Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Harbor Area Management Plan AgreementCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 9 May 8, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Robert Stein 949 - 644 -3322 or rstein @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN -APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WESTON SOLUTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Weston Solutions (Weston), of Carlsbad, California, for preparation of a Harbor Area Management Plan (RAMP) at a not to exceed price of $345,800 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. 2. Approve a Budget Amendment transferring $48,800 from Account No. 7231 - 05100890 (ASBS- Implementation) to Account No. 7231- C0310929. DISCUSSION: The City of Newport Beach received a grant from the State of California's Department of Water Resources to prepare an Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan ( IRWMP) for the Newport Bay Watershed. The grant became available under the provisions of Proposition 50 which was approved by voters in November, 2002. The broad goal of the plan is to identify and organize all of the ongoing studies and programs, show the interrelationships of the studies, identify information gaps, and weave all of this information into a single consensus plan that provides the essential framework and strategic elements to prioritize and address watershed challenges such as water supply, flood hazard, channel erosion issues, water quality challenges, habitat restoration options, community access and meaningful watershed education programs. An important part of the IRWMP is the preparation of a comprehensive plan, also known as the Harbor Area Management Plan (RAMP), to evaluate and integrate many pressing issues the City faces in Newport Harbor as well as in Upper Newport Bay. Harbor Area Management Plan — Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Weston Solullons May B, 2007 Page 2 The following list of tasks is taken verbatim from the Request for Proposals: 1. Coordinate with Department of Fish and Game in its development of a preliminary habitat management plan for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. 2. Evaluate Upper Newport Bay sediment control measures and provide an assessment of future sediment control needs. 3. Review existing hydrodynamic modeling and recommend additional modeling that could assist in addressing sediment and water quality impacts. 4. Determine eelgrass capacity that addresses environmental and public use issues. 5. Recommend further measures for dealing with contaminated sediment and sediment toxicity issues. 6. Determine dredging requirements for the Upper and Lower Bays based on priority areas and potential funding requirements. 7. Evaluate the current harbor channel /pierhead lines and make recommendations for any changes. 8. Recommend additional water quality best management practices for Lower and Upper Bay. 9. Provide input for amending an upcoming version of Regional General Permit #54 (a harbor -wide maintenance dredging permit). 10. Evaluate, recommend, and prioritize in bay /harbor beach replenishment projects. 11. Develop a priority list of projects that would qualify for state bond or federal funding. 12. Prepare the Harbor Area Management Plan. Over a dozen firms were invited to submit proposals to provide the above services. Because of the wide scope of services requested, staff expected that the consultants would form teams to pool their expertise. Three proposals were received from the following teams. (The consultant listed first is the team lead.) Noble Consultants, Anchor Environmental, Chambers Group, Coastal Resources Management (CRM) Sea Engineering, Merkel and Associates, Ben Gerwick, ABA Consultants Weston Solutions, Tom Johnson, Everest International Consultants, CRM The proposals were independently reviewed to evaluate each firm's qualifications, past experience on similar projects, and project approach before ranking Weston Solutions (Weston) the highest. Weston has competently and professionally completed work on similar complex bay and coastal projects for other local agencies in Southern California. Weston is currently completing the preparation of the Integrated Watershed Management Plan for Newport Coast. Upon selection, staff met with Weston to review the scope of work, review the projected level of effort and discuss alternatives and options. One important goal of this planning effort for the Harbor and Bay is to assist the City in identifying and defining projects that Harbor Area Management Plan — Approval of Professional services Agreement with Weston solutions May S, 2007 Page 3 could be eligible for grant funding. There are at least three current grant funding opportunities (Proposition 50, Proposition 84, and the U.S. Department of the Interior Coastal Impact Assistance Program) that the City could apply for funding this fall for coastal and bay water quality related assessment studies and projects. With this in mind, additional tasks have been added to the scope of work to include preparing grant applications and assisting the City with marketing and outreach tasks to promote the program. After negotiating with Weston, a not to exceed fee of $345,800 was agreed upon to provide the necessary scope of services. The City's project manager for the planning effort on this project will be Tom Rossmiller of Harbor Resources and Bob Stein of Public Works will provide administrative and technical assistance. Environmental Review: The required effort for preparing the Harbor Area Management Plan does not require an environmental review. Funding Availability: Upon approval of the recommended Budget Amendment, sufficient funds are available in the following accounts for the project: Account Description Environmental Contributions Tide and Submerged Lands Prepared b Robert 9teir?,7f.E. Principal Civil Engineer Attachment: Professional Services Ag Account Number Amount 7255- CO310929 $297,000 7231- CO310929 48,80 Total: $345,800 fn G. Badum Works Director PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WESTON SOLUTIONS FOR HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this day of 2007, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "City"), and WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. a Pennsylvania Corporation, whose address is 2433 Impala Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92010 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is. now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City is wishes to prepare a comprehensive plan to tackle many pressing issues in Newport Harbor as well as in Upper Newport Bay. C. City desires to engage Consultant to evaluate these issues and prepare a Harbor Area Management Plan ( "Project"). D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement. E. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project shall be Dr. David Pohl. F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 31st day of December, 2008, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and Consultant shall perform the services in accordance with the schedule included in Exhibit B. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may result in termination of this Agreement by City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control. 3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Three Hundred Forty -Five Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars and no /100 ($345,800.00) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.1 The City shall make progress payments monthly as the Project work proceeds based on the percentage of Project work completed. The Consultant shall furnish a summary breakdown of the Scope of Services and budget for the Project in a format acceptable to the City, showing the amount included therein for each principal category or task of the Project work, in such detail as reasonably requested, to provide a basis for determining progress payments. All requests for payment shall show the percentage of work completed for each task of the Scope of Services, the position and hours of each person who performed work under that task, a brief description of the services performed under each task, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval by City staff of a request for payment. 4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with this Agreement. B. Approved reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and /or other costs and /or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B. 5. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Dr. David Pohl to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 3 6. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. Robert Stein, P.E. shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES. In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable: A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated. 8. STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. 8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or _obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any and all licenses, permits, insurance and other approvals that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of .Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement. 8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City rd to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies. 9. HOLD HARMLESS To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City; its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any work negligently performed or services provided under this Agreement (including, without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials and /or design defects [if the design originated with Consultant]) or Consultant's presence or activities conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them). Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services. 5 11. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 12. CITY POLICY Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 13. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and /or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 14. INSURANCE Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work. Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. A. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance or issuance of any permit. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City's at all times during the term of this Agreement. B. Signature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its behalf shall sign certification of all required policies. C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. 6 D. Coverage Requirements. i. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, .Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non- payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Consultant for City. ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for.all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language: i. The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. 7 ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self- insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided hereunder. iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company. iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non - payment of premium) written notice has been received by City. F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. 15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint- venture or syndicate. or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty -five percent (25 %) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership orjoint- venture. P 16. SUBCONTRACTING City and Consultant agree that subconsultants may be used to complete the work outlined in the Scope of Services. The subconsultants authorized by City to perform work on this Project are identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts and omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. Except as specifically authorized herein, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. 