Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Dredging Regional General Permit Renewal & Sediment TestingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 12 January 25, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager 949 - 644 -3043 or cmiller @newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: DREDGING REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL AND SEDIMENT TESTING — APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NEWFIELDS ISSUE Renewal of the City's Regional General Permit (RGP -54) for dredging requires analytical services to examine the quality of sediments proposed to be dredged as required by the regulating agencies. RECOMMENDATION Approve a Professional Services Agreement with NewFields for sediment analytical services for the renewal of the City's RGP -54 at a contract price of $112,500, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. For approximately the past thirty years, the City of Newport Beach has maintained an RGP -54 permit that provides a relatively streamlined process for permitting dredging and dock maintenance projects between the Bulkhead and Project Lines for the City's residential and commercial permittees. (See Exhibit A.) The RGP -54 is a programmatic permit that allows the City to issue individual dredging and dock maintenance permits to tidelands permittees following acquisition of relatively simple letters of permission from the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission. This permit is limited in scope to those projects that require dredging, up to 1,000 cubic yards of either good quality sand for beach replenishment, or poor quality silts and clays for disposal at the EPA's designated LA -3 site which is located about 4.5 miles from the entrance channel. To qualify for the RGP -54, an applicant is required to analyze representative samples from the proposed dredge area according to the "Green Book" protocol established by the EPA and the .Corps of Engineers for ocean disposal of dredged material. The analyses are very complex and involve examining the. chemical quality of sediments for many organic and inorganic' constituents, evaluating the physical make-up of the sediments, and evaluating the biological impacts through bioassay and bioaccumulation studies. The RGP -54 permit is renewed every five years, and this testing process is quite costly. NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing January 25, 2011 Page 2 The RGP -54 permit is due for renewal in November 2011 and would require sediment evaluations as soon as possible to support this renewal. However, the City and the Corps recently completed an extensive sediment investigation in support of the upcoming Lower Bay dredging project, and many of the areas assessed border areas included in the RGP -54 program. Furthermore, the City is hoping the Corps will be dredging the Lower Bay in the near future potentially affecting sediment characteristics in the Lower Bay. The City has been discussing options with the regulatory agencies that would allow taking advantage of the recently collected Lower Bay testing data as well as the current and historic knowledge regarding the distribution of contaminants in the Bay. This strategy, if approved, will save considerable amounts of money and will delay a full testing program for another two to three years. (As a point of reference, the previous testing effort for the RGP -54 in 2005 cost about $400,000.) Based on discussions with the Corps, the maximum time that sediment data would be considered acceptable for characterization is five years. Because the Lower Bay sampling was conducted in Spring 2009, the City is proposing to extend the current RGP -54 for 2.5 years to March 2014. Following the Lower Bay dredging program which is anticipated to be in 2011 -12, the City would propose to conduct a full Tier III evaluation on all RGP -54 areas for the 2014 RGP -54 renewal effort. Selection Process Recently, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) on the City's website and also sent the RFP to four consulting firms: 1) Anchor, QEA, 2) Moffatt and Nichol, 3) NewFields and 4) Weston Solutions. Only these four firms responded. The RFP selection process was based upon a 'most qualified firm' criteria which included project understanding, demonstrated knowledge of conditions in Newport Harbor, expertise of the project team on similar projects, and capability to perform within the proposed project schedule. The fee schedules for these proposals were submitted in separate sealed envelopes. The proposal review team consisted of three City and one County personnel who have a knowledge of these projects and are well versed in technical presentations. A rating /scoring scale was developed, and the group also met to reconfirm their evaluations. To the credit of the four firms who responded, the scoring between all of them was extremely close, as each firm did an excellent job of responding to the RFP. Scope of Services The NewFields team was selected by the review team's scoring system as the most qualified consultant for renewing the City's RGP -54. NewFields brings over 30 years of experience of working on complex sediment related issues and over 10 years of experience on sediment related issues in the Newport Beach area. NewFields' staff have conducted the suitability studies for the two previous RGP -54 renewals, and they have recently completed the Lower Newport Dredged Material Management Plan for the Lower Bay project, one of the most comprehensive sediment evaluation programs in the harbor. These large scale programs, as well as several projects in specific portions of the harbor (West Lido Channel, Marina Park, American Legion Marina, Bayside Village Marina, and Balboa Marina) have allowed NewFields to gain a thorough understanding of sediment characteristics within Newport Harbor. NewFields' Scope of Services is summarized below NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing January 25, 2011 Page 3 Task 1. Data Evaluation and Preparation of a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP): This process involves preparing a SAP for the Dredged Material Management Team's (DMMT) review and approval. Previous data will be summarized to determine the level of effort needed for the renewal. Maps will be created and any chemical thresholds that will be used to determine if Tier III testing is needed will be defined - an important step before physically collecting the data. Task 2. Field Sampling: Once the DMMT approves the SAP, field sampling will occur via a vessel using a vibracore sampler. Task 3. Chemical and Biological Analysis: Chemical analysis will be conducted on 1) all study composites, 2) on the sample areas that were not sampled in the previous Lower Bay sample efforts, and 3) on possibly some additional stations depending on the requirements of the DMMT. Composites will be analyzed for sediment grain size, total organic carbon, and a suite of EPA priority pollutants: metals (including mercury), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and organotins. Results of the analytical chemistry will be compared with concentrations observed in the previous RGP -54 investigation in 2005. Tier III toxicity tests will evaluate the potential for biological effects at the disposal site in both the benthic community and the water column as required by the Ocean Testing Manual. Task 4. Bioaccumulation Testing: Bioaccumulation testing will be conducted with composites that show an increase in bioaccumulable contaminants of potential concern relative to the 2005 RGP -54 samples. (The EPA and Corps require this evaluation when the contaminants in sediment have the potential to enter the food chain.) Task 5. Reporting Task 6. Technical Support for Agency Review Proposed Fees Upon selection of NewFields as the most qualified consultant, City staff reviewed their proposed fees