HomeMy WebLinkAbout27 - Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport BayCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 27
September 9, 2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, (949) 644 -3002
d kiff(&city. newport- beach. ca. us
Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, (949) 644 -3043
cmi ller @city. newport- beach. ca. us
SUBJECT: Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
ISSUE:
Over the course of the next year the Newport Beach City Council, with the advice of the
Harbor Commission, staff and consultants will need to make several decisions about
how to implement a maintenance dredging project in Lower Newport Bay. The
magnitude of this project could be the largest maintenance effort undertaken in the
Lower Bay in over 70 years. During that time period the process and complexity of
implementing such a project has changed significantly. The one component that has not
changed has been the difficulty in financing such a large and important undertaking. To
help guide in the decision making, staff has developed a guide of important
accomplishments that need to be achieved and a Decision Tree to help us ensure that
we meet those accomplishments.
Tonight, the City Council will be asked if staff and the consultant team should embark
on the process as it has been mapped out, realizing that there will be many important
decisions and plan revisions that will occur as we proceed. This afternoon's study
session with the Harbor Commission assists with the important collaborative approach
necessary for a successful project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve conceptual approach as outlined in the Accomplishments Guide and
Decision Tree.
Approve the proposal to develop a Dredged Materials Management Plan (DMMP);
Authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with New
Fields Consultants that is necessary to implement the DMMP.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 2
4. Adopt Budget Amendment #BA -- taking $200,000 in unappropriated General
Fund reserves and assigning these funds to Capital Improvement Project #7014 -
C4402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging Project).
DISCUSSION:
Through the early 1900s the City and County struggled with developing a harbor in the
Lower Newport Bay that was safe for navigation. The City and County expended funds
derived from both a local bond act and a developer's purchase of dredged material for
island construction, to dredge navigation channels and construct a safe harbor
entrance. Despite all of their efforts, it wasn't until the mid 1930s that Congress
determined there was a federal interest in having a safe harbor along the Southern
California Coast between Los Angeles and San Diego. In 1936, Congress approved
Harbor Lines for Newport Bay and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) started to
make the much needed improvements to the harbor.
In those early years, there was a lot of local interest in developing commerce in Lower
Newport Bay. Due to many factors including World War ll, the commerce never
developed. However, Newport Bay did provide important assistance in the construction
of mine sweepers and Coast Guard vessels for the War effort. Newport Bay was also
the site of decommissioning of many of the wartime vessels. The legacy of those and
other shipbuilding and ship maintenance efforts lives on today in the sediments of
Newport Bay.
Because most of Newport Bay has not received maintenance dredging since the
development in the mid 1930s, the legacy of past practices haunts us as we try to
develop a plan to return the Bay to its original design depths created by the Corps over
70 years ago. The fact that there has not been a regular program of maintenance
dredging during that period increases the difficulty in implementing a project at this time
due to sediment quality and funding issues.
Typically, the Corps determines how to expend limited maintenance dredging funds
based on an algorithm that is heavily weighted on the amount of commerce in a harbor.
Since commerce never developed here as anticipated, Newport Harbor can't compete
with the big commercial ports (like the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles) for
maintenance dredging funds; therefore, the City needs to work with our local
Congressional delegates to get funds earmarked for such a project.
Efforts to accomplish this have not been successful due to other national priorities,
thereby forcing the City to develop other creative enticements to attract federal funding
for the needed maintenance dredging. Currently, the most promising option appears to
be a combination of local funding match coupled with a "one and done" approach. With
this approach, Congress would de- authorize a federal interest in future dredging
responsibilities in exchange for funding and authorizing dredging the federal areas of
responsibility to the design depth.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 3
The sediment quality issues are even more challenging than the funding issues. The
legacy of past practices in the Lower Bay, the influx of sediments from the watershed
after the flood of 1969 and the rapid development and drainage changes in the
watershed have each deteriorated sediment quality. These sediment quality issues
were so significant that the Regional Water Quality Control Board and EPA promulgated
sediment quality regulations referred to as TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Load).
Projects in the watershed and Upper Newport Bay are making great strides in trying to
meet these requirements which are very important in Implementing a comprehensive
sediment management plan in Newport Bay.
There is more to be accomplished in the source control and completion of the dredging
of the In -Bay sediment control Basins in Upper Newport Bay. These basins function to
trap fine grained particles that the foothill basins and the in- channel basins do not trap
up in the watershed. These In -Bay basins are effective in trapping a significant portion
of the fine grained sediments as evidenced by the approximately two million cubic
meters of sediment that is currently being removed as part of the Upper Newport Bay
Ecosystem Restoration Project.
However, there have been some unintended consequences that have resulted as part
of this important sediment control program. During most storm and no -storm periods,
sediment inflows from the watershed are trapped in the watershed and Upper Bay
basins. The basins are fairly effective in trapping sediment in even the large storms
except for the very fine grained component of the storm discharge. This very fine
grained material needs salt water and slow velocity to coagulate and drop out of
suspension. Unfortunately, this very fine grained component contains many of the
pollutants from the watershed adsorbed on to the particles. Without the sediment basins
the Lower Bay would receive more sediment input but it would be diluted with coarse
grained sediments that do not carry the pollutants.
The concentration of fine grained sediments in the Lower Bay, even without the
adsorbed pollutant load, is toxic to some benthic animals in the Bay such as amphipods.
In 2003, the Corps completed some required sediment quality analysis in preparation
for a dredging project in the Lower Bay. Where they found predominantly coarse
grained material (near the harbor entrance), the material was found acceptable for
either beach or ocean disposal. Where they found predominately very fined grained
sediments, the material failed "Tier II" tests of the Inland Testing Manual (a.k.a. "Green
Book "). At this point, the Corps made a decision to only dredge the material that passed
the required tests and to discontinue testing locations with fine grained materials.
At about this same time, Harbor Resources and its consultants were performing
sediment quality tests for dredging in the dock areas of the harbor that are not the
maintenance responsibility of the Corps. This dredging has historically been performed
by the adjacent upland property owner with assistance from the City in the form of a
Regional General Permit known as RGP -54. The testing completed under RGP -54
showed that some areas of the Lower Bay also failed testing criteria for various
reasons.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 4
The City Council approved the expenditure of funds to continue on with some of the
tiered testing in any effort to find acceptable material for beach or ocean disposal in
both the RGP area and the federal channels. The Sediment Management Map in
Exhibit 1 is color coded to show different areas of the Bay and the issues related to
sediment disposal either in the ocean or upon our beaches. Exhibit 2 shows a timeline
for completing the necessary tests in each of the problem areas.
These two documents are part of a proposal to develop a Dredged Materials
Management Plan (DMMP) for Lower Newport Bay. Exhibit 3 shows that there are
many items that need to be achieved to have a comprehensive plan for sediment
management. Dredging permit acquisition is far more achievable if the regulatory
agencies can see that the project proponent has a comprehensive plan. Exhibit 4 shows
the decisions that need to be made as we gain information from the testing.
A very important consideration is that, in proposing this approach, staff is trying to be
fiscally responsible in completing a critically needed project at the lowest possible cost
for federal and /or local funding. If testing demonstrates that certain areas of the harbor
have contamination that would make beach or ocean disposal an unlikely option, then
further testing will be discontinued and other more costly disposal options such as
Contained Aquatic Disposal .(CAD) or upland disposal will be pursued. Some level of
testing is required to obtain permits for all types of disposal. Ocean disposal and beach
disposal require the most comprehensive testing but lead to the least expensive
disposal option and thus are worth the investment to pursue to a reasonable level. The
proposed tiered testing approach will take us to critical decision points where we will
make decisions about the proper path to follow.
A criticism of this approach has been that the City has already performed tests and has
wasted too much time, and that we should hire the contractor who is already working in
the Upper Bay, therefore taking our chances with the regulatory agencies. If Newport
Harbor had been regularly maintained and dredged, and without over 70 years of
accumulation of past sins, then the current level of testing that we have completed thus
far would probably be sufficient enough to acquire permits. However, the testing that we
have completed to date has not found a "smoking gun" among the chemical
constituents of concern, although some constituents appear be possible candidates.
This may appear to be a problem, but the City is fortunate that the contamination is
focused in limited areas, therefore narrowing the costly disposal options to these
troubled areas.
Another criticism to this approach is that it appears the consultants are simply creating
work for themselves and /or the agencies are asking for an unreasonable level of testing.
The Green Book is very clear and concise on the level of testing required for Tiers I
through III. However, if you have not passed the requirements in those Tiers, then
further testing becomes far more complicated and allows for some creativity to
determine what causes the toxicity if you do not have the "smoking gun." Over the past
few months the City has been working with the consultants on several iterations of a
sampling and analysis plan that gives us options to follow different courses of action, at
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 5
different testing junctions, for specific areas of the harbor while . allowing sufficient
information to pass on to the Regulatory Agencies for issuance of permits for those
areas.
This approach is not intended to break up the project into components that would
circumvent the CEQA or NEPA process. Programmatic environmental documentation is
proposed with site specific addendums based on issues found and methods of disposal
selected.
