Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-2238 - Upper Newport Bay, 208 Study Engineering Services• ':z. `4'!` ♦ ��t`Zir'� �.i` f W � �i"Y.,��.cr.....��...Y2`i Y'> 4 •�MMiW4'�T�C".�.7i y� ...+ o1•- -M.r�� � aar _ p, '.App �,. � �• �Aa.W _.. .v.; i �.-y r •,_ . �a > �- ".,�`°�. _ �. � -+y,am ,.. l' PART III - TASK III - E h GENERAL AUDIENCE REPORT STORMFLOW SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED SAN DIEGO CREEK COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN PREPARED FOR THE CITIES -OF IRVINE AND NEWPORT BEACH AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OCTOBER 1982 (As revised January 1983) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 — DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 SEDIMENTATION PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 COMPONENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CONTROL OF SEDIMENTATION PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Upstream Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Valley Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Valley Land Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Downstream Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 ' SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . 65 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . 66 ._ Alternative 1 - No Project . . . . . . . . 66 Alternative 2 - Channel Stabilization Measures Only. . . . . . 69 Alternative 3 - Installation of Control Measures Recommended in the Early Action — and Interim Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Alternative 4 - Implementation ofEarly, Action and Interim Plan Along with Three Additional — In- Channel Basins. . . . . . . . . 74 Alternative 5 - Installation of Foothill Basins to Obtain Floodwater Retarding Effects _ and Sedimentation Control. . . . . . . . . . . 74 Alternative 6 - Combined Installation of Alternatives 4 and 5 .................... 76 Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 CONTROLLED DEPOSITION IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 — PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 APPENDIX A - Environmental Assessment of Alternative Sedimentation Control Plans TABLES Page 1 Average Annual Sediment Produced from Upslope Areas for Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2 Average Annual Sediment Produced from Upslope Areas for Ultimate Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3 Sediment Inflow and Outflow at Various Reaches, San Diego Creek, Annual Average (Existing Conditions) . . . . . . . . 28 4 Sediment Inflow and Outflow at Various Reaches, San Diego Creek, Annual Average (Ultimate Conditions) . . . . . . . . 29 5 Sediment Generated from Upslope Areas and Sediment — Delivered to Upper Newport Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6 Trap Efficiency (Percent) Borrego Canyon Wash Reservoir, _ San Diego Creek Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7 Trap Efficiency (Percent) Two In- Channel Sedimentation Basins in Tandem, MacArthur Boulevard to Siphon - Crossing (Early Action and Interim Plan) . . . . . . . . . 60 i 8 Trap Efficiency (Percent) Five In- Channel Sedimentation — Basins in Series (Two Basins in Early Action and Interim Plan and Three Additional Proposed Basins) . . . . . 62 9 Average Annual Sediment Production and Deposition, i San Diego Creek Watershed (Existing Conditions) . . . . . . 67 10 Average Annual Sediment Production and Deposition, — Assuming All Channels Stabilized (Existing Conditions) . . . 70 11 Average Annual Sediment Production and Deposition, — Assuming All Channels Stabilized (Ultimate Conditions) . . . 71 12 Average Annual Sediment Production and Deposition With In- Channel Basins No. 2 and 3 Installed, Early _ Action and Interim Plan (Existing Conditions) . . . . . . . 73 13 Average Annual Sediment Production and Deposition With In- Channel Basins No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Installed, Alternative 4 (Existing Conditions) . . . . . . . 75 14 Average Annual Sediment Production and Deposition With Installation of 12 Foothill Basins, Alternative 5 (Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 TABLES (Continued) 15 Average Annual Sediment Production and Deposition, Combined Installation of Alternatives 4 and 5, (Existing Conditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 16 Summary of Deposition Characteristics and Costs Alternative Sedimentation Control Systems . . . . . . . . . 81 17 Sediment Inflow to Upper Newport Bay _ Existing Conditions and With Alternative 4 Installed (Average Annual) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 _ FIGURES PAGE 1 San Diego Creek Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 Present Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3 Ultimate Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4 Sediment Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5 Particle Size Distribution - Sediment Inflow to Bay . . . . . 31 6 San Diego Creek Watershed - Foothill Sedimentation Basins 34 — 7 San Diego Creek Watershed - Downstream Projects . . . . . . . 56 8 Typical Excavated Sections - In- Channel Sedimentation Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 9 San Diego Creek Watershed In- Channel Basin Structures . . . . 59 10 Sediment Deposition - Upper Newport Bay (1968 -1977) . . . . . 68 The preparation of this report was financed in part through Planning Grant No. P009325 -01 from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the provisions of section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended. M w I INTRODUCTION Substantial sediment deposition has occurred in Upper Newport Bay in recent years adversely affecting the Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve. It is considered urgent that effective actions be taken to reduce the inflow of sediment to the bay so that the ecological reserve may be effective in real- _ izing its objectives. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is a 741 -acre state reserve owned and managed by the California Department of Fish and Game. This combination of — lands and tidal marshes is a part of the system of ecological reserves in California. The Department of Fish and Game has a program of rehabilitating portions of the reserve to increase a diversity of habitat that will benefit marine aquatic organisms and other wildlife that are dependent upon tidal marshlands for their continued existence. Also included are provisions for construction of public use facilities that will be used for aesthetic, educa- tional and scientific purposes. In order to provide a basis for effective actions toward reducing the inflow of sediment into the bay, the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine have entered into a cooperative agreement with the Southern California Association of Governments to study this problem and determine solutions. Funding for this study is provided in part through a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine have entered into an agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation to conduct studies to achieve three objectives: 1. To develop an early action and interim, sedimentation control plan for Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek and its tributaries which can be approved for implementation in December 1980 and implemented in the ensuing months of 1981 prior to the onset of the 1981/82 rainy season. 2. To analyze and characterize the causes, nature and extent of the sedi- mentation problems adversely affecting Upper Newport Bay. 3. To develop a comprehensive watershed erosion and stormflow sediment control plan, with emphasis on a downstream desilting system along San Diego Creek that can be implemented in the near -term. The study identified as "The Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehen- sive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan" is divided into four parts: Part I: Early Action and Interim Control Plan Part II: Sedimentation Analysis Part III: Comprehensive Stormflow Sedimentation Control Plan, Engineering Part IV: Comprehensive Stormflow Sedimentation Control Plan, Environmental Part I: Early Action and Interim Control Plan was completed and control measures were recommended for early installation, which include two in- channel sedimenta- tion basins on San Diego Creek immediately upstream from MacArthur Boulevard and 1 an excavated basin in Upper Newport Bay immediately downstream of Jamboree Road. These measures are now being installed and their installation will be completed prior to the onset of the 1982/83 rainy season. Part II: Sedimentation Analysis, is divided into five tasks for developing the information require and inc udes a sixth task to summarize the results obtained: Task II -A: Task II -B: Task II -C: Task II -D: Task II -E: Task II -F: These tasks Hydrologic Analysis. Geomorphic Analysis Sediment Source Analysis Sediment Delivery Analysis Sediment Transport, Deposition and Scour in Newport Bay General Audience Report (Summary of Part II determinations) have been completed and reports have been submitted. Part III: Comprehensive Stormflow Sedimentation Control Plan, Engineering, is divided into nine tas s. Task III -A: Development and Preliminary Analysis of Alternatives Task III -B: Selection of Alternative Management Systems Task III -C: Comparison of Alternative Management Systems Task III -D: Technical Review and Refinement Task III -E: Report on Plan Alternatives Task III -F: Public Review of Alternatives Task III -G: Review Written Comments and Prepare Responsiveness Document Task III -H: Prepare Recommended Plan and Preliminary Draft Program EIR. Task III -I: Assist in Securing Implementation Commitments This General Audience Report summarizes the results obtained from the completion of Tasks III A -C in conformance with the require- ments of Task III -E. Part IV: Comprehensive Stormflow Sedimentation Control Plan, Environmental. tA w DEFINITION OF TERMS Antecedent Moisture Condition: The degree of wetness of a watershed at the beginning of a storm. Armored Layer: Layer of cobbles and larger -sized particles on stream bottom reducing susceptibility to channel erosion. Bed Load: Sediment that moves by saltation (jumping), rolling or sliding in the bed layer. Bed Material: The sediment mixture of which the streambed is composed. Channel Stabilization: Erosion prevention and stabilization of velocity distribution in a channel by use of impervious linings, drops, revet- ments, vegetation and other measures. Contour Line: A line joining points having or representing equal elevations. Discharge (flow): The rate at which water (or more broadly, total fluids, plus suspended sediment) passes a given point, expressed in volume per unit time (e.g., cubic feet per second, or c.f.s.). Drainage Area: The area that contributes runoff to a stream at a specified location (concentration point). Erodible: Susceptible to erosion. Erosion: Detachment and movement of the solid material from the land surface by wind, water and ice or by gravity as in landslides. In this report, erosion is related to movement by water only. _. Floodwater Retarding Structure: Dam across a water course usually designed with an uncontrolled outlet for the temporary storage of runoff. Gaging Station: A particular site on a stream, canal, lake or reservoir where systematic observations of gage height or discharge are obtained. Gully Erosion: Erosion that causes elongated depressions in the land surface through which water commonly flows only during and immediately after heavy rains. _ Hydrograph: Graphical or tabular representation of flow rate with respect to time. Hydrology: Science dealing with the properties, distribution and flow of water on or in the earth. Hydrometer Analysis: Determination of particle size distribution of the finer sediment particles (silt and clay) on the basis of settling velocities. 3 MLLW: Mean Lower Low Water datum - This is 2.56 feet below Mean Sea Level datum. Particle Size: Diameter in millimeters (mm) of a sediment grain determined by either sieve or sedimentation methods. Reach: A comparatively short length of a stream or channel. Return Period: The average number of years within which a given event will be equaled or exceeded. A 50 -year frequency flood has a 50 -year return period, and so on. Rill Erosion: Erosion causing formation of shallow channels that can be smoothed out by normal cultivation. Runoff: The portion of precipitation which is returned to the stream as surface flow. Sediment: Solid material that is derived mostly from disintegrated rocks and is transformed by, suspended in, or deposited from water. Sediment Load: Amount of sediment carried by running water. Sedimentation: Deposition of waterborne sediments due to a decrease in veloc- ity and a corresponding reduction in the size and amount of sediment which can be carried. Sedimentation Basin: Basin or pond at the upper end of a channel or reservoir to store sediment -laden water for a sufficient length of time for the sediment to be deposited. Sheet Erosion: Removal of a fairly uniform layer of soil or material from the land surface by runoff water. Sieve Analysis: Determination of particle size distribution of the coarser sediment particles by passing through sieves of various size openings. Stream Bank Erosion: Scouring of material and the cutting of channel banks by running water. Streambed Erosion: Scouring of material and cutting of channel beds by run- - ning water. Stream Gradient: The general slope or rate of change in vertical elevation per unit of horizontal distance of the water surface of a flowing stream. Suspended Load: Material moving in suspension in a fluid being kept up by the upward components of the turbulent currents or by colloidal sus- pension. Time of Concentration: Time required for water to flow from the most remote point of a watershed, in a hydraulic sense, to the outlet. 4 Wash Load: That part of the sediment load of a stream which is composed of particle sizes smaller than those found in the shifting portions of the streambed. Watershed: Total land area above a given point on a stream or waterway that contributes runoff to that point. c 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The objective of this study is to develop a comprehensive stormflow sedimen- tation control plan to reduce sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. Alter- ' native components of such a plan were considered for controlling sediment input from various parts of the watershed. Prior to agricultural and urban development in the watershed, storm runoff spread over large areas because of minimum channelization, resulting in depo- sition of the coarse sediment particles on the Tustin Plain. The outlet of San Diego Creek into Upper Newport Bay was blocked by a swamp area which caused further deposition of sediment particles. Major flood flows during early historical times were largely diverted into the Santa Ana River. With the advent of agriculture and urban uses in the watershed, drainage channels were constructed in order to carry the accumulated runoff from the watershed without causing frequent major flooding of developed areas. The channelization of the watershed provided an efficient transport system to deliver the sediment produced by the upslope areas. The coarse particles tended to deposit in channel reaches on the flatter gradients and the finer particles tended to be carried through the drainage system to be deposited in Newport Bay. Sediment production from the upslope areas has probably not increased drama- tically over historical time. However, the efficiency of sediment transport in the watershed has greatly increased over this period of time. The sedi- mentation problems have been caused by the changed locations for deposition of sediment. The accelerated increase in sediment transport into Upper New- port Bay began in the early 1960s with the construction of an outlet channel in the lower reach of San Diego Creek without provision for sedimentation controls in upstream areas. The estimated average annual sediment production from upslope areas in the San Diego Creek watershed under existing conditions is 118,300 tons. An additional 38,800 tons are produced by channel erosion. Of this total of 157,100 tons of sediment, 85,500 tons, composed largely of silt and clay particles, are delivered to Upper Newport Bay. The major sources of this sediment are open space (42 percent), and agricultural lands (41 percent). With continued urban development, there are more impermeable surfaces, such as rooftops and roads, which cause increased amounts of runoff. However, this development reduces the areas susceptible to erosion, with consequent reduction of sediment production from upslope areas. The increased runoff contains less sediment from upslope areas but increases the potential for channel erosion unless the channels are stabilized. If channel stabiliza- tion measures are required as urban development occurs, channel erosion would be reduced to amounts less than those occurring under existing condi- tions. Also, under ultimate land use conditions, most agricultural lands will have been converted to urban use and will not be a major source of sediment. However, open space under ultimate land use conditions will still be a major contributor of sediment (44 percent). Under ultimate land use 51 conditions, 64,500 tons of sediment, composed of approximately two- thirds silt and clay particles, are estimated as entering Upper Newport Bay. Best Management Practices (BMPs) on agricultural lands and construction sites are basic to a sedimentation control plan. They are currently being applied, ' with consequent reduction in the amounts of sediment that would otherwise be produced. Their further application would contribute toward reducing down- ; stream maintenance costs. Public agencies should strive to obtain improved effectiveness of these BMPs. The cost of BMPs will be borne primarily by private property owners. Imple- mentation of Agricultural and Construction BMPs should not rely on a regula- tory process alone. The cost - sharing formula discussed in the Project Implementation and Funding section of this report will provide an economic incentive for the owners of agricultural lands and construction sites to reduce sediment production from their lands. It should be noted, however, that improved land management practices alone will not result in a reduction in total sediment production from agricultural lands, construction sites and open space, that would significantly affect the need for downstream structural measures. — With the application of all land treatment measures (BMPs) specified as appro- priate by the Soil Conservation Service for agricultural crops on lands having various soil and slope characteristics, there would still be large amounts of sediment produced by these lands. 'If the growing of agricultural crops were discontinued on all lands in the watershed and they were reestablished as open space, it is estimated that the average annual sediment production would be reduced by 31,900 tons, which would represent a 24 percent reduction in the total sediment produced by the watershed under existing conditions. How- ever, this changed land use would cause adverse economic impacts far greater than those produced by sediment production associated with agricultural crop- ping of these areas. Converting agricultural lands to irrigated pasture could reduce sediment from these lands, but is also unlikely to occur because of the severe economic impacts. Assuming that the entire watershed had remained as open space (no agriculture or urban development), large amounts of sediment would still be produced. On the basis of estimated open space sediment production rates, the average annual sediment production from the total watershed would be about 105,700 tons. This is about 79 percent of the amount estimated to be produced by the water- shed under existing conditions and about 150 percent of the amount estimated to be produced under conditions of ultimate development. Upstream engineering for this study was intended primarily to control the sediment inflow from the foothill areas. Dual - purpose floodwater retarding sedimentation basins were considered for 12 locations to control a combined total drainage area of 16.43 square miles. The silt and clay particles trapped by these basins would be a net reduction in sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. However, the costs of these developments must be justified primarily by floodwater retarding benefits from reducing channel capacity requirements downstream from the basins. 7 Valley engineering considered the effects of channel stabilization measures an excavated as ins in the valley as ways to reduce sediment inflows to Upper Newport Bay. Channel stabilization measures are necessary for effec- tive flood control and drainage but would not reduce significantly the amounts of sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. Channel - eroded sediment is composed primarily of sand particles which are largely redeposited in channel reaches on the flatter gradients. Excavated basins in the valley area would not be effective because they would trap only the coarser particles which would other- wise deposit in downstream channel reaches upstream from Newport Bay. Downstream en ineerin considered opportunities for maximizing sediment depo- sition rom o0 ows before they enter Upper Newport Bay, and for managing deposition within the bay so as to minimize the detrimental effects on the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The installation of additional in -chan- nel sedimentation basins similar to those being installed under the Interim Plan were determined as the most feasible way to provide control of sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. Additional excavated basins in the area between The Narrows and the old salt works dike appear to be the most effective way to control sediment deposition within the Upper Bay compatible with the objectives of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. In the near term structural solutions such as downstream in- channel sedimenta- tion basins and excavated in -bay basins will be the most cost effective means of managing the sediment produced in the watershed, and thus preventing further degradation of Newport Bay. Longer term sedimentation reductions will result from conversion of agricul- tural lands to urban uses, stabilization of channels as urbanization occurs, and construction of foothill basins to intercept sediment produced by the foothill areas. The six alternative management systems considered are summarized as follows: 1. No Project. This alternative assumes that no measures will be installed to reduce sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. It is projected that deposition — will complete the filling of the bay upstream from The Narrows causing the area to become a mud flat. The sediment particles will then deposit in the lower areas of the bay. 2. Channel Stabilization Measures Only. This alternative includes the stabilization of all channels in the water- shed so as to eliminate all channel erosion. These measures alone would reduce the average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay under existing conditions by about 7 percent with essentially all of the reduction being sand particles. Under conditions of ultimate develop- ment, these measures would reduce the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay by about 27 percent, essentially all of which would be sand particles. F, Channel stabilization measures are justified primarily for flood control objectives to provide better flood protection and reduce maintenance costs. They will cause reduced sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay especially under conditions of ultimate development. 3. Implementation of the Early Action and Interim Plan Only. Two in- channel sedimentation basins upstream from MacArthur Boulevard and an excavated basin in the old salt evaporation pond area adjacent to Jamboree Road are now being installed. The two in- channel sedimentation basins are estimated to reduce the average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay by about 29 percent when the basins are operating at full trap efficiency. About 54 percent of this material is silt with the remainder composed of sand particles. The combined capacities of these basins are not adequate to assure good trap efficiencies during a major storm or when the deposited sediment is allowed to fill a large part of the available capacity. The excavated basin in the old salt evaporation pond area is estimated to cause the deposition of about 26 percent of the remaining sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay after the installation of the two in- channel basins. 4. Implementation of the Early Action and Interim Plan Along with Three Additional In- Channel Basins. Three additional in- channel sedimentation basins would be installed between the siphon crossing into Michelson Treatment Plant and the junction of San Diego Creek with Peters Canyon Wash. The total of five in- channel sedimentation basins are estimated to reduce the average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay by about 38 percent. About 64 percent of this material is silt with the remainder composed of sand particles. The increased capacities provided by the three additional basins will assure the maintenance of better trap efficiencies. The excavated basin in the old salt evaporation pond area is estimated to cause the deposition of about 27 percent of the remaining sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. 5. Installation of Foothill Basins to Obtain Floodwater Retarding Effects and Sedimentation Control. The installation of the 12 foothill basins considered would trap about 17,700 cu. yds. of silt and clay particles on an average annual basis, which would represent a 21 percent reduction in the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. The installation costs of these basins would have to be justified primarily by floodwater retarding benefits in reducing channel capacity requirements downstream. 6. The Combined Installation of Alternatives 4 and 5. The combined installation of the Early Action and Interim Plan with three additional in- channel basins along with the 12 foothill basins would cause a 44 percent reduction in the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. This is only about a 6 percent additional reduction than with Alternative 4 alone. With Alternative 4, a high percentage of the silt particles that would be trapped by the foothill basins is trapped by the in- channel basins. These analyses have indicated that the least cost alternative for reducing the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay is Alternative 4. Estimated capital invest- ment costs to install the three additional in- channel basins is $2,000,000. Estimated average annual maintenance costs to remove all sediment deposited in channel reaches on the flatter gradients and the in- channel basins is $313,200. The increased cost to remove the additional sediment deposited in the basins over that to remove normal channel deposition ($214,800) is $98,400. The aver- - age annual maintenance cost for removing the sediment deposited in the excava- ted basin below Jamboree Road is $105,000 (14,000 cu. yds @$7.50 per cu. yd.). This is a minimum estimated cost and may be considerably higher depending on the method used and requirements for disposal. Additional excavated ponds in Upper Bay would be effective in localizing the deposition of sediment and reducing the amounts that will continue into lower areas of the bay. The most acceptable location appears to be in the area be- tween The Narrows and the old salt works dike. Under conditions of ultimate development with the installation of Alternative 4, the additional installation — of channel stabilization measures and the foothill basins will greatly reduce the amounts of sand particles entering the stream system. This will cause reduced maintenance costs for removal of deposited materials in the basins and channel reaches on the flatter gradients. Implementation of the recommended plan will require funding for the installation of the proposed measures and for continued maintenance. The institutional, fi- nancial and legal procedures for effective implementation of the plan must be established. The equitable financing for the capital investment and maintenance costs requires recognition of both the sources of sediment being deposited in Upper Newport Bay and the benefits that will accrue to public and private interests by preventing further degradation of and /or restoring desirable conditions in the bay. In order to implement and coordinate a comprehensive plan, it is recommended that a Joint Powers Agreement be entered into between the following parties: County of Orange City of Newport Beach . — City of Irvine State Department of Fish and Game The Joint Powers Agreement should provide for the effective implementation of the Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan. The proposed procedures are described in the "Project Implementation and Funding" section of this report. 10 DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERSHED The San Diego Creek watershed, from which the runoff discharges into Upper Newport Bay, has a drainage area of about 118 square miles (75,500 acres). The total drainage area into Newport Bay is about 154 square miles (98,500 acres). This includes the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel and other areas which drain directly into the bay. There are three different geographical areas within the watershed: the rugged foothills, the flat alluvial Tustin Plain, and the Coastal Plain (Figure 1). The foothill areas have slopes ranging from 15 to 75 percent and an average annual rainfall of about 17 inches. The predominant land uses are for cattle grazing and wildlife areas. They include the major erosion hazard areas in the watershed because of the steep slopes, higher rainfall intensities, and soil and cover characteristics. Severe sheet erosion occurs in areas having limited cover protection and erosive actions occur in unstable channel sections. The alluvial plain has slopes ranging from 0 to 15 percent and average annual rainfall of about 13 inches. The predominant land use is for high -value agri- cultural production including citrus fruits, avocados, truck crops, grain, and nurseries. The soils in this area are generally very erosive, but because of the flatter slopes and managed land use, erosion is controlled except for the high intensity storms. The eroded material from these areas is composed predominantly of the finer particles which are difficult to trap and tend to continue through the watershed to Upper Newport Bay. The Coastal Plain also has the flatter slopes and average annual precipitation of about 13 inches. This area is largely urbanized with minimal erosion. San Diego Creek has two major tributaries of about equal size. Peters Canyon Wash includes Peters Canyon, Rattlesnake Canyon and Hicks Canyon Washes which have their headwaters in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. Elevations range from about 40 feet at its junction with San Diego Creek to a peak above Hicks Canyon with an elevation of 1775 feet. Stream gradients range from 32O feet per mile in Hicks Canyon to less than 10 feet per mile along Peters Can- yon Wash near its junction with San Diego Creek. The valley is a flat alluvial plain with an average slope of 2 percent. The existing channels are well de- fined and have been improved somewhat for agricultural drainage. These channels have been located for the convenience of agriculture and do not always follow the natural drainage pattern of the land. As a result, when the channels reach their capacities, excess flows will break away from the channels and sheet flow across the alluvial plain. The total drainage area of Peters Canyon Wash above its junction with San Diego Creek is about 44 square miles. Above its junction with Peters Canyon Wash, San Diego Creek extends in an easterly direction to include Bee Canyon, Round Canyon, Agua Chinon Wash, Borrego Canyon Wash and Serrano Creek, all of which have their headwaters in the Santiago Hills. The streams from these headwater areas flow southwestward across an alluvial plain into San Diego Creek. Elevations range from about 40 feet at its junction with Peters Canyon Wash to a peak above Round Canyon 11 .r S/S A u/D, o� y o. � J ea °oy�.• m ARE/ 1 a N I C J ID L N m CL m C O U O J l6 a c 0 m a m N d F- Q W x N N W H a Y W W N V V W Z- a N with an elevation of 1770 feet. Stream gradients range from 140 feet per mile in Bee Canyon to about 30 feet per mile immediately above its junction with Peters Canyon Wash. The valley, including the U.S. Marine Air Base, is an alluvial plain with an average slope of 2 percent. The existing channels are well defined and have been improved somewhat for agricultural drainage. As on Peters Canyon Wash, they have been located for the convenience of agriculture and do not always follow the natural drainage pattern of the land. When these channels reach their capacities, excess flows will overtop the channels and sheet flow across the alluvial plain. The total drainage area of San Diego Creek above its junction with Peters Canyon Wash is about 46 square miles. The channel gradient on San Diego Creek downstream from the San Diego Freeway is quite flat (S= 0.0009 foot /foot, approximately). The San Diego Creek watershed is rapidly changing from agricultural use to urban development. The major areas of urban development are on the westerly portion of the watershed, primarily in the Peters Canyon Wash drainage area. It is anticipated that within the next 30 to 40 years the lands will be entirely in urban uses except for the rugged foothill areas. — The Santa Ana -Delhi Channel drains an area of about 18 square miles adjacent to the western edge of the San Diego Creek watershed. This channel discharges directly into Upper Newport Bay. The area is almost totally urbanized. Other small drainage areas discharge directly into Newport Bay. The photographs on the following pages show some of the characteristics of the San Diego Creek watershed related to sediment production, transport and deposition. 13 1 C v z�+'; f }•y. t ,!' ?f F uA ip. ' } � g _ �: .. �� z: s. u�-��. Z3�,. y °.: s� W3� � �4 a d 'tY 5�['ix* � S � XS .. �T ..fit i��$4 k tG� iij L y, _. .r 1 Y�♦ ��'.� j..er,.X� .. a ro ��- f p � _ % ,y^E' � =� '. a � ,._ k "� �. y �'�� _�`h�'S fw 3. < r Ay. :,.�,� >c r k; � .' '^ _ ��� A �f �P�,.._ r' } }. � a; �' �� ' M .y a � .' -kK .�'.; 4. '^ _ ��� A �f �P�,.._ r' ':1!1. .'.iY 'Yti3 - 1 � �.... . �I � 1 .`f . ^, s . ^ y:.. t 1 �Tt 4 ��"" I: � � � s, � ox�a � t .�'� �� .� „��i J� Yom' �: ;� -•.. 1 Y � ) ^l 1"'T•n 1 l a �.. P��e ,' r .y r ;�� �� t�. ��� . � �i ` .1 ... 1 �� �': e '. / r y -_ J°n � YIP! + •� .. ._ �� y�Mr'�—�� 1 ��\�r���i �.. 1r.r� ~ ^��'r z'S V� �r �a'Sa y.T � �Hw- �.I it ti �.���hl"R+T ��, _ 4.r�'�" /t,.I / � 4 st.Pe � �^"�f "*"fir" �F � M tom.., ! �'�. , . � ,, .�.. °4.• �..�. �^ � � � ^. n y r i e �, i� .� .. -` �ny P, �r \MF' �� � �, '.f � p +'� .��±x't r ti .- �„ �,. <,' �� Typical new orchards planted on the contour in the foothills areas View from the foothill area of the alluvial plain I? Foothill Area —The more rugged terrain Foothill Area— general view of the non - agricultural area 2— o SEDIMENTATION PROBLEMS Changes in land use over historical times have accelerated the processes of erosion and sediment transport in the San Diego Creek watershed. The lands in the watershed were parts of three Spanish ranches and used primarily for grazing cattle. More extensive commercial agriculture became important after 1900 and extensive drainage and irrigation development began. Land use in the watershed has become progressively more intensive in the years since 1930. This more intensive use relates to agricultural use as well as urban use. At present, (1979 -1980 data) approximately 23 percent of the water- shed is in agricultural uses, 47 percent is urbanized, 28 percent is open space and two percent is in areas where construction is in progress (Figure 2). When the natural cover in the watershed is removed for agricultural purposes, especially for clean - cultivated crops, the land becomes more susceptible to sheet and rill erosion. With the provision of drainage ditches, both local and trunk, this eroded material is more efficiently transported through the watershed and sedimentation tends to occur in the lower reaches of the water- shed rather than locally. Also, the development of the drainage system has converted the alluvial plain from a sediment sink to a sediment source. When urban development occurs, there is a limited period during the construction phase when the land is highly susceptible to erosion. However, when these urban developments mature with paved surfaces, landscaping and stabilized channels, sediment production is greatly reduced as compared with natural conditions. Ultimate conditions of development assumes the maximum urban use of the San _ Diego Creek watershed that is probable to occur. This was estimated on the basis of the combined consideration of the Orange County General Plan as amended November 1979; the City of Irvine General Plan approved September 1977 and amended February 1978; and the Plan for Development by The Irvine Company dated February 1980. The City of Irvine General Plan includes a 4,000 -acre area in permanent agricultural use as is shown in Figure 3. This reservation was prompted by the noise problem related to the E1 Toro Marine Air Base. On the basis that changed conditions in the future may cause changed attitudes as to the need for this agricultural reserve, the analysis for sediment pro- duction and delivery assumes that it will eventually be in urban use. However, in Table 2, the amount of the larger sediment production with the 4,000 acres in permanent agricultural use is shown by footnote. Under these anticipated ultimate conditions, urbanized areas will comprise 81 percent of the watershed, 8 percent will be rural, and 11 percent will remain open space. No land was assumed to be used for agriculture. Sheet and rill erosion removes valuable topsoil from the lands. The eroded materials cause many additional problems as they are transported and deposited at various locations within the watershed. Deposition within channel sections _ reduce their capacities and require expensive maintenance to remove the depos- ited materials. In the San Diego Creek watershed, substantial deposition has 21 c u cc so 4 4 C3 4 4 w: Z 4 m w ao Z w O4 z a Z =3 Z 0 0 0 D Z Z D Z w M m z w 0 0 0 1 FIGURE 2 2, 2 Mm m W M awl � C I♦ � „ ) >)) .'•, "., �.. „7x3" . . ) ' • fix:•' .xfz�. ... .:;g'N�� . n <<Vv: i .csaS ) ') i'�sa� '^x�n�� �'`4,5e i Goa . : • ;1(,)� , , �> > L.� �'yysyrt.c�' �� p �' � •��'. O- .. ' �3r� "x3 .:; ; ,) > . h 7 � x"r�j."r�`. %Y, l5 ✓i �'x,�� :s�g�" k .yx� , Z ` Q 2 {i` ,,rs r.Z s' rF c;' )^r9i �� Y `� C 7y' :c r r�.rba yx ♦ • ::\ J w Z �) ti ? yi. y 4.✓5 , Y /' x y r ✓ ki C i ` 4 PxzL W W J ✓.... Y`Fw's )r_ Nn ,F r irr� nl c s✓: S � Q ) ) X r h ✓'&�'yv s.E `5y ^ J,Ty�li. ).gym . ✓z �✓ �,'ys :a' � l .. S k— W�5s� r3'.� ✓���a ✓ ai.` ryf��%✓ ©� ' r < C �l Q f— J Z �n .','�'a'�'X^c"< .sirs Y S r'.y,Yi✓ Y s / (A HO U LLI W � C7 W Q Z ow UZ(X ° x p J f a w- .... (. W m m m W W)— a ~J J»¢ o a G a 3 mm QpOG�,4 FIGURE -23 a occurred in Upper Newport Bay in recent years. This deposition has adversely affected the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The sediment source and delivery analyses in this study have provided estim- ates of sediment production and the transport and deposition characteristics of these materials (see Technical Memorandum, Part II - Tasks II -C and II -D). The sediment source analysis indicates the amounts of sediment that will enter the stream system. The sediment delivery analysis provides information on the transport characteristics of the total sediment load. The sediment production rates for each of the 84 subdrainage areas in the watershed have been estimated for the 2 -, 5 -, 10 -, 25 -, 50- and 100 -year return period storms and for the average annual. Particle size fractions are indica- ted for each of these determinations. This information identifies the major sediment producing areas under existing conditions.and indicates the changes in sediment production that are estimated to occur with ultimate development. The sediment source analysis has provided estimates of sediment produced in the foothill and valley areas for storms of various return periods and average annual for existing conditions and for conditions with ultimate development. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the estimated average annual sediment production from upslope areas for existing and ultimate conditions. These estimates indicate that under existing conditions, the foothill areas produce about two- thirds of of sediment from only about 28 percent of the total drainage area into Upper Newport Bay; and that under conditions of ultimate development, they will produce about 88 percent of the total. See Figure 4. Sediment production rates for land use categories are different for existing and ultimate conditions because of the changed characteristics of the combinations of lands included. Urban lands will include lands with steeper slopes and the lands remaining in open space will include only those lands with very steep slopes not suitable for development under anticipated ultimate conditions. The transport capabilities of a streamflow are largely dependent upon the velocities and the particle sizes of the sediment. The larger size particles tend to deposit when the velocities are reduced and the capacity of the flow to transport them is exceeded. The smaller particles (silt and clay) generally — tend to continue in the flows until they reach a ponding area with adequate time to allow deposition. The capacity of a streamflow to transport silt and clay is not generally exceeded. The amounts transported are dependent on the _ supply available. Consequently, as the velocities of streamflows decrease and increase the flows tend to alternately deposit the coarser sediment particles and erode coarser sediment particles from the stream section as available. The silt and clay particles generally remain in the flows and are transported to a ponding area such as Newport Bay. — Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the sediment transport characteristics of San Diego Creek under existing and ultimate conditions. Under existing conditions (Table _ 3) it is indicated that the sediment inflow to the stream system is augmented by additional sediment (27,400 tons) from channel erosion in the reach upstream from Sand Canyon Avenue. In the reach between Sand Canyon Avenue and the junc- tion with Peters Canyon Wash it is indicated that the sediment inflow exceeds — 24 N Q F- W Z d' W Q to � W p w a W O F- N J J d Z W Q O C C m O u J U m Z L, Q ZO C7 F- QC Z W W �-- C7 O V) Q W G' V X W c W 9 cm Q O K d N C O O F- Lo l0 M m Ol a+ O a M rn r4 V O In iA O O L � Y � �O C Y O/ O E O' O O O O JO O O \ M tO m Ol N N w w O O E 0 N O O, d L N M O M 03 to N C C O O Ol U7 l0 Cn Ol Y M 4 N a Lc V O N 3 O O O L m N Y f IO L C O O O O Q OJ Q m OO cY O M E N N o+ O a d ^ N 0 O/ C O Ip M O Ql L M t.O tp N r\ O N C O O F UO m l0 O Y O N O O V m V O l0 M m O O .- M L N L Q Y � C N E O" O O O O JO ' O L \ OD l!'! N N Y (D N O C .-- M Cn N O O W H m M: w cu L m OD M Or N V) C m O O) L V � Y N G O N J L C O L 1J C F O G Cn L J O Q =D U � N d L L O N Y L C O Y V 3 V O L G w O N O) 'o L N Q) Q) Y L 01 Q) 3 \I m N N Q w Q �N L Z ..w o p d w O F- (n J N to p J d Z w Q CL' O J =D O U m Z M: U- < Z O W F- W Q Q W � CC U J W � � > p Q O d 0J C G'1 C ro ro L C O C O M N ro n Y CP Y f 7 O V CD M •r t � N E E c O t d Y r ro ro ro ro C 4 Y w c I 0 E O' 00 O O O N Ol O W O O O V N ro > N C N r 0 O O C) w Y ro F n n to rn V O T L t1') O N OJ r U V L N � d Y O L 0 Y L c YL]O C C N w 00 1p 01 M W Y N n O 00 UCD Y C) 0J I� OJ ro CD Q) w w n a r c o o G V O O p N aj 3 - aj L > Y N C Y N CL E 00 E -0 � r N• r Y ro r Y ro Y 0 O Q! Y ro L IO L C O O O F L O O Q 0J IT O �o 00 co E ct M C L Y V Cn O n � > 0 L L Y E-0 Q r ro•r .ro > N O ro V Y C N ro N ro f lt') N 00 lf) I Cf L C O $ L t0 O O J Q �� O O V) Ml N c o O W C 00 T Y CD W 0l M U N N p 3 0 O ro L L r Q Y C IO E Q O O O O to O O L V O n Y Ql N O C M N O O W L Cn O p N N IL U 0) ro H Q \ ::D h N� C J C ro ro Q H J O O 129: F- 0J C G'1 ro ro L C > r > ro CP Y •r t � E E c L r t ro ro ro r L L 4 Y w c O N L C7 Q1 N Ol 41 QJ L V •r ro > O + C O O C) w Y .. p V O T N 00 L Y � ro r U V L 3 c o d Y O L 0 Y L c YL]O N w E c ro p n O A n O 01 Y y C O O O C Y C) 0J I� OJ ro Q) w w n a r c o o G V O p N aj 3 - aj Y n ro > Y N C Y N U E 00 E -0 � r N• r Y Y ro Y 0 O U ro ro L > L F L O O C w O 0 L w v O N n -0 C L Y V Cn O n � > 0 L L Y E-0 Q r ro•r .ro > > V Y C N ro N Y Q) •r � •r I Cf L C O $ C O C C O 01 p ro m •r J 3 �� Nj Ml 27 a C O _r C O -U Im C w X W N C O w .O C O U m r+ N 'r+ G a u 0 c u ■ M a 0 O ■ 0 r u u n N Z O P ZD OZ �O UU � W � F- Oa =2 aF � J Z:) Wp 2Z Ca W (3 N Z F- _N X W 4 TABLE 3 SEDIMENT INFLOW AND OUTFLOW AT VARIOUS REACHES SAN DIEGO CREEK ANNUAL AVERAGE (EXISTING CONDITIONS) TOTAL SEDIMENT DELIVERED 85.5 43 39 17 1 TO UPPER NEWPORT BAY NEI j" 1117111' r U l - L I L I JILL UIb Lr -I UULI UrI 1k) Location Inflow and Outflow Fine Coarse (1,000 Tons) Clay Silt Sand Sand San Diego Creek above Sand Canyon Avenue Inflow 60.8 28 36 26 11 Outflow 88.2 19 25 42 14 San Diego Creek between conf. with Peters Cyn. — Wash and Sand Cyn. Ave. Inflow 91.3 20 25 41 14 Outflow 46.2 40 49 10 1 - Peters Cyn. Wash above the conf. with E1 Modena Irvine Channel Inflow 18.5 38 39 18 5 Outflow 26.8 26 27 30 17 E1 Modena Irvine Channel Inflow 5.8 27 39 18 5 Outflow 6.5 24 34 33 8 —. Peters Canyon between the conf. of San Diego Creek and E1 Modena Irvine Channel Inflow 36.3 27 30 29 14 Outflow 38.7 27 28 39 7 San Diego Creek between I Campus Dr. and the conf. with Peters Canyon Wash Inflow 91.5 34 39 23 4 Outflow 86.7 35 41 21 2 San Diego Creek between Jamboree Rd. and Campus Dr. Inflow 100.9 35 40 22 3 Outflow 79.2 45 41 14 0 — TOTAL SEDIMENT DELIVERED 85.5 43 39 17 1 TO UPPER NEWPORT BAY NEI TABLE 4 SEDIMENT INFLOW AND OUTFLOW AT VARIOUS REACHES SAN DIEGO CREEK ANNUAL AVERAGE (ULTIMATE CONDITIONS) San Diego Creek between JCLL IIIICiI I. rQ1611.iC OILC Ul]1.1 -1 UUb1UR Location Inflow and Outflow Fine Coarse (1,000 Tons) Clay Silt Sand Sand 21 24 46 9 Outflow 65.1 24 San Diego Creek above 46 3 San Diego Creek between Sand Canyon Avenue Jamboree Rd. and Campus Dr. Inflow 36.4 30 36 17 16 Outflow 98.3 11 13 56 19 San Diego Creek between conf. with Peters Cyn. Wash and Sand Cyn. Ave. Inflow 98.5 11 14 56 19 Outflow 32.1 35 41 21 2 Peters Cyn. Wash above the conf. with E1 Modena Irvine Channel Inflow 7.8 37 36 16 11 Outflow 25.6 11 11 57 21 El Modena Irvine Channel Inflow 1.2 48 52 0 0 Outflow 5.7 10 11 65 15 Peters Canyon between the conf. of San Diego Creek and El Modena Irvine Channel Inflow 31.8 12 11 58 19 Outflow 38.3 10 9 68 13 San Diego Creek between - Campus Dr. and the conf. with Peters Canyon Wash Inflow 72.7 21 24 46 9 Outflow 65.1 24 27 46 3 San Diego Creek between Jamboree Rd. and Campus Dr. Inflow 71.5 25 28 44 3 Outflow 56.8 32 35 32 1 TOTAL SEDIMENT DELIVERED 64.5 30 32 36 2 TO UPPER NEWPORT BAY C the sediment outflow by 45,100 tons (deposition). This is the Woodbridge Chan- nel reach with grade stabilization structures which require continuing mainten- ance to remove deposited materials. These characteristics of deposition and erosion are indicated for other reaches of San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash in this table. Similarly, Table 4 indicates the deposition and erosion that is anticipated to occur under ultimate conditions, assuming that appropriate channel stabili- zation measures have not been installed. Under conditions of ultimate develop- ment the streamflows will be much larger, particularly for the more frequently occurring storms. Sheet and rill erosion will be greatly reduced and the streamflows will have increased capacities for additional coarse sediment than under existing conditions because of the reduced inputs from upslope areas and the higher velocities and volumes of runoff. Consequently, more channel erosion will occur than under existing conditions if channel stabilization measures are not installed as urban development occurs. The coarse particles of this channel - eroded material along with the other coarse sediment particles will tend to be deposited in channel reaches with flat gradients. However, it is estimated that more coarse sediment particles will be discharged into Upper Newport Bay under ultimate conditions than under existing conditions. Table 5 summarizes the estimates of sediment generated from upslope areas and sediment delivered to Upper Newport Bay from the San Diego Creek watershed. Under existing conditions, less sediment is delivered to Upper Newport Bay than is generated from upslope areas because of net deposition in the channel sections. Under ultimate conditions it is estimated that more sediment will be delivered to Upper Newport Bay than is generated from upslope areas because of the net addition of coarse sediment from channel erosion. Figure 5 illustrates the particle size distribution of the estimated average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay under existing and ultimate con- ditions. TABLE 5 SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT GENERATED FROM UPSLOPE AREAS AND SEDIMENT DELIVERED TO UPPER NEWPORT BAY (1000 Tons) txisting ultimate Silt & Coarser Silt & Coarser Clay Sediment Total Clay Sediment Total Sediment generated 78.0 40.3 118.3 39.0 23.5 from upslope areas* Sediment delivered 71.0 14.5 85.5 40.0 to Upper Newport Bay *excluding drainage areas above the major reservoirs: snake, Siphon, Laguna, and Sand Canyon reservoirs. 30 24.5 62.5 64.5 Peters Canyon, Rattle- 31 W Z H O Q � Z JU � U U Z Z_ O F-- F- M Q X Z W O U I� r u 0 • 0 0 0 u i The sediment produced by channel erosion is predominantly coarse and fine sands with small amounts of silt and clay. The eroded materials tend to redeposit in reaches of the channels with flatter gradients. The average annual amounts of sand particles produced by channel erosion under existing conditions is estimated to be about 95 percent of the amounts produced by upslope areas (38,200 tons vs. 40,300 tons). Under ultimate conditions, it is estimated to be about 386 percent of the amounts produced by the upslope areas (90,700 tons vs. 23,500 tons). - These relationships indicate that accelerated channel erosion will occur as development occurs unless coordinated channel stabilization measures are in- stalled. However, under existing conditions, the coarse particles that com- pose channel eroded materials are not a major contributor to sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. The silt and clay components of the sediment produced from the upslope areas are over 80 percent of the sediment estimated to enter the Bay. Channel stabilization measures are urgent primarily to maintain a flood control and drainage system within the area. Without such measures it would be very difficult to maintain control of runoff. Some channel reaches will be eroded to sections difficult to control while other reaches will have deposition problems which reduce the channel capacities unless they are repeatedly cleared of the deposited materials. 32 _ COMPONENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CONTROL OF SEDIMENTATION PROBLEMS A management system for the control of sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay will be composed of measures to control sediment production and measures to trap sediment after it has been produced to prevent its continuing downstream into Upper Newport Bay. Following is a discussion of the component alternatives considered for the control of sedimentation problems in the Upper Newport Bay Watershed. Upstream Engineering As is shown in Table 1 and Figure 4, the foothill area of the watershed pro- duces about 66 percent of the sediment from about 28 percent of the total watershed area under existing conditions. A portion of this sediment produced in the foothill area may be trapped by foothill sedimentation basins and kept from entering the channel system in the valley area. The locations of 12 possible foothill basins are shown on Figure 6. To be effective in trapping significant amounts of sediment, particularly the the finer particles, the basins should have fairly large capacities to provide retention time for the flood flows with consequent reduction of velocities. This requirement indicates the desirability of developing dual - purpose reser- voirs for floodwater retarding and sediment control. Reservoirs with capaci- ties to provide effective floodwater retarding will provide the characteris- tics that will be effective in trapping sediment particles. For this analysis of floodwater retarding possibilities for dam sites within the foothill area, it has been assumed that with reservoir floodwater retard- ing capacities equal to the volumes of the 3 -hour duration 100 -year return period storm runoff that the estimated outflow rates from the principal spill- - ways from the dams could be controlled to one -third of the estimated peak flows for the 24 -hour duration 100 -year return period storm. This appears conservative on the basis of studies made for a floodwater retarding reservoir on the Borrego Canyon Wash watershed. The reconnaissance -type site informa- tion available for these dam sites indicates that these capacities could be provided. — The major economic justification for the installation of these foothill basins will be the reduced costs for downstream channel improvements. These reduced costs will be based on the reduced channel capacity requirements caused by — floodwater retarding. The reductions will be greatest through the drainage areas immediately downstream from the reservoirs, ranging from 90 to 95 per- cent of the unretarded peak flows. As additional uncontrolled flood flows from tributary drainage areas enter the channels the proportionate reductions from those that would occur without floodwater retarding will be progressively less. 33 N T. 20 P NO.NIHO Vfl`JV_ \.. O Q m DO 0 O' O �NNOA.NVO 3NVNS3l11Vki l �� rte- __ — � �\ o- ° \ NOANVO ` 0... _ HSbM / O O r Y z z ¢ ¢ v v W W H H w w a d \ 4 \1 N s ` z 0 r z ¢ z V O Y Y z z z z r w w w o o 0 o z z w w Y Y Y Z r } O ¢ C ¢ z z o z z r v v v z ¢ ¢ r ¢ ¢ z N V U Z U V ¢ O O O CD CD CD CD w w (m = d' ¢ 00 to Vl w s in cc w Q Q Y W W Ir U 0 w z Q N T T IfY z I __ N Q ' m z O F.. Q F- z W O W N J J F O O LL N HURE M Trap efficiencies of these reservoirs to remove sediment particles from the flood flows were estimated on the basis of the estimated trap efficiency of the Borrego Canyon Wash reservoir for which the parameters are available because of the more detailed study information. The estimated trap efficien- cies for this reservoir are shown on Table 6. It is indicated that essentially all of the sand and silt particles would be trapped along with relatively small amounts of clay. The deposition characteristics of the flood flows into the Borrego Canyon reser- voir were estimated on the basis of a reservoir capacity equal to the runoff volume of the 3 -hour duration 100 -year return period storm and with the reser- voir outflow rate equal to one -third the estimated peak flow for the 24 -hour duration 100 -year return period storm. In that the reservoir capacities and outflow rates for all of the foothill basins were established using the same hydrologic criteria, the trap efficiencies determined for the Borrego Canyon reservoir have been assumed for all of the foothill basins. _ This analysis indicates that these basins would trap 7 percent of the clay, 98 percent of the silt and 100 percent of the sand particles. If all of the basins were installed, the total amounts of sediment that would be trapped on an average annual basis are: Clay - 950 tons 0.6 ac. ft. Silt - 16,750 tons 10.4 ac. ft. Fine Sand - 9,300 tons 5.8 ac. ft. Coarse Sand - 6,000 tons 3.7 ac. ft. 1/ 33,000 tons 20.5 ac, ft.