18. COMPUTER DELIVERABLES CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will E provide AutoCAD file of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and Excel. 19. CONFIDENTIALITY All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information. 20. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his/her judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions,. Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. 21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. 22. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three. (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. 23. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his/her designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive 10 interest on any withheld sums at the rate of return that City earned on its investments during the time period, from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 24. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and /or restoration expense shall be bome by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement. 25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the Project. 26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 27. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms .of this Agreement shall be given in writing, to City by Consultant and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first -class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: Robert Stein Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 3300 New_ port Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949 - 644 -3322 Fax: 949 -644 -3308 11 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Dr. David Pohl Weston Solutions 2433 Impala Drive Carlsbad, CA 92010 Phone: 760 - 931 -8081 Fax: 760 - 931 -1580 28. TERMINATION In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting parry fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the non - defaulting parry may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by giving seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for services satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the, effective date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form. 29. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted. In addition, all work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City, county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 30. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 12 31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and -all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. 32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 33. INTERPRETATION The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 34. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 35.._ SEVERABILITY If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 36. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange. 37. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first. written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: In LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal Corporation By: Mayor -for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: By: (Corporate Officer) Title: Print Name: By: (Financial Officer) Title: Print Name: Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates F: \Users\PBW\Shared\Agreements\FY w- OnWeston - HAMP.doc 14 ® Weston Solutions, Inc. 2433 Impala Drive Corkin California 92006 760-931 -8081 • Fax 760 -931 -1580 www.westonsolutions.com April 30, 2007 Robert Stein, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Harbor Area Management Plan Acceptance of Fee and Scope Dear Mr. Stein: Weston Solutions Inc. ( Weston) agrees. to complete the scope of work as detailed in our proposal under each of the tasks for the Harbor Area Management Plan for the not to exceed fee of $345,800. The tasks include providing the needed services to the City of Newport Beach for preparation of applicable grant application under Proposition 50, Proposition 84 and the U.S. Department of Interior Coastal Impact Assistance Program. In addition, the Weston Team will assist the City in outreach and marketing efforts for your program. Please call me at 760 - 795 -6918 or 760 - 497 -3318 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Weston Solutions, Inc. David H. Pohl, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Project Manager cc: A. Ventures an employee -owned company EXHIBIT A 3. Intended Approach The Scope of Work includes the development of plans and reports that will be integrated into the Harbor Area Management Plan (HA VIP). The Project Team proposed for the development of these plans and HAMP has the specific expertise and local working knowledge to develop the HAMP that will be the foundation for the City to move forward with key sediment management, water quality, restoration and public use projects critical in meeting several goals including: • Meeting regulatory requirements as specified in the current and anticipated municipal permits, sediment management permits, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and other regulatory programs for Newport Bay • Working toward a sustainable estuary ecosystem integrated with sustainable watershed and coastal area systems • Maintain the beneficial uses of the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and economic value of the Bay Specifically, the Project Team provides you with the following key areas of expertise and local knowledge: • Solid Experience in developing sediment and water quality -based management plans • Technical team is in the forefront of contaminated sediment assessment, management and beneficial use • Strong existing relationships with USAGE, CDFG, SWCRB, RWQCB, and local stakeholder groups • Leader in regional sediment and water quality numerical modeling including within Newport Bay • National engineering and scientific expertise in dredge material management • Success in developing winning grant applications for multi -use embayment in Southern California • The Team that can best integrate the plans prepared under this scope with ongoing activities in the watershed, bay and coastal areas into a strategic plan that serves as aElm foundation for moving forward and t, e obtaining grant funding �� f, With this expertise and knowledge, our team has a solid understanding of the Scope. We understand that the scope should be based on previous studies, reports, data and agency policies from which we will develop our recommendations. Where data gaps are identified, the Project Team will recommend appropriate studies to best address these needs, and define the policy, protective measure or implementation activities that are linked to the completion of these studies. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 0 Our Project Team understands that this project is an integral part of the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Integrated Watershed Management Plan grant. The purpose of the grant is to identify and organize all of the ongoing studies and programs, show the interrelationships of the studies, identify information gaps, and weave all of this information into a single consensus plan and in an understandable format. It is understood that the upper part of the San Diego Creek watershed is being addressed separately; however, the Project Team for the HAMP will need to collaborate and coordinate with this other team to assure consistency in the prioritization process for identified projects and the projects implementation timelines and goals. This integration of the two plans will be important in setting the groundwork for the next round of implementation grants. The HAW will therefore focus on the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and the integration of the various components and issues of these two water bodies and identify the key goals and the activities to meet these goals. The HAMP will provide a regional management guidance to best integrate the common goals of the various watershed plans underway or planned. Task t — California Department of Fish and Game (DEF) Preliminary Management Plan DFG has developed a Preliminary Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. This document is of primary importance in guiding the DFG, the City of Newport Beach, and other stakeholders in the long -term management of one of the most important ecological habitats in southern California. The Task Leaders background and knowledge of Upper Newport Bay is key to completing this plan. Mr. Rick Ware, Senior Marine Biologist with Coastal Resources Management, Inc. will be the principal investigator for this task. He is well qualified to lead this task, with many years working directly with the Department's Resource Managers for Upper Newport Bay. He has extensive experience in providing consultation and guidance in restoration issues of Upper Newport Bay, including project manager /principal investigator for late 1970s-early 1980s biological studies conducted for the hvine Ranch Water Management District, conducting extensive Salt Marsh Bird's Beak studies of the De Anza (Bayside) marsh peninsula in 1984, and preparing water quality and biology sections of the ACOE Upper Newport Bay Reconnaissance Study in 1992 -1993 and identifying restoration areas for future ACOE - funded dredging projects (which are being implemented during the current Upper Bay Restoration Project). He prepared the Shellmaker Island Mitigation Plan for the Castaways Marina Project on Upper Shellmaker Island (1993), assisted the DFG and the County of Orange in the restoration of Lower Shellmaker Island Marsh (1994), and served as the City of Newport Beach's biological consultant for the Upper Newport Bay Dredging Project Technical Advisory Committee 1998- 2000). He was also responsible for conducting biological studies and preparing the biological sections of the Back Bay Science Center Negative Declaration and Demonstration Marsh Restoration Plan on Shellmaker Island between 2002 -2005, overseeing the construction of the Back Bay Science Center Demonstration Salt marsh, and conducting pre- and -post construction marsh habitat monitoring (including salt marsh bird's beak) and conducting marsh transplants for the project (2006 - 2007). Mr. Ware was the principal investigator for the benthic biological and fishery sections of the Big Canyon Restoration Project Constraints Study (2003). He prepared the biological addendum for the City's Local Coastal Plan (2002 - 2003), served as a member of the Restoration Team for the Phase 11 Studies in Big Canyon (2006 - 2007), and conducted extensive eelgrass habitat mapping and reconnaissance surveys throughout the Upper Newport Bay between the San Diego Creek and the PCH Bridge. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 0 In addition, Mr. Ware has an extensive knowledge of gray and published scientific literature for Upper Newport Bay and a working knowledge of the Upper Bay ecosystem that will be of substantial value when reviewing the Management Plan and making recommendations for additional studies necessary for filling in any Management Plan data gaps. To this end, Mr. Ware will be directly responsible for overseeing and conducting the specific tasks identified for the Upper Newport Bay Management Plan. These include: a. Attending a meeting with DFG and City staff to review the Plan and discuss the goals of the Plan. b. As directed by DFG and the City, Mr. Ware will propose addenda to the Plan including a review of work performed in Upper Newport Bay and make recommendations for additional biological assessments, habitat restoration and public usage to meet the future needs of DFG and the City. c. Based upon the results of Mr. Ware's review of the documents and discussions with the Department and the City of Newport Beach staff, Mr. Ware will submit the addenda concepts to DFG and City for review and comment. Where appropriate, Mr. Ware will seek the advice of qualified bay researchers and scientists to insure that the recommendations are reasonable and attainable based upon the goals of the DFG and the City for the long- tenn.management of the Upper Bay. Upon a thorough review of the document by the DFG and the City, Mr. Ware will revise and submit a final addenda concept report. d. Mr. Ware will attend a stakeholder meeting and present addenda concepts to the final Management Plan. We understand that the level of effort will be in the range of 120 -150 hours. Additional revisions to the Preliminary Management Plan may be negotiated as an extra. Coordination and negotiation to reach a consensus on the California Department of Fish and Game habitat and conservation goals is critical to the success of the HAMP. The HAM? needs to reflect the consensus goals of the stakeholders to ensure the projects address these goals and are fully supported in the grant application. WESTON understands the importance of moving the process forward with a defined set of goals with the California Department of Fish and Game who owns and manages most of the Upper Newport Bay as a State Ecological Reserve. The Project Team will utilize our experience and working relationship with DFG in developing a strategy for how the City can progress on the Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. One possible approach for achieving consensus that is being used on a restoration project managed by DEG is the use of an ecosystem focus rather than specific species. WESTON is currently working on the consultant team for the Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project which is undergoing development of conceptual alternatives and reaching consensus with the stakeholders that include DFG and the California Coastal Conservancy which owns the property. Success in moving forward on the alternatives with the stakeholders is based on an ecosystem focus rather than on specific species. By focusing the restoration on the development of a sustainable ecosystem consisting of multiple habitats that can support long -term diverse biological communities, the alternative development has been able to progress forward by presenting a defined range of potential habitats and restoration efforts, and away from a possible contentious effort on selecting alternatives based on specific species. By working toward a common goal of sustainable diverse biological communities, supporting goals such as protecting endangered species are also met. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 10 Task 2 — Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan This task includes the assessment and development of recommendations for the management of sediment inflows and sediment disposal frequencies for the Upper Newport Bay sediment basins. It is understood that the current Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project will be completed within 2 years at which time the City will be responsible for the maintenance of sediment basins. The Project Team will review any interim documents for the Ecosystem Restoration Projects to assess the maintenance needs with regard to sediment removal. Hydrodynamic (RMA2) and sediment transport (RMAl l) models have been developed for the Upper Newport Bay in support of the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The models have been calibrated and a methodology has been developed to use the models for long -term simulation of sediment transport. As part of the Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, the models have been applied to simulate long -term (50 years) sediment r transport at Upper Newport Bay for the future without project condition, as well as to simulate 15- years into the future for six ecosystem restoration¢ alternatives. The model, results provide the change in sedimentation (erosion or deposition) at Upper Newport Bay in 5 -year intervals. The WESTON Team will review these model simulation results to evaluate potential sedimentation issues to develop a Sediment Control Plan with respect to maintenance needs and disposal frequencies in the future. The Project Team will also identify additional sediment controls that could be implemented which would minimize the cost for maintaining the inbay sediment basins. This assessment would include the review of current source controls and pollution prevention measures in the watershed to address sedimentation. Increased effort in these measures may reduce the frequency of sediment removal in the basins. Information on the effectiveness of the current SUSMP and City Codes on reducing sediment loads will also be assessed and recommendation made on modifications as appropriate. Integration of the sediment controls in planned watershed projects will also be evaluated to further reduce sediment loads and consolidate maintenance activities and facilities by addressing multiple constituents of concern. The recormendations on the sediment inflow, maintenance of the inbay basins and the implementation of additional sediment control measures will be summarized in the draft Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan. Comments received by the City on the draft will be incorporated into the final plan. Task 3 — Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements WESTON team member Everest has extensive experience in the development and application of hydrodynamic and water quality models specifically for Newport Bay. In the last five years, Everest has developed and applied hydrodynamic and water quality models to evaluate tidal circulation and water quality issues at Newport Dunes Lagoon and Newport Island Channels, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed dry weather storm drain diversion program for the City. Through these studies, Everest has developed a calibrated hydrodynamic model for the entire Newport Bay and Harbor. As part of the ASBS Cross - Contamination study, Everest is currently using hydrodynamic and water quality models to identify potential sources and impacts of pollutant discharges from the watershed and harbor to the three ASBS areas along the Newport Coast. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 11 Everest will utilize this local hands -on experience in identifying the most compatible and efficient models that can address water quality issues, as well as predicting sediment depositions throughout Upper and Lower Newport Bay. To achieve this, Everest will review other prior numerical modeling studies for Newport Bay and the hydrodynamic and water quality data collected to support these modeling efforts. Each modeling study will be reviewed for items such as focus area, model used (e.g., RMA2 or SED213), model type (e.g., 2D or 3D hydrodynamic model), simulated constituents (e.g., salinity, sediment, bacteria or other constituents), hydrodynamic data used, and water quality data used. Prior numerical studies that will be reviewed include the hydrodynamic and sediment transport model studies conducted for the USACE Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study. In addition to the above mentioned models for Newport Bay, other hydrodynamic and water quality models commonly used by public agencies in addressing water quality, sediment transport and TMDL issues will be identified and reviewed for application for Newport Bay. The Team will consult with the City of Newport Beach, the Technical Advisory Committee established for this study and other relevant stakeholders to establish the goals and objectives for model applications for Newport Bay. Based on the identified model goals and objectives, model evaluation criteria will be selected and recommendation on whether enhancement of existing models (e.g. additional model calibration or expansion of model components to one of the existing models for Newport Bay) or the development of new model(s) will be made based on the evaluation criteria in selecting the most appropriate model to suit the water quality and sedimentation model needs for Newport Bay. Everest has recently completed the Dominguez Channel Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Study (Study) funded by a Proposition 13 Grant for the Port of Los Angeles. The primary purpose of the Study was to develop a calibrated and verified hydrodynamic and water quality model for the Dominguez Channel Estuary. The Dominguez Channel Estuary Model (DCEM) will be used by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) for future TMDL development and implementation within the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Area (Harbor Area). One of the most important components of the DCEM was the selection of the hydrodynamic and water quality model(s). A two -phase selection process was utilized to select the most appropriate model(s) for the DCEM. The first phase consisted of an initial screening of potential models. The second phase consisted of an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the screened models. These include the comparison of models for their. 1) mathematical formulation, 2) numerical methods, 3) watershed model interfacing, 4) model applicability, 5) model availability and 6) public acceptance. Everest will use the DCEM experience for this study in the evaluation and election of the most efficient model(s) for Newport Bay. In addition, based on the model goals and objectives, and data availability, a list of data requirements for the recommended modeling enhancements or the development of a new model will be prepared. The list will focus on critical data need for model calibration and validation, as well as data needed in establishing loading input and model setup for various model applications. A report documenting the model identification, model evaluation, data gaps and recommendation will be submitted to the City for review and comment. After receiving comments from the City, a final recommendation on model selection will be made. We may also prepare interim submittals such as technical memorandum on model selection and evaluation and data gap report if needed. City of Newport Beads Harbor Area Management Plan 12 Task 4- Eelgrass Capacity Recommendations Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a key component of the Newport ecosystem that functions as a nursery habitat and foraging habitat for many species of invertebrates, fishes, and seabirds. Its importance as a biological resource however conflicts in part with City, County, State, and the Federal Government's goals, needs, and responsibility to maintain navigational waterways and harbor- related infrastructure such public beaches, piers, docks, and bulkheads. Consequently, it is critical that the City has an understanding of (1) the amount of eelgrass that historically has occurred in the Bay (2) how eelgrass acreage has varied over time through natural variation and human - induced changes (3) environmental regulations and policies governing development in Newport Bay relative to eelgrass disturbance, loss, mitigation and the long -term potential for establishing eelgrass mitigation banks in Newport Bay; and (4) long -term eelgrass issues related to the City's and private citizens' capability to maintain and upgrade harbor infrastructure as well as maintain a safe navigational waterway for boaters. Mr. Rick Ware, senior marine biologist with Coastal Resources Management, Inc. will be the principal investigator for this task. He has over 25 years of hands -on experience in conducting intertidal