HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-3935 - PSA for Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP)AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH WESTON SOLUTIONS
FOR HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, entered
into this -� day of °cC t/ 2007, by and between the CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City") and
WESTON SOLUTIONS, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation whose address is 2433
Impala Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the
following:
RECITALS
A. On May 8, 2007, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional
Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Agreement", for the
preparation of a comprehensive Harbor Area Management Plan (RAMP).
The plan will identify, prioritize, and address watershed issues such as
water supply, sediments, channel erosion, water quality, navigation, habit
restoration, community access, and educational programs for the Newport
Harbor as well as the Upper and Lower Newport Bays.
B. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. 1 to reflect additional
services not included in the Agreement.
C. City desires to compensate Consultant for additional professional services
to be conducted for a Flood Vulnerability Study for inclusion as a part of
HAMP.
D. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend Agreement, hereinafter
referred to as Amendment No. 1, as provided here below.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this
Amendment No.1 according to "Exhibit A" dated October 30, 2007
attached hereto.
2. Total additional compensation to Consultant for services performed
pursuant to this Amendment No. 1 for all work performed in accordance
with this Amendment, including all reimburseable items and subconsultant
fees, shall not exceed Forty Three Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty and
no/100 Dollars ($43,680.00).
3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and
covenants set forth in Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in
full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 on
the date first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C
City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
By_
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
-rte `tt
CALIF'
CITY O EWPORT BEACH,
A Munjcip,al Cor ra ori
By:
Mayor
for the City of Newport Beach
CONSULTANT:
(Corporate Officer)
Title: R> enc c, c� IrNn tt A
Print Name: (~ia..�c� (�. T
By:
( inancialOfficer)
Title:
Print Name:
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services and Billing Rates
f:\users\pbw\shared\agreements\fy 07-08\Weston-HAMP Amend-1.doc
Mr. Robert Stein, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach 3300
Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Vulnerability Study of the Newport Harbor Area
to Flooding by Extreme Tides
Modification of Scope for
Harbor Area Management Plan
Dear Mr. Stein:
TM'
SOLUTIONS
October 30, 2007
We are pleased to provide you this proposal for conducting a Flood Vulnerability Study
of the Newport Bay as a modification to the existing contract for the Harbor Area
Management Plan. Dr. Brett F. Sanders will be completing this study as outlined below.
Introduction
The highest high tides in California threaten flooding of low-lying terrain and result from
the coincidence of extreme astronomical tides and storm induced sea level changes. In
Newport Harbor, the highest recorded tide was measured January 28, 1983 during a
devastating El Nino storm that impacted the entire California coastline. On the Balboa
Peninsula, 175 homes and business were damaged and water flooded Balboa Boulevard,
Newport Boulevard as well as the Finley residential area. The extreme tide was a
consequence of atmospheric conditions, i.e., low atmospheric pressure and wind, as well
as long-term inter -annual effects including El Nino.
Sea levels have been rising for decades, but higher rates are forecast for the coming
century. This will impact not only mean sea level (MSL), but high water levels as well.
Data reported for Los Angeles and La Jolla show that mean higher high water (MHHW)
rose slightly faster than MSL over the past 50 years. Estimates of future sea level rise at
Newport Harbor fall in the range of 1-3 ft/100 years range for Newport Harbor. A United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) study put these figures in a
probabilistic perspective, suggesting there was a 50% chance that sea level rise would
exceed 0.4, 0.7 and 1.5 ft by 2025, 2050 and 2100, respectively, and a 10% chance that
sea level rise would exceed 0.6, 1.1 and 2.9 ft by 2025, 2050 and 2100, respectively.
There is also evidence that North Pacific cyclones, which bring storm weather to
Southern California in Winter, have intensified over the past 50 years. This has
contributed to higher high tides and is thought to be a consequence of warmer ocean
water. Future extretne tides constitute the most immediate flooding threat to low-lying
Mr. Robert Stein, P.E.
City of Newport Beach, Flood Vulnerability Study
October 30, 2007
Page 2
coastal communities such as the Newport Harbor area, and are likely to be amplified by
increasing sea levels.
Coastal communities are in a position to plan for extreme tides. Their occurrence is
actually quite predictable based on semi-annual and inter -annual cycles. In fact, there are
only a few multi -day periods each Winter when extreme tides threaten the California
coast. Only the most extreme cases are likely to cause flooding in the near future and the
severity of extreme tides will hinge on atmospheric conditions. The worst -case -scenario
is a strong low-pressure storm approaching the California coastline from the Gulf of
Alaska coincident with an extreme tide, as in January of 1983 shown in Figure 1.
Proposal
We propose a study to evaluate whether and to what extent flooding of the Newport
Harbor area is likely to result from future extreme tides due to the coincidence of extreme
astronomical tides and storm induced sea level changes; and predicted flooding under this
scenario in addition to probabilistic increases in future sea level rise. A set of
hypothetical design tides will be developed to reflect a high, moderate and low
probability of occurrence. Then, a multidimensional hydrodynamic model will be applied
to simulate inundation likely to result from these tides.
It is expected that this study will support a number of activities that the City can pursue to
prepare for extreme tides, and incorporate into its Harbor Area Management Plan. In
terms of planning, the City may use the results of this study to prioritize improvements of
permanent or temporary sea defenses (bulk heads, seawalls, etc.) and drainage
infrastructure including pump stations, to assess whether the degree is flooding would
warrant evacuations, to effectively deploy and position emergency response staff, and to
assess the viability of critical transportation links (e.g., Newport Boulevard) for
emergency response.
The City recently made a substantial investment in a LiDAR terrain data, the best source
of remotely sensed terrain data for flood inundation studies. The proposed study would
provide added value to this substantial City investment.
The City has invested in other modeling studies to address coastal water quality and
habitat objectives. In particular, Everest International Consultants has applied RMA2 to
simulate tidal transport of urban runoff, and contaminants associated with urban runoff,
in Newport Bay. While the numerical methods adopted by RMA2 make it well suited for
tidal time -scale simulations of flow and contaminant transport, RMA2 is not well suited
for detailed, street -level simulations of flood inundation which is the aim of this study.
BreZo, on the other hand, is ideally suited for this task.
The study will include the following tasks:
Mr. Robert Stein, P.E.
City of Newport Beach, Flood Vulnerability Study
October 30, 2007 umL •
Page 3
Task 1: Review and synthesize terrain data sources. Accurate terrain data are crucial for
flood inundation modeling. Therefore, this study will begin with a review and synthesis
of terrain elevation data likely to be useful for this study including: (1) Bay bathymetry
data (land below water) collected by the US Army Corps of Engineers (2002, 2005), (2)
City of Newport Beach LiDAR terrain data (2006), (3) Upper Newport Bay LiDAR
terrain data collected by the US Army Corps of Engineers (2002), (4) Offshore
bathymetry data distributed by the NOAA Geophysical Data Center (NOAA/GDC)
bathymetry data and (5) coastline LiDAR data distributed by NOAA Coastal Services
Center (NOAA/CSC).
These data are likely to adopt different datums and/or projections. In addition, the
coverage of these data sources is not presently clear. In this task, we will convert all data
to the California State Plane Coordinate System (Zone VI) using NAVD88 for vertical
control. Furthermore, we will review the coverage and accuracy of all data sources and
identify the most accurate data sources for the proposed modeling. This is expected to
include the recent City LiDAR survey for above -water areas around the Bay and Corps
bathymetry data for the below -water areas of the Bay. A map will be prepared showing
the coverage and quality of relevant data sources.
Deliverable: Interim Report I describing the coverage, accessibility and quality of
terrain data for flood inundation modeling.
Task 2: Develop hypothetical design tides Records and reports on extreme tides in
California will be reviewed first, focusing on information relevant to Newport Harbor. A
set of design tides will then be developed to reflect a range of likelihoods based on a 25,
50 and 100 year planning horizon. The specifics of this have yet to be determined, but
one possibility is to take the tide record from January 28, 1983 tide as a base case, and to
add an uniform offset consistent with EPA sea level rise projections. By running the
flood inundation model several times using increasingly larger offsets, a range of
flooding scenarios will be depicted corresponding to decreasing probability.
Deliverable: Interim Report 2 presenting a set of design tides for subsequent flood
inundation modeling.
Task 3: Review of sea defense infrastructure. Bulk heads protect several parts of Newport
Bay from high Bay levels. Knowledge of the extent of this infrastructure, as well as its
exact height, is essential for an accurate depiction of ocean flooding. In addition, a review
of drainage infrastructure will be needed to ascertain routes by which ocean flood waters
may bypass sea defenses (e.g., through storm drain system) and cause flooding. This task
will require support from City staff and involve a site visit around the perimeter of
Newport Harbor.
Deliverable: Interim Report 3 presenting an overview of sea defense infrastructure in
the Newport Harbor area.
Mr. Robert Stein, P.E.
City of Newport Beach, Flood Vulnerability Study
October 30, 2007
Page 4
Task 4a: Prepare a computational grid for model simulations A model grid will be
prepared to support flood inundation modeling. The grid will adopt a variable resolution
that balances the demands for accuracy and computational efficiency. Large
computational cells will be used in deep water that is always flooded, and small
computational cells will be used in areas where inundation of normally dry land is
predicted. In addition, the model grid will be aligned with bulk heads and new modeling
techniques will be used to realistically simulate overtopping. The resolution of the grid
will be sufficient resolve surface flow along streets. Quality control checks will be made
to ensure that model predictions of flood zones are not grid dependent.
Task 4b: Perform flood simulations. A 2D numerical model developed by Professor
Sanders, BreZo, will be applied to simulate flooding. The model has previously been
applied in a number of coastal and inland flow simulation applications, and there are a
number of published papers that validate its use. Electronic versions of Professor
Sanders' papers can be accessed from his university web page
http://gram.etig.uci.eclu/—bfs/sanders2 html or a hard copy can be provided upon request.
In each simulation, flow conditions will be forced by two factors: the design tide and
storm water inputs from major tributaries that drain to the Bay. The model will assume
that all terrain is impermeable, implying no infiltration or drainage of flooding ocean
water into storm sewers. In addition, the model will not consider precipitation directly.
This approach will allow the model to isolate the impact of ocean levels on flooding. At a
future time, BreZo could be coupled to a City drainage model to see how readily ocean
water flooding can be mitigated with existing infrastructure, or to design improvements
to the sewer infrastructure to better cope with ocean water flooding. However, these tasks
are outside the scope of the present study. An executable version of the flood model used
for this study will be provided to the City upon completion of the study to support
additional modeling if the need arises (e.g., simulations could be repeated with higher
bulk -head heights or a different design tide).
Task 4c: Prepare flood inundation maps corresponding to extreme tides The results of
model simulations will be processed and distilled into a set of flood inundation maps.
These maps will depict regions of inundation corresponding to design tides of various
heights.
Deliverable: A Project Report incorporating the previous reports and presenting tine
flood modeling methodology, flood modeling results, a discussion of the vulnerability
of the Newport harbor area to flooding, and recommendations for flood hazard
mitigation.
Project Timeline
Start Date November 12, 2007
Mr. Robert Stein, P.E.
City of Newport Beach, Flood Vulnerability Study
October 30, 2007
Task 1 completion and Interim Report I
Task 2 completion and Interim Report 2
Task 3 completion and Interim Report 3
Task 4 completion Draft Final Report
Task 5 (Meetings)
Project Cost
vV T
SOLUTT
IONS
December 21, 2007
January 18, 2008
February 15, 2008
April 25, 2008
Page 5
The proposed project is not to exceed a cost of $43,680 including overhead. Invoices will
be submitted for time and materials upon the completion of each task.
Task
Hours
Rate (Dr. Sanders) Dr. Pohl
Task Total
1
40
$165
$6,600
2
40
$165
6,600
3
48
$165
7,920
4
120
$165
19,800
5
16
$165 $185
2,760
Total
$43,680
Please do not hesitate to call me at 760-497-3318 or Dr. Sanders at 949-824-4327 with
any questions on this proposal.
Very truly yours,
Weston Solutions, Inc.
David H. Pohl, P.E., Ph.D.
cc: Dr. Sanders (UCI)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 7
December 11, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Fong Tse
949 - 644 -3321 or ftse@city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN — AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WESTON
SOLUTIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approve an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Weston
Solutions of Carlsbad, California, for a not -to -exceed price of $43,680 and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
DISCUSSION:
On May 8, 2007, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with
Weston Solutions (Weston) for the preparation of a comprehensive Harbor Area
Management Plan (RAMP). The plan will identify, prioritize, and address watershed
issues such as water supply, sediments, channel erosion, water quality, navigation,
habitat restoration, community access, and education programs for the Newport Harbor
as well as the Upper and Lower Newport Bays.
During Weston's work on the plan, it became apparent that in addition to the various
environmental, navigational, and planning issues that Weston is charged to address,
the potential of flood damage that could be caused by storms should also be studied.
Accordingly, staff requested and Weston provided the attached Flood Vulnerability
Study (FVS) proposal for the City's consideration.
The FVS will analyze. historic storm data, develop storm models, assess the City's
existing storm infrastructures, and develop strategies for implementing flood defenses.
Staff feels that the inclusion of FVS as a part of HAMP will provide a more integrated
master planning tool for the City.
Harbor Area Management Plan — Amendment No. 7 to Professional Services Agreement with Weston Solutions
December f f, 2007
Page 2
Environmental Review:
The required effort for preparing the Harbor Area Management Plan does not require
an environmental review.
Fundina Availability:
Sufficient funds are available in the following account for the project:
Account Description
Newport Coast Watershed Program
Prepared
I Engineer
Attachments: Amendment No. 1
Account Number Amount
7014- C5100912 $43,680
Total: $43,680
Submitted by:
St G. Badum
�P"u(c Works Director
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH WESTON SOLUTIONS
FOR HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, entered
into this day of _ , 2007, by and between the CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City ") and.
WESTON SOLUTIONS, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation whose address is 2433
Impala Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the
following:
RECITALS
A. On May 8, 2007, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional
Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Agreement', for the
preparation of a comprehensive Harbor Area Management Plan (RAMP).
The plan will identify, prioritize, and address watershed issues such as
water supply, sediments, channel erosion, water quality, navigation, habit
restoration, community access, and educational programs for the Newport
Harbor as well as the Upper and Lower Newport Bays.
B. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. 1 to reflect additional
services not included in the Agreement.
C. City desires to compensate Consultant for additional professional services
to be conducted for a Flood Vulnerability Study for inclusion as a part of
RAMP.
D. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend Agreement, hereinafter
referred to as Amendment No. 1, as provided here below.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this
Amendment No.1 according to "Exhibit A" dated October 30, 2007
attached hereto.
2. Total additional compensation to Consultant for services performed
pursuant to this Amendment No. 1 for all work performed in accordance
with this Amendment, including all reimburseable items and subconsultant
fees, shall not exceed Forty Three Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty and
no /100 Dollars ($43,680.00).
3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and
covenants set forth in Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in
full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 on
the date first above written.
APP OVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney tt��
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
By:
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, .
A Municipal Corporation
27
Mayor
for the City of Newport Beach
CONSULTANT:
By:
(Corporate Officer)
Title:
Print Name:
By:
(Financial Officer)
Print Name:
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services and Billing Rates
f:Wserslpbwlshareftgreements5ty 07-08%WestaaHAMP Amend -1.doe
October 30, 2007
Mr. Robert Stein, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach 3300
Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Vulnerability Study of the Newport Harbor Area
to Flooding by Extreme Tides
Modification' of Scope for
Harbor Area Management Plan
Dear Mr. Stein:
We are pleased to provide you this proposal for conducting a Flood Vulnerability Study
of the Newport Bay as a modification to the existing contract for the Harbor Area
Management Plan. Dr. Brett F. Sanders will be completing this study as outlined below.
Introduction
The highest high tides in California threaten flooding of low -lying terrain and result from
the coincidence of extreme astronomical tides and storm induced sea level changes. in
Newport Harbor, the highest recorded tide was measured January 28, 1983 during a
devastating El Niiio storm that impacted the entire California coastline. On the Balboa
Peninsula, 175 homes and business were damaged and water flooded Balboa Boulevard,
Newport Boulevard as well as the Finley residential area. The extreme tide was a
consequence of atmospheric conditions, i.e., low atmospheric pressure and wind, as well
as long -term inter- annual effects including El Nino.
Sea levels have been rising for decades, but higher rates are forecast for the coming
century. This will impact not only mean sea level (MSL), but high water levels as well.
Data reported for Los Angeles and La Jolla show that mean higher high water (MHHW)
rose slightly faster than MSL over the past 50 years. Estimates of future sea level rise at
Newport Harbor fall in the range of 1 -3 ft/100 years range for Newport Harbor. A United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) study put these figures in a
probabilistic perspective, suggesting there was a 50% chance that sea level rise would
exceed 0.4, 0.7 and 1.5 ft by 2025, 2050 and 2100, respectively, and a 10% chance that
sea level rise would exceed 0.6, 1. t and 2.9 ft by 2025, 2050 and 2100, respectively.
There is also evidence that North Pacific cyclones, which bring storm weather to
Southern California in Winter, have intensified over the past 50 years. This has
contributed to higher high tides and is thought to be a consequence of warmer ocean
water. Future extreme tides constitute the most immediate flooding threat to low -lying
Mr. Robert Stein, P.E. ��
City of [Newport Beach, Flood Vulnerability Study
October 30, 2007
Page 2
coastal communities such as the [Newport Harbor area, and are likely to be amplified by
increasing sea levels.
Coastal communities are in a position to plan for extreme tides. Their occurrence is
actually quite predictable based on semi- annual and inter - annual cycles. In fact, there are
only a few multi -day periods each Winter when extreme tides threaten the California
coast. Only the most extreme cases are likely to cause flooding in the near future and the
severity of extreme tides will hinge on atmospheric conditions. The worst - case - scenario
is a strong low- pressure storm approaching the California coastline from the Gulf of
Alaska coincident with an extreme tide, as in January of 1983 shown in Figure 1.
Proposal
We propose a study to evaluate whether and to what extent flooding of the Newport
Harbor area is likely to result from future extreme tides due to the coincidence of extreme
astronomical tides and storm induced sea level changes; and predicted flooding under this
scenario in addition to probabilistic increases in future sea level rise. A set of
hypothetical design tides will be developed to reflect a high, moderate and low
probability of occurrence. Then, a multidimensional hydrodynamic model will be applied
to simulate inundation likely to result from these tides.
It is expected that this study will support a number of activities that the City can pursue to
prepare for extreme tides, and incorporate into its Harbor Area Management Plan. In
terms of planning, the City may use the results of this study to prioritize improvements of
permanent or temporary sea defenses (bulk heads, seawalls, etc.) and drainage
infrastructure including pump stations, to assess whether the degree is flooding would
warrant evacuations, to effectively deploy and position emergency response staff, and to
assess the viability of critical transportation links (e.g., Newport Boulevard) for
emergency response.
The City recently made a substantial investment in a LiDAR terrain data, the best source
of remotely sensed terrain data for flood inundation studies. The proposed study would
provide added value to this substantial City investment.
The City has invested in other modeling studies to address coastal water quality and
habitat objectives. In particular, Everest International Consultants has applied RMA2 to
simulate tidal transport of urban runoff, and contaminants associated with urban runoff,
in Newport Bay. While the numerical methods adopted by RMA2 make it well suited for
tidal time -scale simulations of flow and contaminant transport, RMA2 is not well suited
for detailed, street -level simulations of flood inundation which is the aim of this study.
BreZo, on the other hand, is ideally suited for this task. .
The study will include the following tasks:
Mr. Robert Stein, P.E.
City of Newport Beach, Flood Vulnerability Study W�'
October 30, 2007
Page 3
_Task 1: Review and svnthesize terrain data sources. Accurate terrain data are crucial for
flood inundation modeling. Therefore, this study will begin with a review and synthesis
of terrain elevation data likely to be useful for this study including: (1) Bay bathymetry
data (land below water) collected by the US Army Corps of Engineers (2002, 2005), (2)
City of Newport Beach LiDAR terrain data (2006), (3) Upper Newport Bay LiDAR
terrain data collected by the US Army Corps of Engineers (2002), (4) Offshore
bathymetry data distributed by the NOAA Geophysical Data Center (NOAA/GDC)
bathymetry data and (5) coastline UDAR data distributed by NOAA Coastal Services
Center (NOAA/CSC).
These data are likely to adopt different datums and/or projections. In addition, the
coverage of these data sources is not presently clear. In this task, we will convert all data
to the California State Plane Coordinate System (Zone VI) using NAVD88 for vertical
control. Furthermore, we will review the coverage and accuracy of all data sources and
identify the most accurate data sources for the proposed modeling. This is expected to
include the recent City UDAR survey for above -water areas around the Bay and Corps
bathymetry data for the below -water areas of the Bay. A map will be prepared showing
the coverage and quality of relevant data sources.
Deliverable: Interim Report I describing the coverage, accessibility and quality of
terrain data for flood inundation modeling.
Task 2• Develop hypothetical design tides Records and reports on extreme tides in
California will be reviewed first, focusing on information relevant to Newport Harbor. A
set of design tides will then be developed to reflect a range of likelihoods based on a 25,
50 and 100 year planning horizon. The specifics of this have yet to be determined, but
one possibility is to take the tide record from January 28, 1983 tide as a base case, and to
add an uniform offset consistent with EPA sea level rise projections. By running the
flood inundation model several times using increasingly larger offsets, a range of
flooding scenarios will be depicted corresponding to decreasing probability.
Deliverable: Interim Report 2 presenting a set of design tides for subsequent flood
inundation modeling.
Task 3: Review of sea defense infrastructure Bulk heads protect several parts of Newport
Bay from high Bay levels. Knowledge of the extent of this infrastructure, as well as its
exact height, is essential for an accurate depiction of ocean flooding. In addition, a review
of drainage infrastructure will be needed to ascertain routes by which ocean flood waters
may bypass sea defenses (e.g., through storm drain system) and cause flooding. This task
will require support from City staff and involve a site visit around the perimeter of
Newport Harbor.
Deliverable: Interim Report 3 presenting an overview of sea defense infrastructure in
the Newport Harbor area.
Robert Stein, P.E.