The bottom line is that dredging is a far more complex and costly undertaking than it
was 70 years ago, and the proposed studies will assist the City in obtaining permit
authorization to implement a more comprehensive dredging program in Newport Bay
and thus providing safer harbor navigation while protecting the environment.
Environmental Review: The approval of the Professional Services Agreement and the
proposal to develop a DMMP are not projects subject to CEQA and do not require
environmental review. The dredging project, when implemented, may be determined to
be Categorically Exempt 15304 — Class 4: Minor Alterations to Land: Section g exempts
maintenance dredging where disposal is in an area authorized by state and federal
regulatory agencies. If contaminated sediments are found requiring the analysis of
different disposal options, then additional environmental documentation may be
required.
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the item).
Fiscal Impact: The extent of the technical problems with potential sediment
contamination were not anticipated at the time we presented the FY 2008 -09 budget
and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). At that time, the Council approved a checklist
item for $100,000 for Newport Harbor Dredging (CIP #7014- C4402001). An additional
$200,000 is required from the unappropriated General Fund reserve to
account #7014-C4402001.
Prepared by:
tv i
Miller, Harbor Resources Manager
Attachments: Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Submitted by:
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
Sediment Management Map
Testing Timeline
Comprehensive Steps to Dredge Lower Newport Harbor
Dredging Decision Tree
New Fields Professional Services Agreement & DMMP
Budget Amendment BA #_
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 6
Exhibit 1
Sediment Management Map
`Q Newport Harbor Dredging Areas
-
Passed in pass fat ,passesdoing Fa derd Clibi PMIrrwhere Testing
f -- lade to pass I, ocean dlspolal but may t m re i Ter II V whim, Testing.
- Pallas for t.Woy In iffs, e, put Rp onlarnma s m surface Salim-, I WP
a I likely W prevent sown disposal 0pdw drten0f Mudplg �e'ticd ens
i node Oand May be eple 10 menage upper 3A ddlerenllYAen
vndertylnp send
Passed m RGP -9l but m- sealea11h,Ppd nislaill in F—I Charms
'samples. filling empMpod sludy YJpuld re(vre
UioeCCUmuktm leaf n91f enpltlpM IaA pessa
i Pissed In RGP56 . but ampHpps mortality in Pederel Q Immaal samples .May
W 6dd..d In ampnlpod study tt TIE i''YWJ Tali blba[Nmuliii
Testng if dmphip. fast passes
O d Nawaa a Mgai prajaG aril. new 0 aifalmi W.Id be lapunad.
+11 t't4-Tilt-%\
k
WE
6
0 025 0.5
Mips
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 7
Exhibit 2
Testing Timeline
off additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered.
' Timeline is dependent upon start date.
O
O
N
N
D1
N
U
i
y
O N
>
�
co
Y
W
O
{S{
;
Q
O
E
CL
�•
=
>1 '�.
a-,
=
O 0)
7
V
O
O [Q
N N
C 0
i
Y
E
L
U 7
X l4
.=
y
U
O
CO
L y
O J
Y l6
Q.
Area
l4
E
N
O>
w
y
C L
0¢
C
0¢
B
•
E
•
Time to
Sept - Nov 08
Completion'
A
•
•
•
•
c.
C
•
•
•
•
D
•
•
F
•
•
•
G
•
•
•
Time to
Sept -# Oct Jan 09 Feb 09
Completion
H
•
•
•
•
o
Time to
Sept
Oct
♦ Dec —r] Feb March
May 09
Completion
off additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered.
' Timeline is dependent upon start date.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 8
Exhibit 3
Comprehensive Steps to Dredge Lower Newport Harbor
WHAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED TO
DREDGE LOWER NEWPORT BAY
Current Efforts Neaded.Efforts
1. Draft DMMP Phased Sampling Integrated Final
antl Analysis.... Programmatic
Plan
2:. Draft HAMP
13. Draft Eelgrass
4. Final Rhine
Channel Remediation
Plan
5. Draft IRWMP r
Completion of UNB
Ecosystem Restoration
and Watershed Sediment
8. Implementation of
Source Reduction
Projects to Reduce
UNB Ecosystem .
Currant and Future
Restoration Project
Deposition In Lower bay
and comply with TMDL.
7. Draft Harbor Fee
Federal and/or
Funding Plan
8. Lobbying. for
Federal Funds and
Project Authorization
Desired Result
Programmatic Area Environmental
Documentation Documentation
If necessary
Implena3ntable
Maintenance .
Dredging Projeot
Vdu-
CekvYWeS
to a Remo
SVmerrt
IrnmuGOm.
Renee IXAMP:
�- Retuev COUnrN
eoaexm a scox
a Nbrk Ckanpe.
CwMt FiMIHANP 1 r
r• ®® Hf•mMd lall s 1
r 1 �
i r pcgp /yy R[pse Mp MMm No
' H/�MP, i r fly SDp'Ac
1 r
FMY � � E'naMSIeY r B�NdnW6I
� ' er..,.e� r 1Va11NYYn. � DsumvlWM. r WnmYYl00n
MWMItl � YNWerteY _� 1 1 1
Edptess 9'YWY
� � r
CaMI �r Fhul NeNa Fee r � BYY RedMb � Bak FLMYb � 6x FVdrgm
rq.oad ____�_ Byuye. ____f I .pp Y- Olperll � i:010Y- r f1Y]em-
NerLw Fa LbYnpaCM BeF[MFQgw bepk�<pn
' Wl 9PriR YMJ fPtlR MNn�Y
pp�� CNrFrMppal of FMVI tU[Y�YOfab In Wrn6 LA]m
Irc R Ie Emvmme+IN g- R k - -• 64x G091he
6�c nIAtlM Pm. Gwv�mMbl
i r r
: r r r
Aee�Q 1. J I
L -- PeyeA COE
b FRpM
CD
CL
co
❑
CD
n
0
CD
1
0
m
x
m
N
R
0
b
m ti
vm
m F
m b �
� O d
b 4`c
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say
September 9, 2008
Page 10
Exhibit 5
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
NEWFIELDS COMPANIES LLC
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
LOWER NEWPORT BAY
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this _ day of , 2008,
by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "City "),
and NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company whose
address is 1349 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309
( "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 planning to dredge the Lower Newport Bay in the near future. However,
before dredging can occur, the sediment must be tested in order to determine the
appropriate disposal strategy.
C. City desires to engage Consultant to develop a Dredged Material Management
Plan (DMMP) which will provide the necessary data for a staged harbor wide
maintenance dredging program to return the channel depths to design, or near
design depth. ( "Project").
D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement.
E. The principal member[s] of Consultant for purposes of Project, shall be Mr.
William Gardiner, Dr. Jack Word and Dr. Thomas Johnson.
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:
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 11
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall
terminate on the 31st day of December, 2009, 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
the services shall be performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner.
The failure by Consultant to perform the services in a diligent and timely manner
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 Two Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Four
Dollars and nol100 ($298,274.00) without prior written authorization from City.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
SeptemberR 2008
Page 92
No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without
the prior written approval of City.
4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work
performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name
of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services
performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it
relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent
on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any
reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty
(30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
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.
4.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, when payments
made by City equal 90% of the maximum fee provided for in this
Agreement, no further payments shall be made until City has accepted the
final work under this Agreement.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 13
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 Mr. William Gardiner 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.
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Harbor Resources Department.
Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, 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
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say
September 9, 2008
Page 14
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. By delivery of completed work,
Consultant certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this
Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws and the
professional standard of care.
8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and
shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and
expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of
whatsoever nature that is 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
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,
volunteers, 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 breach
of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, any work performed or services
provided under this Agreement including, without limitation, defects in
workmanship or materials 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
sole 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
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 95
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.
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.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 16
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 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.
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 Employers Liability Insurance in accordance with
the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractors
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.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 97
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:
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.
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 parry
except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written
notice of non - payment of premium) written notice has been
received by City.
Maintenance Dredging In Lower Newport Say
September 9, 2008
Page 18
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 or joint- venture.
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. The City is an intended beneficiary of any work
performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care
between the subcontractor and the City. 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
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 19
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
All written documents shall be transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version
of Microsoft Word, Excel, or PDF format. Consultant shall provide all project
documents on a CD accompanied by one set of printed documents.
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
Maintenance Dredging In Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 20
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
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 the law or 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.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 21
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, 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:
Attention: Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA, 92660
Phone: (949) 644 -3043
Fax: (949) 723 -0589
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
Attention: Mr. William Gardiner
NewFields Companies LLC
4729 NE View Dr.
Port Gamble, WA 98364
Phone: (360) 297 -6080
Fax: (360) 582 -1679
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 party 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, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure the
default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to
the defaulting party written notice thereof.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 22
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.
