HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-3759 - PSA for Analytical Services for the Renewal of Regional General Permit 54I�
U
•
0 0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
x41190 -aM-r c - �7.s1
.10 12 [ulll
Agenda Item No. 14
June 12, 2007
TO: I HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Dave Kill, Assistant City Manager, (949) 644 -3002
dkiff @city.newport-beach.ca.us
Tom Rossmiller, Harbor Resources Manager, 949 -644 -3034
trossmiller@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues —
Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Weston
Solutions, Inc.
ISSUE:
In the event that a Lower Newport Bay dredging project is possible in the near future,
should the City do preliminary testing work to address contaminated sediment issues?
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Weston
Solutions, Inc. and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amendment.
2. Approve budget amendment transferring $104,200 from the unappropriated General
Fund reserve to account 2731- C2370721 Analytical Services Agreement.
DISCUSSION:
Scope of Original Professional Services Agreement
The original Professional Services Agreement was awarded to Weston Solutions for
analytical services necessary to acquire a programmatic permit. known as Regional
General Permit (RGP -54), which provides for small project dredging in Newport Bay and
repairs to existing residential docks. The analyses that were performed are complex and
involve examining the chemical quality of sediments for many organic and inorganic
constituents, evaluating the physical makeup of the sediments and evaluating the
biological impacts through bioassay and bioaccumulation studies. This study, which was
awarded for $350,000, helped the City acquire the RGP -54 permit throughout most of
Newport Bay with some exclusions due to relatively local non - compliance with
• standards. The proposed amendment will assist in permitting additional areas of the
Turning
Bashi
0 h
c J R 4 y
Ia
1 d q t y
� sn gf d
�
i
a
E
11
11
® Analytical Services for Resolitffon of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 3
Proposed Amphipod Toxicity Studies
In recent years, sedimentation in Lower Newport Bay has resulted in the narrowing and
shoaling of the Federal Channels that act as the main conduits to marina and harbor
traffic. Although sediment catch basins constructed in Upper Newport Bay are effective
in helping to reduce sedimentation, the Lower Bay has remained subject to heavy
amounts of silt and sediment via tidal activity and storm events. By dredging the Lower
Bay, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and City of Newport Beach
(City) hope to re- establish adequate water depths along the Federal Channels and to
improve navigation for vessels using, entering and leaving Newport Bay.
The channels proposed for dredging are located in Lower Newport Bay are referred to
as the "Federal Channels" and include the Newport Channel, Balboa Reach, Balboa
Island North Channel, Harbor Island Reach, the Federal Anchorage, Lido Isle Reach,
and the Turning Basin. Of particular concern is the Federal Anchorage, located in the
center of Lower Newport Bay (see Figure 2). This is an area of heavy sediment
deposition, where vessels are grounding. The estimated volume for a potential first
phase project is approximately 400,000 cubic yards of dredged material. The total
volume of dredging needed to clean the Lower Bay to design depth is about 1 million
cubic yards. This proposed study could assist in permit acquisition for either alternative.
In order to maintain navigation, the proposed dredge depths range from -10 to -20 ft
mean lower low water (MLLW) with a maximum over - dredge allowance of 2 ft. The
USACE and City are proposing to dispose of the dredged material at LA -3.
Figure 2. Federal Navigational Channels
• r y `��S�C.y. T p:�8 ••��
•' .ate aW- A "-, '. -JZ°eV 10 it y3
r
t3 3�y
sf.+a�q
s1L l pfi y
J 4
5
4
Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 4
In order to determine the suitability for ocean disposal of Federal Channel sediments, a
chemical and biological evaluation was conducted following guidance provided by the
Ocean Testing Manual. The Tier III study tested 28 stations representing a total of four
areas (plus two sub - areas). Sediment composites were evaluated for physical
characteristics, chemicals of concern (COC), and biological effects, including solid -
phase and suspended - particulate phase (SPP) toxicity. Chemical analytes that
exceeded concentrations expected to elicit biological effects [Effects Range -Low (ER -L)
and Effects Range- Median (ER -M)] included DDT and associated congeners and five
metals (mercury, nickel, copper, arsenic, and cadmium). While there were no
exceedences of the limiting permissible concentration for the fish, mysid, or larval
mussels in the SPP tests or for the polychaete solid -phase tests, toxicity was observed
in the amphipod test with Eohaustorius estuarius.
What is an Amphipod?
An amphipod is a small crustacean. There are probably more species and more
environments inhabited by amphipods than for any other group. In the sea, amphipods
can be found burrowing in sandy and muddy sediments, living in tubes on hard
surfaces, and dwelling among macro - algae. Estuarine, freshwater and even terrestrial
species are known. Typically, they are in the size range 1 -10 mm (0.04 to 0.4 inches).
Figure 3 — An Amphipod
More about the Technical Studies
A subsequent round of tests focused specifically on the Federal Anchorage indicated
similar results, with the amphipod test failing to meet the ocean disposal LPC. It is
important to note that amphipod toxicity was not necessarily correlated with the
chemistry observed in the Area composites. For example; the Area 1 composite
(Balboa Channel) had significant amphipod toxicity; however, it had no metals above
ER -L levels and the lowest total DDT concentrations.
E
ff
• Ana"cal Services for Res& of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 5
The City also evaluated sediment for renewal of RGP -54. During that process, similar
responses were observed for the sediment test with E. estuarius, with reduced survival
in the LA -3 Reference as well as in the test composites, with survival ranging from 8%
to 75% in the test treatments and 65% in the LA -3 reference sediment. While there
were COCs detected in the composites (primarily DDT and congeners, and mercury),
concentrations were not well correlated with amphipod mortality. There was, however,
a relationship between sediment grain size and survival. In particular, the Newport Bay
sediment contains a high percentage of clay ( >30 %), with much of the clay size class
falling into the smallest size fraction ( <2.0 pm). Previous studies have indicated that
E. estuarius, while generally considered tolerant of a wide range of sediment grain
sizes, is not well suited to sediment with greater than 20% clay. Test sediments were
reevaluated for amphipod toxicity using both E. estuafius and Ampelisca abdita.
Ampelisca abdita is a sensitive amphipod that is an established species for toxicity
testing. During the retest, E. estuarius responded quite similarly to the first tests, while
the A. abdita survival ranged from 82% to 86 %. Based on these test results, as . well as
the lack of toxicity for other test species, the sediments were considered suitable for
ocean disposal, under the provisions of the RGP -54 permit.
Based on the findings of the RGP -54 survey, the City and USACE contracted Weston
Solutions, Inc to conduct a Tier IV evaluation of the proposed Federal Channel project.
The primary objective of this Tier IV evaluation of Federal Channel sediments was to
• determine whether the Amphipod toxicity observed in previous investigations was due to
sediment grain size. Sediment from the Federal Channels in Lower Newport Bay was
previously evaluated for ocean disposal, however, failed to meet acceptability criteria for
ocean disposal based upon the guidance provided by the Ocean Testing Manual.
These failures resulted from biologically significant responses in the amphipod bioassay
test using Eohaustorius estuarius. Although there were elevated levels of some COCs,
they did not appear to be correlated with the toxicity observed in the amphipod test.
• Based on this investigation, the sediment grain size distributions of Federal
Channel sediments appear to be similar to those observed during the RGP -54
surveys, with sediment generally dominated by fine silts and clays.
• As has been previously observed in Lower Newport Bay, DDT and mercury
appear to be the dominant priority pollutant metals and pesticides present in
Federal Channel sediments.
• DDT and mercury do not appear to be linked to amphipod toxicity.
• Based on amphipod toxicity tests with E. estuarius, Areas 2c and 3b would be
acceptable for ocean disposal, relative to LA-3 Reference.
• Based on A. abdita toxicity tests, Areas 1, 2, and 3 (including their respective
subareas, would be acceptable for ocean disposal relative to LA-3 Reference.
• Sediment grain size appears to be a factor in amphipod toxicity for Areas 2b and
3b, however, amphipod toxicity in Area 4 sediment may be due to other chemical
• or physical factors.
• •
Analytical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 6
CJ
Thus toxicity testing of sediments from the Federal Channels of Newport Bay has
shown unacceptable amphipod survival in a number of areas within Lower Newport
Bay. Dredging of sediment and its disposal at unconfined ocean disposal sites
would not be permitted with this level of biological response (toxicity). Toxicity
appears to be highly variable in space and time, as well as in magnitude. While some
of the observed toxicity in Lower Newport Bay appears to be linked to very fine - grained
clay much of the toxicity in sediment from the Federal Channels does not appear to be
grain -size related.
The following proposal presents an approach to address the possible role of Pyrethroids
in amphipod toxicity in Lower Newport Bay. In response to the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, techniques for developing a watershed approach for
managing Pyrethroids in Bay sediments are also examined.
Phase h Documenting the Cause of Toxicity
The first step towards developing a management strategy for minimizing or removing
the toxicity that has been observed in Newport Harbor sediments is determining the
cause of toxicity. Chemical analysis of sediments has indicated that standard chemicals.
of concern are not linked to the observed toxicity in Lower Newport, Bay. Only Mercury
and DDT were observed at concentrations exceeding published. effects ranges.
Sediment grain size has been linked with amphipod toxicity at some locations' within •
Lower Newport Bay; however, a recent sediment evaluation indicates that the 'high
proportion of very fine clay is not the principle cause of toxicity for the majority of
Federal Channel sediments.
Based on surveys conducted by SCCWRP and the California Department of Pesticide
Registration, the Pyrethroid, Bifenthrin, is. present in the Newport Bay watershed at
concentrations that have been shown to cause toxicity in benthic infauna. Spray
application of Bifenthrin has been used episodically for red imported fire ant control in
the Newport Bay watershed. Anderson at al (2006) conducted a series of sediment
manipulations combined with toxicity tests that indicate a link between Pyrethroids and
amphipod toxicity in Upper Newport Bay.
Based on the presence of Bifenthrin in the Newport Bay watershed, the documented
link between Pyrethroids and amphipod toxicity in Upper Newport Bay, as well as the
episodic source into the watershed, it is reasonable to suspect that Pyrethroids may be
linked to the toxicity observed in sediments from the Lower Newport Bay sediments.
We propose to evaluate the potential link between Pyrethroids and amphipod toxicity in
Federal Channel sediments using two techniques. Sediments will be chemically
analyzed using a specialized extraction and analytical method that can measure
Pyrethroids at effects based levels in sediment and pore - water. While there are
literature values that infer effects -based concentrations of Pyrethroids, many of these
studies have been performed as water -only exposures. Because Pyrethroids adsorb •
strongly to sediments, it can be misleading to use these values to infer a link between
• Analytical Services for Resolton of Dredging Permit Issues
June 12, 2007
Page 7
• observed Pyrethroid concentrations and amphipod toxicity. Therefore we propose to
conduct a TIE evaluation that specifically targets pyrethroid toxicity.
Phase ll: Document the Source
If Pyrethroids are linked to toxicity, we propose to conduct a review of Pyrethroid use in
the Newport Beach watershed to identify possible sources. This task would involve
assimilating data from a variety of sources including the City of Newport Beach,
California Department of Pesticide Registration, as well as other small user groups
(nurseries, golf courses).
Phase llh. Document the Transport and Fate Processes
We would also propose to develop a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to predict the
transport and fate of Pyrethroids from land and surrounding waters to Newport Bay
sediment. The objective of this portion of the Management Plan will be to determine the
best method(s) to minimize the transport of active Pyrethroid toxicants into Newport Bay
sediment; methods to intercept or treat water and sediment moving into the Bay and
any other management methods that can minimize the influence of these materials on
the organisms in Newport Bay or offshore organism after disposal.
In order to determine whether there is a link between Pyrethroids and the toxicity
observed during the City of Newport Beach Federal Channel Tier IV evaluation, we.
•propose to conduct the TIE evaluation on sediment from the Area 4 composite from the
Federal Channel investigation. This composite was selected because it had the
greatest reduction in amphipod survival and because is represents a priority location for
the City of Newport. The cost for the pyrethroid phase of the proposed study would be
$54,200. The total cost to evaluate both the mercury and pyrethroid contamination
phases would be $104,200.
These studies will assist the City in obtaining permit authority to implement a more
comprehensive dredging program in Newport Bay and thus providing safer harbor
navigation.
Environmental Review: The Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement is not
a project subject to CEQA and does not require environmental review. The dredging
project, when implemented, is Categorically Exempt 15304 — Class 4: Minor Alterations
to Land: Section g exempts maintenance dredging where disposal is in an area
authorized by state and federal regulatory agencies.
Public Notice: This agenda Rem may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the item).
Budget Amendment: These technical problems with mercury and bifenthrin were not
anticipated at the time of budget preparation and contract negotiation therefore Harbor
•Resources is requesting the transfer of $104,200 from the unappropriated General
Fund reserve to account 2731- C2370721.
• •
Analyfical Services for Resolution of Dredging Permit issues
June 12, 2007
Page 8
Prepared by: Submitted by:
4,(� 6"-ak' , �L
Tom Rossmiller, Harbor Resources De iff, Assistant City Manager
Manager
Attachments: Amendment No. 1 to PSA
Professional Services Agreement
Previous Related Staff Report (March 8, 2005)
11
•
•
E
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
WESTON SOLUTIONS INC.
FOR
ANYLITICAL SOLUTIONS FOR THE RENEWAL OF REGIONAL PERMIT 54
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, is
entered into as of this _ day of 2007, by and between the CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "CITY"), and Weston Solutions Inc.
California environmental services corporation whose address is 2433 Impala Drive,
Carlsbad, California, 92008 ( "CONSULTANT"), and is made with reference to the
following:
RECITALS:
A. On March 8, 2005, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional
Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT", for analytical
services for the Renewal of Regional General Permit 54, hereinafter referred to
as "PROJECT ".
B. CITY and CONSULTANT have entered into no other separate AMENDMENTS
• of the AGREEMENT.
C. CITY desires to enter into this AMENDMENT NOA to reflect additional services
not included in the AGREEMENT and to extend the term of the AGREEMENT to
January 31, 2008.
D. CITY desires to compensate CONSULTANT for additional professional services
needed for PROJECT.
E. CITY and CONSULTANT mutually desire to amend AGREEMENT, hereinafter
referred to as "AMENDMENT NO.1 ", as provided here below.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. In addition to the services to be provided pursuant to the AGREEMENT,
CONSULTANT shall diligently perform all the services described in
AMENDMENT NO. 1 including, but not limited to, all work set forth 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.
• 2. 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 to the AGREEMENT. Consultant's compensation for all
work performed in accordance with this AMENDMENT NO. 1, including all
5
0 0
reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred and
Four Thousand Two Hundred Dollars and no /100 ($104,200) without prior written
authorization from City.
3. The term of the AGREEMENT shall be extended to January 31, 2008.
4. 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:
City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
By:
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
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:
F:luserslcatl sharedl ContraetTemplatesPublishedonlntrenet lFORMPSAAmendment.doc
•
•
r�
L J
7-arning
Basin
0 0
This sampling and analysis program will include a field sampling and chemical analysis •
component. Methods and data quality objectives for this program will closely follow
those used in the RGP -54 sediment evaluation and this SAP will serve as a supplement to
the existing RGP -54 SAP (Weston Solutions 2005).
FIELD SAMPLING
Weston will conduct high resolution sampling in the immediate vicinity of each of the
stations. A total of 80 samples will be collected in the vicinity of Stations 1 -1, 1 -2, and
1 -5 (Figures 2 through 4). Stations will be sampled in a gradual radiating pattern away
from the original station. This will allow for a contour of Hg concentrations to be plotted
around each station and will allow us to define a boundary of Hg concentrations
exceeding the ER -M. This resolution will also assist in providing an indication of the
location of a potential source.
The original samples were collected at approximately 8' MLLW and were 2 to 3 ft. in
length. Stations for this sampling effort will be one sample shoreward (approximately 6'
MLLW), one at 8' MLLW, one sample seaward but before any slope to the main'channel
(approximately 12' MLLW), and one in the shoreward boundary of the main channel
(approximately 15' MLLW; Figure 5).
Samples will be 2 -3 ft. in length and will be collected using a piston corer. The piston
corer is a 3" diameter Lexan® tube fitted with a rubber piston. The piston will be placed
approximately I in. from the bottom of the core tube and attached to a fixed point on the •
stem of the sampling vessel. As the core tube is inserted into the sediment, the piston will
be held in place, 1 in. above the sediment surface. The top, of the core tube will be
clamped to a steel head fitted with extension rods that allow collecting cores at a variety
of water depths. As the corer is inserted into the sediment, the penetration depth will be
noted on the extension tubes. Once the corer reaches.project depth,-:the core will be
retrieved to the boat, where the core will then be extruded into a sediment processing tray
for characterization.
Navigation_
All station locations will be pre- plotted and will be located using visual landmarks and
depth. Station positions will be recorded using Global Positioning System (GPS) -fitted
with a WAAS antenna.