City of Newport Beach, Flood Vulnerability Study �
October 30, 2007
Page 4
Task 4a: Prepare a computational Qrid for model simulations A model grid will be
prepared to support flood inundation modeling. The grid will adopt a variable resolution
that balances the demands for accuracy and computational efficiency. Large
computational cells will be used in deep water that is always flooded, and small
computational cells will be used in areas where inundation of normally dry land is
predicted. In addition, the model grid will be aligned with bulk heads and new modeling
techniques will be used to realistically simulate overtopping. The resolution of the grid
will be sufficient resolve surface flow along streets. Quality control checks will be made
to ensure that model predictions of flood zones are not grid dependent.
Task 4b: Perform flood simulations A 2D numerical model developed by Professor
Sanders, BreZo, will be applied to simulate flooding. The model has previously been
applied in a number of coastal and inland flow simulation applications, and there are a
number of published papers that validate its use. Electronic versions of Professor
Sanders' papers can be accessed from his university web page
hitp://aram.eniz.uci.edu/-bEs—/sanders2.htm] or a hard copy can be provided upon request.
In each simulation, flow conditions will be forced by two factors: the design tide and
storm water inputs from major tributaries that drain to the Bay. The model will assume
that all terrain is impermeable, implying no infiltration or drainage of flooding ocean
water into storm sewers. In addition, the model will not consider precipitation directly.
This approach will allow the model to isolate the impact of ocean levels on flooding. At a
future time, BreZo could be coupled to a City drainage model to see how readily ocean
Water flooding can be mitigated with existing infrastructure, or to design improvements
to the sewer infrastructure to better cope with ocean water flooding. However, these tasks
are outside the scope of the present study. An executable version of the flood model used
for this study will be provided to the City upon completion of the study to support
additional modeling if the need arises (e.g., simulations could be repeated with higher
bulk -head heights or a different design tide).
Task 4c• Prepare flood inundation maps corresponding to extreme tides. The results of
model simulations will be processed and distilled into a set of flood inundation maps.
These maps will depict regions of inundation corresponding to design tides of various
heights.
Deliverable: A Project Report incorporating the previous reports and presenting the
flood modeling methodology, flood modeling results, a discussion of the vulnerability
of the Newport harbor area to flooding, and recommendations for flood hazard
mitigation.
Project Timeline
Start Date November 12, 2007
Mr. Robert Stein, P.E.
City of Newport Beach, Flood Vulnerability Study
October 30, 2007
Task I completion and Interim Report t
Task 2 completion and Interim Report 2
Task 3 completion and Interim Report 3
Task 4 completion Draft Final Report
Task 5 (Meetings)
Project Cost
December 21, 2007
January 18, 2008
February 15, 2008
April 25, 2008
Page 5
The proposed project is not to exceed a cost of $43,680 including overhead. Invoices will
be submitted for time and materials upon the completion of each task.
Task
Hours
Rate (Dr. Sanders) Dr. Pohl
Task Total
1
40
$165
$6,600
2
40
$165
6,600
3
48
$165
7,920
4
120
$165
19,800
5
16
$165 $185
2.760
Total
$43,680
Please do not hesitate to call me at 760 -497 -3318 or Dr. Sanders at 949 - 824 -4327 with
any questions on this proposal.
Very truly yours,
Weston Solutions, Inc.
David H. Pohl, P.E., Ph.D.
cc: Dr. Sanders (UCI)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
WESTON SOLUTIONS
FOR HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this day of
2007, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal rporation
("City"), and WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. a Pennsylvania Corporation, whose address
is 2433 Impala Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92010 ("Consultant"), and is made with
reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now
being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of
City.
B. City is wishes to prepare a comprehensive plan to tackle many pressing issues in
Newport Harbor as well as in Upper Newport Bay.
C. City desires to engage Consultant to evaluate these issues and prepare a Harbor
Area Management Plan ("Project").
D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement.
E. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project shall be Dr. David
Pohl.
F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the
previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to
retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
94NkTJ
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall
terminate on the 31st day of December, 2008, unless terminated earlier as set
forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of
Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The
City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole
discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and
Consultant shall perform the services in accordance with the schedule included
in Exhibit B. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may
result in termination of this Agreement by City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays
due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of
any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby
agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed.
3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for
performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10)
calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a
delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may
grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are
beyond Consultant's control.
3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall
respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the
circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand -delivery or mail.
4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to -exceed
basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this
Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not
exceed Three Hundred Forty -Five Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars and
no/100 ($345,800.00) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate
changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior
written approval of City.
4.1 The City shall make progress payments monthly as the Project work
proceeds based on the percentage of Project work completed. The
Consultant shall furnish a summary breakdown of the Scope of Services
and budget for the Project in a format acceptable to the City, showing the
amount included therein for each principal category or task of the Project
work, in such detail as reasonably requested, to provide a basis for
determining progress payments. All requests for payment shall show the
2
percentage of work completed for each task of the Scope of Services, the
position and hours of each person who performed work under that task, a
brief description of the services performed under each task, and a
description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant
no later than thirty (30) days after approval by City staff of a request for
payment.
4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing
in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be
limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by
Consultant:
A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the
services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this
Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and
awarded in accordance with this Agreement.
B. Approved reproduction charges.
C. Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically
authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the
performance of this Agreement.
4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed
without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra
Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the
proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the
Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate
would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation
for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the
Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B.
5. PROJECT MANAGER
Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of
the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable
times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Dr. David Pohl to
be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project
Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement
personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of
non -key personnel.
Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its
personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City.
Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to
complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement.
3
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. Robert
Stein, P.E. shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act
for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized
representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be
rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this
Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable:
A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all
existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such
materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's
work schedule.
B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction
company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the
required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other
reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above.
C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards to new
facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated.
8. STANDARD OF CARE
8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's
supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and
technical personnel required to perform the services required by this
Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner
commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall
be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not
employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City.
8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever
nature that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession.
Consultant further represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at
its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or.obtain at all times during the
term of this Agreement, any and all licenses, permits, insurance and other
approvals that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession.
Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license
during the term of this Agreement.
8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be
responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by
reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City
M
to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's
work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or
governmental agencies.
9. HOLD HARMLESS
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and
hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents
and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties) from and against any and
all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage
to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits,
losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including,
without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind
and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims"), which may
arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any work negligently
performed or services provided under this Agreement (including, without
limitation, defects in workmanship or materials and/or design defects [if the
design originated with Consultant]) or Consultant's presence or activities
conducted on the Project (including the negligent and/or willful acts, errors
and/or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees,
vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or
indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of
them).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require
Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the
active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this
indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any
action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply
to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are
applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of
indemnification to be provided by the Consultant.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis
and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of
conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent
they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval
for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or
employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over
the means of performing the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with
the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give
City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to
exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant
shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services.
5
11. COOPERATION
Consultant agrees to work
Project Administrator and
interest in the work to be
Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
closely and cooperate fully with City's designated
any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or
performed. City agrees to cooperate with the
Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project
direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points
in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals
and policies.
13. PROGRESS
Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and/or his/her
duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and
progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that
have been scheduled or are desired.
14. INSURANCE
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement
of work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during
the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type
and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
A. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of
insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance
coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by
City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance or issuance
of any permit. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with
City's at all times during the term of this Agreement.
B. Signature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf shall sign certification of all required policies.
C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an
insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner
to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size
Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of
Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk
Manager.
D
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:
The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees,
agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with
respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of
the Consultant.
7
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to
City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents
and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising
directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services
provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any
self-insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess
insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided
hereunder.
iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as
though a separate policy had been written for each, except with
respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected
or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.
V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed
officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either
party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days
written notice of non-payment of premium) written notice has been
received by City.
F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from
Consultant's performance under this Agreement.
G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own
judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of
the work.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be
provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or
subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following
shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other
disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of
the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or
cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or cotenancy,
which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty
percent (50%) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25%) or more
of the assets of the corporation, partnership 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. Except as specifically authorized herein, the services to
be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned, transferred,
contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City.
17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing
produced (hereinafter "Documents"), prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of
implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and
City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further
compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's
expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request.
Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for
reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents
for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written
authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to
Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to
Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than
Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for
such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received
from Consultant written consent for such changes.
18. COMPUTER DELIVERABLES
CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer
or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant
shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with
(a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD
data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate
storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by
City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project
by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in
writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify
Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of
such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version
of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with
the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will
X
provide AutoCAD file of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be
transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and
Excel.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept
confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information.
20. OPINION OF COST
Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his/her
judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of
City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over
competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the
accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City.
21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers,
representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for
infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright
infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and
specifications provided under this Agreement.
22. RECORDS
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be
performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and
any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum
period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date
of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and
invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of
City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and
invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all
work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a
period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this
Agreement.
23. WITHHOLDINGS
City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction
of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be
deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement.
Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant
shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his/her designee
with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive
10
interest on any withheld sums at the rate of return that City earned on its
investments during the time period, from the date of withholding of any amounts
found to have been improperly withheld.
24. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional
inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what
would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work
accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and/or
restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is
intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement.
25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the
Project.
26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the
California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such
persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially
affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such
persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably
financially affect such interest.
If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act.
Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate
termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold
harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's
violation of this Section.
27. NOTICES
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of this
Agreement shall be given in writing, to City by Consultant and conclusively shall
be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after
the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class mail,
addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals
from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at:
Robert Stein
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: 949-644-3322
Fax: 949-644-3308
11
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
Dr. David Pohl
Weston Solutions
2433 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Phone: 760-931-8081
Fax: 760-931-1580
28. TERMINATION
In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of
this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be
deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not
cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar
days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting 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, 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.
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.
A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition
contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach
of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether
of the same or a different character.
12
31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or
nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations
and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal
agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein.
32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES
In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement
and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms
of this Agreement shall govern.
33. INTERPRETATION
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning
of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by
reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction
which might otherwise apply.
34. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document
executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
35. SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of
this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
36. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters
relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be
adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange.
37. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not
discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age.
13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY F N PORT --BEACH,
A n' 'p I Cor oration
Y:
Assistant City Attorney ayor
for the City of Newport Beach for the City of New ort each
ATTEST:
ByJiV16AW- //�A:�(&
-
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
CONSULTANT:
g y.�
(Corporate Officer)
Titley.
Print Name D QV. d 4 . h
By:
(Fina cial Officer)
Title: (;',
Print Name: 10- c�«e-I S4l°�
Attachments: Exhibit A - Scope of Services
Exhibit B - Schedule of Billing Rates
F:\Users\PBW\Shared\Agreements\FY 06-07\Weston - HAMP.doc
14
Weston Solutions, Inc.
IV,
2433 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
760-931-8081 • Fax 760-931-1580
www.westonsolutions. coin
Robert Stein, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
33.00 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Harbor Area Management Plan
Acceptance of Fee and Scope
Dear Mr. Stein:
April 30, 2007
Weston Solutions Inc. (Weston) agrees. to complete the scope of work as detailed in our
proposal under each of the tasks for the Harbor Area Management Plan for the not to
exceed fee of $345,800. The tasks include providing the needed services to the City of
Newport Beach for preparation of applicable grant application under Proposition 50,
Proposition 84 and the U.S. Department of Interior Coastal Impact Assistance Program.
In addition, the Weston Team will assist the City in outreach and marketing efforts for
your program.
Please call me at 760-795-6918 or 760-497-3318 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Weston Solutions, Inc.
David H. Pohl, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal'Project Manager
cc: A. Ventures
an employee -owned company
EXH.111 T A
3. Intended Approach
The Scope of Work includes the development of plans and reports that will be integrated into the Harbor
Area Management Plan (HAMP). The Project Team proposed for the development of these plans and HAMP
has the specific expertise and local working knowledge to develop the HAMP that will be the foundation for
the City to move forward with key sediment management, water quality, restoration and public use projects
critical in meeting several goals including:
• Meeting regulatory requirements as specified in the current and anticipated municipal permits,
sediment management permits, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and other regulatory programs
for Newport Bay
• Working toward a sustainable estuary ecosystem integrated with sustainable watershed and coastal
area systems
• Maintain the beneficial uses of the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and economic value of the Bay
Specifically, the Project Team provides you with the following key areas of expertise and local knowledge:
• Solid Experience in developing sediment and water quality -based management plans
• Technical team is in the forefront of contaminated sediment assessment, management and beneficial
use
• Strong existing relationships with USACE, CDFG, SWCRB, RWQCB, and local stakeholder groups
• Leader in regional sediment and water quality numerical modeling including within Newport Bay
• National engineering and scientific expertise in dredge material management
• Success in developing winning grant applications for multi -use embayment in Southern California
• The Team that can best integrate the plans prepared under this scope with ongoing activities in the
watershed, bay and coastal areas
into a strategic plan that serves as a
foundation for moving forward and
obtaining grant funding
With this expertise and knowledge, our
team has a solid understanding of the
Scope. We understand that the scope should
be based on previous studies, reports, data
and agency policies from which we will
develop our recommendations. Where data
gaps are identified, the Project Team will
recommend appropriate studies to best
address these needs, and define the policy,
protective measure or implementation
activities that are linked to the completion
of these studies.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
N
Our Project Team understands that this project is an integral part of the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay
Integrated Watershed Management Plan grant. The purpose of the grant is to identify and organize all of the
ongoing studies and programs, show the interrelationships of the studies, identify information gaps, and
weave all of this information into a single consensus plan and in an understandable format.
It is understood that the upper part of the San Diego Creek watershed is being addressed separately; however,
the Project Team for the HAMP will need to collaborate and coordinate with this other team to assure
consistency in the prioritization process for identified projects and the projects implementation timelines and
goals. This integration of the two plans will be important in setting the groundwork for the next round of
implementation grants.
The HAMP will therefore focus on the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and the integration of the various
components and issues of these two water bodies and identify the key goals and the activities to meet these
goals. The HAMP will provide a regional management guidance to best integrate the common goals of the
various watershed plans underway or planned.
Task 1— California Department of Fish and Game (DEF) Preliminary Management Plan
DFG has developed a Preliminary Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. This
document is of primary importance in guiding the DFG, the City of Newport Beach, and other stakeholders
in the long-term management of one of the most important ecological habitats in southern California. The
Task Leaders background and knowledge of Upper Newport Bay is key to completing this plan.
Mr. Rick Ware, Senior Marine Biologist with Coastal
t P Resources Management, Inc. will be the principal
investigator for this task. He is well qualified to lead this
task, with many years working directly with the
Department's Resource Managers for Upper Newport Bay.
He has extensive experience in providing consultation and
guidance in restoration issues of Upper Newport Bay,
including project manager/principal investigator for late
1970s -early 1980s biological studies conducted for the Irvine
Ranch Water Management District, conducting extensive
studies of the De Anza (Bayside) marsh peninsula in 1984,
and preparing water quality and biology sections of the
ACOE Upper Newport Bay Reconnaissance Study in 1992-1993 and identifying restoration areas for future
ACOS -funded dredging projects (which are being implemented during the current Upper Bay Restoration
Project). He prepared the Shellmaker Island Mitigation Plan for the Castaways Marina Project on Upper
Shellmaker Island (1993), assisted the DFG and the County of Orange in the restoration of Lower
Shellmaker Island Marsh (1994), and served as the City of Newport Beach's biological consultant for the
Upper Newport Bay Dredging Project Technical Advisory Committee 1998-2000). He was also responsible
for conducting biological studies and preparing the biological sections of the Back Bay Science Center
Negative Declaration and Demonstration Marsh Restoration Plan on Shellmaker Island between 2002-2005,
overseeing the construction of the Back Bay Science Center Demonstration Salt marsh, and conducting pre-
and-post construction marsh habitat monitoring (including salt marsh bird's beak) and conducting marsh
transplants for the project (2006-2007). Mr. Ware was the principal investigator for the benthic biological
and fishery sections of the Big Canyon Restoration Project Constraints Study (2003). He prepared the
biological addendum for the City's Local Coastal Plan (2002-2003), served as a member of the Restoration
Team for the Phase II Studies in Big Canyon (2006-2007), and conducted extensive eelgrass habitat mapping
and reconnaissance surveys throughout the Upper Newport Bay between the San Diego Creek and the PCH
Bridge.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
W
In addition, Mr. Ware has an extensive knowledge of gray and published scientific literature for Upper
Newport Bay and a working knowledge of the Upper Bay ecosystem that will be of substantial value when
reviewing the Management Plan and making recommendations for additional studies necessary for filling in
any Management Plan data gaps. To this end, Mr. Ware will be directly responsible for overseeing and
conducting the specific tasks identified for the Upper Newport Bay Management Plan. These include:
a. Attending a meeting with DFG and City staff to review the Plan and discuss the goals of the Plan.
b. As directed by DFG and the City, Mr. Ware will propose addenda to the Plan including a review of
work performed in Upper Newport Bay and make recommendations for additional biological
assessments, habitat restoration and public usage to meet the future needs of DFG and the City.
Based upon the results of Mr. Ware's review of the documents and discussions with the Department
and the City of Newport Beach staff, Mr. Ware will submit the addenda concepts to DFG and City
for review and comment. Where appropriate, Mr. Ware will seek the advice of qualified bay
researchers and scientists to insure that the recommendations are reasonable and attainable based
upon the goals of the DFG and the City for the long-term management of the Upper Bay. Upon a
thorough review of the document by the DFG and the City, Mr. Ware will revise and submit a final
addenda concept report.
d. Mr. Ware will attend a stakeholder meeting and present addenda concepts to the final Management
Plan. We understand that the level of effort will be in the range of 120-150 hours. Additional
revisions to the Preliminary Management Plan may be negotiated as an extra.
Coordination and negotiation to reach a consensus on the California Department of Fish and Game habitat
and conservation goals is critical to the success of the HAMP. The HAMP needs to reflect the consensus
goals of the stakeholders to ensure the projects address these goals and are fully supported in the grant
application. WESTON understands the importance of moving the process forward with a defined set of goals
with the California Department of Fish and Game who owns and manages most of the Upper Newport Bay
as a State Ecological Reserve. The Project Team will utilize our experience and working relationship with
DFG in developing a strategy for how the City can progress on the Management Plan for the Upper Newport
Bay Ecological Reserve.
One possible approach for achieving consensus that is being used on a restoration project managed by DEG
is the use of an ecosystem focus rather than specific species. WESTON is currently working on the
consultant team for the Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project which is undergoing development of
conceptual alternatives and reaching consensus with the stakeholders that include DFG and the California
Coastal Conservancy which owns the property. Success in moving forward on the alternatives with the
stakeholders is based on an ecosystem focus rather than on specific species. By focusing the restoration on
the development of a sustainable ecosystem consisting of multiple habitats that can support long-term diverse
biological communities, the alternative development has been able to progress forward by presenting a
defined range of potential habitats and restoration efforts, and away from a possible contentious effort on
selecting alternatives based on specific species. By working toward a common goal of sustainable diverse
biological communities, supporting goals such as protecting endangered species are also met.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
10
Task 2 — Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan
This task includes the assessment and development of recommendations for the management of sediment
inflows and sediment disposal frequencies for the Upper Newport Bay sediment basins. It is understood that
the current Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project will be completed within 2 years at which
time the City will be responsible for the maintenance of sediment basins. The Project Team will review any
interim documents for the Ecosystem Restoration Projects to assess the maintenance needs with regard to
sediment removal.
Hydrodynamic (RMA2) and sediment transport (RMA 11) models have been developed for the Upper
Newport Bay in support of the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study conducted by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The models have been calibrated and a methodology has been developed
to use the models for long-term simulation of
sediment transport. As part of the Ecosystem
Restoration Feasibility Study, the models have been
applied to simulate long-term (50 years) sediment
transport at Upper Newport Bay for the future
without project condition, as well as to simulate 15 -
years into the future for six ecosystem restoration
alternatives. The model results provide the change
in sedimentation (erosion or deposition) at Upper
Newport Bay in 5 -year intervals. The WESTON
Team will review these model simulation results to
evaluate potential sedimentation issues to develop a
Sediment Control Plan with respect to maintenance
needs and disposal frequencies in the future.
The Project Team will also identify additional sediment controls that could be implemented which would
minimize the cost for maintaining the inbay sediment basins. This assessment would include the review of
current source controls and pollution prevention measures in the watershed to address sedimentation.
Increased effort in these measures may reduce the frequency of sediment removal in the basins. Information
on the effectiveness of the current SUSMP and City Codes on reducing sediment loads will also be assessed
and recommendation made on modifications as appropriate. Integration of the sediment controls in planned
watershed projects will also be evaluated to further reduce sediment loads and consolidate maintenance
activities and facilities by addressing multiple constituents of concern.
The recommendations on the sediment inflow, maintenance of the inbay basins and the implementation of
additional sediment control measures will be summarized in the draft Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan.
Comments received by the City on the draft will be incorporated into the final plan.
Task 3 — Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
WESTON team member Everest has extensive experience in the development and application of
hydrodynamic and water quality models specifically for Newport Bay. In the last five years, Everest has
developed and applied hydrodynamic and water quality models to evaluate tidal circulation and water quality
issues at Newport Dunes Lagoon and Newport Island Channels, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of a
proposed dry weather storm drain diversion program for the City. Through these studies, Everest has
developed a calibrated hydrodynamic model for the entire Newport Bay and Harbor. As part of the ASBS
Cross -Contamination study, Everest is currently using hydrodynamic and water quality models to identify
potential sources and impacts of pollutant discharges from the watershed and harbor to the three ASBS areas
along the Newport Coast.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
11
Everest will utilize this local hands-on experience in identifying the most compatible and efficient models
that can address water quality issues, as well as predicting sediment depositions throughout Upper and Lower
Newport Bay. To achieve this, Everest will review other prior numerical modeling studies for Newport Bay
and the hydrodynamic and water quality data collected to support these modeling efforts. Each modeling
study will be reviewed for items such as focus area, model used (e.g., RMA2 or SED213), model type (e.g.,
2D or 3D hydrodynamic model), simulated constituents (e.g., salinity, sediment, bacteria or other
constituents), hydrodynamic data used, and water quality data used. Prior numerical studies that will be
reviewed include the hydrodynamic and sediment transport model studies conducted for the USACE Upper
Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study.