and compared them to the fees proposed by the next two firms in the ranking. At the conclusion of staff's review, it was found that NewFields proposed hours and rates are consistent with the current market place. NewFields has proposed to perform the above scope of work on a time and materials basis at the listed hourly rates (Exhibit B of the attached PSA) at a cost not to exceed $112,500. Upon approval of this Professional Services Agreement, NewFields will immediately start preparing a SAP for review by the DMMT. at their February meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing January 25, 2011 Page 4 PUBLIC NOTICE The agenda item was noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). FUNDING AVAILABILITY There are sufficient funds available in the following Capital Improvement Program account: Account Description Account Number Amount Newport Harbor Dredging Permit 7231- C4401001 $298,000 The cost for this program will be offset by the RGP -54 application fee that the pier permittee pays to the City. On November 9, 2010, the City Council approved a cost of services study for harbor related fees, and the RGP -54 dredging fee is now $1,640 (increased from $500). Prepared by: Submitted Y ,-14 Clkrs Miller to G. Badum Harbor Resources Manager P blic Works Director Attachments: A — RGP -54 Project Boundaries B — Professional Services Agreement with NewFields NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing January 25, 2011 Page 5 Exhibit A RGP -54 Project Boundaries PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC FOR RGP -54 LOWER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT EVALUATIONS THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ( "Agreement') is made and entered into as of this day of , 2011, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company ( "Consultant'), whose address is 1349 West Peachtree Street, Ste. 2000, Atlanta, GA 30309 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 perform sediment evaluation in support of the Regional General Permit (RGP) 54 Program. C. City desires to engage Consultant to provide sediment evaluations in Lower Newport Bay for RGP 54 ( "Project'). D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement. E. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project, shall be William Gardiner. F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on December 31, 2012 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 ( "Work" or "Services "). The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement and the Services shall be performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to perform the Services in a diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the Services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control. 3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the Services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all Work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars and no /100 ($112,500.00) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the Work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person who performed the Work, a brief description of the Services performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the Services were performed, the number of hours spent on all . Work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. 4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: Newfields Companies, LLC Page 2 A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the Services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with this Agreement. B. Approved reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and /or other costs and /or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any Work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B. 5. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated William Gardiner to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of Services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 6. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. Harbor Resources Manager, Chris Miller or his designee, 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: Newfields Companies, LLC Page 3 A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's Work schedule. B. Provide blueprinting and other Services through City's reproduction company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated. 8. STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 All of the Services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all Services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All Services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. 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 Newfields Companies, LLC Page 4 (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, any Work performed or Services provided under this Agreement including, without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials or Consultant's presence or activities conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers, subconsultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them). Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the Work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing the Work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the Services. 11. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the Work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 12. CITY POLICY Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 13. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and /or his /her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. Newfields Companies, LLC Page 5 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, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. A. Proof of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this contract. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. The cost of such insurance shall be included in Consultant's bid. B. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. C. Coverage Requirements. i. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance (with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000)) for Consultant's employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 of the Labor Code In addition, Consultant shall require each subconsultant to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 for all of the subconsultant's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (ten (10) calendar days written notice of non - payment of premium) prior to such change. Newfields Companies, LLC Page 6 Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability. iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each accident. iv. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) limit per claim and in the aggregate. D. Other Insurance Provisions or Requirements. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: i. Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these requirements to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. ii. Enforcement of Contract Provisions. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of non - compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. iii. Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification Newfields Companies, LLC Page 7 only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. iv. Notice of Cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with thirty (30) days notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten (10) days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. E_ Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. F. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the Work. 15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the Services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint - venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty - five percent (25 %) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint- venture. 