HomeMy WebLinkAboutWEST NEWPORT MARINAENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC
FEASIBILITY STUDY
OF A
MARINA ALONG EAST
BANK OF SANTA ANA RIVER
Prepared For
THE CITIES OF NEWPORT BEACH
AND
COSTA MESA
MOFFATT & NICHOL, ENGINEERS
250 West Wardlow Road
Long Beach, California 90R07
February 1974
STUDY TEAM PERSONNEL
Project Manager
Mr. John G. Moffatt
President, Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers
Project Engineers
William J. Herron, Jr.
James W. Dunham
Senior Civil Engineer
Dean A. Doi
Architect and Planner
Richard J. Stickler
1
L
t
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
Scope
Assumptions
Summary and Conclusions
Recommendations
DESCRIPTION OF AREA
General
Santa Ana River
Littoral Drift
Environment
PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT
'
Planning Criteria
Berthing Facilities
Navigation Depths
Santa Ana River Levee
Greenville -Banning Channel
Greenbelt
'
Zoning and Density
Newport Shores
Plans Considered
General
Entrance Channel
'
Location of Pacific Coast
Main Channel
Size and Configuration of
'
Support Facilities
1
1
1
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Highway
Boat Basins
General
Entrance Channel
Main Navigation Channel
Boat Berthing Basins
Highway Bridges and Crossings
Slope Protection for Main Channel and
Boat Basins
Perimeter Service Roads
Harbor Administrative Facilities
Land Excavation and Fill Program
Disposition of the Greenville -Banning
Flood Channel
i
Page
1
1
1
2
3
5a
6
6
7
7
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
16
17
18
19
21
21
22
22
23
1
CONTENTS (Continued) '
Page
Land Support Areas of the Marina
24
'
Maintenance and Operation
25
Effects of the Navigation Entrance on the
Adjacent Shoreline
26
'
Design Considerations of Entrance
Channel
26
Effects on Flood Control Structures
27
Impact on Littoral Drift
28
'
Methods of Sand Bypassing
30
Recommended Sand -Bypass Procedure
31
Water Quality Considerations
32
'
Circulation
32
Oil Seepage
32
Salt -Water Intrusion
32
'
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
33
General
33
'
Sponsorship Schemes
33
Corps of Engineers Participation
35
Project First Cost
37
'
POTENTIAL REVENUES
40
General
40
Income From Slips
40
Boat Tax Revenue
42
Income From Land Areas
42
'
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
46
Funding Schedule
46
Revenue Schedule
47
Annual Costs
47
'
Revenue -Cost Ratio
47
Source of Funds
50
Debt Servicing
51
Indirect Benefits
56
'
REFERENCES
57
'
ii ,
1
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
TABLES
1.
Distribution of Boat Berths
18
2.
Cost of Construction
37� 383 39
3.
Cost Breakdown by Sponsorship
Schemes
39
4.
Annual Slip Income
41
5.
Annual Revenues Obtainable for
Marina Lands
43
6.
Annual Income From Lease of Land
Areas
44
7.
Annual Harbor District Income From
All Sources
45
8.
Economic Analysis of 50 Year'Project 49
9.
Suggested Debt -Servicing Programs
52
PLATES
1.
Location Map
Following 6
2.
Feasibility Study Plan
End of Report
3.
Study Plan Cross Sections
End of Report
iii
I
I
I
I
1
1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of the study reported herein was to
examine the area between the Santa Ana River and the
Newport -Costa Mesa Bluffs, extending inland from
the Pacific Coast Highway to the Fairview Hospital
grounds fronting Banning Place. The engineering
and economic feasibility of creating a recreational
small -boat harbor in this area was to be determined
and a pre.liminary general plan for such a harbor
to be developed. However, the impact of this harbor
on the existing natural environment and the'resul-
tant replacement ecology will be described in
separate reports.
SCOPE
The study was of preliminary scope intended
primarily to determine whether further in-depth
studies of such a project were justified. Speci-
fically, it was intended to:
1. Investigate several harbor configurations
and to select the most feasible plan for further
study.
2. Determine the economic feasibility of the
selected plan.
3. Evaluate the effect of the navigation
' entrance channel upon the adjacent shoreline,
both from a physical and environmental.point of
view.
1
1
LJ
I__ 1
I
4. Determine public and private ownership
alternatives and relative merits of each. Areas
south of 19th Street to be considered only for
publicly owned and operated marina -oriented
activities. Areas north of 19th Street to be
considered for public and/or private marina -
oriented activities or totally eliminated from
the project.
5. Discuss alternative methods of harbor
operation as to advantages and disadvantages
of each.
1
1
I
6. Perform a cost -versus -revenue analysis
of the recommended plan.
ASSUMPTIONS
The study is predicated upon 1973 as the base
year for improvement costs and land values.
The study area is presently under the juris-
diction of the cities of Newport Beach and Costa
Mesa with a portion being unincorporated and subject
to the County of Orange. To unify these and other
different jurisdictional responsibilities, the
sponsor for the development will be the Orange
County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District in
cooperation with the State Department of Navigation
and Ocean Development and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Because of the indefinite status of the Santa
Ana River Flood Control studies by the Orange County
Flood Control District and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the east bank of the river is considered
as fixed in its present location. The Greenville -
Banning Channel will be incorporated into the harbor
with adequate provisions for a debris basin to inter-
cept sands, silts and floating debris.
In consideration of highway bridges at Pacific
Coast Highway, 19th Street and Hamilton Victoria
Avenue, only those added construction costs caused
by creation of the harbor are to be applied to
harbor cost estimates.
The present shore protection plan whereby the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans to intercept
littoral sand movement west of the Santa Ana River
mouth and return it to the Surfside Beach area will
be considered in effect, and no consideration will
be given to sand bypassing of the proposed harbor
entrance by the Harbor agency.
The 25 foot (m.s.1.) contour will be considered
the easterly boundary of the project, except along
Newport Shores where consideration will be given
only to widening the lagoon area.
Access roads to the Harbor site will be from
Pacific Coast Highway, 19th Street and/or Victoria
Avenue. A local road net within the harbor area
will be developed.
2
I
U
H
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
'
The findings of this report are limited to a
determination of the feasibility of the marina project
with regard to its engineering aspects and economic
'
impact. The study was of limited scope and should not
be construed as definitive with respect to planning
'
involvement. If purused, further, the project will
require more thorough planning studies to justify
authorization and commitment of funds for final
engineering and construction.
'
Four plan schemes were considered with capacities
ranging from 1900 to 3000 boats. Each scheme was
considered for maximum and minimum public ownership.
'
In order to have a workable time frame, consideration
was given to the earliest possible accomplishment of
studies by the Corps of Engineers and depletion of the
'
oil field. An allowance was made for the cost of
cleanup, removal and capping of wells in the oil
producing area. Construction was assumed to start
'
in the year 1984. Recent increases in the selling
life
price of crude oil may extend the anticipated
of the oil field involved and either delay the start -
of construction or increase the cost of the project.
The recent show of interest by developers in the land
area north of the extension of 19th Street may result
in early development of this parcel and its non-
'
involvement in the marina project. This possibility
is considered in Scheme 4.
'
Several arrangements of channels, basins and land
masses were considered, but the plan shown on Plate 2
provides an economical and efficient marina with a
maximum practical ratio of land area to water area.
'
It is a feasible plan, insofar as engineering and
construction are concerned, and was developed with a
'
view to economy of construction.
The plan is based on three major premises:
1. The Corps of Engineers will participate in the
'
construction and cost -sharing of the entrance and the
main channel.
2. The Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks
'
District will sponsor and operate the marina in the
same manner as at Dana Point Harbor.
3. The east levee of the Santa Ana River will
remain in its present location.
1
3
1
J
On this basis, construction of a marina at this
location is not feasible from a strictly financial
viewpoint without a certain amount of tax support.
However, such tax support is legally possible and
well within policy limits previously established for
this type of development. Moreover, the large indirect
and intangible benefits that would result from project
implementation clearly justify the expenditures.
However, two decisions are required at the policy -
making level:
1. The extent to which public tax funds will be
used to initiate acquisition of land and construction
of the marina, and
2. The designation of which of the various marina
features shall be owned and operated by the public and
which shall be owned and operated by private interests.
If public ownership is held at minimum level, i,e.
to the water areas, the bulkheads and slip -related
parking areas, a 20-foot perimeter strip and basic
service streets and utilities, identified as the sub -
scheme "b" alternatives, the project will probably be
feasible under the Corps of Engineers' criteria, but
it will not be financially feasible for the Harbor
District without an exceptionally large amount of tax
support. Of these features, all but the slip basins
are non -revenue -producing, and the returns are
inadequate to justify acquisition and construction costs.
Table 3, page 39, shows the costs of construction
of the three basic sizes of publicly sponsored harbor
area:
Scheme 1: (Public ownership and operation of
Basins A,B,C,D) would have 3009 public berths and the
acquisition and construction costs to•the Harbor District
would be 35.4 million dollars.
Scheme 2: (Public ownership and operation of
Basins A,B,C) would have 2749 public berths, 260
private berths, and the acquisition and construction
costs to the Harbor District would be 31.5 million
dollars.
Scheme 3: (Public ownership and operation of
Basins A,B would have 1883 public berths, 1126 private
berths and the acquisition and construction costs to
the Harbor District would be 23.4 million dollars.
Scheme 4: would be the same as Scheme 3 except
that there would be no private berths.
1
1
1
F
1
I
1
1
Many of the benefits of this marina are regional in
nature but direct economic benefits are based on lease
'
return on the land areas and the berthing areas, and
on the personal property tax on boats based at the
marina. It is for these reasons that the most effective
'
source of funds for constructing the marina is through
the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District
'
in the same manner as was done at Dana Point Harbor.
Final construction planning by the Corps of Engineers
should signal the start of the Harbor District's fund-
ing and land -acquisition programs. A nominal tax of
$0.05 per $100 of assessed valuation for a three year
period would provide about 6 million dollars of pre -
construction funds. It is anticipated that up to 10
million dollars (in several annual increments) can be
borrowed from the California State Department of
Navigation and Ocean Development. This money is from
'
the California boater's gasoline tax fund and presently
is loaned at 4-1/2 percent interest. The remaining
acquisition and construction funds could be obtained
'
by issuing revenue bonds.
Under a most optimistic program, 5 years would be
required from start of construction to any appreciable
'
dollar returns on the harbor investment. At that time
as boats move in and shore installations are completed,
'
the three basic incomes discussed above would begin to
appear. During this 5 year period the Harbor District
tax would have to continue. The tax rate during this
period of time will probably depend on the net income
from Dana Point Harbor and Newport Bay Harbor, the
final scope of the new marina project and the size of
the loan program and its amortization rate. The project -
supporting tax rate could range from one to ten cents
per $100 of assessed valuation for various periods of
time. One example of .tax support and debt servicing
'
for the four schemes is shown in Tables 8 and 9,
49, 54 55•
pages 52, 53, and
It is apparent from Tables 8 and 9 that Scheme 3a
'
will provide the highest ratio of annual returns to
annual expenditures of the plans considered. This plan
is for ownership and construction of Basins A and B to
serve 1883 berthed boats and to lease the berths and
'
83 acres of land to private interests. Basins C and D
would remain in private ownership but would be marina -
oriented, use the District main channel and entrance,
and provide berthing facilities for an additional 1126
boats. No contribution from these two basins towards
construction, maintenance and operation of the harbor
'
5
1
was considered, but tax credits against the 1126 boats
were assumed in justification of the public harbor.
It is recommended that a program be established to
develop the planning, economics, real estate, and engineering
studies necessary to establish the optimum harbor area,
the optimum practical berthing capacity, and the best
land -area uses of the marina. These studies should include
a funding and construction schedule.
It is recommended that a final choice as to harbor
size not be made at this time but rather that for planning
purposes, Scheme la for 3009 berthed boats be tentatively
adopted for further investigation. As a follow-up
procedure, it is suggested:
1. That discussions with the Orange County Harbors,
Beaches and Parks District be initiated with a view toward
having the District assume sponsorship of the project.
2. That discussions among the Corps of Engineers, the
two cities involved, and/or the Harbor District be opened
with the intent of requesting the Congressman repre-
senting the area to initiate approval and funding of a
"Survey Report" on the proposed marina at the earliest
opportunity. The feasibility study reported herein
should be adequate to justify this Corps study.
3. That as soon as the Corps of Engineers have
developed their preliminary studies to the extent that
Federal participation in financing and constructing
the general navigation features of the marina appears
feasible, the Harbor District, or the two cities initiate
their own detailed planning studies of the interior
portions of the marina.
4. That upon approval of the project by Congress
and the appropriation of funds for detailed construction
design funds to the Corps of Engineers, the two cities
and the Harbor District enter into final detailed
acquisition and construction planning studies, including
methods of financing, in order to completely coordinate
construction planning and scheduling with the Corps.
5. That acquisition of necessary public lands be
started about one year before the scheduled start of
construction by the Corps of Engineers, because owner-
ship of the lands to be occupied by the proposed jetties
5a
Fl
I
u
Il
F
1
' and navigation channels (which the Corps will maintain)
must be transferred to them before start of construction.
6. That the Harbor District be ready, about one year
' after start of the Corps' construction program with
plans and specifications to initiate the District's
two or three year construction program.
' 7. That as the final step, about one year before
completion of the Harbor District's construction program,
' the leasing program be initiated for berthing, launching -
ramp and land areas.
The above program may require some 15 years to
' accomplish, but experience in other marina developments
has shown that any delay in the above chain of events
will result in even further deferment of the date when
' boats will actually occupy the marina.
1
1
1
1
L
1
1
I
DESCRIPTION OF AREA '
GENERAL '
The site (Plate 1) is a relatively undeveloped
area some 420 acres in extent. It is separated
from the ocean by the Pacific Coast Highway and the
Newport Shores residential area. An irregularly
shaped bluff about 70 feet in height runs along
the easterly side of the site to the northerly ,
boundary at the projection'of Banning Place.
The average ground elevation within the area is '
about 5 feet above mean sea level except for a few
tidal channels at the southerly end of the study
area. The entire site has at various times been the '
bed of the Santa Ana River. The soils range from
sand through silt to clay.
The area is presently traversed by two east -west '
highways, Pacific Coast Highway (it lanes) and Victoria,
Street (2 lanes). The area south of the projection
of 19th Street is a producing oil field. Most of t
the remaining area is unoccupied, and, at present
elevation, unsuitable for agricultural or urban
development. Commercial buildings front the segment '
of Pacific Coast Highway that crosses the south
portion of the study area. North of the commercial
development is a group of homes known as Newport '
Shores. South of the highway, between it and the
publicly owned beach, are beach homes and apartments.
The west is bounded by a local drain known as '
the Greenville -Banning channel. Its west levee is
common with the east levee of the Santa Ana River.
Anticipated peak runoff of the Greenville -Banning
channel is 3000 cubic feet per second.
SANTA ANA RIVER '
The Santa Ana River is routed directly west of
the harbor site and will be separated from the harbor '
by a levee and "Greenbelt". Recent studies by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicate that due to
intense urbanization of areas both above and below '
Prado Dam it can no longer contain a maximum flood.
At present, the standard -project flood flow for the
river is in the order of 200,000 cubic feet per '
r4o4 jt'� $
1• 5 Q 1 t J_-�.�.mF/� °O ^.'� R°�,LO} � °<MQ> �� R�t7.��'(�(/�
av�1 /�-\/�� �v� (> ,gyp ���� % /lLPvx�• L ��s`�/� ��
/� C 1 / UfwYJRT
SAY
Lv
�DJl
OA
�.ycmaYew
% %.e,cN VPPvimv aA \ ®` °4 Q 4 �� .,rJ •., r 1��
\,
�O
--- _ ALTMR _=n=RiTG°ROYI!>Wdi' \\ aOO <I <1<I p`\` V LIOP '1>L6
0 C E A N — r
J
® weva AFeea
O O.OIN
--� OI iG mOVNOSFY
PLATE I
<ITr Pr YLY.PI( TLC.".
Y[X NY01[ 1•�1'R
MOFFATT° 14 HOL.SNOINnIOA PRPMOslo M.N:r. ALRMR -y
Ill> LLe(l. <......... ......NRO! $A". A.- RIV[R
• LOCATION MAP
second. No flood -control solution for the problem
' has yet been agreed upon by the responsible agencies.l
The various proposed solutions range from containing
total anticipated overflow from the existing Prado
' Dam in an enlarged river channel to raising the
elevation of the dam to accomplish total impoundment
of reservoir inflows. Thus, anticipated maximum
' flood runoff at the river mouth may vary from
210,000 cubic feet per second to 58,000 c.f.s.
The present levee system is considered inadequate
to withstand either rate.
LITTORAL DRIFT
1
1
1
1
u
1
I
1
Littoral drift along this portion of shoreline
is predominantly from west to east and in the order
of 200,000 cubic yards per year. The Corps of Engineers,
in cooperation with the State, the County, the shore-
front cities and other entities have an ongoing
plan to control beach erosion from the U.S. Navy Sea
Beach Weapons Station to the Newport Harbor jetties.
Inherent in this plan is provision to intercept the
longshore movement of sand immediately west of the
Santa Ana River mouth and return it to Surfside to
maintain beach supply at that point. Hence, by-
passing of littoral sand should not be of concern
to the proposed harbor.
