HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Confined Aquatic Disposal Site in Newport HarborCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 16
July 14, 2009
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
cm i I lerOcity. newport- beach. ca. us
SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement for Environmental (CEQA) and
Engineering Tasks Associated with a Confined Aquatic Disposal Site in
Newport Harbor
ISSUE:
In recent years, the City has been preparing for a major Lower Bay dredging project which is
needed to maintain proper depths in the harbor's channels. Several steps to help achieve this
goal have already been taken, including: 1) Authorizing NewFields consultants to complete
comprehensive sediment testing, 2) Authorizing Anchor QEA consultants to prepare a feasibility
study for a Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site to dispose the contaminated sediments in
Newport Harbor, and 3) Authorizing Anchor QEA to perform preliminary geotechnical work at
the proposed CAD site. The next step in this process is to begin the environmental (CEQA) and
engineering work to design and eventually construct the CAD site.
Should the City contract with Anchor QEA, L.P. to perform the initial CEQA and engineering
design work for a CAD site in Newport Harbor?
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P.
to conduct initial CEQA and engineering design work for a CAD in Newport Harbor, and;
2. Approve Budget Amendment #BA -- appropriating $395,000 from unappropriated
reserves (tidelands) to Capital Improvement Project #7231- C4402001 (Newport Harbor
Dredging Project).
DISCUSSION:
In an effort to dredge the Lower Bay, the City is currently performing a comprehensive sediment
analysis of the entire harbor. NewFields LLC is assisting with this effort and they expect to have
most of their findings compete by summer 2009. These tests are critical because they will help
determine the disposal locations of the sediment, whether at the federally approved disposal
site 4.5 miles off shore (LA -3) or at a CAD site located in the Lower Bay. To clarify, a CAD site
is a large pit that is created below the floor of the harbor into which the contaminated material is
placed. Then, a thick (about 4 -8') layer of clean sand is laid over the contaminated material
PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks
July 14, 2009
Page 2
therefore forming a permanent cap that will forever be sealed. This type of solution has been
tested and approved by the regulatory agencies (US Army Corps of Engineers, US EPA,
California Coastal Commission, Regional Board, others) in other harbors (including most
recently Port Hueneme in Ventura County), so it may be a preferred solution for Newport
Harbor. At this point, it is still unknown how many cubic yards (cy) of material will need to be
placed in the CAD site, but we are expecting a range between 200,000 and 500,000 cy.
Alternatives Considered
As previously mentioned, Anchor QEA completed a feasibility study which examined all the
possible solutions to dispose the contaminated material. The full feasibility report may be found
on the City's website at: htta: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.usAowerbaydredging.htmI Click on
"Lower Bay CAD Conceptual Plan." The Feasibility Study's disposal options are briefly
described below.
1 — On -Site Sediment Treatment Facility. The treatment of contaminated sediments typically
consists of one or more physical and /or chemical processes aimed at removing or rendering
inert the target chemicals of concern. Cement based stabilization is a process where additive
(e.g. cement, lime, or kiln dust) are mixed into the contaminated dredged material after it has
been removed from the water and placed in a mixing barge or on -shore containment area.
Another method of on -site sediment treatment is sand separation which is a process where the
relatively clean sand faction is mechanically separated from the fine -grained contaminated
material to produce two products: beach suitable sand and contaminated fine grained material
for landfill disposal. The pros and cons of each method are summarized below.
Management Alternative
Pros
Cons
Cement -Based Stabilization
• Cost effective
• Lack of recipients for treated
• Treats metals and organics
material
• Agency approved process
• Unclear agency support
• Removes material from
• Upland treatment site
water
• Multiple re- handling
• Adjacent land impacts
significant
• Slow 1,000 cy per day)
Sand Separation
• Process is cost effective
• Process not refined
• Can remove metals and
• Unclear agency support for
organics
material reuse.
• Removes material from the
• Still requires disposal of fine
water
grained material
• Creates beneficial product
• Requires adjacent land for
treatment facility
PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks
July 14, 2009
Page 3
2 — Future Port Fill. A second potential option for disposal of contaminated dredged material
would be to contribute the sediment to a current or future fill project within the Port of Los
Angeles or the Port of Long Beach via barge transport.
Management Alternative
Pros
Cons
Future Port Fill
• Cost effective
• Limited duration of
• Agency approved
availability; highly schedule
management approach
dependent
• Removes material from the
• Uncertain schedule for
water
permits and authorizations
May not be able to accept all
material requiring disposal
. Liability transfer agreement
with port will be required
• Does not provide a
guaranteed solution for the
City
3 — Upland Landfill Disposal. A third potential option would be to transport the material via
trucks to an upland landfill. However, this option is usually considered for projects with 10,000
cy or less. Due to the salinity in sea water, the agencies usually require the use of private
landfills which is costly.
Management Alternative
Pros
Cons
Upland Landfill Disposal
• Removes material from the
• Very expensive, >$100 /cy
water
a Not supported by agencies
• No schedule constraints
a Local landfills will not accept
the material
• Significant adjacent land and
community impacts including
air and traffic
4 — Long Beach CAD Site. A fourth potential option would be to use an existing Long Beach
CAD site which has only been permitted as a pilot project to date. In other words, the Long
Beach CAD site is not currently permitted for additional disposal events and the City of Long
Beach is not actively promoting its use.
PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks
July 14, 2009
Page 4
Management Alternative
Pros
Cons
Long Beach CAD Site
. Cost effective compared to
• Not yet permitted by the City
upland disposal
of Long Beach
• Can accept all material
• Approximately 20 mile round
• Could possibly tie to another
trip for each barge disposal
project for cap material
event
• Use Port Hueneme as
• Not supported by LA County
example for permitting and
environmental advocates
4 — Lower Newport Bay CAD Site. A fifth, and possibly the most feasible option, is
constructing a CAD cell in Lower Newport Bay. This process involves mechanically dredging
contaminated sediment from around the Bay and placing the material inside the cell. Once
completed, the cell would be capped with clean, sandy dredged material to isolate the sediment
from the overlying water. Reusing clean dredged material from the bay would eliminate the
costs for harvesting cap material and would also provide an in -bay beneficial use for the clean
sands. Most of the material excavated from the cell could be pumped to the beach or barged
and dropped in the nearshore zone and used as nourishment material.
Lower Newport Bay
• Cost effective compared to
• Local community will be
CAD Site
upland disposal
impacted in terms of
• Can accept all material at
aesthetics and disruption to
once
navigation
• City controls schedule and
• Temporary displacement of
process
some boaters
• Use Port Hueneme as
• General concern over
example for permitting and
disposing of contaminated
design
sediments in the bay
• Cell excavation could
provide material for beach
nourishment
Geotechnical Evaluation
The next step in this process was to conduct a geotechnical study of the material where the
CAD site would be created in Newport Harbor. The location chosen was the area in the
Newport Channel, in the open water space, between Via Lido Soud and the Balboa Peninsula.
(See Exhibit 1) This area was chosen because:
1. Most of the contaminated material is located in this area;
2. It is not in the main navigational channel — if it was, navigation would be impacted to a greater extent
AND it would be at greater risk for an unintentional fill during a large storm event, where sediment
traveling from the San Diego Creek watershed would pass close to it.
3. It is close to the Rhine Channel, which also contains sediment which must be removed.
An alternative site considered is near the bay area east of the Balboa Pavilion / Fun Zone area.
PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks
July 14, 2009
Page 5
The results of the geotechnical study may be found on the City's website at:
http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /lowerbaydredging.html Click on "CAD Geotechnical
Report." To briefly summarize, the geotech report found very clean, sandy material below about
-8 Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to -50 MLLW. This is the material that will need to be
excavated in order to create room for the contaminated material. This clean material will either
be pumped across Balboa Blvd. into the nearshore zone or barged out of the harbor and
dropped in the nearshore zone (this will be determined later).
CAD CEQA and Engineering
The current proposal under Council consideration is for Anchor QEA to begin the environmental
(CEQA) process and to begin the engineering for the CAD site. As one can imagine, these
tasks are complex and require much coordination among staff and the various resource
agencies. In addition, the City will need to make critical decisions on some key issues before
this phase can be complete.
Therefore, Anchor QEA is proposing to work with the information that they have available now
to move the project forward while also coordinating with the US Army Corps of Engineers who is
responsible for dredging the federal channels. This proposal will use current information and
will account for approximately two thirds of the effort needed. In late 2009, Anchor QEA will
return with another proposal to finalize this effort after these critical decisions have been made.
One decision that must be made within the next month or so is whether the City desires a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the CAD.
Both reports have merit, but the decision to go one way or another will affect the costs and
timing of the overall project. Therefore, this proposal suggests two paths that the consultant
could take depending on that decision later this summer.
Another decision that must be made is whether to hydraulically pump material from the CAD site
across Balboa Blvd into the nearshore zone or to barge it out of the harbor and drop in the
nearshore zone. This is also a critical decision and one that will be made after both options
have been carefully vetted by the consultant and the City. There are pros and cons to each
alternative that center around cost, time and public impact. Each will be fully analyzed before
making a decision.
The Proposal - CEQA
The attached proposal details the various tasks which are summarized below. The full proposal
is included in Exhibit 2. Anchor QEA is proposing to be retained on a time and materials basis
(with a not -to -exceed amount per task) to complete the CEQA and engineering tasks below.
Subtask 1.1: Proiect Description and Initial Study
This task involves preparation of the Project Description and internal administrative draft Initial
Study checklist which represent the initial checkpoint for the decision on whether to prepare an
MND or an EIR. An air quality sub - consultant, iLanco, Inc., will assist with this task. Estimated
costs are $115,000.
PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks
July 14, 2009
Page 6
Subtask 1.2a: Mitigated Negative Declaration Option
If an MND is chosen, this task involves finalizing the Initial Study and preparation of the MND
including all required public notices and administrative tasks. Estimated costs are $40,000.
Subtask 1.2b: Environmental Impact Report Option
If an EIR is chosen, this task involves preparing the EIR including all required public notice and
administrative tasks. Estimated costs are $120,000.
Subtask 1.3: Miscellaneous Meetings, Agency Coordination Meetings. and Other Project
Coordination
This task is required regardless of the MND /EIR option selected and provides funds for Anchor
QEA staff to attend any and all public outreach or workshop meetings, agency coordination
meetings, and/or any other related or required meetings. Estimated costs are $32,000.
This is task that City staff will play a significant role. We recognize the concern that adjacent
residents, especially on Lido Isle, will have about the CAD. While all of our research shows that
CADS are safe, they are unfamiliar to the west coast (except for Port Hueneme) and pose a
vexing question for us all — is it safer, less expensive, and less environmentally impactful to bury
and contain the existing contaminated sediment than to truck it away, dispose of it elsewhere,
and make it someone else's problem?
CEQA Cost Summary
For this initial CEQA work, the costs could range between $187,000 to $267,000 depending on
the MND /EIR option chosen.
Future CEQA Costs
As stated above, in later part of 2009, Anchor will submit another proposal to complete the
CEQA and agency permitting tasks. This additional cost will be between $140,000 to $200,000
depending on the MND /EIR option chosen.
The Proposal — Engineering
Subtask 2.1: Review of Existing Literature and Additional Research
This task involves review of existing information and will focus on identifying key elements
necessary for design such as maps, as -built plans for existing structures, wind, waves, currents,
bathymetric information etc... Estimated costs are $25,000.
Subtask 2.2: Locate and Record all Utility Crossings within CAD area
This task involves indentifying all utility crossings which need to be accurately identified prior to
proceeding forward with a dredging design. Estimated costs are $5,000.
Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Research / Sand Placement Location
PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks
July 14, 2009
Page 7
This task involves investigating the option of hydraulically placing the clean sand from the CAD
construction in the nearshore zone via pipes across Balboa Blvd. The option of barging the
material out of the harbor will also be considered. The sub - consultant Everest International
Consultants will assist with this task. Estimated costs are $20,000.
Subtask 2.4: Structural Offsets of Protection Evaluation
This task identifies and reviews the position, layout and general condition of structures within or
near the planned dredging areas because of the potential that dredging will create unstable
conditions due to the massive removal of earth pressures. Estimated costs are $22,000.
Subtask 2.5: Preliminary Modeling of Environmental Protectiveness for CAD Cell
This task involves computer modeling to help design the CAD site and to simulate sediment re-
suspension and loss of particulates during their descent in the water column into the CAD.
Also, this modeling will simulate the required cap requirements to ensure the material under the
cap will not escape. Estimates costs are $30,000.
Subtask 2.6: Preliminary Production Rates
This task identifies preliminary dredging production rates which can be used to provide
estimates of construction duration under different scenarios. Estimated costs are $4,000.
Subtask 2.7: Development of Preliminary Construction Unit Costs
This task will use the existing information mentioned above to prepare a preliminary
construction unit cost, including mobilization, dredging and disposal unit rates, structural
protection if necessary, and capping material placement. This is necessary to assist the City in
making critical, construction related decisions required to complete the initial CEQA tasks.
Estimated costs are $10,000.
Subtask 2.8: Coordination with US Army Corps and Other Agencies
This task involves meetings with the Corps and other agencies related to engineering and
design features which are critical to gauge potential unforeseen concerns early in the design
phase. Estimated costs are $12,000.
Future Engineering Costs
As stated above, in the later part of 2009, Anchor will submit another proposal to complete the
engineering tasks. This additional cost will be between $25,000 to $50,000 depending on
various factors.
SUMMARY
The total costs from the tasks above as well as future anticipated costs are:
Current Proposal: $315,000 to $395,000
Future Proposal: $165,000 to $250,000
PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks
July 14, 2009
Page 8
Projected Total CEQA and Engineering Costs at end of project: — $480,000 to $645,000
Anchor QEA is proposing to immediately begin this work in order to coordinate with the Corps
schedule for dredging the entire Lower Bay. This proposal is based on Anchor QEA's expertise
in successfully negotiating agency approval for a CAD site in Port Hueneme to accommodate
more than 300,000 cubic yards of material. The City also feels that Anchor's experience with
similar CAD projects, as well as their in -depth knowledge of Newport Harbor via several key
projects in the area (US Army Corps of Engineers Lower Newport Bay, Rhine Channel
Feasibility Study, Balboa Marina, Lido Anchorage, DeAnza Bayside Marina, Blurock Property,
and more) provides an ideal partnership to provide this environmental and engineering project.
An added benefit of designing and constructing a CAD site is that the CAD creates a location for
disposal of the Rhine Channel contaminated material in the near future. In fact, this would
significantly reduce the overall future cost for the Rhine Channel, therefore making the project
more manageable.
Environmental Review: The approval of the Professional Services Agreement for
Environmental (CEQA) and engineering work does not require environmental review.
Public Notice: This agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the item).
Fiscal Impact: Previous staff reports have discussed how the CAD fits into the context of a
larger Lower Newport Bay dredging project. In short, having a site for disposal of contaminated
materials opens the door for the US Army Corps to do its $24 -25 million project. Today, the
dredging project itself is the Corps' obligation — but we also know that securing the federal
funding for the dredging project is a huge challenge.
Lower Newport Bay -- Dredging Project (2010 -2012)
Estimated Expenses and Estimated Fund Sources
Assumes 1.4 million cubic yards @ $18 /cubic yard
Expense lest)
Sediment Testing
$ 350,000
CAD Analysis
$ 50,000
CAD Engineering/Design
$
Permitting/CEQA/NEPA
$
CAD - Construction, Use, Cap
Dredging
Totals
$ 400,000 $
Sources of Funds lest)
City Funds (for CAD)
$ 400,000 $
Federal Funds
$
Totals
S 400,000 S
350,000
400,000
$ 1,500,000 $ 11500,000
600,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
In recent years, the City has stepped up by telling the Corps that we would be willing to
participate in funding the larger project by taking responsibility for the CAD site — meaning
PSA for CAD CEQA and Engineering Tasks
July 14, 2009
Page 9
permitting, engineering, and construction. It is not an inexpensive endeavor, and even today
the cost is uncertain given that we do not know yet how much sediment must go to a CAD site
versus to LA -3 or to beach disposal. Obviously, we hope to maximize the material going to LA-
3 or to our beaches and minimize the amount going to the CAD site.
Given the high priority that the Council and community place on this dredging project — a project
that arguably none of us will ever have to see or do again in our lifetimes, given that most of the
Harbor has not been dredged in its 70+ years of existence — we believe that we must push
forward with the CAD site's engineering and CEQA work (as well as possible alternatives to the
CAD, such as the cement -based stabilization option) now. With $1.78 million in the President's
Budget as submitted to Congress for the Lower Bay dredging, and with Senator Feinstein
asking for a "congressionally add" of another $14 million to the Corps for the federal fiscal year
(FY 10), the time is now.
Approving this now requires amending the just- adopted FY 2009 -10 City Budget. Staff
considered asking Council to adopt a placeholder in the FY 2009 -10 Capital Improvement Plan,
but the City Manager asked that we instead bring a final action and contract forward when it was
ready to go with a budget amendment, given the uncertainty of the pricing and scope months
ago. Therefore, this item includes a budget amendment of $395,000 from Unappropriated
Reserves (Tidelands) to account CIP #7231- C4402001.
The benefits of this expenditure and cost recovery options are significant for this expense. This
expense meets our obligations to the Corps to assist them as they (hopefully) move forward
with their dredging project. They could not do the job without this assistance. As to cost
recovery, given the one -time expense of this project, and given its importance to harbor users,
staff will propose recovering the cost of the CAD (permitting /CEQA, engineering /design, and
construction) from harbor users, in part or in whole.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
k P ok/w* A)t4�/ 1= M —
Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager D Kiff, AssistaM City Manager
Attachments: Exhibit 1: CAD Site Location
Exhibit 2: Anchor QEA CEQA and Engineering Proposal
y.
Preferred CAD Site_r"e
Location Alternate CAD Site
Location }
c
kZANCHOR
QEA
28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425
Laguna Niguel, California 92677
Phone 949.347.2780
fax 949.347.2781
June 25, 2009
C0ITOTI5iii[S7
Manager, Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Site Scope of Work and Budget
Request for Engineering Pre - design Tasks and CEQA Compliance
Dear Mr. Miller:
As a follow up to our recent conversations about moving forward with the Lower Newport
Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site development process, this letter presents our
proposed Scope of Work (SOW) and cost estimate for several engineering pre - design tasks
and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process steps necessary to formally
initiate the project. Our SOW is broken down into two main categories: CEQA and
engineering pre - design. Within each category, we have identified several proposed tasks for
immediate initiation along with our associated estimated costs for each item. Also within
each of these categories, we have provided an estimate of future scope and budget items for
the City of Newport Beach's (City's) internal planning needs.
