... ' ,, c,,o~, /;1 17?D/>Oo-.Jl?.ot),OtJo PLATE _ 5' WA.TER QUA.L liY -CO~JT RO L ME.T H OD'S SCALE I''::. 3.'.JO' I DATE'3·28-7'2. NEWPORT S HOR E5-D03 C.HANNE-L DRAWN BY J . f-\. C. D0'2. ~IDE G.A..TE 4 DIVERSIONS IN CHARG.E J . w. D. JOB No. L-1 4. 4 2. sHEET 5' oi= to • I I I I ✓. ' , ✓-~ ' I I I J I ' I ,.. I ·" / ! , I I ,t // I I _'/ I. / I ' . I ), I; ! , : ' I I I ' , ,' : I , , I I , I , I I I . I i i I I , I / PUMP WA.TE.R ,· PERIODIC ALLY A5 l i / NEEDED T HRU AER ATI ON SPRA.Y HEAD , __ ./ I I .' I ' .' / I ' / 1 , I ,'/ / ,' , i ' ' ' I • ..../ (, / , I I ' ,.. / N F:WP $\.-10~ ,' I I / ,· '-..;·.,.~·,. Ii _ .,' ... • f .. ":· .... ~ r ·, , I __ i , . ""\, . , ,..,.--,. ·,, _fM)¢FFATT 8 "'NJi,-.T'E R QUAb.liY, c a N T ROL. METHOD$ SCALf 1 "~ '?001l':bA'K? • 28·7f • • Ne·WPORT SH'bR$·S . .:-DO~ CH ANNE L DRAWN BY J . H l_,: ' I.CN')1CHOL. E NGINEEl'IS LOCAL W ~LL w~r~~--f-OR MARINA IN_ CHARGE. ,.L w' p, . ,, ' T -,,-·, L.ONG BEACH, CAI.IFORNIA ' --~----' -~OB 1'10 l · I A4-2 SH.Eb 6 O►l'P} < c;..o-s-. ti S"o_,ooo-JJ 10,,,J>oo t-A, /1'1, fi z_1ooc>-/;< '-f, ooo ', .... :, . P~AJJ:·~ -,, 1tA) ~HATT a \l''-1 AT ER Q. U A. LI TY -Co NT RO L ME.Tt·-tODS N E WPO RT SHOR E S-D 0 .3 C H ANN EL Tri ~ICHOL EH,GINEERS 4 1 ,1~NG BEACH, c'ALIFO.RNIA STOP -LOG CULV ERT GROINS ,)• . I \ I ::. -\ --\ . __ , . .... -.... . -•. :.: ::- SCALE 1'' ... :,001 j oATE 3•28 -72 DRAWN BY J . i-\, IN CHARGE j. W , P JOB NOL -144 2 SHEET 70 F 10 ) l I I I I • ff-::> _,,,...,,,-/. '·------:-··-- / l I ( / P-10 0 ,-: If) I CONDUCT 1ATE R FROM EXT A.CT IO WE-LL P-10 1TO IRIBUTARj T? _,, tvl A RI N A . ' _/ 1-, 1/J I er I • :) I I ~ii o ,I 0 1' a) in1' OPERATE //TIDE GATE SO AS TO~PRODUCE BEST , P0S$1BL QUALITY OF \ \ \ WATE-R I M A RINA ~ I , iL ~----~,,,. ~ CO,~ST _f:ilGHWAY __________ ~ ,J____ ___j.___ __ ----- N}o,l)oo -fJ ,o Di!<> r -f' A,"1, if SOO -Ji l. ODD t PL AT E '3 _{M)6,,ATT a WAT ER QUALIT'f -CONTROL METHOD'S SCALE l11:;.IQ0O'I DATE3-28·72 NEWPORT SHORE~ -Do:, C HANNEL DRAWN BY J. H. T@1cHoL.. 1NG1N111u EXTR~CTIOt\l WE.LL DIVERSION CHECt<EQ BY J ,W, D i T " LONG IUCI!, CALIFOIINIA TO MARINA JOB NO.L-1442. SHE£190fS\O ,, I,• ' i I I f , I I / I I .... J -... -I " I ·-...... I \ ! i I I I t: ' I // ' :• • I ,, I ., I I I , I I I { /..__ ___ , ,' ! I I I / J I , . I ,' I I ,I j I I • I ! I I I I ' /; I I ,' I I I ' i I ~ ; ;, .. ' ,, ' i I j ' I J I , ,1 I ', . ·' ; \ \ .,~ I I ! I .i/ I ,,,---LEA\/E TIDE·GATE FlJLLY OPEN __ /. // EXCEPT FOR PE R1c,61c 'pl,. USHIJ...JG-v CYCLE TO CLEAR 10CEAN ··OUTLET / l / / " , I I :/ ./ /, • ' I ,. I fr I , -. 1 I I r . I I / I 4 ·,._ -... ·, '-, '· ..... , __ -.. ', ,, ...... '-.... 4 '" .... ,, __ ' .......... ..._ h-",,, co'.;,, }I '7..J)O <J r I .,. fl,h, ti /()PO PLAT ~, , NGIN!E~S , WATE.lir .QUAl.l TY-CONTRaL:METHO.D$ --NEWPORT 5HORES-003 CHAt-JNEL .TI DE.-_a ·~rE OPER.ATI0K.l 'ON.l;Y t , ... ,,. ,I, • SCALE l 11: e,o'o·' . OAT ·3. zg_ ·1 'l. J)RAWII BY . J· ~", iN <:_HARGE j •'N, 0, ~ Jo~ ~o.L;t4. 4 i .sHu::r.:JO o~,o K)U J· di l\.fOFFATT & ::s;°•lCHOL, E:i';:GJ-:--;EERS LONG 8EP.CH, CALIFORNIA • PORTLt...NC, OREGON October 20, 1972 J".,~,. ~ VC-'.<'1 ....... , ..... _, .:c -v,-,-· •. .., .. , Mr. Carl R. Nelson Operations Engineer Orange County Flood Control District 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 Dear Carl: ,c;~•,-. ~c---~ • -~c,~s~.