Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-2441(D) - Upper Newport Bay Sediment & Restoration Project, Unit I, Joint Power Grant Agreementa STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gave , CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY 1330 EROADWAY, SUITE 7100. OAKLAND, CA 94612 AT55 561 -1015 TELEPHONE 415/464- 1015 December 23, 1986 Mr. John Wolter, Cooperative Projects Engineer City of Newport Beach Public Works Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 SUBJECT: Agreement No. 84- 019- 77 -38 -A, Amendment 1 Dear Mr. Wolter: Attached for your records is one fully executed copy of"the above - referenced agreement. Please continue to contact Reed Holderman regarding this project, but direct all u gets, nvo ces, and requested modifications regarding this agreement to me at the above address. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, 6AI't' 44a?ll Karen Rust Contracts Manager enc. / STANDARD AGREEMENT "„°aRNEY GENE BY THE CONTRACTOR ❑ STATE A STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENCY STD. 2 (REV. 6/81) ❑ DEPT. OF GEN. aER. ❑ CONTROLLER THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 5th day of November 19 86 ❑ in the State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or appointed, ❑ qualified and acting ❑ TITLE OF OFFICER ACING FOR STATE AGENCY NUMBER Executive Officer State Coastal Conservancy 84- 019- 77 -38 -A hereafter calted the State, and Amendment 1 City of Newport Beach hereof ter called the Contranor. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the State hereinafter expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materials, as follows: (set forth service to be rendered by Contractor, amount to be paid Contractor, time for performance or completion, and attach Flans and specifications. if any.) The State Coastal Conservancy (hereafter called "Conservancy ") and the City of Newport Beach (hereafter called "Grantee ") agree to amend their existing Agreement No. 84- 019- 77 -38 -A by extending the "Co:,pietion De.te" from November 30, 1986 to January 30, 1987. All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in effect. The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR AGENCY Coas 1 C sery cy CONTR%or rtState of wp BeaBY IAVTNORC[ED Executive Officer CONTINUED ON _ SHEETS. EACH BEARING NAME OF CONTRACTOR ADDRESS test I City Clerk Department of General Services Use Only AMOUNT ENCUMBERED $362,000.00 PROGRAM /CATEGORY (CODE AND TITLE) F D TITLE Support onservancy Fund UNENCUMBERED BALANCE E)PTIONILL USE) I certify that this Professional & Consultant - External ADJ. INCREASING ENCVMSRANCE REM CHARTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR 184/85 grant amendment is exempt from Department 3760-001-565(b) 258 1984 "DJ- DECREASING ENCUMm,ANCE DELIECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TTLM of General Services approval. S 11 Upper Newport Bay Enhancement I hereby certify upon my oom Femonal knowledge that budgeted funds are T.B.A. NO. B.R. NO awdable for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above. SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE Eby certif tha i or ion set forth in State Administrative Manual Section 1209 ham been urleh a t is ezerRFt from review by the Department of Finance. MaNATURC OF f AGENCY DA A y� AGREZ 5�� APPROVr.O L• fATC OP CALI OHNIA �. 2 lue v. ♦. /RII 111S A(;KF,EMEN r, made anti cntert•d iitt(, this l}_ __ JaI, 1 tn_• tibtlr of Califnrilm, b) ' aril bc•hveen Slate uF Calihimia, thr., ualified and acting rLE OF OFFICER ACTING FOR STATE i AGENCY 'r - -- - -• ltl NG, el,',lell Or "p(!♦Initl'd. Ia- Jli)ER City of Newport Beach — i, r,f$er railed the Corlraetor. I'Cf, ESSETII: That the Contractor for and iu cortsideraiion of the covenants, cnnditioas, agreenunG, and stipulations of the Statr ercinaftcr expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materiak. as follows: It forth xeraire to be rendered by Contractor, amo,ou to 6e paid contractur, time for performance yr rurapWson• and attach p!an.s rrdspe.,firations• if am /.J JOINT POWERS GRANT AGREEMENT 11 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT Pursuant to Section 31251 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, the State Coastal Conservancy (hereafter called the "Conservancy")I hereby grants to the City of Newport Beach (hereafter called the "Grantee ") a sun not to exceed three hundred and sixty -two thousand dollars ($362,000), subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement. The funds shall be used to construct an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel (the "Project ") as part of the Comprehensive Sediment Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed (the "Plan ") described in the Conservancy Staff Recommendation and Project Synopsis of October 18, 1984, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement provides for a grant of funds by the Conservancy to help the Grantee to implement the Project in cooperation with other public and private entities, and does not constitute a "Joint Powers Agreement" within the meaning of Government Code Sections 6500 et seq. (continued on following pages) The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMT4IAC1011 r 1.1 SrntE AOhNr.Y Gr, DEPT. OF (;FN. SEP. u CONTROLLER Ll TITLE Ma o " Ia- Jli)ER City of Newport Beach — i, r,f$er railed the Corlraetor. I'Cf, ESSETII: That the Contractor for and iu cortsideraiion of the covenants, cnnditioas, agreenunG, and stipulations of the Statr ercinaftcr expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materiak. as follows: It forth xeraire to be rendered by Contractor, amo,ou to 6e paid contractur, time for performance yr rurapWson• and attach p!an.s rrdspe.,firations• if am /.J JOINT POWERS GRANT AGREEMENT 11 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT Pursuant to Section 31251 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, the State Coastal Conservancy (hereafter called the "Conservancy")I hereby grants to the City of Newport Beach (hereafter called the "Grantee ") a sun not to exceed three hundred and sixty -two thousand dollars ($362,000), subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement. The funds shall be used to construct an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel (the "Project ") as part of the Comprehensive Sediment Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed (the "Plan ") described in the Conservancy Staff Recommendation and Project Synopsis of October 18, 1984, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement provides for a grant of funds by the Conservancy to help the Grantee to implement the Project in cooperation with other public and private entities, and does not constitute a "Joint Powers Agreement" within the meaning of Government Code Sections 6500 et seq. (continued on following pages) The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR -^,CY CONIRACTOR (IF OTHER THAN AN tNUI IOV.It, STATE WMET).ER A COUFOVATON. State Co al o vancy °ARCYlY 67'Newport Beach (AUTHOR$ O 1 E BY {AUTHOR¢EO S :GNATUREI t E Exe tine Officer TITLE Ma o " ADDHWtesy HL 1. �_TINt1ED ON �_ SHEETS. EACH BEARING NAME OF CONTRACTOR -.CG ' J r I AMOUNT ENCOMac REO - PROGRAM /CATEGORY (CODE AND TITLE, FUND TITLE '- Department of Ganeral Services !`$e Only IS 362,000 _ UNENCUMeFRED 13ALANCC Support Conservancy Func 10?�L USE) Professional & ConsultLlnt - External _ AJJ. INCREASING ENGUMbHANCE ITL.N CA_TER ;TA_ H' F'SCAL YEAR S _ 376 -001 -565LBI $4 51 ^r ADJ DECREASING ENCUMBRANCE 4 OyE �T OF E'(RENDITURC iCOOE AND TITLE) Upper Newport Bay Enhancement 1, t'hlt budgeyd r.... J rrrhfy npnn n1n r$t II pi run :al .lrzo•c .d; e f R.H, NO rrn!nhly forth.'prrind rid pnrp...•uf d.. vrr.HI�L!u.tu :eJ nhn'e _ FIC,JA IT'Tle DF ACS I� I ♦ _�__ �� I.'r,'h., �� ,t�,.,tl,r,,,,1,r.,;,,H.;f,..� pn.., „r :f „• the, :Stafe.t :Lnl.vi . r- �t$.Y.r.,n,l,,tsr�n,l „tau :,r :,ll. Irrn I aL• It I: Ifh, : ... 1 Liar d, .nl ......... �irv:,l re, wu by the ft'pu- 1r :r,,: of F -inu n: e. �IGIIAIIIIIL 'I:: I E fl? T'HE OTY U-JUNWL ;.1TY OF KwWORi 601"1. • NOV 24 '1986 T0: CITY COUNCIL —APPROVED FROM: Public Works Department 0 November 24, 1986 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F -3(b) SUBJECT: UNIT I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AND RESTORATION PROJECT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AGREEMENT NO. 84- 019- 77 -38 -A (C -2441) RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the amendment to the California State Coastal Conservancy Agreement No. 84- 019- 77 -38 -A. DISCUSSION: On November 13, 1984, the City Council approved an agreement with the • State of California Coastal Conservancy to fund a portion of the Unit I Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Project. Under terms of that agreement, the Unit I Project, the Unit I Project Final Report, and the 1985/86 San Diego Creek Sediment Monitoring Report were to be completed by November 30, 1986. This amendment extends the term of the agreement two months, to January 30, 1987, in order to allow for completion of both the Project Final Report and the 1985/86 San Diego Creek Sediment Monitoring Report. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director JSW:jd 0 SEW PORT O B a C7Q FOft TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR Public Works FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: February 11, 1985 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUBJECT: Contract No. C- 2441(D) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK J714) 640 -2251 Description of Contract Joint Powers Grant Agreement - UDner Bav Unit I - State Coastal Conservancy Effective date of Contract (See Agreement or John Wolter) Authorized by Minute Action, approved on November 13, 1984 Contract with Executive Officer Address State Coastal Conservancy Amount of Contract (Exhibits are in City Clerk's Office) Wanda E. Andersen City Clerk WEA:Ir attach. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 3 TO: CITY CLERK FRO11- Public Works Department SUBJECT: UPPER L C�tA'kff Attached are five copiesalof the subject agreements. Please have executed on behalf of the City, retain your copy and return the remaining copies to this departme"P'&-. John Wolter Project Engineer Jw:eM Att: JOINT POIr1ERS GRANT AGREEMENT SCOPE OF AGREEM.EV Pursuant to Section 31251 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, the State Coastal Conservarry (hereafter called the ''Conservancy "), hereby grants to the City of Newport Beach (hereafter called the "Grantee ") a sum not to exceed three hundred and sixty -two thousand dollars ($362,000), subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement. The funds shall be used to construct an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel (the "Project ") as part of the Comprehensive Sediment Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed_(the ''Plan ") described in the Conservancy Staff Recommendation and Project Synopsis of October 16, 1984, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement provides for a grant of funds by the Conservancy to help the Grantee to implea,ent the Project in cooperation with other public and private entities, and does not constitute a "joint Powers Ayreeiiient" within the meaning of Government Code Sections 6500 et seq. (continued on following pages) •rhe provisions on the reverse Side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. IN WITNP:SS bi'ttERF;Oh; thisagreennent has been ekv(uted by the parties hercto, upon the date first abovi­ writterl. STATE OF CALIFORNIA C CONTRACTOR CpNf: "t .. ^ "'nN ❑ STA'i Li AGt. NCY '.ltt- rta"1(' �: r,.: •.� °ihl VtA State GD S •'•, •., a. i s v, p• I1 DEPT. U= GEN. SER. bfi' Newport Beach - 1...r-1 co`�rROLL EH lo::de: old e•nlend iri ".I[I i,_..__Le t_h _._._ daN (If _.00t i l het'. .. ___...._.Iii -F4 E_ iu 1'r• `,rl;e n; f:a;il, •Inn, by and I'rI%.. ell Sta'c of California, lhron.411 it,, dull ('It,-t('(I or nl,llniiih,I. (.I 11 lF -O: ;.l Cr4 ACT- \GF—<'.lA: (Ar NY INIM1 1 L_State_Ccasal Conservar- 184 U19_7./ „33 A_ 1_EYxecutu 1i�lfflter_,.____. OF CONTRACTOR C ... Ci y_pj i;e or;t_Beach J v -- I::'fraffer ralb'd th, Ontll,wlor. JGRAWC IEGORY (COCI'c AN° TITLfI J 1'VNU .'1TLfi %%'I' FIN FSvF I'H: "I'hat the Conhactnt for and in consideration of the CUr'enants, cuncliCorls, H {n'Clllenti, and .stipulations of the llau hen`in;dtcr evpn•swil, AV -s hen`hy agree to furnish to the State services and materials, .,s follows. s - I'it't forth .et r[W, In he With , s d l'y CononrLU, nmoant h, la' paid Cn,drarlor, lime far perfermmnre or lornplt Hon, and allnrh plan, and .+pet ijif ations. if any., a ..__._.._.— _.. -_. s JOINT POIr1ERS GRANT AGREEMENT SCOPE OF AGREEM.EV Pursuant to Section 31251 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, the State Coastal Conservarry (hereafter called the ''Conservancy "), hereby grants to the City of Newport Beach (hereafter called the "Grantee ") a sum not to exceed three hundred and sixty -two thousand dollars ($362,000), subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement. The funds shall be used to construct an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel (the "Project ") as part of the Comprehensive Sediment Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed_(the ''Plan ") described in the Conservancy Staff Recommendation and Project Synopsis of October 16, 1984, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement provides for a grant of funds by the Conservancy to help the Grantee to implea,ent the Project in cooperation with other public and private entities, and does not constitute a "joint Powers Ayreeiiient" within the meaning of Government Code Sections 6500 et seq. (continued on following pages) •rhe provisions on the reverse Side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. IN WITNP:SS bi'ttERF;Oh; thisagreennent has been ekv(uted by the parties hercto, upon the date first abovi­ writterl. STATE OF CALIFORNIA C CONTRACTOR AGENCY C CONTRACTOR 0G OrNtR THAN AN m moW,L STAY' nH ,'P .n CORIORABON. State GD S bfi' Newport Beach - _ S _ - _ B BY AUI (° b a o l T -- _ - -- NUE° O C II - OF CONTRACTOR C O _ T r- - -- J JGRAWC IEGORY (COCI'c AN° TITLfI J 1'VNU .'1TLfi use One — 000_ _f Sul ort Conservancy F;mc s - f ( ..__._.._.— _.. -_. s - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - ---- l$__.... - - - -- � ._. 376- 001-- 565_._�Q_).._.. — - '7.8_ -.._ $4 -'— - t_gr.41 5- - - 'kA 'E I VIU f OF CYPGN TL, F WC, . AND lto_F( U Upper Newport Bay Enhancement .• J 1%J'rtl,I rhe, 1.. " "!"I . •.::+•r „�fill::li::.'inr';:rb:. IUp!, .re'I: 1'A.O . ltJf”. r:,•• V, ,Indt,4:,..f,r,�Ir,:,.:J : -(,'.- ,.. -, L,r::,:: ,..,r11::anats,.n • s( ?el _ •ill, ,.,n .' ,l•., , _':, II. ,' r ✓ "I, of;Y ..'-- ._.._. c . l( e 1 F CNNC r r 1•, r. N.�l C > �� 1.. r � Contract #84- 019- 77 -38 -A Page 2 The project constitutes one component of the Plan, which is designed to reduce the rate and amount of sediment that is being deposited in Upper Newport Bay. The Conservancy, in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Game Game, the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, and the Irvine Company, will fund Element D, Unit I of this Plan: expansion of an existing sediment basin and a sediment and navigation channel in the Upper Bay. Construction costs of the in -bay basin and channel will be borne as follows: PARTY COST Dept. of Fish and Game $2,300,000 The Irvine Company 623,325 State Coastal Conservancy 362,000 City of Newport Beach 124,310 Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District 118,990 City of Irvine 11,170 County of Orange 7,992 TOTAL $3,547,787 All additional funding sources other than the Conservancy have made a commitment to project funding and implementation through the Agreement attached to the Staff Recommendation (Exhibit 1) as Exhibit E, and the availability of such additional funding, in the amounts set forth above, is an express condition of this Agreement. Prior to the construction of the Project, the Grantee shall submit detailed construction drawings and bid documents for review and approval by the Executive Officer of the Conservancy (hereafter called the "Executive Officer "). After a contractor(s) has been selected, the Grantee shall submit a detailed project budget substantially consistent with Exhibit 1 for review and written approval by the Executive Officer. This budget shall contain a breakdown of project costs for each component of the Project to be funded under this Agreement. The Grantee shall expend funds for the Project in accordance with the approved project budget. Any construction contractor(s) engaged to complete any portion of the Project to be funded under this Agreement shall furnish a performance in favor of the Grantee in the following amounts: for faithful performance, one hundred percent (100 %) of the contract value, for labor, and materials, one hundred percent (100 %) of the contract value. The Grantee shall erect a sign or signs at the Project crediting the Conservancy for its funding assistance. The sign or signs shall be permanent and easily visible to persons traveling on adjacent roads. The number, design, placement and wording of such signs shall be submitted to the Executive Officer for review and approval. Final payment may be withheld pending placement of the sign or signs in the manner approved by the Executive Officer. Contract #84- 019- 77 -38 -A Page 3 The Grantee shall obtain at its own expense any permits and approvals required to implement this Project and agrees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Upon completion of the Project described above, the Grantee shall supply the Conservancy with evidence of such completion by submitting a final inspection report by the Grantee's Public Works Director certifying completion of the Project according to the plans and specifications submitted to the Conservancy and a "Request for Reimbursement of Expenditures" form (Exhibit 2) requesting payment of funds. The Grantee shall also supply the Conservancy with the results of monitoring studies conducted on the Project site, as described in the Plan. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO PAYMENT No disbursement of funds shall be made under this Agreement until the following conditions have been met: 1) The Executive Officer has approved in writing the detailed construction drawings and project budget as required under this Agreement. 2) The Grantee has submitted for the written approval of the Executive Officer, evidence that it has obtained all necessary funding, including the Grantee's contribution, for the completion of the Project as described. 3) The Grantee has determined that the Plan is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program land use plan for this area. 4) The Grantee has certified in writing that the Grantee has obtained any permits, approvals, and findings by Grantee and responsible agencies necessary to complete the Project under applicable local, state, and federal law, including compliance with the California Environmental Act (CEQA). 