— 1/ Assumes one ton sediment equal to one cubic yard The 9.5 acre -feet of sand particles trapped would tend to be replaced by sand particles eroded from channel sections downstream from the basins. They would be susceptible to deposition in stream reaches with the flatter gradients or in in- channel debris basins installed upstream from MacArthur Boulevard. However, these amounts of sand particles would be deposited twice at locations requiring periodic removal and their deposition at the basin sites would encourage channel erosion unless coordinated channel stabilization measures were installed. Y The 11 acre -feet of silt and clay would not be replaced to a significant extent and would represent a net reduction of the average annual amounts of silt and clay discharged into Upper Newport Bay. The estimated average annual amount of silt and clay entering Upper Newport Bay is 43.5 acre -feet. The amounts deposited in the foothill basins would represent a 25 percent reduction of silt and clay entering the bay. 35 TABLE 6 TRAP EFFICIENCY (PERCENT) BORREGO CANYON WASH RESERVOIR SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED Floodflows 24 -Hour Dur. e urn PeaK Trap Efficiency (Percent)* Period Discharge Fine Coarse Years cfs Clay Silt Sand Sand 2 115 13 100 100 100 5 310 11 98 100 100 10 470 6 98 100 100 25 670 5 98 100 100 50 1000 3 97 100 100 100 1160 3 97 100 100 Average Annual ---------- - - - - -- 7 98 100 100 *Average Particle Sizes Coarse sand 0.50 mm Fine Sand 0.12 mm Silt 0.024 mm Clay 0.0015 mm 36 Costs to install these foothill basins were estimated on the basis of esti- mates that were made for previous studies of the basins. The estimated total cost for these 12 basins, excluding costs for land rights and relocation of utilities, is $10,878,200. These 12 reservoirs have a combined total capacity of 1985 acre -feet to emer- gency spillway crest elevations including 315 acre -feet of capacity for sedi- ment accumulation. The estimated cost per acre -foot of total capacity is $5480. If all costs were allocated to sediment storage capacity the installa- tion cost per acre -foot of capacity provided would be about $34,500. These costs will be considerably larger when the costs for land rights and reloca- tion of utilities are included. It is apparent that these reservoirs cannot be economically justified as single- purpose reservoirs for sediment accumulation. However, it is probable that at least some of them can be economically justified by the reduction in channel improvement costs downstream because of the reduced capacity requirements from floodwater retarding. Valley Engineering _ In the San Diego Creek tributaries above Sand Canyon Avenue the sedimentation analysis has indicated that about 27,400 cu. yds. of material are eroded from channel sections on an average annual basis (Table 3). Essentially all of this eroded material is fine and coarse sands. It is estimated.that the total sediment passing the Sand Canyon Avenue gaging station on an average annual basis is 88,200 cu. yds., including 60,800 cu. yds of sediment produced from upslope areas. The sediment produced from upslope areas includes an estimated 38,910 tons of silt and clay and 21,890 tons of fine and coarse sands. The sands eroded from the channel sections (27,400 tons) along with the sand particles from the upslope areas (21,890 tons) indicate that a total of 49,290 tons of sand particles are included in the flood flows that pass this concentration point on an average annual basis. The remainder of the 88,200 tons passing this concentration point (38,910 tons) is silt and clay particles. Channel stabilization measures that would eliminate channel erosion would reduce the sand particles by 27,400 tons to 21,890 tons (the sand particles produced from the upslope areas). Under existing conditions this large sediment load of sand particles is causing difficult channel maintenance problems in the channel reach between Sand Canyon Avenue and the confluence of San Diego Creek with Peters Canyon Wash. This includes the reach adjacent to the Woodbridge development con- = trolled with drop structures which require sediment removal at frequent intervals. Table 3 indicates that 45,100 tons of material, essentially all sand particles, are deposited in this reach on an average annual basis. Except for the major floods, relatively small amounts of sand particles continue beyond this reach. 37 Additional deposition of sand particles, primarily from Peters Canyon Wash, — occurs in the channel reach between the junction with Peters Canyon Wash and Upper Newport Bay. The in- channel debris basins being installed as part of the Early Action and Interim Plan and the additional basins being proposed in this report would trap the remaining sand particles and over half of the silt particles. The installation of a sedimentation basin on San Diego Creek at Laguna Road has been considered. The sand particles estimated to be contained in the 100 - year return period flood flow passing this concentration point is 301,580 tons (187 acre - feet). To be reasonably effective, the capacity of the basin should be about twice this amount, or about 374 acre -feet. The estimated installation cost would be between $2,500,000 and $3,000,000. The average annual sand content of flood flows at this concentration point is estimated to be about 30 acre -feet. This basin would be effective for about six average years of accumulation before requiring sediment removal. In that it would only be effective in removing sand particles that would otherwise be - deposited in downstream channels and in- channel basins at much less cost, it is not recommended to be a part of the comprehensive stormwater sedimentation control plan. These considerations would also apply to the possible installa- tion of other excavated sedimentation basins in the valley area. Structural sediment control measures in the valley area would be limited to channel stabilization measures. These measures would not significantly reduce sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay because the eroded materials are almost entirely sand particles which are or can be deposited in the channel reaches before entering Upper Newport Bay. The justification for the installation of channel stabilization measures is primarily for flood control. Valley Land Management Practices Valley land management practices are composed of best management practices (BMPs) on agricultural areas and construction sites. Previous Studies Sediment control plans for agricultural areas and construction sites in the Newport Bay watershed have been developed in technical memoranda for Task — 8015.02 (Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control Plan) and Task 8015.03 (Construction Activities Best Management Practices Plan for Sediment Control). The report on the Newport Bay Watershed: Agricultural Activities Interim Sedi- mentation Control Plan was prepared by the Orange County Environmental Manage- ment Agency (OCEMA), dated March 1981. - The report on the Newport Bay Watershed: Construction Activities Best Management Practices for Sediment Control was prepared for the City of Irvine by Boyle Engineering Corporation, dated November 1981. 99 Best Management Practices on Agricultural Areas The OCEMA report includes an analysis of the best management practices (BMPs) which are applicable to agricultural lands in the watershed area, the practices that are currently being applied and a summary of the remaining problem areas. Agricultural land use in the Newport Bay watershed as of September 1980 is summarized as follows: Crop Total Acres Oranges 3,400 Lemons 600 _ Grapefruit 300 Avocados 1,400 Asparagus 700 Strawberries 600 — Miscellaneous row crops 5,400 Ornamental horticulture 1,000 Rangeland 5,000 TOTAL 18,400 _ About 74 percent of the lands in agricultural use are located in the valley area where the erosion hazard is considered slight primarily because of the gentle slopes. The remaining 26 percent is in the steeper foothill areas where the erosion hazard is generally moderate to severe. The crops in the valley area include all types except rangelands. Those in the foothill areas are composed almost entirely of orchards and rangelands. The orchards in the foothill areas have the greatest potential for erosion if appropriate practices are not applied. New orchards have been planted on the contour, weed cover is maintained on exposed areas, and drip irrigation systems are used to a large extent. Outlets are controlled with grassed waterways and plastic and sandbag chutes. All orchards have heavy canopy cover and measures have generally been installed to control tailwater ditches. Nontillage is practiced on some. Some lemon orchards have Australian saltbush between the rows which provides a low - growing cover crop. Others have chopped prunings which cover exposed ground areas. The rangelands are being managed in accordance with a range management plan developed by the Soil Conservation Service. Most row crops have drop boxes at the ends of fields to prevent erosion in the outlet ditch. Some row crops such as corn have a winter crop such as brocolli or celery. Nursery areas are generally covered with gravel over compacted soil. This practice controls erosion but increases storm runoff considerably. 39 i Other management practices used in the watershed include: sedimentation and - floodwater retarding basins, grassed waterways, and drop structures and bank protection in stream channels. This report specifies the following problem areas requiring additional BMPs: 1. Some access roads in new avocado orchards may have potential erosion problems. 2. Old avocado orchards with weed -free nontillage and slopes greater than 1 -112% may cause concentrations of overland flow that are difficult to control. If orchards are maintained as at present, the erosion impact should be minimal. 3. New orange orchards may also have access road erosion problems. 4. Old orange orchards with weed -free nontillage and slopes greater than 1 -112% have the same problems as old avocado orchards. 5. Some old lemon orchards are planted down the slope rather than along the contour. 6. Summer irrigation may present sedimentation problems depending on the crop and method of water application. Data is needed to determine the extent of the problem. 7. Bare, rough, and smooth tilled fields may have a potential winter sedimen- tation problem. Certain fields depending on slope, type of soil and distance from a drainage ditch are more susceptible. 8. Exposed areas resulting from the installation of the Diemer pipeline may present significant erosion problems. Although this facility crosses agricultural lands, it is not an agriculture- related problem and should be addressed by the Municipal Water Districts of Orange County. 9. Compacted strawberry furrows may present an erosion problem. 10. Other problem areas not on the fields or orchards, but related to agricul- tural activities requiring additional BMP's were also noted, including: flooding from the upper watershed and stream bank and invert erosion. The following BMPs were specified for possible implementation to control these problems: 1. Access roads in foothill orchards could be developed along the ridge and closer to the contour to provide access, safety and erosion control. Waterways could also be provided adjacent to the roads. 2. Tail ditches from nontillage orchards could be grassed in recognized problem areas. 3. Old valencia orange orchards with slopes greater than 1 -112% could be mulched in recognized problem areas only. 40 4. More orchards, especially on the steeper slopes, could be switched to drip irrigation where economically feasible. 5. Filter strips around low ends of bare fields could be installed. 6. A valley sediment control basin would be more economical and implementable than individual field basins. 7. Where possible, double- cropping in the winter should be employed with an associated change in the rotation of the crops. B. More erosion susceptible winter -bare fields should have temporary debris basins. 9. New drop boxes and /or chutes with protective lining should be installed on fields where the present means of conveyance to the drainage ditch is producing erosion. Irrigation Practices to Reduce Erosion The Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control Plan report does not discuss the irrigation erosion problem in terms of sediment production rates. Erosion caused by irrigation practices can be a contributor to total sediment production. The potential is greatest on the areas with steep slopes. The irrigated areas with the steepest slopes are in the foothill area and these lands are used almost entirely for orchard crops. The new orchards have been planted on the contour and are irrigated by the drip method. Most of the older orchards in this area have heavy canopy and the drip method of irrigation is generally used. With this method of irrigation, there is no tailwater problem with sediment production. Orchards in the valley area are generally older orchards irrigated on slopes less than 1 -1/2 %. Irrigation water management and vegetated outlet ditches with grade stabilization structures are generally used, and sediment produc- tion caused by irrigation practices from these orchard areas is minimal.. _ The areas having the greatest potential for sediment production are the row - cropped areas in the valley area. These areas generally have slopes less than 1 -1/2 percent but with irrigation water management using long runs and the required larger heads of water to provide efficient use of the irrigation water, relatively large amounts of tailwater and sediment production may occur. If this tailwater is reused on lower irrigated areas or pumped back for reuse, the tailwater loss is minimized. Areas used for strawberries and asparagus are generally leveled and have ir- rigation water management systems that allow minimum runoff. Of the remain- _ ing 5400 acres of row - cropped agriculture, about 1100 acres are sprinkler - irrigated. The remaining 4300 acres are furrow - irrigated and are most sus- ceptible to irrigation erosion. - 41 In 1975, the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) issued order no. 75 -53 requiring The Irvine Company to monitor sediment discharges from irriga- ted areas in compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) License No. CA0105244. This order was rescinded in September 1978 when it was decided by the U.S. Congress that this requirement would not per- tain to agriculture. During this monitoring period, tailwater samples were taken at various points within the area to determine sediment content. No samples were taken within 24 hours after a rainfall occurrence. Sediment content in these flows general- ly ranged from 200 -500 ppm. The highest content measured was 1800 ppm. This - sampling point was located below an irrigated nursery area where irrigation erosion is almost negligible. The reason for the very high sediment content was not determined but it is suspected that it was resuspended sediment from — sediment deposited in the channel from which the sample was taken. The detailed information from this monitoring program was submitted to the SWQCB -Santa Ana Region in monthly and annual reports. This information is also available from the EPA Storet computer information retrieval files. The gross application of irrigation water on row - cropped areas averages about 24 inches per year. Tailwaters from one field are frequently reused for the irrigation of another field. The estimated ultimate loss in tailwater is about 8 percent of the amounts applied, or about 1.92 inches per year. This _ information was obtained from John Thornton who previously worked in The Irvine Company Agriculture Division and continues to provide irrigation planning ser- vices to The Irvine Company through Boyle Engineering Corporation's Agricultural Services Division. For 4300 acres of row - cropped areas susceptible to significant irrigation ero- sion, the total amount of 1.92 inches is 688 acre -feet. Assuming the average sediment content is 500 ppm, the total amount of sediment transported by these tailwaters is 0.34 acre -foot or 555 cu yds. This compares with the total estima- ted average annual sediment production from agricultural lands under existing conditions of 54,600 cu. yds. The total area of irrigated crops in the water- shed is 13,400 acres, including large areas that are irrigated by drip and sprinkler methods with minor amounts of runoff; and orchards on flat gradients where irrigation erosion is recognized as very slight. Even assuming irriga- tion erosion at the same rate as considered for the 4300 acres of row - cropped area, the average annual sediment production for the total irrigated agricul- tural area would be 1730 cu. yds., or about three percent of the total estima- ted average annual sediment production from agricultural lands. It appears that irrigation erosion is not a major source of sediment production in the watershed. However, appropriate improvements in irrigation systems should be included in the conservation plans for agricultural areas. Priorities for Installation of BMPs on Agricultural Lands Best management practices for agricultural lands are divided into two categories: first phase BMPs are those practices minimally necessary for proper management with a given land use; and second phase BMPs are those that are essential or JEA desirable but must be determined on a site - specific basis with consideration of special problems including economic factors. _ The Newport Bay Watershed: Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control Plan specifies the recommended first and second phase BMPs for lands used for citrus, avocados, cropland, rangeland and irrigated pasture. This report also summarizes the special problem areas on agricultural lands re- quiring correction to reduce sediment production. The first phase measures generally include crop residue use, conservation cropping for soil conservation and erosion control, and irrigation water management. For orchards on the steeper slopes, contour planting, terraces, planned access roads, and stabilized waterways are included. The first priority for measures to be installed on agricultural lands includes those which will be most effective in reducing sediment production under winter conditions. These measures are primarily first phase measures that are con- - sidered normally sound agricultural practices: crop residue use, cover and green manure crops, conservation cropping for soil conservation and erosion control on all lands; and contour planting, terraces, planned access roads and stabilized waterways on the steeper slopes. First priority measures would also include obtaining solutions to the problem areas specified in the OCEMA report. The second priority measures are generally those which require site - specific determinations and evaluations. They include channel stabilization measures, streambank protection, diversions, grassed waterways, improved irrigation water management, and range management. Recommended BMP's applicable to the various land uses are generally being applied conscientiously and effectively at present. There are opportunities for the application of appropriate additional measures to further reduce sedi- ment production. However, implementation of all economically feasible land management practices will not result in a substantial reduction of total sedi- ment production from the watershed. Conversion of all agricultural land to irrigated pasture would reduce sediment production substantially but this conversion is unlikely to occur because of the attendant economic impacts. Downstream Costs to Remove Sediment Deposition The estimated average annual sediment production from agricultural lands under existing conditions is 54,600 tons. One ton is approximately equal to one cubic and on average. All of this sediment is deposited in stream reaches on the flat- ter gradients, in the downstream basins installed upstream from Newport Bay or in Newport Bay. It is estimated to cost $3.00 per cu. yd, to remove sediment deposited in chan- nel reaches and the upstream basins and at least $7.50 per cu. yd, to remove sediment deposited in Upper Newport Bay. On this basis, the average annual downstream maintenance costs to remove deposited material caused by sediment production from agricultural lands amounts to about $286,000. This is about $8500 per acre -foot (1613 cu. yds.). The effectiveness of the application of BMPs on agricultural lands in reducing sediment production will be reflected directly in reduced costs for the maintenance of downstream facilities. 43 Erosion Control Planning and Implementation Procedures in California Erosion control planning and implementation procedures in California are based generally on the Soil Conservation Act of 1935, which established the Soil Con- servation Service (SCS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and legislation by the State of California based on the Standard Act of 1936 which authorized the formation of Resource Conservation Districts. Resource Conservation Districts were established as local units of government with a governing body composed of elected local citizens who are responsible for conservation work within the conservation district boundaries. Resource Conservation Districts prepare conservation plans for agricultural lands at the request of land owners or operators with technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service. These plans are the basis for Cooperator Agree- ments between the land owners or operators and the Resource Conservation Dis- tricts. These conservation plans include practices determined as appropriate by SCS technicians and acceptable by the cooperator. They are implemented by the cooperator at his expense or with possible financial assistance from various federal, state and other sources for the application of designated practices. These Cooperator Agreements may be amended at intervals to include additional practices acceptable to the cooperator. There are no regulatory controls to include measures in the agreement not acceptable to the cooperator or to force compliance with the agreement. The Standard Act distributed to the states in 1936 contemplated the need for regulatory controls in its provisions. Twenty -eight states currently have provisions for regulatory control by the conservation districts. However, Re- source Conservation Districts in California have conducted their programs on a voluntary basis using education, technical assistance and cost - sharing rather than mandatory controls. Throughout the United States, there has been increased recognition of the need to strengthen erosion and sediment control programs. A model law for erosion and sediment control to protect public interests has been developed. The principal provisions of the model law, which is in the form of an amendment _ to existing conservation districts laws, include: establishment of a comprehen- sive state erosion and sediment control program and adoption of statewide guide- lines including conservation standards for the control of erosion and sediment resulting from land- disturbing activities; establishment of district programs and conservation standards consistent with state programs and guidelines; pro- hibition of land- disturbing activities, with the exemption of certain minor land- disturbing activities unless conducted in accordance with approved soil erosion and sediment control plans; use of existing regulatory mechanisms to implement erosion and sediment control plan requirements such as building, gra- ding, and other permits applicable to land - disturbing activities; inspection, _ monitoring, and reporting requirements; and penalties, injunctions and other enforcement provisions. Partially in response to the model act, 20 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands have since adopted legislation to strengthen their 44 erosion and sediment control programs. Although the primary purpose of these state laws is to prevent and control sedimentation, the methods of achieving this goal vary from state to state. Some states require an approved erosion _ and sediment control plan prior to any land- disturbing activity. Some states require conservation districts to establish soil loss tolerance limits and the phased achievement of these limits. Other states require the adoption of con- servation standards, criteria, and guidelines established by the state and/or the conservation district while other states require permits which are issue issued to ensure compliance with conservation district standards. Many of these state laws exclude agriculture from regulation. However, California still relies on a voluntary program of implementation of conservation prac- tices recommended by the Soil Conservation Service. _ Within California, some counties have determined that voluntary erosion control efforts are not adequate to protect the receiving waters from excessive sedi- mentation and have passed corrective or preventive ordinances. For example, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors has passed a corrective ordinance requiring land owners in storm drain maintenance districts, who convey irriga- tion return flows to the San Joaquin River, to install desilting sumps of a specified size at all inlets to maintenance district drain lines. The County of Santa Barbara has passed a preventive ordinance which prescribes how a land- owner can clear his land. Under this ordinance, the landowner is restricted from clearing an entire hillside where the slope exceeds a given percent. The _ landowner is allowed to clear vegetation, on a contour, across tree rows in the orchards. When the orchards develop to a size which provide a leaf canopy between rows, the remaining vegetation is allowed to be cleared. The County of Santa Cruz has adopted an ordinance that requires the approval of an erosion control plan prior to the issuance of a permit for building, grading, land clearing, subdivision and other land- disturbing activities. This ordinance is primarily concerned with construction sites but may be applied to agricultural areas where a specific operation may cause erosion problems. It does not specify best management practices to be used on agricultural areas but all areas are subject to the general provisions of the ordinance. In the general provisions of this ordinance, it is specified that no person shall cause or allow the continued existence of a condition on any site that is causing or is likely to cause accelerated erosion as determined by the Planning Director. Measures are specified to assure the correction of such conditions. Many opportunites for assistance in implementation of conservation practices exist through programs administered at the federal, state and local level. These programs can provide additional incentive to implement BMPs on a volun- tary basis. If the voluntary implementation of BMPs for agricultural sediment control is to continue in California, then land users should be encouraged to participate in these cost- sharing programs and government officials should be encouraged to continue and expand the funding, manpower and authority of these programs. Under existing laws applicable to erosion and sediment control in Orange County, the procedures that may be used to obtain effective actions toward the solution of problems in the areas specified in the Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Plan appear to be: rW 1. Prepare a site specific inventory of problem areas and the BMPs that should be applied to solve the problems. 2. Solicit the landowners and /or operators of the lands involved to cooperate in the development of conservation plans to include these practices. 3. Obtain Cooperator Agreements or amendments to existing Cooperator Agree- ments to include these measures to the maximum extent possible. - 4. Encourage the early installation of these measures by assisting the coopera- tors to obtain technical and financial assistance toward their installation _ from federal, state and other sources. 5. Make periodic inspections to determine progress that has been made toward the installation of the BMPs and to determine if additional assistance or encouragement is required. The alternative to this procedure, if excessive sediment production is deter- mined as a problem, is to obtain appropriate legislation that would include enforcement procedures and penalties for non - compliance. This could be state legislation that strengthens erosion and sediment control programs and /or county or city ordinances that specify the criteria to be applied, the enforce- ment procedures and penalties. The planning for the required application of BMPs could be carried out by Resource Conservation Districts with technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service as is currently being done in — the development of Cooperator Agreements. With the application of all land treatment measures (BMPs) specified as appro- priate by the Soil Conservation Service for agricultural crops on lands having various soil and slope characteristics, there would still be large amounts of sediment produced by these lands. If the growing of agricultural crops were _ discontinued on all lands in the watershed and they were reestablished as open space, it is estimated that the average annual sediment production would be reduced by 31,900 tons, which would represent a 24 percent reduction in the . total sediment produced by the watershed under existing conditions. However, — this changed land use would cause adverse economic impacts far greater than those produced by sediment production associated with agricultural cropping of these areas. — Assuming that the entire watershed had remained as open space (no agriculture or urban development), large amounts of sediment would still be produced. On _ the basis of estimated open space sediment production rates, the average annual sediment production from the total watershed would be about 105,700 tons. This is about 79 percent of the amount estimated to be produced by the watershed under existing conditions and about 150 percent of the amount estimated to be produced under conditions of ultimate development. Under conditions prior to agricultural and urban development in the watershed, = the storm runoff spread over large areas because of minimum channelization, resulting in deposition of the coarse sediment particles on the Tustin Plain. The outlet of San Diego Creek into Upper Newport Bay was blocked by a swamp _ area which caused further deposition of sediment particles. Major flood flows during early historical times were largely diverted into the Santa Ana River. 46 In order to permit agricultural and urban uses of the watershed, drainage chan- nels were constructed as storm runoff collector systems and as trunk channels to carry the accumulated runoff from the watershed without causing frequent major flooding of the developed areas. The channelization of the watershed provided an efficient transport system to deliver the sediment produced by the upslope areas. The coarse particles tended to deposit in channel reaches on the flatter gradients and the finer particles tended to be carried through the drainage system to be deposited in Newport Bay. Sediment production from the upslope areas has probably not increased drama- _ tically over historical time. However, the efficiency of sediment transport in the watershed has increased greatly over this period of time. The problems have been caused by the changed locations for deposition. The accelerated increase in sediment transport into Upper Newport Bay began in the early 1960s with the construction of an outlet channel in the lower reach of San Diego Creek into Newport Bay without providing sedimentation controls upstream from this channel improvement. 47 Best Management Practices for Construction Areas The report on the Newport Bay Watershed: Construction Activities Best - Management Practices Plan for Sediment Control investigates the reduction of sediment produced at construction sites by the application of best management practices (BMPs). These BMPs consist of structural measures used at sites described in the report,and nonstructural measures involving administrative and regulatory - processes. It describes the procedures used by local governments to encourage the application of erosion and sediment control measures on construction sites. Five jurisdictions in the watershed were studied: Irvine, Newport Beach, Orange, Tustin, and Orange County. The grading ordinances for these jurisdictions were compared with each other and with model ordinances. The administrative and enforcement procedures used by Irvine were studied in detail and compared with those of Newport Beach and Orange County. The study concludes that gene- rally, the present system is working effectively to reduce erosion and sediment production from construction sites. The institutional arrangements used to achieve water quality goals relating to construction sites are described. The emphasis is on land use regulation by local governments with supervisory review by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Public officials, developers and contractors in the Upper Newport Bay watershed have a well - developed awareness of the problems caused by increased sediment runoff from construction sites. This concern for sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay has led to regulation of construction sites that is among the most strict in the state. Based on conversations with knowledgeable people in the public and private sectors, it appears that the present system is working effectively. — Major reasons are the close communication between local governments and deve- lopers/ contractors, and the voluntary cooperation shown by local developers such as The Irvine Company. The Irvine Company develops annual specific programs for control of erosion on construction sites within the Company's jurisdiction. The purpose, as stated_ in the 82 -83 Program is "to comply with the City /County ordinances, State law, and to fulfill the Company commitment to control erosion and transportation of sediment from our construction projects. The Erosion Control Program is to provide the most effective methods of controlling erosion and sediment transpor- tation at the least cost, utilizing common sense and the latest technology available." The Program requires that prior to October 15th, an approved Erosion Control Plan is to be implemented for all projects. The Erosion Control Plan is to remain in effect and be maintained from October 15th through April 15th (May 15th in Newport Beach). The procedure requires that the plan be approved by the = local jurisdictional agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The annual programs list procedures for plan preparation, review and approval, and implementation; and includes a responsibility summary, project priorities, vicinity map and project site plans. m _ The following conclusions and recommendations are based on those determined as appropriate in the report on Construction Activities Best Management Plan for Sediment Control. Conclusions 1. Erosion control plans specifying appropriate best management practices can lead to a reduction in accelerated sediment production from construction sites. _ 2. The three major jurisdictions in the watershed - Irvine, Newport Beach and Orange County - maintain relatively uniform ordinances, standards and procedures. 3. The City of Tustin currently does not have an erosion /sedimentation control policy. 4. The City of Orange is applying an extensive set of standards in its approach to erosion /sedimentation control. The success or failure of this approach will have little effect on Upper Newport Bay because the drainage area with- in the city is small compared to the total watershed. 5. None of the jurisdictions studied specifies water quality protection as a goal of their grading ordinances. Recommendations 1. Best Management Practices. Twenty -seven BMPs are recommended as appropriate or occasional-to-frequent use in the watershed. All but four of the prac- tices are now commonly used in the area. 2. Grading Ordinances. It is recommended that the jurisdictions in the water- s e adopt water quality protection as a goal of their grading ordinances. Additional changes in the ordinances are not recommended because it appears that changes can be more easily incorporated into existing administrative standards and procedures. 3. Administrative Standards and Procedures. The following actions are recom- mended: a. Maintain the present uniformity in Standards among the Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and Orange County. b. Maintain the present positive working relationship with developers and contractors. c. That the City of Irvine and Orange County institute collection of a debris deposit similar to that of Newport Beach. d. That the City of Tustin institute an erosion /sediment control program at the earliest possible time. e. Jurisdictions should include sediment reduction as an objective in — siting and building design approvals for developments in hillside areas. The Hillside Slope Development Manual prepared by the city of Irvine is an example of a way to achieve this objective. _ f. That jurisdictions issuing permits for erosion control plans imple- ment the following: 1) Require that review, approval and inspection of erosion control plans be by personnel experienced in the application of erosion control measures. 2) Actively promote and participate in erosion control training pro- grams for their Staff. 3) Improve communication between plan checkers and site inspectors. 4) Require all plans to be site specific. 5) Require more intensive measures for sites with steep slopes and highly erodible soils. 6) During the rainy season prohibit major grading on high erosion hazard sites which, due to steep slopes and /or easily erodible soils, are potentially high producers of silts and clays, unless it can be demonstrated that the approved erosion control plan will be effective in preventing transportation of substantial quanti- ties of silts and clays from the site. 4. Regulatory Process. It is recommended that the local governments continue to to e t e lead responsibility for erosion and sediment control at con- struction sites. The Regional Water Quality Control Board should maintain an active supervisory role by performing periodic site inspections and by requesting annual reports from local governments when water quality goals are not being met. Alternative Regulation Procedure Ordinances adopted by the local jurisdictions were compared to the erosion control ordinance adopted September 1980 by Santa Cruz County. The purpose of this ordinance was to eliminate and prevent conditions of accelerated erosion that have led to, or could lead to, degradation of water quality, loss of fish habitat, damage to property, loss of topsoil and vegetation cover, disruption of water supply, and increased danger from flooding. It requires control of all existing and potential conditions of accelerated (human - induced) erosion; sets forth required provisions for project planning, preparation of erosion control plans, runoff control, land clearing, and winter operations; and - establishes procedures for administering those provisions. The general provisions state that no person shall cause or allow the continued _ existence of a condition on any site that is causing or is likely to cause accelerated erosion as determined by the Planning Director. Such a condition 50 shall be controlled and /or prevented by the responsible person and the proper- ty owner by using appropriate measures outlined in the ordinance. Additional measures may be necessary, and should be applied by the responsible person and the property owner. Specific additional measures may be required by the . = Planning Director. Property owners will be given a reasonable amount of time, as determined by the Planning Director, to control existing problems depending on the severity of the problem, and the extent of necessary control measures. Where feasible, erosion problems shall be controlled no later than the begin- ning of the next rainy season (October 15). The ordinance specifies requirements related to land clearing operations with special requirements when performed during winter months. Measures to filter runoff and protect areas from accelerated erosion are also specified. Land clearing will be kept to a minimum. Vegetation removal shall be limited to that amount necessary for building, access, and construction as shown on the approved erosion control plan. No clearing shall take place prior to the — approval of the erosion control plan. All disturbed surfaces shall be pre- pared and maintained to control erosion and to establish native or naturalized vegetative growth compatible with the area. The protection required shall be installed prior to calling for final approval of the project and at all times between October 15 and April 15. Such protection shall be maintained for at least one winter until permanent protection is established. Inspection procedures to assure compliance are specified. Any person found to be in violation of the provisions of the ordinance shall be required to correct the problem upon written notification from the Planning Director. Violations of the provisions of the ordinance, upon conviction, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500. Each separate day or portion thereof during which a violation occurs, or continues without a good faith effort by the responsible person to correct the violation, shall be considered a separate offense and upon conviction, shall be punishable as such. The objectives of the Santa Cruz County ordinance and the grading ordinances of the various jurisdictions in the San Diego Creek watershed, in combination with their administrative standards and procedures, are essentially the same. In Santa Cruz County, their ordinance gives the authority and responsibility for achieving these objectives to the County Planning Director. In the San Diego Creek watershed, the authority and responsibility is divided between the cities for their areas of jurisdiction, with the remaining area under County control. Each entity, covering significant parts of the watershed, has similar ordinances, standards and procedures for achieving sediment con- trol objectives on construction sites. The Santa Cruz County ordinance includes specific authority to assure that the density and design.of new developments shall be planned consistent with the characteristics and constraints of the site. This includes limitations on grading requirements and access roads and the excluding of areas of high ero- sion hazard from development. Such specific authority is not included in the grading ordinances applicable to the San Diego Creek watershed. 51 The provision of an erosion control plan as specified in the Santa Cruz County ordinance is also required by ordinances in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine and Orange County. The Santa Cruz County ordinance has specific controls related to land clearing which are not included in the authorities of the San Diego Creek watershed entities and none of the jurisdictions in the San Diego Creek watershed speci- fies water quality protection as a goal of its grading ordinances. However, the adoption of water quality protection as a goal could be incorporated into administrative standards and procedures without changing the ordinances. The specific measures that are included in erosion control plans in the San Diego Creek watershed are similar to those specifically included in the Santa Cruz County ordinance. These measures are documented in detail in the Tech- nical Memorandum, Newport Bay Watershed: Construction Activities Best Manage- ment Practices Plan for Sediment Control. This memorandum describes the situation where the measures are applicable and desirable and how they should be applied. As is stated in this memorandum, these measures are now being applied to obtain appropriate controls. The development of an effective erosion control plan is dependent on the com- petence of the people preparing the plan. The Santa Cruz County ordinance requires that plans for major development proposals be prepared by appropriate professional technicians. This may provide competent plans for erosion control. However, as proposed in the "Project Implementation and Funding" section of this report, it is recommended that a position be funded to coordinate the sediment control efforts of agencies within the watershed. The duties of this position would include the responsibilities for training personnel in the re- quirements for erosion control plans and to assure their effective application. The Santa Cruz County ordinance specifies the general objectives of an erosion control plan. These include water spreading over non - eroding vegetated areas, grading to minimize concentrated flows, early establishment of vegetation on erodible areas and the transport of concentrated flows through conduits to stable channel outlets. The statement of basic principles of erosion control on construction sites in administrative procedures may provide helpful guide- lines to those preparing these plans and a basis for checking the effectiveness of measures used. While ordinances provide a basic authority and framework to guide an erosion control program, the effectiveness is dependent on site - specific plan prepara- tion, implementation and inspection by trained personnel. Although the ordi- nances applicable to the San Diego Creek watershed differ in scope and approach from the Santa Cruz County ordinance, they provide sufficient authority for the r l implementation of an effective erosion control program for construction sites. However, local plan checkers must be trained to specify appropriate erosion control measures in the plan and to understand the requirements for effective application. — On Site Detention Basins to Reduce Peak Flows from Subdivision Developments _. Another concept that has been proposed for consideration is to require sub- division developments in the valley areas to provide excavated floodwater 52 retarding basins to reduce outflows to a specified amount. It is contended that a large number of these basins may reduce the downstream flows suffi- ciently to reduce channel erosion significantly. In Santa Barbara County, this concept has been used to reduce peak runoff from new developments so that existing downstream channels would contain the increased runoff generated by the developments. The criteria used for the design of such basins are to provide capacity equal to the estimated volume of runoff from the 25 -year return period 24 -hour duration storm for the developed drainage area to the basin and to limit the outflow to 0.07 cfs per acre of drainage area. This concept was considered for areas of various sizes in the San Diego Creek watershed. For a one square mile drainage area, the average annual reduction in channel erosion potential immediately downstream from the site was estimated to be 60 percent. An area of about 33 acres would be required for the basin. This basin area may be incorporated into the developed area as a park or other community purposes. The excavated materials could probably be incorporated in the grading plan for the development. On a larger scale, the effects of basins installed on 9.82 square miles of area at the lower end of the San Diego Creek watershed segment above Sand Canyon Avenue, with a total drainage area of 40.20 square miles, were considered. The estimated average annual reduction in channel erosion potential was 10 percent at this location as a result of the reduced peak flows caused by the basins. The maximum channel erosion reduction that could be obtained in the watershed would be achieved by incorporating retarding basins into the development plans for the 31.8 square miles of agricultural and open space that are anticipated to be ultimately converted to urban uses together with installing the 12 foot- hill basins discussed previously. The 12 foothill basins would control the runoff from a combined area of 16.42 square miles and have combined controlled outflow of 1480 cfs. The valley area of 31.8 square miles with retarding basins would have a com- bined outflow of 1425 cfs on the basis of outflow rates of 0.07 cfs per acre. This assumes that the basins could be located so that the outflows would enter directly into tributaries of the primary channel system and would not pass through other basins in series. It is estimated that this combination of foothill and valley basins would reduce the peak flows for the 100 -year return period 24 -hour duration storm at the inlet to Upper Newport Bay from 27,000 cfs to about 18,600 cfs. The channel erosion potential would be reduced about 23 percent. The costs to install these valley basins are dependent on the specific develop- ment plans. These examples are used only to demonstrate the potential for channel erosion reduction. However, it would not be feasible to include basins for all of the 53 31.8 square miles of valley area since development plans have already been approved for portions of this area, such as the proposed commercial center at the intersection of the Santa Ana, San Diego and Laguna freeways. These basins would not reduce upslope sediment production but would tend to trap the sand and coarse sediment particles in the storm flows. However, as these basins would be installed concurrent with urban development, the sedi- ment production from these areas would be greatly reduced as the development matures. They could be used effectively to trap the sediment production from construction areas as the developments occur. These basins would reduce the cost of channel improvements immediately down- stream from the basin locations because of smaller channel capacity require- ments. However, they would cause progressively smaller reductions in peak flows as the runoff from other uncontrolled drainage areas entered the stream - flows. Their effects would be similar to those of the foothill basins. If installed in areas immediately downstream from the foothill basins, they would tend to extend the reduced channel capacity requirements caused by the foothill basins into the lower channel reaches. The effects of these basins in reducing channel erosion would not significantly affect the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. The eroded materials are pri- marily sand particles which tend to redeposit in channel reaches on flatter gradients. It would appear that the installation of subdivision basins would have to be justified on the basis of developer advantages in reduced channel improvement costs, the provision of open space area which may permit clustering of housing units, or as a desirable element in the development plans for other reasons. There would be some reduction in channel maintenance costs for the removal of deposited sediment. Downstream Engineering The most effective way to remove sand particles from the flood flows before they enter Upper Newport Bay is by providing sedimentation basins immediately upstream from the bay. Sand particles trapped by foothill basins or excavated basins in the valley area tend to be replaced by sand particles eroded from channel sections downstream from such entrapments. This removal by upstream basins not only does not provide a net reduction of such particle sizes from entering the bay but tends to cause channel section instability unless coor- dinated channel stabilization measures are installed. There are no opportunities for sediment basins immediately upstream from Newport Bay which have the capacities to retain flood flows for a sufficient period of time to remove large percentages of the fine sediment particles. However, there are several alternative types of basins that are effective in removing sand particles. In Part I of this study, several of these alternatives were considered in the process of selecting projects to be included in the Early Action and Interim 54 Plan. Following is a summary of the findings related to each of the alterna- tives considered and their reevaluation on the basis of additional information developed in this study or changed conditions affecting their use. 1. Site "A" - Area south of San Diego Creek between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Since the evaluation of this site in Part I it has been determined to use it as a disposal area for excavated materials for the development of in- channel basins and the excavated basin in Upper Newport Bay included in the Early Action and Interim Plan. These projects are now being installed. No further consideration of this site as a sediment basin is appropriate. 2. Site "B" - Area surrounding the IRWD wastewater treatment facility. The evaluation of this site was based on a maximum diversion of 9300 cfs (about the estimated 10 -year return period flood flow in San Diego Creek at this location). It was estimated that this basin could trap about 97 percent of the sand and 39 percent of the silt particles. The trap efficiency of this basin is no better than is estimated for in- channel sedimentation basins (Tables 7 and 8). Also, the installation of a sedimentation basin at this location may cause a hazard to the more than $30 million investment in the IRWD Michelson Treatment Plant. It has been estimated that it would cost in excess of $20 million to install a sedimentation basin at this location. On the basis that a sedimentation basin at this location would not provide superior trap efficiencies, that it would be very expensive as compared to other alternatives, and that it may cause a hazard to the IRWD facility at this loca- tion, it is recommended that no further consideration be given to this alter- native. 