and underwater eelgrass ecological studies, eelgrass habitat mapping, and preparing environmental assessments of harbor infrastructure projects for private clients, engineering firms, and public sector clients between San Diego and Morro Bay. Many of these projects deal specifically with the Lower and Upper Newport Bay ecosystem, including small -scale mapping and environmental assessments, pre- and -post construction monitoring for private - sector specific- infrastructure projects (docks, dredging„ and bulkheads), eelgrass t transplants, as well as bay -wide investigations for the t City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He was co- principal investigator along with Dr. Noel Davis for the USACE pilot experimental eelgrass transplant project at six locations in Lower and Upper Newport Bay (2003), and the principal investigator for the r City's first bay -wide GIS eelgrass mapping studies (2003 -2004) that have greatly assisted the City's harbor resource managers and the public (through the ` City's website) to directly determine the potential presence of eelgrass throughout the bay. 1� tyil� As a follow up to the 2003 -2004 studies, CRM; Inc. is currently under contract to the City of Newport Beach to conduct the second bay -wide eelgrass mapping project for the City of Newport Beach, following a period of heavy rains and observable die -back of eelgrass compared to the 2003 studies. As part of this study, CRM will also be conducting a second set of eelgrass pilot restoration transplants for the City of Newport Beach in spring 2007 to determine if locations within Lower Newport Bay can function as future eelgrass mitigation banking areas. He is intimately familiar with the Coastal Comrnission and the Army Corps of Engineers regulations and policies regarding impacts to eelgrass, mitigation for losses, monitoring survey requirements, and mitigation and long -term restoration of eelgrass habitats. Consequently, Mr. Ware will be the principal investigator overseeing this task. Mr. Ware and his staff will: a. Review the history of eelgrass (both in acreage of habitat; quality of habitat, changes in acreage over time, and changes in regulations /mitigation policies over time) in Newport Bay. Mr. Ware currently has an extensive library of gray literature dealing with this issue, a working relationship with the City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 13 City's Harbor Resources Division, the County of Orange, DFG, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMSF) which will result in a cost - efficient review. He has also conducted many of the site - specific dock - related construction projects in Newport Bay, and is aware of the potential and actual types of impacts, and their areal effect on eelgrass bed resources associated with the project impacts of eelgrass located within 15' of private and commercial dock facilities. CRM will examine and comment on the 1991 Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and its development pursuant to the Magnuson- Stevens Act. CRM will be able to aptly critque the experimental eelgrass restoration project conducted by the City in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) due to our extensive involvement in the project. It should be noted that this project was an experimental pilot eelgrass transplant project, and not designed to be a full scale project. With that in mind, CRM will review and critique the results of the experimental project and the potential to create future, additional eelgrass mitigation areas within the Newport Bay system. b. CRM will prepare a summary report of eelgrass related issues for the City and regulators. This report will address impacts to dredging, minimum threshold capacity for essential fish habitat, current eelgrass mitigation requirements, adequacy of scientific eelgrass studies, and other related issues. CRM will also review and prepare a section that details innovative transplant methods, innovative designs for docks related to decreasing the effects of structure shading on eelgrass habitats that have been successfully used to reduce infrastructure impacts on eelgrass habitats in other ports and harbors along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. As an option to this task, CRM will review and evaluate the applicability of the Eelgrass Restoration Site Selection Model (Short et al. 2002) for use in site selection of Newport Bay eelgrass restoration sites. This model encompasses several phases. The first phase uses available environmental information to formulate a preliminary transplant suitability index (PTSI) for pre- screening and eliminating unsuitable sites; (2) the second phase involves field measurements of light availability and bioturbation as well as survival and growth of test transplants at priority sites identified by the PTSf; (3) a transplant suitability index (TSI) score is calculated for each site based on the PTSI and the results of field measures. The TSI is a multiplicative index that eliminates sites which receive ratings of zero and gives high scores to those sites with the greatest potential for successful transplantation. c. CRM will coordinate with NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS "), US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) and DFG to determine and recommend a Newport Bay - specific threshold for eelgrass that is essential for fish habitat. This report will be based on harbor -wide mapping efforts being prepared by the City and other, relevant scientific information regarding eelgrass ecosytem structure and function. The resulting report will include recommendations based on best - available scienific data and the professional opinions of researchers, resource managers, and agency scientists. CRM will provide three hard copies of a summary report and one digital copy of the report to the City for review and comments. Based upon a mutually agreeable time frame, CRM will revise the summary report per comments submitted and submit a final report. Five hard copies and one digital copy of the report will be submitted to the City. At all steps in this task, WESTON biologists will assist CRM by providing input on the report generation and in developing the recommendations therein. Additionally, WESTON will review all draft documents and oversee the production of the final report. WESTON biologists have conducted numerous eelgrass and surf grass surveys, transplants and assessments throughout the southern California region. These projects have been carried out in San Diego Bay, Ventura Harbor and Santa Barbara. 14 City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 1� SOLUTIONS Task 5 - Contaminated Sediment Study Sediment management activities in Newport Bay include the dredging in support of maintaining navigable waterways, docks, and bulkheads, as well as the placement of sediment for beach replenishment and habitat restoration. An understanding of the potential for sediment contamination is necessary to ensure that projects are successful, biologically viable and meet regulatory requirements. WESTON has over 20 years of in sampling, testing, and evaluating sediments and over 10 years experience evaluating sediments in both Lower and Upper Newport Bay. We will use this experience and knowledge to conduct a thorough review of sediment contamination issues and determine critical data gaps that may affect the City's ability to manage sediment effectively. WESTON (formerly MEC Analytical Systems, Inc.) has supported the City's sediment _ management activities related to the Regional General Permit for small projects, as well as the City and USACE's efforts to dredge the Federal si Channels in Lower Newport Bay and characterize material for the Upper Newport Bay restoration program. WESTON performed sediment evaluations in 1998, 2000 -2001, 2002 -2003, and 2005. These surveys included chemical analysis and biological testing that evaluated the potential for sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation of chemical WESTON's In -House Expertise Includes a Nationally residues. These studies also addressed potentially Accredited Sediment Toxicity Laboratory confounding factors associated with sediment toxicity testing. hr general, metals, organotins, and most priority pollutant organics were found at relatively low concentrations (i.e., below the effects range -median [ER -M] sediment quality values). Total DDT and Hg have been observed in some locations at concentrations that exceed the ER -M. However, in each case the observed concentrations have not been positively correlated to responses in biological tests and have not been observed at significant levels in clam or worm tissues. Toxicity has been observed in the amphipod toxicity tests with sediment from some areas of Lower Newport Bay. In 2005, WESTON was able to demonstrate that some of the amphipod responses were likely due to the high percentage of fines in the sediment, and not sediment - associated contaminants. Recent testing by WESTON and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project indicate that there may be some additional sources of toxicity, such as chemical groups that are not part of the EPA priority pollutant list (such as other organic pesticides). WESTON will evaluate data collected by WESTON, SCCWRP, Orange County, the City, and others for trends in chemical contamination in sediments and sediment toxicity. As part of our review for the City, we will use our knowledge of biological testing to identify potential data gaps including an assessment of whether historical test results may have been affected by factors other than sediment associated contaminants. Where appropriate WESTON will suggest potential additional studies and the use of refined testing methodologies to more accurately delineate areas showing toxicity. To meet the City's needs, WESTON has a state -of -the -art toxicology laboratory with more than 5,000 square feet of laboratory . Our Carlsbad laboratory is certified for toxicity testing by both California and Washington State. It is one of only a handful of toxicity testing laboratories in the U.S. to be nationally accredited under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP - accreditation #01113CA). City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 15 Dr. David Moore leads Carlsbad's bioassay laboratory as well as all sediment contamination and toxicity studies at WESTON. He is a recognized expert in the field of dredged material and contaminated sediment assessment. He was directly involved in the development of both The Green Book and ITM and has practical experience conducting evaluations, sampling, and testing under this guidance. Dr. Moore has presented at numerous national and international conferences and has published over 30 papers in peer- reviewed journals. Dr. Moore currently serves on the State sediment quality guidelines advisory committee to the SWRCB. He is highly experienced in Newport Bay's sediment contamination issues, having been Project Principal for dredged material evaluations as part of previous Newport Bay studies for the USACE -LA district. In previous investigations of Newport Bay, WESTON has found that use of standard sediment testing protocols may have resulted in false positives due to factors other than sediment associated contaminants (e.g., sediment grain size distribution and seasonality of wild caught test organisms). Consequently it is important to consider such factors in the design and implementation of sediment testing programs to ensure accurate and cost effective assessment of potential sediment contamination issues. The extensive involvement of WESTON's principal investigators and sediment contamination experts, Drs. David Moore and Jack Word in key sediment - related issues potentially affecting the City now