Core Handling
Each core will be photographed and characterized for general sediment characteristics
(texture, odor, color, length, approximate grain size distribution, and any evident
stratification of the sediment). Sediment from each station will be homogenized and
placed into certified clean glass jars for analytical chemistry. An additional subsample
will be collected for archive. Jars will be labeled (project name, date, sampler ID,
analysis, and, logged into a field chain -of- custody (COC) form, and placed into a cooler
at approximately 4 °C. Samples will be shipped in a cooler packed with ice overnight to
the analytical lab. •
Weston Solutions
Port Gamble Environmental Laboratory
I,
A
p
r
n
� al.
t a
� Am., p a
I` r
I
P�
ft
Iy9:
p S
na
Wc
a .j•,, �� 6 ur. �r—r
3 yx y
4
d F . i, r
4
0
;x4e.
I
VIC
W IN 11. -4
lie
A T -
A Fr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ki'l RAJ 31�i
, 77,
Tj� amp.
IF,
. �T-
w
ove T s3
- k'
jW
X A
A10011
........... I to
Wm'
Wv
W1 a
low
Sips
A
I
VIC
W IN 11. -4
lie
A T -
A Fr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ki'l RAJ 31�i
, 77,
Tj� amp.
IF,
. �T-
w
ove T s3
- k'
jW
X A
A10011
........... I to
Wm'
Wv
W1 a
low
E
11
J
Figure 4. Proposed stations in the vicinity of Station 1 -5; Transects A -G.
Figure 5. Station locations relative to bottom profile.
Weston Solutions
Port Gamble Environmental Laboratory
0
iM
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS •
Each sample will be analyzed for total mercury. Analytical Resources, Inc. of Tukwila,
Washington will conduct all chemical analyses. Mercury analysis will. be conducted using
cold vapor atomic absorption (CVAA) using EPA 7471M (USEPA 1994). The target
detection limit will be 0.05 mg/kg.
The QA objectives for chemical analysis conducted by the ARI are detailed in their
Laboratory QA Manual(s). These objectives for accuracy and precision involve all
aspects of the testing process, including the following:
• Methods and SOPs
• Calibration methods and frequency
• Data analysis, validation, and reporting
• Internal QC
• Preventive maintenance
• Procedures to ensure data accuracy and completeness
Results of all laboratory QC analyses will be reported with the final data Any QC
samples that fail to meet the specified QC criteria in the methodology or QAP will be
identified, and the corresponding data will be appropriately qualified in the final report.
All QA/QC records for the various testing programs will be kept on file for review by •
regulatory agency personnel.
REPORTING
At the completion of this phase, we will provide a report with observed mercury
concentrations by location. Mercury concentration contours will be created using
interpolation, which will then be used to define a boundary where sediment Hg
concentrations exceed the ER -M. In collaboration with the City and the Agencies,
stations that remain within the exclusion area will be identified for subsequent biological
evaluation.
SCHEDULE
Field sampling will occur in October or early November 2006. A data report indicating
the nature and extent of Hg in sediment will be completed approximately 3 weeks after
the field sampling event.
]Heston Solutions
Port Gamble Environmental Laboratory
r1
LJ
1 r_
0
0
• REFERENCES
Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse
Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine
Sediments. Environmental Management, Vol 19, No. 1, pp 81 -97.
MBC (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences). 2000. Physical and Chemical Sediment Testing
Associated with the Regional General Permit for Dredging in Newport Harbor. Prepared for
Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department. Prepared by MBC Applied Environmental
Sciences, Costa Mesa CA.
MEC (MEC Analytical Systems). 2001. Results of Physical, Chemical, and Bioassay Testing of
Sediments Collected From Newport Bay, CA. Report Prepared for City of Newport Beach,
Division of Harbor Resources. Prepared by MEC Analytical Systems, Sequin-4 WA.
MEC (NEC Analytical Systems). 2003. Results of Bioassay Testing of Sediments Collected
From Bayside Village Marina, Newport Beach, CA. Report Prepared for De Anza Bayside
Village Marina. Prepared by MEC Analytical Systems, Sequim, WA.
USEPA. 1994. Method 7471A: Mercury mi Solid or Semisolid Waste. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
—. 2001. SW -846 On -line. Test Methods for Evaluatine Solid Waste. Phvsical/Chemical
Methods. URL: < http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer /hazwasteltest/sw846.htn>. Office of Solid
Waste.
• Weston Solution, Inc. (2005). Dredged Material Evaluation for the Renewal of Regional
General Permit -54 Newport Beach, California Sampling and Analysis Plan. Submitted to
the City of Newport Harbor Resources Division. by Weston Solutions, Port Gamble,
WA.
Weston Solutions
Port Gamble Environmental Laboratory
I-,
Pyrethroid Management Strategy •
Recent toxicity testing of sediments from the Federal Channels of Newport Bay has
shown unacceptable amphipod survival in a number of areas within Lower Newport Bay.
Dredging of sediment and its disposal at unconfined ocean disposal sites would not be
permitted with this level of biological response (toxicity). Other testing efforts have also
indicated amphipod toxicity at various locations in both Upper and Lower Newport Bay
( SCCWRP 2005, 2006; MEC 2001; Weston Solutions 2005). Toxicity appears to be
highly variable in space and time, as well as in magnitude. While some of the observed
toxicity in Lower Newport Bay appears to be linked to very fine- grained clay (Weston
Solutions 2005), much of the toxicity in sediment from the Federal Channels does not
appear to be grain -size related Recent studies outside of Newport Bay ( SCCWRP 2005)
and in Upper Newport Bay (Anderson et al. 2006) have implicated Pyrethroid pesticides
at low concentrations (normally not measured in sediment) as a potential cause of
amphipod toxicity.
The following proposal presents an approach to address the possible role of Pyrethroids
in amphipod toxicity in Lower Newport Bay. In addition, suggestions for a Bay -wide
approach for managing Pyrethroids in Bay sediments are provided.
Phase I: Documendng the Cause of Toxicity
The first step towards developing a management strategy for minimizing or removing the
toxicity that has been observed in Newport Harbor sediments is determining the cause of •
toxicity. Chemical analysis of sediments has indicated that standard chemicals of
concern (COCs: metals, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated pesticides, including. DDT) are not
likely to be linked to the observed toxicity in Lower Newport Bay. Only Hg and DDT
were observed at concentrations exceeding published effects ranges; however, there was
a poor relationship between the observed concentrations of Hg and DDT and toxicity,
indicating that these COCs were not the principle cause of toxicity. Sediment grain size
has been linked with amphipod toxicity at some locations within Lower Newport Bay;
however, a recent sediment evaluation indicates that the high proportion of very fine clay
is not the principle cause of toxicity for the majority of Federal Channel sediments.
Based on surveys conducted by SCCWRP and the California Department of Pesticide
Registration, the Pyrethroid, Bifenthrin, is present in the Newport Bay watershed at
concentrations that have been shown to cause toxicity in benthic infauna. Spray
application of Bifenthrin has been used episodically for red imported fire ant control
(RIFA) in the Newport Bay watershed. Anderson et al (2006) conducted a series of
sediment manipulations combined with toxicity tests [Toxicity Identification and
Evaluation (TIE) studies] that indicate a causal link between Pyrethroids and amphipod
toxicity in Upper Newport Bay.
Based on the presence of Bifenthrin in the Newport Bay watershed, the documented link
between Pyrethoids and amphipod toxicity in Upper Newport Bay, as well as the episodic
source into the watershed, it is reasonable to suspect that Pyrethroids may be linked to the .
toxicity observed in sediments from the Lower Newport Bay sediments.
In
0 i
• We propose to evaluate the potential causal link between Pyrethroids and amphipod
toxicity in Federal Channel sediments using two techniques. Sediments will be
chemically analyzed using a specialized extraction and analytical method that can
measure Pyrethroids at effects based levels in sediment and pore -water (GUMS in the
NCI mode). While there are literature values that infer effects -based concentrations of
Pyrethroids, many of these studies have been performed as water -only exposures.
Because Pyrethroids adsorb strongly to sediments, it can be misleading to use these
values to infer a causal link between observed Pyrethroid concentrations and amphipod
toxicity. Therefore we propose to conduct a TIE evaluation that specifically targets
pyrethroid toxicity.
TIE studies are actually a series of laboratory manipulations designed to selectively alter
the toxicity of a certain chemical or chemical groups that are combined with toxicity tests
to identify the cause of toxicity. For sediments, it is generally recommended that TIE
manipulations be performed on both whole sediment as well as interstitial pore water.
Because we have information implicating Pyretbmids, we suggest conducting
manipulations that target Pyrethroids. We would propose conducting four manipulations:
➢ Organic carbon: organic carbon is added to. bind organic contaminants. If
toxicity is associated with organics, toxicity would decrease. While not specific
to Pyrethroids, this step effectively rules out toxicity associated with any metals
or sediment grain size.
➢ Piperonyl butoxide (PBO): piperonyl butoxide additions alter toxicity for both
• Pyrethroids (increases toxicity) and organophosphorus pesticides (decreases
toxicity). This step can not only implicates Pyrethroids, but also rule out
organophosphorus pesticides.
➢ Temperature control: tests are conducted at three or four different temperatures.
Pyrethroid toxicity increases with decreasing temperature; whereas, toxicity of
other contaminants generally decreases.
➢ Carboxylase: carboxylase breaks down Pyrethroids, thereby decreasing
Pyrethroid- related toxicity. This method is proven in pore water, but is more
experimental in whole sediment.
TIE studies also include a confirmation step, where the implicated COC is added back
into the test media at concentrations measured in the original field - collected sample. If
the implicated COC is indeed the cause of toxicity, a similar level of toxicity would be
expected.
Phase H. Document the Source
If Pyrethoids are linked to toxicity, we propose to conduct a review of Pyrethroid use in
the Newport Beach watershed to identify possible sources. This task would involve
assimilating data from a variety of sources including the City of Newport Beach,
California Department of Pesticide Registration, as well as other small user groups
(nursuries, golf courses).
A
i •
Phase III: Document the Transport and Fate Processes •
We would also propose to develop a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to predict the
transport and fate of Pyrethroids from land and surrounding waters to Newport Bay
sediment. The objective of this portion of the Management Plan will be to determine the
best method(s) to minimize the transport of active Pyrethroid toxicants into Newport Bay
sediment; methods to intercept or treat water and sediment moving into the Bay and any
other management methods that can minimize the influence of these materials on the
organisms in Newport Bay or offshore organism after disposal.
•
•
• i
• Specific Proposal for Phase I
hi order to determine whether there is a causal link between Pyrethroids and the toxicity
observed during the City of Newport Beach Federal Channel Tier IV evaluation, we
propose to conduct the TIE evaluation on sediment from the Area 4 composite from the
Federal Channel investigation. This composite was selected because it had the greatest
reduction in amphipod survival and because is represents a priority location for the City
of Newport.
Sediment Sampling: We would propose to sample sediment from the Federal
Anchorage area within Lower Newport Bay. This would require collecting samples
following methods used during the recent Federal Channel investigation. Briefly, cores
will be collected at stations sampled from Area 4 (Stations 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 29) using an
electric vibracore equipped with pre- cleaned 4 -inch diameter aluminum tubing and a
stainless steel cutter head/catcher assembly. If refusal is encountered, the vessel will be
moved and a second core attempted. Sediment from each station will be homogenized,
subsampled for archive, and combined with all other Area 4 samples. The Area 4
composite will be used for the TIE evaluation.
Chemical Analysis: Sediment from the Area 4 composite will analyzed for sediment
grain size, total organic carbon, and Pyretbmids. Pyrethroid analysis will be conducted
by CRG Laboratories, in Torrence, CA. Samples will be extracted following methods
• outlined by Weston et al. (2006). Samples will be analyzed using gas chromatography
with mass spectrometry in the negative chemical ionization mode (NCI). This is a
method that has been specifically developed to detect pyrethoids in sediment at the sub-
parts- per - billion level.
TIE Testing: As a first step, toxicity in the Area 4 composite will be confirmed by
conducting a standard 10 -d toxicity test with the amphipods Eohaustorius estuarius and
Ampelisca abdita. Ampelisca abdita will only be tested with the whole, unmanipulated
sediment to confirm that sediment grain size is not the cause of the observed toxicity.
TIE testing will be conducted with both Area 4 Composite sediment, as well as pore
water from the Area 4 composite. TIE procedures will follow methods outlined in
Norburg -King et al. (2005), as well as more recent methods outlined in Weston Solutons
(2006x, b), Anderson et al. (2006), SCCWRP (2006), and Weston et al. (2006).
TIE manipulations
The following manipulations will be performed on both sediment and pore water
samples. The amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius will then be exposed to each treatment
and exposed for 10 -days. Porewater will be collected by centrifuging whole sediment
and decanting off the supernatant into glass container. Because some of the treatments
adsorb strongly to plastic, only glass will be used in all phases of testing.
C�
1,
• •
Carbon Treatment Tests •
Coconut charcoal will be added to sediment or pore water at a concentration of 15% by
weight to bind organic contaminants. If toxicity in the test sediment is caused by organic
contaminants, toxicity would be expected to decrease. For sediment, the carbon will be
added to overlying water, and then the sample will be stirred with a glass rod for 1
minute. Alternatively, the carbon may mixed into sediment by gently rolling the
sample, minimizing the disturbance to the sediment. For pore water samples, the carbon
will be added and then gently stirred to mix in the carbon.
Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Tests
PBO tests are performed to identify whether the causative agents are organophosphate
pesticides or pyrethroids. Specifically, PBO blocks specific cytochrome P450 enzymes
that are involved in metabolizing chemicals such as organophosphates to more toxic
metabolites and chemicals such as pyrethroids to less toxic metabolites. Thus, if results
from this test demonstrate increased toxicity in the stormwater sample, this is indicative
of chemicals (e.g. pyretbroids) that are metabolized to less toxic forms by cytochrome
P450 enzymes. In contrast, if the results demonstrate decreased toxicity in . the
stormwater samples, this is indicative of chemicals (e.g. malathion, organophosphates)
that are metabolized to more toxic forms by cytochrome P450 enzymes.
Three concentrations of PBO tests will be used during each TIE and will be determined
prior to testing. A stock solution of 2.5 mg PBO/L will be prepared in deionized water.
For whole sediment tests, PBO will be added to the overlying water prior to testing. For •
pore water, PBO treatments will be prepared by adding the PBO stock solution to
seawater to target the final test concentrations.
Temperature Tests
Recent TIE studies have indicated that decreasing temperature increases Pyrethroid
toxicity. This is in contrast to other organic contaminants for which toxicity decreases
with decreasing temperature. Standard 10 -d acute amphipod tests will be conducted at
four test temperatures (11 °C, 13 °C, 150, 17 0C).
Carboxyl Esterase Tests
Carboxyl esterase treatments are performed to remove toxicity in samples that may
contain pyrethroids. Carboxyl esterase is an enzyme that degrades type I and type Il
pyrethroids. Thus, recent studies have been performed in which carboxyl esterase has
been used to reduce pyrethroid - associated toxicity to test organisms such as H. azteca
(Wheelock et al., 2004). In this method, the protein Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) is
used as a control for the esterase. Specifically, if toxicity is reduced in both the BSA
treatment and the carboxyl esterase treatment, this indicates that both BSA and esterase
are adsorbing the chemicals in the water samples. In contrast, if toxicity is only reduced
in the carboxyl esterase treatment, this indicates that the chemicals in the water sample
have been enzymatically altered by the carboxyl esterase, and that these chemicals may
be pyrethroids due to the affinity of carboxyl esterase for these compounds. .
0 0
. For sediment treatments, a standard, 10-d acute toxicity test will be performed with the
amphipod, Eohaustoflus estuafius. The tests will be conducted in accordance with
procedures described in ASTM Standard E1367 -99 (ASTM 2003c). Each sediment
manipulation will be run with five replicates. Control sediment will be sediment from the
area where the organisms were collected (i.e. native sediment) will also be tested with
round of tests. In addition, for the carbon, PBO, carboxyl esterase tests, control sediment
will be spiked with similar concentrations of each respective treatment to evaluate the
potential effect of the TIE manipulation alone.
Test organisms will be exposed to the sediment for ten days in 1 -liter glass test chambers.
Two centimeters of sediment (approximately 150 mL) will be placed into each chamber
with 800 mL of overlying water. Initial stocking densities in each replicate will be 20
organisms per test chamber. Trickle -flow aeration will be provided through glass or
plastic pipettes, in such a way as to avoid disturbing the sediment surface. Water quality
measurements will be taken in one chamber from each test treatment daily and will
include pH, salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. At test termination, the
sediments from each chamber will be carefully sieved to remove the test organisms and
then survivorship will be assessed. To evaluate the relative sensitivity of the organisms,
reference toxicity tests will be performed using standard reference toxicants (Lee 1980).