3. In- channel sedimentation basins in the San Diego Creek right -of -way upstream from Upper Newport Bay. In Part 1 of this study, it was determined that in- channel sedimentation basins met the criteria established for an Early Action and Interim Plan better than the alternative upstream control measures considered. Two in- channel debris basins upstream from MacArthur Boulevard were selected for inclusion in the Early Action and Interim Plan (Basin Nos. 2 and 3 on Figure 7. These basins are now being installed within the existing right -of -way for the San Diego Creek flood control channel and will provide sediment storage capacity below the design invert elevations of the flood control channel. The first of these basins will begin immediately upstream from MacArthur Boulevard and extend to Campus Drive. The effective length of the basin will be 4450 feet and will provide a storage capacity of about 130 acre -feet below the invert elevation of the flood control channel. The channel will be excavated to elevation 0 MSL at MacArthur Boulevard, which is 5 feet below the design invert elevation for the flood control channel. The 55 0 .5 1 1.5 MILES JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT ORANGE COUNTY 0 1: I r/ MAIN STREET 1 1 O� I l O ,4¢ 11 v 1.10 II 4 it O 1 IRWD IO TREATMENT / �515� N(Ol PLANT 33 SIPHON SAN i CROSSING JOAQUIN % �1 MARSH] co i O UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE O LEGEND UPPER NEWPORT PART I - EARLY ACTION AND INTERM PLAN BA Y0 - EXCAVATED BASIN 2O O - IN- CHANNEL BASINS PART III- PROPOSED 56 4O 5O(6 )- IN- CHANNEL BASINS SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED /;41 moLo Ei�carx�orragcarnaraaars FIGURE DOWNSTREAM PROJECTS /� . consultino anolnears I architects 7_ CHANNEL WIDTHS VARY 200'- 350 SIDE SLOPES VARY 3:1 TO 1.5:1 / \ VARIES EXCAVATED AREA BENCH WIDTHS VA O' TO 30' DOWNSTREAM SECTIONS EXST CHANNEL INVT A5 SIDE SLOPES VARY / 3:1 TO 1.5 :1 1 VARIES / I EXST CHANNEL INVT EXCAVATED AREA BENCH WIDTHS VARY \� - 0' TO 30' 1 VARIES UPSTREAM SECTIONS VARIES 57 TYPICAL EXCAVATED SECTIONS f30tg consoi7L�rrx7C0►pCVao0►7 FIGURE IN- CHANNEL SEDIMENTATION BASINS ccnsu)tlnq unpin 8 excavation will be continued at elevation 0 MSL to the upper end of the basin which will require a depth of excavation in excess of 9 feet at that point. The bottom width of the flood control channel is 250 feet. Strips 30 feet wide will not be excavated on each side of the channel bottom providing an excavated top width of 190 feet as shown on Figure 8. The side slopes of the excavated debris basin will be 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The undis- turbed 30 -foot strips will improve slope stability for the additional depths " of excavation. They will also provide areas which may be left in permanent vegetation to obtain wildlife values. A weir structure will be installed at MacArthur Boulevard as illustrated on Figure 9. A low flow channel will be installed to drain the sedimentation basin, extending from MacArthur Boulevard to Upper Newport Bay. A grade stabilization structure will be installed at the upper end of the basin to prevent upstream erosion (Figure 9). The low bid for the total of all items for the construction of this first basin immediately upstream from MacArthur Boulevard was $1,069,100. For the provision of about 130 acre -feet of sediment storage capacity this amounts to a cost of about $8200 per acre -foot. This bid price included the removal of about 50,000 cu. yds. of deposited material in the channel section above the invert grade line. Another basin will begin immediately upstream from Campus Drive and extend to the siphon crossing San Diego Creek to the Michelson Treatment Plant. The effective length of this basin will be about 1820 feet and will provide an additional storage capacity of about 45 acre -feet below the invert elevation of the flood control channel. It will be excavated to a depth of 5 feet below the invert elevation of the flood control channel at Campus Drive and be continued on the level to the siphon crossing, at which point it will have a depth of about 7 feet. The cross section of the channel will be the same as for the downstream basin. A weir structure at Campus Drive and a drop structure at the siphon crossing are included. The design for these structures is essentially the same as for the downstream basin. The low bid for the total of all items for the construction of this basin located between Campus Drive and the siphon crossing was $601,450. For the provision of about 45 acre -feet of sediment storage capacity this amounts to a cost of about $13,365 per acre -foot. This bid price included the removal of about 17,000 cu. yds. of deposited material in the channel section above the invert grade line. The trap efficiencies for these basins were estimated for each separately and for the two in tandem in Part 1 on the basis of the limited information avail- able. Table 7 shows the estimates of the trap efficiency for the two basins in tandem made with the use of information developed in Part II, Sedimentation Analysis. _ IA n' �k USE 1.5 : 1 SIDE SLOPES UPSTREAM OF SAN DIEGO FREEWAY WEIR STRUCTURE 5 6� �---- 41 �q l 6 5' 3 NN 4'- %2 -TON RIPRAP r 8' V BACKING MATERIAL FILTER FABRIC DROP STRUCTURE s9 SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED po sow Erxwlcvfrxr CorparatAOrr FIGURE IN- CHANNEL BASIN STRUCTURES 9 These estimates indicate that these basins are very effective in trapping the sand particles, have limited effectiveness in trapping silt particles and are only slightly effective in trapping clay particles. However, these estimates were made on the basis that the total capacities of these basins were available to cause the changes in flow characteristics that would cause deposition. After the runoff from several storms has passed through these basins and deposition occurs the capacities are progressively reduced with consequent reduction in trap efficiencies. The most effective way to overcome this deficiency is to install additional in- channel basins to provide additional capacity. Figure 7 shows the loca- tions of the in- channel sedimentation basins being installed as part of the Early Action and Interim Plan and the locations of additional in- channel basins that may be installed. One of these additional in- channel basins, Number 4, would begin immediately upstream from the sewer line crossing into the Michelson Treatment Plant and extend to Michelson Drive. The San Joaquin Channel will enter this basin at its junction with San Diego Creek. TABLE 7 TRAP EFFICIENCY (PERCENT) TWO IN- CHANNEL SEDIMENTATION BASINS IN TANDEM MacARTHUR BOULEVARD TO SIPHON CROSSING (EARLY ACTION AND INTERIM PLAN) Flood ows Trap Efficiency (Percent*) Return Period Fine Coarse Years Clay Silt Sand Sand 2 1 92 100 100 5 0 71 100 100 10 0 47 100 100 25 0 37 100 100 50 0 29 100 100 100 0 26 100 100 Average 0 54 100 100 * Average particle sizes Coarse sand - 0.50 mm Fine sand - 0.12 mm Silt - 0.024 mm Clay - 0.0015 mm .1 It would have a length of 3180 feet and have a design similar to the two lower basins except that no 30 -foot benches would be provided. The estimated capacity for sediment accumulation is 168,600 cu. yds. (104 acre- feet). The total estimated cost to install this basin is $1,102,000 or about $10,600 per acre -foot of storage capacity provided. Another in- channel sedimentaion basin, Number 5, may be located between the San Diego Freeway and Main Street. The channel has a bottom width of 140 feet and side slopes 1 112:1 in this reach. Benches 15 feet wide are provided on each side. It could have a length of about 1480 feet and a capacity of 31,500 cu. yds. (20 acre - feet). The total estimated cost to install this basin is $366,000, or about $18,300 per acre -foot of storage capcities provided. A third in- channel sedimentation basin, Number 6, may be located between Main Street and a telephone cable crossing. This channel reach has a bottom width of 140 feet and side slopes 1 112:1. Benches 15 feet wide are provided on each side to assure slope stability with the greater depths. It could have a length of 3020 feet and a capacity of 72,800 cu. yds. (45 acre - feet). The total estimated cost to install this basin is $532,000 or about $11,800 per acre -foot of storage capacity provided. The reach of San Diego Creek between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road was considered but there are numerous utility crossings which make it undesirable. These three additional in- channel basins will provide additional sediment stor- age capacity of 169 acre -feet at a cost of $2,000,000 ($11,834 per acre- foot). These three additional basins, in combination with the two being installed with the Early Action and Interim Plan, will provide improved trap efficiencies than would be obtained with the two alone as shown on Table 8. Also, when about half of the combined capacities are filled with deposited materials, the combined ba- sins will continue to trap the sand particles and a portion of the silt particles. The combined capacities of all five in- channel basins is 344 acre -feet. The estimated average annual sediment inflow into Upper Newport Bay is 85,500 cu. yds. (53 acre - feet). It is indicated that about 17 acre -feet of this sedim- ent would be trapped by the basins. In addition, about 34,000 cu. yds. (21 acre -feet) of sand particles normally deposit in the reach between the junc- tion of San Diego Creek with Peters Canyon Wash and Jamboree Road. This would indicate that about 38 acre -feet of sediment would deposit in the basins on an average annual basis and that about half of the total basin capacities would be filled every five years. This would require removal so that a reasonable trap efficiency could be maintained. This consideration of alternatives has indicated that upstream sediment con- trol measures can be installed to remove 100 percent of the sand particles and over 50 percent of the silt particles. The remaining silt and clay particles will continue to be discharged into Upper Newport Bay. On an average annual basis about 53,000 cu. yds. (33 acre -feet) of silt and clay particles will enter the bay. 61 TABLE 8 TRAP EFFICIENCY (PERCENT) FIVE IN- CHANNEL SEDIMENTATION BASINS IN SERIES (TWO BASINS IN EARLY ACTION AND INTERIM PLAN AND THREE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED BASINS) Fiood Flows rap iciency (Percent* eturl�n eeriod ine Coarse Years Clay Silt Sand Sand 2 2 98 100 100 5 0 82 100 100 10 0 69 100 100 25 0 58 100 100 50 0 47 100 100 100 0 43 100 100 Average 0 69 100 100 * Average particle sizes Coarse sand - 0.50 mm Fine sand - 0.12 mm Silt - 0.024 mm Clay - 0.0015 mm 4. Deposition in Upper Newport Bay During the short, intense stormflows into Upper Newport Bay the freshwater spreads over the surface of the basin above The Narrows. When the tide is rising, the freshwater flow down the Bay is reversed. As the tide falls, however, the flow down the Bay is enhanced by the extra water that is sup- plied by the stream. The effect is more pronounced for large flows than for small flows. The near - surface water flows through Lower Bay to the ocean. Clay and fine silt are deposited in the upper basin when the stormwaters spread there at moderate to high tides. A small portion of unaggregated material, however, is carried with the fresher surface flow to the ocean during moderate to large storms. The fraction of the clay and fine silt that is transported directly to the ocean during a storm event varies with the discharge. A very large discharge would be expected to carry a large portion because the greater displacement of saline water would occur in the upper basin. The fraction would not be large, however, even for a large storm. The fraction approaches zero for moderate storms. 62 A new deposit in the upper basin can be reworked by wave action that occurs during windy periods. Even small waves can suspend mud when the water is shallow. Such conditions occur near the end of a falling tide, and suspended _ sediments can be carried toward Lower Bay. The stratified flows that occur, however, would return such material to the upper basin. The bed contours in 1 the basin below the sand encroachment appear to be those resulting from wave action. Resuspension by wave action tends to winnow the fines from the deposit. Tidal currents redistribute suspended fine material into regions where wave action is less intense. The above description indicates that most of the fine material is deposited in the upper basin. There is very limited information with which to verify this conclusion. The study "Water Quality in Newport Bay and Its Watershed" prepared by Orange County Environmental Management Agency reported that 180 acre -feet of deposit accumulated in Upper Newport Bay during the period 1973 to 1979. Most of this deposited between 2.0 and 4.0 ft. MLLW. It has been estimated that more than 80 percent of the fine silt and clay particles are retained in the basin north of The Narrows. If the system is left as it is, there are forseeable changes that will occur. The processes described previously will continue at rates that depend on the occurrence of storms. Terrestrial vegetation is already established on the sand deposits at the northern end. The plants will slow stormflows that are high enough to pass through them, and the elevation will rise after each such event. Otherwise, the delta -like deposits will continue to encroach into the upper basin. Clay and silt will accumulate in the basin to a depth where wave action can erode as much material over a year as deposits there. The basin will be a big mud flat. It is almost there. Marsh plants will become established in areas sheltered from the wind, and elevated marshes will develop there. These and the old marshes will absorb some of the fine sediment suspended by wave action. As the volume of the upper basin decreases due to the advancing sand deposit, and with the developing marsh and the rising mud flat, the volume of the tidal prism of northern Upper Bay will diminish. Tidal currents in the channel will have lowered maxima, and fine sediment will accumulate along channel edges, constricting the channel cross sections until the currents are strong enough to move any additional sediment. As the volume of the upper basin decreases, the fraction of the clay and silt that exits to the ocean will increase. There will probably be some accumulation of fines in Lower Bay when the amount of silt and clay that reach Lower Bay become sig- nificant. Later, when sand deposits have advanced to The Narrows, sand will reach Lower Bay during large storms. As the upper basin fills with sand and the channels become constricted, the frequency of flooding the marshes with storm flows will increase. Deposition on the marshes will remove fines, and the marsh surface elevations will rise slowly. 63 It has been proposed that the filling of Upper Bay be halted by constructing — sedimentation basins at the mouth of San Diego Creek. Such basins could be constructed to trap the sand and coarse silt. However, effective trapping of clays and fine silt would require a large basin, say from the old salt works dike to Jamboree Road. Even that basin would not trap all of the fine mate- rial from a very large storm. The present basin is providing excellent removal of San Diego Creek sediments. One alternative for preserving open water would be to dredge the basin period- ically. The sand might be useful for fill. The clay and silt, however, would not be useful for fill unless it is dried. It would not be useful for agricul- ture or horticulture. Disposing of such material at sea would probably be the lowest cost option. The construction of an excavated basin in Upper Newport Bay immediately down- stream from Jamboree Road was included in the Early Action and Interim Plan. It will have an excavated capacity of 516,000 cu. yds. (320 acre -feet) and a sediment storage capacity of 88 ac. ft. below 0 MSL. The low bid price for this item was $1,440,000 or about $16,400 per acre -foot of sediment storage capacity provided. This price is only a fraction of what it would have been without the availability of site "A ", located between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard adjacent to San Diego Creek as a disposal area. It is anticipated that this basin will tend to localize the deposition of the finer silt particles primarily due to flocculation caused by contact with saline waters. This excavated basin is now being constructed. It has been proposed that a permanent dredge be located in Upper Newport Bay upstream from the old salt barrier dam which would be rehabilitated to cause additional ponding. This dredge would be utilized to remove deposited mate- rials from the Upper Bay and discharge them through a pipeline, with booster _ stations, to an ocean outfall into a submarine canyon. This concept has been discussed in some detail in a "Report on the Feasibility of the Pipeline Bypass Concept as a Solution for Upper Newport Bay Sedimentation Problems" prepared by Michael H. Cheney, Consulting Civil Engineer for the City of Newport. The costs to implement this dredging project were estimated by Cheney to be $14,000,000 including initial dredging, basin dikes and equipment and pipeline costs. The estimated total annual operating costs were $1,413,000. This dredging concept could also be extended to other Newport Bay areas and provide a common ocean disposal facility. 64 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS _ Alternative management systems to reduce the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay so that the objectives for use of the bay may be realized will be the basis for comparing these management systems. The alternative management systems are summarized as follows: 1. No project. I— This alternative anticipates that no measures will be implemented to control sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay. 2. Channel stabilization measures only. This alternative considers the effects of the stabilization of all Chan- - nels in the watershed so as to eliminate all channel erosion. 3. Implementation of the Early Action and Interim Plan only. The effects of the installation of the two in- channel debris basins up- stream from MacArthur Boulevard and the excavated basin in the old salt evaporation pond area below Jamboree Road are evaluated. 4. Implementation of the Early Action and Interim Plan along with three additional in- channel basins. The effects on sediment control that may be obtained with the addition of these three basins are evaluated. 5. Installation of foothill basins to obtain floodwater retarding effects and sedimentation control. _ 6. Installation of foothill basins in combination with Alternative 4. The combined effects of the installation of alternatives 4 and 5 are — evaluated. 65 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS In this task, each of the alternative management system is considered indepen- dently with regard to its engineering feasibility and effectiveness in reducing sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay; estimated costs to install and maintain; and financing and implementation considerations. Minimizing upstream erosion will reduce sediment production with consequent reduction of deposition in channel reaches, the upstream basins, and in Newport Bay. Therefore, the continued application of Agricultural and Construction BMPs together with the implementation of the recommendations contained herein should be included in combination with any alternative management system selected. It therefore has been assumed that agricultural and construction best management practices (BMPs) will be installed in combination with all alternative management systems considered. For these comparative analyses, it was assumed that the same level of protection by BMPs would continue as at present. Reduced sediment production as a result of more effective application of BMPs would reduce the costs of maintenance removal of deposition in the channel reaches and downstream basins. Alternative 1 - No Project. Under this alternative management system, it is assumed that no additional measures will be implemented to control sediment production and transport within the watershed. The average annual sediment inflow and outflow at various reaches on San Diego Creek under existing conditions is shown on Table 3. Table 9 summarizes the characteristics of sediment production and deposition in the San Diego Creek watershed. The sediment produced from upslope areas is composed of high percentages of silt and clay and a relatively small percentage of sand particles. The sediment produced by channel erosion is composed almost entirely of sand particles. The sediment deposited in channel reaches having the flatter gradients is composed almost entirely of sand parti.cles and includes about 82 percent of the total sand particles produced by the upslope areas and channel erosion. Consequently, the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay is composed primarily of silt and clay (83 percent) with a relatively small amount of sand particles (17 percent). — Deposition in the watershed occurs primarily in the reach of San Diego Creek between the confluence with Peters Canyon Wash and Sand Canyon Avenue (45,100 cu. yds.) and the reach between the junction with Peters Canyon Wash and the outlet into Upper Newport Bay at Jamboree Road (26,500 cu. yds.). .. TABLE 9 AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT PRODUCTION AND DEPOSITION _ SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED (EXISTING CONDITIONS) Particle Size Distribution -- Fractions /Tons Total Fine'_ Coarse Tons Clay Silt Sand Sand Sediment Produced .31 .35 .24 .10 Upslope Areas 118,300 36,600 41,400 28,600 11,700 .01 - .82 .17 Channel Erosion 38,800 400 200 31,700 6,500 .24 .26 .38 .12 Total Sediment Produced 157,100 37,000 41,600 60,300 18,200 _ Deposition in Channel -.01 .12 .65 .24 Reaches 71,600 -600 8,200 46,700 17,300 Sediment Delivered to .44 .39 .16 .01 Upper Newport Bay 85,500 37,600 33,400 13,600 900 The estimated average annual cost to remove deposited materials from flood control channel sections at 1982 prices will be about $215,000 (71,600 cu. yds. at $3.00 per cu. yd.). One ton approximates one cubic yard. The estimated average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay under existing conditions is 85,500 cu, yds. (53 acre -feet) composed of 71,000 cu. yds. of silt and clay and 14,500 cu. yds. of sand particles. This amount is between that estimated to be delivered by the 5 -year return period storm (56,800 cu. yds.) and that of the 10 -year return period storm (109,400 cu. yds.). The amount estimated to be delivered by the 100 -year return period storm is 443,400 cu. yds. (275 acre - feet). As discussed in a previous section of this report, it is estimated that all of the sand from San Diego Creek is deposited in the northern end of Upper Bay, which is primarily the area north of the old salt works dike (Figure 10). The major deposition of silt and clay particles occurs in the area between The Narrows and the old salt works dike. This occurs because of a combination of factors including reduced velocities, flocculation on contact with saline waters and the effects of tidal variations. Terrestrial vegetation on the sand deposits at the northern end of the bay will slow storm flows that are high enough to pass through them, and the elevation will rise after each such event. Clay and silt will accumulate in the basin located between The Narrows and the old salt works dike to a depth where wave action can erode as much material over a year as deposits there. 5 N u • Z u CD PPOb z aaaOgwep U C Q +� S- S- .. Ul H M.— N J J N i C ,1 r rn i A W a N N i u 0 O C N D 3 0 0 u OJ IZ N CL O O O CD C7 E N p CD N N W -0-0 O • J .n ro o 4- o Q) -a � u o � I �I } � a D m \\ J w . \� ¢ Z \\ (q cr. `\ x a O M ¢ CL Z co O Oi \ � r o SPv \ N .. LLI If 0 If I �l W Lu I FIGURE 6 $ 10 1 T ' I As the volume of the upper basin decreases due to the advancing sand deposit, the developing marsh, and the rising mud flat, the volume of the tidal prism of northern Upper Bay will diminish. Tidal currents in the channel will have _ lowered maxima, and fine sediment will accumulate along channel edges, cons- tricting the channel cross - sections until the currents are strong enough to move any additional sediment. As the volume of the upper basin decreases, the fraction of the clay and silt that exits to the ocean will increase. There —. will probably be some accumulation of fines in Lower Bay when the amount of silt and clay that reach Lower Bay become significant. Later, when sand deposits have advanced to The Narrows, sand will reach Lower Bay during large storms. As the upper basin fills with sand and the channels become constricted, the fre- quency of flooding the marshes with storm flows will increase. Deposition on the marshes will remove fines, and the marsh surface elevations will rise slowly. As urban development continues in the watershed, upslope sediment production will decrease and channel erosion will increase unless coordinated channel — stabilization measures are installed as development occurs. The percentage of silt and clay included in the sediment delivered to Upper Newport Bay will de- crease because of the reduced sediment production from upslope areas and the — amounts of sand particles will increase because of channel erosion. The amounts of sand particles deposited in channel reaches on the flatter gradients will also increase. Alternative 2 - Channel Stabilization Measures Only. Channel erosion produces large amounts of sediment and increases the total sediment load in the flood flows considerably. Table 9 shows the estimated amounts of sediment caused by channel erosion on an average annual basis. As is shown in this table, almost all of this channel- eroded material is composed of sand particles. A very large percentage of this material and of the sand particles included in sediment produced from the upslope areas is deposited in the channel reaches on the flatter gradients. A relatively small percentage of the sediment inflows to Upper Newport Bay is composed of sand particles. Table 10 indicates the average annual sediment production and deposition in the San Diego Creek watershed under otherwise existing conditions but assuming all channels are stabilized and no sediment is produced by channel erosion. This analysis indicates that sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay would be reduced — 6100 tons (85,500- 79,400), all of which are indicated as sand particles. Table 11 indicates the average annual sediment production and deposition in the San Diego Creek watershed under conditions of ultimate development assuming all channels are stabilized and no sediment is produced by channel erosion. This analysis indicates that sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay would be reduced 17,400 tons (64,500- 47,100), essentially all of which are indicated as sand particles. The elimination of channel erosion in the watershed is estimated to reduce sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay about 7 percent under existing conditions and about 27 percent under conditions with ultimate development. These decreases in sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay are essentially all sand particles. 69 TABLE 10 — AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT PRODUCTION AND DEPOSITION ASSUMING ALL CHANNELS STABILIZED (EXISTING CONDITIONS) Particle Size Distribution Fractions /Tons Total Fine oarse Tons Clay Silt Sand Sand Sediment Produced 70 - .31 .35 .24 .10 Upslope Areas 118,300 36,600 41,400 28,600 11,700 — Channel Erosion -- -- -- -- -- .31 .35 .24 .10 Total Sediment Produced 118,300 36,600 41,400 28,600 11,700 Deposition .01 .17 .54 .28 Channel Deposition 38,900 500 6,700 20,800 10,900 — Sediment Delivered to Upper Newport Bay W /Channel Stabiliza- .45 .44 .10 .01 tion Measures 79,400 36,100 34,700 7,800 800 W/0 Channel Stabiliza- .44 .39 .16 .01 tion Measures 85,500 37,600 33,400 13,600 900 I Reduction with .25 -.21 .95 .01 Measures 6,100 1,500 -1,300 5,800 100 70 - TABLE 11 AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT PRODUCTION AND DEPOSITION ASSUMING ALL CHANNELS STABILIZED (ULTIMATE CONDITIONS) — Total Tons Particle Size Clay Silt Distribution Fine oarse Sand Sand Sediment Produced — .29 .33 .24 .14 Upslope areas 62,500 18,500 20,500 14,900 8,600 Channel Erosion -- -- -- -- -- — .29 .33 .24 .14 Total Sediment Produced 62,500 18,500 20,500 14,900 8,600 Deposition .02 - .49 .49 — Channel Deposition 15,400 300 100 7,500 7,500 Sediment Delivered to _ Upper Newport Bay W /Channel Stabilization .39 .43 .16 .02 — Measures 47,100 18,200 20,400 7,400 1,100 W/O Channel Stabilization .30 .32 .36 .02 _ Measures 64,500 19,400 20,600 23,200 1,300 .07 .01 .91 .01 Reduction with Measures 17,400 1,200 200 15,800 200 71 It is apparent that the installation of channel stabilization measures will — become progressively more important as urban development continues in the watershed. However, they are not of primary importance in reducing sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay under existing conditions. The material produced _ by channel erosion decreases channel capacities by deposition and increases channel maintenance costs. Alternative 3 - Installation of the Control Measures Recommended in the Early Action and Interim Plan art I - Subtask 1-9) These measures include two in- channel sedimentation basins and an excavated basin in the old salt evaporation pond area immediately downstream from Jam- boree Road (Figure 7). They are being installed at the present time. The basins located within the existing right -of -way for the San Diego Creek flood control channel will provide sediment storage capacity below the design invert elevations of the channel. Table 12 summarizes the average annual deposition that it is estimated to occur after the installation of the two in- channel basins between MacArthur Boulevard and the siphon crossing (basins 2 and 3). The basins are estimated to trap about 25,000 tons of sediment that would not have normally deposited in the channel reach in which they will be located. The sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay will be reduced by about 29 percent to 60,500 tons. The additional trapped sediment will be composed of silt and fine sand in about equal parts. It is estimated that the excavated basin in the old salt evaporation pond area will remove most of the sand particles and about 20 percent of the silt and clay particles from the flows, or about 15,500 tons of the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay with the two in- channel basins installed. About 75 percent of the deposited materials would be silt and clay particles. This analysis assumes that the capacities of these basins will be maintained to assure the continued effectiveness of their trap efficiencies. Additional basin capacities will probably be required as considered in Alternative 4 to assure this condition. 72 - TABLE 12 AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT PRODUCTION _ WITH IN- CHANNEL BASINS NO. 2 AND EARLY ACTION AND INTERIM 1 (EXISTING CONDITIONS) AND DEPOSITION 3 INSTALLED PLAN Particle Size Distribution Fractions /Tons _ Total Fine oarse Tons Clay Silt Sand Sand Sediment Produced .31 .35 .24 .10 Upslope Areas 118,300 36,600 41,400 28,600 11,700 .01 - .82 .17 Channel Erosion 38,800 400 200 31,700 6,500 .24 .26 .38 .12 Total Sediment Produced 157,100 37,000 41,600 60,300 18,200 Deposition - .46 .48 .06 In Basins 46,700 -- 21,500 22,200 3,000 - -.01 .01 .71 .29 Add'l Channel Deposition 49,900 -300 300 35,600 14,300 - .22 .60 .18 Total Deposition 96,600 -300 21,800 57,800 17,300 Sediment Delivered to Upper Newport Bay - .62 .33 .04 .01 With Basins 60,500 37,300 19,800 2,500 900 .44 .39 .16 .01 - Without Basins 85,500 37,600 33,400 13,600 900 .01 .54 .45 - - Reduction with Basins 25,000 300 13,600 11,100 - 73 Alternative 4 - Implementation of Early Action and Interim Plan Along with ree dditiona i In-unannel basins. The effectiveness of the two in- channel basins evaluated in Alternative 3 is _ dependent on the removal of accumulated sediment so that the trap efficiencies of these basins will be maintained. The analyses for Alternative 3 were made on the basis of average annual sediment production and transport estimates. The trap efficiencies for in- channel basins can be assured by providing increased capacities for the total in- channel basin system. Three additional in- channel basins may be located as shown on Figure 7 to provide an additional 169 acre -feet of storage capacity. This additional capacity would assure the continuation of effective trap efficiencies during a major storm or for periods of normal years when sediment was allowed to accumulate without maintenance removal. Table 13 summarizes the average annual deposition that is estimated to occur after the installation of the five in- channel basins between MacArthur Boulevard and the junction with Peters Canyon Wash (basins 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). The basins are estimated to trap about 32,800 tons of sediment that would have not normally deposited in the channel reach in which they are located. The sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay will be reduced about 38 percent to 52,700 tons. The addi- tional trapped sediment will be composed of about two- thirds silt and one -third fine sand. On the same basis as discussed with Alternative 3 the excavated basin in the old salt evaporation pond area is estimated to trap about 20 percent of the silt particles and 100 percent of the sand particles from the flows or about 14,000 tons of the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay with the five in- channel basins installed. About 80 percent of the deposited materials would be silt and clay particles. The combined effects of the in- channel basins and the excavated basin in Upper Newport Bay will be to trap 46,800 tons of sediment, or about 55 per- cent of the total sediment inflow to the bay. Alternative 5 - Installation of Foothill Basins to Obtain Floodwater Retarding - Effects and Sedimentation Control. The major economic justification for the foothill basins would be reduced costs for downstream channel improvements especially through the areas imme- diately downstream from the basins. The capacities required for effective trap efficiencies may be used for floodwater retarding which would provide the major benefits. Figure 6 shows the locations where foothill basins may be installed. The trap efficiencies assumed for these basins are as shown on Table 6 based on those estimated for the Borrego Canyon Wash reservoir study. On an average annual basis, it is estimated that 33,000 cu. yds. (20.5 ac.ft.) of sediment would be deposited in these 12 basins. Of this amount, 17,700 cu. yds. (11 ac. ft.) are silt and clay particles and 15,300 cu. yds. (9.5 ac.ft.) 74 - TABLE 13 AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT PRODUCTION AND DEPOSITION _ WITH IN- CHANNEL BASINS NO. 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 INSTALLED i ALTERNATIVE N0. 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS Particle Size Distribution Fractions /Tons Total Fine Coarse Tons Clay Silt Sand Sand Sediment Produced .31 .35 .24 .10 - Upslope Areas 118,300 36,600 41,400 28,600 11,700 .01 - .82 .17 - Channel Erosion 38,800 400 200 31,400 6,500 .24 .26 .38 .12 Total Sediment Produced 157,100 37,000 41,600 60,300 18,200 Deposition - .49 .42 .09 In Basins 59,300 -- 29,300 25,000 5,000 -.02 .75 .27 Add'l Channel Deposition 45,100 -900 -- 33,700 12,300 -.01 .28 .56 .17 - Total Deposition 104,400 -900 29,300 58,700 17,300 - Sediment Delivered to Upper Newport Bay .72 .23 .03 .02 - With Basins 52,700 37,900 12,300 1,600 900 .44 .39 .16 .01 Without Basins 85,500 37,600 33,400 13,600 900 .01 .64 .37 - Reduction with Basins 32,800 -300 21,100 12,000 -- 75 are sand particles. The trapped sand particles will not represent a net reduction of sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay because the flood flows will tend to reestablish a full load of these particle sizes by channel erosion. The trapped silt and clay particles will represent a net reduction of sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay as their removal from the flood flows will not cause replacement by other silt and clay particles. The flood flows do not have such limits on their capacities to transport these smaller particles. The total estimated average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay is 85,500 cu. yds., of which 82 percent is silt and clay particles, or 71,000 -- cu. yds. The 17,700 cu. yds. of silt and clay particles trapped in the foothill basins would represent a 25 percent reduction in the amounts of these particle sizes entering the bay. (See Table 14.) _ Maintenance operations would require the average annual removal of 33,030 cu. yds. of all particle sizes from the basins. Channel erosion would replace 15,320 cu. yds. of sand particles which would be redeposited in channel reaches with flatter gradients or in Upper Newport Bay. A second maintenance cost would be incurred for the removal of this channel eroded and redeposited material. - Alternative 6 - Combined Installation of Alternatives 4 and 5. This alternative provides for the installation of the Early Action and Interim Control Plan along with three additional in- channel basins; and the installation of the 12 foothill basins. Table 15 tabulates the effects of this combination of control measure in re- ducing the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. The foothill basins would — trap an estimated 17,700 tons of silt and clay particles which would reduce the silt and clay content of the flood flows by this amount. The sediment inflow at the junction with Peters Canyon Wash would be reduced to 73,800 tons (91,500 - 17,700). A total of 46,400 tons would be trapped by the five basins. This amount includes 26,500 tons that would normally be deposited in the channel section. The net reduction of sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay caused by the in- channel basins is 19,900 tons (46,400 - 26,500). The com- bined total reduction of sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay caused by this combination of measures in 37,600 tons (foothill basins - 17,700 tons plus in- channel basins - 19,900 tons). — The five in- channel basins without the foothill basins are estimated to trap 32,800 tons of sediment that would not have been deposited in the channels _ normally. The additional 12,900 tons trapped is due to the increased silt load in the flood flows subject to trapping without the foothill basins. The reduction in outflow to Upper Newport Bay is reduced by only 4,800 tons with the installation of the foothill basins. TABLE 14 AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT PRODUCTION AND DEPOSITION - WITH INSTALLATION OF 12 FOOTHILL BASINS ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 (EXISTING CONDITIONS) Particle Size Distribution Fractions /Tons - Total ine oarse Tons Clay Silt Sand Sand Sediment Produced .31 .35 .24 .10 Upslope Areas 118,300 36,600 41,400 28,600 11,700 .01 - .82 .17 Channel Erosion 38,800 400 200 31,700 6,500 .24 .26 .38 .12 Total Sediment Produced 157,100 37,000 41,600 60,300 18,200 Deposition - In Foothill Basins .05 .95 (Silt & Clay only) 17,700 900 16,800 -- -- -.O1 .12 .65 .24 - Channel Deposition 71,600 -600 8,200 46,700 17,300 - .28 .52 .20 - Total Deposition 89,300 300 25,000 46,700 17,300 ' - Sediment Delivered to Upper Newport Bay .54 .25 .20 .01 - With Foothill Basins 67,800 36,700 16,600 13,600 90D .44 .39 .16 .01 W/o Foothill Basins 85,500 37,600 33,400 13,600 900 .05 .95 Reduction with Basins 17,700 900 16,800 -- -- 77 i TABLE 15 - AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT PRODUCTION AND DEPOSITION COMBINED INSTALLATION OF ALTERNATIVES 4 AND 5 _ (EXISTING CONDITIONS) Particle Size Distribution - Fractions /Tons Total Fine Coarse Tons Clay Silt Sand Sand Sediment Produced 78 - .31 .35 .24 .10 Upslope Areas 118,300 36,600 41,400 28,600 11,700 .01 - .82 .17 - Channel Erosion 38,800 400 200 31,700 6,500 .24 .26 .38 .12 _ Total Sediment Produced 157,100 37,000 41,600 60,300 18,200 Deposition .05 .95 - Foothill Basins 17,700 900 16,800 -- -- .35 .54 .11 - In- Channel Basins 46,400 -- 16,400 25,000 5,000 Add'l Channel -.02 - .75 .27 Deposition 45,100 -900 -- 33,700 12,300 .30 .54 .16 Total Deposition 109,200 -- 33,200 58,700 17,300 Sediment Delivered to - Upper Newport Bay W /All Measures .77 .18 .03 .02 _ Installed 47,900 37,000 8,400 1,600 900 W/O Measures .44 .39 .16 .01 Installed 85,500 37,600 33,400 13,600 900 Reduction .02 .66 .32 - W /Measures 37,600 600 25,000 12,000 -- - 78 - Summary - Comparison of Alternatives Table 16 summarizes the deposition characteristics and costs that would be _ associated with the six alternative management systems under existing con- ditions. The average annual costs for removal of sediment include the costs for the removal of sediment that occurs in channel reaches on the flatter gradients without a project. This basis for comparison is used as the in- channel basins accumulate sediment that would have deposited in the channel without the basins. The additional costs for sediment removal caused by each alternative is the difference between the estimated costs with the — alternative installed and those required with the "No Project" alternative. In the table, it has been assumed that all of the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay wil require removal from some location within the Bay eventually. - Investigations have indicated that a very small percentage of sediment inflow is transported through the Bay to the ocean. These analyses have indicated that Alternative 4 will be the most cost effec- tive in reducing the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. The three addi- tional in- channel basins supplementing the two now being installed under the _ Interim Plan will assure more effective trap efficiencies over a wider range of conditions than would be obtained with Alternative 3. The total estimated capital investment cost for installing Alternative 4 is $2,000,000 in additional to that now being spent for the installation of the Early Action and Interim Plan. The average annual costs to remove sediment from the channels and basins will increase by $98,400. However, removing the sediment from the basins at $3.00 per cu.yd. is much less expensive than from the bay at from $7.50 to $10.00 per cu.yd. _ Sediment production from agricultural and construction areas will be progres- sively reduced with the more intensive application of best management prac- tices (BMPs). These reductions will cause less inflow of silt and clay par- ticles to Upper Newport Bay and less deposition of sand particles in the - basins and channel reaches. Consequently, the costs to remove these mate- rials will be reduced. _ The continued inflow of silt and clay particles into Upper Newport Bay will probably require additional excavated basins in the upper bay to prevent the progressive increase of sediment deposition in the lower portions of the bay. _ These basins would probably be located in the area between The Narrows and the old salt works dike so as to cause the least conflict with the objectives of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The results of monitoring the effectiveness of the measures installed under the Early Action and Interim - Plan will indicate the urgency of the need for these additional excavated basins. s Under conditions of ultimate development with the installation of channel stabilization measures, reduced sediment production from urban areas, and the probable installation of at least some of the foothill basins, the sediment transported by the stormflows will be greatly reduced. This will 79 result in reduced sediment deposition in the channels and basins, and in Upper Newport Bay. The costs for sediment removal will be greatly reduced . and more effective management of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve will be possible. The measures installed with Alternative 4 will remain effective but will require sediment removal less frequently. Under conditions of ultimate development and "No Project ", the average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay is estimated as 64,500 cu.yds, and chan- nel deposition as 88,700 cu.yds. With Alternative 4 installed but without channel stabilization measures, the total upstream deposition is estimated as 128,900 cu.yds. with the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay reduced to 24,300 cu.yds. The estimated average annual cost to remove sediment deposited upstream would be $386,700 (128,900 cu.yds at $3.00 per cu.yd.) and to remove that entering Newport Bay $182,250 (24,300 cu.yds. at $7.50 per cu.yd.) for a total of $568,950. With all channels stabilized under ultimate conditions, the total sediment production is estimated as 62,500 cubic yards. With Alternative 4 installed the total upstream deposition is estimated as 38,200 cubic yards with the sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay remaining about 24,300 cubic yards. The estimated average annual cost to remove sediment deposited upstream would be $114,600 (38,200 cubic yards at $3.00 per cubic yard) and to remove that entering Newport Bay $182,250 (24,300 cubic yards at $7.50 per cubic yard) for a total of $296,850. With all channels stabilized under ultimate conditions, the average annual maintenance costs for removing sediment would be reduced by $272,100 ($568,950 - $296,850) with Alternative 4 installed. Me a L A u Y a n C O O M y a m N V i C b O b O J C d> u A C O p E 0 u IO N M v O c v c p p A ^ 6 �� ro > o O O m u d C q V L O C n N b b E v Z O u w L 1% b O C> Y N IIl h I N ul N V^ > r V V O « Y L p a a 9 C V M t0 M H E E u n a u v q u j ro v QOV� L V � O d q Lw E q ti d E Vf O VOf m O� m O W N d C� >•nvv m n b uNi Ip p 7 6 p y O L L L N II a w y q L N [\L Y c --• v MI MI MI Md v -P. c Z v v ro A T T l L L V a N 6q > V > U ^YU 0•- O O W O O m m pl £ d d V L L O^ j rCi � O b b 45 Yl o 0 v N .- R O O O O O O. N tl1im� c o o w O q ^� A L NCI} m O m N m 100 my p u M Y u o c w1 d p C Y d A V m p1 C u L P C u N F• 6 O N .+ ro m v H 0 v � VI d u aVt m u W W W V1 W O lU U F � QY W - try I 1 N F- aU N� X 10 m pl m y1 V A O n a pl N+ .U.J Y K N .Zn Q = Qn+m Ovv N H Z 2 O wu20 EOOq m n m0 GOO m m O Q _ ~y£I' ^ r w '� �voovb e m e a 1n vl w O 1p Y O r �° mcov W u W�V O F -W'•'V 1� M P O •�-�m .br0 Y W d q C^ N O O O O O O CH O m Mn M1p W t+-VY 1 C b U N V 1p N •-1 .-' N W O N .-• d d N O O O O 10 01 10 b 1p 1p '� zuzu C tom. d O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 P mb-. n O F- `�b-1 b. vni ✓di 4.Ui moN o o 0 0 0 Om C Z U w U W p4Np1 M m O O O O NI .-1 A rl M M M M N d O.L J m m m m OJ m C � O C p A 6 � C ya b c� nv1 ^T q0 C AO Mmq O F u d'I O L a q C L � U Q 6I -w N M a 10 1p 8/ a L A u Y a n C O O M y a m N V i C 6 C C O p u v O c v c p p A ^ 6 �� ro > o O O m u d C q V L O C n v b b E v Z O u w L C � p V^ > r V V O « Y L p a a 9 C E E u n a u v q u j ro v L V a O d q Lw E q N d E C A a y�j m O N U0 ^ n W M 1F 7 p y O L L L N II a w y q L N [\L Y v -P. c Z v v ro A T T l L L V a N 6q > V > U u O L L q 6 N O pl £ d d V L L O^ o 0 v N .- c_ w v n i c c o o w O q V V N r p my p u M Y u o c w1 d p C Y d A V V p1 C u L P C u y u ro m v o 0 d X � VI d u aVt m X C W W W V1 W O lU U F � CONTROLLED DEPOSITION IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY Table 17 summarizes the characteristics and effectiveness of each of the _ alternative management systems for reducing the inflow of sediment to Upper Newport Bay. It is apparent that all of these alternative management systems permit a continued inflow of large quantities of sediment to Upper Newport Bay. The remaining inflow is composed of silt and clay particles with a small percentage of sand particles. — The most effective management system is Alternative 4, which is composed of the Early Action and Interim Plan in combination with three additional in- channel basins. With this management system installed, it is estimated that sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay at Jamboree Road will be reduced 38 percent. However, clay particles will be reduced by less than one percent; silt particles by 63 percent; and sand particles by 83 percent. It is apparent that this management system does not reduce clay particles significantly. - The relationship between the estimated sediment particles entering Upper Newport Bay under existing conditions and under conditions with this man- agement system installed is summarized as follows: The remaining sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay would be composed primarily of clay particles. There are no opportunities to pond the flood flows upstream from Newport Bay for a sufficient length of time to cause the deposition of clay particles. It has been estimated that more than 80 percent of the silt and clay particles are deposited in the upper basin above The Narrows. This deposition is caused by contact with saline waters, reduced velocities and tidal actions. The basin between The Narrows and the old salt works dike has become practically filled with this deposited material and has almost become a mud flat. Further deposition in this area will cause the silt and clay particles to continue into lower portions of the bay. In order to localize this deposition there appear to be two options: 1. Dredge accumulated sediment from the basin between The Narrows and the old salt works dike to restore capacity and characteristics favorable to causing deposition of silt and clay particles. 2. Excavate or dredge material from the area between the old salt works dike and Jamboree Road to simulate a basin similar to Option 1. This may require repair of the old salt works dike to control outflows similar to outflow control at The Narrows. These options have been discussed with Carl Wilcox of the California Department of Fish and Game to determine compatibility with the objectives for managing the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. M TABLE 17 SEDIMENT INFLOW TO UPPER NEWPORT BAY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND WITH ALTERNATIVE 4 INSTALLED AVERAGE ANNUAL Existing With Alternative 4 Installed Particle Conditions Reduction Remaining Percent Size Tons Tons Tons of Total Clay 37,600 - 37,600 71 Silt 33,400 20,800 12,600 24 Fine Sand 13,600 12,000 1,600 3 Coarse Sand 900 - 900 2 Total 85,500 32,800 52,700 100 The excavated basin downstream from Jamboree Road in the old salt evaporation pond area included in the Early Action and Interim Plan is now under construc- tion. It is being excavated to a maximum depth of - 3.0 feet MSL from an average ground surface elevation of about +6.5 feet MSL with 10:1 sideslopes, to provide a maximum pond area of about 50 acres. The amount of excavation provided for in the contract is 516,000 cu. yds. The amount of sediment storage capacity that will be provided in this basin below elevation 0 MSL is about 88 acre -feet. If sediment is allowed to accu- mulate above this elevation tidal movements into the area will be inhibited. It has been estimated that all of the sand particles and 20 percent of the silt and clay particles entering Upper Newport Bay will be trapped by this basin. On an average annual basis, this is estimated to be 14,000 cu. yds. (8.7 acre- feet). The remainder will continue into the bay with an additional amount being trapped in the basin between The Narrows and the old salt works dike. This basin is essentially filled at present and in the future progres- sively more of this sediment will pass through to lower portions of the bay. The estimated cost of the excavated basin now under construction is $1,440,000. This amounts to about $10.14 per cu. yd. of sediment storage capacity provided ($16,363 per ac. -ft.). The estimated maintenance cost on an average annual basis to remove the accumulated sediment is $105,000 (14,000 cu, yds. @ $7.50 per cu. yd.). In addition to reducing the amounts of sediment that will be transported to lower parts of the bay this excavated pond will enhance the fish and game objectives for this area. The tidal variations through this basin will provide access for fish species and improved feeding conditions for birds on the gentle slopes of the pond sides during the lower tide conditions. MM The California Department of Fish and Game do not want excavated basins in the area immediately above the old salts works dike as this is the habitat for several rare species of birds. They are not opposed to extending excavated basins within limits downstream from Jamboree Road. They would prefer that _ additional excavated basins be considered for the area located between The Narrows and the old salt works dike. This area has ground surface elevations averaging about +5.0 feet MSL. Two or more additional basins could be located in this area of similar size to the one now being constructed. They could be located on the basis of providing effective characteristics for causing deposition along with considerations — related to protection of the ecological reserve. Circular basins with a depth to -4.0 feet MSL, base diameter of 1,100 feet _ and 10:1 sideslopes would provide a surface area at ground surface elevation of about 30 acres. About 373,000 cu. yds. of excavation would be required which would cost about $2,797,500 at $7.50 per cu. yd.. This is about three times the cost of excavation for the basin now under construction because the excavated material is being disposed of at a convenient location. (Site A between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard). A basin constructed to these specifications will provide about 94 acre -feet of sediment storage capacity below elevation 0 MSL. The estimated capital cost per acre -foot of storage capacity provided would be $29,760 per acre -foot, or about $18.45 per cu. yd. With two additional basins of this size along with the one now being constructed, a total sediment storage capacity of 276 ac. -ft. would be provided at a total capital cost of $7,035,000 or about $25,500 per acre -foot ($15.80 per cu. yd.). It is estimated that this combination of three in -bay basins will trap all of the sand particles and 90 percent of the silt and clay particles. On the basis of estimated sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay tabulated in Table 31, the average annual amounts trapped would be 47,680 cu. yds (29.6 acre- feet). The estimated capital cost per acre -foot of sediment trapped on an average annual basis would be $237,670 or $147 per cu. yd.. The estimated average annual maintenance cost to remove the sediment deposited would be $357,600 (47,680 cu. yds. @ $7.50 per cu. yd.). With the installation of all measures specified in Alternative 4 and these two additional basins in the area upstream from The Narrows, it is estimated that 94 percent of the average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay of 85,500 cu, yds. will be trapped. It is anticipated that the installation of these measures will allow the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve to realize its objectives and will protect lower areas of the bay from deposition problems, especially in the near future when the trap efficiencies in the upper bay are further reduced. The design = details for these excavated basins, such as specific locations and side slopes, will be determined as plans are developed. There are various methods for maintaining the effectiveness of these in -bay excavated basins. The method assumed was to remove the material from the bay, allow it to drain and partially dry and then haul it away to a disposal area. The estimated cost of $7.50 per cu. yd. is a minimum for this type of main- tenance operation. m An alternative method would be to develop islands within the bay area in which the sedimentation ponds are developed. The initially excavated material could be placed on these islands along with materials removed later by main- _ tenance operations. When the depths became excessive, this material could be • removed and hauled away. Planning for this type of operation would require close coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game. However, the Department of Fish and Game does not feel that this concept would be com- patible with the maintenance of the Ecological Reserve. A third alternative would be to establish a permanent dredge in the upper bay area with a pipe outlet to an ocean disposal facility. This dredging concept could also be extended to other Newport Bay areas and provide a common ocean disposal facility. This concept has been discussed in some detail in a "Report _ on the Feasibility of the Pipeline Bypass Concept as a Solution for Upper Newport Bay Sedimentation Problems ", prepared by Michael H. Cheney, Consulting Civil Engineer, for the City of Newport Beach. The required capital investment costs estimated by Cheney for this concept was $14,000,000. The estimated total annual operating costs were $1,413,000. An alternative would be to load the dredged material onto barges and dispose of it at an acceptable location in the ocean. It will be very important to have regular and systematic assessment of the pro- gress of sedimentation in Newport Bay to determine the urgency of need for additional control measures and to evaluate the effectiveness of those that are installed. Continuous recording sediment gaging stations are planned for installation on San Diego Creek. One will be located on San Diego Creek above its junction with Peters Canyon Wash. Another will be located on Peters Canyon Wash and the station at Campus Drive will be continued. Periodic suspended sediment samples may be collected at MacAuthur Boulevard. This information will provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the two in- channel basins now under construction and any additional basins that may be installed upstream from them below the junction with Peters Canyon Wash. Measurement of the quantities and particle sizes of sediment deposited in these basins will provide additional information for evaluation of their effectiveness. This information will also provide an estimate of sediment inflow to Upper New- - port Bay. Regular and systematic measurements of sediment deposition in the bay will provide a guide to the urgency for providing additional measures to protect the ecological reserve, and to avoid further problems of deposition in the lower parts of the bay. This monitoring will include periodic hydrographic and topographic maps of the area, sediment sampling during stormflows at various locations in the bay and specific measurement of sediment deposited in excavated basins and other areas. Bottom surface sampling will provide information on the characteristics of the deposited material. Core sampling of the silt and clay deposits would be practical but grab samples of sand deposits may be required. Feeling the EV material would probably provide an adequate indication of sand content in the samples without making particle size distribution analyses. Forty or fifty samples would provide adequate information for interpretation. The careful measurement of material removed by dredging and other means by using pre- and post- removal surveys will provide valuable information on the quantities and characeristics of deposition. M. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING Implementation of the recommended plan will require funding for the installation of the proposed measures and for their continued maintenance. The institutional, financial and legal procedures for effective implementation of the plan must be established. To provide equitable financing of the capital investment and maintenance costs requires recognition of both the sources of sediment being deposited in Upper Newport Bay and the benefits that will accrue to public and private interests by preventing further degradation of and /or restoring desirable conditions in the bay. The average annual amounts of sediment produced by land uses under existing conditions of land use and management in the watershed are summarized as follows: Sediment Produced Land Use 1000 Tons Percent Open Space 56.5 42.0 Agricultural 54.6 41.0 _ Urban 3.3 2.5 Constuction 19.5 14.5 133.9 100.0 Types of benefits that will accrue from the implementation of the recommended plan and some of the beneficiaries are: Type of Benefit 1. Protection and enhancement of the bay as a wildlife habitat. 2. Maintenance of design capaci- ties of flood control channels. 3. Improved aesthetic values of bay. 4. Protection of recreational and commercial uses of Upper and Lower Newport Bay. Z Beneficiaries State Dept. of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Orange Co. Flood Control District Adjacent property owners in city of Newport Beach, motorists and visitors. Boat and slip owners. Orange Co. Harbor District City of Newport Beach U.S. Corps of Engineers Alternative Management System No. 4 is recommended for implementation along with additional excavated basins in upper bay. The major components of this combination are: 1. The Early Action and Interim Plan (Two in- channel sedimentation basins and an excavated basin in upper bay). 2. Implementation of recommended agricultural and construction site BMP's. 3. Three additional in- channel sedimentation basins in San Diego Creek between the I.R.W.D. siphon crossing and the confluence of San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash. 4. Additional excavated basins in Upper Newport Bay at locations compatible with the Department of Fish and Game's Master Plan. The estimated capital cost of Alternative No. 4, plus two additional excavated basins in the upper bay, excluding costs of facilities constructed under the Early Action Plan, is as follows: Three in- channel basins $2,000,000 Two in -bay basins 5,595,000 Total Capital Cost $7,595,000 The estimated average annual cost of sediment removal and maintenance of these facilities is: Upper Bay - sediment removal - 52,700 C.Y. @ $7.50 $395,250 Normal Channel Deposition removal - 71,600 C.Y. @ $3.00 214,800 Sedimentation basins - Additional 32,800 C.Y. @ $3.00 98,400 Structure Maintenance 1% 36,700 Total Annual Cost $745,150 The estimated costs will vary depending on the methods used for removing the sediment from the in -bay basins and whether or not material removed from the in- channel basins can be sold for use in construction. Additional costs that need to be considered and assigned are as follows: 1. Application of agricultural BMPs 2. Application of construction site BMPs 3. Channel improvements 4. Construction and maintenance of foothill basins The implementation and maintenance of the sedimentation control plan will need to be accomplished by one or more of the public agencies with jurisdiction in the San Diego Creek watershed with the cooperation and participation of The Irvine Company, the major private landowner. The public agencies with juris- diction in the basin are: [ .] City of Newport Beach City of Irvine City of Costa Mesa _ City of Santa Ana City of Tustin County of Orange Orange County Harbor District U.S. Corps of Engineers State Department of Fish and Game Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The portions of the cities of Costa Mesa, Santa Ana and Tustin within the _ watershed are mostly developed and, consequently, are not significant sediment sources. The Orange County Harbor District, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, although having interests in the basin, are not staffed or constituted to implement either the construction or maintenance aspects of the proposed plan. The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, and the State Department of Fish and Game are the agencies that can most logically implement the various elements of the plan. The application of the recommended agri- cultural and construction site BMP's should be administered by the cities of _ Newport Beach and Irvine within their jurisdictions. The County of Orange should administer the application of these practices within the remaining unincorporated area. Maintenance or construction of planned facilities within the bay should be administered by the State Department of Fish and Game. Construction and maintenance of the sedimentation basins within the Flood Control channels should be administered by the County of Orange. In order to implement and coordinate a comprehensive plan, it is recommended that a Joint Powers Agreement be entered into between the following parties: County of Orange City of Newport Beach City of Irvine State Department of Fish and Game The Joint Powers Agreement should provide for the following: 1. Adoption and implementation of the Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan. 2. Delegation of responsibility for construction and maintenance of portions of the plan to member agencies. 3. Allocation of capital and maintenance costs. 4. Plan revisions as needed. 5. Uniformity of erosion control ordinances. 6. Uniform application of agricultural and construction BMP's. 7. Obtaining State and Federal grants to aid in constructing required facilities. ` 89 8. Basin -wide sediment monitoring. 9. Monitoring the effectiveness of BMP's and constructed facilities. 10. Inclusion of sediment control objectives in storm drain facilities planning. 11. Training of agency personnel in effective sediment control techniques. 12. Funding of a position to coordinate the objectives of the Joint Powers Agreement. The employee whose position is funded by the member agencies could, by agree- ment, be an employee of one of the agencies. He should be selected by the member agencies and have substantial experience in sediment control. In order to avoid duplication of effort, the position should not be assigned enforcement or regulatory responsibilities. Rather, the primary a -uties of the position should be to coordinate the sediment control efforts of the member agencies, monitor and report on effectiveness of the BMP's, aid in the training of agency personnel involved in sediment control and recommend action to correct deficiencies or improve effectiveness of the plan. The Irvine Company, representing the major landowner, could enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Joint Powers. This memorandum of under- standing could provide for cooperative efforts between the Joint Powers and The Irvine Company, as well as contributions of capital or maintenance costs assigned to The Irvine Company -owned lands. The construction and maintenance costs should be assigned on considerations of the sources of the sediment, the benefits to be received by controlling the sediment deposits in the Bay and the flood control channels, and channel maintenance practices for other watersheds within the County. A formula for this cost sharing should be developed by the Joint Powers and revised from time to time as conditions warrant. It is recommended that the cost formula include the following: 1. The cost of implementing agricultural and construction BMP's should be borne by the various landowners with possible financial assistance for agricultural BMP's from Federal or State sources. 2. Cost of channel improvements should be shared by public and pri- vate interests in accordance with the policies of the various jurisdictions. 3. The capital costs of flood control aspects of foothill basins should be financed by private developments that benefit. Main- tenance of those facilities should be by the County. The costs of added sedimentation capacity, if approved by public agencies, should be a public expense since the sediment is produced from mostly natural erosion of undeveloped open space. .o 4. A portion of the cost of constructing and maintaining basins within the bay should be assigned to the Department of Fish and Game, the owner and manager of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve; the City of Newport Beach, whose commercial and recrea- tional interests will be benefited by preventing sediment deposits in Lower Newport Bay; and the Orange County Harbor District, the representative of boating interests within the County but outside the City of Newport Beach who, similarly, will benefit from pro- tection of the proposed plan. An equitable share of the cost to be borne by these public agencies would be the portion represented by sediment produced from "natural conditions ". Except for the foothills, most of the watershed has been disturbed by man. Since man has constructed channels and con- verted large portions of the watershed to agricultural and urban uses, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the amount of sediment that would have reached the bay before the man -made changes. However, as described in Task II -B, Geomorphic Analysis, it was the construction of man -made ditches and the improvement of natural channels that have provided an efficient means of transporting sediment produced in the foothills to Upper Newport Bay. Forty -two percent of the sediment produced is from open space, which has not been significantly changed by man. Therefore, a reasonable allocation to these three agencies perhaps would be 42 percent of the capital and maintenance costs of basins constructed within the bay. The Department of Fish and Game, the City of Newport Beach and the Harbor District could negotiate the individual shares of this cost. The remaining 58 percent should be divided between the producers of sediment from the other major sources: agricultural lands 41 percent, construction sites 14 1/2 percent, and urban areas 2 112 percent. The three agencies could establish fees to collect the construction sites' portion of the cost with the issuance of grading permits. The cities and the county would share the urban area portion based on the percentage of the area within each jurisdiction. The agricultural portion of the cost could be collected by each public agency in the form of an annual assessment agreed to by the Joint Powers. Authority for this type of assessment may require enabling legis- lation by the State. Since all agricultural lands are controlled by a few landowners, it may be possible to arrange for contributions in lieu of formal assessments. 5. Channel Improvements and Maintenance The County Flood District presently removes sediment deposits from the channels under their jurisdiction in order to maintain adequate capacity for flood flows. The District performs this function in all other watersheds within the county. It is therefore recommended that the annual maintenance cost of sediment removal from channels and channel sedimentation basins be assigned to the Flood Control District. The capital costs of constructing the in- channel sedi- mentation basins should be prorated similarly to that described 91 for the bay facilities in (4) above. The three public agencies would share the open space and urban allocation of 44 112 percent propor- tional to the areas of each jurisdiction within the watershed. Construction sites would be assigned 14 112 percent and agricultural lands 41 percent. In summary, the suggested formula for cost sharing of capital and maintenance costs would be as follows: In -Bay Basins - Capital Cost and Maintenance - Percent 1. Department of Fish and Game, City of Newport Beach 42 and Orange County Harbor District 2. Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, and the County 2 112 of Orange 3. Construction sites 14 1/2 4. Agricultural lands 41 Total 100 In- Channel Basins - Capital Cost - Percent 1. Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, and 44 112 County of Orange 2. Construction sites 14 1/2 3. Agricultural lands 41 Total 100 Channels and In- Channel Basin Sediment Removal 1. Orange County Flood Control District 100 percent Efforts should be made by the Joint Powers to secure State and /or Federal grants as they become available. These grants can be justified as a means of paying for some of the overriding public benefits which have been enumerated but not assigned a cost share in the formula. Funds received from these sources could be used to reduce the local contributions recommended. The percentages suggested in the above formula are intended as a basis for beginning discussions between the parties to the Joint Powers Agreement. Any formula agreed to by the Joint Powers should be sufficiently flexible to reflect changing conditions within the watershed, such as rates of urbanization, conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, and reduction of sediment production by implementation of more effective construction and agricultural BMP's by private property owners. 92 APPENDIX A FINAL _ Technical Memorandum Environmental Assessment of Alternative Sedimentation Control Plans Part IV; Task IV -B Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan Prepared for: Cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and the Southern California Association of Governments Prepared by: - Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc. for Boyle Engineering Corporation October 15, 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Pa a No. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS 4 III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 8 IV. CONCLUSIONS 23 Table No. 1 KA Exhibit No. 1 2 �c3 LIST OF TABLES Topic Areas Required by CEQA, State EIR 3 Guidelines, and City of Newport Beach Comparison of Sediment Control and 5 Cost Alternatives LIST OF EXHIBITS San Diego Creek Watershed Downstream Projects San Diego Creek Watershed Foothill Sedimentation Basins Comparative Environmental Assessment of Sediment Control Alternatives Following Page No. 6 FA 0 I. INTRODUCTION This Technical Memorandum represents Part IV; Task IV -B of the Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sediment Control Plan. The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to report the findings of the environmental assessment prepared for the alternative sedimentation control components and systems as outlined in Boyle Engineering's Technical Memorandums for Part III; Tasks III -A, III -B and III -C. The Technical Memorandum for Part III; Task III -A (Development and Preliminary Analysis of Alternatives) investigated a number of sedimentation control components in terms of "Upstream Engineering," "Valley Engineering," "Valley Land Management Practices" and "Downstream Engineering." The subsequent Technical Memorandum (Part III; Tasks III -B and III -C, Selection of Alternative Management Systems and Comparison of Alternative Management Systems) selected several of the components from the previous document, either as components of a system or as systems, for comparative evaluation. The following list of alternatives resulted: • Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative 2 - Channel Stabilization Measures Only • Alternative 3 - Implementation of Early Action and Interim Plan Only • Alternative 4 - Alternative 3 in Combination with Three Additional _. In- Channel Basins Alternative 5 - Installation of Twelve Foothill Basins • Alternative 6 - Combined Installation of Alternatives 4 and 5 In addition, the Technical Memorandum gave a general assessnent of sediment control through agricultural and construction Best Management Practices. In conclusion, Boyle Engineering recommended sedimentation control Alternative 4 - the Early Action and Interim Plan plus Three Additional In- Channel Basins. In addition, Boyle estimated that with installation of Alternative 4 facilities and two additional sedimentation basins within Upper Newport Bay, 94 percent of the average annual sediment inflow (includes sand, silt and clay) to Upper Newport Bay under existing conditions could be trapped. 1 As stated above, this document presents the findings of the environmental assessment of all the alternative sedimentation control components and systems. Although the "Early Action and Interim Plan" of the San Diego — Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan has been approved and installation of the Early Action and Interim Plan (EA & IP) facilities is currently underway, the "No Project" alternative is included here as a basis for comparing the various alternatives against existing conditions.) It should also be noted that while agricultural and construction Best — Management Practices (BMPs) are recognized as effective components in controlling the erosion /sedimentation process at its source, the recommended BMPs are general rather than site specific. Therefore, a generalized environmental assessment of agricultural and construction BMPs implementation has been prepared following the environmental assessment of alternatives. The environmental assessment was initiated by evaluating the alternatives with respect to the topic areas required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and the City of Newport Beach Guidelines (see Table 1 for a listing of those topic areas). As indicated in Table 1, it was determined that not all the topic areas were relevant to an environmental assessment of the subject alternatives because they would not be significantly affected by the alternative sediment control components and systems. These include: existing land uses; land use plans; demographics; public services /utilities; and energy conservation. This Technical Memorandum is divided into four sections. Section I provides an introduction to the environmental assessment; Section II includes descriptions of the selected sedimentation control components and systems; Section III presents the results of the environmental assessment; and Section IV summarizes conclusions and recommendations from the environmental assessment. 1 "No Project" is used here to mean existing conditions (without sedimentation control measures). It does not equate to the "No Project" alternative required for evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2 Table 1 TOPIC AREAS REQUIRED BY CEQA, STATE EIR GUIDELINES AND CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Topic Area Eliminated from Present Environ- mental Assessment Relevant to Present Environ- mental Assessment — Landform /Geology X Hydrology X _ Biology Resources X Mineral Resources X Cultural Resources X Existing Land Uses X Land Use Plans X Demographics X Traffic /Circulation X — Air Quality i X Acoustic Environment X _ Public Services /Utilities X Energy Conservation X — Aesthetics and Open Space X Recreation X 3 II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS Table 2 presents the estimated reduction in sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay accomplished by each of the alternatives described below and the costs for their installation and maintenance. This information has _ been summarized from the Technical Memorandum for Tasks III -B and III -C prepared by Boyle Engineering Corp. The numbers assigned to each alternative are the same as those in the aforementioned report to facilitate comparisons. Alternative 1 - No Project Under this alternative it is assumed that no permanent measures will be implemented to control sediment production and transport within the _ watershed. The estimated average annual inflow to Upper Newport Bay under existing conditions is 85,500 cubic yards composed of 83 percent silt and clay and 17 percent sand particles. Under ultimate conditions the average annual sediment inflow to the Upper Bay is 64,500 cubic yards.l Periodic channel maintenance (removal of deposited materials) is expected to continue under this alternative. Deposition in the watershed occurs primarily in the reach of San Diego Creek between the confluence with Peters Canyon Wash and Sand Canyon Avenue (45,100 cubic yards) and the reach between the junction with Peters Canyon Wash and the outlet into Upper Newport Bay at Jamboree Road (26,500 cubic yards). Alternative 2 - Channel Stabilization Measures Only This component alternative assumes that all stream channels in the Upper Newport Bay Watershed will be stabilized so that no channel erosion occurs. Such channel stabilization can be accomplished by lining the channels with blankets, gabians, riprap, stone or other materials. Since 1 Boyle Engineering determined that the existing and ultimate sedimentation conditions in Upper Newport Bay are determined by land uses within the Upper Newport Bay Watershed. Under existing land use conditions in the watershed, much of the land uses are agricultural or open space. Ultimately, land uses in the watershed will be primarily urban. This will reduce sources of erosion and sedimentation. 4 R L N R a C O o_ c 0 0 n c R c > Q! N R •Y 4! R � UI � Y L — ° Y •� O O Y O J Q1 w L w Y � O O L C V- O •� C N R N V q u 0-0 Y y a L L y R Y CL-0 R c > c R R c u R n X N Y Q! L Y- Ot Y O • � L L Y �a L a c O � m w ^ O J L O V O O Y O O O In C M Y V + N + .•• V bq N N N v Cl v ava J J J U U V cX X W W R L U V n l0 0 C) R O 0 j'^ • ^ t['f + to 32 N M V dq N J iA L O O O O H O N O LO O a a O a o� O �^ to 00 M O O p Q .r uv to u CD p � o a opv o o v n �= C) >+� oo v o M F- � ^ Z a.+ .9 N J cn d. O J C M m O Q M uv � V M Va U N W � H � Z r-- W H U N m Q Z d O O O Z W u O M 00 ° O Oi F W Q Cl -'I --� p cc 0 o ae n Z U9 J N In O C> � Q N U +..i ..•. 0) V T 6q N C Q a CL F Y O O E O U o N 10 0 O a O a o C) Y .r • L2 C 64 Q koU, c mu o c O O N co � c o > O N Y O O O C �q G C ^ O R ^ L G O O Yc a \ •� 1 v 00 R •r R Y L U C Q7 R r o� •.- R ^ C N J C •.- C R R a R L w w 3 tli C R C J R L .'- y^ E N O C N M.- m C E E Q C N v R Ol ul R > N E �Z RY V >r-- R O/ C LVI O OaR aLYNR aN CLORv Y -� C GJ GJ d C G v y C g O E L �-. Ql > X Y Y O) N .-� -.� C ---• Y «-� C w N J aj ^ N L Y U^ U E V E O T N R O V.- J� R Y G Y Y J R J v a >1 O O. u E O1 N O R 0/ X R O CJ O 4. R C N O O R O a) Y Ql C K V 1 Y Cfl 2 2 p W v f- L -. O R W H U i V E N Y R R L N R a C O o_ c 0 0 n c R c > Q! N R •Y 4! R � UI � Y L — ° Y •� O O Y O J Q1 w L w Y � O O L C V- O •� C N R N V q u 0-0 Y y a L L y R Y CL-0 R c > c R R c u R n X N Y Q! L Y- Ot Y O • � L L Y �a L a c O � m w ^ O J L O V O O Y O O O In C M Y V + N + .•• V bq N N N v Cl v ava J J J U U V cX X W W R L U less than half of the watershed is urbanized, it can be assumed that the majority of the channels would need some kind of improvement because of the increased runoff caused by urban development. Annual sediment inflow to the Upper Newport Bay would be reduced by approximately 6,100 cubic yards under this alternative. As shown in Table 2, this represents a 7 percent reduction in the average annual sediment inflow under existing conditions. Under ultimate conditions, this alternative will result in a 17,400- cubic -yard or a 27 percent reduction in sediment inflow.1 While this alternative provides reduced channel — erosion and some reduction in sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay, the primary function of channel stabilization is to ensure adequate flood flow capacities and reduce channel maintenance costs. Deposition of sediment f would continue to occur in the flatter gradients of some channel reaches, resulting in a continuing need for periodic removal and maintenance. Alternative 3 - Installation of Early Action and Interim Plan Only The Early Action and Interim Plan (EA & IP) for the Newport Bay Watershed proposed two in- channel sediment basins within the existing right -of -way of the San Diego Creek flood control channel and an excavated sediment basin in the old salt evaporation pond area of Upper Newport Bay. Exhibit 1 indicates the locations of the excavated basin as number 1 and the two in- channel basins as numbers 2 and 3. These facilities have been approved and are being installed at the present time. �— As shown in Table 2, for the existing conditions, the two in- channel basins would reduce sediment inflow to the Bay by 25,000 cubic yards or 29 percent of the average annual sediment inflow and the excavated basin would reduce sediment inflow by another 15,500 cubic yards or 18 percent of the average annual sediment inflow. To maintain the trap efficiency of the system, periodic removal of deposited materials from both the in- channel basins and the excavated basin would be required. 1 Under ultimate conditions the percentage of silt and clay produced upslope will be reduced. Also, the amounts of sand particles de- posited in channel reaches in the flatter gradients will increase. 0 4%%s 44 1� ,O POP N S GO�a uQQSO' 40's? ' iOi i 1 1 MAIN 5 ♦ 1.O 1111 tic, ,pW� Et1j l 5 ZM 110 SpE P`�Nt ',1 SlP 65 NG - �� 1 n GP's PMo� Nll Oc v F GPL�FOPN�P O O VN�JEPS \�P�SNE San Diego Creek Watershed Downstream Projects 1 7 LEGEND ALTERNATIVE 3 FACILITIES O EXCAVATED BASIN 00 IN- CHANNEL BASINS _ I FACILITIES ADDED BY ALTERNATIVE 4 0 6O O IN- CHANNEL BASINS SOURCE: BOYLE ENGINEERING CORP. _ EXHIBIT 1 Alternative 4 - Alternative 3 in Combination with Three Additional In- Channel Basins This system alternative would provide three in- channel basins in addition to the facilities included in the EA & IP. As shown in Exhibit 1, the _ additional basins would be located in the San Diego Creek flood control channel, immediately north of those installed as part of the EA & IP (see basins 4, 5 and 6). These facilities (five in- channel basins and one excavated basin) would provide better sediment trap efficiencies than the EA & IP facilities alone. As shown in Table 2, this alternative would reduce sediment inflow to the Bay by 32,800 cubic yards, representing a 38 percent reduction under existing conditions. The excavated basin would trap an additional 14,000 cubic yards or 16 percent of the annual average sediment inflow. As with Alternative 3, this alternative would require periodic removal of deposited materials from the in- channel basins and excavated basin. However, less frequent removal would be required to maintain reasonable trap efficiencies for the in- channel basins as the total combined capacity is about double that for Alternative 3. Alternative 5 - Installation of Twelve Foothill Basins _ This component alternative would include the installation of twelve flood - detention /sediment control basins in strategic channels in the foothills. Exhibit 2 shows the approximate locations of the basins. As shown in Table 2, under existing conditions, average annual sediment inflow would be reduced by 17,700 cubic yards of the silt and clay particles or 21 percent of the existing sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bayl. This alternative would require periodic removal of deposited materials from the foothill basins and the channel reaches with flatter gradients where sediment would continue to be deposited. Additional sand particles would be trapped but would be replaced by channel eroded materials. These channel erosion materials would tend to redeposit on channel reaches with flatter gradients and would also require removal. l This assumes that the EA & IP basins are not installed and are not providing any sediment reduction. g 7 � v �\ 2 \3 I i �- PETERS CANYON NO. 1 O2 - PETERS CANYON NO. 2 3�-- RATTLESNAKE CANYON HICKS CANYON 6o-- HICKS CANYON BO-- BEE CANYON 7o-- ROUND CANYON OB - ROUND CANYON o-- AGUA CANYON 10 BORREGO CANYON 7 SERRANO CREEK 12 SERRANO CREEK SOURCE: BOYLE ENGINEERING CORP. San Diego Creek Watershed Foothill Sedimentation Basins 2 M EXHIBIT 2 Alternative 6 - Combined Installation of Alternatives 4 and 5 This system alternative provides for the installation of the EA & IP facilities, the three additional in- channel basins and the twelve foothill basins (see Exhibits 1 and 2). As shown in Table 2, this alternative would reduce sediment inflow to the Bay by 37,600 cubic yards, repre- senting approximately 44 percent of the existing average annual sediment inflow to the bay. This degree of sediment reduction is 4,800 cubic yards greater than could be achieved through implementation of Alternative 4 facilities alone. The in -Bay excavated basin would trap an additional 13,000 cubic yards of sediment or 15 percent of the average annual inflow. Periodic removal of deposited materials in the foothill basins, in- channel basins and excavated basin will be required to maintain the trap efficiency of the system. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section describes the beneficial and adverse impacts upon both natural and man -made systems which could result from implementation of each of the sediment control alternatives previously described in Section II. Impacts occurring at the site of each facility or improvement, as well as impacts to the Bay, are discussed. The topics addressed in this _ assessment conform to the topics which will be discussed in a subsequent environmental impact report (EIR), except for those topics which are not relevant at this time (See Table 1 and previous discussion on page 2). A summary of the adverse impacts identified, in the form of a comparative matrix (Exhibit 3), follows this page. As shown in the legend of Exhibit 3, the comparative environmental assessment of alternatives uses seven symbols to indicate the degree of adverse impact upon natural and man -made systems associated with each _ alternative. The selection of a symbol was based upon the potential for adverse impacts and its short -term (construction- related) or long -term (permanent change or periodic impact) nature. The degree of the adverse impact was determined and assigned symbols using the categories of 8 "minimal," "moderate" or "major ". determined by comparing existing characteristics of each alternative. The degree of adverse impact was environmental conditions and the As noted in Section II, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, the Early Action and Interim Plan, which was approved and is currently being constructed, is being considered here as one of the alternatives (No. 3) for the ultimate sedimentation control system. It should be noted that an EIR was previously prepared and certified by the City of Newport Beach for the Early Action and Interim Plan.1 Information from that EIR, certified in 1981, has been referred to in assessing Alternatives 3, 4 and 6. Alternative 1 - No Project Beneficial Impacts Under this alternative no construction - related activities would occur which have short -term impacts on the channels or bay (i.e., removal of channel or Upper Newport Bay vegetation, disturbance of wildlife, or increases in sedimentation during excavation of deposited materials). Adverse Impacts Land form /Geology - Without measures to reduce sediment inflow in to the Upper Bay, surface elevations in the Upper Bay will rise. Although this process will take many years; it will result in significant long -term hydrology and biology impacts, as discussed below. Channel maintenance will continue and will require periodic excavation and removal of deposited materials from several channel reaches in the watershed. Hydrology - It is estimated by Boyle, that all the sand from San Diego Creek is deposited in the northern end of the Upper Bay, primarily in the area north of the old salt works dike. The primary deposition of silt and clay particles occurs in the area between the old salt works dike and the 1 City of Newport Beach, Certified Final EIR, Early Action and Interim Plan, Newport Bay Watershed - San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan, 1981. narrows. This is due to a combination of factors including reduced velocities, flocculation on contact with saline waters, and the effects of tidal variations. This process will continue unchanged under this alternative. — As the volume of the upper basin decreases due to the advancing sand deposit, the developing marsh, and the rising mud flat, the volume of the tidal prism of the northern bay will diminish. Tidal currents in the channel will have a lowered maxima and fine sediment will accumulate along channel edges, constricting cross sections until the currents are strong enough to move any additional sediment. A decreased volume in the Upper Bay will also result in an increase in the fraction of clay and silt that exits to the ocean. There will most likely be some accumulation of fine particulates in the Lower Bay when the amount of silt and clay that reaches this part of the Bay becomes significant. Later, when sand deposits have advanced to The Narrows, sand will reach the Lower Bay during large storms. As the upper basin fills with sand and the channels become constricted, the frequency of flooding the marshes with storm flows will increase. Deposition on the marshes will remove fines, and the marsh surface elevations will rise slowly. As urban development continues in the — watershed, upslope sediment production will decrease and channel erosion will increase unless coordinated channel stabilization measures are installed as development occurs. The percentage of silt and clay included in the sediment delivered to Upper Newport Bay will decrease because of the reduced sediment production from upslope areas. The amounts of sand particles deposited in channel reaches on the flatter gradients will increase. In addition to long -term hydrology impacts, periodic channel maintenance (removal of deposited sediment in channels), will cause temporary increases in sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. Biological Resources - Under this alternative, sedimentation in the Upper Newport Bay would continue unmitigated. As a result of continuing sedimentation, the area of exposed mudflats in Upper Newport Bay will 10 increase and the area of vegetation, which provides bird and wildlife species, vegetation due to continued transition would be detria Ecological Reserve. open water at low tide decrease. Saltmarsh habitat, nesting and foraging areas for many will eventually transition to non -salt marsh deposition of sediment in the Upper Bay. This ental to the goals of the Upper Newport Bay In addition to long -term biology impacts, channel maintenance will cause periodic disturbance of vegetation and wildlife in and adjacent to the channels. Mineral Resources - No adverse impacts to mineral resources would occur under this alternative. Cultural Resources - No adverse impacts to cultural resources would occur under this alternative. Aesthetics and Open Space - Continued sedimentation in the Upper Bay will eventually lead to transition of the marsh areas to mud flats. This could be considered a significant adverse aesthetic impact. No open space impacts would occur. Periodic channel maintenance operations will cause temporary aesthetic impacts along channels in the watershed. Recreation - Under this alternative, Upper Newport Bay would fill with sediment and become a mud flat. Some fraction of silt and clay currently flows through to the Lower Bay and the ocean. This fraction will increase due to continued sediment deposition in the Upper Bay. Eventually, sand deposits will also advance to the narrows and to the Lower Bay during large storms. This could have impacts on the recreation industry in the Lower Bay, especially those operating above the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. Periodic channel maintenance operations will cause temporary incon- veniences to bikers or hikers using the channel trails. 11 Traffic /Circulation, Air Quality, Acoustic Environment - No short -term traffic, air quality or noise impacts would occur under this alternative. In the long -term, traffic, air quality and noise impacts will periodically occur during the maintenance operations that will be required in the flatter gradient channel reaches. Overall Impact - In summary, no adverse short -term environmental impacts would occur if sedimentation control measures were not implemented. How- ever, some of the longer term environmental impacts could be considered of major significance. Due to sediment deposition in the Upper Bay (landform and hydrology impacts) the sensitive biological habitat of the Upper Bay would eventually be transformed. This would have significant impacts on the ecological reserve and the aesthetics of the Upper Bay. The periodic traffic, air quality and noise impacts are considered moderate since they would occur in several areas in the watershed. Alternative 2 - Channel Stabilization Measures Beneficial Impacts Stabilization of all or any section of the channels in the Upper Newport Bay Watershed would reduce erosion of the channel beds and reduce sedimen- tation in the Upper Newport Bay. As stated above, approximately 1 percent of the sediment inflow to the Upper Bay would be eliminated if no channel erosion (made up primarily of sand) occurred. While this reduction is con- sidered beneficial, it is not a significant improvement. The primary bene- fit of channel stabilization is improved flood control and reduced channel maintenance requirements. This translates into reduction in the environ- mental impacts that occur periodically during maintenance operations. Adverse Impacts Landform /Geology - Grading activities associated with this alternative may result in changes to the configurations or topography of the channels. While these changes are expected to be minimal in any one area, the possi- bility that these changes could occur throughout most of the watershed, and at various times, is more significant. 12 Hydrology - Accordingly, grading and construction activities disturb channel materials and would result in short -term impacts to water quality in the channel and the Upper Newport Bay. Again, the impact of this occurring throughout most of the watershed and at various times makes it more significant than if it were occurring in one channel at one time, for _ example. Maintenance requirements, while reduced, would cause periodic increases in sediment inflow to the bay. Biological Resources - Channel stabilization to completely control erosion would most likely require removal or covering of all or most vegetation in the unimproved channel beds. If done throughout most of the watershed, significant short -term impacts on the wildlife habitats provided by chan- nel vegetation would result. Depending on the material used to line the channels, vegetation of some type will grow back, however, it would most likely alter the existing ecology of channel organisms. This may have significant long -term impacts on wildlife habitats associated with the channels. In addition to biological impacts within the channels, construc- tion activities would cause short -term disturbance of vegetation and wild- life adjacent to the channels to be stabilized. Maintenance requirements, while reduced, would cause periodic increases in sedimentation in the Upper Bay and disturbances to local wildlife. Mineral Resources -- Lining of the channels to prevent erosion could _ potentially obscure any significant mineral resources within the channel bed. As shown in Exhibit 3, this is considered a minimal long -term impact. Cultural Resources - Similarly, lining of the channels could obscure significant cultural (historical, archaeological or paleontological) resources. This is unlikely since potential impacts to cultural resources will be evaluated prior to any construction. Therefore, the long -term impact is only considered minimal. Aesthetics and Open Space - As shown on Exhibit 3, impacts on channel aesthetics would be moderate due to loss of open space. While loss of open space in some channel reaches could be considered significant, certain channel reaches that are already disturbed would not be noticeably 13 changed. Construction activities would cause short -term aesthetic impacts at the construction sites throughout the watershed. Maintenance requirements, while reduced would cause periodic aesthetic impacts in certain parts of the watershed. Recreation - Recreation activities, such as hiking and riding, along the various channels could be temporarily impacted during the construction phase. Periodic inconveniences to hikers or riders may occur during the periodic maintenance operations required along some reaches. Traffic /Circulation, Air Quality, Acoustic Environment - During the construction phase, access roads would be impacted by truck traffic going to and from the construction site and landfills. This impact would occur throughout the watershed and is therefore considered a moderate impact. Accordingly, exhaust emissions, dust and noise would increase along access roads causing short -term impacts to adjacent land uses. While maintenance requirements would be reduced upon completion of channel stabilization, maintenance operations would still result in periodic traffic, air quality and noise impacts from maintenance equipment and haul trucks. Overall Impact - In summary, this alternative would result in moderate environmental impacts, primarily related to construction- related impacts which would necessarily occur throughout the watershed and along all or most unimproved channels. Long -term impacts would result from loss of open space and wildlife habitats. Periodic environmental impacts would also be caused by maintenance operations. - Alternative 3 - Implementation of Early Action and Interim Plan Only Beneficial Impacts Installation of the facilities included in this alternative would result in a 29 percent reduction in the existing average annual sediment inflow — to Upper Newport Bay. The primary benefits of this alternative would be reduced sedimentation in the Upper Newport Bay, improved water quality and _ enhancement of significant wildlife habitats. 14 Adverse Impacts Landform /Geology - Construction of the Early Action and Interim Plan (EA E IP) facilities is currently under way. As noted in the Technical Memoran- dum for Tasks III -B and III -C, installment of the No. 1 debris basin re- quires the excavation of 516,000 cubic yards (cu. yds.) of basin material. According to the CFEIR for the EA & IP, the No. 2 in- channel basin re- quires the excavation of 270,000 cu. yds. of channel material and the No. 3 in- channel basin requires the excavation of approximately 80,000 cu. yds. of channel material. The excavated material from the basins is being placed in the undeveloped area east of Jamboree Road and south of the San Diego Creek, commonly referred to as "Site A." A berm or similar structure on the northern side _ of the stockpiled material will prevent erosion of the material back into the creek. Sediment trapped in the EA & IP basins will be periodically removed to maintain the trap efficiencies of the facilities. This is not, however, considered an adverse landform impact. Hydrology - Impacts to groundwater due to saline intrusion may occur upon excavation of the basin in the Upper Bay. However, the potential for _ saline intrusion is low and could be considered insignificant due to the existing poor quality of the aquifer. This impact was addressed on page 5 -31 of the CFEIR for the EA and IP (1981), Volume I. According to the CFEIR for the EA & IP (1981), water quality impacts will occur during construction of the facilities. Pollutants such as oil, grease and particulate matter will be increased due to the truck traffic and construction equipment used in or next to the creek or bay. Excava- tion and grading activities in the creek will increase the erosion and sedimentation potential for a short period. However, impacts will be reduced since the excavated material is to be removed from the site immediately. Dewatering is to occur in the creek subject to permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana. Short -term sedimentation impacts to the Upper Bay may occur periodically (annually or less frequently) due to maintenance operations to remove deposited materials from the in- channel and excavated basins. 15 Biological Resources - The activity and noise associated with construction and dredging of the excavated and in- channel basins will temporarily harass wildlife and shorebird populations. Dredging operations to excavate and maintain the basins in the Upper Bay will temporarily churn up sediment, releasing small amounts of heavy metals and pesticides and reducing the established benthic population (CFEIR EA & IP, page 5 -17). However, these "short -tern" impacts are expected to be minimal. Long -term bioaccumulation of these substances would be expected throughout the food chain and the impact of this is unknown at this time. For all three basins, vegetation is being removed or disturbed during construction and maintenance. In the Upper Bay, riparian thickets are being removed. However, salt marsh and brackish marsh areas will increase. Introduced grassland species are being removed in the area where excavated basin materials and periodic dredging materials are stockpiled. This should have a minimal impact on wildlife. Riparian vegetation is being removed from the in- channel basin locations and will repeatedly be eliminated when sediment removal operations occur. Also, a transition from riparian to introduced grassland and ruderal species may occur within the undisturbed strips on either side of the channel. Construction and maintenance activities will temporarily interfere with the wildlife movement corridor formed by the San Diego Creek. Mineral Resources - Installation of the EA & IP facilities will not impact any known significant mineral deposits. Stockpiling of excavated material in Site A may permanently obscure significant mineral resources. The chances of this occurring are low. Cultural Resources - Excavation operations may uncover random scattered fossils or artifacts. Stockpiling of excavated materials in Site A may permanently obscure resources. Aesthetics and Open Space - Short -term aesthetic impacts will occur along the channel and in the bay during the construction phase. As stated in 16 the CFEIR for the EA & IP facilities (1981) , the addition of the two drop structures in the San Diego Creek will be the only noticeable long -term changes resulting from this alternative. Periodic aesthetic impacts will occur in the bay and along the creek during maintenance operations. Recreation - Construction activities will cause short -term inconveniences to users of the San Diego Creek bicycle and equestrian trails. No adverse impacts on open space will result from the project. Maintenance operations will also, periodically, inconvenience riders or hikers. Traffic /Circulation, Air Quality and Acoustic Environment - According to the CFEIR for the EA & IP (1981), hauling of excavated materials from the in- channel basins will require between 730 to 876 truck trips per day over an 80 -day hauling schedule. This represents a small, short -term increase in traffic volumes on local roads. Accordingly, exhaust emissions, dust generation and noise will increase adjacent to the affected roads and in the Upper Bay and San Diego Creek. Periodic increases in truck traffic, pollutant emissions and noise will result due to required maintenance operations. These impacts will be localized near the EA P, IP facilities. Overall Impact - As shown in Exhibit 3, this alternative will have moder- ate construction- related adverse impacts. Long -term adverse impacts of this alternative should be minimal. Most of the long -term effects will be _ beneficial to the water quality and biological resources in the Upper Newport Bay. Alternative 4 - Alternative 3 in Combination with Three Additional In- Channel Basins Beneficial Impacts This alternative would result in beneficial impacts equivalent to those from the EA & IP facilities alone. However, the water quality and biology benefits to the Upper Newport Bay would be even more pronounced than under Alternative 3. This alternative would increase the amount of sediment reduction to 38 percent of the existing average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay. 17 Adverse Impacts As shown in Exhibit 3, this alternative would have adverse impacts similar to those described above for Alternative 3. However, since this alterna- tive also includes the installation of three additional in- channel basins, the adverse short -term (construction) impacts would be expanded to include more of the San Diego Creek Channel (as indicated by basins 4, 5 and 6 in Exhibit 1). For example, approximately 272,900 cubic yards of additional channel material would have to be removed from the channel beds to form the additional basins. Excavated materials would have to be hauled to alternative locations (most likely local landfills), since the capacity of Site A would have been achieved. This would probably not be a significant impact, since the dredged materials could be used as daily cover at the nearby Coyote Canyon or Prima Deshecha landfills. In addition to the direct impacts to the channel, sedimentation impacts to the Bay during _ construction would increase and be prolonged. Also, the traffic, air quality and noise impacts associated with increased excavation and _ construction requirements would increase. Upon installation of the three additional in- channel basins, the frequency of required maintenance operations may actually be reduced, however, periodic maintenance impacts on adjacent land uses would still occur. Overall Impact - Overall, the adverse impacts of this alternative are considered to be only slightly increased over those for Alternative 3. Alternative 5 - Installation of Twelve Foothill Basins Beneficial Impacts The primary beneficial impact of this alternative would be detention and control of storm runoff from the foothill areas. Flood control by basins in the foothills would reduce requirements for flood control measures in �. the valley areas. The foothill basins would also provide sediment detention, thereby reducing sediment inflow to the Upper Newport Bay. Subsequently, benefits to the water quality and biological resources in the Upper Newport Bay would result. Retention of floodwater will also J W have the effect of intensifying riparian vegetation along the floor of the basin. This however, is only a temporary beneficial impact since the vegetation will be removed during periodic maintenance operations or inundated during a major storm. Adverse Impacts _ Landform /Geology - Installation of floodwater- retarding and sediment - control basins in the foothills would require damming of the twelve major drainage channels (see Exhibit 2). Landform changes would occur at the borrow sites where fill is excavated to form the dam structure. Also, local impacts to landform would occur during grading activities. The amount of grading at each site, to be determined at later planning stages, would vary for each drainage. Erosion of channel materials would occur during construction, causing short -term increases in sedimentation. Eroded channel materials would most likely consist of sand particles which would he deposited downstream in the flatter gradient channel reaches. The completed foothill basins would trap sediment before it enters the valley channel system. Periodic removal of sediment deposited in the basins would be required to maintain the trap efficiencies of the basins or to retain capacities designed for floodwater detention and would not be considered an adverse landform impact. Hydrology - Short-term impacts on water quality would occur during the construction phase of this alternative. - Levels of oil, grease and particulates carried in the local runoff would increase due to truck traffic and construction equipment in and near the drainages being dammed. Increased erosion and sedimentation would also occur during the grading and excavation activities needed to form the foothill basins. Most of the sediment stirred up during the construction phase would be deposited in channel reaches at flatter gradients. The construction of the twelve basins would cumulatively impact the watershed resulting in widespread short -term sedimentation in the twelve affected drainage courses. Main- _ tenance operations in the basins would cause periodic increases in the sediment load carried downstream from the basins. Again, this will have consequences for the entire watershed, and ultimately for Upper Newport Bay. W, Biological Resources - Construction activities for the twelve basins will require removal or temporary disturbance of riparian or oak woodland vege- tation in the twelve drainage courses. In addition, removal and distur- bance of vegetation will occur at the borrow sites where fill materials are excavated. Short -term disturbance or removal of wildlife dependent on these communities would also occur. Detailed biological surveys for each basin must be conducted to determine the significance of the local biologi- cal resources and especially the importance of these drainage areas as _ wildlife habitats or corridors. Most likely, the magnitude of impact from the construction of each basin would be different. Maintenance operations in each of the twelve basins would cause periodic disturbances of vegeta- tion and wildlife in the adjacent open space areas. In addition, it would remove any riparian vegetation that has grown back in the basin since installation of the facility. Mineral Resources - Significant mineral deposits could be obscured by the permanent flood- retention /sediment- control facilities installed in each of the twelve drainage courses. Cultural Resources - Significant cultural resources could be obscured by the permanent facilities installed in each of the twelve drainage areas. j Aesthetics and Open Space - Installation of the foothill basins would result in both short -term and long -term adverse impacts upon aesthetics _ and open space factors. Construction activities would occur in twelve locations in the foothills, causing significant short -term visual impacts. Placement of the basins in these major drainage courses would permanently alter these important open space features and generate significant long- term impacts in twelve foothill areas. In addition, maintenance opera- tions would cause periodic visual impacts at the twelve basin locations . and in the valley channels. _ Recreation - Since channel maintenance would still be required under this alternative, periodic inconveniences to hikers and riders using the drainage may still occur. 