and in the future (i.e., development of sediment quality objectives for State of California, ongoing revisions to the Inland and Ocean Testing Manuals, and other emerging technical and policy issues at the local, regional, and national level) will enable WESTON to provide the City with the best recommendations on the design and implementation of sediment removal and remediation studies for the City's review and approval. WESTON is very familiar with previous work by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP), indicating elevated levels of Cu, Hg, Zn, and DDTs and reduced amphipod survival and sea urchin fertilization in sediment toxicity tests in several areas of Newport Bay. In a subsequent study by University of California Davis's Granite Canyon Lab, results from sediment toxicity identification evaluations (TIES) suggested that synthetic pyrethroid insecticides may be responsible for some of the observed sediment toxicity in Upper Newport Bay. Pyrethroids are newly emerging contaminants of concern in sediment evaluations as a consequence of the State mandated replacement of Diazinon with Bifentbrin and other related pyrethroid insecticides. These results may have some relevance to toxicity previously measured in other parts of Newport Bay. WESTON's experience in the evaluation of beneficial use alternatives for dredged material as part of programs for the Pacific Division of the US Navy and for the Port of Los Angeles will enable us to provide the City with the best recommendations for remediation and disposal of sediment from Newport Bay. Previous studies in the Rhine Channel have indicated that chemicals including cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, total DDTs, and total PCBs, exceeded sediment quality values and TMDL target levels in the Rhine Channel, as the result of years of industrial discharge and stormwater to this area. Because of the contamination, and the need to maintain or deepen the channel, many remediation alternatives are not feasible (i.e., capping); one recommended alternative has been to dredge and place material in an upland landfill disposal. WESTON will review and evaluate sediment management alternatives such as ocean disposal, beach nourishment, upland landfill placement, and daily cover based on sediment contamination levels and grain size distributions within specified areas, and provide the City with recommended options or additional studies, where necessary. WESTON will also evaluate the potential use of monitored natural attenuation, engineering methods (e.g., capping, sediment sumps, etc.) and technologies (e.g., use hydrocyclone for sand separation) for improved cost effective and sustainable management of materials from the harbor. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 16 Task 6 - Dredging Requirements Study WESTON understands the importance of preparing a comprehensive dredging requirements study that will incorporate a management plan to maintain, in an economically and environmentally sound manner, the channels and berthing areas necessary for navigation in the Lower Bay. Our extensive experience in dredging projects and dredged material management planning for the federal, state, and local government sectors gives us a thorough understanding of the many issues encoumered when selecting methods for dredging and dredged material placement. WESTON's approach will begin with an overview of goals and objectives, existing data and operating assumptions, which frame the basis for the identification of the frequencies, methods, and costs for the dredging and material placement. The Team will review available documents that have evaluated dredging methods and costs for Lower Bay that include the Rhine Channel Feasibility Study and Alternatives Evaluation. We will review the costs, dredging methods and recommended remedial alternatives (i.e., dredging with upland landfill disposal, nearshore confined disposal, or confined aquatic disposal) provided and evaluate the application to other areas of the Lower Bay. Other relevant documents related to costs and dredging will be reviewed such as those related to chemical contamination in sediment, sediment deposition, hydrographic condition surveys performed by the .; Army Corps of Engineers, and models r. demonstrating sediment transport in Newport Bay, in order to provide the City with both tt priority dredging and long -term strategies for maintenance dredging activities in Lower Bay., 1 A. Dredging Frequencies Developing a projected dredging quantities table for all project areas is a Zs-0 entical element ofthe dredging requirements study Historical shoaling rates, past dredging events, usage data, and adding non -pay overdepth amounts and contingencies (i.e., storm events) will be used to develop a practical guide for planning and prioritizing dredging projects throughout the Lower Bay. The Project Team has prepared numerous documents that include this type of long -range planning. Our most recent efforts include the Los Angeles Regional Dredge Material Management Plan (DMMP) Report and the Baltimore Harbor and Channels DMMP prepared for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The Baltimore DMMP included a 20 -year dredging plan for a total of 29 different channels, reaches, anchorages, and private berths with a projected quantity of nearly 120,000,000 CY. B. Dredging & Placement Methods The most appropriate dredging and dredged material placement method for each proposed project will be developed while considering many factors. These factors include physical constraints of the dredging area, water depth, sediment characteristics (physical and chemical), regulatory dredging windows, environmental impacts (e.g. turbidity, Essential Fish Habitat, etc.), distance to placement site, applicability for beneficial use, and budgetary constraints. These factors would be used when selecting the type and size of the dredge, along with the method of material transportation and placement. WESTON evaluated 71 different dredging/placement alternatives during the preparation of the Baltimore Harbor DMMP. Everest evaluated environmental impacts from dredging alternative for the Los Angeles Regional DMMP. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 17 C. Dredging & Placement Costs WESTON will work closely with the City of Newport Beach to develop the best dredging plan that meets the goals and objectives of the Harbor Area Management Plan while maximizing environmental benefit and minimizing costs. WESTON's estimating experience and knowledge of the dredging industry will ensure the preparation usefiil estimates that can be used for budget planning and the identification of cost - sharing opportunities (e.g., the implementation of a beneficial use alternatives may introduce cost - sharing partners into the project). WESTON has prepared estimates at many levels of a dredging project, including planning, design, and construction. The Team will also use WESTON's Washington D.C. Government Relations office to identify funding sources. WESTON routinely monitors the annual appropriations process to provide our clients with current funding status on Civil Works projects. We are aware the Administration requested $9 million for the Surfside - Sunset- Newport Beach project in the FY 2008 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Operations and Maintenance budget submission. Further the Corps is still in the process of finalizing their FY 2007 program as directed by Congress in the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution. We expect this to be complete and submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by March 15, 2007. Once they provide this to the Committees, we will able to identify the funding level proposed by the Corps for FY 2007. However, based on the House and Senate Committee reports For FY 2007, it is anticipated that approximately $1.2 million will be available for Newport to use for maintenance dredging. Our Government Relations Office will confirm whether this is in the Corps work plan when it is provided to the Committees. We will continue to assist the City of Newport in tracking reliable sources of funding for dredging projects in the Bay. WESTON understands the issues and challenges, including dredging and dredged material management, associated with developing a comprehensive plan for the protection and management of Newport Bay. We believe we can provide a technical approach for dredging and dredged material management that is effective, adaptable, and sustainable for the public areas of the Lower Bay. Task 7 — Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines Study During and immediately following initial construction of Newport Bay, the federal government, through the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers, established harbor lines and pierhead lines (collectively referred to as "the lines "). The harbor lines define the federal navigation channel dredging limits while the pierhead lines establish limits on how far piers can extend into Bay waters. These two sets of lines are important for maintaining safe navigation conditions throughout Newport Bay. The lines have not been adjusted since initial establishment. Newport Bay has been altered extensively since the time the lines were established and there have been changes in harbor uses during this time as well. For example, the type, size, and distribution of vessels within Newport Bay have changed over time to reflect changes in the market and the needs of boat owners/operators. In addition, changes in policy and regulations at the federal, state, and local (City of Newport Beach and County of Orange) level have resulted in a different baseline condition from that considered at the time the lines were initially established. WESTON team member Everest worked on the preliminary assessment of the lines as part of the Mariner's Mile Walkway Waterfront Development Project. For that project, the City was interested in studying the feasibility of constructing a walkway that ran next to the water along the Mariner's Mile portion of Newport Bay. In addition, the project would have included the modification or replacement of the existing dock system. 