In case the Corps of Engineers does not remove
the littoral sand, it will accrete against the 'west
jetty of the marina and would have to be removed by
the harbor entity. If allowed to accummulate exces-
sively it would act as a barrier to river discharge
and ultimately would cause shoaling around the sea-
ward end of the west breakwater. The best solution
would be to by-pass this accreting sand to the beach
east of the jetties, but, as stated in the Assumptions,
this is not considered a harbor -related problem.
ENVIRONMENT
The environmental aspects of this marina concept.
are contained in a separate report.
7
1
OTHER STUDIES
The following reports have been supplied by the City of
Newport Beach for consideration and incorporation into this
Study
Orange County Sanitation Districts - "A Regional
Solution" Plate 1 1969
Costa Mesa General Plan 1990 1970
Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek, Greenbelt Plan
Plates 2, 3 and 4 1971
Newport Beach General Plan Statistical Area Land
Use Summary Plates 5, 6 and 7 1972
Newport Beach Assessed Valuation Study
Plates 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 1972
Newport Beach Traffic Study, Phase I
Summary Report, Problem Identification
Plates 14, 15, 16, 17, 185 193 20 and 21 1972
Newport Beach Traffic Study, Phase 1I,
Alternative Plan Development 1972
Orange County I -later District - Status Report 1972
Report on Investigation of Water Quality Control
Methods for Newport Shores - D03 Channel 1973
Newport Beach Traffic Study, Phase III
Plan Selection and Implementation Program 1973
The following Corps of Engineers reports were considered
and incorporated into this study.
Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study
of Orange County, Appendix V. Phase 2 1962
Design Memorandum for Beach Stabilization,
Stage 2 Construction in the segment Santa Ana
River to Newport Pier, Orange County, California 1967
Design Memorandum -Annex A for Beach Stabilization
Stage 2 Construction 1968
Design Memorandum for Stage 3 Construction 1969
:,
I
PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT
PLANNING CRITERIA
Berthing Facilities
The State Department of Navigation and Ocean
Development, the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and
' Park District, and the Corps of Engineers have
established a need for berths in excess of 7000
1980 to 1990. For study of this site, berthing
for 3000 boats has been set by mutual agreement
1
C
1
1
1
1
all
by
of
the sponsors and the consultants. It was agreed
that this is about the limit for the approximately
420 acres available.
It was further established that full cognizance
should be taken of the close proximity of Newport
Harbor in considering boating services to be provided
by either or both harbors.
Navigation Depths
Entrance depths shall
water in order to prevent
Inner channels depths may
depending on the draft of
the harbor.
Santa Ana River Levee
be -20 feet mean lower low
storm waves from breaking.
vary from 8 to 15 feet,
vessels anticipated for
In order to prevent flooding of the harbor, the
east levee of the river shall be raised 2 to 5 feet
and incorporated into a 50-foot wide""Greenbelt".
Under various schemes for flood control it may be
necessary to widen the Santa Ana River by 200.to
1200 feet, depending on how much additional water
storage is provided behind, or upstream from, Prado
Dam. Constraints to widening the river to the west
are: Brookhurst Avenue, the trunk lines of the
Orange County Sanitation District, and Plant #2
and the ocean outfall immediately north of the Pacific
Coast Highway. The river can be widened to the west
from the north limit of the project at Banning Place
to the north boundary of the County Sanitation
Districts Plant #2, approximately on the extension
1
F
of 18th Street. At this point it would have to be
shifted eastward to clear the plant and outfall
installation, which would increase land acquisition
costs for the marina entrance channel and slightly
reduce the usable land in Basin A. These matters
will require a separate cost study when the County
and Federal agencies reach agreement on the required
capacity of the river. If the river is widened
to the east along the entire marina project. Basin D
would be lost to the project and upward of 30 acres
would be lost from Basins B and C. Until agreement
can be reached among Orange County and the various
cities below Prado Dam and Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties above Prado Dam between the
two basic philosophies of channelization versus
impoundment on flood waters, decisions cannot be
made on the ultimate design width of the lower
Santa Ana River.
Greenville -Banning Channel
This channel will be eliminated from the harbor
site. Provisions will be made either to divert this
flow or to provide for a debris basin at the north
boundary of the project.
Greenbelt
A 50 foot wide "Greenbelt", to accommodate
separate bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian paths
will be provided along the entire west boundary of
the project.
Zoning and Density
Within the limits of the approach roads' traffic
capabilities, a small craft harbor of this scope
must be considered as a separate entity. Zoning and
population -density criteria will be strongly in-
fluenced by the costs and specialized functions of
the project. They do not necessarily relate to the
present criteria established by the County or the
two cities involved for adjacent areas.
It is a generally accepted practice to consider
the water areas of the boat basins, fairways and
channels as open space.
10
F
F
1
1
'J
E
E
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
Newport Shores
The present configuration of Newport Shores will
be retained except that the project will provide a
joint navigation channel to the ocean. Development
of berthing facilities, dredging and bulkheading
will be done by "others".
PLANS CONSIDERED
General
The objective of the plan is to accommodate
3000 recreational boats in the approximately 420
acre site between the Santa Ana River and the New--:
port -Costa Mesa Bluffs. Because of the high land
values and high costs that will be incurred in the
construction of highway bridges, it is necessary to
maximize the amount of income -producing land.
The topography of the site, in conjunction with
the east -west highway crossings, naturally divide
the marina into an entrance channel and 4 basins.
Entrance Channel
Two sites were considered for the entrance
channel.
1. Immediately East of the Mouth of the Santa
Ana River. Land acquisition costs are less for this
site because a major portion, including the mouth
of the Greenville -Banning Channel, is in public
ownership. Construction costs are less because the
west jetty of the navigation channel can, in part,
be combined with the east jetty of the Santa Ana
River. Littoral and flood sands can be bypassed in
a single, short -distance operation when required
to protect the downcoast Newport City beaches, to
prevent shoaling of the navigation channel or to
prevent obstruction of flood flow from the Santa
Ana River. If the present alignment of the Pacific
Coast Highway must be retained, it is more feasible
to combine the harbor -entrance and Santa Ana River
crossings into a single new bridge. It is also
more desirable to keep the long bridge approaches
to this high-level bridge as far to the west as is
feasible.
1
2. Along the Easterly Boundary of the Harbor
'
Site. This entrance channel would follow the align-
ment along the base of the Newport Bluffs which was
previously the mouth of the Santa Ana River-. The
principle advantage of this location is that it offers
'
possibilities, at some future date, for connecting
Newport Harbor to this entrance and improving water
and traffic circulation in the western reaches of
'
Newport Harbor. However, the cost of land acquisition
would be high in this area and Newport Shores, and the
beach homes westward to the Santa Ana River would
'
essentially be isolated from the rest of the city.
Also, the long, narrow curving channel between the
Bluffs and Newport Shores is an expensive non-
productive use of land. It would dislocate about
'
30% of the occupants of Newport Shores and provides
very poor visibility from a navigation point of view. '
Location of Pacific Coast Highway
If the highway remains in its present location, 1
a new high-level bridge will be required to cross
the proposed entrance channel with a vertical '
clearance of 40 to 60 feet at M.H.W. Even so, the
use of the harbor by high -masted sail boats would be
severely restricted. The approach ramps would form '
a physical and visual obstacle for some 2400 to
3600 feet either side of the bridge and would
particularly restrict access to Newport Shores.
This new bridge would be very costly, and most '
of the cost would apply to the harbor project.
The City of Newport Beach is presently study- ,
ing a realignment of this segment of the Coast
Highway to a location that crosses the navigation
channel some 1600 feet inland. In relation to the
marina, this alignment has important advantages.
Sail boats would have unrestricted access to
Basin A, the most seaward basin, and a lower- ,
level bridge with a vertical clearance of 30 to
40 feet would suffice the inner basins. The
approach ramps to this bridge would be less
obstructive, and the Harbor District's share of '
construction costs would be much less than for the
present alignment.
12 1
I
J
H
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Main Channel
Three alignments are possible for the main
navigation channel connecting the entrance channel
and the four basins, and in comparing them, four
factors should be considered. For good navigation,
the channel should be a series of straight reaches
with as few changes of course as possible. The
channel should not be in direct alignment with the
entrance, as severe storm waves could then penetrate
into the main channel and damage boats and slips in
the berthing areas. Preferably, the berthed boats
should have access to the channel from both sides
so as to reduce the traffic congestion inherent in
a 3000 boat marina. Finally, the effect on bridges
should be taken into account.
A channel alignment adjacent to the east levee
of the Santa Ana River would have one inherent advantage
in that flood flow from the Greenville -Banning channel
could have a direct flow to the ocean. A disadvantage
would be that all boats leaving their berths would
enter and leave the main channel from limited -access
tributary channels on the east bank. In this location
the main channel and the Santa Ana River could both
be crossed by a single bridge structure, but at
19th Street and at the Pacific Coast Highway alter-
nate site almost all of the elevation advantage
gained by starting the east approaches from the top
of the Newport Bluffs at elevations of 50 to 70
feet M.S.L. would be lost.
A main navigation channel near the east boundary
would serve best if it were an extension of the
easterly entrance channel. This location does take
maximum advantage of starting the east approaches
of the Pacific Coast Highway alternate route, the
19th Street and the Victoria Street bridges from the tops
of the Newport and Costa Mesa Bluffs, and at a
6% grade these arterials would reduce in elevation
to an economical bridging of the Santa Ana River.
However, it would have the disadvantage of forcing
almost all of the berthing areas and marina
facilities to the west of the channel.
A central location approximately midway between
the bluffs and the Santa Ana River would provide
for a balanced operation so far as boat berths,
marina service roads, landscaping and effective
operations are concerned. The bridging of the main
13
1
I
channel, the perimeter service roads and the Santa
Ana River would be a compromise solution but less
costly than for a west channel alignment.
Size and Configuration of Boat Basins
The most efficient and least costly boat -berthing
basins are generally of rectangular or square shape.
Sometimes curved configurations are required to
conform with topography or property lines, but this
generally increases construction costs and usually
results in less efficient use of the water area.
Experience at other marinas indicates that even on
holidays, not more than 25% of all the berthed
boats will use the main channel and entrance chan-
nel. However, even 10 to 25% of 3000 boats in
operation during a 12 hour day creates traffic
problems; hence, entrances from the boat basins
should be so arranged as to disperse traffic and
not create points of congestion. Vor example, if
two or more tributary channels converge at the main
channel troublesome interference patterns will
result. Each berthing area should generally serve
upward of 200 boats for efficient construction and
operation. Consideration must also be given to
the general shape of the area, to maximizing
the perimeter of the water areas and to creating
viewpoints for the benefit of the land developments
such as restaurants, hotels and condominiums.
Also, efficient parking locations and service
areas must be provided for the boaters. Other
factors to be considered are prevailing winds, the
operational differences of sailboats and power
boats, and accommodations for houseboats, catamarans
and live -aboard boats.
The depth of the berthing areas should be kept
reasonably shallow, both for economy of construction
and to facilitate installation of slips, piers or
moorings. However, in southern California tides
are sometimes as lour as 2 feet below mean lower
low water and it is generally difficult to segregate
power boats and deep -keeled sailboats; hence,
adequate depth to accommodate the latter is a
requirement. Another goal is to insure good quality
water, which requires good circulation. Thus,
while in theory parts of basins could be designed
for smaller boats and only dredged to a minus 4 to
6 feet, m.l.l.w., experience has shown that a mini-
mum depth of $ feet, and more preferably, 10 feet
is desirable.
14
F
L
I
1
L
j
1
1
1
I
1
LJ
I_J
I
1
E
u
L
1
t
1
1
1
1
The side walls of these basins, especially in
areas of sand, clay and silt, require stabilization.
In areas where land values are not high, sand slopes
flatter than 1 vertical to 6 horizontal, such as
was originally done at Newport Harbor when land
values were low, are not only economical but act as
excellent wave absorbers. If the slopes are pro-
tected by a layer of rock revetment, they can be
steepened to 1 on 2, with a resultant increase in
usable land or water. In an area of high land
values, such as Marina del Rey or Long Beach
Marina, a vertical bulkhead of steel or concrete
sheet pile or concrete paneling may be desired.
The costs are high, but use of land and water
areas is maximized. In Redondo Harbor a compromise
perimeter treatment was used, with a vertical bulk-
head from +10 to +5 elevation m.l.l.w., and a rock-
revetted 1 on 2 slope from +5 to the bottom.
Support Facilities
The provision of roads, utilities, parking areas,
sanitary facilities and public -safety facilities are
much the same as for any small community commercial
and residential area. Excellent guidelines have been
developed by the California State Department of
Navigation and Ocean Development3 by Chaney in
"Design of'Marinas" and by a soon to be published
design manual by the Coastal Engineering Research
Center of the Corps of Engineers.5
These guidelines are excellent but must be fitted,
modified and adapted to suit the needs of each
individual marina.
Of particular importance, is an interior road net
design that does not encourage through automobile
traffic to use marina roads. At all costs, such
traffic should be diverted around or over the marina
proper.
15
t
I
RECOMMENDED PLAN
GENERAL
The plan, as recommended for this marina, is
shorn on Plate 2. It consists basically of a straight,
wide, deep entrance channel, a wave absorber, and
4 basins all connected by a central main navigation
channel. Off this channel are a series of 11 boat
berthing basins accommodating 2859 boats at floating
slips, or berths. In addition, berths for 150 boats
will be provided by others around the perimeter of
Newport Shores, but these boats will use only the
marina main channel and entrance channel for access
to the sea. The site will consist of about 180 acres
of water and 240 acres of land.
ENTRANCE CHANNEL
For the purposes of this feasibility study, an
entrance similar to that of Newport Harbor was used.
Detailed oceanographic, tidal and hydrographic
studies will be required to devise the most economical
and effective design. These studies will probably
include a hydraulic and/or mathematical model study.
Traffic studies by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers at
Channel Islands Harbor in 19706 short that an entrance
channel should be at least 300 feet wide to accommodate
1000 boats and that 100 feet of width should be added
for each additional 1000 boats. Thus, an entrance
width of 550 feet, at the navigation -depth project
lines should comfortably accommodate the desired 3000
boat capacity of this marina.
A project depth of 20 feet below mean loner low
crater was selected, not to accommodate the draft of
boats using this harbor, but to prevent waves from
breaking in the channel and endangering boats
entering or leaving.
The jetties should be 750 feet between their
centerlines to provide safe interior slopes to
project depth of the navigation channel. These
jetties should be sand -tight and extend from the
present Pacific Coast Highway alignment to the
24 foot depth contour. These jetties will be about
2400 feet long on the east, and 2900 feet long on
the west side of the channel.
16
P
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
u
u
I
d
I
1
1
These parallel jetties will absorb a great deal
of the wave energy entering the harbor but not enough
for safe and comfortable berthing inside. Hence the
next 1200 feet of channel must be designed to absorb
the remaining wave energy. A detailed design
analysis will be required to fully solve this problem,
but basically the channel alignment is offset suf-
ficiently so that residual waves will not travel
directly up the main channel. They will impinge on
the curved west bank, which will be a flat revetted
rock rubble slope, and the wave energy will either
be absorbed or reflected to the east bank and eventually
back out to sea. Both banks will be rock revetment
and generally not designed to accommodate vessels
at slips or piers. It may be feasible to use some
of this area for a public landing during the summer
season.
t The channel depth may be reduced to 15 feet m.l.l.w.
at the inshore end of the parallel jetties, provided
the detailed engineering and model studies show suf-
ficient reduction in wave heights during storms to
not endanger boats in transit.
MAIN NAVIGATION CHANNEL
The main channel will be sheltered from severe
storm waves, visibility is good, and strict speed
'
control of power boats should be established so that
opposite Basin A-1 the navigation channel can be
narrowed to 400 ft. In proceeding up -channel, the
number of berthed boats using the channel is pro-
gressively decreased until only 1126 boats are based
inland of the 19th Street bridge. Rather than a
'
continuous narrowing of the main channel as the
berthing basins are passed and traffic densities
are reduced, it would be better to plan extra
side -tie berths for larger boats and transients
'
along the main channel north of Basins B-1 and B-3.
The best transition to a narrower channel can be
made at the north end of Basin C -1, beyond which
'
boat berths are reduced to 352 boats. However, extra
swing space should be allowed at the angle point.
Beyond Basin C-1 the main channel serves only 352
boats and a channel width of 200 feet is adequate.
North of the Victoria Street bridge a 150-foot-wide
channel is adequate to serve the remaining 260 berths.
17
'
I
The required depth of the main channel is con-
trolled by the draft of the boats that will use it
and by the need to provide good water circulation
inland of the wave -absorber portion.of the entrance
channel. For these reasons, only that portion of
Basin A required to serve larger power boats and
deep -keeled sailboats requires a 15 foot depth.
All of the main channel through Basins B, C and D
are to be dredged to the 10 foot depth, m.l.l.w.
BOAT BERTHING BASINS
The controlling factors in the layout of the
berthing areas were to fit the site layout and to
provide balanced use of the areas between each of
the east -west highway crossings which naturally
divide the marina into 4 boat basins. Larger boats
are located near the entrance channel, and care was
taken that the access to the main channel was offset
insofar as was possible to minimize boat -traffic
conflicts. The capacities of the boat slips and the
related car -parking spaces (0.75 spaces per boat)
by berthing areas are shown in Table 1,
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF
BOAT BERTHS.
Average
Number
Number
Basin
Size Boats
Boats
Parking Spaces
A-1
50 ft.