20 Traffic /Circulation, Air Quality and Acoustic Environment - As shown on Exhibit 3, adverse traffic impacts associated with installation of the foothill basins are considered to be significant. Construction equipment and haul trucks would impact access roads throughout the watershed. Many of the roads that would be used to access these areas are not fully improved, making the construction - related traffic a major circulation impact as well. Along with the increase in construction equipment and truck traffic on the roads, increased exhaust emissions, dust generation and noise impacts to land uses adjacent to the affected roads would also result. Maintenance operations would cause periodic increases in truck traffic, exhaust emissions and noise impacts throughout the foothill areas of the watershed. Overall Impact - As shown in Exhibit 3, the overall short -term impact from this alternative would be major due to construction occurring throughout the foothills. Since the basins would be located in twelve major drainage courses of the foothills, aesthetic and biological impacts would be the most significant direct impacts. Indirect impacts from traffic volumes, exhaust emissions and noise are considered significant since the proposed basins are scattered across the foothills and these impacts would there- fore affect roads and land uses throughout the watershed. Maintenance operations would result in periodic environmental impacts throughout the foothill environment. The major long -term impact of this alternative would be the loss of open space required for installation of the basins. lternative 6 - Combined Installation of Alternatives 4 and 5 Beneficial Impacts The primary benefits of this alternative would be reduced sedimentation in the Upper Newport Bay, improved water quality and enhancement of signifi- cant wildlife habitats. As shown on Exhibit 3, this alternative would provide the most.sediment reduction for flows entering Upper Newport Bay of all the alternatives. 21 Adverse Impacts The adverse environmental impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as those described for Alternatives 4 and 5 above. In summary, Alternative 4 would primarily result in impacts to the San Diego Creek south of its confluence with Peters Canyon Wash and to the Upper Newport Bay. Alternative 5 would result in impacts to the twelve major drainage courses in the foothills of the watershed. The combined instal- lation of Alternatives 4 and 5 (Alternative 6) would not increase the local adverse impacts associated with each alternative; however, the combined impacts would result in greater overall impacts upon the watershed. Major construction- related impacts would occur in both the downstream reaches and foothill areas. Maintenance operations would result in periodic impacts to the San Diego Creek, the Upper Newport Bay and the twelve foothill basins. The major long -term impact from this alternative would be the same as that described for Alternative 5; the loss of significant open space areas where the foothill basins would be installed. Overall Impact - As shown in Exhibit 3, the overall short -term impacts of this alternative would be major since construction impacts would occur throughout the foothills and in the lower San Diego Creek channel and Upper Newport Bay. The overall impact would be the combined impacts of Alternatives 4 and 5. In addition, a generic list of mitigation measures that could be employed to reduce impacts of sedimentation control systems has been developed as part of this assessment. This list is presented in Exhibit 4. Resource Management Systems _ Resource Management Systems which reduce erosion and sediment inflow to the Upper Newport Bay have been developed for construction sites and agricultural areas in the watershed in Technical Memoranda for Task 8015.02 (Agricultural Activities Interim Sediment Control Plan) and Task 8015.03 (Construction Activities Best Management Practices Plan). Most of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) recommended in these technical — memoranda are general, rather than site specific. 22 EXHIBIT 4 Typical Mitigation Measures For Minimizing Impacts From Sedimentation Control Alternatives Type of Impact Landform Geolo - Removal of a uvia material. Biological - Displacement of flora and fauna. Typical Mitigation • Use of benches, levees and other engineering techniques. • Specific design features that avoid habitat areas or can reduce impacts from operating the facilities (i.e., main- tenance during non - nesting periods). • Transplanting certain flora that must be removed for construc- tion. • Coordination with U.S. Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. H drolo /Water Qualit - Sediment Specific design features (e.g., e every and t1ood control effects. low -flow channels) to reduce — water quality effects of stand- ing water. Sediment basins will trap sediment. — Air Quality - Emissions from con- Use of emissions control struction equipment and maintenance devices. vehicles and dust during construction. — Watering during construction. Cultural Resources - Effects of con- Observation by qualified profes- _ struction on archaeological and sionals during construction. paleontological sites. Circulation - Truck trips from con- Restrict access points and turn - _ struction and maintenance. ing movements. Acoustics - Noise from construction equipment. Aesthetics - Introduction of man - ma &etructures into natural areas. Use of temporary traffic con- trols (e.g., flagmen). Limit construction /maintenance to off -peak periods. Limit construction to hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Use of noise attenuation devices or vehicles. • Revegetation of adjacent areas. Examples of commonly used agricultural BMPs include contour tillage, cross - slope farming and contour striperopping. The application of agricultural _ BMPs is not a legal requirement; however, many farmers practice them. There appears to be a conscientous effort to apply BMPs to control erosion _ consistent with the profitable use of the land for agricultural purposes. Examples of construction BMPs include road stabilization, sediment filters, diversions and ditches, stream and outlet protection, vegetative measures and sediment traps. At this time, Newport Beach, Irvine and Orange County have the responsibility for erosion and sediment control at construction sites. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board plays a supervisory role by performing periodic site inspections. Erosion and sedimentation from agricultural areas will continue since there is no mechanism for requiring mandatory practice of BMPs. Based upon the results of the sedimentation analysis performed for this study, it has been concluded that even with consistent use of BMPs, agricultural and construction sites will continue to produce significant amounts of sediment, especially when major storms occur. IV. CONCLUSIONS The environmental assessment presented in Section III provides a com- parison of the adverse environmental impacts of each sediment control system alternative upon natural and man -made systems. Since all of the alternatives have some degree of beneficial, impact upon natural systems in the Upper Newport Bay, it is important to weigh the significance of the potential adverse environmental impacts against the anticipated beneficial impacts. The conclusions from the analyses presented in Section III are summarized in the following paragraphs. Alternative 1 -- No Project -- is defined in this assessment as the main- tenance of existing conditions. While this alternative would not result _ in any construction- related impacts, it would have long -term adverse en- vironmental impacts on the Upper Newport Bay. This alternative has been presented in this assessment as a basis for comparing the other alterna- tives with the existing conditions. It is not a feasible alternative because the Early Action and Interim Plan facilities (Alternative 3 in this assessment) are currently under construction and will provide some degree of sediment control. Alternative 2 -- Channel Stabilization Measures -- is a component of a system which, if implemented, would continue the adverse sedimentation impacts affecting the entire watershed. While providing improved flood control in the watershed, channel stabilization would not significantly reduce sediment (only 7 %) inflow to the Upper Newport Bay. Installation of channel stabilizing measures would generate short -term impacts to biological and other natural systems in channels throughout the watershed. Channel stabilization measures should be installed, as appropriate, to improve control of stormwater runoff, but do not appear to be an effective method of sedimentation control for the Upper Newport Bay. Alternative 5 -- the Installation of Twelve Foothill Basins -- is another component of a system which would result in widespread adverse environ- mental impacts with only a small improvement in the sediment inflow to the Upper Newport Bay. Implementation of this alternative would impact biological and other natural systems in the twelve major drainage courses in the foothills while providing only a 21 percent reduction in sediment inflow to the bay. Alternative 3 -- the Early Action and Interim Plan (EA & IP) only -- has been assessed in previous environmental documentation and has been ap- proved as an effective interim means of sediment control for the Upper Newport Bay. Adverse environmental impacts of this project have either been mitigated or found to be acceptable based upon overriding considera- tions, such as the value of benefits to Upper Newport Bay. In any case, this alternative (presently under construction) would achieve only a 29 percent reduction in the existing average annual sediment inflow to the Upper Newport Bay. Additional sediment trapping would be desirable for long -term protection of the bay. Both Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 provide additional sedimentation control for the bay. Alternative 4 would provide three additional in- channel basins in the San Diego Creek, in combination with EA & IP facilities. Alternative 6 would also provide three additional in- channel — basins but would add the installation of twelve flood- control /sediment- trapping basins in the foothills of the watershed in combination with EA & IP facilities. The adverse environmental impacts of Alternative 4 are not substantially different from those of Alternative 3 (EA & IP facilities alone). The adverse impacts of Alternative 6 would, however, be substan- tially greater than those associated with Alternative 3 since they would result in biological, natural systems and traffic /air quality /acoustic impacts in the twelve major drainage courses in the watershed, in addition to impacts in San Diego Creek where the three additional in- channel basins — would be installed. Since Alternative 6 would only provide an additional 6 percent reduction in sediment inflow than would Alternative 4, imple- mentation of the former does not appear to be justified in light of its substantial environmental impacts, capital costs and sediment inflow reduction. — In conclusion, the most environmentally sound of the alternatives assessed -- would be Alternative 4 -- the Early Action and Interim Plan facilities plus three additional in- channel basins in the San Diego Creek channel. This alternative would reduce the existing average annual sediment inflow to the Bay by approximately 38 percent, which represents a 9 percent _ increase over the sediment reduction expected from the EA & IP facilities alone. Additional deposition of 14,000 cubic yards would occur within the excavated basin in the Upper Bay. The adverse environmental impacts of this alternative would be greater than those of EA & IP facilities alone, but would be confined mostly in the San Diego Creek channel above the EA & IP area and downstream of the confluence of San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash. Further documentation of the potential environmental impacts upon the San _. Diego Creek channel area and the bay resulting from this alternative should be prepared. The primary environmental issues include the importance of the creek as a wildlife habitat and corridor and the short- PM term impacts of disturbing the creekbed vegetation for construction and for periodic maintenance. These issues should be weighed carefully against the potential improvement in water quality and the enhancement of biological resources in the Bay, resulting from reduced sedimentation. In addition, Boyle Engineering has suggested that further consideration be given to the installation of two additional excavated basins in the Upper Newport Bay which could effectively reduce most (90 %) of the silt and clay particles before they enter the bay system. As described in the Technical Memorandum for Tasks III -B and III -C, there are significant environmental issues associated with the installation of these basins, primarily the environmental significance of the marsh habitat that would be removed. This long -term impact would have to be weighed against the benefits to the biological resources in Upper and Lower Newport Bay that would result from the installation and continuing operation of these additional basins. Future environmental documentation would provide a mechanism for this evaluation. While the alternative of implementing resource management systems (both _ agricultural and construction) throughout the watershed has not been thoroughly assessed because of limited information regarding their effec- tiveness or extent of application, reduction of erosion and sedimentation at the source should become part of any structural system for removing sediment before it enters the Bay. Such an approach would result in positive environmental impacts by preventing siltation and water quality impacts in stream channels and the Upper.Newport Bay. In the case of agricultural lands, an additional economic benefit would result by retain- ' ing topsoil for continued crop production. Construction sedimentation measures are required by local jurisdictions in the watershed as part of grading ordinances. The enforcement of such requirements may be limited, however, by post - Proposition 13 budget constraints. i z% CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (714) 640 -2251 TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: City Clerk SUBJECT: Contract No. 2238 Description of Contract Agreement for wnfe s;nnal Services NeNgport BaV watpr-,hpA ` San n; a}ct0_�, r L, C��(�yr h nQl VP qf-� Rl Water Sedimentation Control Plan Effective date of Contract May 12, 1981 (Boyle Eng) Oct 28,�199880 ine) Authorized by Resolution No. 9959 , adopted on 1 -12 -81 Contract with Boyle _Engineering Corporation RE-CiEy-of--1s vine -(—Jointly with 9ewpor c Adress see contract Amount of Contract profit $27,600.00 actual costs $284,400. Wanda E. Andersen City Clerk i WEA:bf City T-iaii . q.00 v- . ....... , 111_ - -1_ ,, ,•C AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan Boyle Engineering Corporation THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this Ia k l day of ' 1981, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal _corporation, hereinafter referred to as "NEWPORT BEACH," and the CITY OF IRVINE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "IRVINE," (jointly NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE are sometimes hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY "), and BOYLE ENGINEERING, CORPORATION, hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE have entered into a cooperative agreement waith the Southern California Association of Governments, hereinafter referred to as "SCAG," for the development of Newport Bay Watershed: .San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said agreement, requests for proposals were pre- pared and distributed to qualified consultants; and WHEREAS, the proposal of ENGINEER has been reviewed by NEWPORT BEACH, IRVINE and SCAG and found to be acceptable and responsive to the request for proposal For the preparation of the Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan; and I+HEREAS, the work to be performed by ENGINEER is to be coordinated betweer `;= ::?ORT BEACH and IRVINE, based upon an agreement between NEWPORT BEACH and I ' lt- and n:EREAS, pursuant to said agreement between NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE, ivE;JP S= H is primarily in charge of administering said contract; and ,;= AREAS, NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE desire to accept the proposal of ENGiNEE: �_ perform said services, THEP,EFORE, in consideration of 'the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as _1 A t - . r AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan Boyle Engineering Corporation THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this Ia k l day of ' 1981, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal _corporation, hereinafter referred to as "NEWPORT BEACH," and the CITY OF IRVINE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "IRVINE," (jointly NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE are sometimes hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY "), and BOYLE ENGINEERING, CORPORATION, hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE have entered into a cooperative agreement waith the Southern California Association of Governments, hereinafter referred to as "SCAG," for the development of Newport Bay Watershed: .San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said agreement, requests for proposals were pre- pared and distributed to qualified consultants; and WHEREAS, the proposal of ENGINEER has been reviewed by NEWPORT BEACH, IRVINE and SCAG and found to be acceptable and responsive to the request for proposal For the preparation of the Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Storm Water Sedimentation Control Plan; and I+HEREAS, the work to be performed by ENGINEER is to be coordinated betweer `;= ::?ORT BEACH and IRVINE, based upon an agreement between NEWPORT BEACH and I ' lt- and n:EREAS, pursuant to said agreement between NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE, ivE;JP S= H is primarily in charge of administering said contract; and ,;= AREAS, NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE desire to accept the proposal of ENGiNEE: �_ perform said services, THEP,EFORE, in consideration of 'the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as _1 A 0 ]. General A. AGENCY engages ENGINEER to perform the engineering services hereinafter described for the compensation herein stated. B. ENGINEER agrees to perform such services upon the terms hereinafter set forth and to accept the compensation herein stated as full compensation for said services. II. Services to be Performed by ENGINEER A. Perform the engineering services specified by the Scope of Services; attached hereto and marked Exhibit A, which is in- corporated herein as though set forth in full, excepting those services specifically designated to be performed by NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE and AGENCY's Cities contractor. B. Comply with all the terms and conditions, as they apply to ENGINEER, in the cooperative agreement between SCAG and NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE, attached hereto as Exhibit B, dated October 28, 1980 , and which agreement ENGINEER has read and understood and has a copy. C. Comply with all requirements of Appendix A to Title 40, Part 33, of the Code of Federal Regulations, attached hereto and marked Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein as though fully set forth. III. Duties of AGENCY AGENCY hereby agrees to perform the following services: A. Administer the terms of the cooperative agreement between SCAG and AGENCY. B. Make available to ENGINEER such information as is available to NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE which relates to the services to be performed by ENGINEER. C. Designate a Project Manager who will have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define AGENCY's policies and decisions pertinent to ENGINEER's services. D. Provide access to and make all provisions for ENGINEER to enter upon public and private property as required for ENGINEER to perform his services. -2 I 0 E. Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, proposals and other documents presented by ENGINEER and render in writing decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of ENGINEER. F. Give prompt written notice to ENGINEER when AGENCY observes or otherwise becomes :.ware of any defect in the project. G. Distribute technical memoranda, maps and other subtask outputs. H. Assist ENGINEER in data collection and provide materials specified in the Exhibit A. I. Bear all costs incident to compliance with the requirements of section III, paragraphs A. -H. J. The AGENCY will require that any Contractor performing work in connection with the construction contract documents pro- duced under this Agreement to hold harmless,'indemnify and. defend the AGENCY, the ENGINEER, their consultants, and each of their officers, agents and employees from any and all liability, claims, losses or damage arising out of or alleged to arise from the Contractor's negligence in the performance of the work described in the construction contract documents, but not including liability that may be due to the sole negligence of the AGENCY, the ENGINEER, their consultants or their officers, agents and employees. The AGENCY will require the Contractor to provide compre- hensive general liability insurance, including completed operations, with the latter coverage sufficient to insure the Contractor's indemnity, as above required; and, such insur- ance will include the AGENCY, the ENGINEER, their consul- tants, and each of their officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. U. Ownership of Documents Original drawings, reports, not-es, mips, and other documents shall become the property of the AGENCY and may be reproduced and utilized as deemed necessary by the AGENCY. - 3 - V. Time of Completion The work to be performed hereunder by ENGINEER shall be completed in a timely manner as set forth in Exhibit A. All submittals by ENGINEER shall be documented as to date received by AGENCY, and any time awaiting review and approval beyond the review time given in Exhibit A shall not be charged as part of the ENGINEER's scheduled time allocation. Additional credit will be allowed for delays beyond the control of ENGINEER. If delays beyond the control of the ENGINEER cause completion of any subtask to extend beyond four months after scheduled completion specified in Exhibit A, the ENGINEER may terminate this Agreement in accordance with the terms of Section VIII of this Agreement. VI. Payments to the ENGINEER A. For services set forth in Section II of this Agreement, the AGENCY shall pay the ENGINEER the sum of: 1. Direct salaries; 2. ENGINEER's actual overhead costs; 3. Direct non - salary costs; and 4. A fixed dollar profit. Direct salaries shall be the amount paid by the ENGINEER to his employees for time directly chargeable to performance of services under this Agreement. The ENGINEER's provisional overhead rate to be used for billing purposes shall be 138.5% of direct salaries. This provisional overhead rate shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with Section VII of this Agreement, entitled Final Overhead Rates. Direct non - salary costs shall be all other identifiable costs of the ENGINEER directly chargeable to performance of services under this contract. The fixed dollar profit shall be $27,600. B. AGENCY shall reimburse ENGINEER for his actual costs under this Agreement up to a cost ceiling of $284,400. ENGINEER shall not exceed the cost ceiling unless so authorized by a formal amendment to this Agreement. C. AGENCY shall pay ENGINEER a fixed profit of $27,600.00 for services rendered under this Agreement. This amount - 4 - shall not be increased unless a formal amendment increases the scope of work under th:-- f-Igrc..„ nt. 0. AGENCY shall pay ENGINEER; on a monthly basis, the actual costs incurred by ENGINEER during the month plus a percentage of the fixed profit based upon the percent of 'work completed to date of billing. If payment is not received by ENGINEER. within 90 days of billing, the ENGINEER may terminate this Agreement in accordance with the terms of Section VIII of this Agreement. Furthermore, ENGINEER hereby reserves the right to pursue payment for its services hereunder directly from SCAG if ENGINEER terminates this Agreement due to AGENCY failure to pay in accordance with the terms herein. E. AGENCY will withhold 10% of each month's payment until all work by ENGINEER is completed and accepted by AGENCY and SCAG. When the work is accepted, the payment of the 10% re- tention shall be made to ENGINEER. It is further agreed between NEWPORT BEACH, IRVINE and ENGINEER that ENGINEER shall be paid only after NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE have re- ceived progress payments from SCAG pursuant to the coopera- tive agreement between SCAG and NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE. However, failure to pay ENGINEER within 90 days of billing may subject this Agreement to termination under the provi- sions of Section VI., 0. above. F. ENGINEER shall make presentations at eight meetings to be selected by AGENCY. ENGINEER shall be compensated for making presentations at additional meetings in accordance with the provisions of this Section VI. Attendance at such meetings shall be authorized in advance by the AGENCY and considered as additional services under this Agreement. 11T Final Overhead Rates A. The allowable indirect costs under this Agreement shall be obtained by applying negotiated overhead rates to bases agreed upon by the AGENCY and ENGINEER, as specified below. B. The ENGINEER, as soon as possibie,.but not later than ninety (90) days after the expiration of his fiscal year (or other appropriate period agreed upon by AGENCY and ENGINEER), - 5 - 0 0 shall submit to the AGENCY a proposed final overhead rate or rates for that period based on the ENGINEER's actual cost . experience during that period, together with supporting cost data. Determination of overhead rates for each period by the ENGINEER and the AGENCY shall be undertaken as promptly as practicable after receipt of the ENGINEER's proposal. Final determination of these overhead rates shall be based upon final audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. C. Allowability of costs shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of 41 CFR 1 -15.2 and 1 -15.4. D. The results of each determination shall be set forth in a modification to this Agreement, which shall specify (1) the agreed final rates, (2) the bases to which the rates apply, and (3) the period for which the rates apply. E. Pending establishment of final overhead rates for any period, the ENGINEER shall be reimbursed at negotiated pro- visional rates as provided in the Agreement, subject to appropriate adjustment when the final rates for that period are established. To prevent substantial over- or under- payment, and to apply either retroactively or prospectively, provisional rates may, at the request of either party, be revised by mutual agreement. Any such revision of nego- tiated provisional rates provided in the Agreement shall be set forth in a modification to this Agreement. VIII. Termination The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days' written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof. AGENCY shall com- pensate ENGINEER for all services rendered, in accordance with Section VI of this Agreement, through the effective date of such termination. Ty Hold Harmless ENGINEER shall indemnify and save harmless NEWPORT BEACH and IRVINE, and their respective officers and employees, from any damage or liability arising from any errors, omissions, or negligence in ENGINEER's performance of the work hereunder. - 6 - 0 X. Amendments to Work Any amendment Lo the work hereunder shaii be authorized in writing by AGENCY, and ENGINEER shall perform no work in addi- tion to work set forth in Exhibit A unless authorized in writing by AGENCY so to do. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk APPRO ED AS FO City Atthrney ATTEST: ity 50k A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH y / 1 NEWPORT - , CITY OF IRVINE By Mayor ' IRVINE BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION BY� Q C` Its Chairman of the Board BY Its Managing Engineer ENGINEER -7- ` • • Revised 4/15/81 SCOPE OF SERVICES SCAG FY 80 OWP and SCAG FY 81 OWP TASK 8015.01/8115.01 NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED: SAN DIEGO CREEK COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN TIME SCHEDULE: This project is divided into four parts: I: Early Action and Interim Plan; II: Sedimentation Analysis; III: Com- prehensive Stormflow Sedimentation Control Plan, Engineering; and IV: Comprehensive Stormflow Sedimentation Control Plan, Environmental. Parts I and IIA are funded under the FY 79/80 OWP. Parts IIB -IIF, III and IV are funded under the FY 80/81 OWP. The overall time schedule for these tasks is (from start of work): Part I: 11 weeks Part II: 38 weeks Part III: 121 weeks Part IV: 40 weeks SCHEDULE by weeks after Notice to Proceed Part I: EARLY ACTION AND INTERIM CONTROL PLAN TASK I -A Feasibility Investigation of Alternatives I -B Develop Early Action and Interim Plan (Completed) I -C Environmental Impact Assessment /Report I -D Secure Implementation Commitments Part II: SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS - (Also to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of alternatives in Part III) TASK II -A Hydrologic Analysis 1 through 9 II -B Geomorphic Analysis 1 through 14 II -C Sediment Source Analysis 1 through 36 II -D Sediment Delivery Analysis 1 through 36 II -E Sediment Transport, Deposition and 1 through 36 Scour in Newport Bay II -F General Audience Report (Summary) 26 through 38 Part III: COMPREHENSIVE STORMFLOW SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN, ENGINEERING TASK III -A Development and Preliminary Analysis of 32 through 57 Alternatives III -B Selection of Alternative Management Systems 40 through 57 III -C Comparison of Alternative Management Systems 8 through 57 III -D Technical Review and Refinement 36 through 57 III -E Report on Plan Alternatives 58 through 71 III -F Public Review of Alternatives 72 through 80 III -G Review Written Comments and Prepare 81 through 84 EXHIBIT A - 1 - t Responsiveness Document III -H Prepare Recommended Plan and Preliminary Draft Program EIR III -I Assist in Securing Implementation Commitments Part IV: COMPREHENSIVE STORMFLOW SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL TASK IV -A Data Consolidation /Notice of Preparation IV -B Environmental Assessment of Alternative Sedimentation Control Plans IV -C Prepare Preliminary Draft Program EIR IV -D Response to Comments on Preliminary Draft /EIR IV -E Client Coordination, Public Hearings, Public Meetings OVERALL OBJECTIVES: This project has three overall objectives SCHEDULE by weeks after Notice to Proceed 85 through 93 110 through 128 53 through 57 58 through 70 81 through 93 101 through 109 53 through 109 They are: 1. To develop an early action and interim sedimentation control plan for Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek and its tributaries which can be approved for implementation in December 1980 and implemented in the ensuing months of 1981 prior to the onset of the 1981/82 rainy season. 2. To analyze and characterize the causes, nature, and extent of the sedimentation problems adversely affecting Upper Newport Bay. 3. To develop a comprehensive watershed erosion and stormflow sediment control plan, with emphasis on a downstream desilting system along San Diego Creek that can be implemented in the near -term. METHODOLOGY: Acceptable flood control engineering, hydrologic and sedimenta- tion engineering techniques shall be utilized in the conduct of this work. A study team shall be formed and composed of persons with expertise in the following scientific and engineering fields: (1) sediment yield and sediment -flow mechanics, (2) soils, soil erosion and soil conservation, (3) geomorphology, (4) flow and sedimentation mechanics in coastal estuaries, (5) flood control engineering and desilting basin technology for stormflows, (6) flood hydrology and frequency analysis, (7) chemical and physical properties of sediment in stormflows and coastal waters, (8) engineering economics, (9) wetland and freshwater biology, and (10) nuisance control in sedimentation basins (mosquito, flies, odors, algae, and other nuisance abatement). DESCRIPTION OF WORK: The following is a description of required work, outputs and estimated level of effort for the four parts and their tasks, necessary to accomplish the objectives of this contract. The area covered under this work is the San Diego Creek drainage basin and Newport Bay. - 2 - PART I: EARLY ACTION AND INTERIM CONTROL PLAN This task shall be conducted, at minimum, by accomplishing the following work: TASK I -A: Investigate the feasibility of and estimate the effectiveness of the following sedimentation control measures for implementation as part of an Early Action and Interim Control Plan: (1) drop structures and /or other in- stream sediment control devices along San Diego Creek and its tributaries, (2) use of a portion of the proposed sediment desilting site located between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road at San Diego Creek, (3) clearing of accumulated sediments in Upper Newport Bay, (4) clearing of accumulated sediments in the San Diego Creek channel, (5) con- struction of diversion works to deflect the San Diego Creek flow and dike structures to contain sediments in the old salt evap- oration works area or portion thereof, and (6) other possible alternatives. OUTPUT: Technical memorandum describing results of Task I -A. 30 copies of this memorandum shall be submitted to the cities and SCAG. TASK I -B: Based upon the investigation conducted in (1) prepare an engineering report that describes a staged interim and /or early action plan that can be implemented before the on -set of the 1981/82 rainy season (stage 1) and before the 1982/83 rainy season (stage 2) which provides sedimentation control for Newport Bay within implementation funding and time con- straints. The stage 2 plan shall be re- evaluated based upon the results of Parts II and III of this scope of services, and modified as necessary. The relative impact on existing habitat in the Ecological Reserve will be a major considera- tion in the final selection of the interim /early action plan. The plan is to be developed in conjunction with the inter- agency engineering committee formed under the County of Orange District 5 supervisorial office. The purpose of said committee is to investigate feasible desilting facilities /sites that can be constructed in the near -term utilizing a grant to the City of Newport Beach from the State Water Resources Control Board, Proposition 2 State Assistance Program. This task would (1) prepare the engineering project report describing feasible engineering alternatives, costs estimates, time schedule for implementation, and preliminary design of sediment control facilities, and (2) prepare a report of other interim /early action sedimentation controls. The Cities shall provide to the consultant a list of available funds and the consultant shall then devise a proposed method for financing the recom- mended plan. OUTPUT: An engineering project report for Task I -B. 30 copies of a draft report and 100 copies of the final report shall be pre- pared and submitted to SCAG. - 3 - TASK I -C: The Cities /contractor shall prepare any necessary environmental assessment for the recommended interim /early action plan. Such assessment(s) shall be in the form of an environmental impact report pursuant to CEQA requirements. SCAG, as the lead 208 agency, will have responsibility for processing the necessary environmental documentation for the 208 Plan Amendment. The Cities, as appropriate to their jurisdiction, shall prepare any additional and necessary environmental documentation for the recommended interim /early action plan. OUTPUT: Environmental Documents pertinent to the project recommended in Task I -B. TASK I -D: The Cities shall secure implementing agency approvals and commitments to complete the implementation of the plan with technical assistance as needed to be provided by the consultant. OUTPUT: Management agency agreements committing the appropriate agencies to implementation of the recommended plan. - 4 - 9 PART II: SEDIMENTATION ANALYSIS This part would analyze the sedimentation problem in the Bay and its water- shed. Specifically, five major areas of analysis are required: (1) hydro- logic, (2) recent geomorphic (formational process), (3) sediment sources, (4) sediment delivery, and (5) sediment transport, deposition and scour in Newport Bay. Since the recognition of the sedimentation problem in Upper Newport Bay, no definitive scientific investigation of the sedimentation problem has been undertaken. The intent of this part of the study is to commission a team of recognized experts in each of the required analytical areas who will prepare an authoritative analysis of the problem, relying upon existing data and procuring additional data where necessary and funds permitting. TASK II -A: Hydrologic Analysis. This task would (1) provide a summary of statistical analyses of historical streamflow and precipitation records, (2) develop appropriate drainage maps, (3) provide a frequency analysis of stormflow events utilizing the SCS TR -20 model for the 2 -year, 5 -year, 10 -year, 25 -year, 50 -year and 100 -year recurrence interval stormflows for appropriate design storms, for foothill canyons, major tributaries and at the San Diego Creek at Campus Drive gaging station as necessary to perform the fluvial analysis and sedimentation control effectiveness eval- ution of Parts II and III of this scope of services, and (4) calculate channel flow capacities at sections of the major streams selected by Consultant with the approval of funding and management agencies. This task shall be conducted, at minimum, by accomplishing the following work: 1. Compile existing data a. Historical precipitation and streamflow data available through the OCEMA and USGS. b. Precipitation and streamflow data available through other sources (catalog available through the State Department of Water Resources and NOW. c. Prepare drainage basin m. and channel reaches used files of main channel of headwaters. d. Flood insurance studies, of Engineers. )p at 1 "= 2000', showing subdrainage areas in the hydrologic analysis. Prepare pro - Peters Canyon and San Diego Creek to their flood plain studies of the U. S. Corps e. Existing and future land use maps (general plans provided by Agencies). f. Other appropriate data. Develop frequency- versus - peak -Q relationships from stream gage data. 3. Utilizing the SCS TR -20 hydrologic computer program, calculate peak floodflows and flood hydrographs at concentration points for use in the sedimentation analysis. Hydrologic analyses will be made for the - 5 - L � • J above - mentioned return periods for both existing (1980) and ultimate land uses. Storm durations will be 3 and 24 hours. Consultant will select the required concentration points with the approval of funding and management agencies. 4. Calculate existing channel flow capacities at selected sections of the major streams. Cross - section data will be based on best available data. No surveys will be performed by Consultant. OUTPUT: Technical memorandum (one reproducible original and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers) documenting study, including: 1. Summary of runoff gaging station records. 2. Peak floodflows at gaging stations for 2 -, 5 -, 10 -, 25 -, 50 -, and 100 - year stormflows. 3. Peak.floodflows at selected concentration Doints for the above - mentioned return periods, for both existing and ultimate land uses (for use in sedimentation analysis). 4. Example hydrographs of 24 -hour, 100 -year floodflows for existing and ultimate land uses at gaging station on San Diego Creek at Campus Drive. 5. Existing channel flow capacities for the major streams. TASK II -B: GEOMORPHIC ANALYSIS. This task would provide the historic and geologic data needed in Task II -C to determine sediment sources and charac- teristics. Historical conditions to be investigated include presettlement, pre -1890, and major cultural development stages that affected sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay. This task shall be conducted, at minimum, by accom- plishing the following work: Review Available Data a. Geologic reports and records (U.C. Irvine, others). b. Historical topographic maps, especially early editions of USGS quad- rangle maps (provided by Agency). C. Historical aerial photographs (provided by Agency). d. Historical land use development records (provided by Agency). 2. Using the above sources, describe the past natural drainage patterns for San Diego Creek, and changes in watershed size. 3. Describe the geologic history of the bay and identify the changes in land use patterns that may have affected the sedimentation process in the bay. The description will be based on sources reviewed in 1 above. It will Idc E identify the recent geological setting of the bay, and the general land use characteristics dating from the arrival of European culture that may have affected the sedimentation process. OUTPUT (one reproducible original and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers): 1. Hydrographic maps showing past and present flow paths of San Diego Creek and descriptions of changes in watershed size. 2. Description of evolution of land uses of the San Diego Creek watershed, and their impacts on sedimentation in the bay. 3. Technical memorandum describing the formational history of the bay, including maps and historical photographs, as available. TASK II -C: SEDIMENT SOURCE ANALYSIS - EXISTING AND PROJECTED. This task would estimate the sediment production rates from the major sediment source areas (foothills, unstable channels, agricultural areas, urban areas and construction sites) in the watershed for year 1980 (existing), and ultimate land use for the 2 -, 5 -, 10 -, 25 -, SO- and 100 -year recurrence interval stormflows for the 24 -hour duration storm. Existing and future land use maps, to be used in the analysis, will be provided by Agency. The task would also evaluate the effects of flooding on valley erosion processes (i.e., across agricultural, urban and other lands) and provide an estimate of the sediment characteristics (i.e., particle size) from the different source areas under the various hydrologic conditions. This task shall be accomplished, at minimum, by conducting the following work: 1. Compile existing data a. Sediment discharge data for suspended and bedload measurements at gaging sites measured by USGS b. Sediment accumulation or erosion in Upper Newport Bay and primary flood control channels c. Sediment yield data in the form of reservoir surveys for upland watersheds d. Regional long -term sediment yield data in similar, nearby catchment areas e. Soil surveys (SCS) f. Erosion estimates from various land areas that may be available from the Orange County Resource Conservation District. 2. Collect watershed data a. Collect reservoir sedimentation data where historical or original surveys exist. - 7 - 0 b. Inventory natural and manmade channels and collect historical channel erosion /deposition data. c. Conduct field investigation and describe potential soil loss from major existing construction activity. Map, delineating major areas and types of construction, will be provided by Agency. d. Collect soil samples from various areas in the watershed and deter- mine particle size distribution. Number and locations of samples to be determined by Consultant with the approval of funding and management agencies. Sampling sites, not to exceed 100, will be selected to obtain information on soil characteristics representa- tive of the watershed. 3. Collect and map existing and projected land -use data Prepare maps showing existing and future land use (irrigated agri- culture, range lands, urban, other) utilizing available information, including 1979 county orthophoto maps. b. Set priorities for future implementation of BMPs for agriculture using information provided by "Newport Bay Watershed: Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control Plan (BMP)." c. Based on available information, describe the relative impact of sediment in irrigation tailwater caused by improper leveling and long irrigation runs. Estimate future land use change for ultimate build -out utilizing the latest available SCAG growth forecast policy as translated to the San Diego Creek Watershed, and using local general plans and development plans. Compute 2 -year, 5 -year, 10 -year, 25 -year, 50 -year and 100 -year stormflow, and average annual sediment production potentials; and estimate particle - size distribution for the following source areas: Mountains /hills using streamflow, reservoir, regional sediment yield data, and soils data. This shall include an evaluation of the rel- ative importance of slope, landslides, land cover and soils on erosion and sediment yield. Agricultural areas using the following procedure: (1) Utilizing Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys, prepare soils and erodibility map for agricultural field subareas by supple- menting and interpreting soils data and calculating sheet erosion and field sediment delivery rates for the 2 -year, 5 -year, 10 -year, 25 -year, 50 -year and 100 -year stormflows and average annual rate for type of field condition ( e.g., barren disked, barren ridge and furrow, cover cropped, mulched). Using established procedures and in consultation with erosion experts, estimate soil loss in tons per acre for the above- described winter conditions. Consider erosion from raindrop dislocation and overland flow, both of which are affected by land conditions. (2) Map agricultural subarea drainages and assess erosion potential on the basis of average annual values. Provide erosion poten- tial for various stormflow frequencies in tabular form. c. Channel erosion by estimating streambank erosion and bed scour over last two to three years in a few typical reaches to be selected by Consultant with the approval of funding and management agencies. Estimate channel degradation by developing historical and current channel cross sections, using field observations (photo document) and available topographic maps. Note the relative stability of the channels in relation to upstream land use practices or other physical factors. Project these findings to all channels to determine the extent and priority of the problem. d. Construction site erosion using field investigation and Soil Conser- vation Service studies if available, or other appropriate technique. OUTPUT (one reproducible original and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers.) 1. Data compilation and summary report. 2. Land use maps for source areas including drainages. 3. Sediment yield technical memorandum for the various source areas, show- ing methods utilized in arriving at the estimate of sediment yield, in- cluding a frequency - yield - particle -size distribution analysis. Includes comparison of source yields by storm intensity, particle size and total yield. TASK II -D: SEDIMENT DELIVERY ANALYSIS. This task would determine the sed- iment flow at the major gaging sites in the basin for the same recurrence interval stormflows described in II -C. In addition, an estimate of the volume and particle -size distribution in the channel system would be made through field investigation and calculation. Estimates of sediment delivery by major subbasins would also be made. This task shall be accomplished, at minimum by conducting the following work: 1. Compile Existing Data. a. Sediment discharge data for suspended and bedload measurements at gages measured by the USGS, including all instantaneous measurements, particle -size breaks, and methods utilized. b. Sedimentation surveys and studies for discharges into Upper Newport Bay, including reviews and evaluation of work conducted by the University of California, Irvine. (provided by Agency) c. Sediment removals from channels in the watershed, especially the lower reaches of San Diego Creek (Jeffrey Road to Culver Drive) at the Woodbridge Planned Community in the city of Irvine. d. Other data as appropriate to this task. ' � i♦ 2. Collect Watershed /Channel Data. a. Collect supplementary field samples and analyze for particle -size distribution and estimate volume of sediment in channels at various locations in the watershed through reconnaissance -level surveys. b. Other data as appropriate. 3. Analyze Historical Gaging Station Flow and Sediment Discharge Records. a. Evaluate and prepare appropriate analyses and graphs describing the relationship of streamflow with sediment discharge for suspended and bed load, with and without sand breaks for data from USGS gaging stations in the watershed (San Diego Creek at Sand Canyon Avenue, San Diego Creek at Campus Drive, E1 Modena - Irvine Channel at Myford Road). b. Supplement historical depth - integrated sampling measurements of suspended load for the above stations by analyzing the relationship of automatic sampling suspended solids concentrations with depth - integrated data for 1978 for the San Diego Creek at Campus Drive station and then extend /adjust the automatic sampling record for the 1979/80 storms. 4. Compute grain -size distribution for sediment from existing discharges for the gaging stations. S. Develop sediment discharge - streamflow rating curves at the San Diego Creek gaging station at Campus Drive, at Sand Canyon and on the E1 Modena - Irvine Channel. a. Utilizing analyses and data from the previous sediment production and streamflow steps, develop sediment discharge - streamflow rating curves for the 2 -, 5 -, 10 -, 25 -, 50- and 100 -year recurrence interval flows for existing land -use conditions. b. Repeat above for ultimate land -use conditions. 6. Investigate and describe the sediment delivery processes in the watershed and estimate the sediment delivery characteristics (ratios, etc.) for the important channel locations (includes San Diego Creek at confluence of Peters Canyon Wash and San Diego Creek, San Diego Creek at Jamboree Road, San Diego Creek at or near Sand Canyon Road). Reasonable correlation can be expected between the estimated findings and sediment measurement. OUTPUT (one reproducible original and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers): 1. Summary of Data Compilation and Review Memoranda. 2. Technical memorandum on historical gaging station flow and sediment discharge analysis. - 10 - 3. Technical memorandum on sediment discharge- streamflow rating curves to the 100 -year event for San Diego Creek at Campus Drive, San Diego Creek at Sand Canyon Avenue, and on the E1 Modena- Irvine Channel at Myford Road for existing and ultimate land -use conditions. 4. Technical memorandum on the analysis of grain -size distribution and bed load for measured flows. (Automatic samplers and manual depth- _ integrated sampling). 5. Technical memorandum providing monthly and annual sediment yield graphs for USGS measured flows. 6. Technical memorandum describing the sediment delivery process of the watershed and its drainage channels. TASK II -E: SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, DEPOSITION AND SCOUR IN NEWPORT BAY. This task would provide an analysis of the sediment transport through Upper Newport Bay by San Diego Creek. An analysis of the depositional or scour characteristics of the sediment load in Upper Newport Bay will be made as a function of particle size, flow rate and sediment load of the discharge. It is anticipated that this task will utilize existing sediment coring information for Newport Bay (Moore & Taber, Vols. I and II, 1968), prin- cipally in the upper bay. The purpose of this task is to determine sedi- ment discharge objectives in terms of particle size and criteria to minimize scouring. This task would be accomplished at minimum by conducting the following work: 1. Compile existing data: a. Available data from the University of California, Irvine, Water Resources Laboratory on sediment cores, depositional survey data in the bay and particle size water column data.(provided by Agency) b. California Department of Fish and Game data on sedimentation, if available. c. Historical and other related data /studies on deposition and scour sediment in tidal flat salt marshes. 2. Evaluate the sediment deposition, scour and transport characteristics of sediment discharges in Newport Bay entering via the San Diego Creek Channel. a. Describe the relationship of sediment and water inflow into the Bay with sediment deposition, scour and transport for varying hydrologic conditions and existing and ultimate land use conditions. b. Evalute the significance of fine grain sediment flocculation and deposition due to the influence of fresh water sediment inflow mixing with sea water in Upper Newport Bay. c. Include OCEMA study results on tidal flow and tidal prism volume estimates for sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay. - 11 - OUTPUT (one reproducible original and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers). 