HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup ProjectCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 15
June 22, 2010
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager
(949) 644 -3043, cmiller @newportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with
Anchor QEA, L.P. for Final Engineering Evaluation, Design and
Permitting Support for the Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment
Cleanup Project
ISSUE:
Should the City amend the contract with Anchor QEA, L.P. to include preparation of the
final engineering evaluation, design and permitting support for the Rhine Channel
contaminated sediment cleanup project?
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approve the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement
( "PSA ") with Anchor QEA, L.P. to prepare the final engineering evaluation,
design and permitting support for the Rhine Channel project, and
Approve Budget Amendment #BA for the attached scope of work for
$307,460 and for permit fees and air quality mitigation credits for $71,035 from
Unappropriated Reserves (Tidelands) to Capital Improvement Project #7231 -
C4402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging Project).
DISCUSSION:
Anchor QEA, L.P. is currently assisting the City with initial planning, alternative analysis,
and environmental impacts evaluation related to the Rhine Channel cleanup and Lower
Newport Bay (LNB) dredging. Sediments within the Rhine Channel, as well as portions
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers managed Federal Channel, are suspected of being
unsuitable for open -ocean disposal and, therefore, require an alternative disposal site.
It is anticipated that these sediments will be accepted for disposal at the Port of Long
Beach's (POLB) Middle Harbor confined disposal facility slip fill site.
As part of the next step for this project, Anchor QEA has submitted a new scope of work
that details tasks needed to be undertaken to complete the necessary engineering
Anchor PSA for Final Design and Permitting
June 22, 2010
Page 2
evaluations, dredge design, permit applications, and construction bid documents for the
City's portion of cleanup dredging with the Rhine Channel and maintenance dredging of
selected City- managed properties along the adjoining Newport Channel (i.e. Marina
Park, American Legion, and 15th Street public pier).
Scope of Services
Under the proposed PSA Amendment, Anchor QEA would continue to be retained on a
time and materials basis ( for a not -to- exceed amount) to complete the engineering and
permitting tasks summarized below and detailed in the scope of services included as
Exhibit 2 to the PSA Amendment ?.
Task 1: Structural Review and Updated Bathvmetry Survey
Under a subcontract with URS Corporation (a structural engineering firm) Anchor QEA
will perform surveys and measurements at the project site to establish existing
conditions to a degree of detail needed for design and analysis efforts.
Subtask 1.1: Updated Bathvmetric Base Map of Complete Proiect Area
This subtask will involve creating an updated, complete bathymetric survey map for the
entire Rhine Channel and selected properties along the Newport Channel (i.e. Marina
Park, American Legion, and the 15th Street public pier). An updated bathymetric survey
will be critical for:
• Identifying shallow areas within the channel that may need to be dredged.
• Indicating water depths available for dredging equipment.
• Indicating mudline elevations for determining dredging volumes.
Estimated costs are $30,656.
Subtask 1.2: Investigation of Seawalls and Panels
This subtask will involve supplementing and "reality checking" the understanding of the
existing marine structures within the Rhine Channel and adjoining properties through a
structural review to be conducted by URS. This evaluation will include a vessel -based
"swim -by" reconnaissance during which exposed seawalls, floats, and guide piles will be
visually inspected. Seawall embedment depths at representative locations will also be
measured using a jet probe. Estimated costs are $12,783.
Subtask 1.3: Investigation of Guide Piles
This subtask will involve direct testing and evaluation of the piles in the field via impact -
echo testing, a non - destructive pile testing method that can be conducted by personnel
using specialized hand -held instruments which allow for estimation of their actual in-
place embedded lengths below the mudline. This field testing will allow Anchor to fine
Anchor PSA for Final Design and Permitting
June 22, 2010
Page 3
tune and reality check the actual pile conditions and potentially reduce the number of
piles that need to be extracted during dredging. Estimated costs are $10,000.
Task 2: Permitting
Anchor QEA will prepare and submit required resource agency permit applications.
Anchor QEA will also assist the City with the Port of Long Beach disposal applications
for the Rhine Channel, Marina Park, American Legion, 15th St. beach and the Federal
Lower Newport Bay material. Estimated costs are $65,360.
Subtask 2.1: California Coastal Commission — Securing a Coastal Development Permit
Subtask 2.2: Regional Water Quality Control Board — Securing Water Quality
CertificationNVaste Discharge Requirements
Subtask 2.3: State Lands Commission — Securing a Dredging Lease
Subtask 2.4: US Army Corps of Engineers — Securing a Standard Individual Permit
Note: Permit fees and air quality credits are not included in this Agreement, and will be
the City's responsibility. Fees are anticipated to be as follows:
• Coastal Commission - $12,500
• Regional Water Quality Control Board - $25,000
• State Lands Commission - $1,525
• Army Corps of Engineers - $10
• AQMD air quality mitigation credits - $32,000 (based on current market
rate assumptions and other worst case scenarios — final cost may be
lower)
Task 3: Final Engineering Design and Documentation
Anchor QEA will complete final engineering analysis and design of the dredging project
as well as preparation of construction documents (plans and technical specifications)
that can be used for soliciting bids. A key aspect of the final engineering evaluation is to
evaluate the effects of dredging on seawalls and guide piles at the site so that the
dredge prism can be designed and optimized. Because dredging removes sediment
that helps to retain the toe of the seawalls, an offset distance will need to be included in
the dredge design so the walls are not destabilized as a result of the work.
Subtask 3.1: Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
The analysis of seawall stability and how it would be affected by dredging requires a
thorough understanding not only of the characteristics of the seawalls themselves but
also of the geotechnical properties of the soils in which the seawalls are situated and
Anchor PSA for Final Design and Permitting
June 22, 2010
Page 4
which they retain. Anchor proposes to conduct the following series of geotechnical
explorations at locations where no information is available:
• Five in -water geotechnical borings to depths of 20 feet, using a small,
maneuverable mud rotary drilling barge.