18 City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan As part of that feasibility study, Everest worked with City staff to identify several issues related to the lines such as the need to relocate the lines to accommodate the new dock system, requirement to assess existing impacts to the pierhead line (e.g., overhang due to vessel rafting), and potential impacts to emergency (e.g., fire department) vessel access. The experience gained from this preliminary assessment will be put to use by the WESTON Team in developing and implementing an effective strategy to address harbor line and pierhead line needs throughout Newport Bay. Based on prior experience in identifying harbor line and pierhead line issues within Newport Bay as well as experience in performing policy review for several state agencies (California Department of Boating and Waterways and California State Coastal Conservancy), the WESTON Team proposes the following approach to identify and address issues related to the harbor lines and pierhead lines throughout Newport Bay. A. Identify harbor and pierhead lines The City's GIS database will be obtained and reviewed to identify the location and orientation of the harbor lines and pierhead lines. Any data gaps will be identified to focus future data review performed under this task. Deliverable: Harbor and pierhead line map B. Review harbor and pierhead line development City policies, regulations, and procedures will be obtained and reviewed, along with similar information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Navigation Section) and County of Orange, to track the historical development of the lines. Recent information including proposed revisions to Title 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and proposed harbor Commission activities, will also be obtained and reviewed to develop an understanding of existing conditions and issues. This information will be used to identify the functions of the lines, including the identification of areas where the original functions are no longer being met or are no longer relevant (e.g., due to development changes that have eliminated the original purpose). Deliverable: Harbor and pierhead line development summary C. Identify existing and future harbor uses A list of existing and potential future harbor uses will be prepared for Newport Bay. Existing information (e.g., maps and brochures) will be obtained from the City and reviewed for information on existing uses. A site visit will be conducted to verify documented uses and identify undocumented uses that might be relevant to the completion of this task. Future uses will be assessed through consultation with staff from the City, County, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to identify future activities, projects, programs, and visions for Newport Bay. Deliverable: Existing and future use summary (map as appropriate) D. Develop opportunities and constraints The existing and future uses will be compared to the various functions of the lines to identify opportunities and constraints. A matrix (or two matrices) will be assembled that identifies: (i) opportunities and constraints related to the conduct of existing harbor uses (e.g., maintenance dredging) with existing lines and (ii) opportunities and constraints related to the conduct of potential future harbor uses (e.g., Mariner's Mile Waterfront Development) with existing lines. Deliverable: Opportunities and constraints matrix 19 City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan E. Prepare recommendations. The opportunities and constraints will be used to develop a set of recommendations for changing the existing lines to match existing and future harbor uses. ht addition, a set of recommendations may be developed for modifying existing and future harbor uses to better match the functions of the existing lines. These recommendations will be reviewed to prepare a strategy involving a mixture of changes to the lines and modification of harbor uses to provide an optimum approach for the City. Deliverable: Recommendations list F. Prepare a draft report A draft report documenting the findings and recommendations of this task will be submitted to the City for review and comment. Deliverable: Draft report G. Prepare a final report. The draft report will be revised based on comments and edits submitted by the City and a meeting will be held to review the major findings and recommendations. Deliverable: Final report H. Prepare an implementation plan An implementation plan will be prepared that outlines the steps necessary to implement the strategy presented in the final report. The implementation plan will include a time- sequenced, flow chart of the actions and decisions needed to achieve the changes presented in the final report. The implementation plan will also include time estimates for each action and decision. This effort will be conducted in close coordination with City staff such that reasonable time estimates are developed for actions and decisions, most of which will be under the control of the City. Deliverable: Implementation plan Task 8 — Water Quality Best Management Practices Report The approach to the development of the Water Quality Best Management Practices (BUY) Report includes the identification of ongoing and development of recommended BMPs that address the regulatory drivers and restoration goals. These BMPs need to be prioritized to provide the City with a strategic plan for the implementation based on TMDLs schedules, available resources and funding opportunities. The HAMP will include this strategic plan based on the lists, recommendations and reports prepared under this task. The identification and assessment of BMPs currently being implemented to reduce pollutants entering the Upper and Lower Bay needs to consider not only those ongoing and planned within Newport Bay, but also in the watershed and adjacent coastal areas. An integrated approach is needed in the assessment of BMPs that considers those priority rated pollutants that have been identified for the watershed, Upper Bay, Lower Bay and adjacent coastal areas based on regulatory drivers linked to beneficial uses. An integrated approach considers both current and anticipated priority rated pollutants to assure that BMPs are designed to address or accommodate future reduction requirements without expensive retro -fits. High priority pollutants are identified through the review of existing water and sediment quality data compared to applicable quality criteria and associated beneficial use, and the requirements of current and anticipated TMDLs, municipal storm water permit, sediment management programs and Ocean Plan exception process. Potential high priority pollutants for the watershed, bay, and coastal area are presented in the following figure and the associated regulatory drivers/programs. 20 City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan Page left blank intentionally i This identification of the high priority pollutants is the first step in the prioritization process for identifying priority BMPs. This prioritization process is outlined in the figure that follows. The prioritization of BMPs is critical for developing the HAMP to allow the City to effectively implement management measures as resources are made available. A priority list of BMPs provides a planning tool from which projects can be identified in annual budgets and for grant applications. The State's funding programs specifically require a management plan that identifies priority projects. The management plan should drive the funding request not the grant process. rgorinZaTign. rrocess Tor me Implememanon or brArs. This prioritization process includes a review of the Regional Water Quality Board's list of beneficial uses established for Newport Bay. As shown in the previous figure, Step 5 includes evaluation of BMPs that can also meet restoration long -term goals. The IiAMP will use the lists and recommended BMPs developed and prioritized in this task to develop a Strategic Plan for the City for the implementation of BMPs in a balanced manner considering the established beneficial uses for Newport Bay. WESTON will utilize our experience completing a 5 -year Watershed Activity Implementation Strategic Plan for the six watersheds in the City of San Diego. We developed this strategic plan using an integrated approach that addressed multiple pollutants and various, regulatory requirements under the municipal permit, water and sediment TMDLs; Ocean Plan and restoration programs. Priority BMP projects were identified that addressed multiple constituents (bacteria, sediment, metals, pesticides and nutrients) and regulatory and restoration programs. Conceptual BMPs designs and costs were developed to provide the City with a management tool to develop annual budget and identify priority projects for funding opportunities. 22. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan The components of the Strategic Plan included: • Prioritization Strategy • Implementation Strategy and Activity Prioritization • Required Permit and TMDL Potential Watershed Activities • Potential Watershed Activities Location Maps • Effectiveness Monitoring Plan As part of this task, the Project Team will consult with the California Coastal Commission's Clean and Green Boating Campaign to develop a list of recommended BMPs for boat and dock maintenance, cleaning and construction. The Clean and Green Campaign has a number of education and outreach tools and programs that will be reviewed and assessed for implementation in Newport Bay. These include: • Dock walker Education Program • Clean Boating Publications • Changing Tide Newsletter • California Clean Marina Toolkit • Education of Marine Supply shops • California Clean Boating Network The recommended list of BMPs will be submitted to the City for review and comments. The report will also include proposed monitoring and/or enforcement mechanism for on -water enforcement of BMPs for boaters. These mechanisms will be developed in consultation with the California Coastal Commission's Clean and Green Boating Campaign which developed a number of tools as listed above that includes a dock walker program that may be used as part of an effective boater BMP program. The success of these programs will be identifying the barriers for compliance and strategies for overcoming these barriers to change behaviors. The Project Manager, David Pohl, has undergone training using the Social Marketing approach to effectively implementing water quality education and outreach programs. This approach has proven effective in the implementation and success of resource management public campaigns that aim to not just change awareness but the behavior of the public to achieve conservation and pollution reduction goals. The Project Team will further use our experience in the evaluation of pollution sources from marinas and assessment of appropriate management action to develop the recommended list of BMPs. This experience includes providing support to the Port of Los. Angeles associated with the Dominguez Channel and Los Angeles Harbors TMDL for Bacteria, as well as, the TMDL for toxicity. As part of the support to the Implementation Plan, WESTON reviewed and made recommendations to municipal ordinances for sidewalk washing and facility maintenance. This support included providing specific recommendations for reducing pollutant loading associated with marina and dock area maintenance and activities in ensure best management practices for pollutant reduction were incorporated into Port policy and tenant lease. agreements. WESTON conducted a bacteria source tracking study at Marina del Rey in Los Angeles to identify source and loading of bacteria throughout the marina. These finding were the basis for implementation of management measures to meet TMDL load reductions. Task 9 — Regional General Permits (RGP) The Regional General Permit, under which the City carries out maintenance and improvements in Newport Bay, has a five -year term, meaning that the City needs to go through a costly, time- consuming, and possibly uncertain renewal process every five years. The City has expressed a desire to streamline this process to the extent feasible, including by extending the permit's term to ten years. The WESTON team will address this task in two steps. First, we will meet with the key parties to review past renewal processes. From City staff City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 23 we will assemble the history of the current permit conditions and discuss obstacles and challenges they faced. From the Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch (South Coast) staff we will review the concerns, pressures, and policies behind the current permit language and explore their concerns relative to renewals. In the second step we will prepare a draft report recommending a strategy for future permit renewals. We expect the strategy to include a pre - application meeting with the Regulatory Branch at which the current permit would be reviewed and a concept for sediment testing in support of the new permit would be agreed on. The City would urge the Corps to accept the existing permit's structure and conditions — we note that as worded it appears to cover every contingency and to give the Regulatory Branch considerable control over any activities, so there would seem to be no need for additional conditions. The strategy would include a