Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem PDecember 11, 2000 Y STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Attention: Donald F. McIntyre, Interim City Manager From: Stephen G. Badum, Director of public Works/City Engineer Subject: CALIFORNIA BOATING & WATERWAYS PUBLIC BEACH RESTORATION PROGRAM GRANT FUNDING APPLICATION SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The proposed action will approve a resolution requesting grant funding under the Public Beach Restoration Program of the California Department of Boating & Waterways for funding of the Surfside Beach Feasibility Study. The urbanization of the coastal plain including the construction of flood control facilities, breakwaters for shipping harbors, harbor jetties in Long Beach (Alamitos Bay), and at the U. S. Naval Weapons Station (Anaheim Bay) has permanently altered natural beach sand management. In an effort to mitigate the effects of the Anaheim Bay harbor entrance jetties, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) initiated a sand replenishment project every four to six years to mitigate the loss of natural sand flow. Although the replenishment project seems to be meeting the overall goal of nourishing the coastal beaches from Surfside —Sunset to Newport Beach, isolated erosion immediately adjacent to the southeasterly Anaheim Bay entrance jetty poses a hazard for the neighboring public and private infrastructure. The isolated erosion adjacent to the southeasterly jetty is attributed to the reflection and - concentration of wave energy at this location. Waves approaching from the south and west are reflected off of the jetty and redirected to the adjacent beach. These reflected waves amplify the existing waves coming directly into the beach., The result is increased longshore sediment transport away from this location causing erosion. The erosion rate is roughly double the normal rate depending on seasonal variations. r�r,111 o The proposed Feasibility Study will would be a joint planning effort between the City of 0 Seal Beach and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The proposed study will be based upon the 905 (b) Reconnaissance Report by Los Angeles District USACE. A V� 1 AGENDA ITEmp.. Boating & Waterways Applicaim City Coancil Sta$Repon December 11, 2000 draft copy is attached. The Los Angeles District USACE is currently updating the 905(b) report to focus only on the problem at Surfside and to eliminate the General Re - Evaluation Report (GRR) option as well as the sheetpile wall alternative. The USACE report will investigate the viability of non-structural and structural solutions. Potential alternatives investigated may include beach replenishment, enhanced revetment, and offshore submerged breakwater/artificial surf reef. The City's current philosophy favors non-structural solutions such as periodic beach sand replenishment and some limited structural solutions providing that they increase the beaches ability to retain replenished sand without any adverse effects to water circulation and the surf zone environment. The original draft cost estimate for the proposed feasibility study is approximately $2.5 million over the 44 month project, but the revised scope should reduce the total amount and project timeline significantly. USACE feasibility studies are funded with a 50% local sponsor share requirement. The cost of the 1" year and 2"d year of the project are approximately $50,000 and $275,000 respectively. The proposed funding ayplication will ask for 75% of the required local share or 35% of the overall 1" and 2" year funding. The proposed cost sharing for the project is as follows: 1" Year 2"d Year Total ♦ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (50%) $25,000 $137,500 $162,500 ♦ State Boating & Waterways (35%) $17,500 $ 96,250 $113,750 ♦ City of Seal Beach (15%) 7,500 41.25 48.75 $50,000 $275,000 $325,000 Discussions with the USACE indicate that cost sharing beyond the 1" and 2"d year should be reviewed upon the completion of the F4 milestone, Alternative review conference, as shown on page 11 of the draft 905 (b) Reconnaissance Report. USACE and City staff will be investigating funding alternatives including additional State funding, Coastal Conservancy funding, and erosion mitigation funding from the U.S. Navy for continuing the feasibility study beyond the 2"d year and funding of the chosen project alternative. Upon completion of this study, it is hoped that an ongoing Federal authorization or U.S. Navy funding program will be established to replenish this beach at regular intervals independent of the existing Surfside -Sunset to Newport Beach Nourishment Program. FISCAL IMPACT: Currently, there will be no fiscal impact. If the City's application for funding under this program is successful, the City will need to appropriate matching funds up to $7,500 within the FY2001/02 budget and $41,250 in the FY2002/03 budget. Boating & Waterways Application City Council SruffReport December /l, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution supporting the Surfside Beach Feasibility Study and authorize the City Manager to apply for grant