In addition to the above mentioned models for Newport Bay, other hydrodynamic and water quality models
commonly used by public agencies in addressing water quality, sediment transport and TMDL issues will be
identified and reviewed for application for Newport Bay. The Team will consult with the City of Newport
Beach, the Technical Advisory Committee established for this study and other relevant stakeholders to
establish the goals and objectives for model applications for Newport Bay. Based on the identified model
goals and objectives, model evaluation criteria will be selected and recommendation on whether
enhancement of existing models (e.g. additional model calibration or expansion of model components to one
of the existing models for Newport Bay) or the development of new model(s) will be made based on the
evaluation criteria in selecting the most appropriate model to suit the water quality and sedimentation model
needs for Newport Bay.
Everest has recently completed the Dominguez Channel Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Study (Study)
funded by a Proposition 13 Grant for the Port of Los Angeles. The primary purpose of the Study was to
develop a calibrated and verified hydrodynamic and water quality model for the Dominguez Channel
Estuary. The Dominguez Channel Estuary Model (DCEM) will be used by the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) for future TMDL development and implementation within the Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Area (Harbor Area). One of the most important components of the DCEM
was the selection of the hydrodynamic and water quality model(s). A two-phase selection process was
utilized to select the most appropriate model(s) for the DCEM. The first phase consisted of an initial
screening of potential models. The second phase consisted of an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses
of the screened models. These include the comparison of models for their: 1) mathematical formulation, 2)
numerical methods, 3) watershed model interfacing, 4) model applicability, 5) model availability and 6)
public acceptance.
Everest will use the DCEM experience for this study in the evaluation and election of the most efficient
model(s) for Newport Bay. In addition, based on the model goals and objectives, and data availability, a list
of data requirements for the recommended modeling enhancements or the development of a new model will
be prepared. The list will focus on critical data need for model calibration and validation, as well as data
needed in establishing loading input and model setup for various model applications.
A report documenting the model identification, model evaluation, data gaps and recommendation will be
submitted to the City for review and comment. After receiving comments from the City, a final
recommendation on model selection will be made. We may also prepare interim submittals such as technical
memorandum on model selection and evaluation and data gap report if needed.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
12
Task 4 — Eelgrass Capacity Recommendations
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a key component of the Newport Bay ecosystem that functions as a nursery
habitat and foraging habitat for many species of invertebrates, fishes, and seabirds. Its importance as a
biological resource however conflicts in part with City, County, State, and the Federal Government's goals,
needs, and responsibility to maintain navigational waterways and harbor -related infrastructure such public
beaches, piers, docks, and bulkheads. Consequently, it is critical that the City has an understanding of (1) the
amount of eelgrass that historically has occurred in the Bay (2) how eelgrass acreage has varied over time
through natural variation and human -induced changes (3) environmental regulations and policies governing
development in Newport Bay relative to eelgrass disturbance, loss, mitigation and the long-term potential for
establishing eelgrass mitigation banks in Newport Bay; and (4) long-term eelgrass issues related to the City's
and private citizens' capability to maintain and upgrade harbor infrastructure as well as maintain a safe
navigational waterway for boaters.
Mr. Rick Ware, senior marine biologist with Coastal Resources Management, Inc. will be the principal
investigator for this task. He has over 25 years of hands-on experience in conducting intertidal and
underwater eelgrass ecological studies, eelgrass habitat mapping, and preparing environmental assessments
of harbor infrastructure projects for private clients, engineering firms, and public sector clients between San
Diego and Morro Bay. Many of these projects deal specifically with the Lower and Upper Newport Bay
ecosystem, including small-scale mapping and environmental assessments, pre-and-post construction
monitoring for private -sector specific -infrastructure
projects (docks, dredging, and bulkheads), eelgrass
transplants, as well as bay -wide investigations for the
City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He was co -principal
investigator along with Dr. Noel Davis for the
USACE pilot experimental eelgrass transplant
project at six locations in Lower and Upper Newport
Bay (2003), and the principal investigator for the
City's first bay -wide GIS eelgrass mapping studies
(2003-2004) that have greatly assisted the City's
harbor resource managers and the public (through the
City's website) to directly determine the potential
presence of eelgrass throughout the bay.
As a follow up to the 2003-2004 studies, CRM, Inc.
is currently under contract to the City of Newport
Beach to conduct the second bay -wide eelgrass mapping project for the City of Newport Beach, following a
period of heavy rains and observable die -back of eelgrass compared to the 2003 studies. As part of this study,
CRM will also be conducting a second set of eelgrass pilot restoration transplants for the City of Newport
Beach in spring 2007 to determine if locations within Lower Newport Bay can function as future eelgrass
mitigation banking areas. He is intimately familiar with the Coastal Commission and the Army Corps of
Engineers regulations and policies regarding impacts to eelgrass, mitigation for losses, monitoring survey
requirements, and mitigation and long-term restoration of eelgrass habitats.
Consequently, Mr. Ware will be the principal investigator overseeing this task. Mr. Ware and his staff will:
a. Review the history of eelgrass (both in acreage of habitat, quality of habitat, changes in acreage over
time, and changes in regulations/mitigation policies over time) in Newport Bay. Mr. Ware currently
has an extensive library of gray literature dealing with this issue, a working relationship with the
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
13
City's Harbor Resources Division, the County of Orange, DFG, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMSF) which will result in a cost-efficient review. He has also conducted many of the site-
specific dock -related construction projects in Newport Bay, and is aware of the potential and actual
types of impacts, and their areal effect on eelgrass bed resources associated with the project impacts
of eelgrass located within 15' of private and commercial dock facilities. CRM will examine and
comment on the 1991 Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and its development pursuant
to the Magnuson -Stevens Act. CRM will be able to aptly critque the experimental eelgrass
restoration project conducted by the City in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) due to our extensive involvement in the project. It should be noted that this project was an
experimental pilot eelgrass transplant project, and not designed to be a full scale project. With that in
mind, CRM will review and critique the results of the experimental project and the potential to create
future, additional eelgrass mitigation areas within the Newport Bay system.
b. CRM will prepare a summary report of eelgrass related issues for the City and regulators. This report
will address impacts to dredging, minimum threshold capacity for essential fish habitat, current
eelgrass mitigation requirements, adequacy of scientific eelgrass studies, and other related issues.
CRM will also review and prepare a section that details innovative transplant methods, innovative
designs for docks related to decreasing the effects of structure shading on eelgrass habitats that have
been successfully used to reduce infrastructure impacts on eelgrass habitats in other ports and
harbors along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
As an option to this task, CRM will review and evaluate the applicability of the Eelgrass Restoration
Site Selection Model (Short et al. 2002) for use in site selection of Newport Bay eelgrass restoration
sites. This model encompasses several phases. The first phase uses available environmental
information to formulate a preliminary transplant suitability index (PTSI) for pre-screening and
eliminating unsuitable sites; (2) the second phase involves field measurements of light availability
and bioturbation as well as survival and growth of test transplants at priority sites identified by the
PTSI; (3) a transplant suitability index (TSI) score is calculated for each site based on the PTSI and
the results of field measures. The TSI is a multiplicative index that eliminates sites which receive
ratings of zero and gives high scores to those sites with the greatest potential for successful
transplantation.
c. CRM will coordinate with NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"), US Fish and
Wildlife Service (US FWS) and DFG to determine and recommend a Newport Bay -specific
threshold for eelgrass that is essential for fish habitat. This report will be based on harbor -wide
mapping efforts being prepared by the City and other relevant scientific information regarding
eelgrass ecosytem structure and function. The resulting report will include recommendations based
on best -available scienific data and the professional opinions of researchers, resource managers, and
agency scientists. CRM will provide three hard copies of a summary report and one digital copy of
the report to the City for review and comments.
Based upon a mutually agreeable time frame, CRM will revise the summary report per comments submitted
and submit a final report. Five hard copies and one digital copy of the report will be submitted to the City.
At all steps in this task, WESTON biologists will assist CRM by providing input on the report generation and
in developing the recommendations therein. Additionally, WESTON will review all draft documents and
oversee the production of the final report. WESTON biologists have conducted numerous eelgrass and surf
grass surveys, transplants and assessments throughout the southern California region. These projects have
been carried out in San Diego Bay, Ventura Harbor and Santa Barbara.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
14
�l
SC3LUTITiDNS
Task 5 — Contaminated Sediment Study
Sediment management activities in Newport Bay include the dredging in support of maintaining navigable
waterways, docks, and bulkheads, as well as the placement of sediment for beach replenishment and habitat
restoration. An understanding of the potential for sediment contamination is necessary to ensure that projects
are successful, biologically viable and meet regulatory requirements. WESTON has over 20 years of
in sampling, testing, and evaluating sediments and over 10 years experience evaluating
sediments in both Lower and Upper Newport Bay. We will use this experience and knowledge to conduct a
thorough review of sediment contamination issues and determine critical data gaps that may affect the City's
ability to manage sediment effectively. -
WESTON (formerly MEC Analytical Systems, y
Inc.) has supported the City's sediment
management activities related to the Regional "
General Permit for small projects, as well as the
City and USACE's efforts to dredge the Federal
Channels in Lower Newport Bay and characterize
material for the Upper Newport Bay restoration
program. WESTON performed sediment
evaluations in 1998, 2000-2001, 2002-2003, and
2005. These surveys included chemical analysis and.
biological testing that evaluated the potential for
sediment toxici and bioaccumulation of chemical ,- this `
tY =peruse Incudes a"Nationally
residues. These studies also addressed potentially
ffoxicity Laborato
confounding factors associated with sediment -- --
toxicity testing. In general, metals, organotins, and most priority pollutant organics were found at relatively
low concentrations (i.e., below the effects range -median [ER -M] sediment quality values). Total DDT and
Hg have been observed in some locations at concentrations that exceed the ER -M. However, in each case the
observed concentrations have not been positively correlated to responses in biological tests and have not
been observed at significant levels in clam or worm tissues. Toxicity has been observed in the amphipod
toxicity tests with sediment from some areas of Lower Newport Bay. In 2005, WESTON was able to
demonstrate that some of the amphipod responses were likely due to the high percentage of fines in the
sediment, and not sediment -associated contaminants. Recent testing by WESTON and the Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project indicate that there may be some additional sources of toxicity,
such as chemical groups that are not part of the EPA priority pollutant list (such as other organic pesticides).
WESTON will evaluate data collected by WESTON, SCCWRP, Orange County, the City, and others for
trends in chemical contamination in sediments and sediment toxicity. As part of our review for the City, we
will use our knowledge of biological testing to identify potential data gaps including an assessment of
whether historical test results may have been affected by factors other than sediment associated
contaminants. Where appropriate WESTON will suggest potential additional studies and the use of refined
testing methodologies to more accurately delineate areas showing toxicity.
To meet the City's needs, WESTON has a state-of-the-art toxicology laboratory with more than 5,000 square
feet of laboratoryac
;'� ffldl. Our Carlsbad laboratory is certified for toxicity testing by both California and
Washington State. It is one of only a handful of toxicity testing laboratories in the U.S. to be nationally
accredited under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP — accreditation
#01113CA).
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
15
Dr. David Moore leads Carlsbad's bioassay laboratory as well as all sediment contamination and toxicity
studies at WESTON. He is a recognized expert in the field of dredged material and contaminated sediment
assessment. He was directly involved in the development of both The Green Book and ITM and has practical
experience conducting evaluations, sampling, and testing under this guidance. Dr. Moore has presented at
numerous national and international conferences and has published over 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals.
Dr. Moore currently serves on the State sediment quality guidelines advisory committee to the SWRCB. He
is highly experienced in Newport Bay's sediment contamination issues, having been Project Principal for
dredged material evaluations as part of previous Newport Bay studies for the USACE-LA district.
In previous investigations of Newport Bay, WESTON has found that use of standard sediment testing
protocols may have resulted in false positives due to factors other than sediment associated contaminants
(e.g., sediment grain size distribution and seasonality of wild caught test organisms). Consequently it is
important to consider such factors in the design and implementation of sediment testing programs to ensure
accurate and cost effective assessment of potential sediment contamination issues. The extensive
involvement of WESTON's principal investigators and sediment contamination experts, Drs. David Moore
and Jack Word in key sediment -related issues potentially affecting the City now and in the future (i.e.,
development of sediment quality objectives for State of California, ongoing revisions to the Inland and
Ocean Testing Manuals, and other emerging technical and policy issues at the local, regional, and national
level) will enable WESTON to provide the City with the best recommendations on the design and
implementation of sediment removal and remediation studies for the City's review and approval.
WESTON is very familiar with previous work by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
(SCCWRP), indicating elevated levels of Cu, Hg, Zn, and DDTs and reduced amphipod survival and sea
urchin fertilization in sediment toxicity tests in several areas of Newport Bay. In a subsequent study by
University of California Davis's Granite Canyon Lab, results from sediment toxicity identification
evaluations (TIEs) suggested that synthetic pyrethroid insecticides may be responsible for some of the
observed sediment toxicity in Upper Newport Bay: Pyrethroids are newly emerging contaminants of concern
in sediment evaluations as a consequence of the State mandated replacement of Diazinon with Bifenthrin and
other related pyrethroid insecticides. These results may have some relevance to toxicity previously measured
in other parts of Newport Bay.
WESTON's experience in the evaluation of beneficial use alternatives for dredged material as part of
programs for the Pacific Division of the US Navy and for the Port of Los Angeles will enable us to provide
the City with the best recommendations for remediation and disposal of sediment from Newport Bay.
Previous studies in the Rhine Channel have indicated that chemicals including cadmium, copper, lead,
mercury, zinc, total DDTs, and total PCBs, exceeded sediment quality values and TMDL target levels in the
Rhine Channel, as the result of years of industrial discharge and stormwater to this area. Because of the
contamination, and the need to maintain or deepen the channel, many remediation alternatives are not
feasible (i.e., capping); one recommended alternative has been to dredge and place material in an upland
landfill disposal. WESTON will review and evaluate sediment management alternatives such as ocean
disposal, beach nourishment, upland landfill placement, and daily cover based on sediment contamination
levels and grain size distributions within specified areas, and provide the City with recommended options or
additional studies, where necessary. WESTON will also evaluate the potential use of monitored natural
attenuation, engineering methods (e.g., capping, sediment sumps, etc.) and technologies (e.g., use
hydrocyclone for sand separation) for improved cost effective and sustainable management of materials from
the harbor.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 16
SOLUr1C7NS
Task 6 — Dredging Requirements Study
WESTON understands the importance of preparing a comprehensive dredging requirements study that will
incorporate a management plan to maintain, in an economically and environmentally sound manner, the
channels and berthing areas necessary for navigation in the Lower Bay. Our extensive experience in dredging
projects and dredged material management planning for the federal, state, and local government sectors gives
us a thorough understanding of the many issues encountered when selecting methods for dredging and
dredged material placement.
WESTON's approach will begin with an overview of goals and objectives, existing data and operating
assumptions, which frame the basis for the identification of the frequencies, methods, and costs for the
dredging and material placement. The Team will review available documents that have evaluated dredging
methods and costs for Lower Bay that include the Rhine Channel Feasibility Study and Alternatives
Evaluation. We will review the costs, dredging methods and recommended remedial alternatives (i.e.,
dredging with upland landfill disposal, nearshore confined disposal, or confined aquatic disposal) provided
and evaluate the application to other areas of the Lower Bay. Other relevant documents related to costs and
dredging will be reviewed such as those related to chemical contamination in sediment, sediment deposition,
hydrographic condition surveys performed by the
M - - -- - - ----
Army Corps of Engineers, and models
demonstrating sediment transport in Newport
Bay, in order to provide the City with both
priority dredging and long-term strategies for
maintenance dredging activities in Lower Bay.
11 IT-
A. Dredging Frequencies
Developing a projected dredging -
quantities table for all project areas is ai °
critical element of the dredging
requirements study. Historical shoaling ;.
rates, past dredging events, usage data,
and adding non -pay overdepth amounts
and contingencies (i.e., storm events) will be used to develop a practical guide for planning and
prioritizing dredging projects throughout the Lower Bay. The Project Team has prepared numerous
documents that include this type of long-range planning. Our most recent efforts include the Los
Angeles Regional Dredge Material Management Plan (DMMP) Report and the Baltimore Harbor
and Channels DMMP prepared for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The Baltimore DMMP included a
20 -year dredging plan for a total of 29 different channels, reaches, anchorages, and private berths
with a projected quantity of nearly 120,000,000 CY.
B. Dredging & Placement Methods
The most appropriate dredging and dredged material placement method for each proposed project
will be developed while considering many factors. These factors include physical constraints of the
dredging area, water depth, sediment characteristics (physical and chemical), regulatory dredging
windows, environmental impacts (e.g. turbidity, Essential Fish Habitat, etc.), distance to placement
site, applicability for beneficial use, and budgetary constraints. These factors would be used when
selecting the type and size of the dredge, along with the method of material transportation and
placement. WESTON evaluated 71 different dredging/placement alternatives during the preparation
of the Baltimore Harbor DMMP. Everest evaluated environmental impacts from dredging alternative
for the Los Angeles Regional DMMP.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
17
1
r
•� � SOLUT ONS
C. Dredging & Placement Costs
WESTON will work closely with the City of Newport Beach to develop the best dredging plan that
meets the goals and objectives of the Harbor Area Management Plan while maximizing
environmental benefit and minimizing costs. WESTON's estimating experience and knowledge of
the dredging industry will ensure the preparation useful estimates that can be used for budget
planning and the identification of cost-sharing opportunities (e.g., the implementation of a beneficial
use alternatives may introduce cost-sharing partners into the project). WESTON has prepared
estimates at many levels of a dredging project, including planning, design, and construction.
The Team will also use WESTON's Washington D.C. Government Relations office to identify
funding sources. WESTON routinely monitors the annual appropriations process to provide our
clients with current funding status on Civil Works projects. We are aware the Administration
requested $9 million for the Surfside -Sunset -Newport Beach project in the FY 2008 U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Operations and Maintenance budget submission. Further the Corps is still in the
process of finalizing their FY 2007 program as directed by Congress in the FY 2007 Continuing
Resolution. We expect this to be complete and submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees by March 15, 2007. Once they provide this to the Committees, we will able to identify
the funding level proposed by the Corps for FY 2007. However, based on the House and Senate
Committee reports For FY 2007, it is anticipated that approximately $1.2 million will be available
for Newport to use for maintenance dredging. Our Government Relations Office will confirm
whether this is in the Corps work plan when it is provided to the Committees. We will continue to
assist the City of Newport in tracking reliable sources of funding for dredging projects in the Bay.
WESTON understands the issues and challenges, including dredging and dredged material management,
associated with developing a comprehensive plan for the protection and management of Newport Bay. We
believe we can provide a technical approach for dredging and dredged material management that is effective,
adaptable, and sustainable for the public areas of the Lower Bay.
Task 7 — Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines Study
During and immediately following initial construction of Newport Bay, the federal government, through the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, established harbor lines and pierhead lines (collectively referred to as "the
lines"). The harbor lines define the federal navigation channel dredging limits while the pierhead lines
establish limits on how far piers can extend into Bay waters. These two sets of lines are important for
maintaining safe navigation conditions throughout Newport Bay.
The lines have not been adjusted since initial establishment. Newport Bay has been altered extensively since
the time the lines were established and there have been changes in harbor uses during this time as well. For
example, the type, size, and distribution of vessels within Newport Bay have changed over time to reflect
changes in the market and the needs of boat owners/operators. In addition, changes in policy and regulations
at the federal, state, and local (City of Newport Beach and County of Orange) level have resulted in a
different baseline condition from that considered at the time the lines were initially established.
WESTON team member Everest worked on the preliminary assessment of the lines as part of the Mariner's
Mile Walkway Waterfront Development Project. For that project, the City was interested in studying the
feasibility of constructing a walkway that ran next to the water along the Mariner's Mile portion of Newport
Bay. In addition, the project would have included the modification or replacement of the existing dock
system.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
18
As part of that feasibility study, Everest worked with City staff to identify several issues related to the lines
such as the need to relocate the lines to accommodate the new dock system, requirement to assess existing
impacts to the pierhead line (e.g., overhang due to vessel rafting), and potential impacts to emergency (e.g.,
fire department) vessel access. The experience gained from this preliminary assessment will be put to use by
the WESTON Team in developing and implementing an effective strategy to address harbor line and
pierhead line needs throughout Newport Bay.
Based on prior experience in identifying harbor line and pierhead line issues within Newport Bay as well as
experience in performing policy review for several state agencies (California Department of Boating and
Waterways and California State Coastal Conservancy), the WESTON Team proposes the following approach
to identify and address issues related to the harbor lines and pierhead lines throughout Newport Bay.
A. Identify harbor and pierhead lines
The City's GIS database will be obtained and reviewed to identify the location and orientation of the
harbor lines and pierhead lines. Any data gaps will be identified to focus future data review performed
under this task. Deliverable: Harbor and pierhead line map
B. Review harbor and pierhead line development
City policies, regulations, and procedures will be obtained and reviewed, along with similar information
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Navigation Section) and County of Orange, to track the
historical development of the lines. Recent information including proposed revisions to Title 17 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and proposed Harbor Commission activities, will also be obtained and
reviewed to develop an understanding of existing conditions and issues. This information will be used to
identify the functions of the lines, including the identification of areas where the original functions are no
longer being met or are no longer relevant (e.g., due to development changes that have eliminated the
original purpose). Deliverable: Harbor and pierhead line development summary
C. Identify existing and future harbor uses
A list of existing and potential future harbor uses will be prepared for Newport Bay. Existing information
(e.g., maps and brochures) will be obtained from the City and reviewed for information on existing uses.