template for a sampling and analysis plan, recommendations for the sampling strategy (stations, chemical constituents, toxicity tests, etc.) and a proposed procedure for obtaining the Corps' approval of the plan. Finally, the report would include a proposed schedule for the renewal process that would ensure that the process is completed as efficiently as possible before the current permit's expiration date. WESTON's effort will include exploring the possibility of extending the permit term to ten years. There are many sound reasons for such an approach, including the comprehensiveness of the current permit and the amount of flexibility that is built into it. Nevertheless, that effort does face an uphill battle: in recent discussions on another project, South Coast staff indicated that the five -.year term for RGPs is a firm policy of the Los Angeles District. WESTON will identify the elements of such an effort, which would probably entail high -level discussions with District management, and will prepare the rationale to support the effort. Task 10 —Beach Replenishment Projects The US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE), the State of California (State), and various local governments and non- governmental agencies in California have collaborated to create tools for the purpose of regional sediment management (RSM). RSM entails the use of sediment dredged from - T harbors and from flood control projects to place on beaches ki that have eroded, often due to human activity. RSM is meant to be a cost effective way of nourishing beaches and providing ' necessary shoreline protection to California's coast. WESTON Team Members (Everest) has been working for WESTOkNKeval4ated receiver sitesifor ti several years assisting the USACE and the State in developing' A.rANDAG regional bead lsand "project,? m � a GIS -based tool called Coastal Sediment Benefit Analysis . Tool (CSBAT) that helps decision makers to evaluate and optimize the placement of sediment from various sources to receiving beaches. The CSBAT is designed around six components: Sediment Sources, Receiver Sites, Transportation Models and Cost, Recreational Usage and Benefit Analyses, and Environmental Considerations. Two CSBATs have been developed — one for the Santa Barbara and Ventura County and the other for the San Diego County. The ultimate goal is to connect all this regional CSBAT into one integrated model for the entire state including the Orange County. The Team will rely on Everest's extensive knowledge and experience developing the CSBAT for the region to develop the criteria in prioritizing beach replenishment projects for the City. These criteria will be developed in consultation with the City and other stakeholders and may include: economic benefit for beach replenishment, cost of replenishment based on various placement methods, compatibility of source and receiver beach sediments, sustainability of replenished beach, and potential environmental impact for beach replenishment projects. Historical data of beach usage, beach sediment characteristics, erosion rate and past beach nourishment and monitoring data will be obtained and reviewed to evaluate and prioritize future beach replenishment needs for Newport Bay and Harbor based on the selected evaluation criteria. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 24 A draft beach replenishment needs and recommendations summary report will be prepared and submitted for City review. This report will summarize the data collected and analyses conducted, as well as a list of recommended prioritized beach replenishment projects. After receiving comments from the City, a final report incorporating the comments on the draft report will be prepared and submitted. Task 11— Priority Project Funding Report Our team maintains relationships with federal, state, and private funding agency members to stay abreast of grant opportunities. We maintain running lists of upcoming grant opportunities and present our findings to clients seeking funding for redevelopmcnt/restoration and other environmental projects. We assist clients in reviewing and meeting application requirements to maximize the chance of winning. WESTON specializes in all phases of the application process, including developing and writing the scope of work/work plan, budget, rationale /anticipated resultsibenefit, and quality assurance plans related to grant projects. Our team coordinates and facilitates meetings between project applicants, local environmental groups, resource and regulatory agencies, and elected officials to gain project support. We also assist clients in implementing grant funded projects, including project management, scheduling, budgeting, and reporting to complete these projects on time and within the specified budget. Proposed Integrated Approach to Funding Acquirement and Linkage to HAMP We will leverage our knowledge of the Newport Bay Watershed and our expertise in grant funding to this Task. Our team is unique qualified to coordinate these efforts with the Integrated Watershed Management Plan and the Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 25 We have worked with several clients in Southern California to obtain grant funding through the Proposition 13 Clean Beaches Initiative from the California State Water Resources Control Board. The table to follow outlines these funds secured by WESTON on behalf of the City of San Diego. LocalSponsor Funding Funding to Entity Projector Program Purpose Date Proposition 13 (Clean Mission Bay Water Evaluate point sources of bacterial City of San Diego Beaches Quality Improvement pollution in Mission Bay and take actions $1.3 million Grant Project to reduce pollution and subsequent F undin Funding beach postings/closures by 50 %. Proposition 13 Evaluate point sources of bacterial (Clean San Diego River /Ocean pollution in the River and nearby City of San Diego Beaches Beach Water Duality beaches. Recommend actions to reduce $1.5 million Initiative) Grant Improvement Project bacteria counts and subsequent beach Funding postings/closures by 50 %. Chollas Creek Watershed Induce positive changes in attitudes and Proposition 13 Integrated Pest behaviors regarding pesticide use in City of San Diego (PRISM) Grant Management Education urbanized watersheds in order to protect $1 million Funding Program and restore affected beneficial uses of receiving waters. San Diego Watersheds Gather and manage water quality data to Common Ground Project: sensitive ecosystems, identify City of San Diego Proposition 13 San Diego Bay and and abate pollution sources, track the $600,000 Grant Funding Watershed effectiveness of implemented actions. Demonstration and prevent further degradation of our precious water resources. Chollas Creek Water Improve beneficial uses within the City of San Diego Proposition 13 Quality Protection and Chollas Creek Watershed through $2,244,000 Grant Funding Habitat Enhancement outreach, education, stewardship development, and habitat restoration. Proposition 50 (Integrated San Diego Regional Develop a water quality database and City of San Diego Regional Watershed Analysis - GIS tool for water resource managers in million Water Common Grounds the region to make more informed Management) management decisions. Grant Funded As a part of the Mission Bay Water Quality Management Plan, the City of San Diego hired WESTON to implement a multi-study project to identify sources of bacterial contamination and recommend appropriate actions and activities to eliminate the input of these sources to this multi-use embayment. WESTON assisted the City of San Diego obtain funding for this project by writing a grant application to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for funding from Califomia's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program pursuant to the Costa - Machado Water Act of 2000 (Proposition 13). We have also assisted stakeholder groups seeking grant funding to implement actions plans designed to restore and protect their watershed. Our assistance resulted in millions of dollars in funding for all clients. We reviewed private grant funding for a pilot project on sediment transport for the City of San Diego. WESTON assisted in the lobbying efforts to create and pass the $400M Clean Ohio Fund initiative. Since the passing of the bill, WESTON has successfully assisted clients in submitting grant applications to fund several Brownfield redevelopment projects. WESTON worked with the City of Dayton to secure a $2,000,000 grant in the inaugural awards from the Clean Ohio Revitalization fund for the GH &R Foundry. Our team also assembled all the environmental documentation into the Clean Ohio Fund application for a former paper mill in the City of West Carrollton, Ohio. Finally, we prepared the Consolidated Grant application and CIB grant application for the City of Newport Beach for ASBS projects. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 26 Based on the approved recommendations from Tasks I through 10, our team will develop a Priority List of projects for the Upper and Lower Bay. We will evaluate these projects to determine how they will qualify for State bond fimding and develop time lines associated with each. We will also evaluate the Priority List for eligibility for federal fimding programs such as the USACE Civil Works Programs, USEPA Grants, US Bureau of Reclamation projects, and NOAA Programs. A draft Project Priority report will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment. We will utilize these comments to revise this draft report into a final report and submit it to the City for approval. Task 12 — Harbor Area Management Plan The HAW will focus on the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and the integration of the various components and issues of these two water bodies and identify the key goals and the activities to meet these goals. We understand that the HAMP is a planning document that will identify the prioritization of these activities based on their effectiveness to meet the goals and inter - relationship with ongoing and planned projects throughout the watershed. This prioritization will be the basis for the development in this plan of an implementation schedule and effectiveness assessment. The effectiveness assessment will be critical to providing the City feedback on the success of the activities to meet the goals and the basis to determine if the activity should be expanded or modified. Activities will often need to be implemented in a phased manner due to available resources or remaining data needs. The effectiveness assessment program will also for evaluation of these phased activities to best use the resources of the City and grant monies. The prioritization process is driven by regulatory requirements and the specific pollutants of concern. Important in this process is an integrated approach that considers both current and anticipated future regulatory drivers to assure that resources are being used effectively and not for short term goals, but rather long -term program success. Integrated management actions will address multiple constituents, for example, rather than just focus on current issues. This approach is more cost effective in the long -term because management actions that include structural BMPs do not need to be retrofitted. The prioritization process also provides an approach to the implementation of management actions that allows for flexibility based on available resources and implementation schedules. The prioritization process identifies the location and targeted sources for measures that will provide the greatest pollutant load reductions and highest likely success of implementation. Once these priority measures are identified, then the supporting studies, permitting, and design activities can be highlighted on the implementation schedule