funds from the California Department of Boating and Waterways. NOTED AND APPROVED Al ep G. Badum, Director Donald F. Mc In[yre, Pub is Works Department Interim City Manager Attachments; Resolution, Draft 905 (b) Reconnaissance Report C9pwd\council\mpon\2000-01\ Boating & Waterways Application — Surfside Feasibility.doc San Gabriel To Newport Bay DRAFT California 905(b) Reconnaissance Report Los Angeles District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers September 2000 DRAFT San Gabriel to Newport Bay Shoreline Feasibility Study Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis 1. Study Authority a. This Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis was prepared as an initial response to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2000, Public Law 1D5-60, 29 September 1999, which reads as follows: The Committee recommendation includes funds for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance study investigating shoreline protection alternatives for San Gabriel to Newport Bay, California. b. Previous authorizations for this area include the River and Harbor Act of 1954, Public Law 83.780, 83r° Congress, 2n' Session, supplemented by a survey of Anaheim Bay, California authorized by the River and Harbor Act July 3, 1958. An further resolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives docket # 2584, adopted 9 -Oct -1998. 2. Study Purpose The purpose of the reconnaissance phase study is to determine if there is a Federal interest in participating in a cost shared feasibility phase study to investigate providing shore protection to the shoreline from the City of Seal Beach to Newport Bay in Orange County, California. In response to the study authority, the reconnaissance study was initiated on 26 April 2000. The reconnaissance study has resulted in the finding that there is a Federal interest in continuing the study into the feasibility phase. The purpose of this Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis is to document the basis for this finding and establish the scope of the feasibility phase. As the document that establishes the scope of the feasibility study, the Section 905(b) (WRDA) Analysis is used as the chapter of the Project Management Plan which presents the reconnaissance overview and formulation rationale. 3. Location of Study, Non -Federal Sponsor and Congressional District a. The study area is located on the Pacific Ocean coastline of Orange County and covers 17 miles from the mouth of the San Gabriel River to the entrance to Newport Bay. The principle shore communities in the study area are the City of Seal Beach, the City of Huntington Beach, and the City of Newport Beach. There are two segments to this study. Segment 1 includes the area from the mouth San Gabriel River to the entrance to Anaheim Bay (East Beach). This segment is about 1.5 miles in length. Segment 2 includes the area from Anaheim Bay to the entrance to Newport Bay. This area is approximately 21.3 miles in length. b. The non -Federal Sponsor for the feasibility phase study is the City of Seal Beach and Orange County. c. The study area is in the 47th Congressional District. 4. Prior Reports and Existing Projects a. The following reports have been reviewed as part of this study: 1) Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of Orange County, California, Appendix V, Phase 2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 1962. This report determined that the northern coastline of Orange County, between Anaheim Bay and the Newport Pier, warranted protective shore measures to prevent further damage caused by beach erosion. Loss of land, installations, and property damage prompted this study. Erosion was particularly severe along Surfside/Sunset Beach, Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach State Park, and the beaches fronting the Cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. 2) Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Research and Data Collection Program of Coast of Southern California -Cape San Martin to Mexican Boundary Three - Year Report — 19641966, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 1967. This report presented the results of a three-year research and data collection program for the entire coastline of California south of San Luis Obispo County to identify areas of active or potential erosion. The data collections specifically for Orange County included aerial and ground photographs, hydrographic surveys, numerous sand samples, and two pressure wave gages near Dana Point. Storm damage was evident along the shoreline of Newport Beach between 31P and 61P Street and areas of Capistrano Beach. 3) Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Research and Data Collection Program of Coast of Southern Califomia-Cape San Martin to Mexican Boundary Three - Year Report- 1967-1969, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 1970. This second three-year report presented the results of a research and data collection program for the California coastline south of San Luis Obispo County for identifying areas of active or potential erosion. Beach inspections, aerial and ground photographs, hydrographic surveys, sand samples, two wave gages, stream delta surveys, Newport Submarine Canyon, offshore sand sources, shoreline conditions, evaluation of wave refraction models and beach profiles were investigated for Orange County. 