16. SUBCONTRACTING City and Consultant agree that subconsultants may be used to complete the Work outlined in the Scope of Services. The subconsultants authorized by City to perform Work on this Project are identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts and omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship, between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. The City is an intended beneficiary of any Work performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care between the subcontractor and the City. Except as specifically authorized herein, the Services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its Newfields Companies, LLC Page 8 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. 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. 19. 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. 20. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the Work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any Services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all Work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. 21. 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 Newfields Companies, LLC Page 9 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. 22. 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. 23. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the Project. 24. 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. 25. 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 Manager. Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949- 644 -3043 Fax: 949 - 723 -0387 All notices, demands; requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Newfields Companies, LLC Page 10 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attention: William Gardiner Newfields Companies, LLC 4729 NE View Drive Port Gamble, WA 98364 Phone: 360- 297 -6040 Mobile: 360- 204 -1286 26. CLAIMS The Consultant and the City expressly agree that in addition to any claims filing requirements set forth in the Contract and Contract documents, the Consultant shall be required to file any claim the Consultant may have against the City in strict conformance with the Tort Claims Act (Government Code sections 900 et seq.). 27. 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 any time by giving seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for Services satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form. 28. 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. Newfields Companies, LLC Page 11 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange. 36. 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. Newfields Companies, LLC Page 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the dates written below. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY A California municipal corporation Date: 1.114 Date: B' Leonie Mulvihill Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Date: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk By: Michael F Mayor Henn CONSULTANT: NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company Date: By: Ginger L. Hicks Chief Operating Officer Date: By: Deborah B Treasurer Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates Schwall Newfields Companies, LLC Page 13 EXHIBIT A INEWFILI -- is x October 5, 2010 Chris Miller City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Chris, NewFields is pleased to provide a proposal for conducting the sediment evaluations for the RGP -54 renewal in 2011. As requested in the Request for Proposals, we have included three (3) copies of the technical proposal, as well as a fee schedule in a separate, sealed envelope. NewFields brings together a team that has extensive. experience in Lower Newport Bay and is familiar with the RGP -54 program. NewFields is prepared to assist the City in developing an approach to the 2011 renewal that utilizes the extensive database compiled by recent studies performed by NewFields and.others to minimize the level of effort required for this renewal cycle. We understand the schedule requirements for the RGP -54 renewal and have developed a program that will allow for a continuation of the permit, without interruption. We look forward to working with the City and the Dredged Material Management Team to continue to move sediment - related issues forwards in Lower Newport Bay. Please let me know if you any questions or concerns regarding this proposal.. Sincerely, Proposal for Analytical Services for RCP -54 Renewal A. Introduction The City of Newport Beach (City) is seeking a qualified consulting firm to provide professional services in support of a 2.5 year extension of the existing Regional General Permit (RGP) 54 pertaining to dredging within the pier -head line in Newport Bay, California. The principal services required by the City of Newport Beach are to develop a cost - effective approach that minimizes scope by maximizing the use of existing data; to prepare and negotiate the approval of a sampling and analysis plan (SAP); collect and analyze sediment samples; prepare technical report(s); and assist the City in presenting the results to the regulatory agencies for suitability determination for both ocean disposal or nearshore placement options. The NewFields team brings over 30 years of experience of working on complex sediment - related issues and over 10 years of experience working on sediment - related issues in the Newport Beach area. NewFields' staff have conducted the suitability studies for the two previous RGP -54 renewals and we have recently completed the Lower Newport Dredged Material Management Plan for the Federal Channels, one of the most comprehensive sediment - evaluation programs in Lower Newport Bay. These large -scale programs, as well as several projects in specific portions of the Harbor (West Lido Channel, Marina Park, American Legion Marina, Bayside Village Marina, and Balboa Marina) have allowed us to gain a thorough understanding of sediment characteristics with on Lower Newport Bay. This regional understanding of sediment characteristics within Lower Newport Bay combined with national and international sediment expertise make NewFields highly qualified to assist the City with the RGP -54 renewal. The NewFields team will be led by principal scientists Dr. Jack Word and Mr. William Gardiner who have developed a high level of trust with local and regional agencies and have a well established reputation for producing high quality data upon which responsive and scientifically defensible decisions can be made. This rapport facilitated successful negotiations during the City of Newport Beach's previous dredging programs when technical issues were raised regarding the site - specific conditions within Newport Bay. These included increased apparent toxicity due to fine grain sediment in lower Newport Bay and DDT and mercury availability from sediment. Our team's interaction with the Agencies has allowed projects to.move forward by addressing these issues in a sound, scientific manner. E_l B. Experience 1 NewFields' scientists have been conducting sediment evaluations in the Newport Beach area for over 10 years and nationally for over 30 years. The NewFields' team strives to combine the best available science with a consensus -based approach drawing upon years of working with r clients and regulatory agencies. The following project descriptions provide examples of our .i experience in conducting sediment evaluations, our development and use of best available science to move projects. forward, .and our experience in working with regulatory agencies to gain suitability determinations. The NewFields staff :have conducted- these projects as NewFields; or as Weston. Solutions or MEC Analytical Systems. Page 1 of 15 Fill Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal Lower Newport Bay Dredged Material Management Program - Federal Channels