• Two landside borings to depths of 40 feet, using a truck - mounted mud rotary
drilling rig.
• Seven cone penetrometer tests (CPTs) to depths of 50 feet, on landside
locations, using a truck - mounted CPT rig.
Estimated costs are $57,145.
Subtask 3.2: Analvsis of Structural Stabilit
Once geotechnical data has been gathered, Anchor and URS will use geotechnical and
structural engineering analysis techniques to determine how dredging affects pressures
experienced by the seawalls and the potential response and deflection of surrounding
ground and seawall elements. These approaches will be used to estimate the current
stability level of the seawalls and to define the relationship between dredging prism
geometry and the seawall stability, which will allow the design team to develop a
protective dredging plan while also meeting the City's Rhine Channel cleanup goals.
Analysis will include an assessment of gravity and seismic loads, including possible
liquefaction effects. Estimated costs are $47,720.
Subtask 3.3: Plans, Specifications and Opinion of Probable Cost
Anchor and URS will prepare Draft (65 percent), Draft Final (95 percent) and Final (100
percent level) design plans, technical specifications, and opinion of probable cost for the
construction work. Estimated costs are $83,796.
Ootional Tasks
Anchor has identified some optional tasks that could be needed if a further level of detail
is required. However, both staff and Anchor believe these optional tasks are not
necessary at this time, and that it is best to proceed with the scope of work as described
above. The anticipated costs for these optional tasks, should they be necessary, is
$62,000 and would therefore require an additional Amendment to the Agreement.
Schedule:
Anchor QEA is proposing to immediately begin this work in order to meet the anticipated
deadline for the Port of Long Beach disposal opportunity. Our current schedule shows
the City being shovel -ready by mid January 2011 assuming the POLB, the driving
factor, is ready to begin construction.
Anchor PSA for Final Design and Permitting
June 22, 2010
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The approval of the Professional Services Agreement for final engineering evaluation,
design and permitting support does not require environmental review.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This agenda item has been noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
FUNDING AVAILABILITY:
The scope of work requires a Budget Amendment of $307,460 for the attached Scope
of Work and $71,035 for permit fees and air quality mitigation credits from
Unappropriated Reserves (Tidelands) to account CIP #7231- C4402001 (Newport
Harbor Dredging Project).
Submitted by:
ris Miller
Harbor Resources Manager
Attachments:
1. Anchor Professional Services Agreement
2. Anchor QEA Scope of Work
SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR QEA, L.P. FOR
ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE
RHINE CHANNEL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT
CLEANUP PROJECT
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
( "Second Amendment "), is entered into as of this day of 12010,
by and between the City of Newport Beach,-a California Municipal Corporation and
Charter City ( "City'), and Anchor QEA, L.P., a California Limited Partnership whose
address is 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425 Laguna Niguel, California, 92677
( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. On July 14, 2009 City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services
Agreement ( "Agreement "), to initiate environmental analysis ( "CEQA ") and
engineering processes for the disposal of contaminated materials from a Lower
Newport Bay dredging project into a Confined Aquatic Disposal ( "CAD ") site
within Newport Harbor.
B. On November 10, 2009 City and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to
Professional Services Agreement to allow for the preparation of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration ( "MND ") to analyze the potential disposal of contaminated
material from non - federal areas (Rhine Channel and RGP -54 exclusion zones) in
an upcoming Port of Long Beach CAD ( "First Amendment ").
C. City and Consultant desire to enter into this Second Amendment to modify the
scope of work to include engineering evaluations, dredge design, permit
applications, and construction bid documents for the City's portion of the cleanup
dredging within the Rhine Channel and maintenance dredging of selected City -
managed properties along the Newport Channel ('Project ").
D. City and Consultant also desire to extend the Agreement's term to August 30,
2012.
E. Agreement Section 34 authorizes the City and Consultant to enter into this
Second Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the City and Consultant that
adequate consideration has been provided and that the Agreement shall be amended
as follows:
1. TERM
Agreement Section 1 "Term" shall be amended to read as follows: "The term of
this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate
on the 30t" day of August, 2012, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein."
First Amendment Section 1 "Term" shall be deleted in its entirety.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
The Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "A" as superseded
by Exhibit "A" to the First Amendment incorporated by reference in Section 2 of
the First Amendment shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Services
dated June 11, 2010, which is attached to this Second Amendment as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks
from the Scope of Services at its sole discretion.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
The not to exceed total compensation dollar amount provided in Agreement
Section 4 shall be increased to a not to exceed amount of Seven Hundred Fifty -
Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty and 00/100 Dollars ($752,460.00).
4. INSURANCE
Agreement Section 14 shall be amended hereby and the following terms are
substituted in their entirety: 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, policies of
insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to
City.
A. Proof of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a
waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance
certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager
prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance
shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this contract.
City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property,
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work
hereunder by Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or
subconsultants. The cost of such insurance shall be included in
Consultant's bid.
21Page
B. 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.
C. Coverage Requirements
Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain
Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and
Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least one million
dollars ($1,000,000)) for Consultant's employees in accordance
with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 of the Labor
Code In addition, Consultant shall require each subconsultant to
similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and
Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the
State of California, Section 3700 for all of the subconsultant's
employees.
Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers'
Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30)
calendar days (ten (10) calendar days written notice of non-
payment of premium) prior to such change.
Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of
insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its
officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
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, blanket
contractual liability.
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain
automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage
for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for
any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not
less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.
iv. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Coverage. Consultant
shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the
services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the
minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) limit per claim
and in the aggregate.