117
90
A-2
Launching Area
A-3
35 ft.
164
123
Sub Total
2-91
Newport
Shores
150)
(To be developed by others)
Sub Total
31)
B-1
35 ft.
451
338
B-2
35 ft.
1151
338
B-3
35 ft.
275
207
B-4
35 ft.
275
207
Sub Total
1l152
C-1
30 ft.
442
332
0-2
30 ft.
332
250
C-3
30 ft.
92
69
Sub Total
866
D-1
30 ft.
260
195
TOTAL BOATS
2859 +
150 at Newport Shores = 3009
18
1
1
1
1
1
u
' All berthing areas in Basins B. C and D will
be excavated to the 10 foot depth below mean lower
low water. Basin A-1 will be to the -15 foot depth,
but the launching ramp area, Basin A-3 and the
' Newport Shores area will only require a -10 foot
depth.
' All boats are to be berthed at floating finger
piers in conformance with criteria established by
the State Department of Navigation and Ocean
' Development.] There are a number of uncommitted
areas along the bulkheaded walls of the main channel
that can be used for large vessels or for public
landings. Because of the extensive mooring areas
' available in the adjacent Newport Harbor, no pro-
visions are made for moorings in this marina.
1 HIGHWAY BRIDGES AND CROSSINGS
This is probably the most complex and expensive
'
construction problem in the development of this marina,
and it will require considerably more -study than was
provided for in the scope of this report. Presently
existing crossings of the site are the Pacific Coast
1
Highway and Victoria Street. Traffic studies by others
indicate that with or without the marina neither of
these routes have an adequate capacity and must be
modified or rebuilt. Victoria Street will require
widening to 14 lanes. A new 6 lane highway extending
from 19th Street on the Newport Bluffs westerly to
'
Banning Avenue on the west is planned. The existing
Pacific Coast Highway will have to be widened and
there is strong justification to reroute the highway
about 1600 feet inland. This alternate route is con-
'
sidered necessary to pick up and dispose of the west-
ward flow of traffic from the south terminus of the
Newport Freeway and to relieve congestion resulting
t
from the conflict with beach traffic between Newport
Boulevard and Brookhurst Street. If'the marina is
built, in addition to these existing problems, all
'
boats entering the marina must pass under this
highway if it remains in its present location, and a
high-level bridge with a vertical clearance of 50 feet
over the navigation channel at mean high tide will
'
be required. Even this clearance will safely accom-
modate sailboats of only about 45 feet in length.
However, larger boats can be diverted to Newport
'
Harbor, which has an unimpeded entrance. As this
highway crossing is in the entrance channel, a center
I
19
I
pier would be hazardous to boaters, therefore a clear
horizontal span of 600 feet would be necessary. An
added difficulty with a bridge of this height is the
approach ramps which would be nearly 1000 feet long
and would form a serious physical and visual barrier
to the residents of Newport Shores and West Newport.
A preliminary estimate of the cost of a 6 lane highway
bridge, with 600 foot approaches and a 50 foot vertical
rise, based on square foot costs, came to 9.0 million
dollars. Because about 10% of this cost would be
incurred whether or not the marina is built, 8.0
million dollars is the share assigned to the marina.
The alternate route would have the benefit of an
easterly approach off the 50 to 75 foot Newport Bluffs.
It would cross the 400 foot wide main channel and, as
there will be no appreciable wave action in this area,
the bridge could have.two 200 foot spans with a center
pier. Total cost of this bridge with earth -embankment
approaches to provide a 40 foot clearance over the main
channel (based on square -foot costs) is estimated at
7 million dollars. Of this amount about 25 percent or
2.9 million dollars would be assigned to marina costs.
Trestle structures instead of earth embankments were
considered as a means for providing more usable land
under these approaches. Although about 14 acres of
usable land would be added to the project, the
increased cost of about $8 per square foot could not
be justified.
The marina would benefit greatly from the alternate
route for this bridge because an unimpeded entrance
would then be available to Basin A, and ships of any
mast height could be served. For these reasons, it
is recommended that the alternate route for the Pacific
Coast Highway be adopted.
The 19th Street bridge and approaches would cost
about 7.5 million dollars, of which 25 percent or
3.0 million dollars should be assigned to the marina
costs. This street is also well located to provide
the principal access to and egress from the marina
perimeter roads.
Victoria Street bridge can be modified
2.5 million dollars, of which 35 percent o
dollars should be applied to marina costs
remainder to the normal traffic needs of a
capacity bridge.
20
for about
r 0.7 million
and the
larger
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
u
1
1
1
11
1
1
t
SLOPE PROTECTION FOR MAIN CHANNEL AND BOAT BASINS
The value of usable land will be very large for this
marina, and vertical bulkheading of all of the boat
basins and the main channel is recommended. This can
be a vertical concrete wall with a top elevation of
+10 feet and a toe elevation at mean lower low water.
Depending on soil conditions, this wall may have to
be set on piles. From the bottom of the concrete
wall to the project depth, a 1-vertical to 2-horizontal
slope protected with rock revetment will provide slope
stability. From recent experience at Huntington Harbor,
it is estimated that for a project of this size the
wall should cost about $120 per linear foot to construct.
PERIMETER SERVICE ROADS
It is most important that automobile traffic
through the marina to other destinations be avoided.
The character of the Newport -Costa Mesa Bluffs makes
this quite feasible, and it is recommended that the
principal point of access to the marina be 19th Street.
Coming west off the bluff, the street can be maintained
at sufficient height to overpass both East Drive and
West Drive, and, if detailed studies show the cost
to be warranted, even free -flowing interchanges can
be developed. The bulk of the automobile traffic
will be in Basins B and C, and a divided highway with
40 foot lanes is recommended. Pedestrian walks should
also be provided.
The West Drive will be combined with the Greenbelt
paths,and it offers several interesting possibilities
for combining greenbelt uses with marina activities.
Basin D is confined by the bluff to a small area,
which could be served adequately by a single 40 foot
road.
Secondary access to the marina area can be provided
at Banning Place and Victoria Street, but it is
recommended that no access be provided from the
Pacific Coast Highway alternate route. The area
supporting Basin A-3, of course, will need to have
access to the City of Newport Beach, either through
Newport Shores or directly to the dead end of the
present Pacific Coast Highway.
Secondary roads will depend upon the actual use to
which the various commercial and residential areas are
devoted, and they should be developed in conjunction
with the detailed plans.
21
L�
HARBOR ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES
General management, fiscal, administrative,
engineering and operational activities can be con-
solidated with those already established for Newport
Bay and Dana Point Harbors.
A Harbor Master Office, of similar character to
that established at Dana Point Harbor should be
established at a convenient location for boaters and
for providing maximum control of the marina. The
east -west highway crossing will preclude full visual
surveillance of the marina from any location, but for
public safety and convenience of the boaters, a site
seaward of the Pacific Coast Highway Alternate Route
is most desirable. It is recommended that the harbor
administrative facility be located on the east side
of the main channel at the intersection with Basin A-1.
The close proximity of the Pacific Coast Highway
will reduce the value of this land for purposes of
development, but it is in a strategic location for
control purposes and is served by 15 feet of water.
Slips should be provided for harbor patrol and fire
boats, and a minimal number of slips should be
provided both for those with business at the Harbor
Master's Office and for visitors desiring temporary
berthing. The most that would be required for the
U.S. Coast Guard would be a slip for one small cutter,
as Coast Guard personnel can continue to base their
main activities out of Newport Bay Harbor. The
administrative building should provide a first aid
station, police services and necessary information
and administrative services to the occupants of the
marina, ashore as well as afloat. Adequate mooring
facilities are available in Newport Bay Harbor for
visiting boaters who do not desire berths.
The demand for sanitary pumpout facilities for
servicing holding tanks on vessels with heads, or
toilet facilities aboard, is presently in a state of
flux,but two or more pumpout facilities should be
provided. The Harbor Administration area, perhaps
under the highway bridge, is a good location as it
is separated from other slips or recreational activities.
LAND EXCAVATION AND PILL PROGRAM
A well planned cut and fill program is essential
for effective and economical development of the marina,
22
1
u
1
F
E
1
F
IJ
I
and detailed soil explorations will be required before
'
a precise cut and fill program can be planned. From
general knowledge of the area, it can be assumed that,
'
to the -10 to 20 foot elevation, m.1.l.w., the material
will be sand with some patches of silts and -clays.
A large surplus of excavated material will be pro-
'
duced by required cuts to create channels and basins,
only a portion of which will be required to fill the
perimeter lands within the marina. A detailed land -
filling plan was not developed, as final grades will
be dependent upon the land -use plan. Generally, the
bulkheads'will be at elevation +10 feet, m.l.l.w. or
+7 feet mean sea level. The entire east boundary is
high bluffs, the east levee of the Santa Ana River
will have an elevation of 25 to 27 feet above mean
sea level, and the basins will be separated by the high-
way embankments. The land planners can utilize some
of the extra fill to elevate certain areas of the peri-
meter lands to develop vistas of the basin areas, or to
improve the general view to the south or west. For the
'
purposes of this study, the finished grading of the
marina lands will be assumed to slope from elevation +7
at the bulkhead lines to +25 at the project boundary,
'
requiring•an average fill of 9 feet.
The total amount of material to be excavated is
'
about 7 million cubic'yards most of which will probably
be removed by hydraulic pipeline dredge. About 4.7
million cubic yards will be required to fill the
marina lands, and some 0.7 million cubic yards will
be needed for the embankments of the 3 highway bridges.
This leaves a surplus of 1.6 million cubic yards. One
logical disposal area for this surplus would be the
'
public beach east of the proposed marina entrance to
offset the effects of any possible erosion caused by
the jetties intercepting future long -shore movement of
t
sand.
'
DISPOSITION OF THE GREENVILLE-BANNING FLOOD CHANNEL
This channel presently discharges directly into the
ocean in a separate channel from the Santa Ana River.
'
Although daily flow is almost negligible and anticipated
maximum flood flow is only 3000 cubic feet per second,
the differences in invert grades and times of arrival
'
of flood peaks in the two water courses make it difficult
to combine the Greenville -Banning flow with that of the
Santa Ana River. Under present conditions during late
t
summer and fall, a very troublesome pollution problem
occurs in the tidal marsh system north of Newport Shores.8
'
23
1
C]
With the creation of the marina, the land occupied
by the Greenville -Banning channel is of considerable
value to the marina, and it is recommended that this
channel be intercepted at the north boundary of the
marina site. Several possibilities for disposing of
flow from the channel should be considered in future
planning. The main channel of the marina will easily
accommodate the maximum 3000 cubic feet per second
flood flow,but a debris trap and basin at the upper
end of Basin D would be required to intercept floating
debris and flood -borne silts and prevent them from
diffusing throughout the marina and creating a general
cleanup problem in boat basins and the main channel.
Another solution would be to pump at least the low -
flow discharge into the Santa Ana River and only
accept the rather infrequent flood flows through the
marina. Either of these solutions or variations
thereof would also solve the presently offensive
pollution problem affecting the Newport Shores area.
LAND SUPPORT AREAS OF THE MARINA
As previously explained, excavation of the navi-
gation channels and the boat basins will provide the
necessary fill material to bring all of the land areas
up to design elevations. Filling of streets, public
parking lots, the Greenville -Banning Channel and the
Greenbelt would be at no cost to the project except
for that of dredging or excavating. The cost of
filling land in private ownership or being prepared
for lease would be added to the land -preparation
costs. The general plan is that the perimeter service
roads, the 3 east -west highways, the parking lots
serving the boat basins, a public walkway 20 feet wide
around the entire water perimeter of the harbor, the
harbor administrative areas and the 50-foot-wide
greenbelt along the east levee of the Santa Ana River
would be brought to grade as part of the development
of the public service portions of the harbor. This
would leave some 140 acres of land available for
recreational, commercial, and residential development.
It would be divided about as follows:
Basin A 20 acres
Boat Launching Area 3 acres
Basin B 60 acres
Basin C 35 acres
Basin D 22 acres
24
1
1
I
H
1
I
J
J
1
1
11
'
The cost of fill for these areas would be applied
to the land development costs, either for land re-
maining in private ownership or for publicly owned
land being prepared for lease to private developers.
The estimated cost of this operation is $1.40 per
cubic yard. The source of material required for
these landfills is just about equally divided between
the boat basins and the main channel. As the Corps
'
of Engineers will bear 50 percent of the cost of
excavating the main channel, the returns from any
sale of excavated material will be assumed for the
'
purposes of this study to be allocated 75 percent to
the Harbor District and 25 percent to the Corps of
Engineers.
1
II
t
I
The Harbor District should bear the costs of
developing the perimeter roads, the greenbelt area,
construction of the harbor administrative area and
walkways and/or secondary service roads around the
perimeter of the harbor. The District will also
provide all the basic utilities, electricity, water,
gas and sewer lines in'the same manner that a city
would. Landscaping was not considered at this stage,
as this will be primarily the responsibility of the
operators of the land -use areas. The provision of
public restrooms and sanitary pumpout facilities
for boats is also included in the cost of utilities.
The criteria for restrooms are established by the
Harbor District and the State Department of Navigation
and Ocean Development.3 Generally, at least one set
of restrooms will be required for each bulkheaded
face of a boat basin,and each set should include hot
water, showers and clothes washing facilities to
encourage the boaters to make proper use of land
facilities.
The possible uses of the land support areas is
discussed in a following section, "Economic Analysis"
but will generally consist of restaurants, hotels
and/or motels, apartments, recreational facilities,
boat service shops, filling stations, grocery,
delicatessens, liquor stores, etc.
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
Historically, the maintenance of the general
navigation features built by the Corps of Engineers
has been a Federal responsibility. For this marina
this would be the maintenance of the entrance jetties
and the wave absorbers, necessary dredging of the
25
t
11
entrance and main channels to project depths, and by-
passing of littoral sand shoaling the entrance. The
present Federal administration through the water
Resources Council and the Office of Business Manage-
ment (previously the Bureau of the Budget) has been
attempting to transfer this responsibility to the
local sponsors. To date, Congress has strongly
resisted this proposed change, and the project
authorization, as passed by the Congress, maintains
Federal responsibility. Allocation of costs for
these activities is assumed to continue as a
Federal responsibility. Also, under the 1962 River
and Harbor Act, the Corps of Engineers has been
assigned the primary responsibility for protection
of the beach from Surfside to Newport Harbor, and
their plan, authorized by Congress and the State of
California, calls for interception at the Santa Ana
River of the 200,000 cubic yards per year of littoral
drift moving southward, and the transport of this
material back to the Surfside Beach area to replenish
the eroding shore at that point.2
The boat basins, all bulkheading of the main
channel and the boat basins, the debris trap for the
interception of the Greenville -Banning Flood Channel,
and all public portions of the marina will be the
responsibility of the Harbor District.
Design Considerations of Entrance Channel
While the primary design criterion for the entrance
is the provision of a protected navigation entrance
which will adequately serve a 3,000 boat small craft
marina, two other important considerations are:
1. Its effect upon the ocean outlets for
the Santa Ana River and the Greenville -Banning flood
control channels.
2. Its impact upon the littoral -drift pro-
cesses affecting the shoreline upcoast and downcoast
of the entrance structures.
R
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
Effects on Flood Control Structures
It is anticipated that the proposed entrance
channel will have no adverse effects on the flood
runoff capacity of the existing Santa Ana River
channel. The Corps of Engineers is presently con-
ducting studies for improvement of the Santa Ana
River downstream of Prado Dam. For the purpose of
this report, it will be assumed that the east levee
of the river will remain in its present location and
that any widening of the channel will be done by
relocating the west levee only.
As discussed earlier, the lower reach of the
Greenville -Banning channel will be incorporated into
a widened navigation channel while continuing to
function as a means of conveying flood flows directly
to the ocean. This side channel has a relatively
small drainage area (watershed) so that it carries
very,little sediment during flood flows. At the
time of its construction, this channel was designed
for a peak flow of about 2200 cfs, although the latest
estimate of the peak discharge is about 3000 cfs, in-
dicating the channel is presently under -designed. This
peak flood discharge will not present any danger to
boats and structures in the marina because the navi-
gation channel is much wider than the existing channel
and as a result, both the maximum flood stage and the
peak velocity in the navigation channel will be
greatly reduced. The problems of flood runoff as
related to the safe berthing of small craft has been
minimized by berthing most of the boats within
distinct basins connected to the navigation channel
by means of feeder channels perpendicular to the
direction of flood flow.
An important problem caused by the construction of
the jetties is that regarding the accretion of sedi-
ments in the immediate vicinity of the ocean outlets
of the flood control channels located just upcoast
of the jetties. Inasmuch as continued build-up of
sediments at the outlets adversely affects the flood -
flow capacities of those channels, means for keeping
their ocean outlets open will be discussed in
succeeding paragraphs in conjunction with means of
bypassing sand in order to stabilize beaches both
upcoast and downcoast of the jetties. In this regard
it should be noted that sediments carried by runoff
from the Talbert and Greenville -Banning Channels are
negligible and that although the deposition of sediment
at the mouth of the'Santa Ana River during a peak
27
1
I
flood flow may be substantial, it occurs so infre-
quently that the primary threat of choking the outlets
of these channels is the interruption of beach -sand
movement along the coast.