A site visit will be conducted to verify documented uses and identify undocumented uses that might be
relevant to the completion of this task. Future uses will be assessed through consultation with staff from
the City, County, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to identify future activities, projects, programs, and
visions for Newport Bay. Deliverable: Existing and future use summary (map as appropriate)
D. Develop opportunities and constraints
The existing and future uses will be compared to the various functions of the lines to identify
opportunities and constraints. A matrix (or two matrices) will be assembled that identifies: (i)
opportunities and constraints related to the conduct of existing harbor uses (e.g., maintenance dredging)
with existing lines and (ii) opportunities and constraints related to the conduct of potential future harbor
uses (e.g., Mariner's Mile Waterfront Development) with existing lines. Deliverable: Opportunities and
constraints matrix
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 19
E. Prepare recommendations.
The opportunities and constraints will be used to develop a set of recommendations for changing the
existing lines to match existing and future harbor uses. In addition, a set of recommendations may be
developed for modifying existing and future harbor uses to better match the functions of the existing
lines. These recommendations will be reviewed to prepare a strategy involving a mixture of changes to
the lines and modification of harbor uses to provide an optimum approach for the City. Deliverable:
Recommendations list
F. Prepare a draft report
A draft report documenting the findings and recommendations of this task will be submitted to the City
for review and comment. Deliverable: Draft report
G. Prepare a final report.
The draft report will be revised based on comments and edits submitted by the City and a meeting will be
held to review the major findings and recommendations. Deliverable: Final report
H. Prepare an implementation plan
An implementation plan will be prepared that outlines the steps necessary to implement the strategy
presented in the final report. The implementation plan will include a time -sequenced, flow chart of the
actions and decisions needed to achieve the changes presented in the final report. The implementation
plan will also include time estimates for each action and decision. This effort will be conducted in close
coordination with City staff such that reasonable time estimates are developed for actions and decisions,
most of which will be under the control of the City. Deliverable: Implementation plan
Task 8 — Water Quality Best Management Practices Report
The approach to the development of the Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMP) Report includes
the identification of ongoing and development of recommended BMPs that address the regulatory drivers and
restoration goals. These BMPs need to be prioritized to provide the City with a strategic plan for the
implementation based on TMDLs schedules, available resources and funding opportunities. The HAMP will
include this strategic plan based on the lists, recommendations and reports prepared under this task.
The identification and assessment of BMPs currently being implemented to reduce pollutants entering the
Upper and Lower Bay needs to consider not only those ongoing and planned within Newport Bay, but also in
the watershed and adjacent coastal areas. An integrated approach is needed in the assessment of BMPs that
considers those priority rated pollutants that have been identified for the watershed, Upper Bay, Lower Bay
and adjacent coastal areas based on regulatory drivers linked to beneficial uses. An integrated approach
considers both current and anticipated priority rated pollutants to assure that BMPs are designed to address or
accommodate future reduction requirements without expensive retro -fits. High priority pollutants are
identified through the review of existing water and sediment quality data compared to applicable quality
criteria and associated beneficial use, and the requirements of current and anticipated TMDLs, municipal
storm water permit, sediment management programs and Ocean Plan exception process. Potential high
priority pollutants for the watershed, bay, and coastal area are presented in the following figure and the
associated regulatory drivers/programs.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
20
This identification of the high priority pollutants is the first step in the prioritization process for identifying
priority BMPs. This prioritization process is outlined in the figure that follows. The prioritization of BMPs is
critical for developing the HAMP to allow the City to effectively implement management measures as
resources are made available. A priority list of BMPs provides a planning tool from which projects can be
identified in annual budgets and for grant applications. The State's funding programs specifically require a
management plan that identifies priority projects. The management plan should drive the funding request not
the grant process.
Prioritization Process for the Implementation of BMPs
This prioritization process includes a review of the Regional Water Quality Board's list of beneficial uses
established for Newport Bay. As shown in the previous figure, Step 5 includes evaluation of BMPs that can
also meet restoration long-term goals.
The HAMP will use the lists and recommended BMPs developed and prioritized in this task to develop a
Strategic Plan for the City for the implementation of BMPs in a balanced manner considering the established
beneficial uses for Newport Bay.
WESTON will utilize our experience completing a 5 -year Watershed Activity Implementation Strategic Plan
for the six watersheds in the City of San Diego. We developed this strategic plan using an integrated
approach that addressed multiple pollutants and various regulatory requirements under the municipal permit,
water and sediment TMDLs, Ocean Plan and restoration programs. Priority BMP projects were identified
that addressed multiple constituents (bacteria, sediment, metals, pesticides and nutrients) and regulatory and
restoration programs. Conceptual BMPs designs and costs were developed to provide the City with a
management tool to develop annual budget and identify priority projects for funding opportunities.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
22
The components of the Strategic -Plan included:
• Prioritization Strategy
• Implementation Strategy and Activity Prioritization
• Required Permit and TMDL Potential Watershed Activities
• Potential Watershed Activities Location Maps
• Effectiveness Monitoring Plan
As part of this task, the Project Team will consult with the California Coastal Commission's Clean and
Green Boating Campaign to develop a list of recommended BMPs for boat and dock maintenance, cleaning
and construction. The Clean and Green Campaign has a number of education and outreach tools and
programs that will be reviewed and assessed for implementation in Newport Bay. These include:
• Dock walker Education Program
• Clean Boating Publications
• Changing Tide Newsletter
• California Clean Marina Toolkit
• Education of Marine Supply shops
• California Clean Boating Network
The recommended list of BMPs will be submitted to the City for review and comments. The report will also
include proposed monitoring and/or enforcement mechanism for on -water enforcement of BMPs for boaters.
These mechanisms will be developed in consultation with the California Coastal Commission's Clean and
Green Boating Campaign which developed a number of tools as listed above that includes a dock walker
program that may be used as part of an effective boater BMP program. The success of these programs will be
identifying the barriers for compliance and strategies for overcoming these barriers to change behaviors. The
Project Manager, David Pohl, has undergone training using the Social Marketing approach to effectively
implementing water quality education and outreach programs. This approach has proven effective in the
implementation and success of resource management public campaigns that aim to not just change awareness
but the behavior of the public to achieve conservation and pollution reduction goals.
The Project Team will further use our experience in the evaluation of pollution sources from marinas and
assessment of appropriate management action to develop the recommended list of BMPs. This experience
includes providing support to the Port of Los Angeles associated with the Dominguez Channel and Los
Angeles Harbors TMDL for Bacteria, as well as, the TMDL for toxicity. As part of the support to the
Implementation Plan, WESTON reviewed and made recommendations to municipal ordinances for sidewalk
washing and facility maintenance. This support included providing specific recommendations for reducing
pollutant loading associated with marina and dock area maintenance and activities in ensure best
management practices for pollutant reduction were incorporated into Port policy and tenant lease agreements.
WESTON conducted a bacteria source tracking study at Marina del Rey in Los Angeles to identify source
and loading of bacteria throughout the marina. These finding were the basis for implementation of
management measures to meet TMDL load reductions.
Task 9 - Regional General Permits (RGP)
The Regional General Permit, under which the City carries out maintenance and improvements in Newport
Bay, has a five-year term, meaning that the City needs to go through a costly, time-consuming, and possibly
uncertain renewal process every five years. The City has expressed a desire to streamline this process to the
extent feasible, including by extending the permit's term to ten years. The WESTON team will address this
task in two steps. First, we will meet with the key parties to review past renewal processes. From City staff
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
23
we will assemble the history of the current permit conditions and discuss obstacles and challenges they faced.
From the Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch (South Coast) staff we will review the concerns,
pressures, and policies behind the current permit language and explore their concerns relative to renewals.
In the second step we will prepare a draft report recommending a strategy for future permit renewals. We
expect the strategy to include a pre -application meeting with the Regulatory Branch at which the current
permit would be reviewed and a concept for sediment testing in support of the new permit would be agreed
on. The City would urge the Corps to accept the existing permit's structure and conditions — we note that as
worded it appears to cover every contingency and to give the Regulatory Branch considerable control over
any activities, so there would seem to be no need for additional conditions. The strategy would include a
template for a sampling and analysis plan, recommendations for the sampling strategy (stations, chemical
constituents, toxicity tests, etc.) and a proposed procedure for obtaining the Corps' approval of the plan.
Finally, the report would include a proposed schedule for the renewal process that would ensure that the
process is completed as efficiently as possible before the current permit's expiration date.
WESTON's effort will include exploring the possibility of extending the permit term to ten years. There are
many sound reasons for such an approach, including the comprehensiveness of the current permit and the
amount of flexibility that is built into it. Nevertheless, that effort does face an uphill battle: in recent
discussions on another project, South Coast staff indicated that the five-year term for RGPs is a firm policy
of the Los Angeles District. WESTON will identify the elements of such an effort, which would probably
entail high-level discussions with District management, and will prepare the rationale to support the effort.
Task 10 — Beach Replenishment Projects
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the State of
California (State), and various local governments and non-
governmental agencies in California have collaborated to
create tools for the purpose of regional sediment management
(RSM). RSM entails the use of sediment dredged from
harbors and from flood control projects to place on beaches
that have eroded, often due to human activity. RSM is meant
to be a cost effective way of nourishing beaches and providing
necessary shoreline protection to California's coast.
WESTON Team Members (Everest) has been working for WESTQN30ir11uated ret~eiver saes f0
several years assisting the USACE and the State in developing's' o"" ea i �" dk"
a GIS -based tool called Coastal Sediment Benefit Analysis
Tool (CSBAT) that helps decision makers to evaluate and optimize the placement of sediment from various
sources to receiving beaches. The CSBAT is designed around six components: Sediment Sources, Receiver
Sites, Transportation Models and Cost, Recreational Usage and Benefit Analyses, and Environmental
Considerations. Two CSBATs have been developed — one for the Santa Barbara and Ventura County and the
other for the San Diego County. The ultimate goal is to connect all this regional CSBAT into one integrated
model for the entire state including the Orange County.
The Team will rely on Everest's extensive knowledge and experience developing the CSBAT for the region
to develop the criteria in prioritizing beach replenishment projects for the City. These criteria will be
developed in consultation with the City and other stakeholders and may include: economic benefit for beach
replenishment, cost of replenishment based on various placement methods, compatibility of source and
receiver beach sediments, sustainability of replenished beach, and potential environmental impact for beach
replenishment projects. Historical data of beach usage, beach sediment characteristics, erosion rate and past
beach nourishment and monitoring data will be obtained and reviewed to evaluate and prioritize future beach
replenishment needs for Newport Bay and Harbor based on the selected evaluation criteria.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
24
t
SOLUTIONS
A draft beach replenishment needs and recommendations summary report will be prepared and submitted for
City review. This report will summarize the data collected and analyses conducted, as well as a list of
recommended prioritized beach replenishment projects. After receiving comments from the City, a final
report incorporating the comments on the draft report will be prepared and submitted.
Task 11 — Priority Project Funding Report
Our team maintains relationships with federal, state, and private funding agency members to stay abreast of
grant opportunities. We maintain running lists of upcoming grant opportunities and present our findings to
clients seeking funding for redevelopment/restoration and other environmental projects. We assist clients in
reviewing and meeting application requirements to maximize the chance of winning. WESTON specializes
in all phases of the application process, including developing and writing the scope of work/work plan,
budget, rationale/anticipated results/benefit, and quality assurance plans related to grant projects. Our team
coordinates and facilitates meetings between project applicants, local environmental groups, resource and
regulatory agencies, and elected officials to gain project support. We also assist clients in implementing grant
funded projects, including project management, scheduling, budgeting, and reporting to complete these
projects on time and within the specified budget.
Proposed Integrated Approach to Funding Acquirement and Linkage to HAMP
We will leverage our knowledge of the Newport Bay Watershed and our expertise in grant funding to this
Task. Our team is unique qualified to coordinate these efforts with the Integrated Watershed Management
Plan and the Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
25
We have worked with several clients in Southern California to obtain grant funding through the Proposition
13 Clean Beaches Initiative from the California State Water Resources Control Board. The table to follow
outlines these funds secured by WESTON on behalf of the City of San Diego.
As a part of the Mission Bay Water Quality Management Plan, the City of San Diego hired WESTON to
implement a multi -study project to identify sources of bacterial contamination and recommend appropriate
actions and activities to eliminate the input of these sources to this multi -use embayment. WESTON assisted
the City of San Diego obtain funding for this project by writing a grant application to the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for funding from California's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program pursuant to the Costa -Machado Water Act of 2000 (Proposition 13).
We have also assisted stakeholder groups seeking grant funding to implement actions plans designed to
restore and protect their watershed. Our assistance resulted in millions of dollars in funding for all clients.
We reviewed private grant funding for a pilot project on sediment transport for the City of San Diego.
WESTON assisted in the lobbying efforts to create and pass the $400M Clean Ohio Fund initiative. Since the
passing of the bill, WESTON has successfully assisted clients in submitting grant applications to fund
several Brownfield redevelopment projects. WESTON worked with the City of Dayton to secure a
$2,000,000 grant in the inaugural awards from the Clean Ohio Revitalization fund for the GH&R Foundry.
Our team also assembled all the environmental documentation into the Clean Ohio Fund application for a
former paper mill in the City of West Carrollton, Ohio. Finally, we prepared the Consolidated Grant
application and CIB grant application for the City of Newport Beach for ASBS projects.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
26
Proposition 13
(Clean
Mission Bay Water
Evaluate point sources of bacterial
Cit of San Diego
City g
Beaches
Quality Improvement
pollution in Mission Bay and take actions
$1.3 million
Initiative) Grant 1
Project
to reduce pollution and subsequent
Fundin
a beach postings/closures by 50Ja
Proposition 13
Evaluate point sources of bact
(Clean
San Diego River/Ocean
pollution in the River and near
City of San Diego
Beaches
Beach Water Quality
beaches. Recommend actions$1.5
million
Initiative) Grant
Improvement Project
bacteria counts and subsequeFunding
postin s/closures b 50%.
Chollas Creek Watershed
Induce positive changes in attiProposition
13
Integrated PestCity
behaviors regarding pesticide
of San Diego
(PRISM) Grant
Management EducationFunding
urbanized watersheds in order1
million
Program
and restore affected beneficial
receivin waters.
x
San Diego Watersheds
Gather and manage water quality data to
Common Ground Project:
protect sensitive ecosystems, identify
City of San Diego
Proposition 13
San Diego Bay
and abate pollution sources, track the
$600,000
Grant Funding
Watershed
effectiveness of implemented actions,
Demonstration
and prevent further degradation of our
precious water resources.
Proposition 13
Chollas Creek Water
Improve beneficial uses within the
Chollas Creek Watershed through
City of San Diego
Grant Funding
Quality Protection and Habitat Enhancement
outreach, education, stewardship .
$2,244,000
delve[ ment, and habitat restoration
}Proposition 50
g,�
(Integrated
San Diego Regional
Develop a water quality database and
City of San Diego
Regional
Water
Watershed Analysis —
GIS tool for water resource managers in
$6 million
Common Grounds
the region to make more informed
Management)
management decisions.
Grant Funded
As a part of the Mission Bay Water Quality Management Plan, the City of San Diego hired WESTON to
implement a multi -study project to identify sources of bacterial contamination and recommend appropriate
actions and activities to eliminate the input of these sources to this multi -use embayment. WESTON assisted
the City of San Diego obtain funding for this project by writing a grant application to the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for funding from California's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program pursuant to the Costa -Machado Water Act of 2000 (Proposition 13).
We have also assisted stakeholder groups seeking grant funding to implement actions plans designed to
restore and protect their watershed. Our assistance resulted in millions of dollars in funding for all clients.
We reviewed private grant funding for a pilot project on sediment transport for the City of San Diego.
WESTON assisted in the lobbying efforts to create and pass the $400M Clean Ohio Fund initiative. Since the
passing of the bill, WESTON has successfully assisted clients in submitting grant applications to fund
several Brownfield redevelopment projects. WESTON worked with the City of Dayton to secure a
$2,000,000 grant in the inaugural awards from the Clean Ohio Revitalization fund for the GH&R Foundry.
Our team also assembled all the environmental documentation into the Clean Ohio Fund application for a
former paper mill in the City of West Carrollton, Ohio. Finally, we prepared the Consolidated Grant
application and CIB grant application for the City of Newport Beach for ASBS projects.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
26
Based on the approved recommendations from Tasks 1 through 10, our team will develop a Priority List of
projects for the Upper and Lower Bay. We will evaluate these projects to determine how they will qualify for
State bond funding and develop time lines associated with each. We will also evaluate the Priority List for
eligibility for federal funding programs such as the USACE Civil Works Programs, USEPA Grants, US
Bureau of Reclamation projects, and NOAA Programs. A draft Project Priority report will be prepared and
submitted to the City for review and comment. We will utilize these comments to revise this draft report into
a final report and submit it to the City for approval.
Task 12 — Harbor Area Management Plan
The HAMP will focus on the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and the integration of the various components
and issues of these two water bodies and identify the key goals and the activities to meet these goals. We
understand that the HAMP is a planning document that will identify the prioritization of these activities
based on their effectiveness to meet the goals and inter -relationship with ongoing and planned projects
throughout the watershed. This prioritization will be the basis for the development in this plan of an
implementation schedule and effectiveness assessment. The effectiveness assessment will be critical to
providing the City feedback on the success of the activities to meet the goals and the basis to determine if the
activity should be expanded or modified. Activities will often need to be implemented in a phased manner
due to available resources or remaining data needs. The effectiveness assessment program will also for
evaluation of these phased activities to best use the resources of the City and grant monies.
The prioritization process is driven by regulatory requirements and the specific pollutants of concern.
Important in this process is an integrated approach that considers both current and anticipated future
regulatory drivers to assure that resources are being used effectively and not for short term goals, but rather
long-term program success. Integrated management actions will address multiple constituents, for example,
rather than just focus on current issues. This approach is more cost effective in the long-term because
management actions that include structural BMPs do not need to be retrofitted.
The prioritization process also provides an approach to the implementation of management actions that
allows for flexibility based on available resources and implementation schedules. The prioritization process
identifies the location and targeted sources for measures that will provide the greatest pollutant load
reductions and highest likely success of implementation. Once these priority measures are identified, then the
supporting studies, permitting, and design activities can be highlighted on the implementation schedule as
critical path activities.
WESTON is completing a 5 -year Watershed Strategic Plan for the City of San Diego that identifies the
priority activities to meet current and anticipated water quality regulations in the seven watersheds that the
City has jurisdiction. The first step of the development of the plan was to identify and organize all the
existing studies, monitoring programs and BMP implementation projects, and categorize them according to
program, watershed, pollutant, source type and activity. The inter -relationships were identified for
integration into the overall Strategic Plan. Using a tiered BMP approach, watershed activities were identified
under each tier and the first and intermediate steps listed. The current activities were then highlighted under
each watershed's tiered activity list. This was the basis for developing the compressive Strategic Plan.
The Strategic Plan developed for San Diego provides a prioritization methodology for watershed activities
that takes an integrated approach. Similar to the RAMP, this Strategic Plan provides the City of San Diego
with a planning guide to the implementation of management measures that meet the current and anticipated
regulatory requirements (municipal permit, TMDLs and Ocean Plan). The plan focuses on the areas of the
watershed that have the greatest pollutant load potential and activities that best address the sources of these
loads. The Plan is already in use helping the City plan budgets, laying the groundwork for upcoming grants,
and providing a pro -active approach to meeting the various regulatory programs.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
27
The HAMP will provide regional management guidance to best integrate the common goals of the various
watershed plans underway or planned. WESTON understands the importance of this integration based on our
current work on the Big Canyon Project as a sub -consultant to WRC and on the development of the Newport
Coast Watershed Management Plan. The implementation of the City of Newport Beach's Runoff Reduction
Program is a key element to achieving the pollution reduction goals for the Exception process under the
Ocean Plan for discharges into the Newport ASBS. The Big Canyon restoration plan had a component of
anticipated continued dry weather flow to sustain the fresh water riparian habitat. WESTON pointed out
these two possible competing goals that will need to be addressed in the restoration plan through identifying
a groundwater source as the runoff reduction program is successful in reducing over -irrigation by residences
and golf courses. The integration of the prioritization and implementation of BMPs with the restoration
programs and goals is also illustrated in the figure on page 29.
The Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve that extends from Shellmaker Island north to Jamboree
Road is designated as a Critical Coastal Area (CCA). An important aspect in the development of the HAMP
is understanding the integration with the watershed management plans from the upper watershed and also
adjacent and downstream coastal areas. The HAMP needs to consider the watershed, bay and coastal areas as
one integrated system, and that management actions for the Bay need to consider inputs from the watershed
as well as potential impacts trom and to the coastal area
The Project Team has a solid understanding of
these connections and their importance in
developing management actions as part of the
RAMP. Everest International and WESTON are
currently working with the City on investigating
f pollutant fate from the Bay and from Buck Gully
into and out of the Newport ASBS. We are
working collaboratively to determine the pathway
and potential impacts of constituents from these
two sources on the CCA and ASBS. The
integration of these studies is key in the
development of watershed activities that will be
successful in meeting the overall goals. In
addition, the demonstration of this linkage will be
important in developing successful grant applications for implementation of these projects. The State Water
Resources Control Board specificies in the recent grant workshops the need to provide a better regional
benefit that addresses not only water quality but habitat restoration and water conservation. The City of
Newport Beach is uniquely positioned to provide leadership for the region in the strategy and integration of
project for implementation grant requests through your current projects that address these goals of the
SWRCB and their applicability on a regional basis.
A further illustration of our understanding of these connections under the described prioritization strategy is
shown on the final figure of this section. The figure on page 30 presents sediment for the example priority
pollutant and shows the linkage between regulatory drivers, potential prioritized BMPs, and the studies
needed for design and assessment of effectiveness of the management measures.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
W
EXHIBIT
SOLUTIONS
5. Consultant Fees
The information in this section provides a preliminary estimate of the total direct and indirect costs to
complete the Scope of Work including staff hours and hour rates (with benefit and overhead costs); an
estimate of all other direct costs such as material and reproduction costs; and an estimate of subconsultant
services itemized by task.