For pore -water exposures, a 10-d liquid -phase test will be performed following a
modified testing protocol (Weston Solutions 2006). Tests will be conducted with either
15 -mL test volume in a 20-mL glass scintillation vial or 150 mL volume in a 250 glass
• beaker. This will be determined by the extractable volume of pore water available. If the
test is conducted in 15 -ml, test volume, one animal will be placed in each replicate and
the test will be conducted with 10 replicates. If the test is conducted in 150 -ml, test
volume, ten amphipods will be placed in each replicate and the test will be conducted
with five replicates. Amphipods will be fed prior to testing to prevent starvation and test
will be conducted in the dark to prevent "buriar behaviors during the test. At the end of
the 10-day exposure, survivorship will be assessed.
All test results and ancillary data will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Comparisons
will be made between the test treatments and untreated sediment.
The final report will include the signed chain -of- custody forms, condition of samples
upon receipt, a summary of methods used and any deviations from the protocols, all raw
data, mean toxicity data, mean control response, reference - toxicant response, and a
summary of water quality data. Both electronic (Microsoft Excel) and hardcopy versions
of the report will be provided.\
Meeting with SCCWRP: As a fast step in this process, Weston will coordinate a
meeting with the Southern California Coastal Water Resources Program ( SCCWRP) to
discuss sediment toxicity in Newport Bay. Amphipod toxicity observed in Newport Bay .
sediment during these surveys was greater than that observed during the dredged - material
programs. We will meet with SCCWRP scientists to discuss the reasons for these
. differences and implications of their findings to the City of Newport Beach.
Cost Proposal
This section outlines the estimated costs for conducting the TIE study described in the
section above.
Summary of Proposed Cost Summary by Task
b.' ✓� � �.? s,zs n'«c°Cm,w a . i1. ,erg, a s'
5 , Tias Q
,,w.'
4
F
'dam.
,.. A ...s ?
1. Sediment Sampling and Sample Processing (if
combined with Hg study)
$4,500
2. Chemical Analysis of baseline samples
$3,000
3. TIE Testing
$28,000
4. Data Entry/Data Analysis, Reporting,
Management
$14,700
5. Pretest meeting with SCCWRP to discuss .
toxicity in Newport Bay; review of Bight data
$4,000
The total cost for this program would be $54,200,
References
Anderson, BS, B Phillips, J Hunt, S Clark, J Voorhees, R Tjeerdema, J Casteline, and M.
Stewart. 2006. Evidence of sediment toxicity due to pyrethoid pesticides at two marine
sites in southern California. Presentation at 27h Annual Meeting of the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Montreal, Canada.
MEC. 2003.
SCCWRP. 2005. Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation for the Mouths of Chollas
and Paleta Creek, San Diego. Technical Report prepared by the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Weston; D, RW Holmes, J You, and MJ Lydy, 2005. Aquatic Toxicity Due to
Residential Use of Pyrethroid Insecticides. Env. Sci. Tech. 39: 9778 -9784.
Weston Solutions. 2006. Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) of County of San
Diego and Co- permittees Cholas Creek Stormwater Sample. Prepared for County of San
Diego and Copermittees. Prepared by Weston Solutions, Carlsbad, CA.
Weston Solutions. 2006, in prep. Supplemental Sampling and Tier III and IV Analysis
for the Los Angeles River Estuary (LARE). .
11
0
11
• Weston Solutions. 2005. Wheelock, CE, JL Miller, MJ Miller, BM Phillips, SA
Huntley, SJ Gee, RS Tjeerdema, BD Hammock. 2006. Use of Carboxylesterase Activity
to Remove Pyrethroid- Associated Toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia and Hyalella azteca in
Toxicity Identification Evaluations.
•
U
-) C,
CitWf Newport Beach
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2006 -07
EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates
X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND
Transfer Budget Appropriations
SOURCE:
from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
X from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
NO. BA- 07BA -079
AMOUNT: $1oa,2oo.ao
Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance •
�X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
To increase expenditure appropriations to approve amendment no.1 to the professional services agreement with Weston
Solutions Inc. to provide analytical services for resolution of dredging permit issues.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE
Fund Account
010 3605
Description
General Fund - Fund Balance
REVENUE ESTIMATES (3609)
Fund/Division Account Description
9230 6000 ND Tide & Submerged Land - Transfers In
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
ki
Approval: Administrative Services Director
Administrative Approval: City Manager
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Amount
Debit Credit
$104,200.00 "
$104,200.00
r
IL J
$104,200.00
$104,200.00
G-6
Date
Date
•
Date
Description
Division
Number
9010
ND General Fund
Account
Number
9900
Transfers Out
Division
Number
7231
Tidelands - Capital
Account
Number
C2370721
Maintenance Dredging Permit
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
ki
Approval: Administrative Services Director
Administrative Approval: City Manager
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Amount
Debit Credit
$104,200.00 "
$104,200.00
r
IL J
$104,200.00
$104,200.00
G-6
Date
Date
•
Date
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
Weston Solutions, Inc.
For
Analytical Services for the Renewal of Regional General Permit 54
T IS A REEMENT is made and entered into as of this 0fk day of
2005, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a
Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and MEC Analytical Systems- Weston Solutions
an environmental services corporation whose address is 2433 Impala Drive,
Carlsbad, California, 92008 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the
following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing
under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its
business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of
California and the Charter of City.
B. City is planning to renew its Regional General Permit for small project
dredging which provides assistance to local property owners in obtaining
permission to perform maintenance dredging between the pierhead and
project lines under RGP -54. This permit will expire on July 24, 2005 and the
City desires to provide continuous assistance to the property owners by
avoiding any lapse in permitting authority.
C. City desires to retain the services of an analytical services consultant
to prepare a sampling and analysis plan (SAP); assist in negotiating the
approval of the SAP; collect samples; perform the necessary analyses;
prepare a technical report describing the results of the analyses; and assist
the City in presenting the report to the regulatory agencies for approval
( "Project ").
D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background,
certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this
Agreement.
--:E. The principal memberfsj"of Consultant for purposes of Profect shall
be Jack Q. Word, Ph.D.
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.
0
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
TERM
The term of this Agreemeent shall comm nce on the above written date, and
shall terminate on the IS-r day of �rt�r, 2005, unless terminated earlier
as sefforth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope
of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of
Services at its sole discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this
Agreement and the services shall be performed to completion in a diligent
and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to perform the services in a
diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by
City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for
delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control: However,
in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project,
each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all
delays can be addressed.
3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for
performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten
(10) calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly
causes a delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such
requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for
unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control.
3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant
shall respond - -in the- Friosf expedTen}-and appropn`afe 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 and Fifty
Thousand Dollars and no /100 ($350,000.00) without additional
authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the
term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City.
4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the
work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall
include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief
description of the services performed and /or the specific task in the
Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were
performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an
hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures.
City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after
approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in
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
- " " 5-e- necessary for-the proper completion of the ProjecT, "but Which is
not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did
not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of
this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall
be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set
forth in Exhibit B.
4.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, when
payments made by City equal 90% of the maximum fee provided
for in this Agreement, no further payments shall be made until City
has accepted the final work under this Agreement.
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 Jack Word, Ph.D. to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall
not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in
Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project
without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -
key personnel.
Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project
any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written
request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the
necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as
contemplated by this Agreement.
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Harbor Resources Division.
Tom Rossmiller 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 kfi6du e.-
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.
9
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 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 ")
-- rom and agamsf any and aif c7airns-(mcfuaing; - wifhoiaT- hmitafion, 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 performed
or services provided under this Agreement (including, without limitation,
9 0
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 sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified
Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any
award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this
Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless
of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not
act as a limitation upon the amount.of indemnification to be provided by
the Consultant.
13. - INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor
basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner
and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant,
except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the
expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's
employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant
shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing
the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the
right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to
exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that
Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the
services.
11. COOPERATION
Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's
designated Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have
jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to
cooperate with the Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
• i
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 /hgr 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. Acceotable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an
insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance
Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of
California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher)
--and Financial -Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance
with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise
approved by the City's Risk Manager.
D. Coverage Requirements.
i. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall
maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's
Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance
with the laws of the State of California. In addition,
Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly
• i
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.
insurance - poficy
language:
Each general liability and automobile liability
shall 6e endorsed with the following specific
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.
• i
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 specificaily 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
0 r
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
— �rri�sZJu�t� any sach�utiEO-ritracto�`otlfer tho�as�sttserwis� r`egt�irezi -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 su oc
ch Duments 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
0 0
CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the
engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees
that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out
of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone
authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or
readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or
duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD
data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by
others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized,
in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to
indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the
modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall be
submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file
format on a CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission
requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will provide AutoCAD file
of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be transmitted to City in
the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and Excel.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be
kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of
information.
20. OPINION OF COST
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,
t'epresentatiVes and employees against any and till Tid5ili y, incfudifig
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
0 0
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 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
0 0
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:
Attention: Tom Rossmiller
Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA, 92663
Phone: 949 - 644 -3041
Fax: 949 - 723 -0589
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall
be addressed to Consultant at:
Attention: Jack Word, Ph.D.
MEC Weston
2433 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 931 -8081 or (360) 582 -1758
Fax: (760) 931 -1580 or (360) 582 -1679
28. TERMINATION
In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the
provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that
party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If
such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if
more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the
0 9
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.
30. WAIVER
A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition
contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent
breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained
herein, whether of the same or a different character.
31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every
kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary
negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged
- fereln. No verbal agreernenf or implied covenant shall be held to vary the
provisions herein.
32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES
In tW -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. AMENDMENTS
0
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document
executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
34. SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or
otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect.
35. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all
matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement
shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of
Orange.
36. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall
not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap,
ancestry, sex or age.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: 90A
City omey
for the City of Newport Beach
CITY OF
A Mun
la
for the City of
ATTEST: CONSULTANT:
V
CACI
By: C/ 1 U �- By:
Y
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
�trrd-
m,'r�or.i G rcl%
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit g — Schedule of Billing Rates
Rev: 08-30-04/da
F:\users\cat\shared\cathywolcott\westonpsa
0
0-
Attachr-n-ent. A — Statement of Work
j Proposal forAnalytica/ Services for RGP -54 Renewal
_t
A- introduction/Project Understanding
The City of Newport Beach (City) is seeking a qualified consulting firm to provide professional
services in support of submittal of the permit application to the Regulatory Agencies (the
r Agencies) for renewal of Regional General Permit (RGP) Number 54 (expiring 24 July 2005)
pertaining to navigational dredging in Newport Bay, California. The principal services required
by the City of Newport Beach to support this submittal include preparing and negotiating the
approval of a sampling and analysis plan (SAP); collection and analysis of sediment samples;
preparation of the technical report(s); and assisting the City in presenting the results to the
regulatory agencies for approval of dredged material disposal or beneficial use options. The
MEC Analytical Systems- Weston Solutions (MEC - Weston) team brings over 29 years of
experience in sediment evaluation, watershed science, and permitting process to the City of
Newport Beach to provide these technical services.
The MEC- Weston team will be led by principal scientists Dr. Jack Word, Dr. David Moore and
Lisa Kay who have developed a high level of trust with local and regional agencies and have a
f well established reputation for producing high quality data upon which responsive and
J scientifically defensible decisions can be made. This rapport facilitated successful negotiations
during the City of Newport Beach's previous dredging program when technical issues were
raised regarding DDT availability from sediment and the increased toxicity induced by
confounding factors (sediment grain size.or ammonia). Our team's interaction with the Agencies
permitted the project to move forward by addressing these issues in a sound, scientific manner.
B. Scope of Services
The MEC- Weston team has developed a sampling strategy that supports the City's RGP 54
application, is built upon scientific rigor, and is responsive to potential issues that may develop.
Our sampling strategy takes advantage of our previous knowledge of Newport Bay sediment
r and the tiered evaluation process to design a cost effective and scientifically defensible
dredging program. For example, using "decompositing" strategy, areas which exhibit toxicity or
unusual chemistry can be selectively isolated and inspected for additional toxicity source
identification as needed. Additionally, collection of sediment/soil from +8 ft is above the high tide
line and has not been characterized by previous in -bay sampling programs. This may require
more extensive testing to establish toxicant profiling and addressing Confounding Factor issues
associated with acclimation of land -based soils to aquatic - sediment. Also, Tier I exclusion for
some areas may allow which can reduced sampling and analysis as well as reduce the time for
Agency decisions. We also anticipate that Agencies may require that the area within Bayside
1 Village Marina be inspected using a more concentrated sampling plan.
The specific scope of services requested by the City in their RFP includes but is not limited to
the 15 bulleted items. The following paragraphs respond specifically to these bulleted items as
well as indicating potential issues or other items that might need to be addressed.
1. ReviewRrenioas sam,plfng and analysis plans and data sets prepared for earlier RGP
applications and otherloca /projects for maintenance dredging in Newport Bay.
Newport Bay has been extensively and intensively studied by numerous organizations over the
past 5 years. Studies have included:
• Areas in Lower and Upper Newport Bay, including Lido Island, Linda Isle, Balboa
Island, Bayside Village Marina
I • The disposal sites off Newport Bay (LA -3 and LA -2)
Page 1 of 13
i
' Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
j Adjacent wetland environments
i Watershed studies of San Diego Creek
• Associated TMDLs for nutrients, sediment and pesticides, restoration projects within
Newport Bay
j Studies of the relationships of fish and invertebrates to Newport Bay sediments
J For this task, we will review pertinent technical reports produced by consultant groups including
MEG-Weston, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) and the
J USEPA. We will then review all of the SAPs that have been produced over the past 5 years
related to dredging programs conducted for the City of Newport Beach, private organizations or
the USACE. This review will lay the background work for developing a strategic sampling and
analysis plan.
Z Prepare and negotiate the requirements of a 2004 12005 sampling and analysis plan.
MEC: Weston has performed many of the previous studies for private, local and federal
government agencies producing sampling and analyses plans that have been well received.
These SAPS addressed potential issues proactively based on our understanding of the broader
issues as well as the technical requirements needed to address dredging issues. The SAP for
the upcoming permit will be complete and will address issues related to dredging and other
potential concerns that may be raised by the Agencies as well. Likely issues for consideration
include the availability of chlorinated pesticides to bioassay test organisms (DDT, dieldrin and
chlordane), the difficulties of testing soils with marine organisms, and the influence of
confounding factors on the survival of test organisms (e.g. sediment coarseness, sulfides,
and/or ammonia). Proactively addressing these issues in the SAP will help to expedite the
permitting process, since there will be fewer undefined areas of concern when the work is
completed.
Ll 3- Mobilize and demobilize field equipment for sediment sampling.
MEC - Weston continuously mobilizes and demobilizes for sampling activities throughout the
continental United States as well as outlying island chains in the Pacific (e.g., Hawaii and
Guam). We have multiples sets of equipment and personnel strategically positioned on the west
coast in Carlsbad and Tiburon, California and Port Gamble, Washington. While we are most.
likely to mobilize sampling activities out of Carlsbad for work to be conducted in Newport Beach,
we have back -up equipment and personnel that can be .mobilized from either of the other
locations to meet project schedules. Because of the nearly continuous need for mobilizing
equipment for sampling efforts we have incorporated a strong preventative maintenance and
J replacement program that maintains our equipment in top condition. Personnel are rotated
through various field project deployments in order to assure that the experience and condition of
_ crews is - maintained at the highest level. Mobilization from any of our locations can occur
without incurring added expenses because of the location of our sampling equipment or
personnel.
4. Based on previous RGP efforts itis anticipated fhatsediment sampling will be required
at twelve (12) stations
In 1999, MBC Applied Environmental Systems sampled at 12 locations in Newport Harbor. In
the year 2000, MEC Analytical Systems collected and analyzed sediment samples from 4 areas
within Newport Harbor (Upper Newport Bay, Linda Isle, Balboa Island West and Lido Island
West) with a total of 23 sampling sites representing the 4 areas (Appendix C). The Area 4
Page 2 of 13
1
J
1
J
0 0
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
composite of 5 stations (West Balboa Island) had no chemical exceedences or adverse
biological responses; Area 1 composite with 7 stations (Lido Island West) had detectable levels
of DDT in sediment but no adverse biological effects. Areas 2 (6 stations at Linda Isle) and Area
3 (5 stations in Upper Newport Bay) composites were characterized by elevations of DDT. and
PAH in sediment but only Area 3 had adverse biological effects. All sediments from areas 1, 2
and 4 were considered acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal at LA -3. Additional studies by
MEC- Weston in Area 3 reduced the area of unacceptable contamination to a single location
within Bayside Village's Marina, with the remaining sediment being reclassified as acceptable
for disposal at LA3.
Based on these previous assessments, we propose to sample the following twelve
sitesftransects: four off Lido Island (MEG 1 -1, 1 -2, 1-4, and 1 -5); three off Balboa Island (MEC
4 -1, 4 -3, and 4 -5); three stations off Linda Isle (MEC 2 -1, 2 -2, 2 -5); and Two in Upper Newport
Bay (MEC 3 -3 and 3 -5).