1. Data compilation and review report 2. Technical memorandum describing the sediment deposition, scour and transport characteristics of San Diego Creek discharges for various hydrologic conditions and existing and projected watershed land use into and through Newport Bay. TASK II -F: GENERAL AUDIENCE REPORT. Consultant will prepare a summary on the Sedimentation Processes (Task II) for general audience readership (one reproducible original and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers). The report is to be written in "plain English" and is to contain appropriate charts showing sediment yield by sources for the different land use and hydrologic conditions, sediment rating curves for the major stream sites, sediment delivery processes, and deposition, scour and transport of sediment -laden discharges into Upper Newport Bay. The report is to also contain appropriate land use maps for the watershed showing principal drainages, mountain /hill areas, land use and political boundaries for 1980 and ultimate land uses. Land use maps will be prepared from base maps provided by Agency. OUTPUT: General Audience Report - 12 - PART III: COMPREHENSIVE STORMFLOW SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN, ENGINEERING This task shall be conducted, at minimum, by accomplishing the following work: TASK III -A: DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES This task will develop erosion and sediment control component alternatives, and subject these component alternatives to a preliminary feasibility and performance analysis. Component alternatives will be defined by preparing preliminary descriptions (concepts, locations, and /or layouts), and evalua- tions (sediment reduction effectiveness, costs, institutional /financing factors and environmental "considerations). Based on this preliminary analysis, component alternatives will be selected for inclusion in alterna- tive erosion and sediment management systems in Task III -B. The following components will be considered: 1. Downstream Engineering - -The downstream alternatives have been studied in Part I. The results of that study will be used in this task: This task may require re- evaluation of trap efficiency of the following alternatives: a. Sedimentation basin adjacent to the San Diego. Creek northwest of Campus Drive around the IRWD sewage treatment plant, with necessary protection works for the IRWD facility. Alternative to consider joint use with IRWD for storage /treatment of wastewaters. b. In- channel sedimentation basin Creek for bed load control for trap efficiency. in the lower reaches of San Diego large storm flows. Determine c. An interim sedimentation basin in the old salt- evaporation plant area in Upper Newport Bay. d. Other possible sites, including the area between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. 2. Valley Engineering a. Channel stabilization utilizing concrete, gabion or other technique for severely eroded or potentially severely eroded channels. Areas to be included are: Channels below Sand Canyon Reservoir, Bonita Canyon, channels below foothill control basins, and other valley channels. b. Provide results of Parts I -A and I -B evaluation of the following alternatives: (1) Desilting basin on San Diego Creek in the vicinity of old Laguna Canyon Road or other nearby area suitable for control of bedload and suspended sand load. (2) Sedimentation Basin(s) in series /parallel with or within improved and /or existing channels. (3) Other sites for desilting basins. - 13 - 3. Valley Land Management Practices shall be examined in consideration of BMPs developed by the city of Irvine and the county of Orange and shall: a. Include additional agricultural erosion /sediment delivery controls (BMPs), if any; b. Include additional construction source controls, if any; c. Address development standards to reduce channel erosion caused by urban runoff; and include examples as appropriate. d. Address other land management practices to reduce watershed erosion, if determined appropriate by Cqnsultant or management agencies. 4. Upstream Engineering a. Sediment basins in foothills b. Flow regulation /sediment basins in foothills (larger capacity than a.). To avoid duplication of effort, this 208 study will incorporate the foothill basin studies to be conducted by Orange County and The Irvine Company (TIC) for Hicks Canyon 1 and 2, Borrego Canyon, Agua Chinon Canyon, Round Canyon 1 and 2, and Bee Canyon. The 208 work shall be limited to determining the sediment reduction and downstream erosion - control benefits of the projects. Project data required for this determination shall be provided in a timeframe consistent with that for consideration of other alternatives. Control programs in other basins, not part of the County /TIC study, but necessary for sediment control (Peters Canyon channel, others), may be studied as deemed appropriate by the Consultant with the approval of funding and management agencies. c. Foothill channel stabilization program OUTPUT: Technical memorandum (one reproducible original and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers) describing the alternative components and their preliminary effectiveness and cost evaluation. This shall include general descriptions, operational con- cepts, layouts and locations, quantitative considerations, estimated costs and environmental considerations where applicable. TASK III -B: SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Based on the above preliminary evaluation of the component alternatives (1 -4), combinations of component alternatives shall be developed into three alternative management systems, in addition to the downstream engineering - 14 - r � • alternatives evaluated in Part I and the no- project alternative. Fewer than five alternative management systems may be prepared with the specific prior approval of the management and funding agencies. Alternative manage- ment systems proposed by Consultant will be reviewed by management and funding agencies which will suggest changes, if any, within two weeks. OUTPUT (reproducible original and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers): List alternative management systems (and component alternatives) to receive further analysis in Task III -C, and documentation of selection process. TASK III -C: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS In this task, engineering feasibility, erosion sediment reduction capabi- lities, costs and financing, environmental considerations and implementation/ maintenance features of each alternative management system will be analyzed and described clearly. A comparison will then be made between alternative systems, showing features (different or common); costs (total capital and annualized cost by year for structural measures), effectiveness in reducing sediment delivery to Upper Newport Bay (quantity delivered /controlled by stormflow conditions for recurrence intervals up to the 100 -year event for 1980 and ultimate land use by particle -size distribution), environmental impacts, constraints or other limitations affecting siting or design, year system element is to be on line, responsible agency, and financing method. This comparison shall also be shown in summary matrix form. Costs should be shown in 1982 projected dollars with estimated Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. Project capital requirements for the year of scheduled implementation shall also be shown. Governing factors on sizing facilities shall either be the physical site limitation, or alternative sizes to control a 25 -year, 50 -year, or 100 -year stormflow event. Water and sediment stormflow at the desilting basins shall have been developed from Part II Sedimentation Analysis, which is to be coordinated with this Part III. Control measures will be evaluated as to their trap efficiencies in controlling sediment from sources determined in Part II. OUTPUT (reproducible original and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers): 1. Technical memorandum describing the alternative management systems de- veloped. In addition to the above information, the memorandum shall include an analysis and clear description of each system, how it works and maintenance requirements, when it can be implemented, its estimated costs, effectiveness in reducing sediment discharge to Upper Newport Bay, financing of the system alternatives components and sources of funds, and environmental impacts. This memorandum shall be a detailed technical analysis of the system alternatives. 2. Draft General Audience Report to be used for public review purposes for selection of the preferred alternative. This report shall be written in "plain English" and shall clearly describe and present the system alternatives and their comparison. Sufficient graphics and charts are to be prepared which show the elements of each alternative, estimated costs and effectiveness of each component and of the overall system by 5 -year period from 1985 through 2000 and for the ultimate land use, including environmental impacts, and a section on financing - 15 - E • of each alternative system, and agencies responsible for its implemen- tation and maintenance. Fold -out maps of the watershed shall be included in this report presenting land use, political boundaries, drainages and plan location by alternative. Quantitative data for each alternative component (e.g., estimated costs, size, control effectiveness) will be shown in tables. In addition, a public review summary - comment package of less than 5 pages shall be prepared for inclusion into the - report for the public to provide comments thereon for return to the Participating Agency/ Contractor. TASK III -D: TECHNICAL REVIEW AND REFINEMENT. This task would provide for the technical review of draft products prepared under Task III -C and refinements of the Technical Memorandum and draft report prior to public release. This task is to be accomplished by conducting the following work. 1. Provide Technical Memorandum and other outputs to the Technical Review Committee and SCAG 208 Program Manager (10 copies) consistent with the approved project schedule. (Responsibility of Agency.) 2. Based upon the comments received, one meeting will be held with the Consultant to determine the necessary refinements. The Consultant will then finalize the memorandum and report. OUTPUT: 1. Comments on technical memorandum and report (one copy to Consultant). (Responsibility of Agency.) 2. Final technical memorandum and report (one set of reproducible originals and 20 copies, single spaced, copied on both sides, and stapled without hard covers to Agency). TASK III -E: REPORT ON PLAN ALTERNATIVES. Utilizing the Draft General Audience Report prepared for the alternatives developed in Task III -A -C, and the comments made by the Technical Review Process of Task III -D, a general audience report on Plan Alternatives including an environmental assessment of each alternative system, is to be prepared. This report shall include those elements described in the output for Task III -C, and shall be limited if possible to 50 pages. The environmental assessment will be conducted as described in Tasks IV -A and B below. OUTPUT: General Audience Report on Stormflow Sediment Control Alternatives with appropriate fold -out maps, photographs, and public review summary - comment attachment (200 copies). TASK III -F: PUBLIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES. Presentations may be made to the local Water Quality (208) Advisory Committee, its Coastal Wetlands Subcommittee, the SCAG Energy and Environment Committee, and before the local elected officials and management level personnel in the Newport Bay area for a total of four (4) presentations. This task will be supportive to the public participation effort provided by SCAG. Press releases shall - 16 - be prepared by Agency to assist the media in coverage of the alternatives. A public hearing will be held on the alternatives. Consultant will attend one (1) public hearing at the request of the Agency. OUTPUT: 1. Public and Agency presentations. 2. Public and Agency comments. 3. Media releases and other information aids (Responsibility of Agency). 4. Public Hearing on Alternatives (Responsibility of Agency). TASK III -G: REVIEW WRITTEN COMMENTS ANI Review all comments received, prepare recommendations with consideration of transcribe verbal comments. SCAG and the responsiveness summary. However, respond to technical questions. PREPARE RESPONSIVENESS DOCUMENT. a responsiveness summary, and make these comments. SCAG and cities will the cities will review and prepare the Consultant may be called upon to OUTPUT: 1. Compilation report of all comments received. (Responsibility of Agency.) 2. Responsiveness Summary to comments. (Responsibility of Agency.) 3. Recommendations with consideration of comments. (Responsibility of Agency.) TASK III -H: PREPARE RECOMMENDED PLAN AND PRELIMINARY DRAFT PROGRAM EIR. A recommended plan shall be prepared based upon the alternative system selected in Task III -G. This plan shall be more detailed than the alter- natives, specifying the specific project proposals and management practices, their implementation schedule, estimated costs and financing /implementation / management plan. Accompanying environmental documentation shall be prepared in accordance with Task IV -C below. OUTPUT: 1. Recommended Plan (200 copies). 2. Executive Summary of Recommended Plan (400 copies). TASK III -I: ASSIST IN SECURING IMPLEMENTATION COMMITMENTS. The participating agencies shall assist SCAG in securing implementation commitments from the responsible agencies designated in the plan as implementing- management agencies. This task shall also include development of any joint powers agreements and financial arrangements necessary to assure implementation, maintenance, monitoring and management of the plan. OUTPUT: 1. Implementation Commitments 2. Management Agency-Agreements - 17 - 0 PART IV: COMPREHENSIVE STORMFLOW SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL TASK IV -A: DATA CONSOLIDATION /NOTICE OF PREPARATION. The data consolidation phase will form the basis for determining the scope and focus of the program EIR. During this stage, a working relationship will be established with all participants and a forum will be created for subsequent discussion of the project and its environmental implications. During this task, the Consultant will compile relevant background information for this project. The data compiled in this task will then be assembled into a comprehensive description of existing conditions (baseline) within the San Diego Creek Watershed for use in the environmental assessment (Task IV -B) and EIR (Tasks IV -C &D) activities. The baseline conditions will emphasize the regional context of the Newport Bay Watershed and its significance as a regional environmental resource. As part of this effort, the Consultant will prepare and issue the Notice of Preparation to appropriate agencies. Format and content of the HOP will be determined through discussions with the Agency. OUTPUT: Description of existing conditions (not for submittal to Agency). Z. Notice of Preparation. TASK IV -B: ENVIRONMENTAL The existing conditions used, together with the prepared by Consultant, impacts associated with which could be employed be described. A maximui in this phase. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLANS. described in Task IV -A of this work program will be "screened" alternative sedimentation control plans to determine the general types of environmental each control plan. Typical mitigation measures to prevent or minimize environmental impacts will n of five (5) project alternatives will be evaluated OUTPUT: Text to be incorporated by Consultant into Report on Plan Alternatives (Task III -E above). TASK IV -C: PREPARE PRELIMINARY DRAFT PROGRAM EIR. The existing environmental conditions description prepared in Task IV -A above and the recommended alter- native control plan and environmental assessments prepared in Task IV -B above will be used in this task to prepare a Preliminary Draft Program EIR. This EIR will contain information, analyses and graphics in a format consistent with the EIR guidelines of the Agency. The steps involved include: Determination of environmental impacts of recommended program; 2. Consolidation of environmental setting, environmental constraints and environmental impacts of project alternatives; 3. Preparation of preliminary draft EIR for review by agencies, environmental groups and the general public. The information provided in the Program EIR will comply with all provisions of Section 15069.8 of the State EIR Guidelines. - 18 - L 0 OUTPUT: Program Environmental Impact Report (195 copies). TASK IY -D: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY DRAFT EIR /PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR. Comments received from public review of the preliminary draft EIR will be reviewed and responses to each comment will be prepared by Consultant. All comments which raise significant environmental issues will receive a response and appropriate modifications to the text will be made. Copies of all written and oral comments made at public hearing /meetings will be included as an appendix to the draft EIR. Responses to these comments will be prepared and included within the appendix. OUTPUT: Draft EIR for the Sedimentation Control Plan, incorporating necessary changes to the preliminary draft EIR (eight copies). TASK IY -E: CLIENT COORDINATION, PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS. During the conduct of Part IV, Consultant will maintain contact with the staff of the Agency and, as appropriate, SCAG. A maximum of four (4) public hearings/ public meetings will be attended by Consultant during review of the prelim- inary draft EIR. - 19 - 0 0 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS F", CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND CITY OF IRVINE THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of this a& day of 1)c. +obar , 19$p by the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine herein ca led the Agency) and the Southern California Association of Governments (herein called SCAG), which agreement does hereby incorporate by reference the contract(s) between SCAG and the United States of America whereby this project is funded, kITNESSETH THAT: b:HEREAS, SCAG desires to engage the Agency to render certain technical or pro- fessional services hereafter described in connection with an undertaking which is to be financed in part by the Envircnmental Protection Agency: NEITHER the United States nor the Environmental Protection Agency is a party to this contract. NOW THEREFORE: The parties hereto_do mutually agree as follows: 1. Erployment of Agency. SCAG hereby agrees to engage the Agency and the Agency hereby agrees to perform services hereinafter set forth in this contract. 2. Incorporation of Federal Guidelines. The terms of all relevant Federal and State grant provisions and guidelines, as presently written or as changed during the life of this agreement, bearing on this agreement are hereby wholly incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this agreement and take precedence over any inconsistent terms of this agreement. 3. Scone of Services. The Agency shall do, perform, and carry out, in a satisfactory and proper manner, as determined by SCAG, the services indicated in Appendix A. This obligation shall be contingent upon the final approval of such services by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the event any anendments are necessary, they shall be made in accordance with provision 17 of this Agreement. 4. Data to be Furnished to Agency. Where available at SCAS, all information, data, reports, records, and maps as are existing, available, and necessary for the carrying cut of the .work shall be furnished - -to the Agency without charge by SCAG. SCAG shall cooperate with the Agency in every .way possible in the carrying out the services set forth in this agreement. EXHIBIT B —1— 5. Submission of Reports • a. All reports specified in Appendix A.II must be submitted to the SCAG 208 Program Manager for review by SCAG. b. No final copy shall be prepared in form for publication prior to approval by SCAG. c. Manuscripts produced by the Agency or SCAG shall be in accordance with the United States Government Printing Office's Style Manual (available through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402). The Agency, in typing the final manuscript, shall be responsible for all corrections prior to acceptance of the final manuscript. Proper credit will be given to sources through commonly accepted methods of documentation such as footnotes or other means. The Agency shall furnish a list of material referred to in the preparation of reports. The authority on spelling and usage of words shall be Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged. d. Progress reports (per attached format) including verbal presentations shall be provided to SCAG on a monthly basis. The SCAG 208 Program Managcr shall s,at the time and place for these meetings, as described in the special provisions to this contract. Based upon the statement of progress provided to SCAG any findings made by the SCAG program manager indicating deviation from the Scope of Services (Appendix A) shall be outlined and given to the Agency at the meeting for remedy. e. Task outputs are deemed acceptable under the terms of this cooperative agreement when submitted and. approved by SCAG. Agency shall be notified by SCAG of acceptance of the task outputs at the time of the progress meeting. Unless otherwise advised in writing the Agency shall continue work in accordance with schedule as contained in the Scope of Services (Appendix A). Final approval of the task outputs shall be provid,ed in writing by SCAG. 6. Personnel.. a. The Agency represents that he has, or shall secure at his own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees of or have any con- tractual relationship with SCAG. b. All of the services required hereunder shall be performed by the Agency or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized under State and local law to perform such services. c. All personnel identified in Appendix A, I. to be listed by Agency at time of agreement execution, shall not be replaced by any other persons except with the written notification of SCAG. -2- 7. Evaluation, Selection and Approval of Third Party Contract a. SCAG shall be permitted participation in the evaluation and selection of any Third Party contractors, or any other Agency sub - contract proposals, which are solicited to carry -out task assignments, or any portion thereof, as approved herein, and specified in Appendix A (Scope of. Work). None of the work or services covered by this agreement shall be sub - contracted without the prior approval of SCAG and the appropriate funding agency (as may be required). b. The Agency shall prepare a Request For Proposal (hereinafter referred to as RFP) for review by SCAG before distribution of the RFP by the Agency to prospective consultant firms, individuals, or other entities. c. RFP's shall be .sent to at least three (3) prospective clients. Ilinority - owned consultant firms should have maximum opportunity to compete for Agency sub - contracts. d. evaluation of Proposals by.Aaency shall be conducted in accordance with a Selection Criteria format, as approved by SCAG. e. Sole Source contract arrangement 0 11 be evaluated and approved by SCAG, subject to any special provisions attached hereto. f. Agency shall prepare the appropriate federal Price Analysis fcrns (EPA 5700- 1)(copy attached) and make this sub - contract cost alloca- tion and burden rate documentation a part of the proposed contract submitted to SCAG for review and approval. g. Agency shall submit with the proposed contract documentation the RFP process and criteria used for selection of the consultant (sub - contractor) firm, individual or entity. h. The Participant shall comply with Federal. Office of Manage - rant and Budget Circular A -102 "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants -In -Aid to State and Local Governments" Attachment 0, "Standards Governing State and Local Grantee Procurement ", the Federal Highway Administration Contract Directive FHPt4 1 -7 -2, and other applicable federal directives in establishing procedures for the procurement of services, supplies or equipment. 8. Time of Performance. The services of the Agency are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of the a ^reement and shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure its expeditious completion in light of the purposes of this agreement, but in any event all of the services required herein shall be completed not later than September 30, 1982. S. Compensation. SCAG agrees to pay the Agency an amount not to er.ceed c317,000 .for the above services. It is expressly understood and agreed that said sum constitutes the "maximum" compensation for the services required in Appendix A. 10. Method of Pent /. °.eirn urseaicnl Reguiremento In performing the. tasks set forth in Appendix A,I1., Bork Tasks to be Acconolished, the Agency may incur costs set forth by work tasks in the budget attached hereto, labeled Appendix A,III, Budget, and incorporated herein by this reference. Said costs (hereinafter referred to as eligible costs) shall be the only costs for which Agency shall have the right to reimbursement by SCAG hereunder. Agency may incur said eligible costs up to a maximum of $ 317,000. Payment shall be made according to the, following: a. The participant shall submit to SCAG, attention Finance Officer, a Request for Payment and Progress Report in narrative format not later than 15 days following the end of each calendar quarter. The participant has the option to submit a monthly Request for Payment. A full narrative Progress Report must accompany the Request for Payment. In addition, a monthly Progress Report will be submitted per paragraph 5d. b. Pursuant to Federal Management Circular 74 -4, Attachment A, Agency shall prepare and submit to SCAG for approval prior to the first I requisition for payment a plan for the allocation of costs which is 1 required to support the distribution of indirect overhead related to the Scope of Services under this agreement. Such cost allocation plan, once approved by SCAG, will become attached to this agreement and shall be available fo- audit purposes. c. All costs charged to this agreement by Agency shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, and vouchers, evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges, and shall be costs allowable as determined by Federal Manage- ment Circular 74 -4 and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41 (Public Contracts and Property Management) Part 1 -15 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, Subpart 1 -15.7 Grants and Contracts with State and Local Governments. d. Agency shall establish and maintain a separate account within its existing accounting system specifically for and limited to all fiscal activities required to perform the services under this agreement. Agency's accounting system shall comply with the regulations and standards of the Cost Accounting Standards Board. All accounting records shall readily provide a breakdown of costs charged to this contract. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records shall be kept available for inspection by SCAG and other authorized agencies during the period of performance of the agreement, and for four years thereafter. e. In the imburses the Agency Agency, pursuant to expressly agrees to SCAG agrees to asse Agency . event that any of the expenses for which SCAG re- are later disallowed by the Environmental Protection paragraph 31, Examination of Records /Audits, Agency reimburse SCAG an amount equal to that disallowed. rt any appeal for a disallowed expense on behalf of • • f. Agency is hereby expressly put on notice that no employee of SCAG has authority to authorize in baiting or other„`,se any additional work which would increase the cost of this agreement without the written approval of the SCAG Executive Committee. g. As expeditiously as possible, SCAG shall pay Agency the re- imbursable portion of total eligible costs. Said reimbursable portion shall be calculated by subtracting "from the total eligible requisitioned costs 10% for project retention purposes." SCAG shall pay Agency the 10% which has been withheld when the agreement has been cc.npleted to SCAG's satisfaction in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and upon requisition for final payment. h. The agency agrees to perform additional work in support of the 208 continuing planning program having a cost of not less than $165;000. Said .costs shall not be reimbursable and shall constitute an in - kind contribution. The agency shall provide to SCAG within 30 calendar days following the execution of this agreement by both parties., a descrip- tion, budget, and schedule for the work to be perfor;,ed as an in -kind contribution. All in -kind contributions shall meet the criteria set forth in the Federal Management Circular 74 -7 Attachment F dated 9/13/74, and s:,all be co:isintent with the adopted FY 1979 -?0 Oi;P for the 208 Continuing . Planning Program. Reports on progress of such work including both description of work completed and a statement of costs incurred shall be included as part of the progress reports required in section 10 of this agreement. 11. Hold Harmless. The Agency and SCAG agree to hold each other mutually harmless from and on account of any and all liability, whether proerty damage or personal injury, arising from each party's negligent perfo r?nce of this agreement. 12. Acceptance. Acceptance of the terms of this Agreement shall be by the signing of this agreement in the space provided by the respective parties and their counsel. 13. Rebudgeting of Funds. Prompt notification by Agency and con - currance by SCAG of all rebudgeting in excess of $1,000 is reouired. Such notification may be accomplished by submission of a revised copy of the budget forms. Approval of .minor adjustments to an approved budget is not required. A minor adjustment will constitute reallocation of the dollar sum of $1,.009 or less. 14. Prohibition Against Contiicent Fees. The Agency warrants that no person or .company has been employed cr retained to solicit or secure t ^ls contract upon an agree ^lent or understanding for a commission, per - ceitage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees; nor has the Agency paid or agreed to pay any person, co. -pany, corporation, individual or firm, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, coraission, c: ri tut ion, donation, percentage, gift, or any other consideration, co:aic,e,t upon or resulting from award of this °creeient. For any t. •.ch or violation of this provision, SCAG or the Environmental Protec- _'On =:ency shall have the riuht to tenmli ,.a *_e this . reeiaent without r liability and, at his discretion, to deduct fro:,i t o A';reement price, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, cc::i.nission, percentage, gift or consideration and any other damages, and shall be responsible for reporting the details of such breach or violation to the proper legal authorities, where and when appropriate. 15. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If, through any cause the Agency or SCAG shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract, or if the Agency or SCAG violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this agreement, either party shall thereupon have the right to terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the Agency of such termination and specifying the effective data thereof. In that event, all finished or unfinished docu- ments, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other materials prepared by the Agency under this agreement shall, at the option of SCAG, become SCAG's property, and the Agency shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfac- tory work completed on such documents and other materials. No such termination may be effected unless the agency is given (1) not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate and (2) an opportunity for consultation with the terminated party prior to to -iinazion. Notwithstanding the above, the Agency shall not be relieved of liability to SCAG for danages sustained by SCAG by virtue of any breach of the contract by the Agency, and SCAG nay withhold any payments to the Agency for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damage due to SCAG from the Agency is determined. 16. Termination of Convenience of SCAG. SCAG may terminate this aereeaent at any time by giving written notice to the Agency of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. No such termina- tion may be effected unless the agency is given (1) not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified nail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate and (2) an opportunity for consultation with the terminated party prior to termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials as described in Appendix A, at the option of SCAG, become its property. If the agreement is terminated by SCAG as provided herein, the Agency shall be paid an amount which bears the same ratio to the total compensation as the services actually performed bear to the total services of the Agency covered by this agreement less payments of compensation previously made. Provided however, that if less than sixty (60) percent of the services covered by this agreement have been performed upon the effective date of such termination, the Agency shall be reimbursed (in addition to the above payment) for the portion of the actual out -of- pocket expenses (not otherwise reimbursed under this agreement) incurred by the Agency during the agreement period which are directly attributable to the un- completed portion of the portion of the services covered by this agree - ment. If this contract is terminated due to the fault of the Agency, Paragraph 15 hereof relative to termination shall apply. -6- 17. Agreement I Itnijes . SCAG may, from ti81i� to time, reouire changes in the scope of the services of the Agency to be perforr,ed.herein. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Agency's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between SLAG, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Agency, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this agreement. no oral under- standing or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. Amendments inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Agreement may not be utilized. 18. Equal Employment Opportunity /PJondiscrimination. a. In connection with the execution of this agreement, the Agency shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Agency shall take affirmative action to ensure that. applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other fcrs of compensation; and selection of training. including apprentice- ship. The Agency agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the pro- visions of the Equal Opportunity clause. b. The Agency shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Agency, state that all qualified applicants shall receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.. c. The Agency shall send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other agree:-rent or understanding, a notice advising the labor union or workers representative of the Agency's commitments under this Equal Opportunity clause, and shall post copies of the notice in a conspicuous place avail - able.to employees and applicants for employment. d. The Agency shall comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as anended and of the rules; regulations, and relevant order of the Secretary of Labor. e. The Agency shall furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 6'0. 11246 of September 24, 1965 as amended, and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and shall perz:rit access to his books, records, and accounts by SC.AG and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investi- gation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. f. In the event of the Agency's non - compliance with the Equal Opportunity clause of this. agreement or any of the said rules, regula- :icns, or orders, this agreement may be cancelled, terminated, or sus- ­t: n-; in whole or in part, and the Agency may be declared ineligible for -7-, further oovernment contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965 as a,:er.d,d, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies involved as provided in Executive Order .,o. 11246 of September 24, 1965 as amended, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. g. The Agency shall include the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (g) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 204 of Executive Order No. 11245 of September 24, 1965 as amended, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontract or vendor. The Agency shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as SCAG may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, however, that in the event the Agency becomes involved, in, or is threatened with litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by SCAG, the Agency may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. 19. Affirmative Action for handicapped Workers a. The Agency will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental handicap in regard' to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The Agency agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment and otherwise treat qualified handicapped individ- uals without discrimination based upon their physical or mental handicap in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. b. The Agency agrees to comply with the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to the Act. (29 USC 705) c. In the event of the Agency's noncompliance with the require - ^ents of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to the Act. d. The Agency agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to em ?loyees and applicants for enploymment, notices in a fora to be prescribed by the Director, provided by or through the Agency. Such notices shall state the Agency's obligation under the law to take affirm- ative action to employ and advance in employment qualified handicapped employees and applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and e- ?Ioyees. e. The Agency will notify each labor union or representative of r:or;:ers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other understanding, that the Agency is bound by the terms of Section -03 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and is corn -fitted to take affirma- tive action to employ and advance in e.mployrnent physically and mentally handicapped individuals. f. The Agency will include the provisions of this clause in every subcontract or purchase order of $2,500 or more unless exempt by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary issuEd pursuant to Section 503 of Act, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontrac- tor or vendor. The Agency will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs may direct to enforce such provisions, including action for noncompliance. 20. Civil Rights. During the performance of Appendix A, Scope of Services of this agreement, the Agency shall comply with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, promulgated to effectuate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is made a part of this agreement by reference. The act of filing a complaint pursuant to paragraphs 18, 19 or 20 shall not of itself constitute a violation of this agreement. Only after the completion of any litigation regarding any complaint filed shall actions of this agreement be affected. 21. Political Activity. No portion of the funds received by the Agency under this agreement shall be used for any political activity or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office. 22. Prohibited Interest. During his tenure and for one year thereafter, no officer, member, or employee of SLAG and no me:a5er of a local governing body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof. 23. Assignability. The Agency shall not assign any interest in this agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or innovation), without the prior written consent of SCAG. 24. interest of Agency. The Agency agrees that he presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct End indirect, which could conflict in any :manner or degree with the oer•foriar,ce of services required to be performed under this agreement. The Ag=_ncy further agrees that in the performance of this agreement no person having any such interest shall be employed. 25. ? =_s or.sibility for Claims and Liability. The Agency shall save SCAG, the Environmental Protection Agency, or any government agency from all claims and liability due to his negligent acts or the negligent acts of his subcentrzctors, agents, or employees. 25. Interest of hlem.bers of or Delegates to Ccncress. No Miember of or Delegate to the Congress of the United States of ;America, and no Resident Comm'ssior;:r, shall be admitted to any share or part o' this agreement or t^ any ber :efit arising therefrom. -9- 27. Disclosure Information. SCAG has the richt to reveal infor- mation concerning this project in compliance with the Freedom of Informa- tion Act, 5 JSC 552. if the Agency desires that certain information not be disclosed to others, the Agency must insure that at the tine the information is first received by SCAG it is accompanied by a clear and prominently written claim, consisting of a cover sheet, stamp, type of legend or other suitable form of notice on (or attached to) the document or other record containing the information, employing such language as "trade secret ", "confidential," or "proprietary." Where only one or more portions of a submission are claimed to be entitled to nondisclosure, each such portion shall be identified. Information received by SCAG which is not accompanied by a claim in accordance with the above stated regula- tion may be made available to the public without prior notice to the Agency. 28. Identification of Documents. All reports, maps, and other documents completed as a part of this agreement, .other than documents exclusively for internal use within SCAG, shall carry the following notation on the front cover or a title paae, (or in the case of maps, in the same block) containing the name of SCAG: The preparation of this report, map, document, etc., was financed in part through a Planning Grant - P009200 -01 -0 from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the provisions of Section 208 of the Federal 'Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, together with the date (,month and year) the document was prepared and the name of the nunicipality, metropolitan area, or ether planning area concerned.' 29. Copyright. The Agency shall be free to copyright material developed under the agreement with the provision that the (name of funding agency) and SCAG reserve a royalty -free, non - exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work for government purposes. The Agency is subject to the duties of agency relating to rights in data and copyrights as set forth in 40 CFR 30.530. If this agreement involves experimental research or demonstration work, the Agency is subject to the duties of agency relating to rights to inventions and patents contained in 40 CF? 30.515. 30. notice of Assistance Regarding_Patent and Co:vrights Ir,frinee- ment. The Agency agrees to report to SCAG, and name o f funding agency pror:ptly and in reason=able written detail, each notice or claim of patent or copyright. infringement based on the performance cf this agreement of which the Agency has knowledge. In the event of any claim or snit against SCAG or Environmental Protection .Agency on account of any alleged patent or copyright infringement arising out of the pe:= or ".ance of this agreement or out of the use of any supplies furnished or work or services performed hereunder, the Agency agrees to furnish to SCAG and Environmental Protec- tion Agency, when requested by SCAG and Environmental Protection Agency -10- 0 all evidence and -in-, orlllation in possession of tile gency pertaining to such suit or claim. Such evidence and info nation shall be furnished at the expense of SCAG and Environmental Protection Agency except where the Agency has agreed to indemnify SCAG and Environmental Protection Agency. 31. Audits. At any time during no m.al business hcurs, and as often as SCAG, Environmental Protection Agency, the Comptroller General of the United States or Department of Labor nay deem necessary, the Agency shall make available for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this contract for purposes of audit, examination, or to make copies or transcripts of such records, including, but not limited to contracts, invoices, maierial, payrolls, personnel records, conditions of em.ployment and other data relating to all natters covered by this agree- ment. Such records and access to facilities and premises shall be made available during the period of performance of this agreement, and for four years thereafter. The Participant shall comply with the Federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A -102, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants in Aid to State and Local Governments ", Attachment P, "Audit Requirements," and direct the performance of an independent audit that encompasses the financial statements and compliance requirements pertaining to this agreement. The independent audit shall be performed by a licensed or certified public accountant. The audit shall be perfornied in accordance with the General Ac- counting Offices 1) Standards for Audit of Governmental Organization, Programs, Activities and Functions ", and 2) "Guidelines for Financial and Compliance Audits of Federally Assisted Programs ". The independent audit shall encompass, when applicable, an examina- tion of subcontractor(s) financial statements to determine ;rhether: a) financial operations are conducted properly, b) the financial statements are presented fairly, and c) the organization has complied with laws and regulaticn.s affecting the expenditure of Federal Funds. The cost of the independent audit shall be made a part of the charges :o this agreement. The independent audit report shall be submitted to SCAG not later than October 1, 10181. 32. Small and finority Business Ent rise. In connection with the perfor -ante of this agreement, the .Agency will cooperate with SCAG in meeting its commitments and goals with regard to the r;aximumi utilization of s ^,all and minority business enterprises and will use its best efforts to ,—ire that small and minority business enterpris =_s shall have the .naxiiT7m practicable opportunity to com;ete for subcontract work under this a Cr �e.',ic nt. 3 Disputes. Except as ocherw'se provided in this agreement, any dis(juta cor.corning a question of fact Bris'•ng under this agreement which is net disposed of by mutual agreement shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. 35. ;oncom:;liance. In addition to such other readies as provided tiv law, in the even, of noncompliance with any grant c0�,dition or specific _n, of th•.s r.;ree-:ent,'this agreement may be to r.,inated. -11 -� J6. Clean Air_7ct 2nd Federal '„ -ter Pollution' ce-cy mist ca-ply ,pith the Clean Air hct (42 USC 1351n- ) and she Federel 'r;ater Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1251). 37. Notice. Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this agreement may be personally served on the other plarty by the party giving such notice, or may be served 5y certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: Director of Programming and Evaluation Southern California Association of Governments 600 South Commonwealth Avenue , Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90005 -12- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Southern California ASSOCiation of Governments and the Agency have executed this agreement as of :he date first above written. Agency By i,Frnv.c6 CRY ATTORNEY TA Southern California Association of Governnents �i f By i a ;,,� .'.0 Z9 ? �" 6 222IJ?/ t ony mayor W. 0. Ackermann, Jr. %. Director of Programming Evaluation ty,6IF Newport Beach Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM C l Y�T� CR t E BI. ... j ............ ............. . ATTEST: City Clerk D ATTEST' Anc Bowrland erk - City of Irvine ATTEST:. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL . 0 `; AND LEGAL ADEQUACY Attorney for SCAG -13- Sr ED C',"Ir' 7-IS PERIOD S. 171 SCOPE N s-'Hi RE AQJUS--.i-tE,NT r r%S - 7 Z: I-)ST s i9 C, 1. n ;7 Newport /Irvine • Special Provisions • Task /Contract Manager: The City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach shall assign one contract manager to this work. This person shall be a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California,. with academic training.and at minimum 5 -years of experience in professional engineering with experience in flood control and /or sedimentation control engineering. Technical Review Committee: An outside "experts" technical review committee shall be established to assist in the review of technical work products. This committee shall be composed of specialists who have the following expertise: engineering and flood control hydrology, sedimentation engineering, erosion processes, geomorphologic processes, sedimentation processes in salt marshes, sediment delivery, flood control engineering, soil protection and watershed treatment and biological /ecological sciences in tidal wetlands. The Technical Review Committee shall be directed by the SCAG 208 Project Manager and the City's designated Task Manager. 3. Public Participation: Public participation assistance shat) be provided to augment SCAG's overall 208 Public Participation program. A local advisory committee shall be formed and staffed by the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. This committee shall be composed and operated consistent with Federal Regulations on Public Participation. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that work on task 8015.01 /8115.01 Newport Bay k'atershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormaater Sedimentation Contro Pan, has occurred prior to the date of this agreement which was necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of the above cited task, and that such work shall be reimbursable pursuant to Section 10 of this agreement. Such charges, which are consistent with the terms of this agreement, and which are incurred on or after April 4, 1980, are eligible for reimbursement. 5. The City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach shall assign one agency as the lead agency for handling Reimbursement Requirements and requisitions for payment. 6. Upon receipt of comments the reports shall be addended and finalized and submitted to SCAG to reflect any necessary changes within fifteen working days after the receipt of the comments. 7. SCAG acceptance of final reports and products is contingent upon satisfactory resolution between the Federal /State oversight committee, SCAG and Participating Agencies of outstanding issues and comments raised by the Federal /State oversight committee. EXHIBIT C o irier,I Chapter I— Envirunmentol Protection Agency anent ::ocest -15 or : sh s_ch red b3 :o pre- me , ;� shall this 17.! cis- :: evie%v under red for _: zl re- par- and 33.715 _ -sQS 'o :mpeti- to a - parent the proof : nt to award Rive!y a bidder s_bmit- .:e, the C prop. -_erring tie with s de- es P C.n - :abash its de- :e1c cs- .cn has action. -sue . -fer the rot x or issu• r a con' :_cry of s ce[ermination to the participating L; rties. Where the Deputy Assistant :; 'ministrator or the Regional Admin• is', star has received a written protest ap, eal he must notify the grantee prat pity to defer its protested pro - cure . ent action until notified of the forin 1 or informal resolution of the prote t. If a determination is made by either the grantee or the Deputy As- sistant Administrator or the Regional Admini tra[or which is favorable to the co . plairiant, the grantee's pro• curerlen action (for example, con- tract aw•a d) must be taken in accord. ante •:with uch determination. F_ 1(1. 10 En orcem enL a) Nonco pliance with the procure- ment provis \Lneli of this part by the grantee �nah use nor enforcement action in accce with one or more of the provisf ¢ 53.150. (b) If the y Assistant Adminis- trator or thional Administrator deter mines protest prosecuted pursuant to subpart is frivolous, he may dee the party which prosec::ted sotest to be not re- sporsible ani ible for future con- tact award s 3 33.150). § 33.15 Limit ation. A protest may not a filed purs to this subpart with r spect to the lowing: (a) Issues not arising under the curement provisions f this chapter; or (b) Issues relating to t selectio a consultant, Provided, T at a pr may be filed only with re pect to mandatory procedural req 'women this part; (c) Issues primarily dete the Sate or local law or ordinan es a to which the Deputy Assista Ad istrator or Regional Adni. istr upon review determines that he no contravening Federalrequir mt (d) Provisions of Federal regu at applicable to direct Federal con r, unless such provisions are exp ' referred to or incorporated in part; (e) Basic project design deters [ions; (f) Award of subcontracts or ante of purchase orders under a uant fol- pro- sub• n of pro the is of d by an as inin. ator, re is citly this App. A ma113' dcert(sed, competitively bid, lump -su construction contract: Pro• vided, T t protest inay be made with respect to lleged violation of the lot- lowing: (1) Nonres active specifications (see § 33.123); or (2) Provisio, of this part applicable to the procuren -nt procedures, nego• tiation or award f subcontracts or is- suance of purc , e orders under 1 33.410 -10 ( Subcontracts under for- mally advertised sub reements), 133.750 Summary dispo. \(ion. The Deputy Assistant dministrator or Regional Ad:ninistrat may sum- marily dismiss a pretest, t, 'thou[ pro- ceedings under 3 33.715 or 3 .720, if he determines that the protest , untime- ly, ! rivolous or without me il. Any such determination shall refer riefly to the facts substantiating the basis for the determination. APPCrrprx A —Fz ;uuum PRovistoss (The grantee may SUbSW'Jte its own pro%I- sions for Clauses ^_ -6, 9, and 12, if suci pro - visions meet the re;uirements of Subpar: F to 40 CFR Part 33.) t. cCt; =RhL (a) The Grantee and the Contractor agree that the following pro%isimu shall apply to the uork to be perfcrmed tinder this con- tract and that such provisions shall super. sede any conflictini provisions of this con- tract. (b) This contract Is funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency. `feather the United States ror any of its departme::ts. agencies or employ ees is a party to this contract. This contract is subject to regulations conte!ned in 40 CFR Part 33 in ef:ect on the date of execu- tion of this contract. (c) The rights and remedies of the Grant. ee provided for in t.`,ese clauses are in addi. t.on to any other rights and remedies pro- vided by law or under this contract. 