-C ~-=~~. w·ith reference to your phone call yest~rday_ conce:-c·ning our report on the Santa Ana RiveJ? Mouth ar~a> .Jack Niebel w·c..s impressed by a paper presented by Dr. R. G. De2.n of' the Universi·ty of Florida at the Internatio:nal Coastai Eng_ineering Conference in Vancouver last July. It m~y contai4 some of the answers we are looking .for in the Nev;rport Shores c:trea. The paper had not l • • ' .,_ ,.., • ~ 1 · L. t . ·. '-'--. " -. "-oeen w-r.,ir.ven up 1or puo ical-J.On a 1,::.r-1e i vime.,, ana Jacre ari--an£:eo_ with Dr,. Dean to get a copy as soon as lit 1:{as. The pa~er arrived a short time afro, and it does 2.onear to have 2.n anal v·sis procedure that could e~plain the entra~C~ closure problem i::n_ .. the D03 channel~ It is quite complicated because oJ' t~1e :many parameters in.vol ved, hovJever ~ and willjrequire mere time in making various con!ormance ass~_r;-1ptions ~ecau~~ o! tl:e rather .,,_ unusual geometry 01 the Newpor~ Shores 1D03· tiae oasin. '1 b l • th t L' • 1 • • 11 b I th L, L L • ~e e_ieve a-~n1s ana vsis wi .e wor i ~ne ex~ra ~ise spent in ·waiting for the Paper~ We pr~sently believe 1·:e hav~· adequate survey data from OCFCD add will try to co~plete our report _as soon as possible. I We shall be in touch with you as analys~s begins to point the way to the problem. work jrogresses and the to th~ be&t solution to I V:e!ry truly yours, & NICHOLj ;, ,,, r ?; ,I :Jo,.•'t","'~..-C-f .-,...._/ F;',.-..-_,. .. •J'>,.__,;"~~~-✓-'-.._._....-Ci'c-~~--~---Ja:11es W ~ Dunl·J-::_r: .a:; 2(~' ,·: :, ~; j,_:~ r;_ '. ;(/; C(: :;: May Mr. Carl R. Nelson Operations Engineer, Orange County Flood Control District 400 C1v1o Center Drive Santa Ana, California Our L-1442 Banning Channel Dear Carli West 92701 As I e ~plained by telephone last week, we have prepared two drawings, copies enclosed, showing our proposed plan for a t1de-water exchange channel between D-3 and D-2. This 1s a 1nodifioation of Pl a.n 4 of our :t.nterim report, generally following the suggestion or Joe Devlin. It requires the r emoval of about 3600 tons of stone from the two jetties, which should be stockpiled near the site in ease the plan doesn't work or f or some otheP reason it 1s decided to restore the j etties later. This plan should add about 20 acre-feet of tidal prism to the present 80 acre-feet of D-2 tidal prism, which may be suffic i ent to keep the D-2 entrance open all the time. As you suggested, the sand dike alone may prove adequate, but if not, t he armor shown 1n Section A should be sufficient to hold the shape of the dike. The problem of the restricted opening between D-3 and Newport Shores would atill be a problem. Man1pul:it1cn ot the tide gate to make the best use of extreme tides might help it the condition ot the Newport Shores channel does not improve. After looking this plan over. you might want to hold a meeting to discuss possible mod1f1oat1ons. If we oan agree, we shall complete our ~eport with this plan as our beat recommendation. Sincerely, JD-me / encls. CC w/encl s -Joseph \.r. Devlin MOPPATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS - ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 400 c1v1c CENTER DRIVE WEST SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX !078 H. G. OSBORNE CHIEF ENGINEER TELEPHONE: 834-2300 AREA CODE 714 SANTA ANA, CAL!FOR:NIA 92702 SEP 13 1971, Mr. Robert L. Wynn, City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sir: FIL< No. D03. 21 No. No. . 11Ec.rp, 1 • Ml/ti/fr;'"<-./[ 0 ~ S[p 1 ·IIS o,1:r1r;s 8 · 1. 