as critical path activities. WESTON is completing a 5 -year Watershed Strategic Plan for the City of San Diego that identifies the priority activities to meet current and anticipated water quality regulations in the seven watersheds that the City has jurisdiction. The first step of the development of the plan was to identify and organize all the existing studies, monitoring programs and BMP implementation projects, and categorize them according to program, watershed, pollutant, source type and activity. The inter - relationships were identified for integration into the overall Strategic Plan. Using a tiered BMP approach, watershed activities were identified under each tier and the first and intermediate steps listed. The current activities were then highlighted under each watershed's tiered activity list. This was the basis for developing the compressive Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan developed for San Diego provides a prioritization methodology for watershed activities that takes an integrated approach. Similar to the HAMP, this Strategic Plan provides the City of San Diego with a planning guide to the implementation of management measures that meet the current and anticipated regulatory requirements (municipal permit, TMDLs and Ocean Plan). The plan focuses on the areas of the watershed that have the greatest pollutant load potential and activities that best address the sources of these loads. The Plan is already in use helping the City plan budgets, laying the groundwork for upcoming grants, and providing a pro-active approach to meeting the various regulatory programs. City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 27 The HAMP will provide regional management guidance to best integrate the common goals of the various watershed plans underway or planned. WESTON understands the importance of this integration based on our current work on the Big Canyon Project as a sub- consultant to WRC and on the development of the Newport Coast Watershed Management Plan. The implementation of the City of Newport Beach's Runoff Reduction Program is a key element to achieving the pollution reduction goals for the Exception process under the Ocean Plan for discharges into the Newport ASBS. The Big Canyon restoration plan had a component of anticipated continued dry weather flow to sustain the fresh water riparian habitat. WESTON pointed out these two possible competing goals that will need to be addressed in the restoration plan through identifying a groundwater source as the runoff reduction program is successful in reducing over-irrigation by residences and golf courses. The integration of the prioritization and implementation of BMPs with the restoration programs and goals is also illustrated in the figure on page 29. The Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve that extends from Shellmaker Island north to Jamboree Road is designated as a Critical Coastal Area (CCA). An important aspect in the development of the I-IAMP is understanding the integration with the watershed management plans from the upper watershed and also adjacent and downstream coastal areas. The HAMP needs to consider the watershed, bay and coastal areas as one integrated system, and that management actions for the Bay need to consider inputs from the watershed as weu as notennai unoacts uom ane to me coastal area! lr3 The Project Team has a solid understanding of these connections and their importance in developing management actions as part of the r'e tq� RAMP. Everest International and WESTON are currently working with the City on investigating pollutant fate from the Bay and from Buck Gully into and out of the Newport ASBS. We are n working collaboratively to determine the pathway and potential impacts of constituents from these two sources on the CCA and ASBS. The integration of these studies is key in the k ,yi4 development of watershed activities that will be I P# successful in meeting the overall goals. In addition, the demonstration of this linkage will be important in developing successful grant applications for implementation of these projects. The State Water Resources Control Board specificies in the recent grant workshops the need to provide a better regional benefit that addresses not only water quality but habitat restoration and water conservation. The City of Newport Beach is uniquely positioned to provide leadership for the region in the strategy and integration of project for implementation grant requests through your current projects that address these goals of the SWRCB and their applicability on a regional basis. A further illustration of our understanding of these connections under the described prioritization strategy is shown on the final figure of this section. The figure on page 30 presents sediment for the example priority pollutant and shows the linkage between regulatory drivers, potential prioritized. BMPs, and the studies needed for design and assessment of effectiveness of the management measures. 28 City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan EXHIBIT B 5. Consultant Fees The information in this section provides a preliminary estimate of the total direct and indirect costs to complete the Scope of Work including staff hours and hour rates (with benefit and overhead costs); an estimate of all other direct costs such as material and reproduction costs; and an estimate of subconsultant services itemized by task. WESTON's current fee schedule for each job classification category Name Rate/Hour ri 'ipal Investigator. David Jack Word t $220 Kayoore or Prolect`Mansger Dawd Pohl < oe= l;.ctlMana er/Task 9 Y- 9 rea �i Shell An he ' K $1r39 agar Gretel' I?obeits "t nior ScienfistlS,enigt Wendy Rose' • 'St e'mButkus V n IneerlCoasfal'Engjneer Kurt FiedetioR, Kimo Morns; SonnYRutkowsl(I ' C1SSpecidlst7M6delingE• Bruce Fergusdn d,gin weer I SurajtSh ankar $108 f c en ist II Cathy Haitmeiri Damon�Owens $85 id Processing/ Gra phics Michelle Patzius �'Qbnthiacts Administration Amee.Ventures Tom Johnson current fee schedule for each job classification (SUBCONSULTANT ) Everest International Consultants current fee schedule for each job classification (SUBCONSULTANT) CRM current fee schedule for each job classification (SUBCONSULTANT ) 59 City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan Hours by Rate Category Not -to- exceed amount for the services to be provided. Task 'Task1 _CDFG Preliminary Management Plan Labor $24,041 Expenses m $16,083 �2 _- T ask 3 - Hydrodynamic.Mlater Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements $32,433 a .: Task '4 -- Eelgrass Capacity Recommendations - - $32,809 Tasks Contaminated Sediment Study $24,190 x C � � C Task. 7 - Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines Study $24,053 U Task 8 Water Quality Best Management Practices Report Task 9 Regional General Permits (RGP; $17,650 AM $15,169 Task 10 Beach Replenishment Projects $29,041 O) C Ol $11,596 25C $11,6' L C O �2 2 $45 87 Not -to- exceed Amount $296,745 0 `0 U LC U) �7. C N N E + C — C N O O 0 td (n N .N C O .O U) O d CO a n cD cn w 190 222 Task 8 16 - 8 Task 2 8 24 16 16 24 16 21 131 Task - 16 24 - 177 221 Task 4 4 8 24 - 4 310 Task 8 8 24 OF 24 32 24 4 204 Task 6 8 8 16 36 50 16 4 181 Task 7 - 8 16 - - 2 143 164 Task8 - 24 - 36 60 24 4 148 Task 9 2 8 8 - - - 2 80 100 ask 10 2 8 8 - - 6 4 1 198 Task 11 2 4 24 12 - 16 12 6 4 33 113 Task 12 4 32 16 1 60 40 40 60 1 48 4 75 54 433 Not -to- exceed amount for the services to be provided. Task 'Task1 _CDFG Preliminary Management Plan Labor $24,041 Expenses Task 2 = Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan $16,083 �2 _- T ask 3 - Hydrodynamic.Mlater Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements $32,433 a .: Task '4 -- Eelgrass Capacity Recommendations - - $32,809 Tasks Contaminated Sediment Study $24,190 x Task 6 Dredging Requirements Study $21,851 Task. 7 - Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines Study $24,053 Task 8 Water Quality Best Management Practices Report Task 9 Regional General Permits (RGP; $17,650 AM $15,169 Task 10 Beach Replenishment Projects $29,041 - $]80 "$29;2 •' Task 11 Priority Project Funding Report $11,596 25C $11,6' Task 12 - Harbor Area Management Plan $45,625 �2 2 $45 87 Not -to- exceed Amount $296,745 City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 6. Proposed /Preliminary Timeline The following table depicts the Team's preliminary 12 month timeline for completing the Scope of Work. 2007 2008 ProposedlPreliminary Timeline May in Jul Aug Sep� , ct Nov Doc Jon Notice.to•Prowed - ,; ■ i Taskl s CDF.GipisllMlna IMana itmant;Plan - ;Ta`sk2 U i�ea ::Sediment Cbnfrdl!P,lan .Task -asH diedmamicM ter,Quali .NUmedclModenn L ':Task4 Eel `rass.Ca act' Ship ;Tasks ContsminatedSedimentiStbtl ; � r �Task6. Dred In sRe ulrements %Stull °:.' rTask7 Heio 'ouChannellPlerheed;Gnee Stu Taska - Mater,Qual BMP,.'Report - Taske R Ibnal:General Perfdlts 'Taek 1D eleach?Ra IanlshmenPPrn'ects. _ `Task 11 Pdarl dFro ect FJndlh'1Re'orH. 'flask 14: HarhoriArea Maria ementlPlan ® Review/Task Coordination - Plan/ModelmglSmdy 7. Conflict of Interest/Financial Disclosure /Equal Opportunity WESTON does not believe any existing or planned work conflicts with the Scope of Work listed in your request for proposal (RFP). Our firm agrees not to perform services withany new client that would present a conflict with vour Scope of Work. We agree to promptly notify the City if my conflict occurs between WESTON and the Ciry when circumstances, known to our fine, place the City and another WESTON client in adverse, . hostile or incompatible positions where the interests of the City may be impaired.. WESTON will comply with all applicable City ordinances; the City Chaner; Tide VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Executive Orders 11246, 11375, and 12086; the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (sections 12920 - 12921); and any other applicable Federal or State laws and regulations hereinafter enacted. WESTON will not and does not discriminate against my subcontractors, employees, or applicants for employment based on race, religion, color; national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, . or age. Our subconsultant team members (Coastal Resources Management, Everest International Comulants, and Thomas D. Johnson, Ph.D.) also agree to comply with the Conflict of Interes/Financial Disclosure and Equal Opportunity Requirements listed in your RFP. 61 City of Newport Beach BUDGET AMENDMENT 2006 -07 EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Increase Revenue Estimates Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND rx] Transfer Budget Appropriations X SOURCE:. from existing budget appropriations from additional estimated revenues from unappropriated fund balance EXPLANATION: This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: NO. BA- 07BA -070 AMOUNT: 548,800.00 Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance To transfer expenditure appropriations to approve a professional services agreement with Weston Solutions for preparation of a Harbor Area Management Plan. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Fund Account REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund/Division Account EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603) Description Description Description Division Number 7231 Tidelands - Capital Account Number C5100890 Areas of Biological Significance - Implementation Division Number 7231 Tidelands - Capital Account Number C0310929 Upper Bay/Harbor Area Management Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Signed: Signed: Signed: Financial Approval: Administrative Services Director Administrative Approval: City Manager City Council Approval: City Clerk Amount Debit Credit 43i)I:IrIr r,r, ` Automatic System Entry. $48,800.00 Date Date Date