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.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 23
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.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 24
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day
and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Aaron C. Harp, Asst City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
By:
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Edward Selich, 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
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 25
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
A' C" ff 01�_
Aaron 6. Harp, Asst City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
By:
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Edward Selich, 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
14
Maintenance Dredging In Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 26
Exhibit A
Scope of Services
Proposal to Develop a Dredged Material Management Plan for
Lower Newport Bay
Prepared for City of Newport Harbor Resources
Prepared by NewFields LLC
Continued sedimentation and delayed maintenance dredging in Lower Newport Bay have created
unsafe conditions resulting from the narrowing and shoaling of the Federal channels and
decreased depths in key anchorages throughout the Bay. The City of Newport Beach (City) and
the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) seek to re- establish adequate water depths
throughout the Bay, including the Federal Channels, berths, mooring fields and in key
anchorages. As part of a harbor -wide dredging program, the City is evaluating their own
priorities for dredging within the harbor and to determine all potential disposal options for the
Lower Newport Bay sediment.
Historically there have been two major programs that maintain safe harbor depths for
recreational and commercial boat operations in Newport Bay. The Federal Programs conducted
by the USACE provides maintenance dredging between project lines adjacent to opposing bay
shorelines in the authorized Federal waterways. The City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources
Program maintains depths in Newport Bay tidelands granted in trust to the City by the State of
California. and assists private property owners in the dredging of the private and public berths
via individual permits and the Regional General Permit (RGP 54). In addition, the County of
Orange is responsible for maintenance dredging in tidelands granted in trust to the County by the
State of California. Since 1936, the Army Corps of Engineers has performed limited
maintenance dredging, primarily focused on the Harbor Entrance and Upper Newport Bay
Channel. Currently, Congress has determined that there is a federal interest in having the
USACE perform an ecosystem restoration project in the Upper Newport Bay. Some of this
dredged material is used for habitat creation; while the RGP -54 program provides sediment for
use as beach replenishment. Both programs also provide alternatives to these beneficial uses
which include disposal of SUAD (Suitable for Unconfined Aquatic Disposal) sediment in
designated ocean disposal sites or confinement and isolation of UAD (Unsuitable for Unconfined
Disposal) sediments in acceptable upland disposal sites.
This proposed dredged material management program will provide necessary data for a staged
harbor -wide maintenance dredging program to return channel depths to design, or near design
depth. Within this larger program, there are smaller project areas that may be accelerated based
on available information and funding.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say
September 9, 2008
Page 27
Background:
The proposed dredged materials may be disposed of in two ways, in -water disposal or upland
disposal. In -water disposal options for Newport Bay typically include alternative reuse of
acceptable shoaled sediment within the Bay or open -water disposal of SUAD materials at the
LA -3 Disposal Site. In -water disposal in confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site(s) are additional
in -water options that the City may wish to consider. Any in -water placement option requires an
evaluation of the proposed project sediments following US Army Corps (USACE) and US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidelines. This process requires a tiered evaluation,
including some or all of the following evaluations:
• Historical evaluation of the potential for specific contaminants to be present based upon
past history of the location and the selection of Chemicals of Potential Ecological
Concern (COPECs);
• Sediment chemistry analysis to document the presence of any chemicals of potential
concern at concentrations that pose a potential for unacceptable risk;
• Toxicity testing to determine whether the proposed dredged material may cause short -
term or long -term biological effects in the receiving environment; and
• Bioaccumulation potential, or the potential for COPECs to enter the food web.
Sediment is only eligible for beach replenishment if it consists primarily of sand, is free of
contaminants, of the correct color, and does not have unacceptable odors. Ocean disposal allows
for placement of a wider range of sediment grain sizes, provided the material meets acceptability
criteria for chemistry, toxicity, and bioaccumulation. Disposal at a CAD site allows for some
level of chemical contamination in the dredged material, provided that the cap overlaying that
sediment is deep enough for it to remain isolated from any sediment dwelling organisms.
Upland disposal options include clean fill, construction materials, disposal at a landfill, or
disposal at a contaminated materials waste facility. Upland disposal generally requires soil
chemistry analysis and some type of leaching tests to determine if contaminants can be mobilized
by rain water. The types of analyses that are required will be program and placement area
dependent and would be determined in coordination with the regulatory agencies.
The City and USACE have collected some of the information necessary to determine the
suitability of proposed dredged material throughout the Bay. This data has been collected during
the RGP -54 permit renewal in 2005 (Gardiner et al. 2006), as well as two investigations targeting
the Federal Channels in 2006 and 2003 (Gardiner et al. 2006; Moore et al. 2003). While the
collected data was specific to those projects, much of this information can be applied to current
dredged material evaluation. However, some areas have not been previously sampled, or will
require a certain amount of additional information in order to determine suitability and the
appropriate disposal options. This proposal provides a roadmap for each of the proposed project
areas and then describes an approach to address each of the key data gaps. The primary goal of
this DMMP is to determine dredged- material options for Lower Newport Bay sediment. This
will be accomplished by following a step -wise approach, developed in coordination the City,
USEPA, and USACE, in order to expedite the process and minimize the amount of additional
data that will be required to determine suitability. The specific objectives to develop the harbor -
wide DMMP are:
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 28
1. Develop a detailed step -wise approach to evaluate the sediments throughout the Lower
Newport Bay, incorporating as much of the previous data as possible.
2. Develop a sampling and analysis strategy that will provide suitability determinations for
portions of the lower Bay in 2008 and early 2009, while continuing to evaluate other
portions of the harbor that may have more complex data requirements.
3. Compare the current bathymetry in the lower Bay to that of 2005 to determine all
locations where previous data represent current conditions.
4. Determine an appropriate amphipod species for testing toxicity of Newport sediment.
Amphipod tests have been problematic in Lower Newport Bay, largely due to the
unusually fine grain size of these sediments.
5. Conduct amphipod toxicity tests with the selected species.
6. Fill remaining data gaps for those locations that meet amphipod testing criteria,
supporting the upcoming RGP -54 permit where possible.
7. Define the nature and extent of mercury in the West Lido Channel.
8. Refine toxicity identification evaluations (TIE) studies for the Lido Island Anchorage and
nearby areas.
9. Develop reference values for the LA -3 Reference site.
10. Complete Options/Altematives analysis for each management area as sufficient data is
available.
In order to accomplish these objectives in a timely and cost - effective manner, NewFields will
work closely with the City and regulatory agencies in developing an approach that will fulfill
their regulatory requirements, while capitalizing on available data. Where possible, NewFields
will conduct multiple study elements concurrently to minimize the project schedule.
Furthermore, this program will be conducted in conjunction with the Marina Park sampling and
analysis program to provide further time and cost savings.
Management Areas:
The management areas for the proposed harbor -wide dredging program are delineated based on
sediment management needs, as well as the sediment quality data that is currently available. For
the purposes of this DMMP, there are ten management areas defined within Lower Newport Bay.
Many of these areas include a portion of the Federal Channel, as well as mooring fields;
however, in order to maximize the management options for the City, there are some areas that
are limited to a specific Channel reach or anchorage. The management areas and the pathway
forward for each area are described in this section. A map of the areas and a proposed pathway
forward with timeline are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1. The ten management areas are as
follows:
Area A includes portions of the eastern Newport Channel to the Entrance Channel and
includes the "A ", `B ", and BYC Moorings.
Area B includes the eastern and northern portion of the Balboa Island Channel from the
Promontory Bay entrance to the Balboa Yacht Club, inclusive of a portion of the "D"
moorings.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 29
• Area C includes the western portion of the Balboa Island Channel, from the Promontory
Bay entrance to Harbor and Collins Islands, inclusive of a portion of the "D" moorings.
• Area D includes the western portion of the Newport Channel inclusive of the C moorings
to Collins Island.
• Area E includes the nearshore portions of Linda, Harbor, and Collins Islands. This area is
designed to capture shoaling areas along the edges of these islands.
• Area F includes the main channel in the central harbor and west of Linda Isle, including
the G moorings.
• Area G includes Lido Channel from the Lido Village turning basin to the Anchorage, but
not including the anchorage.
• Area H is limited to the Federal Anchorage area at the eastern end of Lido Isle.
• Area I includes portions of the Newport Channel east of 10`h Street and east of the "F"
and NHYC Moorings.
• Area J includes the West Lido Channel and Newport Channel west of 10`h Street.
'1
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2006
Page 30
Newport Harbor Dredging Areas
--1` Passed in RGP -51 . passed damns Feoeral l]vnnel Tar IV. Woes teal[,.
- - 'ji,ay IO pass for IXHen dispdsel our may requae taoaL61malabon lei
- Passed fa Iou U,y In R3P -54 out R9 poroanbaliaa in alleca spat"Vol IW
] II IIIkelyloprevemoceanalsposaj,dd, (lmendy sNdymp va4cfli and
Mrzonml eximal May oe able to manage upper -311 dieeraMly Man
uwalti ng a ma.
1676 — I
Passed in RGP -56 but madersta empn,pod labium, m Faders channel
ssmplas L*alyto be eadlessea In amphlpod Mudy.'Mula rubs¢
udapp, nulanm realms d amprnpw teal passes
- Passed in RGP -5c but amPNPW ma19IIIy In Fadml caennal amities May
peaddressedmam apadsluayaTIE. NWIdrepnrebibacmmulaEm
IesOng if empngpd lest passes
Oattlswee a targelM Prged area new cnareaalssaapn would oe repureb
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 31
If additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered.