5) The Grantee has provided written notification to the Conservancy of all contractors for this Project and written evidence of compliance with the bonding requirements described in the "Scope of Agreement ". COST AND PAYMENT Subject to determination by the Executive Officer that all "Conditions Precedent to Payment" have been fully met, the Conservancy shall disburse funds on the basis of costs incurred in a total amount not to exceed three hundred and sixty -two thousand dollars($362,000). Payment shall be made in accordance with the approved project budget on the basis of costs incurred, less ten percent (10 %). The Grantee shall request payment no more than monthly by filing with the Conservancy a completed "Request for Reimbursement" Contract #84- 019- 77 -88 -A Page 4 0 form (Exhibit 2) which contains the name and address of the Grantee, the number of this Agreement,the signature of an official authorized by the Grantee to sign such invoices, the date of the submittal, the amount of the invoice, and an itemized description of all work done for which payment is requested. Additionally, the invoice shall be accompanied by any invoices or other source documents from subcontractors hired by the Grantee to complete any portion of the Project funded under this Agreeement. Upon completion of the construction of the Project, as established by a final inspection report and by inspection of the project site by Conservancy personnel, the Grantee shall submit a final "Request for Reimbursement" form for the remaining amount of the grant and any amounts previously withheld. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall run from the above written effective date of this Agreement and shall continue until November 30, 1995 unless otherwise terminated or amended. The Grantee agrees to complete construction Project by November 30, 1986 ( "Completion Date "). On or before the Completion Date, the Grantee shall submit to the Executive Officer the final inspection report described in the above "Scope of Agreement" along with a final "Request for Reimbursement of Expenditures" form (Exhibit 2). Prior to the Completion Date, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing the other party with seven (7) days notice in writing. In any event of termination by the Conservancy, prior to the Completion Date, the Grantee agrees to take all reasonable measures to prevent further costs to the Conservancy under this Agreement, and the Conservancy shall be responsible for any reasonable and non - cancellable obligation incurred by the Grantee in the performance of this Agreement until the date of the notice to terminate, but only up to the unpaid balance of funding authorized in this Agreement. In any event that the Grantee terminates this Agreement during the Term of Agreement as defined above, Grantee shall beliable for repayment to the Conservancy of all amounts paid by the Conservancy under this Agreement. The Conservancy may at its sole discretion consider extenuating circumstances and not require payment for work partially completed. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The Conservancy shall not be liable for any costs of maintenance, management, or operation of the Project, except as may be set forth under separate agreement. The Grantee may be excused'from its obligation of operation and maintenance or the project during the term of the Agreement only upon express approval in writing by the Executive Officer. The Grantee agrees to use best efforts to assure that the Project is maintained as an ecological reserve for at least the term of this Agreement. The Grantee further agrees that, throughout the Term of this Agreement, the Project shall be used only for purposes consistent with this grant and that Contract #84- 019- 77 -88 -A Page 5 no other use of the property shall be permitted except by specific act of the Legislature. AUDITS /ACCOUNTING /RECORDS The Grantee shall maintain satisfactory financial accounts, documents and records for the Project and shall make them available to the Conservancy staff for auditing and inspection at reasonable times and intervals. Such accounts, documents, and records shall be retained by the Grantee for three years following the termination of this Agreement or completion of construction, whichever is sooner and shall be subject to examination and audit of the Auditor General during this period. The Grantee may use any generally accepted accounting system, provided such system meets minimum requirements as established by the State of California. LIABILITY The Grantee waives all claims and recourse against the Conservancy including the right to contribution for any loss or damage arising from, growing out of or in any way connected with or incident to this contract except claims arising from the concurrent or sole negligence of the Conservancy, its officers, agents and employees. The Grantee shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Conservancy its officers, agents and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability arising out of the existence or failure of this grant project including, but not limited to, the acquisition of property and the design construction, operation, or maintenance of improvements. If the Conservancy is named as a co- defendant with the Grantee pursuant to Government Code Section 895 et seq., the Grantee shall represent the Conservancy unless the Conservancy elects to represent itself. If the Conservancy undertakes its own defense, it shall bear its own litigation costs, expenses and attorney's fees. INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS TO THIS AGREEMENT The three attachments to this Agreement entitled "List of Assurances" (Exhibit 3) "Indemnification and Standard Provision" (Exhibit 4), and "Non- discrimination Clause" (Exhibit 5), describe additional rights and responsibilities of the Conservancy and the Grantee arising out of this Agreement. Each of these Exhibits is an integral part of this Agreement, and each is incorporated herein by this reference. COORDINATOR All actions and approvals required to be taken by the Conservancy under this Agreement shall be taken by the Executive Officer of the Conservancy or his designee. Wendy Eliot is designated the Conservancy's project coordinator for any problems or questions which may arise concerning the implementation of this Agreement. John Wolter is designated the Grantee's Contract #84- 019- 77 -38 -A Page 6 project coordinator for any problems or questions which may arise concerning the implementation of this Agreement. RESOLUTION The signature of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy on the first page of this Agreement certifies that at its October 18, 1984 meeting, the State Coastal Conservancy approved a grant of three hundred and sixty -two thousand collard ($362,000) to the Grantee for the development of the Project described in the attached Conservancy Staff Recommendation and Project Synopsis (Exhibit 1). This Agreement shall be deemed executed and effective upon the receipt in the offices of the Conservancy of this Agreement which has been signed on the first page by an authorized representative of the Grantee and which is accompanied by a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach agreeing to accept the grant funds authorized herein and to abide by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement is deemed to be entered into the County of Alameda. APPROVED AS TO FORM: iy ney Date: EXHIBIT 1 STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation fxtnber 18, 1984 UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECT File No.: 77 -38 A REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of an enhancement plan for Upper Newport Bay and authorization to disburse $362,000 to the City of Newport Beach to implement a portion of the Comprehen- sive Sedimentation Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed. SHORT DESCRIPTION: Enhancement of Upper Newport Bay through construction of sediment collection basins in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve designed to concentrate and facil- itate removal of sediment. LOCATION: North of Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, Southern California Coast District (see Exhibit A, Vicinity Map). PROTECT CATEGORY: Coastal Enhancement ESTIMATED COST: Total cost of Project: $3,547,787 Conservancy share: $362,000 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31251 -31270 of the Public Resources Code: "The State Coastal Conservancy hereby: (1) approves the Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed ('the "Enhance- ment Plan ") contained in Exhibit B of accompanying staff report, and authorizes transmittal of the plan to the City of Newport Beach for determina- tion of consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program; and (2) authorizes disbursement of an amount not to exceed $362,000 to the City of Newport Beach for the enlargement of a sediment basin and excava- tion of a navigation and sediment channel in Upper Newport Bay, (as described in the attached Exhibit C), to help implement the approved Enhance- ment Plan, subject to the following conditions: no (a) no funds shall be disbursed until all necessary permits for the project are obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies, includ- ing California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and State Water Quality Control Board; (b) funding in the amount of $3,185,787, sufficient to complete implementation of the project (estimated at $3,547,787) is author- ized by the following additional funding sources: Department of Fish and Game, the Irvine Company, City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine, Orange County Harbors, Beaches, and Parks District, and the County of Orange; and (c) the City of Newport Beach has determined that the plan is consistent with the Local Coastal Program." Staff further recommends that the:Conservancy make the following findings based on the accompanying staff re- port: "1. The Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan - Newport Bay Watershed is consistent with the purposes and objectives of Chapter 6 of the Conservancy Act (Public Resources Code Secion 31251- 31270) regard- ing the enhancement of areas of the coastal zone which, because of indiscriminate dredging or fill- ing, improper location of improvements, or incom- patible land uses, have suffered loss of natural or scenic value. 2. The sediment basin enlargement and channel en- largement project as described in Element D, Unit I of the Enhancement Plan and Exhibit C, is consistent with Sections 31251 et seq• of the Public Resource Code and will help to accomplish the purposes and objectives of Sections 30231 and 30233 of the Coastal Act. 3. The Conservancy has reviewed the Environ- mental Impact Report and addendum to the EIR prepared for the Enhancement Plan (Exhibit F) and finds that changes have been incorporated in the project which will reduce potential adverse impacts of the project. The Conservancy further finds that the significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided are outweighed by the benefits of the project because the project will halt the loss of wetlands and enhance marsh habitat in Upper Newport Bay. M STAFF SLMAARY: The Up Newport Bay Ecological Reserve was founded in 1995, due to a concerted effort by citizens and public agencies to preserve the marsh from rapidly encroaching urban development. The Department of Fish and Game owns and manages the 741 acre estuary, which comprises one of the few remaining large wet- lands on the south coast. The Reserve harbors 8 rare or endangered species and is a critical feeding and resting habitat for millions of birds on the Pacific FlyAay. The continued existence of the marsh is imperiled by the combination of two recent develcpnents in the surrourlirg watershed that are promoting the deposit of substantial amounts of sediment in the Reserve: intensive development increasing the amount of erosive surface area, and extensive channelization of drainage patterns multiplying the rate and amount of sediment that is transported into Upper Newport Bay. The accelerated rate of sediment deposition in the Resere has already converted sane wetland areas into upland meadow. without effective action to impede the deposition, the future of the critical wildlife habitat values of the reserve can not be assured. The Enhancement Plan prepared by the City of Newport Beach (Exhibit B) recommends two strategies to re- duce the amount of sediment imported into the Bay: 1. land management practices to reduce sediment at its sauces, such as improved agricultural and construction lam managment practices and 2. structural measures to localize sediment deposition and facilitate its manage- ment, such as in -channel and in -bay basins. Three sedimentation basins, in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, constructed as part of the city's Early Action Plan, have already reduced the average annual sediment rate reaching the Pay form 85,000 to 60,000 tons. The City has requested Conservancy assistance in helping to implement the next stage of this process: the construction of an in -bay sediment basin and channel. Many of the elements of the Enhancement Plan implementa- tion will be funded and implemented by local juris- dictions, landowners, and developers (see Exhibit D). The Conservancy would participate with the Department of Fish and Game, the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, Orange County, Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, and the Irvine Company to implement one element of the Enhancement Plan. The Conservancy's contribution would constitute 13.5% of the state share of funding for im- plementation of Element D, Unit I - -the construction of an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel'tas 'described o in Exhibit C). The Conservancy grant would augment the $3,185,787 already committed through the funding, agree- ment signed by other participating parties. The Conser- vancy is not a party to this agreement. Construction of the basins in addition, to tae other plan elements will trap 94% of the existing average annual sediment flow into Upper Newport Bay. ME STAFF DISCUSSION: Site DESCRIPTION- The project site includes Upper Newport Bay and the sur- rounding wateshed. Upper Newport Bay is supplied with freshwater primarily by the San Diego Creek watershed (120 square miles) and the Santa Ana -Dehli Channel water- shed (17 sq. mi.). These systems carry substantial amounts of water only during the winter rainy season. Three geographic areas can be delineated in the water- shed: steep foothills, flat alluvial Tustin Plain, and the coastal plain. Each geographic region is differ- entiated by its land use and contributes in varying degree to the discharge of sediment into UNB. The foot- hills region rises above the coastal plain with slopes ranging from 15 to 75 %. Steep slopes and relatively high rainfall intersities coupled with agricultural land uses make this region subject to major erosion hazards. The alluvial plain ranges in slope from 0 to 15% and is dominated by high value agricultural production including citrus fruits, truck crops, grain and nurser- ies. The highly erosive soils in this region consist of fine silty particles, which are carried through the channels and ultimately come to rest in UNB. The coastal plain is largely urbanized and contributes a large portion of runoff, but very little sediment, to the Bay. At the heart of the watershed lies the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, an important wildlife habitat and scenic resource, but presently threatened by upstream development. Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve The Reserve is surrounded by intense urban development and was itself once slated for a residential marine development. Only through a concerted effort by local citizen groups and the Department of Fish and Game, combined with the growing awareness of environmental preservation, was the 741 acre reserve spared from development. The Reserve was created by the California Department of Fish and Game in 1975 and is managed for wildlife habitat protection and enhancement. Upper Newport Bay is an estuary, an environment con- sidered one of the most productive ecosystems on earth. It is sandwiched between the pacific tides entering through Lower Newport Bay and freshwater streams flow- ing out of the foohills. The reserve consists of a complex of diverse wetland habitats and organisms uniquely adapted for life in an environment of fluctu- ating salinities. Six habitat types are located in M 0 0 the Upper bay: marine, intertidal, brackish water, freshwater marsh, riparian and upland. UNB supports a large migratory bird population during the entire year, with the greatest use spanning the months from September to April. As pact of the Pacific Flyway, millions of birds, particularly Uater- fowl, feed and rest in the productive marshes. The reserve provides breeding, nursery, and feeding areas - for eight endangered or rare species including the California least tern, light footed clapper rail, belding's savannah sparrow, the brown pelican, the peregrin falcon, and the black rail. The Reserve contains two endangered plants: the saltmarsh bird's beak and the Laguna live- forever. The mix of habitat types in the reserve provide habitat for other organisms as well. Seventy -eight species of fish find a home in the bay including many coastal species who rely on the sheltered waters of the bay for spawning and nursery grounds. Mammals, amphibians and reptiles flourish in the area, each selecting a niche suited to their specific habitat needs. Bay mudflats and shallow waters harbor a wide variety of invertebrates, some of which are a major food source for the huge flocks of migratory birds. Just north of the Reserve is San Joaquin Marsh, owned and managed by the University of California. The marsh is the only remaining major freshwater marsh in Orange County and a remnant of a once extensive wetland. Site History- Upper Newport Bay has been altered both by natural geomorphic changes, and through the actions of devel- opment since its creation. Originally directly connected to the ocean, the bay was.isolated during the winter of 1861 -62 by storm sediment deposition. This event created the division between Upper and Lower Newport Bays and increased the influence of freshwater on the Upper Bay. The lands in the watershed were parts of three Spanish ranches and used primarily for cattle grazing up to 1900. Following the advent of extensive commercial ag- riculture, a complex of drainage and irrigation systems were developed which accelerated drainage rates in the watershed. In 1934, solar evaporative ponds were constructed in the upper portions of the bay, destroying 130 acres of marsh and restricting tidal influence. The post war housing boom resulted in burgeoning