197 t:-Jrj,-,, City n 1 fiik , tq'~V ...._ uF ;~ n 1/f/ D-f'. <:;I CkfF ~VIC,<; /"-. • ----r-\t~~" I •~' \ In 1958, at the time the flood control district improved the ocean out-let of the Santa Ana River and constructed the Greenbelt-Banning Channel out-let, the City of Newport Beach severely restricted the length of the jetty construction it would approve. For a number of years now there have been operating difficulties, particularly with the Greenbelt-Banning Channel dur-ing the summer and fall months from accumulationS of sand at the outlet. The combination of a limited ocean jetty length, restricted tidal prism volume, a leaking jetty, and the nature of the littoral drift along the coast, pro-duces the sand blockage. Under these conditions, removal of the blockage results only in its reappearance within a remarkably short time. The sand blockage does not pose any flood problem in that flood flows quickly overtop and erode the sandbar. It does, however, restrict ocean di-lution of land drainage that accumulates on the tidal areas east of the Green-belt-Banning Channel. With this lack of dilution and flushing it is reported that accumulated pollutants from land drainage have produced fish kills and caused other objectionable water quality problems. The eventual solution for the problem undoubtedly will consist of a major redesign project, including extension of. the .ocean jetties. The work will in-clude the Santa Ana River,and its nature will be related to the unresolved problems of the adequacy of Prado Reservoir and sand transport through the lower portion of the river channel. Also involved will be the Rivermouth Park and the Greenville-Banning Channel realignment proposed by the Santa Ana River greenbelt plan. It can confidently be predicted that a number of years will pass before these problems are resolved to the point that final designs can be undertaken. In the interim, it is suggested that the district and the city jointly retain a consultant well versed in marine engineering problems to study and Mr. Robert L. Wynn, City Manager City of Newport Beach Page 2 recorm:nend an interim course of action. If this meets your city's approval, we will be pleased to proceed with exploring the availability and the probable cost of the consulting services. Very truly yours, H. G. o'sborne, Chief Engineer HGO:mn cc: Supervisor Caspers '. 225 Canal Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 June 1, 1970 -Gentlemen: This.letter will provide official notice that the New?ort Shores Co.nmunity Association is ready to proceed with Operation "Deep Ditch", namely dredging of the Newport Shores canal. A surrs~ary of the project by location is attached; additional per-. tinent documentation requested after the first notice in February .are included. In absence of further questions or discussion with the under- signed before June 15th, the anticipated start date, concurrence with the project is concluded. It is anticipated that work will be complete on or about July 25th. The foregoing notice is in consonance with all prior discussions and agreements among the parties concer~ed. DAB:b:n Attach:nent Very truly yours, NEWPORT SHORES CO,MUNITY ASSOCIATION Don A. Beckley, President ( ( The attached letter h;:is been distributed to the following: Signal Oil Con·,pany c/o 1-1. S. Walkup Ne,;,,:iport Reilty Com.pany 1010 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017 Armstrong Pctrolern~ Company c/o Robert A. Armstrong 3471 Via Lido Sound Newport Beach, California 92660 City of New?ort Beach c/o George Dawes Coffimissioner, Harbors & Tidelands 3300 New;,ort Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Beach & Bay Mobile Homes ~1r. & Hrs. C. H. Hunt & C. Pembroke c/o Hilton Wicher, Attorney-at-Law Suite 718 6922 Hollywood Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90028 ,. Raub) Bein> Frost & Associates 136 Rochester Street Costa Nesa, California 92626 Becco