Client: City of Newport Beach and USACE -LA Contact: Chris Miller and Larry Smith NewFields worked with the City and USACE to provide technical consulting services in support of the dredging program. NewFields developed a sampling and analysis strategy to take advantage of the existing data previously collected by the City. Study areas were defined in part by those defined in the USACE Federal Channels program, with modifications made based on information collected in the previous surveys conducted by NewFields in the federal channels ` -t and RGP -54 surveys. Chemical testing of.the sediment samples showed some areas of the Bay to have elevated mercury or DDT. However, using program modifications developed in previous programs (using an amphipod tolerant of fine - grained sediments; using site - specific *DDT multipliers; ensuring that deeper sand layers were thoroughly sampled), no benthic or water column toxicity was found that would preclude offshore disposal, and tissue residues were considered to be acceptable compared to FDA action levels and critical body residue levels. All sediment met the OTM criteria of suitability. NewFields continues to provide technical guidance to the City and USACE regarding the observed mercury concentrations and their influence on sediment management decisions. Page 2 of 15 I Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal Sampling and Analysis of Sediments Supporting the RGP -54 Permit Client: City of Newport Beach Contact: Chris Miller and Tom Rossmiller I In 2005, NewEields conducted the sampling in the same four areas and stations evaluated in 2000. As found in 2000, some areas were found to have unacceptable amphipod toxicity using Eohaustorius estuarius. However, it was also noted that sediment in Lower Newport Bay is dominated by very fine clay (<2 pm diameter). Previous investigations by NewEields had shown that the clay fraction can influence the outcome of the amphipod tests conducted with Eohaustorius estuarius (a test species commonly used in Newport Bay evaluations). Amphipod tests were subsequently conducted with the fine -grain tolerant amphipod species, Ampelisca abdita. All tests conducted with A. abdita passed suitability for ocean disposal, with the exception of West Lido Channel due to mercury concentrations in sediments. A subsequent investigation found that the mercury was associated with fine - grained surface sediments and was not present in underlying ancient sands. These findings have been applied to several projects in Lower Newport Bay and have been successful in separating out the confounding effects of sediment grain size from toxicity due to COPCs. The 2005 testing effort also isolated tissue chemistry analyte list to bioaccumulative COPCs found in sediments. This approach significantly reduced the project costs for the RGP -54 sampling and analysis program from the costs in previous years. �i _I Page 3 of 15 Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -S4 Renewal Dredged Material Evaluation for Douglas Harbor Maritsa, Juneau, Alaska Client: City and Borough of Juneau Contact: John Stone Douglas Harbor, located in Juneau Alaska, is undergoing expansion to accommodate increased moorage demands. The expansion involves removal of existing moorings, creosote pilings, and dredged material to return the harbor to its original design depth of -14 ft MLLW. Previous assessments had determined sediment concentrations above project screening levels for mercury. NewFields was contracted to design a program that would to verify the concentrations of mercury present in the sediment and determine if mercury concentrations are bioavailable and a potential risk to marine life and human health or merely part of the crustal matrix of the sediments. NewFields evaluated sediments for total mercury and the more available methylmercury and conducted laboratory toxicity and bioaccumulation tests to determine bioaccumulation potential. Results of biological testing showed that the elevated mercury concentrations in the sediment j did not produce adverse biological effects on the test species that would preclude unconfined I disposal of the sediments. The final assessment of human health and ecological risk based on bioaccumulation of mercury into the tissues of benthic organisms indicated that tissue residues were below the guidance value provided by the state for, consumption of fish and shellfish. L'I Similar to issues faced in Lower Newport Bay; mercury concentrations were found to be above ERM levels, but were not toxic and did not show unacceptable uptake into tissues, relative to the rl reference site. Through extensive negotiations with regulatory agencies and the Port, sediments will be dredged and placed at the disposal site. The newly exposed sediment within the marina � will then be capped with clean sediment. Li Page 4 of 15 �.a I I Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal Dredged Material Evaluation for Marina Park Newport Beach, California Client: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Contact: Mark Reader The City of Newport Beach is converting City -owned property on Balboa Peninsula into a public park. The Marina Park project includes the expansion of existing beach areas and marina facilities and the excavation of uplands and marine tidelands to create a 28 -slip marina. Prior to project approval, sediment and soils throughout the proposed marina complex needed to be tested for suitable disposal options. NewFields assisted the City s Planning Department in " ..�w' " developing a sampling approach that would maximize the ,, beneficial reuse of project sediments and soils. The Soil Coring at Marina Park objective of this sampling and analysis program was to characterize the dredged materials from three dredged material management areas within the Marina Park project area and to evaluate receiver beaches for grain -size compatibility. Core samples were collected from the three areas for chemical and biological analysis. NewFields nationally accredited bioassay laboratory conducted aquatic toxicity testing and bioaccumulation evaluations. Project sediments were categorized into disposal options based on criteria from the Inland Testing Manual and RGP -67 for nearshore placement and from the Ocean Testing Manual for offshore disposal. Finer sediments that would found above the ancient Bay deposits were found to contain elevated concentrations of mercury with sediments more distant from the nearshore sands having higher mercury concentrations than the nearshore sands. Upland sands had very low concentrations of COPCs and were suitable for either beach nourishment or offshore disposal. Compatibility with candidate receiving beaches was evaluated usingthe grain size envelope approach. NewFields prepared the dredged materials portions of the City's EIR and has assisted the City in responses to comments from regulatory agencies and the public, and continues to support the City as a technical consultant as this project moves forward. Page. 5 of 15 J E. i Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal Dredged Material Evaluation for the Balboa Marina Dock Replacement Client: The Irvine Company Contact: Dean Kirk The Irvine Company proposed to replace their existing dock system in Balboa Marina with a new 102 slip dock, renovating aging structures and increasing the open area within the marina by 0.16 acres. As part of the dock reconstruction project, the Irvine Company also proposed to increase the water depths within the marina and its approaches. Dredging in Balboa Marina, Newport NewFields was contracted to develop a strategy to determine the suitability of proposed dredged material and to conduct studies determine disposal options. The marina was separated into four study units for evaluation. The boundaries and station locations were selected based on the physical characteristics of the project site (such as bathymetry, current flow patterns) and the existing and proposed land uses (such as navigation channels, existing boat slips, and proposed eelgrass restoration sites). Because the predominant flow from Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek enters the study area from the western end of the marina, sediments depositing from upper Newport Bay sources are likely to distribute in a west to east pattern. Based on this. pattern, the project area was divided into an eastern, central, and western portion. The project area also included the channel adjacent to the marina; therefore a fourth study unit included channel stations only. Test sediment from the four composites, reference sediment from the LA -2 and LA -3 reference sites, and where appropriate, control sediment were analyzed following USEPA and USACE guidelines for ocean disposal. Chemical analyses of the sediment samples indicated problematic concentrations of DDT analogs in the samples. Biological testing showed no acute toxicity in the benthic or water column tests with one exception. Bioaccumulation testing showed uptake of DDT by both clams and worms. For DDT, EPA uses a standard multiplier of 2.9, since it is believed that DDT does not reach equilibrium during the 28 -day bioaccumulation test. However, NewFields noted that the mixture of DDT analogs (DDD, DDE, and DDT) is dominated by DDE and DDD, rather than DDT. Based on EPA data, DDD and DDE are more readily taken into tissues and a site- specific multiplier of approximately 2 provides a better estimate of total DDT tissue concentrations. Based on the site - specific multiplier, the stead -state tissue residue estimates were below human- health derived thresholds and sediments were found to be suitable for offshore disposal. Page 6 of 1.5 Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal NewFields has developed a sampling strategy that supports the City's RGP 54 application, is built upon scientific rigor, and is responsive to potential issues that may develop. Our sampling strategy takes advantage of our extensive knowledge of Newport Bay sediment and the tiered evaluation process to design a cost effective and scientifically defensible dredging program. Specific components of NewFields approach for the 2011 RGP -54 permit renewal include the following study elements: Page 7 of 15 1 I. Maximizing the Use of Historic Data: NewFields' approach will focus on maximizing the use of historic data to characterize areas for the RGP -54 renewal. NewFields will review data from the 2009 Federal Channels sediment investigation, as well as other applicable sediment investigations, to determine whether additional data is needed for each RGP area. Historic data collected by NewFields and others within Newport Bay will be put into a GIS database to provide a spatially- referenced dataset. Data gaps within -., the areas covered by the RGP -54 will be identified. Portions of the RGP near areas found to be suitable for ocean disposal in 2009 would be considered suitable for ocean disposal for the RGP -54 extension. For areas where no determination was made in I' 2009 and for portions of the RGP that are not near sediments characterized in 2009, a tiered evaluation would be proposed. Tier II sediment chemistry would be conducted j to determine whether conditions had changed since the previous RGP investigation in 2005. For those areas where the concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) had increased to biological effects levels, additional Tier III analysis would be conducted. 2. Sample Areas: Previous sediment investigations for the RGP -54 renewals have had four Study Areas, with samples within those areas composited to create an analytical sample. However, since only portions of these areas may have data gaps or areas requiring Tier III sediment investigations, the study areas may be redefined to group stations by analysis needed, as well as by geographic region. f ; 3. DDT Tissue Burdens: Based on observations from sediment investigations that NewFields has conducted in the Balboa Marina and in the Federal Anchorage, sediment from some portions of Lower Newport Bay may contain DDT analogs. Generally, when f contaminants are observed in sediment, the final determination of suitability is based !_t on the bioavailability of the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). Bioavailability is determined, in part, by COPC tissue concentrations from the bioaccumulation tests. For DDT EPA also uses a standard multiplier of 2.9, since it is believed that DDT does not reach equilibrium during the 28 -day bioaccumulation test. Recent evaluations of DDT in sediment from Lower Newport Bay by NewFields indicates that because of the observed f f mixture of DDT analogs, a site specific multiplier of approximately 2 provides a better estimate of total DDT tissue concentrations. If DDT analogs are present in #issues from the bioaccumulation tests conducted, an assessment of risk will be based on site - specific l multipliers: 4. Mercury in Sediment: Some portions of _Lower Newport Bay have mercury concentrations that exceed the NOAA Median Effects Range (ERM). While there is Page 7 of 15 1 Proposal for Analytical .Services for RGP -54 Renewal currently no regulatory threshold for mercury in the Ocean Testing Manual, mercury is an emerging issue for regulating sediments in Newport Bay. NewFields' approach will pay particular attention to mercury in sediments and would include proposing using a Newport Bay site - specific trigger value for testing using an approach similar to the ERL /ERM approach but with effects data collected in Lower Newport Bay. Alternatively, an extraction procedure may be proposed that targets bioavailable mercury concentrations and does not include crustal mercury. 5. Sediment Grain Size: Sediment in Lower Newport Bay is dominated by very fine clay (<2 µm diameter). Previous investigations by NewFields have shown that the clay fraction can influence the outcome of the amphipod tests conducted with Eohaustorius estuaries (a test species commonly used in Newport Bay evaluations). Amphipod tests will be conducted with the fine- grained tolerant species, Ampelisca abdita. 6. Sediment Stratiaraphv in Nearshore Areas: Recent sampling programs that NewFields has conducted in Lower Newport Bay have shown that more recent finer - grained sediments overlay the ancient Bay sands. In the nearshore areas, such as those portions of the channel within the pier -head line, cleaner sands may be more dominant than in the channels. It is important that samples be representative of the sands that may be present and that the full project depth is sampled. Some sampling equipment, such as piston cores or box cores, may not fully sample the underlying sand layers. Vibracore samplers are the best method to sample the full project depth and appropriately sample the underlying sand layers. Description of Tasks: y Task 1. Data Evaluation and Preparation of a SAP — NewFields will prepare a Sampling and Analysis Plan that will be submitted to the Dredged Material Management Team (DMMT) for review and approval. NewFields has performed many of the previous studies for private, local ' and federal government agencies in Lower Newport Bay, producing sampling and analyses plans that have been well received. As part of the SAP, data collected in March 2009 would be summarized and used to determine (.. the level . of effort needed for the 2011 RGP -54 survey. Data would be put into a GIs platform and maps would be provided for each study area indicating where previous data allow for a determination to be made and where additional data may be needed., Under this task, any a revisions of study areas or analytical methods would be proposed. In addition, any chemical thresholds that will be used to determine whether Tier III testing is needed will be defined. It ' will be important