5. LA -3 permanent designation efforts will not be complete in time for preparation of the
SAP, therefore, reference site samples should be collected for both LA -2 and LA -3
disposal sites.
Sediment will be collected from the designated locations that serve as references for LA -3 and
LA -2. The sediment will be collected using a modified van Veen grab sampler or pipe dredge.
We understand that the actual disposal site for LA -3 may change during the next designation
Process but for the purposes of this proposal the locations of the reference sites are N 330
yf 33.20 ", W 1180 10.80" for LA -2 and N 33' 26.00 ", W 1170 55.00" for LA -3..
6 Sediment cores should be collected at prescribed tidal elevations at each sampling
station. The following elevations along each transect are recommended for sampling; +8,
.+4, t2, 0, -4, and -3 ft ML LW
The alternative sampling design proposed in the RFP calls for the collection of 2 ft long cores at
each of 6 transact locations per station ( +8, +4, +2, 0, -4 and -8 ft MLLW) using a hand -held
auger for land based sampling and a push core for in water sampling. The locations for the land
based sampling will be determined by measuring the height relative to the tidally corrected
water surface by using a. stadia rod located at the bottom of the boat and visibly marking the
tidally corrected +4 and +8 It MLLW elevations. Personnel on shore will use the stadia to
determine the location on shore for these two elevations and then hand -auger at least 2 fl into
the beach face. We anticipate that the +8 ft MLLW elevation will be just above the high tide
mark, near the shore side face of piers or berths.
Z Sediment cores of at least two feet in length should be taken wluO a hand held auger
for land stations or a push core deployed from a small boat or by diver for subtidal
samples. Yibratory sampling has not been required in the past; however, optional costs
shouldbe provided if this sampling method=s required as a result of SAP negotiations.
The proposed sampling design outlined above is a refinement of sampling designs from
previous sampling efforts and allows for the identification of potential contaminant sources from
adjacent land in addition to contaminant concentrations that may only be associated with the in-
water bay environment. We propose to collect sufficient sediment for bioassay, chemistry, and
bioaccumulation determinations on composites of all transect samples at each station location
(see Table 2 -1). We will also archive sufficient individual transect- station sediment to analyze
the chemistry and provide toxicity assessments of these portions of the composite depending on
test results. It is not anticipated that sediment for bioaccumulation testing will be required for
Page 3 of 13
Proposal forAnaVical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
y
_ 1 individual transect stations based on past test results, but if sediment chemistry indicates a
potential need for further assessment we propose to resample only those locations and transect
-� stations that appear to require this testing during a subsequent sampling effort.
MEC- Weston is well known for its vibracore capabilities as detailed in the Experience and
Capabilities section. While we agree that 2 ft long cores will not require this method of sampling,
we will provide a daily cost estimate as an option.
8, Each of the 72 samples (or number required in approved SAP) shou ld be analyzed for
total solids, total organic carbon and particle size.
All of the individual samples will be analyzed for the conventional sediment characteristics of
total solids, total organic carbon and particle size. In addition, archived samples will be
maintained in the dark at 4 °C to accommodate additional chemistry or toxicity analyses which
may be required should unacceptable contaminant levels or toxicity be identified in any sample
composite.
9. Determine a compositing plan that would allow the City to receive a partial RGP if
cerfain areas become problematic. 1
We propose to sample twelve locations under the basic program; four off Lido Island (MEC 1 -1,
1 -21 1 -4, and 1 -5); three off Balboa Island (MEC 4 -1, 4 -3, and 4 -5); three stations off Linda Isle
(MEC 2 -1, 2 -2, 2 -5); and Two in Upper Newport Bay (MEC 3 -3 and 3 -5). Samples were not
placed inside Bayside Village (MEC 3 -1 or 3 -2) due to the determination that areas within this
marina were unacceptable for unconfined ocean disposal during the past dredged material
assessment. These stations will not be included as a part of the Area 3 composite but can be
sampled as an option.based on negotiations between the Agencies and the City of Newport
Beach.
1 Results from.past studies in Newport Bay indicate that sediments from the proposed sampling
u stations will be deemed acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal at either LA2 or LA3.
However, there is a potential for unexpected results because of the addition of the new test
location at f8 ft MLLW specified by the sampling design in the RFP. To our knowledge, this
transect position has not been sampled in the past; there is a high potential for bioassay failures
due to testing soils which have not been acclimated to marine conditions. Additionally, the
sampling design calls for samples to be made on transect lines and requires sampling within the
J upper two ft of the sediment surface at each of these locations. This latter aspect is more likely
to detect shoreline contamination derived from land -based operations and may add unknown
complexity to the waterborne contamination issues under examination. Therefore, the MEC-
Weston team has developed a sampling plan that promotes analytical flexibility.
Our compositing strategy for stations and generalized test types are indicated in Table 2 -1 and
summarized below. Yellow highlights in columns or rows indicate optional strategies of testing to
address, potential issues with acclimation or where past history indicates a potential for
unacceptable adverse effects. The proposed basic program (not highlighted) is designed to
group stations from each of the areas into compositing sequences that are not expected to have
adverse effects; the optional strategies are designed to evaluate sites that could potentially have
an adverse effect that was either noted in earlier investigations or that are expected to have
adverse effects related to the confounding factor of acclimation.
J Page 4 of 13
:1
J
1
J
l
J
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 P.enewal
_.f
Basic Sampling: Collect and composite sediment from transect stations for each of
the general areas (Lido Island West, Balboa Island West, Linda Isle, and Upper
Newport Bay) that have historically been acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal.
• Optional Sampling: Archive of sediment from Bayside Village that has a recent
history of _unacceptable conditions for unconfined ocean disposal. Analysis of this
3
sediment will be considered should the Agencies and the City establish a need for
analysis.
Archive Sediments: Sediment at each transect station will be archived in order to:
1) Perform additional chemistry on each of the individual samples within a
composite, if necessary.
2) Provide sufficient sediment to perform bioassays on each station, if
necessary
3) Perform bicaccumulatfon assessment, if necessary. This would be an
optional task that inidht be wise depehding on negotiations With Agehcres
and the City of Newport Beach.
• Upland Composites: There is a special concern for the upland sediment/soil
collected from the +8 ft MLLW stations within each area that are not acclimated to
marine conditions. Sediment acclimation prior to biological testing may be required
for successful bioassay evaluations.
Table 2 -1. Designation Of Station Transects, Tidal Elevations For Stations On Transect
And Types Of Samples That Wil /Be Collected.
Page 5of13'
• Proposal forAnalocaAGes for RGP -34 Renewal
In summary, sediment or soils will be collected at each site in sufficient quantity to create
composites that will permit analyses of sediment/soll contaminants, sediment and suspended
solids toxicity testing, accommodate the potential option for bioaccumulation testing, and
archival of sediment/soil. Archival of sediment/soils will permit chemical analyses and toxicity
testing of the individual composites, if necessary, to address potential adverse effects or
concentrations observed in the composite testing. The compositing scheme will include an
1 upland composite for each of the areas that will be archived for potential toxicity testing. If
biological testing is warranted for the upland composites, it should be noted that MEC- Weston
has specialized expertise in acclimation procedures used for sediment/soil acclimation to fully
marine conditions before toxicity testing commences. This ensures accurate test results without
introduced confounding factors which would bias test results. Samples will also be collected as
an option at MEC stations 3 -1 and 3 -2 in Bayside Village Marina in sufficient quantity to be
tested for chemistry, toxicity testing and bioaccumulation potential, assuming these areas will be
tested under RGP 54. In all cases, sufficient sediment will be collected to examine individual
station chemistry and sediment and suspended phase toxicity testing assuming that a
composite showed unacceptable effects. This overall strategy permits a "decompositing"
sequencing to segregate effects that may be due to one or two stations rather than fail the entire
composite.
10 Utilize the tiered approach to evaluate the feasibility of ocean disposal of sediment of
appropriate grain size. Historically, DDT and trace element concentrations and amplupod
survival have been problernatic in some areas- if ocean disposal criteria are rot met at
the tier3level, then propose an optional tier4level analysis.
The tiered approach to sediment evaluations determines the acceptability of unconfined
disposal of dredged material in the ocean. This procedure is governed by the Ocean Disposal
Testing Manual as modified by regional guidance. Under Tier 1, there is a provision for
maintenance dredging projects authorizing disposal at open ocean sites provided that historical
data indicate that the sediment meet the following criteria:
The sediment has historically been free of contaminants of concern
The sediment has historically been acceptable for ocean disposal
There are no indications of spills or the recent sources of contaminants of concern
Sediment is primarily sand
! The west sides of Lido Island, Balboa Island, and the area around Linda Isle are potential
candidates for this type of Tier 1 exclusion. Based on previous studies (MEC 2001, MEC 2002,
MEC 2003), Upper Newport Bay especially the area near Bayside Village would not meet these
exclusion criteria. We propose exploring the potential option of documenting Tier 1 exclusion for
the first three areas with the Agencies. This may be an acceptable solution for these areas (less
the +8 ft MLLW stations). We believe that pursuing a Tier 1 exclusion during this permit renewal
will-set a precedent, aflaMng the City to exclude these areas from future dredging assessments
during each dredging cycle. This effort requires a Tier 1 evaluation to document the history of
the sites and why the agencies should grant an exclusion and what future sampling events
J might be required to continue ongoing surveillance. One of these surveillance items could
include a portion of the following Tier 2 -3 evaluation of sediment chemistry and
bioassay /bioaccumulation within the proposed composites. We would suggest that a chemical
surveillance assessment could be established during every other dredging cycle with full Tier 3
during the alternate cycle.
Page 6 of 13
s
R
3
j
J
J
I
tJ
I
LJ
:J
'r
J
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
The summary of Tier 2 chemistry and Tier 3 biological testing to be performed on each of the
composites and the volume of sediment required from each station is contained in Table 2 -2.
Samples of sediment from each of the 72 locations (plus 2 optional sites) will be analyzed for
conventional sediment characteristics (grain size, total organic carbon and percent moisture)
and will . be archived for potential additional chemistry and toxicity testing. These archived
sediment materials will be stored in the dark, at 42 °C.
Generally between 10.5 and 13 L of sediment is required from each station to accommodate the
sampling analysis plan that we are proposing. This is equivalent. to 4 -5 cores that are 2 ft in
length from each of the stations that are proposed or a total of 360 cores. Sufficient sediment
will be collected to produce a sediment composite representing each area and the area
composites for the upland +8 It MLLW samples for the basic and extended chemistry list,
bioassay testing and archival. Those areas that require full analytical chemistry and biological
testing will be sampled to provide sufficient sediment for all analyses (a total of 30L of sediment
is required),.-The majority of the sediment volume is required for bioaccumulation testing, and
bioaccumulation characterization will only be performed on samples collected within areas that
show adverse effects. Therefore, we expect to collect this volume of sediment, for the
characterization of the composited areas, but will not archive this amount of sediment at
individual stations. However, these stations /areas may require resampling to isolate any area
demonstrating unacceptable results. Sediment for bioaccumulation testing for the upland +8 ft
composite set of stations is optional depending on negotiations with Agencies and the City of
Newport Beach. The additional costs and time to perform this sampling and analyses are
included as an option that would be implemented during the regular sampling program,
assuming it will be required.
The chemistry analyses that will be performed are presented in Table 2 -2 and include additional
conventionals (ammonia, dissolved sulfides), 10 heavy metals, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and organotins. The toxicity
tests to be performed include sediment testing using the Solid Phase (SP) with amphipods (A)
and mysids. (M) and the Suspended Particulate Phase (SPP) with larval bivalves (B), juvenile
fish (F), and mysids. Sediment that will be test for Bioaccumulation Potential (BP) will be
examined using both clams (C) and worms (W). The species to be selected for each of these
biological tests include an' amphipod (Eohaustorius estuarius), mysid (Americamysis bahia),
larval bivalve (M)tilus galloprovincialis), juvenile fish (Menidia beryllina), clam (Macoma nasuta),
and a worm (Nephtys caecoides). The reasons for selection of these species are as follows:
• Amphipod — E. estuarius was selected because it is an infaunal burrowing test
organism that is tolerant to grain size and salinity differences. It has also been used
successfully on earlier projects for this area.
• Mysid — A. bahia was selected as a test organism based on historical use of this
species in Newport Beach samples as well as nationally for testing SP samples and
because it can also be used to test the effect of .the SPP samples. It is possible that
a polychaete may be required by the Agencies. if so, either Neanthes
arenaceodentata or Nephtys caecoides will be used.
• Larval bivalve — M. galloprovincialls was selected as a test organism because it is
typically one of the more reliable larval tests and can be used over longer periods of
time. If we are outside of the testing window for this species we would propose using
the echinoderm, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus.
Page 7 of 13
I
7!!
J
il
•
Proposal forAnalyflcal Services for RGP -54 Renewal
1 Juvenile fish — M. beryllina is a standard test organism that has been used for the
City of Newport Beach as well as nationally. It is a reasonable surrogate species for
water column atherinid fish that are commonly encountered in Newport Bay.
• The clam M. nasuta and the worm N. caecoides were selected for evaluating the BP
of sediment contaminants because they have been used in the past in Newport Bay
and are capable of being tested together in the same tank, thus reducing the volume
of sediment that would have to be collected for this phase of testing.
Page 8 of 13
L... L LY L -L L::LJ L: L:. -I Com...) L.,...0 11L, i I:..._; L--j �___.1 J
Proposal for Anal�wcal Services for RGP -54 Renewal
Table 2 -2, Analytical samples and sediment volume per station for City of Newport,Bea4h testing program,
Transects
Chemhtry i
SP
I I
ISPP
I
BP
I
Archive
(5
Stations/transect
Basic at each
F*tended List for each composite
M.
A
B
F
M
C
W
Tisnsect
Plus +8 ft)
station (150
(11 liter of sediment analysis)
and station
ML)
(5; stations /transect or 1 station/composite for +8)
2L
2L
1L
2L
2L
10L
l OL
composite
1 -1
1 -2
Cbmp 1 = 4 transects :. 20 stations or 50 mU station
100
100
50
100
100
500
500
10L
1 -4
Cbmp 1 ( +8) —4 transects i. 4 stations or 250 mLl station
500
500
250
500
500
2.5 L?
2.5 L7
1 -5
Comp 1
Total Ammonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PAR (16),
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comp 1 ( +8)
Pesticides (16), PCB, Butyltins
X
X
X
X
X
X?
X7
2-1
Cbmp 2 = 3 transects :. 15 stations or 70 mU station
135
135
67
135
135
500
500
10 L
15
Camp 2 ( +8) = 3 transacts :. 3 stations or 330 mL/ station
667
667
333
667
667
2.5 L?
25 L7'
Comp 2
Total Ammonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PAH (16),
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total Solids
Pesticides (16), PCB, Butyltins
Comp 2( +8)
X
X
X
Ii X I
X
X? I
X?
3 -3
Total
Organic
Cbmp 3 = 2 transects :.10 stations or 100 mLJ station
200
200
100
' 200
200
1 L
1L
10L
3 -5
Carbon
Cbmp 3 ( +8) = 2 transacts .; 2 stations of 500 mLJ station
1 L
1L
500
1 L
1L
5 L?
5 L7
Comp 3
Grain Size
Tb[al A nmonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PAH (16),
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Com 3 ( +8
pesticides (16), PCB, )Butyltins
X
X
X
X
X
1 X? 1
X?
4 -1
Comp 4 = 3 transects :. 15 stations or 70 mL/ station
135
135
67
135
135
500
500
XO L
4-5
Comp 4 ( +8) = 3 transects :. 3 stations or 330 mU station
667
667
333
667
667
2.5 L?
2.5 L7
Total Ammonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PATS (16),
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pesticides (16), PCB, Butyltins
X
X
X
X
X
X?
X?
VComp4
Comp 3 Bay = 2 transects :.10 stations or 100 ml./ station
200
200
100
200
200
1 L
1L
10 L
Comp 3 Bay ( +8) = 2 nransects .% 2 stations or 500 mU station
1 L
1L
500
1 L
1 L
5 L7
5 L?
Total Ammonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PAH (16),
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pesticides (16), PCB, Butyltins
Page 9 of 13
' Proposal for Analytical Services forRGP -54 Renewal
i Tier 4 Optional Confounding FactorAnalysis
J
Historically, there are areas within Newport Bay that have shown elevated toxicity to marine
amphipods as a result of potential exposure to DDT and its degradation products. MEC- Weston
(Dr. Jack Wdrd and David Moore) were both participants on the Peliston Sediment Quality
Guidelines Review. A major chapter in that book is on Confounding Factor (CF) Analysis and
the S.T.A.R.R. process developed by Word et al., in Press. In that chapter, the authors describe
a process for working through CF issues and demonstrating the presence or absence of factors
that increase mortality in testing programs that are unrelated to chemicals of potential ecological
concern. That process requires evaluating the Selection of .appropriate species, use of
appropriate Testing procedures, Accounting for the influence of potential CF's, Removal of the
CF and testing, and Replacement of the CF with additional testing. This process is driven by
answers to a series of questions, requiring yes /no answers that then lead to additional questions
and responses. The outcome of those questions presumptively identifies the CF which then
becomes the subject of Tier 4 testing programs. Using this procedure we have been successful
interacting with the Agencies, developing acceptable testing programs whose results are
acceptable for pre - arranged interpretation. As the authors of this process, MEC - Weston is
uniquely qualified to perform these types of analyses and interpretations.