31 Page
D. Other Insurance Provisions or Requirements.
The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or
procured pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive
subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents,
officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance
with these requirements to waive their right of- recovery prior to a
loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against
City, and shall require similar written express waivers and
insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
ii. Enforcement of Contract Provisions. Consultant acknowledges and
agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to
inform Consultant of non - compliance with any requirement imposes
no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights
hereunder.
iii. Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage
features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a
limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of
any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific
reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification
only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party
or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage,
or a waiver of any type.
iv. Notice of Cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance
agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with thirty (30) days
notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten (10)
days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
E. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from
Consultant's performance under this Agreement.
F. 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.
5. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants
set forth in the Agreement and First Amendment shall remain unchanged and
shall be in full force and effect.
4 i Page
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment on
the date first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
,VV 1�
eonie Mulvihill,
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
By:
Leilani Brown,
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A California Municipal Corporation
By:
Keith Curry, Mayor
for the City of Newport Beach
CONSULTANT:
A California Limited Partnership
Title: General Partner
Print Name:
[END OF SIGNATURES]
Attachment: Exhibit "A" —June 11, 2010 Scope of Services
51 Page
ANCHOR
OEA
26300 La Alameda, Suite 240
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Phone 949.347.2780
Fax 949.334.9646
June 11, 2010
Mr. Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources Division
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Scope of Work for Final Engineering Evaluation, Design, and Permitting Support for
Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment Cleanup
Dear Mr. Miller:
Anchor QEA, L.P., is currently assisting the City of Newport Beach (City) with initial
planning, alternatives analysis, and environmental impacts evaluation related to Rhine
Channel cleanup and Lower Newport Bay (LNB) dredging. Sediments within the Rhine
Channel, as well as portions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- (USACE -) managed
Federal Channel, are suspected of being unsuitable for open -ocean disposal and, therefore,
require an alternative disposal site. It is anticipated that these sediments will be accepted for
disposal at the Port of Long Beach's Middle Harbor confined disposal facility (CDF) slip fill
site.
This scope of work details tasks needed to be undertaken to complete the necessary
engineering evaluations, dredge design, permit applications, and construction bid documents
for the City's portion of cleanup dredging within the Rhine Channel and maintenance
dredging of selected City- managed properties along the adjoining Newport Channel (i.e.,
Marina Park, American Legion, and 15th Street Pier). Some necessary pre- design work has
already been completed under our existing scope of work for pre- design activities associated
with a potential confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site in Newport Bay but a few items still
remain. Completed pre - engineering tasks include searching City archives for existing
information on structures, seawalls, and utilities and reviewing available geotechnical
www.anchorqea.com
Mr. Chris Miller
lune11,2010
Pate 2
information for the Rhine Channel area. The final engineering and permitting tasks required
to complete the Rhine Channel contaminated sediment cleanup project are detailed below.
RHINE CHANNEL FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN TASKS AND ANALYSES
Task 1: Structural Review and Updated Bathymetric Survey
Under Task 1, Anchor QEA and URS Corporation (a structural engineering firm working as a
sub - consultant to Anchor QEA) will perform surveys and measurements at the project site to
establish existing conditions to a degree of detail needed for design and analysis efforts.
Specific subtasks will include creating an updated base map, investigating seawalls and
panels, and investigating guide piles.
Task 1.1: Updated Bathymetric Base Map of Complete Project Area
In preparation for design efforts, this subtask will involve creating an updated, complete
bathymetric survey map of the entire Rhine Channel and selected properties along the
Newport Channel (i.e., Marina Park, American Legion, and 15th Street Pier). An updated
bathymetric survey will be critical for:
• Identifying shallow areas within the channel that may need to be dredged
• Indicating water depths available for dredging equipment
• Indicating mudline elevations for determining dredging volumes
The USACE recently (May 2010) completed a survey of open -water portions of the Rhine
Channel, which supersedes that previous 2004 survey. Although Anchor QEA plans to use
this 2010 survey to prepare a project -wide bathymetry map, it will be necessary to perform
additional bathymetric surveys to cover the perimeter of the Rhine Channel and the selected
Newport Channel properties. This supplementary survey effort will be performed by
Gahagan and Bryant Associates (GBA), a well- established national survey firm with local
personnel who performed 2004 survey.
Remaining open -water areas will be surveyed by GBA using multi -beam equipment.
Because much of the Rhine Channel and nearby properties are occupied by private vessels
and docks, a majority of the supplementary survey will be completed by dropping lead lines
by hand.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
Page 3
Task 1.2: Investigation of Seawalls and Panels
To date, Anchor QEA has reviewed available City records and as -built plans for information
on seawalls and guide piles at the site. Under Task 1.2, we will supplement and "reality -
check" our understanding of the existing marine structures within the Rhine Channel and
adjoining properties through a structural review to be conducted by URS. This evaluation
will include a vessel -based site "swim -by" reconnaissance, during which exposed seawalls,
floats, and guide piles will be visually inspected.
We will directly measure seawall embedment depths by jet probing at representative
locations. A small diameter water jet pipe will be advanced along and in contact with the
face of the wall. Once the pipe loses contact with the wall, it is assumed to have reached the
bottom of the wall's embedded length. We plan to test the embedded depth at 15 to 20
different seawall locations within the Rhine Channel.