Liraited c/o Williara H. Banning :;;rr 505 N. 30th Street, Suite Newport Beach, C_alifornia G. E. Kadane & Sons c/o James Gilstrap 5800 West Coast Highway 208 92660 Newport Beach, California 92660 Orange County Flood Control District_ c/o George Osborne 400 Civic Center Drive, West Santa Ana, California Coxco, Inc .. Drawer C Stanton, California 90680 V • Location Canal, East End. > 61st -62nd Street Clubhouse Canal Street to Highland Hunts & Pembroke Banning to Levee Contra.eta:?: Engineer Consultation: BERH Landscaping: Length (Ft) 1,soo 900 1,400 600 180 Boat Rack & Lam1ching Ramp: .. PROJECT "DEEP DITCH" Volur.1Q (Y<l3) 1,100 t . 16,700 i t 2,500 t Coxco, ·rnc. Drawer C Conmcnt Build up lip; clean up debris; minor gi:'ading to control over-flow. Remove sand bars 5/1 slope; restore and contour both banks; depth - 5 feet. Remove sediment 5/i slope; beautify with sand north side; depth -5 feet. Remove sediment 5/1 slope both sides; build BEID-1 Banning property; depth - 5 feet. • Same as Canal, except throat., 3 foot depth. 5/1 slope, no flat bottom, depth - 5 feet; Stanton, California 90680 Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates 136 Rochester Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 '.i;o be let To be let ( TO: GENERAL SERV!CE:S DIRECTOR FROM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: GREENVILLE-BANNING CHANNEL TIDAL GATE ( October 15, 1958 On Friday. October 11, 1968, the Orange County Flood Control District put the subject tidal gate into operation. I am attaching two copies of the agreement between the Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Newport Beach regarding this improvement. You will note on Page 2 of the agreement that the City shall be responsible for the operation of the gate. Mac Smi ti1ers and some representatives from your department were on the job site when the gate was put into operation. Arrangew,ents were made with Mac to obtain perr.:anent access to the tidal gate. If you have any further questions on the City's responsibility, please let r,~ know. Joseph T. Devlin Public Works Director JT!J/hig Att. ( Harvey L. Hurlburt, City Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. Dear Mr. Hurlburt: ( 6306 West Coast Hwy. Newport Beach, Calif. May 14, 1967 Recently I was elected to serve as Chairman of the Civic Affairs commitee for the Newport Shores Community Association. A number of home-owners in Newport Shores have reported that the channell surrounding our area is becoming covered with a green scum, probably algae or other vegetation. It is my understanding that this same condition has existed before and that the City has corrected this condition by cleaning out the outlet near· the Santa Ana River bridge. Apparently the mftal tubes become clogged with mus sells which restricts the flow of water to and from the ocean. Speaking on behalf of our association, I shall greatly appreciate if you will investigate this. condition to determine whether any corrective measures can be taken. Very truly yours, ROBERT E. CAY,tOOD April 8, 1968 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF ENLARGED CONNECTOR PIPE TO GREENVILLE-BANNING CHANNEL RECOMMENDATIONS; c)c;: / 1. Adopt a resolution approving an agreement with the Orange County Flood Control District for the construction of the en 1 arged connector pipe to the Greenvi 11 e-Banni ng Channe L 2, Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement, DISCUSS ION: Included in the 1967-68 budget was a project for the enlargement of the connector pipe in the easterly 1evee of the Greenville-Banning Channel adjacent