to clearly define these thresholds prior to collecting or analyzing test sediments. Proactively addressing these issues in the SAP will help to expedite the permitting i process, since there will be fewer undefined areas of concern when the.work is completed. t Any meetings or negotiations with the DMMT are included in this task. Task 2. Field Sampling. - Once the DMMT has approved the SAP; NewFields .will collect .i sediments using a vibracore sampler. NewFields will conduct sediment sampling aboard the Early Bird II. The Early Bird lI is a 42' research vessel owned and operated by Seaventures Inc. Page 8of15 ii Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal of Dana Point, California. Sediment will be collected to project depth (generally -8 ft. MLLW plus 1 ft.) using an electric vibracore sampler equipped with a pre - cleaned 4 -inch diameter aluminum tube and a stainless steel cutter head /catcher assembly. A polyethylene liner will be placed in the core tube for each sample. Liners will not be reused for any samples. The Early Bird II fitted with the vibracore sampler provides a highly effective and efficient work platform and was able to successfully collect cores to project depth from over 100 stations in 7 days during the Federal Channels investigation, with no missed stations. NewFields would propose to conduct all field sampling in one effort, conducting sediment chemistry analysis within 2 to 3 weeks; allowing for any required data review and biological testing to he initiated within the 6 to 8 week holding time required by the OTM. This will minimize field costs and reduce overall project schedule. Reference sediment will be collected from the LA -3 Reference Site during the vessel mobilization, reducing program costs. The total number of stations that will be sampled will depend in part on the Task 1 data evaluation and subsequent DMMT negotiations. Previous RGP -54 investigations have had approximately 37 stations in four study areas. The level of effort for this survey is expected to be similar. Sufficient sediment will be collected from each area to allow possible Tier III toxicity and bioaccumulation testing; however, testing will be conducted after chemistry analysis is completed. Task 3. Chemical and Biological Analysis — Chemical analysis will be conducted on all study composites, the reference sediment and for individual samples from areas that did not have representative samples analyzed in 2009. Limited chemical analysis may be required for some additional stations depending upon the requirements of the DMMT. Test composites will be evaluated following USEPA and USACE guidance for dredged material evaluation (the Ocean Testing Manual and the Inland Testing Manual). Composites will be analyzed for sediment grain size, TOC, and a suite of EPA priority pollutants: metals (including mercury), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons .(PAHs), chlorinated pesticides (including 2,4' and 4,4' DDT groups), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB aroclors), and organofins. Analytical Resources Inc. (ARI) of Tukwila, Washington will perform the chemical analysis. This laboratory has conducted previous studies in the Newport area and we have a close working relationship with their chemists. Results of the analytical chemistry will be compared with concentrations observed in the l -i previous RGP -54 investigation in 2005 and to effects -based levels. For those areas where the concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) have increased to biological effects levels, additional Tier III analysis will,be conducted. 1 f.' Tier III toxicity tests will evaluate the potential for biological effects at the disposal site in both the benthic community and the water column, as required by the Ocean Testing Manual. Benthic toxicity will be evaluated using an amphipod (Ampelisca abdito) and `a polychaete worm (Neanthes arenaceodentata). Water- column testing will be performed with the suspended particulate phase (SPP) test using larval bivalves (Mytilus sp.), juvenile fish (Menidia beryNlna), Page 9 of 15 Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal and mysids (Americamysis bohia). All proposed species have been successfully used in previous biological tests in Newport Bay sediments. Ampelisca abdito is an amphipod species that is tolerant of fine- grained sediments and has been used successfully in Lower Newport Bay tests since 2005. Task 4: Bloaccumulation Testing — Bioaccumulation tests will be conducted with composites that show an increase in bioaccumulable COPC concentration, relative to the 2005 RGP -54 samples. USEPA and USACE require an evaluation of the potential for COPCs in sediment to is enter the food chain. In order to evaluate the potential for sediment - associated chemicals to accumulate in tissues of benthic organisms at the disposal site, 28 -day bioaccumulation tests will be conducted with the clam, Mocoma nasuto, and the marine worm, Nephtys coecoides. These two species have been used in previous Lower Newport Bay sediment investigations and can be tested in one aquarium, reducing the level of effort required for bioaccumulation testing. During the bioaocumulation test, clams and worms are exposed to test sediments for 28 days. Following the exposure period, the test organisms are held for 24 hours in clean seawater to void any sediment that may remain in the gut. A native control sediment and LA -3 Reference sediment will be tested concurrent to the test treatments. Tissues from each of the test treatment and reference replicates will be frozen and sent for chemical analysis at ARL Tissues from the bloaccumulation tests will be analyzed for chemical residues. It is likely that the analyte list can be refined following receipt of the sediment chemistry results and would dramatically reduce analytical costs. Previous investigations have indicated that the primary COPCs in Lower Newport Bay are DDTs, mercury, and possibly organotins. It is possible that the analyte list could be limited to this subset of analytes. The results of the chemical analyses for tissues will be compared to the LA -3 Reference data to determine suitability. Task 5: Reporting: The final report will include a summary of methods used and any deviations from the protocols, a summary of all field collection activities, sediment chemistry, toxicity and j_ bioaccumulation testing data, all raw data, reference - toxicant response, summary of water quality data, and chain- of-custody forms. A discussion of QA /QC results and their implications on the test data will also be presented. Both electronic (Adobe PDF) and hardcopy versions of the report will be provided NewFields is well recognized for preparing comprehensive and easily interpreted reports. This not only applies to final documentation of test results but to all of our technical documents and presentations made to a wide variety of potential audiences.. The success of the past dredge 1 assessment program was based not only on the quality of the draft and Final reports but also on interim assessments and discussions with Agency and City.personnel. Our staff helped maintain r� the project on schedule even while addressing issues that developed during testing. Our attention to detail and the internal review practices that our organization relies on assure our clients that they will receive the highest quality reports. Task 6: Technical Support for Agency Review - One of the highest values of the NewFields t, team is our ability to serve as a. liaison between our clients and the Regulatory Agencies. Our -I Page 10 of 15 I f` Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal interactions with Agency personnel on daily project activities and our national recognition for understanding complex issues of biological responses to all types of stress distinguishes our group from all others. This level of