Optional Item: Direct Observation of Seawall Tierods. While our swim -by site
reconnaissance will include direct observation of seawalls and their condition, as well as
allow for observation of evidence of stabilizing tierods where their ends are exposed at the
wall face, we will have no way of determining the actual condition of the tierods because
they are buried behind the walls. As a result, our design work will use fairly broad and
conservative assumptions for the state and load capacity of the tierods. This potential
uncertainty will be a key aspect of our design work, because the tierods are an integral part
of the seawall stability. Our assumptions could be refined through a set of tierod
unearthings, or "test pits," wherein temporary excavations are made behind the seawall in
accessible locations to expose and allow visual observation of the tierod conditions. This
process would be a fairly intrusive process and could add an estimated $20,000 to $30,000 to
the design fee, depending on how many locations are available for such an exercise. At this
time, we have not included tierod unearthing in our scope and fee estimate. If during the
course of our analysis, it becomes evident that tierod unearthings would contribute
significantly to the long -term adequacy and efficiency of the design and construction, we
will discuss adding this effort to our scope.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
Page 4
Task 1.3: Investigation of Guide Piles
The City currently would prefer to remove and replace guide piles as part of the dredge
program to better facilitate dredging around the dock structure. The design team will
evaluate and qualify the current state and embedment depth of the guide piles to determine
the number and locations of guide piles that should be replaced. Our swim -by
reconnaissance and a general review of the City's archived records will allow us to develop a
general idea of pile conditions. Because these sources of information are limited in their
completeness and accuracy, we will conduct a more detailed analysis of the guide piles.
Direct testing and evaluation of the piles in the field will be accomplished via impact -echo
testing, a non - destructive pile testing method that can be conducted by personnel using
specialized hand -held instruments, which allows for estimation of their actual in -place
embedded lengths below the mudline. This field testing will enable us to fine -tune and
reality -check the actual pile conditions and potentially reduce the number of piles that need
to be extracted.
Note that because theguide piles are private structures, permission from e_ ndstiug property
owners would be required for ourpersonnel to conduct testing from the docks.
Task 2: Permitting
Under Task 2, Anchor QEA will prepare and submit required resource agency permit
applications to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), State Lands Commission (SLC), and USACE Regulatory Division
for Rhine Channel and other City- managed areas to be dredged with material targeted for
disposal at the Port of Long Beach. Anchor QEA will also assist the City with the Port of
Long Beach disposal applications for the Rhine Channel, non -RGP City areas and Federal
Lower Newport Bay material. Specific tasks will include attending pre - application meetings
with the regulatory agencies, attending meetings with Port staff, preparing agency permit
documents, and providing any additional agency requested biological resource information.
Meetings with agency staff, as needed, are included in our costs for this task.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
Task 2.1: CCC Coastal Development Permit
Anchor QEA will initially facilitate at least one pre - application meeting with CCC staff prior
to submitting a complete request for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Anchor QEA
will prepare a pre - application package for use at these meetings that will comprise the
project description, conceptual -level figures, and a summary of the analysis showing
compliance with California Coastal Act (CCA) regulations. Based on our discussions with
CCC staff, we will initially facilitate a meeting with Mr. Jack Gregg, the Coastal Commission
staff member on the Los Angeles Region Contaminated Sediments Task Force (CSTF).
Meetings with other CCC staff may be required.
Building on information gathered during the previous meetings with the CCC, Anchor QEA
would complete the CDP application package and submit it to the CCC. Work associated
with this subtask will include completing the required questionnaire and preparing the
permit application attachments. One internal draft CDP application package will be
provided to the City for review and comment. Anchor QEA will then submit the CDP
application package to the CCC on behalf of the City, and respond to all questions posed by
CCC staff. We will coordinate with City staff to synchronize City Council approval with
prompt submission to the CCC. Anchor QEA will also prepare a draft Staff Report (if
requested) to accelerate the processing of the permit application and attend the CCC hearing
on behalf of the City.
Note that the CCC cannot consider an application complete until a final California
Environmental Quality Act (CE(2A) document is available.
Task 2.2: RWQCB 401 Water Quality Certification /Waste Discharge
Requirements
Anchor QEA will facilitate at least one pre - application meeting with the RWQCB staff prior
to submitting a complete request for a 401 Water Quality Certification/Waste Discharge
Requirements (WQC/WDR). Following this meeting, we will prepare a draft application for
WQC/WDR for review by the City. A draft Confirmatory Sediment Sampling Plan and draft
Water Quality Monitoring Plan will also be prepared. Anchor QEA will respond to
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
Paee 6
comments from the City and submit the final permit application to the RWQCB on behalf of
the City. Anchor QEA will respond to all questions posed by RWQCB staff.
Note that the RWQCB cannot consider an application complete until a final CEQA
document is available.
Task 23: SLC Dredging Lease
Because the project involves dredging of submerged tidelands held in trust for the state of
California, a SLC dredging lease will be required. Anchor QEA will prepare the necessary
application for a dredging lease and will work with the City to negotiate the lease, and will
represent the City at the SLC hearing if required. We will prepare a draft request for the
dredging lease and provide it to the City for comments. Once comments are incorporated,
Anchor QEA will submit the lease application to the SLC on behalf of the City. Anchor QEA
will respond to all questions posed by CSLC staff. Based on our experience with other
projects involving contaminated sediments, the SLC will likely agree that there are no
valuable mineral rights requiring compensation.
Task 2.4: USACE Standard Individual Permit
Anchor QEA will initially facilitate at least one pre - application meeting with USACE
Regulatory Division staff. We will again prepare a pre - application package that will
comprise the project description, figures, and a summary of the analysis showing compliance
with CCA regulations. We will facilitate this meeting with Ms. Cori Farrar of the Los
Angeles District Regulatory Program.
Anchor QEA will then prepare a complete application for a Standard Individual Permit (SIP),
including discussions of alternatives considered; avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures; necessary Endangered Species Act/Essential Fish Habitat (ESA/EFH) information;
and a draft public notice. The City will be provided a draft of the application package prior
to submittal for review and comment. To further accelerate the processing of this
application, we will also prepare a draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Environmental Assessment (EA) for use by USACE staff. One internal draft EA will be
provided to the City for review and comment. Anchor QEA will finalize the EA and submit
it to the USACE. Anchor QEA will respond to all questions posed by USACE staff.
