Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-4115 - PSA for Development of a Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) for Lower Newport BayAMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOWER NEWPORT BAY THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, is entered into as of this 24 day of S;Qk lbcV , 2009, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "CITY "), and NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC a Georgia Limited Liability Company whose address is 1349 West Peachtree Street, STE 2000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 ( "CONSULTANT "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On September 9, 2008 CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT," to perform sediment testing in Lower Newport Bay as a precursor to a comprehensive dredging project, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT'. B. CITY desires to enter into this AMENDMENT NO. 1 to reflect additional tests and chemical analysis required which were not anticipated in the original AGREEMENT and to extend the term of the AGREEMENT to March 1, 2010. C. CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for additional professional services needed for PROJECT. D. 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. TERM The term of the AGREEMENT shall be extended to March 1, 2010. 2. ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED 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. 3. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION City shall pay Consultant for the services on a flat rate 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 reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Seventy Five Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($75,000.00) without prior written authorization from City. 4. INTEGRATED CONTRACT 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 OF �WPOR EACH, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY A Mu cipal Corr t on By: m ,.�`a\ By. t2.e�, J��, David R. Hunt Edward Seli , Mayor City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: By:_O�&\ - rte_ Leilani Brown, City Clerk NIA CONSULTANT: B� ,6 ( orate Officer) Title: C -OD Print Namec-4) I nQa �11 L-#0-6 By:Q,2Ql (Financial Officer) Title: Print Name: 7�4�. S"i,,,ceJ� Attachments: Exhibit A – Scope of Services and Billing Rates NEW IELDS Chris Miller Harbor Resources City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Proposal for Additional Funds Dear Chris September 11, 2009 NewFields is submitting a proposal to finalize the dredged material program that is currently being conducted in Lower Newport Harbor. As noted in our memo on August 23, 2009 changes as a result of the agency review process have increased the scope of this program. The following outlines the tasks remaining, the estimated costs associated with those tasks, and a timeline for completion. At this point we have completed nearly all tasks related to this program. Based on the data currently available and past decisions by the EPA and USACE, 9 of the 13 test treatments appear that they will pass for ocean disposal. All or portions of the remaining composites may also be available for disposal in the ocean but that will depend upon tissue analyses and negotiations with EPA, the USACE, and the other DMMT agencies. The following proposal outlines the remaining tasks that we foresee for the project and an estimated timeline. Task 1: Finalize Tissue Chemistry Analysis Following a DMMT meeting on August 26, 2009, the City was provided with a list of analytes for tissues and a decision process to determine how many treatments would require analysis. Based on a comparison of tissues concentrations in one replicate (a significant savings to the evaluations) of each treatment compared to the reference site, the following chemical analyses will be required: Arsenic: No further analysis Cadmium: Four treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams Copper: Five treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams Mercury: Two treatments for worms, six treatments for clams PCBs: No further analyses DDT: Thirteen treatments for both worms and clams. The total analytical costs to complete the tissues analysis as indicated will be $22,000. Tissue analysis would require 3 weeks from the notice to proceed. An additional one to two weeks would be required in order to review all data to ensure data quality and rectify any issues with the analytical laboratory. Task 2: Program Report Due to the change in scope, the final report for this program will resemble a comprehensive Ocean Testing Manual report. Portions of this task have been completed in the negotiations with the DMMT regarding the scope of the program and the tissue residue analysis. The original proposed cost for reporting was $25,000; the remaining reporting tasks would require $15,000 for completion and submission to the DMMT. NewFields has begun to prepare the final report and would require an additional two weeks from receipt of the tissue chemistry data to finalize the program report. However, recommendations to the City regarding areas likely to pass for ocean disposal will be provided as soon as the qualified tissue chemistry data is available. Task 3: Finalizing the Mercury Evaluation of West Lido Channel As part of the DMMP program, the mercury in West Lido Channel was going to be further characterized for both the lateral and horizontal extent. Samples that characterize the horizontal extent of mercury contamination have been analyzed and reported to the City. Samples that characterize the vertical extent of mercury contamination are archived and still require analysis. The costs associated with completing the remaining analysis and compiling a formal report of all mercury data would require $8,000. Task 4: Ongoing Negotiations with DMMT Finalizing the DMMT program will require several meetings with the DMMT. This includes a general presentation of all the test results and determination of which test treatments will pass for ocean disposal. Based on previous negotiations with the agencies, there will likely be two issues requiring some negotiation: DDT in tissues and mercury in sediments. EPA has used a total projected DDT (sum of all DDT constituents) value of 300 ppb as a threshold for disposal at the LA -3 reference site. This value includes the use of site - specific multipliers to project the total tissue burden that animals would be predicted to have at equilibrium with the sediments. This is a correction factor applied to 28 -day bioaccumulation tests. The City and NewFields would need to work with the DMMT to determine whether the 300 ppb threshold that has been applied in past programs would be used for this program. Mercury has been observed in Lower Newport Bay sediments above the ERM level of 0.71 mg/kg. However, this has typically been associated with sediments that have not exhibited toxicity or significant bioaccumulation, which is the case for the current testing program. However, during the previous negotiations with EPA and the USACE on the Marina Park project, a sediment value of 1.0 mg/kg has been used as a threshold for ocean disposal. Such a sediment - chemistry threshold is not necessarily following the Ocean Testing Manual guidance and was applied in part due to the small volume of sediment requiring upland disposal from Marina Park. EPA did provide some indication that they would allow for more of an options /risk analysis if future programs included larger volumes of sediment with mercury concentrations >1.0 mg/kg. The estimated volume of material that would exceed this threshold is approximately 250,000 cubic yards, depending upon whether study areas can be divided into smaller areas based on individual station results. The issue of acceptable mercury concentrations is the area of most uncertainty and affects not only the current harbor dredging program, but also the RGP -54 program. The agencies may decide to qualify sediment containing Hg concentrations in the following three ways: 1. Sediment Hg concentrations in the composites that are <1 mg/kg (ppm) are considered to be acceptable for placement in the ocean ate those with composite concentrations that are less than 1.0 mg/kg (ppm). 2. Sediment Hg concentrations in individual sediment samples that are >1 mg/kg would not be allowed to be placed in the ocean. Generally, decisions that are based on sediment chemistry at a single station or group of stations are applied to the general area surrounding those stations. This method will likely result in some locations within a composite being acceptable for disposal in the ocean. It is likely that if an entire composite has a concentration <1 mg/kg, but includes stations that are >1.0 mg/kg, that the agencies would exclude those areas/stations exceeding 1.0 mg/kg. Tissue Hg concentrations and toxicity test results are used to determine whether sediment is acceptable or unacceptable for placement of dredged materials in the ocean. At the most recent DMMT meetings, the agencies indicated that they would interpret tissue chemistry using both statistical comparison with the reference and an elevation to an effects based level. That level has not yet been defined. If the decision is only based on statistical significance then this can and should be argued since it is against federal guidelines. USEPA personnel will be available within the next two weeks to explore the interpretation of mercury data. Following these meetings we can meet with the City to develop a schedule of potential outcomes, including the volumes affected. We anticipate about 2 weeks of interaction and development of information required to come to some solution about the decision points for Hg. This two weeks of work will be spread over a time frame of 4 -6 weeks with the final decisions of whether it is work continuing the process near the end of October. We may also determine after initial discussions with EPA to agree with EPA's earlier regulatory decision and find alternative disposal options for sediment exceeding 1 mg/kg total Hg. Our best estimate for negotiating with the agencies regarding the current dredging program and mercury- related issues would be $15,000 - $30,000. This would include costs associated with staff time and travel costs over the next two to three months to complete negotiations for all issues related to the current dredging program and the mercury- related issues. NewFields will make efforts to expedite this process; however, this will require an invested effort on the part of EPA and the USACE during that time period. These costs would be considered a not -to- exceed amount. Negotiations regarding mercury in other regions have required extensive negotiation and this is not an issue that has been resolved at a national level. Please let me know if you have further questions regarding these estimates. As mentioned above, Task 4 is an estimate based on what has been required during previous programs to negotiate threshold values for disposal. If the agencies provide a clear indication that they are unwilling to alter their previous mercury threshold, it is likely that the actual costs will be substantially lower. Sincerely, William Gardiner NewFields, LLC Summary of Proposed Costs Task Associated Cost Task 1: Finalize Tissue Chemistry Analysis $22,000 Task 2: Program Report $15,000 Task 3: Finalize Mercury Evaluation of West Lido Channel $8,000 Task 4: Negotiations with DMMT $15,000 - 30,000 Total $60,000 to $75,000 I�iEWFIFi_DS :; NewFields Port Gamble, WA Billing Rates Labor Category Personnel Hourly Rate Principal Investigator Dr. Jack Word 160 Project Managers Senior Scientists Susie Watts 150 William Gardiner 130 Meg Pinza 130 Project Scientists Brian Hester 95 Lucinda Word 85 Bridget Gregg 85 Jack D Word 85 Staff Scientists Tracy Schuh 75 Collin Ray 65 Mary Bacon 65 N1 *Fidds F.O.Box216, 4729W VIMDRIVE PORTGAMEM, WA MNQ 96364 360.2976040M 360.297726MFn WW'N.NE MLMCOM NewRelds Budget Amendment No. 1 September 22, 2009 Page 13 Exhibit 3 Budget Amendment CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 9 September 22, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, (949) 644 -3043 cmiller(a)newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with NewFields to Finalize the Dredged Material Program for Newport Harbor; Budget Amendment ISSUE: Harbor Resources is submitting an update on the Lower Bay dredging project and a request for additional testing funds based on a New Fields proposal to finalize the dredged material disposal feasibility program currently underway in Newport Harbor. The scope of work has changed as a result of the agency review process. Should the City approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with NewFields? RECOMMENDATION- 1 . Approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with NewFields to finalize the dredged material program that is currently being conducted in Lower Newport Harbor. 2. Adopt Budget Amendment #BA- taking $75,000 in unappropriated Tidelands Fund balance and assigning these funds to Capital Improvement Project #7231 - C4402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging Project). DISCUSSION: In September 2008, Council approved a PSA with NewFields to complete sediment testing in preparation for a Lower Newport Bay dredging project. The City decided to press forward with this testing program in coordination with the Corps of Engineers' commitment to fulfill their responsibility to dredge the harbor assuming the local partner (City) could assist with a solution for the contaminated material. At this point, staff estimates there is approximately 1.4 million cubic yards to dredge to original authorized depths, but the volume of contaminated material is still unknown. It should be noted that the term "contaminated" is used in this discussion to refer to material that is not suitable for disposal at an offshore site which only accepts dredged material meeting very strict criteria established by concerned regulatory agencies. NewFields Budget Amendment No. i September 22, 2009 Page 2 One of the more complex issues with Newport's dredging project is to determine the amount of material that is suitable for ocean disposal at LA -3 versus the amount of material that must be disposed of at an alternate location. Using the federally approved LA -3 disposal site (4.5 miles from the Entrance Channel) is certainly the most desirable option because of its designation as an environmentally safe dredged material disposal area and its proximity to our harbor, translating into significant cost savings. However, sediment destined for LA -3 must undergo rigorous testing to ensure it will not degrade the ocean sediments or biological communities along our coastline. NewFields is currently working through this process with the various regulatory agencies to ensure the City is maximizing the quantities for LA -3; or conversely, minimizing the quantities that must be disposed of at an alternate site for contaminated material. Since the original PSA was approved in 2008, the testing program that NewFields proposed has changed in scope in several important ways. While some change in scope was anticipated, the level of effort associated with the required changes has exceeded the capacity of the current budget ($298,274.00). The following discussion will describe the approach originally proposed, where NewFields is in that program, and the changes in the program. A key component of the original program was to utilize previous data sets collected by the City in support of the RGP -54 and "Federal Channels" programs to reduce the scope of the current effort. To support this effort, NewFields and the City met with EPA at the outset to discuss the above stated approach. At that time, EPA indicated they would agree to the use of previous data, provided there had not been substantial changes in the harbor's bathymetry (sediment topography underwater). EPA also indicated that they would agree to use an amphipod test species more suited to Newport's fine sediments, provided there be a study to support the City's recommended species. Finally, EPA agreed to a reference area approach, using historic reference data rather than collecting and testing reference sediment from the LA -3 open ocean reference site. The original program scope included ten tasks that fall into four general categories which are: • Develop a work plan that summarizes existing data by area and identifies separate pathways forward for each area (Task 2); • Address the study elements EPA requested as described above, conducting a bathymetry comparison, amphipod study, and a compilation of reference area data (Tasks 1, 3, and 8); • Conduct the necessary sediment collection and testing necessary to fill the gaps in the existing data (Tasks 4 and 5); and, • Complete work started to address mercury and possible pyrethroid issues in the Lower Bay (Tasks 6 and 7). NewFields Budget Amendment No. 1 September 22, 2009 Page 3 The tasks requested by EPA were completed and culminated in the preparation of a work plan for addressing the data gaps. However, at this point, EPA indicated that the use of existing data would not be appropriate because the intent of the RGP -54 program is not consistent with the current program (location and total depth of previous samples were not indicative of the quality of all of the sediments proposed for dredging) and changes in sediment grain size. The regulatory agencies indicated that full testing would be required for each of the study areas. Additionally, the agencies required dividing up the harbor into more sampling areas, thereby increasing the number of analytical samples that would require all testing. The reason for increasing the number of sampling areas was to reduce the total volume of material that each test sample represented. This is a relatively new protocol established by the regulatory agencies that resulted from concerned citizen group challenges of the previous representative sampling protocol. After careful review, we determined that this change was actually beneficial to our program because it allows us to further segregate into smaller volumes those materials that are not suitable for LA -3 disposal. There were also additional increases in scope resulting from the newly formed Dredged Material Management Team (DMMT) which consists of all the regulatory agencies who meet monthly to make decisions on regional dredging projects. In the past, EPA and the Corps of Engineers made most of the testing requirement decisions without the assistance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Coastal Commission, and this lack of agency coordination resulted in problems during the permit issuance process. The DMMT decided that Newport should use ERL (Effects Range Low) exceedances as a basis to require mercury analysis on individual testing stations, and tissue residue analysis on several compounds for all treatments (completion of tissue burden analysis and data review of a particular representative organism in a given dredged material test area). These are not requests that have been encountered on previous testing programs in California. While structured differently, the original proposal included the full evaluation of the equivalent of 6 to 8 treatments. The required number of samples that are now included in the current program, per the DMMT, is 13 test treatments and the reference treatment, totaling 14 treatments. This is an increase of 6 to 8 treatments. To adapt to the required changes in scope, the City and NewFields have adopted a revised project strategy to attempt to minimize costs. The intent is to use critical decision points to eliminate certain treatments from further analysis; in other words, knowing when to stop expending funds on an area that has no hope of passing for ocean disposal. NewFields has moved through several of these decision points, including sediment chemistry, amphipod testing, and other acute toxicity tests. While there have been some potential sediment chemistry issues observed in different parts of the harbor, NewFields did not find contaminant concentrations that would be considered, under historical testing review, a cause to reject areas as unsuitable for ocean disposal (with the exception of mercury by some previous comparison methods). In other words, no toxicity tests failed the ocean disposal criteria. The last remaining piece of information is the bioaccumulation testing tissue analysis which looks at the NewFietds Budget Amendment No. 1 September 22, 2009 Page 4 biological accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of the critters that are exposed to the sediment. These tests have been run, but the tissues have yet to be analyzed. At this point, there are no compelling reasons to eliminate any of the test composites from this bioaccumulation study in order to save costs, meaning