Using the attached flow chart as a visual tool for highlighting the expected development
process for permitting and designing the CAD site, the shaded bar reflects the current step in
the process. While data is still being collected to determine some of the key features of the
project (i.e., final contaminated sediment volume to be managed and potential transportation
routes and methods for excavating the CAD cell and placing the clean sand on or near the
adjacent City beaches), several engineering related tasks must be initiated immediately so
that the permitting process may commence.
www.anchorgea.com
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 2
Thus, the goal for this phase of the project is to: a) begin collecting engineering - related data
needed to support CEQA efforts, including information related to the potential for
groundwater influence, preliminary cap design, and potential construction techniques; and
b) begin the CEQA process, including preparing the project description and Initial Study (IS),
evaluating the option of conducting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) versus a full
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and conducting public outreach meetings to gauge
initial public concerns. The following details our proposed SOW for each of these items.
Estimated costs are described within each task and summarized in Table 1.
As a reminder, while the CAD site is an integral part of the overall Lower Newport Bay
(LNB) sediment management solution, the current engineering tasks only focus on the design
and permitting of the actual CAD cell itself. Future phases of the project will need to
consider engineering design for the non - project contaminated dredge areas planned for CAD
disposal like the Rhine Channel. The CEQA effort contained in the current proposal does,
however, include both dredging of non - project contaminated areas and construction/filling
of the CAD cell.
TASK 1: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOCUMENT
PREPARATION
Construction of a CAD cell within the City requires environmental review under both state
(CEQA) and federal (National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]) guidelines. The City
would act as the lead CEQA agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE)
Regulatory Program would act as the lead NEPA agency.
The aforementioned construction activities are also subject to permits issued under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), and the California Coastal Act (CCA). The USACE would be the lead agency for
RHA and CWA Section 404 permits as well as associated consultations for Endangered
Species Act/Essential Fish Habitat (ESA/EFH) issues, including eelgrass. The Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) would be the lead agency for CWA
Section 401 as well as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs).
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 3
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) would be the lead CCA agency. In addition to
requiring a Coastal Development Permit, the CCC will treat the project either as a City
project requiring a consistency certification or as a USACE Operations and Maintenance
(O &M) project requiring a federal consistency determination. All of the above mentioned
agencies, including other consulting agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), use essentially the same methodology as that proposed here and have
experience with review and approval of CAD site development.
The decision to prepare an MND or EIR is primarily based on whether significant impacts
remain after mitigation. If significant impacts cannot be avoided or substantially reduced,
the City is required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Based on expected
construction methodology, knowledge of the level of sediment contamination in the harbor,
and extensive experience with CAD site development, project elements including excavation
of a CAD cell, placement of clean excavated sands on City beaches, and placement and
capping of contaminated sediments within the CAD cell are not anticipated to produce any
significant environmental impacts.
The alternative (i.e., landfill disposal of the dredged material) would entail potentially
significant impacts to air and traffic due to the vast number of truck trips (more than 50,000)
involved. The USACE is expected to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and
associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NEPA, which is equivalent to the
City preparing an MND. While no significant impacts are foreseen with in -water CAD cell
construction, and therefore an MND should be available as a CEQA document, the City may
choose to pursue an EIR. The final decision to prepare an MND or EIR would occur once the
CEQA IS is completed.
At this time, it is assumed that a California State Lands Commission (CSLC) dredging lease
will also need to be obtained for any dredging and disposal components outside the federal
channel areas.
In order to achieve the endpoint of a successful CEQA document for the proposed project,
Anchor QEA, L.P. (Anchor QEA), proposes the following SOW and options. Please note
that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires the City, Anchor
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 4
QEA, and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues,
such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key affected areas
throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable dredged material.
Subtask 1.1: Project Description and Initial Study
Subtask 1.1 involves preparation of the Project Description (PD) and internal administrative
draft IS checklist. The preparation of the PD and IS represents the initial checkpoint for the
decision on whether to prepare an MND or EIR. Following completion of the PD and IS,
Anchor QEA and City staff would meet and review the findings and make a decision on
whether to pursue an MND or EIR. Subtask 1. 1, therefore, includes conducting a project
kick -off, preparing the PD, and preparing an internal administrative draft IS. When the
internal administrative draft IS has been completed, the City would decide whether to
pursue Subtask 1.2a or 1.2b below (MND or EIR). Provided work is initiated in July of 2009,
we would anticipate having the internal draft IS completed by October of 2009. Note that
achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress is made on required
engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These responsibilities include
deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals and input required
from the City.
Please also note that this task includes our use and oversight of an air quality subconsultant,
iLanco, Inc., who has worked with Anchor QEA on dredging air quality issues on numerous
projects, including the Port of Hueneme CAD site.
Subtask 1.1 estimated costs are $115,000. This cost estimate is based on the following
assumptions:
• Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other
required tasks
• Preparation of the PD and IS consistent with CEQA guidelines
• Attendance at meetings with City staff, as needed
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 5
Subtask 1.2a: Mitigated Negative Declaration Option
If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an MND for the proposed project,
Anchor QEA would proceed with finalizing the IS and preparation of the MND, including all
required public notices and administrative tasks. We would incorporate all City comments
in the administrative draft IS, publish the Notice of Availability of the MND, conduct a
hearing on the IS/MND, prepare responses to comments, and prepare the final IS /MND.
While a hearing on a draft MND is not required, Anchor QEA recommends and has included
a public meeting at the time of the draft MND.
Our estimated costs for Task 1.2a includes scope up to and including the preparation of the
public draft IS/MND and conducting the hearing. Once comments are received, we would
request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft, prepare the final MND, and
initiate the permit process. We would anticipate filing of the final IS /MND around June of
2010.
Subtask 1.2a estimated costs are $40,000. This cost estimate is based on the following
assumptions:
• Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other
required tasks
• Preparation of an administrative and public draft MND
• Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed
• Agency coordination, as needed
Subtask 1.2b: Environmental Impact Report Option
If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an EIR for the proposed project, Anchor
QEA would proceed with preparing the EIR, including all required public notice and
administrative tasks. Anchor QEA would assist the City in managing a public scoping
meeting, including public notice of the project, set -up and management of the meeting, and
recording the proceedings for the administrative record. Following the scoping process,
Anchor QEA would prepare an internal administrative draft EIR (estimated completion is
February of 2010, provided the work is initiated in July of 2009).
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 6
Following this step, Anchor QEA would incorporate any City comments received, prepare
the public draft EIR, and manage the circulation of the public draft as well as the hearing on
the draft. We would also include a draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP)
with the EIR. Note that achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress
is made on required engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These
responsibilities include deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals
and input required from the City.
Please again note that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires
the City, Anchor, QEA and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key
technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key
affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable
dredged material.
At the time of the mailing of the notice of completion of the public draft EIR, we would
request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft EIR, prepare the final EIR, and
initiate the permit process. We would anticipate final approval of the EIR around November
of 2010.
Subtask 1.2b estimated costs are $120,000. This cost estimate is based on the following
assumptions:
• Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other
required tasks
• Preparation of an administrative and public draft EIR
• Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed
• Agency coordination, as needed
Subtask 1.3: Miscellaneous Outreach Meetings, Agency Coordination Meetings,
and Other Project Coordination
Subtask 1.3 is required regardless of the EIR/MND option selected above and provides funds
for Anchor QEA staff to attend any and all public outreach or workshop meetings, agency
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 7
coordination meetings, and/or any other related or required meeting. As part of the process
of achieving a public and agency consensus in favor of constructing the CAD cell, Anchor
QEA suggests conducting up to three additional formalized public workshops on the project.
The City and Anchor QEA would continue to target key stakeholder groups individually
with separate, focused meetings. We would also facilitate a thorough and comprehensive
process of agency outreach and education leading up to the eventual permit applications.
Subtask 1.3 estimated costs are $32,000. This cost estimate is based on the following
assumptions:
• Attendance at up to 15 additional meetings
• Inclusion of mileage and other meeting material costs, as required
Estimated Future Costs for California Environmental Quality Act and Agency
Permitting
Based on our experience with similar projects, we estimate that the remaining costs to finish
the CEQA documentation process and initiate and conduct the multi- agency permitting
process to be as follows.
MND Option If an MND is conducted, and depending on the volume of public
comment, we project an additional need of between $15,000 and $30,000 to finalize the
MND. Note that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if
deemed necessary, or:
EIR QRt ion. If an EIR is conducted, and depending on the volume of public comment,
we project an additional need of between $50,000 and $75,000 to finalize the EIR. Note
that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if deemed
necessary.
These costs (summarized in Table 2) would be in addition to the total amount requested by
the current scope of work. Preparation of all required agency permit applications and
supporting documents for the USACE, CCC, CSLC, and SARWQCB is estimated to require
approximately $125,000. This effort includes preparing application support documents and a
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page S
Biological Assessment (BA)/EFH report, fmalizing of any MMRPs, and preparing a draft
USACE Regulatory EA in support of issuance of the USACE permit. This fee would also
include necessary additional agency meetings.
Thus, estimated potential additional permitting costs might range between $140,000 and
$200,000. These additional costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010.
TASK 2: PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS AND ANALYSES
Prior to the start of the actual design and engineering of the CAD cell in Lower Newport
Bay, there are numerous pre -design engineering tasks and analyses that can be performed
using available data. These tasks and analyses are critical for the initial phases of the CEQA
process. Actual engineering design will occur later, after details such as proposed
construction approach and targeted contaminated sediment volumes are defined. In addition
to assisting the development of the CEQA tasks identified in Task 1, this information will be
valuable for understanding the project area and identifying physical constraints that could
dictate or limit aspects of the design. The following describes our proposed initial subtasks.
Subtask 2.1: Review of Existing Literature and Additional Research
The existing information Anchor QEA has been provided by the City will need to be
reviewed in detail by the design team. This review will focus on identifying key elements
necessary for design, such as maps and as -built plans for existing harbor structures;
information on vessels that frequently pass through the area proposed for CAD cell
construction area; wind, waves, and currents; and previous physical and chemical
characterizations of sediments in Newport Bay (as may be needed to perform modeling or
engineering calculations).