3. CHANGES (a) The Grantee may. at any time. with- out notice to any surety, by written order desiniated or indicated to be a change order, make any change in the work within the general scope of the contract. including but not limited to changes (1) In the speei :i,aticrs (including draw- ings and designs): 319 EXHIBIT C f I' AF.t. A -It he 71 -M - or manner of Gr%ntce.funrilshed facii!1.4ts. S,.rv'cils, or site: or (4) ­7 l. nc acccloritiort n the perform. (t) -i-ny cincr written order or in oral C%'cr 1-lCrl :CF171S M used 1.1 this ;,ara- C-1 stall include c!..ccE;,n, instruc. tt.n. :ntzr;;%',aiicri or determination) from tt^ C%inte;-. which causes any such charizc, st-.11 be treated as A change order under Clis Prov, ide'! That the Contractor girls :ic Qnantel v.nLtcn notice stating the dare. and source of the order and that the Contractor regards the order As , ctnnce order. (c) Except as herein provided, no order. Statement. or conduct of the Grantee shall be treated as a chwnrize undrr this clause or ent4t:a the Contractor to an equitable ad- ju,-,�ment herender. (d! If any chanitt under this clause causes an !ri:rease or decrease in the Contractor's cost Gf. or the time required fo4 the per- fo.manceof Any part of (he work under this contract. whether or not changed by any ores. an equitable adjustment Ishii) be node and the contract modified in writing LCZL" n C!Y: P-.0"ced. hOXere., That except for claims based on defective specifications, •c C.t.:in for any change urictr W above st a ! be allowed for any cc5ts incurred more than 20 days before the Contractor gives wn'.tzn notice is Herein required: And are- viecd .'either, T defective That in the case of deftc sptcii._atiorz for which the Grantee is re. sp:irs.tIme, the equitable adjustment shall in. c!l:u,e any increased cost reasonably In. "ea by the Cont-actor Ln attempting to ccm;:*, with such defective specifications. (e) :f the C0n'.ZCLOF intends to assert a C!zlrn for in eqc;taLle adjustment under this c ' nns lie mus*., within 10 days After re. ce pt of a written. change erde_r under (a) zt,­­ or the of a written notice under � (b) of this sect'on 2.. submit to the G_n,ee a written statement setting forth Lte General nature and monetary extent of h :!ann. unless his period is extended by the Crantee. The statement of claim here- unAer may be included in the notice under M(b) of :his see, ion 2. (f) No claim by the Contractor for an adjus:ment hereunder shall be M- 17i;za if averted after final payment under this canixi= SITE CONDITIONS (This clause is z,-plicable only to construe. Lien contracts.) (a ' - -lie Contractor shall promptly, and b , fcr^ a_-ch conda:ons; are disturbed, notify tnc C:Lnte- in of: (1) Subsurface or IZZCEi-. physical CurditiOrIS At the Site differ- !ng m-.tcriM;y from those indicated in this czntmct. or (2) unknoun pljySiCat Con4I i_ T'ila 40—Frolcc:icn of Environment bons at the s;tc, of nn llri.izua! nat_4 feting materially %rem inoic O:eIn n. countered end rener115:'reCCeniZ�ed a' 171- hc.lnginwcrKof the character provided for In this contract. Tne Gnante? Stall prompt- ly im esdil-,.te the conditions, ins! If he finds that such conditions do niatt"ally so differ and cause an increnze or decrease in the Contractor'5 cost of, or the time required for. Perf07m.AnCC Of any part of the winrl, under this contract. 7,heZheror not changed as a result of such condition. aln equitil!t!e adjustment snail to made and the Co-.,Lr---.' modified In writtriff accord!n;!y. (b) No claim of the Contractor under this clause shall be allowed unless the Contrac. ter his given the notice required in (a) of this section, 3.: Pm;7idedl hoti The time prescribed therefor may be extended by the Grantee. (c) No claim by the Contractor for an equitable adjustment hereunder shall be al. lowed If Asserted after final payment under this contract. 4. SUSPEN5101,1 OF WORK (This clause is applicable only to construe. tion contracts.) (a) The Grantee may order the Contrac- tor in writing to suspend. delay, or inter-iru;;c all or Any part of the work for Such per'Ed Of time AS he nay deterrune to be appropri- ate for the convenience of the Grantee. (b) If the performance of all or any car', of the work is, for an unease ynz bie ce7iCl Of Lime. suspended. delayed. or interrupted by an act of the Grantee In administration of this contract, or by his failure to act within the time spccUied in this contract (or if rio time is specified, within a Ec=or.ab:e time). an adjustment shall be made for any in. -crease in the costs of per!oz—=e of this contract (excluding profit) necotsar.ly caused by such unreasonable suspens;cn. delay, or Uitcr.�-ption arid the Contract modi;Ied in wntin, acccrwisig!y. Howevc.. no adjustment sha)l be made under tnt_, clause for any suspension. delay, or Inter- ruption to the extent (1) that performance would have been so suspended, de!ayed, o. interrupted by any other cause. including the fault or negligence of the Contractor Or (2) for which an equitable Adjustment Is provided for or excluded under any other provision of this contract. (c) No ca.Lm under this clause shall be all. )owed (1) for any costs incurred more than 20 daya before the Contractor snail have -a- tilied the Grantee in o' the Za, Or failure to Act Involved (bill (,%is 7cq"xement shall not apply as to a claim resulting I.= a suspension order). and (2) unless the claim. in z:i amount staled. is asserted in wTitinx W; Soon as ;:.%ct:c-b1c -.!ter the tt l- minat;on of such suspension, delay. or inter ruption. I;ut not later tlisn the date of "ilrial payment under the contract- 320 Chcp!er 1=mmllF-1.l;;,-Cr,,_ n l ertc) :r. S. TL21•I.%A-:O1 (a) This r-re,nvnt Erp.) i: I whole Or in -l; Irt in :%rtt:n� i: in the event of ss:� ri jit'' :.I Other party to its this ureernCnt zhro,wh no flhu!t of mina'ir;z pii.t: proviSilG Tnal no s:� inaticn Ma3 • -e Effected ualrs the varly is ;i-. en (! ) V.OL I,s tiln, t^o e."idar eays wri:Zen E10--Ce (deli,cr,d 111"ed mail, rerun: rectn,­. request intent to arid (,,) A, orpr for coniiuin:lt:on r. -th the t-!rm1naI;n; Prior to tenrnina.!cri. (b) This agreement may be term-in whole or in Par: in %vrit;n,, by the c: for its convenience: Prorldsi. That * tractor is given (1) not less than ten endar days written notice (delivered tHied maii], retum receipt request, intent to terminate And (') an opci for consultlatio, with the ttrrriulatiric P7)Or to tem. ination. (c) !I termination for default is e: by the. Grantee. an equitable adjust - the Price Provided for in this avr, :hail be made, be: (1) no amount sna- lONed for anticipated Profit on uriper! ::_Mites or other 'Work. and (2) any :2 due to the Contractor at the ti-e o, ri.;Lion may be 1!;usted to the exicri*, addition) Costs occasioned Zo the 0 by reasor. of the Cont.4-tor ; defF.ul- ri!naticr, for celau!L is effected by t", tractor. or if tern•inction fc, ccn,,e;j,, (fiected by :j'0 Grantee. the O'lUilal Juszotent shall :nc!,Jiie A for S. Mees or ctl!er -work -trfc-,m.lw "°uitable kdju_.:'iitn*, for an' � ter-ir, "All Provide for Pa)­rrient to 21T Con( for services read -red and excuses ;:- prior to the terin;n--ion. in zodttior. rn�riation sa:-,Iernv,t costs rt-_ s,rz%, c!'rrcof by the Contractor relating i, wk!ch had become firm tr In" 'ermiriatton. (d) Upon receipt of a tem;,ztoj �­zuzr` to Pan`;.-%PhS (a) or (b) 1 ,.!-niOn5_ the Ccniractorsn_,tI(I)P,,, c!t::ntirilie all vertices aflc-rd (uni- rO - '.:Cc directs Ot"ef"ZiSe). and (!!) 1, is', ct e—Ise Make aial--bic to the Grn.l. d-*.!. s:lmiicat;ons. c-o-: . - r'z:es. 3=ma7.es. and sUc'i 1:!:er iri; ticn and ma, s material as aIed by " - have burn the Contractor in per,,,: ­!i azr�-rnent• ',',heth,r complete] process. 'e) Upon ttrrn!nation pun-jamit to zn :hs (a) 0, "'? or this r,rl.On Gr-n•-e ma) tail- ovtr t - !l e the same :0 c)rnp!e-;oi by i,,-Tr ' another or Other :. : ;,.- I !f. after ter rn iii-Iton for w,t:, e c con-7707[or to fU:fi!l OL,1=, it :.i determined that the Corina'acr 'm. e a 3 ' no �. cr d:ng or is '.er ^. at- tnan e ho- c: or -cnt Isom t in e r- nter Chaplet I— Environmentcl Protection Agency so failed- the termination shall be deemed to have been effected for the convenience of the Grantee. In such event. edj stment of the price provided for in this agreement shall be made as provided Lt. paragrapn (c). of this clause S. a. R3SIDr_s Except m may be otherwise provided In this agreement• all elaiVs, counterclaims. disputes and other matters in question be- tween the Grantee and '.he Ccrtractor aris. ing out of or relating to this a;reemmt or the breach thereof will be decided b' arbi- tration if the parties hereto mutually agree. or In a court of competent Jurisdiction within the State in which the Grantee is lo, tractor is given (1) not ess rated. endar day's written notice (delivered by cer- tiflel malt, return receipt requested) o[ Lntent to terminate and (2) an opportrity for - Orsu:t--tion.. with the terminating party prior to termination. (c) II termination for default is effected by the Grantee. an equitable adjustment in the price provided 'or in this agreement ;tall be made, but M no amount shall be al. lowed for antic ;paced profit en unperformed services or ether work, and (2) any payment due to the Contractor at the time of termi- ne:ion may be adjusted to the.extent of any additional costs occasioned to the Grantee by reascr. of the Contractor's default. 11 ter. m'..-.atiori for default is effected by the Con- tractor. or if terrair,ztion for convenience is e7lected by the Grantee, the equitab�e ad- justin]n shall include a reasonable profit for s^n'ices or other work performed. The quitable adjustment for any termination si:aa provide for payment to the Contractor for services rendered and expenses Incurred prior to the termination. in addition to ter- mination settlement costs reasonably In• cvrred by the Contractor relating to cam' mitments which had become firm prior t0 thn termination. (d) Lrpon receipt of a termination action pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) of this secti on 5., the Contractor shall (1) promptly discontinue all services affected (unless the notice directs otherwise), and (2) deliver or otherwise make available to the Grantee all dsla, drawings. specifications. reports. esti. mates. sur..mnaries. and Such other inferma- , ;on and materials i s may hate been accu- mulated by the Contractor In perfoming thi; agreement, whether completed or in process. (ei ljpon term ination pursuant to para. graphs (a) or (b) of this section 5., the G rantr- ma) take over the work and pros - eru;^ the same to completion by agreement xit_h another party or cthervise. ,) If, alter termination for failure of the Conj.. :ctorto fulfill contractual obligations. it r; determined that the Contractor had not r - App. A S. TM1AINAT10. (a) This agreement may be terminated In w110!e or in part In writing by either party in the event of substantial failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations under this agreement through no fault of the ter - minating part: Provided. That no such ter. urination may be effected unless the other party is given (1) not less than ten (10) cal- endar days written notice (delivered by cer- tified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate and (2) an opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prig: to termination. (bt V: is agreement may be terminated in whole or'Ln part in writini by the Grantee for is conv:nience: Provided That the Con - 1 than ten (10) eal- T. AUDIT; AC-MS - R =CORDS (a) The Contractor stall maintain tOOks. records. documents and otter evidence di- rectly pertinent to performance on �P grant work under this c0 ^tract h7 accord - ance'with generally accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied and 40 CFR 30.605, anal 3C.bt•5. T e Con. tractor shall also maintain the financial in- formation and data used by the Contractor in the preparation or SuP;ort of the colt submission required under 40 CFP. 33.510 -3 In.erfect on the-date of execution of this contract and a copy o: tee test surrunary submi:ed to the :grantee. The United States Environment?] Protection Agency. the Comptroller General of the United States. the L :niled States Department o: Labor. the Grantee (and the Stare. wh,re applicable) or any of their dui)' 31.a1`107u:cd rep-.esenta- tives shall have access to s:cn books, rec- girds. documents and other evidence I0r the purpose of Inspection. audit and copying. The Contractor will provide proper facilities for such access and inspect :en. (b) The Contractor agrees to include para- Emphs (a) and (b) of this clause in all his contracts and all tier subcontracts directl-v related to project performance which are In excess of 510,000. 8_PRICE 0.IDO CIO. rOR pCrECIVE COST OR PRICING DATA (7-r. is clause is cpp((cet!e V the cmounf of this e7rcr °an: e;ceeds (a) If EPA or the Grar..ee determines that any price, including profit, negotiatrd in connection with this oontract or any cost re. Imb.umable under th s contract has in- creased by any sigltificant sums because the Contractor. or any subcortractor furnished incomplete or inaccurate cost or pricing data or data not currant as notified in his certification Of current cost or pricing data (EPA Form - 5700 -4i), then such -, min- or cost or profit shall be reduced accordingl)' and 321 i i in writing R.7e •;, ^t. ^t sh Ail be tno h rcdcc :ton- a rtductlon shall to rc"t SC: l0 ay7eC Or) this ,a7 Fa :lu:r •'its" clause a( be subject the „32. -ate- xgrec '1ent. ct to re, cort*i DVtreason Of defee- �L,�E._Sinct the claws in cun- ductian s -,her t17i; data sub'nilLtd call- Live to$L o, 4h rwinQn S.bc ° "tra0u• 4he Irish Lo ire lode a clause in each ,tenon :- a subcontrac- trectpr,vtoY �t re0uiria9 fl• he GanLraC- suGh +u- tC -1ra. ir.dcmnLJ s.bco,lrac• :or to OPP'o P�atCtY that any ee Lcd icatton wa ll ten• tor. It u e t'9 rr ' tor snDYtt to such inIti •' 3'mI.to in ata to ricinP dcta rt orally reeuirt subsI a Of lotaer tier su jicctmn for defective cost or 7 Ct od t0 be submitted by ptraC f Gnvironr:dr.1 _Qtotadiun IPb Dali[y n aac-;Inc! ,130,•0.5, the Con- a_r.cr h;[h shat; the C."n:etl :. tr %-te r.or eurrcd 95' the cent :' "t "r SuC`.t 6raL'::LICS to •. -} '17 1 =.0 CFIt e::rnuste w1ll no: Gs ppmtnL for es X t s. eArry "'" a6essed ez or a PP14C at ate or any relittan, color. 1, this centrrc: in' :Dices .' of because c; :ace. =a: Ct811L. carry :57. mentah e�P ^- r "-encal. and envy natia: ,�kLL AI`a LdioN of S' a.r•le Lhe Cn:' at is dt' :eloP�'d if. aefl: susniTss ex- nA poUcY e'S E• roc cent, sxh this at "Cl Cl :a the tee be s'.::(i'� tit the Contractor In accc --,0 33.130. mess and mY CFrZ ',. st-11 D of provisions o( - • : :`• "- ".� t. date of pressed I". 'o y —ail bus the ,., qualified shall hate acre`s L•" ente.pr.se-s to Par" the in e(teet on Append'. to7atact irrludinz Ceatu es rtunity nur:T t.:5 •n ' ticable ° =D° of EPA graLtL- Pra` 30. In such cse, the or rncenttor, ctay.,mum e.forznce �. -; the P acontrac the discovery' the Grantee. a- tfclPate " - ttraCIS and sv vora+= Ter•`+ assisted cp. eO. -st- or throuehth the Grantee'. co-op Y R'lll] SUb D:,: G '- ENA1'r AGAIYSS r50R ss. co that no Person accordance clot hr The Contra war:an� toyed or TV The Ccritr_ctor been employ ct upon has Part 30. the d'uposition ct rig I to shall ring agency ore this contract pom• -er this cOntrv-ct dn,' to CrS or se • hit or sec ding for Ln.. - -ni can s. suseoxTIA Mined to so tc under, tan with the teen- -- and outside assn' _ee -vent or b,St Crate, o: conun' -no Cc by the Con, an a'. lage. Id¢ I"ees. Por rto-ed APPe ndix E. 'p subcontraccoCQUired On, percen , emP 'tlY the atistors , is ervites cov- ntss: xccPtin'boo •this warra• Cl_de P' pry;_1t1n with the 5 g ee. e' itt Co annul the , rposes of t;.f5 Corr =t' ciates or Car- will be limited to ent • violation t..e p'� arch. d' aere spedfically breach. o- ale t`.e rig its discretion tra[lOr ut c. eenent ee 5,1111 h or In RS: d. Shoe :51nCa1�tC.$ :e`'_ eyed by this atT firms as' . [a=.L t t'aa'. -:5 or co. �tneaa:, or IC-.orstra negotiations. G 'ithou -tract Prce be full P such iadi•.iduals OeCd to durir•g by the con Ca=t -f. the to •- r°'-os.e, Cage cup ar. and 19r authorized of this to deduct ° oth^rmi`t ,on, percen ts. ca2ratcttts een"I'l ire sPeciflczllY ante 01. aT tcra;uss: as the perform. of such .,tree, The Contt ^ -ttor ions. C Yry -tree during 0 :..dditicr� amount eci:ita:ions, cc.. 'Lrl7 Subs,7•uLt°t.S 7❑ LeS. or con- onto -oT centinol dr ?int5. 5P associa broe tea.ent.. royal (which are suo� :aao.a -) hat ubcont'attors, Tior aPP 7s. ca.A%'%rTtrs ring to Such s Lhe D cite and hearing, ra IvndEd tother r, s milt be sublect to St ts found. after no nd other uc� suntan' antee• not subcontract (all, ; atuities <iu the ho a mahuals. a to be of the tt Lar may ante Chat lterw's`'l wh:ch are specitied he C0 Irac erecnt for by L`e G:. t Sian or o= c. Or any r " -' fo> ±� of to D e Contractor Contrattc tor, tC s contract Or w.r under to and th to sub- oI ente ,a't., n the Contrac. Cured and Dafd for services ir. excess rice ofte:ed c• given by • e.Of t p( the :5 percent. tt tltt STar' rior representaL! st- '.zrced to i.tt this clause eel of the contradaPthJUt P. e.up.oyee or. gget ward he aE: Cotat•Y •p(ftdal, tth a Blew to the -r,ahs: or corsultz �artee. °{ EPA = tas'orable are subtect contractors the G - securing grates, as set Iosh a I,Y(' royal aL Grantee Or or ,,he awarding °r ` in AP7 written aDP toting a contresP doer ^Ina- ?act 3o ant 10. Boa Sr AVDARDs 0.' ih o'. to °t a1Y of 30. in erieet on the d`-`C �� this aBTeement in- trea::ne`' or the mz>yng per SUr:nanct ..tent. Includ �: that by the amen dint• esPtct L the p ba' written agree.. sncri To the extent .. ( defined agrees lions a'l :n t the cart and disclose t-uc.ion t.actot subject CO.- "B,aL' the Gr.rtLtt' mte - ti :,lte act, in s'ofces ..G °ro ' the Can ' suDj this the Conttactor- eed under whole or in v o cf I,,ibor7. a.ork shall be •cr rpC- other pose whatsoever. and hase Secretar- - uction rociSions. notice , °the Contra=• to Pve such that such corks­ t Labor standards P rigI,L °' dtor nay Puts lac- or - purposes of this .rh 11 eft wing 276,1- thSs contract an s provided b That the said APPendix C 5f+all ref t' to the tort° llaaale: d rerJedie ida4 terisl is cl to the extent aCP Act too U.S.C. 2'16,1- righLS �"� eeme° Prov v,.hieh the tar. It the ma convri =ht a.is•Bacon t.•ts f the (a=-5 upon shall be in (:OltraCtrir ma. ta) D and Safety ur.Ler ncfx C. x, Hours existence of sue'.^. findings sroceedings led by said APP ". 77: wary Grz'ttee 9al:es _viewed in D o'Is in the Gocernmcr.t z (b) Contract C. 327 -333): Lssua a d may be re p{ YJis eon he Ctantr: Standards Ac: (40 U.S (16 U.S. , Curs�an` to the ResD " - -�� c'ause ecdix C. but a ro', ti- Kfekbael: Act . res•n'e tc) Copeland An loY• contract is termir -li, Goc -rn atentt c,tocaa)t tic.. 11246 (Equal EmD tract. the event tY. atVh (17 hereof • • crust: e: znd'_ 6747: and order (b) In in Pew, Ue the . (d) Executive itY): and ed as Pf hall fled (7) co P or as t I C) h.aa rd . ° -u cri n.' ortttn regula::ons. shall be en;: he Contra thor"! ment OPP toles, rantee�edies ' 'je t breach oi',1 The Contractor Shall ire' e and i ^.•71E'nertin6 Secretary °f f�•b °r of G ash •e_,2n: of a ,u';,cun' ae ees saris^- r the a:td (i!7 a5 a propriate to effectuate t Of the further ^ --sue fn ..actor. da :• concision in all re1.4Cnt orders Con „:alto. De cot;.. r ­ by the Go` -•• °ihei a'eCS t0 and the Il fndudt and tpfsrac =.1 addition to ant' .o exempla” produce coDYri ^.huble St EPA ens shs Ptpvisiona by IsW ` ed o5 . that this 19,ee Labor Standards Con. PeraR: v ertt =led (�Qetermin Ily be subject to the isced Constrsetton which rt es In an a=riOUnt for Federaliy Ass 0 4) in effect at the dat7a. tracts" c-PA Fo� of ,his ygreement- time of execution 322 on cf Fnvironmeci 7A pa! � r5 eY- -g_ e CJn :rc,tot cciJ:. sss, arc or .:5255 .:, EPA pcficp as ex- 3,30 the Con [rxetor s-:all busir•css and . S.. shell have the e caDOrtunit }' to par* -,sate ct EPA grant- _ s,:bcDn :racu. ..;: CON:ISCEST ryes .._ns that no person J..e t`.!s cent :act upcn drs!a"dir.: I coin- Or Conti -Y era tide ema'Asees. For _ his ua:: an.[ the •.:igat to 2:4:111 this its di ;creCon ce or cor.<_`d- .' the :oil •. _ ^.'95Ian. pv`rcentIge. ee. Apo. A AGrncy Chart -� i— Environmental Frcic c 7 • tl•, Gr;.ntre) which shall be not less than three roe rodeo Chan tct runt pro`ea r. ^,3anY cured by the Contra ratuittcs to any. such oflicer or a ^• 5uC!t gm, - t�tT(E5 r ro :i,e and hearing. - .ies +in the form r. Can rac;or, c. any' rise C,:t<raCCtr. _1 ^_c•t or as =_rt of the I„-, It : Co the a- a.dug , ins o: any ceterr.t of MI ri of sn:et. rout'. gc wr)tt.en �•tpr, tat minute the tar ca prxCCd u =er other ••+ed D'> Iz•.t or Prn c:ceG. That the 'Ahi:h the -.; it to in -dies 1.%uze of t`. cent is term :nzt- .-zgrap hcreoL the '.:aed :i) m Pc:sue the ;ht Cor.: ra[tor ^s it ent of a beach of :ht •' •.'actor. Ind IfU a :o any other da -:ages to led DF is w, :o eecm %' -" noun[ tss de:ermfntd by rAipt IM2s (d PD :iCGhi[ ouV 1,, C rpn(rt Ct in CCr55 al S1GJ.J00 enc. 1>~•e e ;rrrctte a,Plicc,:c p,4r' <0 CFR PcR 75.1 15. eAt EN73 If this contract involves ors do �'USU"tio mental. experiment.,, or invention a- yes v.'r.rk and any discovery o,_ under or is developed In [he coca, of this agreement . such invention or discovery a�eisions ofeSubpa t D Of 0i CF?- Part 30. to the be in effect on the date 01 dixeB olf said Part Contract including App actor shall revorL 30. In such C e. t ie Con" to S p k directly the discovery or or through the Grantee. and shalt pthj hies comply with the Grantee's rD fn 40 CF' in a,cordanc(i with 5ubDx -t D that P, 30. The Contractor [n r1�LetiUOrssmade the disposition of ris. u ;tdcr this contract shall oe in acco' -dc' v,i :,y the terms and condd.lons of atoremen- roned APPendiz H T=oContractor ,r oeffectuat cicde provisions aDD the Pur oyes of this condiCpr 1. a!1 scbcon h developme tracts lnt'olOng researc, ntal• ex perimettal, or demonstratton Fork. e COPYRICHTS A,, RIGHTS IN DA riant A (a) The Contactor aF'ehe retl oer..eru Of (1) To comply n't:h a� t a. as amend - Sec:: n 114 of t:tc C'- eane_tr a an)ended by ed (4 -: U.S.C. 185 i..ct A)D. e ^-SQQi and Section 308 of t!:e Ped- erzl .'ter Pollution PCuobnti °I9^t5001. TES :)ec- lVil. uamended D' ir„ectlon, morfto: ing, tirelp rela:Jl¢ �d i-Jo•mation. as -A ell u entry. reports ecified in section 114 other requirements sP 4ir Act and the and section 308 of the d all regu %'Lions W e; before the Water Act, respect.lt1 ;• ar and guidelines issued therecnd. zw'a:d o; :riffs con::ac:. ( ^_l That ro portion of the cork required b9 t ".5 crime Co -head �' :1 be per`- orr.ed it I faci,!:Y listed on the Enr,:onm cif:cies on tecticn Agency list of xio•.:.:ingitxs 2.:: srdetl when [ :u ^ ^nirr.0 t`Ie d'- and until LSe ;= ?A etimina :es the c^ ^.less i or facilities from such Marne of such fat itY e fist/n ,;Sous to compi5 (3) To use his best the air and clean water at fzcillcies in which the contract !s ba:rg p =r- forr°'d• the substance of the 9rovl. t41 To insert this para- siors of this clause. fncudirg 4) fn apt nonexempt $:: bconhaae the I - v tans. 5T• =5:t ( - agrees that an. p (7c The terry used i'7 this clause The Contractor draa'in¢5. SDeciffci,LionS. computer D:ogrars 'or wi :h u�A loll G'., :!1 •`• me71r1 = -' .�Ct.. means tw. C:nan -- lcn ara substantially C aid technical boi a dt Orr (j1 The term (42 U.S.C. 185. et seq. , c_. �'. :.ended c^ n, -8 "). grants funds). and other or,. under .4ir as'_^leaded b5 Ft b. U -- " ^s t`.e Pcd- ":: a:er .Act" mea.• r•.anca!s, which are specified to be 6elr: eced are developed or pro- end - (,) The term oral tvater Pollution ControlAcl' nldtd DS' this contract or which rueed aa3 Paid for under this ectaData °> "emu e, la,- G.S.G. 1251 et se:. L 92 -5001 S. (erred to in this clause as ri5 In the United to the rig.. •0 Or Pub. 13) Tite term "Cie n Air -ulat ions. rule. roe io�Ce �• are su'oleIt ace art D of ' p -tG States. as set torch in Sub Appendix C co 40 CF, [nears any gaide!fnes, standards, ISmiWtion• uire- cr other Par[ 30 and In 30, in effect an the da`t'e tip ;It to lu e. duP't cant ols prohibi.iors. which are contain ed in, sued order. to the Air agreement. including disclose such Subject Data. In men's iar.! ideated DI••� or o:!'+e r'A'ise 'cable seen Live Order it �38.yed ^coon cute and whole or in Dart, in any manner fpr any pun- IthtTs day Act or in imD!er.:entaLicn plWn zs descri e4, U S.C. pose G-hals,evcr. and hate . used in of this article. " 1!O(dl of the Air Act ,cede: a or imalemen:,t:en Cr iS1t(,- - oyes pc.P said A endlx C shall refer to It hl O et [`e an zpproved plat, ender section 111X) pr set[:on ,.n„ierc�t.t +c't proc•'d.Jre lot li the material is COP) such. as Pe . ^!b or zn 1I ^_.d> of Centracinr map copyright Led hp s:,id Appendix C. and subject to the (tech in Ap- • nd^ -r szcticn U$ .C. 1257c -Td >)' ^Clean t'v ater15ta ^.d" -rids" nghs in the Gote ;amen'. as set Crantee and the Federal t41 The term ' limits:ion, control. any enfoice :b.c , or c:`.er rr- pcndix C. but the roseate a rovalty -free, nonex• meats sLz,Idard, r'ner t +_ CO awi :ioh. FrahiDtt is . rc -ul¢at. F' is Gca'ernment to r,p:cduM D ci ❑ „ae, and irrevocable license .hole or euirement which materiaU. in '- tva..er t” or contained in a ',emit ^ -.er al publish and use such and [o authorize o:he.s to do o. m Me an isions aP- issued to a discharger by the -nciro r.. a Stutz under in Daa. , rot: The Contractor shIS. include D the Purpose tf the oar, procram cs authorizes by section Z'patectton Agent; 1342). or by propriate to effectuate in all subcpntrat!s esDtc:cd to 402 of the Water Act (12 U.S.C.. cond,tmra ...duce cupYrightable S�D)tcC Data. 323 - i Fort ;5 • I for : :� t' ^vernr.,ent to ensure compl!snce t'.Ilit :.•-,,- �L.T.C:lt r^- 9U;3tiOM a;'eC'' :rCd 3C7 of the Water Act W3 D.S.C. 1317 t. ,gl u•rm "Compliance" means compli• Clean Air or n-eter standards. sh�'I also mc.n compliance or plan ordered or approved L, r:,::rt of competent juricdictien• the e. - ri..nn,..ntal Protection Aency or an Air cr %% all t Poiluticn Control Agency In ac- wrd:. :ua with the requirements of the AU Act Act and regulations issued thereto. (GI'Ct„ term °Faeflity" means any build• ir:: plat d, iILUIIZ[IOn, structure, mine. rei =cl. or ether fioatirg craft, location• or s:tc dr ,,Iwral.ons. awried, leased. or super• riled by :, contractor or subcontractor, to be ulin :eJ In the performance of a contract or subr: atr:,ct. W here a location or site of op- erall ir, cuntains or includes more than one DU: Lill n:, pia ..t. i:Lsu1!affCn, or structure, the r :r,,re location or site shall be deemed to b; n fntili :y except where the Director. f Pcderal Activities, Environmental oro:,;liun Agency. determines that Lode. !,- .CNitjes are located In one geo- gra� .'•ir:,l area pAP,T 35- STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE Sec. 3 g,f i'arpose of regulation. applicability and scope. Subpart A-- [Aaserved) Su cri B- program Grant T^, :rpo t . -Ur p lutten control agency grant �IaI yIr n n i i 35.100 2 Water ;lut!on control program .:.•:, nl awards. 36,:Oa 3 Pub llc a'a. r s >'sI In svpen'fsion rot:ram grad[ a:.. IS. 35 +up 1 Solid and I, xrdous waste man - n:r -[ orDe'. z.-1 aU ort grant t.ards. fpesern'edl 3S :,0, 6 Under; round wxt r source protec- ; Lou P!Og: non gent,[ a .'I A:nhori :y. Jr :,�A Annual C::te:jn for evaluation progra••n e5. <IU El auction of agency per to lance. i'i :a -tint static report. Federal and grantee program up- Title 40- Protct %cn o; itonment M POLLUTION CON-PO' L ?aOCAAM G?v-N75 355 Defi ^!:ions. 35.50 -I .. °.ir pollution. 35.501 2 Air pollution Control agency. 35.501 Air pot lutioa tong of program. 35.501 - Air ecall :y control region. 35.501- Ir P!e ^e ntati:n plan. 35.501 -6 intestate air qua:ity control t4 "io 35.501 -7 1fun! [tpali :y- 35.501 -8 - onrrcurrent expenc!tures. 35.501 -9 :ate. 35.505 All cation of funds. 35.507 Fed r_I ass stznce for agent? Pro. 35.507 -I Lf itatiors on :ssistxnce. 35.507 -2 Li . tItio:ls ca duration. 35.510 Grant zllotment and amount. 35510 -1 Tent tive allotment. 35.510 -2 Gr2"I amount. 35.510 -3 Redu tion of grant amount. 35.510 -4 Umitat!ors. 35.515 control ogram e :igibdi[y. 35.520 Cnter.a %r a-. aid. 35.526 Agenc; prki; _m prera :ation. 35.5.7 Major pro am. elements and out. puts. 35.5228 Agency pro •am Submission. 35.529 Prog.rarn ap;L-c" aL 35.530 Grant cendu.L[ns. 35.535 Assignment ok personnel. 35.538 Agency e:aluo.l:or. and repc.S. 35.536 -1 Agency e:al.+a :icn. 35.518 -2 Reports. ` GaANTS FOR STATE PL3IC W.A=.. SYSTEM SUPERVISION .pcRk:ls 35.600 Scope and put pos 35.603 Definidons. 33.605 Determina:fon o1 \F! e::ne 35.605 -1 Notilicaiion of 1a1!o:i realletments. 35.607 Rate of Fede :al assis anc 35.611 Aplication for groat. 35.611 -1 State program plan gr Sion. 35.613 Limitation on grant arar 35.620 A1iowable toss. 35.622 Budget period. 35.624 Reductton of grant iLm'\L 35.626 Stale program plan. 35.626 -1 Frogram elements of eater system supEr. is'ton ;.'c' 35.626 -2 Regioral Adminisrau on grant %3plicaticn. 35.625 Pro;m:n 11m!tat!ons. 35.530 Assignment of 7e:. onnel. Is, tr:. and It sUb.T.Is- a public 1 ., 1; action STATE U •:i A -CR So=x81 1'207T7rtb:; r}.1o7R1>: GKA>:3 1 35.650 Scope and pu. pose. 35.653 De!initjcrs. 35.655 Deterrimation of a2atmen:s. 35.655 -1 :Ilotments for, f_:al )e2s and 1980. 324 C'lopfer i- :;trironmer Sa . 35.655 -2 Allctr..e J5.556 Dc :e : :r.ir.ati on n( 75.551 . ^ -•a :e of Fide -, cl zs 75.653 Fligib;.iZ; fcr gr?r 35.65? -1 FiscB; °ea.-, I6; 35.653 -2 ; ear 1521. 35.659 -3 P,Sca: Sear Ica: fiscal years. fRese :red' 35.650 L!mita:::r, on gra.. 35.6. ;l A -OS 35.662 Alloaztic ccs:s. 35.06; Bcdce: period. 35.666 P.eduction c: giant 35.670 Amhu=; Ltate p :ac. 35.6'0-1 Gane :al. 35.670 -2 State p.0 -.. a, g: 35.670.3 State p:og.2n, C' 35.670 -4 Maid; p :o�ram puts. 35.670 -5 Res oral Admi' on grant a ;p!!cat.on. 35.655 AslgrcACn.t ill 35.600 Program 3.5.680 -1 PrCrz.ne: alto:. 35.620 -2 Re;cr:s. I SOLID AND H!L %?:D0 17S lv- P:ocac: ScP�cx . 3'.700 ?urpolln. 35.;01 Definitiors. 35.101.1. The Ac:. 35.701 -2 Sub-:ate ent,, 35.501 -3 \or.!e[_: erns e• 35.702 Sumr„xrp Cf prof: 35.;01 Eif g!b_L'p for fun : 35.706 Mlotmz -,a. 35.705 -1 Solid and 35.709 -2 t'•ardd_s c program ce' :e:o;:m..t G; lion. 35.705 -3 P.urzl c,rn- -.i' 35.70; -4 Slate and su: Zion grants. 35.706 -5 Special cor -:'r 'S . ;CS Regio.-a1 allcxac. . 35.;10 Gran[::- 1ocl::. 35.712 P.educ:!o n c; g,a.. 35.51; Feder! 35.716 Budge: pc-::d . 35.716 State pro;.arn s•_b:nitsion. 35.713 -1 P ;ar.submis-.;, 35.-.18 -2 nnn_zi wort req:Iireme nls, J3.720 1,1101%,en ent of i a ;encics. 35.:22 Proxrlm elvv ;e ^.t' 35.53; C!e +.ir. 35526 Public pP�: Ja.2$ Program rEIJ'A : 35.530 Re.quirsd output. 35,730.1 Inv�ntc: t' rev,;: 35.;37 fmplementatior. grants. 600 fouth Commonwealth JO R!lOCI RTI.....,....,......... �.... Avenue • fuite 1000 • to/ Angelef . California . 90005 •213/385 -1000 r January 21, 1981 City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear City Clerk: ✓41 � it RE: SCAG /Cities of Newport Beach/ Irvine 208 Phase II and III Cooperative Agreement and Cities of Newport Beach /Irvine/ Boyle Engineering Contract Enclosed is one executed copy of the SCAG /Cities of Newport Beach /Irvine 208 Phase II and III Cooperative Agreement in an amount not to exceed $317,000. Note Cooperative Agreement Paragraph 10 Method of Payment/ Reimbursement Requirements Section h, regarding the 30 day time period for identifying, scheduling and budgeting in -kind services. The EPA approval of the cooperative agreement is effective per dates referenced in the agreement. EPA requires the following revisions to the Cities of Newport Beach /Irvine/ Boyle Engineering Agreement. 1. Paragraph V must specify a cost -plus- fixed -fee type of contract, which establishes a cost ceiling that can be increased by formal amendment, and a fixed fee (profit) that can be increased only if the scope of work is increased by formal amendment. Attached is the clause that must be included in Para- graph V. 2. Submit a list of subcontracts, indicating the firm's names and type of service provided, and amount of each subcontract. If a subcontract amount exceeds $10,000, a cost summary, form 5700 -41, must also be completed and submitted. (5700 -41 form attached). It is also advised that each subcontract price must be supported; i.e., by an independent cost quotation or cost summary, to the prime contractor in order for that subcontract amount to be included in City Clerk City of Newport Bea Page 2 the prime's proposal. If the subcontract amount is not supported, it may be a disallowed cost at time of audit. Let us know if you should have any questions. We look forward to working with you in this effort. Sincerely, W.O. Acktann, Jr.61 J Director of Programming and Evaluation WOA:JB:bn Enclosure cc: Robert Lennard, City of Newport Beach Jock Millna, City of Irvine T � • COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS rawt CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND CITY OF IRVINE THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of this �e day of De. +0ba , 19_10 by the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine herein called the Agency) and the Southern California Association of Governments (herein called SCAG, which agreement does hereby incorporate by reference the contract(s) between SCAG and the United States of America whereby this project is funded, WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, a SCAG desires to engage the Agency to render certain technical or pro- fessional services hereafter desct-ibed in connection with an undertaking which is to be financed in part by the Envirc:imental Prr-tection Agency: NEITHER the United States nor the Environmental Protection Agency is a party to this contract. NOW THEREFORE: The parties hereto.do mutually agree as follows: 1. Employment of Agency. SLAG hereby agrees to engage the Agency and the Agency hereby agrees to perform : 5. Submission of Reports a. All reports specified in Appendix A.II must be submitted to the SCAG 208 Program Manager for review by SCAG. b. No final copy shall be prepared in form for publication prior to approval by SCAG. c. Manuscripts produced by the Agency or SCAG shall be in accordance with the United States Government Printing Office's Style Manual (available through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402). The Agency, in typing the final manuscript, shall be responsible for all corrections prior to acceptance of the final manuscript. Proper credit will be given to sources through commonly accepted methods of documentation such as footnotes or other means. The Agency shall furnish a list of material referred to in the preparation of reports. The authority on spelling and usage of words shall be Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged. d. Progress reports (per attached format) including verbal presentations shall be provided to SCAG on a monthly basis. The SCAG t08 Program Manager shall set the time and place for these meetings, as described in the special provisions to this contract. Based upon the statement of progress provided to SCAG any findings made by the SCAG program manager indicating deviation from the Scope of Services (Appendix A) shall be outlined and given to the Agency at the meeting for remedy. e. Task outputs are deemed acceptable under the terms of this cooperative agreement when submitted and approved by SCAG. Agency shall be notified by SCAG of acceptance of the task outputs at the time of the progress meeting. Unless otherwise advised in writing the Agency shall continue work in accordance with schedule as contained in the Scope of Services (Appendix A). Final approval of the task outputs shall be provided in writing by SCAG. 6. Personnel. a. The Agency represents that he has, or shall secure at his own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees of or have any con- tractual relationship with SCAG. b. All of the services required hereunder shall be performed by the Agency or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized under State and local law to perform such services. c. All personnel identified in Appendix A, I. to be listed by Agency at time of agreement execution, shall not be replaced by any other persons except with the written notification of SCAG. -2- --?I- i 7. Evaluation, Selection and Approval of Third Party Contract a. SCAG shall be permitted participation in the evaluation and selection of any Third Party contractors, or any other Agency sub - contract proposals, which are solicited to carry -out task assignments, or any portion thereof, as approved herein, and specified in Appendix A (Scope of Work). None of the work or services covered by this agreement shall be sub - contracted without the prior approval of SCAG and the appropriate funding agency (as may be required). b. The Agency shall prepare a Request For Proposal (hereinafter referred to as RFP) for review by SCAG before distribution of the RFP by the Agency to prospective consultant firms, individuals, or other entities. c. RFP's shall be sent to at least three (3) prospective clients. Minority -owned consultant firms should have maximum opportunity to compete for Agency sub- contracts. d. Evaluation of Proposals by Agency shall be conducted in accordance with a Selection Criteria format, as approved by SCAG. e. Sole Source contract arrangement will be evaluated and approved by SCAG, subject to any special provisions attached hereto. f. Agency shall prepare the appropriate federal Price Analysis forms (EPA 5700- 1)(copy attached) and make this sub - contract cost alloca- tion and burden rate documentation a part of the proposed contract submitted to SCAG for review and approval. g. Agency shall submit with the proposed contract documentation the RFP process and criteria used for selection of the consultant (sub - contractor) firm, individual or entity. h. The Participant shall comply with Federal Office of Manage- ment and Budget Circular A -102 "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants -In -Aid to State and Local Governments" Attachment 0, "Standards Governing State and Local Grantee Procurement ", the Federal Highway Administration Contract Directive FHPM 1 -7 -2, and other applicable federal directives in establishing procedures for the procurement of services, supplies or equipment. 8. Time of Performance. The services of the Agency are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of the agreement and shall be undertaken and completed in such sequence as to assure its expeditious completion in light of the purposes of this agreement, but in any event all of the services required herein shall be completed not later than September 30, 1982. 9. Compensation. SCAG agrees to pay the Agency an amount not to exceed $317—,000 for the above services. It is expressly understood and agreed that said sum constitutes the "maximum" compensation for the services required in Appendix A. -3- 10. Method of Payment /Reimbursement Requirements. In performing the tasks set forth in Appendix A,II., Work Tasks to be Accomplished, the Agency may incur costs set forth by „pork tasks in the budget attached hereto, labeled Appendix A,III, Budget, and incorporated herein by this reference. Said costs (hereinafter referred to as eligible costs) shall be the only costs for which Agency shall have the right to reimbursement by SCAG hereunder. Agency may incur said eligible costs up to a maximum of $ 317,000 Payment shall be made according to the following: a. The participant shall submit to SCAG, attention Finance Officer, a Request for Payment and Progress Report in narrative format not later than 15 days following the end of each calendar quarter. The participant has the option to submit a monthly Request for Payment. A full narrative Progress Report must accompany the Request for Payment. In addition, a monthly Progress Report will be submitted per paragraph 5d. b. Pursuant to Federal Management Circular 74 -4, Attachment A, Agency shall prepare and submit to SCAG for approval prior to the first requisition for payment a plan for the allocation of costs which is required to support the distribution of indirect overhead related to the Scope of Services under this agreement. Such cost allocation plan, once approved by SCAG, will become attached to this agreement and shall he available fo- audit purposes. c. All costs charged to this agreement by Agency shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, and vouchers, evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges, and shall be costs allowable as determined by Federal Manage- ment Circular 74 -4 and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41 (Public Contracts and Property Management) Part 1 -15 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, Subpart 1 -15.7 Grants and Contracts with State and Local Governments. d. Agency shall establish and maintain a separate account within its existing accounting system specifically for and limited to all fiscal activities required to perform the services under this agreement. Agency's accounting system shall comply with the regulations and standards of the Cost Accounting Standards Board. All accounting records shall readily provide a breakdown of costs charged to this contract. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records shall be kept available for inspection by SCAG and other authorized agencies during the period of performance of the agreement, and for four years thereafter. e. In the imburses the Agency Agency, pursuant to expressly agrees to SCAG agrees to asse Agency. event that any of the expenses for which SCAG re- are later disallowed by the Environmental Protection paragraph 31, Examination of Records /Audits, Agency reimburse SCAG an amount equal to that disallowed. rt any appeal for a disallowed expense on behalf of W f f. Agency is hereby expressly put on notice that no employee of SCAG has authority to authorize in writing or otherw•-se any additional work which would increase the cost of this agreement without the written approval of the SCAG Executive Committee. g. As expeditiously as possible, SCAG shall pay Agency the re- imbursable portion of total eligible costs. Said reimbursable portion shall be calculated by subtracting "from the total eligible requisitioned costs 10% for project retention purposes." SCAG shall pay Agency the 10% which has been withheld when the agreement has been ccmpleted to SCAG's satisfaction in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and upon requisition for final payment. h. The agency agrees to perform additional work in support of the 208 continuing planning program having a cost of not less than $165,000. Said costs shall not be reimbursable and shall constitute an in -kind contribution. The agency shall provide to SCAG within 30 calendar days following the execution of this agreement by both parties, a descrip- tion, budget, and schedule for the work to be perforaed as an in -kind contribution. All in -kind contributions shall meet the criteria set forth in the Federal Management Circular 74 -7 Attachment F dated 9/13/74, and shall be consistent with the adopted FY 1979 -30 014P for the 208 Continuing Planning Program. Reports on progress of such work including both description of work completed and a statement of costs incurred shall be included as part of the progress reports required in section 10 of this agreement. 11. Hold Harmless. The Agency and SCAG agree to hold each other mutually harmless from and on account of any and all liability, whether property damage or personal injury, arising from each party's negligent perfornance of this agreement. 12. Acceptance. Acceptance of the terms of this Agreement shall be by the signing of this agreement in the space provided by the respective parties and their counsel. 13. Rebudgeting of Funds. Prompt notification by Agency and con - currance by SCAG of all rebudgeting in excess of $1,000 is required. Such notification may be accomplished by submission of a revised copy of the budget forms. Approval of minor adjustments to an approved budget is not required. A minor adjustment will constitute reallocation of the dollar sum of $1,000 or less. 14. Prohibition Against Contingent Fees. The Agency warrants that no person or company has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, per- centage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees; nor has the Agency paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual or firm, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, contribution, donation, percentage, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from award of this Agreement. For any breach or violation of this provision, SCAG or the Environmental Protec- tion Agency shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without -5- liability and, at his discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, co:. ,imission, percentage, gift or consideration and any other damages, and shall be responsible for reporting the details of such breach or violation to the proper legal authorities, where and when appropriate. 15. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If, through any cause the Agency or SCAG shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract, or if the Agency or SCAG violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this agreement, either party shall thereupon have the right to terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the Agency of such termination and specifying the effective data thereof.. In that event, all finished or unfinished docu- ments, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other materials prepared by the Agency under this agreement shall, at the option of SCAG, become SCAG's property, and the Agency shall be entitled to receive just a.nd equitable compensation for any satisfac- tory work completed on such documents and other materials. No such termination may be effected unless the agency is given (1) not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate and (2) an opportunity for consultation with the terminated party prior to termination. Notwithstanding the above, the Agency shall not be relieved of liability to SCAG for damages sustained by SCAG by virtue of any breach of the contract by the Agency, and SCAG may withhold any payments to the Agency for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damage due to SCAG from the Agency is determined. 16. Termination of Convenience of SCAG. SCAG may terminate this agreement at any time by giving written notice to the Agency of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. No such to urina- tion may be effected unless the agency is given (1) not less than ten (10) calendar days written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate and (2) an opportunity for consultation with the terminated party prior to termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials as described in Appendix A, at the option of SCAG, become its property. If the agreement is terminated by SCAG as provided herein, the Agency shall be paid an amount which bears the same ratio to the total compensation as the services actually performed bear to the total services of the Agency covered by this agreement less payments of compensation previously made. Provided however, that if less than sixty (60) percent of the services covered by this agreement have been performed upon the effective date of such termination, the Agency shall be reimbursed (in addition to the above payment) for the portion of the actual out -of- pocket expenses (not otherwise reimbursed under this agreement) incurred by the Agency during the agreement period which are directly attributable to the un- completed portion of the portion of the services covered by this agree- ment. If this contract is terminated due to the fault of the Agency, Paragraph 15 hereof relative to termination shall apply. M 17. Agreement Changes. SCAG may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of the services of the Agency to be performed herein. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Agency's compensation, which are mutually acreed upon by and between SCAG, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Agency, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this agreement. No oral under- standing or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. Amendments inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Agreement may not be utilized. 18. Equal Employment Opportunity /Nondiscrimination. a. In connection with the execution of this agreement, the Agency shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Agency shall take affirmative action to ensure that. applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other fc-ms of compensation; and selection of training. including apprentice- ship. The Agency agrees. to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the pro- visions of the Equal Opportunity clause. b. The Agency shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Agency, state that all qualified applicants shall receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. c. The Agency shall send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other agreement or understanding, a notice advising the labor union or workers representative of the Agency's commitments under this Equal Opportunity clause, and shall post copies of the notice in a conspicuous place avail- able to employees and applicants for employment. d. The Agency shall comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended and of the rules; regulations, and relevant order of the Secretary of Labor. e. The Agency shall furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965 as amended, and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to his books, records, and accounts by SCAG and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investi- gation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. f. In the event of the Agency's non - compliance with the Equal Opportunity clause of this agreement or any of the said rules, regula- tions, or orders, this agreement may be cancelled, terminated, or sus- pended, in whole or in part, and the Agency may be declared ineligible for -7- 7 X urther government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965 as amended, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies involved as provided in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965 as amended, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. g. The Agency shall include the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (g) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 204 of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965 as amended, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontract or vendor. The Agency shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as SCAG may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, however, that in the event the Agency becomes involved, in, or is threatened with litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by SCAG, the Agency may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. 19. Affirmative Action for Handicapped Workers a. The Agency will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental handicap in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The Agency agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment and otherwise treat qualified handicapped individ- uals without discrimination based upon their physical or mental handicap in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. b. The Agency agrees to comply with the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to the Act. (29 USC 706) c. In the event of the Agency's noncompliance with the require- ments of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to the Act. d. The Agency agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the Director, provided by or through the Agency. Such notices shall state the Agency's obligation under the laws to take affirm- ative action to employ and advance in employment qualified handicapped employees and applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and employees. e. The Agency will notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding, that the Agency is bound by the terns of Section -8- r i ' ( i' • 503 of the Rehabilitation tive action to employ and handicapped individuals. • Act of 1973, and is committed to take affirma- advance in employment physically and mentally f. The Agency will 'include the provisions of this clause in every subcontract or purchase order of $2,500 or more unless exempt by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary issued pursuant to Section 503 of Act, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontrac- tor or vendor. The Agency will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs may direct to enforce such provisions, including action for noncompliance. 20. Civil Rights. During the performance of Appendix A, Scope of Services of this agreement, the Agency shall comply with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, promulgated to effectuate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is made a part of this agreement by reference. The act of filing a complaint pursuant to paragraphs 18, 19 or 20 shall not of itself constitute a violation of this agreement. Only after the completion of any litigation regarding any complaint filed shall actions of this agreement be affected. 21. Political Activity. No portion of the funds received by the Agency under this agreement shall be used for any political activity or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office. 22. Prohibited Interest. During his tenure and for one year thereafter, no officer, member, or employee of SCAG and no member of a local governing body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof. 23. Assignability. The Agency shall not assign any interest in this agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or innovation), without the prior written consent of SCAG. 24. Interest of Agency. The Agency agrees that he presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct and indirect, which could conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this agreement. The Agency further agrees that in the performance of this agreement no person having any such interest shall be employed. 25. Responsibility for Claims and Liability. The Agency shall save SCAG, the Environmental Protection Agency, or any government agency from all claims and liability due to his negligent acts or the negligent acts of his subcontractors, agents, or employees. 26. Interest of Members of or Delegates to Congress. No Member of or Delegaie to the Congress of the United States of America, and no Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit arising therefrom. M I 27. Disclosure of Information. SCAG has the right to reveal infor- mation concerning this project in compliance with the Freedom of Informa- tion Act, 5 USC 552. if the Agency desires that certain information not be disclosed to others, the Agency must insure that at the time the information is first received by SCAG it is accompanied by a clear and prominently written claim, consisting of a cover sheet, stamp, type of legend or other suitable form of notice on (or attached to) the document or other record containing the information, employing such language as "trade secret ", "confidential," or "proprietary." Where only one or more portions of a submission are claimed to be entitled to nondisclosure, each such portion shall be identified. Information received by SCAG which is not accompanied by a claim in accordance with the above stated regula- tion may be made available to the public without prior notice to the Agency. 28. Identification of Documents. All reports, maps, and other documents completed as a part of this agreement, other than documents exclusively for internal use within SCAG, shall carry the following notation on the front cover or a title page, (or in the case of maps, in the same block) containing the name of SCAG: The preparation of this report, map, document, etc., was financed in part through a Planning Grant ;; all evidence and information in possession of the agency pertaining to such suit or claim. Such evidence and information shall be furnished at the expense of SCAG and Environmental Protection Agency except where the Agency has agreed to indemnify SCAG and Environmental Protection Agency. 