The presence of DDT in sediments of the southern California area is an issue that has
historically been a potential problem for Newport Bay. DDT and its derivatives are found
regularly in sediments as a result of their persistence in the environment and the historical use
If) agricultural applications. DDT has been identified as a chemical of potential ecological concern
i for TMDL development for the Newport Bay watershed. There have also recently been
associations of toxicity to amphipods with detected concentrations of DDT in sediment from
upper Newport Bay. MEC- Weston has examined the relationships of sediment containing DDT
to responses with amphipods from multiple locations on the west coast of the U.S. The
responses that were observed in Newport Bay are much greater than the responses that have
been observed at other locations, indicating a potential for CF influences or the presence of
Li unmeasured contaminants that are present in association with the DDT contaminants to have
an added effect. A CF analysis indicates 1) that either the population of amphipods used for the
Newport Bay sediment testing program was more sensitive; 2) that the DDT in sediment was
not the cause but a co- occurring factor related to the actual cause of the toxicity; or 3) that a CF
Li is the direct cause of the toxicity and that the DDT concentrations are coincident with but not the
cause of the toxicity. Each of these attributes can be examined under a Tier 4 testing scenario.
-� We propose to address several issues. First, there is a distinct possibility that the organisms'
that were used in these tests were naturally stressed by being captured in low salinity
( environments during the winter and before a new cohort had recruited into the collection locality.
J We propose to address this issue by acclimating the test organisms to test conditions in a
slower manner consistent with ASTM recommendations (3%o salinity /day and 2 °C
temperature /day from collection conditions).and then test a subset of samples with organisms
that are acclimated with this process and those that are handled using standard adjustments.
Reference toxicant exposures and responses to the sediment should be greater with the
standard rather than the slower ASTM method. For the second issue we propose to sample the
sediment for additional contaminants of potential ecological concern that have been implicated
in toxicity to water column test organisms (organophosphates and pyrethrins). The third issue to
be addressed, potential CFs, will examine the potential influence of sediment acclimation on the
production of ammonia and its influence on survival of the test organisms. In this test, we will
examine the potential increase of ammonia and its resultant toxicity on .test organisms while
sediment is becoming fully marine. In two of these scenario's (1 and 3) the resulting toxicity is
Page 10 of 13
6
Proposal forAnaVical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
attributable to factors other than those that control disposal of dredged material and the results
can be used to demonstrate compliance with the rules regulating unconfined ocean disposal. In
the second case the cause of the toxicity may be identified as a chemical that is currently not
being monitored in sediment and we may end up adding this contaminant to the list of chemicals
that are examined under chemical characterization.
J11_ Prepare a comprehensive report on the results of the sampling, analyses and
compliance with ocean disposal criteria.
Once all data has been validated and analyzed MEC will prepare and submit a Draft Report
which summarizes the field work, laboratory work, and technical findings. The Draft Report will
be submitted to the City of Newport Beach within 30 days following completion of the tissue
chemistry analysis from the bioaccumulation tests. Based on review and comments from the
J City and the Agencies, MEC - Weston will prepare and submit a Final Report which will be
subject to final approval by the City prior to distribution. The report will include:
• An introduction with a brief history and background of the proposed dredging areas
• Color site plans showing locations of proposed dredging, disposal, reference, and
control sites
• Referenced testing methods and protocols
• Tabulated chemical, physical, and biological testing results
• Review of Quality Assurance /Quality Control performance
• Graphic core logs and visual sediment descriptions
• Narrative description of field procedures
•
Narrative record of agency meeting, communications, and approvals
• Conclusions regarding suitability of dredged material for disposal
MEC-Weston is well recognized for preparing comprehensive and easily interpreted reports.
This not only applies to final documentation of. test results but to all of our technical documents
and presentations made to a wide variety of potential audiences. The success of the past
dredge assessment program was based not only on the quality of the draft and final reports but
also on interim assessments and discussions with Agency and City personnel and our staff
JJJ helped maintain the project on schedule even while addressing issues that developed during
testing. Our attention to detail and the internal review practices that our organization relies on
assure our clients that they will receive the highest quality reports.
- ' 12. Assist the Cityin reviewing the reportand results with the Regulatory Agencies.
One - -of the highest values of the MEC- Weston Team is based on our abilities to work with
Regulatory Agencies. Our organizations interactions with Agency personnel on daily project
activities and our national recognition for understanding complex issues of biological responses
J to all types of stress distinguishes our group from all others. This level of interaction will be
provided by Dr. Jack Q. Word from our Sequim, Washington office and Dr. David W. Moore and
Ms. Lisa M Kay from our Carlsbad, California office. All three are nationally recognized for
dredged material or watershed issues and while they work throughout the country will closely
_j I interface with each other, the City of Newport Beach and the Agencies.
Page 11 of 13
' Proposal for AnaVical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
-1
i 13. Provide 10 copies of the report to the City.
We will provide the City of Newport Beach with 10 copies of our report.
J 14. Confer wish City staff as needed to complete the above services,
i Our team members are available to confer with City staff throughout the course of this project.
J We will work closely with your staff to ensure we answer all your questions and deliver your
project on time and within the prescribed budget.
15 Present conclusions of the study to: City Council, harbor Commission, community
-J groups, etc, ifneeded (an extra compensation item).
MEC- Weston team members have experience presenting study results /reports to both lay and
1 professional audiences. These include local governments and boards, community and
stakeholder groups, scientists attending technical symposia, local media, and the public at
large.
C. Project Schedule
The table on the next page demonstrates the start date, major task mileposts, and completion
date for this project. It should be noted that the total time frame can be adjusted by performing
certain tasks at the same time that are presented in series on the table. The most likely location
for project schedule reductions would be to perform the Tier 1 exclusion evaluation and the
SAP /QAP preparation in parallel. If the Tier t exclusion is successful the amount and types of
sampling could be reduced significantly requiring modifications to the SAP /QAP before
negotiating these plans with the Agencies. However, if they are both performed at the same
time the savings could be as much as a four week reduction in the entire program.
Our key staff have all committed to managing their workload to meet the demands of this
project. They are prepared to deliver this project on time and within the proposed budget. For
j more information on their availability and proposed hours on this project, please refer to section
F (Study Team).
r
Page 12 of 13
O
co
O)
IL
S
I..
'
,r•, .
Lo
5:.. CIO
N
-
Cp
N tS
y
s
Q a
•
vl
_
E
cl)
A.,QrlW ajtl,
N
lr(, VJ TMk. t
ica
T
Z2.
co j
IND
P,'�uOfM'"t�SSE,i,:
L
ZG
vll�
4U�Z
r llpll
F *.z
U
N��NY�
u
:
1
V
iY.
CID
r�UfONti�sEa {Ni�6:c�i�
4U +ea)na)
L u3 r U ,
.r0)- .0 U
S.
'
U- ..v7.tC CO.' %O
a
N c6'
N
:�i4Ct Nit S: �k
Nt C'Cy O
'ca �
-
a
Cry
I z
a? �� QrtyL
N M sp C),
-
(t3 t Kc
'O
d U � N Od, c6,
U'N
cq
II
ti
CL
at
T
CL
ol
O
O)
2+
O)
N
.. _.
..�
l6 r. N
N
Q
_
C
N
T
.r.
—
N
.N
C
(0 .
Qp
E
3 E
C1
m
Q
C
�._
m T
ro—
+
LD
�H O
Q
m
° a�i
I—
°��
Oro
m
o
Q
~ I—
C
Q
e
C
(n '
Z
U)
U
m
U
2.
(Oj
FN
Oa
Y v
.a
A E
T-
... CV
M
CD
co
V
(O
¢
CO'
co .
CD
Z
O
co
O)
IL
1
,.s
1
i
J
0
0
Attachment B — Pricing
_.
MEO•Weslm
-- L- --
w
�.
City of ryawpatt Beech
,Ly
^�
Cracked malariel.AeeesamenbProgram
40c141d
Aesump110091n the
MLLW), All serR4e's
cent estimation
c0ereclerizad
Include sampling
ale locations on l2 Transact ones
With 2 ll long
caeab
9 elan
am 4'egular ems
OOmppaRae, 4 tplpOC
for grain elE¢,TOC,
area OOrrpoellaa.
end pemeM Water, AlllwaOOns
BaynMe
ardc
ded,
have an archl
ed sample
dmllrMd
Of 10 ;B R
'a osllas
Ts k2t ba miormad,
0.5 sates
Village COmPOeftee
Br 1o9alion pro emitted for a IMal
are ma
4380
Tarialry Uelinga
and chemlery
farare
Teask k i Mgml
Task ¢ Dee
cores.
fleYlaW
Task
a•SAP Took
9SAMPLING
Task Chemistry
Mgmi
Data Ravlpw
A
SA %OAP
g
NegOlele MDb
Sampling
Cannot,
8
i. Labor
and TIerl
Bevlc
Eamoded
CATEGORY RaleAlour
PI 1100.10
49
40
PM'PI 114420
20
Benlor BCkMls' $11 e.00
9U
40
B
12
$ee.W
40
90
8
13
24
10
Env.
Env. AnplYat 56021
40
8
73
8
St. Tethnlcim 541.82
0
8
Technldan $36.00
a
WP,YOrpphke $48.76
Internal Monetary Testing
24
24
Echauslodus $650,00
Mysld BP soutdo0
Mussel Lacree $ew.00
Jev. Fish $860.DD
MysM SPP $060.00
Macome
Nophlys 52,000.00
ConaenllDnala $170.00
72
Total Labor thours)
Tom, Lobar(S)
108
144
104
28 24
168
29
testa
$14,765
518,082
18,583
14,358 $1,079
24
90
$6,705
2. SubconstDry
2. 9ubconsUltanh
$15,165
$1,874
$3,461
9ubtonsU0anI91
$12,240
$0
SUIDOO eU98n192'
9ubcomulten103'
Total Bubotneultanl
$0
sD
S9
so tD
$o
SD
f0
$O
3. Travel ,
Milaege(0S%3Smde)
Car Rental
$03 $38
130
.
Other
$240
Hoot
Per Clem
,000
$2 $2,000
Ablam
$160
Total Travel (S)
$390
$D
$0
$0
$023 $35
$9,000
Sse
A. Other Direct Case
$D
$D
Boat
GPS
$250
$13,600
$250
Linen
$20
$78D
we
BOmea
$1,100
loo
$720
Peeking shipping pampas
SHOD
dlseofved wnda9i
$1,000
.rn.l.
orgamilns
saw
Meals
$660
PCBIpa9lIddel,
$1,48Q
PAH
$1,800
Tore' other Dlroct cosh pi.
$3200
$2,000
9. SUBTOTAL
i0
$0
$O
0 $¢O9D
$16350
#70
i0
510,000
e. G6A on Bob., Lavel65ubs
$0.
fa
i0
$023 $2,120
$18,860
S3D0�
SO
$10,000
$0
60
SO
$02 $213
$1,096
$31
SO
7. FEE an Subs. Travel L Subs
f0
$1.000
D. TOTAL COSTS
f0
50
$al 244
112,019
34
SO
11.1 ap
$14,765
$18,062
$9,6a3
$6,384 14,440
$31,912
$2,247
116,201
117,868
CONFIDENTIAL
$73,860
$12,240
$0
$o
60
So
$160
$240
$0
$2,000'
$1,160
$040
$3,899
$14,000
$790
$1,100
$720
$1w
51,000
$880
$660
$1.480
51,000
S9,20D
$2.000
981,809
58,161
$129,840
•
•
—__ ,.J: �_._.... ��_.... �....,...� �......._.. 1111_._._.. ..__..._� w...,,.
filly al Nbwpart B..ch
1. Labor 1.
CATEGORY Rolefilour
PI 5100.10
PLVPi $144.20
San10r 5daplkl S119A0
Selonlist 366.07
Env. Analyst $50.21
St. TI Ibakhut $41.62
TualuiWan 335.30
WPIGlaphlca $411.76
&Ib.,m0us 3650.00
M"Id SP $65D.00
M0so61 Larva. $allow
Juv. F1ch 5650.00
MYAO SPP $95010)
Maaoina s2,00o.DD
N.Phlys
GOay.'aa 0ala $170.00
Total l:.bor(nuu.)
Tales Labor (3)
Total Laborelor $
R. fiYbcoOaullenla
5ldcdua.bunl at
Sv,0u,.1lanl 92
SWad.ullaul NO
Total 6nbcananll.na
3. Tmo .l
Idllango (030.36Imit.)
Ca, Renlbl
Other
Holsl'
Per Olfim
Mato
Total Travol(3)
4. Olhor X11.0 Coals
Baal
cos
Lia...
Saul.
Ib6
dNsulVOahlupiilDaempjbs.
tllewl4sdeullMec
ammoule
M.W, llna
PCHM
POBrPeelkltlae
PAII
Tonl Olhar Dkw Guano I$)
5. SUBTOTAL
6. G6Aan Sub.. Trove) 6 Sub.
T. FEE on Sulu, Treval S Subs
S. TOTAL COSTS.
MEGWeamn CONFIDENTIAL
$79,099
$42,420
So
$O
$0
SO
$0
$0
30
$0
So
SO
30
s0
s0
s0
so
$0
50
$0
30
314,600
s16;DDq
532,000
320,600
566,600
$$.Sao
$225,005
C
Em
C -3.151
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 8
March 8, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office / Harbor Resources Division
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, (949) 644 -3002
dkiff cit .new ort- beach.ca.us
Tom Rossmiller, Harbor Resources Manager, (949) 644 -3041
trossmiller(a)city. newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Dredging Permit Renewal —Approval of a Professional Services
Agreement with Weston Solutions for Analytical Services for
Renewal of Regional General Permit 54
ISSUE:
Should the City of Newport Beach enter into a Professional Services Agreement with
Weston Solutions, Inc. for analytical services to examine the quality of sediments
proposed to be dredged under a renewed Regional General Permit 54?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Weston Solutions, Inc. of Carlsbad,
California for analytical services for the renewal of Regional General Permit 54 at a
contract price not -to- exceed $350,000 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the Agreement.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
For approximately the past three decades, the City of Newport Beach has maintained a
Regional General Permit (RGP) that provides a relatively streamlined process for
permitting dredging and dock maintenance projects between the bulkhead and project
lines.
A Regional General Permit is a programmatic permit that allows the City to issue
individual dredging and dock maintenance permits to tidelands permittees following
acquisition of relatively simple letters of permission from the Army Corps of Engineers
• RGP Renewal Tests
March 8, 2005
Page 2
and the California Coastal Commission. The Regional General Permit is limited in
scope to those projects that require dredging of less than 500 cubic yards for beach
disposal of good quality sand or dredging of up to 1,000 cubic yards of silts and clays
and disposal of that material at the LA -3 disposal site. Most residential pier dredging
needs and many commercial pier dredging needs fall within this range.
To qualify,..for a Regional. General. Permit an applicant is required to analyze
representative samples from the proposed dredging area according to the Green Book
protocol, established by EPA and the Corps of Engineers, for ocean disposal of dredged
material. The analyses are very complex and involve examining the chemical quality of
sediments for many organic and inorganic constituents, evaluating the physical make-
up of the sediments and evaluating the biological impacts through bioassay and
bioaccumulation studies.
This proposed Professional Services Agreement will provide for the completion of all the
necessary analyses to submit the application for the renewal of the RGP. Once
approved by the Resources Agencies, the RGP is typically valid for five years. The
current RGP 54 will expire on July 24, 2005. The proposed timeline for completion of
work under this agreement was developed to coincide with the anticipated permanent
designation of LA -3 as an approved dredged material disposal site.
The Professional Services Proposal and Selection Process
Four firms were invited to submit proposals to provide the analytical services necessary
to apply for the renewal of RGP 54 and all four firms responded:
1. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.
2. Kinetic Laboratories / Toxscan, Inc.
3. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences
4. Weston Solutions Inc.
A selection panel made up of City of Newport Beach / Harbor Resources staff and
County of Orange / Coastal Engineering staff reviewed and evaluated the proposals
according to fixed qualifications based criteria and scored the individual proposals. The
Weston Solutions Inc. proposal was scored the highest by all raters and is
recommended for selection.
Staff has successfully negotiated a fee of not -to- exceed $350,000 ($349,793 including
optional items that may be required by the Regulatory Agencies during Sampling and
Analysis Plan negotiations). The agreement was negotiated as a not -to- exceed amount
since we intend to ask the Regulatory Agencies to reduce the number of chemical
analyses required since many constituents have never been found to exceed standards
in decades of sampling and analysis.