A review of the existing bathymetric information will also be preformed in order to evaluate
whether there is adequate coverage over the design areas or if data gaps exist and if a
supplemental survey is needed. Additionally, time will be spent researching additional
studies or reports that may exist and have yet to be identified to prevent unnecessary time
and efforts for redoing design analyses or tasks. All this information will be loaded into our
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 9
CADD and GIS systems for use during the actual design phases. Subtask 2.1 estimated costs
are $25,000.
Subtask 2.2: Locate and Record all Utility Crossings within CAD Area
We are aware there are underwater crossings of water and telephone lines within Lower
Newport Bay. Although, these crossing do not appear to be in the vicinity of the potential
CAD cell locations (determined during the field investigation phase), such locations will
need to be accurately identified prior to proceeding forward with the dredging design. We
can obtain this information by meeting with the appropriate utility companies and City
personnel to discuss their knowledge about the utilities in Newport Bay and to review their
as -built drawings. As with Subtask 2. 1, this information would all be loaded into our CADD
and GIS systems to assist with future design tasks. Subtask 2.2 estimated costs are $5,000.
Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Research /Sand Placement Locations
A large portion of the hydraulic pipeline may potentially be routed over land, from a point
near the CAD cell to the other side of the peninsula where a likely point of discharge on the
beach might exist. Therefore, an implementable and cost - effective upland pipeline route
will need to be identified. This pipeline will need to be routed such that it minimizes
disruption to local traffic and avoids existing structural features and utility lines, among
other factors. Anchor QEA would work closely with the City's Public Works Department to
discuss potential pipeline placement routes and identify associated costs and challenges with
each option.
In addition, past and ongoing studies of the local coastal processes will be reviewed to aid in
selecting potential placement locations for sand excavated from the CAD cell. Suitable,
potential beach placement areas will be identified and used during meetings with
representatives from the City's Public Works Department to identify potential routing
locations. Because of their extensive southern California coastal modeling expertise and past
working relationship with Anchor QEA on the recently completed Port Hueneme CAD site,
Mr. David Cannon and Dr. Ying Poon from Everest International Consultants (Everest) will
assist Anchor QEA with this task. The goal with this approach is to try and reuse as much
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 10
work from the successful Port Hueneme project as a way to maintain a familiar development
process with the agencies and conserve funds. Subtask 2.3 estimated costs are $20,000.
Subtask 2.4: Structural Offsets or Protection Evaluation
Dredging near any shoreline structure has the potential for creating unstable conditions due
to removal of passive earth pressures or undermining of the structure in the future. Thus, it
is necessary to identify and review the position, layout, and general condition of structures
within or near the planned dredging areas to determine if precautionary measures (such as
dredging offsets or additional protection) will be necessary to retain the stability of the
structure and avoid adverse impacts on stability. This work would include reviewing as -built
drawings for all shoreline areas proposed for dredging as well as conducting field surveys to
verify the current condition of the structures. Subtask 2.4 estimated costs are $22,000.
Subtask 2.5: Preliminary Modeling of Environmental Protectiveness for CAD Cell
Using physical and chemical characteristics of sediments available from previous studies, a
series of USACE- developed computer models can be used to provide an estimate of
environmental protectiveness of dredging and disposal activities (water quality modeling)
and long -term containment of the chemically impacted sediments (cap breakthrough
modeling) within the CAD cell.
The Short-term Fate of Dredged Material Disposal model (STFATE; developed by USACE)
can be run to simulate sediment resuspension and loss of particulates during their descent
through the water column into the CAD cell, which can predict the concentration of total
suspended solids (TSS) remaining in suspension at a particular time and their lateral
spreading distance from the point of dumping.
Additionally, a preliminary run of the steady -state "cap chemical breakthrough" model
(developed by Reible et al.) would be beneficial for predicting the ability of surficial capping
material to chemically isolate the underlying contaminated sediments from burrowing
organisms and biota residing in the overlying water column under long -term scenarios. This
analysis will determine the preliminary required minimum cap thickness in order to
maintain environmental protectiveness.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 11
Included in this subtask will be the evaluation of bioturbation on the cap surface as it relates
to the potential for redistribution of buried contaminants from burrowing organisms. Scour
potential from wind, wave, and currents will also be evaluated to ensure that the preliminary
cap design provides protection from erosional forces as well as chemical flux and biological
activity. Lastly, a preliminary evaluation of effects from future uses (e.g., mooring
installations and repairs) will be evaluated and incorporated in the revised conceptual cap
design. Everest staff will assist with this task as well for the same reasons mentioned under
Subtask 2.3. Subtask 2.5 estimated costs are $30,000.
Subtask 2.6: Preliminary Production Rates
Using harbor bathymetry (i.e., available drafts), distance of travel, likely dredging volumes,
and dredging equipment, a preliminary production rate can be estimated to provide estimates
of construction duration under different scenarios. This preliminary production rate can in
turn be compared against dredging closure windows and seasonal recreational activities (i.e,,
summer sailing programs, regattas, outrigger canoes, etc.) to identify optimal construction
sequences. This information will be useful in developing a range of engineer's cost estimates
based on varying conditions (described below). Subtask 2.6 estimated costs are $4,000.
Subtask 2.7: Development of Preliminary Construction Unit Costs
Using the preliminary information gathered in the above subtasks, as well as information
gathered from discussions with local contractors competent to perform the work, a
preliminary set of construction unit costs will be prepared. These estimates will include
rough order of magnitude costs for key construction components (such as mobilization and
demobilization), dredging and disposal unit rates (hydraulic and mechanical), structural
protection (if necessary), and capping material placement. The purpose for conducting this
task at this phase of the project is to allow the City to make critical, construction - related
decisions required to complete the initial CEQA tasks. A formal cost estimate will be
developed during the latter phases of the engineering design, once dredging and filling
quantities have been finalized. Subtask 2.7 estimated costs are $10,000.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 12
Subtask 2.8: Coordination with USACE and other Agencies
The navigational channel within Lower Newport Bay is maintained by the USACE and any
dredging within that area will be their responsibility. Early discussions with the USACE will
be critical in determining future roles for performing the various design tasks (i.e., the
USACE may request the City's assistance with engineering design for the federal channel
areas where contaminated sediments occur) and how design documents will come together
in the end for bidding and also for cost sharing purposes. Meetings with other agencies
related to engineering design features will also be critical to gauge potential, unforeseen,
concerns early in the design process as that they may be corrected immediately, and delays
may be avoided later in the review process. Subtask 2.8 estimated costs are $12,000.
Estimated Future Costs for Engineering Design
The above pre -design tasks will advance the scope and schedule of the 30% design effort for
the CAD cell significantly. Additional discussions need to occur between the City and
USACE to refine an approach for completing a consolidated design package for Lower
Newport Bay. At a minimum, the City will be responsible for all design activities for the
CAD cell, which forms the basis for this engineering scope of work. As such, estimated costs
to complete this process once all the pre -design tasks are finished have been summarized
below in Table 2 and total approximately $25,000 to $50,000. In addition to the final design
steps for the CAD, it is possible that more in -depth studies of the sand placement area(s) may
need to be conducted. The details of this work, if needed, would likely become evident after
the public comment period, but could include coastal modeling studies to predict where sand
placed on the beach during CAD excavation might ultimately be transported.
These costs would be in addition to the total amount requested by the current scope of work.
Further, this value does not include the collection of any additional site data within the CAD
cell footprint (e.g., groundwater probes), if determined that it is needed, or design services
for contaminated sediment dredging within any of the Federal channel areas, Rhine Channel
or other City areas. Placeholders for some of these items have been added to Table 2 to
highlight their potential need, but it is too early to estimate potential costs. These additional
costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 13
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
Upon receiving approval to proceed, we estimate that the tasks described in this proposal will
be completed within approximately 4 months, provided that the City, Anchor QEA, and
USACE continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final
volumes of contaminated material and stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout
the Lower Newport Bay. Our schedule is dependent on timely resolution of key issues that
arise. The proposed 4 -month duration allows the project to maintain the overall
development schedule depicted in the attached figure.
COST SUMMARY
We propose that Anchor QEA be retained on a time and materials basis (with a not -to-
exceed amount per task) to complete the two main tasks described above. Table 1
summarizes our estimated costs for each item, broken down by subtask and task. Table 2
summarizes potential future tasks (late fall of 2009 or early winter 2010) that will likely be
needed to finalize the permitting and engineering design tasks for the CAD once the
currently scoped tasks have been completed. Billing rates for Anchor QEA staff as well as
our proposed sub - consultants (Everest and iLanco) are attached to this scope of work.