Impact on Littoral Drift
Studies and investigation by the Corps of Engineers2
have indicated the existence of a slight predominance
of downcoast angle of wave approach, which explains
why a net downcoast littoral movement prevails through-
out most of the year along the segment of shoreline
between Anaheim Bay and the Newport Pier. However,
their investigations have shown that the gross move-
ment involves upcoast drift as well during the summer
and fall months. The proposed marina entrance jetties,
located near the mouth of the Santa Ana River, will
indeed act as a barrier to littoral movement along
this segment of the coast, causing sand to accrete
upcoast of the jetties while denying the downcoast
beaches their normal supply of sand. However, this
impact will not be detrimental to the beach -stabilization
efforts being made by the Corps of Engineers as the
following discussion will demonstrate.
Beach -profile surveys conducted by the Corps during
the period July 1934 - April 1970 have shown that the
predominant direction of littoral movement along the
segment between Surfside-Sunset Beach and the Santa Ana
River mouth is downcoast and that the net movement
along the West Newport Beach segment (Santa Ana River
to Newport Pier) is upcoast by a very slight margin.
The Corps has estimated that the average annual loss
of sand in the Surfside-Sunset Beach area has been in
excess of 200,000 cubic yards per year.
The primary source of material for the downcoast
littoral drift "stream" is the artificial fill placed
along the Surfside-Sunset Beach area. This beach has
been artificially nourished on a periodic basis since
1945. As of this date no protective structures (such
as groins) have been constructed between this beach
and the Santa Ana River. As a result, the beaches
along this segment will continue to erode and thus
require periodic replacement of beach fill along the
Surfside-Sunset Beach.
RV7
I
I
t
I
The program for stabilizing the shoreline along the
West Newport Beach segment consists of both artificial
'
beach nourishment and a field of rock groins. The
groin field extends from 62nd Street downcoast to
28th Street. Construction of the groin field was com-
'
pleted in 1973•
The final stage of the overall plan for shore pro-
'
tection from Anaheim Bay to Newport Fier consists of
constructing a detached rubble -mound breakwater
immediately upcoast of the Santa Ana River. The break-
water is intended to act as a sand -impounding structure.
By absorbing much of the wave energy that would otPier-
wise reach the shore in its lee, it would produce a
shoreline change tending to close the gap between the
'
present shoreline and the offshore breakwater. Down -
coast littoral movement would be reduced, and the
t
1
1
1
1
1
i�
accreted material would then be transported under a
regular maintenance program either back to the Surfside-
Sunset Beach area in order to re -supply the littoral
"stream", or, as needed on to the beaches south of the
river. This final stage has been deferred pending
further studies by the Corps and demonstration of
need.
The impact of constructing the proposed jetties
near the mouth of the Santa Ana River will be twofold.
First, it will form a barrier to either upcoast or
downcoast littoral movement beyond the Santa Ana River
to a much greater extent than would the Corps' pro-
posed offshore breakwater. Due to the predominant
downcoast littoral movement, sand will tend to accrete
in the immediate vicinity of the Santa Ana River mouth
and along the beach just upcoast of the river, while
the beach immediately downcoast of the jetties will
probably experience erosion during certain months
of the year. This erosion can be partially compensated
by depositing along the threatened beach some 1,000,000
cubic yards of sand to be excavated from the entrance
channel that is surplus to the needs of the marina.
Thus, a maintenance program will be required both to
insure that the ocean outlets of the Santa Ana River
and the adjacent Talbert Channel be kept open and to
periodically nourish the beaches along upper West
Newport Beach.
The second impact of the proposed jetty construction
would be that it might eliminate the need for construct-
ing the Corps' proposed offshore breakwater because
the west jetty would then serve as a sand -impounding
29
structure. The sand accreting upcoast of the jetty,
which in any case would have to be dredged periodically
to maintain the outlets of the flood control channels,
could be used to nourish the upcoast and downcoast
beaches as planned under the Corps' program. However,
should the offshore breakwater be constructed first,
the rate of sand accretion in the immediate area of
the channel outlets would be substantially reduced,
most of the material being trapped in the primary
impoundment area a short distance upcoast, and there-
fore the frequency of dredging to maintain the outlets
would be reduced. The various bypassing methods
are discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
Methods of Sand Bypassing
Economical and effective methods of bypassing sand
at littoral barriers are still in the developmental
stages, and new and more effective methods may be
devised in the near future. In general the present
techniques divide into land -based systems and marine
systems.
Land -based systems include:
1. Draglines and trucks.
2. Saurman type rigs (A fixed drag line with an
offshore deadman).
3. Portable hydraulic systems using an eductor
to pick up the sand and transport it from one side of
the harbor entrance to the other in conjunction with a
dragline or Saurman rig that maneuvers the sand from
the nearshore area to the eduction point.
4. Fixed or mobile hydraulic systems such as a
dredge pump mounted on a jetty or platform, a mobile
dredge pump mounted on a pier, or a remote -controlled
eductor or other Venturi -flume -type pump positioned
on the bottom directly in the littoral -transport zone
and moved about for effective scavenging of the drift-
ing sand.
Marine systems include:
1. Sea going hopper dredges.
2. Floating clamshell or dragline dredges using
barges for transport past the harbor entrance.
30
1
L_
L
1
1
u
L
H
1
3.
pump the
Hydraulic pipeline dredges which excavate and
littoral sand from the accreting to the
eroding
area.
'
4.
Underwater (bottom
crawler) type hydraulic
dredges
discharging to the
downdrift shore through
pipe lines.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
F
Any of the above units may operate with or with-
out a protective structure such as an offshore break-
water or a jetty-wier structure.
In addition to the above, coastal engineers are
continuously striving to devise a harbor -entrance con-
figuration that will naturally bypass the longshore
sand movement. To date, this method has only had
partial success.
Recommended -Sand -Bypass Procedure
The Corps of Engineers presently plans to inter-
cept the longshore sand movement by construction of
an offshore breakwater upcoast of the discharge area
of the Santa Ana River. This provides a control
point for transfer of sand to any eroding area of the
beach: Surfside, the groin field, or the area east
of the Newport Pier. Thus, the infrequent flood -run-
offs of the Santa Ana River would provide the only
source of shoaling sand directly affecting the harbor.
If future floods are fully controlled at Prado Dam
and sediment discharge of the lower Santa Ana River
is reduced to a minimal amount, consideration should
be given to combining the Corps of Engineers sand
trap with the entrance to the harbor such as at
Channel Islands Harbor, where 2300 feet of offshore
breakwater parallel to the beach stills the wave
action and not only shelters the jettied entrance
to the harbor but traps the littoral drift upcoast
of the harbor in a sheltered area where it can be
removed safely by a conventional hydraulic pipeline
dredge. Such a system would provide better wave
protection for the harbor entrance and would effect
a major savings in jetty costs.
31
WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
Several factors must be considered in final design
of this marina to insure acceptable water quality
standards for a recreational area.
Circulation
The distance from the seaward end of the jetties
to the northerly limits of Basin D is nearly 13,000 feet.
While this is a long narrow water area, normal tidal
exchange will maintain good water quality. Special
measures may be required to prevent the inflow of
polluted surface water from tributary land areas. Also,
if flood runoff from the Greenville -Banning Channel is
accepted in the marina, a few days of minor pollution
may occur after each heavy runoff. These factors
should be explored in future detailed studies.
Oil Seepage
Concern has been expressed over possibilities of
oil seepage. Further study of this problem is required,
but the only known natural seepage at this time is a
small area in the mouth of the Santa Ana River. During
the assumed 10 year period before construction starts,
it is anticipated that much of the oil presently being
extracted from shallow deposits will be removed. A
thorough cleanup and capping of old wells and facilities
should preclude any serious problem from oil seepage.
Salt -Water Intrusion
Studies by the Orange County Sanitary Districts
show that salt -water intrusion of the underground
reservoir has already penetrated inland to the salt-
water barrier at Adams Street one mile inland of the
marina north boundary.9 The expansion of water areas
to the -10 foot (-13 foot M.S.L4) depth will have no
additional adverse effect.
32
t
1
1
1
I
1
n
u
I
1
I
1
I
1
L
I
1
I
1
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
GENERAL
The cost of constructing the basic features
of this marina will be about the same for whoever
builds it. There will be differences in the methods
and cost of financing, however, depending on who
develops the various components. One of the
items included in the scope of this study was a
determination of the relative feasibility of various
combinations of public and private ownership alter-
natives. Each of these alternatives carries a
different price tag and cost allocation. Also,
as berthing basins are deleted from public owner-
ship, Federal participation decreases. Thus, in
order to develop cost estimates for the various
schemes of public versus private ownerships, these
schemes must first be defined and then analyzed
as to how'each scheme will affect Federal partici-
pation. Because part of the financing will probably
be through a State loan, certain basic requirements
for State participation must be met as well as those
of the Federal Government.
SPONSORSHIP SCHEMES
The physical layout plan for the marina is shown
on Plate 2. Its capacity is 3009 recreational boats,
including berths for 150 boats around the water
perimeter of Newport Shores to be built by others.
In order to analyze the fiscal aspects of building
and operating the marina, construction costs are
considered for sponsorship schemes in which responsi-
bilities for construction and operation are
geographically divided as follows:
1. The entire marina to be owned by the Harbor
District.
2. Basins A, B and C to be owned by the Harbor
District. Basin D to be in private ownership but to
provide at least 260 berths and operate within the
marina framework.
3. Basins A and B to be owned by the Harbor
District. Basins C and D to be in private 'ownership
but to provide at least 1120 berths and to operate
within the marina framework.
33
I
4. Basins A and B to be owned by the Harbor
District, but the Basin C and D areas to be completely
deleted from the project.
It should be noted that under Schemes 2, 3 and 4
the Harbor District will not be responsible for
bridging Victoria Street and that under Scheme 3
and 4, the Harbor District will not be responsible
for bridging 19th Street.
Each of the above schemes would meet the criteria
for Federal and State participation by providing for
public ownership of all waterways in the publicly
owned basins, including (1) berthing areas, (2) a
harbor master area with a public landing, (3) public
ownership and construction of all bulkheads, (4) public
ownership of a strip 20 feet wide surrounding the
entire wetted perimeter.
For each of the four schemes, two alternatives
for land management of the perimeter lands of the
publicly owned basins are considered. Public parti-
cipation is maximized under sub -scheme "a" by acquiring
all of the perimeter lands and turning them over to
the Harbor District for leasing out to private enter-
prise, as is being done at Dana Point Harbor. Public
participation is minimized under sub -scheme "b" by
acquiring only the lands of the publicly owned basins
that are to be converted to water area plus the
20 foot marginal working strip, the slip -related
parking lots and the harbormaster's office site.
The remaining lands within the project boundary would
be left in private ownership to be developed and
managed by their owners for the various marina -related
uses of the overall development plan. Obviously,
these lands would have to be filled with materials
excavated from the water areas before they could be
used for such purposes, and thereafter their worth
would be increased several fold. The public sponsors
should be compensated for bringing about this increase
thru some form of agreement with the land owners at
time of acquisition. To simplify this accounting
problem for the purposes of this study, the cost of
land acquisition under the sub -scheme "b" alternatives
is merely reduced by the estimated cost to the public
sponsor of excavating and placing on the privately
held adjacent lands the amount of fill material
required to bring these lands up to project grade.
34
I
I-
I
1
LJ
1
I
I
I
'
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PARTICIPATION
It has been a long standing Federal policy to
participate in the development of public harbors or
marinas. This program is the responsibility of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At the direction of
Congress they undertake a thorough study of the project
and make their recommendation through the Secretary
of the Army to Congress. If the project is approved
by Congress, detailed engineering studies are made
'
and when the local sponsor's funds are ready, Congress
can appropriate necessary construction funds. In
order to qualify for these Federal funds, a number of
conditions must be met by the local public agencies:
1. The harbor must be administered by a public
agency.
2. A public landing must be available to all on
equal terms.
'
3. All harbor facilities, public or private, must
be available to all on equal terms.
'
Moreover, an economic analysis that will be made
by the Corps must show a favorable ratio of general
public benefits to Federal costs. The Federal share,
by Congressional policy, is 50 percent of the con-
'
struction costs of the general navigation features,
the remainder to be provided by local interests,
in this case, the Harbor District. For this marina,
'
these features are the entrance jetties, the navi-
gation lights, the revetted slopes around the curve of
the inner part of the entrance channel, and dredging
'
of the entrance channel and the main channel through
the four basins. The analysis of benefits is basi-
cally a determination of the depreciated value of the
recreational -boat fleet (this being considered a
measure of the benefits of the fleet to its owners),
the sport -fishing benefits, and the reduction of
damage to boats of all classes because of the
'
shelter provided by the harbor. These benefits are
compared to the costs of constructing and maintaining
the general navigation features and acquiring the
'
lands to be occupied by these general navigation
features.
' The Corps of Engineers will make their own
economic analysis according to their established
guidelines. However, in order to determine the
' feasibility of obtaining Corps of Engineer
1 1 35
participation and funding, the following analysis
was made, based on the Corps guidelines:
(1) Total Public Harbor, 4 basins and 3000 boats
Annual Costs
1st Cost -Construction $7,400,000
Cost of land acquisition 1 1 725 0'00
TOTAL 93125000
Annual Cost (50 year life)
Land and Construction* $ 650,000
Maintenance 120,000
TOTAL 770,000
Annual Benefits
Depreciated value of boats $28,000,000
Average annual benefit 210003000
Benefit -Cost ratio 2.6
(2) Basins A. B and C Public with 2740 boats
Annual Costs
1st Cost -Construction $6,920,000
Cost of land 1 590 000
TOTAL ,310 0000
Annual Costs (50 year life)
Land and Construction* $ 610,000
Maintenance 100,000
TOTAL 7104000
Annual Benefits
Depreciated value of boats $25,000,000
Average Annual Benefit 11812,000
Benefit -Cost ratio 2.6
36
' (3) Basins A and B Public with 1874 boats
Annual Costs
' 1st Cost -Construction $ 6,520,000
Cost of land 1,390,000
TOTAL �77,910,000
' Annual Cost (50 year life)
Land and Construction* $ 560,000
t Maintenance 90 000
TOTAL $ 50,000
Annual Benefits
'
Depreciated value of boats $17,000,000
Average Annual benefit 1,122,000
'
Benefit -Cost ratio 1.7
*Amortization of first costs in 50 years at
6-7/8 percent compound interest.
The above analysis shows that so long as at least
'
Basins A and B are operated by the Harbor District,
participation by the Corps of Engineers with a Federal
expenditure of over $3,000,000 can be justified.
PROJECT FIRST COST
'
The following is a breakdown of first costs of
the marina, including highway bridges, assuming Corps
requirements will be met:
'
TABLE 2
Cost of Construction
(In millions of dollars)
Public or
ITEM Federal Public Private
ENTRANCE CHANNEL
Jetties and Wave Absorbers 1.250 1.250 -
Dredging Entrance Channel* 0.715 0.715 -
Navigation Aid Foundations* 0.045 0.045 -
Land Valuation - 3.000 -
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge
Sub Total 2.010 5.010
37
Public or
ITEM Federal Public Private
BASIN A
Dredging Main Channel* 0.425 0.425 -
Bulkheading Main Channel - 0.060 -
Dredging and Bulkheading
Boat Basins - 1.300 -
Interior Roads - 0.075 -
Harbor Master & Admin. Fac. - Moo -
Land Valuation -Public - 1.710
Land Valuation-Pub/Priv.** - - 3.050
Sub Total o.425 4.590 3.050
BASIN A-B
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge 2.900
BASIN B
Dredging Main Channel* 0.625 0.625 -
Bulkheading Main Channel - 0.395 -
Dredging & Bulkheading
Boat Basins - 3.230 -
Interior Roads - Moo -
Support Land Utilities - 1.46o -
Land Valuation Public - 1.030 -
Land Valuation Pub/Priv.** - - 0.690
Sub Total 0.625 7.140 0.690
BASINS B-C
19th St. Bridge - 3.000 -
BASIN C
Dredging Main Channel* o.400 0.4o0 -
Bulkheading Main Channel - o.410 -
Dredging & Bulkheading
Boat Basins - 1.600 -
Interior Roads - 0.175 -
Support Land Utilities - 0.930 -
Land Valuation Public - 1.010 -
Land Valuation Pub/Priv.** _ -_ - 0.750
Sub Total 0.400 4.525 0.750
BASINS C-D
Victoria Street Bridge
0.700 -
Public or
ITEM Federal Public Private
BASIN D
Dredging Main Channel*
Bulkheading Main Channel
Dredging & Bulkheading
Boat Basin
Interior Roads
Support Land Utilities
Control Structure for
Banning -Greenville Channel
Land Valuation Public
Land Valuation Pub/Priv.**
Sub Total
TOTAL
TOTAL (Public & Private)
0.24o 0.24o —
0.525 —
— 0.58o —
0.075 —
0.550 —
o.400 -
0.410 -
- — 0.320
0.240 2.78o 0.320
3.700 30.645 4.810
TOTAL (Federal, Public, Private)
35.455
39.155
*To be constructed by the Corps of Engineers
*Public for sponsorship sub -scheme t`a", private for
sponsorship sub -scheme "b".