to the Newport Shores development. This project will provide for the replacement of the ,cioub 1 e 30" plpe in 1 ets with a 60" diameter in 1 et equipped with a manua 11y operated gate structure, The project has been designed by the Orange County Flood Control District, and plans have been approved by Mr. Hancock Banning, IIL The Board of Supervisors has authorized the negotiation of an agreement with the City for cooperation in the construction. The agreement provides that the cost to the City will not exceed $5,000. The agreement also provides. that the City shall be responsible for the gate operation, and that the City shall fully indemnify and hold the district harmless from any damage or liability occurring by reason of the gate operation, A copy of the agreement is attached. \ . . 0 _____, ~ (J ' '-V-0~ \ • ~~--,,_ \seph fJ Dev1 in ~bl i c Works Di rector JTD/ldg Att, AP?R(JJED BY APR 8 DATE__:,;_---- r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 i ! I FZ5-0•l3 ' ,I 1968, vl' 1"ri.: iiOAAD ( ( Agreement No. C344 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this _____ day of-----~-------' BY Arm BETWEEN AND ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT,here- inafter referred to as "DISTRICT," CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, hereina:!;ter referr- ed to as "CITI." RECITALS A. DISTRICT, as a part of its Greenville-Banning Channel improvement, innned- iately north of Pacific Coast Highway, ·constructed a double 30-inch RCP inlet on the east side of the channel to replace a previously existing tidal slough. B. CITY desires that the waterway area of the inlets be increased to pro- vide greater tidal flows to increase water circulation. c. A revised inlet with increased waterway area could also be of greater flood control benefit if such an inlet were provided with a positive closing flood gate TERMS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits, covenants and con- ditions to be derived by the parties hereto it is agreed as follows: 1. DISTRICT shall prepare plans for the modification of the existing double 30-inch RCP inlet on the Greenville-Banning Channel immediately north of Pacific Coast Highway and submit said plans to CITY for approval. 2. Upon approval of plans by CITY, DISTRICT by contract or by its mainten- ance forces shall promptly proceed with the reconstructi~n of the inlet. 3. Upon completion of construction, DISTRICT shall bill CITY for its share of the construction as set out below; 4. CITY shall pay to DISTRICT within 30 days after receipt of invoice from DISTRICT 50% of the cost of construction, except that in no event shall CITY pay more than $5,000. In the event construction is by contract construction, the total cost of the project shall be the amount paid to the contractor. If construction is accom- plished by DISTRICT'S maintenance forces the total cost of the project shall be the sum of DISTRICT'S cost of labor, equipment, and materials necessary for the proje<;t l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I 15 16 17, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 " l ' a _ ll construction, plus 15% for overhead. In either event, the cost of engineering, test- ing and inspection shall not be considered in determining total cost of the project. 5. Tidal and/or storm water flows into and out of the channel are con- trolled by the gate setting of. the structure. CITY shall be responsible for the gate opening, closing, or setting at any intermediate location. This responsibility shall be CITY'S regardless of whether flows are storm water or tidal. 