WESTON's current fee schedule for each job classification
CategoryRate/Hour
Principal Investigator
David Moore Jack Word
Lisa Kay
$220
Senior Project Manager
David Pohl
$185
Project Manager/Task
Manager
Shelly Angherea
Gretei Roberts
$139
Senior Scientist/Senior
Engineer/Coastal Engineer
Wendy Rose Steve Butkus
Kurt Frederick Kimo Morris
Sonny Rutkowski
$121
GIS Specialist/Modeling
Bruce Ferguson
$116
Engineer I
Suraj Shankar
$108
Scientist II
Cathy Hartman Damon Owens
$85
Word Processing/ Graphics
Michelle Patzius
$60
Contracts Administration
Amee Ventures
$55
Tom Johnson current fee schedule for each job classification (SUBCONSULTANT)
Everest International Consultants current fee schedule for each job classification (SUBCONSULTANT)
CRM current fee schedule for each job classification (SUBCONSULTANT)
00
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
�_ 11
SO1 U (IONS
Hours by Rate Category
Not -to -exceed amount for the services to be provided.
sk
Task 1 — CDFG Preliminary Management Plan
LaborTa
$24,041
.-
$134
$24,175
Task 2 — Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan
$16,083
$250
$16,333
Task 3 — Hydrodynamic/Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
$32,433
$134
$32,567
C
O
C
$134
$32,943
Task 5 — Contaminated Sediment Study
U_
$134
$24,324
Task 6 — Dredging Requirements Study
$21,851
$250
N
Task 7 — Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines Study
C
W
C
$24,187
Task 8 — Water Quality Best Management Practices Report
L
ca
O
—
$17,784
Task 9 — Regional General Permits (RGP)
$15,169
O
M
C
(Q
Task 10 — Beach Replenishment Projects
U)
a)
O
$29,221
Task 11 — Priority Project Funding Report
$11,596
N
$11,846
Task 12 — Harbor Area Management Plan
1 $45,625
CME
Q)
U
Not -to -exceed Amount $296,745
N
N
. s=
•
N
>
C
C
U)
_0
c
c
o
c
U)
_
O
c
CO
W
3:
U
U
Task
-
8
16
-
8
190
222
Task
2
8
24
16
16
24
16
4
21 131
Task
-
16
24
-
-
-
4
177 221
Task 4
-
4
8
24
-
-
4
270
- 310
Task 5
8
8
24
80
24
32
24
4
- 204
Task 6
8
8
16 1
-
36
50
16
4
43 181
Task
-
8
16
-
-
2
138 164
Task 8
-
24
-
36
60
24
4
- 148
Task 9
2
8
8
-
-
-
2
- 80 100
Task 10
2
8
8
-
6
4
170 198
Task 11
2
4
24
12
-
16
12
6
4
33
- 113
Task 12
4
32
16
60
40
40
60
48
4
75
54 433
Not -to -exceed amount for the services to be provided.
sk
Task 1 — CDFG Preliminary Management Plan
LaborTa
$24,041
.-
$134
$24,175
Task 2 — Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan
$16,083
$250
$16,333
Task 3 — Hydrodynamic/Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
$32,433
$134
$32,567
Task 4 — Eelgrass Capacity Recommendations
$32,809
$134
$32,943
Task 5 — Contaminated Sediment Study
$24,190
$134
$24,324
Task 6 — Dredging Requirements Study
$21,851
$250
$22,101
Task 7 — Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines Study
$24,053
$134
$24,187
Task 8 — Water Quality Best Management Practices Report
$17,650
$134
$17,784
Task 9 — Regional General Permits (RGP)
$15,169
$220
$15,389
Task 10 — Beach Replenishment Projects
$29,041
$180
$29,221
Task 11 — Priority Project Funding Report
$11,596
$250
$11,846
Task 12 — Harbor Area Management Plan
1 $45,625
1 $250
$45,875
Not -to -exceed Amount $296,745
.O
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
b O
d
ca
bo
4Y El q 0 0
vi C
Y U
WA o
U A
U
ro a
ca
V
� c4 N
N
E� ti
N
N .
N
'
U i CE,.�
W O
y �
�
U OU
2
O tV
v C
ash
�
pTp
" y U
2�'
U
Cp
p b C cd ai
ate. p .Ei
tl
C
lo
COL
`o
o o
y
WNoA
p U
3 b N VZ y
ani• -,chi
�.'" Q•�
? r
O
tea „
r
LL d CO O
a; R:
o �' a
U y V
O,^
o
Y •C
o o,y5 3
z�¢
oA
08.2
C)
, � o
�o
w
N O
o a
O
Q x q P.
F W
ro
C
C O
U
O N Cl)
3 �
N .
co
O v C b O
U OU
O tV
v C
pTp
" y U
COL
`o
o o
Q
p
U� C 7 C
x O T O.
w
3 a R
a � a
o o,y5 3
08.2
C
4)
N O
m
r. o a a.
G T
°oa
C
y . y E
> P. O O
3
U on
O -,.
.0"U U o
ro
c
G o '-2
bad'w -
v
'UZ
3 Z o
u a
c
o
,o
O O
�.
® ®
C
5u:,
MARSH CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
CLE�0015700 o�05
PRODUCER
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS
MARSH USA INC.
NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED IN THE
TWO LOGAN SQUARE
POLICY. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN.
Attn: Philadeiphia.certs@Marsh.com Fax. 212-948-0360
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
COMPANY
25367-ALL-GAWUP-07-08
A COMMERCE & INDUSTRY
INSURED
COMPANY
W ESTON SOLUTIONS, INC.
B LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
ATTN: SUSAN HIPP-LUDWICK, RISK MANAGER
COMPANY
1400 WESTON WAY
WESTCHESTER,PA 19380
C N/A
COMPANY
D AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INS CO
COVERAGES'. This certificate Supersedes and replaces
any previously issued Certifict fOr the pollcy-period noted b�IQw. =
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE DESCRIBED HEREIN HAVE
BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED HEREIN FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY
PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND EXCLUSIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE
LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
CO
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY EFFECTIVE
POLICY EXPIRATION
LIMITS
LTR
DATE (MMIDDIYY)
DATE (MMIDDIYY)
GENERAL
LIABILITY
GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000
A
X
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
GL 3779410
01/15/07
01/15/08
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000
CLAIMS MADE a OCCUR
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000
EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000
OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) $ 1,000,000
X
CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY
PER PROJECT AGGREGATE
MED EXP (Any one person $ 10,000
X
AUTOMOBILE
LIABILITY
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000
B
X
ANY AUTO
AS2131477160-047 (AOS)
01/15/07
01/15/08
BODILY INJURY $
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULED AUTOS
(Per person)
BODILY INJURY $
X
HIRED AUTOS
X
NON -OWNED AUTOS
(Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE $
GARAGE LIABILITY
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $
OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY
ANY AUTO
EACH ACCIDENT $
AGGREGATE $
EXCESS LIABILITY
EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
UMBRELLA FORM
$
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
X LIMNS Or
'" '�`
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
TORY �,
..W
EL EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000
B
WC2131477160017
01/15/07
01/15/08
THE PROPRIETOR/ X INCL
EL DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000
PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE
EL DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000
OFFICERS ARE: EXCL
OTHER
D
CONTRACTORS POLLUTION
COPS3779570
01/15/07
01/15/08
EACH OCCURRENCE 1,000,000
LEGAL LIABILITY
AGGREGATE 1,000,000
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS
RE: HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2008.
(SEE ADDITIONAL PAGE TEXT)
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
CANCELLATION
SHOULD ANY OF THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,
THE INSURER AFFORDING COVERAGE WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL _.30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ATTN: SHAUNA OYLER
CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED HEREIN, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR
3300 NEWPORT BLVD
LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER AFFORDING COVERAGE, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES, OR THE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
ISSUER OF THIS CERTIFICATE.
MARSH USA INC.7
BY: MaryRadaszewski
MM1(3/02) VALID AS OF: '05/25/07
DATE )MMIDDIYY)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION c�=001570001-05 05/25/07
PRODUCER COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
MARSH USA INC
TWO LOGAN SQUARE COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 E
Attn: Philadelphia.certs@Marsh.com Fax: 212-948-0360
J25367-ALL-GAW UP -07-08
INSURED
WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC.
ATTN: SUSAN HIPP-LUDWICK, RISK MANAGER
1400 W ESTON WAY
WESTCHESTER. PA 19380
COMPANY
F
COMPANY
G
COMPANY
H
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ITS ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND VOLUNTEERS ARE INCLUDED AS
ADDITIONAL INSURED (EXCEPT WORKERS COMPENSATION) WHERE REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT AND ALLOWED BY LAW.
THIS INSURANCE IS PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY OVER ANY EXISTING INSURANCE AND LIMITED TO LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE
OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED AND WHERE REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT.
,ATE HOLDER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ATTN:SHAUNA OYLER
3300 NEWPORT BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
MARSH USA INC. BY
Mary Radaszewski
p�no
POLICY NUMBER: GL 377-94-10
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 20 10 03 97
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR
CONTRACTORS - SCHEDULED PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
SCHEDULE
Name of Person or Organization: BLANKET WHERE REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT
(If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as
applicable to this endorsement.)
Who Is An Insured (Section 11) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the
Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of your ongoing operations performed for that insured.
CG 20 10 03 97 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1996 Page 1 of 1
Apr -17-07 01:36pm From -AIG
908-679-3271 T-648 P.001/001 F-611
ENDORSEMENT s
This endorsement, effective 12.01 A.M. 01115/2007 forms a part of
Policy No,GL 377-94-10 is:;ued to WESTON SOLUTIONS INC.
by COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY
ADDITIONAL INSJRED - PRIMARY INSURANCE
This endorsement modifies insurance provided ttndor the following-
COMME=RCIAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM
Section IV, Commercial Genera! Liability Conditions, paragraph 4., Other Insurance, subparagraph a. Primary
Insurance, is amended by the addition of the f Ilowing:
However, coverage under this policy afforded so an additional insured will apply as primary insurance where
required by contract, and any other insurance issued to such additional insured shall apply as excess and
noncontributory insurance.
,;ZD O -PI I a-k"�
Authorized Representative
74434 (10/99)
"'i
CD
cn
Cp
�
D
O
0
U)
_
cn
Q0
U)
0
E
:-
CD
,--�
CD
r^^i^
.0
^^�r
o
w
O
0
�
0!
cn
CD
CD
0
Un
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT
EMPLOYEES AS INSURED WHILE DRIVING NON -OWNED VEHICLES
Delete paragraph B.(2) of section II A.1.
OWNERS OF NON -OWNED AUTOS AS INSUREDS
Add the following clause to paragraph A.1 who is an insured in section
II: Owners of non -owned "autos" are included as insureds.
OWNERS OF BORROWED VEHICLES
Delete paragraph B.(1) of section II A.1 and replace it with: The owner
or anyone else from whom you hire a "covered auto". This exception does
not apply if the covered "auto" is a trailer connected to a covered "auto"
you own.
ADDITIONAL INSURED WHERE REQUIRED UNDER CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT
Add the following to A.1 who is an insured, of section II: Any person or
organization for whom you have agreed under contract or agreement to
provide insurance. However, the insurance provided shall not exceed the
scope of coverage and/or limits of this policy. Not withstanding the
foregoing sentence, in no event shall the insurance provided exceed the
scope of coverage and/or limits required by said contract or agreement.
AMEND DIFINITION OF "BODILY INJURY"
Delete definition C and replace it with the following: "Bodily injury"
means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person. It
includes death or mental anguish which results at any time from such
physical harm, physical sickness or physical disease. Mental anguish means
any type of mental or emotional illness or distress.
UNINTENTIONAL ERROS & OMISSIONS
Coverage afforded by this policy shall not be invalidated or affected by
any inadvertent errors, omissions or improper descriptions of premises,
elevators or other descriptions mentioned in this policy. It is also
agreed that inadvertent error to comply with policy terms and/or -
conditions will not invalidate or affect coverage.
NOTICE OF OCCURRENCE
whenever the corporate risk manage of the named insured has information
from which it may be reasonably concluded that an occurrence covered
hereunder involves injuries or damage which in the event that insured
should be liable, is likely to involve this policy, notice shall be given
to the company as soon as practicable. However failure to give notice of
any occurrence which at the time of its happening did not appear to
involve this policy but which, at a later date, would appear to give rise
to claims hereunder, shall not prejudice such claim.
Policy No: AS2-131-477160-047
Effective Date: 01/15/2007
Expiration Date: 01/115/2008
Sales Office: 0300
Loc. 6
102
Issued By: Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
Endt Serial No: 91
WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will
not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies
only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement
from us.)
This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit anyone not named in the Schedule.
Schedule
Blanket waiver where required by written contract
This endorsement is executed by the Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company 16566
Premium $
eHettivo Date Expiration Date
For attachm ent to Policy No. WC2 -131 - 4 77160 - 017
Countersigned by_v 1/ (� 2�2
Authorized Representative
End- Serial No. 14
WC t)0 0313
Ed. 4/1!1984
Copyright 1983 National Council on Compensation Insurance.
Pagel U3
Oyler, Shauna
From: April Walker [AWalker@bbsocal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:55 AM
To: Oyler, Shauna
Subject: Weston Solutions
Attachments: CGL.AI.Signed.Primary. Endorsement. pdf;,pic04961.jpg; Auto.Amendatory with
Al. Endorsement.pdf; WC.WoSub. Blanket. Signed. Endorsement. pdf; City of Newport Beach
1.pdf; City of Newport Beach 2.pdf
Hi Shauna,
They have provided all the required endorsements so all requirements have been met
April Walker, CIC
Sr. Account Manager
Brown & Brown of California, Inc.
P.O. Box 6989
Orange, CA 92863
Direct Phone # 714-221-1813
Fax: 714-221-4196
License #0785279
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Also,
be aware that coverage may not be bound, altered or cancelled by the use of email.
-----Original Message -----
From: Oyler, Shauna [maiIto: SOyler@city.newport-beach.ca. us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:59 PM
To: April Walker
Subject: FW: Weston Solutions - City of Newport Beach
This is an e-mail I just received from the insurance agent that I told
you about. See his comments below and let me know what you think.
-----Original Message -----
From: Michael.Kolodner@marsh.com [mai Ito: Michael. Kolodner@marsh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 1:35 PM
To: Oyler, Shauna
Cc: jean.bogage@westonsolutions.com; Walker, Michelle;
amee.ventures@westonsolutions.com; Sean. 0Hara@marsh.com;
John.A.Hannah@marsh.com
Subject: Weston Solutions - City of Newport Beach
Hi Shauna,
Please confirm that the following are the only items currently
outstanding
for Weston Solutions with respect to the HAM_P contract insurance
requirements:
1. General Liability: Primary & Non-contributory endorsement missing
06/20/2007
Page 2 of 3
2. Auto: Additional Insured endorsement missing
3. Workers' Compensation: Waiver of subrogation endorsement missing
With respect to #1 above, it is our understanding that the attached
certificates of insurance previously sent (see below), were not
sufficient.
Attached is a copy of Weston's general liability policy endorsement:
(See attached file: CGL.AI. Signed. Primary. Endorsement. pdf)
Please advise if this is sufficient.
With respect to #2 above, neither the attached endorsement (below) nor
the
attached certificates of insurance (also below), previously sent, are
sufficient and you will still need an endorsement specifically added to
the
auto policy which states:
(Embedded image moved to file: pic04961.jpg)
(See attached file: Auto.Amendatory with Al. Endorsement.pdf)
With respect to #3 above, it is our understanding that the attached
certificates of insurance previously sent (see below), were not
sufficient.
Attached is a copy of Weston's workers' compensation policy endorsement:
(See attached file: WC.WoSub.Blanket.Signed.Endorsement. pdf)
Please advise if this is sufficient.
Attached for your convenience are the certificates of insurance
previously
sent and dated 05/25/07:
(See attached file: City of Newport Beach 1.pdf)(See attached file: City
of
Newport Beach 2.pdf)
I just want to make sure I have everything correct so we can get the
City
of Newport Beach everything it needs to feel confident that Weston
Solutions' obligations under the HAMP contract (currently on hold) with
respect to insurance are properly evidenced. Please let me know if there
are any other items outstanding and I will be happy to take care of them
immediately.
Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.
Best regards,
Mike Kolodner
Michael W. Kolodner, ARM
Marsh_ USA Inc. -
Two Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-246-1159
Fax: 215-246-1399
06/20/2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 9
May 8, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Robert Stein
949 - 644 -3322 or rstein @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN -APPROVAL OF
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WESTON
SOLUTIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Weston Solutions (Weston), of
Carlsbad, California, for preparation of a Harbor Area Management Plan (RAMP)
at a not to exceed price of $345,800 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the Agreement.
2. Approve a Budget Amendment transferring $48,800 from Account No. 7231 -
05100890 (ASBS- Implementation) to Account No. 7231- C0310929.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Newport Beach received a grant from the State of California's Department
of Water Resources to prepare an Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan
( IRWMP) for the Newport Bay Watershed. The grant became available under the
provisions of Proposition 50 which was approved by voters in November, 2002. The
broad goal of the plan is to identify and organize all of the ongoing studies and
programs, show the interrelationships of the studies, identify information gaps, and
weave all of this information into a single consensus plan that provides the essential
framework and strategic elements to prioritize and address watershed challenges such
as water supply, flood hazard, channel erosion issues, water quality challenges, habitat
restoration options, community access and meaningful watershed education programs.
An important part of the IRWMP is the preparation of a comprehensive plan, also
known as the Harbor Area Management Plan (RAMP), to evaluate and integrate many
pressing issues the City faces in Newport Harbor as well as in Upper Newport Bay.
Harbor Area Management Plan — Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Weston Solullons
May B, 2007
Page 2
The following list of tasks is taken verbatim from the Request for Proposals:
1. Coordinate with Department of Fish and Game in its development of a
preliminary habitat management plan for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve.
2. Evaluate Upper Newport Bay sediment control measures and provide an
assessment of future sediment control needs.
3. Review existing hydrodynamic modeling and recommend additional modeling
that could assist in addressing sediment and water quality impacts.
4. Determine eelgrass capacity that addresses environmental and public use
issues.
5. Recommend further measures for dealing with contaminated sediment and
sediment toxicity issues.
6. Determine dredging requirements for the Upper and Lower Bays based on
priority areas and potential funding requirements.
7. Evaluate the current harbor channel /pierhead lines and make recommendations
for any changes.
8. Recommend additional water quality best management practices for Lower and
Upper Bay.
9. Provide input for amending an upcoming version of Regional General Permit #54
(a harbor -wide maintenance dredging permit).
10. Evaluate, recommend, and prioritize in bay /harbor beach replenishment projects.
11. Develop a priority list of projects that would qualify for state bond or federal
funding.
12. Prepare the Harbor Area Management Plan.
Over a dozen firms were invited to submit proposals to provide the above services.
Because of the wide scope of services requested, staff expected that the consultants
would form teams to pool their expertise. Three proposals were received from the
following teams. (The consultant listed first is the team lead.)
Noble Consultants, Anchor Environmental, Chambers Group, Coastal Resources
Management (CRM)
Sea Engineering, Merkel and Associates, Ben Gerwick, ABA Consultants
Weston Solutions, Tom Johnson, Everest International Consultants, CRM
The proposals were independently reviewed to evaluate each firm's qualifications, past
experience on similar projects, and project approach before ranking Weston Solutions
(Weston) the highest. Weston has competently and professionally completed work on
similar complex bay and coastal projects for other local agencies in Southern California.
Weston is currently completing the preparation of the Integrated Watershed
Management Plan for Newport Coast.
Upon selection, staff met with Weston to review the scope of work, review the projected
level of effort and discuss alternatives and options. One important goal of this planning
effort for the Harbor and Bay is to assist the City in identifying and defining projects that
Harbor Area Management Plan — Approval of Professional services Agreement with Weston solutions
May S, 2007
Page 3
could be eligible for grant funding. There are at least three current grant funding
opportunities (Proposition 50, Proposition 84, and the U.S. Department of the Interior
Coastal Impact Assistance Program) that the City could apply for funding this fall for
coastal and bay water quality related assessment studies and projects. With this in
mind, additional tasks have been added to the scope of work to include preparing grant
applications and assisting the City with marketing and outreach tasks to promote the
program. After negotiating with Weston, a not to exceed fee of $345,800 was agreed
upon to provide the necessary scope of services.
The City's project manager for the planning effort on this project will be Tom Rossmiller
of Harbor Resources and Bob Stein of Public Works will provide administrative and
technical assistance.
Environmental Review:
The required effort for preparing the Harbor Area Management Plan does not require
an environmental review.
Funding Availability:
Upon approval of the recommended Budget Amendment, sufficient funds are available
in the following accounts for the project:
Account Description
Environmental Contributions
Tide and Submerged Lands
Prepared b
Robert 9teir?,7f.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Attachment: Professional Services Ag
Account Number
Amount
7255- CO310929
$297,000
7231- CO310929
48,80
Total:
$345,800
fn G. Badum
Works Director
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
WESTON SOLUTIONS
FOR HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this day of
2007, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation
( "City"), and WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. a Pennsylvania Corporation, whose address
is 2433 Impala Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92010 ( "Consultant "), and is made with
reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is. now
being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of
City.
B. City is wishes to prepare a comprehensive plan to tackle many pressing issues in
Newport Harbor as well as in Upper Newport Bay.
C. City desires to engage Consultant to evaluate these issues and prepare a Harbor
Area Management Plan ( "Project").
D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement.
E. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project shall be Dr. David
Pohl.
F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the
previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to
retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall
terminate on the 31st day of December, 2008, unless terminated earlier as set
forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of
Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The
City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole
discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and
Consultant shall perform the services in accordance with the schedule included
in Exhibit B. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may
result in termination of this Agreement by City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays
due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of
any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby
agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed.
3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for
performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10)
calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a
delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may
grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are
beyond Consultant's control.
3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall
respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the
circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail.
4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed
basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this
Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not
exceed Three Hundred Forty -Five Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars and
no /100 ($345,800.00) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate
changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior
written approval of City.
4.1 The City shall make progress payments monthly as the Project work
proceeds based on the percentage of Project work completed. The
Consultant shall furnish a summary breakdown of the Scope of Services
and budget for the Project in a format acceptable to the City, showing the
amount included therein for each principal category or task of the Project
work, in such detail as reasonably requested, to provide a basis for
determining progress payments. All requests for payment shall show the
percentage of work completed for each task of the Scope of Services, the
position and hours of each person who performed work under that task, a
brief description of the services performed under each task, and a
description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant
no later than thirty (30) days after approval by City staff of a request for
payment.
4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing
in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be
limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by
Consultant:
A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the
services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this
Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and
awarded in accordance with this Agreement.
B. Approved reproduction charges.
C. Actual costs and /or other costs and /or payments specifically
authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the
performance of this Agreement.
4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed
without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra
Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the
proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the
Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate
would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation
for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the
Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B.
5. PROJECT MANAGER
Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of
the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable
times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Dr. David Pohl to
be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project
Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement
personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of
non -key personnel.
Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its
personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City.
Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to
complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement.
3
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. Robert
Stein, P.E. shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act
for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized
representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be
rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES.
In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this
Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable:
A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all
existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such
materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's
work schedule.
B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction
company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the
required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other
reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above.
C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards to new
facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated.
8. STANDARD OF CARE
8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's
supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and
technical personnel required to perform the services required by this
Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner
commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall
be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not
employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City.