that all the sites have passed the tests up to this point. Even areas that may not pass evaluation based on chemical concentration values alone may pass overall acceptance for disposal at LA -3 if no bioaccumulation of mercury is found in the tissues of indicator test organisms. The City sent.the regulatory agencies a proposed list of chemicals for tissue analysis based on the sediment chemistry and the likelihood for those chemicals to bioaccumulate (appear in the critter's tissues). The agencies responded with a revised list that included a much more costly set of analysis to be applied to all of the composite samples. NewFietds and the City are challenging this requirement for a full set of analysis by suggesting that we test just one composite with the full suite of analysis in order to prove that further testing of the other composites is unnecessary. However, we cannot plan that this logic will prevail at this point. The positive outcome of these efforts so far is that none of the areas have been absolutely eliminated from the possibility of ocean disposal. As stated above, this has been our primary goal from the beginning because of the cost savings involved with LA- 3 disposal versus an alternate site for contaminated sediments. Proposal for Remaining Work NewFietds has divided up the remaining tasks into four distinct tasks which are briefly summarized below. The full proposal is included as an appendix. TASK 1 — Finalize the Chemistry Analysis The following chemical analysis will be required through lab work. Arsenic: No further analysis Cadmium: Four treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams Copper: Five treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams Mercury: Two treatments for worms, six treatments for clams PCBs: No further analyses DDT: Thirteen treatments for both worms and clams. The total analytical costs to complete the tissues analysis as indicated will be $22,000. Tissue analysis would require 3 weeks from the notice to proceed. An additional one to two weeks would be required in order to review all data to ensure data quality and rectify any issues with the analytical laboratory. NewFields Budget Amendment No. 1 September22, 2009 Page 5 TASK 2 — Program Reoort Due to the change in scope, the final report for this program will resemble a comprehensive Ocean Testing Manual report. Portions of this task have been completed in the negotiations with the DMMT regarding the scope of the program and the tissue residue analysis. $15,000 will be required for the completion and submission to the DMMT. NewFields has begun to prepare the final report and would require an additional two weeks from receipt of the tissue chemistry data to finalize the program report. However, recommendations to the City regarding areas likely to pass for ocean disposal will be provided as soon as the qualified tissue chemistry data is available. TASK 3 — Finalizinq the Mercury Evaluation of West Lido Channel As part of the DMMP program, the mercury in West Lido Channel was going to be further characterized for both the lateral and horizontal extent. Samples that characterize the horizontal extent of mercury contamination have been analyzed and reported to the City. Samples that characterize the vertical extent of mercury contamination are archived and still require analysis. The costs associated with completing the remaining analysis and compiling a formal report of all mercury data would require $8,000. TASK 4 — Ongoing Negotiations with DMMT Finalizing the DMMT program will require several meetings with the DMMT. This includes a general presentation of all the test results and determination of which test treatments will pass for ocean disposal. Based on previous negotiations with the agencies, there will likely be two issues requiring some negotiation: DDT in tissues and mercury in sediments. With DDT, NewFields will need to work with the DMMT to determine the exact threshold value that has been applied to past programs would be sufficient for this current program. The level of mercury has exceeded Effects Range Low (ERL) standard, however, the values in Newport above the ERL standard have not exhibited toxicity or bioaccumulation issues. In the City's current testing efforts with Marina Park, a value of 1.0 mg /kg was used because of the small volume of sediment requiring upland disposal. However, EPA did indicate that they might allow for more of an options /risk analysis if there were larger volumes of sediment with mercury concentrations >1.0 mgfkg. The estimated volume of material that would exceed this threshold is approximately 250,000 cubic yards, so it is worth our while to try and negotiate this point further. The issue of acceptable mercury concentrations is the area of most uncertainty and affects not only the current harbor dredging program, but also the City's RGP -54 program which allows dredging under individual property owner's docks. If we can resolve the mercury issue in the federal channel areas, then it is likely that we will be able to resolve the mercury issue in those areas under property owner's docks where dredging is currently not allowed under the RGP. NewFietds Budget Amendment No. 1 September 22, 2009 Page 6 NewFietds best estimate for negotiating with the agencies regarding the current program and the mercury related issues would be a not -to- exceed amount of $15,000 to $30,000. This includes staff time and travel costs over the next few months. Negotiations regarding mercury in other regions have required extensive negotiation and this is not an issue that has been resolved at a national level. Another Local Dredotnq Proiect as a Comparison While one may question the costs of this overall testing strategy, it might be useful to compare our current efforts with a much smaller project at the Newport Dunes where a dredging project occurred in the spring of 2009. This project dredged approximately 125,000 cubic yards of material and the County spent $182,000 for their testing program. The City's current project is approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of material to dredge in a significantly larger area (entire Lower Newport Bay), and our testing program will cost approximately $375,000. Environmental Review: The approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement is not a project subject to CEQA and does not require environmental review. The dredging project, when implemented, may be determined to be 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. If contaminated sediments are found requiring the analysis of different disposal options, then additional environmental documentation may be required. Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the item). Fiscal Impact: The extent of the technical problems with potential sediment contamination with respect to the regulatory agencies and the newly formed DMMT were not anticipated at the time the Council approved the original contract in September 2008. An additional $75,000 is requested from the unappropriated Tidelands Fund balance to account #7231- C4402001. Submitted by: by: Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: Amendment No. 1 for PSA Exhibit 2: Budget Amendment NewFields Budget Amendment No. 1 September 22, 2009 Page 7 Amendment No. 1 for PSA AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOWER NEWPORT BAY THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, is entered into as of this day of , 2009, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "CITY "), and NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC a Georgia Limited Liability Company whose address is 1349 West Peachtree Street, STE 2000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 ( "CONSULTANT'), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On September 9, 2008 CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT," to perform sediment testing in Lower Newport Bay as a precursor to a comprehensive dredging project, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT ". B. CITY desires to enter into this AMENDMENT NO. 1 to reflect additional tests and chemical analysis required which were not anticipated in the original AGREEMENT and to extend the term of the AGREEMENT to March 1, 2010. C. CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for additional professional services needed for PROJECT. D. 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. TERM The term of the AGREEMENT shall be extended to March 1, 2010. 2. ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED 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. 3. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION City shall pay Consultant for the services on a flat rate 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 reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Seventy Five Thousand Dollars and no /100 ($75,000.00) without prior written authorization from City. 4. INTEGRATED CONTRACT 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: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By' -- David R. Hunt City Attorney /_i0i :&l M Leilani Brown, City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal Corporation Edward Selich, Mayor for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: By: (Corporate Officer) Title: Print Name: By: (Financial Officer) Title: Print N Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services and Billing Rates NILDS Chris Miller Harbor Resources City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Proposal for Additional Funds Dear Chris September 11, 2009 NewFields is submitting a proposal to finalize the dredged material program that is currently being conducted in Lower Newport Harbor. As noted in our memo on August 23, 2009 changes as a result of the agency review process have increased the scope of this program. The following outlines the tasks remaining, the estimated costs associated with those tasks, and a timeline for completion. At this point we have completed nearly all tasks related to this program. Based on the data currently available and past decisions by the EPA and USACE, 9 of the 13 test treatments appear that they will pass for ocean disposal. All or portions of the remaining composites may also be available for disposal in the ocean but that will depend upon tissue analyses and negotiations with EPA, the USACE, and the other DMMT agencies. The following proposal outlines the remaining tasks that we foresee for the project and an estimated timeline. Task 1: Finalize Tissue Chemistry Analysis Following a DMMT meeting on August 26, 2009, the City was provided with a list of analytes for tissues and a decision process to determine how many treatments would require analysis. Based on a comparison of tissues concentrations in one replicate (a significant savings to the evaluations) of each treatment compared to the reference site, the following chemical analyses will be required: Arsenic: No further analysis Cadmium: Four treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams Copper: Five treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams Mercury: Two treatments for worms, six treatments for clams PCBs: No further analyses DDT: Thirteen treatments for both worms and clams. The total analytical costs to complete the tissues analysis as indicated will be $22,000. Tissue analysis would require 3 weeks from the notice to proceed. An additional one to two weeks would be required in order to review all data to ensure data quality and rectify any issues with the analytical laboratory. Task 2: Program Report Due to the change in scope, the final report for this program will resemble a comprehensive Ocean Testing Manual report. Portions of this task have been completed in the negotiations with the DMMT regarding the scope of the program and the tissue residue analysis. The original proposed cost for reporting was $25,000; the remaining reporting tasks would require $15,000 for completion and submission to the DMMT. NewFields has begun to prepare the final report and would require an additional two weeks from receipt of the tissue chemistry data to finalize the program report. However, recommendations to the City regarding areas likely to pass for ocean disposal will be provided as soon as the qualified tissue chemistry data is available. Task 3: Finalizing the Mercury Evaluation of West Lido Channel As part of the DMMP program, the mercury in West Lido Channel was going to be further characterized for both the lateral and horizontal extent. Samples that characterize the horizontal extent of mercury contamination have been analyzed and reported to the City. Samples (fiat characterize the vertical extent of mercury contamination are archived and still require analysis. The costs associated with completing the remaining analysis and compiling a formal report of all mercury data would require $8,000. Task 4: Ongoing Negotiations with DMMT Finalizing the DMMT program will require several meetings with the DMMT. This includes a general presentation of all the test results and determination of which test treatments will pass for ocean disposal. Based on previous negotiations with the agencies, there will likely be two issues requiring some negotiation: DDT in tissues and mercury in sediments. EPA has used a total projected DDT (sum of all DDT constituents) value of 300 ppb as a threshold for disposal at the LA -3 reference site. This value includes the use of site - specific multipliers to project the total tissue burden that animals would be predicted to have at equilibrium with the sediments. This is a correction factor applied to 28 -day bioaccumuhttion tests. The City and NewFields would need to work with the DMMT to determine whether the 300 ppb threshold that has been applied in past programs would be used for this program. Mercury has been observed in Lower Newport Bay sediments above the ERM level of 0.71 mg/kg. However, this has typically been associated with sediments that have not exhibited toxicity or significant bioaccumulation, which is the case for the current testing program. However, during the previous negotiations with EPA and the USACE on the Marina Park project, a sediment value of 1.0 mg/kg has been used as a threshold for ocean disposal. Such a sediment - chemistry threshold is not necessarily following the Ocean Testing Manual guidance and was applied in part due to the small volume of sediment requiring upland disposal from Marina Park. EPA did provide some indication that they would allow for more of an options /risk analysis if future programs included larger volumes of sediment with mercury concentrations >1.0 mg/kg. The estimated volume of material that would exceed this threshold is approximately 250,000 cubic yards, depending upon whether study areas can be divided into smaller areas based on individual station results. The issue of acceptable mercury concentrations is the area of most uncertainty and affects not only the current harbor dredging program, but also the RGP -54 program. The agencies may decide to qualify sediment containing Hg concentrations in the following three ways: 1. Sediment Hg concentrations in the composites that are :51 mg/kg (ppm) are considered to be acceptable for placement in the ocean are those with composite concentrations that are less than 1.0 mg/kg (ppm). 2. Sediment Hg concentrations in individual sediment samples that are >1 mg /kg would not be allowed to be placed in the ocean. Generally, decisions that are based on sediment chemistry at a single station or group of stations are applied to the general area surrounding those stations. This method will likely result in some locations within a composite being acceptable for disposal in the ocean. It is likely that if an entire composite has a concentration <I mg/kg, but includes stations that are > LO mg /kg, that the agencies would exclude those areas/stations exceeding 1.0 mg/kg. 3. Tissue Hg concentrations and toxicity test results are used to determine whether sediment is acceptable or unacceptable for placement of dredged materials in the ocean. At the most recent DMMT meetings, the agencies indicated that they would interpret tissue chemistry using both statistical comparison with the reference and an elevation to an effects based level. That level has not yet been defined. If the decision is only based on statistical significance then this can and should be argued since it is against federal guidelines. USEPA personnel will be available within the next two weeks to explore the interpretation of mercury data. Following these meetings we can meet with the City to develop a schedule of potential outcomes, including the volumes affected. We anticipate about 2 weeks of interaction and development of information required to come to some solution about the decision points for Hg. This two weeks of work will be spread over a time frame of 4 -6 weeks with the final decisions of whether it is work continuing the process near the end of October. We may also determine after initial discussions with EPA to agree with EPA's earlier regulatory decision and find alternative disposal options for sediment exceeding I mg /kg total Hg. Our best estimate for negotiating with the agencies regarding the current dredging program and mercury- related issues would be $15,000 - $30,000. This would include costs associated with staff time and travel costs over the next two to three months to complete negotiations for all issues related to the current dredging program and the mercury- related issues. NewFields will make efforts to expedite this process; however, this will require an invested effort on the part of EPA and the USACE during that time period. These costs would be considered a not -to- exceed amount. Negotiations regarding mercury in other regions have required extensive negotiation and this is not an issue that has been resolved at a national level. Please let me know if you have further questions regarding these estimates. As mentioned above, Task 4 is an estimate based on what has been required during previous programs to negotiate threshold values for disposal. If the agencies provide a clear indication that they are unwilling to alter their previous mercury threshold, it is likely that the actual costs will be substantially lower. Sincerely, William Gardiner NewFields, LLC Summary of Proposed Costs Task Associated Cost Task 1: Finalize Tissue Chemistry Analysis $22,000 Task 2: Program Report $15,000 Task 3: Finalize Mercury Evaluation of West Lido Channel $8,000 Task 4: Negotiations with DMMT $15,000 - 30,000 Total $60,000 to $75,000 NewFields Pdrt Gamble, WA Billing Rates Labor Categary Personnel fiourlk Rate- Principal Investrqabjr Or.. Jack Word 160 Project Managers Senior Scientists Susie,waft ISQ William Gardiner 130 Meg:Pinza: 130 Project Scientists -Scjentjsts Brian Hester 95. Lucinda Word 85 Bridget, Gregg Jack D Word 85 Staff Tracy.Schuh 75 Collin Ray 65 Mary Bacon 65 NwFi.lds P.O. Box 21 6r� -V29 IIEVie Dgi4E 360297.6040 hm— , 360.297.7266� WWW.NEVVPMLMCIDU! City of Newport Beach BUDGET AMENDMENT 2009 -10 EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Description Increase Revenue Estimates X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND Account Transfer Budget Appropriations SOURCE: Division Number from existing budget appropriations PX from additional estimated revenues from unappropriated fund balance EXPLANATION: This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: NO. BA- 10BA -014 AMOUNT: $75,000.00 Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance To increase expenditure appropriations from Tidelands unappropriated fund balance for the Newport Harbor Dredging Project. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Amount Fund Account Description Debit Credit 7231 3605 Tidelands Fund - Fund Balance $75,000.00 " REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603) Description Signed: Ficial Approval: Administrative Services Director Date Signed: Adminiskatie Approval: City Manager Date Signed: City Council Approval: City Clerk Date Description Division Number 7231 Tidelands Capital Projects Account Number C4402001 Newport Harbor Dredging Project $75,000.00 Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Signed: Ficial Approval: Administrative Services Director Date Signed: Adminiskatie Approval: City Manager Date Signed: City Council Approval: City Clerk Date PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NEWFIELDS COMPANIES LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOWER NEWPORT BAY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 91/1 day of 2008, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corpo ation ( "City "), and NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company whose address is 1349 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City is planning to dredge the Lower Newport Bay in the near future. However, before dredging can occur, the sediment must be tested in order to determine the appropriate disposal strategy. C. City desires to engage Consultant to develop a Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) which will provide the necessary data for a staged harbor wide maintenance dredging program to return the channel depths to design, or near design depth. ( "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 Mr. William Gardiner, Dr. Jack Word and Dr. Thomas Johnson. F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 31 st day of December, 2009, 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 most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Two Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Four Dollars and no /100 ($298,274.00) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any 2 reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. 