Timeline is dependent upon start date.
0O
0O
N
C
V 'a
N
N
r-.
@
_
N
.>
r y=„
i6
O
+..
y
F
Z
a
N
°ice
v
>
Q
v
T'r
o
Q
c
0
m
0
N
7
i
V 7
X M
�, C
W
V
R
O
N
L y
O>
Y l4
Area
m
a
f°— W
a
m
Z a`
o a
B
•
E
•
Time
SepC Nov 08
p et�
C m n'
A
•
•
•
•
C
•
a
D
•
•
F
•
•
•
G
•
a
•
Time to
Sept Oct Jan 09 Feb 09
Completion
H
•
•
•
•
Time to
Sept Oct ♦ Decd Feb
March —+ May 09
Completion
If additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered.
Timeline is dependent upon start date.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 32
Pathway Forward
The pathway forward for each of these areas is based on the data that currently exists, whether
there has been significant shoaling within the areas, and the data gaps that exist within each area.
Development of a Step -Wise Approach
Based on previous investigations, the data requirements for determining disposal options vary
across Lower Newport Bay. In some locations, there may be sufficient data to determine
suitability. In other locations, amphipod toxicity potentially related to sediment grain size, a lack
of bioaccumulation data, or a limited understanding of chemical concentrations or toxicity may
be preventing a full characterization of the proposed dredged material. A step -wise approach will
be developed to evaluate harbor sediments. This will maximize the amount of previous data that
can be used in this evaluation despite the varied nature of that existing data. NewFields will work
with the City and regulatory agencies to develop a sampling and analysis plan that will fill
remaining data gaps for each management area independently but concurrently. Compositing
strategies will incorporate vertical as well as horizontal groupings of stations.
Bathymetry
As a first step for each of the ten areas, the current bathymetry for each area will be compared to
the 2005 bathymetry to determine whether significant shoaling has occurred since previous data
were collected. Provided that significant shoaling has not occurred, previous data may be used to
determine the suitability of proposed dredged material. If substantial sediment accumulation has
occurred since 2005, those locations may require characterization of the newly deposited
sediment.
Development of a Step -Wise Approach
Based on previous investigations, the data requirements for determining disposal options vary
across Lower Newport Bay. In some locations, there may be sufficient data to determine
suitability. In other locations, amphipod toxicity potentially related to sediment grain size, a lack
of bioaccumulation data, or a limited understanding of chemical concentrations or toxicity may
be preventing a full characterization of the proposed dredged material. A step -wise approach will
be developed to evaluate harbor sediments. This will maximize the amount of previous data that
can be used in this evaluation despite that varied nature of that existing data. NewFields will
work with the City and regulatory agencies to develop a sampling and analysis plan that will fill
remaining data gaps for each management area independently but concurrently. Compositing
strategies will incorporate vertical as well as horizontal groupings of stations. This task includes
the preparation of a sampling and analysis plan and coordination with agencies to facilitate the
implementation of that plan.
Amphipod Evaluation
A number of the Study Areas have not been approved for aquatic disposal due to amphipod
toxicity. These include Areas A, C, G, H, and I. The role of sediment grain size remains unclear
for Newport sediment evaluations. Lower Newport Bay is somewhat unusual in that the sediment
has a high proportion of very fine clay. Amphipods that are often used in Lower Newport
investigations (Eohaustorius estuarius) are intolerant to high proportions of clay. Typically the
role of sediment grain size is suspected when there is little if any sediment chemistry
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
Septem6er9, 2008
Page 33
contamination and moderate levels of toxicity typically manifested only in the amphipod test.
This has been particularly problematic for the Federal Channels dredged material evaluations, in
which a number of reaches have had moderate amphipod toxicity associated with low
concentrations of contaminants of concern. Fine - grained sediments may also continue to be a
factor in Newport if the trend for increasing clay deposition continues in the future.
We propose to conduct a sediment grain size test using Lower Newport sediment with a suite of
amphipod species that are considered acceptable for evaluating sediment. Test species would
include Eohaustorius estuarius, Ampelisca abdita, Grandidieralla japonica, Leptocheirus
plumulosus, and Rhepoxynius abronius. Tests will be conducted as standard 10- day.amphipod
tests using a gradient of grain sizes. Test sediments will be Lower Newport sediment of varying
grain size.
Once a suitable amphipod species is selected, Areas A, C, G, H, and I will be reevaluated for
amphipod toxicity. If the amphipod tests for a given area composite passed suitability criteria,
any required additional information for that respective area would be collected.
Characterizing Locations Not Included in Previous Evaluations
In order to provide for a harbor -wide dredging program, USEPA indicated that the agencies will
require some additional stations to characterize locations that were not included in previous
investigations. These generally include some of the key moorages that were not part of the
Federal Channels and are not near enough to shore to be represented by the RGP -54
investigation. At a minimum, this will include the A, B, G, H and J moorings, the confluence
area between Bay and Linda Isle, and possibly the C moorings.
Sediment characterizations of these areas will be required to include sediment chemistry, toxicity
testing, and bioaccumulation testing. However, evaluations of these locations will be conducted
in conjunction with other portions of this program to ensure that field and analyses efforts
overlap, minimizing costs and ensuring similar data quality.
Bioaccumulation Testing
USEPA and USACE require an evaluation of the potential for COPECs in sediment to enter the
food chain. Bioaccumulation is evaluated by exposing sediment- dwelling prey species (usually a
clam and sand worm) to test sediments in the laboratory. After a period of 28 days, the chemical
residues in the tissues are measured and compared to guidance values. While near -shore
sediments in each of the project areas have not shown unacceptable bioaccumulation potential,
the Federal Channels and mooring fields have not yet been evaluated for bioaccumulation
potential. For those areas passing amphipod toxicity testing, bioaccumulation potential will be
evaluated. The COPECs that will be analyzed in tissues will be selected in conjunction with
USEPA and will be limited to those chemicals in sediment exceeding guidance levels.
Mercury and TIE Investigations
Based on previous sediment evaluations, sediment from two portions of the Bay have been
identified that will require additional sediment evaluation due to mercury concentrations in
sediments or unexplained amphipod toxicity. These investigations will need to be completed in
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 34
order to determine the disposal options for sediments. This includes sediment from Areas H, I,
and J. The following sections summarize each issue and outline our approach.
Mercury in West Lido and Newport Channels:
Sediment evaluations in support of the City's 2005 RGP -54 permit renewal indicated
three stations with mercury concentrations that exceed ER -M guidance levels. In 2007,
NewFields conducted high resolution sampling in the West Lido Channel to refine the
area with elevated mercury concentrations and to establish gradients to help identify a
source. Mercury concentrations were unexpectedly elevated across the study area,
including most of the West Lido Channel and portions of the Newport Channel.
Following this result, NewFields met with the Harbor Resources staff to map a path
forward. The following subtasks are proposed to determine the nature and extent of
mercury contamination in Lido Channel and Newport Channel. This portion of the
program will be conducted in conjunction with the Marina Park evaluation.
The boundaries of the horizontal distribution of mercury contamination in Newport
Channel will be determined by sampling additional stations in mid - channel and along the
southern shore of Lido Island between the Rbine Channel and the Anchorage. Previously
collected samples that had not been analyzed individually will be analyzed as part of this
task. The vertical distribution of mercury in sediment will be evaluated in both West Lido
and Newport Channel by collecting cores and analyzing several pre- selected vertical
layers. The potential for anthropogenic or natural sources of mercury in West Lido
Channel and Newport Channel will be evaluated by conducting provenance analysis;
evaluating the ratio of mercury to other metals associated with specific sources. This
analysis will also provide some indication of mercury bioavailability.
Toxicity Identification in Yacht Anchorage: In 2007, NewFields conducted a sediment
investigation specifically targeted at determining whether pyrethroids were the source of
sediment toxicity in the Yacht Anchorage area. This study is called a "Toxicity
Identification and Evaluation" or TIE study. The TIE uses a series of sediment
manipulations to alter the toxicity of certain classes of chemical contaminants, followed
by biological testing to determine whether test sample toxicity was altered by the
manipulation. Each manipulation is targeted towards a group of chemicals and by
combining several manipulations, the preponderance of evidence can implicate the cause
of toxicity. This method is particularly useful when working with pyrethroids, since the
analytical methods for detecting pyrethroids in sediment are still under development and
the detection limits for pyrethroids are near or above effects levels for amphipods.
The first series of TIE manipulations were conducted in January and February 2008 with
samples collected in January 2008. Experimental manipulations were limited to broad
groups of organic chemicals, as well as manipulations targeted towards pyrethroids and
organophosphorus pesticides. Based on the results of this first round of manipulations,
there are some indications that pyrethroids play a role in toxicity. There are also positive
indications that toxicity is not associated with DDT, PCBs, PAHs, or OP pesticides.
However, based on the current data, it is not clear whether there are other factors that
play a role in toxicity. This is partly due to the magnitude of change in toxicity from the
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 35
manipulations conducted thus far (changes in toxicity were primarily observed in
porewater, changes in sediment toxicity were small) and the targeted nature of the TIE.