4) Southern California Coastal Water Research Project -Annual Reports, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority, 1974 -present. This collection of technical papers released the results of various water quality related studies throughout southern California. This annual report investigated sources of effluents, fates of benthic populations, effects on habitat, numerical integration and assessment, and development of proper monitoring methods to enhance the ecology of the community. 5) Orange County NPDES Stormwater Permit Program -Proposed Water Quality Monitoring Programs for the Orange County Stor mwater System and Receiving Waters, Orange County Flood Control District, December 1990. This report was prepared to propose a monitoring program for storm water runoff in Orange County. The monitoring program for storm channels consisted of field screening, dry weather, flow -composite DRAFT sampling, and episodic sampling. The receiving water monitoring program included stations in Huntington Harbor, Surfside/Sunset, Anaheim, Bolsa Bays, Upper and Lower Newport Bays, and Dana Point Harbor. In addition, semiannual sampling of bed sediment to determine the chronic effects of storm water runoff was proposed. 6) Existing State of Orange County Coast, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, April 1993. This report provided comprehensive coastal data for the portion of the Orange County coast spanning from the San Gabriel River to the Dana Point headlands. The data collection and analysis addressed numerous coastal issues including a review of historical shoreline and coastal cliff changes, sediment transport characteristics, sediment budget identification, the geomorphologic makeup, and the impacts of the hydrodynamic forces that prevail throughout the region. The findings of this study indicated that for northern Orange County, near Sunset and Bolsa Chica beaches, the shoreline has remained stable, then at a progressive and increasing rate south of the West Newport groin field and through the Balboa Peninsula erosion trends have dominated. The study identified an erosion hot spot seaward of the Huntington Cliffs where the dry beach width at high tide was minimal. South of Newport Beach in the Laguna Beach Mini Littoral Cells the shoreline had been stable over the past 50 plus years; however, beach widths are considered to be narrow for recreational purposes. Various changes in the upland uses of drainage basins were identified as possible causes of erosion. 7) Shoreline and Volume Changes Along the Orange County Coast, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994. This report identified the shoreline position and sediment volume changes within the Orange County littoral zone, extending from the San Gabriel River mouth to the Dana Point Harbor. The littoral coastal region was divided into three distinct littoral cells: the Seal Beach Subcell, the Huntington Beach Subcell, and the Laguna Beach Mini Subcells. Several coastal areas exhibiting net erosion were identified and possible causes for this erosion in each respective community, were investigated. 8) Seacliff Erosion and Its Sediment Contributions -Dana Point to the San Gabriel River, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995. This study identified seacliffs as erosion features indicative of the landward retreat of the littoral zone. The seacliff erosion rate depends upon the width of dry beach width at the cliff base and the magnitude of the wave activity. Estimated mean seacliff retreat rates based on geomorphic models were presented; however, time - dependent potential structural damage could not be predicted due to the episodic nature of retreat. 9) Field Activities Report-Bathymetric Profile Survey, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, Coastal Frontiers Corporation, January 1996. This report presented the results of the bathymetric profile survey conducted in May 1995 along 26 transects between Anaheim Bay and Newport Beach Harbor with cross -lines through the study area at approximate depths of 20, 30, and 40 feet, Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Each transect was surveyed from the backshore to a minimum depth of 60 feet. A brief analysis and description of the bathymetric changes between this survey and a survey conducted in 1992 was also included. DRAFT 10) Coastal Sediment Budget Analysis Summary, Orange County, California, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1996. This report summarized the existing state of knowledge related to the sediment budget of the Orange County region and discussed the various components which comprise the sediment budget. Detailed analysis of these components include: fluvial sediment production, historical bathymetric changes, littoral losses to Newport Submarine Canyon, aerial photo analysis of historical shoreline changes of the Laguna Beach Mini littoral cells, littoral sediment loss at east jetty of Anaheim Bay, and littoral sediment by-passing at Dana Point. 