development in the area. Flood control channels were constructed on several of the rivers in the watershed, including San Diego Creek. Flooding of this creek in 1969 was disastrous. The salt Ma • • works were destroyed and 400,000 cubic yards of sediment, washed from fresh construction scars and agricultural fields, came to rest in Upper Newport Bay. Erosion and sediment transport is not a recent phenomena in the UNB watershed. Continuing geomorphic changes (such as sea -level rise) and adjustment contribute base levels of erosion to the drainage systems. Under "natural" conditions, estuaries fillwith accumulated sediment and and are succeeded by upland meadows. Recent changes in land use have dramatically accelerated this process an imperil the ecological health and productivity of the UNB Reserve. It has been estimated that over a fifteen year period, 1,000 years of sediment have been deposited in the bay. The continuation of this accelerated sedi- ment depostion will eventually transform Upper Newport Bay from a productive and diverse wetland habitat to an upland meadow unless action is taken to halt the process. Intensive agricultural and urban land uses have exacer- bated already increased erosion and ®ediment transpoft processes. Removal of the natural cover in the water- shed for agricultural pruposes increases the susceptib bility of the land to sheet and rill erosion. Irriga- tion and severe floods strip the loose soil from barren fields, orchards and construction sites and choke the channels with sediment. The addition of material be- yond channel load capacities results in aggradation, or deposition, downstream in the watershed. The present mix of land uses in the watershed and their contributions to sediment production are: LAND USE WATERSHED AREA TONS /SQ.MI. (8) M agriculture 23 17 urban 47 - open space 23 14 construction 2 69 Although construction sites occupy the smallest portion of the watershed, they produce the largest portion of the sediment per area. Conversion to urban land uses as permitted by the Irvine General Plan, will reduce the aTaunt of erosive surface but will. increase the amount of runoff from impervious surfaces. This corrosive force moving through existing 0 channels will scour riparian banks and carry sediment down the watershed to the Reserve. Thus channel stabil- ization must proceed in tandem with the other methods to decrease sediment transport and erosion. The ultimate mix of land uses projected by the Irvine General Plan are: LAND USE WATERSHED AREA TONS /SQ. MI. M (B) open space 11 50 urban 81 3 rural* 8 47 * rural is low density residential PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine entered into a cooperative agreement with the Southern California Associa- tion of Governments (SCAG) using Section 208 Water Quality Planning funds for a two and half year study culminating in a comprehensive stormwater sedimentation control plan for the San Diego Creek watershed. The final plan, Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed, is attached as Exhibit B. Staff is recommending that the Conservancy grant $362,000 to the City of Newport Beach for the in -bay basin project described as Element D, Unit I of the plan, and set forth more particularly in Exhibit C. The Department of Fish and Game is the lead agency in implementing this project; however, the City of Newport Beach has largely been responsible for coordinating and securing funding sources. The in -bay basin con- struction will be funded and implemented in two phases, Unit I and Unit II. Conservancy funding has been re- quested for Unit I only, and will cover construction costs only. Construction of the in -bay basins in con- cert with the existing Early Action Plan Basins, will trap 94% of the existing average annual sediment flow into UNB. Unit I includes two sediment control measures, a basin and channel excavation in Upper Nevmort Bay. A. In -Bay Basin An existing basin, constructed as part of the Early Action Plan, will be enlarged and deepened to a capa- city of 661,000 cubic yards. The basin will capture sediment discharged by San Diego Creek, provide a Em I large tidal prism at the upper end of the Bay to en- courage tidal scouring of fine sediments, trap fine sediment resuspended in other parts of the Bay and carried in by the tide, and provide open water habitat. B. In- Channel Basin A channel will be excavated from the basin to the main dike at the Narrows, yielding an additional capacity of 79,000 cubic yards. A navigation channel will be dredged to allow equipment access to the excavation sites. The channel will facilitate sediment discharge from San Diego Creek through and out of the Bay, en- hance tidal scouring and provide open water habitat. The cost for construction of the channel and basin is itemized below: Element - Cubic Yards Rate Cost A. Saltworks Improvements A -1 Island Removal 41,000 $3.50 $ 143,000 A -2 Deepen Basin to -4.0 MLLW 330.000 5.00 1,650,000 A -3 35 acre expansion 290.000 4.00 1,162,000 661,000 $2,955,000 C. Subtidal Channel - enlarge and deepen channel from saltworks down to main dike at the Narrows 79,000 $ 592,787 Total 740,000 $3,547,787 *Costs based on 1984 estimates Construction is expected to begin in November and will be completed by November 1985. Maintenance dredging of the four foot deep basins will be required every four years, and interval specified by Department of Fish and Game to minimize disturbance to Bay wildlife. An agreement has been signed by the Department of Fish and Game, the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, Orange County Harbors and Parks District, the Irvine Company for restoration, construction and maintenance of the in -bay basins in UNB. Grants from all parties to this agreement have been secured. The state is responsible for the largest hbare of the cost (42 %) on the assumption that enchancement of the Reserve is of primarily state- wide benefit. The Conservancy contribution will be applied toward construction only,with maintenance funding to be provided by parties to the agreement in the same proportion as for the initial funding. M-M 0 The Department of Fish and Game will request maintenance funds, as needed, form the other parties according to the scheduled described in section 14 of the 10 year agreement (attached as Exhibit E). If necessary, the agreement may be extended beyond the exisitng teens. Permits were required by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWOCB). Applications for all three permits have been made. Issuance of the RWQCB permit is expected on September 21, 1984. The CCC and the COE permits are pending the completion and certification of the Draft Addendum EIR. An EIR was prepared and certified by the City for the Enhancement Plan; the Addendum incorpor- ates minor revisions to the project. The EIR was adopted by the City of Newport Beach on September 10, 1984. PROJECT FINANCING: The cost of Unit I of the in -bay basins includes project documents, administration, engineering, construction, approvals, rights of way and inspections. Conservancy funding will be applied to construction costs. Costs are apportioned as follows: Party Apportionment ($) Department of Fish and Game 2,662,000 The Irvine Company 623,325 State Coastal Conservancy 362,000 City of Newport Beach 124,310 Orange Co. Harbors, Beaches, Parks District 118,990 City of Irvine 11,170 County of Orange 7,992 TOTAL 3,547,787 LOCAL SUPPORT: The Project represents a cooperative effort among local and state agencies and the private sector. The state, the Irvine Company, the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, and the County of Orange have all committed funding to the project. In addition, the project is supported by the local County Board of Supervisors who requested assistance from the Conservancy. APPLICABLE COASTAL ACT POLICIES Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states that the bio- logical productivity and quality of coastal waters, streams, wetland, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organism and for the protection of human health should be maintained and where feasible, restored through, among other means, 1 Section 30233 (a) (7) permits the dredging of open coastal water, wetland, or estuaries where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative and where feasible mitigation measures have been pro- vided to minimize adverse environmental effects, for purposes of restoration. The dredging associated with the enhancement of UNB has been located and designed, according to the recommendations of the Department of Fish and Game, to minimize the adverse impacts on the Reserve. The Enhancement Plan considered, a range of alternative sediment control measures, prior to adopt- ing the subject plan. CONSISTENCY WTIH CONSERVANCY ENABLING LEGISLATION The Conservancy is authorized under Chapter 6 of its enabling legislation (Public Resources Code Section 31251 et seg.) to. award grants for the enhancEment of coastal resources which have suffered loss of natural and scenic values. As described above, the proposed project will halt the loss of wetland and create additional wildlife habitat in Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. As required by Section 31253, the Conservancy is contributing the amount not avail- able from the other funding sources that is necessary to complete the project. Consistent with Section 31252, Upper Newport Bay is identified by the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program as an environmentally sensitive area that will require continuing work with other agencies to achieve a solution to the sediment problem that is impairing the wetland. Appropriate finding of the plan's consistency with with the certified Local Coastal Program will be made by the City following Conservancy adoption of the Enhancement Plan, as required by Section 31258. CONSISTENCY WITH PROGRAM GUIDELINES: The project is consistent with Conservancy enhance- ment guidelines, as follows: - 1. Need, urgency and significance: The proposed pro- ject is essential to halt continued filling of Upper Newport Bay and to preserve and enhance one of southern California's few remaining important welands. 2. Cooperation: The project illustrates cooperation between state, county and local public agencies, pri- vate landowners and developers. 3. Scope and comprehensiveness: The proposed project will protect irreplaceable wetland resource that are a critical link for migratory birds. The plan addresses sediment control within the Bay and throughout the watershed. 0 0 4. Readiness to act: The City is fully prepared to proceed with project implementation this November. 5. Managment and maintenance: All parties to the initial funding agreement (not including the Conservancy) have made a committment to longterm management and main- tenance of the sediment control facilities in the Bay. CONSISTENCY WITH CEQA: The City of Newport Beach made the determination that the implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Sedi- mentation Control Plan will have significant effects on the envirorment. As a result, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and distributed for public review on May 6, 1981. Casnents received on the DEIR were addressed in the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City of Newport Beach approved the project subject to certain mitigation measures which are described in the EIR and will be incorporated into final construction plans. Certification of the EIR occurred on June 22, 1981. The City has since addedd an addendum to the EIR regarding minor technical modifications to the in -hay basin and channel plan canponents. The addendum oas approval by the City on September 10, 1984 (see Exhibit F); these modifications it describes are reflected in the attached Enhancenent Plan. The EIR identified environmental impacts that would result fmam implementation of this project and proposed changes that were incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts. Reductions in shorebird resting sites and light - footed clapper rail foraging habitat will be mitigated by the expansion of saltmarsh and brackish marsh and creation of sbctebird and waterfowl habitat in the Excavated basin. Although temporarily increased heavy metal concentrations will result from dredging, increased tidal flushing as a result of the project, will ultimately lessen this impact. Construction will be scheduled to minimize disturbance to nesting birds. Some unavoidable impacts were identified by the EIR; staff believe these impacts are overweighed by the overall benefits of the project. Excavation and dredging will destroy riparian vegetation, mudflats and salt marsh. Ultimately, however, the project will increase the amount of salt and brackish marsh in the bay and provide important endangered species habitat. Temporary disturbances to wildlife during construction and dredging will occur. However, the project will resolve sedimentation problems that have been seriously impairing wildlife habitat for decades. Additional wetland will be crested and existing marshes will be enhanced by improved tidal flushing and reduced sediment. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve serves a critical role in providiuxg wildaife habitat for migratory, as well as resident species, making this project of overall state -wide benefit. .E EXHIBIT Air- =r CUIb°Ytson Adams & -�� Associates pp a _ .e i, -91- rUR: i EXHIBIT B 17) tj Pi'Me 1E '203 'Plan Arnandmem f4 . 4 9 -92- I VA BArxr,Rni mn Large amounts of sediment have deposited 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 realize 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 combina- tion of lands and tidal marshes is a part of the system of ecological re- serves 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, educational, and scientific purposes. . A study was conducted under the Federal 208 Continuing Planning Program (Phase III) to provide a basis for effective actions toward reducing the inflow of sediment into the Bay. The following were the objectives of this study: 1. To develop an Early Action and Interim Sedimentation Control Plan for Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek and its tributaries which would provide early relief to the sedimentation problem in Upper Newport Bay pending completion of the sedimentation analysis and the development of a comprehensive stormflow sedimentation control plan. 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 could be implemented in the near -term. The Early Action Plan involved the construction of two in- channel debris basins within the San Diego Creek flood control right- of -aay and an excavated basin in the old salt evaporation pond areas within the Bay. Sediment storage capacity is provided below the design invert elevations of the flood control channel. The in- channel basins provide approximately 175 acre -feet of sediment storage capacity and are expected to reduce by approximately 2911 the average annual sediment inflow into the Bay when operating at full trap efficiency. The excavated basin has a capacity of 320 acre -feet, and it is estimated that it will trap an additional 25% of the sediment that enters the Bay. Construction of this project took place between April and November of 1982 at a total cost of approximately 53.7 million. Funding was provided through grants from the Energy and Resources Fund, State Assistance Pro- gram, and the Department of Fish and Game with matching funds provided by -93- the City of Newport Beach. The Orange County Flood Control District has the responsibility for maintaining these basins. As an additional component of the Early Action and Interim Sedimentation Control Plan, Orange County and Irvine in cooperation with SCAG, conducted studies on, respectively, Agricultural Best Management Practices and Construction Best Management Practices for the 'Watershed. The results of the studies were developed into Phase II 208 Amendments, formally adopted by SCAG into the 208 Plan for the South Coast Region in October of 1982, _and certified by the State and the U.S. EPA in February of 1983. various commitments in the form of resolutions and revised ordinances and administrative procedures were obtained from the jurisdictions in the Newport Bay Watershed. The Comprehensive Plan, or Phase III 208, is further extension of the Phase II recommendations on land managment practices. As indicated by the sediment sources analysis, agricultural and construction - related activities are significant contributors of sediment in the Watershed. Sediment yield from a watershed is the result of the interaction of two considerations. The first consideration is the supply of sedimen originating from upslope areas which enters the stream system. Thi: includes sediment contributed by sheet and rill erosion, gully erosion and landslides. The second consideration is the transport of sediment through the stream system. The fine sediment is usually transported by the stream without much deposition. In contrast, the transport of coarser sediment is dependent on the transport capacity of flows in the channels. Changes in land use over historical times have accelerated the processes of erosion and sediment transport. The lands in the study areas were parts of three Spanish ranches and used primarily for cattle grazing. More extensive commercial agriculture became important after 1900 and extensive drainage and irrigation development began. Land use in the watershed has become progressively more i-rtensive in the years since 1930. This more intensive use relates to agricultural use as well as urban use. 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 watershed rather than locally. The delivery of sediment into Upper Newport Bay was undoubtedly greatly increased with the improved channelization of the outlet of San Diego Creek into the Bay in the 1960's. 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. -94- Sediment production in the watershed was estimated on the basis of five land use categories: agriculture, open space, urban, rurual (low- density residential development), and construction areas. At present (1979 -80 data) (figure 2), the approximate percentages of various land use categories in the watershed are: Agriculture - 23 percent Urban - 47 percent Open Space - 28 percent Construction - 2 percent 100 ' Under anticipated ultimate land use conditions (Figure 3), percentages were estimated as: Urban - 81 percent Rural - 8 percent Open Space - 11 percent 100 these No land under ultimate conditions was assumed to be in agricultural use. However, the City of Irvine General Plan indicates an area of about 4,000 acres in permanent agriculture. This reservation was prompted by the noise problem related to the E1 Toro Marine 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 production and delivery assumes that it will eventual:y be in urban use. The sediment source analysis yielded the following conclusions: o Significantly greater quantities of sediment are produced in foothill areas. This is largely due to the relatively steep slopes in these areas. o Construction areas have the highest sediment production rate, followed by agricultural, open space, and urban areas. o Total sediment production under existing land use condition5'appears to indicate that open space and agricultural areas produce similar quantities of sediment. However, this is only because more of the open space areas are in the steeper foothills. o The average rate of sediment production from urban areas is higher under ultimate land use conditions. This is because in the future more urban development will occur in the foothills. o Total sediment production for the basin as a whole is less under ultimate conditions. This is because construction and agriculture, both high sediment-producing land uses, were assumed to be eliminated under ultimate land use conditions. -95- e • r 1 1 Ni w w w uj - .. CIO Ir LU UJ it Cyr. - > C u ul C3 m Cc z =3 ¢ U 7 z jr V, i LU o • z ............ . ......... CIL ui Iq -1 ....... LU cr _jw LLJ Mz 0 LU > UJ LU LU a z C LU �: 0- in LLJ >- 0 ul 0 Z cc _j Lu— Mm w Z <0 LL co Z Z > Mo z ulz m m M a cc cc D LUE5-j <0 z Ul m 0. a. 3:m LU ui z W co LU z ............ . ......... CIL ui Iq -1 ....... LU cr _jw LLJ Mz 0 LU > UJ LU LU a z C LU �: 0- in LLJ >- 0 ul 0 Z cc _j Lu— Mm w Z <0 LL co Z Z > Mo z ulz m m M a cc cc D LUE5-j <0 z Ul m 0. a. 3:m Without any measures instituted to manage the sediment in the watershed, forseeable changes 4ould occur. As clay and silt continues to accumulate, the Upper Say will become a mud flat, and eventually sand will reac'n t'ne Lower Bay during large storms. The seven elements of the Comprehensive Plan, set forth in this amendment, are intended to prevent these undesirable changes from occurring. Ma PLAN ELEMENT A: IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LNTRODUCTI Agricultural lands currently contribute approximately 41 percent, or 54,000 tons, of the sediment produced in the watershed on an average annual basis. This element is intended to decrease sediment production from agricultural lands and thus reduce costs of sediment removal from downstream channels, sedimentation basins, and Newport Bay. Downstream structural measures will still be needed to manage the sediment produced, but maintenance costs will be reduced as the effectiveness of land management practices is' improved. Under ultimate land use conditions it is anticipated that nearly all agricultural lands in the watershed, except for approximately 4,000 acres around E1 Toro .Marine Base in Irvine, will be converted to urban uses. Consequently, under "ultimate" land use condition, agricultural lands are considered to be a less significant contributor of sediment. FINDINGS 1. Current Application of Best Management Practices (BMPs). At the present time, Best Management Practices varying degrees on agricultural land throughout high erosion hazard areas in the foothills a s "Erosion Hazard Map" (Figure 4), each field has BMPs applied, with an average of about six. hazard areas in the foothills, each field has BMPs appli -d, with an average of about five. (BMPs) are in place in the watershed. In the identified on the SCS between four and seven On the moderate erosion between three and seven These almost entirely for the production of oranges, lemons, About one -half of the area is planted on the contour areas and and percent is irrigated with drip irrigation systems. Other general use are crop residue use, cover and green manure stabilization structures, grassed waterways and terraces. are used avocados. about 90 BMPs in crops, grade In the Valley area 'with less erosion hazard, each field has between one and seven BMPs applied, with an average of more than three. BMPs in general use are crop residue use, permanent furrows in orchards, irrigation water management including drip irrigation, grade stabili- zation structures, grassed waterways, and floodwater diversions. Most of the orchards in the valley area have heavy canopy which provides protection from direct rainfall impact. Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control Plan. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA), in March, 1981, completed a study report entitled, "Newport Bay 'Watershed: Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control Plan" which identifies agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and recommends a management plan. An inventory was made of BMPs now being applied on each field, and the effectiveness of these practices was evaluated. Erosion problem areas requiring additional BMPs were identified, such as: orchard access roads, orchards with weed -free nontillage and slopes .. r W j / r, l r- �J s� .S1 `•rte � ` ~+1•. 0 �s 0 � J 0 .y LU u F- X L1 E`t., O Y a° W F- b G ILI G3 'C I- U J UJ W > Ca } 4 z 1 S ' • ^I 0 r .p tr�• ti� ^` may. ,/ i 1�t� � �... ^- • \�'-C .' •Y�i 1: % lam' _ ` - '" i�\ e ua U rS L'1 d) 7_ O h 4 } a u fn Z O U J a oi W U O co ca �J 0 W 0 r t+l greater than 1-1/210, and some old orchards ,4hich were planted down the slope. Other problem areas include bare, rough, and smooth tilled fields, compacted strawberry furrows, flooding from the upper water - shed, and stream bank and invert erosion. 3. Administrative Actions to Date As a result of a U.S. EPA Certified 208 Phase II Amendment, "Newport Bay Watershed Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control Plan ", the City of Irvine was designated as a management agency by the State Water Resources Control Board. The City, through local ordinances, would encourage and enforce the implementation of a management strategy to mitigate sedimentation in Upper .Newport Bay. This was to include the development of resource conservation plans (RCPs) and the implementation of these plans to obtain accelerated application of best management practices (BMPs) on agricultural areas. The City of Irvine is finalizing its ordinance to implement the recommendations in the SCAG 208 Amendment. The City of Newport Beach has indicated through a resolution its support of the recommendations, but has virtually no agricultural lands within its jurisdiction. The Orange County Board of Supervisors, on April -12, 1983, adopted Resolution No. 83 -34 to implement the recommendations in the SCAG Phase II Amendment. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Agreement was drawn up between Orange County and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The County is requesting landowners to prepare RCPs according to a specific timetable, following guidelines set forth in the 208 Amendment. The County will prepare a tr.i- annual report on the progress of BMP implementation to be submitted to the Regional Board. The Regional Board will assist the County in review of the RCPs and in monitoring their implementation. ACTIONS 1. The City of Irvine and the County of Orange shall adopt ordinances re- quiring landowners to prepare RCPs. The ordinances shall give first priority to preparation of RCPs for areas with high' erosion hazard areas as identified on the SCS "Erosion Hazard Map ". RCPs for these areas shall be submitted by November 1983 and implemented by November 1984. RCPs for the other remaining areas shall be submitted by November 1984 and implemented by November 1985. The ordinances shall require landowners to submit annual reports on the progress of RCP preparation and implementation. 2. The RCPs shall be prepared by the USDA, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), or a registered Agricultural Engineer. The RCPs shall include: o A land use map indicating fields by number for identification. o Identification of soil types and slope characteristics of each field which would indicate the inherent erosion potential. -101- o A list of 'OMPs presently in place. o A narrative statement o` the erosion prableans, if any, in each ,f the fields. Priority shall be given to providing solutions to the problem areas identified in the CCE4A Report. The following SNPs are specified: (1) Develop access roads in foothill orchards along the -ridge and closer to the contour to provide access, safety and erosion control. Provide waterways adjacent to the roads. (2) Grass tail ditches from nontillage orchards in recognized problem areas. (3) Mulch old valencia orange orchards with slopes greater than 1 -1/2 percent in recognized problem areas only. (4) Switch orchards, especially on the steeper slopes, to drip irrigation where econcmically feasible. (5) Install filter strips around low ends of bare fields. (6) Construct valley sediment control basins rather than individual field basins. (7) Employ, where possible, double- cropping in the winter with an associated change in the rotation of the crops. (8) Provide erosion susceptible winter -bare fields with temporary debris basins. (9) Install drop boxes and /or chutes with votective lining on fields where the present means of conveyance to the drainage ditch is producing erosion. In addition, for winter conditions, priority shall be given to SMPs, such as: (1) Crop residue use (2) Cover and green manure crops (3) Conservation cropping for soil conservation and erosion control on all lands (4) Contour planting (5) Terraces (o) Planned access roads -102- (7) Stabilized waterways on the steeper slopes Second priority shall be given to BMPs which are site - specific and include: (1) Channel stabilization measures (Z) Streambank protection (3) Diversions (4) Grassed waterdays ' (5) Improved irrigation water management (6) Range management In addition, Appendix A provides a listing of resource management sub - systems/BMPs and the component conservation practices specific for each of the agricultural land uses in the 'Watershed. RCPs shall include a list of BMPs recommended from the list in Appendix A and a schedule of implementation. 3. The County of Orange and the City of Irvine shall monitor the progress of RCP preparation and BMP implementation, and submit progress reports to the Santa Ana Regional 'Water Quality Control Board (SAR'WQGB). The progress reports shall list plans that have been prepared during the period, and the agricultural land user's self - established time schedule for BMP implementation (but not later than the dates set in the ordinance). The reports shall also include: o The percentages of each erosion hazard area for which RCPs have been prepared o The adequacy of the RCPs o An update of the extent of implementation of BMPs for each RCP that has been prepared o A technical evaluation of the effectiveness of the RCPs applied o A determination of additional BIMPs required o Schedules and /or criteria, if applicable The completed RCPs will be subject to approval by the City /County. 4. The California State Water Resources Control Board (CS',JRCB) shall withdraw its designation of the County /City as management agencies if, in its opinion, the County /City is not successful in implementing an effective agricultural sedimentation control strategy. -103- 5. If the CS'WRCB withdraws its designation of the County/City, the SAP'gQC3 shall, based on its existing authorities under the Porter - Cologne Act, establish limitations on the amount of sediment discharged frcn specific water conveyance structures to the waters of the State. I` will require that the landowners obtain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) Permits which will implement this 203 Pian and require installation of specific Bh1Ps included herein, and monitoring of the results. The SAR'WQC3 shall issue clean -up orders for violations, hold a regulatory Board hearing and refer cases of noncompliance to the Attorney General for enforcement and collections of monetary damages. -104- PLAN ELEMENT B: IMPROVED CONSTRUCTION LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INTRODUCTION Lands under construction are estimated to contribute approximately 15 percent, or 19,500 tons, of the sediment produced in the watershed on an average annual basis. When urban development occurs, there is a limited period during the construction phase when the land is highly susceptible to erosion. On average, these construction sites are the highest producers of sediment, with approximately 9,200 tons /sq. mile produced in the foothill areas, and 6,000 tons /sq. mile produced in the valley areas. sigh erosion rates on construction sites occur only during a limited period. Local jurisdictions, through either their grading or zoning codes, require developers to stabilize all constructed slopes and open space with land- scaping. During the construction phase, land management practices will decrease sediment production from these areas, resulting in reduced costs of sediment removal from downstream channels, sedimentation basins, and Newport Bay. Downstream structural measures will still be needed to manage the sediment produced, but maintenance costs and most environmental impacts to the Bay will be reduced as the effectiveness of land ;management practices is improved. FINDINGS Construction Activities Best Management Plan and 208 Phase II Amendment The City of Irvine in 1981 completed a report on the Newport Bay Watershed entitled "Construction Activities Best Management Practices Plan for Sediment Control ", that investigated reducing sediment produced at construction sites through 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. Based on a review of applicable BMPs and their present use, twenty- seven practices are recommended for occasional -to- frequent use, ranging from sandbags and silt fences to dust control and temporary sediment traps. Four of the practices are now used only rarely in the watershed: silt fences, level spreaders, vegetation protection, and topsoiling. The Soil Conservation Service also recommends that the use of vegetation protection and topsoiling be encouraged. Current Requirements for Construction Site MPs The three major jurisdictions in the Watershed- -the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach and Orange County - -and the City of Costa Mesa, maintain relatively uniform ordinances, standards, and procedures requiring erosion control measures in connection with grading activities. Erosion control plans are required by these jurisdictions for any grading occurring between October 15 and April 15. Fees to defray the costs of plan checks and inspections are paid by the developers. Stop work orders are issued for violations of approved -105- i plans. Orange County's guidelines for erosion control plans in- .1 -ide t;ne objective of minimizing the amount of sediment_ transported from projects under active grading pen its to sensitive receiving waters. The three major jurisdictions in the Watershed have grading manuals and /or standards which accompany their grading ordinances. These manuals are approved and adopted by the relevant governmental body (Board of Supervisors, City Council) through a resolution. For example, the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code Section 7 -1 -301, Grading Manual, authorizes the Director of the Environmenzal Nanagement Agency to formulate rules, procedures, and interpretations necessary to carry out the provisions of the grading ordinances or codes. The grading manuals can be amended only through resolution. A building official (or City Engineer) has the authority to require of the developer specifics regarding grading permits, etc., as stated in the manual. 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 Newport Bay because the drainage area within the City is small compared to the total Watershed. The City of Tustin, which has a relatively large undeveloped foothill area, does not have sedimentation control regulations. The Irvine Company develops annual specific programs for control o` erosion on construction sites within the Company's jurisdiction. The purpose, as stated in the 1982 -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 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board reviews, aporoves, and monitors erosion control plans for projects under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange and the cities of Irvine and Newport Batch. 3. Administrative Actions To Date As a result of the Phase II 208 Amendment, entitled "Upper Newport Bay Watershed: Construction Activities Best Management Practices Plan ", the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine were designated as management agencies by the State 'dater Resources Control Board. The cities are responsible for carrying out the recommendations in the amendment, including establishing requirements for sediment control plans, training programs, and facilitating working relationships with developers and contractors. Both cities passad resolutions in support of the 208 Amendment in November of 1981. Newport Beach currer:tly has a stringent ordinance regulating erosion from construction activities. Irvine is in the process of finalizing its ordinance which will adhere to the recommendations set forth in the 208 Phase II Plan Amend.�ent. 4. Due to the inherent limitations, estimated capital and maintenance costs for improved construction land management practices cannot be determined. This is because the extent and therefore the costs of the BMPs that will be applied will be site- specific. The extensive analysis required to obtain any useful cost information was not Nithin the scope of this study. ACTIONS 1. Cities in the watershed shall adopt water quality protection as a goal of their grading ordinances. 2. The City of Tustin shall institute an erosion /sediment control program at the earliest possible time. 3. The City of Irvine and Orange County shall enforce their grading ordinances through the collection of debris deposits or other types of bonds that are effective. 4. Jurisdictions shall 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. The control of erosion on hillside areas shall include special considerations such as the following: o Fitting development to the particular topography, soils, waterways, and natural vegetation at the site; o Exposing only the smallest practical area of land for the shortest possible time; o Minimizing earth movement and establishing protective vegetative cover after final grading; o Locating buildings and driveways to minimize land disturbance, and leaving steep slopes undisturbed; o Including design features that would potentially minimize grading requirements; and o Locating, designing, and stabilizing drainage channels to prevent erosion. 5. Jurisdictions in the Watershed shall incorporate a provision in their grading ordinances that would require landowners to correct existing significant erosion caused by construction activities. 6. Jurisdictions shall prohibit major land clearing except immediately prior to grading and construction. 