As a reminder, other design tasks will be required as part of the overall LNB sediment
management process which are not addressed in the current proposal. For example,
engineering design for sediment removal, CAD disposal and associated seawall protection
within the Rhine Channel will be needed prior to that phase of the project being
constructed. Similarly, engineering design for potential contaminated sediment dredging
outside of the Federal project area in other areas of LNB will also be needed to allow for
disposal of that material into the CAD cell. The current work (for example Subtask 2.4),
however, will be beneficial for implementing these additional phases of the project and will
result in significant cost savings to the City by addressing items like the CAD cell design and
permitting up front.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 14
Table 1
Estimated Costs for Current Scope of Work
Task
Estimated Cost
Task 1 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Task 1.1
Project Description
$115,000
Task 1.2a
MND Option
$40,000
Task 1.2b
EIR Option
$120,000
Task 1.3
Miscellaneous Meetings
$32,000
Task 1 Estimated Costs
$187,000 to $267,000
Task 2 PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS
Task 2.1
Review Existing Literature and
$25,000
Additional Research
Task 2.2
Locate and Record All Utility
$5,000
Crossings within CAD Area
Hydraulic Pipeline Routing
Task 2.3
Research /Sand Placement
$20,000
Locations
Task 2.4
Structural Offsets or Protection
$22,000
Evaluation
Preliminary Modeling of
Task 2.5
Environmental Protectiveness for
$30,000
CAD Cell
Task 2.6
Preliminary Production Rates
$4,000
Task 2.7
Development of Preliminary
$10,000
Construction Unit Costs
Task 2.8
Coordination with USACE and
$12,000
Other Agencies
Task 2 Estimated Costs
$128,000
Grand Total for Tasks 1 and 2
$315,000 to $395,000
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 15
Table 2
Estimated Costs for Potential Future Scopes of Work
Needed to Complete CAD Site Permitting and Design
(Late Fall /Early Winter)
Task
Estimated Cost
Task 1 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Permit applications and supporting documents
$125,000
Finalize MND Option
$15,000 to $30,000
Finalize EIR Option
$50,000 to $75,000
Task 2 ENGINEERING TASKS
Complete 30 percent, 90 percent, and Final
D
Design of CAD Cell
$25,000 to $50,000
Possibly conduct additional modeling to
finalize sand placement location on beach
TBD
As always, we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal for continued
services with this very important project. If you have any questions about our proposed
approach or estimated costs, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 347 -2780.
Sincerely,
<S Q'��
Steve Cappellino
Partner, Anchor QEA, L.P.
ANCHOR -TeryN cases for key Mlsamrm 0c., M pamage papa(NOn. Wheft CAD Site Development Decision Process
construction. o1c.l aesume real minimal desgnaeeryea era reached. Lower Newport Bay CAD Site Feasibility Study
meonade Pope Pmmm am mash d, eM Ui reeshms
QEA a d a� umdem gabm mAlry
IMgate agency canwtbbon
Collect sediment cores tar geotechnlaal
proems to alert them oF - - - - - -- andch mlcal enalysasetp laordislf [)
potential project
site In West Lido Anchorage area
Visual cbservatons ufsadiment Na Collett Pros from alternate
cores s.gg.A - clean' bweh- locations in North and South
suitable A.A.1 anchorage areas
Yes
yes Ylsual observations of sediment No
cores stegast bban' beach -
auttablematerlal
Initiata 30 parcem
Initiate CEQA process
anglneeNng design
Ocoordi ation
M%USada engine rs
eoaWinctlon with USAGE engineers
Hold public workshops [o
describe project and ••- •••-
Aevkw available site data Yes Collect and analyse
••••••• todatermineifaddidonal
additional geld data
solichfeedbzck
Information is needed
No
Pre"re draft CEQA prepare 30 percent pbna
document antl submit and weelfkationa
parmltepplicstlons
Publk and agency ow of Newport Beach
review aed USACE Internal review
e
CertMy CEQp dawmenta
Respond a
S
and obtain all nasaswry
Prepare to percent
nprepO. fin.1
entl DreDam Anal
=
perrelb and apprerab
plans and specifications
a°
forconstruNpn
CEQA dowmeM
a
i°•ry
Target date to
prepare bid package
ant hire wntrattor'
0
"s
E
BEY
CAD — wnfined aquatic dbposel
CEQA— California Environmental Quality Act
USAGE —US. Army Cmpo of Engineers
ANCHOR -TeryN cases for key Mlsamrm 0c., M pamage papa(NOn. Wheft CAD Site Development Decision Process
construction. o1c.l aesume real minimal desgnaeeryea era reached. Lower Newport Bay CAD Site Feasibility Study
meonade Pope Pmmm am mash d, eM Ui reeshms
QEA a d a� umdem gabm mAlry
Anchor QEA, LLC
2009 STANDARD BILLING RATES
Professional Level Hourly Rates
Principal....................................................................................................... ............................... $190
SeniorProject Manager .................................................... ............................... ...........................$177
ProjectManager ............................................................... ............................... ...........................$157
Senior Engineer /LA/Planner/ Scientist / Analyst ................ ............................... ...........................$137
Staff 3 Engineer /LA/Pl anner / Scientist / Analyst ................ .:............................. ...........................$120
Staff 2 Engineer /LA/Planner/ Scientist / Analyst ................ ............................... ...........................$110
Staff 1 Engineer /LA/ Planner / Scientist / Analyst ................................................ ............................$99
FieldTechnician ............................................................................................... ............................$80
SeniorDesigner/ CAD ....................................................................................... ............................$99
Designer/ CAD .................................................................................................. ............................$89
ProjectCoordinator .......................................................................................... ............................$79
Special Hourly Rates
All work by a testifying expert ............................ ............................1.5 times professional level rate
EXPENSE BILLING RATES
Expense Rates
Diving Services (per day) ................................. ............................... ......................... Project Specific
CAD /GIS/Modeling (per hour) ....................................... ............................... .........................$10.00
Graphic Plots (varies with plot size) ....................................................... ............................... $3 -6/sf
Photocopies(per copy) ..................................................... ............................... ..........................$0.10
Faxes(per page) ............................................................... ............................... ..........................$1.00
Mileage (per mile) ...................................................... ............................... Current Federal Standard
FEE ON LABOR AND EXPENSE CHARGES
Subcontracts/ subconsultants ........................................................................ ............................... 10%
Travel and other direct costs ........................................................................ ............................... 10%
Fieldequipment & supplies ......................................................................... ............................... 10%
Everest International Consultants, Inc.
Rate Schedule
Everest International Consultants, Inc. will provide professional
services at the following rates beginning January 1, 2008.
Staff Category
Hourly Rate
Principal Engineer
$170
Senior Engineer /Scientist III
$157
Senior Engineer /Scientist II
$145
Senior Engineer /Scientist 1
$123
Engineer /Scientist
$113
Assistant Engineer
$99
Staff Engineer
$86
Technician /CAD Operator
$75
Clerical
$49
Other Direct Costs
Unit Rate
Plotting
$0.25 /ea.
Bond
$1.10 /s.f.
Vellums
$1.60 /s.f.
Mylars
$2.70 /s.f.
CODVIna /Bindin
8.5 x 11 b &w copy
$0.10 /ea.
11 x 17 b &w copy
$0.25 /ea.
8.5 x 11 color copy
$1.10 /ea.
11 x 17 color copy
$2.20 /ea.
Binding (Reports)
$2.50 /ea.
Transportation
Personal Car (Mileage) $0.585 /mile
Other Project Related Expenses
Other expenses are invoiced at cost without mark up.
Subconsultant Services
Subconsultants are invoiced at cost plus an agreed mark up.
to
EVEREST
Name
iLANCO ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC., WBE /SBE
2009 Billing Rate
Rate
Lora Granovsky $120/hour
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
ANCHOR QEA, L.P.
FOR CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL SCOPE OF WORK FOR ENGINEERING
PRE - DESIGN TASKS & CEQA COMPLIANCE
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this _ day of
2009, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation
( "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. 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 and construct a Confined
Aquatic Disposal Site (CAD) to contain the contaminated sediment within
Newport Harbor. City has conducted a Feasibility Study, developed a Dredge
Material Management Plan and implemented the Sampling & Analysis Plan.
C. City desires to engage Consultant to initiate the environmental (CEQA) and
engineering processes ( "Project").
D. City recognizes that future CEQA and engineering work will be necessary once
major decisions are made in the coming months.
E. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement.
F. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project shall be Steve
Cappellino.
G. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the
previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to
retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall
terminate on the 31't day of December, 2010, unless terminated earlier as set forth
herein.
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall
terminate on the 315t day of December, 2010, unless terminated earlier as set forth
herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of
Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The
City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole
discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and
Consultant shall perform the services in accordance with the schedule included
in Exhibit A. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may
result in termination of this Agreement by City.
4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to -exceed
basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this
Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not
exceed Three Hundred Ninety -Five Thousand Dollars and no /100 ($395,000)
without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be
made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City.
4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work
performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shalt 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.
2
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.
6. 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 STEVE
CAPPELLINO 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 DIVISION.
CHRIS MILLER shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to
act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his 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.
8. STANDARD OF CARE
8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's
supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and
technical personnel required to perform the services required by this
Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner
commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall
be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not
employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. 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
the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant or 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, active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified
Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of
attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This
indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any
CI
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.
A. Cettiflcates 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
5
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.
Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain
Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability
Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of
the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each
subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation
Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with
the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's
employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all
Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least
thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non-
payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer shall agree
to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents,
employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed
by Consultant for City.
ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial
general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury, and property damage, including without limitation,
contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or
other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed
under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at
least twice the required occurrence limit.
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain
automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage
for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for
any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not
less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for
each occurrence.
iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which
covers the services to be performed in connection with this
Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars
($1,000,000).
E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance
policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
L 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
party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days
written notice of non - payment of premium) written notice has been
received by City.
F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from
Consultant's performance under this Agreement.
G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own
judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of
the work.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
7
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
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
L
CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer
or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant
shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with
(a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD
data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate
storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by
City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project
by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in
writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify
Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of
such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version
of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with
the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will
provide AutoCAD file of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be
transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and
Excel.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept
confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information.
20. OPINION OF COST
[Optional: Only use if an opinion of costs is called for in the scope of work]
Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his /her
judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of
City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over
competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the
accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City.
21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers,
representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for
infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright
infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and
specifications provided under this Agreement.