6. DISTRICT shall make provision for CITY'S access to the gate for the ;. purpose of controlling and setting same. 7. CITY shall fully indemnify and hold DISTRICT harmless from any damage or liability occuring by reason of the gate operation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective officers duly authorized, on the date set out opposite the signatures .. Date: Date: RECO}RiENDED FOR APPROVAL: _lp-r~ \!\:"Jt } H. G. st"orne, c"hl.ef Engineer APPROVED AS TO FOfu~: ADRL<\J.'\f KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ~. re_-, ~- By C.J: .... i ~,..,.___,,__.. ;• :'; \....._. Jc....J<---y L-c.... C Deputy . ._,, DATE: DATE: ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT By---------------''-----~ ATTEST: W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By-------~----------Deputy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mayor Clerk - 2 - z u w 0 DEC DEC li).17 r /\Jf71' a e If n 6 y 0 e t s 1 :l r --~-.... ,.,..::.....,..-.: ............ oa,ly Pilot Staff Photo CHANNEL BEHIND NEWPORT HOMES DISPUTED First Find Who Owns It, Then Dredge It (Lines Show Slough)· Disputed Channel l ( I t t 2 c i ( s -· l ' ( t. Will Need Dredging; g _While various agencies and in- dividuals battle over ownership of the channel behind Newport Shores, the channel is slowly fill- ing with mud and sand. Members of the Newport Shores Community Association say they'd like that dispute set- tied so whoever owns the channel will dredge it. Minfa Jarvis, vice president of the association, said a letter de- • tailing the proposed dredging of the channel and its connection to the Santa Ana Rvier has been , sent to 17 agencies or businesses t that might have jurisdiction ask- 1 ing for help. ~ • 'The biggest problem right now is trying to determine ownership," she said. "Until that is done, we can't get anyone to dredge." The channel, known as the Greenville-Banning Channel or Semeniuk Slough, separates the housing area from the nearby oil field. Assistant City Attorney Hugh Coffin said the lawsuit pending on ownership of not only the channel but the property sur- rounding it, probably won't go to court until next July. A title search is being made to identify people who might claim ownership of part of the contest- ed property. "Right now, it's such a mess, you can't believe it," he com- mented. "We can't tell who owns what." Homeowners view the small channel as a recreational asset and use it for fishing, boating and swimming. But Mrs. Jarvis said it is fi Hing to the point that, at low tide, there are places where the water in mid-channel is less than 18 inches deep According to the letter, the silt- ing is due to the fact that all of the Shores' storm drains plus a large flood control ditch drain empty into the channel. Mrs. Jarvis also pointed out that tidal action in the channel becomes inhibited because the opening to the river gets silted in every two to three years. "We've been able to talk a cou- ple of different agencies into coming out and opening that up from time to time,·· she said. Mrs. Jarvis said the channel was dredged eight years ago by homeowners who put up $25,000 for the work. She says the project would be too expensive for homeowners to undertake again and so the association is trying to find a government agency - preferably the city -to pay for all or mostofthework. SPECIAL TRASH PICKVP FRIDAY Friday will be the day for residents of Newport Heights to give the homes, yards and garages a good ,cleaning because city · trash trucks will make a ·special pick up in that neighborhood Saturday morning. Large items, not