7. Jurisdictions issuing permits for erosion control plans shall implement the following: -107- 0 (a) Require that review, approval, acd inspection of eros4On, control plans be by personnel trained in the application of erosion control measures. (b) Actively promote and participate in erosion control training programs for their staff, such as those sponsored by SCS and workshops conducted by organizations such as the Association of Bay Area Governments and SCAG. The Santa Cruz County RCD has developed successful training programs and guidelines for use by other jurisdictions. (c) Improve communication between plan checkers ' and site inspectors. (d) Require all plans to be site specific. (e) Require more detailed analyses for sites with steep slopes and /or highly erodible soils. (f) During the rainy season, prohibit major grading on high erosion hazard sites as identified an the SCS "Erosion Hazard %lap" 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 quantities of silts and clays from the site. 8. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board shall maintain an active supervisory role by performing periodic site inspections and by requiring annual reports from local jurisdictions when water quality goals are not being met. 0 • PLAN ELEMENT C: THREE ADDITIOIAL IN- CHANNEL BASINS INTRODUCTION With land management practices applied to agricultural lands and construc- tion sites at the present rate of intensity and effectiveness, and with the "Early Action Plan" functioning, approximately 60,500 tons of sediment on an average annual basis will be delivered to Upper Newport Bay frr:n the Watershed. With the application of additional land management practices as recommended, the amount of sediment %elivered to Upper Newport Bay would be reduced. Ultimately, when the agricultural lands are de0eloped and construction activities are relatively insignificant in the 'Watershed, 35,000 tons of sediment on an average annual basis will continue to be delivered to Upper Newport Bay. The intent of this plan element is to trap additional amounts of sediment upstream of the Bay so that less sediment is discharged into the Bay. FINDINGS 1. The installation of the two in- channel basins in San Diego Creek as part of the "Early Action Plan" has been demonstrated to be an effective partial solution to the problem of sediment inflow to Newport Bay. During the 1982/83 rainy season these basins, with a combined capacity of 282,000 cubic yards (175 acre -feet) below the invert elevation of the San Diego Creek flood control channel, trapped large amounts of sediment that would otherwise have discharged into Newport Bay. However, it was also demonstrated during this season of high runoff that additional basin capacity is required to assure effective trap efficiencies during major storms. 2. The three additional in- channel basins, when combined with the two existing in- channel basins (Figure 5), will intercept 32,800 tons of sediment on an average annual basis, thus reducing the average annual inflow into Newport Bay to 52,700 tons. 3. Sediment deposition in in- channel basins will result in less frequent disturbance of the Ecological Reserve for sediment removal. 4. Additional in- channel basins would be the most cost - effective structural measures for downstream control of all sand particles and a portion of the silt particles. The cost for constructing three additional in- channel basins is estimated to be $2 million. 5. The estimated costs of removal of sediment from in- channel basins is $3 per ton as compared to $7.50 per ton from the Bay. The average annual maintenance costs for the basins would be $59,700 under existing land use conditions. In the future, as sediment is reduced by the recommended improved land management practices on agricultural lands and construction sites, urbanization of agricultural lands, stabilization of channels, and construction of some foothill basins, less sediment will be deposited in these in- channel basins and in Newport Bay, resulting in reduced maintenance costs. Under ultimate -109 -- 0 p .5 1 1.5 MILES JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT ORANGE COUNTY e 0 MKI _MAIN S Lel W m I_lU II 4 II O fl fR�`iD � TREAT -ENT/ / \ PLANT / , f� e� O /FGOO J �- SIPHON 21 SAN CROSSING JOACUIN MARSHA gP i / O2 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFCRN1A IRVINE -O LEGEND PART I - EARLY ACTIOM AND Ii4TIERM PLAN UPPER 1O - EXCAVATED BASIN NEWPORT 2� O - IN- CHANNEL BASINS BAY PART IIt- PROPOSED OOO- IM- CHA ?INEL BASINS SOURCE: BOYLE ENGINEERING �g ; q Ld `` NS � t] AIAA y^�� g 3 ig0�Ja eTS land use conditions, the average anneal maintenance cost for the basins is estimated at 518,600. These costs 'nave been extrapolated from the actual contract costs for the "Early Action Plan" and from recent costs Orange County has experienced in contracts for removal of sediment from channels. These costs will vary widely depending on whether or not there is a market for the deposited sediment. ACTION Install three additional in- channel basins in San Diego Creek channel between the upstream "Early Action Plan" basin and the junction with Peters Canyon Wash with a combined capacity of 273,000 tons (169 acre - feet). The total in- channel basin capacity, when combined with the "Early .fiction Plan ", will be 555,000 tons (344 acre - feet). -111- i PLAN ELEMENT D: IN -BAY BASINS INTP,ODUGTIG i With land management practices applied to agricultural lands and construc- tion sites at the present rate of intensity and effectiveness and the throe in- channel basins constructed, approximately 52,700 tons of sediment on an average_ annual basis will continue to be delivered to Newport Say. With the application of additional land management practices, as recommended, the amount of sediment delivered to Upper Newport Bay will be reduced. The remaining sediment will consist of fine silt and clay particles that are not conducive to entrapment in in- channel basins because of the relatively short detention time. The in -bay basins are intended to localize the deposition of sediment entering the Bay and facilitate its management. FINDINGS 1. When stream flows mix with ocean waters to the -extent of one or 4,,q parts or more ocean eater to 32 parts s tream water, the clay part-: become cohesive. Eighty percent of the clay and fine silt_ part' entering the Bay are retained in the natural basin between The Nar. o.,s and the old salt works dike (Figure 5). This natural basin will continue to fill with sediment and its effectiveness in trapping fine sediment will diminish, resulting in deposition of sediment lower- in the Bay. 2. As part of the "Early Action Plan" an excavated basin was constructed in Upper Newport Bay imrediately downstream of Jamboree Road. The basin has a surface area of 50 acres, a bottom elevation of -3.0 fe_t mean sea level (MSL) and side slopes of 10:1. The amount of sediment storage capacity below 0 ,MSL is about 142,000 tons (88 acre - feet). If sediment is allowed to accumulate above 0 MSL, tidal movements into the area will be inhibited, thus reducing coagulation, and deposition of clay particles. 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. With the recommended additional in- channel basins installed, approximately 14,000 tons of sediment will be deposited in this basin on an average annual basis. 3. The combined sediment storage capacity in the Bay basins below 0 MSL would be 445,000 tons (2766 acre - feet). With the installation of the recommended in- channel and Bay basins it is estimated that 94 percent, of the existing average annual sediment inflow of 85,500 tons to Upper Newport Bay will be trapped. 4. The capital cost for the installation of the in -Bay basins is estimated to be 53,525,000, with average annual maintenance costs of 5359,250 under existing conditions and $207,000 under ultimate conditions. However, these costs will vary depending upon the locations of the basins, the methods of remo ✓al and the availability of disposal sites. 0 SANTA ANA DELHI CHANNEL SANTA- ISABELA CHANNEL SHELLMAKER ISLAND UPPER MLWPORT BAY �N DIEGO CREEK rrr.!o- c ACTIONS 1. Construct add it cnal basins in Upper Ne,,iport Say with a surface area of approxi ,mately 54 acres. The basins ;hall have a depth of -4 feet MSI. and 10:1 side slopes. 2. The additional basin or basins shall be located adjacent to the "Early Action Plan" basin, or in the "natural basin," area between The Narrows and the old salt works dike. 3. The exact location and configuration of the basin or basins shall be compatible with the State Department of Fish and Game Managemint Plan for the Ecological Reserve. -114- INTRODUCTION 0 PLAii ELEMENT E: CNs,:iNEI STABILIZATION This element is intended to reduce the sediment originating in channels within the Newport Bay Watershed. Under existing land use conditions, the estimated average annual channel erosion is 38,800 tons, and under ultimate conditions of development without channel stabilization measures, it is estimated to be 90,700 tons. A large percentage of this eroded material is composed of sand particles that will deposit in downstream channel reaches or in the recommended in- channel sedimentation basins. FINDINGS 1. Under existing land use conditions, with all channels stabilized, the average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay would be reduced by at least 6,100 tons. Under ultimate land use conditions, the average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Say would be reduced by at least 17,400 tons with all channels stabilized. Sediment produced from channel erosion increases the amount of sediment discharged into the Bay, decreases channel capabilities, and increases costs of deposition removal from downstream channels and the recommended in- channel sedimentation basins. Channels in undeveloped areas are difficult to .stabilize because the ultimate location and type of drainage facility is a function of the future abutting development. Neither private property owners nor public agencies are willing to finance stabilization measures for channels that are not permanent. 4. There are some existing channels in dedicated rights -of -way that are in permanent locations that are not fully stabilized. Examples of this condition are San Diego Creek from Upper Newport Bay to Culver Drive and Peters Canyon Wash from the confluence with San Diego Creek to the Santa Ana Freeway. The beds of these channels are not eroding, but the sideslopes are not lined or vegetated and thus are subject to erosion. 5. Capital costs for channel stabilization have not been estimated. However, they will be substantial. In the undeveloped areas, most of the stabilization costs are expected to be borne by developers. The costs of stabilizing existing dedicated channels will be dependent on the extent and type of measures required. It is estimated that on an average annual basis, removal of deposition from channels would cost from $214,800 under existing conditions and from $3,300 under ultimate conditions. ACTIONS 1. Jurisdictions in the watershed (Figure 7) shall require as conditions of approval for channel dedication that all channels be stabilized to minimize sediment production within and adjacent to a proposed development. -115- C-,., I " n zl� '... L. ... I / z Iola Ci Oel 6". LU W V13 .2 cc M O"D 2. Jurisdictions in the .watershed shall inspect existing dedicated channels and inventory unstabilized conditions. 3. Jurisdictions shall prepare a lis: of dedicated channels requiring improvements and shall establish priorities among these channels based on the severity of erosion. +^aasures to be considered for stabilizing channels shall include concrete lining, guniting, rock surfacing, or vegetating side slopes and stabilizing flow lines by drop structures. Consideration should also be given to correcting localized erosion at bridge structures, drop structures and channel inlets. -117- PLAN ELPENT F: FOOTHILL EAaI`iS INTRODUCTION Installation of foothill basins reduces peak stormfi .ws and consequently reduces erosion of unstabiliZed channels, decreases sediment transported through the drainage system, and improves effectiveness of downstream channel basins. However, sand particles trapped by the foothill basins would tend to be replaced by sand particles eroded from unstabilized channel sections downstream. A major economic ber:efit that would result from installing foothill basins would be the reduction in costs for downstream channel improvements. (See Figure S for location cf potential foothill basin sites.) FINDINGS 1. The installation of foothill basins will be beneficial for both sediment control and flood control. 2. It is not probable that many of these basins .will be installed in the near -term because their economic justification will be related to downstream urban development. 3. The County of Orange has prepared localized areas of the Watershed. tion Corridor is being planned. a number of master drainage plans for In addition, a Foothill Transporta- 4. The cost for the installation of foothill basins (excluding costs for land rights and relocation of utilities) is estimated to be S10,37S,S00 under ultimate conditions. These figures are based on estimates that were made for previous studies of the basins. Capital costs attributable to flood control as opposed to sediment management have not been assigned. ACTIONS 1. Pmend and /or adopt local master drainage plans for regional facilities in the Watershed to include sediment control by installation of foot- hill basins. 2. Coordinate the construction of foothill basins with the proposed Foothill Transportation Corridor. 3. Foothill basins constructed for flood control purposes shall include capacity for sediment control. -178- r `-,' ` - O z1J Uj Uj W J C] 1 O z \ w mom_ � W S NOANVO � -••• 3NVNS3'111`!kf � O \ �i• J y O O z z Z 0 r z C U N C w w d Z 0 r z Q U N C w H w G 2 O r_ U w Y G z cn W J F- G C Z 0 r Z C U lit U Z U U N ! Y Y Z Z w O O G O O O U C7 Z W G C G C C 0 C C C U O w W G d N '.I] �cl,sl?���G15 L� r L Sa3t3d . Fwi L^m z O C3 O o z z Y Y W W w w Lu r z ¢ r r o Z O Z Z r U ¢ r ¢ < z C C U U q lid U Z U U N ! Y Y Z Z w O O G O O O U C7 Z W G C G C C 0 C C C U O w W G d N '.I] �cl,sl?���G15 L� r • r� L PLA;d ELEMENT G: SEOI.IENT MONITORING NTRODUCTION A comprehensive sediment_ monitoring program within the tatershed and Newport Bay is essential to verify the results of this study, to determine the effectiveness of installation of the recommended structural measures, and to assess the effect of changing land uses on sediment production. FINDINGS 1. Monitoring of sediment transport in channels in the 'Watershed can be based on established procedures developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1932 the USGS contracted with the Cities of Newport 3each and Irvine, and The Irvine Company for a sediment monitoring program in the channels upstream of Upper Newport Bay. Monitoring of sedimen` transport, deposition, and scour in Newport Bay will be complex an. costly. 2. Since sediment production is a function of storm return periods, a time span of 10 years or more may be required to obtain useful data. 3. The upstream monitoring cost is estimated to be 534,000 under both existing and ultimate conditions. This cost estimate is based on the current USGS contract. The estimated cost of the recc,,,mended Say monitoring has not been determined. ACTIONS 1. Continue the monitoring program established with the U.S. Geological Survey. This program shall include operation of continual stream gage and daily suspended - sediment stations at representative locations, collection of samples of sediment deposits from installed sedim entaticn basins, and maintenance of records on volumes of material removed from. sedimentation basins. 2. The Department of Fish and Game shall establish a monitoring program for Upper Newport Bay. The first priority shall include regular hydrographic surveys, topographic maps, and measurements of cross - sections of the channels at intervals of 5 to 10 years. If it is found that the management plan proposed by the Department requires prediction of suspended solids concentration or rates of deposition or erosion, it would be necessary to construct a model. 0 SUvWRY OF RECUMMENDED ACTIONS: SCHEDULE AND COSTS A. Improved Agricultural Land Management Practices Resource Conservation Plans (RCPs) for improved agricultural land management practices (BMPs) are recommended for completion and_imple- mentation as follows: o High erosion areas o Remaining areas Landowners /users complete RCPs by Nov. 1983 Implement BMPs by fIov. 1984 Landowners /users complete RCPs by Nov. 1984 Implement BMPs by Nov. 1985 B. Improved Construction Land Management Practices The recommended actions for the major jurisdictions in the watershed (Irvine, Newport Beach, and Irvine, unless otherwise noted) should be implemented as follows: o City of Tustin - institute an erosion /sediment control program. o Grading ordinance changes (a) Water quality protection (b) Debris deposits or bonds (c) Correction of existing erosion (d) Prohibition of major land clearing in advance of grading (e) Prohibition of grading on high erosion hazard sites during rainy season. o Other Administrative Procedures o Erosion control training programs C. Install Three Additional In- Channel Basins By Sept. 1984 By Sept. 1984 By Sept. 1984 Begin Jan. 1, 1984 The "Early Action Plan" basins are completed and functioning. However, the recommended additional basins will provide improved effective trap efficiencies during major storms. Construction of these basins can be accomplished in phases, and will require implementing and funding agreements as follows: o Cooperative Agreement Oct. 1, 1983 o Implementing Agreement July 1, 1984 -121- E o Construction of Basins D. Install In -Bay Basins Begin May 1, 1985 Complete all basins by 1938 The primary purpose of the In -Bay Basins is to localize the deposition of sediment and to facilitate its management. The basin constructed below Jamboree Road, as part of the "Early Action Plan," will trap approximately 20 percent of the silt and clay particles flowing into the Bay. Construction of the recommended additional basins can be accomplished in phases, but will require implenenting and funding agreements and coordination with the Department of Fish wand Game Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. o Adoption of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve Management Plan Jan. 1, 1984 o Cooperative Agreement Oct. 1, 1983 o Implementing Agreement July 1, 1984 o Construction of Basins Begin May 1, 1935 Complete by 1990 E. Channel Stabilization Stabilization of channels in undeveloped areas should be required as a condition of development approval. Stabilization of existing channels in dedicated rights -of -way should be accomplished by the public juris- dictions requiring special funding. o Undeveloped areas Jurisdictions require stabilization of channels as a condition of dedication. c Dedicated channels Inventory of required measures Installation of stabilization measures F. Foothill Basi November 1933 July 1, 1984 Begin July 1, 1934 Complete 1983 Construction of foothill basins will result in reduced costs for do:1n- stream channel improvements, and will result in significant reductions of sediment production when downstream channels are stabilized. o Incorporation into local October 1935 master drainage plans o Construction' Concurrent with -177- stabilization of downstream channels G. Monitoring A monitoring program for the channels, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, was started in 1982. The local funding is shared by the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, and The Irvine Company. It is recommended that this monitoring as well as a Bay monitoring program be included in a cooperative agreement. o Cooperative Agreement Oct. 1, 1983 o Bay Monitoring Develop program Jan. 1, 1984 Implement program July 1, 1984 -123- PROJECT I.7?PLE;,ENTATIO,4 AND FUNDING Implementation of the recommended actions will require funding for the installation of the proposed measures and for.their continued maintenance. 