8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever
nature that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession.
Consultant further represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at
its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or _obtain at all times during the
term of this Agreement, any and all licenses, permits, insurance and other
approvals that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession.
Consultant shall maintain a City of .Newport Beach business license
during the term of this Agreement.
8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be
responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by
reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City
rd
to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's
work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or
governmental agencies.
9. HOLD HARMLESS
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and
hold harmless City; its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents
and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties) from and against any and
all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage
to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits,
losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including,
without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind
and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may
arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any work negligently
performed or services provided under this Agreement (including, without
limitation, defects in workmanship or materials and /or design defects [if the
design originated with Consultant]) or Consultant's presence or activities
conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors
and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees,
vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or
indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of
them).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require
Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the
active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this
indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any
action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply
to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are
applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of
indemnification to be provided by the Consultant.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis
and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of
conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent
they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval
for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or
employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over
the means of performing the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with
the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give
City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to
exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant
shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services.
5
11. COOPERATION
Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated
Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or
interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the
Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project
direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points
in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals
and policies.
13. PROGRESS
Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and /or his/her
duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and
progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that
have been scheduled or are desired.
14. INSURANCE
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement
of work. Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during
the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type
and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
A. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of
insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance
coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by
City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance or issuance
of any permit. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with
City's at all times during the term of this Agreement.
B. Signature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf shall sign certification of all required policies.
C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an
insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner
to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size
Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of
Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk
Manager.
6
D. Coverage Requirements.
i. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain
Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability
Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of
the State of California. In addition, .Consultant shall require each
subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation
Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with
the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's
employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all
Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least
thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non-
payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer shall agree
to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents,
employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed
by Consultant for City.
ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial
general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury, and property damage, including without limitation,
contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or
other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed
under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at
least twice the required occurrence limit.
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain
automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage
for.all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for
any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not
less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for
each occurrence.
iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which
covers the services to be performed in connection with this
Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars
($1,000,000).
E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance
policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
i. The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees,
agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with
respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of
the Consultant.
7
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to
City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents
and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising
directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services
provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any
self- insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess
insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided
hereunder.
iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as
though a separate policy had been written for each, except with
respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected
or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.
V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed
officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either
party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days
written notice of non - payment of premium) written notice has been
received by City.
F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from
Consultant's performance under this Agreement.
G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own
judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of
the work.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be
provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or
subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following
shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other
disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of
the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or
cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint- venture or syndicate. or cotenancy,
which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty
percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty -five percent (25 %) or more
of the assets of the corporation, partnership orjoint- venture.
P
16. SUBCONTRACTING
City and Consultant agree that subconsultants may be used to complete the work
outlined in the Scope of Services. The subconsultants authorized by City to
perform work on this Project are identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully
responsible to City for all acts and omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this
Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and
subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see
to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as
otherwise required by law. Except as specifically authorized herein, the services to
be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned, transferred,
contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City.
17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing
produced (hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of
implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and
City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further
compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's
expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request.
Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for
reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents
for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written
authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to
Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to
Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than
Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for
such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received
from Consultant written consent for such changes.
18. COMPUTER DELIVERABLES
CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer
or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant
shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with
(a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD
data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate
storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by
City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project
by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in
writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify
Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of
such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version
of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with
the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will
E
provide AutoCAD file of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be
transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and
Excel.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept
confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information.
20. OPINION OF COST
Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his/her
judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of
City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over
competitive bidding or market conditions,. Consultant does not guarantee the
accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City.
21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers,
representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for
infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright
infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and
specifications provided under this Agreement.
22. RECORDS
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be
performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and
any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum
period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date
of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and
invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of
City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and
invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all
work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a
period of three. (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this
Agreement.
23. WITHHOLDINGS
City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction
of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be
deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement.
Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant
shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his/her designee
with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive
10
interest on any withheld sums at the rate of return that City earned on its
investments during the time period, from the date of withholding of any amounts
found to have been improperly withheld.
24. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional
inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what
would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work
accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and /or
restoration expense shall be bome by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is
intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement.
25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the
Project.
26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the
California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such
persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially
affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such
persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably
financially affect such interest.
If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act.
Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate
termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold
harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's
violation of this Section.
27. NOTICES
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms .of this
Agreement shall be given in writing, to City by Consultant and conclusively shall
be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after
the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first -class mail,
addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals
from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at:
Robert Stein
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 New_ port Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: 949 - 644 -3322
Fax: 949 -644 -3308
11
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
Dr. David Pohl
Weston Solutions
2433 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Phone: 760 - 931 -8081
Fax: 760 - 931 -1580
28. TERMINATION
In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of
this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be
deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not
cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar
days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting parry fails to
give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after
receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the
steps necessary to cure such default, the non - defaulting parry may terminate the
Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole
discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by giving
seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of
termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for services
satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the, effective date of termination
for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of
termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other
information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement,
whether in draft or final form.
29. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes,
ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities, including
federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted.
In addition, all work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City,
county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be
subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City.
30. WAIVER
A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition
contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach
of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether
of the same or a different character.
12
31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or
nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and -all preliminary negotiations
and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal
agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein.
32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES
In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement
and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms
of this Agreement shall govern.
33. INTERPRETATION
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning
of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by
reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction
which might otherwise apply.
34. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document
executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
35.._ SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of
this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
36. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters
relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be
adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange.
37. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not
discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age.
13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the day and year first. written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
In
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Mayor
-for the City of Newport Beach
CONSULTANT:
By:
(Corporate Officer)
Title:
Print Name:
By:
(Financial Officer)
Title:
Print Name:
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
F: \Users\PBW\Shared\Agreements\FY w- OnWeston - HAMP.doc
14
® Weston Solutions, Inc.
2433 Impala Drive
Corkin California 92006
760-931 -8081 • Fax 760 -931 -1580
www.westonsolutions.com
April 30, 2007
Robert Stein, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Harbor Area Management Plan
Acceptance of Fee and Scope
Dear Mr. Stein:
Weston Solutions Inc. ( Weston) agrees. to complete the scope of work as detailed in our
proposal under each of the tasks for the Harbor Area Management Plan for the not to
exceed fee of $345,800. The tasks include providing the needed services to the City of
Newport Beach for preparation of applicable grant application under Proposition 50,
Proposition 84 and the U.S. Department of Interior Coastal Impact Assistance Program.
In addition, the Weston Team will assist the City in outreach and marketing efforts for
your program.
Please call me at 760 - 795 -6918 or 760 - 497 -3318 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Weston Solutions, Inc.
David H. Pohl, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal Project Manager
cc: A. Ventures
an employee -owned company
EXHIBIT A
3. Intended Approach
The Scope of Work includes the development of plans and reports that will be integrated into the Harbor
Area Management Plan (HA VIP). The Project Team proposed for the development of these plans and HAMP
has the specific expertise and local working knowledge to develop the HAMP that will be the foundation for
the City to move forward with key sediment management, water quality, restoration and public use projects
critical in meeting several goals including:
• Meeting regulatory requirements as specified in the current and anticipated municipal permits,
sediment management permits, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and other regulatory programs
for Newport Bay
• Working toward a sustainable estuary ecosystem integrated with sustainable watershed and coastal
area systems
• Maintain the beneficial uses of the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and economic value of the Bay
Specifically, the Project Team provides you with the following key areas of expertise and local knowledge:
• Solid Experience in developing sediment and water quality -based management plans
• Technical team is in the forefront of contaminated sediment assessment, management and beneficial
use
• Strong existing relationships with USAGE, CDFG, SWCRB, RWQCB, and local stakeholder groups
• Leader in regional sediment and water quality numerical modeling including within Newport Bay
• National engineering and scientific expertise in dredge material management
• Success in developing winning grant applications for multi -use embayment in Southern California
• The Team that can best integrate the plans prepared under this scope with ongoing activities in the
watershed, bay and coastal areas
into a strategic plan that serves as aElm
foundation for moving forward and t, e obtaining grant funding �� f,
With this expertise and knowledge, our
team has a solid understanding of the
Scope. We understand that the scope should
be based on previous studies, reports, data
and agency policies from which we will
develop our recommendations. Where data
gaps are identified, the Project Team will
recommend appropriate studies to best
address these needs, and define the policy,
protective measure or implementation
activities that are linked to the completion
of these studies.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
0
Our Project Team understands that this project is an integral part of the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay
Integrated Watershed Management Plan grant. The purpose of the grant is to identify and organize all of the
ongoing studies and programs, show the interrelationships of the studies, identify information gaps, and
weave all of this information into a single consensus plan and in an understandable format.
It is understood that the upper part of the San Diego Creek watershed is being addressed separately; however,
the Project Team for the HAMP will need to collaborate and coordinate with this other team to assure
consistency in the prioritization process for identified projects and the projects implementation timelines and
goals. This integration of the two plans will be important in setting the groundwork for the next round of
implementation grants.
The HAW will therefore focus on the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and the integration of the various
components and issues of these two water bodies and identify the key goals and the activities to meet these
goals. The HAMP will provide a regional management guidance to best integrate the common goals of the
various watershed plans underway or planned.
Task t — California Department of Fish and Game (DEF) Preliminary Management Plan
DFG has developed a Preliminary Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. This
document is of primary importance in guiding the DFG, the City of Newport Beach, and other stakeholders
in the long -term management of one of the most important ecological habitats in southern California. The
Task Leaders background and knowledge of Upper Newport Bay is key to completing this plan.
Mr. Rick Ware, Senior Marine Biologist with Coastal
Resources Management, Inc. will be the principal
investigator for this task. He is well qualified to lead this
task, with many years working directly with the
Department's Resource Managers for Upper Newport Bay.
He has extensive experience in providing consultation and
guidance in restoration issues of Upper Newport Bay,
including project manager /principal investigator for late
1970s-early 1980s biological studies conducted for the hvine
Ranch Water Management District, conducting extensive
Salt Marsh Bird's Beak studies of the De Anza (Bayside) marsh peninsula in 1984,
and preparing water quality and biology sections of the
ACOE Upper Newport Bay Reconnaissance Study in 1992 -1993 and identifying restoration areas for future
ACOE - funded dredging projects (which are being implemented during the current Upper Bay Restoration
Project). He prepared the Shellmaker Island Mitigation Plan for the Castaways Marina Project on Upper
Shellmaker Island (1993), assisted the DFG and the County of Orange in the restoration of Lower
Shellmaker Island Marsh (1994), and served as the City of Newport Beach's biological consultant for the
Upper Newport Bay Dredging Project Technical Advisory Committee 1998- 2000). He was also responsible
for conducting biological studies and preparing the biological sections of the Back Bay Science Center
Negative Declaration and Demonstration Marsh Restoration Plan on Shellmaker Island between 2002 -2005,
overseeing the construction of the Back Bay Science Center Demonstration Salt marsh, and conducting pre-
and -post construction marsh habitat monitoring (including salt marsh bird's beak) and conducting marsh
transplants for the project (2006 - 2007). Mr. Ware was the principal investigator for the benthic biological
and fishery sections of the Big Canyon Restoration Project Constraints Study (2003). He prepared the
biological addendum for the City's Local Coastal Plan (2002 - 2003), served as a member of the Restoration
Team for the Phase 11 Studies in Big Canyon (2006 - 2007), and conducted extensive eelgrass habitat mapping
and reconnaissance surveys throughout the Upper Newport Bay between the San Diego Creek and the PCH
Bridge.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
0
In addition, Mr. Ware has an extensive knowledge of gray and published scientific literature for Upper
Newport Bay and a working knowledge of the Upper Bay ecosystem that will be of substantial value when
reviewing the Management Plan and making recommendations for additional studies necessary for filling in
any Management Plan data gaps. To this end, Mr. Ware will be directly responsible for overseeing and
conducting the specific tasks identified for the Upper Newport Bay Management Plan. These include:
a. Attending a meeting with DFG and City staff to review the Plan and discuss the goals of the Plan.
b. As directed by DFG and the City, Mr. Ware will propose addenda to the Plan including a review of
work performed in Upper Newport Bay and make recommendations for additional biological
assessments, habitat restoration and public usage to meet the future needs of DFG and the City.
c. Based upon the results of Mr. Ware's review of the documents and discussions with the Department
and the City of Newport Beach staff, Mr. Ware will submit the addenda concepts to DFG and City
for review and comment. Where appropriate, Mr. Ware will seek the advice of qualified bay
researchers and scientists to insure that the recommendations are reasonable and attainable based
upon the goals of the DFG and the City for the long- tenn.management of the Upper Bay. Upon a
thorough review of the document by the DFG and the City, Mr. Ware will revise and submit a final
addenda concept report.
d. Mr. Ware will attend a stakeholder meeting and present addenda concepts to the final Management
Plan. We understand that the level of effort will be in the range of 120 -150 hours. Additional
revisions to the Preliminary Management Plan may be negotiated as an extra.
Coordination and negotiation to reach a consensus on the California Department of Fish and Game habitat
and conservation goals is critical to the success of the HAMP. The HAM? needs to reflect the consensus
goals of the stakeholders to ensure the projects address these goals and are fully supported in the grant
application. WESTON understands the importance of moving the process forward with a defined set of goals
with the California Department of Fish and Game who owns and manages most of the Upper Newport Bay
as a State Ecological Reserve. The Project Team will utilize our experience and working relationship with
DFG in developing a strategy for how the City can progress on the Management Plan for the Upper Newport
Bay Ecological Reserve.
One possible approach for achieving consensus that is being used on a restoration project managed by DEG
is the use of an ecosystem focus rather than specific species. WESTON is currently working on the
consultant team for the Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project which is undergoing development of
conceptual alternatives and reaching consensus with the stakeholders that include DFG and the California
Coastal Conservancy which owns the property. Success in moving forward on the alternatives with the
stakeholders is based on an ecosystem focus rather than on specific species. By focusing the restoration on
the development of a sustainable ecosystem consisting of multiple habitats that can support long -term diverse
biological communities, the alternative development has been able to progress forward by presenting a
defined range of potential habitats and restoration efforts, and away from a possible contentious effort on
selecting alternatives based on specific species. By working toward a common goal of sustainable diverse
biological communities, supporting goals such as protecting endangered species are also met.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
10
Task 2 — Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan
This task includes the assessment and development of recommendations for the management of sediment
inflows and sediment disposal frequencies for the Upper Newport Bay sediment basins. It is understood that
the current Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project will be completed within 2 years at which
time the City will be responsible for the maintenance of sediment basins. The Project Team will review any
interim documents for the Ecosystem Restoration Projects to assess the maintenance needs with regard to
sediment removal.
Hydrodynamic (RMA2) and sediment transport (RMAl l) models have been developed for the Upper
Newport Bay in support of the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study conducted by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The models have been calibrated and a methodology has been developed
to use the models for long -term simulation of
sediment transport. As part of the Ecosystem
Restoration Feasibility Study, the models have been
applied to simulate long -term (50 years) sediment
r
transport at Upper Newport Bay for the future
without project condition, as well as to simulate 15-
years into the future for six ecosystem restoration¢
alternatives. The model, results provide the change
in sedimentation (erosion or deposition) at Upper
Newport Bay in 5 -year intervals. The WESTON
Team will review these model simulation results to
evaluate potential sedimentation issues to develop a
Sediment Control Plan with respect to maintenance
needs and disposal frequencies in the future.
The Project Team will also identify additional sediment controls that could be implemented which would
minimize the cost for maintaining the inbay sediment basins. This assessment would include the review of
current source controls and pollution prevention measures in the watershed to address sedimentation.
Increased effort in these measures may reduce the frequency of sediment removal in the basins. Information
on the effectiveness of the current SUSMP and City Codes on reducing sediment loads will also be assessed
and recommendation made on modifications as appropriate. Integration of the sediment controls in planned
watershed projects will also be evaluated to further reduce sediment loads and consolidate maintenance
activities and facilities by addressing multiple constituents of concern.
The recormendations on the sediment inflow, maintenance of the inbay basins and the implementation of
additional sediment control measures will be summarized in the draft Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan.
Comments received by the City on the draft will be incorporated into the final plan.
Task 3 — Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
WESTON team member Everest has extensive experience in the development and application of
hydrodynamic and water quality models specifically for Newport Bay. In the last five years, Everest has
developed and applied hydrodynamic and water quality models to evaluate tidal circulation and water quality
issues at Newport Dunes Lagoon and Newport Island Channels, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of a
proposed dry weather storm drain diversion program for the City. Through these studies, Everest has
developed a calibrated hydrodynamic model for the entire Newport Bay and Harbor. As part of the ASBS
Cross - Contamination study, Everest is currently using hydrodynamic and water quality models to identify
potential sources and impacts of pollutant discharges from the watershed and harbor to the three ASBS areas
along the Newport Coast.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
11
Everest will utilize this local hands -on experience in identifying the most compatible and efficient models
that can address water quality issues, as well as predicting sediment depositions throughout Upper and Lower
Newport Bay. To achieve this, Everest will review other prior numerical modeling studies for Newport Bay
and the hydrodynamic and water quality data collected to support these modeling efforts. Each modeling
study will be reviewed for items such as focus area, model used (e.g., RMA2 or SED213), model type (e.g.,
2D or 3D hydrodynamic model), simulated constituents (e.g., salinity, sediment, bacteria or other
constituents), hydrodynamic data used, and water quality data used. Prior numerical studies that will be
reviewed include the hydrodynamic and sediment transport model studies conducted for the USACE Upper
Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study.
In addition to the above mentioned models for Newport Bay, other hydrodynamic and water quality models
commonly used by public agencies in addressing water quality, sediment transport and TMDL issues will be
identified and reviewed for application for Newport Bay. The Team will consult with the City of Newport
Beach, the Technical Advisory Committee established for this study and other relevant stakeholders to
establish the goals and objectives for model applications for Newport Bay. Based on the identified model
goals and objectives, model evaluation criteria will be selected and recommendation on whether
enhancement of existing models (e.g. additional model calibration or expansion of model components to one
of the existing models for Newport Bay) or the development of new model(s) will be made based on the
evaluation criteria in selecting the most appropriate model to suit the water quality and sedimentation model
needs for Newport Bay.
Everest has recently completed the Dominguez Channel Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Study (Study)
funded by a Proposition 13 Grant for the Port of Los Angeles. The primary purpose of the Study was to
develop a calibrated and verified hydrodynamic and water quality model for the Dominguez Channel
Estuary. The Dominguez Channel Estuary Model (DCEM) will be used by the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) for future TMDL development and implementation within the Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Area (Harbor Area). One of the most important components of the DCEM
was the selection of the hydrodynamic and water quality model(s). A two -phase selection process was
utilized to select the most appropriate model(s) for the DCEM. The first phase consisted of an initial
screening of potential models. The second phase consisted of an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses
of the screened models. These include the comparison of models for their. 1) mathematical formulation, 2)
numerical methods, 3) watershed model interfacing, 4) model applicability, 5) model availability and 6)
public acceptance.
Everest will use the DCEM experience for this study in the evaluation and election of the most efficient
model(s) for Newport Bay. In addition, based on the model goals and objectives, and data availability, a list
of data requirements for the recommended modeling enhancements or the development of a new model will
be prepared. The list will focus on critical data need for model calibration and validation, as well as data
needed in establishing loading input and model setup for various model applications.
A report documenting the model identification, model evaluation, data gaps and recommendation will be
submitted to the City for review and comment. After receiving comments from the City, a final
recommendation on model selection will be made. We may also prepare interim submittals such as technical
memorandum on model selection and evaluation and data gap report if needed.
City of Newport Beads Harbor Area Management Plan
12
Task 4- Eelgrass Capacity Recommendations
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a key component of the Newport ecosystem that functions as a nursery
habitat and foraging habitat for many species of invertebrates, fishes, and seabirds. Its importance as a
biological resource however conflicts in part with City, County, State, and the Federal Government's goals,
needs, and responsibility to maintain navigational waterways and harbor- related infrastructure such public
beaches, piers, docks, and bulkheads. Consequently, it is critical that the City has an understanding of (1) the
amount of eelgrass that historically has occurred in the Bay (2) how eelgrass acreage has varied over time
through natural variation and human - induced changes (3) environmental regulations and policies governing
development in Newport Bay relative to eelgrass disturbance, loss, mitigation and the long -term potential for
establishing eelgrass mitigation banks in Newport Bay; and (4) long -term eelgrass issues related to the City's
and private citizens' capability to maintain and upgrade harbor infrastructure as well as maintain a safe
navigational waterway for boaters.
Mr. Rick Ware, senior marine biologist with Coastal Resources Management, Inc. will be the principal
investigator for this task. He has over 25 years of hands -on experience in conducting intertidal and
underwater eelgrass ecological studies, eelgrass habitat mapping, and preparing environmental assessments
of harbor infrastructure projects for private clients, engineering firms, and public sector clients between San
Diego and Morro Bay. Many of these projects deal specifically with the Lower and Upper Newport Bay
ecosystem, including small -scale mapping and environmental assessments, pre- and -post construction
monitoring for private - sector specific- infrastructure
projects (docks, dredging„ and bulkheads), eelgrass
t transplants, as well as bay -wide investigations for the
t
City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He was co- principal
investigator along with Dr. Noel Davis for the
USACE pilot experimental eelgrass transplant
project at six locations in Lower and Upper Newport
Bay (2003), and the principal investigator for the
r City's first bay -wide GIS eelgrass mapping studies
(2003 -2004) that have greatly assisted the City's
harbor resource managers and the public (through the
` City's website) to directly determine the potential
presence of eelgrass throughout the bay.
1� tyil� As a follow up to the 2003 -2004 studies, CRM; Inc.
is currently under contract to the City of Newport
Beach to conduct the second bay -wide eelgrass mapping project for the City of Newport Beach, following a
period of heavy rains and observable die -back of eelgrass compared to the 2003 studies. As part of this study,
CRM will also be conducting a second set of eelgrass pilot restoration transplants for the City of Newport
Beach in spring 2007 to determine if locations within Lower Newport Bay can function as future eelgrass
mitigation banking areas. He is intimately familiar with the Coastal Comrnission and the Army Corps of
Engineers regulations and policies regarding impacts to eelgrass, mitigation for losses, monitoring survey
requirements, and mitigation and long -term restoration of eelgrass habitats.