We propose to conduct an additional set of sediment manipulations and associated testing
to confirm the link between pyrethroids and toxicity and to determine if grain size,
metals, or organotins are also implicated. In addition, confirmatory chemical analyses
will be conducted on test sediments. Achieving detection limits at or below biological
effects levels is difficult, however, recent advances in analytical methods can allow for
sufficiently low detection limits (Don Weston 2006).
Establishment of Reference Values for LA -3 Disposal Site Reference Site
In some USEPA regions, an "environs" approach has been used to evaluate dredged material,
rather than sampling the reference site during each evaluation. The environs approach uses
historic data collected from the reference area to establish mean reference values for each
reference site. These reference values are then used as the point of comparison for dredged
material evaluations, rather than retesting the reference sediment. This approach offers the City
several advantages. First, data collected previously from the reference area are used to establish
the reference area values, taking into account responses and contaminants present at the
reference site. Second, the reference value is a predictable, "bright line" that test results are
compared against. Using the environs approach, the suitability requirements for sediment are
predictable and consistent. Finally, this approach relieves the project proponent of the costs
associated with collecting and testing reference sediment for each sediment evaluation. This
approach has been used effectively in the San Francisco region to manage dredged material.
This approach is based on a body of information collected from the reference site and establishes
a range of values for the reference site that are then used in dredged material evaluations.
USEPA has expressed an interest and willingness to use the environs approach for LA -3.
NewFields will compile historic data for the current LA -3 disposal site and establish mean values
for chemical contaminants of concern, toxicity, and bioaccumulation potential. As part of the
compilation, data will be reviewed for data quality and appropriate detection limits.
Options /Alternatives Analysis
The disposal options for each management area will be determined as sufficient data becomes
available. NewFields will prepare an Options/Alternatives Analysis, reviewing the in -water and
upland disposal options available to the City.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 36
SPECIFICS OF PROPOSED TASKS:
Task 1: Bathymetry
In order to determine whether previous sediment evaluations reflect current conditions, bottom
depths from 2008 will be compared to those of 2005 and 2006. This was a task that was
requested by USEPA to determine whether there had been significant shoaling since previous
data were collected.
NewFields will acquire the most recent
Lower Newport Bay bathymetry from
USACE, as well as those from 2005 and
2006. Data will be put into a geo-
referenced, 3 -D contouring and surface
mapping software (SURFERg that allows
similar data points to be identified and
changes in depth calculated. Sediment
accumulation may be expressed as an
absolute change in depth, or a change in
depth relative to the overall column of
sediment at a given location.
Based on the depth or relative depth,
NewFields will consult with the City and
regulatory agencies to determine whether
additional samples will be required.
This task would include coordination of
data transfer, identification of appropriate
data sets, analysis of data and supporting Figure 1. Bathymetric contour for Oceanside Harbor as
calculations, and agency negotiations. an example of SURFER software output.
Task 2: Development of Step -wise Approach/Sampling and Analysis Plan
Once the bathymetric analysis has been completed and the suitability of previous data sets is
known, NewFields will prepare a programmatic sampling and analysis plan. Working with the
City and regulatory agencies, NewFields will develop a step -wise approach and decision process
that will allow for all areas to be evaluated concurrently and will allow determination and
disposal options for specific areas to be evaluated as data becomes available. This will facilitate
expedited determinations for areas with few data requirements, while study of areas requiring
further analysis continues.
Under this task, a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) will be prepared for review by the City to
support initial discussions with USEPA, the USACE, and other resource agencies prior to
conducting the sediment evaluation. Based on previous investigations we have performed in the
Newport Bay area, we would expect an initial conference call with the USEPA and USACE prior
to sampling. This task would include supporting any initial agency negotiations.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 37
We anticipate two field efforts with multiple tasks being grouped into each field effort to
expedite the program and minimize costs. The first field effort would support the amphipod
study and would be a short, one -day sampling event. The second field effort would be the more
substantial effort and would support Tasks 4, 5, and 6. NewFields will work with the City to
determine the best field schedule to meet the needs of the program elements.
Task 3: Amphipod Study
We propose to conduct a sediment grain size test using Lower Newport Bay sediment with a
suite of amphipod species that are considered acceptable for evaluating sediment. Test species
would include Eohaustorius estuarius, Ampelisca abdita, Grandidieralla japonica, Leptocheirus
plumulosus, and Rhepoxynius abronius. Tests will be conducted as standard 10 -day amphipod
tests using a gradient of grain sizes. Test sediments will be Lower Newport Bay sediment of
varying grain size. If this is not possible, a gradient may be prepared by mixing sediments to
create a grain size gradient; however, this can be problematic as mixing with coarse - grained
sediment could effectively dilute toxicity due to other factors. An alternative approach would be
to simply analyze whole samples from areas known to have fine - grained sediment, low levels of
chemical contamination, and moderate levels of toxicity during previous investigations.
Once a suitable species has been identified, Areas A, C, G, H, and I would be reevaluated for
amphipod toxicity. If the amphipod tests for a given area composite passed suitability criteria,
any required additional information for that respective area would be collected.
Task 4: Additional Characterization Based on Existing Data
Locations not represented by the current datasets will require chemical and biological
characterization to determine disposal options. The A, B, G, H and J moorings, the confluence
area between Bay and Linda Isle, and possibly the C moorings will be sampled for chemical and
biological analysis. Any locations with significant shoaling or areas that need to be more clearly
defined, based on existing data will be evaluated under this task. To the extent possible, sampling
and analysis for this portion of the program will be design to support the upcoming RGP -54
permit renewal.
Sediments will be sampled using a vibracore sampler. This will ensure that project depth is
achieved and that underlying sand layers are retained for characterization. This sampler will also
allow for a vertical stratification. Previous data indicate that portions of the harbor are
characterized by fine silt overlying clean sand. For those portions of the harbor, compositing
sand layers separately from silt/clay layers may provide the City with more disposal options.
Test composites will be evaluated following USEPA and USACE guidance for dredged material
evaluation (the Ocean Testing Manual and the Inland Testing Manual). Composites will be
analyzed for sediment grain size, TOC, and a suite of EPA priority pollutants: metals (including
mercury), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides (including 2,4' and
4,4' DDT groups), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB aroclors), and organotins. Analytical
Resources Inc. of Tukwila, Washington will perform the chemical analysis. This laboratory has
conducted previous studies in the Newport area and we have a close working relationship with
their chemists.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say
September 9, 2008
Page 38
Analytical precision and accuracy will be evaluated using quality assurance /quality control
(QA/QC) samples with each analytical batch. QA/QC analysis will include blanks, laboratory
control spikes, and matrix spike /matrix spike duplicates. NewFields will evaluate all chemistry
QA/QC data and its potential implications on the analytical results from the test samples.
Biological testing for ocean disposal includes an assessment of toxicity of both the solid -phase
and the suspended - particulate phase. The solid -phase tests provide an estimate of toxicity to
benthic organisms at the disposal site. Solid -phase tests will include 10 -day acute tests with an
amphipod and the mysid shrimp or a polychaete worm. The suspended - particulate phase (SPP)
tests provide an estimate of toxicity to water column organisms exposed to sediment as it falls
through the water column at the disposal site. It can also provide an indication of water - column
toxicity that might be encountered during the dredging process. SPP tests will be conducted with
the fish, Menidia beryllina, the mysid, Americamysis Bahia, and larval mussels (Mytilus sp.).
Task 5: Bioaccumulation Testing
USEPA and USACE require an evaluation of the potential for COPECs in sediment to enter the
food chain. Bioaccumulation testing is required for any sediment proposed for ocean disposal.
Sediment represented by the RGP -54 survey will not require further evaluation of
bioaccumulation potential (provided there has not been significant shoaling), however, sediment
in the Federal Channels and anchorages have not been evaluated for bioaccumulation. In order to
minimize costs and schedule, sediment for bioaccumulation testing will be collected during the
initial field effort.
In order to evaluate the potential for sediment- associated chemicals to accumulate in tissues of
benthic organisms at the disposal site, 28 -day bioaccumulation tests will be conducted with the
clam, Macoma nasuta, and the marine worm, Nephtys caecoides. During the bioaccumulation
test, clams and worms are exposed to test sediments for 28 days. Following the exposure period,
the test organisms are held for 24 hours in clean seawater to void any sediment that may remain
in the gut. A native control sediment and LA -3 Reference sediment will be tested concurrent to
the test treatments. Tissues from each of the test treatment and reference replicates will be frozen
and sent for chemical analysis at ARI. Alternatively, if a data base can be established for
bioaccumulation data at the LA -3 Reference site (Task 8), only the native control will be tested.
Tissues from the bioaccumulation tests will be analyzed for chemical residues. This proposal
includes costs for conducting a broad suite of chemical analysis, however, it is likely that the
analyte list can be refined following receipt of the sediment chemistry results and would
dramatically reduce analytical costs. Previous investigations have indicated that the primary
COPECs in Lower Newport Bay are DDTs, mercury, and possibly organotins. It is possible that
the analyte list could be limited to this subset of analytes. The results of the chemical analyses
for test sediments will be compared to the LA -3 Reference data to determine suitability.