11) Nearshore Hydrodynamic Factors and Wave Study of the Orange County Coast, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1996. This study, recognizing the lack of sufficient existing wave hindcast and measurement data, developed a practical, detailed database to be used for coastal planning and design applications for Orange County. The analysis within this report included: a review of the local, regional, and hemispheric meteorological weather systems responsible for the Orange County wave climate, and bathymetric transformation of deep water waves to near shore waters. A synthetic numedcally simulated model to compute significant wave height, predominant wave period, and approach direction near the shoreline to provide a synoptic atlas of nearshore wave climate was developed for 13 segments. Analysis of historical extreme episodic wave events was also conducted. 12) Energy Flux and Longshore Transport Orange County, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 1996. Utilizing a computed synoptic atlas of nearshore wave climate, this report presented preliminary GENESIS model calculations for the magnitude of the alongshore sediment transport rate. The results advanced the understanding of the temporal and spatial variation of the alongshore sediment transport in Orange County allowing Federal, state, and local agencies the ability to implement more effective coastal planning and design specifications for beach maintenance and sand management. 13) Sediment Budget Analysis., Dana Point to Newport Bay, California, Coastal Frontiers Corporation, June 1997. This report presented the analysis of the hindcast sediment budgets for the 13 -mile long, high relief coast consisting of 23 pocket beaches between Dana Point and Newport Harbor to establish a means to predict future nearshore coastal behavior. The beaches were found to be stable over time; however, causes for concern with regards to the artificial human interaction of altering the Southern Orange County sediment budget were outlined. 14) Beach Width and Profile Volumes, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County Coast, Coastal Frontiers Corporation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 1999. This report documented the changes in dry beach width and sediment volume occurring within the Huntington Beach Littoral Cell from 1963-1997 with a particular emphasis on the data collected from 1992-1997. A steady Increase in the mean shoreline for the Huntington Littoral Cell was found to be on average 4 ftlyear, with the exception of the Huntington Cliffs. The accretion was determined to be a result of both volume increases associated with periodic nourishment efforts and episodic sub- aerial flood flows. 16) Marine Monitoring -Annual Reports, Orange County Sanitation District, California, 1972 -present. This report detailed the ocean monitoring study conducted to DRAFT evaluate potential environmental and public health effects from the discharge of treated wastewater. The areas of concern with regards to wastewater effluent includes water quality, sediment quality, biological communities, tissue contaminates in marine organisms, and fish health. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) publishes this report annually to update the analysis of the ongoing monitoring program. b. The study is investigating potential modification of the following project(s): The study is investigating potential modification of the Surfside -Sunset continuing construction project. As a modification to the current project a general re-evaluation report could be used as a decision document. 5. Plan Formulation During a study, six planning steps that are set forth in the Water Resource Council's Principles and Guidelines are repealed to focus the planning effort and eventually to select and recommend a plan for authorization. The six planning steps are: 1) specify problems and opportunities; 2) inventory and forecast conditions; 3) formulate alternative plans; 4) evaluate effects of alternative plans; 5) compare alternative plans, and 6) select a recommended plan. The iterations of the planning steps typically differ in the emphasis that is placed on each of the steps. In the early iterations, those conducted during the reconnaissance phase, the step of specifying problems and opportunities is emphasized. That is not to say, however, that the other steps are ignored, since the initial screening of preliminary plans that results from the other steps is very important to the scoping of feasibility phase studies. The sub -paragraphs that follow present the results of the initial Iterations of the planning steps that were conducted during the reconnaissance phase. This information will be refined in future iterations of the planning steps during the feasibility phase. a. National Objectives 1) The national or Federal objective of water and related land resources planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the nation's environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. Contributions