4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with this Agreement. 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 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 Mr. William Gardiner to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 3 • • 6. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Harbor Resources Department. Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable: A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated. 8. STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. By delivery of completed work, Consultant certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws and the professional standard of care. 8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement. E 0 0 8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies. 9. HOLD HARMLESS To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties ") from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims'), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, any work performed or services provided under this Agreement including, without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials or Consultant's presence or activities conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers, 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 5 0 0 exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services. 11. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 12. CITY POLICY Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 13. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and /or his /her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 14. INSURANCE Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. A. 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 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. • 0 D. Coverage Requirements. i. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non- payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Consultant for City. ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language: i. The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. 7 • 0 ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self- insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided hereunder. iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company. iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non - payment of premium) written notice has been received by City. F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. 15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint-venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty -five percent (25 %) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint - venture. D 0 0 16. SUBCONTRACTING City and Consultant agree that subconsultants may be used to complete the work outlined in the Scope of Services. The subconsultants authorized by City to perform work on this Project are identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts and omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. The City is an intended beneficiary of any work performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care between the subcontractor and the City. Except as specifically authorized herein, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. 18. COMPUTER DELIVERABLES All written documents shall be transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word, Excel, or PDF format. Consultant shall provide all project documents on a CD accompanied by one set of printed documents. 19. CONFIDENTIALITY All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information. 20. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his /her judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. 21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. 22. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. 23. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his/her designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive 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 10 • 0 restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under the law or any other sections of this Agreement. 25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the Project. 26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 27. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing, and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first -class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: Attention: Chris Miller Harbor Resources Department City of Newport Beach 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA, 92660 Phone: (949) 644 -3043 Fax: (949) 723 -0589 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attention: Mr. William Gardiner NewFields Companies LLC 4729 NE View Dr. Port Gamble, WA 98364 11 0 0 Phone: (360) 297 -6080 Fax: (360) 582 -1679 28. TERMINATION In the event that either parry fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure the default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by giving seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for services satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form. 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. 12 0 0 32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 33. INTERPRETATION The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 34. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 35. SEVERABILITY If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 36. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange. 37. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. 13 0 0 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aaron C. Harp, Asst City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: By:. _ V bv"' •l Lyw�k LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: Print (Corporate Officer) (Financial Officer) Print Name: Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates 14 9 0 Exhibit A Scope of Services Proposal to Develop a Dredged Material Management Plan for Lower Newport Bay Prepared for City of Newport Harbor Resources Prepared by NewFields LLC Continued sedimentation and delayed maintenance dredging in Lower Newport Bay have created unsafe conditions resulting from the narrowing and shoaling of the Federal channels and decreased depths in key anchorages throughout the Bay. The City of Newport Beach (City) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) seek to re- establish adequate water depths throughout the Bay, including the Federal Channels, berths, mooring fields and in key anchorages. As part of a harbor -wide dredging program, the City is evaluating their own priorities for dredging within the harbor and to determine all potential disposal options for the Lower Newport Bay sediment. Historically there have been two major programs that maintain safe harbor depths for recreational and commercial boat operations in Newport Bay. The Federal Programs conducted by the USACE provides maintenance dredging between project lines adjacent to opposing bay shorelines in the authorized Federal waterways. The City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Program maintains depths in Newport Bay tidelands granted in trust to the City by the State of California. and assists private property owners in the dredging of the private and public berths via individual permits and the Regional General Permit (RGP 54). In addition, the County of Orange is responsible for maintenance dredging in tidelands granted in trust to the County by the State of California. Since 1936, the Army Corps of Engineers has performed limited maintenance dredging, primarily focused on the Harbor Entrance and Upper Newport Bay Channel. Currently, Congress has determined that there is a federal interest in having the USACE perform an ecosystem restoration project in the Upper Newport Bay. Some of this dredged material is used for habitat creation; while the RGP -54 program provides sediment for use as beach replenishment. Both programs also provide alternatives to these beneficial uses which include disposal of SUAD (Suitable for Unconfined Aquatic Disposal) sediment in designated ocean disposal sites or confinement and isolation of UAD (Unsuitable for Unconfined Disposal) sediments in acceptable upland disposal sites. This proposed dredged material management program will provide necessary data for a staged harbor -wide maintenance dredging program to return channel depths to design, or near design depth. Within this larger program, there are smaller project areas that may be accelerated based on available information and funding. 0 0 Background: The proposed dredged materials may be disposed of in two ways, in -water disposal or upland disposal. In -water disposal options for Newport Bay typically include alternative reuse of acceptable shoaled sediment within the Bay or open -water disposal of SUAD materials at the LA -3 Disposal Site. In -water disposal in confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site(s) are additional in -water options that the City may wish to consider. Any in -water placement option requires an evaluation of the proposed project sediments following US Army Corps (USACE) and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidelines. This process requires a tiered evaluation, including some or all of the following evaluations: • Historical evaluation of the potential for specific contaminants to be present based upon past history of the location and the selection of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPECs); • Sediment chemistry analysis to document the presence of any chemicals of potential concern at concentrations that pose a potential for unacceptable risk; • Toxicity testing to determine whether the proposed dredged material may cause short-term or long -term biological effects in the receiving environment; and • Bioaccumulation potential, or the potential for COPECs to enter the food web. Sediment is only eligible for beach replenishment if it consists primarily of sand, is free of contaminants, of the correct color, and does not have unacceptable odors. Ocean disposal allows for placement of a wider range of sediment gain sizes, provided the material meets acceptability criteria for chemistry, toxicity, and bioaccumulation. Disposal at a CAD site allows for some level of chemical contamination in the dredged material, provided that the cap overlaying that sediment is deep enough for it to remain isolated from any sediment dwelling organisms. Upland disposal options include clean fill, construction materials, disposal at a landfill, or disposal at a contaminated materials waste facility. Upland disposal generally requires soil chemistry analysis and some type of leaching tests to determine if contaminants can be mobilized by rain water. The types of analyses that are required will be program and placement area dependent and would be determined in coordination with the regulatory agencies. The City and USACE have collected some of the information necessary to determine the suitability of proposed dredged material throughout the Bay. This data has been collected during the RGP -54 permit renewal in 2005 (Gardiner et al. 2006), as well as two investigations targeting the Federal Channels in 2006 and 2003 (Gardiner et al. 2006; Moore et al. 2003). While the collected data was specific to those projects, much of this information can be applied to current dredged material evaluation. However, some areas have not been previously sampled, or will require a certain amount of additional information in order to determine suitability and the appropriate disposal options. This proposal provides a roadmap for each of the proposed project areas and then describes an approach to address each of the key data gaps. The primary goal of this DMMP is to determine dredged - material options for Lower Newport Bay sediment. This will be accomplished by following a step -wise approach, developed in coordination the City, USEPA, and USACE, in order to expedite the process and minimize the amount of additional data that will be required to determine suitability. The specific objectives to develop the harbor - wide DMMP are: 1. Develop a detailed step -wise approach to evaluate the sediments throughout the Lower Newport Bay, incorporating as much of the previous data as possible. 16 i 0 2. Develop a sampling and analysis strategy that will provide suitability determinations for portions of the lower Bay in 2008 and early 2009, while continuing to evaluate other portions of the harbor that may have more complex data requirements. 3. Compare the current bathymetry in the lower Bay to that of 2005 to determine all locations where previous data represent current conditions. 4. Determine an appropriate amphipod species for testing toxicity of Newport sediment. Amphipod tests have been problematic in Lower Newport Bay, largely due to the unusually fine grain size of these sediments. 5. Conduct amphipod toxicity tests with the selected species. 6. Fill remaining data gaps for those locations that meet amphipod testing criteria, supporting the upcoming RGP -54 permit where possible. 7. Define the nature and extent of mercury in the West Lido Channel. 8. Refine toxicity identification evaluations (TIE) studies for the Lido Island Anchorage and nearby areas. 9. Develop reference values for the LA -3 Reference site. 10. Complete Options /Alternatives analysis for each management area as sufficient data is available. In order to accomplish these objectives in a timely and cost- effective manner, NewFields will work closely with the City and regulatory agencies in developing an approach that will fulfill their regulatory requirements, while capitalizing on available data. Where possible, NewFields will conduct multiple study elements concurrently to minimize the project schedule. Furthermore, this program will be conducted in conjunction with the Marina Park sampling and analysis program to provide further time and cost savings. Management Areas: The management areas for the proposed harbor -wide dredging program are delineated based on sediment management needs, as well as the sediment quality data that is currently available. For the purposes of this DMMP, there are ten management areas defined within Lower Newport Bay. Many of these areas include a portion of the Federal Channel, as well as mooring fields; however, in order to maximize the management options for the City, there are some areas that are limited to a specific Channel reach or anchorage. The management areas and the pathway forward for each area are described in this section. A map of the areas and a proposed pathway forward with timeline are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1. The ten management areas are as follows: • Area A includes portions of the eastern Newport Channel to the Entrance Channel and includes the "A ", `B ", and BYC Moorings. • Area B includes the eastern and northern portion of the Balboa Island Channel from the Promontory Bay entrance to the Balboa Yacht Club, inclusive of a portion of the "D" moorings. • Area C includes the western portion of the Balboa Island Channel, from the Promontory Bay entrance to Harbor and Collins Islands, inclusive of a portion of the "D" moorings. 17 • • Area D includes the western portion of the Newport Channel inclusive of the C moorings to Collins Island. • Area E includes the nearshore portions of Linda, Harbor, and Collins Islands. This area is designed to capture shoaling areas along the edges of these islands. • Area F includes the main channel in the central harbor and west of Linda Isle, including the G moorings. • Area G includes Lido Channel from the Lido Village turning basin to the Anchorage, but not including the anchorage. • Area H is limited to the Federal Anchorage area at the eastern end of Lido Isle. • Area I includes portions of the Newport Channel east of 10th Street and east of the "F" and NHYC Moorings. • Area J includes the West Lido Channel and Newport Channel west of 101h Street. M Passed in RGP-54, passed during Federal Channel Tier IV, where tested. Likely to pass for ocean disposal but may require bioaccumulation testing. Passed for toxicity in RGP-54, but Hg concentrations in surface sediment (top 3 ft.) likely to prevent ocean disposal option. Currently studying vertical and horizontal extent. May be able to manage upper —3ft. differently than underlying sand. Passed in RGP-54, but moderate amphipod mortality in Federal Channel samples. Likely to be addressed in amphipod study. Would require bioaccumulation testing if amphipod test passes. Passed in RGP-54, but amphipod mortality in Federal Channel samples. May be addressed in amphipod study or TIE. Would require bioaccumulation testing if amphipod test passes. If this was a targeted project area, new characterization would be required. 19 0 0 O If additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered. Timeline is dependent upon start date. 0 0 Pathway Forward The pathway forward for each of these areas is based on the data that currently exists, whether there has been significant shoaling within the areas, and the data gaps that exist within each area. Development of a Step -Wise Approach Based on previous investigations, the data requirements for determining disposal options vary across Lower Newport Bay. In some locations, there may be sufficient data to determine suitability. In other locations, amphipod toxicity potentially related to sediment grain size, a lack of bioaccumulation data, or a limited understanding of chemical concentrations or toxicity may be preventing a full characterization of the proposed dredged material. A step -wise approach will be developed to evaluate harbor sediments. This will maximize the amount of previous data that can be used in this evaluation despite the varied nature of that existing data. NewFields will work with the City and regulatory agencies to develop a sampling and analysis plan that will fill remaining data gaps for each management area independently but concurrently. Compositing strategies will incorporate vertical as well as horizontal groupings of stations. Bathymetry As a first step for each of the ten areas, the current bathymetry for each area will be compared to the 2005 bathymetry to determine whether significant shoaling has occurred since previous data were collected. Provided that significant shoaling has not occurred, previous data may be used to determine the suitability of proposed dredged material. If substantial sediment accumulation has occurred since 2005, those locations may require characterization of the newly deposited sediment. Development of a Step -Wise Approach Based on previous investigations, the data requirements for determining disposal options vary across Lower Newport Bay. In some locations, there may be sufficient data to determine suitability. In other locations, amphipod toxicity potentially related to sediment grain size, a lack of bioaccumulation data, or a limited understanding of chemical concentrations or toxicity may be preventing a full characterization of the proposed dredged material. A step -wise approach will be developed to evaluate harbor sediments. This will maximize the amount of previous data that can be used in this evaluation despite that varied nature of that existing data. NewFields will work with the City and regulatory agencies to develop a sampling and analysis plan that will fill remaining data gaps for each management area independently but concurrently. Compositing strategies will incorporate vertical as well as horizontal groupings of stations. This task includes the preparation of a sampling and analysis plan and coordination with agencies to facilitate the implementation of that plan. Amphipod Evaluation A number of the Study Areas have not been approved for aquatic disposal due to amphipod toxicity. These include Areas A, C, G, H, and 1. The role of sediment grain size remains unclear for Newport sediment evaluations. Lower Newport Bay is somewhat unusual in that the sediment has a high proportion of very fine clay. Amphipods that are often used in Lower Newport