• - RGP Renewal Tests
March 8, 2005
Page 3
The Scope of Services
The scope of services includes but is not limited to:
• Review previous sampling and analysis plans and data sets prepared for earlier
RGP applications and other local projects for maintenance dredging in Newport
Bay.
• Prepare and negotiate the requirements of a 2005 sampling and analysis plan.
• Mobilize and demobilize field equipment for sediment sampling.
• Based on previous RGP efforts it is anticipated that sediment sampling will be
required at twelve (12) stations.
• LA -3 permanent designation efforts will not be complete in time for preparation of
the SAP; therefore, reference site samples should be collected for both LA -2 and
LA -3 disposal sites.
• Sediment cores should be collected at prescribed tidal elevations at each
sampling station. The following elevations along the transact are recommended
for sampling: +8, +4, +2, 0, -4 and -8 MLLW.
• Sediment cores of at least two feet in length should be taken with a hand auger
for land stations or a push core deployed from a small boat or by diver for
subtidal samples. Vibracore sampling has not been required in the past;
however, optional costs should be provided if this sampling method is required as
a result of SAP negotiations.
• Each of the 72 samples (or number required in approved SAP) should be
analyzed for total solids, total organic carbon and particle size.
• Determine a compositing plan that would allow the City to receive a partial RGP if
certain areas become problematic.
• Perform Green Book tiered analyses.
• Utilize the tiered approach to evaluate the feasibility of ocean disposal of
sediments of appropriate grain size. Historically, DDT and trace element
concentrations and amphipod survival have been problematic in some areas. If
ocean disposal criteria are not met at the tier 3 level, then propose an optional
tier 4 level analysis.
• Prepare a comprehensive report on the results of the sampling, analyses and
compliance with ocean disposal criteria.
• Assist the City in reviewing the report and results with the Regulatory Agencies.
• Present conclusions of the study to City Council, Harbor Commission and
community groups
Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt under Section 15304 —
Class 4 — Minor Alterations to Land — Section g exempts maintenance dredging where
disposal is in an area authorized by state and federal regulatory agencies.
3
• RGP Renewal Tests
March 8, 2005
Page 4
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act
(72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the
item).
Funding Availability: Funds are available as a line -item in the Fiscal Year 2004 -05 CIP
Budget, Account Number 2371- C2370721.
Alternatives: Do not renew the Regional General Permit.
Prepared by: 'kV4 -TV— Submitted by:
Tom Rossmiller, Harbor Resources Manager Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Professional Services Agreement
Attachment A: Scope of Services
Attachment B: Pricing
Notice of Exemption
q
0 0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
Weston Solutions, Inc.
For
Analytical Services for the Renewal of Regional General Permit 54
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this _ day of
' 2005, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a
Municipal Corporation ( "City"), and MEC Analytical Systems- Weston Solutions
an environmental services corporation whose address is 2433 Impala Drive,
Carlsbad, California, 92008 ( "Consultant"), and is made with reference to the
following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing
under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its
business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of
California and the Charter of City.
B. City is planning to renew its Regional General Permit for small project
dredging which provides assistance to local property owners in obtaining
permission to perform maintenance dredging between the pierhead and
project lines under RGP -54. This permit will expire on July 24, 2005 and the
City desires to provide continuous assistance to the property owners by
avoiding any lapse in permitting authority.
C. City desires to retain the services of an analytical services consultant
to prepare a sampling and analysis plan (SAP); assist in negotiating the
approval of the SAP; collect samples; perform the necessary analyses;
prepare a technical report describing the results of the analyses; and assist
the City in presenting the report to the regulatory agencies for approval
( "Project').
D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background,
certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this
Agreement.
E. The principal member[s] of Consultant for purposes of Project shall
be Jack Q. Word, Ph.D.
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.
S
0
0
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and
shall terminate on t_he _ day of , 2005, unless terminated earlier
as set forth herein; :
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope
of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of
Services at its sole discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this
Agreement and the services shall be performed to completion in a diligent
and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to perform the services in a
diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by
City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for
delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However,
in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project,
each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all
delays can be addressed.
3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for
performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten
(10) calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly
causes a delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such
requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for
unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control.
3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant
shall respond in the mosfexpedienf-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
6
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 and Fifty
Thousand Dollars and no /100 ($350,000.00) without additional
authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the
term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City.
4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the
work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall
include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief
description of the services performed and /or the specific task in the
Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were
performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an
hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures.
City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after
approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in
advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be
limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred
by Consultant:
A. - The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of
any of the services that Consultant agrees to render
pursuant to. this Agreement, which have been approved in
advance by City and awarded in accordance with this
Agreement.
B. Approved reproduction charges.
C. Actual costs and/or other costs and /or payments
specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by
Consultant in the performance of this Agreement.
4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work
performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used
herein, "Extra Work" means any work that is determined by City to
be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, -but which is
not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did
not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of
this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall
be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set
forth in Exhibit B.
4.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, when
payments made by City equal 90% of the maximum fee provided
7
0 0
for in this Agreement, no further payments shall be made until City
has accepted the final work under this Agreement.
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 Jack Word, Ph.D. 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 fumish the
necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as
contemplated by this Agreement.
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Harbor Resources Division.
Tom Rossmiller 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.
I
0 0
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 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 performed
or services provided under this Agreement (including, without limitation,
9
0 0
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 ..sole - negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified
Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any
award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this
Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless
of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not
act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by
the Consultant.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor
basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner
and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant,
except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the
expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's
employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant
shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing
the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the
right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to
exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that
Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the
services.
11. COOPERATION
Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's
designated Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have
jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to
cooperate with the Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
io
9 0
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. 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
•
0
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.
iz
• i
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
13
i 0
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.
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
4
• !
CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the
engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees
that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out
of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone
authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or
readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or
duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD
data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by
others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized,
in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to
indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the
modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall be
submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file
format on a CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission
requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will provide AutoCAD file
of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be transmitted to City in
the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and Excel.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be
kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of
information.
20. OPINION OF COST
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
�5
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 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
1%
0 •
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:
Attention: Tom Rossmiller
Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA, 92663
Phone: 949 - 644 -3041
Fax: 949 - 723 -0589
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall
be addressed to Consultant at:
Attention: Jack Word, Ph.D.
MEC Weston
2433 Impala Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 931 -8081 or (360) 582 -1758
Fax: (760) 931 -1580 or (360) 582 -1679
28. TERMINATION
In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the
provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that
party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If
such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if
more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the
17
0 0
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 withoutcause of#erminating this Agreement at any time by
giving seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the
event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for
services satisfactorily. performed and costs incurred up to the effective
date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On
the effective date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports,
Documents and other information developed or accumulated in the
performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form.
29. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes,
ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities,
including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or
hereinafter enacted. In addition, all work prepared by Consultant shall
conform to applicable City, county, state and federal laws, rules,
regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the
Project Administrator and City.
30. WAIVER
A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition
contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent
breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained
herein, whether of the same or a different character.
31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every
kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary
negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged
herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the
provisions herein.
32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES
In the "event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this
Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached
hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.
L
0
33. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document
executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
34. SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or
otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect.
35. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all
matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement
shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of
Orange.
36. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall
not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap,
ancestry, sex or age.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
for the City of Newport Beach
ATTEST:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
Mayor
for the City of Newport Beach
CONSULTANT:
9
0
By: By:
LaVonne Harkless,
City Clerk
Jack Q. Word
Attachments: Exhibit A —Scope of Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
Rev: 08- 30 -04 /da
F: \users\cat \shared \cathywolcott \westonpsa
79
0 . 0
Attachment A — Statement of Work
,21
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP-54 Renewal
A. introduction /Project Understanding
The City of Newport Beach (City) is seeking a qualified consulting firm to provide professional
E services in support of submittal of the permit application to the Regulatory Agencies (the
Agencies) for renewal of Regional General Permit (RGP) Number 54 (expiring 24 July 2005)
pertaining to navigational dredging in Newport Bay, California. The principal services required
1 by the City of Newport Beach to support this submittal include preparing and negotiating the
S approval of a sampling and analysis plan (SAP); collection and analysis of sediment samples;
preparation of the technical report(s); and assisting the City in presenting the results to the
regulatory agencies for approval of dredged material disposal or beneficial use options. The
MEC Analytical Systems- Weston Solutions (MEC- Weston) team brings over 29 years of
experience in sediment evaluation, watershed science, and permitting process to the City of
Newport Beach to provide these technical services.
The MEC- Weston team will be led by principal scientists Dr. Jack Word, Dr. David Moore and
Lisa Kay who have developed a high level of trust with local and regional agencies and have a
well established reputation for producing high quality data upon which responsive and
scientifically defensible decisions can be made. This rapport facilitated successful.negotiations
during the City of Newport Beach's previous dredging program when technical issues were
raised regarding DDT availability .from sediment and the increased toxicity induced by
confounding factors (sediment grain size.,or ammonia). Our team's interaction with the Agencies
permitted the project to move forward by addressing these issues in a sound, scientific manner.
B. Scope of Services
The MEC- Weston team has developed a sampling strategy that supports the City's RGP 54
application, is built upon scientific rigor, and is responsive to potential issues that may develop.
Our sampling strategy takes advantage of our previous knowledge of Newport Bay sediment
and the tiered evaluation process to design a cost effective and scientifically defensible
dredging program. For example, using "decompositing" strategy, areas which exhibit toxicity or
unusual chemistry can be selectively isolated and inspected for additional toxicity source
identification as needed. Additionally, collection of sediment/soil from +8 ft is above the high tide
line and has not been characterized by previous in -bay sampling programs. This may require
more extensive testing to establish toxicant profiling and addressing Confounding Factor issues
associated with acclimation of land -based soils to aquatic sediment. Also, Tier I exclusion for
j some areas may allow which can reduced sampling and analysis as well as reduce the time for
J Agency decisions. We also anticipate that Agencies may require that the area within Bayside
Village Marina be inspected using a more concentrated sampling plan.
The specific scope of services requested by the City in their RFP includes but is not limited to
the 15 bulleted items. The following paragraphs respond specifically to these bulleted items as
well as indicating potential issues,or other items that might need to be addressed.
1. Review previous sampling and analysis plans and data sets prepared for earlier RGP
applications and other local projects for maintenance dredging in Newport Bay.
Newport Bay has been extensively and intensively studied by numerous organizations over the
past 5 years. Studies have included:
• Areas in Lower and Upper Newport Bay, including Lido Island, Linda Isle, Balboa
Island, Bayside Village Marina
• The disposal sites off Newport Bay (LA -3 and LA -2)
Page 1 of 13
Proposal for Analytical S•ices for RGP -54 Renewal
i
• Adjacent wetland environments
• Watershed studies of San Diego Creek
• Associated TMDLs for nutrients, sediment and pesticides, restoration projects within
Newport Bay
jStudies of the relationships of fish and invertebrates to Newport Bay sediments
For this task, we will review pertinent technical reports produced by consultant groups including
MEC- Weston, the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) and the
USEPA. We will then review all of the SAPs that have been produced over the past 5 years
related to dredging programs conducted for the City of Newport Beach, private organizations or
the USAGE. This review will lay the background work for developing a strategic sampling and
analysis plan.
2. Prepare and negotiate the requirements ofa 20O4/2005sampling and analysis plan.
MEG-Weston has performed many of the previous studies for private, local and federal
government agencies producing sampling and analyses plans that have been well received.
These SAPs addressed potential issues proactively based on our understanding of the broader
issues as well as the technical requirements needed to address dredging issues. The SAP for
the upcoming permit will be complete and will address issues related to dredging and other
potential concerns that may be raised by the Agencies as well. Likely issues for consideration
include the availability of chlorinated pesticides to bioassay test organisms (DDT, dieldrin and
chlordane), the difficulties of testing soils with marine organisms, and the influence of
confounding factors on the survival of test organisms (e.g. sediment coarseness, sulfides,
and /or ammonia). Proactively addressing these issues in the SAP will help to expedite the
permitting process, since there will be fewer undefined areas of concern when the work is
completed.
�J 3. Mobilize and demobilize field equipment for sediment sampling.
MEG-Weston continuously mobilizes and demobilizes for sampling activities throughout the
continental United States as well as outlying island chains in the Pacific (e.g., Hawaii and
Guam). We have multiples sets of equipment and personnel strategically positioned on the west
coast in Carlsbad and Tiburon, California and Port Gamble, Washington. While we are most
likely to mobilize sampling activities out of Carlsbad for work to be conducted in Newport Beach,
we have back -up equipment and personnel that can be mobilized from either of the other
locations to meet project schedules. Because of the nearly continuous need for mobilizing
equipment for sampling efforts we have incorporated a strong preventative maintenance and
replacement program that maintains our equipment in top condition. Personnel are rotated
through various field project deployments in order to assure that the experience and condition of
crews is maintained at the highest level. Mobilization from any of our locations can occur
incurring ncurring added expenses because of the location of our sampling equipment or
personnel.
4. Based on previous RGP efforts it is anticipated that sediment sampling will be required
at twelve (12) stations.
In 1999, MBC Applied Environmental Systems sampled at 12 locations in Newport Harbor. In
the year 2000, MEC Analytical Systems collected and analyzed sediment samples from 4 areas
within Newport Harbor (Upper Newport Bay, Linda Isle, Balboa Island West and Lido Island
West) with a total of 23 sampling sites representing the 4 areas (Appendix C). The Area 4
Page 2 of 13
�3
Proposal for AnalAcal Services for RGP -54 Renewal
composite of 5 stations (West Balboa Island) had no chemical exceedences or adverse
biological responses; Area 1 composite with 7 stations (Lido Island West) had detectable levels
of DDT in sediment but no adverse biological effects. Areas 2 (6 stations at Linda Isle) and Area
3 (5 stations in Upper Newport Bay) composites were characterized by elevations of DDT and
PAH in sediment but only Area 3 had adverse biological effects. All sediments from areas 1, 2
and 4 were considered acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal at LA -3. Additional studies by
I MEC- Weston in Area 3 reduced the area of unacceptable contamination to a single location
within Bayside Village's Marina, with the remaining sediment being reclassified as acceptable
_ for disposal at LA3.
Based on these previous assessments, we propose to sample the following twelve
sites /transacts: four off , Lido Island (MEC 14, 1 -2, 1-4, and 1 -5); three off Balboa Island (MEC
1 4 -1, 4 -3, and 4 -5); three stations off Linda Isle (MEC 2 -1, 2 -2, 2 -5); and Two in Upper Newport
Bay (MEC 3 -3 and 3 -5).
5 LA -3 permanent designation efforts will not be complete in time for preparation of the
SAP, therefore, reference site samples should be collected for both LA -2 and LA -3
disposal sites
Sediment will be collected from the designated locations that serve as references for LA -3 and
-s LA -2. The sediment will be collected using a modified van Veen grab sampler or pipe dredge.
We understand that the actual disposal site for LA -3 may change during the next designation
process but for the purposes of this proposal the locations of the reference sites are N 330
33.20 ", W 1180 10.80" for LA -2 and N 330 26.00 ", W 1170 55.00" for LA -3.
6._ Sediment cores should be collected at prescribed tidal elevations at each sampling
station. The following elevations along each transect are recommended for sampling: t8,
t4,+ 0,- 4,and- 8ftNLLW.
The alternative sampling design proposed in the RFP calls for the collection of 2 ft long cores at
each of 6 transect locations per station ( +8, +4, +2, 0, -4 and -8 It MLLW) using a hand -held
auger for land based sampling and a push core for in water sampling. The locations for the land
based sampling will be determined by measuring the height relative to the tidally corrected
water surface by using a. stadia rod located at the bottom of the boat and visibly marking the
tidally corrected +4 and +8 It MLLW elevations. Personnel on shore will use the stadia to
determine the location on shore for these two elevations and then hand -auger at least 2 ft into
the beach face. We anticipate that the +8 ft MLLW elevation will be just above the high tide
mark, near the shore side face of piers or berths.
Z Sediment cores of at feast two feet in length should be taken with a hand held auger
for land stations or a push core deployed from a small boat or by diver for subtidal
J samples- Vibratory sampling has not been required in the past; however, optional costs
should be provided if this sampling method is required as a result of SAP negotiations.
The proposed sampling design outlined above is a refinement of sampling designs from
i previous sampling efforts and allows for the identification of potential contaminant sources from
J adjacent land in addition to contaminant concentrations that may only be associated with the in-
water bay environment. We propose to collect sufficient sediment for bioassay, chemistry, and
bioaccumulation determinations on composites of all transect samples at each station location
(see Table 2 -1). We will also archive sufficient individual transect- station sediment to analyze
J the, chemistry and provide toxicity assessments of these portions of the composite depending on
(( test results. It is not anticipated that sediment for bioaccumulation testing will be required for
I
Page 3 of 13
P'I
J
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
individual transect stations based on past test results, but if sediment chemistry indicates a
potential need for further assessment we propose to resample only those locations and transect
- stations that appear to require this testing during a subsequent sampling effort.