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 pri- vate interests of preventing further degradation and /or restoring desirable conditions in the Bay. The average annual amounts of sediment produced by land uses under existing conditions of land use management in the Watershed are summarized as follows: Types of benefits that will accrue from the implementation of the recto - mended Plan and some of the beneficiaries are: Types of Benefits o Protection and enhancement of the Bay as a wildlife habitat o Maintenance of design capacities of flood control channels o Improved aesthetic values of Upper Newport Bay o Protection of recreational and commercial uses of Upper and Lower Newport Bay A. Potential Implementor Beneficiaries State Dept. of Fish Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Orange County Flood Control District Adjacent property owners in City of Newport Beach, motorists and visitors Boat and slip owners, Orange County Harbor District, City of Newport Beach, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Implementation of the recommended actions must be accomplished by one or more of the public agencies with jurisdiction in the Watershed with the cooperation and participation of the Irvine Ccmpany, the major landowner. The public agencies with jurisdiction in the basin are: City of Newport Beach City of Irvine -124- Sediment Produced Percent Land Use 1,000 Tons of Total Open Space 56.5 42.0 Agricultural 54.6 41.0 Urban 3.3 2.0 Construction 19.5 15.0 133.9 100.0 Types of benefits that will accrue from the implementation of the recto - mended Plan and some of the beneficiaries are: Types of Benefits o Protection and enhancement of the Bay as a wildlife habitat o Maintenance of design capacities of flood control channels o Improved aesthetic values of Upper Newport Bay o Protection of recreational and commercial uses of Upper and Lower Newport Bay A. Potential Implementor Beneficiaries State Dept. of Fish Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Orange County Flood Control District Adjacent property owners in City of Newport Beach, motorists and visitors Boat and slip owners, Orange County Harbor District, City of Newport Beach, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Implementation of the recommended actions must be accomplished by one or more of the public agencies with jurisdiction in the Watershed with the cooperation and participation of the Irvine Ccmpany, the major landowner. The public agencies with jurisdiction in the basin are: City of Newport Beach City of Irvine -124- City of Costa Mesa City of Santa Ana City of Tustin County of Orange Orange County Harbor District U.S. Army 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 signifi- cant sediment sources. The Orange County Harbor District, the U.S. Army 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 --".ement either the construction or maintenance aspects of the proposed pi-an. The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, and the State Department of Fish and Game can most logically implement the various elements of the Plan. The State Department of Fish and Grime is the. owner of the ecological reserve where the in -Bay element of the Plan will be installed, and the Orange County Flood Control District is the owner of the San Diego Creek channel .There the in- channel sedimen- tation element of the Plan will be constructed, and ;there most of the channel deposition occurs. The District removes sediment deposits from this channel as well as from other major channels in the County. As a joint powers agency could not include The Irvine Cc*npany, which is not a public agency, cooperative agreements are proposed. In addition, cooperative agreements would preclude the need for the State legisla- ture to adopt legislation in order for the State Department of Fish and Game to be a party to them. Construction and maintenance costs of the recemmen.ded actions should be assigned on the basis of sediment, the benefits to be received by con- trolling the sediment deposits in the Bay and the flood control chan- nels, and channel maintenance practices for other watersheds within the County. An equitable share of the costs to be borne by 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 converted 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, the construction of man- made ditches and the improvement of natural channels provided an effi- cient means of transporting sediment produced in the foothills to Upper Newport Bay. Forty -two percent of the sediment produced is fran open space, which has not been significantly changed by man. Therefore, a reasonable allocation would be to assign to the public agencies costs for management of sediment produced from open space, and to the land- owners .ne costs 'or Tanaoement of sea -.'meat oroduced by -19r- I lands and construction sites. In addition to funding the capital and recommended actions, it is important that Watershed bind themselves together for the aspects of the recommendations, evaluating ness of the various elements, and to crea cussion. Cooperative Agreements 1. Umbrella Cooperative Agreement maintenance aspects of the the various entities in the purposes of implementing all and assessing the effective - ting a forum for public dis- The purposes of the "umbrella," or initial, cooperative agreement are to adopt and implement the recommended actions and evaluate and assess their effectiveness; assure uniformity of erosion control ordinances and applications of agricultural and construction land management practices; create a public forum for discussion of Watershed sedimentation problems; and maintain and fund sediment monitoring programs for the Watershed and the Bay. The parties to the Umbrella Agreement would be: o County of Orange o City of Irvine o City of Newport Beach o State Department of Fish and Game o The Irvine Company The Umbrella Agreement should also establish a policy committee that would meet at least semiannually and would be responsible for determining whether adequate and reasonable progress is being made in implementing the recommended actions. A copy of the Umbrella Agreement is included as Appendix B to this amendment. 2. Implementing Agreements The purpose of the Implementing Agreements would be to fund the construction and maintenance of the recommended three in- channel sedimentation basins and the in -Bay basin or basins. This purpose could be accomplished with either one or two agreements. The parties to the implementing agreements would be: o County of Orange o City of Irvine o City of Newport Beach o State Department of Fish and Game o The Irvine Company Orange County will act as lead agency for The State Department of Fish and Game will in -Bay basins. Removal of sediment from channel basins will �e the resoonsi�ility -126- the in- channel basins. be lead agency for the channels and from in- of the Orange -ounty Flood Control District. to The Implementing Agreements should provide for a technical advisory committee to make recommendations on technical aspects of imple- menting the proposed actions. Based on the sources of the sediment produced, the various benefits derived, the ownership of the ecological reserve, and the present policies for sediment removal, the capital and maintenance costs for the in- channel and in. -Bay elements of the Plan should be assigned as shown on Table 2, Percentage Allocation of Implemen- tation Costs. Efforts should be made by the parties to secure grants as they become available. The 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. Funding of the other elements of the Plan should be as follows: Element o -Improve agricultural land management practices o Improve construction land management practices o Channel stabilization: o Undeveloped channels o Dedicated channels o Foothill basins 0 Capital Cost o Sediment removal Fundina Landowner Landowner Developer Public agencies having jurisdiction Downstream beneficiary of cost savings resulting from reduced channel sizes Public agencies responsible for removal of sediment from downstream facilities A summary of the estimated capital and maintenance costs for implementation, of the Plan is shown in Table 3. -127- TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION OF IMPLEMENTATION COSTS PERCENT OF ENTITY SOURCE OF SEDIMENT .COSTS In -Bay Basins -- Capital and Maintenance Costs a Department of Fish and Game, City of Open Space. Newport Beach, and Orange County Harbor District o Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, Urban Areas and County of Orange o Landowners Construction Sites o Landowners Agricultural Sites TOTAL In- Channel Basins -- Capital Cost o Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, and County of Orange o Landowners o Landowners TOTAL Open Space and Urban Areas Construction Sites' Agricultural Lands Sediment Removal from Channels and from In- Channel Basins o Orange County -128- 42 2.5 14.5 41 100 44.5 14.5 41 100 100 W F 0 0 -129- In a .d+ o S W q 2 Q V J W G ¢ w v o d CL Y- y u O W Z' rndl y O O O O O q^ £ Y u b C N Kl 4ll Of Q 41 C) ' X q W W M N W � •9 Y W a u u O d O O 2 G Z Z C N d N d > � V O N I C cc u i Y u O N u n ^ •+ O Y O O a �� NUOI u u Y E u C L "! W U. O D M O W v O ✓� q z z z � iC q C 3 a C q q L d W N N O N N u C CJ d O t ^ C y L q L K V U O O q L q L O C • G� N S d d q C a Y R Gl Cl N P N q q N Y C n H n Y q q C ^ Y I d ti Ol J J q C^ V N q G L- 1 -129- r. EXHIBIT C Exhibit Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Facilities This Exhibit identifies the Sediment Control Facilities (Table 1) to be constructed as part of the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement Program (Figure 1). These facilities are designed to localize the deposition of fine sediments delivered from San Diego Creek. At the same time they will provide benefits to the fish and wildlife resources of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The construction of the Sediment Control Facilities is phased in two units (Tables 2 and 3) . Implementation of both units will be required _ to provide efficient sediment capture and protect the wildlife values of the Bay. Following construction of Units I and II periodic maintenance will be required to maintain the efficiency of the system. Maintenance operations will be insL-ituted when the average invert elevation of either the saltworks basin or the "Narrows" channel reach -1.0 MLLW ( -4.0 MSL). This elevation has been selected as the trigger for initiating maintenance operations to insure the preservation of fish and wildlife values associated with lower intertidal and subtidal elevations. At this elevation, the saltworks basin will have a capacity of 150,000 cu. yds. while the "Narrows" channel will have a capacity of 130,000 cu, yds. Maintenance dredging may not be required more often than once every five years. This is an estimate based upon projections contained in the 208 Sediment Source and Delivery Analysis prepared by Boyle Engineering. With installation of three additional upstream facilities the Boyle report indicates that approximately 50,000 cu. yds. of sediment will be delivered to the bay on an average annual basis. If the in -bay facilities were 100s effective, maintenance would be required every five years. Boyle though has calculated that the saltworks basin is only 30% effective indicating that maintenance would not be required more frequently than once every 7 to 10 years. Periodic maintenance based upon the criteria outlined above may require the removal of approximately 250,000 cu. yds. of material. Based upon 1984 cost estimated for hydraulic dredging and ocean disposal ($7.50 /cu. yd.), this would require the expenditure.of approximately $1,875,000. Figure 3 provides a phased implementation schedule for construction and maintenance of the Sediment Control Facilities. -130- -131- Table 1 UN ➢ER Sediment Management /Enhancement Project; Quantity and Cost Estimates* Element Cubic Yards Rate Cost A. Saltworks Improvements A -1 Island Removal 41,000 $3.50 $ 143,000 A -2 Deepen basin to -4.0 MLLW 330,000 $5.00 $1,650,000 A -3 35+ acre expansion 290,000 $4,00 $1,162,000 . 6611000 $2,955,000 B_ Channel widening saltworks - main dike; 500 feet wide to -0.0 MLLW 100,000 $5.00 $ 500,000 C. Subtid�l Channel Main Dike - - Narrows: 500 feet wide to -4.0 MLLW+ 330,000 $7.50 $2,475,000 D. Remove 1,000 foot section of main dike 26,000 $5.00 $ 130,000 E. Down -bay dredging to provide dredge access+ 50,000 $7.50 $ 375,000 Project Totals 1,167,000 $6,435,000 *Costs based on 1984 estimates +Yardage estimate may change following survey -131- -< H 4 G .. a c q C a � ¢ V3 ;iL. x I -132- a .V-• . / +JI \1 y17 m 0 y rl ri U U CT• Q 0 U F P O G U k] 4� 4 U w q F O V r ] I U � F L�. o eo 0. O. I-, a 0. U F 7 a, W � y A E a z r a Ft� F O + 1 +' O Gv 00 O U U a O U Y r b o c a eo E O 1 S! •rl W F av E•o 'v o r-I •c+ g 3 ' d s o +3 o O rm -I 3 3 U N r1 •c U > z -P co . ai o F P F 0 -H 1 C O 0 'O e., '. F l m " C r•+ a n c..1 .. c •c+ v > _ � o >, ra •O U Y c 'O E U O •O U- U 'O +� r U t C U + N CL) O U •r. +� N O j a O 0 C U N F G O C E > > I N CJ W - U W i u r1 rti r-I -O U U 0 E G w] �O •-i L x p U O U t:7 •^ .v i -� k1 L� � q �c � ci ci w -132- a .V-• . / +JI \1 y17 m 0 y rl ri U U CT• Q 0 U F P O G U k] 4� 4 U w q F O V r ] I U � F L�. o eo 0. O. I-, a 0. U F 7 a, W - • • Table 2 Unit I tipper Newport Bay Sediment Control Facilities* Element Cubic Yards Rate Cost A. Saltworks Improvements A -1 Island Removal 41,000 $3.50 $ 143,000 A -2 Deepen basin to -4.0 MLLW 330,000 $5.00 -. $1,650,000 A -3 35r acre expansion 290,000 $4.00 $1,162,000 661,000 $2,955,000 C. Subtidal Channel enlarge and deepen channel from saltwork.down to main ddke at the Narrows 79,000 $ 5922787 Total 740,000 $3,547,787 *Costs based on 1984 estimates -133- �l1JU L1 i1 D• -134- a rl +� U N C P ri ci _ N O T. C 4 U � C . H O • E 4 � � r U ) N U ' N ti 4 .-i W EN O 'O M r-i v q O ti 1 i� 3 J t • S— O V3 N O 00 O S- v 4-3 � r •r 0 b 40 vv Y -C iv S4 Y W 0 o y a oO Y S— u7 N O r Ql p O ( Y 4 O ca C7 C C U U m ¢7 c E CL) r� v -n a� C C r L CQ 3 4) < C7 -134- a rl +� U N C P ri ci _ N O T. C 4 U � C . H O • E 4 � � r U ) N U ' N ti 4 .-i W • Table 3 Unit II Upper Uewport Bay Sediment Control Facilities* Element Cubic Yards Cost B. Widen channel between saltworks 100,000 $ 500,000 and main dike C. Complete subtidal cjiannel main dike — Narrows 251,000 $1,882,500 D. Main dike removal 26,000 $ 130,000 E. Down bay dredging to provide dredge access as necessary 50,000 $ 375,000 Total 427,000 $2,8£7,500 *Costs based on 1984 esgrimates lCost and yardage estimate depends upon amount of material removed in Unit I 2Cost and yardage may vary depending upon hydrographic survey and material removed as part of Unit I 0 -135- H f-0 O l+ w 0 Y q Y C U G U M IH 8 4: H W O c� z D4 I� k: q a e Y v m b w b w .i I . . . . C) 0 N O O O N O� D\ Q\ O� Q\ W O� n O� n Q\ b Q� b In D• Q\ Ln ON U� v _ rn M m M \ N a a N U� �+ o, •11 O \ u 0 u •� u c� 0 rn �6 N lJ 7 fy rn •] CJl J m rn T m L .-I \ Y ..i u co •� m in w u '� .� R7 C C '•'� C C C Q C. A q , n j w' m u U ., � 3 -..J..� -136- b �o co \ co h co \ Tt C a �+ H •11 O u u •� u �6 N lJ 7 fy cD J •] CJl J �• L .-I U Y ..i u Cl .+ ^J •� S� in d it u '� .� C C '•'� C C C Q C. , j w' U u U ., � 3 -..J..� -136- C; 0 _ N w Z < w n w Z r r sw w C+ O _ _ •O (D _ c1 w 0 _ O •+( (D (D m _ S w 0 (D -2 (D _ C+ .Q w _ z 1•+ w a C+ 0 c _ c+ r-( O M C+ S O (D E3 (D _ c+ 1 O a r 0 N 64 f-• Q1 A W N O O fib m• m C Fe ,J W n w fl, _ (n n w d a .. (D 0 o - _ �a CL o a o 3 (CD CD '•wc w < < =7 t0 (D la CD c+ -� O- W (D (D n w = Ei 0 = w 0- c+ o m o (D to o w w m = = = -5 = VI C = c+ N (T N c+ 0 N 6 L-5 - O F w -1 C .S J 5 N w n w c+ w n c+ f) C _ = j Z 0 N 0 O j w o n CD � m m N N F 0 C C C f) w N V1 a a'O Z w Q, 0 w = = c+ _ (+ O j (D = w 0 "O c+• w � -5 (D a (D (D 0' a O' = e-F (+ -(• N -a C w ='O j -0 = 1' n• l(D IA w J (D a j 0 H - 0-1 o _ N (D (D 3 C+ r r l< ti_ d J J �� N= C+ 0 C SY� N (D 7 (DIn c+ 'O N w N d•• 7 C w = �- -5 La N N t+ c+ j Z C () O O C c+ a (D O w � O a �• (D (D C) 00 N O ='a - 0 0 -� a S w= _ (0 w -.0 = O == Z (D C= O (D O -1 • _ = c+ O � w •S a -5 Z= -h (D O O0 == -5 OM 0O 2 n 0O a (D c+ w M E -h (O (D 2� C W'O --h = (D :E J •O O 0 (D 0 Ct (O -00 0 0 0 (D w O O O S X i S --•• O 0 (D O (D C O Z= Z= e+ w N w 0 (D = N (D = 0 0 ci+ �. S = Cf d = = C) a tY 0 00 (D C+ _ (p (D = Z - S c+ —c+< f+ N co O (D _ (D O (D � Z -5 W O Di -5 � � (D (D O C "^ (< N C) = 7c' = C 0 'G = S t0 c+ (O c+ .... c w w = rD = SM C+ d = C _ D O W = N C a a -0 C-) C) f7(7O C)m C) UI O (D C O Z -•• -+• (D •S w 0 -(• -• w w M :E < C C w c+ c+-0 < = C c+ c+ (/) = (D = = c< (< w a = (< K a a- 0 � e+t0 Z= O e O O c+ O n « (D O O c+ (D f (< O O $ i N (D -+) -h N N w O C)�� f') O (=D 0 (D �- NO<S N = O• <a C 0 Z =---a O w Z -+••O (D w w = O '-h = w= O _ (D = Z (D -5 (< _ (D Z (D N t0 C e+ J (a t? -h (D O (D E -1 CA V W 0 N S (D r• C+ o w w c� C 0 D N C+ w O N 0 O N (A O 00 Cr C+ O Ch CF 1 iA c+ C+ c+ c+ � W N = � w V w w m C C+ 4T W A c+ (D (D W V fD (D CL C N d V O C d d O v = O N 00 N V _ W w M+ E f+ h• c+ t0 w 0 O w w 0 O l0 k (o 0 (0 ( L0 O t0 D (D W c9• _ (D = co W CO 00 3 (O W (D Cf (D C) A Co CTI W w W w w S (D 1 w e s c w w N-5 N -{ w = (D 0 O ="z ='Z = �•0 C *_ D m m a = o .+ C a = a = (0 In 1--• �• rr (•+ n °c M:E roof < (D < < C+ z CD M = -137- .,. 