to National Economic Development (NED) are increases in net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed in monetary units. Contributions to NED are the direct benefits that accrue in the planning area and the rest of the nation. b. Public Concerns. A number of public concerns have been identified during the course of the expedited reconnaissance study. Initial concerns were expressed in the study authorization. Additional input was received through coordination with the City of Seal beach and Orange County in conjunction with some coordination from other agencies. The public concerns that are related to the establishment of planning objectives and planning constraints are: DRAFT 1) Beach erosion hinders adequate public recreation in localized areas along the Orange County coastline (Surfside Colony). 2) Nearshore ecological deteriorations have resulted in repeated beach closures. c. Problems and Opportunities. The evaluation of public concerns often reflects a range of needs, which are perceived by the public. This section describes these needs in the context of problems and opportunities that can be addressed through water and related land management. For each problem and opportunity, the existing conditions and the expected future conditions are described, as follows: 1) Beach erosion. Recreation along several public beaches in Orange County has been adversely impacted by beach erosion. Adequate recreation on beaches requires a minimum dry beach width on the foreshore. Due to the natural littoral processes of the region, a number of erosion hotspots have been identified, especially at the Surfside Colony area. From the San Gabriel River south to Newport Bay erosion hotspots are evident at Surfside/Sunset Beach, Parking Lot 24 of Bolsa Chica Beach, Huntington Cliffs, and the Newport Beach groin fields. As the erosion trend continues to proceed unimpeded, the loss of recreational dry beach within these areas is expected to increase. Current investigations are underway to address the erosion hotspots located in Seal Beach and Huntington Beach. The erosion scenario primarily impacts the beach recreation opportunity. 2) Nearshore ecological deteriorations. The areas of prime concern include West Beach located at the mouth of the San Gabriel River in Seal Beach; within the coastal segment from 0 to 9000 feet north of the mouth of the Santa Ana River ending at the Edison Plant in Huntington Beach; Little Corona Beach in Newport Beach. The beach closures plaguing Orange County over the past few years have adversely impacted the nearshore environment, as well as, the economy of the entire coastal community. d. Planning Objectives. The national objectives of National Economic Development and National Ecosystem Restoration are general statements and not specific enough for direct use in plan formulation. The water and related land resource problems and opportunities identified In this study are stated as specific planning objectives to provide focus for the formulation of alternatives. These planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities and represent desired positive changes in the without -project conditions. The planning objectives are specified as follows: 1. To reduce stomfrelated damages to public and private properties. 2. To protect and maintain traffic corridors. 3. To enhance and maintain beach recreation, and associated economic tourism benefits, by restoring and improving the beaches. e. Planning Constraints. Unlike planning objectives that represent desired positive changes, planning constraints represent restrictions that should not be violated. The planning constraints identified in this study are as follows: DRAFT 1) Alternatives must comply with the County's and applicable Cities' Local Coastal Programs. 2) All plan alternatives comply with various regulatory agencies such as the California Coastal Commission, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as the regulations and planning guidelines of the Corps of Engineers. f. Measures to Address Planning Objectives. A management measure is a feature or activity at a site, which address one or more of the planning objectives. A wide variety of measures were considered, some of which were found to be infeasible due to technical, economic or environmental constraints. Each measure was assessed, and a determination made regarding whether it should be retained in the formulation of alternative plans. The descriptions and results of the evaluations of the measures considered in this study are presented below: 1) No Action: If no action is proposed, the beach at Surfside Colony will continue to diminish and storm damages will increase in severity. The erosion -prone beaches along the rest of the Orange County will also be further depleted. Public safetyand liability problems will not be resolved, and recreational activity on the beaches will be degraded resulting in a loss of associated economic benefits. 2) Nonstructural. Nonstructural alternatives are proposed primarily to gain a detailed understanding of the nearshore ecosystem of water body and benthic sediment, as well as, upland sediment sources. 