investigations (Eohaustorius estuarius) are intolerant to high proportions of clay. Typically the role of sediment grain size is suspected when there is little if any sediment chemistry contamination and moderate levels of toxicity typically manifested only in the amphipod test. This has been particularly problematic for the Federal Channels dredged material 21 0 • evaluations, in which a number of reaches have had moderate amphipod toxicity associated with low concentrations of contaminants of concern. Fine - grained sediments may also continue to be a factor in Newport if the trend for increasing clay deposition continues in the future. We propose to conduct a sediment grain size test using Lower Newport sediment with a suite of amphipod species that are considered acceptable for evaluating sediment. Test species would include Eohaustorius estuarius, Rmpelisca abdita, Grandidieralla japonica, Leptocheirus plumulosus, and Rhepoxynius abronius. Tests will be conducted as standard 10 -day amphipod tests using a gradient of grain sizes. Test sediments will be Lower Newport sediment of varying grain size. Once a suitable amphipod species is selected, Areas A, C, G, H, and I will be reevaluated for amphipod toxicity. If the amphipod tests for a given area composite passed suitability criteria, any required additional information for that respective area would be collected. Characterizing Locations Not Included in Previous Evaluations In order to provide for a harbor -wide dredging program, USEPA indicated that the agencies will require some additional stations to characterize locations that were not included in previous investigations. These generally include some of the key moorages that were not part of the Federal Channels and are not near enough to shore to be represented by the RGP -54 investigation. At a minimum, this will include the A, B, G, H and J moorings, the confluence area between Bay and Linda Isle, and possibly the C moorings. Sediment characterizations of these areas will be required to include sediment chemistry, toxicity testing, and bioaccumulation testing. However, evaluations of these locations will be conducted in conjunction with other portions of this program to ensure that field and analyses efforts overlap, minimizing costs and ensuring similar data quality. Bioaccumulation Testing USEPA and USACE require an evaluation of the potential for COPECs in sediment to enter the food chain. Bioaccumulation is evaluated by exposing sediment - dwelling prey species (usually a clam and sand worm) to test sediments in the laboratory. After a period of 28 days, the chemical residues in the tissues are measured and compared to guidance values. While near -shore sediments in each of the project areas have not shown unacceptable bioaccumulation potential, the Federal Channels and mooring fields have not yet been evaluated for bioaccumulation potential. For those areas passing amphipod toxicity testing, bioaccumulation potential will be evaluated. The COPECs that will be analyzed in tissues will be selected in conjunction with USEPA and will be limited to those chemicals in sediment exceeding guidance levels. Mercury and TIE Investigations Based on previous sediment evaluations, sediment from two portions of the Bay have been identified that will require additional sediment evaluation due to mercury concentrations in sediments or unexplained amphipod toxicity. These investigations will need to be completed in order to determine the disposal options for sediments. This includes sediment from Areas H, I, and J. The following sections summarize each issue and outline our approach. Mercury in West Lido and Newport Channels: 0 • Sediment evaluations in support of the City's 2005 RGP -54 permit renewal indicated three stations with mercury concentrations that exceed ER -M guidance levels. In 2007, NewFields conducted high resolution sampling in the West Lido Channel to refine the area with elevated mercury concentrations and to establish gradients to help identify a source. Mercury concentrations were unexpectedly elevated across the study area, including most of the West Lido Channel and portions of the Newport Channel. Following this result, NewFields met with the Harbor Resources staff to map a path forward. The following subtasks are proposed to determine the nature and extent of mercury contamination in Lido Channel and Newport Channel. This portion of the program will be conducted in conjunction with the Marina Park evaluation. The boundaries of the horizontal distribution of mercury contamination in Newport Channel will be determined by sampling additional stations in mid - channel and along the southern shore of Lido Island between the Rhine Channel and the Anchorage. Previously collected samples that had not been analyzed individually will be analyzed as part of this task. The vertical distribution of mercury in sediment will be evaluated in both West Lido and Newport Channel by collecting cores and analyzing several pre- selected vertical layers. The potential for anthropogenic or natural sources of mercury in West Lido Channel and Newport Channel will be evaluated by conducting provenance analysis; evaluating the ratio of mercury to other metals associated with specific sources. This analysis will also provide some indication of mercury bioavailability. Toxicity Identification in Yacht Anchorage: In 2007, NewFields conducted a sediment investigation specifically targeted at determining whether pyrethroids were the source of sediment toxicity in the Yacht Anchorage area. This study is called a "Toxicity Identification and Evaluation" or TIE study. The TIE uses a series of sediment manipulations to alter the toxicity of certain classes of chemical contaminants, followed by biological testing to determine whether test sample toxicity was altered by the manipulation. Each manipulation is targeted towards a group of chemicals and by combining several manipulations, the preponderance of evidence can implicate the cause of toxicity. This method is particularly useful when working with pyrethroids, since the analytical methods for detecting pyrethroids in sediment are still under development and the detection limits for pyrethroids are near or above effects levels for amphipods. The first series of TIE manipulations were conducted in January and February 2008 with samples collected in January 2008. Experimental manipulations were limited to broad groups of organic chemicals, as well as manipulations targeted towards pyrethroids and organophosphorus pesticides. Based on the results of this first round of manipulations, there are some indications that pyrethroids play a role in toxicity. There are also positive indications that toxicity is not associated with DDT, PCBs, PAHs, or OP pesticides. However, based on the current data, it is not clear whether there are other factors that play a role in toxicity. This is partly due to the magnitude of change in toxicity from the manipulations conducted thus far (changes in toxicity were primarily observed in porewater, changes in sediment toxicity were small) and the targeted nature of the TIE. We propose to conduct an additional set of sediment manipulations and associated testing to confirm the link between pyrethroids and toxicity and to determine if grain size, metals, or organotins are also implicated. In addition, confirmatory chemical analyses will be conducted on test sediments. Achieving detection limits at or below biological 23 0 0 effects levels is difficult, however, recent advances in analytical methods can allow for sufficiently low detection limits (Don Weston 2006). Establishment of Reference Values for LA -3 Disposal Site Reference Site In some USEPA regions, an "environs" approach has been used to evaluate dredged material, rather than sampling the reference site during each evaluation. The environs approach uses historic data collected from the reference area to establish mean reference values for each reference site. These reference values are then used as the point of comparison for dredged material evaluations, rather than retesting the reference sediment. This approach offers the City several advantages. First, data collected previously from the reference area are used to establish the reference area values, taking into account responses and contaminants present at the reference site. Second, the reference value is a predictable, "bright line" that test results are compared against. Using the environs approach, the suitability requirements for sediment are predictable and consistent. Finally, this approach relieves the project proponent of the costs associated with collecting and testing reference sediment for each sediment evaluation. This approach has been used effectively in the San Francisco region to manage dredged material. This approach is based on a body of information collected from the reference site and establishes a range of values for the reference site that are then used in dredged material evaluations. USEPA has expressed an interest and willingness to use the environs approach for LA -3. NewFields will compile historic data for the current LA -3 disposal site and establish mean values for chemical contaminants of concern, toxicity, and bioaccumulation potential. As part of the compilation, data will be reviewed for data quality and appropriate detection limits. Options /Alternatives Analysis The disposal options for each management area will be determined as sufficient data becomes available. NewFields will prepare an Options /Alternatives Analysis, reviewing the in -water and upland disposal options available to the City. 24 0 0 SPECIFICS OF PROPOSED TASKS: Task l: Bathymetry In order to determine whether previous sediment evaluations reflect current conditions, bottom depths from 2008 will be compared to those of 2005 and 2006. This was a task that was requested by USEPA to determine whether there had been significant shoaling since previous data were collected. NewFields will acquire the most recent Lower Newport Bay bathymetry from USACE, as well as those from 2005 and 2006. Data will be put into a geo- referenced, 3 -D contouring and surface mapping software (SURFER®) that allows similar data points to be identified and changes in depth calculated. Sediment accumulation may be expressed as an absolute change in depth, or a change in depth relative to the overall column of sediment at a given location. Based on the depth or relative depth, NewFields will consult with the City and regulatory agencies to determine whether additional samples will be required. This task would include coordination of data transfer, identification of appropriate data sets, analysis of data and supporting calculations, and agency negotiations. Figure 1. Bathymettic contour for Oceanside Harbor as an example of SURFER software output. Task 2: Development of Step -wise Approach/Santpling and Analysis Plan Once the bathymetric analysis has been completed and the suitability of previous data sets is known, NewFields will prepare a programmatic sampling and analysis plan. Working with the City and regulatory agencies, NewFields will develop a step -wise approach and decision process that will allow for all areas to be evaluated concurrently and will allow determination and disposal options for specific areas to be evaluated as data becomes available. This will facilitate expedited determinations for areas with few data requirements, while study of areas requiring further analysis continues. Under this task, a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) will be prepared for review by the City to support initial discussions with USEPA, the USACE, and other resource agencies prior to conducting the sediment evaluation. Based on previous investigations we have performed in the Newport Bay area, we would expect an initial conference call with the USEPA and USACE prior to sampling. This task would include supporting any initial agency negotiations. 25 • • We anticipate two field efforts with multiple tasks being grouped into each field effort to expedite the program and minimize costs. The first field effort would support the amphipod study and would be a short, one -day sampling event. The second field effort would be the more substantial effort and would support Tasks 4, 5, and 6. NewFields will work with the City to determine the best field schedule to meet the needs of the program elements. Task 3: Amphipod Study We propose to conduct a sediment grain size test using Lower Newport Bay sediment with a suite of amphipod species that are considered acceptable for evaluating sediment. Test species would include Eohaustorius estuarius, Ampelisca abdita, Grandidieralla japonica, Leptocheirus plumulosus, and Rhepoxynius abronius. Tests will be conducted as standard 10 -day amphipod tests using a gradient of grain sizes. Test sediments will be Lower Newport Bay sediment of varying grain size. If this is not possible, a gradient may be prepared by mixing sediments to create a grain size gradient; however, this can be problematic as mixing with coarse- grained sediment could effectively dilute toxicity due to other factors. An alternative approach would be to simply analyze whole samples from areas known to have fine - grained sediment, low levels of chemical contamination, and moderate levels of toxicity during previous investigations. Once a suitable species has been identified, Areas A, C, G, H, and I would be reevaluated for amphipod toxicity. if the amphipod tests for a given area composite passed suitability criteria, any required additional information for that respective area would be collected. Task 4: Additional Characterization Based on Existing Data Locations not represented by the current datasets will require chemical and biological characterization to determine disposal options. The A, B, G, H and J moorings, the confluence area between Bay and Linda Isle, and possibly the C moorings will be sampled for chemical and biological analysis. Any locations with significant shoaling or areas that need to be more clearly defined, based on existing data will be evaluated under this task. To the extent possible, sampling and analysis for this portion of the program will be design to support the upcoming RGP -54 permit renewal. Sediments will be sampled using a vibracore sampler. This will ensure that project depth is achieved and that underlying sand layers are retained for characterization. This sampler will also allow for a vertical stratification. Previous data indicate that portions of the harbor are characterized by fine silt overlying clean sand. For those portions of the harbor, compositing sand layers separately from silt/clay layers may provide the City with more disposal options. Test composites will be evaluated following USEPA and USACE guidance for dredged material evaluation (the Ocean Testing Manual and the Inland Testing Manual). Composites will be analyzed for sediment grain size, TOC, and a suite of EPA priority pollutants: metals (including mercury), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides (including 2,4' and 4,4' DDT groups), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB aroclors), and organotins. Analytical Resources Inc. of Tukwila, Washington will perform the chemical analysis. This laboratory has conducted previous studies in the Newport area and we have a close working relationship with their chemists. 26 ! • Analytical precision and accuracy will be evaluated using quality assurance /quality control (QA/QC) samples with each analytical batch. QA/QC analysis will include blanks, laboratory control spikes, and matrix spike /matrix spike duplicates. NewFields will evaluate all chemistry QA/QC data and its potential implications on the analytical results from the test samples. Biological testing for ocean disposal includes an assessment of toxicity of both the solid -phase and the suspended- particulate phase. The solid -phase tests provide an estimate of toxicity to benthic organisms at the disposal site. Solid -phase tests will include 10 -day acute tests with an amphipod and the mysid shrimp or a polychaete worm. The suspended - particulate phase (SPP) tests provide an estimate of toxicity to water column organisms exposed to sediment as it falls through the water column at the disposal site. It can also provide an indication of water - column toxicity that might be encountered during the dredging process. SPP tests will be conducted with the fish, Menidia beryllina, the mysid, Americamysis bahia, and larval mussels (Mytilus sp.). Task 5: Bioaccumulation Testing USEPA and USACE require an evaluation of the potential for COPECs in sediment to enter the food chain. Bioaccumulation testing is required for any sediment proposed for ocean disposal. Sediment represented by the RGP -54 survey will not require further evaluation of bioaccumulation potential (provided there has not been significant shoaling), however, sediment in the Federal Channels and anchorages have not been evaluated for bioaccumulation. In order to minimize costs and schedule, sediment for bioaccumulation testing will be collected during the initial field effort. In order to evaluate the potential for sediment - associated chemicals to accumulate in tissues of benthic organisms at the disposal site, 28 -day bioaccumulation tests will be conducted with the clam, Macoma nasuia, and the marine worn, Nephtys caecoides. During the bioaccumulation test, clams and worms are exposed to test sediments for 28 days. Following the exposure period, the test organisms are held for 24 hours in clean seawater to void any sediment that may remain in the gut. A native control sediment and LA -3 Reference sediment will be tested concurrent to the test treatments. Tissues from each of the test treatment and reference replicates will be frozen and sent for chemical analysis at ARI. Alternatively, if a data base can be established for bioaccumulation data at the LA -3 Reference site (Task 8), only the native control will be tested. Tissues from the bioaccumulation tests will be analyzed for chemical residues. This proposal includes costs for conducting a broad suite of chemical analysis, however, it is likely that the analyte list can be refined following receipt of the sediment chemistry results and would dramatically reduce analytical costs. Previous investigations have indicated that the primary COPECs in Lower Newport Bay are DDTs, mercury, and possibly organotins. It is possible that the analyte list could be limited to this subset of analytes. The results of the chemical analyses for test sediments will be compared to the LA -3 Reference data to determine suitability. Task 6: Refinement of TIE Characterization In order to further narrow down the potential cause of amphipod toxicity in the anchorage area, several additional TIE manipulations will be conducted with both sediment and porewater samples from this area. TIE manipulations will include treatments for metals, organotins, and pyrethroids. Individual treatments may include the following: 27 0 0 Cation Exchange Resin — This resin (SIR -300) is used to bind cationic metals and is particularly effective for copper, zinc, nickel, and lead. For sediment treatments, the resin is added directly to the tests sediment. For porewater treatments, the porewater is passed through a column that has been packed with the resin beads. AVS Addition — Acid volatile sulfides aggressively bind metals, including mercury, copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc, forming insoluble precipitates. Sodium sulfide is added as a solution to test sediment. Multiple levels of sulfides will be tested to ensure that sufficient sulfides are present to bind the metals and the addition of sulfides is not causing toxicity. This manipulation will be conducted for the solid -phase evaluations. EDTA Addition — Ethyldiaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is a strong chelating agent, removing cationic metals and reducing toxicity associated with those metals. Powdered Coconut Charcoal and Esterase with 30% diluted test sediment: In some cases the toxicity in the baseline sediment overwhelms the TIE manipulation. These two manipulations were evaluated previously with pure and 10% diluted test sediment. Toxicity will be evaluated in more dilute test sediment and porewater. PBO at a higher concentration: Piprynol butoxide is a chemical known to increase the toxicity of pyrethroids. PBO treatments in the previous porewater tests provided an indication that pyrethroids were linked to toxicity; however, changes were not observed in sediment toxicity tests. Tests will be conducted with sediment and porewater at two higher concentrations of PBO to ensure that it is effective. In addition, sediments will be chemically analyzed for pyrethroids. In order to get sufficiently low detection limits, gas chromatography /mass spectrometry will be conducted in the negative ion detection mode. This is a more involved and somewhat experimental approach that has allowed for sufficiently low detection limits in previous sediment investigations (Don Weston 2006). 