31. Audits. At any time during normal business hours, and as often as SCAG, Environmental Protection Agency, the Comptroller General of the United States or Department of Labor may deem necessary, the Agency shall make available for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this contract for purposes of audit, examination, or to make copies or transcripts of such records, including, but not limited to contracts, invoices, material, payrolls, personnel records, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this agree- ment. Such records and access to facilities and premises shall be made available during the period of performance of this agreement, and for four years thereafter. The Participant shall comply with the Federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A -102, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants in Aid to State and Local Governments ", Attachment P, "Audit Requirements," and direct the performance of an independent audit that encompasses the financial statements and compliance requirements pertaining to this agreement. The independent audit shall be perfo n ed by a licensed or certified public accountant. The audit shall be performed in accordance with the General Ac- counting Offices 1) Standards for Audit of Governmental Organization, Programs, Activities and Functions ", and 2) "Guidelines for Financial and Compliance Audits of Federally Assisted Programs" The independent audit shall encompass, when applicable, an examina- tion of subcontractor(s) financial statements to determine whether; a) financial operations are conducted properly, b) the financial statements are presented fairly; and c) the organization has complied with laws and regulations affecting the expenditure of Federal Funds. The cost of the independent audit shall be made a part of the charges to this agreement. The independent audit report shall be submitted to SCAG not later than October 1, 1981. 32. Small and Minority Business Enterprise. In connection with the performance of this agreement, the Agency will cooperate with SCAG in meeting its commitments and goals with regard to the naximum utilization of small and minority business enterprises and will use its best efforts to insure that small and minority business enterprises shall have the maxi,:,um practicable opportunity to compete for subcontract work under this agreement. 34. Disputes. Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this agreement which is not disposed of by mutual agreement shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. 35. Noncompliance. In addition to such other remedies as provided by law, in the event of noncompliance with arty grant condition or specific requirement of this Agreement, this agreement may be terminated. -11- a 0 36. Clean Air Act and Federal plater Pollution. kency must comply with the Clean Air Act 42 uSC 1351h -4) and the Federal ' 'eater Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1251). 37. Notice. Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this agreement may be personally served on the other party by the party giving such notice, or may be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: Director of Programming and Evaluation Southern California Association of Governments 600 South Commonwealth Avenue., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90005 -12- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Southern California Association of Governments and the Agency have executed this agreement as of the date first above written. Agency By rr (.t r.{'YRU r �tl MY ATTOR((NR ��r BY Qh APPROVED AS TO FORM n / r fro Date• , CI�fY ATTEST: City Clerk Southern California Association of Governments By ny ylayor W. 0. Ackermann, Jr. Director of Programming Evaluation Mayor ATTEST: N ncy Rowland City . erk - City of Irvine ATTEST:. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FOR "! AND LEGAL ADEQUACY Attorney for SCAG -13- ? o T WT ,r.vc Z. S ICO RACiOR . PRODUCT (TASK) 4. WORK CC P LETED DU.-RlN'G T.-,'-!S PERIOD 5. 5. Ch. SAES REQUIRED I ; SCOPE OR SCY =D-''L 1. S:)DGET RE "Djus" EN-1 2. rnc- 9. COSTS TO DATE EUDHT i0 Newport /Irvine Special Provisions Task /Contract Manager: The City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach sha 1 assign one contract manager to this work. This person shall be a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California, with academic training and at minimum 5 -years of experience in professional engineering with experience in flood control and /or sedimentation control engineering. 2. Technical Review Committee: An outside "experts" technical review committee shall be established to assist in the review of technical work products. This committee shall be composed of specialists who have the following expertise: engineering and flood control hydrology, sedimentation engineering, erosion processes, geomorphologic processes, sedimentation processes in salt marshes, sediment delivery, flood control engineering, soil protection and watershed treatment and biological /ecological sciences in tidal wetlands. The Technical Review Committee shall be directed by the SCAG 208 Project Manager and the City's designated Task Manager. Public Participation: Public participation assistance shall be provided to augment SCAG's overall 208 Public Participation program. A local advisory committee shall be formed and staffed by the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, This committee shall be composed and operated consistent with Federal Regulations on Public Participation. It is understood and agreed by- the - parties hereto that work on task 8015.-01/8115.01 -New or -t..Ba Watershed San Dieoo Creek Com rehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Contro Pan, has occurred prior to the date of this agreement w lc was necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of the above cited task, and that such work shall be reimbursable pursuant to Section 10 of this agreement, Such charges, which are consistent with the terms of this agreement, and which are incurred on or after April 4, 1980, are eligible for reimbursement. 5. The City of Irvine and City of as the lead agency for handling requisitions for payment. Newport Beach shall assign one agency Reimbursement Requirements and 6, Upon receipt of comments the reports shall be addended and finalized and submitted to SCAG to reflect any necessary changes within fifteen working days after the receipt of the comments. SCAG acceptance of final reports and products is contingent upon satisfactory resolution between the Federal /State oversight committee, SCAG and Participating Agencies of outstanding issues and comments raised by the Federal /State oversight committee. • AGENCY NAME City of Irvine and City of Newport Beach Appendix A.I. PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THIS CONTRACT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. M Appendix A.II Scope of Work Appendix A.II Scope of Services SCAG FY 80 OWP and SCAG FY 81 OWP Task 8015.01/8115.01 New ort Ba Watershed: San Die o Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Contro Pan Time Schedule: This task is divided into three parts: I: Early Action and Interim Plan, II: Sedimentation Analysis, and III: Comprehensive Stormflow Sedimentation Control Plan. Parts I and IIA are funded under the FY 79/80 OWP. Parts IIB -IIF and III and are funded under the FY 80/81 OWP. The overall time schedule for these tasks is (from start of work): Part I: September 4, 1980 - December 15, 1980 Part II: December 15, 1980 - August 17, 1981 Part III: July 21, 1981 - April 29, 1983 rt I: Early Action and Interim Plan Schedule SUBTASK I -A Feasibility Investigation of Alternatives 9/04/80 - 10/31/80 I -8 Develop Early Action and Interim Plan 10/15/80 - 12/15/80 I -C Environmental Impact Assessment /Report 10/15/80 - 12/15/80 I -D Secure Implementation Commitments 11/15/80 - 12/31/80 Part II: Sedimentation Anal sis - (Also to be used to - evaluate the e ectiveness of alternatives in Part III) SUBTASK II -A Hydrologic Analysis 12/15/80 - 2/16/81 II -B Geomorphologic Analysis 12/15/80 - 4/20/81 II -C Sediment Source Analysis 12/15/80 - 4/20/81 II -D Sediment Delivery Analysis 12/15/80 - 6/15/81 II -E Sediment Transport, Deposition and 4/20/81 - 7/21/81 Scour in Newport Bay _ II -F General Audience Report (Summary) 7/21/81 - 8/17/81 Part III: Com rehensive Stormflow Sedimentation Contro Pan SUBTASK III -A Development and Performance Analysis of 7/21/81 - 1 /11/82 of Alternatives III -B Cost Analysis of Alternatives 10/05/81 - 1/11/82 III -C Institutional /Financial Analysis of Alternatives 2/02/81 - 1/11/82 III -D Environmental Assessment of Alternatives 2/02/81 - 1/11/82 III -E Technical Review of Subtasks III -A thru D 1/12/82 - 3/08/82 III -F Draft Report on Alternatives 3/09/82 - 4/12/82 III -G Public Review of Alternatives 4/13/82 - 6/14/82 III -H Review Comments, Prepare Responses and Document 6/15/82 - 7/13/82 III -I Prepare Recommended Plan and Environmental Documentation 7/14/82 - 10/11/82 III -J Assist in Securing Implementation Commitmentsl /04/83 - 4/29/83 A -1 d Overall Objectives: To task has three overall objecoes. They are: y~; To develop an early action and interim sedimentation control plan for Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek and its tributaries which can be approved for implementation in December 1980 and implemented in the ensuing months of 1981 prior to the onset of the 1981/82 rainy season. 2. To analyze and characterize the causes, nature, and extent of the sedimentation problems adversely affecting Upper Newport Bay. 3. To develop a comprehensive watershed erosion and stormflow sediment control plan, with emphasis on a downstream desilting system along San Diego Creek that can be impTemented- in- the near -term. Methodology: Acceptable flood control engineering, hydrologic and sedimenta- tion engineering techniques shall be utilized in the conduct of this work. A study team shall be formed and composed of persons with expertise in the following.scientific and engineering fields: (1) sediment yield and sediment -flow mechanics, (2) soils, soil erosion and soil conservation, (3) geomorphology, (4) flow and sedimentation mechanics in coastal estuaries, (5) flocd control engineering and desilting basin technology for stormflows, (6) flood hydrology and frequency analysis, (7) chemical . and physical properties of sediment in stormflows and coastal waters, (8) engineering economics, (9) wetland and freshwater biology, and (10) nuisance control in sedimentation basins (mosquito, flies, odors, algae, and other nuisance abatement). Description of Work: The following is a description of required work, outputs and estimated level of effort for the three parts and their subtasks, necessary to accomplish the objectives of this contract. The area covered under this work is the.San Diego Creek drainage basin and Newport Bay. A -2 -n- sk /Product bescription Part I: Earl This task accomplis Cities of Newport • Beach and Irvine Action and Interim Control Plan shall be conducted, at minimum, by ling the following work: TASK I -A:. Investigate the feasibility of and estimate the effectiveness of the following sedimenta- tion control measures for implementation as part of an Early Action and Interim Control Plan: (1) drop structures and /or other in- stream sediment control devices along San Diego Creek and its tributaries, (2) use of a portion of the proposed sediment desilting site located between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road at San Diego Creek, (3) clearing of accumulated sediments in Upper Newport Bay, (4) clearing of accumulated sediments in the San Diego Creek channel, (5) construction of diversion works tc deflect the San Diego Creek flow and dike structures to contain sediments in the old salt evaporation works area or portion thereof, and (6) other possible alternatives. Output: Technical memoranda describing results of task I -A. Thirty copies of this memoranda shall be submitted to the cities and SCAG.. TASK I -B: Based upon the investigation conducted'in (1) prepare an engineering report that describes a staged interim and /or early action plan that can be implemented before the on -set of the 1981/82 rainy season (stage 1) and before the 1982/83 rainy season (stage 2) which provides sedimenta- tion control for Newport Bay within implementa- tion funding and time constraints. The stage 2 plan shall be re- evaluated based upon the results of Parts II and III of this scope of services, and modified as necessary. The relative impact on existing habitat in the Ecological Reserve will be a major consideration in the final selection of the interim /early action plan. The plan is to be developed in conjunction with the interagency engineering committee formed under the County of Orange District 5 supervisorial office. The purpose of said committee is to investigate feasible desilting facilities /sites that can be constructed in the near -term utilizing a grant to the City of Newport Beach from the State Water Resources Control Board, Proposition 2 State Assistance Program. This task would (1) prepare the engineering project report describing feasible engineering alternatives, costs estimates, time (Rev. 11/25/80) A -3 Schedule 9/04/80 - 10/31/80 Draft:10 /15/80 Final:12 /15/80 10/15/80- 12/15/80 schedule for implementation, and preliminar �. design of s ment control facilities, and ) prepare a r rt of other interim /early ac,. n sedimentation controls. The Cities shall provide to the consultant a list of available funds and the consultant shall then devise a proposed method for financing the recommended plan. Output: An engineering project report for task I -B. Draft:11 /1/80 Thirty copies of a draft report and 100 copies Final:12 /15/80 of the final report shall be prepared and submitted to SCAG. TASK I -C: The Cities /contractor shall prepare any necessary 10/15/80 - environmental assessment for the recommended interim /early action plan. Such assessment(s) shall be in the form of an environmental impact report pursuant to CEQA requirements. SCAG, as the lead 208 agency, will have responsibility for processing the necessary environmental documentation for the 208 Plan Amendment. The Cities, as appropriate to their jurisdiction, shall prepare any additional and necessary environmental documentation for the recommended interim /early action plan. Output 'Environmental Documents pertinent to the project Final: 12/15/80 recommended in task I -B. TASK I -D: The Cities shall secure implementing agency approvals and commitments to complete the implementation of the plan with technical assistance as needed to be provided by the consultants. Output: Management agency agreements committing the 12/31/80 appropriate agencies to implementation of the recommended plan. PART II: Sedimentation Analysis This task would analyze the sedimentation problem in the Bay and its watershed. Specifically, five major areas of analysis are required: (1) hydrologic, (2) recent geomorphologic (formational process), (3) sediment sources, (4) sediment delivery, and (5) sediment transport, deposition and scour in Newport Bay. Since the recognition of the sedimentation problem in -Upper Newport Bay, no definitive scientific investigation of the sedimentation problem has been undertaken. The intent of this task is to commission a team of recognized experts in each of the required analytical areas who will prepare an authoritative analysis of the problem, relying upon existing data and procuring additional data where necessary and funds permitting. A -4 (Rev. 11/25/80) ASK -II -A: HydrologigIbAnalysis.. This task would (Iftprovide a 12/15/80 data sumdffy and statistical analysis of`Kistorical - 2116-181 streamflow and precipitation records, (2) develop appropriate drainage maps, (3) provide a frequency analysis of stormflow events utilizing the SCS TR -20 model for the 10 -year, 25 -year, 50 -year and 100 -year recurrence interval stormflows for appropriate design storms for foothill canyons, major tributaries and at the San Diego Creek at Campus Drive gauging station as necessary to perform the fluvial analysis and sedi- mentation control effectiveness evaluation of Parts 1I and III of this scope of services, and (4) calculate channel flow capacities at different sections of the system. Output: This task shall be conducted, at minimum, by accomplishing the following work: Compile existing data a. Historical precipitation and streamflow data available through the OCEMA and USGS. b. Precipitation and streamflow data available through other sources (Catalog available through the State Department of Water Resources and NOAA). c. Prepare drainage basin map at 1" = 20001, showing all principal drainages, reaches, lengths, slopes and appropriate cross sections and profiles. d. Flood Plain Insurance studies, flood plain studies of the U. S. Corps of Engineers. e. Other appropriate data. 2. Develop frequency versus peak Q relationships for measured gauging stations. 3. Utilizing the SCS TR -20 Hydrologic computer program calculate peak flood flows and flood hydrographs as required for the different return periods and projected land uses, at the selected sites. 4. Calculate channel flow capacities at relevant sections of the system. Technical memorandum documenting study including: 2/16/81 I. Summary of runoff gauging station records. 2. Runoff frequency relationships at gauging stations for 10,25,50•, 100 -year and standard project flood stormflows. 3. Peak flood flows and hydrographs for required concentration points for the required return periods and projected land use. 4. Channel flow capacities, as needed for the. project. (Rev. 11/25/80) A -5 Task /Product Description Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine;SCAG TASK II -B: Geomorphologic Analysis. This task would provide a description of the formational history of the Upper Newport Bay area and its watershed. This task would also estimate the characteristics of sediment production under historical conditions and areas of sediment deposition. Historical conditions to be investigated include pre- settlement, pre -1890, and major cultural development stages that affected sedimenta- tion in Upper Newport Bay. This task shall be conducted, at minimum, by accomplishing the following work: 1. Compile Available Data a. Geological reports and records; soils data, including boring data in Upper Newport Bay and area (U. C. Irvine, others). b. Historical topographic maps.,_ especially early editions of USGS quadrangle maps. c. Historical aerial photographs. d. Historical land use development records. e. Previous drainage district records. f. Other records and data. 2. Summarize the formational history of the Upper Newport Bay area and its watershed Both the geologic evolution which resulted in the formation of the bay and the significant developments which influenced the sedimenta- tion processes into and within the bay would be described by utilizing the following steps: a. Research geologic records and reports to ascertain the geologic history of the bay. b. Identify recent geological setting of the bay. (Rev. 11/25/80) . A -6 Schedule , 12/15/80 - 4/20/81 I ' Output: 0 r c. Identify the general land use characteristics of the watershed from the arrival of European culture that may have impacted the sedimenta- tion processes in the bay. 3. Estimate the characteristics of sediment production under pristine natural conditions in the San Diego Creek Watershed. From existing data and information gained from previous steps, an estimate of the probable effects that large scale human developments have had on sediment yield and delivery to Newport Bay, The following steps would be used to accomplish this: a. From existing topographic maps, especially early editions of USGS quadrangle maps, and aerial photographs, identify the natural drainage patterns for San Diego Creek prior to alteration by man. b. Based on probable native vegetation, soil maps, and surficial geology estimate sediment erosion and depositional areas within the natural flowpath of San Diego Creek. C. Estimate the general the natural sediment using regional data data. characteristics of production rates and applicable local .Evaluate using where possible existing information, the sedimentation impact on Upper Newport Bay and effects of tidal mixing on fine grain sediment deposition. 4. Evaluate the effect of land use change and channelization on sediment production and deposition in Upper Newport Bay. 1. Development map and description of the evolution of (1) land use of the San Diego Creek watershed and (2) Upper Newport Bay watershed basin change (size and location), 2, General sediment delivery analysis describing the changes in the sediment production process and depositional areas in the water- shed and to the bay. 3. Technical memorandum describing the formational history of the bay, including maps and historical photographs, as available. (Rev. 11/25/80) A -7 Schedule 4/20/81 4. Hydrographic map showing flow San Diego Creek watershed and maps /photographs showing the hydrography. 5. Watershed map showing natural areas for historical sediment Is paths of the historical :hange in the depositional production. 6, Quantification of sediment budget under natural conditions. 7. Maps and descriptions showing quantity of sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay, including particle size distribution. Tabulation of available quality data as sediments. TASK II -C: Sediment Source Analvsis - Exi Projected. Ih75 task would estimate the sese iproduction rates from the major sediment source areas (foothills, unstable channels, agricultural areas, urban areas and construction sites) in the watershed for year 1980, 1990, 2000 and ultimate land use for the 10, 25, 50 and 100 -year recurrence interval stormflows for the 1 -hour, 6 -hour and 24 -hour duration storms. The task would also evaluate the effects of flooding on valley erosion processes (i.e., across agricultural, urban and other lands) and provide an estimate of the sediment characteristics (i.e. particle size, etc.) from the different source areas under the various hydrologic conditions. This task shall be accomplished, at minimum, by conducting the following work: 1. Compile existing data a. Sediment discharge data for suspended and bedload measurements at gauging sites measured by USES. b_ Sediment accumulation or erosion in Upper Newport Bay and primary flood control channels. c. Sediment yield data in the form of reservoir surveys for upland watersheds. Schedule. 12/15/80 - 4/20/80 d. Regional long -term sediment yield data in similar, nearby catchment areas. e. Soil surveys (SCS). f. Erosion estimates from various land uses that may be available from the Orange County Resource Conservation District. (Rev. 11/25/80) A -8 2 9 Schedule Collect Watershed Data a. Survey established reservoirs in watershed where historical or original surveys exist. b. Survey natural and manmade channels and estimate historical channel erosion/ deposition. c. Survey potential soil loss from 1980/1981 construction activity. d, Survey and collect as necessary water and soil samples from various areas in the watershed. Collect and map existing and projected land -use data a. Map existing land use(irrigated agriculture, range lands, urban, other) utilizing available information, including use of orthophoto quadrangle sheets of the USGS. Determine kind and amount of agricultural operations (crops) for each subwatershed. This is to set priorities for future implementation. Determine average condition of land over a typical winter season: bare,.covercropped, crop residue remaining, rough tillage for each category of crop, orchard, row crops, berries, etc. Determine the relative impact of sediment in irrigation tailwater caused by improper leveling and long irrigation runs. b, Estimate future land use change for the year 1990, 2000 and ultimate build out utilizing the SCAG -78 growth forecast policy as trans- lated to the San Diego Creek Watershed, use of local general plans and development plans. 4, Compute 10 -year, 25 -year, 50 -year and 100 -year stormflow, average annual sediment production potentials and estimate particle size distribu- tion for the following source areas: a. Mountains /hills using streamflow, reservoir, regional sediment yield data, and soils data. This shall include an evaluation -of the relative importance of slope, slips, land cover and soils on erosion and sediment yield. A -9 • - • Schedule. b. Agricultural areas using the following procedure; (1) Utilizing Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys, prepare soils erodibility map for agricultural field subareas by supplementing and interpreting soils data and calculating sheet erosion and field sediment delivery rates for the 1- year, 10 -year, 50 -year and 100 -year storm rainfall intensity for type of field condition (i.e. barren disked, barren ridge and furrow, cover cropped, etc.). This shall be accomplished by using established procedures and in consultation with erosion experts, estimate soil loss in tons per acre for each winter condition of the land encountered. Consider erosion from raindrop dis- location and overland flow; both of which are affected by land conditions. (2) Map agricultural subarea drainages and assess erosion potential for the I -year, 10 -year, 25 -year, 50 -year and 100 -year stormflows. c. Channel erosion by conducting field surveys (include black and white photographs) of channel size and evidence of streambank erosion and bed scour. This shall be done at minimum by crossing- sectioning a few typical channels to estimate channel degradation over the past two to three year's storms. Note the relative stability of the channels in relation to practices applied on adjacent lands or other physical factors. Project these findings to all channels to determine the extent and priority of the problem. d. Construction site erosion using field surveys and Soil Conservation Service studies if available, or other appropriate technique. 5. Compute irrigation tailwater erosion and sediment delivery to adjoining channels. Determine particle size distribution through field monitoring. A -10 s Schedule Output: 1. Data compilation and summary report. 4/20/81 2. Land Use Maps for source areas including drainages and other pertinent information. 3. Sediment yield technical report for the various source areas, showing methods utilized in arriving at the estimate of sediment yield, including a frequency - yield - particle size distribution analysis. Includes comparison of source yields by storm intensity, particle size and total yield. 4. General audience report summarizing the analytical work in "plain English ". TASK II -D: Sediment Deliver Analysis. This task would 12/15/80 - etermine a se iment t1ow at the major 6/15/81 gauging sites in the basin for the same recurrence interval stormflows described in II -C. In addition, an estimate of the volume and particle size distribution in the channel system would be made through field investigation and calculation. Estimates of sediment delivery by major sub -area would also be made. This task shall be accomplished, at minimum by conducting the following work: 1. Compile Existing Data a. Sediment discharge data for suspended and bedload measurements at gauges measured by the USGS, including all instantaneous measurements, particle size breaks, and methods utilized. b: Sedimentation surveys and studies for discharges into Upper Newport Bay, including reviews and evaluation of work conducted by the University of California, Irvine. c. Sediment removals from channels in the watershed, especially the lower reaches of San Diego Creek (Jeffrey Road to Culver Drive) at the Woodbridge Planned Community in the City of Irvine. d. Other data as appropriate to this task. (Rev: 11- 25 -80) A -11 2. Collect Watershed /Channel Data a. Collect supplementary field sai for particle size distribution volume of sediment in channels tions in the watershed through level surveys. b. Other data as appropriate. • Schedule nples and analyze and estimate at various loca- reconnaissance 3, Analyze Historical Gauging Station Flow and Sediment Discharge Records a. Evaluate and prepare appropriate graphs and analyses describing the relationship of streamflow with sediment discharge for sus- pended and bed load, with and without sand breaks for data from USGS gauging stations in the watershed (San Diego Creek at Sand Canyon Avenue, San Diego Creek at Campus Drive, El Modena- Irvine Channel at Myford Road). b. Supplement historical depth- integrated sampling measurements of suspended load for the above stations by analyzing the relationship of automatic sampling suspended-solids concentrations with depth - integrated data for 1978 for the San Diego Creek at Campus Drive station and then extend /adjust the automatic sampling record for the 1979/80 storms. 4. Compute grain size distribution for sediment from existing discharges for the gauging stations. 5. Develop sediment discharge - streamflow rating curves at the San Diego Creek gauging station at Campus Drive, at Sand Canyon and on the El Modena - Irvine Channel. a.. Utilizing analyses and data from the previous sediment production and stream - flow steps, develop sediment discharge - streamflow rating curves for the 10, 25, 50 and 100 -year recurrence interval flows for recent land -use conditions. Repeat above for year 2000 and ultimate land -use conditions. A -12 Output: • • Schedule 6. Investigate and describe the sediment delivery processes in the watershed and estimate the sediment deliver characteristics (ratios, etc.) for the important channel locations (includes San Diego Creek at confluence of Peters Canyon Wash and San Diego Creek, San Diego Creek at Jamboree Road, San Diego Creek at or near Sand Canyon Road). 7. Using the sediment and bedload readings from USGS or other monitoring, and analysis in previous steps, relate channel erosion, sheet and rill erosion, and all other perceived sources to determine how much the land use above each gauging station has affected sediment flow as recorded. Reasonable correlation can be expected between the estimated findings and sediment measurement. 1. Data Compilation and Review Memoranda 6/15/81 2. Technical Memoranda on historical gauging station flow and sediment dis- charge analysis. 3. Technical memoranda on sediment discharge - streamflow rating curves to the 100 -year event for San Diego Creek at Campus Drive, San Diego Creek at Sand Canyon Avenue, and on the E1 Modena- Irvine Channel at Myford Road for 1980, 1990, 2000 and ultimate land use conditions. 4. Technical memoranda on the analysis of grain size distribution and bed load for measured flows. (Automatic samplers and manual depth- integrated sampling). Technical memoranda providing monthly and annual sediment yield graphs for USGS measured flows. 6. Technical memoranda describing the sedi- ment delivery process of the watershed and its drainage channels. (Rev: 11- 25 -80) F.15V Schedule, TASK II -E: Sediment Transport, Deposition and Scour 4/20/81 - in Newport Bay, 7/21/81 This task would provide an analysis of the transport of flow and sediment discharge to Upper Newport Bay by San Diego Creek, an analysis of the depositional characteristics of the sediment load as a function of particle size, flow rate and sediment load of the dis- charge, an analysis of scouring in the upper bay as a function of flow rate and sediment load, and an analysis of the transport by grain size of sediment transport through Newport Bay and its depositional areas. It is anticipated that this task will require sediment coring in Newport Bay, principally in the Upper Bay. The purpose of this task is to determine sediment discharge objectives in terms of particle size and criteria to minimize scouring. This task would be accomplished at minimum by conducting the following work: 1. Compile existing data a. Collect available data from the University of California, Irvine, Water Resources Laboratory on sediment cores, depositional survey data in the bay and particle size water column data. b. Collect California Department of Fish and Game data on sedimentation, if available. c. Collect historical and other related data/ studies on deposition and scour sediment in tidal flat salt marshes. 2. Collect Supplementary Data a. Collect water column samples and run particle size analyses if necessary to supplement existing data for estimating sediment flow through the bay as a function of particle size. b. Collect, if necessary, additional sedimenta- tion data in the bay to determine depositional areas and particle size distribution. c. Collect any other data deemed necessary for this task. (Rev: 11- 25 -80) A -14 Output: i 3. Evaluate the sediment deposition, scour and transport characteristics of sediment discharges in Newport Bay entering via the San Diego Creek Channel. . Describe the relationship of sediment and water inflow into the Bay with sediment deposition, scour and trans- port for varying hydrologic conditions and land use conditions described previously. b. Evaluate the significance of fine grain sediment flocculation and deposition due to the influence of fresh water sediment inflow mixing with sea water in Upper Newport Bay. c. Evaluate OCEMA studies on tidal flow and tidal prism volume estimates for sedimentation in Upper Newport Bay. 1. Data compilation and review report. 2. Technical memoranda describing the sedi- ment deposition, scour and transport characteristics of San Diego Creek dis- charges for various hydrologic conditions and existing and projected watershed land use into and through Newport Bay. TASK II -F: General Audience Report. This task would prepare a summary on the Sedimentation Processes (Task II) for general audience readership. The report is to be written in "plain English" and is to contain appropriate charts showing sediment yield by sources for the different land use and hydrologic conditions, sedi- ment rating curves for the major stream sites, sediment delivery processes, and deposition, scour and transport of sediment laden discharges into Upper Newport Bay. The report is to also contain appropriate land use maps at I" = 2000' for the watershed showing principal drainages, mountain /hill areas, land use and political boundaries for 1980, 2000 and ultimate land use. Output: 1: General Audience Report. A -15 loo.,. tt_�s_anl Schedule 7/21/81 7/21/81 - 8/17/81. 8/17/81 • J i Schedule, Part III: Com rehensjye Stormflow and Sedimentation Contro n This task shall be conducted, at minimum, by accomplishing the following work: III -A thru III -D:. .Develo ment.:and..Performance 7/21/81 - na ysis o terns ives an ssessments. 1/11/82 This task is to develop the erosion and sediment control alternatives, perform detailed engineering feasibility analyses and assessments on the alternative systems developed. Alternatives to be evaluated would be developed and defined by pre- paring descriptions, concepts, locations, layouts, sediment reduction effectiveness, cost analysis, institutional financing analysis and environmental assessments of the alternative components. T)ese would include the following system components, either separately or in combination: Downstream Engineering a. Sedimentation basin adjacent to the San Diego Creek northwest of Campus Drive around the IRWD sewage treat- ment plant, with necessary protection works for the IRWD facility. Alter- native to consider joint use with IRWD for storage /treatment of waste- waters. b. In- channel sedimentation basin in the lower reaches of San Diego Creek for bed load control for large storm flows. An interim sedimentation basin in the old salt evaporation plant area in Upper Newport Bay, d. Other possible sites, including the area between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. (Rev: 11- 25 -80) A -16 l I 2. Valley Engineering a. Desilting basin on San Diego Creek in the vicinity of old Laguna Canyon Road or other nearby area suitable for control of bedload and suspended sand load. b. Sedimentation Basin(s) in series /parallel with or within improved and /or existing channels. c. Other sites for desilting basins. d. Channel stabilization utilizing concrete, gabion or other technique for severely eroded or potentially severely eroded channels. Areas to be included are: Ehannels below Sand Canyon Reservoir, Bonita Canyon, channels below foothill control basins, and other valley channels. 3. Valley Land Management Practices shall be examined in consideration of BMP's developed by the City of Irvine and the County of Orange and shall include: a. Additional agricultural erosion /sediment delivery controls (BMP's). b. Additional construction source controls. c. Other land management practices to reduce watershed erosion. 4. Upstream Engineering a. Sediment /debris control basins in foothills. b. Flow regulation /sediment control basins in foothills (larger capacity than (a)). c. Foothill channel /source stabilization program. A -17 Schedule • • Schedule 5. Accumulated Sediment Removal Management Plan Note: Foothill basins studies are currently being proposed to be undertaken under a joint arrangement by the Orange County EMA and The Irvine Company through a Multi- Purpose Watershed P'�oject under the Federal Water and Power Resources Service program. The initial studies on the basins (Hicks Canyon 1 & 2, Borrego Canyon, Aqua Chinon Canyon, Round Canyon 1 & 2, and Bee Canyon) are proposed to be conducted by the County and The Irvine Company. EPA and the State have required that "...All 208 Planning Tasks that relate to the foothill flood control structures proposed by Orange County wi11 be coordinated with this work program to ensure consistency and to avoid duplication of effort. The review under the 208 program will be limited to their sediment reduction capabilities." Following this grant condition all upstream engineering for the canyons Proposed for control by the County - Irvine Company program shall be incor- porated into this report. No substantive or duplicative work shall be undertaken on these basins, excepting for evalua- tions determining the sediment reduction and downstream erosion control benefits of the projects. Source watershed treatment control programs in the foothills or other basins not part of the County study but necessary for sediment control evaluation (Peters Canyon channel, others) may be studied as appropriate. Based on the above effectiveness and feasi- bility analyses of the component alternatives (1 -4), combinations shall be developed into system alternatives. Three system alternatives shall be developed and evaluated in addition to one that contains a downstream sedimentation basin at the site adjacent to the IRWD wastewater treatment facility and one that is the no project alternative (five alternatives). All parties to this contract shall agree upon the system alternatives to be specified in the final report and EIR. A -18 J. • . Schedule Output: Engineering feasibility, erosion /sediment reduction capabilities, costs and financing, environmental assessments and implementation/ maintenance features of each alternative system shall be analyzed and described clearly. A comparison is then to be made between each alternative system, showing features (different or common), costs (total capital and annualized cost by year), effectiveness in reducing sediment delivery to Upper Newport Bay (quantity delivered/ controlled by stormflow conditions for recurrence intervals up to the 100 -year event for 1980, 1990, 2000 and ultimate land use and by particle size distribution), environmental impacts, constraints or other limitations affecting siting or design, year system element is to be on line, responsible agency, and financing method. This comparison shall also be shown in summary matrix form. Costs should be shown in 1982 projected dollars with estimated Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. Project capital requirements for the year of scheduled implementation shall also be shown. Governing factors on sizing facilities shall either be the physical site limitation, or alternative sizes to control a 25 =year, 50 -year or 100 -year stormflow event. Water and sediment storm - flow at the desilting basins shall have been developed from Part II Sedimentation Analysis, which is to be coordinated with this Part III. Particle size control factors for desilting basins or source controls shall also be obtained during Part Ii. Technical Memoranda describing the alternative com- 1/11/82 ponents and their effectiveness and costs. This shall include general descriptions, operational concepts, layouts and locations, quantitative considerations, costs, and environmental considerations. Technical memoranda describing the basis and description of the system alternatives developed. This shall include an analysis and clear des- cription of the system, how it works and maintenance requirements, when it can be implemented, its costs, effectiveness in reducing sediment discharge to Upper Newport Bay, financing of the system alter- natives components and sources of funds, and environ- mental impacts. This memoranda shall be a detailed technical analysis of the system alternatives. (Rev: 11- 25 -80) A -19 Schedule 3. Draft General• audience report to be used for public review purposes for selection of the preferred alternative. This report shall be written in "plain English" and shall clearly describe and present the system alternatives and their comparison, Sufficient graphics and charts are to be prepared which show the elements of each alternative, costs and effectiveness of each component and of the overall system by 5 -year period from 1985 through 2000 and for the ultimate land use (general plan), including environmental impacts, and a section on financing of the alternative system, and agencies responsible for its implementation and maintenance. Fold out 1" _ 2000' scale maps of the watershed on a USGS topographic base map shall be included in a pocket in this report presenting land use, political boundaries, drainages and plan location by alternative, including quantita- tivP data for each alternative component (i.e., costs, size, control effectiveness, etc.). In addition, a public review summary - comment package (less than 5 pages) shall be prepared for inclusion into the report for the public to provide comments thereon for return to the Participating Agency /Contractor. TASK III -E: Technical Review and Refinement. This task would provide for the technical review 1/12/82 - of draft products prepared under Subtasks III A -D 3/8/82 and refinements of the Technical Memoranda and draft reports prior to public release. This task is to be accomplished by conducting the following work: 1. Provide Technical Memoranda and other outputs to the Technical Review Committee and SCAG 208 Program Manager (10 copies) consistent with the approved project schedule. 2. Based' upon the comments received a meeting will be held with the consultant offering the comments and determining necessary refinements. The contractor will then finalize these memoranda and reports. Outputs: 1. Comments on Technical Memoranda and Reports. 3/8/82 2. Finalized Technical Memoranda and Reports to be made available to the public and interested agencies. A -20 Output: Utilizing the Draft General Audience report prepared on the alternatives developed in SubtasksIII A -D and comments made by the Technical Review Process of Subtask III -E, a general audience Plan Alternatives and Draft Environmental Impact Report, considering environmental impacts of each alternative, is to be prepared and two hundred (200) copies reproduced. This report shall include those elements described in Subtasl6 III A -D, Output 3, and shall be limited if possible to fifty (50) pages. Distribution of the reports to interested agencies and the public shall be coordinated with the public participation tasks. The contractor may be regilired to distribute the reports to a mailing list to be developed by SCAG and the Participating Agencies. Schedule 3/9/82- 4/12/82 General Audience Report on Stormflow Sedi- 4/12/82 ment Control Alternatives with appropriate fold -out maps, photographs, and public review summary - comment attachment. (200 copies). TASK III -G: Public Review of Alternatives. The public will be encouraged to review, comment and recommend their choice of the best alternative or combination thereof from the described sediment control alter- natives (for a 60 -day period). Presentations will be made to the local Water Quality (208)'Advisory Committee, its Coastal Wetlands Subcommittee, the SCAG Energy and Environment Committee, and before the local elected officials and management level personnel in the Newport Bay area, and to groups requesting presentations of the alternatives. This task will be supportive to the public participation effort provided by SCAG. Press releases shall be prepared to assist the media in coverage of the alternatives. A public hearing will be held on the alternatives. (Rev: 11- 25 -80) A -21 4/13/82- 6/14/82 This task will reivew all comments received, prepare a responsiveness summary and make recommendations based upon these comments. Output: 1. Compilation report of all comments received. 7/13/82 2. Responsiveness Summary to comments. 3. Recommendations based upon the comments. TASK III -I: Pre are Recommended Plan and Final 7/14/82 - nvironmen_a impact Report. 10/11/82 A recommended plan shall be prepared based upon the alternatives developed and output of Subtask III -H. This plan shall be more detailed than the alternatives, specifying the specific project proposals and management practices, their implementa- tion schedule, costs and financing/implementa - tion /management plan. An accompanying environ- mental impact report shall be prepared utilizing the alternatives previously prepared and describing the effectiveness of the recommended plan and alternatives. Output: 1. Recommended Plan (200 copies plus original)f 2. Environmental Impact Report (200 copies plus original). 3. Executive Summary of Recommended Plan (500 copies plus original). (Rev. 11- 25 -80) A -22 10/11/82 Schedule • • Output: 1. Public and Agency presentations, During May and June, 1982 2. Public and Agency comments. _ 3, Press Releases and other informational aids. 4. Public Hearing on Alternatives. TASK III.H: Review Comments and Prepare Responsiveness 6/15/82 - DCUment. 7/13/82 This task will reivew all comments received, prepare a responsiveness summary and make recommendations based upon these comments. Output: 1. Compilation report of all comments received. 7/13/82 2. Responsiveness Summary to comments. 3. Recommendations based upon the comments. TASK III -I: Pre are Recommended Plan and Final 7/14/82 - nvironmen_a impact Report. 10/11/82 A recommended plan shall be prepared based upon the alternatives developed and output of Subtask III -H. This plan shall be more detailed than the alternatives, specifying the specific project proposals and management practices, their implementa- tion schedule, costs and financing/implementa - tion /management plan. An accompanying environ- mental impact report shall be prepared utilizing the alternatives previously prepared and describing the effectiveness of the recommended plan and alternatives. Output: 1. Recommended Plan (200 copies plus original)f 2. Environmental Impact Report (200 copies plus original). 3. Executive Summary of Recommended Plan (500 copies plus original). (Rev. 11- 25 -80) A -22 10/11/82 J TASK III -J: Assist in Securing Implementation Commitments. The participating agencies shall assist SCAG in securing implementation commitments from the responsible agencies designated in the plan as implementing- management agencies. This task shall also include development of any joint powers agreements and financial arrangements. necessary to assure implementation, maintenance, monitoring and management of the plan. Output: 1. Implementation Commitments 2. Management Agency Agreements (Rev: 11- 25 -80) A -23 Schedule 1/4/83 - 4/29/83 4/29/83 4/29/83 APPENDIX, A III Bu a- • J - ` `.SENCY: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND CITY OF IRVINE TE SU5MITTED: DATE APPRr ;ED: TIME PERIOD COVERED: FY 79 -80 +,Orn as ;s 8015.01 for Authorized Budget Budget Revisions 65,000 CUS1S cr nnn ^aTPI U`10N" 35,000 I i ST 100,000 AV APPENDIX ',III But: e_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND CITY OF IRVINE :.TE SUB ^MIT7ED: DA-E F.?= ,0`,E =: 77ME PERIOD COVERED: FY 80 -81 Authorized Budget Buceet ors ork -asks ?115.01 Part I?A -IIF, Part III 252,000 I +AX INiUM LiGIBLE COSTS 252,000 -"I ND " :;T,PIBUTION' 130,000 1 382,000 APPENDIX III Budget SUMMARY AGE.NCY: City of Newport Beach and City of Irvine I DATE SUBMITTED:' DATE APPROVED: TIME PERIOD COVERED: FY 1980 -82 Authorized Budget Budget Revisions Uork Tasks 3015.01 for 65,000 Parts 3115.01 Part 252,000 i IIA -IIF Part III i i f a MAXIMU "'; ELIGIBLE COSTS KD in —. IN TRIcUTION i 165,000 i 'OT AL COST 482,000 t COST OR PRICE- SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUEAGREEMENTS UNO °_R U.S. EPA GRANTS fS-- acco¢panytgd Instructions before cornp:etlr,P : s (crr,.I Forc C')B '.�o. l 8111,1 PART I.GENERAL — 1. GRFSTE 12. GRANT NUMe Eo SECTION 208 CONTINUING PLANNING PROGRAM PHASE II -ii P00920- 01- 3,P009325 -01 -1� �3. NAME CF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR PATE OF PRCPCSAL CITY OF IRVINE { 9 -23 -80 S. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (lnclade LIP code) CITY OF IRVINE P.O.BOX 19575 IRVINE, CA 92713 E. TTPE OF SE =VICE TO EE FURNIS -E C STUDIES LEADING TO ANITM:ENT OF SOUTH COAST 208 PLaN PART II -COST SUMMARY 1 7. DIRECT LABOR S ecl: tabor care oriee i y ➢ Q ) MATED NOURS HOURLY ESTIMATED I RATE COST TOTALS :1 DIRE7CPOR CIF CCItvYMUNITY DEVEMPENT 266 IS 2 S MANAGER OF PLANNING SERVICES 266 18.26 4 85 � SENICR PIAMElt 1330 12.91 I 17,170 ; ;, 2240 9.42 l 213100 =1 266 16.00 4,2%6 66 11.30 j 3,00 5 ` ( DIRECT LABOR TOTAL: 3 2,521::x' S 59,505 1 j!. IN =:nECT '-OS 'TS 5 rSyee(tf indirect coat peola) RATE I . BASE : I ESTIMATED II COST " s AMUNISTRATIVE O .17 IS 59,505 Isimis i � I INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL: �.'.....� : _. :.',��......•.. _. S 10,115 rS.OTtiEF. O:RECT COSTS b. TRAVEL ( ESTIMATED COST (1)TRA VI POn TAC10V ( Y 900 (2) PER o1EU is 300 . TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: - '' S 1,200 b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPT L:ES (Syr city care Qorfe r) QTY COST EST IMATED COST DUPLICATING 2000 s .15 5 300 TELEPHONE LOW DISTANCE CALLS) i EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: - SOD c. SU3CONTRA,CTS ESTIMATED COST DM AID SIMPSCN, ENGR. M Tr. CONSULTANT S AUDIT 1,400 7 SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL: -• S $ 900 & OTHER (Syec!fF cAlr Qorlaa) ESTIMATED COST VOLUNTARY SERVICE- TECHNICAL ADVISORY MDUME 000 OTHER SUBTOTAL:'- S 2,000 e.' OTHER DIRECT COSTS 74 L: 1 12,-900'.: _ _ 5 12,90$ Io.T OTAL EST (MATED COST S 12_ TOTAL PRICE 82.520 PADS 1 Q S.4RT III -PRICE SUMMARY _Oc?PETITOR'S CATALOr LISTINGS, IN- 40sTIMATES, PFIOR OUO-ES !]ntlicore basis for R +ice corrjsrisorf) I PRICE _ 1 P-'CE I f 1 _ f 1- PART W- CERTIFICATIONS .CONTRACTOR Hh5 A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL ACENCY PERTORMED ANY REVIEW OF YCJR ACCOUNTS OR RECORCS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT bi -, :!N THE FAc- Th'ELV�- -,YES 11 NO (71 "Yes" Qivs name address snd Islephons nu Der o/ rsOsmmg ollicr) ..THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES Tris proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (11 ' This is to certify to the best of my i:nov.! -�ze anal belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, cur :ent, and accurate as of ( ?). and that a financial manaeement capability exists to fuj'y and accu- rately account forthe financial. transactions under this project. Ifurther certify that I unde:stanc that the subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and /oi receupment inhere the abcve cost and pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been complex', Current and accurate as of the date above. (3) y` DATE OF EXECUTION SiGNA TORE OF PGOPOS Eo T: •2 OF PROPCSdn^ ... GRANTEE REVIEWER I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the p:opesed co:.ts /pace appear acceptable for snbagreement award. 7� X", DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNt TORE OF RE . _'ER -'«E OF qE" EV EC F.EVIEM'ER (If ep,Hr.bl.) _ --E �F EXECUT:ON E"E/ C PAG [ t }� COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA SRANTS Form Approved (See accompanying instructions before completing this fora. O.VB No. 158 -RO144 PART I- GENERAL — 1. GRANTE '2- ^>RAY- VUNBER City of Newport Beach P009200 -01 -3 & P009325 -01 -1 3. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR 4y :ATE OF PROPOSAL Local Match 1 S. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SU SCON T R ACTOR!Enctude ZIP cod.) 6. TYPE 0= _E=, ICE -D :E FURNISHED San Diego Creek Comprehensive 3300 Newport Blvd. Stormwater Sedimentation Newport.Beach, CA 92663 Control Plan PART 11 -COST SUMMARY 7, DIRECT LABOR (Specify labor ceteEorise) ESTI- MATED HOURLY I ESTIMATED TOTALS HOURS RATE 'COST Associate Planner 1040 s 10.74 Is Advance Planning Administrator 440 15.80 1`.', anning Director 104 20.93 =' Assistant Cit En ineer 936 16.9 1 ub )c Works Director 400 22.88 1 9152 (Fr om attached sheet ' DIRECT LABOR TOTAL r ^ -f''�� '�";r'�'- ;. "kr�"yi �;," r` .'"�..'.�Jw;. "::- $ 5S 4.12 8. INDIRECT COSTS (Sp.clir Mdirset co.t pe.t.) RATE >< SASE.= .-STUtATED COST Uverhead on Direct Labor .25 s 55432 is 13858 INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL Y_... ?�; "::z -, •. `•:'. '„;;- . -°- x69290 9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS' A. TRAVEL .ESTIMATE* COS' *.srr S) TRANSPORTATION (2) PER OIEM -i$ "`'^" -•- -i: TRAVEL SUBTOTAL: _ •Y.'!h- ''?tt°•"'- b. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS. SUPPLIES (Specify cenQart••) QTY COST ESTIV ATEDT°- COST Xerox 2000 @ .15 hnnn Is iq Is nn �< Tel rte:. EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL: =471MATED ^^:X',74^K+`• c. SUBCONTRACTS "- COST Donald Simpson,%Engineering Management Consultant s 7.500 °mow ";.'. Audit 1 800 SUBCONTRACTS SUBTOTAL: ±' +r' - ".° S 9,300 s',�`y!., (L OTHER (Specify ese.pd.y COST 1 Voluntary services, technical advisory committee Is 2,00 or Interim Plan OTHER SUBTOTAL: - - - :S 2,0 DD '•'^ .�' ^' el OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: • 10. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST S 82 515 11. PROFIT 12- TOTAL PRICE 82,S15 EPA F arm 570011 ;2 -76) PAGE I OF S I -. AL AM ��— 1 - PART III -PRICE SUMMARY 13. COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LISTINGS, IN -HOUSE ESTIMATES, PRIOR OUDTES PPOPOSED (Indicate b.eie for ➢rice emv,els.on) PRICE aA qwg, ^et t � • S PART IV. CERTIFICATIONS 1:.CONTRACTOR U.• HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PEP=C =VEZ AAY REVIEW OP YOUR ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT O- CDN - =s CT trT rIl% Tt E PAST TWELVE MONTHS! Q YES Q NO (I1 -Yee" give mere eddreee end telephone nlanber at revienag ol5ce) Itb THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES .Federal Management Circular 74 =7 & 74 -4 tae. This proposal is submitted for use in connection with and in response to (:: Gran t Numbers - #P009200 -D1 =3 & #P004325 -01 -1 .This is tocf_= Nt:It!ae�estofmyknowl�Age and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are comp!e:e, c— =rt a�d accurate as of (2), October 22, 1980 and that a financial manageme--t ca --a�L- exits to fully and accu- rately account forthe financial transactions under this project. I further ce -_t- t`_a. 1 4erstand that the subagreement price may be subject to downward renegotiation and /or w`_fere the above cost and pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been cLT =ie°, cu: -ent and accurate as of the date above. (3) DATE OF EXECUTION R=-OSER 14. GRANTEE REVIEWER I certify that I have reviewed the cost /price summary set forth herein a=_ =e =___c >r1 ccstsf "price appear 'acceptable for subagreement award, DATE OF EXECUTION 16. EPA REVIEWER (If applicable) DATE OF EXECUTION - 5 . +- - °E C= = EnEnER EPA Fo,. 57OO -4I (2.76) PAGE 2 OF 5 1 7. DIRECT LABOR sti- mated Hourly Rate Estimated Cost I TOTAL lHours City Manager 208 29.20 6072 City Attorney 40 22.90 908 Clerical 416 6.31 2624 Accounting 96 6.00 SUB TOTAL 10180 I YDti'iHT 2. SUBCONTRACTOR. 3. PR ^DUCT (TASK) WO.RK C�J�'-,PLETED DURIPG. TrIS PERIOD 5. VIORK OFF SCHEDULE b. CL.t;G�S REQUIRED IN SCOPE OR SCHEDULE 7. BUDGET RE AD3USTMENT 8. COSTS THIS PERIOD 9. COSTS 70 DAiE 10. RE :-!AIMING BUDGET