3) Structural. Alternatives including beachfll, revetments, and sheetpile wall sand breakwaters are being considered. Beachfill. Beach nourishment involves placement of compatible sand from a borrow area to effectively widen the beach. The beach fill material acts as a buffer dissipating storm waves and runup over the wider profile. Retention structures may be required to stabilize the beachfill or extend the time between nourishment cycles, as well as preserve a minimum dry beach width. Revelments. Revetments are flexible structures made of placed quarry stone designed to stop shoreline retreat and to protect landslide improvements from damages from wave action. Sheetoile Walls. Sheetpile walls are steel or precast concrete panels vertically placed in the ground to form continuous seawalls for protecting backbeach improvements. Removal. Removal of the Anaheim jetties may cause improvements from damages from wave refraction due to the jetties action. Offshore Submerged Breakwater. The alternative structures, including offshore reefs or submerged breakwaters, would protect the shoreline against direct wave attack and reduce the transmitted wave energy to less damaging levels along the beach at Surfside Colony. DRA, FT 4) Separable Features. No separable feature is identified. 5) Secondary Features. none 6) Additionally, another measure to address this study is through a General Re -Evaluation Report (GRR) as apposed to a Feasibility Study. Offshore Dredoina. Offshore dredging will be required for the beachfill alternative. Since available offshore borrow sites exist, sand would be delivered to the beachfill sites using hopper dredges with pumpout or large cutter suction dredges. For the hopper dredge with pumpout, temporary nearshore pipeline and monobuoys would be positioned at about the 30 -foot depth to permit the dredge to pump each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines. However, this method becomes less preferred as distance offshore and depths increase, and the wave climate becomes more energetic. g. Preliminary Plans. Preliminary plans are comprised of one or more management measures that survived the initial screening. The descriptions and results of the evaluations of the preliminary plans that were considered in this study are presented below: 1) Preliminary Plans Eliminated from Further Consideration Due to potential environmental impacts and concems related to nearshore recreational activities, Sheetpile Walls are not considered feasible. 2) Preliminary Plans for Further Consideration A wide beach berm resulting from beachfill can effectively provide a buffer against storm wave attack, and improve recreational opportunities significantly. Beachfill would address all of the problems and concerns. Revetments and Breakwaters will effectively address storm damage concerns; however, they do not address beach recreation concerns. Among the viable structural alternatives revetments are the most economic measures. These preliminary alternatives will be considered and evaluated in the feasibility analysis. The implementation of the study through a GRR will also be taken under consideration. 3) Alternative Implementation Authorities Alternatives or measures that cannot be implemented by the Corps of Engineers may qualify for implementation by other Federal agencies, or by State, County or local govemmental agencies, or private interests. h. Conclusions from the Preliminary Screening. The preliminary screening indicates that alternatives including beachfill, revetments, and breakwaters have the greatest potential for implementation. DRAFT i. Establishment of a Plan Formulation Rationale. The conclusions from the preliminary screening form the basis for the next iteration of the planning steps that will be conducted in the feasibility phase or GRR . The likely array of alternatives that will be considered in the next iteration includes beachfill with and without retention structures, revetments, and breakwaters. Future screening and reformulation will be based on the following factors: 1) Technical feasibility and effectiveness in meeting the planning objectives— projects must be functional and complete, recognizing state-of-the-art design and construction methods. 2) Environmental impacts — environmental acceptability must be ascertained, and adverse impacts should be avoided 9 possible, or minimized if avoidance is not possible. 3) Economic justification in accordance with current guidelines and policies. Benefits must, at a minimum, equal the costs of a project. Ideally, benefits will clearly outweigh costs. The alternative with the greatest net benefits is selected as the National Economic Development Plan, and is generally selected as the Recommended Plan, unless there is an overriding reason to select another alternative. 4) Acceptability from the general public and the Non -Federal Sponsor. 6. Federal Interest Since storm damage prevention is an output with a high budget priority, and preventing storm damages is the primary output of the alternatives to be evaluated in the feasibility phase, there is a strong Federal interest in conducting the feasibility study. Based on the preliminary screening of alternatives, there appears to be potential project alternatives that would be consistent with Army policies, costs, benefits, and environmental impacts. 