0 0 . c oD w _ O n Ti C _ 5 d _ C-) C') O w N � ct � (n C1 w a C_ (D m x x• a: Q • EXHIBIT E • AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, THE CITY OF IRVINE, THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, THE ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT, AND THE IRVINE COMPANY FOR RESTORATION AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED -SAN DIEGO CREEK COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN This AGREEMENT entered into this day of 1984 is made by and between the State of California, acting through its Department of Fish and Game, hereinafter referred to as "State "; the City of Newport Beach, hereinafter.referred to as "Newport Beach "; the City of Irvine, hereinafter referred to as "Irvine "; the County of Orange, hereinafter referred to as "County "; the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, hereinafter referred to as "District "; and The Irvine Company. The six entities are hereinafter sometimes jointly referred to as the "Parties ". W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, Newport Bay is located entirely within Newport Beach, and the environmental and scenic values of the Bay are important attributes of the City, providing fisheries, navigation, recreation, birdwatching, and other amenities related to a coastal salt -water wetland environment accessible to a large urban and suburban population; and WHEREAS, State owns and operates the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, hereinafter referred to as "Reserve ", comprising the upstream portion of Upper Newport Bay, and is responsible for master planning, development, operation, and maintenance of the Reserve; and -138- WHEREAS, the State of California has granted ,tidelands within Upper Newport Bay to County and Newport Beach for public uses including navigation and recreation; and WHEREAS, the sedimentation of Newport Bay threatens to impair the navigation, fish and wildlife, recreation, scenic and water quality values of the Bay, to the detriment of Newport Bay and the surrounding community; and WHEREAS, the.jurisdictions of Irvine, Newport Beach and County include portions of the watershed tributary to Newport Bay, and administer ordinances related to control of erosion and sedimentation; and WHEREAS, District and Newport Beach operate boating and recreational facilities in Newport Bay that will be adversely affected by continued sedimentation; and WHEREAS, The Irvine Company owns extensive land holdings in the watershed, including agricultural land and construction sites, and is willing to participate in the construction and maintenance of sediment control facilities in Upper Newport Bay; and WHEREAS, the Parties share a concern for the protection and maintenance of the Bay as a high quality environmental resource; and WHEREAS, the sediment affecting Newport Bay originates from natural open space land as well as from land disturbed by man for agriculture and urban uses; and -139- WHEREAS, Newport Beach and Irvine have previously entered into an agreement with the Southern California Association of Governments to conduct studies to achieve three objectives: 1. To develop an Early Action Plan, hereinafter referred to as "EAP ", for Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek which could be.implemented to begin controlling sediment while the studies continued. 2. To analyze the causes,-nature, and extent of the sedimentation problems adversely affecting Upper Newport Bay. 3. To develop a Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan; and WHEREAS, the EAP proposal was implemented and consists of two in- channel basins excavated in San Diego Creek upstream of Jamboree Road and an excavated basin in Upper Newport Bay below Jamboree Road; and WHEREAS, Newport Beach, Irvine, The Irvine Company, County, Orange County Flood Control District and State have contributed toward the construction of the EAP facilities, County is operating, administering and maintaining the two existing in- channel basins in San Diego Creek constructed as part of the EAP, and State is operating, administering, and maintaining the excavated basin below Jamboree Road in Upper Newport Bay constructed as part of the EAP; and WHEREAS, the analysis of the causes, nature, and extent of the sedimentation problem has been completed and information on the sources and amounts of sediment is now available so that a sedimentation control program can be implemented; and -140- • WHEREAS, the Newport Bay Watershed -San Diego-Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan, hereinafter referred to as "Sedimentation Control Plan ", has been completed; and WHEREAS, the recommended facilities phase of the Sedimentation Control Plan includes building additional in- channel facilities in San Diego Creek and additional sediment control facilities below Jamboree Road; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that a separate agreement will be executed for the construction of additional in- channel facilities in San Diego Creek; and WHEREAS, the other elements of the Sedimentation Control Plan along with additional in- channel facilities and additional sediment control facilities in the Bay below Jamboree Road comprise an economical plan for reducing the further sedimentation of the Bay; and WHEREAS, the Parties recognize the need for a Management Plan for the Reserve which incorporates a Sediment Control Element along with enhancement of the Bay and other features necessary for the Reserve. This Agreement is intended to implement only the sediment control facilities as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereinafter called "Sediment Control Facilities "; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to join together to accomplish the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Sediment Control Facilities; and WHEREAS, the proposed Sediment Control Facilities will restore and enhance fish and wildlife values in the Bay. -141- !9 .1. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and 4 conditions hereinafter stated, the respective Parties hereto do agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions. Capital Outlay: That portion of the budget devoted to the'design; and construction of Sediment Control Facilities. Local Funds: Funds provided by Newport_Beach, Irvine, County, District, and The Irvine Company, as distinguished from State funds, grant funds, and other financial support. Maintenance: Work required to restore the Sediment Control Facilities to their as -built capacity and condition, including periodic removal of sediment and repair of damage. Management Plan: A plan for the Reserve which incorporates but is not limited to the facilities required for sediment management in Upper Newport Bay as shown on Exhibit A. Phased Implementation Program: The scheduling of the construction and maintenance of the Sediment Control Facilities over a sufficient period of time to obtain State funding, grant funding and other outside funding, to the extent possible and to allow the Parties to plan and budget their financial contributions. Sediment Control Facilities: The Sediment Control Facilities contemplated in this Agreement are shown on the attached Exhibit A which by this reference is made a part of the Agreement. The Sediment Control Facilities -142- as shown on Exhibit A include a plan for construction, cost estimates, a Phased Implementation Program, and an operations plan. The Sediment Control Facilities are divided into two units which are defined as Unit I and Unit II on Exhibit A. They may not be changed without the written approval of all Parties. They are deemed to be those facilities that will substantially ti control the fine sediments which will not be trapped by the in- channel facilities in San Diego Creek. Sedimentation Control Plan: The study prepared for Newport Beach, Irvine, and the Southern California Association of Governments entitled, "The Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan ", August 1983 by Boyle Engineering Corporation. r Section 2. Purpose. This Agreement is made for the purpose of constructing the Sediment Control Facilities, and providing a permanent mechanism for operating and maintaining them. Section 3. Management Plan. The State is developing a Management Plan for the Reserve which incorporates a Sediment Element which will include the Sediment Control Facilities attached as Exhibit A. Since State owns the Reserve and is fully responsible for its development and operation, State will be Lead Agency in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Since it is the intent of this Agreement that the other Parties provide financial assistance to State toward the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Sediment Control Facilities, State has consulted with the other Parties in developing the Sediment Control Facilities, and will not adopt or later modify those portions of the -143- Management Plan without the written concurrence of all the other Parties. With termination of this Agreement State will be free to modify the Management Plan without prior approval of the other Parties. State will bear the cost of the development of the Management Plan and will process all environmental documents, obtain all permits, conduct all hearings, and secure all approvals required. The other Parties will assist State in the development and public processing of an acceptable Management Plan and Sediment Element, to the extent resources are available to'the other Parties as they shall determine in their sole discretion. Section 4. Eligible Facilities. Sediment Control Facilities as shown on Exhibit A are eligible for financing of projecfradministration, construction and maintenance under this Agreement. Section 5. Executive Committee. This Agreement will be administered by the Executive Committee provided for in the agreement entitled COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT SAN DIEGO CREEK /UPPER NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED, dated September 30, 1483. It is the intent of the Parties to recognize that the County representative to the Executive Committee shall represent the County and the District. The Executive Committee shall meet as necessary, and in accordance with the objectives of Section 14, but at least once every six months. The Executive Committee shall make recommendations to the Parties toward accomplishment of the objectives of this Agreement; approve budget recommendations to the Parties for capital outlay, operation and maintenance, contract administration; provide communications among the Parties; evaluate policy options; develop strategy; implement decisions; and monitor performance. The Executive Committee may appoint subcommittees as needed. -144- Section 6. Phased Implementation Program. The Phased Implementation Program incorporated in Exhibit A is adopted by the Parties. The Phased Implementation Plan shows the construction of Unit I of the Sediment Control Facilities as first priority work to be initiated within eighteen months from the signing of this Agreement. Unit II of the Sediment Control Facilities is shown as work to be carried out over several years following completion of Unit I. The Executive Committee will review the Phased Implementation Program each year. The Phased Implementation Program shall be adjusted as necessary to reflect progress made in implementation, availability of funding, and the funding requirements for maintenance work; however, in any event it is the Parties' objective that the construction of both units of the Sediment Control Facilities shall be completed within ten years after its original approval. Section 7. Financing for the Construction and Maintenance of Units I and II. (a) Unit I. It is agreed that upon execution of this Agreement each Party will fund in its 1984 -1985 fiscal year budget or otherwise make available in the 1983 -1984 or 1984 -1985 fiscal year its apportionment of the construction of Unit I as set forth in Section 8 and deposit its apportionment by October 1, 1984 with the Party administering the project. (b) Unit II. It is agreed that the budgeting and depositing of funds for the construction of Unit II will take place through the routine annual process described in Section 14. The Parties agree to undertake in good faith to finance their apportionments for the construction of Unit II as set forth in Section 9. The final determination as to the availability of funds shall be in the sole determination of.the Party in question. -145- (c) Maintenance. It is agreed that the budgeting and depositing T of funds for the maintenance of Unit I and Unit II will take place as described in Section 14 and in accordance with the apportionments set forth in Section 10. The final determination as to the availability of funds shall be in the sole determination of the Party in question. Section 8. Distribution of Costs for Construction of Unit I of the Sediment Control Facilities. The Parties agree that the cost of constructing Unit I of the Sediment Control Facilities will be apportioned as follows and that the cost of construction includes all the costs for project documents; administration, engineering, approvals, rights of way, and inspections: ' P_ arty State The Irvine Company Newport Beach District Irvine County Apportionment $2,662,000 623,325 124,310 118,990 11,170 7,992 Total $3,547,787 Should the funds available for Unit I from State within eighteen months of the signing of this Agreement be less than $2,662,000 as shown above, Unit I will be reduced in scope to meet the available funds and the Local Funds contribution for Unit I will be reduced proportionately and a new exhibit to be called Exhibit B showing the new scope, costs, and schedules of Unit I and Unit II, will be developed immediately by State and submitted for :1E M. t A approval by each of the Parties. When approved by all of the Parties, Exhibit B will be attached to this Agreement and replace, for the purposes of this Agreement, Exhibit A. Should portions of the State funds identified in this Section be made available at different times, Unit I may be ' subdivided into more than one project and each of the Parties will pay their share in the same proportion as shown above. Section 9. Distribution of Costs for Construction of Unit II of the Sediment Control Facilities. The Parties agree that the cost of constructing Unit II of the Sediment Control Facilities, to the extent they are not covered by Federal funds, will be apportioned as follows: ,a. Party Percentage State 75.00 The Irvine Company Newport Beach District County Irvine 17.58 3.51 3.36 0.23 0.32 100.00 It is understood that State funds include all State appropriations or grants. Section 10. Distribution of Costs for Maintenance of Unit I and Unit II. The Parties agree that the.cost for maintaining Units I and II, to the extent that they are not covered by Federal funds, will be apportioned as follows: -147- ' Party. Percentage State 75.00 T;,e Irvine Company 17.58 Newport Beach 3.51 Oi str•'ctr•, 3.36 County .. 0.23 Irvine , : 0.32 100.00 Section 11. Adjustment of Apportionments. The percentages set forth in gc Jon 9 and Section 10 may be adjusted by unanimous vote of the Parties. D,ny ,Party requesting an adjustment must submiteA nformation supportinc; thg need to reapportion the distribution of costs set forth in Serfic,� S an:d Section 10 based on new information being provided or change og' tltP*-L• • It is agreed that adjustments in the type and extent of land use and jcri,dictional boundary changes will be among the bases for the adjustmenr ofepercentages in Section 9 and Section 10. Section 12. Reimbursement of Party's Advances. An advance contri'rut..anrapf $8,680.26 has been made by The Irvine Company to facilitate h- •Mr7•: :cxperts to assist the State in developing Exhibit A. These funds are to be cre : ?ite4 to The Irvine Company's share of the first project to be built. Si•ou.14 additional advances be proposed by any Party and approved by the Execu'.ive:;Committee they will be credited to the contributing Party's . eontri'.t pntfor the next project. Section 13. Contract Administration. The following applies to co:,cr•z: C ;-dmis.istration for construction or operation and maintenance of projects: MM ,E (a) The Executive Committee will designate one of the public agency Parties to administer the project or projects approved. Administering a project includes arranging for the preparation of project documents including but not limited to soils analyses, surveys, plans, specifications, bid documents, approvals, rights of way, development of agreements between the Parties as required, collecting and disbursing funds and other administrative functions normally associated with public works projects. The cost of project documents is eligible for financing under this agreement provided that such costs are in the approved Executive Committee budget. All Parties will be consulted in the development of project documents. When,ppids have been opened, if the lowest responsible bids for the projects exceed the amount budgeted, the public agency Party administering the projects will not award contracts without deposit of the necessary additional local funds by each Party in proportion to its percentage. Should all such deposits not materialize the administering public agency Party may with the approval of the Executive Committee proceed with a contract at a reduced level, may arrange for other Parties to voluntarily contribute the deficiency, or may terminate the project. (b) Prior to advertising any contract for construction or maintenance of Sediment Control Facilities, the public agency Party administering the project will enter into agreements as required and collect the contributions from the other Parties. State will accomplish the advance of its share through a joint powers agreement with the public agency Party administering the project. State procedures prevent such a transfer of funds to private parties. (c) Upon completion and acceptance of each contract the public agency Party administering the contract will render a final accounting. If -149- the cost is less than the amount on deposit, the Party will issue a refund to the other Parties on a pro rata basis in relation to their original contribution. (d) The public agency Party administering the project will maintain complete and accurate records for the term of the project and three years thereafter and make them available to any of the other Parties for audit. The Party's necessary and reasonable administrative costs for administration of the project shall be reimbursable under this Agreement and shall be budgeted as part of the project costs. Section 14. Budgeting. The following provides the objectives for the annual budgeting for construction of Unit II and operation and /or maintenance: By March 1, or as soon thereafter as possible, State will identify a project or projects to be implemented (capital outlay or operation and maintenance) in the fiscal year commencing approximately sixteen (16) months later and for the year thereafter based upon the Phased Implementation Program. State will present an analysis of funding requirements to the Executive Committee including the estimated cost of the proposed projects for both years, estimated grant funding, estimated funding to be provided by the Parties, and estimated contributions of the Parties. By April 1, or as soon thereafter as possible, State will request a budget meeting of the Executive Committee and present a budget recommendation. Adoption of the budget will require the unanimous approval of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will recommend the budget to the Parties and designate a Party(ies) to administer the project(s) for both fiscal years. -150- By August 1, upon approval of the budget by the Executive Committee, State will present a statement to each Party indicating the Party's contribution toward funding the project budget for the following fiscal year. By October 1 of the fiscal year in which construction is proposed, the Party administering the project will collect from each Party its share of the cost of the project. Payment of any Party to the Party administering any project shall be subject to the provisions of Section 7. Section 15. State, Grant and Other Financial Support. State will be the Lead Agency Me State, grant and other financial support applications. The other Parties will support the lead agency's efforts in preparing applications and in encouraging favorable consideration of the applications by funding agencies at their own expense. It is contemplated by the Parties that substantial financial assistance in the construction, operation, and maintenance of approved Sediment Control Facilities will be forthcoming. Section 16. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon approval and execution of this document by each and every Party and shall continue for so long as is necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement but not to exceed ten years from date signed. It may be extended beyond ten years upon written unanimous approval of the Parties. Section 17. Termination and Amendment. (a) This Agreement may be terminated or amended at any time by the unanimous consent of the Parties, or as.otherwise provided herein, -151 -� except that no termination or amendment may be made which is contrary to any contract and /or grant agreement entered into by Party(ies) for the purposes approved by the Executive Committee or with any other Department or branch of the State or with the United States of America or any other outside source of funds for the purpose of implementing this Agreement. (b) Subject to Section 17(a), the failure of the Executive Committee to adopt a budget as provided in Section 14 shall terminate this Agreement, unless the Executive Committee has concluded that no funds are needed in the ensuing Fiscal Year for capital outlay, operation and maintenance, and Administrative Costs. (c) This - Agreement may be suspended for one or more years by Unanimous vote of the Executive Committee should any Party not be able to contribute its share of the funds and if the other Parties do not wish to assume the unmet contribution. At the time any suspension is agreed to, the length of time of the suspension will also be agreed to and the Executive Committee shall be responsible for reinitiating its functions as described herein following the suspension period. Section 18. Additional Parties. Additional entities may become parties to this Agreement with the unanimous consent of the Parties. Section 19. Liability. It is mutually understood and agreed that merely by virtue of entering this Agreement each Party neither relinquishes liability for its own actions nor assumes liability for the actions of the other Parties. It is the intent of the Parties that the liability, if any, of each Party shall remain the same while this Agreement is in force as it would be without the Agreement. This Agreement represents -152- f . a cooperative effort to accomplish the construction of an important public project. It is based upon compromise taking into account the benefits to and interests and responsibilities of the Parties. Neither the Agreement itself, nor.any provision herein, shall constitute an admission or be used by any person as evidence of liability of any kind against any of the Parties. The public agency Parties designated to administer the projects will require each and every contractor involved with the project to obtain and to maintain throughout the term of their contract, the following insurance policies: 1. Comprehensive General' Liability including Completed Operations, Comprehensive Automobile Liability, and Contractual Liability $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit 2. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Statutory Limit Each insurance policy required by the contract shall contain the following three clauses: 1. "This insurance shall not be cancelled, limited in scope of coverage or non - renewed until after thirty (30) days written notice has been given to all Parties." . 2. "It is agreed that any insurance maintained by the Parties will apply in excess of, and not contribute with, insurance provided by this policy." -153- 3. "As respects operation of the named insured performed on behalf of the Parties, the following are added as insureds: State of California Department of Fish and Game, County of Orange, Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, City of Newport Beach, City of Irvine, and The Irvine Company." o The Party administering shall have the contractor agree to deposit with them, at or before the effective date of the contract, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy the insurance provisions, and to keep such insurance and certificates therefor on deposit with Party during the entire term of the contract. ate= Section 20. Availability of Funds. The obligation of each Party is subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this purpose, and nothing herein shall be construed as obligating the Parties to expend or as involving the Parties in any contract or other obligation for the future payment of money in excess of appropriations authorized by law. Section 21. National Labor Relations Board Certification. In signing this agreement, each Party certifies under penalty of perjury that no, or that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court ` by a Federal court has been issued against that Party within the immediately preceding two -year period because of the Party's failure to comply with an order of a Federal court which orders the Party to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Section 22. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Parties shall not unlawfully discriminate against any -154- employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, age (over 40) or sex. The Parties shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination. The Parties shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, Section 12900 et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Administrative Code, Title 2, Section 7285.0 et seq.). The applicable regulations•Df the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code, Section 12990, set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Administrative Code are incorporated into this Agreement_. by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. The Parties shall give written notice of their obligations under this section to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. The Parties designated to administer the projects shall include the non - discrimination and compliance provisions of this section in all contracts to perform work related to the project. -155- • I , i �• I' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this ' Agreement the day and year first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Dated: .1984 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Dated: r/_1/ ,1984 ATTEST: ;,.City Clerk CITY OF IRVINE Dated:h, l�_ ,1984 ATTEST: City C � i it By S APPROVED AS TO FOR,: it Attorney of ewport Beach By �r mayor -156 COUNTY OF ORANGE and ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT Dated: ,1984 By airman of e Board of upervisors SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD .,ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA OU By /! / t,� Voris Hilbert, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California THE IRVINE COMPANY .►. Dated: ,1984 By APPROVED AS TO FORM: 'oaf By Attorney fo a Irvine Com any Senior Vice President -157- • EN=IT F i. TL Rq�JOI tarly /-\\cLion InLe:rim. IGLn O ge Ile, ��L e en r r a L: L i ADDENDUM 0 TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse 681012960 EARLY ACTION AND INTERIM PLAN SAN DIEGO CREEK COMPREHENSIVE STORM WATER SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN Addressing A COOPERATIVE- PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH A SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT AND UPPER NEWPORT BAY RESTORATION PROGRAM, UNIT I Prepared for: Iris. Pat Temple, Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 640 -2197 Prepared by: Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 26141 Nzrguerite Parkway, Suite C Mission Viejo, California 92692 (714) 643 -1622 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach -159- N S 0 c r T d J d rNj a d rD - m y a F m n� O J N n 0 rD m T d n N w CD m O M n 0 N ct Vf M N• rD m z 0 o. N 1 --4 + N 3 rD SO O CL n rD C O rD rD Z aO o M n w 3 coca O O c -5 n o_ D n c CD rf- rD :3 1 3 m m 3 S 7 c+ v.rD N d C Z 7 5 O' m o_ rD O M (D C S CL m m w n nmr+o j7 rD Z e+ rl o_ O rD o z d o rD -S -y CL m -•• d w O < < 0 d CD o rD J war+ n m n ro c m m C •5 C 0 eF S O O m 0 d 7 C 4 I d. I rt N n -r d d V �•o = =n-% Lo 3 m O.SO O m E m CD M ^ d m O O< n rr Z G m ri C �c n a CL J n h c+O : d m M i O N M O_ F rr d w in 0 S n d d m a � ro O• m O rD T Z O m S J. O ei- m O rt . 0, d - O < (D y p m V CL n S O to d S O w < G d r-F m N T N O Q 0 w m m O G m m c n O 0 • o ra I rD O r 0 w ' 3 d N rt rt O n w c+ —' N rr C m 0 C) w s+ rD -�• � o c 3 �rD i --5 .. S m < m D d m rDmn o n i n N m S nC w C (D Z Zm rD —.0 O rF ry c+ S lC rD O m 0 ra N 2J . rD i m S r • J. rD m a . -D rD • z • • 1 O CL • .r fA b4 b`T i r o N r 3 W O O 0 0 O + C d d C n O + M ' ' w rD w rD o r` ti r( N Z m S '� rD S 0 O r+ O < 7 d N 0 S N N rt C:) o m r rD rr '< m rr n u i Qo N � Z e+ m c m N w o m rr w Z rD a ll N Z J =r m a w 3 m rD c+ ^3c-0O t-+ O CL -0 e+ �cLo -aw 3 rD O e+ r+ < m m nn ^s -O vJ•O N N C(D rF rD n O m tT fi r 0 CL �t C-) m v 10 rD •5 W N •D m rt O y N C O c a an 0 r70 O O O N e+ w O d G N - (D m O O N w -i 7c wD ro-a z m m O CD C) on Do ap a: r rn n N C � N m c � p C) Z on O 1 w n CD M .O c m N m CD A m r� m 3 Xn = C Ln N m X N Z O m m x M M z 0 c m N o m r rr o m rr N rD Z N m c n B o rr Z rD a ll m N Y V A L Y C O V a N N Y � N N (.J j N N O Y m S- o S m @ Y d � J C Y O c E v E CL Q U L LLf N O a v > E c c � � z N r L d d O Y N Z V N L •O O L O .O O Y L N O r.. 4- �- L 'U Ll 6 ix N d O) O d C O V O i d d N L f-' Y V v •n 0 i d w 0 Y N O U ti Y c H t'. v W L C� Q _N e t tp V i Y # O Y Y N C U O 4 N O O 61 C > N C O r N U N r U f O O � Z N Y V A L Y C O V a N N Y � N N (.J j N N O Y m S- o S m @ Y d � J C Y O c E v E CL Q U L LLf N O a v > E c c � � z N r L d d O Y N Z V N L •O O L O .O O Y L N O r.. 4- �- L 'U Ll 6 ix N d O) O d C O V O i d d N L f-' Y V v •n 0 i d w 0 Y N O U ti Y c H t'. v W L C� Q _N e t tp V i Y # O • EXHIBIT 3 LIST OF ASSURA CES The applicant hereby assures and certifies that it will cu:ply with Conserv:n y regulations, policies, guidelines and require -nts as they relate to the acczq - tance and use of Conservancy funds for this project. Also, the applicant qi a s assurance and certifies with respect to the grant that: 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance and construct the proposed facilities; that where .appropriate, a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filin7 of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therzin, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the offical representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such addi- tional information as may be required. 2. It will have sufficient funds available to meet its own share of the cost for projects. `. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ faYs will be available — ppeje& ,T ee— mi=R -- to _-_ -We o=dorti atla .,d } of the G- 'lity f � assune "P o a" y—I for the E / '� gtPHe ed K &lJ� 3. It holds sufficient title or interest in the property to enable it to undertake lawful development and construction of the project. In the case where the Grantee is acquiring an interest in the property as a part of the project develo,pmant such title documentation shall be reviewed by the Executive Officer of the Conservancy. 4. It will not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in the site and facilities except as permitted by the Conservancy. 5. It will give the Conservancy,.through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. 6. It will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time after receipt of notificaiton from the Conservancy that funds have been approved and that the project will be carried to completion with reasonable diligence. 7. It will, where appropriate, comply with the requirements of the State's Braithwaite Act (Chapter 1574, Statutes of 1971 and related statutes), which provides for fair and equitable treatment of displaced persons. B. It will where appropriate, comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 9. It will comply with all requirements.imposed by the Conservancy concerning special provisions of law, and program requirements. • EXHIBIT 4 INDENN IFICATION AND STANDARD PROVISIONS 1. The Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the State, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, laborers and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials or supplies in connection with the performance of this contract, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the Grantee in the performance of this contract. 2. The Grantee. and the agents_..and, employees—o-f Grantea.,_.in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of the State of California. 3. The State may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of the payment of any consideration to Grantee should Grantee fail to perform the covenants herein contained at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such termination the State may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the State. The cost to the State shall be deducted from any sum due the Grantee under this Agreement, and the balance, if any, shall be paid the Grantee upon demand. 4. Without the written consent of the State, this Agreement is not assignable by Grantee either in whole or in part. 5. Time is the essence of this Agreement, 6. No alteration or variation of the terms of this contract shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein, shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 7. The consideration to be paid Grantee, as provided herein, shall be in compensation for all of Grantee's expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel and per diem, unless otherwise expressly so provided. EXHIBIT 5 NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSE (ocr - 2) 1. During the performance of this contract, the recipient, contractor and its subcontractors shall not deny the contract's benefits to any person on the basis of religion, color, ethnic group identification, sex, age, physical or mental disability, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age or sex, Contractor shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination, 2. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, Section 12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (California Administrative Code, Title 2, Section 7285,0 et sm ), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Government Code, Sections 11135- 11139.5) and the regulations or stand- ards adopted by the awarding State agency to implement such article. 3. Recipient, contractor and its subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement, 4. The contractor shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under the contract, STD. 176 (=W 3.881 RESOLUTION NO. - 1 113 I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR GRANT FUNDS BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE UNIT I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AND RESTORATION PROJECT WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach a certain Agreement which provides for the transfer of $362,000 from the State of California Coastal Conservancy to the City of Newport Beach in connection with construction of the Unit I Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of said Agreement and accepts the grant funds, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that said Agreement above described is approved, and the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the same on behalf of the City of Newport Beach. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: City Clerk r 1984. • BY THE Cili CUUNCIA November 13, 1984 CITY OF NEWPORT SEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2(g) NOV 13 1981 • T0: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: UNIT I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AN' RESTORATION PROJECT -- AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the subject agreement, accepting the grant funds and agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of the subject agreement. DISCUSSION: On April 9, 1984 the City Council authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the implementation agreement for the in -bay facilities. Since that time, the City, acting as the lead agency, has pursued preparation of the plans and specifications, permits and funding for the Unit I Project. This agreement provides for a portion of the funding for the Unit I Project • from the State of California Coastal Conservancy. Principal terms of the agreement are as follows: 1. Description of Unit I Project: a. Removal of central island from Early Action Plan basin in bay. b. Deepen Early Action Plan basins. c. Expand Early Action Plan basins. d. Widen and deepen subtidal channel from outlet of basin to main dike. 2. St a. b. •C. d. ate Coastal Conservancy shall: Grant to City a sum not to exceed $362,000. Review and approve plans and project budget Name authorized representative. Review and approve project final report. 3. City shall: a. Collect deposits from the parties to the in -bay agreement. b. Assemble bid documents to permit accounting for funds ex- pended on project. ( -3X) Page 2 SUBJECT: UNIT I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AND RESTORATION PROJECT -- AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY November 13, 1984 • c. Advertise for bids. • d. Provide contract administration, design engineering and construction engineering for project. e. Furnish State final cost estimate for project. f. Erect sign at project crediting Coastal Conservancy for funding assistance. g. Prepare final project report. h. Obtain all permits required for project. 4. It is mutually agreed that: a. Terms of agreement: (1) November 30, 1995. (2) Unit I completion date November 30, 1986. b. City will use its best efforts to assure that project is maintained. c. Records and documents shall be maintained for three years following completion of construction. d. This agreement may be amended by mutual consent of both parties. The agreement has been approved by the Coastal Conservancy. Funding for the City's portion of the project ($124,500) has been provided in the 1984- 85 Capital Project Budget. Benjamin B. Nolan • Public Works Director JW:jw