Permit Fees
Current costs do not include any fees due to the agencies for processing permit applications;
these fees will be paid directly by the City. Based on available fee calculators (fees will be
confirmed by agencies), we estimate permit fees to be as follows:
• USACE — $10 (fee for SIP for public agency)
• RWQCB — $25,000 (maximum fee)
• CCC — $12,500 (application fee plus grading/fill fee)
• SLC — $1,525 (application fee plus dredging lease)
Cost assumptions for Task 2 and all associated subtasks:
• Draft documents submitted to the City will be in electronic form. Final deliverables
will be submitted to the City in electronic and hard -copy form (five copies).
• Agency meetings will be combined when possible, as to avoid duplication of effort.
• Attendance at agency meetings will occur as needed.
• Agency concerns will be reviewed and addressed as necessary, and permits
applications revised, if needed, as a result of agency comments.
Task 3: Final Engineering Design and Documentation
Following our initial structural overview and bathymetric survey performed under Task 1,
Anchor QEA will proceed with final engineering analysis and design of the Rhine Channel
and City- controlled (non- Regional General Permit) dredging project as well as preparation of
construction documents (plans and technical specification) that can be used for soliciting
bids. We anticipate that the construction process will be managed by the USACE, and thus,
our construction documents will be prepared in a format consistent with USACE project
standards.
A key aspect of our final engineering evaluation is to evaluate the effects of dredging on
seawalls and guide piles at the site, so that the dredge prism can be designed and optimized.
Because dredging removes sediment that helps to retain the toe of the seawalls, an offset
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
distance will need to be included in the dredge design so the walls are not destabilized as a
result of the work. However, it is in the City's interests to maximize the volume of removed
sediments to best achieve overall cleanup goals, and it will be important to determine the
relationship between dredging geometry /offset distance and overall seawall stability with as
much certainty and detail as possible.
While the exact scope and level of effort for these tasks will be somewhat dependent on our
findings from Task 1, we anticipate the following subtasks will need to be completed.
Task 3.1: Geo technical Engineering Explorations and Analysis
The analysis of seawall stability and how it would be affected by dredging requires a
thorough understanding not only of the characteristics of the seawalls themselves but also
the geotechnical properties of the soils in which the seawalls are situated and which they
retain. Any gaps in our understanding of geotechnical site conditions would require the
design team to make conservative assumptions about soil properties. In our design
experience at Newport Harbor, we have found that seawall stability in the area is generally
marginal, and we expect the same to be true at Rhine Channel.
Making overly conservative assumptions about the seawall and soil conditions could have
significant impacts on our results and could lead to excessive dredging setback distances,
excessive costs for possible seawall repairs, or both. It is, therefore, important to the
adequacy of our analyses that sufficient geotechnical information be gathered throughout the
Rhine Channel —in the "retained" upland areas behind the seawalls and in the offshore areas
in front of the seawalls —and to sufficient depths to demonstrate geotechnical conditions
below the bottom of the seawall panels.
Anchor QEA has reviewed City records and archives and has found relevant geotechnical
subsurface data at a few properties adjacent to the Rhine Channel. These data will be critical
for our analysis, but because the information is widely separated, and in some cases does not
reach a sufficient depth for our design needs, it will be necessary to obtain additional data to
develop a sufficiently complete understanding of geotechnical conditions in the project area.
Anchor QEA proposes to conduct the following series of geotechnical explorations at
locations where no information is currently available, as follows:
• Five in -water geotechnical borings to depths of 20 feet, using a small, relatively
maneuverable mud rotary drilling barge
• Two landside borings to depths of 40 feet, using a truck - mounted mud rotary drilling
rig
• Seven cone penetrometer tests (CPTs) to depths of 50 feet, on landside locations,
using a truck - mounted CPT rig
Boring samples will be obtained at 5- foot -depth intervals, with some samples submitted to a
local geotechnical laboratory for testing of moisture content, grain size distribution,
Atterberg Limits (for fine - grained samples), and soil strength (by triaxial testing).
Altogether, we expect that the proposed geotechnical exploration program will require
4 days by an Anchor QEA geotechnical representative and a drilling firm working as a
subcontractor to Anchor QEA.
We have assumed that it will not be necessary to conduct geotechnical investigations at the
Marina Park, American Legion, or 15th Street Pier locations. We understand that a recent
2008 geotechnical evaluation was conducted at the Marina Park site, but we are not aware of
any geotechnical information from the American Legion or 15th Street Pier locations. For
these sites, we plan to use existing information in combination with appropriately
conservative structural assumptions to design a maintenance dredging program that is
protective of the existing seawall, floats, guide piles, and timber pier. If, during the course of
our analysis, it becomes clear that additional geotechnical information is needed to avoid a
significant project impact, then we will discuss with the City the reasons and advantages of
adding this element of work to the proposed scope.
Our labor under this task includes the following elements:
• Field time for an Anchor QEA representative during the entirety of the geotechnical
field work, including equipment set -up, demobilization, and oversight of site cleanup
• Securing any required permits from the City of Newport Beach, the County, and/or
any other public agencies, as necessary
• Reviewing available information on utility lines that are present, including
coordinating with "DigAlert" for a pre - drilling utility locate (includes one site visit to
lay out the on -land exploration locations)
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
Page 10
• Packaging and documenting all samples obtained, delivering to our geotechnical
laboratory, selecting samples for testing, coordinating the lab tests, and reviewing the
laboratory results
• Establishing contracts and administrative requirements with subcontractors
performing the drilling and laboratory work
• Providing a signed, stamped report documenting all geotechnical and structural
stability work performed
Task 3.2: Analysis of Structural Stability
Once geotechnical data has been gathered, Anchor QEA and URS will use geotechnical and
structural engineering analysis techniques, such as determination of stability ratios, and two -
dimensional (2D) limit equilibrium methods and a finite element modeling, to determine
how dredging affects pressures experienced by the seawalls and the potential response and
deflection of surrounding ground and seawall elements. These approaches will be used to
estimate the current stability level of the seawalls and to define the relationship between
dredging prism geometry and the seawall stability, which will allow the design team to
develop a protective dredging plan while also meeting the City's Rhine Channel cleanup
goals. Analysis will include an assessment of gravity and seismic loads, including possible
liquefaction effects.
