HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-1984 Item #F-3ec- aaQ3
BY THE CITY COUNCIL April 9, 1984
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APR 0 91984 ITEM NO. _ 3 /Z.)
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT --UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL
FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the subject
agreement.
A. BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of August 22, 1983, the City Council authorized the
Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the San Diego Creek/Upper Newport Bay
Watershed Cooperative Agreement. The purpose of that cooperative agreement
was to provide a forum for the major landowner and key governmental agencies
in the watershed to:
(1) Evaluate and assess progress toward implementing the Sediment Control
Plan.
(2) Formulate project implementing agreements for the elements of the plan.
(3) Evaluate and assess the effectiveness of the various elements of the
plan.
The parties to the agreement are:
(1) The County of Orange.
(2) The City of Irvine.
(3) The City of Newport Beach.
(4) The California Department of Fish and Game.
(5) The Irvine Company
Since that time draft agreements for implementation of in -bay facili-
ties, in -channel facilities and a sediment monitoring program have been pro-
posed and presented to the Upper Bay executive committee at its first meeting
on January 26, 1984. The executive committee approved all three agreements
in concept and directed staff representatives to finalize the agreements for
presentation to each party's ruling board for approval. Current status of
the three agreements is as follows:
April 9, 1984
Subject: Implementation Agreement --Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control
Facilities
Page 2
(1) In -Bay Agreement --draft complete and ready for approval.
(2) In -Channel Agreement --draft 90% complete.
(3) Sediment Monitoring Agreement --The Sediment Monitoring Program
in San Diego Creek is currently in its second year of opera-
tion under a cooperative agreement between the U.S. Geological
Survey, the City of Irvine, The Irvine Company, and the City
of Newport Beach.
The State Department of Fish and Game has agreed to be re-
sponsible for sediment monitoring in the bay. The County of
Orange has agreed to participate in the San Diego Creek
Sediment Monitoring Program and is presently reviewing a
draft agreement.
The agreement presented for approval at this time is the implemen-
tation agreement for the in -bay facilities.
The parties to the agreement are:
(1) The County of Orange.
(2) The Orange County Harbor, Beaches and Parks District.
(3) The State of California Department of Fish and Game.
(4) The City of Irvine.
(5) The City of Newport Beach.
(6) The Irvine Company.
B. PRINCIPAL TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT:
(1) Description of in -bay facilities to be constructed (see
attached exhibit "A")
(2) Recommended phasing of construction
(a) Unit I --Fiscal Year 1984/85.
(b) Unit II --Fiscal Year 1985/86 or as funding is available.
(c) Maintenance --as required and as funds are available.
Project design is for maintenance dredging at five-
year intervals.
I I i
April 9, 1984
Subject: Implementation Agreement --Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control
Facilities
Page 3
(3) Funding
(a) Unit I, Fiscal Year 1984/85
Party
Amount
State Dept. of Fish & Game
$2,662,000
The Irvine Co.
623,325
City of Newport Beach
1.24,310
Orange.County Harbor, Beaches &
Parks District
118,990
City of Irvine
11,170
County of Orange
7,992
Total
$3,547,787
(b) Unit II and Maintenance of
Unit I and Unit II
Party
—
Unit II*
Est. Cost
Maintenance**
Est.Cost/Yr.
State Dept. of Fish & Game
75.00
$2,165,625
$262,500
The Irvine Co.
17.58
507,623
62,530
City of Newport Beach
3.51
101,351
12,285
Orange County Harbor,
Beaches & Parks District
3.36
97,020
11,760
City of Irvine
0.23
6,641
805
County of Orange
0.32
9,240
1,120
100%
$2,887,500
$350,000
*Estimated Cost in 1984 Dollars
This agreement establishes each party's % of cost;
actual funding will require approval of.future
boards and councils.
**Estimated Cost in 1984 Dollars.
This agreement establishes each party's % of cost;
Figures are based on an average yearly cost. Main-
tenance projects are anticipated in five-year inter-
vals and actual funding will require approval of
future boards and councils.
(4) Upper Newport Bay Executive Committee Annual Review
(a) Progress of implementing in -bay facilities.