22. RECORDS
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be
performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and
any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum
period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date
of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and
�J
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 borne 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.
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.
10
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:
Attn: Chris Miller
Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA, 92663
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: Steve Cappellino
28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Phone: 949 - 347 -2780
Fax: 949 -347 -2781
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.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its _sole
discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at anytime 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.
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
12
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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFIC OF THE CITY ATT RNEY:
or" David R. Hunt
City Attorney
ATTEST:
A
Leilani Brown,
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Edward Selich
Mayor
CONSULTANT:
By:
(Corporate Officer)
Print Name:
By:
(Financial Officer)
Title:
Print Name:
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
13
kzANCHOR
OEA . y"
28202 Cabot Road, Suite 425
Laguna Niguel, California 92677
Phone 949.347.2780
Fax 949.347.2781
June 25, 2009
Chris Miller
Manager, Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attachment A
Re: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Site Scope of Work and Budget
Request for Engineering Pre -design Tasks and CEQA Compliance
Dear Mr. Miller:
As a follow up to our recent conversations about moving forward with the Lower Newport
Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site development process, this letter presents our
proposed Scope of Work (SOW) and cost estimate for several engineering pre - design tasks
and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process steps necessary to formally
initiate the project. Our SOW is broken down into two main categories: CEQA and
engineering pre - design. Within each category, we have identified several proposed tasks for
immediate initiation along with our associated estimated costs for each item. Also within
each of these categories, we have provided an estimate of future scope and budget items for
the City of Newport Beach's (City's) internal planning needs.
Using the attached flow chart as a visual tool for highlighting the expected development
process for permitting and designing the CAD site, the shaded bar reflects the current step in
the process. While data is still being collected to determine some of the key features of the
project (i.e., final contaminated sediment volume to be managed and potential transportation
routes and methods for excavating the CAD cell and placing the clean sand on or near the
adjacent City beaches), several engineering related tasks must be initiated immediately so
that the permitting process may commence.
www.anchorqea.com
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 2
Thus, the goal for this phase of the project is to: a) begin collecting engineering - related data
needed to support CEQA efforts, including information related to the potential for
groundwater influence, preliminary cap design, and potential construction techniques; and
b) begin the CEQA process, including preparing the project description and Initial Study (IS),
evaluating the option of conducting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) versus a full
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and conducting public outreach meetings to gauge
initial public concerns. The following details our proposed SOW for each of these items.
Estimated costs are described within each task and summarized in Table 1.
As a reminder, while the CAD site is an integral part of the overall Lower Newport Bay
(LNB) sediment management solution, the current engineering tasks only focus on the design
and permitting of the actual CAD cell itself. Future phases of the project will need to
consider engineering design for the non - project contaminated dredge areas planned for CAD
disposal like the Rhine Channel. The CEQA effort contained in the current proposal does,
however, include both dredging of non - project contaminated areas and construction/filling
of the CAD cell.
TASK 1: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOCUMENT
PREPARATION
Construction of a CAD cell within the City requires environmental review under both state
(CEQA) and federal (National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]) guidelines. The City
would act as the lead CEQA agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE)
Regulatory Program would act as the lead NEPA agency.
The aforementioned construction activities are also subject to permits issued under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), and the California Coastal Act (CCA). The USACE would be the lead agency for
RHA and CWA Section 404 permits as well as associated consultations for Endangered
Species Act/Essential Fish Habitat (ESA/EFH) issues, including eelgrass. The Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) would be the lead agency for CWA
Section 401 as well as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs).
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25,2009
Page 3
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) would be the lead CCA agency. In addition to
requiring a Coastal Development Permit, the CCC will treat the project either as a City
project requiring a consistency certification or as a USACE Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) project requiring a federal consistency determination. All of the above mentioned
agencies, including other consulting agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), use essentially the same methodology as that proposed here and have
experience with review and approval of CAD site development.
The decision to prepare an MND or EIR is primarily based on whether significant impacts
remain after mitigation. If significant impacts cannot be avoided or substantially reduced,
the City is required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Based on expected
construction methodology, knowledge of the level of sediment contamination in the harbor,
and extensive experience with CAD site development, project elements including excavation
of a CAD cell, placement of clean excavated sands on City beaches, and placement and
capping of contaminated sediments within the CAD cell are not anticipated to produce any
significant environmental impacts.
The alternative (i.e., landfill disposal of the dredged material) would entail potentially
significant impacts to air and traffic due to the vast number of truck trips (more than 50,000)
involved. The USACE is expected to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and
associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NEPA, which is equivalent to the
City preparing an MND. While no significant impacts are foreseen with in -water CAD cell
construction, and therefore an MND should be available as a CEQA document, the City may
choose to pursue an EIR. The final decision to prepare an MND or EIR would occur once the
CEQA IS is completed.
At this time, it is assumed that a California State Lands Commission (CSLQ dredging lease
will also need to be obtained for any dredging and disposal components outside the federal
channel areas.
In order to achieve the endpoint of a successful CEQA document for the proposed project,
Anchor QEA, L.P. (Anchor QEA), proposes the following SOW and options. Please note
that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires the City, Anchor
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 4
QEA, and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues,
such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key affected areas
throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable dredged material.
Subtask 1.1: Project Description and Initial Study
Subtask 1.1 involves preparation of the Project Description (PD) and internal administrative
draft IS checklist. The preparation of the PD and IS represents the initial checkpoint for the
decision on whether to prepare an MND or EIR. Following completion of the PD and IS,
Anchor QEA and City staff would meet and review the findings and make a decision on
whether to pursue an MND or EIR. Subtask 1. 1, therefore, includes conducting a project
kick -off, preparing the PD, and preparing an internal administrative draft IS. When the
internal administrative draft IS has been completed, the City would decide whether to
pursue Subtask 1.2a or 1.2b below (MND or EIR). Provided work is initiated in July of 2009,
we would anticipate having the internal draft IS completed by October of 2009. Note that
achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress is made on required
engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These responsibilities include
deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals and input required
from the City.
Please also note that this task includes our use and oversight of an air quality subconsultant,
ilanco, Inc., who has worked with Anchor QEA on dredging air quality issues on numerous
projects, including the Port of Hueneme CAD site.
Subtask 1.1 estimated costs are $115,000. This cost estimate is based on the following
assumptions:
• Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other
required tasks
• Preparation of the PD and IS consistent with CEQA guidelines
• Attendance at meetings with City staff, as needed
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 5
Subtask 1.2a: Mitigated Negative Declaration Option
If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an MND for the proposed project,
Anchor QEA would proceed with finalizing the IS and preparation of the MAID, including all
required public notices and administrative tasks. We would incorporate all City comments
in the administrative draft IS, publish the Notice of Availability of the MND, conduct a
hearing on the IS/MND, prepare responses to comments, and prepare the final IS /MND.
While a hearing on a draft MND is not required, Anchor QEA recommends and has included
a public meeting at the time of the draft MND.
Our estimated costs for Task 1.2a includes scope up to and including the preparation of the
public draft IS/MND and conducting the hearing. Once comments are received, we would
request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft, prepare the final MND, and
initiate the permit process. We would anticipate filing of the final IS /MND around June of
2010.
Subtask 1.2a estimated costs are $40,000. This cost estimate is based on the following
assumptions:
• Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other
required tasks
• Preparation of an administrative and public draft MND
• Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed
• Agency coordination, as needed
Subtask 1.2b: Environmental Impact Report Option
If as a result of Subtask 1.1 the City elects to pursue an EIR for the proposed project, Anchor
QEA would proceed with preparing the EIR, including all required public notice and
administrative tasks. Anchor QEA would assist the City in managing a public scoping
meeting, including public notice of the project, set -up and management of the meeting, and
recording the proceedings for the administrative record. Following the scoping process,
Anchor QEA would prepare an internal administrative draft EIR (estimated completion is
February of 2010, provided the work is initiated in July of 2009).
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 6
Following this step, Anchor QEA would incorporate any City comments received, prepare
the public draft EIR, and manage the circulation of the public draft as well as the hearing on
the draft. We would also include a draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP)
with the EIR. Note that achieving this milestone anticipates relevant and necessary progress
is made on required engineering tasks that are essential for the CEQA analysis. These
responsibilities include deliverables prepared by Anchor QEA as well as associated approvals
and input required from the City.
Please again note that meeting the proposed milestones (for both an MND and EIR) requires
the City, Anchor, QEA and USACE to continue to make significant progress resolving key
technical issues, such as final volumes of contaminated material, stakeholder issues in key
affected areas throughout the Lower Newport Bay, and method of placing beach suitable
dredged material.
At the time of the mailing of the notice of completion of the public draft EIR, we would
request additional scope to respond to comments on the draft EIR, prepare the final EIR, and
initiate the permit process. We would anticipate final approval of the EIR around November
of 2010.
Subtask 1.2b estimated costs are $120,000. This cost estimate is based on the following
assumptions:
• Management of all CEQA administrative tasks, including mailings, notices, and other
required tasks
• Preparation of an administrative and public draft EIR
Attendance at City outreach and agency meetings, as needed
• Agency coordination, as needed
Subtask 1.3: Miscellaneous Outreach Meetings, Agency Coordination Meetings,
and Other Project Coordination
Subtask 1.3 is required regardless of the EIR/MND option selected above and provides funds
for Anchor QEA staff to attend any and all public outreach or workshop meetings, agency
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
coordination meetings, and/or any other related or required meeting. As part of the process
of achieving a public and agency consensus in favor of constructing the CAD cell, Anchor
QEA suggests conducting up to three additional formalized public workshops on the project.