Following completion of our field work and structural and geotechnical stability analysis, a
draft report will be prepared that summarizes our findings and conclusions regarding the
stability of the seawall and how dredging will be designed to maintain the stability of the
walls.
As stated for Task 3. 1, we have assumed that it will not be necessary to perform a structural
stability evaluation for the American Legion site and that existing information can be used to
create a sufficiently protective maintenance dredging design. Conservative assumptions will
be made regarding the ability of existing site features to withstand removal of sediments
during maintenance dredging. If it becomes clear during the design process that additional
analysis would be beneficial to the City, then the option for conducting additional studies
can be discussed.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
Page 11
Optional Task: Structural Analysis of Existing Guide Piles. We have not included structural
analysis of existing guide pile stability in this scope and fee estimate, as it is assumed that all
piles will be removed prior to dredging. If, however, the City chooses to leave some or all of
the guide piles in place, a structural evaluation of the piles will be required. As discussed
under Task 1, we can offer the City the option of conducting a full structural analysis of the
guide piles. We estimate that this structural analysis would add approximately $32,000 to
our design costs, in addition to the more comprehensive field study of the piles described
under Task 1. At this time, however, we are not including such an analysis in our scope,
anticipating that our review of the piles will be more cursory and based on visual
observations from our swim -by reconnaissance and review of City records. If during the
course of our analysis, it becomes evident that a thorough structural analysis of the guide
piles appears warranted and would contribute significantly to the long -term adequacy and
efficiency of the design and construction, then a modification to the scope of work can be
discussed.
Task 3.3: Plans, Specifications, and Opinion of Probable Cost
Anchor QEA and URS will prepare Draft (65 percent), Draft Final (95 percent level) and
Final (100 percent level) design plans, technical specifications, and opinion of probable cost
for the construction work. The development of these documents will occur concurrently
with the permitting process, and Draft (65 percent) documents will be prepared specifically
to support permit applications.
Construction plans will depict site bathymetry, existing structures, site conditions and
restrictions, required extents and limits of dredging, required side slopes, allowable
overdepth limits, allowable equipment mooring areas, and typical cross sections. The plans
will include a series of drawings that depict the seawalls, floating docks, and guide piles,
incorporating aerial photography that has been obtained from the City, and the results of the
bathymetric survey and structural analysis conducted as part of the current scope of work.
Technical specifications will include sections for dredging, transport, and disposal of
material. Any permit conditions and environmental restrictions known at the time of
preparation will also be included in the plans. Specifications will be prepared using USACE
standard format. Should the City request that specifications be prepared in another format,
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
Page 12
we may be able to accommodate that request without budget increase if the alternate format
is provided early in the design process.
A bid schedule will be included as part of the bid package, which will contain our estimate of
payable dredging volume quantities for design plans, including allowable overdepth and side
slopes. This quantity will also be used in our opinion of probable costs.
At this stage, we have made our best estimate of the level of effort that will be necessary to
adequately document the project details in this set of deliverables. As our engineering
analysis proceeds, we will be able to refine our expectations of this effort. Therefore, after
completion of Tasks 1, 3. 1, and 3.2, and prior to making significant progress on the
construction documents, we will meet with the City to discuss our findings and their effect
on the plans and specifications preparation effort. If appropriate, we will refine our overall
scope and level of effort at that time to reflect our more refined project understanding.
We have assumed that the Draft (65 percent) deliverables will be submitted to the City in
electronic form only and that the Draft Final (95 percent) and Final (100 percent)
deliverables will be submitted to the City in electronic and hard -copy form (five copies).
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE
A detailed project schedule in the form of a Gantt chart has been created based on the
current project status as well as several aggressive assumptions (e.g., assuming that
construction bid documents will be released prior to obtaining final permits) and is attached
to this scope of work for reference.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Table 1 presents our estimated costs for the recommended and presented scope of work, on a
task -by -task basis. Our scope description has also presented various optional scope items that
the City may elect to undertake. Table 2 summarizes the projected costs of these optional
items.
We propose to conduct this work on a not -to- exceed, time - and - materials basis, as has been
done for our work to date. Our previous engineering- related scope of work for pre- design
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
Paee 13
tasks to support the construction of a CAD cell is temporarily on hold pending the disposal
option at the Port of Long Beach. As such, the funds authorized for our previous scope of
work have been applied to the Rhine Channel effort to advance to the current stage of the
project, such that we can now enter into the final design stage. Throughout the conduct of
these tasks, Anchor QEA will provide detailed comments and summarize staff efforts on all
invoices.
Table 1
Summary of Estimated Costs for "Base" Tasks
Task
Task Description
Estimated Cost
1
Structural Review and Updated Bathymetric Survey
1.1
Updated Bathymetric Base Map of Complete Project
Area
$30,656
1.2
Investigation of Seawalls and Panels
$12,783
1.3
Investigation of Guide Piles
$10,000
2
Permitting
21
CCC CDP
$65,360
2.2
RWQCB 401 WQC/WDR
2.3
SLC Dredging Lease
2.4
USACE SIP
3
Final Engineering Design and Documentation
Geotechnical Engineering Explorations and Analysis
$57,145
Analysis of Structural Stability
$47,720
L33
Plans, Specifications, and Opinion of Probable Cost
$83,796
Total Estimated Cost
$307,460
Table 2
Summary of Estimated Costs for "Optional' Tasks
Optional Task Item
Estimated Cost
Direct Observation of Seawall Tie Rods
$20,000 to $30,000
Structural Analysis of Existing Guide Piles'
$32,000
Notes:
1 As presented in description for Task 1
2 As presented in description for Task 3.2
Mr. Chris Miller
June 11, 2010
Page 14
We appreciate the opportunity work with the City on this important project. If there are
any questions about this scope of work, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 347 -2780.