April 9, 1984
Subject: Implementation Agreement --Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control
Facilities
Page 4
(b) Maintenance of facilities.
(c) Funding for construction and maintenance of facilities.
(d) Budget recommendation for the next fiscal year.
(5) Adjustment of Apportionments
The percentages set for each party may be adjusted by unani-
mous vote of the parties.
(6).Reimbursement of Party's Advance
Funds advanced by any party and approved by the executive
committee will be credited to the contributing party's con-
tribution for the next project.
(7) Contract Administration
(a) The executive committee shall designate one of the public
parties to administer the project or projects approved.
(b) The party administering the project or projects will
enter into agreements as required to collect the con-
tributions from the other parties.
(c) The party administering the project will render a final
accounting.
(8) State Grant and Other Financial Support
The State will be the lead agency. The other parties will
support the lead agency's efforts.
(9) Term
The term of this agreement is for ten years. It may be ex-
tended by written unanimous approval of the parties.
(10) Termination and Amendment
(a) Terminated or amended at any time by unanimous consent
of the parties.
(b) Failure of the executive committee to adopt a budget,
unless the executive committee has determined that no
funds are needed in ensuing fiscal year.
April 9, 1984
Subject: Implementation Agreement --Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control
Facilities
Page 5
(c) The agreement may be suspended for one or more years by
unanimous vote of the executive committee.
(11) Additional Parties
Additional entities may become parties to agreement with unan-
imous consent of parties.
(12) Availability of Funds
The obligation of each party is subject to the availability
of funds.
Final approval of the agreement is being requested simultaneously
by each of the parties. A fully executed agreement is anticipated in May 1984.
Funding for the City's share of Unit I ($124,310) has been included in the
proposed Capital Projects Budget for FY 1984-85.
Benjamin B. Nolan
Public Works Director
JW:jd
Att.
Draft 1-9-84
Exhibit "A"
Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Facilities
This Exhibit identifies the Sediment Control Facilities (Table 1) to
be constructed as part of the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement Program
(Figure 1). These facilities are designed to localize the deposition
of fine sediments delivered from San Diego Creek. At the same time
they will provide benefits to the fish and wildlife resources of the
:Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
The construction of the Sediment Control Facilities is phased in two
units (Tables 2 and 3). Implementation of both units will be required
to provide efficient sediment capture and protect the wildlife values
of the Bay.
Following construction of Units I and II periodic maintenance will be
required to maintain the efficiency of the system. Maintenance
operations will be instituted when the average invert elevation of
either the saltworks basin or the "Narrows" channel reach -1.0 MLLW'
(-4.0 MSL). This elevation has been selected as the trigger for
initiating maintenance operations to insure the preservation of fish
and wildlife values associated with lower intertidal and subtidal
elevations. At this elevation, the saltworks basin will have a
capacity of 150,000 cu. yds. while the "Narrows" channel will have a
capacity of 130,000 cu. yds. _
Maintenance dredging may not be required more often than once every
five years. This is an estimate based upon projections contained in
the 208 Sediment Source and Delivery Analysis prepared by Boyle
Engineering. With installation of three additional upstream
facilities the Boyle report indicates that approximately 50,000 cu. yds.
of sediment will be delivered to the bay on an average annual basis.
If the in -bay facilities were 100% effective, maintenance would be
required every five years. Boyle though has calculated that the
saltworks basin is only 30% effective indicating that maintenance
would not be required more frequently than once every 7 to 10 years.
Periodic maintenance based upon the criteria outlined above may
require the removal of approximately 250,000 cu. yds. of material.
Based upon 1984 cost estimated for hydraulic dredging and ocean
disposal ($7.50/cu. yd.), this would require the expenditure.of
approximately $1,875,000. .
Figure 3 provides a phased implementation schedule for construction
and maintenance of the Sediment Control Facilities.
R
Table 1
UNBER Sediment Management/Enhancement
Project; Quantity and Cost Estimates*
*Costs based on 1984 estimates
+Yardage estimate may change following survey
Element
Cubic Yards
Rate
Cost
A.
Saltworks Improvements
A-1 Island Removal
A-2 Deepen basin to -4.0 MLLW
41,000
330,000
$3.50
$5.00
$ 143,000
$1,650,000
A-3 35+ acre expansion
290,000
$4.00
$1,162,000
661,000
2,955,000
B.