The breakdown of costs to participating interests
for each of the sponsorship schemes is shown in the
following Table:
TABLE 3
Cost Breakdown by Sponsorship Schemes
(in millions of dollars)
Harbor
Sponsorship Scheme Fed. Dist. Private
1. All water areas public
a. With lands public 3.7 35.4 —
b. With lands private 3.2 29.1 6.3
2. Basins A. B, C, Public
a. With lands public 3.5 31.5 11.1
b. With lands private 3.1 25.8 10.2
3. Basins A. B, Public
a. With lands public 3.1 23.4 12.6
b. With lands private 2.9 19.1 17.1
39
I
POTENTIAL REVENUES
GENERAL
The income produced by the overall project will
come from three principal sources: slip rentals in
the water area, taxes levied against the berthed
craft and leases of land parcels for various uses.
Slip rentals and numbers of boats to be taxed under
each sponsorship scheme will not vary appreciably
with any reasonable modification of the water -area
configuration in future planning, as the ratio of
berthing area to fairway and channel area must remain
approximately the same for navigational reasons.
Income from the land area, on the other hand, may
vary considerably according to the purposes for
which it is used and with intensity of use. Use -
intensity is closely related to the number of
people (below congestion limits) that are attracted
to the area either as permanent residents or as
participants in marina activities who come from out-
side the project boundaries.
The current trend in Orange County is toward cur-
tailment of the number of residents in any given area
by imposing various types of governmental controls.
These controls take the form of zoning restrictions,
building -height restrictions, restrictions on the
allowable number of residential units per acre,
review -board control over new development, etc.
An example of high -intensity use is Marina del Rey,
in Los Angeles County, where high-rise buildings are
permitted and where facilities that attract thousands
of visitors are encouraged. An example of low -
intensity use is Huntington Harbour, where minimum
lot -size restriction as well as low -density zoning
regulations are imposed.
INCOME FROM SLIPS
Slip rental rates are estimated at $2.50 and $2.25
per foot of length per month for slips over and under
36 feet respectively, based on current rates in nearby
marinas. An average occupancy rate of 95% is assumed,
making the annual income per foot of slip $28.50
and $25.65 respectively. It is also assumed that the
berthing areas together with their designated parking
areas are to be leased to private enterprise for slip -
construction and operation, as is now being done at
40
1
u
H
1
H
1
1
Dana Point Harbor, and that the annual income to the
Harbor District will be 20% of the slip rentals.
The income to the Harbor District 'by basins and,by
sponsorship schemes is shown in the following table:
TABLE 4
Annual Slip Income
BASIN A
Berthing area 460,000 sq. ft.
Gross income: 117 slips x 50 ft. @ 28.50: $167,000
164 slips.x 35 ft. @ 25.65: $147 000
31 ,000
Harbor District lease income, 20%
BASIN B
Berthing area 1,760,000 sq. ft.
Gross income: 1452 slips x 35 ft
Harbor District lease income, 20%
$ 62,800
@ $25.65:$1,304,o00
$ 260,800
BASIN C
Berthing area 862,000 sq. ft.
Gross income: 866 slips x 30 ft. @ 25.65: $666,000
Harbor District lease income, 20% $133,200
BASIN D
Berthing area 244,000 sq. ft.
Gross income: 260 slips x 30 ft. @ 25.65: $200,000
Harbor District lease income, 20% $ 40,o00
Sponsorship
Scheme
1:
public
ownership
all Basins
$4963,00•
Sponsorship
Scheme
2:
public
ownership
Basins A,B,C
456,800
Sponsorship Schemes 3•& 4: public ownership Basins A,B 323,600
41
1
11
BOAT TAX REVENUE
The taxes derived from privately owned lands,
improvements built on these lands, furnishings in
these improvements and most other private properties
belonging to the tenants are normally used to pro-
vide community services for residents of those lands.
Because such taxes are all presumably returned to the
taxpayers in the form of police and fire protection,
schools, roads, sanitation, etc., they cannot be con-
sidered as project revenues. Additional taxes derived
from berthed boats, on the other hand, are generated
only as a result of more berthing area being provided,
and those additional boats do not increase the demand
for normal community services. Only those services
provided by the harbor management are increased, and
this increase is reflected in the harbor operations
costs which are taken into account in the economic
analysis. For this reason boat taxes are considered
to be direct revenues resulting from harbor con-
struction, regardless of their ultimate disposition.
Orange County levies taxes on the boats in its
harbors on the basis of their assessed value, i.e.,
one-fourth of their actual depreciated value. The
estimated harbor boat tax revenue is therefore con-
sidered to be one fourth of the depreciated appraised
value of the boats used in the benefit/cost analysis
for Corps of Engineers participation. Assuming a 95
percent occupancy factor, the berthed boats would then
have an assessed value of $9,590,000. The 1973 tax
rate for the Newport Harbor area is $9.18* per $100
of assessed valuation, and at this rate the boat tax
revenue produced by the project under Schemes 1, 2 and
3 would be approximately $880,000 annually. Under
Scheme 4 it would be approximately $570,000 annually.
INCOME FROM LAND AREAS
All land areas within the project boundary not
occupied by roads, slip -parking lots, the harbormasterts
office and the green strip along the Santa Ana River
are considered leasable. The principal purposes for
which the leased land will be used are condominum-type
housing developments, motels and hotels, restuarants
and various commercial and recreational activities. As
previously stated, the primary requisite for a
successful leasing program of this nature is a fairly
large number of permanent residents who will make use
`Orange County Tax Assessorts Office, Marine Division
42
F
11
t
1
1
I
1
1
1
t
I
1
1
1
1
of the facilities provided other than the living units
themselves. For this reason, a fairly generous allo-
cation of condominum sites was provided for
feasibility -testing purposes. It was assumed that
about 2,500 units would be built on these sites, which
averages about 6 units per acre for the 420 acre site.
In addition, sites were provided for about 1,000 hotel
and motel units. It was felt that the resulting marina
population would assure the success of the restaurants,
and the commercial and recreational activities to be
provided.
In April, 1967, Victor Gruen and Associates made a
re -study of Marina del Rey which provided data on
revenues being obtained by the harbor administration
from lease of marina lands for various purposes. That
was prior to the construction of any high-rise buildings
when the level of development approximated that desired
for West Newport Marina. The results of that study
have been upgraded to present price levels to give the
following table of land lease revenues that is considered
applicable to the project area.
TABLE 5
Annual Revenues Obtainable for Marina Lands
Parcel Use Income per Square Foot
Restaurants $ 0.90
Motels & Hotels 0.60
Various Sales & Recreation 0.35
Condominiums, General 0.20
Condominiums, Bluff Area 0.40*
*Derived for this report by considering the larger
number of units per acre possible and better vistas
of the east -boundary condominiums.
An analysis of available lease parcels indicates that
a satisfactory use -plan maximizing revenue potentials
without violating County height and unit -density criteria
can be developed. First, a group of view condominiums
' would be sited along the east boundary rising to about
the level of the adjacent mesa lands. These structures
should command premium lease returns, provided their
' view of the harbor is not obscured by development to the
west. Next, a few channel -view restaurant sites would
be reserved along the water front, as they will probably
1
43
I_1
produce the highest revenue per square -foot. Then
enough good hotel and motel sites will be reserved
to satisfy the anticipated transient needs. They
must be near or have easy access to main travel
routes crossing the marina. In general, the remain-
ing parcels along the waterfront will be offered '
mainly for two or three story condominiums, and
those not along the water but generally contiguous
to main roads will be offered as sites for various
commercial and recreational uses. '
The revenue rates from Table 5 were applied to
the areas of the various parcels in one typical '
development scheme for the site which adhered
generally to the principles previously described.
The estimated income is shown in the following Table: '
TABLE 6
Annual
Income from
Lease
of Land
Acres
Income
'
Basin A
Launching Ramp
3
$ 18,000
Residential
12
1903000
'
Commercial
8
164,000
23
$ 372,000
Basin B
Residential
28
510,000
'
Commercial
24
463,000
Recreational
8
1201000
70
$1,0933000
'
Basin C
Residential
20
284,000
Commercial
10
252,000
,
Recreational
Mon
35
$
Basin D
Residential
14
360,000
'
Commercial
5
80,000
Recreational
3
46 000
'T
'
22
$ 6,000
444
F
A summary of annual income to the Harbor,District
from all sources for each of the sponsorship schemes
is presented in the following table:
TABLE 7
Annual Harbor District.•Income From All Sources
(In Thousands of Dollars)
Slips Boat Land
sorship Scheme Rentals Taxes Leases
1.
All water areas public
a. With lands public
496.8
880
2,56o
3,,936•.8
b. With lands private
496.8
88o
—
1,376.8
2.
Basins A, B, C Public
a. With lands public
456.8
88o
2,o74
3,41o.8
b. With lands private
456.8
88o
—
1,336.8
3.
Basins A, B Public
a. With lands public
323.6
88o
1,462
2,665.6
b. With lands private
323.6
88o
—
1,203.6
4.
Basins A. B Public and
no Marina in Basins C,D
a. With lands public
323.6
570
1,462
25355.6
b. pith lands private
323.6
570
—
893.6
45
1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS '
FUNDING SCHEDULE
'
One of the controlling factors in the economic
analysis of the proposed marina project is the re-
,
quired scheduling of funds that must be provided by
the Harbor District for each of the sponsorship
schemes considered. Deferred expenditures may be
reduced to present worth for comparison with project
,
revenues, which must also be reduced to present worth
for valid analysis. It is assumed that all lands would
have to be acquired prior to start of construction.
'
The construction features to be accomplished by the
Corps of Engineers will probably be completed over a
two or three year period, with matching funds for at
'
least half of the total being required prior to pro-
ject implementation. All bridge construction should
be accomplished as early in the program as possible so
that work on piers and abutments will not interfere
,
with basin development. The lead time required for
fabrication of steel superstructure components will
necessitate early funding also, so that most of the
'
funds for bridge construction will be needed very
early in the development program. Roads and utilities
cannot be installed until the land areas of the project
'
plan are filled and consolidated. Much of the excava-
tion for production of fill material, on the other
hand, must await completion of perimeter Walls to
retain the fill, and construction of these walls is
'
one of the costliest features of the project..
In general, it appears that over half of the '
required public funds must be available prior to
commencement of work and that most of the remainder
Will be needed about a year later. Although the
construction period may cover about four years, it is
assumed for the purposes of this study that all
public funds must be available at the start of the '
project. Some savings may result from deferred
funding of portions of the program, but until a firm
plan is agreed upon, it is considered unsafe to rely
on this possibility.
1
46 '
1
REVENUE SCHEDULE
For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that
' the leasing of berthing areas for slip construction will
begin at the end of the first three years of construc-
tion (as some overlap .of construction and slip -leasing
' is permissible) and that the slips will be rented and
occupied in uniformly increasing numbers to full capa-
city over the succeeding four years. In order to
simplify the calculations, no revenues are considered
' receivable during the first two years of this period
and the full -capacity revenues from slip rentals and
boat taxes (reduced to 95 percent occupancy) are con-
sidered to be receivable from the beginning of the third
year (five years after project implementation) to the
end of the assumed project life 45 years later.
H
I
Under sub -scheme "a" of
alternatives, revenues from
help to support the project.
assumed to become receivabl
the fifth year after projec
e
t
the project -sponsorship
land -area leases will also
These revenues are also
in full amount beginning
implementation.
The annual revenues will be partially offset by
the annual costs of administering, patroling and
maintaining the harbor. These'annual costs are esti-
mated at $300,000 for sponsorship scheme 1, $280,000
for sponsorship scheme 2, and $250,000 for sponsorship
schemes 3 and 4. Unlike the revenues however, they
will begin at the beginning of the slip -leasing period
and continue throughout the life of the project.
' REVENUE -COST RATIO
t
One measure of the economic feasibility of a project
is a comparison of the sum of all of its revenues with
all of its costs reduced to annual amounts averaged
over the life of the project. If the ratio exceeds one
to one, the project is considered to be economically
justified. In order to reduce costs and revenues to a
common basis, a project life must be established,
which for this project is assumed at 50 years as
required for analysis of Corps of Engineers projects.
t
The estimated first costs to the Harbor District
are shown in Table 2, and for this comparison, it is
assumed that they will be met with borrowed capital.
47
t
I
For each sponsorship scheme it is assumed that a
State loan of $10,000,000 can be obtained, repayable
over a 30-year period at 4.5 percent compound interest
in 30 uniform annual installments. The remainder of
the first cost is assumed to be met with institutional
loans that will be repayable over a 50 year period at
8.0 percent compound interest In 50 uniform annual
installments. The debt -servicing costs would therefor
be the 30 year capital recovery factor (.06139) applied
to the first $10,000,000 of cost, plus the 50 year, 8%
capital recovery factor (.08174) applied to the remainder
of the cost. To the debt -servicing costs must be added
the annual costs of maintaining the harbor. Because
they do not start for three years after the project
implementation date, however, these costs should be
reduced by the ratio of the 50 year to the 47 year
sinking fund (.00174/.00220= ,790).
At the end of the project life, the public land
areas, water areas, and improvements will have a
salvage value for which credit may be taken in the
cost accounting. Inasmuch as the land and water areas
do not deteriorate with age and most of the improve-
ments, such as bulkhead walls, roads and utility
systems, suffer only minor deterioration if continuously
maintained, the salvage value of the public portions
of the harbor is considered to be 80 percent of the
initial Harbor District cost for each of the sponsor-
ship schemes evaluated. In taking an annual credit
for this salvage value, it may be assumed that the
prospective salvagor establishes a sinking fund to the
District's credit on the project implementation date
into which he pays a uniform annual amount, which at
8 percent compound interest will reach the estimated
harbor purchase price 50 years hence. This amount is.
80 percent of the 50 year sinking fund factor
(.00174 x .80) multiplied by the Harbor District's
first cost as shown in Table 2. The District's
annual costs may then be reduced by this annuity.
The harbor revenues are those shown in Table 7,
but because they do not start for five years after the
project implementation date, they must be reduced by
the ratio of the 45 year to the 50 year compound
amount factor at 8 percent interest
(386.505/573.770 = .672). These revenues and the
comparable annual costs for each of the sponsorship
schemes, with resultant revenue -cost ratios, are
shown in the following table.
J
J
J
I
I
1
I
I
F
I
1
1
r
F
1
1
TABLE 8
. Economic Analysis of 50-Year Project
(annual values in thousands of dollars)
Costs
Rev./Cost
Ratio
oa
m
V7 U
Ul
$.
O W
U1
W
r
•rq
cd 4�
N -H
H
4� N
a)a)
Sponsorship
p
5
4� �
�Q F4
Q) (D
P z
a) •H
PN
y �
H, ;Aa)4'
cd
C
o
�H
rJ
4� '>A
&0
cd o
Scheme
a�
a
A a)
o:E�
M U
H
O
w m
a N
1.
All water public
a. Land public
2646
2690
237
-48
'2879
.92
1.17
b. Land private
925
2175
237
-41
2371
.39.
.53
2.
Basins A,B,C pub.
a. Land public
2292
2371
221
-44
2548
.90
1.18
b. Land private
898
1905
221
-36
2090
.43
.61
3.
Basins A,B pub.
a. Land public
1791
1709
198
-31
1873
.96
1.42
b. Land private
809
1358
198
-27
1529
.53
.88
4.
Basins A,B pub. &
no boats in
Basins C,D
a. Land public
1583
1709
198
-31
1873
.85
1.25
b. Land private
600
1358
198
-27
1529
.39
.66
From this analysis it is apparent that the scheme "b"
alternatives all lack justification by a fairly wide
margin. Under the scheme "a" alternatives, however,
'
the large revenues from land leases considerably exceed
the increases in costs resulting from the additional
raw -land acquisition, and for the first 30 years they
'
are marginally sub -feasible. After the State loan has
"a"
been retired, however, all of the scheme alternatives
show good feasibility for the last 20 years. The
'
method of analysis used in Table 8 is quite sensitive
1 119
I
to interest rates. For example, if the interest
rate on the loan obtained from the private sector is
'
reduced from 8 to 7 percent, the revenue -cost ratio
will increase about 15 percent, making all of the
scheme "a" projects economically feasible for the
'
entire project life. Thus, if prevailing interest
rates were to improve in the future, or if the State
would increase its share of the funding at its lower
'
interest rate, the economics of the project would be
measurably enhanced.
'
It must be realized that the estimates of costs
and revenues on which this analysis is based are of
a very preliminary nature. While an effort was made
to use conservative figures, these estimates must
'
be refined by more detailed planning of project com-
ponents and by market studies of prospective revenues
before they can be accepted as authoritative. Never-
,
theless, the strong indications of project feasibility
demonstrated by this analysis and consideration of
the many benefits that would result from the project
t
warrant continuance•of efforts to achieve project '
implementation.
'
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Implementation of the project must be geared to
'
the Corps of Engineer's time schedule. The earliest
definite assurance that a Federal project will be
implemented will be the allocation by Congress of
,
funds with which to start the Corpst General Design
Memoranda. If an effort is made in 1974 to secure
such a project for the marina site and this effort
is maintained over the next few years, experience
,
with other projects has shown that about 7 years
will be consumed in reaching this GDM-funding mile-
post. At that time, the Corps will begin the
'
detailed planning of those components of the
project which it will construct. About three
more years will then be consumed in the design
,
effort and preparation of contract plans and speci-
fications before actual construction can begin.