0 0 Task 7. Mercury in West Lido Channel Sediments In order to determine dredging options for West Lido Channel (Area J) sediment, the nature and extent of mercury in the area sediments needs to be defined. This task will include a delineation of the horizontal and vertical boundary of elevated mercury, as well as address potential sources of mercury and potential bioavailability. Samples to be analyzed for this task were previously collected and archived. In order to better understand the horizontal boundaries of mercury contamination in Newport Channel, NewFields previously collected samples from 13 stations using a 3" diameter piston core. Three station locations were similar to those of the CoastKeepers' recent surface sampling effort to provide a point of comparison and to provide additional information about the vertical distribution at those locations. Samples from each station will be analyzed as a single, vertical composite, in a manner similar to the 2007 sampling effort. A second core was sectioned into vertical strata and archived for possible future analysis. In addition, 10 archived samples from stations collected during the Federal Channel program will be analyzed for total mercury to determine the potential contamination in the Yacht Anchorage, Turning Basin, and the Lido Channel. This subtask will include mercury, grain size, and TOC analysis in a total of 23 samples. The vertical distribution of mercury in the Lido and Newport Channels will be determined using 11 archived cores collected from locations already examined as composites in the West Lido and Newport Channels. Core samples were collected at stations representing the mid - channel and nearshore areas. Stations were located at each end of the respective areas, as well as a midpoint in order to detect possible differences between potential sources. Previous studies (Anchor 2005; CoastKeepers 2007; SCCWRP 2003) indicate that, in portions of the Rhine Channel and Newport Channel, elevated mercury concentrations are highest in the top 10 ern of sediment in some locations and in the middle 10 -40 cm in other locations. Elevated mercury concentrations extended to approximately 50 cm, below which they decrease to below ER -M levels. Data on vertical stratification may offer indications of ecological risk, provide management options, and demonstrate the potential for isolation by clean surface sediments. Sampling intervals will nominally be 0 -5 cm, 20 -50 cm, and 60 cm to core bottom (gaps between intervals is to ensure separation between potential layers). Cores were evaluated in the field for any obvious strata and may be sectioned based on visual observations of sediment characteristics. Additionally, stratified cores collections from stations sampled in the central portion of Newport Channel (as part of Subtask 1) will be considered for analysis based on total mercury results from whole core samples. In order to evaluate the potential sources of mercury in sediment, additional metals will be analyzed for provenance analysis. The relative distribution of certain metals is generally conservative in sediments from the source to the "sink" and can be linked to the relative distribution of metals in source materials. Crustal metals that comprise the actual grains of sediment are generally not bioavailable, but are quantified in standard metals analysis. Cinnabar from San Diego Creek and the bluffs in Upper Newport Bay is a potential source of mercury in Lower Newport Bay and will be evaluated by analyzing other metals that are indicative of crustal sources: iron, selenium, and aluminum. Other metals are more indicative of specific human activities, such as mercury plating activities (zinc), batteries (chromium), and antifouling paints (copper). Iron, aluminum, selenium, copper, chromium, and zinc will be analyzed in a subset of samples from the West Lido and Newport Channels. Specific samples collected in 2007 and 29 0 0 2008 will be selected in conjunction with the Harbor Resources staff. No more than 10 samples will be analyzed for this expanded suite of analytes. Additional samples may also be analyzed for methyl mercury and total mercury to better understand bioavailability of the mercury present. Task 8: LA -3 Reference Values NewFields will compile historic data for the current LA -3 disposal site and establish mean values for chemical contaminants of concern, toxicity, and bioaccumulation potential. Based on the size of the available data sets, the environs approach may not apply to all analytes for bioaccumulation at this time. As part of the compilation, data will be reviewed for data quality and appropriate detection limits. All data will be entered into an electronic spreadsheet and summary statistics generated. Summary statistics will be generated from qualified data sets and we will coordinate with the City and agency staff to determine if additional sampling or analyses are required. Task 9: Permitting Support, Options/AlternativesAnalysis As sufficient data becomes available, NewFields will prepare an Options/Alternatives Analysis for each management area, reviewing each of the potential in -water and upland disposal options available to the City. This task is critical to the success of the City's program and the approach for each management will vary depending upon the chemical and biological characteristics of the sediment. NewFields and Thomas Johnson will provide as needed permitting support, including meetings with the City, USACE, USEPA, RWQCB, Coastal Commission, and stakeholders to help define feasible disposal options. Task I0: Technical Support for Agency Review During previous investigations, NewFields staff members have assisted clients in presenting the results of sediment investigations to USEPA, USACE, and other resource agencies. This is particularly helpful for project with a short timeline. At your request, we will facilitate joint meetings to report the results of this investigation and to work with USEPA in determining disposal options for the proposed dredged material. It is difficult to determine the total cost for this task, as it will depend largely on the data generated during the study. This task is typically billed as time and materials based on rates of $130/hr for Mr. William Gardiner, $135/hr for Dr. Thomas Johnson, and $160/hr for Dr. Jack Word. 30 0 Estimated Costs Ll This section outlines the estimated costs, by task, as described in the section above. Summary of Proposed Cost Summary by Task 31 $6,020 Y 1. Bathymetry 2. Approach Development, Sampling and $20,838 Analysis Plan and Agency Coordination 3. Amphipod Study $25,600 4. Additional Characterization based on Existing Data: Toxicity Testing and Chemistry $88,000 (includes field sampling for Tasks 4 and 5) 5. Bioaccumulation (includes tissue $68,826 chemistry) 6. Toxicity Identification in Yacht Anchorage $24,690 7. Mercury in West Lido and Newport $17,000 Channels 8. Environs Approach for Reference Sites $12,300 9. Options Analysis and Reporting $25,000 10. Technical Support in Agency $10,000 Negotiations 31 0 0 Exhibit B Schedule of Billing Rates NewFields Port Gamble, WA Billing Rates Labor Category Personnel Hourly Rate Principal Investigator Dr. Jack Word 160 Project Managers Senior Scientists Susie Watts 150 William Gardiner 130 Meg Pinta 130 Project Scientists Brian Hester 95 Lucinda Word 85 Bridget Gregg 85 Jadc D Word 85 Staff Scientists Tracy Schuh 75 Collin Ray 65 Mary Bacon 65 NewF;mas F.O.Box2lry 4729ra Vse E;R 2 Pba Gres , WHSkMC[ON 9O W 360 -9W6 4BYep. 36M2957269FAx W{9L ma wwL coM 32 • 'ftnnllm�, {). .4d1maxl f'#t ft Eavianmlvt1n1a6 ten+xlhaM FEE SCHEDULE Hourly rate IY : 3to-sos- 64 FM 310-574-3393 33 0 13428 Kw Emu Avenue, 3u1r[ 429 M",1 oEL Rey, CA 9 0292 $135 E:au �: rmd..KW(�i•.art1 AE#r.wEr 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 27 September 9, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, (949) 644 -3002 d kiffOcity. n ewport -beach . ca. us Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, (949) 644 -3043 cmiller(Wcity. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay —C4 ISSUE: Over the course of the next year the Newport Beach City Council, with the advice of the Harbor Commission, staff and consultants will need to make several decisions about how to implement a maintenance dredging project in Lower Newport Bay. The magnitude of this project could be the largest maintenance effort undertaken in the Lower Bay in over 70 years. During that time period the process and complexity of implementing such a project has changed significantly. The one component that has not changed has been the difficulty in financing such a large and important undertaking. To help guide in the decision making, staff has developed a guide of important accomplishments that need to be achieved and a Decision Tree to help us ensure that we meet those accomplishments. Tonight, the City Council will be asked if staff and the consultant team should embark on the process as it has been mapped out, realizing that there will be many important decisions and plan revisions that will occur as we proceed. This afternoon's study session with the Harbor Commission assists with the important collaborative approach necessary for a successful project. RECOMMENDATION: Approve conceptual approach as outlined in the Accomplishments Guide and Decision Tree. Approve the proposal to develop a Dredged Materials Management Plan (DMMP); Authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement with New Fields Consultants that is necessary to implement the DMMP. • Maintenel Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 2 4. Adopt Budget Amendment #BA-_ taking $200,000 in unappropriated General Fund reserves and assigning these funds to Capital Improvement Project #7014 - C4402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging Project). DISCUSSION: Through the early 1900s the City and County struggled with developing a harbor in the Lower Newport Bay that was safe for navigation. The City and County expended funds derived from both a local bond act and a developer's purchase of dredged material for island construction, to dredge navigation channels and construct a safe harbor entrance. Despite all of their efforts, it wasn't until the mid 1930s that Congress determined there was a federal interest in having a safe harbor along the Southern California Coast between Los Angeles and San Diego. In 1936, Congress approved Harbor Lines for Newport Bay and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) started to make the much needed improvements to the harbor. - In those early years, there was a lot of local interest in developing commerce in Lower Newport Bay. Due to many factors including World War II, the commerce never developed. However, Newport Bay did provide important assistance in the construction of mine sweepers and Coast Guard vessels for the War effort. Newport Bay was also the site of decommissioning of many of the wartime vessels. The legacy of those and other shipbuilding and ship maintenance efforts lives on today in the sediments of Newport Bay. Because most of Newport Bay has not received maintenance dredging since the development in the mid 1930s, the legacy of past practices haunts us as we try to develop a plan to return the Bay to its original design depths created by the Corps over 70 years ago. The fact that there has not been a regular program of maintenance dredging during that period increases the difficulty in implementing a project at this time due to sediment quality and funding issues. Typically, the Corps determines how to expend limited maintenance dredging funds based on an algorithm that is heavily weighted on the amount of commerce in a harbor. Since commerce never developed here as anticipated, Newport Harbor can't compete with the big commercial ports (like the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles) for maintenance dredging funds; therefore, the City needs to work with our local Congressional delegates to get funds earmarked for such a project. Efforts to accomplish this have not been successful due to other national priorities, thereby forcing the City to develop other creative enticements to attract federal funding for the needed maintenance dredging. Currently, the most promising option appears to be a combination of local funding match coupled with a "one and done" approach. With this approach, Congress would de- authorize a federal interest in future dredging responsibilities in exchange for funding and authorizing dredging the federal areas of responsibility to the design depth. • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say September 9, 2008 Page 3 The sediment quality issues are even more challenging than the funding issues. The legacy of past practices in the Lower Bay, the influx of sediments from the watershed after the flood of 1969 and the rapid development and drainage changes in the watershed have each deteriorated sediment quality. These sediment quality issues were so significant that the Regional Water Quality Control Board and EPA promulgated sediment quality regulations referred to as TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Load). Projects in the watershed and Upper Newport Bay are making great strides in trying to meet these requirements which are very important in implementing a comprehensive sediment management plan in Newport Bay. There is more to be accomplished in the source control and completion of the dredging of the In -Bay sediment control Basins in Upper Newport Bay. These basins function to trap fine grained particles that the foothill basins and the in- channel basins do not trap up in the watershed. These In -Bay basins are effective in trapping a significant portion of the fine grained sediments as evidenced by the approximately two million cubic meters of sediment that is currently being removed as part of the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project. However, there have been some unintended consequences that have resulted as part of this important sediment control program. During most storm and no -storm periods, sediment inflows from the watershed are trapped in the watershed and Upper Bay basins. The basins are fairly effective in trapping sediment in even the large storms except for the very fine grained component of the storm discharge. This very fine grained material needs salt water and slow velocity to coagulate and drop out of suspension. Unfortunately, this very fine grained component contains many of the pollutants from the watershed adsorbed on to the particles. Without the sediment basins the Lower Bay would receive more sediment input but it would be diluted with coarse grained sediments that do not carry the pollutants. The concentration of fine grained sediments in the Lower Bay, even without the adsorbed pollutant load, is toxic to some benthic animals in the Bay such as amphipods. In 2003, the Corps completed some required sediment quality analysis in preparation for a dredging project in the Lower Bay. Where they found predominantly coarse grained material (near the harbor entrance), the material was found acceptable for either beach or ocean disposal. Where they found predominately very fined grained sediments, the material failed `Tier II" tests of the Inland Testing Manual (a.k.a. "Green Book "). At this point, the Corps made a decision to only dredge the material that passed the required tests and to discontinue testing locations with fine grained materials. At about this same time, Harbor Resources and its consultants were performing sediment quality tests for dredging in the dock areas of the harbor that are not the maintenance responsibility of the Corps. This dredging has historically been performed by the adjacent upland property owner with assistance from the City in the form of a Regional General Permit known as RGP -54. The testing completed under RGP -54 showed that some areas of the Lower Bay also failed testing criteria for various reasons. Mainteno Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 4 The City Council approved the expenditure of funds to continue on with some of the tiered testing in any effort to find acceptable material for beach or ocean disposal in both the RGP area and the federal channels. The Sediment Management Map in Exhibit 1 is color coded to show different areas of the Bay and the issues related to sediment disposal either in the ocean or upon our beaches. Exhibit 2 shows a timeline for completing the necessary tests in each of the problem areas. These two documents are part of a proposal to develop a Dredged Materials Management Plan (DMMP) for Lower Newport Bay. Exhibit 3 shows that there are many items that need to be achieved to have a comprehensive plan for sediment management. Dredging permit acquisition is far more achievable if the regulatory agencies can see that the project proponent has a comprehensive plan. Exhibit 4 shows the decisions that need to be made as we gain information from the testing. A very important consideration is that, in proposing this approach, staff is trying to be fiscally responsible in completing a critically needed project at the lowest possible cost for federal and/or local funding. If testing demonstrates that certain areas of the harbor have contamination that would make beach or ocean disposal an unlikely option, then further testing will be discontinued and other more costly disposal options such as Contained Aquatic Disposal.(CAD) or upland disposal will be pursued. Some level of testing is required to obtain permits for all types of disposal. Ocean disposal and beach disposal require the most comprehensive testing but lead to the least expensive disposal option and thus are worth the investment to pursue to a reasonable level. The proposed tiered testing approach will take us to critical decision points where we will make decisions about the proper path to follow. A criticism of this approach has been that the City has already performed tests and has wasted too much time, and that we should hire the contractor who is already working in the Upper Bay, therefore taking our chances with the regulatory agencies. If Newport Harbor had been regularly maintained and dredged, and without over 70 years of accumulation of past sins, then the current level of testing that we have completed thus far would probably be sufficient enough to acquire permits. However, the testing that we have completed to date has not found a "smoking gun" among the chemical constituents of concern, although some constituents appear be possible candidates. This may appear to be a problem, but the City is fortunate that the contamination is focused in limited areas, therefore narrowing the costly disposal options to these troubled areas. Another criticism to this approach is that it appears the consultants are simply creating work for themselves and/or the agencies are asking for an unreasonable level of testing. The Green Book is very clear and concise on the level of testing required for Tiers I through III. However, if you have not passed the requirements in those Tiers, then further testing becomes far more complicated and allows for some creativity to determine what causes the toxicity if you do not have the "smoking gun." Over the past few months the City has been working with the consultants on several iterations of a sampling and analysis plan that gives us options to follow different courses of action, at • MaintenanDredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 5 different testing junctions, for specific areas of the harbor while allowing sufficient information to pass on to the Regulatory Agencies for issuance of permits for those areas. This approach is not intended to break up the project into components that would circumvent the CEQA or NEPA process. Programmatic environmental documentation is proposed with site specific addendums based on issues found and methods of disposal selected. The bottom line is that dredging is a far more complex and costly undertaking than A was 70 years ago, and the proposed studies will assist the City in obtaining permit authorization to implement a more comprehensive dredging program in Newport Bay and thus providing safer harbor navigation while protecting the environment. Environmental Review: The approval of the Professional Services Agreement and thee- proposal to develop a DMMP are not projects subject to CEQA and do not require environmental review. The dredging project, when implemented, may be determined to be 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. If contaminated sediments are found requiring the analysis of different disposal options, then additional environmental documentation may be required. Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the item). Fiscal Impact: The extent of the technical problems with potential sediment contamination were not anticipated at the time we presented the FY 2008 -09 budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). At that time, the Council approved a checklist item for $100,000 for Newport Harbor Dredging (CIP #7014- C4402001). An additional $200,000 is required from the unappropriated General Fund reserve to account #7014- C4402001. Prepared by: N i Miller, Harbor Resources Manager Submitted by: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: Sediment Management Map Exhibit 2: Testing Timeline Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Steps to Dredge Lower Newport Harbor Exhibit 4: Dredging Decision Tree Exhibit 5: New Fields Professional Services Agreement & DMMP Exhibit 6: Budget Amendment BA #_ Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 6 Exhibit 1 Sediment Management Map `Q Newport Harbor Dredging Areas - Passed in pass fat ,passesdoing Fa derd Clibi PMIrrwhere Testing f -- lade to pass I, ocean dlspolal but may t m re i Ter II V whim, Testing. - Pallas for t.Woy In iffs, e, put Rp onlarnma s m surface Salim-, I WP a I likely W prevent sown disposal 0pdw drten0f Mudplg �e'ticd ens i node Oand May be eple 10 menage upper 3A ddlerenllYAen vndertylnp send Passed m RGP -9l but m- sealea11h,Ppd nislaill in F—I Charms 'samples. filling empMpod sludy YJpuld re(vre UioeCCUmuktm leaf n91f enpltlpM IaA pessa i Pissed In RGP56 . but ampHpps mortality in Pederel Q Immaal samples .May W 6dd..d In ampnlpod study tt TIE i''YWJ Tali blba[Nmuliii Testng if dmphip. fast passes O d Nawaa a Mgai prajaG aril. new 0 aifalmi W.Id be lapunad. +11 t't4-Tilt-%\ k WE 6 0 025 0.5 Mips Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 7 Exhibit 2 Testing Timeline off additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered. ' Timeline is dependent upon start date. O O N N D1 N U i y O N > � co Y W O {S{ ; Q O E CL �• = >1 '�. a-, = O 0) 7 V O O [Q N N C 0 i Y E L U 7 X l4 .= y U O CO L y O J Y l6 Q. Area l4 E N O> w y C L 0¢ C 0¢ B • E • Time to Sept - Nov 08 Completion' A • • • • c. C • • • • D • • F • • • G • • • Time to Sept -# Oct Jan 09 Feb 09 Completion H • • • • o Time to Sept Oct ♦ Dec —r] Feb March May 09 Completion off additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered. ' Timeline is dependent upon start date. Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 8 Exhibit 3 Comprehensive Steps to Dredge Lower Newport Harbor WHAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED TO DREDGE LOWER NEWPORT BAY Current Efforts Neaded.Efforts 1. Draft DMMP Phased Sampling Integrated Final antl Analysis.... Programmatic Plan 2:. Draft HAMP 13. Draft Eelgrass 4. Final Rhine Channel Remediation Plan 5. Draft IRWMP r Completion of UNB Ecosystem Restoration and Watershed Sediment 8. Implementation of Source Reduction Projects to Reduce UNB Ecosystem . Currant and Future Restoration Project Deposition In Lower bay and comply with TMDL. 7. Draft Harbor Fee Federal and/or Funding Plan 8. Lobbying. for Federal Funds and Project Authorization Desired Result Programmatic Area Environmental Documentation Documentation If necessary Implena3ntable Maintenance . Dredging Projeot Vdu- CekvYWeS to a Remo SVmerrt IrnmuGOm. Renee IXAMP: �- Retuev COUnrN eoaexm a scox a Nbrk Ckanpe. CwMt FiMIHANP 1 r r• ®® Hf•mMd lall s 1 r 1 � i r pcgp /yy R[pse Mp MMm No ' H/�MP, i r fly SDp'Ac 1 r FMY � � E'naMSIeY r B�NdnW6I � ' er..,.e� r 1Va11NYYn. � DsumvlWM. r WnmYYl00n MWMItl � YNWerteY _� 1 1 1 Edptess 9'YWY � � r CaMI �r Fhul NeNa Fee r � BYY RedMb � Bak FLMYb � 6x FVdrgm rq.oad ____�_ Byuye. ____f I .pp Y- Olperll � i:010Y- r f1Y]em- NerLw Fa LbYnpaCM BeF[MFQgw bepk�<pn ' Wl 9PriR YMJ fPtlR MNn�Y pp�� CNrFrMppal of FMVI tU[Y�YOfab In Wrn6 LA]m Irc R Ie Emvmme+IN g- R k - -• 64x G091he 6�c nIAtlM Pm. Gwv�mMbl i r r : r r r Aee�Q 1. J I L -- PeyeA COE b FRpM CD CL co ❑ CD n 0 CD 1 0 m x m N R 0 b m ti vm m F m b � � O d b 4`c • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 10 Exhibit 5 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NEWFIELDS COMPANIES LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOWER NEWPORT BAY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this day of , 2008, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "City "), and NEWFIELD$ COMPANIES, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company whose address is 1349 West Peachtree Street, Suite 2000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 ( "Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City is planning to dredge the Lower Newport Bay in the near future. However, before dredging can occur, the sediment must be tested in order to determine the appropriate disposal strategy. C. City desires to engage Consultant to develop a Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) which will provide the necessary data for a staged harbor wide maintenance dredging program to return the channel depths to design, or near design depth. ( "Project). D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement. E. The principal members] of Consultant for purposes of Project, shall be Mr. William Gardiner, Dr. Jack Word and Dr. Thomas Johnson. F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 11 , I The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 31st day of December, 2009, 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 most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Two Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Four Dollars and no1100 ($298,274.00) without prior written authorization from City. • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 12 No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. 4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: 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 for in this Agreement, no further payments shall be made until City has accepted the final work under this Agreement. Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 13 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 Mr. William Gardiner to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Harbor Resources Department. Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable: A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated. 8. STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 14 technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. By delivery of completed work, Consultant certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws and the professional standard of care. 8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement. r.• 8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies. 9. HOLD HARMLESS To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, any work performed or services provided under this Agreement including, without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials or Consultant's presence or activities conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers, 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 Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say September9, 2008 Page 95 action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services. 11. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 12. CITY POLICY Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 13. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and /or his /her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 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. Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 16 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 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 Vll (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 Reguirements. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non- payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Consultant for City. ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say September 9, 2008 Page 17 iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language: L The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. ii. This. policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self- insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided hereunder. iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company. iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non - payment of premium) written notice has been received by City. • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 18 F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. 15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following' shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint- venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25 %) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint- venture. 16. SUBCONTRACTING City and Consultant agree that subconsultants may be used to complete the work outlined in the Scope of Services. The subconsultants authorized by City to perform work on this Project are identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts and omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. The City is an intended beneficiary of any work performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care between the subcontractor and the City. Except as specifically authorized herein, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further Maintenance Dredging in Cower Newport Say September 9, 2008 Page 99 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=-.' All written documents shall be transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word, Excel, or PDF format. Consultant shall provide all project documents on a CD accompanied by one set of printed documents. 19. CONFIDENTIALITY All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information. 20. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his/her judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. 21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. 22. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate Maintenance Dredging In Lower Newport Say September 9, 2008 Page 20 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 the law or any other sections of this Agreement. 25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the Project. 26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. 0 0 Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 21 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, 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: Chris Miller City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA, 92660 Phone: (949) 644 -3043 Fax: (949) 723 -0589 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attention: Mr. William Gardiner NewFields Companies LLC 4729 NE View Dr. Port Gamble, WA 98364 Phone: (360) 297 -6080 Fax: (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 default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after reoeipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure the default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 22 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 herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. 32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 33. INTERPRETATION The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 23 34. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 35. SEVERABILITY If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 36. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange. 37. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 24 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aaron C. Harp, Asst City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: M LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal Corporation By: Edward Selich, Mayor for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: By: (Corporate Officer) Title: Print Name: (Financial Officer) Title: Print Name: Attachments: Exhibit A: Scope of Services Exhibit B: Schedule of Billing Rates Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say September 9, 2008 Page 25 IN W#TNESS WHEREOF, the patties have caused this Agraement to be executed on the day and year first wd ten above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: - � C,� C� ff C'2,— Aaron . Harp, Asst City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: By: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Munkipal Corporation By: Edward Setich, Mayor for the City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT: By: (Corporate Officer) 011011; By: (Financial Officer) Title: Print Name: Attachments: Exhibit A - Scope of Services Exhibit B - Schedule of Billing Rates 14 • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say September 9, 2008 Page 26 Exhibit A Scope of Services Proposal to Develop a Dredged Material Management Plan for Lower Newport Bay Prepared for City of Newport Harbor Resources Prepared by NewFields LLC Continued sedimentation and delayed maintenance dredging in Lower Newport Bay have created unsafe conditions resulting from the narrowing and shoaling of the Federal channels and deMased depths in key anchorages throughout the Bay. The City of Newport Beach (City) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) seek to re- establish adequate water depths throughout the Bay, including the Federal Channels, berths, mooring fields and in key anchorages. As part of a harbor -wide dredging program, the City is evaluating their own priorities for dredging within the harbor and to determine all potential disposal options for the Lower Newport Bay sediment. Historically there have been two major programs that maintain safe harbor depths for recreational and commercial boat operations in Newport Bay. The Federal Programs conducted by the USACE provides maintenance dredging between project lines adjacent to opposing bay shorelines in the authorized Federal waterways. The City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Program maintains depths in Newport Bay tidelands granted in trust to the City by the State of California. and assists private property owners in the dredging of the private and public berths via individual permits and the Regional General Permit (RGP 54). In addition, the County of Orange is responsible for maintenance dredging in tidelands granted in trust to the County by the State of California. Since 1936, the Army Corps of Engineers has performed limited maintenance dredging, primarily focused on the Harbor Entrance and Upper Newport Bay Channel. Currently, Congress has determined that there is a federal interest in having the USACE perform an ecosystem restoration project in the Upper Newport Bay. Some of this dredged material is used for habitat creation; while the RGP -54 program provides sediment for use as beach replenishment. Both programs also provide alternatives to these beneficial uses which include disposal of SUAD (Suitable for Unconfined Aquatic Disposal) sediment in designated ocean disposal sites or confinement and isolation of UAD (Unsuitable for Unconfined Disposal) sediments in acceptable upland disposal sites. This proposed dredged material management program will provide necessary data for a staged harbor -wide maintenance dredging program to return channel depths to design, or near design depth. Within this larger program, there are smaller project areas that may be accelerated based on available information and funding. 0 Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say September 9, 2009 Page 27 Background: The proposed dredged materials may be disposed of in two ways, in -water disposal or upland disposal. In -water disposal options for Newport Bay typically include alternative reuse of acceptable shoaled sediment within the Bay or open -water disposal of SUAD materials at the LA -3 Disposal Site. In -water disposal in confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site(s) are additional in -water options that the City may wish to consider. Any in -water placement option requires an evaluation of the proposed project sediments following US Army Corps ( USACE) and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidelines. This process requires a tiered evaluation, including some or all of the following evaluations: • Historical evaluation of the potential for specific contaminants to be present based upon past history of the location and the selection of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPECs); • Sediment chemistry analysis to document the presence of any chemicals of potential concern at concentrations that pose a potential for unacceptable risk; • Toxicity testing to determine whether the proposed dredged material may cause short- term or long -term biological effects in the receiving environment; and • Bioaccumulation potential, or the potential for COPECs to enter the food web. Sediment is only eligible for beach replenishment if it consists primarily of sand, is free of contaminants, of the correct color, and does not have unacceptable odors. Ocean disposal allows for placement of a wider range of sediment grain sizes, provided the material meets acceptability criteria for chemistry, toxicity, and bioaccumulation. Disposal at a CAD site allows for some level of chemical contamination in the dredged material, provided that the cap overlaying that sediment is deep enough for it to remain isolated from any sediment dwelling organisms. Upland disposal options include clean fill, construction materials, disposal at a landfill, or disposal at a contaminated materials waste facility. Upland disposal generally requires soil chemistry analysis and some type of leaching tests to determine if contaminants can be mobilized by rain water. The types of analyses that are required will be program and placement area dependent and would be determined in coordination with the regulatory agencies. The City and USACE have collected some of the information necessary to determine the suitability of proposed dredged material throughout the Bay. This data has been collected during the RGP -54 permit renewal in 2005 (Gardiner et al. 2006), as well as two investigations targeting the Federal Channels in 2006 and 2003 (Gardiner et al. 2006; Moore et al. 2003). While the collected data was specific to those projects, much of this information can be applied to current dredged material evaluation. However, some areas have not been previously sampled, or will require a certain amount of additional information in order to determine suitability and the appropriate disposal options. This proposal provides a roadmap for each of the proposed project areas and then describes an approach to address each of the key data gaps. The primary goal of this DMMP is to determine dredged- material options for Lower Newport Bay sediment. This will be accomplished by following a step -wise approach, developed in coordination the City, USEPA, and USACE, in order to expedite the process and minimize the amount of additional data that will be required to determine suitability. The specific objectives to develop the harbor - wide DMMP are: • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 28 1. Develop a detailed step -wise approach to evaluate the sediments throughout the Lower Newport Bay, incorporating as much of the previous data as possible. 2. Develop a sampling and analysis strategy that will provide suitability determinations for portions of the lower Bay in 2008 and early 2009, while continuing to evaluate other portions of the harbor that may have more complex data requirements. 3. Compare the current bathymetry in the lower Bay to that of 2005 to determine all locations where previous data represent current conditions. 4. Determine an appropriate amphipod species for testing toxicity of Newport sediment. Amphipod tests have been problematic in Lower Newport Bay, largely due to the unusually fine grain size of these sediments. 5. Conduct amphipod toxicity tests with the selected species. 6. Fill remaining data gaps for those locations that meet amphipod testing criteria, supporting the upcoming RGP -54 permit where possible. 7. Define the nature and extent of mercury in the West Lido Channel. 8. Refine toxicity identification evaluations (TIE) studies fbf `f is Lido Island Anchorage and nearby areas. 