The City and Anchor QEA would continue to target key stakeholder groups individually
with separate, focused meetings. We would also facilitate a thorough and comprehensive
process of agency outreach and education leading up to the eventual permit applications.
Subtask 1.3 estimated costs are $32,000. This cost estimate is based on the following
assumptions:
• Attendance at up to 15 additional meetings
• Inclusion of mileage and other meeting material costs, as required
Estimated Future Costs for California Environmental Quality Act and Agency
Permitting
Based on our experience with similar projects, we estimate that the remaining costs to finish
the CEQA documentation process and initiate and conduct the multi- agency permitting
process to be as follows.
MM,ption If an MND is conducted, and depending on the volume of public
comment, we project an additional need of between $15,000 and $30,000 to finalize the
MND. Note that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if
deemed necessary, or:
EIR If an EIR is conducted, and depending on the volume of public comment,
we project an additional need of between $50,000 and $75,000 to finalize the EIR. Note
that this cost estimate does not include recirculation of a new public draft, if deemed
necessary.
These costs (summarized in Table 2) would be in addition to the total amount requested by
the current scope of work. Preparation of all required agency permit applications and
supporting documents for the USACE, CCC, CSLC, and SARWQCB is estimated to require
approximately $125,000. This effort includes preparing application support documents and a
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 8
Biological Assessment (BA)/EFH report, finalizing of any MMRPs, and preparing a draft
USACE Regulatory EA in support of issuance of the USACE permit. This fee would also
include necessary additional agency meetings.
Thus, estimated potential additional permitting costs might range between $140,000 and
$200,000. These additional costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010.
TASK 2: PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS AND ANALYSES
Prior to the start of the actual design and engineering of the CAD cell in Lower Newport
Bay, there are numerous pre- design engineering tasks and analyses that can be performed
using available data. These tasks and analyses are critical for the initial phases of the CEQA
process. Actual engineering design will occur later, after details such as proposed
construction approach and targeted contaminated sediment volumes are defined. In addition
to assisting the development of the CEQA tasks identified in Task 1, this information will be
valuable for understanding the project area and identifying physical constraints that could
dictate or limit aspects of the design. The following describes our proposed initial subtasks.
Subtask 2.1: Review of Existing Literature and Additional Research
The existing information Anchor QEA has been provided by the City will need to be
reviewed in detail by the design team. This review will focus on identifying key elements
necessary for design, such as maps and as-built plans for existing harbor structures;
information on vessels that frequently pass through the area proposed for CAD cell
construction area; wind, waves, and currents; and previous physical and chemical
characterizations of sediments in Newport Bay (as may be needed to perform modeling or
engineering calculations).
A review of the existing bathymetric information will also be preformed in order to evaluate
whether there is adequate coverage over the design areas or if data gaps exist and if a
supplemental survey is needed. Additionally, time will be spent researching additional
studies or reports that may exist and have yet to be identified to prevent unnecessary time
and efforts for redoing design analyses or tasks. All this information will be loaded into our
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 9
CADD and GIS systems for use during the actual design phases. Subtask 2.1 estimated costs
are $25,000.
Subtask 2.2: Locate and Record all Utility Crossings within CAD Area
We are aware there are underwater crossings of water and telephone lines within Lower
Newport Bay. Although, these crossing do not appear to be in the vicinity of the potential
CAD cell locations (determined during the field investigation phase), such locations will
need to be accurately identified prior to proceeding forward with the dredging design. We
can obtain this information by meeting with the appropriate utility companies and City
personnel to discuss their knowledge about the utilities in Newport Bay and to review their
as -built drawings. As with Subtask 2. 1, this information would all be loaded into our CADD
and GIS systems to assist with future design tasks. Subtask 2.2 estimated costs are $5,000.
Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Pipeline Routing Research /Sand Placement Locations
A large portion of the hydraulic pipeline may potentially be routed over land, from a point
near the CAD cell to the other side of the peninsula where a likely point of discharge on the
beach might exist. Therefore, an implementable and cost- effective upland pipeline route
will need to be identified. This pipeline will need to be routed such that it minimizes
disruption to local traffic and avoids existing structural features and utility lines, among
other factors. Anchor QEA would work closely with the City's Public Works Department to
discuss potential pipeline placement routes and identify associated costs and challenges with
each option.
In addition, past and ongoing studies of the local coastal processes will be reviewed to aid in
selecting potential placement locations for sand excavated from the CAD cell. Suitable,
potential beach placement areas will be identified and used during meetings with
representatives from the City's Public Works Department to identify potential routing
locations. Because of their extensive southern California coastal modeling expertise and past
working relationship with Anchor QEA on the recently completed Port Hueneme CAD site,
Mr. David Cannon and Dr. Ying Poon from Everest International Consultants (Everest) will
assist Anchor QEA with this task. The goal with this approach is to try and reuse as much
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 10
work from the successful Port Hueneme project as a way to maintain a familiar development
process with the agencies and conserve funds. Subtask 2.3 estimated costs are $20,000.
Subtask 2A Structural Offsets or Protection Evaluation
Dredging near any shoreline structure has the potential for creating unstable conditions due
to removal of passive earth pressures or undermining of the structure in the future. Thus, it
is necessary to identify and review the position, layout, and general condition of structures
within or near the planned dredging areas to determine if precautionary measures (such as
dredging offsets or additional protection) will be necessary to retain the stability of the
structure and avoid adverse impacts on stability. This work would include reviewing as-built
drawings for all shoreline areas proposed for dredging as well as conducting field surveys to
verify the current condition of the structures. Subtask 2.4 estimated costs are $22,000.
Subtask 2.5: Preliminary Modeling of Environmental Protectiveness for CAD Cell
Using physical and chemical characteristics of sediments available from previous studies, a
series of USACE- developed computer models can be used to provide an estimate of
environmental protectiveness of dredging and disposal activities (water quality modeling)
and long -term containment of the chemically impacted sediments (cap breakthrough
modeling) within the CAD cell.
The Short-term Fate of Dredged Material Disposal model (STFATE; developed by USACE)
can be run to simulate sediment resuspension and loss of particulates during their descent
through the water column into the CAD cell, which can predict the concentration of total
suspended solids (TSS) remaining in suspension at a particular time and their lateral
spreading distance from the point of dumping.
Additionally, a preliminary run of the steady -state "cap chemical breakthrough" model
(developed by Reible et al.) would be beneficial for predicting the ability of surficial capping
material to chemically isolate the underlying contaminated sediments from burrowing
organisms and biota residing in the overlying water column under long -term scenarios. This
analysis will determine the preliminary required minimum cap thickness in order to
maintain environmental protectiveness.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 11
Included in this subtask will be the evaluation of bioturbation on the cap surface as it relates
to the potential for redistribution of buried contaminants from burrowing organisms. Scour
potential from wind, wave, and currents will also be evaluated to ensure that the preliminary
cap design provides protection from erosional forces as well as chemical flux and biological
activity. Lastly, a preliminary evaluation of effects from future uses (e.g., mooring
installations and repairs) will be evaluated and incorporated in the revised conceptual cap
design. Everest staff will assist with this task as well for the same reasons mentioned under
Subtask 2.3. Subtask 2.5 estimated costs are $30,000.
Subtask 2.6: Preliminary Production Rates
Using harbor bathymetry (i.e., available drafts), distance of travel, likely dredging volumes,
and dredging equipment, a preliminary production rate can be estimated to provide estimates
of construction duration under different scenarios. This preliminary production rate can in
turn be compared against dredging closure windows and seasonal recreational activities (i.e.,
summer sailing programs, regattas, outrigger canoes, etc.) to identify optimal construction
sequences. This information will be useful in developing a range of engineer's cost estimates
based on varying conditions (described below). Subtask 2.6 estimated costs are $4,000.
Subtask 2.7: Development of Preliminary Construction Unit Costs
Using the preliminary information gathered in the above subtasks, as well as information
gathered from discussions with local contractors competent to perform the work, a
preliminary set of construction unit costs will be prepared. These estimates will include
rough order of magnitude costs for key construction components (such as mobilization and
demobilization), dredging and disposal unit rates (hydraulic and mechanical), structural
protection (if necessary), and capping material placement. The purpose for conducting this
task at this phase of the project is to allow the City to make critical, construction - related
decisions required to complete the initial CEQA tasks. A formal cost estimate will be
developed during the latter phases of the engineering design, once dredging and filling
quantities have been finalized. Subtask 2.7 estimated costs are $10,000.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25,2009
Page 12
Subtask 2.8: Coordination with USACE and other Agencies
The navigational channel within Lower Newport Bay is maintained by the USACE and any
dredging within that area will be their responsibility. Early discussions with the USACE will
be critical in determining future roles for performing the various design tasks (i.e., the
USACE may request the City's assistance with engineering design for the federal channel
areas where contaminated sediments occur) and how design documents will come together
in the end for bidding and also for cost sharing purposes. Meetings with other agencies
related to engineering design features will also be critical to gauge potential, unforeseen,
concerns early in the design process as that they may be corrected immediately, and delays
may be avoided later in the review process. Subtask 2.8 estimated costs are $12,000.
Estimated Future Costs for Engineering Design
The above pre - design tasks will advance the scope and schedule of the 30% design effort for
the CAD cell significantly. Additional discussions need to occur between the City and
USACE to refine an approach for completing a consolidated design package for Lower
Newport Bay. At a minimum, the City will be responsible for all design activities for the
CAD cell, which forms the basis for this engineering scope of work. As such, estimated costs
to complete this process once all the pre - design tasks are finished have been summarized
below in Table 2 and total approximately $25,000 to $50,000. In addition to the final design
steps for the CAD, it is possible that more in -depth studies of the sand placement area(s) may
need to be conducted. The details of this work, if needed, would likely become evident after
the public comment period, but could include coastal modeling studies to predict where sand
placed on the beach during CAD excavation might ultimately be transported.