Task 6: Refinement of TIE Characterization
In order to further narrow down the potential cause of amphipod toxicity in the anchorage area,
several additional TIE manipulations will be conducted with both sediment and porewater
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 39
samples from this area. TIE manipulations will include treatments for metals, organotins, and
pyrethroids. Individual treatments may include the following:
Cation Exchange Resin — This resin (SIR -300) is used to bind cationic metals and is
particularly effective for copper, zinc, nickel, and lead. For sediment treatments, the resin
is added directly to the tests sediment. For porewater treatments, the porewater is passed
through a column that has been packed with the resin beads.
AVS Addition — Acid volatile sulfides aggressively bind metals, including mercury,
copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc, forming insoluble precipitates. Sodium sulfide is added
as a solution to test sediment. Multiple levels of sulfides will be tested to ensure that
sufficient sulfides are present to bind the metals and the addition of sulfides is not
causing toxicity. This manipulation will be conducted for the solid -phase evaluations.
EDTA Addition — Ethyldiaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is a strong chelating agent,
removing cationic metals and reducing toxicity associated with those metals.
Powdered Coconut Charcoal and Esterase with 30% diluted test sediment: In some
cases the toxicity in the baseline sediment overwhelms the TIE manipulation. These two
manipulations were evaluated previously with pure and 10% diluted test sediment.
Toxicity will be evaluated in more dilute test sediment and porewater.
PBO at a higher concentration: Piprynol butoxide is a chemical known to increase the
toxicity of pyrethroids. PBO treatments in the previous porewater tests provided an
indication that pyrethroids were linked to toxicity; however, changes were not observed
in sediment toxicity tests. Tests will be conducted with sediment and porewater at two
higher concentrations of PBO to ensure that it is effective.
In addition, sediments will be chemically analyzed for pyrethroids. In order to get sufficiently
low detection limits, gas chromatography /mass spectrometry will be conducted in the negative
ion detection mode. This is a more involved and somewhat experimental approach that has
allowed for sufficiently low detection limits in previous sediment investigations (Don Weston
2006).
Task 7. Mercury in West Lido Channel Sediments
In order to determine dredging options for West Lido Channel (Area .l) sediment, the nature and
extent of mercury in the area sediments needs to be defined. This task will include a delineation
of the horizontal and vertical boundary of elevated mercury, as well as address potential sources
of mercury and potential bioavailability. Samples to be analyzed for this task were previously
collected and archived.
In order to better understand the horizontal boundaries of mercury contamination in Newport
Channel, NewFields previously collected samples from 13 stations using a 3" diameter piston
core. Three station locations were similar to those of the CoastKeepers' recent surface sampling
effort to provide a point of comparison and to provide additional information about the vertical
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 40
distribution at those locations. Samples from each station will be analyzed as a single, vertical
composite, in a manner similar to the 2007 sampling effort. A second core was sectioned into
vertical strata and archived for possible future analysis. In addition, 10 archived samples from
stations collected during the Federal Channel program will be analyzed for total mercury to
determine the potential contamination in the Yacht Anchorage, Turning Basin, and the Lido
Channel. This subtask will include mercury, grain size, and TOC analysis in a total of 23
samples.
The vertical distribution of mercury in the Lido and Newport Channels will be determined using
11 archived cores collected from locations already examined as composites in the West Lido and
Newport Channels. Core samples were collected at stations representing the mid - channel and
nearshore areas. Stations were located at each end of the respective areas, as well as a midpoint
in order to detect possible differences between potential sources. Previous studies (Anchor 2005;
CoastKeepers 2007; SCCWRP 2003) indicate that, in portions of the Rhine Channel and
Newport Channel, elevated mercury concentrations are highest in the top 10 cm of sediment in
some locations and in the middle 10 -40 cm in other locations. Elevated mercury concentrations
extended to approximately 50 cm, below which they decrease to below ER -M levels. Data on
vertical stratification may offer indications of ecological risk, provide management options, and
demonstrate the potential for isolation by clean surface sediments. Sampling intervals will
nominally be 0 -5 cm, 20 -50 cm, and 60 cm to core bottom (gaps between intervals is to ensure
separation between potential layers). Cores were evaluated in the field for any obvious strata and
may be sectioned based on visual observations of sediment characteristics. Additionally,
stratified cores collections from stations sampled in the central portion of Newport Channel (as
part of Subtask 1) will be considered for analysis based on total mercury results from whole core
samples.
In order to evaluate the potential sources of mercury in sediment, additional metals will be
analyzed for provenance analysis. The relative distribution of certain metals is generally
conservative in sediments from the source to the "sink" and can be linked to the relative
distribution of metals in source materials. Crustal metals that comprise the actual grains of
sediment are generally not bioavailable, but are quantified in standard metals analysis. Cinnabar
from San Diego Creek and the bluffs in Upper Newport Bay is a potential source of mercury in
Lower Newport Bay and will be evaluated by analyzing other metals that are indicative of crustal
sources: iron, selenium, and aluminum. Other metals are more indicative of specific human
activities, such as mercury plating activities (zinc), batteries (chromium), and antifouling paints
(copper). Iron, aluminum, selenium, copper, chromium, and zinc will be analyzed in a subset of
samples from the West Lido and Newport Channels. Specific samples collected in 2007 and
2008 will be selected in conjunction with the Harbor Resources staff. No more than 10 samples
will be analyzed for this expanded suite of analyzes. Additional samples may also be analyzed for
methyl mercury and total mercury to better understand bioavailability of the mercury present.
Task 8: LA -3 Reference Values
NewFields will compile historic data for the current LA -3 disposal site and establish mean values
for chemical contaminants of concern, toxicity, and bioaccumulation potential. Based on the size
of the available data sets, the environs approach may not apply to all analytes for
bioaccumulation at this time. As part of the compilation, data will be reviewed for data quality
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say
September 9, 2008
Page 41
and appropriate detection limits. All data will be entered into an electronic spreadsheet and
summary statistics generated. Summary statistics will be generated from qualified data sets and
we will coordinate with the City and agency staff to determine if additional sampling or analyses
are required.
Task 9: Permitting Support, Options/Alternatives Analysis
As sufficient data becomes available, NewFields will prepare an Options /Alternatives Analysis
for each management area, reviewing each of the potential in -water and upland disposal options
available to the City. This task is critical to the success of the City's program and the approach
for each management will vary depending upon the chemical and biological characteristics of the
sediment.
NewFields and Thomas Johnson will provide as needed permitting support, including meetings
with the City, USACE, USEPA, RWQCB, Coastal Commission, and stakeholders to help define
feasible disposal options.
Task 10: Technical Support far Agency Review
During previous investigations, NewFields staff members have assisted clients in presenting the
results of sediment investigations to USEPA, USACE, and other resource agencies. This is
particularly helpful for project with a short timeline. At your request, we will facilitate joint
meetings to report the results of this investigation and to work with USEPA in determining
disposal options for the proposed dredged material. It is difficult to determine the total cost for
this task, as it will depend largely on the data generated during the study. This task is typically
billed as time and materials based on rates of $130/hr for Mr. William Gardiner, $135/hr for Dr.
Thomas Johnson, and $160/hr for Dr. Jack Word.
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 42
Estimated Costs
This section outlines the estimated costs, by task, as described in the section above.
Summary of Proposed Cost Summary by Task
Task Name and Number
Cost for Task
1. Bathymetry
$6,020
2. Approach Development, Sampling and
Analysis Plan and Agency Coordination
$20,838
3. Amphipod Study
$25,600
4. Additional Characterization based on
Existing Data: Toxicity Testing and Chemistry
(includes field sampling for Tasks 4 and 5)
$88,000
5. Bioaccumulation (includes tissue
chemistry)
$68,826
6. Toxicity Identification in Yacht Anchorage
$24,690
7. Mercury in West Lido and Newport
Channels
$17,000
8. Environs Approach for Reference Sites
$12,300
9. Options Analysis and Reporting
$25,000
10. Technical Support in Agency Negotiations
$10,000
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 43
Exhibit B
Schedule of Billing Rates
NeWFlelds
Port Gamble, WA
Billing Rates
Labor category
Personnel
Hourly Rate
Principal Investigator
Dr. Jack Word
160
Project Managers
Senior Scientists
Susie Watts
150
William Gardiner
M,eg.Pinz,a
130
Proect Scientists
Brien Hester
95
Lucinda Word
85
Bridget Gregg
85
Jade D Word
85
Staff Scientists
Tracy Schuh
75
Collin Ray
65
Mary Bacon
65
NMFI,d&
PXX BO 216- 4729MIAKW DXWE
PokeCb KZW7isntiucTON98364
360.297,6080 tea' --- 36Q297.7MPm
WWW.N8WP16LMMM
.4,
.Hourly rate.