Consequently, Mr. Ware will be the principal investigator overseeing this task. Mr. Ware and his staff will:
a. Review the history of eelgrass (both in acreage of habitat; quality of habitat, changes in acreage over
time, and changes in regulations /mitigation policies over time) in Newport Bay. Mr. Ware currently
has an extensive library of gray literature dealing with this issue, a working relationship with the
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
13
City's Harbor Resources Division, the County of Orange, DFG, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMSF) which will result in a cost - efficient review. He has also conducted many of the site -
specific dock - related construction projects in Newport Bay, and is aware of the potential and actual
types of impacts, and their areal effect on eelgrass bed resources associated with the project impacts
of eelgrass located within 15' of private and commercial dock facilities. CRM will examine and
comment on the 1991 Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and its development pursuant
to the Magnuson- Stevens Act. CRM will be able to aptly critque the experimental eelgrass
restoration project conducted by the City in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) due to our extensive involvement in the project. It should be noted that this project was an
experimental pilot eelgrass transplant project, and not designed to be a full scale project. With that in
mind, CRM will review and critique the results of the experimental project and the potential to create
future, additional eelgrass mitigation areas within the Newport Bay system.
b. CRM will prepare a summary report of eelgrass related issues for the City and regulators. This report
will address impacts to dredging, minimum threshold capacity for essential fish habitat, current
eelgrass mitigation requirements, adequacy of scientific eelgrass studies, and other related issues.
CRM will also review and prepare a section that details innovative transplant methods, innovative
designs for docks related to decreasing the effects of structure shading on eelgrass habitats that have
been successfully used to reduce infrastructure impacts on eelgrass habitats in other ports and
harbors along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
As an option to this task, CRM will review and evaluate the applicability of the Eelgrass Restoration
Site Selection Model (Short et al. 2002) for use in site selection of Newport Bay eelgrass restoration
sites. This model encompasses several phases. The first phase uses available environmental
information to formulate a preliminary transplant suitability index (PTSI) for pre- screening and
eliminating unsuitable sites; (2) the second phase involves field measurements of light availability
and bioturbation as well as survival and growth of test transplants at priority sites identified by the
PTSf; (3) a transplant suitability index (TSI) score is calculated for each site based on the PTSI and
the results of field measures. The TSI is a multiplicative index that eliminates sites which receive
ratings of zero and gives high scores to those sites with the greatest potential for successful
transplantation.
c. CRM will coordinate with NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS "), US Fish and
Wildlife Service (US FWS) and DFG to determine and recommend a Newport Bay - specific
threshold for eelgrass that is essential for fish habitat. This report will be based on harbor -wide
mapping efforts being prepared by the City and other, relevant scientific information regarding
eelgrass ecosytem structure and function. The resulting report will include recommendations based
on best - available scienific data and the professional opinions of researchers, resource managers, and
agency scientists. CRM will provide three hard copies of a summary report and one digital copy of
the report to the City for review and comments.
Based upon a mutually agreeable time frame, CRM will revise the summary report per comments submitted
and submit a final report. Five hard copies and one digital copy of the report will be submitted to the City.
At all steps in this task, WESTON biologists will assist CRM by providing input on the report generation and
in developing the recommendations therein. Additionally, WESTON will review all draft documents and
oversee the production of the final report. WESTON biologists have conducted numerous eelgrass and surf
grass surveys, transplants and assessments throughout the southern California region. These projects have
been carried out in San Diego Bay, Ventura Harbor and Santa Barbara.
14
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
1�
SOLUTIONS
Task 5 - Contaminated Sediment Study
Sediment management activities in Newport Bay include the dredging in support of maintaining navigable
waterways, docks, and bulkheads, as well as the placement of sediment for beach replenishment and habitat
restoration. An understanding of the potential for sediment contamination is necessary to ensure that projects
are successful, biologically viable and meet regulatory requirements. WESTON has over 20 years of
in sampling, testing, and evaluating sediments and over 10 years experience evaluating
sediments in both Lower and Upper Newport Bay. We will use this experience and knowledge to conduct a
thorough review of sediment contamination issues and determine critical data gaps that may affect the City's
ability to manage sediment effectively.
WESTON (formerly MEC Analytical Systems,
Inc.) has supported the City's sediment _
management activities related to the Regional
General Permit for small projects, as well as the
City and USACE's efforts to dredge the Federal si
Channels in Lower Newport Bay and characterize
material for the Upper Newport Bay restoration
program. WESTON performed sediment
evaluations in 1998, 2000 -2001, 2002 -2003, and
2005. These surveys included chemical analysis and
biological testing that evaluated the
potential for
sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation of chemical WESTON's In -House Expertise Includes a Nationally
residues. These studies also addressed potentially Accredited Sediment Toxicity Laboratory
confounding factors associated with sediment
toxicity testing. hr general, metals, organotins, and most priority pollutant organics were found at relatively
low concentrations (i.e., below the effects range -median [ER -M] sediment quality values). Total DDT and
Hg have been observed in some locations at concentrations that exceed the ER -M. However, in each case the
observed concentrations have not been positively correlated to responses in biological tests and have not
been observed at significant levels in clam or worm tissues. Toxicity has been observed in the amphipod
toxicity tests with sediment from some areas of Lower Newport Bay. In 2005, WESTON was able to
demonstrate that some of the amphipod responses were likely due to the high percentage of fines in the
sediment, and not sediment - associated contaminants. Recent testing by WESTON and the Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project indicate that there may be some additional sources of toxicity,
such as chemical groups that are not part of the EPA priority pollutant list (such as other organic pesticides).
WESTON will evaluate data collected by WESTON, SCCWRP, Orange County, the City, and others for
trends in chemical contamination in sediments and sediment toxicity. As part of our review for the City, we
will use our knowledge of biological testing to identify potential data gaps including an assessment of
whether historical test results may have been affected by factors other than sediment associated
contaminants. Where appropriate WESTON will suggest potential additional studies and the use of refined
testing methodologies to more accurately delineate areas showing toxicity.
To meet the City's needs, WESTON has a state -of -the -art toxicology laboratory with more than 5,000 square
feet of laboratory . Our Carlsbad laboratory is certified for toxicity testing by both California and
Washington State. It is one of only a handful of toxicity testing laboratories in the U.S. to be nationally
accredited under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP - accreditation
#01113CA).
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
15
Dr. David Moore leads Carlsbad's bioassay laboratory as well as all sediment contamination and toxicity
studies at WESTON. He is a recognized expert in the field of dredged material and contaminated sediment
assessment. He was directly involved in the development of both The Green Book and ITM and has practical
experience conducting evaluations, sampling, and testing under this guidance. Dr. Moore has presented at
numerous national and international conferences and has published over 30 papers in peer- reviewed journals.
Dr. Moore currently serves on the State sediment quality guidelines advisory committee to the SWRCB. He
is highly experienced in Newport Bay's sediment contamination issues, having been Project Principal for
dredged material evaluations as part of previous Newport Bay studies for the USACE -LA district.
In previous investigations of Newport Bay, WESTON has found that use of standard sediment testing
protocols may have resulted in false positives due to factors other than sediment associated contaminants
(e.g., sediment grain size distribution and seasonality of wild caught test organisms). Consequently it is
important to consider such factors in the design and implementation of sediment testing programs to ensure
accurate and cost effective assessment of potential sediment contamination issues. The extensive
involvement of WESTON's principal investigators and sediment contamination experts, Drs. David Moore
and Jack Word in key sediment - related issues potentially affecting the City now and in the future (i.e.,
development of sediment quality objectives for State of California, ongoing revisions to the Inland and
Ocean Testing Manuals, and other emerging technical and policy issues at the local, regional, and national
level) will enable WESTON to provide the City with the best recommendations on the design and
implementation of sediment removal and remediation studies for the City's review and approval.
WESTON is very familiar with previous work by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
(SCCWRP), indicating elevated levels of Cu, Hg, Zn, and DDTs and reduced amphipod survival and sea
urchin fertilization in sediment toxicity tests in several areas of Newport Bay. In a subsequent study by
University of California Davis's Granite Canyon Lab, results from sediment toxicity identification
evaluations (TIES) suggested that synthetic pyrethroid insecticides may be responsible for some of the
observed sediment toxicity in Upper Newport Bay. Pyrethroids are newly emerging contaminants of concern
in sediment evaluations as a consequence of the State mandated replacement of Diazinon with Bifentbrin and
other related pyrethroid insecticides. These results may have some relevance to toxicity previously measured
in other parts of Newport Bay.
WESTON's experience in the evaluation of beneficial use alternatives for dredged material as part of
programs for the Pacific Division of the US Navy and for the Port of Los Angeles will enable us to provide
the City with the best recommendations for remediation and disposal of sediment from Newport Bay.
Previous studies in the Rhine Channel have indicated that chemicals including cadmium, copper, lead,
mercury, zinc, total DDTs, and total PCBs, exceeded sediment quality values and TMDL target levels in the
Rhine Channel, as the result of years of industrial discharge and stormwater to this area. Because of the
contamination, and the need to maintain or deepen the channel, many remediation alternatives are not
feasible (i.e., capping); one recommended alternative has been to dredge and place material in an upland
landfill disposal. WESTON will review and evaluate sediment management alternatives such as ocean
disposal, beach nourishment, upland landfill placement, and daily cover based on sediment contamination
levels and grain size distributions within specified areas, and provide the City with recommended options or
additional studies, where necessary. WESTON will also evaluate the potential use of monitored natural
attenuation, engineering methods (e.g., capping, sediment sumps, etc.) and technologies (e.g., use
hydrocyclone for sand separation) for improved cost effective and sustainable management of materials from
the harbor.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 16
Task 6 - Dredging Requirements Study
WESTON understands the importance of preparing a comprehensive dredging requirements study that will
incorporate a management plan to maintain, in an economically and environmentally sound manner, the
channels and berthing areas necessary for navigation in the Lower Bay. Our extensive experience in dredging
projects and dredged material management planning for the federal, state, and local government sectors gives
us a thorough understanding of the many issues encoumered when selecting methods for dredging and
dredged material placement.
WESTON's approach will begin with an overview of goals and objectives, existing data and operating
assumptions, which frame the basis for the identification of the frequencies, methods, and costs for the
dredging and material placement. The Team will review available documents that have evaluated dredging
methods and costs for Lower Bay that include the Rhine Channel Feasibility Study and Alternatives
Evaluation. We will review the costs, dredging methods and recommended remedial alternatives (i.e.,
dredging with upland landfill disposal, nearshore confined disposal, or confined aquatic disposal) provided
and evaluate the application to other areas of the Lower Bay. Other relevant documents related to costs and
dredging will be reviewed such as those related to chemical contamination in sediment, sediment deposition,
hydrographic condition surveys performed by the .;
Army Corps of Engineers, and models r.
demonstrating sediment transport in Newport
Bay, in order to provide the City with both tt
priority dredging and long -term strategies for
maintenance dredging activities in Lower Bay., 1
A. Dredging Frequencies
Developing a projected dredging quantities table for all project areas is a Zs-0 entical element ofthe dredging requirements study Historical shoaling
rates, past dredging events, usage data,
and adding non -pay overdepth amounts
and contingencies (i.e., storm events) will be used to develop a practical guide for planning and
prioritizing dredging projects throughout the Lower Bay. The Project Team has prepared numerous
documents that include this type of long -range planning. Our most recent efforts include the Los
Angeles Regional Dredge Material Management Plan (DMMP) Report and the Baltimore Harbor
and Channels DMMP prepared for U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The Baltimore DMMP included a
20 -year dredging plan for a total of 29 different channels, reaches, anchorages, and private berths
with a projected quantity of nearly 120,000,000 CY.
B. Dredging & Placement Methods
The most appropriate dredging and dredged material placement method for each proposed project
will be developed while considering many factors. These factors include physical constraints of the
dredging area, water depth, sediment characteristics (physical and chemical), regulatory dredging
windows, environmental impacts (e.g. turbidity, Essential Fish Habitat, etc.), distance to placement
site, applicability for beneficial use, and budgetary constraints. These factors would be used when
selecting the type and size of the dredge, along with the method of material transportation and
placement. WESTON evaluated 71 different dredging/placement alternatives during the preparation
of the Baltimore Harbor DMMP. Everest evaluated environmental impacts from dredging alternative
for the Los Angeles Regional DMMP.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
17
C. Dredging & Placement Costs
WESTON will work closely with the City of Newport Beach to develop the best dredging plan that
meets the goals and objectives of the Harbor Area Management Plan while maximizing
environmental benefit and minimizing costs. WESTON's estimating experience and knowledge of
the dredging industry will ensure the preparation usefiil estimates that can be used for budget
planning and the identification of cost - sharing opportunities (e.g., the implementation of a beneficial
use alternatives may introduce cost - sharing partners into the project). WESTON has prepared
estimates at many levels of a dredging project, including planning, design, and construction.
The Team will also use WESTON's Washington D.C. Government Relations office to identify
funding sources. WESTON routinely monitors the annual appropriations process to provide our
clients with current funding status on Civil Works projects. We are aware the Administration
requested $9 million for the Surfside - Sunset- Newport Beach project in the FY 2008 U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Operations and Maintenance budget submission. Further the Corps is still in the
process of finalizing their FY 2007 program as directed by Congress in the FY 2007 Continuing
Resolution. We expect this to be complete and submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees by March 15, 2007. Once they provide this to the Committees, we will able to identify
the funding level proposed by the Corps for FY 2007. However, based on the House and Senate
Committee reports For FY 2007, it is anticipated that approximately $1.2 million will be available
for Newport to use for maintenance dredging. Our Government Relations Office will confirm
whether this is in the Corps work plan when it is provided to the Committees. We will continue to
assist the City of Newport in tracking reliable sources of funding for dredging projects in the Bay.
WESTON understands the issues and challenges, including dredging and dredged material management,
associated with developing a comprehensive plan for the protection and management of Newport Bay. We
believe we can provide a technical approach for dredging and dredged material management that is effective,
adaptable, and sustainable for the public areas of the Lower Bay.
Task 7 — Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines Study
During and immediately following initial construction of Newport Bay, the federal government, through the
U.S. Array Corps of Engineers, established harbor lines and pierhead lines (collectively referred to as "the
lines "). The harbor lines define the federal navigation channel dredging limits while the pierhead lines
establish limits on how far piers can extend into Bay waters. These two sets of lines are important for
maintaining safe navigation conditions throughout Newport Bay.
The lines have not been adjusted since initial establishment. Newport Bay has been altered extensively since
the time the lines were established and there have been changes in harbor uses during this time as well. For
example, the type, size, and distribution of vessels within Newport Bay have changed over time to reflect
changes in the market and the needs of boat owners/operators. In addition, changes in policy and regulations
at the federal, state, and local (City of Newport Beach and County of Orange) level have resulted in a
different baseline condition from that considered at the time the lines were initially established.
WESTON team member Everest worked on the preliminary assessment of the lines as part of the Mariner's
Mile Walkway Waterfront Development Project. For that project, the City was interested in studying the
feasibility of constructing a walkway that ran next to the water along the Mariner's Mile portion of Newport
Bay. In addition, the project would have included the modification or replacement of the existing dock
system.
18
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
As part of that feasibility study, Everest worked with City staff to identify several issues related to the lines
such as the need to relocate the lines to accommodate the new dock system, requirement to assess existing
impacts to the pierhead line (e.g., overhang due to vessel rafting), and potential impacts to emergency (e.g.,
fire department) vessel access. The experience gained from this preliminary assessment will be put to use by
the WESTON Team in developing and implementing an effective strategy to address harbor line and
pierhead line needs throughout Newport Bay.
Based on prior experience in identifying harbor line and pierhead line issues within Newport Bay as well as
experience in performing policy review for several state agencies (California Department of Boating and
Waterways and California State Coastal Conservancy), the WESTON Team proposes the following approach
to identify and address issues related to the harbor lines and pierhead lines throughout Newport Bay.
A. Identify harbor and pierhead lines
The City's GIS database will be obtained and reviewed to identify the location and orientation of the
harbor lines and pierhead lines. Any data gaps will be identified to focus future data review performed
under this task. Deliverable: Harbor and pierhead line map
B. Review harbor and pierhead line development
City policies, regulations, and procedures will be obtained and reviewed, along with similar information
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Navigation Section) and County of Orange, to track the
historical development of the lines. Recent information including proposed revisions to Title 17 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and proposed harbor Commission activities, will also be obtained and
reviewed to develop an understanding of existing conditions and issues. This information will be used to
identify the functions of the lines, including the identification of areas where the original functions are no
longer being met or are no longer relevant (e.g., due to development changes that have eliminated the
original purpose). Deliverable: Harbor and pierhead line development summary
C. Identify existing and future harbor uses
A list of existing and potential future harbor uses will be prepared for Newport Bay. Existing information
(e.g., maps and brochures) will be obtained from the City and reviewed for information on existing uses.
A site visit will be conducted to verify documented uses and identify undocumented uses that might be
relevant to the completion of this task. Future uses will be assessed through consultation with staff from
the City, County, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to identify future activities, projects, programs, and
visions for Newport Bay. Deliverable: Existing and future use summary (map as appropriate)
D. Develop opportunities and constraints
The existing and future uses will be compared to the various functions of the lines to identify
opportunities and constraints. A matrix (or two matrices) will be assembled that identifies: (i)
opportunities and constraints related to the conduct of existing harbor uses (e.g., maintenance dredging)
with existing lines and (ii) opportunities and constraints related to the conduct of potential future harbor
uses (e.g., Mariner's Mile Waterfront Development) with existing lines. Deliverable: Opportunities and
constraints matrix
19
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
E. Prepare recommendations.
The opportunities and constraints will be used to develop a set of recommendations for changing the
existing lines to match existing and future harbor uses. ht addition, a set of recommendations may be
developed for modifying existing and future harbor uses to better match the functions of the existing
lines. These recommendations will be reviewed to prepare a strategy involving a mixture of changes to
the lines and modification of harbor uses to provide an optimum approach for the City. Deliverable:
Recommendations list
F. Prepare a draft report
A draft report documenting the findings and recommendations of this task will be submitted to the City
for review and comment. Deliverable: Draft report
G. Prepare a final report.
The draft report will be revised based on comments and edits submitted by the City and a meeting will be
held to review the major findings and recommendations. Deliverable: Final report
H. Prepare an implementation plan
An implementation plan will be prepared that outlines the steps necessary to implement the strategy
presented in the final report. The implementation plan will include a time- sequenced, flow chart of the
actions and decisions needed to achieve the changes presented in the final report. The implementation
plan will also include time estimates for each action and decision. This effort will be conducted in close
coordination with City staff such that reasonable time estimates are developed for actions and decisions,
most of which will be under the control of the City. Deliverable: Implementation plan
Task 8 — Water Quality Best Management Practices Report
The approach to the development of the Water Quality Best Management Practices (BUY) Report includes
the identification of ongoing and development of recommended BMPs that address the regulatory drivers and
restoration goals. These BMPs need to be prioritized to provide the City with a strategic plan for the
implementation based on TMDLs schedules, available resources and funding opportunities. The HAMP will
include this strategic plan based on the lists, recommendations and reports prepared under this task.
The identification and assessment of BMPs currently being implemented to reduce pollutants entering the
Upper and Lower Bay needs to consider not only those ongoing and planned within Newport Bay, but also in
the watershed and adjacent coastal areas. An integrated approach is needed in the assessment of BMPs that
considers those priority rated pollutants that have been identified for the watershed, Upper Bay, Lower Bay
and adjacent coastal areas based on regulatory drivers linked to beneficial uses. An integrated approach
considers both current and anticipated priority rated pollutants to assure that BMPs are designed to address or
accommodate future reduction requirements without expensive retro -fits. High priority pollutants are
identified through the review of existing water and sediment quality data compared to applicable quality
criteria and associated beneficial use, and the requirements of current and anticipated TMDLs, municipal
storm water permit, sediment management programs and Ocean Plan exception process. Potential high
priority pollutants for the watershed, bay, and coastal area are presented in the following figure and the
associated regulatory drivers/programs.
20
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
Page left blank intentionally
i
This identification of the high priority pollutants is the first step in the prioritization process for identifying
priority BMPs. This prioritization process is outlined in the figure that follows. The prioritization of BMPs is
critical for developing the HAMP to allow the City to effectively implement management measures as
resources are made available. A priority list of BMPs provides a planning tool from which projects can be
identified in annual budgets and for grant applications. The State's funding programs specifically require a
management plan that identifies priority projects. The management plan should drive the funding request not
the grant process.
rgorinZaTign. rrocess Tor me Implememanon or brArs.
This prioritization process includes a review of the Regional Water Quality Board's list of beneficial uses
established for Newport Bay. As shown in the previous figure, Step 5 includes evaluation of BMPs that can
also meet restoration long -term goals.
The IiAMP will use the lists and recommended BMPs developed and prioritized in this task to develop a
Strategic Plan for the City for the implementation of BMPs in a balanced manner considering the established
beneficial uses for Newport Bay.
WESTON will utilize our experience completing a 5 -year Watershed Activity Implementation Strategic Plan
for the six watersheds in the City of San Diego. We developed this strategic plan using an integrated
approach that addressed multiple pollutants and various, regulatory requirements under the municipal permit,
water and sediment TMDLs; Ocean Plan and restoration programs. Priority BMP projects were identified
that addressed multiple constituents (bacteria, sediment, metals, pesticides and nutrients) and regulatory and
restoration programs. Conceptual BMPs designs and costs were developed to provide the City with a
management tool to develop annual budget and identify priority projects for funding opportunities.
22.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
The components of the Strategic Plan included:
• Prioritization Strategy
• Implementation Strategy and Activity Prioritization
• Required Permit and TMDL Potential Watershed Activities
• Potential Watershed Activities Location Maps
• Effectiveness Monitoring Plan
As part of this task, the Project Team will consult with the California Coastal Commission's Clean and
Green Boating Campaign to develop a list of recommended BMPs for boat and dock maintenance, cleaning
and construction. The Clean and Green Campaign has a number of education and outreach tools and
programs that will be reviewed and assessed for implementation in Newport Bay. These include:
• Dock walker Education Program
• Clean Boating Publications
• Changing Tide Newsletter
• California Clean Marina Toolkit
• Education of Marine Supply shops
• California Clean Boating Network
The recommended list of BMPs will be submitted to the City for review and comments. The report will also
include proposed monitoring and/or enforcement mechanism for on -water enforcement of BMPs for boaters.