interaction will be provided by Mr. William Gardiner and Dr. Jack Q. Word. Both are nationally recognized for their understanding of dredged material issues. Mr. Gardiner and Dr. Word will be available to work with the City during this program to help develop a longer term approach that will assist the City with future renewal efforts. This task is typically billed as time and materials basis. C. Study Team The NewFields team will be led by principal scientists Mr. William Gardiner and Dr. Jack Word who have developed a high level of trust with City of Newport staff and local and regional agencies. Both Mr. Gardiner and Dr. Word have successfully facilitated negotiations with the DMMT and regarding the site - specific conditions within Newport Bay. Mr. Gardiner will serve as the primarily point of contact for the City and will be available for consultation at any point during the program. The figure below clearly shows the primary responsibility of each study team member. Figure 1. Organizational Structure Field Coordinator Mr. Jay Word NewFields LLC City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division Chris Miller Project Manager Mr. Bill Gardiner NewFields LLC Laboratory Manager Mr. Brian Hester (Bioassay) NewFields LLC Ms. Sue Dunnihoo (Chemistry) . ARI Page l i of 15 Technical Advisor Dr. Jack Word NewFields LLC Data Analysis and Reporting Ms, Susie Watts. Mr. Bill Gardiner NewFields LLC Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal The information below provides a brief description of each team member's qualifications for this project. Please refer to Appendix A for complete resumes for each team member. NewFields LLC NewFields LLC is an environmental services firm specializing in marine and aquatic sciences, providing a diverse range of environmental and toxicological services, our firm provides a complete range of in -house environmental services including study design, field sampling, laboratory analyses, quality assurance /quality control, data management, modeling and statistical analyses, and technical report preparation. Our goal is to use high quality data and science -based analysis to provide sound and defensible management decisions. NewFields staff includes specialists in sediment management, marine biology, risk assessment, and regulatory permitting. NewFields scientists have extensive experience in sediment management in Southern California, as well as throughout the United States. Our staff includes nationally and internationally recognized experts in sediment management and benthic ecology j that have conducted hundreds of environmental surveys and sediment testing programs to support dredged- material evaluations, remedial investigations, feasibility studies, permit compliance, and post - construction monitoring. NewFields operates a testing laboratory on the i shores of Hood Canal, which is used to help in assessing site - specific biota - contaminant relationships. NewFields laboratory is a NELAP certified laboratory. NewFields focuses on the dynamic interaction between site - specific environmental factors and the interactions between potential contaminants of concern and biological resources, which allows for improved sediment management decisions. ( - Key Staff Mr. William Gardiner M.S. is a partner at NewFields and an experienced environmental j scientist with expertise in sediment management, marine, estuarine, and freshwater toxicology and ecological evaluation, ecology /restoration, and scientific sample collection. He has conducted numerous environmental evaluations of dredged materials, hazardous waste sites, petroleum- related compounds, and a variety of contaminant and non- contaminant stressors. Over the past 10 years, Mr. Gardiner has conducted a number of harbor -wide sediment investigations throughout Lower Newport Bay, including the RGP -54, renewals in 2000 and ..i 2005, the Dredged Materials Management Program for Federal Channels. in 2009, and evaluations of Marina Park, Balboa Marina, the West Lido Channel, the American Legion I Marina, and De Anza Bayside Village Marina, Mr. Gardiner has also conducted a number of 7 ecological evaluations and benthic surveys, including food web modeling, population surveys, and habitat restoration. Over 21 years, Mr. Gardiner has focused on refining estimates of contaminant bioavailability, effects, and risk by integrating field and laboratory based site- specific biological and. chemical data. Through an understanding, of multiple environmental factors that affect contaminant-receptor pathways, Mr. .Gardiner has been able to separate the I (. effects of confounding factors from those of site - related chemicals of potential concern. f. f Page 12 of 15 1 Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal Jack Q. Word, Ph.D. is a partner at NewFields and is the Director of the Port Gamble Environmental Laboratories. Dr. Word is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of toxicology, sediment management, and benthic ecology. He has pioneered research on understanding multiple stressors to benthic communities and shoreline organisms. Dr. Word's research has included evaluation of the effects of contaminants on acute and chronic survival, bioaccumulation, fecundity, and multi - generational effects on aquatic organisms. He has directed numerous large -scale sediment investigations including the United Heckathorn RI /FS, Port of Oakland Dredged Material programs and water quality. monitoring, and Port of Richmond Deepening Program. Dr. Word has extensive experience in sediment management and alternatives analysis and has served on an international committee on alternative /beneficial uses of dredged material. With over 35 years of experience in benthic ecology and sediment management, Dr. Word has specialized in understanding the complex interactions of physical and chemical environmental factors to better define contaminant - related effects and improve sediment management. Ms. Susie Watts is a partner at NewFields and is experienced in marine environmental studies and is a specialist in project management, database management, statistical analysis, program quality assurance, and graphic presentation of data. She is responsible for the design and implementation of large and complex environmental databases involving physical, chemical, and biological parameters. These databases have been developed for diverse projects ranging from deep -ocean remote monitoring to shallow water wetland analysis, and must frequently jmeet the needs of national government standards. Ms. Watts has experience in all aspects of environmental monitoring. Her experience includes data analysis of laboratory testing of l sediments collected in Newport Bay for USACE and the City of Newport Beach. Ms. Watts has served as project manager for the Southern California Bight Regional Sediment Monitoring Program, the Port of San Diego Regional Harbor Water Quality Monitoring Program, 301h water- quality monitoring programs for Orange County Sanitation Districts, and the Central Coast Long Term Assessment Network (CCLEAN) Program in Monterey, California. Ms Watts t has developed methods of displaying scientific data that integrate statistical methodology, modeling, mapping, and animation to explore spatial and temporal relationships among -i sampling parameters that aid in explaining complex scientific data to abroad audience, both technical and non- technical. Mr. Brian Hester is the manager of the marine laboratory at NewFields in Port Gamble, Washington and has over 11 years of experience in laboratory testing of waters and sediments. Mr. Hester is has extensive experience in biological testing methods supporting national and {, regional testing program for sediment, water, and effluents. Mr. Hester manages national and . [ international dredged - material management programs including sediment programs in the Southeastern US and Puerto Rico. Mr. Hester specializes in modifying existing methods and developing testing methods in order to better understand the relationship between receptors i..