FEE SCHEDULE
Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay
September 9, 2008
Page 44
13426 6 AXEL" AVENUE, SUITE 425
FAAns A DEL Rev,. CA 90292
$135
TEL: 310 6305.0454 FAR: 310-574-9983 E All-: TL?MJOHVYERIIOH.HET
City of Newport Beach NO. BA- 09BA -011
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2008 -09
EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates
Iq Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND
Transfer Budget Appropriations
SOURCE:
from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
X from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
AMOUNT: $200,000.00
Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
To increase expenditure appropriations for maintenance dredging in Lower Newport Bay.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Amount
Fund Account Description Debit Credit
010 3605 General Fund - Fund Balance $200,000.00 "
REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601)
Fund /Division Account Description
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Description
Division Number 7014 General Fund - Misc Capital Project
Account Number C4402001 Harbor Dredging Project $200,000.00
Division Number
Account Number
Division Number
Account Number
Division Number
Account Number
* Automatic System Entry.
Signed: 4 Q �
Financial Approval: AdministTPVe Services Director Date
Signed: v
dministrative Appr al: City Manager ate
Signed:
City Council Approval: City Clerk Date
0 •
Maintenance Dredging
jn Lower Newport Bay
•J_
Joint City ouncil / Harbor Gomm si sio
Study Session
September 9, 2008
What We'll Discuss This Afternoon
y Considerations to most efficiently and effectively implement a
dredging project in Lower Newport Bay;
Important accomplishments that have been made thus far and
need to be achieved in the near future;
A Decision Tree to guide the City Council, with the assistance of
the Harbor Commission, staff and consultants, in determining the
best course of action for one or more phases of project
implementation;
Consideration of a proposal to develop a Dredged Materials
Management Plan (DMMP) that includes a phased sediment
testing protocol;
How the Harbor Area Management Plan (RAMP) relates to
implementation of a successful Lower Bay dredging Project.
Ihange Count .Y Ha rbor;
I
1
J
tOn.wi[tic�
• Even in 1919 wheffIRETYRM w for
a bond issue to dredge Newport Harbor, funding for such a large and
important project was difficult to secure.
• The Commerce that was envisioned in this flyer never developed.
• World War II brought war related construction activities to Newport
Harbor such as mine sweepers and Coast Guard vessels.
• • 0
• In the early years of harbor development, the County and the City
dredged some channels and sold material to developers to build islands
to supplement the bond issue funds.
• However, it
wasn't until
Congress approved
the harbor lines in 1936 and
authorized
the Corps of
Engineers to make
improvements did
a safe
and navigable harbor really materialize.
• • •
k I M
W. r Not I I I
• After the initial dredging in the 1930's, very few maintenance dred
projects were accomplished other than in the entrance channel.
• The low frequency of dredging makes it difficult to attract federal funds
when the Corps' economic analysis considers such factors as historical
pending and commerce.
he non - existent maintenance dredging in many areas also creates
difficulties in permit acquisition due to over 70 years of accumulation of
past sins.
• • 0
CR4MEL
STABLIZATICN
IN-MY
FOOTHU BASINS
CONSTRICTION
SRE BW s
549 a
After the disastrous floods of 1969, San
Diego Creek flowed continuously into the
Bay bringing sediment and pollutants
resulting in water quality regulations and
sediment control projects in the Upper Bay
and Watershed.
• • 0
T
• There have been some unintended consequences resulting from the
watershed and Upper Bay sediment control projects.
• The most critical unintended consequence has been that the
sediment control basins in the watershed have removed much of they
coarse grained material and the Upper Bay basins have removed
much of the fine grained material; however, the very fine grained
material does not coagulate and fall out of suspension until it hits the
salty and lower velocity areas of the Lower Bay.
• Unfortunately, many of the pollutants adsorb onto these very fine
grained particles and even without the pollutants the very fine grained
particles are toxic to some benthic organisms.
M003 the Army Corps completed some of the required tiered testing
for dredging the Lower Bay.
They found course grained material near the harbor entrance that
passed the testing criteria. Elsewhere in the harbor, they encountered
very fine grained material that failed testing criteria. Hence, they did not
pursue additional tiered testing.
• As a result of these testing results, the harbor entrance was the only
area dredged in 2003.
• • 0
About the same time, the City began testing sediments between the Pierhead
and Bulkhead Lines for the RGP -54 permit.
Some areas within the zone of local responsibility also failed testing criteria
and the City Council authorized further testing in an effort to obtain dredging
permit authorization for as much of the harbor as possible.
16,The additional
testing
was
carried out
according to
the nationally applicable
Inland Testing
Manual
and
delineated
problems by
individual areas within the
harbor.
ir
1
rAeR
t\
N
WE
s
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
0
�i
IJ
Newport Harbor Dredging Areas
Passed In RGP -54, passed during Federal Channel Tier IV, where tested.
Likely to pass for ocean disposal but may require bioaccumulation testing.
- Passed for toxicity in RGP -54, but Hg concentrations in surface sediment (top
3 ft.l likely to prevent ocean disposal option. Currently studying vertical and
horizontal extent. May be able to manage upper -311. differently than
underlying sand.
- Passed in RGP -54. but moderate amphipod mortality in Federal Channel
samples. Likely to be addressed in amphipod study. Would require
bioaccumulatlon testing if amphipod test passes.
_ Passed in RGP -54, but amphipod mortality in Federal Channel samples. Ma,,
be addressed in amphipod study or TIE. Would require bioaccumulation
testing if amphipod test passes.
= If this was a targeted project area, new characterization would be required.
Ow
filli.,._ up
a � `1=
N
. J
0 •
If additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered.
Timeline is dependent upon start date.
O
al
is >1
O N
i--•
d
-O
Y
C
N
L
Q
t6
N
W
t
ii
o
d
-C; O
fs
N
a
Q_
>1
�'.
O U>
E
U
_ O
O
N
4U CU
i
Area
m
Q
►°–w
QF-
m
�Q
C) -x
13
•
E
•
Ti me to
Sept --pop Nov 08
Completion'
A
•
•
•
•
C
•
•
•
•
D
•
•
F
G
•
•
•
Ti me to
Sept Oct Jan u9 Feb 09
Co metion
Time to
Sept ♦ Oct .1p, Dec Feb March —fo- May 09
Completion
If additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered.
Timeline is dependent upon start date.
_E
• In 2006, The Army Corps,
and County successfully
permanent designation of
disposal site for clean
material.
EPA, City
completed
LA -3 as a
dredged
• This was a critical accomplishment in
providing a relatively low cost disposal
site for material dredged from local
harbors.
LA-3
(Sediment Disposal Site)
is • is
• Armed with some data and some accomplishments, staff initiated
discussions with the Resources Agencies to determine what was
necessary to implement an area -wide Lower Bay dredging program.
• Many unresolved issues related to contaminants, amphipod mortality
and eelgrass hampered permit acquisition and pointed to the need to
have a comprehensive Dredged Materials Management Plan (DMMP)
and Harbor Area Management Plan (RAMP).
E
Current Efforts
1 1. Draft DMMP I
1 2. Draft HAMP I
3. Draft Eelgrass j
4. Final Rhine
Channel Remediation
Plan
5. Draft IRWMP
6. Implementation of
UNB Ecosystem
Restoration Project
7. Draft Harbor Fee
Study
8. Lobbying for
Federal Funds and
Project Authorization
0
WHAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED TO
DREDGE LOWER NEWPORT BAY
Phased Sampling
and Analysis Plan
Needed Efforts
Integrated Final
Programmatic
Plan
Completion of UNB
Ecosystem Restoration
and Watershed Sediment
Source Reduction
Projects to Reduce
Current and Future
Deposition in Lower Bay
and comply with TMDL.
Federal and /or Local
Funding Plan
Desired Result
Programmatic
Environmental
Documentation
Area Specific
Environmental
Documentation
If necessary
Implementable
Maintenance
Dredging Project
C`
A
0 •
• As you can see, we've worked on a lot of fronts to develop that comprehensive plan
which will enable us to dredge and properly manage the Lower Bay but "we still aren't
digging dirt yet."
• This next slide shows that because of various issues in different areas of the harbor, it is
not likely that one dredging and disposal option will fit the entire harbor.
• Our optimized solution would result in all sediments qualifying for disposal at LA -3.
Based on previous test results, we are fairly confident that this option is not likely to be
achieved.
• We need to accomplish further testing to maximize the amount of sediment that is
allowed to be deposited in LA -3 and to minimize the cost in disposing of other non -
qualifying sediments.
0 •
LOWER BAY DREDGING DECISION TREE
Council CornpNe Sakdia EPAd C.'mplele Complete TIE
Approval of Bethymeinc of COE amanmod and Hg Testing. S Dredgetl Evaluation to Preferred n Appwe Metenel Mgl Funding Estimetes Dredghfl Senlpling � a
Plan and Show EPA Met Dews �� o and n
Sedment Duality LJ'' Per Area Analysis ° N I Has Na Changed Plan Since Prenous
I Sung Efforts. I I 1
I I I I I
I
I I Nat'l alNO Nagatn t$on» Nagetw l5oma
I
Request I � 5urvrvalt Nrs FaNaal Frees Faibdi
Fetlefal Sgniacere Cnange ,
Footling end I in Dept, ' ' '
COE
Preparation of I � Canplere Tests ConplNe local Determine Local
OMMP end I eufic
Volume I Necessaryfor Nee Testing la Area Sp
SAP. I Calculations Show ' CAD a Upland tA-3, CAD a
Plans
I Large Recent i Psposei Upland Disposal.