7. Preliminary Financial Analysis As the non -Federal Sponsor, the City of Seal Beach and Orange County will be required to provide 50% of the cost of their elements of the feasibility phase study. The non -Federal Sponsor is also aware of the cost sharing requirements for the potential project implementation. A letter of intent from the non -Federal Sponsor stating willingness to pursue the feasibility phase study and share in Its cost, and an understanding of the cost sharing that is required for project construction is included. 8. Assumptions and Exceptions a. Feasibility Phase Assumptions. The following critical assumptions will provide a basis for the feasibility study; The beaches at Surfside Colony will continue to erode and more damages would continue to occur. Public safety and tourism will also be negatively impacted b. Policy Exceptions and Streamlining Initiatives. The study will be conducted in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines and Corps of Engineers regulations. 10 DRAFT Exceptions to established guidance have been identified, which will streamline the feasibility study process without adversely impacting the study quality. No applicable policy exceptions and streamlining initiatives will result from the approval of the Section 905(b) Analysis by HQUSACE. c. Other Approvals Required. Include items that require HQUSACE approval, such as studies and new benefit categories are not applicable. 9. Feasibility Phase Milestones 11 • •. wpm "... a a • �� 11 DRA ■ 10. Feasibility Phase Cost Estimate 11. Views of Other Resource Agencies Because of the funding and time constraints of the reconnaissance phase, only limited and informal coordination has been conducted with other resource agencies, and no significant information has been received at this time. However, it is anticipated that views from the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ih 11ty— Will toy lo, •:rr _ - •rr loll •oll _ •. _. .�•••.11 nl •_ll __ _...--,. .�-- -` .roll) :111 _ Ir 111 alto = - - _ •1 I11 ■111 - _111 - a 1111 -111 _ 1111 Nunn _, • - _ roll 111 _ •1111 111 _ a c..........•1111 111 _ - - 11111 111 = - _ . 1.. • :. rrr ■11 - a •..:• '.111 •:11 _ Iru •HI _ .i 111 1111 -._•, , _ - -r lrr •1111 •a .: - _ _ - -1111 mv 111 11. Views of Other Resource Agencies Because of the funding and time constraints of the reconnaissance phase, only limited and informal coordination has been conducted with other resource agencies, and no significant information has been received at this time. However, it is anticipated that views from the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ih DRAFT and National Marine Fisheries Service, with regards to the beachfill alternative, would be to prevent environmental impacts due to cross -shore sediment transport. 12. Potential Issues Affecting Initiation of Feasibility Phase a. Continuation of this study into the cost -shared feasibility phase is contingent upon an executed Feasibility Cost -Sharing Agreement (FCSA). Failure to achieve an executed FCSA within 18 months of the approval of the Section 905(b) Analysis will result in termination of the study. There are no apparent issues at this time that impact on the implementation of the feasibility phase. b. The schedule for signing the Feasibility Cost -Sharing Agreement is November 2000. Based on the schedule of milestones in Paragraph 9, completion of the feasibility report would be in November 2003, with a potential Congressional Authorization in WRDA 2004. c. The erosion rate at Seal Beach is at an unacceptable rate, however the stated maintenance rate has not be followed by the local sponsor. The rate of erosion at the Surfside Colony is unacceptable. The continuing construction project for Surfside -Sunset cost shares at a rate of 67:33 based on the previously authorized study. There is a potential to re-classify this project as a new start, if this occurs then the cost share would be 65:35 and may jeopardize the Continuation of the current construction project. The lack of beach nourishment projects at the Newport groin fields has impacted the beaches in that area of the Orange County Coastline. 13. Project Area Map A map of the study area is shown in Figure 1. 13 DRAFT 14. Recommendations. I recommend that the San Gabriel to Newport Bay Reconnaissance Study proceed into the GRR phase. This is based on the assumption of a continuing construction project for Surfside —Sunset. Initially the GRR would be cost shared at 75:25 and then in the construction phase at the current project rate of 67:33. The emphasis of the study in the Surfside Colony area. A modification to the current project through structural of non- structural means could decrease the erosion rate at the Surfside Colony. This could reduce beach nourishment and in the long tens provide a cost savings to the project. Date: //s// John P. Carroll Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer 14