These mechanisms will be developed in consultation with the California Coastal Commission's Clean and
Green Boating Campaign which developed a number of tools as listed above that includes a dock walker
program that may be used as part of an effective boater BMP program. The success of these programs will be
identifying the barriers for compliance and strategies for overcoming these barriers to change behaviors. The
Project Manager, David Pohl, has undergone training using the Social Marketing approach to effectively
implementing water quality education and outreach programs. This approach has proven effective in the
implementation and success of resource management public campaigns that aim to not just change awareness
but the behavior of the public to achieve conservation and pollution reduction goals.
The Project Team will further use our experience in the evaluation of pollution sources from marinas and
assessment of appropriate management action to develop the recommended list of BMPs. This experience
includes providing support to the Port of Los. Angeles associated with the Dominguez Channel and Los
Angeles Harbors TMDL for Bacteria, as well as, the TMDL for toxicity. As part of the support to the
Implementation Plan, WESTON reviewed and made recommendations to municipal ordinances for sidewalk
washing and facility maintenance. This support included providing specific recommendations for reducing
pollutant loading associated with marina and dock area maintenance and activities in ensure best
management practices for pollutant reduction were incorporated into Port policy and tenant lease. agreements.
WESTON conducted a bacteria source tracking study at Marina del Rey in Los Angeles to identify source
and loading of bacteria throughout the marina. These finding were the basis for implementation of
management measures to meet TMDL load reductions.
Task 9 — Regional General Permits (RGP)
The Regional General Permit, under which the City carries out maintenance and improvements in Newport
Bay, has a five -year term, meaning that the City needs to go through a costly, time- consuming, and possibly
uncertain renewal process every five years. The City has expressed a desire to streamline this process to the
extent feasible, including by extending the permit's term to ten years. The WESTON team will address this
task in two steps. First, we will meet with the key parties to review past renewal processes. From City staff
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
23
we will assemble the history of the current permit conditions and discuss obstacles and challenges they faced.
From the Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch (South Coast) staff we will review the concerns,
pressures, and policies behind the current permit language and explore their concerns relative to renewals.
In the second step we will prepare a draft report recommending a strategy for future permit renewals. We
expect the strategy to include a pre - application meeting with the Regulatory Branch at which the current
permit would be reviewed and a concept for sediment testing in support of the new permit would be agreed
on. The City would urge the Corps to accept the existing permit's structure and conditions — we note that as
worded it appears to cover every contingency and to give the Regulatory Branch considerable control over
any activities, so there would seem to be no need for additional conditions. The strategy would include a
template for a sampling and analysis plan, recommendations for the sampling strategy (stations, chemical
constituents, toxicity tests, etc.) and a proposed procedure for obtaining the Corps' approval of the plan.
Finally, the report would include a proposed schedule for the renewal process that would ensure that the
process is completed as efficiently as possible before the current permit's expiration date.
WESTON's effort will include exploring the possibility of extending the permit term to ten years. There are
many sound reasons for such an approach, including the comprehensiveness of the current permit and the
amount of flexibility that is built into it. Nevertheless, that effort does face an uphill battle: in recent
discussions on another project, South Coast staff indicated that the five -.year term for RGPs is a firm policy
of the Los Angeles District. WESTON will identify the elements of such an effort, which would probably
entail high -level discussions with District management, and will prepare the rationale to support the effort.
Task 10 —Beach Replenishment Projects
The US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE), the State of
California (State), and various local governments and non-
governmental agencies in California have collaborated to
create tools for the purpose of regional sediment management
(RSM). RSM entails the use of sediment dredged from -
T
harbors and from flood control projects to place on beaches
ki
that have eroded, often due to human activity. RSM is meant
to be a cost effective way of nourishing beaches and providing '
necessary shoreline protection to California's coast.
WESTON Team Members (Everest) has been working for WESTOkNKeval4ated receiver sitesifor ti
several years assisting the USACE and the State in developing' A.rANDAG regional bead lsand "project,?
m �
a GIS -based tool called Coastal Sediment Benefit Analysis .
Tool (CSBAT) that helps decision makers to evaluate and optimize the placement of sediment from various
sources to receiving beaches. The CSBAT is designed around six components: Sediment Sources, Receiver
Sites, Transportation Models and Cost, Recreational Usage and Benefit Analyses, and Environmental
Considerations. Two CSBATs have been developed — one for the Santa Barbara and Ventura County and the
other for the San Diego County. The ultimate goal is to connect all this regional CSBAT into one integrated
model for the entire state including the Orange County.
The Team will rely on Everest's extensive knowledge and experience developing the CSBAT for the region
to develop the criteria in prioritizing beach replenishment projects for the City. These criteria will be
developed in consultation with the City and other stakeholders and may include: economic benefit for beach
replenishment, cost of replenishment based on various placement methods, compatibility of source and
receiver beach sediments, sustainability of replenished beach, and potential environmental impact for beach
replenishment projects. Historical data of beach usage, beach sediment characteristics, erosion rate and past
beach nourishment and monitoring data will be obtained and reviewed to evaluate and prioritize future beach
replenishment needs for Newport Bay and Harbor based on the selected evaluation criteria.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 24
A draft beach replenishment needs and recommendations summary report will be prepared and submitted for
City review. This report will summarize the data collected and analyses conducted, as well as a list of
recommended prioritized beach replenishment projects. After receiving comments from the City, a final
report incorporating the comments on the draft report will be prepared and submitted.
Task 11— Priority Project Funding Report
Our team maintains relationships with federal, state, and private funding agency members to stay abreast of
grant opportunities. We maintain running lists of upcoming grant opportunities and present our findings to
clients seeking funding for redevelopmcnt/restoration and other environmental projects. We assist clients in
reviewing and meeting application requirements to maximize the chance of winning. WESTON specializes
in all phases of the application process, including developing and writing the scope of work/work plan,
budget, rationale /anticipated resultsibenefit, and quality assurance plans related to grant projects. Our team
coordinates and facilitates meetings between project applicants, local environmental groups, resource and
regulatory agencies, and elected officials to gain project support. We also assist clients in implementing grant
funded projects, including project management, scheduling, budgeting, and reporting to complete these
projects on time and within the specified budget.
Proposed Integrated Approach to Funding Acquirement and Linkage to HAMP
We will leverage our knowledge of the Newport Bay Watershed and our expertise in grant funding to this
Task. Our team is unique qualified to coordinate these efforts with the Integrated Watershed Management
Plan and the Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 25
We have worked with several clients in Southern California to obtain grant funding through the Proposition
13 Clean Beaches Initiative from the California State Water Resources Control Board. The table to follow
outlines these funds secured by WESTON on behalf of the City of San Diego.
LocalSponsor
Funding
Funding to
Entity Projector Program
Purpose
Date
Proposition 13
(Clean Mission Bay Water
Evaluate point sources of bacterial
City of San Diego
Beaches Quality Improvement
pollution in Mission Bay and take actions
$1.3 million
Grant Project
to reduce pollution and subsequent
F undin
Funding
beach postings/closures by 50 %.
Proposition 13
Evaluate point sources of bacterial
(Clean
San Diego River /Ocean
pollution in the River and nearby
City of San Diego
Beaches
Beach Water Duality
beaches. Recommend actions to reduce
$1.5 million
Initiative) Grant
Improvement Project
bacteria counts and subsequent beach
Funding
postings/closures by 50 %.
Chollas Creek Watershed
Induce positive changes in attitudes and
Proposition 13
Integrated Pest
behaviors regarding pesticide use in
City of San Diego
(PRISM) Grant
Management Education
urbanized watersheds in order to protect
$1 million
Funding
Program
and restore affected beneficial uses of
receiving waters.
San Diego Watersheds
Gather and manage water quality data to
Common Ground Project:
sensitive ecosystems, identify
City of San Diego
Proposition 13
San Diego Bay
and
and abate pollution sources, track the
$600,000
Grant Funding
Watershed
effectiveness of implemented actions.
Demonstration
and prevent further degradation of our
precious water resources.
Chollas Creek Water
Improve beneficial uses within the
City of San Diego
Proposition 13
Quality Protection and
Chollas Creek Watershed through
$2,244,000
Grant Funding
Habitat Enhancement
outreach, education, stewardship
development, and habitat restoration.
Proposition 50
(Integrated
San Diego Regional
Develop a water quality database and
City of San Diego
Regional
Watershed Analysis -
GIS tool for water resource managers in
million
Water
Common Grounds
the region to make more informed
Management)
management decisions.
Grant Funded
As a part of the Mission Bay Water Quality Management Plan, the City of San Diego hired WESTON to
implement a multi-study project to identify sources of bacterial contamination and recommend appropriate
actions and activities to eliminate the input of these sources to this multi-use embayment. WESTON assisted
the City of San Diego obtain funding for this project by writing a grant application to the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for funding from Califomia's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program pursuant to the Costa - Machado Water Act of 2000 (Proposition 13).
We have also assisted stakeholder groups seeking grant funding to implement actions plans designed to
restore and protect their watershed. Our assistance resulted in millions of dollars in funding for all clients.
We reviewed private grant funding for a pilot project on sediment transport for the City of San Diego.
WESTON assisted in the lobbying efforts to create and pass the $400M Clean Ohio Fund initiative. Since the
passing of the bill, WESTON has successfully assisted clients in submitting grant applications to fund
several Brownfield redevelopment projects. WESTON worked with the City of Dayton to secure a
$2,000,000 grant in the inaugural awards from the Clean Ohio Revitalization fund for the GH &R Foundry.
Our team also assembled all the environmental documentation into the Clean Ohio Fund application for a
former paper mill in the City of West Carrollton, Ohio. Finally, we prepared the Consolidated Grant
application and CIB grant application for the City of Newport Beach for ASBS projects.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan 26
Based on the approved recommendations from Tasks I through 10, our team will develop a Priority List of
projects for the Upper and Lower Bay. We will evaluate these projects to determine how they will qualify for
State bond fimding and develop time lines associated with each. We will also evaluate the Priority List for
eligibility for federal fimding programs such as the USACE Civil Works Programs, USEPA Grants, US
Bureau of Reclamation projects, and NOAA Programs. A draft Project Priority report will be prepared and
submitted to the City for review and comment. We will utilize these comments to revise this draft report into
a final report and submit it to the City for approval.
Task 12 — Harbor Area Management Plan
The HAW will focus on the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and the integration of the various components
and issues of these two water bodies and identify the key goals and the activities to meet these goals. We
understand that the HAMP is a planning document that will identify the prioritization of these activities
based on their effectiveness to meet the goals and inter - relationship with ongoing and planned projects
throughout the watershed. This prioritization will be the basis for the development in this plan of an
implementation schedule and effectiveness assessment. The effectiveness assessment will be critical to
providing the City feedback on the success of the activities to meet the goals and the basis to determine if the
activity should be expanded or modified. Activities will often need to be implemented in a phased manner
due to available resources or remaining data needs. The effectiveness assessment program will also for
evaluation of these phased activities to best use the resources of the City and grant monies.
The prioritization process is driven by regulatory requirements and the specific pollutants of concern.
Important in this process is an integrated approach that considers both current and anticipated future
regulatory drivers to assure that resources are being used effectively and not for short term goals, but rather
long -term program success. Integrated management actions will address multiple constituents, for example,
rather than just focus on current issues. This approach is more cost effective in the long -term because
management actions that include structural BMPs do not need to be retrofitted.
The prioritization process also provides an approach to the implementation of management actions that
allows for flexibility based on available resources and implementation schedules. The prioritization process
identifies the location and targeted sources for measures that will provide the greatest pollutant load
reductions and highest likely success of implementation. Once these priority measures are identified, then the
supporting studies, permitting, and design activities can be highlighted on the implementation schedule as
critical path activities.
WESTON is completing a 5 -year Watershed Strategic Plan for the City of San Diego that identifies the
priority activities to meet current and anticipated water quality regulations in the seven watersheds that the
City has jurisdiction. The first step of the development of the plan was to identify and organize all the
existing studies, monitoring programs and BMP implementation projects, and categorize them according to
program, watershed, pollutant, source type and activity. The inter - relationships were identified for
integration into the overall Strategic Plan. Using a tiered BMP approach, watershed activities were identified
under each tier and the first and intermediate steps listed. The current activities were then highlighted under
each watershed's tiered activity list. This was the basis for developing the compressive Strategic Plan.
The Strategic Plan developed for San Diego provides a prioritization methodology for watershed activities
that takes an integrated approach. Similar to the HAMP, this Strategic Plan provides the City of San Diego
with a planning guide to the implementation of management measures that meet the current and anticipated
regulatory requirements (municipal permit, TMDLs and Ocean Plan). The plan focuses on the areas of the
watershed that have the greatest pollutant load potential and activities that best address the sources of these
loads. The Plan is already in use helping the City plan budgets, laying the groundwork for upcoming grants,
and providing a pro-active approach to meeting the various regulatory programs.
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
27
The HAMP will provide regional management guidance to best integrate the common goals of the various
watershed plans underway or planned. WESTON understands the importance of this integration based on our
current work on the Big Canyon Project as a sub- consultant to WRC and on the development of the Newport
Coast Watershed Management Plan. The implementation of the City of Newport Beach's Runoff Reduction
Program is a key element to achieving the pollution reduction goals for the Exception process under the
Ocean Plan for discharges into the Newport ASBS. The Big Canyon restoration plan had a component of
anticipated continued dry weather flow to sustain the fresh water riparian habitat. WESTON pointed out
these two possible competing goals that will need to be addressed in the restoration plan through identifying
a groundwater source as the runoff reduction program is successful in reducing over-irrigation by residences
and golf courses. The integration of the prioritization and implementation of BMPs with the restoration
programs and goals is also illustrated in the figure on page 29.
The Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve that extends from Shellmaker Island north to Jamboree
Road is designated as a Critical Coastal Area (CCA). An important aspect in the development of the I-IAMP
is understanding the integration with the watershed management plans from the upper watershed and also
adjacent and downstream coastal areas. The HAMP needs to consider the watershed, bay and coastal areas as
one integrated system, and that management actions for the Bay need to consider inputs from the watershed
as weu as notennai unoacts uom ane to me coastal area!
lr3 The Project Team has a solid understanding of
these connections and their importance in
developing management actions as part of the
r'e tq� RAMP. Everest International and WESTON are
currently working with the City on investigating
pollutant fate from the Bay and from Buck Gully
into and out of the Newport ASBS. We are
n working collaboratively to determine the pathway
and potential impacts of constituents from these
two sources on the CCA and ASBS. The
integration of these studies is key in the
k ,yi4 development of watershed activities that will be
I P# successful in meeting the overall goals. In
addition, the demonstration of this linkage will be
important in developing successful grant applications for implementation of these projects. The State Water
Resources Control Board specificies in the recent grant workshops the need to provide a better regional
benefit that addresses not only water quality but habitat restoration and water conservation. The City of
Newport Beach is uniquely positioned to provide leadership for the region in the strategy and integration of
project for implementation grant requests through your current projects that address these goals of the
SWRCB and their applicability on a regional basis.
A further illustration of our understanding of these connections under the described prioritization strategy is
shown on the final figure of this section. The figure on page 30 presents sediment for the example priority
pollutant and shows the linkage between regulatory drivers, potential prioritized. BMPs, and the studies
needed for design and assessment of effectiveness of the management measures.
28
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
EXHIBIT B
5. Consultant Fees
The information in this section provides a preliminary estimate of the total direct and indirect costs to
complete the Scope of Work including staff hours and hour rates (with benefit and overhead costs); an
estimate of all other direct costs such as material and reproduction costs; and an estimate of subconsultant
services itemized by task.
WESTON's current fee schedule for each job classification
category
Name
Rate/Hour
ri 'ipal Investigator.
David Jack Word t
$220
Kayoore
or Prolect`Mansger
Dawd Pohl <
oe=
l;.ctlMana er/Task
9
Y- 9 rea �i
Shell An he '
K $1r39
agar
Gretel' I?obeits
"t
nior ScienfistlS,enigt
Wendy Rose' • 'St e'mButkus
V n IneerlCoasfal'Engjneer
Kurt FiedetioR, Kimo Morns;
SonnYRutkowsl(I '
C1SSpecidlst7M6delingE•
Bruce Fergusdn
d,gin
weer I
SurajtSh ankar
$108
f c en ist II
Cathy Haitmeiri Damon�Owens
$85
id Processing/ Gra phics
Michelle Patzius
�'Qbnthiacts Administration
Amee.Ventures
Tom Johnson current fee schedule for each job classification (SUBCONSULTANT )
Everest International Consultants current fee schedule for each job classification (SUBCONSULTANT)
CRM current fee schedule for each job classification (SUBCONSULTANT )
59
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
Hours by Rate Category
Not -to- exceed amount for the services to be provided.
Task
'Task1 _CDFG Preliminary Management Plan
Labor
$24,041
Expenses
m
$16,083
�2
_-
T ask 3 - Hydrodynamic.Mlater Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
$32,433
a .:
Task '4 -- Eelgrass Capacity Recommendations - -
$32,809
Tasks Contaminated Sediment Study
$24,190
x
C
�
�
C
Task. 7 - Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines Study
$24,053
U
Task 8 Water Quality Best Management Practices Report
Task 9 Regional General Permits (RGP;
$17,650
AM
$15,169
Task 10 Beach Replenishment Projects
$29,041
O)
C
Ol
$11,596
25C $11,6'
L
C O
�2 2 $45 87
Not -to- exceed Amount $296,745
0 `0
U
LC
U) �7.
C
N
N
E
+
C
—
C
N
O O
0
td
(n
N
.N
C
O
.O
U)
O
d
CO
a
n
cD
cn
w
190
222
Task
8
16
-
8
Task
2
8
24
16
16
24
16
21
131
Task
-
16
24
-
177
221
Task 4
4
8
24
-
4
310
Task
8
8
24
OF
24
32
24
4
204
Task 6
8
8
16
36
50
16
4
181
Task 7
-
8
16
-
-
2
143
164
Task8
-
24
-
36
60
24
4
148
Task 9
2
8
8
-
-
-
2
80
100
ask 10
2
8
8
-
-
6
4
1 198
Task 11
2
4
24
12
-
16
12
6
4
33
113
Task 12
4
32
16 1
60
40
40
60 1
48
4
75
54
433
Not -to- exceed amount for the services to be provided.
Task
'Task1 _CDFG Preliminary Management Plan
Labor
$24,041
Expenses
Task 2 = Upper Bay Sediment Control Plan
$16,083
�2
_-
T ask 3 - Hydrodynamic.Mlater Quality Numerical Modeling Requirements
$32,433
a .:
Task '4 -- Eelgrass Capacity Recommendations - -
$32,809
Tasks Contaminated Sediment Study
$24,190
x
Task 6 Dredging Requirements Study
$21,851
Task. 7 - Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines Study
$24,053
Task 8 Water Quality Best Management Practices Report
Task 9 Regional General Permits (RGP;
$17,650
AM
$15,169
Task 10 Beach Replenishment Projects
$29,041
- $]80 "$29;2 •'
Task 11 Priority Project Funding Report
$11,596
25C $11,6'
Task 12 - Harbor Area Management Plan
$45,625
�2 2 $45 87
Not -to- exceed Amount $296,745
City of Newport Beach Harbor Area Management Plan
6. Proposed /Preliminary Timeline
The following table depicts the Team's preliminary 12 month timeline for completing the Scope of Work.
2007
2008
ProposedlPreliminary Timeline May in Jul Aug Sep� , ct Nov Doc Jon
Notice.to•Prowed - ,; ■
i Taskl s CDF.GipisllMlna IMana itmant;Plan -
;Ta`sk2 U i�ea ::Sediment Cbnfrdl!P,lan
.Task -asH diedmamicM ter,Quali .NUmedclModenn L
':Task4 Eel `rass.Ca act' Ship
;Tasks ContsminatedSedimentiStbtl ; � r
�Task6. Dred In sRe ulrements %Stull °:.'
rTask7 Heio 'ouChannellPlerheed;Gnee Stu
Taska - Mater,Qual BMP,.'Report -
Taske R Ibnal:General Perfdlts
'Taek 1D eleach?Ra IanlshmenPPrn'ects. _
`Task 11 Pdarl dFro ect FJndlh'1Re'orH.
'flask 14: HarhoriArea Maria ementlPlan
® Review/Task Coordination
- Plan/ModelmglSmdy
7. Conflict of Interest/Financial Disclosure /Equal Opportunity
WESTON does not believe any existing or planned work conflicts with the Scope of Work listed in your
request for proposal (RFP). Our firm agrees not to perform services withany new client that would present a
conflict with vour Scope of Work. We agree to promptly notify the City if my conflict occurs between
WESTON and the Ciry when circumstances, known to our fine, place the City and another WESTON client
in adverse, . hostile or incompatible positions where the interests of the City may be impaired..
WESTON will comply with all applicable City ordinances; the City Chaner; Tide VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended; Executive Orders 11246, 11375, and 12086; the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act (sections 12920 - 12921); and any other applicable Federal or State laws and regulations
hereinafter enacted. WESTON will not and does not discriminate against my subcontractors, employees, or
applicants for employment based on race, religion, color; national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, . or age.
Our subconsultant team members (Coastal Resources Management, Everest International Comulants, and
Thomas D. Johnson, Ph.D.) also agree to comply with the Conflict of Interes/Financial Disclosure and
Equal Opportunity Requirements listed in your RFP.
61
City of Newport Beach
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2006 -07
EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates
Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND
rx] Transfer Budget Appropriations X
SOURCE:.
from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
NO. BA- 07BA -070
AMOUNT: 548,800.00
Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
To transfer expenditure appropriations to approve a professional services agreement with Weston Solutions for preparation of
a Harbor Area Management Plan.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE
Fund Account
REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601)
Fund/Division Account
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Description
Description
Description
Division
Number
7231
Tidelands - Capital
Account
Number
C5100890
Areas of Biological Significance - Implementation
Division
Number
7231
Tidelands - Capital
Account
Number
C0310929
Upper Bay/Harbor Area Management
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Financial Approval: Administrative Services Director
Administrative Approval: City Manager
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Amount
Debit Credit
43i)I:IrIr r,r,
` Automatic System Entry.
$48,800.00
Date
Date
Date