In the case of Dana Point Harbor, this three year
'
period was used to accumulate funds thru the
District's taxing powers, and it is assumed that
this action will be repeated. The assessed tax base
'
of Orange County is now about $4 billion, and the
Harbors, Beaches and Parks District's share of the
50
'
annual tax levy is now $0.22 on hundred dollars
assessed value. The District is now using most of
its tax funds to raise the status of its County
Parks program to desired standards. This goal
should be reached within a few years, and assuming
'
that continuance of the same tax rate can be
justified, some of the funds can then be diverted
to other uses. For the purposes of this report
'
it is assumed that the Corps' GDM will be funded
in 1981 and that $0.05 of the tax levy can be
diverted to accumulate project funds. This would
amount to $2,000,000 per year or $6,000,000 by 1984,
the assumed year of project implementation.
'
Another source of funding is the small -craft -
harbors loan program of the State Department of
Navigation and Ocean Development. It is assumed
that a $10,000,000 State loan can be obtained in
'
1984 at the present annual interest rate'of 4.5
percent. This will probably be a 30 year loan with
a 5 year moratorium on commencement of repayment of
'
principal.
The remaining funding requirement would then have
to be met with Harbor Revenue Bonds, which will be
t
assumed to draw 8 percent interest with any maturity
period desired up to 50 years.
'
DEBT SERVICING
'
It is assumed that retirement of the District's
debts assumed in the financing of the project would
be accomplished generally by continuation of the
'
$0.05 per hundred tax levy allocation, for the first
five years after project implementation and there-
after with harbor revenues augmented as necessary by
taxation. A suggested debt -servicing program for
'
each of the sponsorship alternatives considered in
this report is outlined in the following table.
1
1
1
51
1
TABLE 9
Suggested Debt -Servicing Programs
(all figures except tax rates in millions of dollars)
Scheme la. All water areas pub. with perim. lands pub.
Funds Required: 35.4-6=29.4: State 10.0, Rev. Bonds 19.4
Years,. 1984-87,1987-89 1989-2014 2014-34
Demands
State Loan o.45 0.45 0.67 -
Revenue Bonds 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59
Harbor Opr. & Maint. - 0.30 0.30 0.30
Total
2.04 2.34
Met By
Harbor Income (Gross) - -
Taxes 2.04 2.34
2.56 1.89
3.94 3.94
Tax Rate* $0.0510 $0.0585 - -
Harbor Income (Net) - - 1.38 2.05
Scheme lb. All water areas pub. with perim. lands pri.
Funds �tequired: 29.1-6=23.1: State 10.0, Rev. Bonds 13.1
State o.45 0.45 0.67 -
Revenue Bonds 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07
Harbor'Opr. & Maint. - 0.28 0.28 0.28
Total
1.52 1.80
Met By
Harbor Income (Gross) - -
Taxes 1.52 1.80
2.02 1.35
1.38 1.38
.64 -
Tax Rate* $0.0380 $0.0450 $0.016
Harbor Income (Net) - - -
*Per $100 of assessed value assuming tax base of
$4 billion
52
$0.03
' Table 9 Continued
' Scheme 2a. Basins A,B,C public with perim. lands public
Funds Required: 31.5-6=25.5: State 10, Rev. Bonds 15.5
Years
1984-87
1987-89
1989-2014
2014-34
'
Demands
State Loan
0.45
0.45
0.67
-
Revenue Bonds
1_27
1.27
1.27
1.27
'
Harbor Maint. & Opr.
0.28
0.28
0.28
Total
1.72
2.00
2.22
1.55
'
Met By
Harbor Income (Gross)
-
-
3.41
3.41
' Taxes
1.72
2.00
-
-
Tax Rate*
$0.0430
$0.0500
-
-
' Harbor.Income (Net)
-
-
1.19
1.86
Scheme 2b. Basins A,B,C
public
with perim. lands
private
Funds Required: 25.8-6=19.8:
State
10,
Rev. Bonds
9.8
'
Years
1984-87
1987-89
1989-2014
2014-34
1
1
1'
1
mands
State Loan 0.45 0.45 0.67 -
Revenue Bonds 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Harbor Opr. & Maint. - 0.28 0.28 0.28
Total 1.25 1.53 1.75 1.08
Met By
Harbor Income (Gross) - - 1.34
Taxes 1.25 1.53 o.41
Tax Rate* $0.0312 $0.0382 $0.0103
Harbor Income (Net) - - -
*Per $100 of assessed value assuming tax base
of $4 billion
53
1.34
0.26
Table 9 Continued
Scheme 3a. Basins A,B pub. with perim. lands public
Funds Required: 23.4-6=17.4: State 10, Rev. Bonds 7.4
87-89 1989-2014 2014-
vemanas
State Loan
0.45
0.45
0.67
-
Revenue Bonds
o.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Harbor Opr. & Maint.
0.25
0.25
0.25
Total
1.05
1.25
1.52
0.85
Met By
Harbor Income (Gross)
-
-
2.67
2.67
Taxes
1.05
1.25
-
-
Tax Rate*
$0.0262
$0.0312
-
-
Harbor Income (Net)
-
-
1.15
1.82
Scheme 3b. Basins A,B pub. with perim. lands private
Funds Required: 10.1-6=13.1: State 10, Rev. Bonds 3.1
mands
State Loan o.45 o.45 o.67 -
Revenue Bonds 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Harbor Opr. & Maint. - 0.25 0.25 0.25
Total 0.70 0.95 1.17 0.50
Met By
Harbor Income (Gross) - - 1.20 1.20
Taxes 0.70 0.95 - -
Tax Rate* $0.0175 $0.0238 - -
Harbor Income (Net) - - 0.03 0.70
*Per $100 of assessed value assuming tax base of
$4 billion
54
1
1
Table 9 Continued
Scheme 4a. Basins A,B pub..with perim. lands public
and no marina in Basins C,D
Funds Required: 23.4-6=17.4: State 10, Rev. Bonds 7.4
Years 1984-87 1989-89 1989-2014 2014-
Demands
State Loan 0.45 0.45 0.67 -
Revenue Bonds 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Harbor Opr. & Maint. - 0.25 0.25 0.25
Total 1.05 1.25 1.52 0.85
Met By
Harbor Income (Gross) - - 2.36 2.36
Taxes 1.05 1.25 - -
Tax Rate* $0.0262 $0.0312 - -
Harbor Income (Net) - - 0.84 1.51
Scheme 4b. Basins A,B pub. with perim. lands private
and no marina in Basins CD
Funds Required: 19.1-6=13.1: State 10, Rev. Bonds 3.1
Years 1984-87 1987-89 1989-2014 2014-:
Demands
State Loan 0.45 0.45 o.67 -
Revenue Bonds 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Harbor Opr. & Maint. - 0.25 0.25 0.25
Total 0.70 0.95 1.17 0.50
Met By
Harbor Income (Gross) - - 0.89
Taxes 0.70 0.95 0.28
Tax Rate* $0.0175 $0.0238 $0.0070
Harbor Income (Net) - - -
*Per $100 of assessed value assuming tax base of
$4 billion
55
0.39
INDIRECT BENEFITS '
In addition to the direct -revenue benefits used
for financial justification of the project, several
indirect benefits will result. The tax base of the
area will be increased not only by virtue of the
taxable developments within the project boundary but
also because of new developments in presently ,
depressed areas outside the project boundary that
will be upgraded by the presence of the marina.
The increase in population of the affected area
will Create a demand for new jobs and additional
commercial services, which should result in still
more taxable development in the form of small marine -
related industries, shopping centers, household
repair and servicing facilities, etc., which in turn
cause a disproportionately small increase in the need
for community -support services.
In general, the upgrading of the area will have '
many indirect and intangible benefits, which, though
difficult to evaluate, have a real worth which should
be considered in justification of the project. '
I
I
56 1
'
REFERENCES
'
No.
1.
Information Brochure, Alternate Proposals for
Flood Control and Allied Purposes, Santa Ana
'
River Basin by Los'Angeles District, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 1973.
2.
Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative
'
Study of Orange County, California, Appendix V
Phase 2. U.S. Army Engineers, House Documents
No. 602, 87th Congress, Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1962.
3.
Criteria for Design of Small Craft Harbors by
t
California State'Department of Navigation and
Ocean Development, 1972.
'
4.
The Modern Marina by C. A. Chaney 1963.
'
5.
Small Craft Harbor Design, Construction and
Operation by Coastal Engineer Research Center,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. To be
'
published in 1974.
6.
A Study of the Effects of Waterway Expansion
at Channel Island Harbor by Moffatt and
'
Nichol, Engineers 1970.
'
7.
Newport Beach Traffic Study by Alan M. Voorhees
& Associates, 1973.
8.
Report on Investigation of Water -Quality -Control
Methods for Newport Shores- D03 Channel.
Moffatt and Nichol, Engineers 1973.
'
9.
Report by Orange County Water District, 1972,
1
57
t
I
7
1
p
h,
L
1
I
SHOULDER OF EXIST.
EAST LEVEE PRODUCED
JANI. AN F
G{V IKIWI-C 4MYN
RIVER CHANNEL
ti
41
J
V
ROADWAY
O
)
'^
r21
II
I it
HHW •'SO
it II
II II 11
II
II II II
I
o
I
it p d
1
I
-21
n
+GO
t4O
4 zO
0
MM
II II
SECTION A
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
EXISTING ALIGNMENT
SECTION B
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
(ALTERNATE ROUTE)
SECTION G
19 TH STREET
-2.0 -20
SECTION D
VICTORIA STREET
no
0
-20
GREENBELT TO INCLUDE PATHS
EQUESTRIANS, PEDESTRIANS
CYLE5
DIVIDED HIGHWAY, 2-400 ROADWAY
W/CENTERLINE DIVIDER 410 SIDE-
WALK ON BASIN 5IDE.(EAST SIDE),
51DEWALY ON RIVER SIDE 15 PART
120
SANTA ANA BOAT BASIN B-3
RNER CHANNEL L___ INN®• * 5 0
O
EXIST LEVEE
SE C TION E
DETAIL- SANTA ANA RIVER CHANNEL TO 5A51N B-3
SECTION F
ENTRANCE CHANNEL
zo
0
GRADE
20
--zO
DATUM: ELEVATION 0.0-MEAN LOWER LOW WATEK
PLATE 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MOFFATT t NICHOL. ENGINEERS
PROPOSED MARINA ALONG L-14
liNi [EACH, CALIFORNIA EAST BANK OF SANTA ANA RIVER
I
I STUDY PLAN CROSS SECTIONS �3
DO SNOT REMOVE
ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
OF
A MARINA ALONG THE EAST BANK OF THE
SANTA ANA RIVER
FLORA
FAUNA
ARCHAEOLOGY
PALEONTOLOGY
MARINE BIOTA (Projected)
PREPARED FOR
THE CITIES OF NEWPORT BEACH
AND
COSTA MESA
Prepared by
Environmental Impact Reports, Incorporated
3303 Harbor Boulevard, Suite B-9
Costa Mesa, California 92626
February, 1974
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY......................... .................... I
FLORAAND FAUNA ...................................... 4
SCIENTIFICRESOURCES.................................23
MARINECONSIDERATIONS ............................ 24
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................. 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ 32
PURPOSE
The purpose of the total study was to examine the area between the Santa
Ana River and the Newport -Costa Mesa Bluffs extending inland from Coast
Highway to the Fairview Hospital grounds fronting Banning Street (see
Figure # 1) for the feasibility of creating a recreational small boat harbor.
The impact of a harbor on the existing natural Environment and the resul-
tant replacement ecology was the responsibility of Environmental Impact
Reports, Inc, and the subject of this report. The engineering and Eco-
nomic feasibility was to be studied by Moffat & Nichol, Engineers.
I
CONSULTANTS
Barbara Massey - (Flora and fauna) Department of Biology, California
State University, Long Beach
Vernon Bleich - (Fauna) Department of Biology, California State University,
Long Beach.
Robert Ellis - (Scientific resources) Archaeological Resources, Inc.
I
SUMMARY
The following report is concerned with the gross inventory of natural and
scientific resources which would be affected by the proposed Marina. The
effects of such a project are generally assessed based upon a proposed
plan. The report should be considered concurrently with the engineering
and plan studies accomplished by Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers.
The following information and inventory was gathered by actual field ob-
servations and inspection coupled with a research of existing literature.
A detailed evaluation of the impact of a harbor/marina development, or any
other type of development on the existing natural environment and the sub*
sequent replacement ecology must of necessity wait for the adoption of a
final plan. Factors which can be generally evaluated at present are:
1. Any type of development could replace the present flora and fauna and
remove certain environmental conditions necessary to the wildlife which
now exists.
2. No endangered or rare species of Flora and Fauna were noted in the
inventory.
3. The newly created environment will attract different species of animals
and virds to the area; especially those associated with a marine type
environment.
4. Certain effects will occur on the immediate coastal/beach areas,
-1-
dependent upon engineering and placement plans if a new entrance channel
is contemplated.
5. The marine biota which would occur if new marine water areas are
created would conform with similar marinas in the southern California area.
6. Areas adjacent to the project- will be significantly affected by a
change in land use.
7. Maintenance of marine water quality would be of major importance
should a Marina be implemented.
8. If a marina type development were planned, as opposed to other
types of development, it may be possible to retain some of the saltmarsh,
or even improve the present condition (see page 5 ). A marina development
would have better potential for accomodating re-creation of estuary envi-
ronment for the Least Tern (see page 13).
-2-
0 1 L F I E L D„
AVE
'111�ua",I
�•L
+1 r U B6 II_ _ . •} A_
Pill
••df
I"g11 y p` — I lI •I 1{ I� ' o Ell / '9•:�:Y /% H ' �; N 'MI 1 i� / '
It"
n yA J' I •M1 )) x
•_ ��1 1 S'ha r— — — --
=�°I i � ' �'� /4, �I~ �����-�I• M 4I Aes❑ h ,. �,
pk5 �� �HrvmiGi g� Av__E .16_ _�_J. . .,L-J� .f', �er�:.. M _ 99' '� i4n. p :•.'L" •_
�� 1 I ,I li " . , rll� I//.. _'%`�s_ {.• t ::. :C'-: ( r'LN R m� V1 •
,1V hhrttl°r
C fC •.�=,•° �.-� �i q�a:N /,/ ' V x-�f��. I'i7�c;� >a „L��s
t�sJ• `'�t ..moo✓.. .. J�._ti I ( l; n-
IM_i.-
SEOA
E'•!n :� ',� DISPO L W 1� I {I .l` y` �tli�r_r -"-•T—�i•
•'C'Jr 'C ,, t"�a'!"^H d \� s-��..:�y�.irrrH
Park I
• � r - �\ "�. � SI � �^� .."`. �' ° � "o. —• f ''�VsQ r ien.s �: 'A 7.r.
� r
� 4" a-" r------'
S ,• : .. ��Irxilnr •.� �•
Iq ,ail ilk / �" i `�•, Kdrly�..�� i
/// „ram
'.
•
�. • � il'. -' �' •y'0p1. Ai' H_W..'g /1 i �1,.. 1 `�'�Li�•JQG ���.��iim1
.—�
...3•' a IN mOrlaf-Ho5 i1�QA,�y,'s�,C-'
Jt
Ito
too
_ " •.. a a!�• .4x .�-Ay.M�- A.: ••I•wC Yr. �SV. 1--w. • .:. v it •i i.,t - :.k '� Vlp�f.� L,.i • 5• �.•d •
Figure 1 - Proposed project location.
-3-
FLORA AND FAUNA
The following are preliminary Flora and Fauna reports, conducted to
determine (grossly) the types of plant and animal communities extant or
expected in the proposed marina area. It is an inventory of existing con-
ditions. No detailed quantitative study (15 month, seasonal cyclical
observations) was accomplished, as this was beyond the scope of the
study.
The acreage under survey (Figure 1) was once the delta and flood plain at
the mouth of the Santa Ana River. The river has long since been channeled
against flooding, and very little remains of the original habitat which is
presumed to have been river bottom at the north end and saltmarsh at the
mouth. The acreage under study contains some valuable wildlife habitat,
and a piece of saltmarsh of great potential value. The section south of
Victoria to the fence which defines the oil lease is of particular value.
It contains two ponds, a willow -mule fat thicket, some meadowland, and
a chaparral hillside. Several different types of habitat'are represented
today, all of which have been disrupted in varying degrees by man's
activities. The various habitats might be roughly grouped as 1)Salicofnia
saltmarsh, 2) Mule fat - Willow thicket, 3) Meadow, or at least open
space with annuals, perennials and grasses, 4) pond, and 5) a small
patch of coast chaparral. This survey of flora and birds was conducted
during the winter months (November, December 1972 and January 1973;
spring annuals and migratory birds are necessarily missing from the
inventory.
-4-
The southern portion of the acreage, about 1/3 of the total, is a salt -
marsh which has already been seriously altered. A housing tract has been
built on filled land at the south end, between the study area and Pacific
Coast Highway. The main channel in the marsh has been dammed at the
west end and there is restricted flow of tidal water between the channel
and the ocean. Oil wells have been drilled on filled land at various sites
north of the channel, and more of the marsh filled to make roads to connect
the oil wells. The marsh is in very poor shape. There is still tidal
action in the channel, but the cleansing action of a free flowing tide, so
necessary for a healthy salt -marsh, is non existent.
The saltmarsh extends northward about 1/3 mile, the remnant of a once
extensive slough at the mouth of the river (see Figure 2). The dominant
plant species is Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica). There are small
patches of other common middle or upper littoral zone halophytes -- Alkali
Heath (Frankenia grandiflora) , Sea Blite (Suaeda californica and Suaeda
fruticosa , Saltbush triplex semibaccata) and Sea Lavendar (Limonium
californicum). Most of the filled land is assigned to roads or oil wells
and is barren of plant life. There are a few weedy spots, supporting
Haplopappus venetus and Castor Bean Ricinus communis). A small group
of Eucalyptus trees stands on the northwest corner of the marsh, on
filled land which was the site of an old sewage plant.