These costs would be in addition to the total amount requested by the current scope of work.
Further, this value does not include the collection of any additional site data within the CAD
cell footprint (e.g., groundwater probes), if determined that it is needed, or design services
for contaminated sediment dredging within any of the Federal channel areas, Rhine Channel
or other City areas. Placeholders for some of these items have been added to Table 2 to
highlight their potential need, but it is too early to estimate potential costs. These additional
costs would be needed in late fall of 2009 or early winter of 2010.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 13
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
Upon receiving approval to proceed, we estimate that the tasks described in this proposal will
be completed within approximately 4 months, provided that the City, Anchor QEA, and
USACE continue to make significant progress resolving key technical issues, such as final
volumes of contaminated material and stakeholder issues in key affected areas throughout
the Lower Newport Bay. Our schedule is dependent on timely resolution of key issues that
arise. The proposed 4 -month duration allows the project to maintain the overall
development schedule depicted in the attached figure.
COST SUMMARY
We propose that Anchor QEA be retained on a time and materials basis (with a not -to-
exceed amount per task) to complete the two main tasks described above. Table 1
summarizes our estimated costs for each item, broken down by subtask and task. Table 2
summarizes potential future tasks (late fall of 2009 or early winter 2010) that will likely be
needed to finalize the permitting and engineering design tasks for the CAD once the
currently scoped tasks have been completed. Billing rates for Anchor QEA staff as well as
our proposed sub - consultants (Everest and iLanco) are attached to this scope of work.
As a reminder, other design tasks will be required as part of the overall LNB sediment
management process which are not addressed in the current proposal. For example,
engineering design for sediment removal, CAD disposal and associated seawall protection
within the Rhine Channel will be needed prior to that phase of the project being
constructed. Similarly, engineering design for potential contaminated sediment dredging
outside of the Federal project area in other areas of LNB will also be needed to allow for
disposal of that material into the CAD cell. The current work (for example Subtask 2.4),
however, will be beneficial for implementing these additional phases of the project and will
result in significant cost savings to the City by addressing items like the CAD cell design and
permitting up front.
Mr. Chris Miller
June 25, 2009
Page 14
Table 1
Estimated Costs for Current Scope of Work
Task
Estimated Cost
Task 1 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Task 1.1
Project Description
$115,000
Task 1.2a
MND Option
$40,000
Task 1.2b
EIR Option
$120,000
Task 1.3
Miscellaneous Meetings
$32,000
Task 1 Estimated Costs
$187,000 to $267,000
Task 2 PRE - DESIGN ENGINEERING TASKS
Task 2.1
Review Existing Literature and
$25,000
Additional Research
Task 2.2
Locate and Record All Utility
$5,000
Crossings within CAD Area
Hydraulic Pipeline Routing
Task 2.3
Research /Sand Placement
$20,000
Locations
Task 2.4
Structural Offsets or Protection
$22,000
Evaluation
Preliminary Modeling of
Task 2.5
Environmental Protectiveness for
$30,000
CAD Cell
Task 2.6
Preliminary Production Rates
$4,000
Task 2.7
Development of Preliminary
$10,000
Construction Unit Costs
Task 2.8
Coordination with USACE and
$12,000
Other Agencies
Task 2 Estimated Costs
$128,000
Grand Total for Tasks 1 and 2
$315,000 to $395,000
Mr. Chris Miller
June25,2009
Page 15
Table 2
Estimated Costs for Potential Future Scopes of Work
Needed to Complete CAD Site Permitting and Design
(Late Fall /Early Winter)
Task
Estimated Cost
Task 1 CEQA DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Permit applications and supporting documents
$125,000
Finalize MND Option .
$15,000 to $30,000
Finalize EIR Option
$50,000 to $75,000
Task 2 ENGINEERING TASKS
Complete 30 percent, 90 percent, and Final
D
Design of CAD Cell
$25,000 to $50,000
Possibly conduct additional modeling to
finalize sand placement location on beach
TBD
As always, we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal for continued
services with this very important project. If you have any questions about our proposed
approach or estimated costs, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 347 -2780.
Sincerely,
5�
Steve Cappellino
Partner, Anchor QEA, L.P.
Initiate agency consultation
process to alert them of - - - --
potential project
Hold public workshops to
describe project and
solicit feedback
Collect sediment cores for geotechnical
and chemical analyses at potential CAD
site in West Lido Anchorage area
Visual observations of sediment
cores suggest "clean" beach -
suitable material
Initiate CEQA process
Ongoing agency
coordination
Prepare draft CEQA
document and submit
permit applications
Public and agency
review
Yes
No Collect cores from alternat
locations in North and Sou
anchorage areas
Yes Visual observations of sedim
cores suggest "clean" beac
suitable material
Initiate 30 percent
engineering design
Coordination meeting
with USACE engineers
Review available site data Yes Collect
to determine if additional addition
information is needed
No
Prepare 30 percent plans
and specifications
City of Newport Beach
and USACE internal review
Attachment
Anchor QEA,L[C
2009 STANDARD BILLING RATES
Professional Level Hourly Rates
Priucip/Q........~~......................................~~..
$190
Senior Project Manager ..............................................................................................................
$l77
ProjectManager .........................................................................................................................
$l5?
Senior ..............—._^.---~......
$137
Staff..................
....................................................... $l%8
Staff 2 ...~~.~.........................$llO
Staff ..............—...~.~.._~~....
$99
FieldTechnician ...........................................................................................................................
$80
SeniorDe»igoeoICAD ...................................................................................................................
$A9
Designer/CAD ..............................................................................................................................
$89
ProjectCoordinator ..............................................................................
....................................... $?9
Special Hourly Rates
All work hvw testitdng expert .............................................. ...... l.5times professional level rate
EXPENSE BILLING RATES
Exnense Rates
Diving Services (per day) ......................................................................................... Project Specific
(per hour) ............................................................................................... $l0JX)
Graphic Plots (varies with plot size) ...................................................................................... $3^6/mf
Photocopies (per copy) .---...~..~............~...~..~~......._.... $VJO
Faxes(per page) .................................................................................. ..................................... $1J0
FEE ON LABOR AND EXPENSE CHARGES
...........~..~~.......~.....~......~...lV%
Travel and other direct costs ...—._~~.~..~.~~......~.~........~._-...~l#%
Fieldequipment& supplies ........................................................................................................
l0%
Everest International Consultants, Inc.
Rate Schedule
Everest International Consultants, Inc. will provide professional
servioes at the following rates beginning January 1, 2008.
Staff SWAM
Hourly Rate
Principal Engineer
$170
Senior Engineer/Scientist III
$157
Senior Engineer /Scientist II
$145
Senior Engineer /Scientist 1
$2.20 /ea.
Engineer/Scientist
$113
Assistant Engineer
$99
Staff Engineer
$86
Technician /CAD Operator
Clerical
$49
Other Direct Costs Unit Rate
Plotting
Bond $1.10 /$1.10/81
Vellums $1.601s.f.
Mylars $2.70 /s.f.
Copying/Binding
8.5 x 11 b &w copy
so. 10lea.
11 x 17 b&w copy
$0.25/ea.
8.5 x 11 color copy
$1.10 /ea.
11 x 17 color copy
$2.20 /ea.
Binding (Reports)
$2.50 /ea.
Transportation
Personal Car (Mileage) $0.585 /mile
Other Project Related Expenses
Other expenses are invoiced at cost without mark up.
Subconsultant Services
Subconsultants are invoiced at cost plus an agreed mark up.
EVEREST
Name
iLANCO ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC., WBE /SBE
2009 Billing Rate
Rate
Lora Granovsky $120/hour
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:" :F I la
1 -14-°C7 RECEIVED
John F. Skinner, M.D.
1724 Highland Drive 2V JUL 13 PH 9: 37
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 650-5588 OFFICE F
iskinnermd @ m
aol.co
CITY OF NEWPORT BEO
July 8, 2009
Newport Beach City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Lower Newport Bay Dredging - Support for the CAD Option
Dear Mayor Selich and Members of the Council:
I have been briefed on the various options for dredging Lower Newport Bay and I
am writing to urge your support for the Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) option.
It appears to be safe and environmentally sound as well as being the least
expensive option.
I believe it is the logical choice when compared to upland disposal or barging the
toxic sediments a long distance from the Bay, both of which are more costly and
are accompanied with significant environmental impacts.
Sincerely,
ack Skinner
City of Newport Beach NO. BA- 10BA -001
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2009 -10
EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates
X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND
Transfer Budget Appropriations
SOURCE:
from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
qX from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
AMOUNT: 53ss,000.00
Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
COUI CIL AGENDA
N0.4% 1,4004
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
To increase expenditure appropriations from Tidelands fund balance to the Newport Harbor Dredging Project.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE
Fund Account Description
231 3605 Tidelands - Fund Balance
REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601)
Fund /Division Account Description
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Signed:
Signed
Signed:
Approval: AdminisVGptive Services Director
City Manager
City Council Approval City Clerk
Amount
Debit
$395.000.00 '
Automatic
Credit
$395.000.00
/ Date
(.r 3 O
D e
Date
Description
Division
Number
7231 Tidelands - Capital Projects
Account
Number
C4402001 Newport Harbor Dredging Project
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Signed:
Signed
Signed:
Approval: AdminisVGptive Services Director
City Manager
City Council Approval City Clerk
Amount
Debit
$395.000.00 '
Automatic
Credit
$395.000.00
/ Date
(.r 3 O
D e
Date