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