-5-
Salicornia
Marsh
Th icket -
i�%IDD%?n Baccharis SR
Dominant ,
EUCALYPTUS
;*'ATRECS
' N. J•. J4 1r: p. fW. v. ..LL iY w Y.?Y r. n.+4 «W. �, Iw J Jr.
aWru•K'J4riyJYYy r•`uMti 4. " m. .4 KYu '�4 n.K... ?4. As ..irY.?w .Y.
�` 4. u"Kai Iu�Kw +Jw W"...""nN.?y. .YY µ `�� ."•` Y. M" ur .yam
�NJ';,V,.Y •W..4 .n14 � MJw�r+4w PN" .w" :w!
N. Jwr Y. W. *"Y..1Nu' 1Y. „y ; r. W a' MK •J ..Y f11 µ O4 �.
W.JY JY . h
,nr�l•Y• ywiWNJW. 4" ..V",� �rK Iwx4µ .Ai",M" 4 au •s xyK Jr`i
Jr. Jy� C 4 AY. 4 �. x" ..ury u1y"• ul lu .0 I r Vl � n w• uu,M fv µ
rY. Jrl Jw y JW Jru !y u.il r�l ,. ✓4r" rYY 4 ..x1Y.
µ w.y 4"YK. u u. Y'.J ulrw u. I M". Jw. ru �•" 1Fu.N • MM4
iu„I.W. K�,�W.nu.f�u oo.�"J4M�.Y. �'xY.�.r4 ..�.��•�+N .Ixu.M I'uJlw
w•.��A4rsY Y+lWy,K" µN"K zh rW l�rwY .yY .i .0 h�i,y wN.A/u
4
� �' Na w � Y�I" 'ram ✓Y
Ky
♦ � � Yfr4 Y"Muy "r yY: hMY r
"."
Jl niyxNh`
Ju • W Ju x. �-iy. Y. r.
Jw
w Jw ✓h �•W�yYw.W�... xN J- W x � t -� Yn ..
rrW�=*..J
- y wy\K• A.W .u• jw .y �.x^
Y
��
,.r. iwJw
• � w
rrw
'Wa` w. "O:w w :w, " r
Aly ary�'
�w
Figure 2 - Flora distribution -
area.
The main channel has a scum of oil and debris, and mats of green algae.
It is very little used by wintering birds, a situation which would be
altered dramatically by opening the channel to the ocean again. Birds
which are year round residents of the saltmarsh are the Long Billed
Marsh Wren and the Belding's race of the Savannah Sparrow.
Coots and several species of ducks (Ruddy Duck and Bufflehead) use the
channels in winter. A White Fronted Goose was observed among the tame
Mallards in the main channel.
Several species of predatory birds hunt over the saltmarsh - Red Tailed
Hawk, White Tailed Kite, Sparrow Hawk and Loggerhead Shrike are all
in evidence in the winter. These birds feed on small rodents, amphibians
and reptiles which are residents of the area.
The rest of the land in the oil lease between the saltmarsh and the bound-
ary fence on the north is more or less spoiled as far as natural habitat is
concerned. With one exception -- the strip running north -south along
the road on the east side (see Figure 2) and then east -west along the south
side of the fence. It is a densely shrubby thicket of predominantly Mule
I
Fat (Baccharis viminea), Castor Bean and Arroyo Willow Salix lasiolepis).
This strand runs north and west beyond the fence and will be discussed
later in the text. There is a freshwater marshy area which forms here after
11
- 7-
I1
GllUl3 Thicket-
Baccharis Sp
Dominant
Willow
Thicket
Grasses
Chaparral i
Annuals A
^
Perennials
"Weeds"
Figure 3 - Flora distribution - Northern portion of the project area.
- 8-
'' the winter rains. This habitat hosts many birds. Yeliowthroat, Anna's
'
Hummingbird, Blue -grey Gnatcbtcher, Hermit Thrush, Song Sparrow,
Belted Kingfisher, White Crowned Sparrow, American Goldfinch and Ruby
'
Crowned Kinglet are abundant here in the winter months. A frog chorus
'
can be heard in the marsh in January, probably Rana amora which breeds
for a short period in the winter.
To the east of this thicket, the bluffs of Costa Mesa bear chaparral
plants -- Beavertail and Cholla cactus O untia sp.) , California Buck-
wheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Bladderpod (Isomeris arborea) and
'
Encelia californica. Audubon cottontails and California ground squirrels
are seen here and their burrows lace the hillside. Large flocks of House
Finches and Bushtits frequent the shrubs on the bluffs; Brown Towhee and
Western Meadowlark, Say's and Black Pheobe also utilize the area.
The barren land to the west of the thicket contains more oil wells than
shrubs, and little birdlife.
The region north of the oil lease and south of Victoria (see Figure 3) con-
tains the least abused habitat in the entire area. There are two ponds in
'
the northwest corner of this section (Figure 3) , the northernmost one is
deep and year round and supports a fish population; the southern pond
'
is present only in the winter, being dependent on winter rains. In a wet
'
year like 1972-73 , this pond is often viable from early November. The
-9-
I
northern pond attracts waterfowl -- ducks, geese, coots, grebes; the
' shallow one is a favorite of gulls and shorebirds.
' Around the edges of the upper pond, Mule Fat grows in a spaced arrange-
ment. A few clumps of tules Scir us acutus) have taken hold at the water's
edge. Several small Tamarisks Tamarisk tetandra grow along the south
' shore. Plants common to the upper littoral zone can be found here. There
1
are always Coots and Pied -billed Grebes swimming on this pond.. Water-
fowl have included, at various times of year, Black Brant, Eared Grebe,
'
Mallard, American Widgeon, Canvasback, Lesser Scaup and Ruddy Duck.
1
The lower lake is a loafing area for Ring Billed and Bonaparte's Gulls.
Bonaparte's Gulls in great flocks have also been observed hawking in-
sects over the meadows. The long-legged waders -- Black Necked Stilt
and Avocet -- feet in the shallow water as do many other shorebirds --
Willet, Yellowlegs, Dowitcher, Dunlin, Western Sandpiper, and Sander -
ling. Dabbling ducks -- Green Winged Teal, Cinnamon Teal, Shoveler
-- feed here. Around the edges, in the Mule Fat, are many sparrows,
Song, White Crowned and Savannah (not the Belding race). Both ponds
1
are providing valuable bird habitat for a variety of birds.
A zone of Mule Fat surrounds the lower pond. Beyond the zone is open
meadow heavily overgrown by the weeds found in waste places. Stalks of
1 -10-
C
last year's annuals abound -- Russian Thistle Saisola kali , Tumbleweed
(Amaranthus albus , Curly Dock Rumex crispus), Mustard (Brassica
campestris), Mexican Tea (Chenopodium ambrosioides) and many more.
Interspersed are grassy areas, including Bermuda (Cynodon dactylon),
Wild Oat vena fatua ,and Italian Rye grass (Lolium multiflorum) .
Clover Trifolium sp.) begins to appear in January.
The meadow gradually changes as one moves east toward the willow
thicket (see Figure 3), becoming more shrubby and less open. Clumps
of Pampas Grass (Cortaderia selloana) , Tree tobacco Nicotiana lauca ,
Mule Fat and Baccharis emorvii become more frequent.
The willow thicket is a mixed stand of Arroyo Willow, Mule Fat, Pampas
Grass and many waist -high annuals and perennials, including White
Clover (Melilotus albus) , Chicory (Stephanomeria vir ata , Curly Dock,
Mexican Tea and other common California "weeds". Underfoot there is
plenty of Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium) along with grasses and ground -
hugging clover.
This thicket is rich in birdlife. The presence of a Cooper's Hawk (observed
on several occasions in winter) attests to the abundance of small birds
(the Cooper's Hawk is one of Accipiters, or bird hawks). Song Sparrow,
American and Lesser Goldfinch, Yellowthroat, Audubon's Warbler, Ruby
Crowned Kinglet, Blue -grey Gnat'catcher, Hermit Thrush, Mockingbird,
-11-
I
Flicker, Anna's Hummingbird, Mourning and Spotted Dove and Loggerhead
' Shrike all frequent this thicket. Ring Necked Pheasant can be heard
' calling from the undergrowth. In spring and fall, one would expect this
thicket to provide rest, food, and cover for migratory Passerines --
warblers, flycatchers, vireos, orioles and tanagers.
' North of Victoria the road dips sharply about 25' to a flatland once the
' floodplain of the Santa Ana River. A small arroyo at the Victoria entrance
' contains some native chaparral plants -- Bladderpod, Sagebrush rtemisia
californica), and Encelia californica, as well as Castor Bean. This
' arroyo is particularly rich in birds for its small size (numbers of birds,
' not species). Three species of sparrow -- White Crowned, Golden
Crowned and Lincoln's -- share this habitat. Audubon's cottontails and
California ground squirrels are much in evidence.
Most of the flatland north of Victoria is spoiled in terms of natural flora.
Grasses grow on the disced surface, not much else. Only a narrow strip
on the east side, along a water course (which is dry even after heavy rain)
provides any floral or faunal interest. This old streambed runs adjacent
to the bluffs of Costa Mesa and is edged with Tree Tobacco, Castor Bean,
an occasional garden escape, scattered Arroyo Willows and a few tall
stands of cane rundo donax). Annual grasses were sprouting in January
and dry twigs of pitcher sage (Salvia spathecea) were beginning to sprout
-12-
new leaves. Birds were abundant here, along the watercourse and east-
ward to and on the bluffs. Anna's Hummingbird, Oregon Junco, House
Finch, Blue -grey Gnatcatcher ;. Ruby Crowned Kinglet, Brown Towhee,
Lesser Goldfinch, White Crowned Sparrow, Spotted Dove, Sparrow Hawk
all use this habitat.
A small colony of California Least Terns nests at Huntington Beach State
Park and fishes the remaining waterways in the region (Santa Ana River,
Greenville -Banning Channel, the channel in the saltmarsh under study,
and probably the north pond in the study area, which contains water all
year round). The California Least Tern is on both the Federal and State
list of Endangered Species. Its diet consists of small fish which it
catches in estuarine waters (it does not fish in the ocean). A very im-
portant factor in the decline of the colony at Huntington Beach State
Park was the destruction of the estuary behind the beach.
-13-
r
List of Wintering Birds
Common Name Scientific Name
Eared Grebe
Podiceps caspicus
Pied Billed Grebe
Podilymbus podiceps
Black Brant
Branta nigricans
White Fronted Goose
Anser albifrons
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
Green Winged Teal
Anas carolinensis
Cinnamon Teal
Anas cyanoptera
American Widgeon
Mareca americana
Shoveler
Spatula clypeata
Canvasback
Aythya valisineria
Lesser Scaup
Aythya affinis
Bufflehead
Bucephala albeola
Ruddy Duck
Oxyura jamaicensis
Turkey Vulture
Cathartes aura
White Tailed Kite
Elanus leucurus
Sharp -shinned Hawk
Accipiter striatus
Cooper's Hawk
Accipiter cooperii
Red Tailed Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
Sparrow Hawk
Faico sparverius
Ring Necked Pheasant
Phasianus colchisus
American Coot
Fulica americana
Semipalmated Plover
Charadrius semipalmatus
Snowy Plover
Charadrius alexandrinus
Killdeer
Charadrius vociferus
Spotted Sandpiper
Actitis macularia
Willet
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Lesser Yellowlegs
Totanus flavipes
Dunlin
Erolia alpina
Dowitcher sp.
Limnodromus sp.
Western Snadpiper
Ereuntes mauri
Sanderling
Crocethia alba
American Avocet
Recurvirostra americana
Black Necked Stilt
Himantopus mexicanus
Ring Billed Gull
Larus delewarensis
Bonaparte's Gull
Larus philadelphia
Mourning Dove
Zenaidura macroura
Spotted Dove
Streptopelia chinensis
Anna's Hummingbird
Calypte anna
Belted Kingfisher
Megaceryle alcyoh
Red Shafted Flicker
Colaptes cafer
Black Phoebe
Sayornis nigricans
-14-
Number Observed
8
10
1
1
25
7
4
12
6
5
4
4
12
3
2
1
1
5
2
1
35
4
3
6
1
9
9
17
24
40
14
26
6
�18
70
4
3
7
1
5
1
I
List of Wintering Birds (continued)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Number Observed
Say's Phoebe
Sayornis saya
2
Common Crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
6
Common Bushtit
Psaltriparus minimus
30
Bewick's Wren
Thryomanes bewickii
3
Cactus Wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillum
2
Long Billed Marsh Wren
Telmatodytes palustris
5
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
4
Hermit Thrush
Hylocichla ug ttata
8
Blue -grey Gnatcatcher
Polioptila caerulea
10
Ruby Crowned Kinglet
Regulus calendula
4
Water Pipit
Anthus spinoletta
8
Loggerhead Shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
5
Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
6
Audubon's Warbler
Dendroica auduboni
8
Yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas
12
Western Meadowlark
Sturnella neglecta
26
House Finch
Caepodacus mexicanus
50 +
American Goldfinch
SSpinus tristis
12
Lesser Goldfinch
Spinus sp altria
20
Rufous Sided Towhee
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
1
Brown Towhee
Pipilo fuscus
3
Savannah Sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis
8
Belding's Savannah Sparrow " "
16
Oregon junco
junco oreganus
22
White Crowned Sparrow
Zonotrichia leucoph
100 +
Golden Crowned Sparrow
Zonotrichia atricapilia
4
Lincoln's Sparrow
Melospiza lincolnii
5
Song Sparrow
Melospiza melodia
14
-15-
11
Partial List of Flowering Plants
amil Scientific Name
Aizoaceae
_Mesambryanthemum chilense
Amaranthaceae
Amaranthus albus
Apiaceae
Foeniculum vulgare
Brassicaceae
Brassica campestris
Cactaceae
Opuntia sp.
Capparidaceae
Isomeris arborea
Chenopodiaceae
Atriplex semibaccata
Chenopodium ambrosioides
Salicornia virginica
Salsola kali
Suaeda californica
Suaeda fruticosa
Compositae
Artemisia californica
Baccharis emoryii
Baccharis pilularis
Baccharis viminea
Encelia californica
Haplopappus venetus
Stephanomeria virgata
Xanthium strumarium
Cyperaceae
Scirpus acutus
Euphorbiaceae
Ricinus communis
Fabaceae
Melilotus albus
Trifolium sp.
Frankeniaceae
Frankenia grandiflora
Iamiaceae
Salvia spathecea
Myrtaceae
Eucalyptus sp.
Plumbaginaceae
Limonium californium
Poaceae
Arunda donax
Avenafatua
Cortaderia selloana
nodon dactylon
Lolium multiflorum
Polygonaceae
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Rum ex crispus
Salicaceae
Salix lasiolepis
Solanaceae
Nicotiana lc auca
Tamaricaceae
Tamarisk tetandra
Typhaceae
Typha latifolia
-16-
Common Name
Sea Fig
Tumbleweed
Sweet Fennel
Mustard
Beavertall & Cholla
Bladderpod
Australian Saltbush
Mexican tea
Pickleweed
Russian Thistle
Sea Blite
Sagebrush
Mule Fat
Chicory
Cocklebur
Common Tule
Castor Bean
White Clover
Ground Clover
Alkali Heath
Pitcher Sage
Sea Lavendar
Giant Cane
Wild Oat
Pampas Grass
Bermuda Grass
ItalSan Rye Grass
California Buckwheat
Curly Dock
Arroyo Willow
Tree Tobacco
Cattail
'
A mammal study of the property was conducted by Vernon Bleich, Depart-
ment of Biology, California State University, Long Beach.
'
This brief report is based on a limited amount of observations made in the
t
area under consideration on 29 January 1973, between 0830 and 1200 hours.
'�
J
The area under consideration is highly modified by man's influence;
hence very few undisturbed areas are to be found.
•1
tFor
the purposes of simplification, the area has been divided into three
'
numbered sections, to be discussed in this report. Section I is designated
as the area north of Victoria, Section II, the area south of Victoria,
but north of the Oil Lease fence, and Section III, the extreme southern
'
area, between the fence and Pacific Coast Highway.
,41
Section I consisted of many acres of meadowland, but along the eastern
boundary, there were bluffs harboring some remnant native vegetation.
In the meadow, evidence of the valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae
'+
was observed in the form of mounds. The exists that the
possibility
broadhanded mole (Scapanus latimanus is also present, but this is un-
confirmed. Other mammals observed in the meadow include the California
ground squirrel (Spermophilus beeche i),desert cottontail (Sylvilagus
i
audubonii), and black -tailed hare Le us californicus).
III I -17-
'I
1
.1
Along the eastern side of Section I, in the bluff area, the scattered
patches of vegetation offer restricted habitat that may be utilized by the
following species: western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomvs megalotis),
California mouse (Peromyscus californicus), cactus mouse (Peromyscus
eremicus), and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). There is a
possibility that woodrats (Neotoma spp.) may inhabit the cactus patches
that are found in this area, but no direct evidence of this species was
observed.
Tracks of the opossum Didel his marsupialis) and the striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis) were observed in the wash along the east side of
Section I.