I Sediment � 1
Accumulation. 1 '
, I I
, I
I Refine Nee Refine Area
' I , Bandanas. Boundaries.
i Revise DMMP- '
L - Request Council °---------------- °----- i
Approval of Scope '
of Work Change '
- - -- Perform Options I Perform Options I PMam Opfims
Arad . Analysts Ana y5la
Council Final RAMP i ' ' i '
Appiof _ -- a's -------- -_ -_1 1 I
I HAMP I Prepare Aree Prepare Area f Perform Area
I I Specific i Specific i Specific
' ApCparwncaJ l ' -�_j I EnNronmentel
' Enhonmenlal Fsvronm
Fermi Eel 9'e ss Dau mantalon Damentebon
Of ____ ED -- ____ -- MenegeN - - - -
'
Eelgess StrB1egY 1 Mfamaeon I I ' ' I
p1
Council vn Final Harbor Fee Seek Funding Mr i Seek Funding for See Funding for
Approve] of -- - - 0 - -- - - - -- Schedule - - - -1 I -550 M- Deposit , -52040 M- I $1530M-
1 Harbor Fee I I el Materiel in I Deposit Area I Deposit Area
I ' Upland a CAD ' SpecificCepth ' SpedaclDepth
sites. i Si Material i Specific Material
Council Approval of vas Final - - - -I 1 in Upland a CAD I in Upland. LAr3or
Programmalic EnfronmeMN -�- Progammalic Sites. CADSItes.
' Documentation Prep. Elwonmental
Doament I I I
L -- Request COE
to Prepare
All
Prepare
Develop
Freers
All
Funding
Ppsllrve
A'eas
- P18n fa
.Passed
Emvm
12 -15 M
mental
Door-
Deposit
men-
all
reta
MaIM01
in LA-3
0 0 •
2008 Bathymetric Data for
Areas Within the Corps of
Engineers Project Lines
— Project Line
Depth in Feet
0 -3
3 -6 • Our preliminary tests show the sedimen
6 -9 does not have consistent quality through
-9-12 the full range of depth that needs to be
- 12 -15 removed.
- 15 -18
18 -21 • Knowing the horizontal and vertical extent
-21 -24
24 -24 of contamination will help optimize our
27 -30 dredging solution. Quantity calculations
M 30 -40 will be made for different areas and
0 •
The Decision Tree obviously requires many decisions to be made as results
from the tiered testing becomes available for individual areas.
• Because of that complexity, the City Council's Bay Issues Committee requested
estimates of cost and approximate timelines for a couple of scenarios that may
develop as we proceed with the testing.
• The following slide shows the staff's estimate of best and worst case scenarios
in terms of time it takes to complete dredging in a given area and an estimate of
cost.
The scenarios are based on technical issue resolution and not on delays due to
nding availability.
0 •
BEST CASE SCENARIO TIMELINE & COST FOR THE SPECIFIC AREAS NOTED
Areas B and E (City completes up to 100,000 cy project without Corps assistance)'
Task Start Task End Task End
' With Corps assistance, this first phase could be completed at about the same cost, the 2 phases of permit application preparation and approval could be reduced
by 3 to 4 months, but timeline would not start until Oct '09 (at best) Oct '10 (most likely)
WORST CASE SCENARIO TIMELINE & COST FOR THE SPECIFIC AREAS NOTED
Areas H, I and J (City completes approximately 300,000 cy project with Corps assistance)
Additional sampling
Publish results
CEQA determination
Resource agencies review and
Award
Construction
Bid and
and testing
and discuss
(exempt 15304 -Class 4)
approval of application. Bid
projects
period (dredging)
Task
(portions of
with agencies.
and prepare and submit
project contingent on
testing portions
discuss
with agencies.
proposal tasks
funding
permit applications.
acquisition of permits.
Task
of tasks 1 thru
1,2,3
Prepare programmatic
specific for areas H, I
for this
$25,000
$15,000 (staff
$20,000 (staff and
$5,000 (staff and consultant)
$2.5 million
phase
Cost
(consultant)
and consultant)
consultant)
documentation for
Time
Sept Nov
Jan
Mar
July
Sept
Dec
Line
'08 108
09
109
109
109
109
Task Start Task End Task End
' With Corps assistance, this first phase could be completed at about the same cost, the 2 phases of permit application preparation and approval could be reduced
by 3 to 4 months, but timeline would not start until Oct '09 (at best) Oct '10 (most likely)
WORST CASE SCENARIO TIMELINE & COST FOR THE SPECIFIC AREAS NOTED
Areas H, I and J (City completes approximately 300,000 cy project with Corps assistance)
Task Start Task End 7 asK tna
Additional
Publish
Perform options
NEPA/CEQA
Secure
Corps
Bid and
Construction
sampling and
results and
analysis and negotiate
preparation and
Federal
acquisition
award
testing portions
discuss
with agencies.
determination (site
funding
of permits
contract
Task
of tasks 1 thru
with
Prepare programmatic
specific for areas H, I
for this
8)
agencies.
environmental
and J).
phase
documentation for
entire project
$200,000 (City)
$15,000
$125,000 (possible
$100,000 (possible
$30,000
(Corps
(Corps
$6 -30 million
(City)
early start funds for
early start funds for
(City
staff time)
staff time)
depending on
Cost
Corps or City match)
Corps or City match)
lobbyist)
disposal
option
allowed for
these areas.
Time
Sept May
July
Sept
Jan
Oct
Jan
Mar
Dec
Line
108 W
109
109
110
110
'11
'11
11
Task Start Task End 7 asK tna
LMJ
0 9
CRITICISMS
The City has already performed tests and has wasted time.
We should
our chances and use the contractor currently working in the Upper Bay.
Response: If the harbor had been maintained without 70 years of past sin
then the current level of testing might be sufficient
However, current testing
not found the "smoking gun" among the chemical constituents of concern.
The consultants are creating work for themselves, and /or the agencies are
asking for an unreasonable level of testing.
Response: The "Green Book" is very clear on the process for testing for Tie
through III. If these tests do not pass, then further testing becomes more
complicated, allowing for some creativity to determine what causes the toxicii
Staff has been working with the consultants to develop a plan that gives us
options at different testing junctions, to help satisfy the demands of the A
agencies.
The City is moving too slow and we risk losing our momentum.
Response: In fact, this proposal represents a giant step forward after many
years of thought and planning. Assuming funding is procured, it is conceivabi
dredging could occur within a reasonable time frame.
There are many beneficial uses in Lower Newport Bay that are impacted by
maintenance dredging the Harbor.
A goal of the HAMP is to show the combined benefit of an integrated approach
of maintenance and management of the harbor.
•
•
Project Assessment and Integrated Benefit
,m
Beneficial Use Criteria
d
J
O
m
E
'++
`C
U1
—
N a
Z O
N OT
O d
�E O—
O a f
>
'Q OO
_
y G
a '�
0 0
bo
F
y d
0
d Off.
iy7
v
a
f—rW
C'
Sc.�
xccu
VG¢
3V
U
wV
m
x0
N
eg s
010
co
010
010
01010
m
m enu/ /
Sentiment
Fehrass
0
0
0
0
0
41
4
4
0
0
Beach
Replenish-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0®
0
0
Mont
Water
Quality
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Harbor
Channel/
Pierlread
010
®
0
1
0
0
0
010
Lines
iivdro-
dvnamic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Models
Reponal
General
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pe milt
Srd I m,41
Iv
FuJ
k...
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
010
Control
Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
010
0
0
upper
Newport
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ea}'
Combined
BengT of
Irate ratet e d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach
Beneficial Use Criteria
Is 0
HAM P I ntegrate� Approach
1,
P
R
N
B
T
d
it
the benefits that can be
achieved through this
integration.
0
redain
(center circle)
Eelgrass
each Replenishment
ater Quality BMPs
ydrodynamic & Water
Quality Modeling
Upper Bay Sediment
Control
Upper Bay Restoration
lea Level Rise / Flood
Management
arbor Channel Lines
egion General Permit
(RGP -54)
E
0 •
In an agendized item tonight, the City Council will be
requested to consider the following staff recommendatic
1.
Approve conceptual approach as outlined in the Accomplishn
Guide and Decision Tree.
2. Approve the proposal to develop a Dredged Materials Management
Plan (DMMP).
3. Authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement
with New Fields Consultants that is necessary to implement the DMMP.
4. Adopt Budget Amendment #BA- taking $200,000 in unappropriated
General Fund reserves and assigning these funds to Capital
Improvement Project #7014- C4402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging
Project).
0 0 •
With the advice and coordination with the Harbor Commission, staff and
consultants, the City Council's seemingly daunting task of developing a
comprehensive sediment management plan and implementing an area
wide dredging program for the Lower Bay will soon become a successful
reality.