MEC- Weston is well known for its vibracore capabilities as detailed in the Experience and
Capabilities section. While we agree that 2 ft long cores will not require this method of sampling,
we will provide a daily cost estimate as an option.
8 Each of the 72 samples (or number required in approved SAP) should be analyzed for
total solids, total organic carbon and particle size.
All of the individual samples will be analyzed for the conventional sediment characteristics of
total solids, total organic carbon and particle size. In addition, archived samples will be
maintained in the dark at 4 °C to accommodate additional chemistry or toxicity analyses which
may be required should unacceptable contaminant levels or toxicity be identified in any sample
composite.
5. Determine a compositing plan that would allow the City to receive a partial RGP d
certain areas become problematic,
We propose to sample twelve locations under the basic program; four off Lido Island (MEC 1 -1,
1 -2, 1 -4, and 1 -5); three off Balboa Island (MEC 4 -1, 4 -3, and 4 -5); three stations off Linda Isle
(MEC 2 -1, 2 -2, 2 -5); and Two in Upper Newport Bay (MEC 3 -3 and 3 -5). Samples were not
placed inside Bayside Village (MEC 3 -1 or 3 -2) due to the determination that areas within this
marina were unacceptable for unconfined ocean disposal during the past dredged material
assessment. These stations will not be included as a part of the Area 3 composite but can be
sampled as an option based on negotiations between the Agencies and the City of Newport
Beach.
I Results from.past studies in Newport Bay indicate that sediments from the proposed sampling
stations will be deemed acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal at either LA2 or LA3.
However, there is a potential for unexpected results because of the addition of the new test
location at +8 ft MLLW specified by the sampling design in the RFP. To our knowledge, this
transect position has not been sampled in the past; there is a high potential for bioassay failures
due to testing soils which have not been acclimated to marine conditions. Additionally, the
sampling design calls for samples to be made on transect lines and requires sampling within the
upper two it of the sediment surface at each of these locations. This latter aspect is more likely
to detect shoreline contamination derived from land -based operations and may add unknown
complexity to the waterborne contamination issues under examination. Therefore, the MEC -
Weston team has developed a sampling plan that promotes analytical flexibility.
Our compositing strategy for stations and generalized test types are indicated in Table 2 -1 and
summarized below. Yellow highlights in columns or rows indicate optional strategies of testing to
address potential issues with acclimation or where past history indicates a potential for
unacceptable adverse effects. The proposed basic program (not highlighted) is designed to
group stations from each of the areas into compositing sequences that are not expected to have
adverse effects; the optional strategies are designed to evaluate sites that could potentially have
an adverse effect that was either noted in earlier investigations or that are expected to have
f adverse effects related to the confounding factor of acclimation.
Page 4 of 13
�i
I
i
J
0
Table 2 -1. Designation Of Station Transacts, Tidal Elevations For Stations On Transect
And Types Of Samples That Will Be Collected.
4
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
_m
Basic Sampling: Collect and composite sediment from transact stations for each of
the general areas (Lido Island West, Balboa Island West, Linda Isle, and Upper
Newport Bay) that have historically been acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal.
,r - n ��n
Optional Sampling: Archive of sediment from Bayside Village that has a recent
= . -a�..i
history of .unacceptable conditions for unconfined ocean disposal. Analysis of this
1
sediment will be considered should the Agencies and the City establish a need for
Acclimation
Toxicity and_
Chemistry
Bioaccumulation?
analysis.
Composite Chemistry,
Composite Toxicity,
Composite Bioaccumulation,
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity
Archive Sediments: Sediment at each transact station will be archived in order to:
1 -4
1 -5
J1)
Perform additional chemistry on each of the individual samples within a
Acclimation
Toxkc'l . and
Chemistry
composite, if necessary.
!
2) Provide sufficient sediment to perform bioassays on each station, if
necessary
3) Perform bicaccumulation assessment, if necessary. This would be an
i
optional task that might be Wise depending on negotiations with Agencies
3 -3
and the: City of Newport Beach.
Acclimation
Toxicity anal
Upland Composites: There is a special concern for the upland sediment/soil
j
collected from the LL8 ft MLLW stations within each area that are not acclimated to
3 -5
marine conditions. Sediment acclimation prior to biological testing may be required
Chernistrp
for successful bioassay evaluations_
�i
I
i
J
0
Table 2 -1. Designation Of Station Transacts, Tidal Elevations For Stations On Transect
And Types Of Samples That Will Be Collected.
4
r
Titlal Elevations ftxMLLIN �' may' cc Y f
S.,:xbY
f B.
4,,.. *..:'
,r - n ��n
•vo... ..
,_s L'`'' .',-
= . -a�..i
x; i; <. r .ru+Z. �:'. a., -...�. R5 •`;�- y.4 _.wt -•-y •ryv �` .. stir...
1 1
Comp 1
Acclimation
Toxicity and_
Chemistry
Bioaccumulation?
Comp
1`( +8)
Composite Chemistry,
Composite Toxicity,
Composite Bioaccumulation,
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity
1 -2
1 -4
1 -5
2 -1
Comp 2
Acclimation
Toxkc'l . and
Chemistry
Comp
2 ( +83
Composite Chemistry,
Composite Toxicity,
Composite Bioaccumulation,
2 -2
2.5
Bioaccumulafion3
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity
3 -3
Acclimation
Toxicity anal
Comp
Composite Chemistry,
Composite Toxicity,
3 -5
Comp 3
Chernistrp
3'( ±8)
Composite Bioaccumulation,
Bioaecuinulation.
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity
4 -1
Comp4
A ;.,..; ati .9.
Toxicity and
Chemistry
Comp
4( +8)
Composite Chemistry,
Composite Toxicity,
Composite Bioaccumulation,
4 -3
4 -5
B1oaccumalati.oh?
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity
3' -1 I
Comp
Acclimatfon
Toxicity and
Comp
Composite Chemistry,
Composite Toxicity,
3 2 I
Bay
T.
Chemistry
Bay
Composite Bioaccumulation,
Bioaccumulation
(, +8)
Archival of individual samples for chemistry and toxicity
Comp= Composite
Page 5 of 13
%b
Proposal forAnalyticai S• ices for RGP -54 Renewal
i
In summary, sediment or soils will be collected at each site in sufficient quantity to create
composites that will permit analyses of sediment/soil contaminants, sediment and suspended
solids toxicity testing, accommodate the potential option for bioaccumulation testing, and
archival of sediment/soil. Archival of sediment/soils will permit chemical analyses and toxicity
testing of the individual composites, if necessary, to address potential adverse effects or
concentrations observed in the composite testing. The compositing scheme will include an
i upland composite for each of the areas that will be archived for potential toxicity testing. If
biological testing is warranted for the upland composites, it should be noted that MEC- Weston
has specialized expertise in acclimation procedures used for sediment/soil acclimation to fully
marine conditions before toxicity testing commences. This ensures accurate test results without
introduced confounding factors which would bias test results. Samples will also be collected as
an option at MEC stations 3 -1 and 3 -2 in Bayside Village Marina in sufficient quantity to be
tested for chemistry, toxicity testing and bioaccumulation potential, assuming these areas will be
tested under RGP 54. In all cases, sufficient sediment will be collected to examine individual
station chemistry and sediment and suspended phase toxicity testing assuming that a
composite showed unacceptable effects. This overall strategy permits a "decompositing"
sequencing to segregate effects that may be due to one or two stations rather than fail the entire
composite.
10. Utilize the tiered approach to evaluate the feasibility of ocean disposal of sediment of
appropriate grain size. Historically, DDT and trace element concentrations and amphipod
survival have been problematic in some areas, ff ocean disposal criteria are not met at
the tier 3level, then propose an optional tier 4level analysis.
The tiered approach to sediment evaluations determines the acceptability of unconfined
�£ disposal of dredged material in the ocean. This procedure is governed by the Ocean Disposal
Testing Manual as modified by regional guidance. Under Tier 1, there is a provision for
maintenance dredging projects authorizing disposal at open ocean sites provided that historical
- data indicate that the sediment meet the following criteria:
_ The sediment has historically been free of contaminants of concern
j • The sediment has historically been acceptable for ocean disposal
,J • There are no indications of spills or the recent sources of contaminants of concern
• Sediment is primarily sand
_i The west sides of Lido Island, Balboa Island, and the area around Linda Isle are potential
candidates for this type of Tier 1 exclusion. Based on previous studies (MEC 2001, MEC 2002,
_I MEC 2003), Upper Newport Bay especially the area near Sayside Village would not meet these
exclusion criteria. We propose exploring the potential option of documenting Tier 1 exclusion for
the first three areas with the Agencies. This may be an acceptable solution for these areas (less
the +8 ft MLLW stations). We believe that pursuing a Tier 1 exclusion during this permit renewal
-.f will set a precedent, allowing the City to exclude these areas from future dredging assessments
during each dredging cycle. This effort requires a Tier 1 evaluation to document the history of
the sites and why the agencies should grant an exclusion and what future sampling events
J might be required to continue ongoing surveillance. One of these surveillance items could
include a portion of the following Tier 2 -3 evaluation of sediment chemistry and
bioassay /bioaccumulation within the proposed composites. We would suggest that a chemical
surveillance assessment could be established during every other dredging cycle with full Tier 3
during the alternate cycle. .
Page 6 of 13
h' 7
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
s
The summary of Tier 2 chemistry and Tier 3 biological testing to be performed on each of the
composites and the volume of sediment required from each station is contained in Table 2 -2.
Samples of sediment from each of the 72 locations (plus 2 optional sites) will be analyzed for
conventional sediment characteristics (grain size, total organic carbon and percent moisture)
and will be archived for potential additional chemistry and toxicity testing. These archived
sediment materials will be stored in the dark, at 42 °C.
r
Generally between 10.5 and 13 L of sediment is required from each station to accommodate the
sampling analysis plan that we are proposing. This is equivalent to 4 -5 cores that are 2 ft in
length from each of the stations that are proposed or a total of 360 cores. Sufficient sediment
will be collected to produce a sediment composite representing each area and the area
composites for the upland +8 ft MLLW samples for the basic and extended chemistry list,
3 bioassay testing and archival. Those areas that require full analytical chemistry and biological
j testing will be sampled to provide sufficient sediment for all analyses (a total of 30L of sediment
is required).-The majority of the sediment volume is required for bioaccumulation testing, and
i bioaccumulation characterization will only be performed on samples collected within areas that
show adverse effects. Therefore, we expect to collect this volume of sediment for the
characterization of the composited areas, but will not archive this amount of sediment at
f individual stations. However, these stations /areas may require resampling to isolate any area
demonstrating unacceptable results. Sediment for bioaccumulation testing for the upland +8 ft
composite set of stations is optional depending on negotiations with Agencies and the City of
Newport Beach. The additional costs and time to perform this sampling and analyses are
included as an option that would be implemented during the regular sampling program,
assuming it will be required.
J The chemistry analyses that will be performed are presented in Table 2 -2 and include additional
-s conventionals (ammonia, dissolved sulfides), 10 heavy metals, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and organotins. The toxicity
tests to be performed include sediment testing using the Solid Phase (SP) with amphipods (A)
and mysids.(M) and the Suspended Particulate Phase (SPP) with larval bivalves (B), juvenile
fish (F), and mysids. Sediment that will be test for Sioaccumulation Potential (BP) will be
examined using both clams (C) and worms (W). The species to be selected for each of these
biological tests include an amphipod (Eohaustorius estuarus), mysid (Americamysis bahia),
larval bivalve (Mytilus galloprovincialis), juvenile fish (Menidia beryl6na), clam (Macoma nasuta),
and a worm ( Nephtys caecoides). The reasons for selection of these species are as follows:
• Amphipod — E. estuarius was selected because it is an infaunal burrowing test
organism that is tolerant to grain size and salinity differences. It has also been used
successfully on earlier projects for this area.
• Mysid — A. bahia was selected as a test organism based on historical use of this
species in Newport Beach samples as well as nationally for testing SP samples and
because it can also be used to test the effect of the SPP samples. It is possible that
J a polychaete may be required by the Agencies. If so, either Neanthes
arenaceodentata or Nephtys caecoides will be used.
• Larval bivalve — M. galloprovincialis was selected as a test organism because it is
typically one of the more reliable larval tests and can be used over longer periods of
time. If we are outside of the testing window for this species we would propose using
Jthe echinoderm, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus.
I
i Page 7 of 13
�i $
i � •
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
• Juvenile fish — M. beryllina is a standard test organism that has been used for the
City of Newport Beach as well as nationally. It is a reasonable surrogate species for
water column atherinid fish that are commonly encountered in Newport Bay.
i The clam M. nasuta and the worm N. caecoides were selected for evaluating the BP
of sediment contaminants because they have been used in the past in Newport Bay
and are capable of being tested together in the same tank, thus reducing the volume
of sediment that would have to be collected for this phase of testing.
J
i
l
i
1
J
i •
Page 8 of 13
i
"o
I
L—L. L"' I 1.,: L. L_r__: L.�` 11.._..J : d..�J l_ -__:: l_..._i '_.____J 1_.._..1 :..,,....�
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
Table 2 -2. Analytical samples and sediment volume per station for City of Newport Beach testing program.
Transects
Chetnistr
SP
I
!SPP
BP
I
Archive
(5
Stations /transect
rBasic at each
Extended list for each composite
M
A
B
F
M
C
W
Transec[
plus +8 f[)
n (150
(1'.liter of sedimentl analysis)
and station
L)
(5 stations/transect or 1 station composite for +8)
2L I
2L I
1L
2L
2L
IOL
10L
I composite
1 -1
1 -2
Comp 1 = 4 transects :. 20 stations or 50 mLI station
100
100
50
100
100
500
500
10 L
1 -4
Comp 1( +8) — 4 tmnsects :. 4 stations or 250 mL/ station
500
500
250
i 500
500
2.5 L?
2.5 L?
1 -5
.Comp 1
Total Ammonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PAH (16),
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comp 1 ( +8)
Pesticides (16), PCB, Butyltins
X
X
X
X
X
X?
X?
2.2
Comp 2 = 3 transects :. 15 stations or 70 rnL/ station
135
135
67
135
135
500
500
10 L
Camp 2 ( +8) = 3 transects :. 3 stations or 330 mL! station
667
667
333
! 667
667
2,5 L?
2.5 L?
2.5
Comp 2
Total Ammonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PAH (16),
X
X
X
I X
X
X
X
Total Solids
Pesticides (16), PCB, Butyltins
,1
Com p 2( +8)
1 X
X
X
X I
X
I X? I
X?
Total
13 -3
Organic
Comp 3 = 2 transects :.10 stations or 100 mL/ station
200
200
100
', 200
200
1%
1L
10 L
Carbon
Comp 3 ( +8) = 2 ransects :. 2 stations of 500 mL/ station
I L
1L
500
1 L
1 L
5 L?
5 L?
3 -5
Comp 3
Grain Size
Total Ammonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PAH (16),
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Corn 3( +8)
Pesticides (16), PCB, Butyltins
Y
X
X
X
I X
X
X4
7
X.
Comp 4 = 3 transects :. 15 stations or 70 mL station
135
135
61
135
135
500
500
10L
4 -3
Comp 4 ( +8) = 3 trausects :. 3 stations or 330 mL/ station
667
667
333
667
667
2.5 L?
2.5 L?
4-5
Comp 4
Total Ammonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PAH (16),
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cotup 4 ( +8)
Pesticides (16), PCB, Butylbns
X
X
X
X
X
X?
X?
3 -1
Comp 3 Bay = 2 transects :.10 stations or 100 ml/ station
200
200
100
200
200
1 L
1L
10 L
Comp 3 Bay ( +8) = 2 transects :. 2 stations or 500 mL! station
1 L
1L
500
1 L
1 L
5L7
5 L?
3 2
Comp 3 Bay
Total Ammonia,Soluble Sulfides, Metals (10), PAH (16),
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pesticides (16), PCB, Butyltins
Como 3 Bav ( +8)
X
X
X
X
X
X?
X?
Page 9 of 13
• Proposal for Analytical S•"ces forRGP -54 Renewal
Tier 4 Optional Confounding Factor Analysis
_ Historically, there are areas within Newport Bay that have shown elevated toxicity to marine
amphipods as a result of potential exposure to DDT and its degradation products. MEC- Weston
! (Dr. Jack Word and David Moore) were both participants on the Pellston Sediment Quality
Guidelines Review. A major chapter in that book is on Confounding Factor (CF) Analysis and
the S.T.A.R.R. process developed by Word et al., in Press. In that chapter, the authors describe
a process for working through CF issues and demonstrating the presence or absence of factors
that increase mortality in testing programs that are unrelated to chemicals of potential ecological
concern. That process requires evaluating the Selection of appropriate species, use of
appropriate Testing procedures, Accounting for the influence of potential, CF's, Removal of the
CF and testing, and Replacement of the CF with additional testing. This process is driven by
answers to a series of questions, requiring yes /no answers that then lead to additional questions
and responses. The outcome of those questions presumptively identifies the CF which then
becomes the subject of Tier 4 testing programs. Using this procedure we have been successful
interacting with the Agencies, developing acceptable testing programs whose results are
acceptable for pre- arranged interpretation. As the authors of this process, MEC- Weston is
uniquely qualified to perform these types of analyses and interpretations.