� and contaminants of potential concern. Mr. Hester also leads the laboratory certification program at NewFields. j Mr. Jay Word serves as the Field Operation Manager for NewFields in Port Gamble. 'Mr. Word has extensive experience in field operations and logistics including sediment core and grab 7 sampling, water sampling, benthic and midwater trawls, and scientific diving. Mr. Word has F1 Page 13 of 15 Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal developed custom sampling equipment for sampling efforts in the Arctic and in isolated tropical environments. Mr. Word has served as the Chief Field Scientist for sediment sampling efforts in Lower Newport Bay, including the RGP -54 renewals in 2000 and 2005, the Dredged Materials Management Program for Federal Channels in 2009, and evaluations of Balboa Marina and the West Lido Channel Ms. Sue Dunnihoo (ARI) is a co- founder of Analytical Resources, Inc. and has over 28 years of experience in analytical chemistry, with a specialty in GC /MS analysis. Ms Dunnihoo has directed the chemical analysis for the RGP -54 sediment investigation in 2005, the Federal Channels investigation in 2009, as well as the sediment evaluations for the Marina Park and Balboa marinas. She has assisted NewFields in interpreting chemical results and has developed extraction methods under Newport Beach programs that have helped to remove interferences in DDT analysis. This has resulted in more accurate reporting and lower overall DDT concentrations. She is responsible for oversight of client services including Project Management and Sample Receiving, and serves as a Project Manager to clients requiring specialized analyses or research and development. Ms. Dunnihoo has overall responsibility for database administration and data transfer. D. Project Schedule 1 NewFields has a thorough understanding of the City's timeline for RGP -54 renewal. Where possible, study elements will be accelerated to allow a timely completion of study objectives. Within one week of notice to proceed, NewFields will begin to compile previous datasets and i prepare the SAP. Once the SAP is complete, it will be submitted to the City for review and approval. Upon approval, the SAP will be submitted to the DMMT agencies. Every effort will be made to synchronize the delivery schedule with the DMMT meeting schedules. Past SAP reviews by the DMMT have required 4 to 6 weeks; however, this is dependent upon their staff availability. Field sampling will occur within 3 weeks from receiving the NTP from the agencies. �I This schedule is driven in part by the availability of sampling vessels. Sample processing and chemical analysis will begin immediately following the field sampling. All chemical analysis will be completed within 2 weeks of the completion of field sampling. Determination of samples needing biological testing will be made upon receipt of chemistry results. Biological testing should be complete within '8 weeks of the completion of field sampling. Data will be reviewed for accuracy and then submitted to the agencies for review. NewFields will meet with the City and the agencies to determine the appropriate. tissue chemistry analysis based on the sediment chemistry and bioassay data. This process typically requires 2 weeks, provided that the agency staff are available for consultation. Once the tissue analyte list is determined, tissue chemistry will require 4 weeks to complete. The draft report will be submitted to the City four weeks after validation of the tissue chemistry data. The draft report be available 26 to 28 weeks after the NTP, provided that the review periods by the agencies and the City are within the time periods provided above.. NewFields will provide a final report within 2 weeks of receiving comments from the City. Assuming Page 14 of 15 t: f 4. tF fl ;...1 li I� Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal receipt of a NTP soon after November 9, 2010 and all City and agency reviews are performed expeditiously, the project would be completed by the end of May, 2011. The timeline can be compressed somewhat by requiring faster turnaround times from the analytical laboratories. This typically increases the analytical costs. Other portions of the timeline may occur more quickly if the agency response times are faster than anticipated. E. Exceptions We have reviewed the standard Professional Services Agreement provided in your RFP and hereby certify our ability to execute this agreement and comply with the City's insurance requirements. F. Cost Proposal Our cost proposal is submitted in a separate sealed envelope (as requested in your RFP) and is therefore not included in this part of the proposal. . Page 15 of 15 i NewFields is please to provide a fee schedule for the proposed sediment evaluation in support of the RGP -54. As indicated in the RFP provided by the City of Newport Beach, the fee schedule here provides hourly rates, unit costs for sampling, analysis and evaluation, and a total not -to- exceed fee for the entire program. Estimated Costs This section outlines the estimated costs, by task, as described in the technical proposal. Table 1 provides hourly rates for staff. Table 2 provides unit costs for vessel support, chemical analysis, and biological testing. Table 3 provides estimated costs by tasks based on an assumed number of samples and a total not -to- exceed amount for the entire program. Table 1. Hourly Rates for NewFields Staff Technical Director Jack Q Word $175 Senior5cientist Susie Watts $140 Senior Scientist Bill Gardiner $140 Senior Scientist Meg Pinza $140 Laboratory Manager Brian Hester $100 Scientist It Cindy Word $85 Scientist 11 Bridget Gregg $85 Scientist 11 Jay Word $90 Scientist I Collin Ray $70 Scientist I Mary Bacon $70 Laboratory Technician Hillary Eichler $45 Laboratory Technician Julia Levengood $45 Table 2. Unit Costs for Field and Laboratory Activities FreidE Sampling = " *' Vessel and Captain $1500 per day Vessel Crew $1000 per day Vibracore Rental $250 per day Shipment of Samples $400 per cooler z 4 Analytical Chemist ti Sediment TS/TOC $48 Grain Size $90 Total Metals $187 Butyltins $260 PAH $174 CI -Pest $176 PCB $134 DDT only $G3 Hg Only $38 Tissues Tissue Homogenization $19 Lipid $71 DDT $155 Hg only $40 Total Metals $155 Butyltins $281 PAH $185 CI -pest $179 PCB $189 Water - Column Test —Larval Bivalve $1,165 Water - Column Test - Fish $1,275 Water.Column Test - Mysid Shrimp $1,175 Benthic Test - Amphipod $995 Benthic Test - Polychaete $1,050 Bioaccumulation Test with Clam and Worm $2,200 Estimated Costs by Program Task: The total not -to exceed cost estimate is based on costs associated with six program tasks, as outlined in the technical proposal. The actual scope of the program will be developed as part of Task 1 and will require DMMT approval. As such the actual costs for each task may differ from those presented on Table 3. However, the estimated costs by task are based on several analytical scenarios and the total not -to- exceed cost is expected to support the eventual program. The total estimated not -to- exceed cost for all activities associated with the RGP -54 renewal is $112,500. Table 3. Summary of Proposed Cost Summary by Task Task $ k figµ Costf�oTask Task 1, Data Evaluation and Preparation of a SAP $12,500 Task 2. Field Sampling $24,000 Task 3. Chemical and Biological Analysis $35,000 Task 4: Bioaccumulation Testing $20,000 Task 5: Reporting $16,000 Task 6: Technical Support for Agency Review $5,000 Total Not to Exceed Amount $112,500 Incidentals: Incidentals.are included in the hourly rates and fixed rate unit costs and will not be billed separately. NewFields PSA — RGP -54 Sediment Testing January 25, 2011 Page 5 Exhibit A RGP -54 Project Boundaries IL,