Sincerely,
Michael Whelan, P.E. Steve Cappellino
Anchor QEA, L.P. Anchor QEA, L.P.
f
rwrre.raavwcar
obn
rree+o
rravly
)
+rel.evwM.ranr.w vaw wrr
roan
rx YYlo
rr OglllD
)
Y!uOYCea'YVa VaYa4Y Yla
van
InYUID
lr Y!vlD
a.�x+. <s..w
cbn
vw b!blo
In vela
f
Yrvnrrr Lw.p- vv[wy.Vy.
'C bn
1'4n6^blE
1'.. Y1Y10
e
yM wCNVx an••'wrn.,v
!Lan
V4Y 6'VIL
r V)YID
I
4M y.r/vran
IDan
NYe Nb1D
Irry V)Y +0
e
+a. >,. v.earrlwrr
)lawn
rr«Yla
in )yle
r
9lr Metl.la MVine). btl v.
•Dh.
i. bY!')
lrubllM
!D
MM.ar!v[wv!.
!pbn
inbY.]
Iw Y1 n10
11
'y�1Yx Jal b:yr
)evry
Inb1V 10
Va•MND
v
c.vr.Mel.rx rre
can
+remnw
Irma
a
o.sn wlw'r.rry
sbrr
lin•nov!s
i. ry,o
a
1M ee�ar/1br WM ✓r YYMI
Han
in lylp
rnv YYp
11
fnp4WVy v //inpl.eii N."`r
1)an
Vm rN!p
.r llpa
fe
Vnrr.�V ee.1 r...rr Very
hal.
irrmlD
Ini aylD
fl
1r. 43 (srrabn Dawwl.
Man
rnHWle
fr 1Vy10
If
yPrtrt >/1w4YI
hbn
In Inb10
T. Y!Y10
n
fwr r.r.
)an
Ir YNYa
l,n VlYa
H
Yelbb(rge ♦ra
IN
VYO Y^Vlp
!MOV JIp
)1
NIV!h.IWrr
!L bn
`v YpfO
•1!y
\M WIO
H
Grvn..
)an
an!0
Va VrY!D
)1
Yalb aevn <mwT
!y
.rV!Y!0
Ir V!YW
).
IM pn.wa i+Y wlmlV
!fan
rlrJ Vt V!c
lr 1py!O
H
Mr rlrrM
Me.n
WM IMM
+a1VWq
H
rJyK)epa yl piMM
SOa.
YaJ!D6 ^L
1P!b!T!0
11
yarnap
HC.n
VIe !4!Y!C
Ir.I W10
H
®a wry.!a wn0
san
Vra!!nV!c
VlYlo
l+r
iH
CaWeea
qYn
Yb01yVp
vllnl
111
U4 [ucMp
IO bn
Ybl!Nr!0
iu lbl4!0
II
SWR
Aan
rM11NI V!D
r lrlV 1
U
Wrarm
rbn
vwe lyly!0
1!x lnl I
)1
IrYb O•gV.e
an
1v In V1!
Iw In 11!
>.
ttorl
nan
rrwro
vw YHne
N
Wl'uw.1/wl �.T
)bn
I!nbn10
MVVIO
M
r(I bClvr.rwe
Ibl
Ycw VlrlO
YeVIIIO
1I
VJi.Ywr y15MMJ
%bn
ly bYlp
Nrl lll110
x.r«.nn.Dx.ebrn.r...P
:bn
Inr:ro!c
rr r.y,w
1
Grr.pv wo..awry
Iva
.. rnnro
.r mn•c
.>
Gri. MT.reCMi
!M
M.0 In4tJ
✓1J %nblJ
.1
Cf[M MpII�mf
>l ery.
n•by!C
rn V!'r!a
a
eY.b
vlen
ve tone
rw mlYq
a
4WrGrWter!xwn
r)rxn
WYrrWO
rn IVINO
.l
Yen ..:.:.�o^'Yr•rD::n L.v.M•n. vn.rr
pJnv
Np'.Y!L'
IIV VJY'10
a
na'.v 1'F><
uan
rvn.•o
r. •InY!o
e
vs Y..r- onriror+n. v.,r„r...a
•xv.re
sr;nmD
v!Inv!o
14'
Nprn11 V>yy p.r4( rY 1VYnNMrrV.y
pt an
Iyrp lGl•1D
Yew!D'NIe
of
V. AVIVMCennYVJr VagreVN
ealx
Va01lJVr0
W1Nry 10
U
NP•b nrrlJ
/bn
IMO
lan ll/p 1O
p1Yl I la.
aM.. b!wrV I!CFin $rMa
1q 1nNYa Sla
Vn bn Sa W rp
�rr11° ba.a.rw orl'
�� rre 1. YT..rraa. ry urer alr.
1
1
ly r, )1.Odv[rnulf Ybrns.
V V
�� lu) }. Y..ryY. r Nraswr)WIM
+r, l ). caurWw MPrawb
s
y
beMlr
ti
tl� cfv
} y
C I rruVr LnM ^ lMrrA +r 6.a V
V✓v. . rrMwf lrla.F � famVlrrmn•
Vy 1
v.1 rti ie
Agenda Item No. 15
June 22, 2010
NEW
M.