usually. collected by city crews, such as appliances, furniture and tree branches, will be picked up as the trucks start their rounds beginning at 7 a. m. . - n q C ~ I, r t C tl r l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER April 28, 1981 TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: SEMENIUK SLOUGH The City Council on April 27th requested a report on the history of Semeniuk Slough for the study session of May 11th. The City Attorney's Office has some excellent aerial photographs that should be u~ed in this display. I believe the report can be brief, but should cover the following items. -- 1. Title to the slough has not yet been resolved. It is still in litigation involving the City, the State of California and Beeco. 2. Dredging in the past has been accomplished by the Homeowners Association. 3. FEMA (Federal Emergency Aid) has denied the City's application for funds to dredge the subject area; therefore, the City has no funds for the project. 4. State simply the method in which water leaves the slough to the drainage channel and to the ocean. It would be appreciated if your department would prepare the report with assistance from the City Attorney's Office. Please see Item F-3(e) on the evening agenda of the 27th. CC: City Attorney ' I \ ·\ •• , . ' ' ' . • • , \ \' • f • I I • J .. { , . ' ) I .... • .. ,· ' ' 'I 'I .1 J I I I / ' ... , ' , ' ·' ... N • -0----:----------..._ ' "' ' , •· ... • j \ ' "' N -------0 ·, 0 ,- l .J I I 1,1..1,J U1 w Q • ' I • I ' . I / l I ( I ( • I I \ I \ \ .. ) '·; I N _J " .JM Lu • 'O l: z I!) - // / / I _.,. -------I --~ I ,;. I • "' " I- 0 " i . ,,. Cl 11 ' /,I I ' ' N .. • <> N 0" ,.o "'_. ~ .. ., "~ ... ro .; _· l , , , , '---'-" ,, ' __ _j ?7 ~ , -• I • .. "' ! I ' ' I ' N .. ., ' " • . J 0 ~ ·{.\ ~,;·( ~~-/ ~ , . ' •• , , ' • ·1 I I .. .. •• • • • "' ... • .J D l ''-.. I .... • 0 ., / I J • \ I l ~ ..... 'i '1 ·~ ·.f"'• . 4"} ,r; \ ~ , l ~ N • 'r -- I ' ·• 0 " '\ II/◊ ✓: cf9) ii'. •~\\, t -~ • \d , , I .. • I ,, _t.J j, o(h.,I. V~ .. > ) 't, • _, • I I • • I Q K I i I I -. ', l -• l \ ' I y .. --- ' ,_ , . 1 \ ,i I l J .-- ' , I ·f \ - .,..,-ct" - - , I ): I ·,' . ......:...- • I ' • I t \ I • I i ' I ' I \ I l ' i I f • \ I ) ' ' { -. I ' ' ' I I I I / I I I .. ... I , ' ... • l • T ' ) ' \ ! \ \ • \ \ \ ;; \ -· I I ' . I I I I f ' ' ' f • I l • -• ., . . • , I .. •. '--:., i ... /·~.1t<s···...... •.•·.w1~~~arin~~1\ ••. f tv:t:y • • ~;·!1ti::1ff¥irffnii.• l1 S 'l'he.197 • ·tystu<ly,paidJOl' by thetwir . // llll!JO!'. t 11m-e, .•. > toilmiN• . • . ; F"ollr .• •• ·:.•.•.~.•.· ··.··•·.· .. to.•••·. ·. .. . ·.·.·. • ,nort··· li .. of theH.· ainnton.;.' V' •. •.· ."·"··, 1°d. '." ·.".·". •., • •. • · t bridge; •· • • . . . •. • • · • • • . • • = e .•tne "" • . ~stll\iy tores;iwalx!ut a tetlth otthe cost • . . els I@ yel!J', } t.w b1t11e {edetal government, with tbti .. · .. • • •• )IS. In_yolved • some-:liOlllbinatjon Qf ll!Cal ta:icpayer, an • •. actiOll'@et .· .. lO~~trfflW:~t . .. i "1.l\\l!;~\19'wlth~~\\'l!Y· ...... • . ;/ :'l.'ti\fflii iltl.!il!w ~BiJesttll,½lyµt •. ·•" nl!i~the • ~t()fiailtltighi • ·. ,•·f ~f:~~. • •••••• • n"te:i' i')t :):: C 1:::•~ ; anit·• reaer • '{~~- • •~'f91"lljl!~Jalil..a<fjal:lill!it1?tllerit .·.• to~~g~l'll!i'$i~l!ith.e:J>Ja4~Brea ••~O~~~\~~tf •• • •• o; •••• ··"' -· ,:_·,-_._-._ ---,·-~:; . .s 0·:<z~~-·:':: • ~--,•v,.'_.:_. >i •• •c• .c_. ·:, .-._ 'if.~>.~';, oi • . , .,t·:;:;,.?tff :~1 •:'..;;,, ... •... ,,·rSlfRj.Ml¥~'181i•·' .;/'/·:,._-_.. • • ,, .·•.-.-.• '. • •• ~ ,i,•.: ... ·•.··.•.··.·: ... • .. ,.:.:.--.•.:··.--:,_< "''-"·'./,:,>\ .. 0,:l «"'." .--.--":