Channel widening saltworks
- main dike; 500 feet wide
to -0.0 MLLW
100,000
$5.00
$ 500,000
C.
Subtidal Channel Main Dike
- Narrows: 500 feet wide to
-4.0 MLLW+
330,000
$7.50
$2,475,000
D.
Remove 1,000 foot section
of main dike
26,000
$5.00
$ 130,000-
E.
Down -bay dredging to provide
dredge access+.
50,000
$7.50
$ 375,000
Project Totals
1,167,000
$6,435,000
*Costs based on 1984 estimates
+Yardage estimate may change following survey
0
r r
f
m
>
v>
-H C-4
°
9 O
0
42
tV
f,
3
V
$.4
CirW{
co
it
43
.w
.D
E
O
U
W
-.j -
0 •=
N 4-)
0
O
¢
q
m
N
rr
-1
•
W3
>
W
fr
U) US
= W
a
f°r
A
i-' CH
O -r4
W
O
3
O
�
-kg
43
*% m
O
f. in
W
b
d,
H CL
��
co 'a
4)
cc
w O
U
�w
D
O
E
d
> `"�
U
>
.0
in
cfu m
H rl r
O 47
U O
5
r
m
U
W •.i .p
� = O
y< �0
C*]
O
U
�
A
W
4
�
• .
U
q
W
0
r r
m
43
w
0
42
tV
m
w
U
it
43
.0
O
U
W
q
q
•
M
fr
fr
G1
Op
a
f°r
o
a
ri
m
f.
0.:
,•4
W
w
Rate Cost
$3.50 $ 143,000
$5.00 $1,650,000
$4.00 $1,162,000
$2,955,000
$ 592,787
$3,547,787
-
Table 2
Unit I
Upper Newport Bay
Sediment
Control Facilities*
Element
Cubic Yards
A. Saltworks Improvements
A-1 Island Removal
41,000
A-2 Deepen basin to -4.0 MLLW
330,000
A-3 35+ acre expansion
290,000
661,000
C. Subtidal Channel - main dike
..
to the Narrows and down bay
.dredging required for equipment
access
79,000
Total
740,000
*Costs based on 1984 estimates.
-
,
Rate Cost
$3.50 $ 143,000
$5.00 $1,650,000
$4.00 $1,162,000
$2,955,000
$ 592,787
$3,547,787
A
02
'�' •'
k ca
w x 0
o
a
4-4
43 -r4
� ul
N
0a
m totic
m-� .ti
m o x •rte w
o ti v
rr
`\.
a o +J o
03 --1 e 14
+� S--
a),�,.
a.°
m CU 4-3
m a� m +)
a >
I0-
r
Table 3
Unit II Upper Newport Bay
Sediment Control Facilities*
Element Cubic Yards Cost
B. Widen channel between salt works 100,000 $ 500,000
and main dike
C. Complete subtidal cannel
main dike - Narrows 251,000 $1,882,500
D. Main dike removal 26,000 $ 130,000
E. Down bay dredging to
provide dredge access as
necessary 50,000 $ 375,000
Total 427,000
$2,887,50
*Costs based on 1984 estimates
lCost and yardage estimate depends upon amount of material removed in
Unit I
2Cost and yardage may vary depending upon hydrographic survey and material
removed as part of Unit I
r- O
\
O
N
Cl
O
O
N
O�
O�
O�
\
co
0`
co
O�
n
O�
f�
%0 _.
0%
O�
\
LM
0%
00 an
O 0%
,a_ o�
ao en
a+ 0%
m M
ani C%
Pel • 1 N
m Q�
M I O N O\
0 F z
H iw
�$14
0
co
co co
V c
w
m co
co
W A 1
c
O
�D
00
W
Ln
co
tn
O
O
,y-1
rl
G
G
TI
O
O
L
+1
•-1
C! R1
�+
uH
u
c
W
H
CO 7
F{
CO 7
b 00 1!
Gl
G t+
G 1-/
C G H
.�+
4-1
" u
4J
H u
W -A O,
,y-1
rl