I
. wnnx prNp •vl
'rrcr.mice.,.r.xr
_1
ANCHOR QEA, LLC.
2010 PROJECT COST ESTIMATING FORM
Proposal /Project Name: COmpinbon 01 EnP.Indaring, Design and Permitting
Revised &2772010 Cleanup Dredging of Rhine Channel I owport Beach CA
$307,460
Task 1 Strurt ral Review and 610ylaeinc S arvey $ ' 53,439
Task Perk 2-9 $ 66,380
Task 3.1 ^cfecnnlcal Enq n.r,nng Fxpld.al ", and Anp,s $ ' 57,145
Task 3.2 alyvis of Stluw ral Sfabhity $ 47,720
Task 3.3 plans: SnadrtCatldns andJl9non orP abaNO COaC $ 83796
Rbine CM1a11el - Design antl Pit"tilling - Ap Budget revised 5 -27 -1 axlsx
Number.
Prepared: (':Vhr,D!
E
E
$
Billing
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task
Task
Total
Total
Labor Cate ones
Rate
1
2
3.1
3.2
3.3
4
Hours
Dollars
',:al C YI/ /I. b 1'la° P
5 197 -
0
96
4
8
36
0
0
0
0
a nq vial s CM a ' r SCi
F 133'
20
0
32
50
110
0
0
0
0
144
5 28,368
i n 01nry c11y 1'ngr, /Pb ^ i
$ W
0
60
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
212
S 38.796
orA1 ldiVCM C qfA ur!Srii
6 142'
26
0
16
a
72
0
0
0
0
0
60
S 0,720
Slaft:I PoIa,Y:ACM /Engrl4.AlPlanrri
$ 125
0
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
114
S 16,188
gtay 2 Analy If N R+yrelA /*'Ian /Sei
S 144
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
160
0
$ 20,000
$
b ?1A UcM. L:aPYLi 7. 1. mSci
$ 99
0
0
84
124
168
0
0
0
0
0
376
S 37,224
Cvi,c
105
16
40
4
8
112
0
0
0
0
0
180
6 18,900
CA') fle. ,,rcr
5... _. 142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$ -
e ftr_fC''A,
S $2-
20
104
24
24
44
0
0
0
0
0
216
$ 17.712
£Ybed G",dinatm(.Ahmlr)
$ e2.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
$
1'e t...n n
$ 83"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$ -
Na6o, ^,a. ' =svgs Conauilanl
:3 : 35'0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$
Total Hours
82
460
164
214
542
0
0
0
0
0
1,462
Total Labor
$ 10,672
$ 61.S60
$ 19,620
S 25,810
$ 69,446
$ -
$ -
S -
$ -
$ -
$ 186,906
Average Hour Rate
$ 120
Suhoonsubants
URS (Slmctural E -oir sj
$ 18,400
$ -
$ -
S 21,500
$ 13,100
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
S 53,000
G64; iEa hym tc3urveya ^)
$ 23,895
$ -
$ -
$ -
8
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 23,895
G egg 0,11 ng (reuterr inal Expl0,a5one)
$ -
$ -
$ 33,165
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ _
$
$ _
$ 33.165
Go, ¢h I ,I laboiyo Dh
$ -
$ -
S 2,400
S -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ 2,400
$ -
$ -
$
$ _
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
$
Total Cost
$ 42,295
$ -
$ 35,565
$ 21,500
$ 13,100
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
S 112,460
Markup
' 0:0 %.
$ -
$ -
$
$ _
$ .
$
1 $ -
$ -
$ -
$
S
Reimbursahfes
CAD /Computer($/hr)
510,00 >
$ 160
$ -
$ 40
$ 240
$ 800
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
5 1,240
Mileage (Vents)
$0.50^
$ 52
$ -
$ 100
$ 50
$ .
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 202
Copies ($ /copy)
' 50.10
$ 20
$ -
$ 20
S 20
$ 5o
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 110
Anchor beat($ /day)
- SSOQ.'1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Faxes($flax)
5i.03. ':
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Ourtslde Expenses
V.Ncfe Rental
$ -
$ -
$ 300
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 300
Rep^ Alk,'t ^g
$ 100
$ -
$ 50
S 100
$ 400
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
S 650
MnIfFecexlCr.ner
$ 50
$ -
$ 50
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 100
r'fare...
$ -
$ -
$ 600
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 600
HotellPer a,i
$ -
$ -
$ 600
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 800
64isceltaneous
I $ 90
$ 4.000
1 $ -
I $ -
$ -
I S -
1 $ -
S -
1 $ -
$ -
1
1 $ 4.090
Total Cost
$ 472
$ 4,000
$ 1 960
S 410
$ 1,250
1 $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 8,092
Markup
0A'�1 -.' -,
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$
Field Equipment and
Supplies Sunni
$ -
g -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
S
$ -
Markup
:DA
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -.$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$
TOTAL COSTS
$ 53.439
$ 65,360
$ 57,145
$ 47,720
$ 83,796
S -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ 307,460
City of Newport Beach
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2009 -10
'ECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates
X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND
Transfer Budget Appropriations
SOURCE:
from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
PX from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
NO. BA- 10BA -054
AMOUNT: $37a,ass.00
Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
To increase expenditure appropriations to approve amendment No. 2 to the professional services agreement with Anchor QEA
Inc. for preparation of final engineering evaluation design and permitting support for the Rhine Channel Contaminated Sediment
Cleanup Project.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE
Fund Account
230 3605
REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601)
Fund /Division Account
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Description
Tidelands Fund - Fund Balance
Division
Number 7231 Tidelands Capital
Account
Number C4402001 Harbor Dredging Project
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Financial Apprnal: Administrative Services
Administrative Approval: City Manager
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Amount
Debit Credit
$378,495.00 ,
$378,495.00
!&,J [)
Date
Date
Date