J The presence of DDT in sediments of the southern California area is an issue that has
historically been a potential problem for Newport Bay. DDT and its derivatives are found
regularly in sediments as a result of their persistence in the environment and the historical use
' ] agricultural applications. DDT has been identified as a chemical of potential ecological concern
for TMDL development for the Newport Bay watershed. There have also recently been
associations of toxicity to amphipods with detected concentrations of DDT in sediment from
upper Newport Bay. MEC - Weston has examined the relationships of sediment containing DDT
to responses with amphipods from multiple locations on the west coast of the U.S. The
responses that were observed in Newport Bay are much greater than the responses that have
been observed at other locations, indicating a potential for CF influences or the presence of
unmeasured contaminants that are present in association with the DDT contaminants to have
an added effect. A CF analysis indicates 1) that either the population of amphipods used for the
,...1 Newport Bay sediment testing program was more sensitive; 2) that the DDT in sediment was
not the cause but a co- occurring factor related to the actual cause of the toxicity; or 3) that a CF
is the direct cause of the toxicity and that the DDT concentrations are coincident with but not the
cause of the toxicity. Each of these attributes can be examined under a Tier 4 testing scenario.
We propose to address several issues. First, there is a distinct possibility that the organisms
that were used in these tests were naturally stressed by being captured in low salinity
j environments during the winter and before a new cohort had recruited into the collection locality.
We propose to address this issue by acclimating the test organisms to test conditions in a
slower manner consistent with ASTM recommendations (3%0 salinity /day and 2 °C
1 temperature /day from collection conditions) and then test a subset of samples with organisms
that are acclimated with this process and those that are handled using standard adjustments.
Reference toxicant exposures and responses to the sediment should be greater with the
i standard rather than the slower ASTM method. For the second issue we propose to sample the
ti sediment for additional contaminants of potential ecological concern that have been implicated
in toxicity to water column test organisms (organophosphates and pyrethrins). The third issue to
be addressed, potential CFs, will examine the potential influence of sediment acclimation on the
production of ammonia and its influence on survival of the test organisms. In this test, we will
examine the potential increase of ammonia and its resultant toxicity on .test organisms while
sediment is becoming fully marine. In two of these scenario's (1 and 3) the resulting toxicity is
j Page 10 of 13
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
$ attributable to factors other than those that control disposal of dredged material and the results
can be used to demonstrate compliance with the rules regulating unconfined ocean disposal. In
the second case the cause of the toxicity may be identified as a chemical that is currently not
being monitored in sediment and we may end up adding this contaminant to the list of chemicals
that are examined under chemical characterization.
11. Prepare a comprehensive report on the results of the sampling, analyses and
compliance with ocean disposal criteria,
Once all data has been validated and analyzed MEC will prepare and submit a Draft Report
which summarizes the field work, laboratory work, and technical findings. The Draft Report will
be submitted to the City of Newport Beach within 30 days following completion of the tissue
chemistry analysis from the bioaccumulation tests. Based on review and comments from the
City and the Agencies, MEC - Weston will prepare and submit a Final Report which will be
subject to final approval by the City prior to distribution. The report will include:
An introduction with a brief history and background of the proposed dredging areas
• Color site plans showing locations of proposed dredging, disposal, reference, and
control sites
• Referenced testing methods and protocols
• Tabulated chemical, physical, and biological testing results
• Review of Quality Assurance /Quality Control performance
• Graphic core logs and visual sediment descriptions
• Narrative description of field procedures
• Narrative record of agency meeting, communications, and approvals
f Conclusions regarding suitability of dredged material for disposal
Vj MEC - Weston is well recognized for preparing comprehensive and easily interpreted reports.
J This not only applies to final documentation of test results but to all of our technical documents
and presentations made to a wide variety of potential audiences. The success of the past
dredge assessment program was based not only on the quality of the draft and final reports but
also on interim assessments and discussions with Agency and City personnel and our staff
Jhelped maintain the project on schedule even while addressing issues that developed during
testing. Our attention to detail and the internal review practices that our organization relies on
assure our clients that they will receive the highest quality reports.
12. Assist the City in reviewing the report andresults with the Regulatory Agencies.
One of the highest values of the MEC- Weston Team is based on our abilities to work with
Regulatory Agencies. Our organizations interactions with Agency personnel on daily project
activities and our national recognition for understanding complex issues of biological responses
to all types of stress distinguishes our group from all others. This level of interaction will be
provided by Dr. Jack Q. Word from our Sequim, Washington office and Dr. David W. Moore and
Ms. Lisa M Kay from our Carlsbad, California office. All three are nationally recognized for
dredged material or watershed issues and while they work throughout the country will closely
interface with each other, the City of Newport Beach and the Agencies.
I
i Page 11 of 13
1
Proposal for Analytical Services for RGP -54 Renewal
13. Provide 10 copies of the report to the City.
We will provide the City of Newport Beach with 10 copies of our report.
t
14. Confer with City staff as needed to complete the above services.
Our team members are available to confer with City staff throughout the course of this project.
We will work closely with your staff to ensure we answer all your questions and deliver your
project on time and within the prescribed budget.
15. Present conclusions of the study to: City Council, harbor Commission, community
groups, etc, if needed (an extra compensation item).
MEC- Weston team members have experience presenting study results /reports to both lay and
professional audiences. These include local governments and boards, community and
stakeholder groups, scientists attending technical symposia, local media, and the public at
large.
C. Project Schedule
The table on the next page demonstrates the start date, major task mileposts, and completion
date for this project. It should be noted that the total time frame can be adjusted by performing
certain tasks at the same time that are presented in series on the table. The most likely location
for project schedule reductions would be to perform the Tier 1 exclusion evaluation and the
SAP /QAP preparation in parallel. If the Tier 1 exclusion is successful the amount and types of
sampling could be reduced significantly requiring modifications to the SAP /QAP before
negotiating these plans with the Agencies. However, if they are both performed at the same
time the savings could be as much as a four week reduction in the entire program.
Our key staff have all committed to managing their workload to meet the demands of -this
j project. They are prepared to deliver this project on time and within the proposed budget. For
more information on their availability and proposed hours on this project, please refer to section
F (Study Team).
Page 12 of 13
53
Services for RGP -54 Renewal
Weeks
Task
Number
Activity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
Ivlgmt
.._.,. _.._ - -_-- -.__--- -- ........... _._ Occurs throughout the project -_: - -._ ......
Data
This would occur early in the program - -
2
Review and
because It may Influence the types and
Tier 1
ndmbers of sample's reomred for fudher ,
Document
anHl S6S
The SAP /QAP could be run in parallel with -
:— - '�.:.,_ - = _
Occurs after;-:
theTiee1 Documentand both documents..
-.
the Tler Y
could be created and negotiated during
6ec the
the first 6 weeks, of the prolecl,-It in
-s
SA
SAPlCAP
-
parallel the upside is a savings ohfi weeks
outcome could
while the down side Is additional 14ork an
.red uce
u
SAP /QAP to accommodate decisions on
'Program,
the Tier 1. -
dlamalicaily_ :
•feGiew eincl-
.3B
Negotiation
„[e3P005a_bY:"
4
sampling
Preparation and.
' lield work > -
5
Chemistry
I
.Accelerated 2 week.!
iEadysampling; n
6
Toxicity
Testing
„belches I011lateg' -^ �
Early sampling batches _
7A
BP Testing
= inlhal4' 'ASAP- :-- i:__- :);:;.:
78
BP
_
Sfaodara Turn around...:•
Chemistry
8
Data analysis begms 6t end of sampling ' -
An
s
Reporting
Begins as soon as the fist sets of analyses are available
-.....
o
Tech Based
.. .:. .r _ .
This coul l occurih'roughout the petiod of the.program
Consulting
- - - ._
11 '
Option +.13 it
If selecled lhis.opfion would begin in parallel wit" a'ahove•program
Page 13 of 13
7
A
]F ' • •
5
i
E
:J
j
I
Attachment P — Pricing
J
1 {1
�I
Dredged svteNlA... MLLW) All ln the
..1sucgma0en IndWe
Carlo sampling TOand1,ion waters lines with 2lllolce .111, balIj e2,0,-q,. Thera
Dredged meladal A,ceaetltenlProBram MLLW). All samples cheractsrized for grain alxe,TOC, and pew.ntwll.- altaatlans entl compwnes nave en ercnmetl ee,rpl6 al to t. Tnere
FGCI -04 are 4 rOgWer�re� campoSllea, 4 Vp100d area a
arryrotllae. BeVSlae vleaao 0mm11-
1. Labor
Mnl net ee pel1011neC.
CATEGORY
R,m0lour
PI
$16D.10
PMIPI
$144.20
$coor Sdemlet
511040
Scl.mlet
$66.07
Env. Analyst
$50.21
Sr. Technician
$41.62
Tachnlci,n
$36.30
WP/G ®phics
$46.76
Internal laboratory
Testing
E.Ist.lodus
3660100
Mods SP
$650.00
Mussel Larva.
$800.0D
Juv. Hen
$650.00
Mysld 6PP
$860.00
Weems
Nardi"
$2.000.00
Cawentlonels
$170.0
TOW Lab" (house)
Total Labor ($)
Total laboratory costs
2. Subeon arthicte
Subcon¢Wtsn[Sl'
Houra
Suhwnsullanld2
48
Suhecnmlant 43
20
Total Sub .onauttent
3 Travel
Car Rental
O th"
H
Hotel
Par Diem
Alrlara
$17291
TDml Travel ($)
AD
4. Other Direct Costs
Boat
73
CPS
24
Lmb®
124
Bounce
229
Iw
Packing shipping .,,pies
40
diseolvedsulfM,e
B
emmonla
B
ry
organwhe
Metal,
PCEIP.,diddes
PAM
Total other Direct Costa (a)
B. SUBTOTAL
129
S. G&A on Subs, Travel 8 Sub,
18
T. FEE on Saba, Travel 6 Sub,
0, TOTAL COSTS
MEC�Waelon
.=..0 em, oo,wa
Mnl net ee pel1011neC.
4.5 Coleo per bcallVn aze
_ _- - . __•_••' •_'••••a'••
r0 ulretl (or a rolel 01380 cotes.
° ^ "n =u a,ennary for
Task lM ml
8
Task2 O,te
Revlaw
Task $$0.P
Task SAMPLING
Task Chemistry
MBmt
oats Review
and Tler t
A B
SAP /GAP NaB011ate
0. B C
Mob Sampling Oemob
A B
Basle Enandad
TOTAL
Total
Houra
q
48
40
20
9D
B
12
100
$17291
ED
AD
40
B
73
24
40
124
$17,881
229
$27022
40
B
73
B
ry
B
129
$8,523
18
9003
8
0
0
24
z4
D
90
48
52.340
Total Testa
Total Taal$
0
f0
o
So
D
90
D
$o
0
j0
D
$ O
72
0
72
so
312.240
108
144
104
28
24
168
29
24
654
519,765
$18.062
$8,593
' $9.358
71,874
$18,168
51,879
12.961
40
$8,788
$72,280
$12,240
90
$12,290
$0
so
jq
$O
iD
$D
$o
SD
90
f0
Eo
30
90
$93
S3B
We
$240
$169
$240
$2,0110
$0
$160
$1,000
$2,000
$340
51,160
80
s11
so
$623
fie
$3,000
sae
so
$940
$0
$9.668
$250
31 �,60o .
W60
120
$75D
120
$14,04,D 00
$1,100
1
$720
$1,100
f10D
1720
$11000
$100
$1.000
se00
$BBD
$DEC
$56D
$1.480
$1,980
$1,600
51,800
$3.200
$3.200
SO
$O
$0
$0
$2,090
$15,350
$270
$21080
$2.080
$0
$10,000
$27710
$0
So
$0
$823
$2,120
718,350
$308
So
Mgo00
$31,803
$0
s0
$D
$52
S213
$1,036
531
SO
51,000
53,16Y
$0
$0
$0
$0,
$234
$2,019
$34
$0
$1.100
$9,477
$14,785
$18,062
$8,533
$5,952
$4,449
$31,372
52.247
$15,701
717,868
$124,948
vvIlFwary Hwi,
P
U
•
Lily of NeeiPatl BoocM1 '- .., ...
1. Labor
Task]
B[a.ecmraln0en
CATEGORY
❑aNMour
PI
5160.10
p1NP1
$144.20
Senior Sd.0llsl
Sllean.
Sal.111"
$66.07
Say. Malys)
$60.21
Sr.I border
$41.62
1.chitldan.
$35.30
WplGrapNca
$40.75
Eeheusladue
$650.0.
MPM SP
E650.0
Mussel Lerve.
$800.00
Auv. Reh
$850.00
IAyeMSPp
3050.0..
Macoma
Nophlys
$2,000.00
Couvenimalsx.
$170.00
Tow Labor (roam)
Tool Labor (S)
8
Tolul Laboratory $
40
2. 3ub.mR.Rnniv
16
Sul"arsuimat 5l
5u1bsauerllau 92
40
Submalwilanl 83
Tole[ Subronsellanr
3. Trava[
15
' Waage(Q,mGWm0.)
' Car Rome]
011m,
6
Hotel
Per Ole.
40
Airbus
Total Tnvtl (5)
It
4. Other Direct Cape
Burl
GPS
Liners
Foul..
Ice
'Packing shlppa,B samples
JasoHehswilde
Supports
Z.hollss
Malals
PC&P.Mkldea
PAN
Total Other Dlreol Costs (S)
6.SUBTOTAL
6. CA A ou Sub., Tmva13 3uba
6
7. FEE on Sum. Tr ... I M1 Saba
6. TOTAL COSTS
�'� lfE0.Weamn
Tasks T.91CIIy Taatln0
Task]
B[a.ecmraln0en
Task eDeto
Task9
Tack 10 T6ch
OP1lorlal Talk
Optional
Polonllnl
Anolyvly
Bapoltlny
Based
11 -Soll
Beyalde
Consulll,19
Accllmafts
Village
A B
SP Slap
8
8
120
40
16
iG
G
40
Go
15
24
60
I6
6
40
60
16
It
6
60
6
6
0
2
4
0
p.
4
0
2
6
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
2
IG
16
t8
00
170
260
11
10
$1,BBe
A,800
$1,006
51,008
$9,063
SigS /a
$33.6]3
$1680
$10,00
$11,000
S6B0
11.94
$11,840
So
s0
f0
$0
$D
so
s6
s0
So
f0
$0
50
$0
So
50
$0
$11.100
EO
$6]00
$13,600
$D
$4,600
2a,og6
So
$15:600
$D
,000
$5
33,200
SIT
so
564,200
$o
$0
30
50
$21,400
So
$0
364,200
$0.
$0
so
$0
$21,400
so
SO
56.420
so.
To
so
s0
$2,140
SO
30
$7,062
$o
SO
30
S0
$2 364
59.6.0
$11,860
$91,510
$9.1
519,374
$33.67]
$IgOR
SJ9,30T
CONFIDENTIAL'
$79,]90
$42.420
$0
$0
s0
sB
30
EO
50
So
SO
30
s6
so
s0
50
30
so
so
30
So
$14,800
316,00
$20.80
szo,a6G
$86,600
$8,550
$223.395
11
fITY OF NEWPORT BACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3200
NOTICE OF.EXEMPTION
To:
�Office of Planning and Research
' 1400 Tenth Street; Room 121'
Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk, County of Orange
X Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(Orange County)
Date received for filing at OPR:
Name of Project.- Beach Resoration Dredging (Blanket Permit)
Project Location: Newport Bay, Newport Beach
Specific:
Project Location -City: Newport Beach Project Location - County: Orange
Project Description: The project consists of dredging certain location in lower Newport Bay, and placing
dredge spoil on beaches for sand replenishment when appropriate, or disposal at an authorized off -shore disposal
location.
Exempt Status: (check one)
❑ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1);15268);
❑ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
❑ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c);
X Categorical Exemption. State type and section number. 15304 — Class 4: Minor Alterations to Land:
Section g exempts maintenance dredging where disposal is in an area authorized by state and federal
regulatory agencies.
❑ Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
❑ General Rule (Sec. 15061(b)(3))
Reasons why project is exempt:__The prtyect is + a dredging arhere the s n'1 '� to h ng'red 'n
a r r
areas a thori7ed hj i 11 applicnhle state and f d ral agencies
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Newnnrt Resrh
Date of Appoval:
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Harbor Resources Division
Contact Pers Title: Harhnr Regnurces Maw r
Signatur . Te1.No. 242644 -3900 Date:
WR
s3.]