Other species in Table I may be present in Section I, but it is impossible
to say for sure. The most likely of those remaining species not previously
mentioned are the California meadow mouse Microtus californicus) and
house mouse (Mus musculus .
It appeared that Section II offered the most heavily vegetated areas of
the three sections. However, this does not mean that the area would be
the most productive of the areas, as far as mammal populations go.
Mounds of the pocket gopher were observed, and tracks of the opossum
were also noted. In addition, dogs Canis familiaris were also obser-
ved. It is probable that the deer mouse, house mouse, and possibly
I
'
the western harvest mouse are the most common rodents in Section II.
'
The lack of native vegetation and the disturbed condition df the area
'
make habitation by other species unlikely.
'
mhe presence of the permanent pond at the northern end of Section II
does offer the possibility that the California meadow mouse may exist
'
in the marshy area surrounding the pond.
i
Although the most disturbed area (in some ways), and harboring permanent
human habitation, Section III appears to offer the most ideal selection
of mammal habitats. The areas of salt marsh may harbor large population
of meadow mice, as well as harvest mice.
IThe small canyons extending eastward from the lower portion of the oil
lease property offer some patches of native coastal scrub vegetation.
These areas may support populations of western harvest mice, deer mice,
cactus mice, and California mice. In addition, evidence in the form of
' stick houses, was noted for the woodrat (Neotoma spp.).
' Tracks of the striped skunk and the opossum were noted in the soft soil
in the washes and canyons of Section III. The possibility of such species
' as the vagrant shrew Sorex va rans and the long-tailed weasle Mustela
' frenata cannot be ruled out. The only mammal actually observed in Sec-
tion III was a California ground squirrel.
' -19-
_1
II
The subspecies of California meadow mouse (Microtus californicus
stephensi) that may occur in the study area is restricted to extreme
coastal California about the Los Angeles area. The type locality of this
subspecies is Playa Del Rey, and marginal records include Pt. Mugu and
Sunset Beach (Hall and Kelson, the Mammals of North America, 1959).
The subspecies of western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys rft a otis
limicola that may occur in the study area is restricted to extreme coastal
California about the Los Angeles area. The type locality of this subspecies
is Playa Del Rey, and marginal records include Point Mugu and Anaheim
Bay.
In the opinion of the author, the above two described mammals are
restricted to the coastal salt marshes'of southern California. The
possibility exists that those subspecies have been synonymized and
sunk, but further research would be needed to verify this.
I
The high concentration of raptors (particularly the white-tailed kite,
Elanus leucurus in the study area indicates a substantial concentration
of rodents in the area under consideration.
1*1D
9
Reptiles
California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus)*
Western toad Bufo boreas
Pacific tree frog (Hula regilla)* no doubt what Mrs. Massey reported hearing.
Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum) - unlikely.
Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)* - probably abundant.
Side -blotched lizard Uta stansburiana)* - probably abundant. One
individual seen.
Western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) - unlikely.
Southern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus)* - probably common.
California king snake (iampropeltis etulus) - probably present.
Gopher snake Pituo his melanoleucus)* - probably fairly common.
Western garter snake (Thamnophis ele ans - possibly present.
* Because of the nature of the survey, the above are the only individuals
that are judged to be present. Further study may provide information
on other species, or eliminate several of the above listed forms.
-22-
Table I
Species List of Mammals Existing in the Area Surveyed
Spec -es observed rect Evi- Possibly
dence of Present
Presence
n4de1 4- marsupialis X
Sorex vagrans
Scapanus latimanus
Lepus californicus
Sylvilagus audubonii
Spermophilus beecheyi
Thomomys bottae
Reithrodontomys megalotis
Peromyscus californicus
Peromyscus eremicus
Peromyscus maniculatus
Neotoma spp.
Microtus californicus
Rattus spp.
Mus musculus
Canis familiaris
Mustela frenata
Mephitis mephitis
Felis domesticus
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
EP.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
ARCHAEOLOGY
A scientific resources survey of the property was conducted by Archaeological
Research, Inc, in May of 1973. The survey included a walkover inspection
of the project area. No evidence of prehistoric habitation was observed.
The areas investigated included: (1) low rises in the surface contour of
the flood plain; (2) the detrital slopes at the base of the Newport Mesa;
(3) open field areas capable of surface viewing; and (4) drainage ditches,
dirt roads, and pond areas exposing the sub -surface soil stratigraphy.
NOTE: There is a definite potential for archaeological and paleontological
sites on the adjacent bluff areas. If the proposed marina or associated
development is expanded to include these areas, an intensive survey
and inventory will be required. These potential scientific resources
should be evaluated and taken into consideration during the planning
stages of the proposed development.
U
A review of the State records did not indicate that any archaeological
resources exist.
PALEONTOLOGY
No evidence of paleontological deposits were observed.
HISTORICAL
There are no scientific historical 'remains within the project area.
-23-
' MARINE CONSIDERATIONS
The primary purpose of a harbor basin and marina is to provide a man made
1 environment oriented toward recreational water sues and the establishment
' of a community for individuals who desire a water oriented lifestyle.
'
MARINE ECOLOGY
'
The development of a harbor -marina of this magnitude creates several
potential environmental problems; the most important consideration being
'
future marine water quality maintenance which would affect the new marine
'
biotic communities within the project. The preservation and maintenance
of high water quality would be essential, and several factors would have
to be recognized which have affected other harbors and marinas along
'
the Southern California coast. A strict and effective management plan
would have to be implemented and would include monitoring, analysis,
'
and continued maintenance of water quality.
1
Major considerations would include:
'
1. Observation of standards now in effect by the State of California
'
Water Resources Control Board (a "Water Quality Control Plan" for
'
Ocean Waters of California was adopted in 1972).
2. Circulation and flushing. Some man made harbor/marina installations
'
in California have experienced serious difficulties from the lack of
'
adequate water circulation and/or flushing capabilities. Most of the
serious problems associated with marine biota and water quality have
-24-
been associated with "dead end" channels or areas which do not adequately
circulate.
Circulation is an extremely important function in maintaining quality and
didersity of marine organisms and is the most important factor in water
quality and/or marine ecology conditions.
3. Nutrient and Pollution effects of surrounding drainage. Problems in
other marinas have come from nutrient additions (foreign to the marine
biota), pollutants (insecticides, wastes from streets and driveways, etc.),
floatable debris, and sedimentation from unstable surrounding higher
elevations.
4. Accumulation of floating debris. Recreational activities by larger
numbers of users results in man made debris which must be collected
or controlled.
5. Pollution from boating and recreational activities. Some pollution
results from boat engines, fuel residues, and small craft maintenance
activities such as cleaning and painting.
Water quality, and therefore marine biota, are affected by several factors:
A. Water Temperature
B. Salinity and Rainfall
C. Dissolved Oxygen Content -'The dissolved oxygen content of
bay water should be 5.0 milligrams per liter or higher to support fish
-25-
and aquatic life. Conditions which reduce the dissolved oxygen levels are
generally attributable to (1) a heavy 'red tide" condition and (2) the lack
of circulation in dead end areas where dissolved oxygen gradually drops
below the minimum level thus affecting the benthic community.
D. Turbidity
E. Nutrients
F. Chemical Pollutants. The water quality control plan of the State
Water Resources Control Board will require the discharger to monitor
levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
silver, and zinc, as well as chlorinated hydrocarbons, radioactivity,
and other factors. Copper and lead present in the paints used on boats
have led to high concentrations of these elements in other marinas.
Potential Biological Problems in the Proposed Marina:
Biological predictions are difficult to make at best because of the presence
of so many biological, chemical, and physical factors, each of which
may alter conditions. However, some predictions of potential problems
of biological origin or consequences can be made which may occur in
a Marina. These predictions are based on information obtained during
the construction of the Alamitos Bay Marinas, Playa Del Rey Marina, and
two marinas in Ventura County.
-26-
1.
Algae:
A few months after the marina is opened to sea water seaweed, especially
Ulva sp. , will flourish and present a visual and odor problem. The
problem will correct itself within two to four months, but it may be
necessary to employ men to clean the decaying seaweed from the surface
of the water to minimize the odor
Marine Wood Borers: ,
The gribble, Limnoria tripunctata, and the shipworm Lyrodus pedicellatus
are known to bore into marine wood structures in Alamitos Bay. Neither
have been a serious problem because of the near absence of wooden
structures. However, the gribble is capable of boring through creosoted
pilings which leads to piling failures (especially in Los Angeles Harbor).
The use of concrete pilings within the proposed marina would eliminate
this problem.
Red Tides:
CRed
tides in southern California are caused by the one -celled animal
donyaulax polyhedra. Extensive growths have occurred in the marinas
and Marine Stadium in Alamitos Bay. Population increase leads to
dissolved oxygen depletion (due to decomposition of dead cells) and
resultant odors. The lack of oxygen kills many other organisms in the
area, leading to further odors. The water cycling system should be
designed to cope with seasonal increases in oxygen demand.
-27-
III
III
The Effects of Inadequate Water Circulation on Marine Organisms:
Water circulation is generally minimal at the •inner ends of the fingers
of marinas. Minimal circulation leads to dissolved oxygen depletion
with the resultant deaths of marine organisms followed by odors. The
substrate becomes black and passes a strong hydrogen sulfide odor which
can become a serious, continual problem. The possibilities of this
problem could be minimized by the installation of a water circulation
system or design. An early indicator of this potential problem is the
presence of the polychaetous annelid Capitella capitata in the substrate.
INTERTIDAL ZONATION
dT ^ es H�
Chthamblus fissus
•°'•:•5• i nUr 'Ij
• P-sv r��fx� Balanus amphitrite
'h n;;y:',•`+; Splash zone
• " '��r. Balanus amphitrite
pia:•:&;2i: �P:
y�{f;�••iV ,ia� 7��• !YN :=alai:
"( fiss
us
sus
f,H ,i:zr. r ro
��.�, ���•v`�• Balanus crenatus
VltA
High tide zone
%:,°• �d lit,• Fit
Mytilus edulis
• _al dti I'�tt• ,
rrry
Chthamalus fissus
Mid -tide zone
ugula neritina
Mytilus edulis
Styela plicata
Mid -tide zone
-igula neritina
.yela montereyensis
ytilus edulis
Low tide zone
Figure 4 -Species common to Intertidal marina developments.
i
-29-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following are significant environmental impacts which should be
considered relevant to the construction of a Marina. Only those impcts
affecting the natural environment are discussed. Many should be considered
pertaing to engineering, economic feasibility, etc.
1. A marina, or any other development, could destroy the existing envi-
ronment within the project area and establish a new environment. Existing
wildlife habitats could be destroyed. Elimination of the existing habitats
within the project area itself may not appear significant; however the cumu-
lative effect of similar projects along the southern California coast should
be considered. For instance the Mirsh Wren, reported in the area, has a
winter range which bands the southern edge of the United States and is
abundant within its limited habitat. But the Belding's Savannah Sparrow
is restricted to the coastal saltmarshes of southern California and is
being continually pressured by destruction of its habitat. It is now con-
sidered to be in jeopardy by field biologists, chiefly because of loss of
habitat.
A newly created marina environment would result in an increase in other
forms of wildlife, i.e., marine birds, morine biotic communities, etc.
The present environment and its values should be carefully compared in
importance to the new environment.
It may be possible to accomodate some habitats with proper environmental
-30-
planning, i.e. retention of salt marsh. A marina would lend itself more
readily to these invironmental concerns than other types of development.
2, The opening of a new marine "bay" condition (cutting the new entrance
channel) may affect the immediate coastal environment. Significant effects
could result to the coastal biotic community, beach forms, flow of currents,
etc.
3. Dr. Stuart Waiter (and other biologists) have indicated that a coastal
marsh biotic community should be maintained in the area. One preserve
area suggested lies to the west of the proposed marina on Southern Cali-
fornia Edison (Huntington Beach) property. The Feasibility Study Plan
shows a proposed Pacific Coast Highway Bypass cutting through this area;
thus the project adds further to the, destruction of wildlife habitat.
4. The proposed entrance channel would also eliminate, a "mud flat"
condition at the mouth of the Santa Ana River. This area currently supports
tidal and "mud flat" species of marine life unique to such conditions.
5. The newly created marine environment will require monitoring and
control.
6. The proximity of a marina to the present Santa Ana River channel
should be evaluated in terms of 50 and 100 year flood levels. A marina
would have to be engineered so that maximum flood conditions would
not endanger the project. Results of such conditions were amply
demonstrated at the Ventura Marina in 1969 where millions of dollars
worth of damage occurred in a 48 hour period.
-31-
.11
III
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dickason, Forest
1971 The Physical Environment of Orange County, Orange
County Planning Department, November.
Hartman, O.
1955 "Quantitative Survey of the Benthos of Ana Pedro Basin,
California. " Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions 19:1-185.
Marsh, Gordon A. Denneth D. Abbott
1972 Plants and Anaimals of the Santa Ana River.in Orange
County, Orange County Flood Control District, Santa
Ana, California.
Orange County
1971 Santa Ana River - Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan, A
General Planning Program Report, March.
Reish, D. J.
1955 "The Relation of Ploychaetons Arrelids to Harbor Pollution. "
Public Health Reports 70:1168 - 1174.
Reish, D. J., and H. A. Winter
1954 "The Ecology of Alamitos Bay, California, with Emphasis
Upon Pollution. " California Fish and Game 40: 105-121.
Reish, Donald J.
"Studies on the Mytilus edulis Community in Alamitos
Bay, California: I:. Development and Destruction of
the Community." The Veliger, Vol. 6; No. 3, pp. 124-
131.
"Studies on the Mytilus edulis Community in Alamitos
Bay, California: II. Population Variations and Discussion
of the Associated Organisms. " The Veliger, Vol. 6; No. 4,
pp. 202-207.
1959 "An Ecological Study of Pollution in Los Angeles - Long
Beach Harbors, California". Allan Hancock Foundation
Publication, December Papers No. 22, 119 pp.
-32-
I11
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Reish, Donald J.
1964 "Playa Del Rey and Ventura Rock Jetties,', Vdliger (1954-55).
1959 Ecology
1971 Marine Pollution Bulletin
Reish, Donald J. and J. L. Barnard
1959 "Newport Bay, Upper and Lower - Polychaetes and Anphipods".
Allan Hancock Foundation Occasional Papers.
Stevenson, Robert and K. O. Emery
"Marshlands in Newport Beach, California". Allan
Hancock Foundation Occasional Papers #20.
Theede, H., A. Ponat, K. Hiroki, and C. Schleiper
1969 "Studies on the Resistance of Marine Benthic Invertebrates
to Oxygen -deficiency and Hydrogen Sulfide". Marine
Biology 2 (4): 325-337.
The following references are found in Plants and Animals of the
Santa Ana River in Orange County by Gordon A. Marsh and Kenneth D.
Abbott.
Abrams, Leroy
1923 Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Vol. I, Ophio-
glossaceae to Aristolochiaceae. Stanford University
Press, Stanford, California, 538 pp.
1944 Vol. II, Polygonaceae to Krameriaceae, 635 pp.
1951 Vol. III, Geraniaceae to Scrophulariaceae, 866 pp.
1960 Vol. IV, Bignoniaceae to Compositae, 732 pp.
-33-
t1
Boughey, Arthur S.
1968 A Checklist of Orange County Flowering Plants. Museum
of Systematic Biology, University of California, Irvine,
California, Irvine, California, Research Series No. 1:1-89.
Boyle Engineering
1966 Engineering Report on Estimated Water Conservation by
Park Area. Orange County Parks Department, Orange
County, California, 21 pp.
Culver, George B., and Carl L. Hubbs
1918 "The fishes of the Santa Ana system of streams in southern
California. " Lorquinia, 1:82-83.
Greenfield, David W., Stephen Tt Ross & Gary D. Deckert.
1970 "Some aspects of the life history of the Santa Ana Sucker,
Catstomus (Panosteussantaanae (Snyder). " California
Fish and Game, 56:166-179.
Hoffmann, Ralph
1927 Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, Massachusetts, 353 pp.
Howell, John Thomas
1929 "The flora of the Santa Ana Canon region. " Madrono,
1:243-253.
Ingles, Lloyd G.,
1965 Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, California, 506 pp.
McLean, James H.
1969 Marine Shells of Southern California. Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History, Science Series 24,
Zoology No. 11:1-104.
Munz , Philip A.
1935 A Manual of Southern California Botany. Claremont
California, 642 pp.
1968 Supplement to a California Flora. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California, 224 pp.
-34-
Munz, Philip A., and David D. Keck
1959 A California Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California, 1,681 pp.
Peterson, Roger Tory
1961 A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 366 pp.
Pope, Robert L.
1970 Personal communication.
Pyle, Robert L.
1961 Annotated Field List, Birds of Southern California. The
Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles, California, 64 pp.
Raven, Peter H.
1963 "Pulicaria hisoanica (Compositae: Inulae), a weed new
to California. " Aliso, 5:251-253.
Robbins, Chandler S., Bertel Bruun & Herbert S. Zim
1966 A Guide to Field Identification, Birds of North America.
Golden Press, New York, New York, 340 pp,
Robbins, W. W., Margaret K. Bellue & Walter S. Bell
1951 Weeds of California. Printing Division, State of California,
Sacramento, California, 547 pp.
Stebbins, Robert C.
1966 A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 279 pp.
Walker, Ernest P.
1968 Mammals of the World, 2nd ed. , Vols. I and II, Johns
Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1,500 pp.
-35-