9. Develop reference values for the LA -3 Reference site. 10. Complete Options /Alternatives analysis for each management area as sufficient data is available. In order to accomplish these objectives in a timely and cost - effective manner, NewFields will work closely with the City and regulatory agencies in developing an approach that will fulfill their regulatory requirements, while capitalizing on available data. Where possible, NewFields will conduct multiple study elements concurrently to minimize the project schedule. Furthermore, this program will be conducted in conjunction with the Marina Park sampling and analysis program to provide further time and cost savings. Management Areas: The management areas for the proposed harbor -wide dredging program are delineated based on sediment management needs, as well as the sediment quality data that is currently available. For the purposes of this DMMP, there are ten management areas defined within Lower Newport Bay. Many of these areas include a portion of the Federal Channel, as well as mooring fields; however, in order to maximize the management options for the City, there are some areas that are limited to a specific Channel reach or anchorage. The management areas and the pathway forward for each area are described in this section. A map of the areas and a proposed pathway forward with timeline are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1. The ten management areas are as follows: • Area A includes portions of the eastern Newport Channel to the Entrance Channel and includes the "A ", `B ", and BYC Moorings. • Area B includes the eastern and northern portion of the Balboa Island Channel from the Promontory Bay entrance to the Balboa Yacht Club, inclusive of a portion of the "D" moorings. Maintenance Dmdging in Lower Newport Say September 9, 2008 Page 29 • Area C includes the western portion of the Balboa Island Channel, from the Promontory Bay entrance to Harbor and Collins Islands, inclusive of a portion of the "D" moorings. • Area D includes the western portion of the Newport Channel inclusive of the C moorings to Collins Island. • Area E includes the nearshore portions of Linda, Harbor, and Collins Islands. This area is designed to capture shoaling areas along the edges of these islands. • Area F includes the main channel in the central harbor and west of Linda Isle, including the G moorings. • Area G includes Lido Channel from the Lido Village turning basin to the Anchorage, but not including the anchorage. • Area H is limited to the Federal Anchorage area at the eastern end of Lido Isle. • Area I includes portions of the Newport Channel east of I Oh Street and east of the "F" and NHYC Moorings. • Area J includes the West Lido Channel and Newport Channel west of 10th Street. '1 Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2006 Page 30 Newport Harbor Dredging Areas --1` Passed in RGP -51 . passed damns Feoeral l]vnnel Tar IV. Woes teal[,. - - 'ji,ay IO pass for IXHen dispdsel our may requae taoaL61malabon lei - Passed fa Iou U,y In R3P -54 out R9 poroanbaliaa in alleca spat"Vol IW ] II IIIkelyloprevemoceanalsposaj,dd, (lmendy sNdymp va4cfli and Mrzonml eximal May oe able to manage upper -311 dieeraMly Man uwalti ng a ma. 1676 — I Passed in RGP -56 but madersta empn,pod labium, m Faders channel ssmplas L*alyto be eadlessea In amphlpod Mudy.'Mula rubs¢ udapp, nulanm realms d amprnpw teal passes - Passed in RGP -5c but amPNPW ma19IIIy In Fadml caennal amities May peaddressedmam apadsluayaTIE. NWIdrepnrebibacmmulaEm IesOng if empngpd lest passes Oattlswee a targelM Prged area new cnareaalssaapn would oe repureb Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 31 If additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered. Timeline is dependent upon start date. 0O 0O N C V 'a N N r-. @ _ N .> r y=„ i6 O +.. y F Z a N °ice v > Q v T'r o Q c 0 m 0 N 7 i V 7 X M �, C W V R O N L y O> Y l4 Area m a f°— W a m Z a` o a B • E • Time SepC Nov 08 p et� C m n' A • • • • C • a D • • F • • • G • a • Time to Sept Oct Jan 09 Feb 09 Completion H • • • • Time to Sept Oct ♦ Decd Feb March —+ May 09 Completion If additional testing is needed, timeline may be altered. Timeline is dependent upon start date. Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 32 Pathway Forward The pathway forward for each of these areas is based on the data that currently exists, whether there has been significant shoaling within the areas, and the data gaps that exist within each area. Development of a Step -Wise Approach Based on previous investigations, the data requirements for determining disposal options vary across Lower Newport Bay. In some locations, there may be sufficient data to determine suitability. In other locations, amphipod toxicity potentially related to sediment grain size, a lack of bioaccumulation data, or a limited understanding of chemical concentrations or toxicity may be preventing a full characterization of the proposed dredged material. A step -wise approach will be developed to evaluate harbor sediments. This will maximize the amount of previous data that can be used in this evaluation despite the varied nature of that existing data. NewFields will work with the City and regulatory agencies to develop a sampling and analysis plan that will fill remaining data gaps for each management area independently but concurrently. Compositing strategies will incorporate vertical as well as horizontal groupings of stations. Bathymetry As a first step for each of the ten areas, the current bathymetry for each area will be compared to the 2005 bathymetry to determine whether significant shoaling has occurred since previous data were collected. Provided that significant shoaling has not occurred, previous data may be used to determine the suitability of proposed dredged material. If substantial sediment accumulation has occurred since 2005, those locations may require characterization of the newly deposited sediment. Development of a Step -Wise Approach Based on previous investigations, the data requirements for determining disposal options vary across Lower Newport Bay. In some locations, there may be sufficient data to determine suitability. In other locations, amphipod toxicity potentially related to sediment grain size, a lack of bioaccumulation data, or a limited understanding of chemical concentrations or toxicity may be preventing a full characterization of the proposed dredged material. A step -wise approach will be developed to evaluate harbor sediments. This will maximize the amount of previous data that can be used in this evaluation despite that varied nature of that existing data. NewFields will work with the City and regulatory agencies to develop a sampling and analysis plan that will fill remaining data gaps for each management area independently but concurrently. Compositing strategies will incorporate vertical as well as horizontal groupings of stations. This task includes the preparation of a sampling and analysis plan and coordination with agencies to facilitate the implementation of that plan. Amphipod Evaluation A number of the Study Areas have not been approved for aquatic disposal due to amphipod toxicity. These include Areas A, C, G, H, and I. The role of sediment grain size remains unclear for Newport sediment evaluations. Lower Newport Bay is somewhat unusual in that the sediment has a high proportion of very fine clay. Amphipods that are often used in Lower Newport investigations (Eohaustorius estuaries) are intolerant to high proportions of clay. Typically the role of sediment grain size is suspected when there is little if any sediment chemistry Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 33 contamination and moderate levels of toxicity typically manifested only in the amphipod test. This has been particularly problematic for the Federal Channels dredged material evaluations, in which a number of reaches have had moderate amphipod toxicity associated with low concentrations of contaminants of concern. Fine - grained sediments may also continue to be a factor in Newport if the trend for increasing clay deposition continues in the future. We propose to conduct a sediment grain size test using Lower Newport sediment with a suite of amphipod species that are considered acceptable for evaluating sediment. Test species would include Eohaustorius estuarius, Ampelisca abdita, Grandidieralla japonica, Leptocheirus plumulosus, and Rhepoxynius abronius. Tests will be conducted as standard 10 -day amphipod tests using a gradient of grain sizes. Test sediments will be Lower Newport sediment of varying grain size. Once a suitable amphipod species is selected, Areas A, C, G, H, and I will be reevaluated for amphipod toxicity-=l the amphipod tests for a given area composite passed suitability criteria, any required additional information for that respective area would be collected. Characterizing Locations Not Included in Previous Evaluations In order to provide for a harbor -wide dredging program, USEPA indicated that the agencies will require some additional stations to characterize locations that were not included in previous investigations. These generally include some of the key moorages that were not part of the Federal Channels and are not near enough to shore to be represented by the RGP -54 investigation. At a minimum, this will include the A, B, G, H and J moorings, the confluence area between Bay and Linda Isle, and possibly the C moorings. Sediment characterizations of these areas will be required to include sediment chemistry, toxicity testing, and bioaccumulation testing. However, evaluations of these locations will be conducted in conjunction with other portions of this program to ensure that field and analyses efforts overlap, minimizing costs and ensuring similar data quality. Bioaccumulation Testing USEPA and USACE require an evaluation of the potential for COPECs in sediment to enter the food chain. Bioaccumulation is evaluated by exposing sediment - dwelling prey species (usually a clam and sand worm) to test sediments in the laboratory. After a period of 28 days, the chemical residues in the tissues are measured and compared to guidance values. While near -shore sediments in each of the project areas have not shown unacceptable bioaccumulation potential, the Federal Channels and mooring fields have not yet been evaluated for bioaccumulation potential. For those areas passing amphipod toxicity testing, bioaccumulation potential will be evaluated. The COPECs that will be analyzed in tissues will be selected in conjunction with USEPA and will be limited to those chemicals in sediment exceeding guidance levels. Mercury and TIE Investigations Based on previous sediment evaluations, sediment from two portions of the Bay have been identified that will require additional sediment evaluation due to mercury concentrations in sediments or unexplained amphipod toxicity. These investigations will need to be completed in • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 34 order to determine the disposal options for sediments. This includes sediment from Areas H, I, and J. The following sections summarize each issue and outline our approach. Mercury in West Lido and Newvort Channels: Sediment evaluations in support of the City's 2005 RGP -54 permit renewal indicated three stations with mercury concentrations that exceed ER -M guidance levels. In 2007, NewFields conducted high resolution sampling in the West Lido Channel to refine the area with elevated mercury concentrations and to establish gradients to help identify a source. Mercury concentrations were unexpectedly elevated across the study area, including most of the West Lido Channel and portions of the Newport Channel. Following this result, NewFields met with the Harbor Resources staff to map a path forward. The following subtasks are proposed to determine the nature and extent of mercury contamination in Lido Channel and Newport Channel. This portion of the program will be conducted in conjunction with the Marina Park evaluation. The boundaries of the horizontal distribution of mercury contamination in Newport Channel will be determined by sampling additional stations in mid - channel and along the southern shore of Lido Island between the Rhine Channel and the Anchorage. Previously collected samples that had not been analyzed individually will be analyzed as part of this task. The vertical distribution of mercury in sediment will be evaluated in both West Lido and Newport Channel by collecting cores and analyzing several pre- selected vertical layers. The potential for anthropogenic or natural sources of mercury in West Lido Channel and Newport Channel will be evaluated by conducting provenance analysis; evaluating the ratio of mercury to other metals associated with specific sources. This analysis will also provide some indication of mercury bioavailability. Toxicity Identification in Yacht Anchorage: In 2007, NewFields conducted a sediment investigation specifically targeted at determining whether pyrethroids were the source of sediment toxicity in the Yacht Anchorage area. This study is called a "Toxicity Identification and Evaluation" or TIE study. The TIE uses a series of sediment manipulations to alter the toxicity of certain classes of chemical contaminants, followed by biological testing to determine whether test sample toxicity was altered by the manipulation. Each manipulation is targeted towards a group of chemicals and by combining several manipulations, the preponderance of evidence can implicate the cause of toxicity. This method is particularly useful when working with pyrethroids, since the analytical methods for detecting pyrethroids in sediment are still under development and the detection limits for pyrethroids are near or above effects levels for amphipods. The first series of TIE manipulations were conducted in January and February 2008 with samples collected in January 2008. Experimental manipulations were limited to broad groups of organic chemicals, as well as manipulations targeted towards pyrethroids and organophosphorus pesticides. Based on the results of this first round of manipulations, there are some indications that pyrethroids play a role in toxicity. There are also positive indications that toxicity is not associated with DDT, PCBs, PAHs, or OP pesticides. However, based on the current data, it is not clear whether there are other factors that play a role in toxicity. This is partly due to the magnitude of change in toxicity from the Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Say September 9, 2008 Page 35 manipulations conducted thus far (changes in toxicity were primarily observed in porewater, changes in sediment toxicity were small) and the targeted nature of the TIE. We propose to conduct an additional set of sediment manipulations and associated testing to confirm the link between pyrethroids and toxicity and to determine if grain size, metals, or organotins are also implicated. In addition, confirmatory chemical analyses will be conducted on test sediments. Achieving detection limits at or below biological effects levels is difficult, however, recent advances in analytical methods can allow for sufficiently low detection limits (Don Weston 2006). Establishment of Reference Values for LA -3 Disposal Site Reference Site In some USEPA regions, an "environs" approach has been used to evaluate dredged material, rather than sampling the reference site during each evaluation. The environs approach uses historic data collected from the reference area to establish mean reference values for each reference site. These reference values are then used as the point of dredged material evaluations, rather than retesting the reference sediment. This approach 6f s the City several advantages. First, data collected previously from the reference area are used to establish the reference area values, taking into account responses and contaminants present at the reference site. Second, the reference value is a predictable, "bright line" that test results are compared against. Using the environs approach, the suitability requirements for sediment are predictable and consistent. Finally, this approach relieves the project proponent of the costs associated with collecting and testing reference sediment for each sediment evaluation. This approach has been used effectively in the San Francisco region to manage dredged material. This approach is based on a body of information collected from the reference site and establishes a range of values for the reference site that are then used in dredged material evaluations. USEPA has expressed an interest and willingness to use the environs approach for LA -3. NewFields will compile historic data for the current LA -3 disposal site and establish mean values for chemical contaminants of concern, toxicity, and bioaccumulation potential. As part of the compilation, data will be reviewed for data quality and appropriate detection limits. Options/Alternatives Analysis The disposal options for each management area will be determined as sufficient data becomes available. NewFields will prepare an Options /Alternatives Analysis, reviewing the in -water and upland disposal options available to the City. 0 1 Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 36 SPECIFICS OF PROPOSED TASKS: Task 1: Batymetry In order to determine whether previous sediment evaluations reflect current conditions, bottom depths from 2008 will be compared to those of 2005 and 2006. This was a task that was requested by USEPA to determine whether there had been significant shoaling since previous data were collected. NewFields will acquire the most recent Lower Newport Bay bathymetry from USACE, as well as those from 2005 and 2006. Data will be put into a geo- referenced, 3 -D contouring and surface mapping software (SURFER) that allows similar data points to be identified and changes in depth calculated. Sediment accumulation may be expressed as an absolute change in depth, or a change in depth relative to the overall column of sediment at a given location. Based on the depth or relative depth, NewFields will consult with the City and regulatory agencies to determine whether additional samples will be required. This task would include coordination of data transfer, identification of appropriate data sets, analysis of data and Supporting Figure 1. Bathymetric contour for Oceanside Harbor as calculations, and agency negotiations. an example of SURFER software output. Task 2: Development of Step -wise Approack/Sampling and Analysis Plan Once the bathymetric analysis has been completed and the suitability of previous data sets is known, NewFields will prepare a programmatic sampling and analysis plan. Working with the City and regulatory agencies, NewFields will develop a step -wise approach and decision process that will allow for all areas to be evaluated concurrently and will allow determination and disposal options for specific areas to be evaluated as data becomes available. This will facilitate expedited determinations for areas with few data requirements, while study of areas requiring further analysis continues. Under this task, a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) will be prepared for review by the City to support initial discussions with USEPA, the USACE, and other resource agencies prior to conducting the sediment evaluation. Based on previous investigations we have performed in the Newport Bay area, we would expect an initial conference call with the USEPA and USACE prior to sampling. This task would include supporting any initial agency negotiations. Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 37 We anticipate two field efforts with multiple tasks being grouped into each field effort to expedite the program and minimize costs. The first field effort would support the amphipod study and would be a short, one -day sampling event. The second field effort would be the more substantial effort and would support Tasks 4, 5, and 6. NewFields will work with the City to determine the best field schedule to meet the needs of the program elements. Task 3: Amphipod Study We propose to conduct a sediment grain size test using Lower Newport Bay sediment with a suite of amphipod species that are considered acceptable for evaluating sediment. Test species would include Eohaustorius estuarius, Ampelisca abdita, Grandidieralla japonica, Leptocheirus plumulosus, and Rhepoxynius abronius. Tests will be conducted as standard 10 -day amphipod tests using a gradient of grain sizes. Test sediments will be Lower Newport Bay sediment of varying grain size. If this is not possible, a gradient may be prepared by mixing sediments to create a grain size gradient; however, this can be problematic as mixing with coarse- grained sediment could effectively dilute toxicity due to other factors. An alternative approach would be to simply analyze whole samples from areas known to have fine - grained sediment, low levels of chemical contamination, and moderate levels of toxicity during previous investigations. Once a suitable species has been identified, Areas A, C, G, H, and I would be reevaluated for amphipod toxicity. If the amphipod tests for a given area composite passed suitability criteria, any required additional information for that respective area would be collected. Task 4: Additional Characterization Based on Existing Data Locations not represented by the current datasets will require chemical and biological characterization to determine disposal options. The A, B, G, H and J moorings, the confluence area between Bay and Linda Isle, and possibly the C moorings will be sampled for chemical and biological analysis. Any locations with significant shoaling or areas that need to be more clearly defined, based on existing data will be evaluated under this task. To the extent possible, sampling and analysis for this portion of the program will be design to support the upcoming RGP -54 permit renewal. Sediments will be sampled using a vibracore sampler. This will ensure that project depth is achieved and that underlying sand layers are retained for characterization. This sampler will also allow for a vertical stratification. Previous data indicate that portions of the harbor are characterized by fine silt overlying clean sand. For those portions of the harbor, compositing sand layers separately from silt/clay layers may provide the City with more disposal options. Test composites will be evaluated following USEPA and USACE guidance for dredged material evaluation (the Ocean Testing Manual and the Inland Testing Manual). Composites will be analyzed for sediment grain size, TOC, and a suite of EPA priority pollutants: metals (including mercury), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides (including 2,4' and 4,4' DDT groups), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB aroclors), and organotins. Analytical Resources Inc. of Tukwila, Washington will perform the chemical analysis. This laboratory has conducted previous studies in the Newport area and we have a close working relationship with their chemists. Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 38 Analytical precision and accuracy will be evaluated using quality assurance /quality control (QA/QC) samples with each analytical batch. QA/QC analysis will include blanks, laboratory control spikes, and matrix spike /matrix spike duplicates. NewFields will evaluate all chemistry QA/QC data and its potential implications on the analytical results from the test samples. Biological testing for ocean disposal includes an assessment of toxicity of both the solid -phase and the suspended - particulate phase. The solid -phase tests provide an estimate of toxicity to benthic organisms at the disposal site. Solid -phase tests will include 10 -day acute tests with an amphipod and the mysid shrimp or a polychaete worm. The suspended - particulate phase (SPP) tests provide an estimate of toxicity to water column organisms exposed to sediment as it falls through the water column at the disposal site. It can also provide an indication of water - column toxicity that might be encountered during the dredging process. SPP tests will be conducted with the fish, Menidia beryllina, the mysid, Americamysis bahia, and larval mussels (Mytilus sp.). Task 5: Bioaccumulation Testing USEPA and USACE require an evaluation of the potential for COPECs in sediment to enter the food chain. Bioaccumulation testing is required for any sediment proposed for ocean disposal. Sediment represented by the RGP -54 survey will not require further evaluation of bioaccumulation potential (provided there has not been significant shoaling), however, sediment in the Federal Channels and anchorages have not been evaluated for bioaccumulation. In order to minimize costs and schedule, sediment for bioaccumulation testing will be collected during the initial field effort. In order to evaluate the potential for sediment - associated chemicals to accumulate in tissues of benthic organisms at the disposal site, 28 -day bioaccumulation tests will be conducted with the clam, Macoma nasuta, and the marine worm, Nephtys caecoides. During the bioaccumulation test, clams and worms are exposed to test sediments for 28 days. Following the exposure period, the test organisms are held for 24 hours in clean seawater to void any sediment that may remain in the gut. A native control sediment and LA -3 Reference sediment will be tested concurrent to the test treatments. Tissues from each of the test treatment and reference replicates will be frozen and sent for chemical analysis at ARI. Alternatively, if a data base can be established for bioaccumulation data at the LA -3 Reference site (Task 8), only the native control will be tested. Tissues from the bioaccumulation tests will be analyzed for chemical residues. This proposal includes costs for conducting a broad suite of chemical analysis, however, it is likely that the analyte list can be refined following receipt of the sediment chemistry results and would dramatically reduce analytical costs. Previous investigations have indicated that the primary COPECs in Lower Newport Bay are DDTs, mercury, and possibly organotins. It is possible that the analyte list could be limited to this subset of analytes. The results of the chemical analyses for test sediments will be compared to the LA -3 Reference data to determine suitability. Task 6: Refinement of TIE Characterization In order to further narrow down the potential cause of amphipod toxicity in the anchorage area, several additional TIE manipulations will be conducted with both sediment and porewater Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 39 samples from this area. TIE manipulations will include treatments for metals, organotins, and pyrethroids. Individual treatments may include the following: Cation Exchange Resin — This resin (SIR -300) is used to bind cationic metals and is particularly effective for copper, zinc, nickel, and lead. For sediment treatments, the resin is added directly to the tests sediment. For porewater treatments, the porewater is passed through a column that has been packed with the resin beads. AVS Addition — Acid volatile sulfides aggressively bind metals, including mercury, copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc, forming insoluble precipitates. Sodium sulfide is added as a solution to test sediment. Multiple levels of sulfides will be tested to ensure that sufficient sulfides are present to bind the metals and the addition of sulfides is not causing toxicity. This manipulation will be conducted for the solid -phase evaluations. EDTA Addition — Ethyldiaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is a strong chelating "agent, removing cationic metals and reducing toxicity associated with those metals. Powdered Coconut Charcoal and Esterase with 30% diluted test sediment: In some cases the toxicity in the baseline sediment overwhelms the TIE manipulation. These two manipulations were evaluated previously with pure and 10% diluted test sediment. Toxicity will be evaluated in more dilute test sediment and porewater. PBO at a higher concentration: Piprynol butoxide is a chemical known to increase the toxicity of pyrethroids. PBO treatments in the previous porewater tests provided an indication that pyrethroids were linked to toxicity; however, changes were not observed in sediment toxicity tests. Tests will be conducted with sediment and porewater at two higher concentrations of PBO to ensure that it is effective. In addition, sediments will be chemically analyzed for pyrethroids. In order to get sufficiently low detection limits, gas chromatography /mass spectrometry will be conducted in the negative ion detection mode. This is a more involved and somewhat experimental approach that has allowed for sufficiently low detection limits in previous sediment investigations (Don Weston 2006). Task 7: Mercury in West Lido Channel Sediments In order to determine dredging options for West Lido Channel (Area .I) sediment, the nature and extent of mercury in the area sediments needs to be defined. This task will include a delineation of the horizontal and vertical boundary of elevated mercury, as well as address potential sources of mercury and potential bioavailability. Samples to be analyzed for this task were previously collected and archived. In order to better understand the horizontal boundaries of mercury contamination in Newport Channel, NewFields previously collected samples from 13 stations using a 3" diameter piston core. Three station locations were similar to those of the CoastKeepers' recent surface sampling effort to provide a point of comparison and to provide additional information about the vertical • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 40 distribution at those locations. Samples from each station will be analyzed as a single, vertical composite, in a manner similar to the 2007 sampling effort. A second core was sectioned into vertical strata and archived for possible future analysis. In addition, 10 archived samples from stations collected during the Federal Channel program will be analyzed for total mercury to determine the potential contamination in the Yacht Anchorage, Turning Basin, and the Lido Channel. This subtask will include mercury, grain size, and TOC analysis in a total of 23 samples. The vertical distribution of mercury in the Lido and Newport Channels will be determined using 11 archived cores collected from locations already examined as composites in the West Lido and Newport Channels. Core samples were collected at stations representing the mid - channel and nearshore areas. Stations were located at each end of the respective areas, as well as a midpoint in order to detect possible differences between potential sources. Previous studies (Anchor 2005; CoastKeepers 2007; SCCWRP 2003) indicate that, in portions of the Rhine Channel and... Newport Channel, elevated mercury concentrations are highest in the top 10 cm of sediment irr' some locations and in the middle 1040 cm in other locations. Elevated mercury concentrations extended to approximately 50 cm, below which they decrease to below ER -M levels. Data on vertical stratification may offer indications of ecological risk, provide management options, and demonstrate the potential for isolation by clean surface sediments. Sampling intervals will nominally be 0 -5 cm, 20 -50 cm, and 60 cm to core bottom (gaps between intervals is to ensure separation between potential layers). Cores were evaluated in the field for any obvious strata and may be sectioned based on visual observations of sediment characteristics. Additionally, stratified cores collections from stations sampled in the central portion of Newport Channel (as part of Subtask 1) will be considered for analysis based on total mercury results from whole core samples. In order to evaluate the potential sources of mercury in sediment, additional metals will be analyzed for provenance analysis. The relative distribution of certain metals is generally conservative in sediments from the source to the "sink" and can be linked to the relative distribution of metals in source materials. Crustal metals that comprise the actual grains of sediment are generally not bioavailable, but are quantified in standard metals analysis. Cinnabar from San Diego Creek and the bluffs in Upper Newport Bay is a potential source of mercury in Lower Newport Bay and will be evaluated by analyzing other metals that are indicative of crustal sources: iron, selenium, and aluminum. Other metals are more indicative of specific human activities, such as mercury plating activities (zinc), batteries (chromium), and antifouling paints (copper). Iron, aluminum, selenium, copper, chromium, and zinc will be analyzed in a subset of samples from the West Lido and Newport Channels. Specific samples collected in 2007 and 2008 will be selected in conjunction with the Harbor Resources staff. No more than 10 samples will be analyzed for this expanded suite of analytes. Additional samples may also be analyzed for methyl mercury and total mercury to better understand bioavailability of the mercury present. Task 8: LA -3 Reference Values NewFields will compile historic data for the current LA -3 disposal site and establish mean values for chemical contaminants of concern, toxicity, and bioaccumulation potential. Based on the size of the available data sets, the environs approach may not apply to all analytes for bioaccumulation at this time. As part of the compilation, data will be reviewed for data quality Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 41 and appropriate detection limits. All data will be entered into an electronic spreadsheet and summary statistics generated. Summary statistics will be generated from qualified data sets and we will coordinate with the City and agency staff to determine if additional sampling or analyses are required. Task 9: Permitting Support, Options/Alternatives Analysis As sufficient data becomes available, NewFields will prepare an Options/Alternatives Analysis for each management area, reviewing each of the potential in -water and upland disposal options available to the City. This task is critical to the success of the City's program and the approach for each management will vary depending upon the chemical and biological characteristics of the sediment. NewFields and Thomas Johnson will provide as needed permitting support, including meetings with the City, USACE, USEPA, RWQCB,.Coastal Commission, and stakeholders to help define feasible disposal options. — Task 10: Technical Support for Agency Review During previous investigations, NewFields staff members have assisted clients in presenting the results of sediment investigations to USEPA, USACE, and other resource agencies. This is particularly helpful for project with a short timeline. At your request, we will facilitate joint meetings to report the results of this investigation and to work with USEPA in determining disposal options for the proposed dredged material. It is difficult to determine the total cost for this task, as it will depend largely on the data generated during the study. This task is typically billed as time and materials based on rates of $130/hr for Mr. William Gardiner, $135/hr for Dr. Thomas Johnson, and $160/hr for Dr. Jack Word. • MaintenatDredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 42 Estimated Costs This section outlines the estimated costs, by task, as described in the section above. Summary of Proposed Cost Summary by Task 1. Bathymetry $6,020 2. Approach Development, Sampling and $20,838 Analysis Plan and Agency Coordination 3. Amphipod Study $25,600 4. Additional Characterization based on. Existing Data: Toxicity Testing and Chemistry $88,000 (includes field sampling for Tasks 4 and 5) 5. Bioaccumulation (includes tissue $68,826 chemistry) 6. Toxicity Identification in Yacht Anchorage $24,690 7. Mercury in West Lido and Newport $17,000 Channels 8. Environs Approach for Reference Sites $12,300 9. Options Analysis and Reporting $25,000 10. Technical Support in Agency Negotiations $10,000 0 0 Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 43 Exhibit B Schedule of Billing Rates NewFistds Port Gamble, WA Billing Rates Labor Catsoory personnel Hourly Rate Prin+Spal InveU*ator Dr. Jack rd 160 ProeotManalets Sariiot`Sdentists S.usieti des 150 WdIiam Gardiner 130 Meg Pihza 1 0 Project Scientists 1300 Heber 95 Lunn a Word 85 Bndgst Gregg 85 Jack D Word 85 Staff Sdentsts Trac/ Schuh 75 Collin Ray 65 Mary Bacon 65 NMN" P.O. BM216— •M%MVI WACNE PonoA=ie Wa9FHffl(n ,Waa 3W.2W..6 GO!m ^'36e2$Y.nWFm WWW.F84M ICOM • Maintenance Dredging in Lower Newport Bay September 9, 2008 Page 44 FEE SCHEDULE Houdy rate 13426 E74YELL AVENUEf SUITE 425 MARINA DEL Rev, CA 90292 X135 TEL: 310-305.0454 FAX 310 -674 -9(383 E -NAIL: TONJONQYMV*.NET qty of Newport BeaC* NO. BA- 09BA -011 BUDGET AMENDMENT 2008 -09 AMOUNT: E2oo,o00.00 EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Increase Revenue Estimates Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND �X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance Transfer Budget Appropriations No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance SOURCE: from existing budget appropriations from additional estimated revenues PX from unappropriated fund balance EXPLANATION: This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: To increase expenditure appropriations for maintenance dredging in Lower Newport Bay. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Amount Fund Account Description Debit Credit 010 3605 General Fund - Fund Balance $200,000.00 REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account Description EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603) Description Division Number 7014 General Fund - Misc Capital Project Account Number C4402001 Harbor Dredging Project $200,000.00 Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Automatic System Enhy.. Signed: __G�cu/✓ ——� Financial Approval: Administ a Services Director Date Signed: 1+ Y/ Administrative Appr al: City Manager ate Signed: City Council Approval: City Clerk Date • Benchmarking Establishing the Comparison Group 0 September 9, 2008 Overall Project Objective: • To create " "an effective performance E measurement system that will help the City Council and staff formulate policy, allocate resources, make decisions and improve performance." Schedule and Deliverables Validate Alignment /Analysis Training /Review /Development Recommend /Adopt Measures Recommend /Approve Peer Cities Methodology/ Implementation Final Report to Council r Train staff /develop systems March April -June July- August Aug -Sept September October Throughout Performance Measurement Two Key Components 0 1. Current results- levels and trends of s performance 2. Comparison with others - public, private, non - profit, best practice Benchmarking helps answer the questions: • How are we doing? • • Compared to what? It asks the questions: How does Newport Beach compare with benchmark cities on performance results? On use of resources? What can we learn from a benchmark city or department • that has different performance results? • • Initial ICMA Benchmarking Total Operating Expenditures per 1000 L• 111 111 11 111 X 11 111 1 111 'y 111 111 11 111 ' 1111'1'1 1 111 FY 2005 -06 Total Op.= $159.4M $1.91M C Initial ICMA Benchmarking - Total Capital Expenditures per 1000 wellesi FY 2005 -06 Total Ca .= 30.2M m WROOD $363 OOD K _ W,OOo ,� cf 0 • Initial ICMA Benchmarking FTE per 1000 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FY 2005 -06 Total FTE =922 Total • What we learned about Newport Beach... • Newport Beach may be a benchmark for resident satisfaction Newport Beach had many of the components of a good performance measurement system already • Challenge is to communicate value, demonstrate performance on key issues, transition to data driven management • • Examples of Benchmarking & PM Best Practices • Coral Springs, Florida • Bellevue, Washington r r1 0 Strategy and Alignment Coral Springs Newport Beach Bellevue Strategic Plan (3 Year) Council Policies Vision, Mission and Priorities Core Values Employee Values 7 Strategic Priorities General Plan Vision, Goals and Key Intended Outcomes (KIOs) Policies Business Plans Council Priorities Council Discussion Topics General Plan Implementation Department Missions Department Missions Department Missions Department Core Processes and Department Services Departmental Programs Outputs Dept. Budgets include Service Department Work Initiatives and and Operations Strategy with Challenges of the Biennium ongoing programs and New Initiatives Department PMs linked to KIOs, Key Departmental Metrics- PMs Strategic Priorities linked to Programs Department PMs include Service Load Indicators — Multi- Key Metrics include Workload Workload data year Dept. Activity and Workload data labeled as such data 0 .J Benchmarking and Measurement Coral Springs Newport Beach Bellevue Environmental Scan and General Plan Implementation Biennial Budget Survey — Uses Market Environment Review Status Report I/S "gap" as priority driver Customer Requirements - Annual First Resident, Business and Annual Resident Survey Resident and Business Surveys Development Svcs. Survey Composite Index of 10 Indicators Annual Performance Report (SEA) and 16 "Vital Signs" Benchmarking — ICMA services Benchmarking — 25 Service with 10 Cities; Florida Cities Comparative Cities Report; Comparison ICMA Puget Sound Consortium Dept. Budgets include multi -year Biennial budget reports 580 PMs performance goals /actuals linked for Dept. Services to KIOs and Strategic Priorities Quarterly Performance Review of Key Departmental Metrics- PMs 86 PMs, status of KIOs, initiatives linked to Programs Department PMs include Service Load Indicators — Multi- Key Metrics include Workload Workload data year Dept. Activity and Workload data labeled as such data Selection criteria for Benchmarking Cities • Comparable size /scope • • Experience with performance measurement • Income /Wealth profile • Beach /Resort community • California city 0 • Best in class The Recommended Benchmark Cities • Carlsbad, CA • Long Beach, CA • Santa Barbara, CA • Huntington Beach, CA • Manhattan Beach, CA • Santa Monica, CA • Ventura, CA • Santa Cruz, CA • Palo Alto, CA • Coronado, CA • Bellevue, WA • Coral Springs, FL • Virginia Beach, VA • Westminster, CO • Scottsdale, AZ • Evanston, IL • Fishers, IN